Category Archives: Branding

Is Momentum Shifting Toward a Ban on Behavioral Advertising?

Above: Photo / Adobe Stock

Data-driven personalized ads are the lifeblood of the internet. To a growing number of lawmakers, they’re also nefarious

Earlier this month, the European Union Parliament passed sweeping new rules aimed at limiting how companies and websites can track people online to target them with advertisements.

Targeted advertising based on people’s online behavior has long been the business model that underwrites the internet. It allows advertisers to use the mass of personal data collected by Meta, Google, and other tech companies as people browse the web to serve ads to users by sorting them into tens of thousands of hyperspecific categories.

But behavioral advertising is also controversial. Critics argue that the practice enables discrimination, potentially only offering certain groups of people economic opportunities. They also say serving people ads based on what big tech companies assume they’re interested in potentially leaves people vulnerable to scams, fraud, and disinformation. Notoriously, the consulting firm Cambridge Analytica used personal data gleaned from Facebook profiles to target certain Americans with pro-Trump messages and certain Britons with pro-Brexit ads. 

The 2016 U.S. presidential election and the Brexit vote, according to Jan Penfrat, a senior policy adviser at European digital rights group EDRi, were “wake-up calls” to the Europe Union to crack down. Lawmakers in the U.S. are also looking into ways to regulate behavioral advertising.

What Will the European Parliament’s New Regulations Do?

There’s been a long back and forth about how much to crack down on targeted advertising in the Digital Services Act (DSA), the EU’s big legislative package aimed at regulating Big Tech.

Everything from a total ban on behavioral advertising to more modest changes around ad transparency has at some point been on the table. 

On Jan. 19, the Parliament approved its final position on the bill. Included is a ban on targeted advertising to minors, a ban on tracking sensitive categories like religion, political affiliation, or sexual orientation, and a requirement for websites to provide “other fair and reasonable options” for access if users opt out of their data being tracked for targeted advertising. 

The bill also includes a ban on so-called dark patterns —“design choices that steer people into decisions they may not have made under normal conditions—such as the endless clicks it takes to opt out of being tracked by cookies on many websites.” 

Check out Lynxotic on YouTube

That measure is critical, according to Alexandre de Streel, the academic director of the think tank Centre on Regulation in Europe, because of how tech companies responded to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the EU’s 2016 tech regulation. 

In a study on online advertising for the Parliament’s crucial Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, de Streel and nearly a dozen other experts documented how “dark patterns” had become a major tool used by websites and platforms to persuade users to provide consent for sharing their data. Their recommendations for the DSA—which included more robust enforcement of the GDPR, stricter rules about obtaining consent, and the dark patterns ban—were included in the final bill.

“We are going in the right direction if we better enforce the GDPR and add these amendments on ‘dark patterns,’ ” De Streel told The Markup.

German member of European Parliament Patrick Breyer joined with more than 20 other MEPs and more than 50 public and private organizations last year to form the Tracking Free Ads Coalition. Though its push for a total ban on targeted advertising failed, the coalition was behind many of the more stringent restrictions. Breyer told The Markup the new rules were “a major achievement.”

“The Parliament stopped short of prohibiting surveillance advertising, but giving people a true choice [of whether to be targeted] is a major step forward, and I think the vast majority of people will use this option,” he said.

The EU will address digital political advertising in a separate bill that could potentially be more stringent around targeting and using personal data.

Despite passing the European Parliament, the DSA is far from settled. Due to the EU’s unique law-making process, the legislation must now be negotiated with the European Commission and the bloc’s 27 countries. The member states, as represented by the European Council, have adopted an official position considerably less aggressive—opting for only improved transparency on targeted advertising—and, according to Breyer, are “traditionally very open to [industry] lobbying.”

Whether the DSA’s wins against targeted advertising survive this process “will depend to a large degree on public pressure,” said Breyer. 

How Has Big Tech Responded?

So far, Big Tech companies have publicly tread lightly in response to the European push to limit targeted advertising. 

In response to The Markup’s request for comment, Google spokesperson Karl Ryan said that Google supports the DSA and that it shares “the goal of MEPs to continue to make the internet safer for everyone….” 

“We will now take some time to analyze the final Parliament text to understand how it could impact us and our different users,” he said. 

Meta did not respond to a request for comment.

But privately, over the last two years, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft have ramped up lobbying efforts in Brussels, spending more than $20 million in 2020.

The advertising industry, meanwhile, has been public in its opposition. In a statement on the recent vote, Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe director of public policy Greg Mroczkowski urged policymakers to reconsider.

“The use of personal data in advertising is already tightly regulated by existing legislation,” Mroczkowski said, apparently referencing the GDPR, which regulates data privacy in the EU generally. He further noted that the new rules “risk undermining” existing law and “the entire ad-supported digital economy.”

On Wednesday, the Belgian Data Protection Authority found IAB Europe–which developed and administered the system for companies to obtain consent for behavioral advertising while complying with GDPR—in violation of that law. In particular, the authority found that the pop-ups that ask for people’s consent to process their data as they visit websites failed to meet GDPR’s standards for transparency and consent. The pop-up posed “great risks to the fundamental rights” of Europeans, the ruling said. The authority ordered IAB to delete data collected under its Transparency and Consent Framework and has six months to comply.  

“This decision is momentous,” Johnny Ryan, a senior fellow at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, told The Markup. “It means that digital rights are real. And there is a significance for the United States, too, because the IAB has introduced the same consent spam for the CCPA and CPRA [California Consumer Privacy Act and California Privacy Rights Act].”

In a statement to Tech Crunch, IAB Europe said it “reject[s] the finding that we are a data controller” in the context of its consent framework and is “considering all options with respect to a legal challenge.” Further, it said it is working on an “action plan to be executed within the prescribed six months” to bring it within GDPR compliance.

Google and Meta may be preparing for whichever way the wind is blowing. 

Google is developing a supposedly less-invasive targeted advertising system, which stores general topics of interest in a user’s browser while excluding sensitive categories like race. Meta is testing a protocol to target users without using tracking cookies. 

A handful of European companies like internet security company Avast, search engine DuckDuckGo (which is a contributor to The Markup), and publisher Axel Springer see tighter rules around data privacy as a means to push the industry toward contextual ads or tech that matches ads based on a website’s content, and to therefore break the Google-Meta duopoly over online advertising.

What’s Happening in the U.S.?

On Jan. 18, Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced legislation to Congress to prohibit advertisers from using personal data to target advertisements—particularly using data about a person’s race, gender, and religion. Exceptions would be made for “broad” location information and contextual advertising. 

“The hoarding of people’s personal data not only abuses privacy, but also drives the spread of misinformation, domestic extremism, racial division, and violence,” Booker said in a statement announcing the bill in January.

While there is bipartisan desire to rein in Big Tech, there is no consensus on how to do it. The bill most likely to pass the divided Congress is designed to stop Amazon, Apple, Google, and other tech giants from privileging their own products. Congressional action on targeted advertising does not appear likely.

Still, it is possible the Federal Trade Commission will take action.

Last summer, President Biden issued an executive order directing the FTC to use its rulemaking authority to curtail “unfair data collection and surveillance practices.” In December, the FTC sought public comment for a petition by nonprofit Accountable Tech to develop new data privacy rules.

Meanwhile, many U.S. digital rights activists, such as nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation, are hopeful that new rules in Europe will force changes globally, as occurred after the GDPR. “The EU Parliament’s position, if it becomes law, could change the rules of the game for all platforms,” wrote EFF’s international policy director Christopher Schmon.

It’s still early days, but many see the tide turning against targeted advertising. These types of conversations, according to Penfrat at EDRi, were unthinkable a few years ago.

“The fact that a ban on surveillance-based advertising has been brought into the mainstream is a huge success,” he said.

This article was originally published on The Markup By: Harrison Jacobs and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.


Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Bloomberg: Facebook Changes Name to Meta in Embrace of Virtual Reality

Facebook Inc. has rebranded itself, now, as Meta, most likely as a means to separate the corporate identity of the social network that has been tied to a myriad of ugly controversies. The name change is meant to highlight the company’s shift to virtual reality and the metaverse.

CEO Zuckerberg spoke at the Facebook’s Connect virtual conference and commented on the name change, “From now on, we’re going to be metaverse-first, not Facebook-first.”

The new name change does not affect the company’s share data or corporate structure, however the company will start trading under the new ticker, MVRS starting December 1.

Needless to say, Twitter comments and memes instantly rolled in after the rebrand announcement:

Read More at:


Related Articles:


Check out Lynxotic on YouTube:

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Facebook vs. Apple vs. Google vs. U.S. Gov: War of Giants is at Hand

Above: Photo ubisoft / Lynxotic

The battle is getting very public and will get louder and nastier

The full page newspaper ads taken out by Facebook, where they proclaim themselves the champion of small business and attack Apple directly are interesting and curious on many levels. 

It will take a series of articles to attempt to untangle the confusions and endless, often intentionally fostered, misconceptions that will most certainly arise in this battle of titans. 

At the heart of the matter is, however, the largest misconception humanly possible, the idea that these monstrously huge companies, and how they operate, are anything at all related to “normal”.

The fact that all of us have seen the role of the internet in general increase over the last 20+ years, and have therefore had to deal with, and in some cases, go through and cooperate with these behemoths, may be the status quo that has developed, particularly in the last decade, but it is without precedent on many levels. 

The size, power and influence is beyond comprehension and this clouds every issue

Before even beginning to contrast one giant against another one must first confront the very existence of entities of this magnitude. It’s fair to say that never in history has such a tiny group of companies, and by extension, individual humans, controlled so much of the economy and so much of that impacts the society and our experiences. 

This chart is not current. If it were the disparity would be far larger and even more astounding:

This information, for a human, is so out of whack that you would have to stare at this chart for days before it could even sink in. And, as it it only a chart of size, built on company market capitalization, the power and influence, which represents and ever larger disparity, is not represented. 

The dominance overall is so extreme as to be humanly incomprehensible. And by all measures the disparity between the big tech firms and “everybody else” grows literally by the second. 

If you are afraid of A.I., you’re too late, the world is already controlled by computers and software via these companies

Facebook is probably the best example to illustrate the problem of market power and dominance on a level that is so far beyond traditional methods of measurement that even government antitrust investigations are barely able to begin to access the potential violations.

“The questions below might seem odd, or even absurd. But what is really absurd is that they are, for the most part, never asked. “

— D.L.
Click Here to See “Automating Humanity
Also Available on Amazon.

The questions below might seem odd, or even absurd. But what is really absurd is that they are, for the most part, never asked. Since the iPhone and later Samsung / Android revolutionized information and photo sharing, it has been accepted as a simple reality that Facebook controls nearly all the “social networking” that is done with that data. Why?

What is Facebook? Most would say they are a “social media company” but that can mean anything you want it to mean. They claim they are in the business of “connecting people” yet they derive massive wealth and profit from advertising, and “monetizing” their network, the largest network of “social users”, by far. 

And if they are interested in connecting people, then what do those people own of the network that they themselves comprise? That would be nothing. 

What say do they have in how they are used to “monetize” the network that they literally “are”? None. 

What trust do they have to surrender to the company, which includes Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and more (all controlled 100% by a guy named Zuckerberg)? 100%

“What ‘say’ do they have in how they are used to “monetize” the network that they literally ‘are’? None.”

— D.L.

Who authorized Facebook (or Google) to amass vast databanks of private personal information from a huge chunk of the world’s population, and use that data to amass fortunes of unheard of size using secret proprietary algorithms that they have zero requirement to disclose? Well, technically, users, inadvertently and without understanding, did. Otherwise: No-one. 

Click Here to See “Weapons of Math Destruction
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also Available on Amazon.

Well, technically all of this was “allowed” via Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, and states that an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. This, effectively, protects websites and “platforms” such as Facebook, from lawsuits in the case that a “user” posts something illegal. There are exceptions, for example, for copyright violations, sex work-related material, and violations of federal criminal law.

This fact does not remove responsibility for building a system that gives massive financial benefit to Facebook, Google, etc and very little, in reality, by way of return or influence to the “user”.

It’s as if a man figured out a way to use mental-telepathy to rob banks and could never be caught or prosecuted due to the fact that no one had ever robbed a bank that way before. And then he claimed that he should be allowed to continue doing it forever, with impunity.

Click Here to See “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also Available on Amazon.

What would Facebook and Zuckerberg have if the billions of “users” stopped using its network? Nothing. 

How little sense this makes just goes on and on. There could be 100s of pages of similar questions and answers and the end result would be a slightly better understanding of the absurdity of the very existence of such a “service” or company or whatever this is.

Why absurd? In a nutshell, Facebook controls private networks that exist “inside” a more public network called, for lack of a better term, “the internet”. And, because of what could be termed a mistake of history they represent a dominant, near monopoly, in the “space” which in this case is currently called “social networks”.

The dominance and the definition of monopoly can be argued endlessly (and likely will be in the coming antitrust cases) but, in the end, the numbers don’t lie. Only one person benefits, in direct payments of trillions of dollars, from a near monopoly in social networks. The billions of people, the very people who are the network, do not. 

A bleak analysis, perhaps, but is there any light at the end of this tunnel?

The current increase in antitrust cases, both in the US and Europe, is a canary-in the-coal-mine moment and the wars over all the arising issues has begun and will go on for years. 

Read more: The Markup is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates how powerful institutions are using technology to change our society and a great place to learn more about it

The fact that Facebook is heavily advertising that they are the “good guy” while Amazon and Google do the same, is both ridiculous and sad, since “good guys” don’t have to buy ads to draw attention to that fact. 

Click Here to See
Ten Argument for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also Available on Amazon.

And the fact that these companies have already started, both in word and deed, to attack each other directly, is an indication of just how serious and all pervasive these mega-wars will be. This is just the beginning. 

Read more: How Apple Created the Tech Universe and it Finally Makes Sense

While none of the companies depicted on the chart above can be said to be without blame for the world of injustice and malfunction that is the internet, and by extension, our world, there is one company that stands apart from the others in so many ways and for so many reasons that they, amazingly, represent some hope within the madness. 

And, not coincidently, they are the one that is already being attacked, in print and software, as the wars begin: Apple. 

How Apple actually represents hope to clean up the tech universe that, arguably, they are most responsible for having created, is likely a hard sell with those that want to lump all these huge companies together. Because, after all, they are all huge. 

However, nothing could be further from the truth. More on this and other burning questions in our next episode, so stay tuned. 


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Small Business Dilemma: are Big Solutions Hiding in plain sight?

https://cdn.useriver.com/RiverTrailer_v2.mp4

Above:Content Discovery App – River video Clip Introduction

An Unlikely Holy Grail: User Sophistication and the Will to Exist Online

In late 2018 a small firm was looking into opportunities in organizing an online co-op for small businesses (CSSinc), similar to the co-ops created by farmers during the great depression. Where else to start than a trade show of more than 1000 small businesses in Las Vegas. In an informal test, they checked all the web sites listed in the show directory as an indicator of the state of web sophistication among the participants.

Story Cover feature image by Joshua Chun 

Shockingly, nearly 90% were either primitive and barely functioning or not functioning at all, yielding a 404 error or “site not found”.

Read more: How Apple Created the Tech Universe

Naturally the 10% that were functioning, a few of which at a high level, were all the largest companies attending the show. With costs to set up, and even designing a company web site, at an all time low, why would so many pass up the opportunity to make use of this powerful tool?

‘This is Water’  and the internet dilemma that has swallowed the world

From The New Yorker:

In 2005, David Foster Wallace addressed the graduating class at Kenyon College with a speech that is now one of his most read pieces. 

In it, he argues, gorgeously, against “unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.” He begins with a parable:

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”

This oft quoted passage is about how the world around us can be easily misunderstood by lack of awareness. And, maybe, by the lack of any perceived need to notice what’s really going on. 

The two most shocking things about the anecdote above, regarding 90% of small businesses lack of internet presence (or sophistication), are how this could be the case after more than 20 years of the internet being at the center of commerce and, well, life, and what it says about the “water” we are all swimming in. 

Read more: Apple Search is Coming: Google, Facebook & Amazon Surveillance

2020 is the year that the internet became even more important for all our lives. Less obvious is that it is also the year that the problems and obstacles are more important than ever to overcome, and that starts with seeing the water we are all swimming in. 

The Social Dilemma’ is also a Small Business Dilemma

In this acclaimed documentary (available on Netflix) a lot of both problems and solutions focus on the dangers of the current giant-tech dominated internet environment on the “end-user” and the general public. 

The Social Dilemma on Netflix

While that sphere of influence is a serious and growing problem, it is the control and domination by a few massive companies, to the virtual exclusion of smaller businesses, that, to a large degree caused the sick, twisted inequitable and unfair system in the first place. 

The relative size imbalance is literally so massive that it is rendered incomprehensible, and, like water to the fish mentioned above, invisible. 

A happy shiny logo of, say, coca-cola, looks just as harmless (or menacing, depending on the perspective) as that of Amazon or Facebook, who may be hundreds of times larger in market-cap than the soft-drink giant with long history as a “big” American company. Size of this magnitude is impossible to conceive of by most of us.

But the perception of the giants that control the internet as harmless, or even beneficial and to be admired, is rapidly changing. Therein also lies the potential for probably the only hope of positive change for small business and for society in the US and across the globe. 

A Revolution of Perception is Required and already Underway

Part of the problem, one that is growing, admittedly, every day, is the sheer scale of the inequity and corruption. Why even try, as a small business, to go up against the giants that “own” the water we swim in?

Ultimately what is necessary is a sea-change (forgive the continued metaphor) within overall population, both consumers and small businesses. And that starts with the perception that it is the “people” that decide how and what the internet will be who will be “permitted” to interact. An Algorithm own as proprietary secret software by an internet behemoth? Or a decentralized more kaleidoscopic solution that was an inherent promise from the initial days of the internet’s creation?

The signs of change are all around. The “direct to consumer” trend that has produced massive success stories also paved the way for the emerging system of smaller companies being able to reach out directly and actually do business with customers with, sometimes, minimal involvement of the giants. 

The signs that this can work are gradually being seen – shopify’s success in offering software and services to businesses wanting to establish a direct connection to buyers is a growing trend. There are many other companies that have recognized the trend and are trying to ride this wave toward a different method of communication between businesses and so-called consumers. 

Here are some examples of companies that are taking a new approach to the way we communicate and interact online:

However, the ultimate driver of positive change in the internet will be the increased sophistication of users, both professional and at the individual level. 

User Sophistication and Trust: an unlikely but all-important Grail

Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Twitter, TikTok and more have all embraced direct in-app-shopping as a way to expand beyond content.  Even Google has started a program to allow buyers to purchase from search results without leaving the platform. While these initiatives are all coming from the giant tech firms themselves, they are, ultimately, sowing the seeds of their own demise. 

They are, in essence, teaching buyers to forego the now standard system of choosing between Amazon and “the rest” in online shopping. This choice, helped along by billions in losses to subsidize “impossibly low” prices plus free shipping paid for by Amazon’s loss-leader strategies, was never a fair or realistic one and created the massive, unsustainable imbalances in online commerce we see today. 

The massive and very real paranoia of the giant companies is based on the clear and deep understanding that the competition is always “1-click-away”, which is the unfulfilled promise of the internet in the first place.

D.L.

The greatest obstacle has never been the massive price-dumping schemes or even the sell-at-a-loss free shipping concept that kept buyers from having a second choice in e-commerce. It has been the lack of user sophistication of the sellers and the buyers in the online forum which prevented easier movement from one online option to another. 

The massive and very real paranoia of the giant companies is based on the clear and deep understanding that the competition is always “1 click away”, which is the unfulfilled promise of the internet in the first place.

So called “moats” and systems to block users from initiating and exercising choice are built-up and keep getting deeper and more complex. But sophisticated users can, and eventually will, easily just opt-out at any time, when alternatives that they prefer begin to proliferate. 

And there is a growing and invisible ocean that already exists all around us. As far-fetched as it may seem “the ocean we swim in” will one day be in no way similar to the deeply problematic one we swim in today and a thorough a change from the bottom up as well as the top down will, finally, bring about a new era in online communication and commerce. 


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on PoliticsSustainable EnergyRacial Equality & Justice and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

The Justice Department finally issues antitrust suit against Google for “unlawfully maintaining monopolies”

Internet giants finally receiving long overdue legal scrutiny

After months of investigation and inquiry, the United States’ Justice Department has formally accused Google of illegally sustaining a monopoly over search and search advertising in America. The Department filed the lawsuit on October 20th in the U.S. District Court, beginning what could be a turning point in the Internet economy.

Read More: Amazon, Facebook, and Google will be accountable if Anti-trust law revisions hold

Republicans and Democrats alike have been watching big tech companies for a while now, scrutinizing the big four—Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon – as they’ve grown into corporate behemoths and played cat-and-mouse with American antitrust laws. Only now is the federal government (along with over forty states and jurisdictions that have investigated Google) finally making a move to attempt to keep these juggernauts in check.

Antitrust laws essentially make sure that American businesses cannot develop into illegal monopolies. Monopolies are illegal if they are established or maintained through improper conduct, sfor example, exclusionary or predatory acts. 

Conventionally, the laws protect consumers from situations where a single company holds all of the supply. In the current digital age, though, most of these services are nominally free to consumers. Nevertheless, they can still become hegemonic at the expense of competition.

Because the site’s ascendency has left consumers with the impression that they are unaffected, superficially, Google personnel have long been able to refute the fact that they hold a proper monopoly. However, given that eighty percent of Internet searches go through Google, many politicians (and users) suspect something legally dubious at hand.

As is also the case with Amazon and Facebook there are, like an iceberg of crimes hiding beneath the waterline, these giant firms are engaged in many practices are highly anticompetitive. The behaviors, however rampant,  have either gone unnoticed or, in a purported attempt to bolster internet commerce in a general way, have been intentionally overlooked by governing bodies for decades.

In order for the case to effectively convict Google on antitrust laws, the Justice Department must prove two things. First, that Google has dominance over search. Second, that it actively stifles competition in the search market through deals with other companies.

The fact that Google has dominance over search is quite hard to argue against nowadays. To sell the second part of the case, however, the DOJ will have to look into Google’s business behaviors and deals with other companies such as Apple.

Google essentially pays Apple up to $11 billion to be the default search engine on all iPhones, iPads, and Macs. This is just one example of Google buying its way to the top of the market and making sure that other search engines do not stand a chance.

Of course, Google denies doing anything illegal or sidestepping antitrust laws. The company argues that users actually retain choice when it comes to search engines, but people consistently go to Google for quality. As for the deals with companies like Apple, Google likens it to a cereal brand paying a grocery store for a better spot on the shelf. To Google, it’s simple business.

The courts, however, might not find it quite so simple, as many politicians are reframing antitrust laws in their perspective toward the case and the online marketplace.

This is not the end of the story but barely the beginning with many revelations yet to come

American antitrust laws, and how they are applied, are severely outdated. Most of them were written over a century ago when computers (let alone the Internet) were hardly a concept. Despite a few public outings where tech moguls have had to answer before Washington, the Federal government has not taken much action against these massive modern institutions. Exceptions include a 2001 antirust case against Microsoft for maintaining a monopoly over PC software and a former near-trial against Google when the Federal Trade Commission investigated the Alphabet Inc. for antitrust in the early 2010s.

Meanwhile, other countries have been far more active in holding big tech accountable. The European Union enforces much more timely antitrust policies, and has brought three cases against Google in recent years.

In America, however, Google has been riding off of the free market since its very conceptualization at Stanford University in 1998. The same could be said for Amazon, or Facebook and their respective, nearly mythic, ostensibly humble origins. While this nation’s laws and economy give companies the unique ability to grow, thrive, and expand into global phenomenon, they also have a duty to protect the people and even the playing field when those same companies abuse freedom or gain too much power.

This case will not be a short ride. It will likely take years, but such is the slow, magnificent, changing tide of justice and progress.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Tump’s Madness – The American Dream is Dead: Lincoln Project Ad

Trump is losing it. Yes, we’ve all seen it. The mind is going. Fast. The Lincoln Project has done it again with a spot on depiction of the unraveling wannabe despot. Funny but no joke. Serious as a heart attack- VOTE


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on PoliticsSustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

We are All Search Hostages until the Internet is Free of the Big Three: How they Block Your Life

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

This is a tiny snippet from an upcoming exposé of the inner workings of the nightmare produced by Facebook, Google and Amazon

Isn’t it funny that the so called bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000 which resulted in a nearly 75% drop in the tech heavy NASDAQ index by March, 2000. Ultimately, among survivors and upstarts, the winner-takes-all saga led to no less than three trillion dollar companies.

If the internet is, or at lest was, a dead end for any company trying to profit, how could these few have profited so obscenely in such a short time?

Most of the answers to that question attempted for the last two decades have been blatant hero worship and “to the victors go the spoils” nonsense with hardly any media attention paid (at least until around 2016) to the deeper, and darker, story that explains this regrettable paradox.

While the truth, particularly when it comes to tech and the internet, is often maddeningly complex, hiding behind a veil of complexity is a standard technique for anyone wants to keep their billion dollar golden geese a secret, shell companies, offshore banking, derivatives and “CDOs” and the like all benefit from being opaque and complex.

And while the absolute details would take mountains of pages to explain, mainly to explain away all the contradictions, the base issues are at the same time, in many ways, insanely simple.

Fraud, Ponzi schemes, illegal monopolistic behavior, all the usual suspects are not only present but rampant and rancid like a planet sized pile of moldy cheese.

And those are the larger threads, the ones that fit into a framework of past anti-trust cases and prior greed fueled crime sprees.

The devil as they say, is always in the details. Here are a few, some general and others much more specific, that point to how we could have gotten to this absurd destination.

Google and the “hiding engine” from hell

Click to see “Goliath
and help Lynxotic
and all independent
bookstores

While it is lovely that Google “allows” us to find out Lucille Ball’s birthday with a single click – or the capital of Afghanistan just as easily, what if you are looking for something a little less obvious? What if the information you need is worth something? What if you need fair, honest advice or even wisdom?

You’re out of luck. Since the entire basis for this business to to charge you (or somebody, regardless) for information that is, in reality, publicly available (the internet is public after all and the information on it does not belong to google), the primary function of Google’s vaunted trillion dollar algorithm is to hide any information of value from you until they have extracted a price.

Since they are known as a “search engine” this is counterintuitive but it will make more sense as we delve into the other two “winners” of the dot-com era. Each of these three companies share this one thing in common. They are all build to exclude, hide and criminally manipulate essentially public information for the benefit of a private enterprise. k?

Facebook and the lure of “exclusive membership”

As has been well documented, to the extent of having been memorialized in a feature length hollywood film, the fast start in membership that Facebook achieved was based on two “triggers” related to exclusivity and “hiding” of information. The first was, during the initial launch at harvard and for a period of time at various other colleges and universities, a requirement for membership was “proof” that you were a student in the form of an “edu” suffixed email. This added popularity to the site as those joining felt they had not only potential access to others where they went to school, but also would not be associating with non-students, or in the extreme initial example, not socializing with non-harvard people.


Click to see “World Without Mind
and help Lynxotic and
all independent bookstores

While this seems innocuous enough and a great marketing ploy, indeed it was heralded as genius by hundreds of sycophantic scribes, the next bit is where the system that exists to this day became an engine for corporate greed at the expense of virtually the entire world population.

Once you join Facebook, you are “allowed” to have contact only with “friends” that authorize you to do so. But the recommendations for “friending” those people, other than from your own laborious manual searching, are controlled by Facebooks algorithms.

This is a familiar tune. The real purpose of this structure was not to give you exclusivity or for you to benefit from the “wisdom” of the algorithm, but to block private and, in particular, business entities from coming in contact with you without first paying Facebook. In other words, using its log-in membership system and proprietary software labyrinth as a private, separate internet sphere, it was able to build the largest network of phantom tool booths the world has ever seen and now collects hundreds of billions simply because “the public” has opted-in and has no idea what an open alternative would look like or the damage that has been done by this harmless seeming “social platform”.

The real potential of networked human communications, a.k.a. the internet, is almost totally lost to history, with the surviving structure entirely based on the systems that these three giants have constructed with a view to nothing more than private, personal enrichment.

While this opinion may seem harsh, looking at the inner workings of the software and who financially benefits vs. who loses (a.k.a. everybody else) will, in time expose one of the greatest swindles ever perpetrated on the public, in this case the entire world population, or at least the population of internet users across the globe.

Amazon and the alleged layers of deceit and corruption beyond all imaginings

It is fairly common these days to hear criticism of Amazon and “worlds richest man” Bezos, which is understandable since the operation is so massive and, like any huge concern, likely to step on a few toes here and there, regardless.

Naturally there is also plenty of hero worship, particularly the insane love of “Bezonomics” and a cult of personality toward the founder and CEO for, well, stepping on the most faces of any human, other than perhaps Genghis Kahn.

Again, the real devil is in the details. It is easy to defend any criticism of the company by pointing out the “good” that it has done or continues to do and to create a “straw man” argument that the company should somehow get “credit” for those things and that they somehow offset any valid critique.

That is like saying someone who succeeded in getting elected president by bribing millions of voters should therefore be allowed to wage war or imprison anyone he likes since he has earned “credit” by doing right by those who were bribed.

There a little story, told to us by an anonymous source, who’s stories have all checked out before, that illustrates the system at work when you step onto the private property of Amazon’s web site.

Click to see “Life After Google
and help Lynxotic
and all independent bookstores

Again search is at the center of the story, as is the requirement to log in and agree to terms and conditions. This is tantamount to agreeing that you are leaving the public sphere and are agreeing to abide by the rules and be subject to the whims of the private entity on whose “sole property” you are now “standing” / shopping.

In that private world Amazon, and by extension Bezos, not only play god, they are god.

To illustrate this fact let’s say you have a 7 year-old child that loves a certain children’s character and you want to buy a book that has “pop-up” cut-outs to entertain and delight. And this exact item can be found via “search”.

Naturally, you type in the name of the book or character and perhaps add “pop-up”. What shows up in the “search” results is exactly what you are looking for. It’s the precise item and it looks exactly as you had hoped. Then you look at the price. $50. Hmmm that’s a little high you think. With a little further research you find out that the “MSRP” for this item, a.k.a. the list price is $30 which seems a bit odd.

You keep trying to search and click any link on the site that will lead you to the same item at a more reasonable price – but that is only available “used” and you will not purchase a used item for your child!

In the end you rationalize, it must be a very rare item to have such a high price, and since the Amazon search results “must be scientific” there are apparently no lower priced copies available. So you buy it.

This scenario was repeated hundreds if not thousands of times for this one product over a period of several months. And likely was repeated millions of times over a period of years across thousand, if not millions of items. So what?

The search is rigged, that’s what. How do I know? The person that related this story was the seller, in 2014, of over 1000 copies of the item at $50. He did not create this fraud, merely piggybacked on what Amazon itself had set up. Only they have control of the search results.

What’s the big deal you say, after all there were no cheaper units available so it is just “surge pricing”; supply and demand, right?

Wrong. There was, after all, another listing of the same item, expertly hidden by Amazon, where only a hacker or software expert could find it. On that listing, for those that Amazon chose not to swindle, was the exact same item for the standard, heavily discounted, price of $16 or nearly 50% off the list or MSRP. You see, the result is, regardless of who is selling the item, Amazon earns triple (triple the fees) when the price is higher, as in this example.

This is not an isolated “mistake”. Many who have experience working inside the Amazon system have seen literally thousands of similar examples all tied to this “malfunctioning” search engine.

What’s more a calculation of the possible financial benefits during the time in question amounted to nearly the entire reported net profit of the entire company. It was common knowledge that the company was reporting little or no net profit during many years, even as it remained a darling of stockholders.

And if any one would bring such a specific case to Amazon’s attention? Naturally they would blame the seller, software issues, the moon and the stars, anything but admit that they use every inch of their private real estate for one purpose and one purpose only, to maximize the amount of money that ends us in their accounts.

And many who are reading this still don’t get it. “Why not?” It’s capitalism after all! To the victor go the spoils! Hail Ceasar! Heil Hitler. It’s your internet. Not theirs.


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Google about to face Long Overdue Antitrust Charges from Department of Justice

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

Europe Leads the Way and U.S. Justice About to Arrive

It is safe to say that Google is a hegemonic force in the digital world. The site practically has a monopoly on internet searches and it holds nearly a third of the money tied up in online advertising. Because of the United States’ lax laws regarding cyber security, Google’s dominance has largely gone unchecked over the years. That is, until now.

Click to see “Life after Google” and
help Lynxotic and all independent
bookstores

According to the New York Times, the U.S. Justice Department is currently planning to hit Google with a long overdue antitrust suit. The Department hopes to get the charges out by the beginning of the summer, and although details are still under wraps, it’s likely that they will aim to hold Google and parent company Alphabet Inc. accountable for its monopolistic control of the internet.

Of course, Google does not actually “own” the internet—nobody does. Nevertheless, Google has sliced itself a disproportionately large piece of the pie. In its nebulous origins, the worldwide web was hardly created with intentions, but it started out as a place of anonymity and level playing-fields for all users. Unfortunately, in the age of ubiquitous social media, online anonymity is a thing of the past, and technological juggernauts like Google have severely skewed that long lost level playing-field ideal.

Now, more than ever, big tech must be held to account

Not only does Google’s tyranny stray from the internet’s egalitarian genesis, but it also strays from the rule of law. 1890’s Sherman Antitrust Act banned monopolies in the United States as well as trusts that hurt trade. The federal government enforced the act in 1948 to break up Hollywood’s overbearing studio system in U.S. v Paramount. It recently made an appearance in the 1990s, when the Justice Department sued Microsoft, leading to a 2001 settlement with the company.

Click to see “Goliath” and help
Lynxotic and all independent bookstores

Government entities have tried to get Google on antitrust operations before. In 2013, the Federal Trade Commission investigated the website for antitrust violations, but dropped the case after nineteen months. Quite frankly, Google possesses near-untouchable power, and as aforementioned, our federal laws regarding the internet are quite loose. Thus, even though Google clearly holds too much influence for any one company, it remains a difficult beast to pin down.

If the Justice Department does manage to win against Google this time around, it could be the start of a much needed crackdown on algorithmic dictatorship. Not just Google, but Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, and Apple have all faced criticism for their exploitation of user data and capitalism. Many believe that it is time for these companies’ unregulated dogmas to end.

Accountability is key, even for seemingly nonthreatening businesses that exist in the digital ether. The Justice Department expects that attorney generals from many states will join the them in this crackdown on Google, paving the way for a more technologically equitable future.


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Apple Card Set Up Video: : Application Process Now Available, with Invitation

https://wallet.apple.com/assets/videos/apple_card_how_to_apply_1920x1080h.mp4
Apple Card “How To ApplY” Video

Immediate sign up on your iPhone…

On Monday Apple took the first step in launching the Apple Card. Initially called “Apple Card Preview”, selected iPhone owners are able to set up an account through the wallet app. The Next, very simple, steps are shown in the video above.

Remember, even with an invite, you must qualify as per the list here:

Before you start, there are a few things to check.

If you are not yet invited and you’d like to be notified when Apple Card is available, click here.

If you are wondering about all the details and perks that come with an Apple Card we have provided the whole story, with the original keynote video, below (reprinted from an earlier post):

The New Offering Will Take Off Fast, Based on the Perks and Details…

As with most things financial, there are lots of details, but some interesting perks, particularly for frequent customers of Apple products.

First perk: no lengthily complicated application process. According to the pre-launch information (see video above), just go to the Wallet app and tap on the Apple Card interface (once the Card is live) and go through the simple activation steps.

Once the sign up steps are complete, you can immediately start using the card as you would Apple Pay.

Small but expected caveat: For non-Apple Pay purchases in a traditional store setting you will need to wait until your physical card arrives in the mail. Also, although a pre-approved status will often be in place, availability is still subject to qualification, like any credit card.

Using the Card

The card will function as would any other card in your wallet for Apple Pay. This includes online purchases and in-store checkout where you normally would use Apple Pay.

You can designate the Apple Card as your default payment method in your wallet for purchases using your iPhone, iPad, Mac or Apple Watch.

https://video-lynxotic.akamaized.net/AppleCard_Keynote_M.mov
video of keynote announcing launch of apple card

The MasterCard Goldman Sachs Connection

The extended uses for the digital and physical version of the card are enabled through the partnership between MasterCard and Apple. You will be able to use the Apple Card anywhere that a MasterCard is accepted.

Goldman Sachs is the credit provider for your Apple Card and they will set your interest rate based, as would be expected, on your current credit score. Rates are projected to be in the range of 13.24% to 24.24% which is below the average in the US.

An extended fixed payment system is likely to be offered for large purchases according to the pre-release data.

https://www.apple.com/105/media/us/apple-card/2019/c90ec3fe-63dc-4557-b1ea-50d7539c76bd/films/this-is/apple-card-this-is-tpl-cc-us-2019_1280x720h.mp4
Apple Card Informational Video

Main Perks and Advantages

There are many unconventional and improved aspects to the use and especially the user experience associated with the new card. In the keynote announcement earlier this year (see video above) a great emphasis was made on the ways that the project was focused on improving the experience and helping users attain a healthier financial lifestyle.

This includes various features designed to help reduce interest charges, not only by offering lower overall rates, but by giving the user options and calculations that can provide payment alternatives to the traditional “minimum monthly” payment currently the norm.

Payments can be made from your linked bank account or can be transferred from Apple Cash in your Wallet app.

There is no annual fee for the card, no international fees and no fee for exceeding your credit limit or making a late payment. Also, there is not increased interest rate penalty, per se, for late payment, which is common in some other credit card accounts. Late payment will, naturally, result in interest accrual, but based on your current rate.

There is an separate app, particularly useful on iPad, which does not have the Wallet app, where data on transactions, payments and other details are provided. This, in typical Apple style, is far superior to any credit card app interface from banks and lenders.

Rewards and “Daily Cash”

Rather than a points system commonly seen on traditional credit card accounts, the Apple Card has a cash back system which can kick back up to 3% on a daily basis.

They call this “Daily Cash” and, as the name implies, your rebated cash will be credited to your account every 24 hours and be directly transferred to your Apple Cash account. If you do not sign up for Apple Cash, you will get your rebates sent to your bank account monthly.

Percentages vary, 3% is for all purchases made directly from Apple, 2% for all Apple Pay transactions and 1% for using the physical card at any non-Apple Pay retailer.

There is no cost to transfer your rewards cash to your bank account and this can take from one to three days. There will be an option to get instant transfers, which will incur a 1% fee. The transfers are done through the Apple Cash card from the Wallet app to the linked bank account.

Best Features and Conclusion

The overall sense is that this is going to be a very popular offering, based on the positive attributes of the card and the deal.

Although the terms are clearly slanted towards encouraging financial activity benefiting the emerging Apple financial eco-system, with the reward percentage on direct Apple purchases and Apple Pay coming in higher than the “out of network” transactions made with the physical card only, the rest of the perks are more than enough to pique the interest of a great number of iPhone users.

The titanium card appearance, styling and feel will attract many for that reason alone. Quel chic! And it is likely that the card will cause an increase in Apple Pay transactions, with double cash back for pulling out your iPhone instead of the physical card.

Ultimately, the software tools enabling privacy – no data to Apple and Goldman Sachs promising never to use or sell your data – along with the fantastic tools for tracking transactions, spend, payments and interest are perhaps the most likely to create love.

Who doesn’t hate dealing with credit card companies and their antiquated interfaces and systems? Some credit card providers do not even allow automatic payment scheduling, apparently hoping you will pay late so they can rack up those late payment penalty fees. Doing away with even the worst, most evil, aspects of credit card accounts is already a huge step forward.

Let’s hope that Apple will manage this as well as it appears. It looks like a top flight offering that has plenty of advantages that make it head and shoulders above the pack, and, for iPhone users it seems like a “must have” if there ever was one.

  • Easy sign-up on iPhone
  • Accepted worldwide (wherever Mastercard is available)
  • Up to 3% cash back
  • Daily cash back
  • No fees
  • Engraved Titanium physical card with concealed numbers
  • Spending tracking
  • Clear transaction labeling with more data
  • Built-in Privacy

Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Gillette Gets Masculinity Mixed-Up

It’s The Why, Not The What

https://youtu.be/koPmuEyP3a0

Reports indicate that Nike’s “Kaepernick” campaign was successful as both advertising (increasing sales) and as controversial social commentary. In this case, it appears to have had the intended effect.

The “Success has many Fathers” rule led, unavoidably, the next batch of socially aware commentary with a taste of controversy. A great new genre and, overall, a positive move and redefinition of advertising?

In the case of Gillette, it begs the question, why Gillette and why now? The previous Gillette campaign “Boston Made” was a stark departure from their staple of ads, oriented towards product shots and hawking of benefits, that go back decades. Why change now to new styles and directions?

A revolution in direct-to-consumer branding in the U.S.A., that’s why.

The huge and unexpected success of upstarts in the once impenetrable shaving supplies market by online “answer brands” like Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club was behind a drop in Gillette’s 70% of the market in 2008 to only 50% in 2017.

For more than a century Gillette and Schick were #1 and #2 in a huge men’s shaving industry which recently accounted for $2.8 billion in annual sales. Suddenly, the two main upstarts have grown to around 10% of that.

Read More: A Bully with a “Nice” Promise is Still just a Bully: Big tech Behemoth Plays Coronavirus Card

A bite of that magnitude, and one that is growing, was enough to awaken the sleeping giant. First, an attempt at rebranding as a kind of “local” start-up with the “Boston Made” campaign mentioned above, and now, with the “We Believe: The best men can be” ad, the giant is fighting back.

Problems of veracity with the Boston ads, and perhaps looking a little desperate with the newest socially aware salvo notwithstanding, we should all still applaud this story and others like it.

Having four or more choices and pricing options in a formerly closed market is a clear advantage for consumers. And, regardless of your take on the content or message in the “Believe” clip above, it’s still better and more interesting to see this than yet another animated imaginary blade cutting fake hairs on a cartoon chin “oh so close and easy”.

Even this video response from Égard Watch Company adds to the conversation and to the variety of opinions, not just on “what is a man?” but even more so: “what is an advertisement?”.

Ok, opportunistic? Sure. But at least new things are being tried and tested.

Be it Razor’s or a Mattress or any other product, with help from changes brought on by eCommerce, the wave of companies finding ways to capture even 10% of a previously stagnant market are a ray of hope and a healthy shot of competition.

“Even this video response from Égard Watch Company adds to the conversation and to the variety of opinions, not just on “what is a man?” but even more so: “what is an advertisement?”.”


Never mind that Harry’s was recently bought by Unilever (and was thereby swallowed up by Gillette’s main competitor since P&G owns Gillette), the wave of new companies across all categories, many of which were thought of as impossible to enter at any cost, is a win for us all and one of the most exciting trends to emerge as the internet begins it’s third decade.

So, hooray! and thanks to Nike (although, perhaps the extra $6 billion in sales are thanks enough). Here’s to hoping that more large companies will jump into the fray with more “crazy” campaigns to recapture relevance (and market share) from the new kids on the block.

Read More: Read “Deadliest Enemy” for Deep Background on Pandemics and the Danger of a Second Wave


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.