Ad Duopoly: Missing Some Points?
September 19, 2022
The newspaper disguised as a magazine published “The $300B Google Meta Advertising Duopoly Is Under Attack” is interesting. The write up is what I would expect from a couple of MBAs beavering away a blue chip consulting firm. If you are curious, read the story for which you will have to pay. The story sparked some comments on HackerNews. These are interesting and some of the comments contain more insightful information than the Under Attack write up itself. Here’s a few comments to illustrate this point:
- Sam Willis: To some extent I disagree with this, not that Google+Meta are under attack, but that the threat is coming from competitors. I’ve spent most of the last 10 years earning my living from an e-commerce business I own. The online advertising industry is unrecognisable from when we started. My thesis, in beef, is that the industries excessive uses of personalised data and tracking lead to increased regulation, and then a massive pivot to even more “AI” as a means to circumvent that (to some extent). The AI in the ad industry now, I believe, is detrimental to the advertiser. It’s now just one big black box, you put money in one side and get traffic out the other. The control and useful tracking (what actual search terms people are using, proper visible conversion tracking of an ad) is now almost non-existent. As an advertiser your livelihood is dependent on an algorithm, not skill, not intuition, not experience, not even track record. Facebook, Google and the rest of the industry were so driven by profit at all cost, and at the expense of long term thinking, they shot themselves in the foot. Advertisers are searching for alternatives, but they are all the same.
- Justin Baker 84: Usually people need to get ripped off a few times before they accept that fact that Google is no longer a good actor.
- Missedthecue: I get billed for so many accidental clicks.
- Heavyset: Google Knows Best™ and lack of real competition or regulation means they can do whatever they want.
- Prepend: I remember talking to some friends in Google and but estimated their error/fraud rate to be about 1/3 of ad revenue. But they have no motivation to fix it and no one outside Google has the data to tell.
- MichaelCollins: Organizations that are trying to do something disreputable or shameful (or just something that could be construed that way by a nontrivial portion of the population) often come up with sweet little lies about their motives that help their employees sleep better at night. It’s not about making money by serving ads, it’s about “organizing the world’s data”. It’s not about winning defense contracts to put military hardware into space, it’s about “colonizing mars to save humanity”. It’s not about printing money by getting poor people to sign up for 50,000% APR payday loans, it’s about “providing liquidity to undeserved communities”. Etc.
- Addicted: If you don’t pay Google/Facebook you’re absolutely screwed. You will lose no matter how good the product is. What this actually means is that now companies have to pay a Google/Meta tax simply to enter the playing field. And once they enter the playing field. And once you enter the playing field, the only winners will be the ones who pay them the highest amount of money. So a smaller business, which in the past could potentially use some ingenuity, or target a specific niche audience to get some traction and then build word of mouth and let the product do the talking, doesn’t even stand a chance now because they simply cannot differentiate themselves as your exposure is entirely dependent on how much money you give Google/Meta.
Dozens of useful comments appear in the HackerNews post. Worth scanning them in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, September 19, 2022
Meta: The Efflorescence of Zucking
September 19, 2022
Years ago a colleague of mine and I spent a couple of days with Pat Gunkel. Ah, you don’t know him? Depending on whom one asks, he was either an interesting person or a once-in-a-generation genius. I have in front of me a copy of “The Efflorescent World View.” (Want to buy a copy handed to me by Mr. Gunkel? Just write us at benkent2020 at yahoo dot com. It’s a collectible because only a few of Mr. Gunkel’s books are findable in our wonderful, search-tastic online world.) The image below shows what an actual Gunkel book from his office looks like:
I thought about Mr. Gunkel when I read “Meta Shares Plunged 14% This Week, Falling Close to Their Pandemic Low.” Mr. Gunkel’s method involved creating lists. Lots of lists. I think he would have found the challenge of cataloging Mr. Zuck’s impressive achievements; for example:
- The reference stock plunge
- Implementing an employee management technique in which employees learn that some of them should not be Zuckers
- The “make friends with your neighbors in Hawaii” actions
- The elimination of personal cubes and work spaces in Meta’s offices
- The renaming of the company to celebrate the billions invested in what eGame developers have been doing for — yeah, how long — for decades
- Thinking about charging for its unpopular clone of a really popular app. (Genius with a twist of Zuck? Yes!)
But what’s an “efflorescence”? Some may ask. I have a big fat book on the subject. Let me summarize: One might say a gradual flowering. Others might suggest that it represents a culmination.
My hunch is that the year 2022 marks the efflorescence of the Zuckbook, the knock off of TikTok, and the push to make WhatsApp a superapp for good and evil.
The efflorescence of Zucking. Too bad Mr. Gunkel is no longer with us to undertake this project. He was, I must say, very interesting.
Stephen E Arnold, September 19, 2022
Meta and Kids: Approach Costs $400 Million and Counting
September 15, 2022
I read that the lovable Facebook Instagram WhatsApp outfit has been fined $400 million. What is the charge? I know it seems like duplication, but the Metaverse believer has been struggling IRL (in real life). The issue is the firm’s “handling of children’s privacy settings on Instagram.”
“Meta Faces $402 Million EU Fine over Instagram’s Privacy Settings for Children” reports:
The fine stems from the photo sharing app’s privacy settings on accounts run by children.
Meta will loose a flock of solicitors before writing a check.
My thought is that some GenZ person should write a version of Ulysses. Instead of a geezer wandering around, the protagonist could be Mr. Zuckerberg. Imagine the literary references possible. The charming Donatien Alphonse François and the detail oriented Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing, among others could populate the new work. Dump James Joyce’s lame allusions and get with the program.
It is possible that the new Ulysses could span several 1,000 page volumes, include hyperlinks to Instagram videos, links to Facebook pages about dance classes and playground equipment, and recycle some really delightful WhatsApp messages.
I find legal disputes semi interesting. Those involving US big technology firms with ideals about creating a really really better world can be a tad tedious tedious.
The information about financial damages is, on the other hand, amusing to a company which probably spends more on off site meetings in a single month. Why not slap a couple more zeros on that fine?
Stephen E Arnold, September 15, 2022
Facebook Wants to Help Wikipedia with Factoid Accuracy
September 12, 2022
Yes, Facebook is an arbiter of truth.
Researchers have a love-hate relationship with Wikipedia. They love that it is a constantly updated, digital encyclopedia with quick search and reference tools, but hate its inaccuracies. SinguarlityHub discusses how Facebook wants to change Wikipedia’s unreliability: “Meta Is Building An AI To Fact-Check Wikipedia-All 6.5 Million Articles.”
Wikipedia’s editors wrote: “The online encyclopedia does not consider itself to be reliable as a source and discourages readers from using it in academic or research settings.” Most basic information on Wikipedia is true, but it is good to double-check information, but most people do not do that. Facebook armed with its new Meta facade is working on an AI to verify all of Wikipedia’s information.
The AI would fact-check the information in the articles, but it works differently than expected:
“Meta’s model will “understand” content not by comparing text strings and making sure they contain the same words, but by comparing mathematical representations of blocks of text, which it arrives at using natural language understanding (NLU) techniques. What we have done is to build an index of all these web pages by chunking them into passages and providing an accurate representation for each passage,’ Fabio Petroni, Meta’s Fundamental AI Research tech lead manager, told Digital Trends. ‘That is not representing word-by-word the passage, but the meaning of the passage. That means that two chunks of text with similar meanings will be represented in a very close position in the resulting n-dimensional space where all these passages are stored.’”
Thankfully the AI’s learning dataset of four million Wikipedia citations is cleaner and better than what other AI have learned from in the past. The dataset is also constantly being updated. The developers are also teaching the AI how to distinguish a reliable source from a bad one, i.e. a scientific paper vs. a conspiracy theory article.
The Meta team said no one has used AI to verify Wikipedia’s information before. It is great that Facebook is doing the world a favor by fact-checking Wikipedia, but what will Facebook correct in the Facebook Wikipedia information?
Whitney Grace, September 12, 2022
Meta: Grade School Behavior?
September 9, 2022
Despite being the domain of Baby Boomers and conspiracy theorists, Facebook is still a powerful tech company. Facebook is not afraid to sell out its users despite proclamations of loving support, but Apple Insider discusses its hypocritical behavior: “Facebook Is fine When Punishing Others Financially, But Cries When Others Do It To Them.”
Zuckerberg and his company processes behaviors similar to an elementary school bully: it acts big and tough, but when it is confronted and injured Facebook runs away crying. Facebook is acting like the aforementioned bully, because Apple has affected its profits. Apple changed its privacy policies, thus preventing Facebook from harvesting dollars from user data.
Despite Facebook claiming it does not sell data, it does. Apple added the Apple App Tracking Transparency to mobile devices, so users can prevent third-party Web sites (i.e. Facebook) from sharing data. Facebook did not like that, so Zuckerberg threatened to take Apple to court, then changed his mind. He decided to ruin other companies’ bottom lines to save his own. Facebook released data that showed users are reading less, so the company will not pay publishers for news articles.
This has led large media companies to fire writers and switch over to video production:
“But Facebook had exaggerated its figures by between 150% and 900%. Facebook denies this, but it later settled a lawsuit brought by advertisers over the issue. Facebook paid out $40 million then, but some publishers who had pivoted to video simply could not move back and did not recover. While there are forces beyond Facebook that contributed to this, the University of North Carolina said that even before the coronavirus, 20 newspaper businesses were closing every month.”
Facebook has now turned to VR, but is riding on the backs of creators to drive funding for the platform. Facebook was critical of Apple’s 30% commission fee from its app store purchases, so when Apple discovered Facebook’s Meta fees they had to say something:
“’Now — Meta seeks to charge those same creators significantly more than any other platform,’[said Apple Senior Director of Corporate Communications Fred Sainz.] ‘[Meta’s] announcement lays bare Meta’s hypocrisy. It goes to show that while they seek to use Apple’s platform for free, they happily take from the creators and small businesses that use their own.’”
Would a neutral observer use the word “hypocritical” to describe some Meta actions? Sure, and may add the term “zucker squeeze.”
Whitney Grace, September 4, 2022
Facebook: Number One Again in Most Negatively Reviewed Apps List
September 6, 2022
I suppose I should feel sorry for Meta or the Zuckbook. Darn, I keep getting confused about what to call the college drop out’s effort to bring everyone together. Facebook — despite getting cored by Apple, the privacy outfit — has formed a coalition of the disgruntled if I understand a recent report from Decluttr. (Why not spell the company’s name DKlutr? Make it even easier to recall the url?)
You can find the league table and the leader in negative comments in “The 100+ Apps Americans Love to Complain About, Ranked.” I have decided to stifle my desire to raise questions about methodology and the claptrap taught in Statistics 101. That is a waste of my time because who really cares.
Let’s go with the Number One in negatives.
The write up says:
Facebook: Gets a thumbs down from users…. Facebook takes the crown for having the highest number of one start reviews. 61 percent of the social media app’s 1.25 million total reviews happen to be a one start rating! At present, on the [Apple] App Store Facebook has a mediocre 2.2 start rating. But why? The social media app has often taken center stage in the midst of bad press for its privacy concerns and unfair censorship. In addition to this, Facebook’s confusing interface and navigation settings have left users feeling less than satisfied.
The explanation strikes me as ignoring a few other factors which may contribute to the positive negativeness; for instance:
- The media coverage of the Zuckster’s vision for the future of digital content. (Hey, that avatar was quite nifty in my opinion.)
- The shift to TikTok. I know that Facebook and Google both suggest TikTok is not big deal. If that were true, why are these estimable icons of things go better with technology copying TikTok at this instant?
- Facebook has become a haven for old people like me. I think one of my team created a Facebook persona based on one of my deceased boxers. Between those who live in fear of missing information about a grandchild and accounts anchored in non human spoofdom, why not go elsewhere for community?
Net net: Facebook may be positioning itself to beat MySpace’s record for achieving cultural irrelevance. You know what that means? Yes, another record.
Stephen E Arnold, September 6, 2022
Meta: Another Moment of Adulting
September 6, 2022
I spotted this story in the usually understated online publication Variety: “Instagram Removes Pornhub’s Account.” The subject is a difficult one to discuss in some social situations. I would not bring it up in most business meetings. I do address CSAM and related topics in my lectures to law enforcement and intelligence professionals, but I try to keep the examples in terms of methods for identifying ultimate domain owners, geolocations of images and videos, etc.
Not Variety.
The publication states:
Instagram has suspended Pornhub’s widely followed account on the social platform. Before the sex site’s account was removed from Instagram, Pornhub had 13.1 million followers and more than 6,200 posts. Reps for Meta, Instagram’s parent company, did not respond to a request for comment.
Why?
How about this paragraph:
On its Instagram account, Pornhub shared no pornographic videos and images. However, it had “directly promoted pornography” and featured videos like “Next Career Goal” encouraging people to become pornography performers, according to Dawn Hawkins, CEO of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. The NCOSE had been among a group of advocates that has lobbied Instagram to remove Pornhub. “Instagram is courageously choosing to stop partnering with Pornhub, and it is time for all corporate entities to follow its example,” Hawkins said.
Are examples of adulting “courageous” in the context of Meta (Facebook)?
I suppose to some people. For me, this is another example of high tech management taking steps to deliver PR in the hopes of improving one’s image.
Now what about other types of content on Meta properties; specifically, images and messages about activities which are possibly illegal and pose risks to certain individuals.
Consistent, rigorous adulting — not random acts of belated management action — strike me as showmanship. Hence, Variety’s coverage?
Stephen E Arnold, September 6, 2022
Fun Zuckbook Fact: TikTok Content Is Really Popular on Facebook
September 5, 2022
I read “It Sure Must Sting for TikToks to Be the Some of the Most Viewed Links on Facebook.” The article is quite interesting, and I want to highlight it because it reveals an interesting facet of online behavior.
The write up points out:
In its newly-released second quarter “Widely Viewed Content Report,” which focuses on U.S. content that appears in users’ feeds, Meta reported that TikTok.com—literally, just the link to the domain itself—accounted for 35.9 million views in users’ feeds. TikTok also made it into Facebook’s most widely viewed domains, where it took the fourth spot, garnering 108 million views.
If accurate, this is like buying a Wall Street Journal for business news and finding that 20 percent or more of the “content” was Google ads for Alphabet services. Where’s the news? one might ask. Well, the presence of the Google full page advertisements is the news in my opinion. But the analogy is imperfect because Facebook’s users are promoting TikTok for free!
I found this statement both interesting and amusing:
… a good chunk of the content being viewed on Facebook is reposted stuff from somewhere else, yesterday’s tired memes. (I’m not talking about posts from your high school friends or your Aunt Dolores, but rather the videos, media, information, etc.) This was echoed by Technology Review, which also noted that the content on Facebook is very spammy.
Observation:
- Facebook is promoting its users to use TikTok… inadvertently.
- New, interesting content is appearing on TikTok. Does this mean Facebook is subliminally suggestion, “Hey, go directly to TikTok and get this stuff in real time?”
- TikTok may be allegedly China-linked but the firm has lawyers. Is this reposting functioning as a stream of useful data and setting up Meta for a copyright allegation of improper reuse?
I am not sure is “must sting” captures what this situation causes. Kidney stone, colonoscopy, or something similar.
Stephen E Arnold, September 5, 2022
Facebook: A Tipping Point and Meta Math
September 2, 2022
I am not going to recycle the financial analysts’ reports about Facebook revenue and “profit.” Nor will I comment on Apple’s decapitation of certain Facebook money spinning. Instead I want to suggest that my research team and I have formulated the notion that Facebook is approaching or at its tipping point.
The evidence to support this fanciful idea is sparse, just two data points. After all, how quickly can a multi billion dollar dorm room dating app disappear when grandmas and grandpas use it to keep in touch with their middle aged “kids.” (Note that grandmas call their female friends “girls.” Amusing indeed.)
Let’s look at the two items of data, quickly of course because this is a free collection of blog posts without advertising or sponsorship. That’s not something one can say about other creators’ outputs.
First, navigate to this story: “Why is Instagram Dying? We Asked 100 Gen Z Users to Compare TikTok vs. Reels.” The write up reveals the results of semi Gen X/Millennial survey. It is pointless to comment about sample size, sample selection, and methodology. Let’s just look at a single finding from the report assuming the modern day math is sort of accurate.
The key bar indicates (without numbers, for sure) that TikTok has better algorithms. The finding, which I assume to be like other Internet-centric content, super accurate. Facebook is not doing numerical recipes in a tasty way.
But Facebook’s switchblade drone move is the chatter about charging users for access to what was a “free” service. As Jack Benny used to say, “Yipe.” “Meta’s Plans to Charge for Facebook and Instagram Could Be the Final Nail in Their Coffins” states:
With Instagram’s currently experiencing a low point due to some unwelcome features, offering a paid option could be the last straw for many, and cause them to move to other social platforms.
What’s the second factor? I have pointed out that the estimable Zuckster is happy to chatter away with a sticker sales professional. However, “Zuckerberg Targeted by House GOP Eager to Probe Hunter Biden” suggests that the Zuckster will have an opportunity to use his famous line “Congressperson, that you for that question. I am sorry I don’t have knowledge of the information. I will send the data you request to your office.” Will the elected officials welcome with enthusiasm an explanation from the highly regarded former liberal democrat leader from the UK to explain how alleged messages from an investigative body were understood by those really social Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram professionals? Dulcet tones may not be what the Congressional representatives want to hear, but who knows? Maybe the British politician can handle the annoying questioners from the Colony.
Will one and one equal three? One is TikTok and two is the opportunity to answer questions about a slippery political topic. My hunch is that the added value to reach three (a truly wonderful prime) is the ad revenue. If this tipping point is reached the one plus one may resolve to mysterious negative sum.
Worth watching. The Zuck is entertaining to observe from my vantage point in rural Kentucky. It will be instructive to watch how the math resolves at the Meta tipping point. The one plus one could result in a new magic number called the zuckup. One plus one equals a zuckup. I am not sure it will find much favor in some cohorts, particularly among TikTok users.
Stephen E Arnold, September 2, 2022
Zuck Play: Joe Rogan In, Judge Chhabria Out
September 1, 2022
I read “Facebook to Settle Cambridge Analytica Suit, Save Zuckerberg From Testifying.” The title caught my attention for two reasons.
First, Mr. Zuckerberg, the affable wizard of Meta stuff, appeared on the Joe Rogan Podcast. On that podcast, he talked about many things. Since I don’t pay for podcasts, I have only second hand information. For me, the key point was he talked.
Joe Rogan stickers are available by clicking the tasteful image in this blog post. Beyond Search does not have a deal with either Mr. Rogan or Amazon. (I have very good reasons for this posture.)
Second, Mr. Zuckerberg did not talk to the legal eagles associated with the Cambridge Analytica matter in the Northern District of California court. To avoid having to talk, Mr. Zuckerberg’s estimable outfit paid money to the United Kingdom (500,000 pounds or about $560,000) and an unknown amount to the Northern District of California court.
I assume this image is the property of Meta and Facebook.
I wonder why.
Mr. Rogan’s background shares one thing with the Zuck: DNF or did not finish college. Mr. Rogan’s occupation according to the rock-solid Wikipedia is “Podcaster, color commentator, comedian, actor, and television presenter.”
The Honorable Vince Chhabria has an okay background too; to wit: A law degree from UC Berkeley, law clerk for Justice Stephen G Breyer, work at a so so law firm called Covington & Burling, and some work as the Deputy City Attorney for Government Litigation as the Co Chief of Appellate Litigation.
On the surface, it seems that the Zuck feels more comfortable with a color commentator than a college graduate who probably is not too good at martial arts, kite sailing, and social media.
My take: Mr. Meta is looking for an audience which may be slightly less skeptical of the wondrous “bring us together” methods of the social media quasi-monopolies.
That’s just a guess. Podcasting is probably less challenging to a Silicon Valley luminary than talking to some wonk who reads books, depositions, and legal documents. I wonder if the bright star of Meta picked up some of Mr. Rogan’s merchandise. I am thinking maybe these two trend setters swapped tchotchkes.
Stephen E Arnold, September 1, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
