Think Facebook Is Going to Fix Its Data Issues, Think Again
November 23, 2017
Facebook has been in hot water lately with its massive flubs with fake news. But the water is about to get scalding when you look at how fast and lose it plays with data. We learned some shocking things from a Fast Company story, “This Time, Facebook is Sharing Its Employees’ Data.”
According to the story:
Still, through a little-known arrangement, Facebook Inc. routinely shares the sensitive income and employment data of its U.S.-based employees with the Work Number database, owned by Equifax Workforce Solutions. Yes, that Equifax.
Every week, Facebook provides an electronic data feed of its employees’ hourly work and wage information to Equifax Workforce Solutions, formerly known as TALX, a St. Louis-based unit of Equifax, Inc. The Work Number database is managed separately from the Equifax credit bureau database that suffered a breach exposing the data of more than 143 million Americans, but it contains another cache of extensive personal information about Facebook’s employees, including their date of birth, social security number, job title, salary, pay raises or decreases, tenure, number of hours worked per week, wages by pay period, healthcare insurance coverage, dental care insurance coverage, and unemployment claim records.
This is pretty groundbreaking news. If the social media king can’t even keep its own employee data safe from the Equifaxes and hackers of the world, how safe are we supposed to think they keep our own data? For Facebook to earn back customer trust, it’ll have to jump through some pretty serious hoops. We’ll sit back and wait for the circus to arrive, in that case.
Patrick Roland, November 23, 2017
The FG Snipers Draw a Bead
November 22, 2017
Facebook (hereinafter “F”) and Google (hereinafter “G”) are the part of the new sport FG sniping. Favored by the Guardian and other “real” publishers, F and G are plump, apparently arrogant, and seemingly clueless targets. The horrible companies do not “give back” to the “real” magazines and newspapers which have been eroded by the flow of clicks flowing to F and G.
A fun example of this blood sport appear in “Why Magazine Mogul Tina Brown Is ‘Angry and Upset’ at Google and Facebook.” I highlighted three comments Tina Brown (Oxford graduate and traditional print journalist) allegedly made to a “real” journalist who has gone over to the dark side of online content creation.
Number One:
I [Tina Brown, Oxford graduate] am very angry and upset about the way advertising revenue has been essentially pirated by the Facebook-Google world
Ahoy, mates. Google indexes. “Real” publishers tried this; for example, the New York Times and its fumbling with LexisNexis and its own Jeff Pemberton led initiative decades ago. Google succeeded; the NYT and other “real” publishers failed. Sour grapes?
Number Two:
When you don’t have human beings who have judgment, who have taste, who have a sense of responsibility, you can have any old Russian hacker dishing it out to the American public.
Not just any “human beings.” The “right” type of human being is a trained journalist like those who do the “This Week in Google” podcast perhaps? Plus, last I knew, F and G had human beings. Mr. Brin, for example, allegedly behaved in a human manner with a certain Google Glass marketing maven. The disconnect is that some human beings are more adept at applying technology to content processing and delivering what users want. On the other hand, “real” publishers certain knew how to generate “yellow” journalism and engage in other fascinating human activities.
Number Three:
People don’t know what’s important or where to find it.
To be clear, some people do know what’s important and where to find it. The problem is that People Magazine or the grocery store tabloid the National Enquirer are not much different from “real” newspapers and magazines.
What the issue is, of course, is the fact that traditional publishing has found itself marginalized. The arbiters of taste and judgment from places like Oxford and Yale are a bit overwhelmed because they don’t get traffic or a sufficient number of likes.
Where in the modern economy is the “law” which says that F and G have to give back to the outfits which have failed to adapt to the new world.
I guess Darwinian principles (Darwin was a Cambridge graduate) don’t apply to those Oxford graduates who wish to enshrine dead tree methods. From my vantage point in Harrod’s Creek, Darwin (a Cambridge graduate) is alive and well. Just look at those informed individuals living in trailers living by the creek. Also, in forward leaning places like Palo Alto, one can observe on the way to F and G the lines of SUVs and motor homes which provide safe havens for Facebook posts and Google searches.
Life would be so much better if time stood still. Are F and G clueless? Should large companies “give back”? One could consult Adam Smith I suppose. Oh, Smith was an allegedly unhappy Oxforder. Nasty intellectual environment my economics professor observed as I recall.
Failure can be unpalatable. Zeros and ones leave a bitter after taste on the tongues of some arbiters of taste.
Stephen E Arnold, November 22, 2017
It Is Time Our Tech Giants Went on a Goodwill Tour
November 22, 2017
As our tech giants pull in more cash, it’s time they gave more back to society. But how? That’s the central question of a fascinating Business Week article, “Hate Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google? Get in Line.”
According to the story:
All of the sudden our tech giants find themselves in a PR pickle: They are posting record earnings and seem unstoppable in business, but they desperately need to convince the public they’re not scarier than a pack of velociraptors on meth.
The story partially follows California congressional candidate, Ro Khanna, who thinks he has some answers for these hated behemoths.
Khanna wants the tech giants to see this moment as an opportunity—“a chance to respond to the challenges facing our country,” he wrote. “The hope is that they will answer the nation’s call to advance the common good, from expanding job opportunity to communities across the country to ensuring that online platforms do not contribute to polarization or misinformation.
This is a chance for those behemoths to really make an impact on something other than their pocketbooks. Perhaps, these businesses like Amazon and Facebook, which are obsessed with the real-time operation can extend that to charitable deeds. To see a real-time charitable impact, like this would likely surge giving.
Patrick Roland, November 22, 2017
AI Tech Companies Had Better Watch Their Backs
November 20, 2017
In a case of perhaps getting too big for one’s own britches, there’s a lot of scuttlebutt about how our tech giants are in for a rude awakening, either from the government or competition. We learned more in a US News and World Report story, “Tech Companies Must Regain Trust.”
With all the negative publicity organizations like Facebook and Google have gotten has raised concerns, as we saw in the article:
Google and Facebook are not natural monopolies and ought not to be regulated as such. The history of the internet is a history of defunct giants that once oozed monopolistic power: Netscape, AltaVista, MySpace, AOL, among many others. Unlike constructing a news power grid, dislodging an incumbent does not require investing billions into new infrastructure. In principle, it only requires novel ideas.
(T)ech companies themselves can do a lot themselves in order not to actively invite onerous regulation. If they can invest in editorial judgment and quality control, crack down on bots and increase the transparency of their advertising schemes, the political case for new rules will become much weaker.
It’s a moment we will look back on and see as a watershed moment. Clearly, tech companies need better policing. Now is the moment they decide whether it will be themselves who make the change. Otherwise, the Googles and Facebooks of the world will suffer either from government regulation or from competition doing the job in question better.
Patrick Roland, November 20, 2017
Facebook and Foreign Policy
November 9, 2017
I knew online was important when I became involved in the commercial database sector in 1981. At that time, the idea that accessing online information to look up citations in Pharmaceutical News Index would mature into a policy crushing machine.
After reading “Facebook Can’t Cope with the World It’s Created,” I realized that online has arrived at the big dance. The company, however, lacks the jazzy moves of a John Travolta stayin’ alive.
Foreign Policy does not do fluffy “real news” write ups. You will have to navigate to the original at the link provided or make your way to a real library where the snappy publication is available.
I noted this assertion—well, maybe “real” news—in the article about everyone’s favorite social network:
On an earnings call earlier last week, Zuckerberg told investors and reporters “how upset I am that the Russians tried to use our tools to sow mistrust,” adding that he was “dead serious” about findings ways to tackle the problem. That would be a positive step — but it must also extend to examining Facebook’s tricky impacts in the rest of the world.
But the ace statement in the article is this observation, which I assume is 100 percent on the money:
In Myanmar today, Facebook is the internet.
There are some interesting groups in Myanmar, and it is reassuring to know that Facebook has everyone’s interests in mind. Free communication flows, friends, and nifty private groups.
What could possibly be untoward with these essential, unregulated modern functions? The government authorities are probably avid Facebookers too.
Stephen E Arnold, November 9, 2017
I Hear the Crows Cawing: A Newspaper Revels in Alleged Silicon Valley Flubs
November 2, 2017
I read “How to Stop Google and Facebook from Becoming Even More Powerful.” The write up appeared in a British newspaper, one which has embraced the digital revolution. Well, I should say, “Tries to embrace the digital revolution.”
I learned that “banning these tech giants from buying any more companies would prevent them from entrenching their monopoly position and help protect our freedom.
I assume that if Facebook or Google tried to buy the Guardian, the newspaper would tell these giants to take their money and get back to solving death or paying lobbyists. When a certain person with oodles of money approached the estimable Washington Post, my recollection is that the Bezos bucks convinced the stakeholders of the Washington Post to accept the cash. But not the Guardian’s stakeholders, right? Of course not! Money. Filthy lucre.
I also noted this passage:
these institutions are designed to gather vast amounts of information about every American, but they are not built to manage that information in the interest of those individuals or the public as a whole…
What’s a company supposed to do? Should Facebook and Google refuse to sell ads? Is it the nature of a corporate entity to have a heart, a soul, an obligation to save the whales, and preserve the rain forest?
Nope. A corporate entity has an obligation to make money. if one does not make money or at least try to make money, in the US the Internal Revenue Service is suspicious of deductable expenditures I hear.
I circled this statement as well:
If it’s clear that Facebook and Google can’t manage what they already control, why let those corporations own more? America’s antitrust enforcers can impose such a rule almost immediately.
The Guardian has first hand experience with the bureaucracy of the US government I assume. In my experience, the phrase “almost immediately” does not match what appears to be the velocity at which government agencies can operate. Immediately does not capture the reality of certain government functions in the US. Obviously the Guardian knows better than I how to make the Bugatti Chiron of the US government burn off a ridiculous acceleration down the virtual political Nürburgring that is Constitution Avenue.
What’s clear to me is that Facebook and Google are in for more scrutiny, criticism, and pundit pummeling.
Let’s see. Google’s been chugging along for 20 years. Facebook has fewer miles on its odometer, but it’s no spring chicken.
Yep, let make changes immediately. Sounds good from the point of view of a newspaper dutifully reporting the thrill ride of Brexit. But I keep coming back to this question, “Would the Guardian sell itself if either Facebook or Google showed up with a lorry filled with cash, stock, and a promise of technological heaven?”
Stephen E Arnold, November 2, 2017
Instagram Milestone: 800 Million Monthly Active Users
October 27, 2017
If there were any doubts that Facebook’s 2012 purchase of Instagram was a good idea, this should put them to rest—SiliconBeat reports, “Facebook-Owned Instagram Reaches 800 Million Monthly Active Users.” Reporter Queenie Wong writes:
The photo-sharing app reached 800 million monthly active users, Carolyn Everson, Facebook’s vice president of global marketing solutions, announced at an advertising event in New York Monday. That’s an uptick of 100 million monthly users since April. Instagram also grew its daily active users to 500 million and reached 2 million advertisers. Facebook bought Instagram for $1 billion in cash and stock in 2012. So far, the social media giant’s purchase appears to be paying off. Analysts have noted before that Instagram was a good investment for Facebook because it gave the company an app that was popular among teens.
Wong concludes by reminding us that Instagram has recently been competing with Snapchat with its own version of temporary posts, Stories. In fact, Facebook just announced the ability to cross-post Stories between the two platforms.
Cynthia Murrell, October 27, 2017
You Cannot Patent Public Domain Property
October 24, 2017
Oh, Google! Is there no end to the amount of mischief you will cause to make a dollar? Bleeping Computer reports that, “Google Is Accused Of Trying To Patent Public Domain Technology” and that is not right. A Polish assistant professor named Jaroslaw Duda invented a technology called Asymmetric Numeral Systems. He said he released it to the public domain so it would not be trapped in restrictive licenses.
Duda’s Asymmetric Numeral Systems (ANS) is a powerful family of entropy coding methods that is used in data compression systems. These include Apple’s LZFSE compressor, Facebook’s standard compressor, and Google’s Draco 3D compressor. Technology companies love ANS, because it has faster compression and decompression speeds with minimal data loss and computational costs.
Duda has a sarcastic response to Google trying to patent his technology, saying it was a nice “thank you” from a “don’t be evil” company. He is also bringing a very strong case against Google and also strong supporters:
The International Search Authority [ISA], a WIPO department tasked with searching prior patents, has already sided with Duda on the topic and published a scathing review, calling Google’s patent as not comprising ‘an inventive contribution over the prior art, because it is no more than a straightforward application of known coding algorithms.
Writing on online forums, Duda said he had high hopes when he first reached out to Google.
There was a moment they gave me hope for a formal collaboration with my University so I could build a team, but then silence … probably due to this patent application,” the researcher wrote. ‘[Right now,] Google is not responding, probably currently rewriting the patent – showing its determination to reach this monopoly..’
Google might have deep pockets and powerful lawyers, but Duda released ANS as public domain technology in 2014. Good luck trying to overcome that, Google! Not really.
Whitney Grace, October 24, 2017
Facebookand Publishing
October 23, 2017
Print publishing has slowly been circling the drain as revenue drops (at least depending on what type of publishing you are in). Some publishers have tried going totally digital, hoping that online subscriptions and ads would pay the bills, but Google and Facebook are siphoning off the source. The Next Web shares more of how publishers are struggling in the article, “Publishers Need To Learn From Mega Platforms Like Facebook.”
Like many smart companies, publishers have joined social media and hoped to build their brand image on them. Publishers, however, have learned that Facebook and other social media platforms keep changing their requirements. The article compares it to a type of Darwinian survival of the fittest. The publishing companies with deep pockets are surviving by investments and smart digital upgrades.
Jeff Bezos is used as an example because he has turned video streaming as one of Amazon’s main profit generators. The suggestion is that publishers follow suit with video and then live video streams. The comments sections in these videos create an ongoing dialogue with viewers (while at the same time allowing trolls). It turns out that commoditized content on social media is not the way to go.
Publishers need to instead concentrate on building their own platform apparently:
This is the perfect time for publishers to take control of their platforms and the video streams that will drive the next phase of the digital content revolution. With advances in live video programming and the speed with which original content can be created, publishers can greatly enhance what they already do and know, and monetize it through changes in advertising models that fuel online media platforms as well as live-streaming video platforms.
The Internet is more than video, however. Podcasts and articles are still viable content too. It might be time to double think your career if you are a social media manager.
Whitney Grace, October 23, 2017
Social Media Should Be Social News
October 18, 2017
People are reading news more than ever due to easy information access on the Internet. While literacy rates soar, where people are reading news stories has changed from traditional news outlets to something comparatively newer and quite questionable. According to Pew Research, “News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017,” people are obtaining their news stories from social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and others. The Pew Research survey discovered that 67% of Americans get some of their news from social media, which has grown from 62% in 2016. The growth comes from people who are older, nonwhite and are less educated. That is an interesting statistic about American social groups:
Furthermore, about three-quarters of nonwhites (74%) get news on social media sites, up from 64% in 2016. This growth means that nonwhites1 are now more likely than whites to get news while on social media. And social media news use also increased among those with less than a bachelor’s degree, up nine percentage points from 60% in 2016 to 69% in 2017. Alternatively, among those with at least a college degree, social media news use declined slightly.
The information is different from what Pew Research has recorded in the past and there are two ways to interpret the data: compare the share of each social media’s users that get news on that specific Web site and the total percentage of Americans that get news on social media sites. Twitter, Snapchat, and YouTube she a significant growth in user shared news and these directly correspond to investments the companies made to in developing their usability. Facebook remains the number one social media Web site that distributes news, while YouTube is a close second. The data also shows that users visit multiple social media sites to read the news, but that they also rely on traditional news platforms as well.
Social media is a major component to how people communicate with the world around them. Perhaps traditional news outlets should look at ways to incorporate themselves more into social media. Will Facebook, YouTube, and/or Twitter hire journalists in the future?
Whitney Grace, October 18, 2017
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
