Pardner, We Never Meta an Outfit with Which We Could Not Litigate
February 15, 2022
TikTok is expanding in Europe. The Zuckbook is threatening to pull out of Europe. Good or bad? Here’s an easier question: Can Texas get billions out of Meta (aka Zuckbook) for alleged misuse of facial recognition?
My hunch is that TikTok in Europe is bad. Texas winning some type of Zuckbook cash output is badder.
“Texas Sues Meta, Saying It Misused Facial Recognition Data” reports:
The suit involves Facebook’s “tag suggestions” feature, which the company ended last year, that used facial recognition to encourage users to link the photo to a friend’s profile. Paxton [Texas Attorney General] alleged the company collected facial recognition data without their consent, shared it with third parties, and did not destroy the information in a timely manner — all in violation of state law.
What’s interesting is that there are other AGs who may want to monitor this legal matter. If the Zuckbook avoids a Super Bowl fine, that’s okay. There are probably other technical fish to fry at the social media out.
But…
If the Texas AG prevails, how many other states will ask a couple of bright eyed and busy tailed lawyers to see if similar actions took place in their state?
I can name a couple. Can Meta, or is the Zuckbook team too busy trying to figure out how to deal with what one might call headwinds?
Worth watching Mr. Paxton’s interest in Meta I think.
Stephen E Arnold, February 15, 2022
Facebook Has Dictator-Like Control Of Platform
February 9, 2022
Russia is not shy when it comes to criticism. Russians usually target rival governments and politicians, but when they are driven it is not odd for a company or business leader to be in their critical crosshairs. Sputnik News is a Russian news service and it criticized Facebook for blocking it: “Muting Sputnik Arabic: Facebook Control Is Something Any Dictator Would Dream Of, Analysts Say.”
It is ironic that Facebook, a US-based company, where the first amendment in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights guarantees the right to freedom of speech, blocked the Arabic account of a Russian news outlet. If you did not catch the ironic bit, Russian is the former Soviet Union and as a socialist country it censored any undesirable information. Facebook Concierge Support did not explain why it blocked Sputnik’s Arabic account other than there was “potential non-compliance.” The Sputnik Arabic account has never been blocked, but some of its post have been flagged for “violating community standards.”
Facebook has silenced ideas it does not agree with in the past and this is yet another example of them doing it again. Facebook does not care about remaining neutral, the company only cares about its bottom line and controlling information.
Facebook whistleblower Ryan Hartwig said:
“ ‘The message from Facebook is clear: they have carte blanche to interfere in elections, influence politics, and control the news that Middle Easterners can be exposed to,’ Hartwig highlights. ‘This type of unilateral control of news and propaganda is only something dictators have dreamed of, and it’s being foisted on sovereign countries in the Middle East.’ According to the whistleblower, Facebook’s conduct is “extremely dangerous” because the platform is used by a substantial portion of netizens. ‘Free speech essentially doesn’t exist for the 3 billion users of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp,’ Hartwig stresses.
Facebook is a platform and a medium of discourse. It does not have the right to enact censoring in order to control the narrative. Instead Facebook is taking center stage in censorship as well as purporting that state-linked media is bad while privately owned social media is good.
Fortunately Facebook is already viewed as a toxic brand and younger generations see it as dated and meant for Baby Boomers. Facebook continues to control an interest in the media narrative, but time will erode its hold. It is too bad we have to wait for Facebook to lose its grip, but congratulations to Zuckerberg for drawing criticism from Russia! That is one heck of an accomplishment!
Whitney Grace, February 9, 2022
Facebook: Eliciting Glee from Those Who Should Love It
February 6, 2022
I read – and this is the “real” title – “The End of the Metaverse Hopefully. Read to the End for a Tremendous Meditation on February. Facebook Made Its Own World and Now It’s Stuck in It.” The write up appeared in an online publication called Garbage Day.
Here’s the conclusion which I found interesting for several reasons:
Basically, Facebook and Instagram is [sic] Squid Game, the algorithm is the big piggy bank, and the last three traumatized contestants in tuxedos armed with knives are an out-of-work magician, an antivax chiropractor, and a QAnon mom from Tuscon who runs a drop-shipping pyramid scheme. Which, of course, is not a platform that users will want to use. But it’s all Facebook has to fall back on now that its attempts to “build the metaverse” have been exposed as an absolutely ridiculous bluster. And it seems like that’s what they’re actually going to do. Zuckerberg said yesterday that that they would be focusing — or pivoting — to video again. It’s all they can do. They’ll pivot to video, then they’ll pivot to reactions, then they’ll pivot to groups, then they’ll pivot to news, then they’ll pivot back to video, all the while, shrinking and becoming less and less relevant until one day we won’t even notice they’re gone.
The Zuckbook faces an uphill climb. However, large companies like an aircraft carrier require some time to stop. With an admiral screaming at the captain, the inputs contribute nothing to the physics of a big, often technologically outdated, vessel chock full of explosives, fuel, and former Googlers.
I agree that Facebook faces headwinds. What’s important to keep in mind is that the Big Zuck has his hands on the controls. Like a cornered ferret, an animal control officer must appreciate what the clever little creature can do.
Let me offer a few examples:
- Act on rumors of accepting political advertising which is tailor made for the Facebook throw-fuel-on-the-fire algorithms of engagement
- Enter into for-free agreements with organizations engaged in intelligence activities for a wide range of governments. Here’s a hypothetical question: “How much would Mr. Putin’s colleagues pay for unfettered access to near-real time user activity in a geographic region?” If not Mr. Putin, what about an person who is an alleged oligarch?”
- Create differential advertising rates and charge more for ads which come with a nifty control panel designed to allow on-the-fly tuning?
- What are the subscription revenue opportunities of a service infused with artificial intelligence informed for grandmothers?
I recognize the brilliance of the Big Zuck who allegedly created the service in a dorm room. I think his business acumen is worthy of a case study if universities have business schools which focus on real world behaviors. I admire the Big Zuck’s desire to buy Hawaii.
However, ignoring the Zuckbook and the Big Zuck is not a good idea. Assuming that the aircraft carrier will crash into a reef and sink is not a good idea. Suggesting that the doomsday clock is accelerating is not a good idea.
What is a good idea? Think about a cornered ferret.
Stephen E Arnold, February 6, 2022
Instagram Takes a Stab at Adulting
January 31, 2022
Yahoo Finance explains that, “Instagram Will Now Reduce The Visibility Of ‘Potentially Harmful’ Content” on its platform. Instagram’s reasoning is to clean to up its algorithm and keep users happy, but to also prevent harmful content from getting exposure.
Instagram, like many social media platforms, is attempting to rein in photos and videos deemed “harmful content.” The problem is the definition of “harmful content.” Content with deliberate violence and abuse, bullying, hate speech, pedophilia, and depicting blood such as traffic accidents are obvious. Other videos fall into a bigger gray area.
Borderline content is the biggest problem for Instagram’s algorithm and needs a human filter to interpret it:
“While Instagram’s rules already prohibit much of this type of content, the change could affect borderline posts, or content that hasn’t yet reached the app’s moderators. “To understand if something may break our rules, we’ll look at things like if a caption is similar to a caption that previously broke our rules,” the company explains in an update.”
One of the biggest changes with the policy is that an account’s report history will be taken into consideration with what appears on its feed:
“Additionally, Instagram says it will now factor in each individual user’s reporting history into how it orders their feeds. ‘If our systems predict you’re likely to report a post based on your history of reporting content, we will show the post lower in your Feed,’ Instagram says.”
In 2020, Instagram removed accounts that were deliberately posting misinformation and were debunked by fact checkers. The newest policy will target individual posts and not entire accounts.
Whitney Grace, January 31, 2022
Facebook: Reluctant But Why?
January 26, 2022
The write up concerns Facebook in Australia. Australia has good relationships with the US. The bonds between Australia and the United Kingdom seem to be in reasonable shape as well. Australia, it seems to me, has been an origin point for some interesting ideas related to online.
“Meta Most Reluctant to Work with Government: Home Affairs” points out that Meta (originally just plain old super community minded Facebook) is less enthusiastic about working with Australia’s government than some of its very large, possibly monopolistic fellow travelers.
The write up reports:
In a submission to the House Select Committee Inquiry into Social Media and Online Safety, Home Affairs criticized Meta for not doing enough to protect its users and for not adequately engaging with the government on these issues. In its own submission, Meta said it has “responded constructively” to Australian government inquiries and is “highly responsive” to local regulators.
I think this means that Meta is doing a better job at foot dragging than some other big technology firms. Like Meta’s recognition as the worst company in the United States, the highly responsive outfit has tallied points in the “less enthusiastic” competition.
The Australian government and Meta have other issues which have caused the US company to arm wrestle with Australian officials; for example, encryption of Facebook Messenger content, dealing with Australian media’s interest in compensation for its content, and ideas about privacy.
The write up does not answer the question “But why?”
To fill the void, may I suggest a cou8ple of reasons:
- Keep people in the dark. Disclosures about Meta technology, business practices, or data systems might inform the Australian government. With the information, the Australian government could formulate some new ideas about fining or controlling the community focused US outfit. In short, Meta information may lead to meta prosecution perhaps?
- Take steps to prevent data moving around the Five Eyes. Information disclosed in Australia might find its way to the US and the UK. Despite these countries’ security methods, some of that disclosed data could seep into the efficient machinery of the European Union. It is conceivable that the risk of becoming even more responsive to Australia increases the risk of EU action with regard to the community oriented social media company.
- Circle the wagons to prevent user defections. Cooperating in any way that become public could cause some Meta users to delete their accounts and prevent others in their span of control from using Meta services. This means a loss of revenue, and a loss of revenue has downside consequences; namely, encouragement for other high technology companies to nose into Meta territory.
I want to emphasize none of these ideas appear in the write up cited above. Furthermore, these are views which I developed talking with my colleagues about Meta.
Net net: Meta does not want information about its systems, methods, research, and policies. Frances Haugen, it seems, did not get that email.
Stephen E Arnold, January 26, 2022
Meta Zuck: AIR SC Sort of Sketched Out
January 25, 2022
I read Facebook’s (Meta’s) blog post called “Introducing the AI Research SuperCluster — Meta’s Cutting-Edge AI Supercomputer for AI Research.” The AIR SC states:
Today, Meta is announcing that we’ve designed and built the AI Research SuperCluster (RSC) — which we believe is among the fastest AI supercomputers running today and will be the fastest AI supercomputer in the world when it’s fully built out in mid-2022.
Then this statement:
Ultimately, the work done with RSC will pave the way toward building technologies for the next major computing platform — the metaverse, where AI-driven applications and products will play an important role.
So the AIR SC is sort of real. The applications for the AIR SC are sort of metaverse. That’s not here either in my opinion.
So what’s going on? Here are my thoughts:
- Facebook wants to stake out conceptual territory claims as AT&T did with its non 5G announcements about the under construction 5G capabilities.
- Facebook wants to show that its AIR SC is bigger, better, faster, and more super than anything from the Amazon, Google, or other quasi-monopolies who want systems that will dominate the super computer league table for now and possibly forever unless government regulators or user behavior changes the game plan.
- Facebook believes the Silicon Valley marketing mantra, “Fake it until you make it” with a possible change. I interpret the announcement to say, “Over promise and under deliver.” I admit I have become jaded with the antics of these corporate giants who have been able to operate without meaningful oversight or what some might call ethical guidelines for a couple of decades.
In the old days, companies in the Silicon Valley mode did vaporware. The tradition continues? Sure, why not? There’s even a TikTok style video to get the AIR SC message across.
Stephen E Arnold, January 25, 2022
European Parliament Embraces the Regulatory PEZ Dispenser Model for Fines on Big Tech
January 24, 2022
I read about the Digital Services Act. “European Parliament Passes Huge Clampdown on Tracking Ads” states:
The European Parliament, the legislative body for the European Union (EU), has voted in favor of its Digital Services Act (DSA), which seeks to limit the power of American internet giants such as Facebook, Amazon and Google.
That’s mostly on the money. What’s not spelled out is that the procedure of identifying a tracking instance, building a case, adjudicating, appealing, and levying a fine is now official. It’s a procedure. Perhaps a bright French artificial intelligence professional will use Facebook or Google AI components to make the entire process automatic, efficient, and – obviously – without bias. No discrimination! But the DSA is aimed at outfits like Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Nope. Not discriminatory and also not yet a really official thing…yet.
I found this paragraph memorable:
According to the EU, the DSA covers several key areas, including introducing mechanisms by which companies have to remove “illegal” content in a timely manner in a bid to reduce misinformation, increasing requirements on so-called very large online platforms (VLOPs), regulating online ad targeting, and clamping down on dark patterns. The scope and scale of the DSA (and associated DMA) are huge, perhaps the biggest effort yet by a substantial world power (outside of China) to regulate what happens in cyberspace.
How does one redistribute “wealth”? Easy. Create a legal PEZ dispenser, push the plastic likeness of Mr. Bezos, Mr. Zuckerberg, or Mr. Pichai (who is the only one of the PEZ dispensers with AI in his name).
Stephen E Arnold, January 24, 2022
A News Blog Complains about Facebook Content Policies
January 20, 2022
Did you know that the BMJ (in 1840 known as the Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal and then after some organizational and administrative cartwheels emerged in 1857 as the British Medical Journal? Now the $64 question, “Did you know that Facebook appears to consider the BMJ as a Web log or blog?” Quite a surprise to me and probably to quite a few others who have worked in the snooty world of professional publishing.
The most recent summary of the dust up between the Meta Zuck outfit and the “news blog” BMJ appears in “Facebook Versus The BMJ: When Fact Checking Goes Wrong.” The write up contains a number of Meta gems, and a read of the “news blog” item is a good use of time.
I want to highlight one items from the write up:
Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of medical evidence, has experienced similar treatment by Instagram, which, like Facebook, is owned by the parent company Meta. A Cochrane spokesperson said that in October its Instagram account was “shadow banned” for two weeks, meaning that “when other users tried to tag Cochrane, a message popped up saying @cochraneorg had posted material that goes against ‘false content’ guidelines” (fig 1). Shadow banning may lead to posts, comments, or activities being hidden or obscured and stop appearing in searches. After Cochrane posted on Instagram and Twitter about the ban, its usual service was eventually restored, although it has not received an explanation for why it fell foul of the guidelines in the first place.
I like this shadow banning thing.
How did the Meta Zuck respond? According to the “news blog”:
Meta directed The BMJ to its advice page, which said that publishers can appeal a rating directly with the relevant fact checking organization within a week of being notified of it. “Fact checkers are responsible for reviewing content and applying ratings, and this process is independent from Meta,” it said. This means that, as in The BMJ’s case, if the fact checking organization declines to change a rating after an appeal from a publisher, the publisher has little recourse. The lack of an independent appeals process raises concerns, given that fact checking organizations have been accused of bias.
There are other interesting factoids in the “news blog’s” write up.
Quickly, several observations:
- Opaque actions plague the “news blog”, the British Medical Journal and other luminaries; for example, the plight of the esteemed performer Amouranth of the Inflate-a-Pool on Amazon Twitch. Double talking and fancy dancing from Meta- and Amazon-type outfits just call attention to the sophomoric and Ted Mack Amateur Hour approach to an important function of a publicly-traded organization with global influence.
- A failure of “self regulation” can cause airplanes to crash and financial disruption to occur. Now knowledge is the likely casualty of a lack of a backbone and an ethical compass. Right now I am thinking of a ethics free, shape shifting octopus like character with zero interest in other creatures except their function as money generators.
- A combination of “act now, apologize if necessary” has fundamentally altered the social contract among corporations, governments, and individuals.
So now the BMJ (founded in 1840) has been morphed into a “news blog” pitching cow doody?
Imposed change is warranted perhaps? Adulting is long overdue at a certain high-tech outfit and a number of others of this ilk.
Stephen E Arnold, January 20, 2022
UK Legal Eagles Circle the Facebook ATM
January 17, 2022
I read “Facebook Parent Meta Faces $3.1B UK Class Action for Breach of Competition Law.” In a blistering rapid response to the Cambridge Analytica misstep, legal eagles have realized that Facebook may have taken some liberties with the notion of market dominance, information collection, and downstream use of those data about its much loved customers.
The article states (once one gets past the pop up ads from everyone’s favorite moguls at the News Corp.):
The suit. If successful, would have Facebook paying $3.1 billion in damages to Facebook U.K. users. The lawsuit was filed with the U.K.’s Competition Appeal Tribunal in London.
From my point of view, the action is a way to get a large, US technology company to output a bale of cash for its behaviors. Although $3.1 billion is a respectable number, Facebook’s approximate daily revenue intake is in the neighborhood of a $100 billion, give or take a few billion. That works out to a week and a half of revenue.
Bad but not that bad. Will the treasured Facebook customers get the money if the class action suit prevails? Sure, absolutely just after fees and other costs. Such a deal and one that will definitely chasten Facebook, Meta, whatever.
Stephen E Arnold, January 17, 2022
Alleged Collusion Between Meta and Google: Shocking Sort Of
January 17, 2022
“Google and Facebook’s Top Execs Allegedly Approved Dividing Ad Market among Themselves” reports:
The alleged 2017 deal between Google and Facebook to kill header bidding, a way for multiple ad exchanges to compete fairly in automated ad auctions, was negotiated by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and endorsed by both Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (now with Meta) and Google CEO Sundar Pichai, according to an updated complaint filed in the Texas-led antitrust lawsuit against Google.
Fans of primary research can read the 242 page amended filing at this link.
One question arises: How could two separate companies engage is discussions to divide a market? Perhaps one clue is the presence of the estimable lean in professional Sheryl Sandberg, who joined Google 2001 after blazing a trail in economics, McKinsey-type thinking familiar to many today as the pharma brain machine, and then some highly productive US government work.
At the Google she was a general manager. Her Googley behavior earned her a promotion. She was one of the thinkers shaping the outstanding revenue generation system known as AdWords. She added her special touch of McKinsey-ness to AdSense to the Gil Ebaz smart system packaged as Applied Semantics aka Oingo. The important point about applied semantics is that the technology included what I think of as steering or directionality; that is, one uses semantic information to herd the doggies (users) down the trail (consumption of ad inventory. For more on this notion of steering yo8u will want to listen to my interview with Dr. Donna Ingram who addresses this issue in the DarkCyber, 4th series, Number 1 video program to be released on January 18, 2022.
In 2007, chatting at the party helped her migrate from the Google to the company formerly known as Facebook. Ms. Sandberg, Harvard graduate with a chubby contact list, joined the scintillating management team as the social network engineering machine. In 2012, she became a member of the company’s board of directors. She leaned in to her role until some “real” news outfits flipped over the mossy rock of Cambridge Analytica’s benchmark marketing methods.
Ms. Sandberg was recognized by Professor Shoshana Zuboff as the Typhoid Mary of surveillance capitalism. Is that a Meta T shirt yet? He book is a must read. It is called Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. It appeared in 2013 and may be due for an update to include the Cambridge Analytica misunderstanding, the Frances Haugen revelations, and, of course, the current Texas-sized legal matter.
The write up cited above points out a statement from the Google. The main idea is that the idea is “full of inaccuracies and lacks legal merit.”
I believe everything I read on the Internet. I accept the Google search output when I query “Silicon Valley ethics” – Theranos. I trust in the Meta thing because how could two outfits collude? I think such interactions are highly improbable in Silicon Valley, the home of straight shooting.
Stephen E Arnold, January 17, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
