• Home
• About
• Writers
• Landscape
• Wizards Index
• Fraud
• Wanna Be Like Larry?

News Flash: Google Does Not Care about Publishers

No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.

I read another Google is bad story. This one is titled “Google Might Not Believe It, But Its AI Summaries Are Bad News for Publishers.” The “news” service reports that a publishing industry group spokesperson said:

“We must ensure that the same AI ‘answers’ users see at the top of Google Search don’t become a free substitute for the original work they’re based on.”

When this sentence was spoken was the industry representative’s voice trembling? Were there tears in his or her eyes? Did the person sniff to avoid the embarrassment of a runny nose?

No idea.

The issue is that Google looks at its metrics, fiddles with its knobs and dials on its ad sales system, and launches AI summaries. Those clicks that used to go to individual sites now provide the “summary space” which is a great place for more expensive, big advertising accounts to slap their message. Yep, it is the return to the go-go days of television. Google is the only channel and one of the few places to offer a deal.

What does Google say? Here’s a snip from the “news” story:

"Overall, total organic click volume from Google Search to websites has been relatively stable year-over-year," Liz Reid, VP and Head of Google Search, said earlier this month. "Additionally, average click quality has increased, and we’re actually sending slightly more quality clicks to websites than a year ago (by quality clicks, we mean those where users don’t quickly click back — typically a signal that a user is interested in the website). Reid suggested that reports like the ones from Pew and DCN are "often based on flawed methodologies, isolated examples, or traffic changes that occurred prior to the rollout of AI features in Search."

Translation: Haven’t you yokels figured out after 20 years of responding to us, we are in control now. We don’t care about you. If we need content, we can [a] pay people to create it, [b] use our smart software to write it, and [c] offer inducements to non profits, government agencies, and outfits with lots of writers desperate for recognition a deal. TikTok has changed video, but TikTok just inspired us to do our own TikTok. Now publishers can either get with the program or get out.

PC News apparently does not know how to translate Googlese.

It’s been 20 plus years and Google has not changed. It is doing more of the game plan. Adapt or end up prowling LinkedIn for work.

Stephen E Arnold, August 21, 2025

The Risks of Add-On AI: Apple, Telegram, Are You Paying Attention?

No AI. Just a dinobaby and a steam-powered computer in rural Kentucky.

Name three companies trying to glue AI onto existing online services? Here’s my answer:

• Amazon
• Apple
• Telegram.

There are others, but each of these has a big “tech rep” and command respect from other wizards. We know that Tim Apple suggested that the giant firm had AI pinned to the mat and whimpering, “Let me be Siri.” Telegram mumbled about Nikolai working on AI. And Amazon? That company has flirted with smart software with its Sagemaker announcements years ago. Now it has upgraded Alexa, the device most used as a kitchen timer.

“Amazon’s Rocky Alexa+ Launch Might Justify Apple’s Slow Pace with Next-Gen Siri” ignores Telegram (of course. Who really cares?) and uses Amazon’s misstep to apologize for Apple’s goofs. The write up says:

Apple has faced a similar technical challenge in its own next-generation Siri project. The company once aimed to merge Siri’s existing deterministic systems with a new generative AI layer but reportedly had to scrap the initial attempt and start over. … Apple’s decision to delay shipping may be frustrating for those of us eager for a more AI-powered Siri, but Amazon’s rocky launch is a reminder of the risks of rushing a replacement before it’s actually ready.

Why does this matter?

My view is that Apple’s and Amazon’s missteps make clear that bolting on, fitting in, and snapping on smart software is more difficult than it seemed. I also believe that the two firms over-estimated their technical professionals’ ability to just “do” AI. Plus, both US companies appear to be falling behind in the “AI race.”

But what about Telegram? That company is in the same boat. Its AI innovations are coming from its third party developers who have been using Telegram’s platform as a platform. Telegram itself has missed opportunities to reduce the coding challenge for its developers with it focus on old-school programming languages, not AI assisted coding.

I think that it is possible that these three firms will get their AI acts together. The problem is that AI native solutions for the iPhone, the Telegram “community,” and Amazon’s own hardware products. The fumbles illustrate a certain weakness in each firm. Left unaddressed, these can be debilitating in an uncertain economic environment.

But the mantra go fast or the jargon accelerate is not in line with the actions of these three companies.

Stephen E Arnold, August 20, 2025

Inc. Magazine May Find that Its MSFT Software No Longer Works

No AI. Just a dinobaby and a steam-powered computer in rural Kentucky.

I am not sure if anyone else has noticed that one must be very careful about making comments. A Canadian technology dude found himself embroiled with another Canadian technology dude. To be frank, I did not understand why the Canadian tech dudes were squabbling, but the dust up underscores the importance of the language, tone, rhetoric, and spin one puts on information.

An example of a sharp-toothed article which may bite Inc. Magazine on the ankle is the story “Welcome to the Weird New Empty World of LinkedIn: Just When Exactly Did the World’s Largest Business Platform Turn into an Endless Feed of AI-Generated Slop?” My teeny tiny experience as a rental at the world’s largest software firm taught me three lessons:

1. Intelligence is defined many ways. I asked a group of about 75 listening to one of my lectures, “Who is familiar with Kolmogorov?” The answer was for that particular sampling of Softies was exactly zero. Subjective impression: Rocket scientists? Not too many.
2. Feistiness. The fellow who shall remain nameless dragged me to a weird mixer thing in one of the buildings on the “campus.” One person (whose name and honorifics I do not remember) said, “Let me introduce you  to Mr. X. He is driving the Word project.” I replied with a smile. We walked to the fellow, were introduced, and I asked, “Will Word fix up its autonumbering?” The Word Softie turned red, asked the fellow who introduced me to him, “Who is this guy?” The Word Softie stomped away and shot deadly sniper eyes at me until we left after about 45 minutes of frivolity. Subjective impression: Thin skin. Very thin skin.
3. Insecurity. At a lunch with a person whom I had met when I was a contractor at Bell Labs and several other Softies, the subject of enterprise search came up. I had written the Enterprise Search Report, and Microsoft had purchased copies. Furthermore, I wrote with Susan Rosen “Managing Electronic Information Projects.” Ms. Rosen was one of the senior librarians at Microsoft. While waiting for the rubber chicken, a Softie asked me about Fast Search & Transfer, which Microsoft had just purchased. The question posed to me was, “What do you think about Fast Search as a technology for SharePoint?” I said, “Fast Search was designed to index Web sites. The enterprise search functions were add ons. My hunch is that getting the software to handle the data in SharePoint will be quite difficult?” The response was, “We can do it.” I said, “I think that BA Insight, Coveo, and a couple of other outfits in my Enterprise Search Report will be targeting SharePoint search quickly.” The person looked at me and said, “What do these companies do? How quickly do they move?” Subjective impression: Fire up ChatGPT and get some positive mental health support.

The cited write up stomps into a topic that will probably catch some Softies’ attention. I noted this passage:

The stark fact is that reach, impressions and engagement have dropped off a cliff for the majority of people posting dry (read business-focused) content as opposed to, say, influencer or lifestyle-type content.

The write up adds some data about usage of LinkedIn:

average platform reach had fallen by no less than 50 percent, while follower growth was down 60 percent. Engagement was, on average, down an eye-popping 75 percent.

The main point of the article in my opinion is that LinkedIn does filter AI content. The use of AI content produces a positive for the emitter of the AI content. The effect is to convert a shameless marketing channel into a conduit for search engine optimized sales information.

The question “Why?” is easy to figure out:

1. Clicks if the content is hot
2. Engagement if the other LinkedIn users and bots become engaged or coupled
3. More zip in what is essentially a one dimension, Web 1 service.

How will this write up play out? Again the answers strike me as obvious:

1. LinkedIn may have some Softies who will carry a grudge toward Inc. Magazine
2. Microsoft may be distracted with its Herculean efforts to make its AI “plays” sustainable as outfits like Amazon say, “Hey, use our cloud services. They are pretty much free.”
3. Inc. may take a different approach to publishing stories with some barbs.

Will any of this matter? Nope. Weird and slop do that.

Stephen E Arnold, August 20, 2025

The Bubbling Pot of Toxic Mediocrity? Microsoft LinkedIn. Who Knew?

No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.

Microsoft has a magic touch. The company gets into Open Source; the founder “gits” out. Microsoft hires a person from Intel. Microsoft hires garners an engineer, asks some questions, and the new hire is whipped with a $34,000 fine and two years of mom looking in his drawers.

Now i read “Sunny Days Are Warm: Why LinkedIn Rewards Mediocrity.” The write up includes an outstanding metaphor in my opinion: Toxic Mediocrity. The write up says:

The vast majority of it falls into a category I would describe as Toxic Mediocrity. It’s soft, warm and hard to publicly call out but if you’re not deep in the bubble it reads like nonsense. Unlike it’s cousins ‘Toxic Positivity’ and ‘Toxic Masculinity’ it isn’t as immediately obvious. It’s content that spins itself as meaningful and insightful while providing very little of either. Underneath the one hundred and fifty words is, well, nothing. It’s a post that lets you know that sunny days are warm or its better not to be a total psychopath. What is anyone supposed to learn from that?

When I read a LinkedIn post it is usually referenced in an article I am reading. I like to follow these modern slippery footnotes. (If you want slippery, try finding interesting items about Pavel Durov in certain Russian sources.)

Here’s what I learn:

1. A “member” makes clear that he or she has information of value. I must admit. Once in a while a useful post will turn up. Not often, but it has happened. I do know the person believes something about himself or herself. Try asking a GenAI about their personal “beliefs.” Let me know how that works.
2. Members in a specific group with an active moderator often post items of interest. Instead of writing my unread blog, these individuals identify an item and use LinkedIn as a “digital bulletin board” for people who shop at the same sporting goods store in rural Kentucky. (One sells breakfast items and weapons.)
3. I get a sense of the jargon people use to explain their expertise. I work alone. I am writing a book. I don’t travel to conferences or client locations now. I rely on LinkedIn as the equivalent of going to a conference mixer and listening to the conversations.

That useful. I have a person who interacts on LinkedIn for me. I suppose my “experience” is therefore different from someone who visits the site, posts, and follows the antics of LinkedIn’s marketers as they try to get the surrogate me to pay to do what I do. (Guess what? I don’t pay.)

I noted this statement in the essay:

Honestly, the best approach is to remember that LinkedIn is a website owned by Microsoft, trying to make money for Microsoft, based on time spent on the site. Nothing you post there is going to change your career. Doing work that matters might. Drawing attention to that might. Go for depth over frequency.

I know that many people rely on LinkedIn to boost their self confidence. One of the people who worked for me moved to another city. I suggested that she give LinkedIn a whirl. She wrote interesting short items about her interests. She got good feedback. Her self confidence ticked up, and she landed a successful job. So there’s a use case for you.

You should be able to find a short item that a new post appears on my blog. Write me and my surrogate will write you back and give you instructions about how to contact me. Why don’t I conduct conversations on LinkedIn? Have you checked out the telemetry functions in Microsoft software?

Stephen E Arnold, August 19, 2025

A Baloney Blizzard: What Is Missing? Oh, Nothing, Just Security

This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.

I do not know what a CVP is. I do know a baloney blizzard when I see one. How about these terms: Ambient, pervasive, and multi-modal. I interpret ambient as meaning temperature or music like the tunes honked in Manhattan elevators. Pervasive I view as surveillance; that is, one cannot escape the monitoring. What a clever idea. Who doesn’t want Microsoft Windows to be inescapable? And multi-modal sparks in me thoughts of a cave painting and a shaman. I like the idea of Windows intermediating for me.

Where did I get these three odd ball words? I read “Microsoft’s Windows Lead Says the Next Version of Windows Will Be More Ambient, Pervasive, and Multi-Modal As AI Redefines the Desktop Interface.” The source of this write up is an organization that absolutely loves Microsoft products and services.

Here’s a passage I noted:

Davuluri confirms that in the wake of AI, Windows is going to change significantly. The OS is going to become more ambient and multi-modal, capable of understanding the content on your screen at all times to enable context-aware capabilities that previously weren’t possible. Davuluri continues, “you’ll be able to speak to your computer while you’re writing, inking, or interacting with another person. You should be able to have a computer semantically understand your intent to interact with it.”

Very sci-fi. However, I don’t want to speak to my computer. I work in silence. My office is set up do I don’t have people interrupting, chattering, or asking me to go to get donuts. My view is, “Send me an email or a text. Don’t bother me.” Is that why in many high-tech companies people wear earbuds? It is. They don’t want to talk, interact, or discuss Netflix. These people want to “work” or what they think is “work.”

Does Microsoft care? Of course not. Here’s a reasonably clear statement of what Microsoft is going to try and force upon me:

It’s clear that whatever is coming next for Windows, it’s going to promote voice as a first class input method on the platform. In addition to mouse and keyboard, you will be able to ambiently talk to Windows using natural language while you work, and have the OS understand your intent based on what’s currently on your screen.

Several observations:

1. AI is not reliable
2. Microsoft is running a surveillance operation in my opinion
3. This is the outfit which created Bob and Clippy.

But the real message in this PR marketing content essay: Security is not mentioned. Does a secure operation want people talking about their work?

Stephen E Arnold, August 19, 2025

Remember the Metaverse

This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.

The “Metaverse” was Mark Zuckerberg’s swing and a miss in the virtual world video game. Alphabet is rebooting the failed world says Ars Technica, “Meta’s “AI Superintelligence” Effort Sounds Just Like Its Failed ‘Metaverse.’” Zuckerberg released a memo in which he hyped the new Meta Superintelligence Labs. He described it as “the beginning of a new era for humanity.” It sounds like Zuckerberg is described his Metaverse from a 2021 keynote address.

The Metaverse exists but not many people use it outside of Meta employees who actively avoid using certain features. It’s possible that the public hasn’t given Zuckerberg enough time to develop the virtual world. But when augmented reality uses a pair of ugly coke bottle prototype glasses that cost $10000, the average person isn’t going to log in. To quote the article:

“Today, those kinds of voices of internal skepticism seem in short supply as Meta sets itself up to push AI in the same way it once backed the metaverse. Don’t be surprised, though, if today’s promise that we’re at "the beginning of a new era for humanity" ages about as well as Meta’s former promises about a metaverse where "you’re gonna be able to do almost anything you can imagine."

Zuckerberg is blah blah-ing and yada yada-ing about the future of AI and how it will change society. Society won’t either adapt, can’t afford the changes, or the technology is too advanced to replicate on a large scale. But there is Apple with its outstanding google-headset thing.

One trick ponies do one trick. Yep. Big glasses.

Whitney Grace, August 17, 2025

Google! Manipulating Search Results? No Kidding

The Federal Trade Commission has just determined something the EU has been saying (and litigating) for years. The International Business Times tells us, “Google Manipulated Search Results to Bolster Own Products, FTC Report Finds.” Writer Luke Villapaz reports:

“For Internet searches over the past few years, if you typed ‘Google’ into Google, you probably got the exact result you wanted, but if you were searching for products or services offered by Google’s competitors, chances are those offerings were found further down the page, beneath those offered by Google. That’s what the U.S. Federal Trade Commission disclosed on Thursday, in an extensive 160-page report, which was obtained by the Wall Street Journal as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. FTC staffers found evidence that Google’s algorithm was demoting the search results of competing services while placing its own higher on the search results page, according to excerpts from the report. Among the websites affected: shopping comparison, restaurant review and travel.”

Villapaz notes Yelp has made similar allegations, estimating Google’s manipulation of search results may have captured some 20% of its potential users. So, after catching the big tech firm red handed, what will the FTC do about it? Nothing, apparently. We learn:

“Despite the findings, the FTC staffers tasked with investigating Google did not recommend that the commission issue a formal complaint against the company. However, Google agreed to some changes to its search result practices when the commission ended its investigation in 2013.”

Well OK then. We suppose that will have to suffice.

Cynthia Murrell, August 15, 2025

AI Applesauce: Sweeten the Story about Muffing the Bunny

No AI. Just a dinobaby being a dinobaby.

I read “Apple CEO Tim Cook Calls AI ‘Bigger Than the Internet’ in Rare All-Hands Meeting.” I noted this passage:

In a global all-hands meeting hosted from Apple’s headquarters in Cupertino, California, CEO Tim Cook seemed to admit to what analysts and Apple enthusiasts around the world had been raising concerns about: that Apple has fallen behind competitors in the AI race. And Cook promised employees that the company will be doing everything to catch up. “Apple must do this. Apple will do this. This is sort of ours to grab.” …The AI revolution [is] “as big or bigger” than the internet.

Okay. Two companies of some significance have miss the train to AI Ville: Apple and Telegram. Both have interesting technology. Apple is far larger, but for some users Telegram is more important to their lives. One is fairly interested in China activities; the other is focused on Russia and crypto.

But both have managed their firms into the same digital row boat. Apple had Siri and it was not very good. Telegram knew about AI and allowed third-party bot developers to use it, but Telegram itself dragged its feet.

Both companies are asserting that each has plenty of time. Tim Cook is talking about smart software but so far the evidence of making an AI difference is scant. Telegram, on the other hand, has aimed Nikolai Durov at AI. That wizard is working on a Telegram AI system.

But the key point is that both of these forward leaning outfits are trying to catch up. This  is not keeping pace, mind. The two firms are trying to go from watching the train go down the tracks to calling an Uber to get to their respective destinations.

My take on both companies is that the “leadership” have some good reasons for muffing the AI bunny. Apple is struggling with its China “syndrome.” Will the nuclear reactor melt down, fizzle out, or blow up? Apple’s future in hardware may become radioactive.

Telegram is working under the shadow of the criminal trial lumbering toward its founder and owner Pavel Durov. More than a dozen criminal charges and a focused French judicial figure have Mr. Durov reporting a couple of times a week. To travel, he has to get a note from his new “mom.”

But well-run companies don’t let things like China dependency or 20 years in Fleury-Mérogis Prison upset trillion dollar companies or cause more than one billion people to worry about their free text messages and non fungible tokens.

“Leadership,” not technology, strikes me as the problem with AI challenges. If AI is so big, why did two companies fail to get the memo? Inattention, pre-occupation with other matters, fear? Pick one or two.

Stephen E Arnold, August 14, 2025

What Killed Newspapers? Speed and User Preference Did

No AI. Just a dinobaby being a dinobaby.

I read “Did Craigslist Decimate Newspapers? Legend Meets Reality?” I liked the essay. I wanted to capture a few thoughts on this newspaper versus electronic shift.

I left Booz, Allen to join the Courier Journal & Louisville Times Co. I had a short hiatus because I was going to become an officer. I couldn’t officially start work until the CJ’s board voted. The question I was asked by my colleagues at the blue chip consulting firm before I headed to Louisville, Kentucky, from the real world of Washington, DC, Manhattan, and other major cities was, “Why?” One asked, “Where’s Louisville?”

I had a hunch that electronic information access was going to become a very big deal. In 1982, I was dumping the big time for what looked like a definite backwater, go-nowhere-fast place. Louisville made liquor, had a horse race, and a reputation for racial disharmony.

But electronic information was important to Barry Bingham, Junior, the top dog at the CJ. When I showed up, my office was next to a massage parlor on Fifth Street. I wasn’t in the main building. In fact, the office was not much more than a semi-slum. An abandoned house was visible from my office window. I left my nifty office overlooking Bethesda High School for a facility that did not meet GSA standards for storage space.

But here I was. My work focused on databases owned by the CJ, but these were actually described by a hardened newspaper person as “Barry’s crazy hobby.” The databases were ABI / INFORM, a bunch of technical indexes, and Pharmaceutical News Index. Nevertheless, the idea of using a computer, a dial up modem, and a database provided something of great value: A way to get smart really fast.

I had dabbled in indexing content, a fluke that got me a job at Halliburton Nuclear. And now I was leaving the land of forced retirement at 55, juicy bonuses, and the prospect of managing MBA drones on thrilling projects. In the early 1980s, not too many people knew about databases.

A relatively modest number of companies used online databases. Most of ABI / INFORM’s online customers were from the Fortune 1000, big time consulting firms, and research-type outfits around the world. The engineering databases did not have that magnetic appeal, so we sold these as a lot to an outfit called Cambridge Scientific Abstracts. I have no idea what happened to the databases nor to CSA. The PNI product was a keeper because it generated money online and from a print reference book. But ABI / INFORM was the keeper. It was only online. Shortly before I departed the CJ to join Ziff Communications in Manhattan, we cooperated with a publisher to bring out topical collections of content based on the abstracts in the ABI / INFORM database.

My arrival disrupted the database unit, and miraculously it became profitable within six months of my arrival. Barry credited me with the win, but I did nothing but do what I had learned at Booz, Allen. We then created Business Dateline, the first online database that included publisher corrections. As far as I know, Business Dateline held that distinction for many years. (That’s why I don’t trust online content. It  is often incorrect, outdated, or a fabrication of a crazed “expert.)

But what about the CJ? I can tell you that only Barry Bingham wanted to put the text, the images, and the obituaries online in electronic form. The board of directors thought that move was stupid. The newsroom knew it was stupid. The printers thought the idea was the dumbest thought ever.

But there were three factors Barry understood and I knew were rock solid:

1. Online access delivered benefits that would make 100 percent sense to people who needed to find high value, third-party information. (ABI / INFORM abstracted and indexed important articles from more than 1,200 business and management journals, and it was ideal for people in the consulting game)
2. Print was a problem because of [a] waste, [b] cost of paper, and [c] the general and administrative expenses required to “do” print newspapers and magazine
3. Electronic information was faster. For those to whom rapid access to current information was important, online was the future. Calling someone, like the newspaper reporters liked to do, was time consuming, expensive, and subject to delays.

Now Craigslist.org shows up. What happens? People who want to sell stuff can plug the ad into the Craigslist interface, click a button, and wait for a buyer. Contrast that with the process of placing a print ad. At the CJ, and employment ad could not use the abbreviation “cv.” I asked. No one knew. That’s the way it was. Traditional publishing outfits have a lot of the “that’s the way it was.”

Did Craigslist cause the newspaper sector to implode. No. The way technology works is that it chugs along, confined to a few narrow spaces. Then, when no one is looking, boom. It is the only way to go. To seize the advantage, traditional publishing outfits had to move fast.

That’s like telling a turtle to run in the Kentucky Debry. Why couldn’t newspapers and magazines adapt? Easy. The smell of ink, the tangible deliverable, and the role of gatekeeper combine to create a variant of fentanyl. Addled people cannot easily see what is obvious to those not on the drug.

Read the “Decimate” article. It’s interesting but in my opinion, making Mr. Newmark associate with the death of newspapers is colorful writing. Not the reality I witnessed in the go-go period from 1980 to 2006 for online information.

Stephen E Arnold, August 13, 2025

Explaining Meta: The 21st Century “Paul” Writes a Letter to Us

No AI. Just a dinobaby being a dinobaby.

I read an interesting essay called “Decoding Zuck’s Superintelligence Memo.” The write up is similar to the assignments one of my instructors dumped on hapless graduate students at Duquesne University, a Jesuit university located in lovely Pittsburgh.

The idea is to take a text in Latin and sometimes in English and explain it, tease out its meaning, and try to explain what the author was trying to communicate. (Tortured sentences, odd ball vocabulary, and references only the mother of an ancient author could appreciate were part of the deciphering fun.)

The “Decoding Zuck” is this type of write up. This statement automatically elevates Mr. Zuckerberg to the historical significance of the Biblical Paul or possibly to a high priest of the Aten in ancient Egypt. I mean who knew?

Several points warrant highlighting.

First, the write up includes “The Zuckerberg Manifesto Pattern.” I have to admit that I have not directed much attention to Mr. Zuckerberg or his manifestos. I view outputs from Silicon Valley type outfits a particular form of delusional marketing for the purpose of doing whatever the visionary wants to do. Apparently they have a pattern and a rhetorical structure. The pattern warrants this observation from “Decoding Zuck”:

Compared to all founders and CEOs, Zuck does seem to have a great understanding of when he needs to bet the farm on an idea and a behavioral shift. Each time he does that, it is because he sees very clearly Facebook is at the end of the product life and the only real value in the company is the attention of his audience. If that attention declines, it takes away the ability to really extend the company’s life into the next cycle.

Yes, a prescient visionary.

Second, the “decoded” message means, according to “Decoding Zuck”:

More than anything, this is a positioning document in the AI arms race. By using “super intelligence” as a marketing phrase, Zuck is making his efforts feel superior to the mere “Artificial Intelligence” of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google.

I had no idea that documents like Paul’s letter to the Romans and Mr. Zuckerberg’s manifesto were marketing collateral. I wonder if those engaged in studying ancient Egyptian glyphs will discover that the writings about Aten are assertions about the bread sold by Ramose, the thumb on the scale baker.

Third, the context for the modern manifesto of Zuck is puffery. The exegesis says:

So what do I think about this memo, and all the efforts of Meta? I remain skeptical of his ability to invent a new future for his company. In the past, he has been able to buy, snoop, or steal other people’s ideas. It has been hard for him and his company to actually develop a new market opportunity. Zuckerberg also tends to overpromise on timelines and underestimate execution challenges.

I think this analysis of the Zuckerberg Manifesto of 2025 reveals several things about how Meta (formerly Facebook) positions itself and it provides some insight into the author of “Decoding Zuck” as well:

1. The outputs are baloney packaged as serious thought
2. The AI race has to produce a winner, and it is not clear if Facebook (sorry Meta) will be viewed as a contender
3. AI is not yet a slam dunk winner, bigger than the Internet as another Silicon Valley sage suggested.

Net net: The AI push reveals that some distance exists between delivering hefty profits for those who have burned billions to reach the point that a social media executive feels compelled to issue a marketing blurb.

Remarkable. Marketing by manifesto.

Stephen E Arnold, August 12, 2025

Next Page »

• 

• Search the site

•  

  Subscribe to Beyond Search

  • 
  • 
   
  • 
   
  
  Feature archive
  News archive
   
  
  
  Stephen E. Arnold monitors search, content processing, text mining and related topics from his high-tech nerve center in rural Kentucky. He tries to winnow the goose feathers from the giblets. He works with colleagues worldwide to make this Web log useful to those who want to go "beyond search". Contact him at sa [at] arnoldit.com. His Web site with additional information about search is arnoldit.com.

• Categories

  • 3D-Printing
  • Acquisition
  • Advertising
  • Aggregation
  • AI
  • Alexa
  • algorithms
  • Amazon
  • Amazonia
  • Analytics
  • Appliance
  • Applications
  • Audio
  • Augmented Reality
  • Big data
  • Bing
  • Bitcoin
  • Bitext
  • Book review
  • Business intelligence
  • Business process
  • Business strategy
  • Censorship
  • Cloud computing
  • Company Profile
  • Conferences
  • Connectors
  • Consulting
  • Consumer
  • Content processing
  • Copyright
  • Corporate Concerns
  • Cost
  • Crawl
  • Crowdfunding
  • cryptocurrency
  • Customer support
  • Cyber OSINT
  • cybercrime
  • cybersecurity
  • Dark Web
  • DarkCyber
  • Data
  • Data mining
  • Database
  • Deepfakes
  • Digital Assistant
  • Digital Library
  • E2EE
  • ECommerce
  • EDiscovery
  • Editorial opinion
  • Education
  • Emoticons
  • Enterprise
  • Enterprise search
  • Entity extraction
  • Ethics
  • Facebook
  • Faceted search
  • Factualities
  • Feature
  • Federated search
  • Financial
  • Fogint
  • Google
  • Governance
  • Government
  • Hackers
  • healthcare
  • IBM Watson
  • Image search
  • Indexing
  • Infrastructure
  • Innovation
  • Integration
  • intelware
  • Interface
  • Internet
  • Interview
  • Investment
  • law enforcement
  • Legal matters
  • Library automation
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • Mathematics
  • Metadata
  • Microsoft
  • Mobile
  • Natural language processing
  • News
  • NGIA
  • Online (general)
  • Open Access
  • Open source
  • OSINT
  • Osint Radar
  • Overflight
  • Palantir
  • Patents
  • Personnel
  • Podcast
  • Policeware
  • Portals
  • Predictive coding
  • Privacy
  • Profile
  • Publishing
  • Quotation
  • Real time search
  • Reference tool
  • Rich media
  • Robot Writer
  • Search
  • Search enabled applications
  • search engine
  • Search quality
  • Security
  • Semantic
  • Sentiment analysis
  • SEO
  • SharePoint
  • Short Honks
  • Smart Technology
  • Social
  • Social Media
  • software
  • Statistics
  • Taxonomy
  • Technology
  • Text analytics
  • Text processing
  • Tools
  • Tor
  • Training
  • Translation
  • Twitter
  • Uncategorized
  • Unstructured Data
  • User experience
  • User Interface
  • Vertical search
  • Video
  • visualization
  • Voice search
  • Voice technology
  • Web 3
  • Web Services
  • Webinar
  • Windows
  • Work flow
  • XML
  • Yahoo

• Archives

  Archives Select Month August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 5

• Recent Posts

  • News Flash: Google Does Not Care about Publishers
  • What Cyber Security Professionals “Fear”
  • Cyber Security: Evidence That Performance Is Different from Marketing
  • The Risks of Add-On AI: Apple, Telegram, Are You Paying Attention?
  • Inc. Magazine May Find that Its MSFT Software No Longer Works

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org