Real Silicon Valley News Predicts the Future
July 1, 2021
I read “Why Some Biologists and Ecologists Think Social Media Is a Risk to Humanity.” I thought this was an amusing essay because the company publishing it is very much a social media thing. Clicks equal fame, money, and influence. These are potent motivators, and the essay is cheerfully ignorant of the irony of the Apocalypse foretold in the write up.
I learned:
One of the real challenges that we’re facing is that we don’t have a lot of information
But who is “we”? I can name several entities which have quite comprehensive information. Obviously these entities are not part of the royal “we”. I have plenty of information and some of it is proprietary. There are areas about which I would like to know more, but overall, I think I have what I need to critique thumbtyper-infused portents of doom.
Here’s another passage:
Seventeen researchers who specialize in widely different fields, from climate science to philosophy, make the case that academics should treat the study of technology’s large-scale impact on society as a “crisis discipline.” A crisis discipline is a field in which scientists across different fields work quickly to address an urgent societal problem — like how conservation biology tries to protect endangered species or climate science research aims to stop global warming. The paper argues that our lack of understanding about the collective behavioral effects of new technology is a danger to democracy and scientific progress.
I assume the Silicon Valley “real” news outfit and the experts cited in the write up are familiar with the work of J. Ellul? If not, some time invested in reading it might be helpful. As a side note, Google Books thinks that the prescient and insightful analysis of technology is about “religion.” Because Google, of course.
The write up adds:
Most major social media companies work with academics who research their platforms’ effects on society, but the companies restrict and control how much information researchers can use.
Remarkable insight. Why pray tell?
Several observations:
- Technology is not well understood
- Flows of information are destructive in many situations
- Access to information spawns false conclusions
- Bias distorts logic even among the informed.
Well, this is a pickle barrel and “we” are in it. What is making my sides ache from laughter is that advocates of social media in particular and technology in general are now asking, “Now what?”
Few like China’s approach or that of other authoritarian entities who want to preserve the way it was.
Cue Barbara’s “The Way We Were.” Oh, right. Blocked by YouTube. Do ecologists and others understand cancer?
Stephen E Arnold, July 1, 2021
Fixing Social Media: Will $100 Million Win the Pennant?
June 22, 2021
I read “A Real Estate Mogul Has a $100 Million Plan to Save the Internet.” Note that you may have to pay to read this story on the Bloomberg “news is not free” service.
The main point is:
Project Liberty would use blockchain to construct a new internet infrastructure called the Decentralized Social Networking Protocol. With crypto currencies, blockchain stores information about the tokens in everyone’s digital wallets; the DSNP would do the same for social connections. Facebook owns the data about the social connections between its users, giving it an enormous advantage over competitors. If all social media companies drew from a common social graph, the theory goes, they’d have to compete by offering better services, and the chance of any single company becoming so dominant would plummet.
Interesting. Isn’t major league baseball a club, a very select group of everyman owners?
I noted this fascinating assumption, which is a variation on the old Google saw that changing search habits is just a one click choice:
Project Liberty is proposing that the entire internet start doing things drastically differently.
There are a number of individuals who want to decentralize “the Internet.” Does anyone hear this echo:
Saddle up the horses, Sancho. We’re going after that blue windmill.
Yep, vamos.
Stephen E Arnold, June 22, 2021
Amazon Burgoo: A Recipe from the Baedeker of Zuckland
June 17, 2021
“Amazon Blames Social Media for Struggle with Fake Reviews” sparked a thought I had not entertained previously. Amazon is taking a page from the Zuck Baedeker to Disingenuousness. This is a collection of aphorisms, precepts, and management tips which I imagine is provided to each Facebook employee. Whether it is a Facebook senior manager explaining how Facebook is a contributor to cohesiveness or another top puppy leaning in on Cambridge Analytic-type matters, I visualize this top secret compendium as the Book. A Facebooker’s success depends on learning by rote the hows and whys of Facebooking.
This image is from a Kentucky inspired cook who knows about burgoo. The dark meat in the mish mash of what’s in the fridge is squirrel and maybe other critters. Reviews of burgoo suggest it is the best possible meal for a hungry person with a pile of dead squirrels.
Now, it is possible, that this Baedeker has fallen into the hands of Amazon’s senior managers. The write up “Amazon Blames Social Media” reports:
Amazon has blamed social media companies for its failure to remove fake reviews from its website, arguing that “bad actors” turn to social networks to buy and sell fake product reviews outside the reach of its own technology.
I interpret this as meaning “not our fault.” It is a variation on the type of thinking which allegedly sparked this observation by the social media top dog:
A squirrel dying in front of your house may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa.
The write up “Amazon Blames Social Media” includes this passage, allegedly from the Bezos bulldozer’s exhaust pipes:
Amazon says the blame for those organizations should lie with social media companies, who it says are slow to act when warned that fake reviews are being solicited on their platforms. “In the first three months of 2020, we reported more than 300 groups to social media companies, who then took a median time of 45 days to shut down those groups from using their service to perpetrate abuse,” an unsigned Amazon blog post said. “In the first three months of 2021 we reported more than 1,000 such groups, with social media services taking a median time of five days to take them down. “While we appreciate that some social media companies have become much faster at responding, to address this problem at scale it is imperative for social media companies to invest adequately in proactive controls to detect and enforce fake reviews ahead of our reporting the issue to them.”
Delicious. One possible monopoly blaming another possible monopoly using the type of logic employed by other monopolies.
Okay, who is to blame? Obviously not Amazon. Those reviews, however, can be tomfoolery, but they are indexable. And in the quest to grow one’s share of the product search market, words are needed. Bulkage is good.
Trimming the wordage benefits not the bulldozer. Facebook-type outfits seek engagement. Remember the dying squirrel? Ponder the squirrel as a creature who wants truth, accuracy, and integrity to prevail in the forest. How’s that working out for the squirrel and modern business practices? Just great for some. For others, burgoo. Now try to take the carrots, beans, and dead squirrel out of the pot and uncook them. Tough job, right?
Stephen E Arnold, June 17, 2021
Misunderstanding Censorship: It Is Not Just Words
June 3, 2021
Popular words now are take down (killing servers), block (filter users or items on a stop list), cancel (ignoring a person or terminating an API call), and a pride of synonyms like terminate with extreme prejudice. The idea is that censorship is go to method to cultivate a more pleasing digital garden. But who owns the garden? The answer is that “ownership” depends on one’s point of view. Big tech has one role to play. Those contributing content in different media have another. The person who reads, listens, or watches “information” gets in the act as well.
The popular words reflect an interesting development. Those “in charge” want to preserve their kingpin role. Those who have an audience want to remain popular and get even more popular if possible. Those users want to consume what they want and will use available tools to satisfy their wants and needs.
In short, censorship seems to be a way for someone in a position to be a gatekeeper to impose a particular view upon information, how something “works” in the datasphere, or what “content” can flow into, through, and out of a 2021 system.
The first example of this imposition of a view point is articulated in “PayPal Shuts Down Long-Time Tor Supporter with No Recourse.” The main point is that an individual who contributed to the Tor project has been “booted” or “terminated with extreme prejudice” from the quasi-bank financial services operation PayPal. The article asserts:
For years, EFF has been documenting instances of financial censorship, in which payment intermediaries and financial institutions shutter accounts and refuse to process payments for people and organizations that haven’t been charged with any crime. Brandt shared months of PayPal transactions with the EFF legal team, and we reviewed his transactions in depth. We found no evidence of wrongdoing that would warrant shutting down his account, and we communicated our concerns to PayPal. Given that the overwhelming majority of transactions on Brandt’s account were payments for servers running Tor nodes, EFF is deeply concerned that Brandt’s account was targeted for shut down specifically as a result of his activities supporting Tor.
Does PayPal the company have strong feelings about software which obfuscates certain online activities? Tor emerged years ago from a government commercial research project. Now it is one of the vehicles allowing some users to engage in cyber crime-like activities. The write up does not dig too deeply into the who, what, when, why, how, and circumstances of “financial persecution.” That’s not surprising because PayPal is a commercial enterprise and can mostly do what it wants. The main point for me is that this type of blocking action has nothing to do with words.
I also want to mention that Amazon Twitch has been wrestling with take downs too. A popular “content creator” named Amouranth was blocked. Also, a 21st century talk show host known as BadBunny was banned. Amouranth’s Twitch stream featured a kiddie pool, an interesting fashion statement in the form of a bathing suit, and lots of eye shadow. BadBunny’s “issue” was related to words. I am not sure what BadBunny is talking about, but apparently the Twitch “proctors” do. So she had to occupy herself with other content creation for two weeks until she was reinstated. At the same time, a content creator named ibabyrainbow (whom I featured in my April National Cyber Crime Conference talk) provides links to Twitch followers who want more intriguing videos of ibabyrainbow’s antics. Thus, far ibabyrainbow has not run afoul of Amazon’s “curators” but Amazon may not know that ibabyrainbow provides other content on different services under the name of babyrainbow. Some of this content could be considered improper in certain countries.
Then I want to reference a remarkable essay about censorship called “How Censorship Became the New Crisis for Social Networks.” This write up states:
There are two strains of outrage related to censorship currently coursing through the platforms. The first are concerns related to governments enacting increasingly draconian measures to prevent their citizens from expressing dissent…. The second and perhaps more novel strain of outrage over censorship relates not to governments but to platforms themselves.
That’s tidy: A dichotomy, an either or, good evil, savage and civilized. Not exactly. I think the reality is messy and generating new complexities as each mouse click or finger swipe occurs.
People generally dislike change. If change is inevitable, some people prefer to experience the change at their own pace. Today the ease with which a threshold can be changed in an algorithm is disconcerting. What happened to my Google photos? Or Why can’t I access my iTunes account? are part of everyday life. Where’s BadBunny, Mr. Twitch?
My view is that censorship and its synonyms to polish up these actions designed to control information has been a standard operating procedure for many, many years. Book burning, anyone? The motivation is to ensure that power is retained, money flows, and particular views are promulgated.
The datasphere is magnifying the ease, effectiveness, and intention of managing words, images, and actions. I prefer to think of censorship as “proaction”; that is, taking the necessary steps to allow those with their hands on the knobs and wheels to further their own ends.
Instead of “terminated with extreme prejudice” implore “proactive measures.” Who is doing it? Maybe China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and a number of other nation states? What commercial enterprises are practicing proaction? Maybe the FAANGs, the Bezos property Washington Post, the hip digital thing known as the New York Times, and anyone who can direct digital streams to benefit themselves.
Censorship — what I call proaction — is the new normal.
Adapt and avoid dichotomies. That type of thinking is for third graders.
Stephen E Arnold, June 3, 2021
Digital 2021: Lots of Numbers
April 23, 2021
One of the Beyond Search team called my attention to the We Are Social / Hootsuite “Digital 2021 April Global Statshot Report.” The original link did not resolve. After a bit of clicking around, we did locate the presentation on the outstanding SlideShare service. No, the SlideShare search function did not work for us, but we know that it will return to its glory soon. Maybe real soon perhaps?
The report with the numbers is located at this link. If that doesn’t work, there is an index located at this link. If these go dead, you can give the We Are Social / Hootsuite explainer at this Datareportal link.
After that bit of housekeeping, what is the “Digital 2021 April Global Statshot Report”? The answer is that it is:
All the latest stats, insights, and trends you need to make sense of how the world uses the internet, mobile, social media, and ecommerce in April 2021. For more reports, including the latest global trends and in-depth local data for more than 240 countries and territories around the world, visit https://datareportal.com
As readers of this blog have heard, “all” is a trigger word. I want to know how many Dark Web encrypted message services are operated by state actors, not addled college students. Did I find the answer? Nope. So the “all” is baloney.
The report does provide assorted disclaimers and numerous big numbers; for example, 55.1 percent of 7,850,000,000 people are active social media users. Pretty darned exact. When I was on a trip to Wuhan, China, I was told by our government provided guide, “No one is sure how many people live in Wuhan. There are different methods of counting.” If China can’t deal with counting, I am curious how precise numbers are generated for a global report. Eastern Asia (possibly China?) accounts for 25.1 percent of global Internet users by region. Probably doesn’t matter in the context of a 200 page report in PowerPoint format.
Other findings which jumped out at me as I flipped through the deck which has taken its inspiration from Mary Meeker’s Internet Trends Report last seen in 2019.
- Mobile users are 92.8 percent of the total number of Internet users and mobile phones account for 54.18 percent of Web traffic
- The zippiest Internet is located in the UAE
- Google’s search market share is 92.4 percent. Qwant, which allegedly caused Eric Schmidt to lose sleep, does not appear in the search engine market share table
- 98 percent of Internet users visit or use social networks
- TikTok is the 7th most used social platform but the data come from TikTok, an outfit which is probably the gold standard in reliable information.
The reportal document does not explain what these data mean.
Here’s my take: The data provide many numbers which make clear three points:
- Mobile is a big deal
- Facebook and Google are bigger deals
- Criminal activity within these data ecosystems warrants zero attention.
The reportal’s data are free too.
Stephen E Arnold, April 23, 2021
Where the Harpies Roost: A Familiar Spot?
April 21, 2021
Insults, lies, and even doxing. We learn of a group of mean-spirited people who seem to have way too much time on their hands in the piece, “How Gossip Forum Tattle Life Became the Most Toxic Place on the Internet” at the UK’s NewStatesman. Perhaps risking her own tranquility, reporter Sarah Manavis writes about those who go to Tattle Life to gossip about thousands of public figures. That term is used loosely here—some of the “influencers” they target have fewer than 10,000 subscribers. For whatever reason, Tattle Life members are motivated to uncover and discuss personal details about these figures and their family members, including young children. They condemn their targets for the smallest of details from weight gain to missing a lampshade in their bedroom. Manavis writes:
“Tattle Life describes itself as a platform for ‘commentary and critiques of people that choose to monetize their personal life as a business and release it into the public domain’, framing itself as a space where users can hold the rich and famous to account. The site’s Wiki, which includes basic biographical information about high-profile influencers, also catalogues each individual’s perceived ‘wrongdoing’ – from rumors about unethical business practices to the number of times they’re suspected of breaking lockdown rules during the pandemic. … And although there may only be a few thousand different dedicated threads, the volume of comments shows the true breadth of the site: in the subsection of ‘Instagrammers’, which includes 2,000 threads, the number of total comments surpasses one million. This is staggering when you consider the site is less than three years old.”
If these rumormongers cannot find any details to prattle on about they will simply make them up, going into great detail about fictional past relationships, jobs, and more. Even worse, several targets have been doxed, putting them and their families in harm’s way. Many of the subjects of this abuse, understandably, find it takes a toll on their mental health. Several have been driven offline altogether. There have been efforts to have the site taken down, like this Change.org petition, but the British parliament has declined to interfere. If this site’s attacks do not count as objectionable content, what does?
Cynthia Murrell, April 21, 2021
Social Audio Service Clubhouse Blocked in Oman
March 15, 2021
Just a quick note to document Oman’s blocking of the social audio service Clubhouse. The story “Oman Blocks Clubhouse, App Used for Free Debates in Mideast” appeared on March 15, 2021. The invitation only service has hosted Silicon Valley luminaries and those who wrangled an invitation via connections or social engineering. The idea is similar to the CB radio chats popular with over-the-road truckers in the United States. There’s no motion picture dramatizing the hot service, but a “Smokey and the Bandit” remake starring the hot stars in the venture capital game and the digital movers and shakers could be in the works. Elon Musk’s character could be played by Brad Pitt. Instead of a Pontiac Firebird, the Tesla is the perfect vehicle for movers and shakers in the Clubhouse.
Stephen E Arnold, March 15, 2021
Changes in Social Media To Go Beyond the Feed
March 11, 2021
Social media platforms are, perhaps regrettably, not going anywhere. They are evolving, however, according to “The New Era of Social Media Isn’t About Feeds” at OneZero. We have grown used to scrolling through our social media feeds, and advertisers have grown used to meeting us there. Writer Will Oremus observes:
“But while these feeds may be addictive, they’re also exhausting and numbing. When every post in your feed has been selected from a huge pool of possible posts for its attention-grabbing qualities, you can start to feel shouted at, manipulated, pandered to, and overwhelmed. Over time, it might dawn on you that the feed’s value to your life is less than the sum of its posts. Not to mention, the value to society of bombarding everyone with attention bait from all sides is, let’s say, mixed at best. I think that’s part of why we’re starting to see a new crop of platforms that operate according to a different logic — a logic of loyalty, intentionality, and deliberate payment (whether of attention or money). The Pattern: New digital media products are focusing on low-volume, high-attention relationships rather than high-volume, low-attention feeds.”
Oremus takes a look at some new and upcoming products and features that point in this new direction. For example, Twitter plans to launch Communities, which will form groups around common interests. There is also Super Follows, also from Twitter, which suggests a monetization alternative to advertising—the feature will allow users to charge for “premium” tweets or other content. We agree with Oremus that this might be a profitable avenue for celebrities, less so for journalists. See the write-up for more examples.
Whatever specific ideas sink or swim, this tinkering indicates a new direction for social media—more deliberate user choices and less aimless scrolling through whatever an algorithm sends our way. This sounds like a welcome shift, but will it be enough to combat filter bubbles and fake news?
Cynthia Murrell, March 11, 2021
LinkedIn: Social Media Excitement from the Softies
March 10, 2021
Microsoft is reportedly embracing the gig work mentality via LinkedIn, which it purchased in 2016. What could go wrong? Social Barrel tells us, “LinkedIn to Rival Fiverr and Upwork with Marketplaces.” The pandemic has greatly increased demand for independent workers, and it sounds like Microsoft refuses to cede the increased freelance-connection business to Upwork and Fiverr. Writer Ola Ric reveals:
“If true, the Microsoft-owned professional network service is all set to rival Fiverr and Upwork. Without a doubt, LinkedIn stands a big chance of rivaling Fiverr and Upwork considering its massive user base said to be around 740 million. The service is called Marketplaces according to The Information, and is already being developed. Apparently LinkedIn wants to explore a market, though small, but with potential for growth.”
Of course, many besides the self-employed are working remotely now, and many predict the trend will continue after the pandemic is in our rear view. This new reality means many new challenges for HR, and several employee management applications are being used to cope. Microsoft is also moving into this territory with its Viva platform, we learn from “The Arrival of ‘Enterprise Social’” at India’s BusinessWorld. Reporter Pradeep Kar elaborates:
“The opportunity is so big that Microsoft’s Chief Executive Satya Nadella went public, saying that the COVID-19 crisis would result in employee management applications that would outlast the pandemic. His company has quickly unveiled a new category of technology solutions called employee experience platforms (EXP) with Viva that ‘provides a single-entry point for employee engagement and internal communications.’ Microsoft calls Viva a gateway to the digital workplace. It includes human resource functions like payroll, tools to track employee performance, career development initiatives, etc. We know these employee engagement applications are not just good-to-have. They are critical. They allow organizations to keep employees connected, binding them to company goals and culture, improving productivity and loyalty.”
Microsoft’s Viva is not the only option, Par informs us. He lists Darwinbox, ADP Workforce Now, ZohoPeople, and PeopleStrong as just a few of the many alternatives.
We note Microsoft continues to explore its options as new things come along, a practice that has kept it in business since 1975. We wonder, though: Could this timing be a way to distract from the company’s part in the SolarWinds fiasco?
Cynthia Murrell, March 10, 2021
An Existential Question: LinkedIn or LinkedOut?
March 5, 2021
Writer Joan Westenberg is over LinkedIn, and advises us we would all be better without it. The Next Web posts, “Delete LinkedIn—You’ll Have Zero F****ing Regrets.” After years of enduring countless messages from those who want to sell her something, she finally deleted her LinkedIn account. Not only did the platform fail to provide her any professional benefits, she was also disheartened by the superficial relationships with her hundreds of contacts. (At least this platform does not call them “friends.”)
Having had some success at sales for her business, Westenberg has observed that the way to sell to someone is to build a real relationship with them. Her favorite way to do so is to offer help with no agenda, to demonstrate her products have value. She writes:
“That is the antithesis of LinkedIn. Where people send you off-brand and clumsy sales pitches at best — or at worst, scrape your details for scalable and utterly useless outbound campaigns. They send pitch decks in the same breath that they introduce themselves for the first time. They want you to buy with no reason why. LinkedIn feels less like a platform for selling, and more like a platform for being sold to. A LinkedIn message is the 2020s equivalent of a cold sales call. You dread it. You hate it. You just don’t want to deal with it. … I would rather focus my attention on platforms where I know people have come to genuinely research, interact, learn and consume. Quora. Angel List. Dribble. Medium. Substack. And yes, Twitter. And I would rather remove the false sense of accomplishment we get from engaging on LinkedIn, where we log into a landfill of utter [excrement] several times a day and feel like we’ve done our bit of networking and growing, with no evidence to support that belief.”
Westenberg advises others to join her in ditching the platform. All we will lose, she concludes, are the vanity metrics of clicks, likes, shares, and comments, all of which provide nothing of value. Hmm. I for one have never gotten a job through the platform, but I do know someone who has. Then there are all the professional courses the platform acquired when it snapped up Lynda.com in 2015, many of which are quite helpful. I suppose each user must weigh the site’s role in their professional lives for themselves, but on this point I agree—LinkedIn is not fundamental to professional success. No one should feel they have to use it by default.
Cynthia Murrell, March 5, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
