Expert Wants the Zuck to Resign: Yeah, Sure
October 20, 2022
I read what I think is an essay for a first year MBA class at an online university. The title? “It’s Time for Mark Zuckerberg to Step Down.” Like Mr. Putin, Mr. Zuckerberg seems to be part of the Facebook furniture. Fortunately the brilliant leader of the footless avatar company does not have nuclear weapons. He has the next best thing: Control of the company and a lot of money.
The write up ignores these facts, suggesting:
Mark Zuckerberg should quit. He should step down from his position as CEO of Meta and let someone else manage Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. He should then use his vast wealth and venture-capital connections to launch a startup that can build out his vision of the metaverse.
I want to point out that the metaverse is to Mr. Zuckerberg what annexed regions of the Ukraine are to Mr. Putin. Under attack, these outstanding leaders retreat, talk with people who know an answer other than yes can have a downside, and make decisions from carpet land. These are top downers, not Millennial / GenX / GenY sensitives.
The article adds:
Americans generally find the company’s business model creepy. This has thrown Meta’s business into panic mode…
Panic mode. I don’t think so. The steps taken by Meta and other tech-centric firms are mostly engineering daring do. Logical steps often make sense to folks like Mr. Zuckerberg and I suppose Mr. Putin. Consequences? Sure. Ever hear of collateral damage?
Interesting stuff, particularly the last line of the analysis:
…he should quit.
Insightful. Maybe Mr. Putin and Mr. Zuckerberg will resign on the same day?
Stephen E Arnold, October 20, 2022
The Zuck with Legs: Just a Demo?
October 18, 2022
Slashdot ran an interesting item on October 14, 2022. The title of the post was “Facebook’s Legs Video Was a Lie.” According to the short item, this factoid was reported: As UploadVR’s Ian Hamilton has since reported, Meta has issued a follow-up statement, which says, “To enable this preview of what’s to come, the segment [Zuck’s demo] featured animations created from motion capture.”
Did you ever hear the joke about Bill Gates who had to choose between heaven and hell. He examined both destinations and chose the location with babes, great location, and close friends like a construct that looked like Gary Kildall and another emulating Jeffrey Epstein. Mr. Gates chose the one with babes and palls. When Mr. Gates passed to heaven, he ended up in a horrible place with hell fire and demons. He called Saint Peter (God was in a meeting) and asked, “What happened to the place with good weather, my pals and babes?” The response, “That was a demo.”
My hunch is that the Zuck’s final destination will be a 360 degree immersive TikTok stream. Legs may not be part of the equation.
Stephen E Arnold, October 18, 2022
Metazuck: An All Too Common Response in Silicon Valley Land
October 17, 2022
“How TikTok Ate the Internet” is a business school write up which contains some interesting data; for example:
The web’s most popular app [TikTok] has reshaped American culture, hypnotized the world and sparked a battle between two global superpowers…TikTok’s website was visited last year more often than Google. No app has grown faster past a billion users, and more than 100 million of them are in the United States, roughly a third of the country. The average American viewer watches TikTok for 80 minutes a day — more than the time spent on Facebook and Instagram, combined.
I think this means is that TikTok is the next big thing… after almost a decade in the gloomy bedrooms of teens.
Fortune Magazine explains “Mark Zuckerberg admits he missed a social networking trend that led to the TikTok boom.” How is this possible? Easy. Facebook or the Zuckbook just missed the next big thing. Money and legal woes can distract I suppose.
Now the Zucker wants to catch up. One article has the interesting title “Meta Has Burned $15 billion Trying to Build the Metaverse — And Nobody’s Saying Exactly Where the Money Went.” The write up focuses on using money to leap frog the next big thing. Okay, that may work, but I don’t think tech gurus on the way down can buy their way back up.
What’s my view of the Zucker’s situation? Think about a person watching a hauspex chop out a goat’s liver. The spectacle and the solemnity of the event fuels the hope that the desired outcome will be foretold. Sure it is.
In terms of Silicon Valley, the idea is that money divines the future. How does one deal with TikTok and a decided lack of enthusiasm for spending time in a cartoon without legs or a way to send a text?
Money.
Let’s take a helicopter to 3,000 feet and check out the lay of the Silicon Valley method.
- Spending money to “apply” technology is the best way to fix a problem. Is the logic, “Hey, this worked for the iPhone, and it will work in the TikTok situation.”
- The mental frame for solving problems ignores soft factors like users who want and need to use the TikTok content experience. Social graphs and knock off service. Thank you, no.
- The cloud of misperception is “a certain blindness” which is touchingly centered in Silicon Valley it seems from my helicopter.
Is the problem China and super algorithms?
First, TikTok’s method is not that sophisticated based on our examination of the system. Sure, the surveillance stuff is good, but that’s old hat in the intelware game. Everyone attributes technological wizardry to TikTok. Some influence? Sure. But the drip of digital anesthesia is easier and more fun when administered in the somewhat negative post Covid world.
Second, the Chinese government is not exactly the world’s most progressive institution. Bureaucrats recognized an opportunity to inject content and took it.
Third, the Silicon Valley mindset arrived late and the high speed train had departed the station. Buying a train does not deliver a way to catch up. What about building a rocket ship?
Net net: Long shot.
Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2022
Amnesty International: Unfriending As an Agent of Change
October 3, 2022
I read “Meta’s Horrendous Role in Facilitating Rohingya Genocide Detailed in New Report.” I am not sure how much of the story is just more of the “Get the Zuck Out of Here” versus objective, dispassionate analysis. You can decide for yourself after you read “The Social Atrocity: Meta and the Right to Remedy for the Rohingya.” You can download the report from Amnesty International at this link.
In the cited article “Meta’s Horrendous…”, I noted this statement:
Meta is being sued for $150 billion by refugees for its role in the violence.
The number is interesting. If the litigation achieves its goal, the Meta outfit (what I call the Zuckbook) will have to write a check. I wonder how much the possible settlement will go to legal eagles?
Another interesting statement in the cited article said:
“Amnesty International’s analysis shows how Meta’s content-shaping algorithms and reckless business practices facilitated and enabled discrimination and violence against the Rohingya,” the report said. “Meta’s algorithms directly contributed to harm by amplifying harmful anti-Rohingya content, including advocacy of hatred against the Rohingya. They also indirectly contributed to real-world violence against the Rohingya, including violations of the right to life, the right to be free from torture, and the right to adequate housing, by enabling, facilitating, and incentivizing the actions of the Myanmar military.”
I noted the word “reckless”, “torture”, and “military.” The word choice suggests that the Zuckbook can be weaponized because its management team was otherwise engaged.
True or false? My hunch is that the litigation will provide an answer. Oh, the payday for the legal eagles involved will feather some nests.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2022
Quite a Recipe: Zuck-ini with a Bulky Stuffed Sausage
September 28, 2022
Ah, the Zuckbook or the Meta-thing. I can never remember the nomenclature. I thought about the estimable company after I read “Meta Defends Safe Instagram Posts Seen by Molly Russell.” I suppose I should provide a bit of color about Ms. Russell. She was the British school girl who used the digital Zuck-ini’s Instagram recipe for happiness, success, and positive vibes.
However, in Ms. Russell’s case, her journey to community appears to have gone off the rails. Ms. Russell was 14 when she died by suicide. The Meta-thing’s spokesperson for the legal action sparked by Ms. Russell’s demise said:
Ms Lagone told the inquest at North London Coroner’s Court she thought it was “safe for people to be able to express themselves” – but conceded two of the posts shown to the court would have violated Instagram’s policies and offered an apology about some of the content. Responding to questioning, she said: “We are sorry that Molly viewed content that violated our policies and we don’t want that on the platform.”
Move fast and break things was I believe a phrase associated with the Zuck-ini’s garden of delights. In Ms. Russell’s case the broken thing was Ms. Russell’s family. That “sorry” strikes me as meaningful, maybe heart felt. On the other hand, it might be corporate blather.
Macworld does not address Ms. Russell’s death. However, the article “Despite Apple’s Best Efforts, Meta and Google Are Still Out of Control.” The write up explains that Apple is doing something to slow the stampeding stallions at the Meta-thing and Googzilla.
I noted this passage:
There is a great potential for this [data gathered by certain US high-technology companies] information to be misused and if we in the United States had any sort of functional government, it would have made these sales illegal by now.
My question: What about the combination of a young person’s absorbing content and the systems and methods to display “related” content to a susceptible individual. Might that one-two punch have downsides?
Yep. Is there a fix? Sure, after two decades of inattention, let’s just apply a quick fix or formulate a silver bullet.
But the ultimate is, of course, is to say, “Sorry.” I definitely want to see the Zuck-ini stuffed. Absent a hot iron poker, an Italian sausage will do.
Stephen E Arnold, September 28, 2022
Greetings, Zuck: Fancy a Chat about Cambridge Analytica?
September 27, 2022
The right to be forgotten does not apply to the Cambridge Analytic matter. “MPs Formally Request Zuckerberg Answer Questions” reports:
Mark Zuckerberg has been sent a formal request to appear before MPs and answer questions regarding a growing scandal about user data.
Will the Zucker cooperate? I circled this passage:
Mr Collins [Damian Collins MP, the chair of the culture committee] wrote that the DCMS committee “has repeatedly asked Facebook about how companies acquire and hold on to user data from their site, and in particular about whether data had been taken without their consent. “Your officials’ answers have consistently understated this risk, and have been misleading to the Committee,” Mr Collins informed Mr Zuckerberg. “It is now time to hear from a senior Facebook executive with the sufficient authority to give an accurate account of this catastrophic failure of process.”
I drew a yellow underline around several words and phrases:
- Repeatedly asked
- Data taken
- Without their [Facebook users I presume] consent
- Understated this risk
No bit time semantic sentiment analysis is required to get the idea that Mr. Collins is not going to give the Zucker a like.
But the best phrase in the article is Mr. Damien’s analysis of how the Zuckbook implements its operations. Here’s the phrase:
Catastrophic failure of process
Will the Zucker show up? Nah, that’s where Nick Clegg. Is it true that Mr. Clegg enjoys slippery eel, olive oil, and salted butter tea sandwiches? The MPs may not enjoy these, however. Mr. Damien will want bloody red meat carved from the cows in line for slaughter. But that’s just my opinion, just my opinion.
Zuck tartare, anyone?
Stephen E Arnold, September 27, 2022
Facebook: Slow and TikTok: Fast. Can Research Keep Pace with Effects?
September 23, 2022
I read “Facebook Proven to Negatively Impact Mental Health.” The academic analysis spanned about two decades. The conclusion is that Facebook (the poster child for bringing people together) is bad news for happy thoughts.
I noted this passage:
The study was based on data that dates back to the 2004 advent of Facebook at Harvard University, before it took the internet by storm. Facebook was initially accessible only to Harvard students who had a Harvard email address. Quickly spreading to other colleges in and outside the US, the network was made available to the general public in the US and beyond in September 2006. The researchers were able to analyze the impact of social media use by comparing colleges that had access to the platform to colleges that did not. The findings show a rise in the number of students reporting severe depression and anxiety (7% and 20% respectively).
The phrase which caught my attention is “quickly spreading.” Sure, by the standards of yesteryear, Facebook was like Road Runner. My thought is that the velocity of TikTok is different:
- Slow ramp and then accelerating user growth
- Rapid fire content consumption
- Short programs which Marshall McLuhan would be interested in if he were alive
- Snappy serve-up algorithms.
Facebook is a rabbit with a bum foot. No lucky charm for the Zuckers. TikTok is a Chinese knock off of the SR 71.
Perhaps the researchers in Ivory Towerville will address these questions:
- What’s the impact of high velocity, short image-centric videos on high school and grade school students?
- What can weaponized information accomplish in attitude change on certain issues like body image, perception of reality, and the value of self harm?
- What mental changes take place when information is obtained from a TikTok type source?
Do you see the research challenge? Researchers are just now validating what has been evident to many commercial database publishers for many years. With go-go TikTok, how many years will it take to validate the downsides of this outstanding, intellect-enhancing service?
Stephen E Arnold, September 23, 2022
Facebook Reassures Users It Does Not Keep Data, Of Course
September 22, 2022
I bet Facebook, Google, Apple, and other big tech companies have an entire segment of their publicity department constantly writing press releases about how they do not sell nor store user data. Nudge. Nudge. Wink. Wink. They do. The Intercept intercepted another such damage control piece this time from the mouths of Facebook engineers: “Facebook Engineers: We Have No Idea Where We Keep Your Personal Data.”
Two Facebook engineers were interrogated at the hearing regarding the Cambridge Analytica lawsuit about mishandling user information. The engineers were asked the crucial question: “What information, precisely, does Facebook store about us, and where is it?” They responded that they did not know.
Court-appointed, subject matter expert Daniel Garrie grilled the Facebook engineers and neither could tell him in which of Facebook’s fifty-five subsystems user information was stored. They also were unable to answer how to track down every bit of data associated with a single user account. The Facebook engineers are either speaking the truth or were coached, just like the publicity department:
“…Meta spokesperson Dina El-Kassaby told The Intercept that a single engineer’s inability to know where all user data was stored came as no surprise. She said Meta worked to guard users’ data, adding, ‘We have made — and continue making — significant investments to meet our privacy commitments and obligations, including extensive data controls.’”
The lawsuit has been going on for four years. When the court asked Facebook to provide the plaintiff’s information, it gave the same data that can be downloaded from the “Download Your Information” tool. Facebook told the court that any information not included in the provided data was outside the lawsuit’s scope:
“…ignoring the vast quantities of information the company generates through inferences, outside partnerships, and other nonpublic analysis of our habits — parts of the social media site’s inner workings that are obscure to consumers. Briefly, what we think of as “Facebook” is in fact a composite of specialized programs that work together when we upload videos, share photos, or get targeted with advertising. The social network wanted to keep data storage in those nonconsumer parts of Facebook out of court.”
The judge disagreed in 2020 and told Facebook they had to share everything they gathered on the Internet used to monetize information. The Facebook team, however, claims they cannot point to the exact subsystem or application because the social media platform is too complex. Garrie was flabbergasted that a diagram did not exist.
Facebook denies that it even understands how its systems work to avoid data privacy laws.
Facebook’s immensity is unmappable. If the territory is unknown, how can one accept a Facebook statement about what is and is not held within that territory? Ah, El Zucko is surprisingly consistent in my opinion.
Whitney Grace, September 22, 2022
Apple Prepares to Core, Halve, and Quarter the Zuckbook
September 21, 2022
Last year Apple smugly changed its privacy policy so iOS users now choose whether to allow their Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA) to be tracked. Naturally, most say no. This is an expensive problem for Meta, which has historically made a lot of money targeting users via their IDFA on Facebook and Instagram. Now Apple is preparing another blow to its rival, according to MarketWatch‘s piece, “Apple Already Decimated Meta’s Ad-Tech Empire. Now, It’s Homing In on Facebook’s Advertisers, Too.” Reporter Shoshana Wodinsky points to a pair of virtual help-wanted signs to support her assertion:
“MarketWatch found two recent job postings by Apple that suggest the company is looking to build out its burgeoning ad-tech team with folks who specialize in working with small businesses. Specifically, the company says it’s looking for two product managers who are ‘inspired to make a difference in how digital advertising will work in a privacy-centric world’ and who want to ‘design and build consumer advertising experiences.’ An ideal candidate, Apple said, won’t only be savvy in advertising and mobile tech, and advertising on mobile tech, but will also have experience with ‘performance marketing, local ads or enabling small businesses.’ The listings also state that Apple’s looking for a manager who can ‘drive multi-year strategy and execution,’ which suggests that Apple isn’t just tailing local advertisers but will likely be tailing those advertisers for a while. And considering how some of those small brands are already looking to jump ship from Facebook following Apple’s privacy changes, luring them off the platform might be enough to hamper Meta’s entire business structure for good, ad-tech analysts said.”
If true, this move is the second jab in a one-two punch for advertisers. Cutting off their IDFA-based user data is believed to have hurt small businesses—not just the many that advertised on Facebook, but those advertising on other platforms too, from Google to Pinterest. This left the door wide open for Apple to come sauntering to the rescue—after creating the problem in the first place. Many advertisers will surely accept the deliverance anyway; Facebook has conditioned them to tolerate the whims of a digital despot as inescapable, however detrimental they may be.
Analyst Eric Seufert suspects Apple’s moves are about more than money. He tells Wodinsky:
“I think the revenue piece [of the ad market] is less important to Apple than just breaking up Facebook’s total ownership of distribution on mobile. Ads are a revenue opportunity, but, more importantly, they’re a discovery mechanic. And suddenly Facebook was determining which apps got downloaded, not Apple. My sense with all this is that they care about the revenue, but I don’t think that was the primary driver. I think it was about the power.”
Ah yes, a good old power struggle. With advertisers large and small playing the pawns. Who will come out on top? Well, A is for Apple and Z is for … losers?
Cynthia Murrell, September 21, 2022
Ad Duopoly: Missing Some Points?
September 19, 2022
The newspaper disguised as a magazine published “The $300B Google Meta Advertising Duopoly Is Under Attack” is interesting. The write up is what I would expect from a couple of MBAs beavering away a blue chip consulting firm. If you are curious, read the story for which you will have to pay. The story sparked some comments on HackerNews. These are interesting and some of the comments contain more insightful information than the Under Attack write up itself. Here’s a few comments to illustrate this point:
- Sam Willis: To some extent I disagree with this, not that Google+Meta are under attack, but that the threat is coming from competitors. I’ve spent most of the last 10 years earning my living from an e-commerce business I own. The online advertising industry is unrecognisable from when we started. My thesis, in beef, is that the industries excessive uses of personalised data and tracking lead to increased regulation, and then a massive pivot to even more “AI” as a means to circumvent that (to some extent). The AI in the ad industry now, I believe, is detrimental to the advertiser. It’s now just one big black box, you put money in one side and get traffic out the other. The control and useful tracking (what actual search terms people are using, proper visible conversion tracking of an ad) is now almost non-existent. As an advertiser your livelihood is dependent on an algorithm, not skill, not intuition, not experience, not even track record. Facebook, Google and the rest of the industry were so driven by profit at all cost, and at the expense of long term thinking, they shot themselves in the foot. Advertisers are searching for alternatives, but they are all the same.
- Justin Baker 84: Usually people need to get ripped off a few times before they accept that fact that Google is no longer a good actor.
- Missedthecue: I get billed for so many accidental clicks.
- Heavyset: Google Knows Best™ and lack of real competition or regulation means they can do whatever they want.
- Prepend: I remember talking to some friends in Google and but estimated their error/fraud rate to be about 1/3 of ad revenue. But they have no motivation to fix it and no one outside Google has the data to tell.
- MichaelCollins: Organizations that are trying to do something disreputable or shameful (or just something that could be construed that way by a nontrivial portion of the population) often come up with sweet little lies about their motives that help their employees sleep better at night. It’s not about making money by serving ads, it’s about “organizing the world’s data”. It’s not about winning defense contracts to put military hardware into space, it’s about “colonizing mars to save humanity”. It’s not about printing money by getting poor people to sign up for 50,000% APR payday loans, it’s about “providing liquidity to undeserved communities”. Etc.
- Addicted: If you don’t pay Google/Facebook you’re absolutely screwed. You will lose no matter how good the product is. What this actually means is that now companies have to pay a Google/Meta tax simply to enter the playing field. And once they enter the playing field. And once you enter the playing field, the only winners will be the ones who pay them the highest amount of money. So a smaller business, which in the past could potentially use some ingenuity, or target a specific niche audience to get some traction and then build word of mouth and let the product do the talking, doesn’t even stand a chance now because they simply cannot differentiate themselves as your exposure is entirely dependent on how much money you give Google/Meta.
Dozens of useful comments appear in the HackerNews post. Worth scanning them in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, September 19, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
