TikTok Is Rolling Coal and Facebook Needs Clean Air
July 5, 2022
TikTok’s popularity is surging, especially with the coveted youth market, while Facebook is moving the opposite direction. The threat has Facebook’s parent company Meta rethinking how it presents content and encourages users to connect. Perhaps “rethink” is not the correct word—it looks more like copy-and-paste. The Verge discusses upcoming changes and the motivations behind them in, “Facebook Is Changing its Algorithm to Take on TikTok, Leaked Memo Reveals.” Reporter Alex Heath cites Facebook head Tom Alison as he writes:
“Rather than prioritize posts from accounts people follow, Facebook’s main feed will, like TikTok, start heavily recommending posts regardless of where they come from. And years after Messenger and Facebook split up as separate apps, the two will be brought back together, mimicking TikTok’s messaging functionality. Combined with an increasing emphasis on Reels, the planned changes show how forcibly Meta is responding to the rise of TikTok, which has quickly become a legitimate challenger to its dominance in social media.”
What do you do when you are out of ideas and sucking the exhaust of the truck rolling coal in front of you? Imitate. Build your own rolling coal machine… just nothing too original. Best not to take any risks, not when one is already falling behind. The article notes a key piece of this mimicry lies in the discovery engine, which will no longer focus on content from friends but instead source recommendations from the wilds of both Facebook and Instagram. Just like TikTok. It will also make it easier to share and discuss videos through direct messages in an attempt to keep discussions from wandering onto other platforms. Again, as its nemesis does. The article describes:
“Here’s how the future Facebook app will work in practice: the main tab will become a mix of Stories and Reels at the top, followed by posts its discovery engine recommends from across both Facebook and Instagram. It’ll be a more visual, video-heavy experience with clearer prompts to direct message friends a post. To make messaging even more prominent, Facebook is working on placing a user’s Messenger inbox at the top right of the app, undoing the infamous decision to separate the two apps eight years ago.”
Some Facebook employees are not so sure about this swerve to follow in TikTok’s fumes, suggesting this course may take them too far from Facebook’s core mission. (No, not chasing ad dollars. Connecting friends and family, silly.) To which Alison says, basically, pshaw. Heath reminds us of several times Facebook has made changes to stay apace of rivals like Snapchat and points out Facebook has a successful history of “recognizing upstarts and ruthlessly copying their core features.” After all, who needs innovation when one is a master of imitation?
Cynthia Murrell, July 5, 2022
Swedish Radio Tunes In to the Zuckbook Baloney
June 30, 2022
Sveriges Radio AB or Swedish Radio is a combo of the US National Public Radio and a “real” newspaper. In general, this approach to information is not the core competency of the Meat (sorry, Meta) Zuckbook thing. An interesting case example of the difference between Sveriges Radio and the estimable Silicon Valley super company is described in “Swedish Radio Created Fake Pharmacy – Reveals How Facebook Stored Sensitive Information.”
The main idea is that the Sveriges team did not listen to much disco or rap. Instead the canny outfit set up a honey pot in the form of a fake pharmacy. Then Sveriges analyzed what Facebook said it did with health-related information versus what the the Zuckster actually did.
Guess how that turned out? The write up explains:
After four days, 25 000 fake visits from customers had been registered with Facebook. But they had neither shut down nor warned the owners of the made-up pharmacy – Swedish Radio News’ reporters. When the reporters log into their account, they see that Facebook has stored the type of sensitive information that they say their filter is built to delete again and again. The question that the reporters then asked themselves was whether or not Facebook even has a filter that works in the Swedish language. One of the pharmacies that Swedish Radio reported on say that they cannot find any warnings from Facebook on data transfers that have taken place. The other has not wanted to answer the question. According to state investigators in the USA last year, Facebook only filtered in English.
Interesting? Yes, for three reasons:
- The radio outfit appears to have caught the Zuckers in a bit of a logical problem: Yes, there are filters? No, we just do marketing speak.
- Dismissing the method used to snap a mouse trap on Zuck’s big toe is probably a mistake. The “I’ll get back to you, Senator” works in the lobby-rich US. In Sweden, probably the method will swim like a plate of Surströmming.
- “Real” news — at least in Sweden — still has value. Perhaps some of the US “real” news people will give the approach a spin without the social justice and political sheen.
Net net: Will Facebook change its deep swimming in the information ocean? Has the Atlantic herring changed in the last two decades?
Stephen E Arnold, June 30, 2022
10 and Done for a Gun?
June 24, 2022
Mass shootings are an unfortunate part of US history well before the Columbine massacre. However, the prominence of school shootings and in other public places has gained a horrible commonplace in our society. What makes these massacres different from ones in the past is the availability of mass assault weapons like AK-47s. When similar attacks occurred in Australia, England, and Japan, their governments responded accordingly by outlawing all assault weapons and/or limited access to firearms. These countries have not had any incidents since these laws were enacted. Over twenty years later, the United States is still slow to act as our social media platforms, but Ars Technica says, “Facebook Enforces Ban On Gun Sales With 10-Strikes-And You’re Out Policy.”
Facebook does not want users to use the Facebook Marketplace to sell firearms. Users are given ten warnings about selling and purchasing guns before they are banned from the platform. The gun-selling policy is more lenient than its child pornography policy and sharing terrorist images. Child porn is illegal and posting terrorist activity is heavily monitored. Both get kicked off the platform, but selling guns that could possibly be used in a public attack are tolerated nine times before you are out? Facebook commented that:
“ ‘Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said in a statement that the company quickly removes posts that violate its policy prohibiting gun sales and imposes increasingly severe penalties for repeat rule-breakers, including permanent account suspension…’
Stone was quoted as saying, ‘If we identify any serious violations that have the potential for real-world harm, we don’t hesitate to contact law enforcement. The reality is that nearly 90 percent of people who get a strike for violating our firearms policy accrue less than two because their violations are inadvertent and once we inform them about our policies, they don’t violate them again.’
Facebook uses the strike system to impose a tiered set of punishments for various types of violations, with warnings escalating to temporary restrictions on posting content as a user piles up more strikes.”
Selling guns legally is and should be allowed, but it should be heavily monitored and enforce penalties for violators. Illegal gun sales should not be tolerated one, two, or ten times on any platform. It is easier to buy a gun in the United States than a car, medicine, and, in some cases, gasoline.
Other countries learn, but the United States is slower than a room of monkeys typing out the entire works of Shakespeare to protect its people and Facebook exasperates the problem.
Whitney Grace, June 24, 2022
More Facebook Papers
June 20, 2022
Interested in Facebook? If so, you may find the latest installment of the Facebook papers interesting. Who is publishing these documents? The answer is the “real news” outfit Gizmodo. “The Facebook Papers: How Meta Failed to Fight Against American Climate Denial.” I liked the subtitle because it is Google-ized: “Facebook’s own employees think its efforts combating misinformation on climate change are inadequate. Read the internal documents for yourself.”
The write up explained how “real news” provides access to what are presumably company confidential documents:
In November 2021, Gizmodo partnered with a group of independent experts to review, redact, and publish the Facebook Papers. This committee serves to advise and monitor our work and facilitate the responsible disclosure of the greatest number of documents in the public interest possible. We believe in the value of open access to these materials. Our previous publications have covered Jan. 6 and Donald Trump, Facebook’s ranking algorithms, and the influence that politics has on the company’s product decisions.
Any criteria for “public interest”? Not in the write up.
The article does include a reference to Covid, which seems different from “climate change” and “management processes.”
The article includes links to specific Facebook documents. Helpful for anyone writing a high school term paper or crafting a blue chip consulting firm report.
What does “confidential” mean? I am still puzzling over an answer to that question. Here’s another brain teaser: What does the release of confidential documents say about those who obtain, censor, and plan the release of selectively filtered information?
Hmmm.
Stephen E Arnold, July 20, 2022
Zuckbook: Getting Tagged As a Digital King Lear
June 13, 2022
The Zuckbook (now officially known as Meta as in I never “meta” drop out who wanted to be king) may be facing some headwinds. Sure, there is the Jeeves-like British spokesperson to make everything seem so good. But the idea that the company is investigating the nominal number two leader at Zuckbook for inappropriate something is interesting. I believe this individual hails from the Google which had to deal with a baby in the legal department. Wow. Those Googlers. That Metazuck. Governance is these outfits’ core competency not.
A few other issues are identified in “Meta Is in Serious Trouble. Here’s Why.” The write up states:
It would appear that the biggest hurdle that Meta faces is slowing revenue growth, something that has already started to show its effects on Meta’s plans.
Ah, ha, money.
But is this the only ripple in the king’s toga? Nope. Consider:
- Virtual reality, a money pit
- The metaverse, a money pit
- The Zuck watch, a money pit
- The Google, an ad damper.
In sum, the Zuckbook faces innovation woes, money woes, and big plan woes.
As the semi-interesting observation of the character Albany spouted:
You are not worth the dust which the rude wind blows in your face.
There you go. King Lear had an outcrop of stone. The Zuck has a chunk of an island. Good places.
Stephen E Arnold, June 13, 2022
Could the Zuck Vision for Meta Be a Web 3 Game Engine?
June 8, 2022
Could this be a sign of some common sense at Zuckbook? Anything is possible. Input reports, “Meta Won’t Build a Dedicated Metaverse After All, Exec Says.” Writer Matt Wille examined a recent, extensive blog post from Meta’s president of global affairs Nick Clegg. He reports that some early assumptions about the company’s metaverse plans were apparently off the mark. We learn:
“After months of teasing the expansion of a world filled with legless avatars and virtual boardrooms where nothing gets done, Clegg is telling a different story of what we can expect from Meta’s metaverse. Instead, he posits, the metaverse will be more of an umbrella beneath which Meta can launch a thousand or so new products. ‘All of us have a stake in the metaverse,’ Clegg writes. ‘It isn’t an idea Meta has cooked up. There won’t be a Meta-run metaverse, just as there isn’t a ‘Microsoft internet’ or ‘Google internet’ today.’ Meta’s vision, as Clegg explains it, is for the ‘metaverse’ to be a ‘universal, virtual layer that everyone can experience on top of today’s physical world — one where you can have a consistent identity (or even set of identities) that people can recognize wherever they see you.’ This idea raises many questions for Meta’s business, perhaps most importantly: If the metaverse isn’t owned, how can Meta possibly maximize its profits off of it?”
Likely the same way it makes money off Facebook—its users are its product. That won’t change when those products sport 3D avatars. And Meta has no need to create a stand-alone meta reality to continue raking in the cash.
The write-up challenges Clegg’s vision of a decentralized metaverse. Wille points out that, though it is true there is no “Microsoft internet” or “Google internet,” both those companies wield great power over how the internet is structured. He observes:
“That control is how Big Tech makes its big bucks. If Meta isn’t owning the metaverse space — owning at least its share of the market — then it loses what’s kept it so valuable. It’s unlikely the company will purposefully give up the control it’s wielded for so long to stick to this decentralized ideal.”
Clegg’s 8,000 word blog post as full of high-minded theories on how the metaverse can improve the world. But will such dissertations translate to outside enthusiasm? The market has already shown impatience with Meta’s direction. It might want to focus on producing something more concrete than lofty ideals. Or at least reassure stockholders that, whatever visions its executives espouse, it will continue to maintain its grip on Big Tech power and profits.
Cynthia Murrell, June 8, 2022
American Edge: A Covert Facebook-Funded Propaganda Machine?
June 1, 2022
Do not be fooled by that local opinion piece arguing against regulations on big tech. It just might be sponsored by Facebook-funded advocacy group American Edge. Catchy name. The Washington Post reveals, “Facebook Quietly Bankrolled Small, Grassroots Groups to Fight Its Battles in Washington.” Reporters Cat Zakrzewski and Elizabeth Dwoskin write:
“Backed by millions from Facebook-parent company Meta, American Edge has launched a full-throated campaign to combat antitrust legislation in Washington, placing op-eds in regional papers throughout the country, commissioning studies, and collaborating with a surprising array of partners, including minority business associations, conservative think tanks, and former national security officials. It’s a political playbook more common to other industries, including pharmaceuticals, tobacco and telecommunications. But tech companies, under heightened scrutiny from federal regulators, are seizing on these methods.”
The article notes Facebook (aka Meta) also recently paid a proxy to malign competitor TikTok in the media. Multi-million-dollar lobbying efforts from Facebook (and other tech giants) are nothing new, but how long has the company been bankrolling from the shadows? Such practices go back to at least 2011, we are reminded, when the company hired a firm to disparage Google’s privacy practices. Then there was the paid third-party criticism of George Soros in 2018 after the billionaire (openly) funded several groups critical of Facebook.
The article observes the company has had more reason employ underhanded PR in the wake of its shaky reputation over the last few years. In a show of chutzpah, Meta’s branded propaganda insists the company is eager to work closely with policymakers on solutions that are best for us all. Contrast that to the messaging from its covert mouthpiece. The writers tell us:
“In advertisements and op-eds, American Edge plays on fears about the tech prowess of China, a talking point of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The group also argues, in ominous tones, that new antitrust laws will weaken the American tech sector, hurting the tools used by minority-owned small businesses and dismantling companies that could provide a line of defense against cyber attacks from an increasingly aggressive Russia. National TV spots, staring local entrepreneurs from Arizona and Mississippi, portray such issues as vital to America’s heartland. The group’s messages pop up in the local TV news in Utah, defense-focused trade publications, conservative websites and on social media — absent Facebook’s name, an omission that serves a broader purpose.”
The article discusses the trail of funding that links Meta with American Edge and details several examples of the shill’s handiwork that appear all over print media and the internet. In fact, legislators crafting antitrust legislation find themselves hounded by targeted ads from the organization. Do such “fundings” demonstrate that Facebook-type companies follow a consistent pattern as part of the firm’s business strategy?
Cynthia Murrell, June 1, 2022
Facebook: Maybe Thinking about Superapps?
May 23, 2022
The idea of popping up a level is a good one. Examples range from companies offering ways to manage multiple APIs to services hooking consumers with individual providers, regardless of where the providers call home.
“Wikipedia Over WhatsApp” explains:
If the wifi is letting WhatsApp messages through, what if we used WhatsApp as a vehicle for the information we really care about? Much like we encapsulate the rest of our networking objects in higher-level objects, we could encapsulate web pages inside of WhatsApp messages.
Okay, who is really excited about reading Wikimedia’s entry about my relative Vladimir Igorevich Arnold, a mathematician, which is an exciting profession to be sure? Not too many people.
The idea of using WhatsApp as a mechanism for other services is a good one. Is it Facebook’s attempt to become a superapp or allow others to use WhatsApp as a superapp.
Some encrypted end to end messaging services include a number of useful functions now. But what if almost any traditional browser based function could be supported within a messaging app on one’s mobile phone. Apple uses a “up a level” method with its requirement that browser developers honor and respect the wonderful WebKit thing.
Interesting if true.
Stephen E Arnold, May 23, 2022
TikTok: Will It Chew Through a Zuck Tendon?
May 19, 2022
We had to know this day was approaching—TikTok seems set to surpass the competition. According to India’s DaijiWorld, “Facebook Worried as TikTok Set to Eclipse Twitter, Snapchat Ad Share.” The article cites a report from The Guardian as it shares some statistics:
“[TikTok] is likely to triple its global worldwide ad revenues $11.6 billion this year — more than the $10.44 billion for Snapchat and Twitter combined. A TikTok user spent 19.6 hours on average per month on the app last year, according to data.ai, which is equal to Facebook which is seeing its user growth stalled, and dwindling among the Gen Z and millennials. While Facebook still has 2.9 billion monthly active users and Instagram nearly 2 billion and Meta registered $118 billion in revenue last year, the Mark Zuckerberg-run company is worried at TikTok’s rise. Facebook has been losing users for quite some time while TikTok’s usage is rising in the US. Meta’s recent earnings report said that Facebook’s active users dropped by almost 5 lakh [5 hundred thousand] at the end of last year. Meanwhile, TikTok emerged as the top grossing non-game app in Q1 2022, generating $821 million in consumer spending in the quarter. … A latest teen survey claimed that TikTok and Snapchat are the two most popular social platforms among teens, with Instagram at the third spot. Just 3 per cent of teens said they preferred Facebook.”
As evidence that Meta (formerly known as Facebook) is concerned about TikTok’s growing success, the write-up points to a report from the Washington Post. Its article alleges the company paid consulting firm Targeted Victory to disparage its rival. The firm is said to have strewn opinion pieces and letters to the editor slamming TikTok in newspapers nationwide. We’d bet that effort cost Meta a pretty penny. Allegedly. TikTok might bite Zuck’s ankle and then the Achilles’ thing.
Cynthia Murrell, May 19, 2022
More Facebook Documents
May 17, 2022
Facebook apparently generates quite a few documents. In a time of abundance, some of the excess finds its way into places unexpected. “We’re Publishing the Facebook Papers. Here’s How Facebook Killed News Feed Fixes Over Fear of Conservative Backlash” provides those who want to study the Way of the Zuck with some “new” information. The write up has a reason to report a Silicon Valley-type news organization’s interest in chewing on the ankles of Mr. Zuckerberg. The article states:
Facebook said it did not “build and withhold any News Feed changes based on potential impact on any one political party.” Internal documents say otherwise.
You can read allegedly original, once confidential documents from the cited article with additional information at this link.
The main idea seems to be that Facebook mostly does what it wants and says what is necessary to continue on its business trajectory.
What’s the main point?
From my redoubt in rural Kentucky, I have perceived the Zuck operation as an interesting example of information weaponization. I assume that a few other people share my view of the company. The once-confidential documents are interesting, particularly to those rushing to understand how information flows have an impact in the real world and in real time.
Is it possible that Gizmodo is walking a path which may lead to legal questions? Of course not! Freedom of speech and the stuff taught in high school civics. (Ooops. Research is surfacing that suggests online learning is not as zippy as some assumed.) Disclosing content which an enterprise developed for use by authorized individuals strikes me as a variation on the “move fast and break things” approach to some activities.
Gizmodo, it seems to me, is putting the pedal to the metal. Will the buggy break down as it speeds down the information highway trying to catch up with an outfit with a head start?
Stephen E Arnold, May 17, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
