Google Plus: A Moment of Contemplation and Reflection
October 24, 2018
If you miss Google Plus, you will want to read “Goodbye, Google+: A Eulogy for the Last Great Social Network.”
Here’s my favorite part of the write up:
Over its 20-year history, Google has succeeded wildly with products in a great many businesses: Search, Gmail, YouTube, Android and others. But it tends to fail with products that involve public social interaction. In fact, it’s earned a reputation as something of a social site serial killer. High-profile failures include Orkut, Buzz, and Wave. But even more obscure social properties also got “sunsetted” by Google: Spaces, Profiles, Wildfire, Jaiku, Schemer, Lively, Hello, Dodgeball, Aardvark, Friend Connect, Latitude, Talk, Helpouts and others.
Hell-pouts? Hmm.
The write up finds much to like in Google Plus. Obviously the author was in the minority because Facebook remained unphased by Google Plus. With lots of Xooglers working at Facebook, why worry? These sneaker wearers knew what “putting wood behind Google Plus” really meant I hypothesize.
The main point of the write up is that Google Plus was super in 2014. As each year tumbled by, the meh factor increased.
So, Google Plus? Meh, who cares.
Stephen E Arnold, October 24, 2018
Learn about Microsoft LinkedIn: Get a Job, Make a Sale
October 22, 2018
How many times a month do you receive invites from acquaintances to join LinkedIn? LinkedIn is supposed to be Facebook with a professional skew, but nobody ever uses it other than to spy on people. What if it had another use, like the newest social media game? The Outline wrote the ultimate walkthrough and FAQ guide to LinkedIn. You need to check it out at, “How To Beat LinkedIn: The Game.” The Outline’s article is described as “a strategy guide for using a semi-pointless network in all the wrong ways” and it is awesome, because it treats LinkedIn like a videogame.
It starts with a little history about how LinkedIn started in 2002, has around 530 millions users, and Microsoft bought in 2016 for $26.2 million. The “game” is described as:
“For those unfamiliar, LinkedIn is a 2D, turn-based MMORPG that sets itself apart from its competitors by placing players not in a fantasy world of orcs and goblins, but in the treacherous world of business. Players can choose from dozens of character classes (e.g., Entrepreneurs, Social Media Mavens, Finance Wizards) each with their own skill sets and special moves (Power Lunch; Signal Boost; Invoice Dodge). They gain “experience” by networking, obtaining endorsements from other users, and posting inspirational quotes from Elon Musk.”
LinkedIn’s goal is to connect with as many people as possible to further one’s career to gain vaguely defined social capital, and build an illusion of importance among its users. The guide helps your craft the best strategy to winning the game. The steps include crafting the ultimate businessman with ivy league schools, being located in a big city, and using stock businessmen photos. Then you need to connect with as many other players as possible. Unfortunately players are limited to 30000 connections and 3000 connections requests. You can grow your network by powering through the game for a few hours everyday by fishing for employees at big corporations and sending them requests. Eventually the more people will accept them, then your influence will grow.
The third important strategy is to spam the LinkedIn feed with fake work anniversaries. This is done by creating up to twelve fake jobs, the limit you can have. The fourth step is even more important, because you need to lie, lie, and lie some more as you inflate your credentials and importance. At this point, corporate recruiters are going to start engaging with you and then you can start a LinkedIn endorsement company.
LinkedIn: An interesting service.
Whitney Grace, October 22, 2018
Facebook: A Rhetorical Punching Bag for Real Journalists
October 17, 2018
I got a kick out of “Facebook’s ‘Spam Purge’ Is Silencing Genuine Debate, Political Page Creators Say.” Years ago I had a teacher named George Harris, I believe. His favorite ploy was to craft “Have you stopped beating your wife?” questions. Nifty game. My response to him was to shift the assumption up a level and direct the question to his inner psychological processes; for example, “That’s interesting. Why do you ask?” He did not like my refusal to play his game. I think he longed for a car battery and, alligator clips, a bucket of water, and some rope. Fascinating idea, but he was a teacher and the methods of interrogators were beyond his reach.
The Guardian story reminded me of good old George. The psychological motivation is not difficult to discern. Facebook is an online information system which makes money by selling ads. Unlike the good old world of “real” journalism, Facebook apologizes and continues on its merry way.
The Facebook money machine had humble beginning in a dorm. The idea was to get information about individuals who might—a conditional idea—want to meet up in the student union and actually talk. From this noble idea has emerged a company which makes some ad starved newspapers green with envy.
The response is to point out that Facebook does not do a good job of balancing information for its users. Of course, when Facebook makes a decision, that decision is going to annoy some of the two billion Facebookers. Even better is that if Facebook does nothing, the company has abrogated its moral responsibility.
News flash: This is a company invented in a dorm and has not outgrown its original DNA.
I learned in the write up:
As a private entity, Facebook can enforce its terms however it sees fit, says the ACLU attorney Vera Eidelman. But this can have serious free speech consequences, especially if the social network is selectively enforcing its terms based on the content of the pages. “Drawing the line between ‘real’ and ‘inauthentic’ views is a difficult enterprise that could put everything from important political parody to genuine but outlandish views on the chopping block,” says Eidelman. “It could also chill individuals who only feel safe speaking out anonymously or pseudonymously.”
I can hear the snorts of laughter in my mind’s reconstruction of several real British newspaper professionals talking about the spike on which Facebook finds itself impaled.
Jolly good I say.
The write up invokes pathos, annoyance, and shock. These are useful rhetorical tricks, particularly when presented by individuals who have been injured in service to their country.
And the coup de grace:
Facebook did not respond to requests for comment.
Well done, old chap. Indeed. Now about throttling your children and that ad revenue, you yob?
Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2018
Google and Social Media: An Orkut for 2018
October 9, 2018
The Google knew that it lacked person specific information at scale. Sure, the company had browser histories, ad click data, and info generated by cross correlation—but it was not specifically:
- An individual
- The personal details of that individual
- The connections (friends I suppose) of an individual
Also, the individual did not have a unique identifier. Think of this as a Google issued social security number.
The fix was to acquire Orkut and solve these data problems.
Orkut found some traction. If you follow Brazilian law enforcement, Orkut became a service of interest and utility. After a long slow decline, Orkut faded in 2014.
But Google had other “social media” designs; for example, those crazy folks from New York City playing Dodgeball. Then there was Jaiku. Too bad there was not a Jaiku-er in chief like Twitter enjoys today. Next up was Wave, which I found interesting. Anyone remember Googler Alon Halevy’s Transformic ideas? And Buzz? What about Buzz?
Now — drum roll — Google Plus or the service which killed the ability to specify AND in Boolean Google search syntax is heading down the Google sliding board.
I recall that Google Plus or Google + (isn’t that clever? using a reserved character for a name) was the future of Google. In its early days, there were 500 employees working on Google Plus, but that number grew. As I understand it, one’s compensation was linked to one’s outputs for Google Plus. Forbes calculated that in its formative stage, Google shoveled about $500 million into the service that would deliver particularized data. See “Google+ Cost $585 Million To Build (Or What Rupert Paid For MySpace).”
What’s up with Google Plus?
An alleged security lapse or gap (you decide which word fits the situation) has caused Google Plus to do a simple math process. Convert that plus to a minus. Works.
Buzzfeed News— a real news source — reported that “Google Is Shutting Down Google+ After It Discovered A Bug That Exposed Personal Information.” It seems that the security conscious company included a “breach” which shared user’s private data with apps. (More info on this at this link.)
Several observations/questions:
First, Google seems to struggle with the social media thing. It does sell online advertising, but the Facebook-type of service is a struggle. The me-too and let’s acquire approach simply has not worked. I hesitate to use the word “failure.” Maybe challenge is better?
Second, why did a security breach occur? My personal view is that people embrace projects, work on them, hunt for more interesting projects, and move on. Over time, the projects are lost in a mist of “non coolness.” Bugs are ignored; interface decisions are good enough; and interns make decisions, saying, “Wow, Google thinks I am smart. I can do this!” Right on, worker bee, right on.
Third, Google’s social media plays have been created as world services. Facebook was a dating app for a couple of Harvard whiz kids. Google’s social has been reactionary, rarely moving in a positive manner to an attainable goal. No wonder people on the team chugged along for a while and then headed off to more fun projects. Being a perpetual number two to Facebook is galling. Many Googlers just went to Google, including some high profile Googlers like its chief operating officer.
Fourth, why wasn’t security better? My view is that security has been perceived as “part of the Googleplex.” Obviously it wasn’t, and none of the Googlers realized it. Perhaps they were too busy running from meeting to meeting, looking for another assignment, starting venture capital firms, playing table tennis, or updating their Facebook page. Priorities can be a challenge.1
Net net: Google Plus may live on in a different role, sort of like Google Glass has become a super industrial and business success.
What happens if I view Google Plus through Google Glass?
I see a winner.
Stephen E Arnold, October 9, 2018
Social Media and the Violence Thing
September 11, 2018
I read “Can Facebook Really Drive Violence?” Interesting question for some. The write up states:
Recent reporting has probed the link between virtual hate and real world action. But the connection remains murky.
I recall a trick one of my professors at the one horse university I attended. She substituted other words in an assertion and then asked the same question, stood back, land let the logic of 18 year olds prevail. For instance:
Does the telephone drive teenage smoking?
Intriguing because substitution can reveal the tenuousness of human logic.
Set aside the collegiate penchant for rediscovering logical reasoning. A trend can become more obvious thanks to social media and fake news. With careful selection of facts and suppositions, it sure seems as if behavior can be organized and amplified when certain types of information flow. NBC News reported that “Social Media Rumors Trigger Violence in India; 3 Killed by Mobs.”
According to the story:
“Mobs of villagers killed at least three people and attacked several others after social media messages warned that gangs of kidnappers were roaming southern India in search of children, police said Friday.
And NBC added:
“Authorities said there was no indication that such gangs actually existed.”
This “event” caught the attention of some. The Indian Government has reached out to WhatsApp and demanded that they begin filtering out fake news stories. Google and Facebook have already begun attempting to police themselves. If the Indian government’s move to take control over fake news proves successful, expect to see other nations to follow suit and put stronger demands upon social media outlets.
Ah, perception. Information flow can have an impact, just not what some anticipate.
Stephen E Arnold, September 11, 2018
Social Media: It Is Wiggling to Stay Off the Barbed Hook
August 23, 2018
A battle has been raging in regards to the plague of fake news running amok on our screens. Many experts think it is the responsibility of the companies to regulate its content to help curb false information. However, a recent study found in ZD Net, “Can Regulating Twitter and Facebook Stop the Spread of Fake News?” thinks otherwise.
According to the report:
The committee rejects the idea that Facebook, Twitter, Google etc are merely “platforms” who are not responsible for their content.
We noted:
“The report said that social media companies cannot hide behind the claim of being merely a ‘platform’, and by claiming that they are tech companies and have no role themselves in regulating the content of their sites.”
Undoubtedly, the idea that they are merely tech companies with no content responsibilities will be used to avoid taking action. This, despite outcries from citizens and governments, for them to do something. It will, obviously, be cheaper to keep these platforms at the status quo (if that’s what they choose to do) but they may lose customers in the long run if trust erodes. We suspect this will be a splintering moment for social media giants who chose to handle this issue differently.
Just letting the “platform” run has produced interesting consequences: Filtering, human editors, definitions of acceptable, and so on.
Patrick Roland, August 2, 2018
The Internet: A Heraclitian Insight Millennia Late
August 3, 2018
What will the internet of 2026 look like? Chances are, we have no clue. With the rapid pace of change and innovation, especially in AI and machine learning, means that it will be interesting, to say the least. This was brought to our attention by looking at an old Search Engine Journal article, “10 Things from 2010 That May Shape Your 2011.”
Curiously, there is no mention of AI and social media was still in its infancy. According to the poll they ran:
“Interestingly, Hitwise suggests 13% growth in retailer’s traffic from social media year on year highlighting the importance of word-of-mouth and the optimization of search and social media assets with such purpose….“Increasing monetization of social media such as Twitter is also an area to keep an eye on, knowing the interest of clients in this area.”
This poll is so innocent, it’s almost adorable. The idea that Twitter and social media might have a financial impact on the world and on politics exists, adrift from the realities of weaponized information. It appears that AI and machine learning will occupy the same ironic position in nearly 10 years. Look at how any experts are saying it will shape governments and also today’s approach to ethics.
We think meme crafting is a hip way to explain how those who have information insight, money, and capabilities can make sure the river one steps into is filtered, controlled, and temperature controlled. New to meme crafting? Think of propaganda designed for keeping Heraclitus’ maxim fresh:
Big results require big ambitions. Patrick Roland,
Patrick Roland, August 3, 2018
Speed Shifting Cultural Gears
July 18, 2018
Social scientists have often speculated what percentage of a population must object to a behavior before that behavior is seen as abnormal (sexual harassment in the workplace, for example). Due to the complexity of the issue, it has been a difficult statistic to pin down; conclusions have ranged from 10% to 40% of the population. Classically, conventional wisdom has called for an even higher tipping point of 51%. According to a blog post from the U. of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, “Research Finds Tipping Point for Large-Scale Social Change,” we now have a more accurate answer. We learn:
“In this study, ‘Experimental Evidence for Tipping Points in Social Convention,’ coauthored by Joshua Becker, Ph.D., Devon Brackbill, Ph.D., and Andrea Baronchelli, Ph.D., 10 groups of 20 participants each were given a financial incentive to agree on a linguistic norm. Once a norm had been established, a group of confederates — a coalition of activists that varied in size — then pushed for a change to the norm.,,, When a minority group pushing change was below 25% of the total group, its efforts failed. But when the committed minority reached 25%, there was an abrupt change in the group dynamic, and very quickly the majority of the population adopted the new norm. In one trial, a single person accounted for the difference between success and failure. The researchers also tested the strength of their results by increasing the payments people got for adhering to the prevailing norm. Despite doubling and tripling the amount of money for sticking with the established behavior, Centola and his colleagues found that a minority group could still overturn the group norm.”
The real world being what it is, the researchers allow for the need to adjust that 25% target according to circumstances. The study’s lead author Damon Centola says his team’s research can inform political activism online, or can empower organizations to engineer their environments to “push people in pro-social directions” through purposely shifting their underlying beliefs. Interesting observations; see the article for more details.
Cynthia Murrell, July 18, 2018
Cambridge Analytica: A Few More Alleged Factoids
July 17, 2018
It is 2018 and the 2016 US presidential election remain news. Nature wrote an interesting article that digs into the data used to target Facebook users: “The Scant Science Behind Cambridge Analytica’s Controversial Marketing Techniques.” It was revealed in March that Cambridge Analytica collected Facebook user data without consent and that was later used to send false news to voters. It involves something called psychographic targeting.
Psychographic targeting, in which psychographic marketing is based on, uses people’s personality traits to send them targeted information, such as ads. The scary thing is that psychographic targeting actually works, at least when it comes to shopping. Voting is a different matter:
“But these effects were small in absolute terms, points out Brendan Nyhan, a political researcher at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. And what works in consumer purchasing might not apply to voting, he says. “It’s surely possible to leverage personality information for political persuasion in some way, but, as far as I know, such effects are not proven or known to be of a substantively meaningful magnitude,” Nyhan adds. He points to other studies3,4,5 that suggest that political ‘microtargeting’ — sending specific kinds of messages to specific voters — has limited effectiveness.”
Cambridge Analytica might have built a model from the Facebook data, but no one is sure. In fact, no one is exactly sure how to even copy Cambridge Analytica’s methods. Some scientists are trying to reverse engineer the firm’s methods and a journalist and academic group is trying to get Cambridge Analytica to share its data.
Whitney Grace, July 17, 2018
Social Media: Mass Behavior Modification and Revenue
July 16, 2018
File this one under “Things That Are Not Big Shock,” but experts have recently been taking a closer look at the trends in social media that tend to ruin this platform. Big surprise, the fact that money is to be made is usually the root of a lot of bad behavior, as we discovered from this cheeky, but somewhat useful Guardian story, “Six Reasons Why Social Media is a Bummer.”
While it lists its gripes against social media in alphabetical order, the points are pretty good, like:
“The mass behavior modification machine is rented out to make money. The manipulations are not perfect, but they are powerful enough that it becomes suicidal for brands, politicians, and other competitive entities to forgo payments to Bummer enterprises. Universal cognitive blackmail ensues, resulting in a rising global spend on Bummer.”
It’s difficult to imagine that social media will change its tune or suddenly go non-profit. Not with the fact that it is a platform custom made to attract the eyes and wallets of millions of users. Just look in the news and you’ll see a controversy that bubbled up on Twitter nearly every day. We can’t see patterns changing when so much money is to be made from so much attention.
Patrick Roland, July 16, 2018
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
