Zuckin and Duckin: Socialmania at Facebook
July 19, 2021
I read “Zuck Is a Lightweight, and 4 More Things We Learned about Facebook from ‘An Ugly Truth’.” My initial response was, “No Mashable professionals will be invited to the social Zuckerberg’s Hawaii compound.” Bummer. I had a few other thoughts as well, but, first, here’s couple of snippets in what is possible to characterize a review of a new book by Sheera Frenkel and Cecilia Kang. I assume any publicity is good publicity.
Here’s an I circled in Facebook social blue:
Frenkel and Kang’s careful reporting shows a company whose leadership is institutionally ill-equipped to handle the Frankenstein’s monster they built.
Snappy. To the point.
Another? Of course, gentle reader:
Zuckerberg designed the platform for mindless scrolling: “I kind of want to be the new MTV,” he told friends.
Insightful but TikTok, which may have some links to the sensitive Chinese power plant, aced out the F’Book.
And how about this?
[The Zuck] was explicitly dismissive of what she said.” Indeed, the book provides examples where Sandberg was afraid of getting fired, or being labeled as politically biased, and didn’t even try to push back…
Okay, and one more:
Employees are fighting the good fight.
Will I buy the book? Nah, this review is close enough. What do I think will happen to Facebook? In the short term, not much. The company is big and generating big payoffs in power and cash. Longer term? The wind down will continue. Google, for example, is dealing with stuck disc brakes on its super car. Facebook may be popping in and out of view in that outstanding vehicle’s rear view mirrors. One doesn’t change an outfit with many years of momentum.
Are the book’s revelations on the money. Probably reasonably accurate but disenchantment can lead to some interesting shaping of non fiction writing. And the Mashable review? Don’t buy a new Hawaiian themed cabana outfit yet. What about Facebook’s management method? Why change? It worked in high school. It worked when testifying before Congress. It worked until a couple of reporters shifted into interview mode and reporters are unlikely to rack up the likes on Facebook.
Stephen E Arnold, July xx, 2021
Facebook Has Channeled Tacit Software, Just without the Software
July 14, 2021
I would wager a free copy of my book CyberOSINT that anyone reading this blog post remembers Tacit Software, founded in the late 1990s. The company wrote a script which determined what employee in an organization was “consulted” most frequently. I recall enhancements which “indexed” content to make it easier for a user to identify content which may have been overlooked. But the killer feature was allowing a person with appropriate access to identify individuals with particular expertise. Oracle, the number one in databases, purchased Tacit Software and integrated the function into Oracle Beehive. If you want to read marketing collateral about Beehive, navigate to this link. Oh, good luck with pinpointing the information about Tacit. If you dig a bit, you will come across information which suggests that the IBM Clever method was stumbled upon and implemented about the same time that Backrub went online. Small community in Silicon Valley? Yes, it is.
So what?
I thought about this 1997 innovation in Silicon Valley when I read “Facebook’s Groups to Highlight Experts.” With billions of users, I wonder why it took Facebook years to figure out that it could identify individuals who “knew” something. Progress never stops in me-to land, of course. Is Facebook using its estimable smart software to identify those in know?
The article reports:
There are more than 70 million administrators and moderators running active groups, Facebook says. When asked how they’re vetting the qualifications of designated experts, a Facebook spokesperson said it’s “all up the discretion of the admin to designate experts who they believe are knowledgeable on certain topics.”
I think this means that humans identify experts. What if the human doing the identifying does not know anything about the “expertise” within another Facebooker?
Yeah, maybe give Oracle Beehive a jingle. Just a thought.
Stephen E Arnold, July 14, 2021
Facebook and Milestones for the Zuck
July 2, 2021
I read “Facebook Reaches $1 Trillion Valuation Faster Than Any Other Company.” The write up reports that the highly esteemed Facebook (WhatsApp and Instagram) have out performed Apple, the Google, the spaceship outfits, and Microsoft. The article reports:
No stranger to breaking records, Facebook has just achieved another: the social media giant’s market cap has exceeded $1 trillion for the first time, reaching the milestone faster than any other company in history.
What has caused this surge in “valuation”? The answer is revealed in “Judge Dismisses Gov’t Antitrust Lawsuits against Facebook.” This separate write up in a news service oh, so close to Microsoft’s headquarters, states:
A federal judge on Monday dismissed antitrust lawsuits brought against Facebook by the Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of state attorneys general, dealing a significant blow to attempts by regulators to rein in tech giants. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled Monday that the lawsuits were “legally insufficient” and didn’t provide enough evidence to prove that Facebook was a monopoly.
Concentration is good, it seems. For social media start ups, have you thought about issuing T shirts with the Zuck’s smiling face printed on them? You can update your Facebook page and do some Instagram posts. Don’t overlook WhatsApp as a way to spread the good news. About the T shirts I mean.
Stephen E Arnold, July 2, 2021
Facebook Reputation Glitch: Just a Misunderstanding or a Warning Signal?
June 1, 2021
I read “Facebook Battles Reputation Crisis in the Middle East.” Interesting but narrow. Why? I think the write up identifies an issue—a serious one at that. However the “crisis” extends beyond the Middle East. The write up has a narrow focus, but it identifies a critical weak spot for the Zuck machine.
Here’s a passage I noted:
Facebook is grappling with a reputation crisis in the Middle East, with plummeting approval rates and advertising sales in Arab countries, according to leaked documents obtained by NBC News. The shift corresponds with the widespread belief by pro-Palestinian and free speech activists that the social media company has been disproportionately silencing Palestinian voices on its apps – which include Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp – during this month’s Israel-Hamas conflict.
As US monopolies wrestle with the challenges of unfettered content flowing from equally free spirit users, Facebook cannot be friends with everyone. Don’t hit that like button automatically.
Facebook, however, is a monopolistic-type of operation which is a digital nation. The collision of the datasphere and the real world is going to test the precepts of Zuckland.
Are there real world consequences from this reputation glitch? Yes, and among them is the very significant risk that the ripples will spread. Can one contain ripples in a pond or the wave in a digital ocean? Maybe.
Stephen E Arnold, June 1, 2021
WhatsApp Slightly Less Onerous on Privacy Policy
May 28, 2021
WhatsApp, which Facebook acquired in 2014, issued a new privacy policy that gives its parent company control over user data. This is a problem for those who value their privacy. Originally, users had to accept the policy by May 15 or be booted off the service. After facing backlash, however, the company has decided on a slightly less heavy-handed approach, at least in India. The Android Police reports, “WhatsApp Will Progressively Kill Features Until Users Accept New Privacy Policy.” Writer Prahsam Parikh reveals:
“The Press Trust of India reported that the Facebook-owned messaging service won’t delete accounts of those individuals who do not accept the new privacy policy on May 15. However, the same source also confirms that users will be sent reminders about accepting over the next ‘several weeks.’ And in a statement given to Android Central, WhatsApp has confirmed that while it won’t terminate accounts immediately, users who don’t accept the new terms will have only ‘limited account functionality’ available to them until they do. In the short term, that means losing access to your chat list, but you will still be able to see and respond to notifications as well as answer voice and video calls. However, after a few weeks of that, WhatsApp will then switch off all incoming notifications and calls for your account, effectively rendering it useless. The decision not to fully enforce the deadline seems to be in reaction to the stern stance that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) in India took against the company. Earlier this year, the ministry filed a counter-affidavit in the high court to prevent WhatsApp from going ahead with the privacy policy update.”
Wow, Facebook really wants that data. We think Facebook will have to relax its “new” rules in order to prevent Signal, Telegram, and Threema from capturing disaffected WhatsApp users.
Cynthia Murrell, May 28, 2021
Whistleblower Discusses Fake Account Infestation at Facebook
May 25, 2021
While working at Facebook, Sophie Zhang followed her conscience where her managers and peers failed to go. Naturally, this initiative eventually got her fired. AP News shares the data scientist’s perspective in, “Insider Q&A: Sophie Zhang, Facebook Whistleblower.” Reporter Barbara Ortutay introduces the interview:
“Sophie Zhang worked as a Facebook data scientist for nearly three years before was she fired in the fall of 2020. On her final day, she posted a 7,800-word memo to the company’s internal forum. … In the memo, first published by Buzzfeed, she outlined evidence that governments in countries like Azerbaijan and Honduras were using fake accounts to influence the public. Elsewhere, such as India and Ecuador, Zhang found coordinated activity intended to manipulate public opinion, although it wasn’t clear who was behind it. Facebook, she said, didn’t take her findings seriously. Zhang’s experience led her to a stark conclusion: ‘I have blood on my hands.’ Facebook has not disputed the facts of Zhang’s story but has sought to diminish the importance of her findings.”
If you have not yet seen excerpts from the eye-opening memo or read the full story, we suggest checking out the Buzzfeed and/or Guardian links Ortutay supplies above. In the AP interview, Zhang adds some details. For example, she was apparently fired because the work she did to protect citizens around the world was interfering with her official, low-level duties. She blamed herself, however, for not doing more because she was the only one seeking out and taking down these fake accounts. No one around her seemed to give a hoot unless an outside agency contacted Facebook about a specific page. She states:
“I talked about it internally … but people couldn’t agree on whose job it was to deal with it. I was trying desperately to find anyone who cared. I talked with my manager and their manager. I talked to the threat intelligence team. I talked with many integrity teams. It took almost a year for anything to happen.”
It was actually remarkable how many fake accounts Zhang was able to eliminate on her own, but one employee could only do so much. Especially without the support of higher ups. Though Facebook pays lip service to the issue, Zhang insists they would be doing more if they were really prioritizing the problem. We note this exchange:
“Q: Facebook says it’s taking down many inauthentic accounts and has sought to dismiss your story.
A: So this is a very typical Facebook response, by which I mean that they are not actually answering the question. Suppose your spouse asks you, ‘Did you clean up the dishes yesterday?’ And you respond by saying, ‘I always prioritize cleaning the dishes. I make sure to clean the dishes. I do not want there to be dirty dishes.’ It’s an answer that may make sense, but it does not actually answer that question.”
Indeed.
Cynthia Murrell, May 19, 2021
Facebook Tracking: Why Secrets Are Important to Some Digital Players
May 12, 2021
I read a headline which I assume was crafted to shock; to wit: “Analytics Suggest 96% of of Users Leave App Tracking Disabled in iOS 14.5.” The headline did not surprise me, nor did the fact that four out of 100 in the sample said, “Sure, follow, listen, and watch me 24×7.” The write up states:
According to the latest data from analytics firm Flurry, just 4% of ?iPhone? users in the U.S. have actively chosen to opt into app tracking after updating their device to iOS 14.5. The data is based on a sampling of 2.5 million daily mobile active users.
The article points out:
Facebook, a vociferous opponent of ATT [app tracking tech], has already started attempting to convince users that they must enable tracking in iOS 14.5 if they want to help keep Facebook and Instagram “free of charge.” That sentiment would seem to go against the social network’s earlier claim that ATT will have a “manageable” impact on its business and could even benefit Facebook in the long term.
Several observations:
- Secrets work. Making certain behaviors “known” undermines a number of capabilities; for example, revenue, trust, and data collection
- iPhone users appear to be interested in keeping some of their mobile centric behaviors within their span of control. (What about iPhone users in China and Russia? Alas, the write up did not include those data.)
- Processing items of data across time and within the monitored datasphere may make it difficult for some entities to perform in the manner they did prior to the introduction of ATT.
Net net: Flowing information erodes certain beliefs, social constructs, and processes. Once weakened by bits, these beliefs, constructs, and processes may not be reconstructable. The Apple ATT may have unforeseen consequences.
Stephen E Arnold, May 12, 2021
Online: Finding Info Is Easy or Another Dark Pattern?
May 7, 2021
When I attended meetings about online search, I found considerable amusement in comments like “Online makes finding information easy” and “I am an expert at finding information on Google.” Hoots for sure.
I read “How to Find a Buyer or Seller’s Facebook Profile on Marketplace.” According to the write up, at some time in the recent past “finding” information about a person offering something for sale on Facebook Marketplace was easy. Since I have never used Facebook Marketplace, I can accept the facile use of the word “easy” as something a normal thumbtyping Facebooker could do. Some investigators probably had the knowledge required to figure out who was pitching a product allegedly stolen from a bitcoin billionaire.
The write up identifies about nine steps in the process to navigate from a listing’s “seller handle” to the vendor’s Facebook profile. I thought this online search was easy.
I can think of several reasons why Facebook makes finding information difficult with weird words and wonky icons. (One of these was described as a “carrot” in the write up. A carrot? What’s up, Mark?
It is possible that Facebook wants to accrue clicks and stickiness. Since I don’t use Facebook, I am not a good judge of how sticky the site is. I do know that some individuals in government agencies think a lot about Facebook and the information the company’s databases contain.
Another possibility is that Facebook wants to make it more difficult for stalkers, miscreants, and investigators to move from a product listing to the seller information. The happy face side of me says, “Facebook cares about its users.” The frowny face says, “Facebook wants to make life difficult for anyone to get useful information because accountability is a bad thing.”
A third possibility is that Facebook’s engineers are just incompetent.
Net net: Finding information online is easy as long as one works at the organization with the data and the person doing the looking has root. Others get an opportunity to explore a Dark Pattern. Fun. Helpful even.
Stephen E Arnold, May 7, 2021
The Addiction Analogy: The Cancellation of Influencer Rand Fishkin
May 5, 2021
Another short item. I read a series of tweets which you may be able to view at this link. The main idea is that an influencer was to give a talk about marketing. The unnamed organizer did not like Influencer Fishkin’s content. And what was that content? Information and observations critical of the outstanding commercial enterprises Facebook and Google. The apparent points of irritation were Influencer Fishkin’s statements to the effect that the two estimable outfits (Facebook and Google) were not “friendly, in-your-corner partners.” Interesting, but for me that was only part of the story.
Here’s what I surmised from the information provided by Influencer Fishkin:
- Manipulation is central to the way in which these two lighthouse firms operate in the dark world of online
- Both venerated companies function without consequences for their actions designed to generated revenue
- The treasured entities apply the model and pattern to “sector after sector.”
Beyond Search loves these revered companies.
But there is one word which casts a Beijing-in-a-sandstorm color over Influencer Fishkin’s remarks. And that word is?
Addiction
The idea is that these cherished organizations use their market position (which some have described as a monopoly set up) and specific content to make it difficult for a “user” of the “free” service to kick the habit.
My hunch is that neither of these esteemed commercial enterprises wants to be characterized as purveyor of gateway drugs, digital opioids, or artificers who put large monkeys on “users” backs.
That’s not a good look.
Hence, cancellation is a pragmatic fix, is it not?
Stephen E Arnold, May 5, 2021
Facebook: Everlasting Delight!
April 29, 2021
We are still aghast at the carelessness that allowed hackers to access user information for about a billion accounts between Facebook and LinkedIn. The Facebook breach, at least, has spawned a couple of interesting side stories. First we learned that CEO Mark Zuckerberg uses chat app Signal, a competitor to Facebook’s WhatsApp. We also found out the Facebook breach has forced “Have I Been Pwned” to rework its search functionality, at least for this particular data set.
The folks at Signal must be delighted. India Today reports that the “Leaked Phone Number of Mark Zuckerberg Reveals He Is on Signal.” While both Signal and WhatsApp boast end-to-end encryption, there have been issues with what Facebook does with the back-up files. From Facebook’s point of view, this tidbit about Zuckerberg comes at an unfortunate juncture. Writer Yasmin Ahmed points out:
“The news comes at a time when many users outraged with Facebook-owned WhatsApp’s new privacy policy are moving to seemingly safer alternatives like Signal. WhatsApp’s contentious new terms of service are slated to come into effect from May 2021. The updated privacy policy changes how Facebook can access users’ chats with business accounts.”
Oh dear. In another tangent, we are interested in this change prompted by the leak—“The Facebook Phone Numbers Are Now Searchable in Have I Been HYPERLINK “https://www.troyhunt.com/the-facebook-phone-numbers-are-now-searchable-in-have-i-been-pwned/”Pwned,” explains the security check site’s own Troy Hunt. It is good to see a site adapt its search to evolving circumstances. But why was the site not already searchable by phone number? Hunt explains:
“I’d never planned to make phone numbers searchable and indeed this User Voice idea sat there for over 5 and a half years without action. My position on this was that it didn’t make sense for a bunch of reasons:
1. Phone numbers appear far less frequently than email addresses
2. They’re much harder to parse out of most data sets (i.e. I can’t just regex them out like email addresses)
3. They very often don’t adhere to a consistent format across breaches and countries of originPlus, when the whole modus operandi of HIBP is to literally answer that question – Have I Been Pwned? – so long as there are email addresses that can be searched, phone numbers don’t add a whole lot of additional value. The Facebook data changed all that.”
Indeed. While more than 500 million phone numbers were stolen, only a few million addresses went along for the ride. Until Hunt changed the search, he writes, over 99% of the many people checking on his site received a false negative. He was able to easily parse most phone numbers from well-formatted files in the breached data and normalize their format with a country code. The caveat—this fix only applies to this breach, unless or until a similar batch of phone numbers is harvested. See the post for the technical reasons that making phone-number searches standard is unworkable for the free resource.
Cynthia Murrell, April 29, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
