Does Samsung Sense a Crack in the Googleplex?
May 6, 2022
It seems someone does not have much confidence in the Google. SamMobile suggests, “If Google Can’t Do Android Anymore, Maybe it Should Be Left to Samsung.” Writer Adnan F. begins by observing how valuable Android is to Google, delivering a steady stream of users to its other (Android default) services like Gmail, YouTube, and Maps. He also concedes the company updates the OS regularly, but is underwhelmed by its efforts. Perhaps, he suggests, Google has been lured into a sense of complacency by its distinct lack of competitors for the not-Apple mobile device market. This is where, to Adnan F.’s mind, Samsung could come in. He writes:
“Samsung has clearly taken the lead in advancing the cause of Android, perhaps more so than Google itself. Then again, Samsung does happen to be the largest global vendor of Android devices. It may rely on Google for the OS but there’s no question that it’s Google that needs Samsung and not the other way around. Often it feels that a light bulb goes off at Google whenever it sees Samsung create a feature that Android should have had. Then it wastes no time in copying that feature. Here’s an example and here’s another, and in the immortal words of DJ Khaled, another one. Let’s not forget that several Android 12 features are copied from One UI and even from Samsung’s outdated TouchWiz UI!. Samsung’s One UI features are also being copied for Android 13. Today, Google went ahead and copied Samsung’s Smart Switch app. It’s as if Google is sitting in an exam and looking over the shoulder of the smart kid – that’s Samsung in this scenario – hoping to copy its work. Where it should have been Google taking the lead, it’s Samsung that’s influencing some of the major feature additions to Android.”
It is not an unreasonable suggestion. As the write-up points out, the two companies are close partners and have collaborated before. But would Google ever hand over the Android reins, even to a trusted friend? We are not so sure.
Cynthia Murrell, May 6, 2022
Google: Dark Patterns? Nope Maybe Clumsy Patterns?
May 5, 2022
Ah, the Google. Each day more interesting information about the business processes brightens my day. I just read a post by vort3 called “Google’s Most Ridiculous Trick to Force Users into Adding Phone Number.” The interesting segment of the post is the list of “things that are wrong” caught my attention. Here are several of the items:
You can’t generate app specific passwords if you don’t have 2FA enabled. That’s some artificial limitation made to force you into adding phone number to your account.
You can’t use authenticator app to enable 2FA. I have no idea why SMS which is the least secure way to send information is a primary method and authenticator app which can be set up by scanning QR from the screen without sending any information at all is «secondary» and can only be used after you give your phone number.
Nowhere in announcements or help pages or in the Google Account interface they tell you that you can’t generate app passwords if you don’t have 2FA. The button is just missing and you wouldn’t even know it should be there unless you search on the internet.
Nowhere they tell you the only way to enable 2FA is to link your account to your phone number or to your android/iphone device, the options are just not there.
Vort3 appears to not too Googley. Others chime into Vort3’s post. Some of the comments are quite negative; for example, JQPABC123 said:
The fastest way to convince me *not* to use a product is to attach a “Google” label to it. Nothing Google has to offer justifies the drawbacks.
Definitely a professional who might struggle in a Google business process interview. By this I mean, asking “What process?” is a downer.
The fix, according to CraftyGuy is, “Stop… using Google.”
The Beyond Search team thinks the Google is the cat’s pajamas because these are not Dark Patterns, they seem to be clumsy.
Stephen E Arnold, May 5, 2022
How Apps Use Your Data: Just a Half Effort
April 28, 2022
I read an quite enthusiastic article called “Google Forces Developers to Provide Details on How Apps Use Your Data.” The main idea is virtue signaling with one of those flashing airport beacons. These can be seen through certain types of “info fog,” just not today’s info fog. The digital climate has a number of characteristics. One is obfuscation.
The write up states:
… the Data safety feature is now on the Google Play Store and aims to bolster security by providing users details on how an app is using their information. Developers are required to complete this section for their apps by July 20, and will need to provide updates if they change their data handling practices, too.
That sounds encouraging. Google’s been at the data harvesting combine controls for more than two decades. Now app developers have to provide information about their use of an app user’s data and presumably flip on the yellow fog lights for what the folks who have access to those data via an API or a bulk transfer are doing. Amusing thought forced regulation after 240 months on the info highway.
However, what app users do with data is half of the story, maybe less. The interesting question to me is, “What does Google do with those data?”
The Data Safety initiative does not focus on the Google. Data Safety shifts the attention to app developers, presumably some of whom have crafty ideas. My interest is Google’s own data surfing; for example, ad diffusion, and my fave Snorkelization and synthetic “close enough for horseshoes” data. Real data may be to “real” for some purposes.
After a couple of decades, Google is taking steps toward a data destination. I just don’t know where that journey is taking people.
Stephen E Arnold, April 28, 2022
NCC April A Golden Oldie: YouTube Will Do Its Bestest
April 28, 2022
As tech companies receive continued pressure to contain misinformation on their platforms, MakeUseOf ponders, “Is YouTube Doing Enough to Tackle Misinformation?” The short answer—no. After all, removing content means removing ad revenue. Writer Aya Masango observes:
“Although YouTube has been working to tackle misinformation, the company realizes the importance of evolving to ensure that it stays ahead of those measures and that it continues to remain effective in that pursuit. And although that is the case, YouTube is still facing some challenges in tackling misinformation. In a YouTube blog post, the company’s Chief Product Officer, Neal Mohan, admitted that the platform is still struggling with thwarting misinformation before it goes viral, addressing cross-platform sharing of misinformation, and advancing misinformation efforts on a global scale. As noted by Mohan, ‘… As misinformation narratives emerge faster and spread more widely than ever, our approach needs to evolve to keep pace.’ This shows that YouTube is aware that it still has a long way to go in its efforts to tackle the spread of misinformation on its platform.”
Since Mohan is so interested in doing the right thing, Masango offers three suggestions for him and his company: First she advises partnering with independent fact checkers, pointing to an informative open letter from The International Fact-Checking Network. The company should also set up native teams in foreign lands, where YouTube’s misinformation management is especially weak, and bring local expertise to bear. Finally, the write-up calls for banning channels that persist in peddling misinformation. Since that would mean fewer adds sold, however, we suspect the company considers that obvious measure a last resort.
Cynthia Murrell, April 28, 2022
Dinging AMP after Years of Unknowing: Timely Marketing Perhaps?
April 22, 2022
In one of my Google monographs, I included a diagram showing Google as a digital walled garden. The idea is that a Google user would access the Google version of the Internet via Google. I documented this by referencing some Google patents which few read or bothered to match to Google’s vision for the really big new thing: The mobile Internet.
The Google rolled out AMP with some magic PR dust explaining that speed was good. I laughed. Yep, speed is good, but the shaping of content and funneling those data into, through, and out of the Google was way better. If you look at the world through wonky Google PR sparkles, good for you.
I read “Why Brave and DuckDuckGo are cracking down on Google’s AMP.” The key point in the write up is that these steps have been taken seven years after the AMP roll out and more than 15 years after I wrote The Google Legacy, Google Version 2.0, and Google: The Digital Gutenberg. Speedy for sure.
The write up states with the attendant “wow, this is such a bold move” prose:
Brave published a blog post saying it’s releasing a new feature called De-AMP that’ll redirect you to the publisher’s original page, instead of an AMP-based link. The feature is available in Nightly and Beta versions of the browser, and will be enabled by default in the upcoming 1.38 Desktop and Android versions. The firm said it’s working on porting these functions to its iOS browser at the moment. A day later, privacy-focused search engine DuckDuckGo posted on Twitter that its apps and extensions will redirect users to publishers’ non-AMP pages when they click on links in search results.
Translation: Avoid the Google version of the Internet. I could offer some examples of how Google reshapes on the fly certain types of content, but I am confident that you, gentle reader, are familiar with this mechanism, right?
Google does many interesting things? There is the quaint notion of quality and Google’s view of quality. There is the significance of time metadata and Google’s version of time in general and time metadata in particular. And more? You bet. But everyone knows these mechanisms, right? Absolutely because most people meet tell me they are search experts.
Net net: This strikes me as marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, April 22, 2022
Google: Visits to Paris Likely to Increase
April 22, 2022
In the unlikely publication for me, Adweek published an interesting story: “French Sites Ordered to Stop Using Google Analytics Is Just the Beginning.” That title seems ominous. The election excitement is building, but the actions of Commission Nationale de l’informatique et des Libertés is likely to grind forward regardless of who wins what. The Adweek write up states:
…the French data watchdog—Commission Nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)—ordered three French websites to stop using audience analytics site Google Analytics, deeming the site to be illegal under the General Data Protection Regulation.
The article adds:
This means that companies based in Europe using Google Analytics—which reads cookies that are dropped on peoples’ browsers when they visit a site to gauge whether they are a new or returning user—were shipping people’s personal information to the U.S.
Are Google Analytics a problem for CNIL? Probably not for the agency, but the CNIL seems poised to become a bit of a sticky wicket for Googzilla. After years of casual hand slapping, an era of RBF (really big fines) may be beginning. Google executives might find that CNIL can make a call to a fancy Parisian hotel and suggest that the Googlers be given rooms with a less salubrious location, tired decorations, and questionable plumbing. Mais oui! C’est domage.
On a positive note, Google is taking action itself. Privacy, security, fraud — well, sort of. “Google Sues Scammer for Puppy Fraud” reports:
The complaint … accuses Nche Noel of Cameroon of using a network of fake websites, Google Voice phone numbers, and Gmail accounts to pretend to sell purebred basset hound puppies to people online.
And the conduit for these alleged untoward actions? Google. Now how did Google’s smart software overlook fake websites, issue Google Voice numbers, and permit Gmail accounts used for the alleged bad puppy things? Nope. AARP connected with Googzilla. Yeah, smart software? Nope.
Stephen E Arnold, April 22, 2022
Useful TikTok History: An Honest Mirror
April 21, 2022
I rejected an example of TikTok psychological nudging for my upcoming National Cyber Crime Conference. The example focuses on what is called “wlw.” If you are not familiar with this three letter designation, you can test it in a number of apps popular with young people. One interesting application of the designator is YouTube. A young person can enter “wlw” and quickly be offered a playlist of “women loving women” videos. YouTube repackaging TikTok videos? No big deal.
The write up explains the logic of TikTok too:
“Chinese tech culture is not the enemy. Chinese tech culture is an honest mirror.”
The write up “TikTok’s Parent, ByteDance, Made Fake Accounts with Content Scraped from Instagram and Snapchat, Former Employees Say.” The essay does not talk about “wlw” or related videos. What it does explain is the building blocks of the TikTok mechanism for identifying magnetic content and how that magnetic content can be used to keep users engaged.
I spotted several interesting statements in the write up; to wit:
How to train for maximum American user appeal: “the scraped content was used to train ByteDance’s powerful “For You” personalization algorithm on US-based content so that it would better reflect the preferences of US users.”
The role of the mimic tactic: “an employee lays out the reasons that the company used “fake accounts” and scraped content; among them were that the accounts could be used to test which content performed best on the platform, and that current users could mimic the scraped content to improve their own popularity.”
Jazzing creators: “…the company manipulated like and video view counts displayed in the app to make creators believe they were more popular than they were.”
The influence of the US tech cowboy culture: “”The US public and US media often attribute unethical growth strategies practiced by Chinese tech companies to ‘Chinese tech culture,’ when very often those tactics are directly copied from FAANG companies…”
TikTok’s current posture: “While we disagree with the assertions, rather than go through lengthy litigation, we’d like to focus our efforts on building a safe and joyful experience for the TikTok community.”
Interesting insight into TikTok, an online service which some in Sillycon Valley think is innocuous, good clean fun, and not set up to nudge young people’s behavior. “Wlw”? No big deal, right? YouTube emulates TikTok; TikTok emulates American models. Synergistic indeed.
Stephen E Arnold, April 21, 2022
Google: Struggles with Curation
April 21, 2022
Should Google outsource Play store content curation to Amazon’s Mechanical Turk or Fiverr?
Sadly, one cannot assume that because an app is available through Google Play it is safe. Engadget reports, “Google Pulls Apps that May Have Harvested Data from Millions of Android Devices.” Writer S. Dent reveals:
“Google has pulled dozens of apps used by millions of users after finding that they covertly harvested data, The Wall Street Journal has reported. Researchers found weather apps, highway radar apps, QR scanners, prayer apps and others containing code that could harvest a user’s precise location, email, phone numbers and more. It was made by Measurement Systems, a company that’s reportedly linked to a Virginia defense contractor that does cyber-intelligence and more for US national-security agencies. It has denied the allegations.”
Naturally. We find it interesting that, according to the report, the firm was after data mainly from the Middle East, Central and Eastern Europe and Asia. The write-up continues:
“The code was discovered by researchers Serge Egelman from UC Berkeley and the University of Calgary’s Joel Reardon, who disclosed their findings to federal regulators and Google. It can ‘without a doubt be described as malware,’ Egelman told the WSJ. Measurement Systems reportedly paid developers to add their software development kits (SDKs) to apps. The developers would not only be paid, but receive detailed information about their user base. The SDK was present on apps downloaded to at least 60 million mobile devices. One app developer said it was told that the code was collecting data on behalf of ISPs along with financial service and energy companies.”
So how did these apps slip through the vetting process? Maybe the app review methods are flawed, not applied rigorously, not applied consistently. Or perhaps they are simply a bit of PR hogwash? We don’t know but the question is intriguing. Google has removed the apps from the Play store but of course they still lurk on millions of devices. In its email to the Wall Street Journal, Measurement Systems not only insists its apps are innocent, but it also asserts it is “not aware” of any connection between it and US defense contractors.
And what about the quantumly supreme Google smart software?
Cynthia Murrell, April 21, 2022
Google Web Search Quality
April 20, 2022
The cat is out of the bag. The Reddit threat “Does Anyone Else Think Google Search Quality Has Gone Downhill Fast?” provides an interesting series of comments about “quality.”
The notion of “search quality” in the good old days involved gathering a corpus of text. The text was indexed using a system; for example, Smart or maybe Personal Bibliographic software. Test queries would be created in order to determine how the system displayed search results. The research minded person would then examine the corpus and determine if the result set returned the best matches. There are tricks those skilled in the art could use to make the test queries perform. One would calculate precision and recall. Bingo metrics. Now here’s the good part. Another search system would be used to index the content; for example, something interesting like the “old” Sagemaker, the mainframe fave IBM STAIRS III, or Excalibur. The performance of the second system would be compared to the first system. One would do this over time and generate precision and recall scores which could be compared. We used to use a corpus of Google patents, and I remember that Perfect Search (remember that one, gentle reader) outperformed a number of higher profile and allegedly more advanced systems.
I am not sure Reddit posts are into precision and recall, but the responses to the question about degradation of Google search quality is fascinating. Those posting are not too happy with what Google delivers and how the present day Googley search and retrieval system works. Thank you, Prabhakar Raghavan, former search wizard executive at Verity (wow, that was outstanding) and the individual who argued with a Bear Stearns’ managing director and me about how much better Yahoo’s semantic technology was that Google’s. Raghavan was at Yahooooo then and we know how wonderful Yahoo search was!)
Hewer’s a rundown of some of the issues identified in the Reddit thread:
- From PizzaInteraction: “always laugh when I enter like 4 search terms and all the results focus on just one of the terms.”
- Healthy-Contest-1605: “Every algorithm is being gamed to have their trash come out in top.”
- Cl0udSurfer: “the usual tricks like adding quotes around required words, or putting a dash in front of words that should be excluded don’t work anymore.”
Net net: This is the Verity-Yahoo trajectory. Precision and recall? Ho ho ho. What about disclosing when a source was indexed and updated? What about Boolean operators? What about making as much money as possible so one can go to a high school reunion and explain the wonderfulness one’s cleverness? What happened to Louis Monier, Sanjay Ghemawat, and the Backrub crowd?
Stephen E Arnold, April 20, 2022
The Google: What Is the Problem? We Protect Puppies?
April 19, 2022
I read a paywalled write up with the title “A Former Employee at Google’s AI Lab DeepMind Says the Firm Seems Obsessed with Saving ITs Own Reputation after She Went Public with Claims of Sexual Harassment and Assault.” No talk about puppies, which Google wants to save. Now that’s a headline which tells the story in my opinion. So rather than summarizing the rather troubling allegations in the write up, I want to call attention to the management aspects of this alleged misstep.
One key point is the speed with which the Google responds to employee inputs. The article points out that the whistle blower found that the Google moved slowly. Google wants Web sites to respond quickly. Management appears to have a different time scale if the allegations are accurate. The managerial review process was “drawn out.”
Another interesting item is that after a management shuffle, the new Top Googler at DeepMind admitted that the “case” was “complex.” That’s not surprising. It is quite difficult to figure out why a query like “search and retrieval” returns information about “information retrieval.” I do not want information about “information.” With a fundamental issue with providing on point results to a simple query about a topic of interest to a company providing Web search results, Google misses the mark. Has the company missed the mark with personnel lingo? I noted that the management lingo in use at the Google is P&C which stands for people and culture. What? Does this mean personnel?
And finally, the write up includes this anecdote about a certain mobile phone whiz at the Google:
The New York Times had reported that Google had “protected” senior executives accused of misconduct over the past decade, such as Android creator Andy Rubin. Rubin denied the claims. Google subsequently changed its policies on dealing with sexual harassment claims.
Management change. No mention of an attempted suicide, baby making in the legal department, or the Dr. Timnit Gebru matter.
Net net: The management methods in use at Google are, to use a favorite word of the Google founders, “interesting.” This word is, however, less compelling than harassment, sexual violence, self-harm, and similar terms which add zest to the interactions of a manager and an employee. Alleged interactions, of course. P&C does not appear to be an acronym for politically correct at the Google. I associate P&C with other words, which I am not comfortable mentioning. Puppies? I am okay with puppies. So is the GOOG.
Stephen E Arnold, April 19, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
