More Googley Human Resource Goodness
November 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The New York Post reported that a Googler has departed. “Google News Executive Shailesh Prakash Resigns As Tensions with Publishers Mount: Report” states:
Shailesh Prakash had served as a vice president and general manager for Google News. A source confirmed that he is no longer with the company… The circumstances behind Prakash’s resignation were not immediately clear. Google declined to comment.
Google tapped a professional who allegedly rode in the Bezos bulldozer when the world’s second or third richest man in the world acquired the Washington Post. (How has that been going? Yeah.)
Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
Google has been cheerfully indexing content and selling advertising for decades. After a number of years of talking and allegedly providing some support to outfits collecting, massaging, and making “real” news available, the Google is facing some headwinds.
The article reports:
The Big Tech giant rankled online publishers last May after it introduced a feature called “AI Overviews” – which places an auto-generated summary at the top of its search results while burying links to other sites. News Media Alliance, a nonprofit that represents more than 2,200 publishers, including The Post, said the feature would be “catastrophic to our traffic” and has called on the feds to intervene.
News flash from rural Kentucky: The good old days of newspaper publishing are unlikely to make a comeback. What’s the evidence for this statement? Video and outfits like Telegram and WhatsApp deliver content to cohorts who don’t think too much about a print anything.
The article pointed out:
Last month, The Post exclusively reported on emails that revealed how Google leveraged its access to the Office of the US Trade Representative as it sought to undermine overseas regulations — including Canada’s Online News Act, which required Google to pay for the right to display news content.
You can read that report “Google Emails with US Trade Reps Reveal Cozy Ties As Tech Giant Pushed to Hijack Policy” if you have time.
Let’s think about why a member of Google leadership like Shailesh Prakash would bail out. Among the options are:
- He wanted to spend more time with his family
- Another outfit wanted to hire him to manage something in the world of publishing
- He failed in making publishers happy.
The larger question is, “Why would Google think that one fellow could make a multi-decade problem go away?” The fact that I can ask this question reveals how Google’s consulting infused leaders think about an entire business sector. It also provides some insight into the confidence of a professional like Mr. Prakash.
What flees sinking ships? Certainly not the lawyers that Google will throw at this “problem.” Google has money and that may be enough to buy time and perhaps prevail. If there aren’t any publishers grousing, the problem gets resolved. Efficient.
Stephen E Arnold, November 22, 2024
EU Docks Meta (Zuckbook) Five Days of Profits! Wow, Painful, Right?
November 19, 2024
No smart software. Just a dumb dinobaby. Oh, the art? Yeah, MidJourney.
Let’s keep this short. According to “real” news outfits “Meta Fined Euro 798 Million by EU Over Abusing Classified Ads Dominance.” This is the lovable firm’s first EU antitrust fine. Of course, Meta (the Zuckbook) will let loose its legal eagles to dispute the fine.
The Facebook money machine keeps on doing its thing. Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
What the “real” news outfits did not do is answer this question, “How long does it take the Zuck outfit to generate about $840 million US dollars?
The answer is that it takes that fine firm about five days to earn or generate the cash to pay a fine that would cripple many organizations. In case you were wondering, five days works out to about 1.4 percent of a calendar year.
I bet that fine will definitely force the Zuck to change its ways. I wish I knew how much the EU spent pursuing this particular legal matter. My hunch is that the number has disappeared into the murkiness of Brussels’ bookkeeping.
And the Zuckbook? It will keep on keeping on.
Stephen E Arnold, November 19, 2024
Fake Defined? Next Up Trust, Ethics, and Truth
October 28, 2024
Another post from a dinobaby. No smart software required except for the illustration.
This is a snappy headline: “You Can Now Get Fined $51,744 for Writing a Fake Review Online.” The write up states:
This mandate includes AI-generated reviews (which have recently invaded Amazon) and also encompasses dishonest celebrity endorsements as well as testimonials posted by a company’s employees, relatives, or friends, unless they include an explicit disclaimer. The rule also prohibits brands from offering any sort of incentive to prompt such an action. Suppressing negative reviews is no longer allowed, nor is promoting reviews that a company knows or should know are fake.
So, what does “fake” mean? The word appears more than 160 times in the US government document.
My hunch is that the intrepid US Federal government does not want companies to hype their products with “fake” reviews. But I don’t see a definition of “fake.” On page 10 of the government document “Use of Consumer Reviews”, I noted:
“…the deceptive or unfair commercial acts or practices involving reviews or other endorsement.”
That’s a definition of sort. Other words getting at what I would call a definition are:
- buying reviews (these can be non fake or fake it seems)
- deceptive
- false
- manipulated
- misleading
- unfair
On page 23 of the government document, A. 465. – Definitions appears. Alas, the word “fake” is not defined.
The document is 163 pages long and strikes me as a summary of standard public relations, marketing, content marketing, and social media practices. Toss in smart software and Telegram-type BotFather capability and one has described the information environment which buzzes, zaps, and swirls 24×7 around anyone with access to any type of electronic communication / receiving device.
Look what You.com generated. A high school instructor teaching a debate class about a foundational principle.
On page 119, the authors of the government document arrive at a key question, apparently raised by some of the individuals sufficiently informed to ask “killer” questions; for example:
Several commenters raised concerns about the meaning of the term “fake” in the context of indicators of social media influence. A trade association asked, “Does ‘fake’ only mean that the likes and followers were created by bots or through fake accounts? If a social media influencer were to recommend that their followers also follow another business’ social media account, would that also be ‘procuring’ of ‘fake’ indicators of social media influence? . . . If the FTC means to capture a specific category of ‘likes,’ ‘follows,’ or other metrics that do not reflect any real opinions, findings, or experiences with the marketer or its products or services, it should make that intention more clear.”
Alas, no definition is provided. “Fake” exists in a cloud of unknowing.
What if the US government prosecutors find themselves in the position of a luminary who allegedly said: “Porn. I know it when I see it.” That posture might be more acceptable than trying to explain that an artificial intelligence content generator produced a generic negative review of an Italian restaurant. A competitor uses the output via a messaging service like Telegram Messenger and creates a script to plug in the name, location, and date for 1,000 Italian restaurants. The individual then lets the script rip. When investigators look into this defamation of Italian restaurants, the trail leads back to a virtual assert service provider crime as a service operation in Lao PDR. The owner of that enterprise resides in Cambodia and has multiple cyber operations supporting the industrialized crime as a service operation. Okay, then what?
In this example, “fake” becomes secondary to a problem as large or larger than bogus reviews on US social media sites.
What’s being done when actual criminal enterprises are involved in “fake” related work. According the the United Nations, in certain nation states, law enforcement is hampered and in some cases prevented from pursuing a bad actor.
Several observations:
- As most high school debaters learn on Day One of class: Define your terms. Present these in plain English, not a series of anecdotes and opinions.
- Keep the focus sharp. If reviews designed to damage something are the problem, focus on that. Avoid the hand waving.
- The issue exists due to a US government policy of looking the other way with regard to the large social media and online services companies. Why not become a bit more proactive? Decades of non-regulation cannot be buried under 160 page plus documents with footnotes.
Net net: “Fake,” like other glittering generalities cannot be defined. That’s why we have some interesting challenges in today’s world. Fuzzy is good enough.
PS. If you have money, the $50,000 fine won’t make any difference. Jail time will.
Stephen E Arnold, October 28, 2024
The DoJ Wants to Break Up Google and Maybe Destroy the Future of AI
October 25, 2024
Contrary to popular belief, the United States is an economically frisky operation. The country runs on a fluid system that mixes aspects regulation, the Wild West, monopolies, oligopolies, and stuff operating off the reservation. The government steps in when something needs regulation. The ageing Sherman Anti-Trust Act forbids monopolies. Yahoo Finance says that “Google Is About To Learn How DOJ Wants To Remake Its Empire.”
There have been rumblings about breaking up Big Tech companies like Google for a while. District of Columbia Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google abused its power and that its search and ad businesses violated antitrust law. Nothing is clear about what will happen to Google, but a penalty may emerge in 2025. Judge Mehta could potentially end Google’s business agreements that make it the default search engine of devices and force search data to be available to competition. Google’s products: AdWords, Chrome browser, and the Android OS could be broken up and no longer send users to the search engine.
Judge Mehta must consider how breaking up Google will affect third parties, especially those who rely on Google and associated products to (basically) run society. Mehta has a lot to think about: Judge Mehta, however, may have to consider how remedies to restore competition in the traditional search engine market may impact competition in the emerging market for AI-assisted search.
One concern, legal experts said, is that Google’s search dominance could unfairly entrench its position in the market for next-generation search.
At the same time, these fresh threats may work to Google’s advantage in the remedies trial, allowing it to argue that its overall search dominance is already under threat.”
Nothing is going to happen quickly. The 2024 presidential election results will influence Mehta’s decision. Politicians will definitely have their say and the US government needs to evaluate how they use Google.
What’s Google’s answer to these charges? The company is suggesting that fiddling with Google could end the future of AI. Promise or threat?
Whitney Grace, October 25, 2024
Google Is AI, Folks
October 24, 2024
Google’s legal team is certainly creative. In the face of the Justice Department’s push to break up the monopoly, reports Yahoo Finance, “Google’s New Antitrust Defense is AI.” Wait, what? Reporter Hamza Shaban points to a blog post by Google VP Lee-Anne Mulholland, writing:
“In Google’s view, the government’s heavy-handed approach to transforming the search market ignores the nascent developments in AI, the fresh competition in the space, and new modes of seeking information online, like AI-powered answer engines. The energy around AI and the potential disruption of how users interact with search is, competitively speaking, a negative for Google, said Wedbush analyst Dan Ives. But in another way, as a defense against antitrust charges, it’s a positive. ‘That’s an argument against monopoly that bodes well for Google,’ he said.”
Really? Some believe quite the opposite. We learn:
“‘The DOJ has specifically noted that this evolution in technology is precisely why they are intervening at this point in time,’ said Gil Luria, an analyst at DA Davidson. ‘They want to make sure that Google is not able to convert the monopoly it currently has in Search into a monopoly in AI Enhanced Search.’”
Exactly. Google is clearly a monopoly. We think their assertion means, "treat us special because we are special." This church-lady thinking may or may not work. We live in an interesting judicial moment.
Cynthia Murrell, October 24, 2024
Pavel Durov and Telegram: In the Spotlight Again
October 21, 2024
No smart software used for the write up. The art, however, is a different story.
Several news sources reported that the entrepreneurial Pavel Durov, the found of Telegram, has found a way to grab headlines. Mr. Durov has been enjoying a respite in France, allegedly due to his contravention of what the French authorities views as a failure to cooperate with law enforcement. After his detainment, Mr. Durov signaled that he has cooperated and would continue to cooperate with investigators in certain matters.
A person under close scrutiny may find that the experience can be unnerving. The French are excellent intelligence operators. I wonder how Mr. Durov would hold up under the ministrations of Israeli and US investigators. Thanks, ChatGPT, you produced a usable cartoon with only one annoying suggestion unrelated to my prompt. Good enough.
Mr. Durov may have an opportunity to demonstrate his willingness to assist authorities in their investigation into documents published on the Telegram Messenger service. These documents, according to such sources as Business Insider and South China Morning Post, among others, report that the Telegram channel Middle East Spectator dumped information about Israel’s alleged plans to respond to Iran’s October 1, 2024, missile attack.
The South China Morning Post reported:
The channel for the Middle East Spectator, which describes itself as an “open-source news aggregator” independent of any government, said in a statement that it had “received, through an anonymous source on Telegram who refused to identify himself, two highly classified US intelligence documents, regarding preparations by the Zionist regime for an attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran”. The Middle East Spectator said in its posted statement that it could not verify the authenticity of the documents.
Let’s look outside this particular document issue. Telegram’s mostly moderation-free approach to the content posted, distributed, and pushed via the Telegram platform is like to come under more scrutiny. Some investigators in North America view Mr. Durov’s system as a less pressing issue than the content on other social media and messaging services.
This document matter may bring increased attention to Mr. Durov, his brother (allegedly with the intelligence of two PhDs), the 60 to 80 engineers maintaining the platform, and its burgeoning ancillary interests in crypto. Mr. Durov has some fancy dancing to do. One he is able to travel, he may find that additional actions will be considered to trim the wings of the Open Network Foundation, the newish TON Social service, and the “almost anything” goes approach to the content generated and disseminated by Telegram’s almost one billion users.
From a practical point of view, a failure to exercise judgment about what is allowed on Messenger may derail Telegram’s attempts to become more of a mover and shaker in the world of crypto currency. French actions toward Mr. Pavel should have alerted the wizardly innovator that governments can and will take action to protect their interests.
Now Mr. Durov is placing himself, his colleagues, and his platform under more scrutiny. Close scrutiny may reveal nothing out of the ordinary. On the other hand, when one pays close attention to a person or an organization, new and interesting facts may be identified. What happens then? Often something surprising.
Will Mr. Durov get that message?
Stephen E Arnold, October 21, 2024
Apple and NSO Group: Enough PR Already
October 16, 2024
Just a humanoid processing information related to online services and information access.
No, no court battle. Bummer.
Technology companies either like or dislike others in their industry. Apple and the spyware NSO Group don’t play well together, but they recently agreed on something. Cyberscoop reports that, “NSO Group Indicates Rare Agreement With Apple Over Dismissal Of Lawsuit.” Apple and NSO Group agreed it is prudent to drop a lawsuit that accused the latter of targeting the former’s users.
The NSO Group was more open about why the lawsuit should be dismissed, but Apple is keeping quiet. The lawsuit was filed three years ago, but it’s not as useful anymore because the spyware market has grown. There’s more information here:
“NSO Group, by contrast, said that while it agreed with Apple that there were “significant obstacles” in the court case, the real issue was that a district court in California wasn’t the right venue for “adjudicating claims that a foreign technology company licensed lawful-intercept technology to foreign governments, which then used the technology to monitor foreign criminals and terrorists in foreign countries for those countries’ own national security and other sovereign interests.”
The filing states that Apple has done little to prosecute its claims, and as such the judge should dismiss the lawsuit “with prejudice,” meaning that it couldn’t be refiled later. But if the judge dismisses it without prejudice, then NSO Group said it would like to be reimbursed for its court costs as the work it has done on the case couldn’t be recycled.”
Whitney Grace, October 16, 2024
Apple: The Company Follows Its Rules Consistently, Right Mr. Putin
October 14, 2024
Just a humanoid processing information related to online services and information access.
Russia is tightening regulations on Internet privacy and monitoring. In other words, it wants more control of the Internet and its citizens. Money Control reports the following: “Apple Removes Multiple VPN Apps From The App Store In Russia, Here’s Why.”
While Apple reduced its services in Russia because of the latter’s war on Ukraine, the App Store still runs. Other countries criticize Apple for continuing to offer its goods and services in Russia and comply with its mandates. It is debatable about why Apple did the following:
“The App Censorship Project found that more than 60 apps, including some of the best VPN (Virtual Private Network) services on the market, were silently removed by Apple between early July and September 18, 2024. Another investigation from anti-censorship advocacy group GreatFire reveals, that Apple has barred over 20% of known VPN apps from being available in Russia.”
The amount of VPN removals exceeds the 25 the Roskomnadzor reported on in June 2024. VPNs are still permissible in Russia, but the loss of many privacy options demonstrate that the country wants to crack down and control how its citizens use the Internet.
Apple probably removed the VPNs to comply with Russian authorities, like Google had to do last year with YouTube. Apple also complies with China’s VPN and messenger ban.
Authoritarian governments are horrible but they also present big business opportunities. Apple and other Big Tech companies are happy to comply with regulations as long as they continue to rake in money.
Whitney Grace, October 14, 2024
A Modern Employee Wants Love, Support, and Compassion
October 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Beyond Search is a “Wordpress” blog. I have followed with (to be honest) not much interest the dispute between a founder and a couple of organizations. WordPress has some widgets that one of the Beyond Search team “subscribes” to each year. These, based on my experience, are so-so. We have moved the blog to WordPress-friendly hosting services because [a] the service was not stable, [b] not speedy, and [c] not connected to any known communication service except Visa.
I read “I Stayed,” a blog post. The write up expresses a number of sentiments about WordPress, its employees, and its mission. (Who knew? A content management system with a “mission.” ) I noted this statement:
Listen, I’m struggling with medical debts and financial obligations incurred by the closing of my conference and publishing businesses.
I don’t know much about modern work practices, but this sentence suggests to me that a full-time employee was running two side gigs. Both of these failed, and the author of the post is in debt. I am a dinobaby, and I assumed that when a company hired me as a full time employee like Halliburton or Booz, Allen & Hamilton, my superiors expected me to focus on the tasks given to me by Halliburton and Booz, Allen & Hamilton. “Go to a uranium mine. Learn. Ask questions. Take photographs or ore processing,” so I went. No side gigs, no questions about breathing mine dust. Just do the work. Not now. The answer to a superior’s request apparently means, “Hey, you have spare time to pay attention to that conference and publishing business. No problemo.” Times have changed.
The write up includes this statement about not quitting or taking a buy out:
I stayed because I believe in the work we do. I believe in the open web and owning your own content. I’ve devoted nearly three decades of work to this cause, and when I chose to move in-house, I knew there was only one house that would suit me. In nearly six years at Automattic, I’ve been able to do work that mattered to me and helped others, and I know that the best is yet to come.
I think I am supposed to interpret this decision as noble or allegedly noble. My view is that WordPress professionals who remain on the job includes these elements:
- If you have a full-time job at a commercial or quasi-commercial enterprise, focus on the job. It would be great if WordPress fixed the wonky cursor movement in its editor. You know it really doesn’t work. In fact, it sucks on my machines both Mac and Windows.
- Think about the interface. Hiding frequently used functions is not helpful.
- Use words to make clear certain completely weird icons. Yep, actual words.
- Display explicate which are not confusing. I don’t find multiple uses of the word “Publish” particularly helpful.
To sum up: Suck it up, buttercup.
Stephen E Arnold, October 7, 2024
FOGINT: Telegram Changes Its Tune
October 1, 2024
![green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[2]_thumb](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t2_thumb-2.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[2]_thumb")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Editor note: The term Fogint is a way for us to identify information about online services which obfuscate or mask in some way some online activities. The idea is that end-to-end encryption, devices modified to disguise Internet identifiers, and specialized “tunnels” like those associated with the US MILNET methods lay down “fog”. A third-party is denied lawful intercept, access, or monitoring of obfuscated messages when properly authorized by a governmental entity. Here’s a Fogint story with the poster boy for specialized messaging, Pavel Durov.
Coindesk’s September 23, 2024, artice “Telegram to Provide More User Data to Governments After CEO’s Arrest” reports:
Messaging app Telegram made significant changes to its terms of service, chief executive officer Pavel Durov said in a post on the app on Monday. The app’s privacy conditions now state that Telegram will now share a user’s IP address and phone number with judicial authorities in cases where criminal conduct is being investigated.
Usually described as a messaging application, Telegram is linked to a crypto coin called TON or TONcoin. Furthermore, Telegram — if one looks at the entity from 30,000 feet — consists of a distributed organization engaged in messaging, a foundation, and a recent “society” or “social” service. Among the more interesting precepts of Telegram and its founder is a commitment to free speech and a desire to avoid being told what to do.
Art generated by the MSFT Copilot service. Good enough, MSFT.
After being detained in France, Mr. Durov has made several changes in the way in which he talks about Telegram and its precepts. In a striking shift, Mr. Durov, according to Coindesk:
said that “establishing the right balance between privacy and security is not easy,” in a post on the app. Earlier this month, Telegram blocked users from uploading new media in an effort to stop bots and scammers.
Telegram had a feature which allowed a user of the application to locate users nearby. This feature has been disabled. One use of this feature was its ability to locate a person offering personal services on Telegram via one of its functions. A person interested in the service could use the “nearby” function and pinpoint when the individual offering the service was located. Creative Telegram users could put this feature to a number of interesting uses; for example, purchasing an illegal substance.
Why is Mr. Durov abandoning his policy of ignoring some or most requests from law enforcement seeking to identify a suspect? Why is Mr. Durov eliminating the nearby function? Why is Mr. Durov expressing a new desire to cooperate with investigators and other government authority?
The answer is simple. Once in the custody of the French authorities, Mr. Durov learned of the penalties for breaking French law. Mr. Durov’s upscale Parisian lawyer converted the French legal talk into some easy to understand concepts. Now Mr. Durov has evaluated his position and is taking steps to avoid further difficulties with the French authorities. Mr. Durov’s advisors probably characterized the incarceration options available to the French government; for example, even though Devil’s Island is no longer operational, the Centre Pénitentiaire de Rémire-Montjoly, near Cayenne in French Guiana, moves Mr. Durov further from his operational comfort zone in the Russian Federation and the United Arab Emirates.
The Fogint team does not believe Mr. Durov has changed his core values. He is being rational and using cooperation as a tactic to avoid creating additional friction with the French authorities.
Stephen E Arnold, October 1, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
