Marking the beginning of a new era of Hollywood tech glamour
Somehow it is slightly disconcerting to see iconic and historic movie theaters repurposed or simply demolished. The former is preferred. However, this is not just any renovation, not just any commercial repurposing.
This is a bold and strategic statement that Apple is not just the future of computing but the future of entertainment, enabler of creativity and the beating heart of digital communication.
In renovating, really rescuing the location, Apple has, seemingly, taken the deeper meanings to heart and tried, with a budget befitting the world’s largest company, to do justice to the majestic, historic landmark, even as they transformed it into a temple to all things Apple.
The link to Hollywood’s glory days is not inappropriate or hard to grasp, and there’s a nod to the innovative and pioneering spirit of those early days of film, and an attempt to draw a lane directly to the potential for Apple’s products and services to enhance creativity, entertainment experiences, and, well, life.
There’s also statement lurking in the transition, potentially a permanent one, which sees in-person pleasures like viewing a film on the big screen in opulent surroundings begin to fade into the past and a move into sales and learning nodes for devices and methods we can use to build and inhabit the metaverse.
In the press release from today the sub-head reads: “Historic theater has premiered new technology since 1927” – in an, apparently, heartfelt attempt to build a link between the technology of today and the entertainment marvels showcased at the theater during a bygone era.
The connections to Hollywood are no longer metaphoric
With Apple in the middle of a long transition away from just devices and hardware and into a service and communications company, the importance and multi-layered meaning of this location is unavoidable.
Creativity and communication, and most of all a deep bond with the emerging “creator class” that Apple itself had a huge role in bringing into being, are at the heart of the message they are sending with this location, the lavish and loving renovation and in the press release itself.
Once literally an underdog, first to IBM and later to the “evil empire” of Microsoft’s Kock-offs, Apple is still, oddly, often underestimated and misunderstood, or at least not understood until changes permeate society.
Nothing says, nay screams, that we are approaching a golden age of Apple than the new Apple Tower Theatre complex. That golden age will occur when the world catches up with the potential of having a professional film production studio in your pocket and all the other technical innovations still to come.
The great singularity of the Apple ecosystem
There is a hugely important convergence coming in the galaxy of Apple products, software and services, that is not yet halfway implemented. The next couple of years are bound to see powerful, sometimes confusing, always remarkable advances in the company’s offerings and the way that we interact with them.
And now, with the Apple Tower Theatre in LA, there is also a mecca which can be the end destination for any pilgrimage of the faithful. Also, with Hollywood creative talents literally around the corner, what better location could there be as a reminder for the power brokers that AppleTV+ is here to stay and plans to engage at all levels and intends to seek options on any deal.
Today at Apple Creative Studios will reach out to budding creativity everywhere
Strongly associated with the theater’s launch is also a enlargement and
Today at Apple Creative Studios – the project is a global initiative for “underrepresented young creatives” and is an ongoing part of Today at Apple which is hosted at Apple Stores worldwide.
As per the Apple press release:
“In collaboration with the nonprofit Music Forward Foundation, as well as Inner-City Arts and the Social Justice Learning Institute, Creative Studios LA will provide access to technology, creative resources, and hands-on experience, along with a platform to elevate and amplify up-and-coming talents’ stories over nine weeks of free programming.”
Apple: The overhead dome, which originally depicted scenes full of clouds and cherubs, had been painted over in a previous restoration. It now brightens the space with an atmospheric sky.
“Today at Apple will also offer public in-store sessions at Tower Theatre and virtual sessions hosted by Creative Studios teaching artists and mentors, including photographer and filmmaker Bethany Mollenkof, rapper and producer D Smoke, singer-songwriter Syd, and cellist and singer Kelsey Lu. Noah Humes and his mentor, Maurice Harris, two artists who worked on the mural outside Tower Theatre inspired by the spirit of Creative Studios LA, will also teach a virtual session. Everyone is welcome to register at apple.com/creative-studios-la.”
“Originally home to the first theater in Los Angeles wired for film with sound, the historic Tower Theatre was designed in 1927 by renowned motion-picture theater architect S. Charles Lee. That legacy of technological innovation continues today as the perfect venue to discover Apple’s full line of iPhone, iPad, and Mac, each of which has transformed modern-day filmmaking, photography, and music composition.”
“Upon the closing of its doors in 1988, the space has lain empty and unused. With the same level of care found in previous restoration projects, Apple collaborated with leading preservationists, restoration artists, and the City of Los Angeles to thoughtfully preserve and restore the theater’s beauty and grandeur. Every surface was carefully refinished, and the building has undergone a full seismic upgrade.”
Apple Tower Theatre Opens Thursday at 10 a.m.
The store team will welcome its first customers Thursday, June 24, at 10 a.m. Apple Tower Theatre will be open from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. from Monday to Saturday, and 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Sunday, with team members ready to provide support and service to all visitors. For those wishing to order new products online, customers can get shopping help from Apple Specialists, choose monthly financing options, trade in eligible devices, receive Support services, and elect for no-contact delivery or Apple Store pickup.
Sci-fi sounding, inevitable upgrade for today’s online communications
You might have heard lately about the “metaverse” and yet that can mean a variety of different things to different people. Often, it’s a term that relates back to gaming and 3D augmented reality enhancements of networked communications.
There are even crypto and blockchain related projects using this term and concept. While all of these various factors are welcome, and potentially part of this next phase of convergence of communication via networked technology, there’s something else happening under the surface.
”The pandemic, with its requirements of physical distancing, has brought people into online digital environments for a growing range of shared human experiences.” — Wired UK from “The Metaverse is coming” by David Baszucki
The acceleration in AI application, machine learning, and converging use cases for all communications tech has created a situation where the entry-portal to the emerging metaverse is already here.
One often overlooked aspect of a transition to a more complete digital life is the need for humans to have adapted to the need and potential benefits of the idea. This is what is happening via many routes, including Apple and the constant synergistic upgrade cycles that have just gone into a new, bigger phase with the migration to a unified OS structure built around Apple Silicon.
The gradual increases in iOS functionality and user sophistication are changing how we interact
iOS15, previewed this week at the WWDC2021 is rolling out literally dozens of new features, many based on machine learning, neural networks and AI that propose a new level of highly sophisticated options to communicate with video, photos and text.
While this mixture of “basic” media has been the staple of our current modes of online communication, particularly via social media, the incredibly increased depth of new options and functionality of iOS15 and iPadOS15 and MacOS Monterey will make all modes of communication feel completely new.
In the evolution of online media and enriched communication (OMEC to coin an 80s sounding acronym) the slow and uneven progress is based on many factors. #1 is always user adoption and sophistication.
Second is the quality of the hardware devices and software upgrades each user around the world has access to. In the case of iOS (iPad, iPhone & macOS) the immediate adoption of upgrades is a large factor on the plus side, helping new innovation to arrive in general use more quickly.
The last factor, a huge one, is access to fast ubiquitous internet data connections, and, in the US at least, this is less consistent than ever (or our expectations are rising faster than the build out).
However, particularly in Asia, 5g is beginning to make a dent. Satellite broadband, like Starlink, should also start to be a factor as early as 2022. Government infrastructure build-out funding and subsidies in the US is on the way in 2021.
Augmented 3D features are still growing but will merge with 2D
The upshot of this topic is that “2D” factors and increasingly sophisticated manipulation and interactive features that are already coming in iOS15 will bring us all closer the entry-portal stone-age version of the metaverse.
We all depend more and more on communications and using our devices – work from home, personal, business and hybrid activities (such as the emerging content creator class). Often, as a result, we have fewer options to go offline for “organic” RL (real life) interactions.
The increasingly sophisticated capabilities available are beginning to make even face to face communications, particularly in work situations, feel “un-enhanced” as we become accustomed to and dependent on the digital enhancements and potential of a full media rich interaction.
This is an example, one could say, of the subtle encroachment of the emerging metaverse onto the “real world” and how the boundaries are blurring and even beginning to disappear.
Rather than a sudden “jump” into a metaverse, similar to the cliché sci-fi plots from films like “Ready Player 1”, what is happening is a nearly imperceptible transition to metaverse-like experiences that will become commonplace, initially in a primitive form, and then eventually become the norm. Similar to the proverbial Frog in pot, with warm water temperatures that increase so slowly that the Frog doesn’t even notice, until it finds that it is swimming in pot that is already boiling.
The misconception that a “killer app” or sudden shift into an online, virtual reality world, is the future, and that a big leap will happen nearly all at once, is harmlessly superimposed on the real transition that has already begun.
When Apple’s 2007 launch of the iPhone changed communication forever: the journey began
The new “Digital Legacy Program”, also announced at WWDC2021, is another hint that we are already living in an extremely primitive version of the metaverse. Our online identity, data, and even behaviors and experiences are so essential and all pervasive that it has become necessary to keep a digital key to access the huge trove of personal data we will leave behind to pass on to our living loved ones, after we are gone.
The metaverse, that means, is not only creating a parallel digital universe for us to live in, in an ever more complete and sophisticated way, but we are also already setting up the eternal storage of our virtual life experiences to be passed down to future generations.
Though nearly invisible while in such a relatively primitive iteration, the concept, an example of overlapping advancements in innovation, is a tiny step towards digital immortality.
The metaverse could help to save us all
It’s not just professional and work related communication that relates to the gradual increase in the depth of networked communication options, but, even more so, casual and leisure communication and interaction is key.
TikTok and other video communication trends are at the forefront of of user evolution and metaverse activity expansion. When people feel motivated to find new and better ways to communicate using richer media and augmented techniques for fun, and to gain more recognition in online societies, that advances digital sophistication.
This process of the evolution of user comfort and sophistication, while existing and interacting in the metaverse, is the fastest way for the augmentation to become more effective.
There’s a mostly unseen benefit and need for this, otherwise seemingly pointless, global development
The challenges that the world faces, encroaching, devastating fallout from global warming and excess carbon in the atmosphere, political corruption and inequality, disinformation and cybercrime, and so on.
Ultimately, unlike at any time in human history, we are facing a challenge. The survival of our species and even the planet are at stake.
In the years and decades to come it will become more and more obvious that there are only two paths possible. One path toward a kind of Utopia, or another one that will lead, inexorably to Oblivion.
Though the metaverse is scary in many ways, and does not always appear as a way to a better life, augmented and enhanced communication is one of the most desperately needed ways that solutions could eventually be discovered and implemented.
And that would put this progression and evolution of tech more in service of Utopia, and could be at the heart of a rescue plan to prevent Oblivion, before it’s too late.
For what seems like a long time many of us have been living inside our iPhone, immersed in a metaverse of our digital lives.
And the deeper into Apple’s walled garden we are submerged, the more monumental the yearly OS upgrades become. That’s because, when you are in a digital life, we’ll, lots of things are worse than the “real” world. The sensual experience is built of fractions of the full sensory bandwidth of life.
But there’s one thing about the metaverse, the fact that, since it’s artificial and human engineered, it can, and does, improve.
In the case of Apple’s universe, the yearly upgrades and constant, sometimes nearly imperceptible changes in a thousand different parameters add together, over time, and suddenly, the world comes alive with vibrant, super sensual satisfaction …
Sure, the weather animations just got sent to a 3rd convolution level of better-ness, that’s true. But add this to all the thousands of better feelings and deeper interactions with yourself and the spirit of ourselves, and you will find: the future
Photo credit: Apple
WWDC 2021 was a pure upgrade fest with a lot of detail to sift through
We are in the middle of our ongoing coverage of the Apple event and all that was revealed. There are so many features and so many important details and interdependent uses for this features that it can be more easily digested in bites.
What we are witnessing is the growing interdependence and interoperability of iOS 15, iPad OS 15 and macOS 12 Monterey, particularly with the built in apple apps they all have built in.
Safari, though still with slight variations between the three OSs, is becoming more powerful everywhere, FaceTime got a huge upgrade in the new systems, and utilities connected to iCloud such as the Find My network are also extensively revamped.
While some find the sheer width and breath of Apple’s hardware, software and services conceptually off-putting, it is, at this early stage of the monumental changes that are being wrought by Apple Silicon, a wonder to behold how all the various products and underlying software for those products is evolving in a way that is constant and deep.
As put forth in articles published by Lynxotic years ago the changes that are underway are vast and were conceived and put into motion based on Steve Jobs’ core concepts for the future of Apple many years ago. And Tim Cook and the rest of Apple have not deviated from that vision, in fact are reaping benefits on behalf of users that could barely be imagined a decade ago.
One bite we’ve started to delve into is the dual and interdependent features from macOS Monterey; Airplay to Mac and Universal control. It turns out that compete interoperability for Airplay to Mac is still in the future, the list of the various models and vintages that it functions on is as follows:
2018 or later MacBook Pro or MacBook Air
a 2019 or later iMac or Mac Pro
an iMac Pro
the 2020 Mac mini
As you can see this is a fairly exclusive list. What is most conspicuously missing is the possibility to use and older mac, such as a 2018 27” 5k iMac to take advantage of the beautiful screen.
Universal Control, meanwhile appears to work with most devices that run on iPadOS 15 and macOS Monterey. It allows you to a single mouse and keyboard and flow from iPad to Mac and back, pretty much as you would imagine using the cursor and keyboard for either, and, thankfully there is no setup required.
FaceTime just got a Facelift
FaceTime’s big jump ahead is somewhat more complex since the iPhone, iPad (various models of both) and the mac each have a UX and screen size that varies, as well as different computing advantages. One interesting note on the various technical enhancements, pretty much across the board from what was announced at WWDC 2021, M1 chips and Apple Silicon based devices get the biggest boost from all the new capabilities.
Rather than being a marketing ploy, at least so far there’s no evidence of that kind of approach, this is an organic by product of the underlying “big picture” goal – to unify the experience and potential of the three device categories even as they cross pollinate one-another.
All the various, and gradually hard to list, OS flavors, macOS 12 Monterey, iOS 15, iPadOS 15, tvOS 15, watchOS 8 and all the various accessories that benefit from the upgrades such as AirPods pro spatial audio, HomePod mini liaison with Apple TV 4k and tvOS 15, as well as SharePlay where FaceTime can allow multiple users to share streaming audio or video content for a synchronized experience.
Please stay tuned for the many articles to come that will further dive into the changes and improvements that are on the way, free of charge, for Apple users with this massive roll-out that will culminate in fall 2021.
As per Apple:
Redesigned Weather and Notes Apps
Weather includes more graphical displays of weather data, full-screen maps, and dynamic layouts that change based on conditions. Beautifully redesigned animated backgrounds more accurately reflect the sun’s position and precipitation, and notifications highlight when rain or snow starts and stops. Video animation below:
Notes adds user-created tags that make it easy to quickly categorize notes, and mentions allow members of shared notes to notify one another of important updates. An all-new Activity view shows the recent history of a shared note.
Notes adds user-created tags that make it easy to quickly categorize notes in line with relevant content:
The online giant bans products related to drugs, spying and weapons, but we found plenty for sale; one of the items bought on the site left a grim trail of overdoses
By: Annie Gilbertson and Jon Keegan
Eric Falkowski said he made an easy living working a few hours a week making counterfeit prescription opioids before some two-dozen people overdosed and the authorities caught up with him.
He mixed fentanyl with active ingredients from Xanax and Tylenol and pressed the compound into pills that looked like Percocet, he said, down to the exact color and markings.
Where did he get the equipment? According to federal court records and Falkowski himself: Amazon.com.
“I purchased two pill presses on there. I also purchased the pill press dies, which are the molds to shape the pills and imprint them with whatever number they need be,” Falkowski said in a phone interview from prison, where he is serving a 22-year sentence for crimes connected to his counterfeit drug business.
“You search under the code on the pill … and it’ll just come up,” he added. “It really wasn’t that complex.”
Two people died after taking Falkowski’s pills, and another woman was found dead from an overdose on the property where he kept his makeshift lab, according to officials, law enforcement documents, and autopsy reports. More than 20 others were sickened by the pills but survived.
“Someone could wipe out a whole town” with these “poisonous pills,” said Derrick Helton, a former sheriff’s deputy for Rutherford County, Tenn., where the mass overdose took place. One of the fatalities was his sister Tiffanie Scott, a 33-year-old mother of a young daughter.
Amazon bans pill presses used to make prescription drugs. They’re included among 38 pages of third-party seller rules and prohibitions for its U.S. marketplace.
Yet an investigation by The Markup found that Amazon fails to properly enforce that list, allowing third-party sellers to put up and sell banned items.
Alongside its third-party marketplace, Amazon sells products to consumers directly, and The Markup found it was also selling banned items itself, revealing cracks in the largely automated purchasing system that feeds its massive product catalog.
We found nearly 100 listings for products that the company bans under its categories of drugs, theft, spying, weapons and other dangerous items, a virtual back alley where mostly third-party sellers peddle prohibited goods, some of which are used for illicit and potentially criminal activities.
Amazon’s Choice?
The Markup filled a shopping cart with a bounty of banned items: marijuana bongs, “dab kits” used to inhale cannabis concentrates, “crackers” that can be used to get high on nitrous oxide, and compounds that reviews showed were used as injectable drugs.
We found two pill presses and a die used to shape tablets into a Transformers logo, which is among the characters that have been found imprinted on club drugs such as ecstasy. We found listings for prohibited tools for picking locks and jimmying open car doors. And we found AR-15 gun parts and accessories that Amazon specifically bans.
Almost three dozen listings for banned items were sold by third parties but available to ship from Amazon’s own warehouses. At least four were listed as “Amazon’s Choice.”
The phrase “ships from and sold by Amazon.com” appeared beneath the buy button of five of the banned items we found, which two former employees confirmed means those products are, in fact, sold by Amazon. In addition, one of the sellers we were able to reach also confirmed it sold the items to Amazon.
Many of the items we found had been up for sale for months, some with positive reviews showing they had been sold, including some of the items sold directly by Amazon.
And Amazon led us right to the prohibited listings. When we typed “bong” into the website’s search bar, autocomplete suggestions included “bongs for smoking weed.” When we typed “pill press,” autocomplete suggested “pill press for making pills xanax.”
In a written statement to The Markup, Amazon spokesperson Patrick Graham said the company has “proactive measures in place to prevent suspicious or prohibited products from being listed,” and that the company stopped more than six billion “suspected bad listings” from posting last year, repeating the company’s remarks to Congress earlier this year.
“If products that are against our policies are found on our site, we immediately remove the listing, take action on the bad actor, and further improve our systems,” he said.
Graham did not respond directly to many of our specific questions, including how many of the banned items that The Markup found had been sold, why the company had not noticed some of them for months, why some were listed as Amazon’s Choice, and why many were stored in Amazon’s warehouses for shipment.
He did not respond at all to questions about why Amazon itself had offered banned items for sale.
Most of the banned listings we reported to Amazon have been removed, although at least three have popped back up.
The company removed the six specific terms that we mentioned from autocomplete, according to Graham, who said that feature is informed by “similar searches by other customers.” He wouldn’t say whether the company also removed all other banned items from autocomplete.
Graham also declined to explain why the company chose to allow 13 listings for banned items that we reported to the company to remain for sale. These products were specifically named as banned in Amazon’s rules, met the U.S. Department of Justice’s definition of drug paraphernalia, or were confirmed by two weapons experts to be a gun part or tool. Two of them were items that Amazon sells itself.
In addition to the nearly 100 listings for banned items we found for sale in the U.S. marketplace, we found several pill presses for sale on Amazon’s Canadian marketplace that were available for shipment to the United States. Amazon took them down after we reported them to the company, including a $4,100 TDP 5 Desktop Tablet Press, one of the models Falkowski used.
“Almost dead”
Michael “Shane” Shipley, 39, a native of Rutherford County, Tenn., was one of the people who died after taking Falkowski’s fake pills. He’d worked his entire adult life operating machinery at a local factory.
“I couldn’t even tell you what my dad’s death has done to my family,” his daughter Brittany Conway said in an interview.
Within a day of her father’s death, Conway said, she woke up in a hospital bed herself. She didn’t realize her father had slipped the counterfeit pills into his prescription bottle of Percocet at home and, distraught with grief, she had taken what she thought was a safe medication to help her relax.
“I went from up, talking—to almost dead,” Conway said.
Graham said Amazon’s policies allowed pill press sales when Falkowski was making counterfeit drugs in 2016. He declined comment on the overdoses and said, speaking in general, that the company is not responsible for harm from third-party product sales.
“We are not liable for those products because we do not make, distribute, or sell those products,” he said. He said that also applies to third-party products that are fulfilled by Amazon, which charges sellers to store and ship their items.
The company has successfully shielded itself from legal liability for harm caused by third-party products sold on its website by invoking Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which states websites are not responsible for third-party content that appears on their sites.
Last year, one federal appeals court ruled that Amazon may shoulder liability for a customer’s injuries from a defective product sold on its site, in part because the company “enables third-party vendors to conceal themselves from the customer, leaving customers injured by defective products with no direct recourse to the third-party vendor.”
Three million third parties from across the globe are now selling on Amazon’s platforms, according to e-commerce intelligence firm Marketplace Pulse. And third-party sellers have fueled the company’s explosive growth for years, according to a 2019 report to shareholders. Last year, Amazon third-party sales reportedly topped $200 billion—a sum that rivals the annual GDP of New Zealand.
Will It “Kill Someone?”
Multiple current and former employees, most of whom asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, said the company struggles to oversee that army of independent sellers.
“Because sellers have the ability to upload items themselves to the website, it makes it very difficult to police all of that without hindering the ability to do business,” said a former member of the product safety team who left the company in 2018. “Amazon knows there’s tons and tons and tons of stuff that shouldn’t be on the website.
“We basically would categorize risks based on their severity,” the former employee added. “Will this product injure or kill someone? Is it high legal risk?”
An Amazon executive acknowledged in the statement to Congress earlier this year that “bad listings” get through but said the company is working to shore up the slippage of “counterfeits, unsafe products, and other types of abuse” by requiring sellers of certain items to be preapproved, partnering with brands to pull counterfeits, and enhancing “proactive” tools to spot problems.
Yet Amazon’s sellers’ tools sometimes help, rather than hinder, the listing of banned items, The Markup found.
When we opened a new seller account and started listing a bong for sale, Amazon suggested we list it as a vase in home decor. We never posted it.
Last month, we successfully listed two banned items for sale: an AR-15 10-round magazine and an AR-15 armorer’s wrench. We removed them within minutes of confirming they had posted. We were able to evade detection by Amazon’s automated filters by purchasing a universal product code for the magazine and by both avoiding specific keywords and miscategorizing the items.
The listings went up even though we had no seller history and had already twice been prohibited from listing the same items using more precise descriptions.
Graham declined to comment on why we were able to post these items but said Amazon’s sellers’ tools “suggest listing categories to help sellers easily categorize their products, but sellers are responsible for choosing the correct category, as they know their products best.” He also declined to comment on why the tools suggested an incorrect product category for listing bongs.
Other media have exposed Amazon’s lax product controls, including three reports just last year: a CNN investigation that documented dangerous child car seats, a CNBC report that revealed Amazon was shipping expired food and baby formula, and a Wall Street Journal investigation that found thousands of unsafe, banned, and deceptively labeled products on the site.
Graham said Amazon investigated these “with urgency” and sought to improve systems when needed but gave no specifics.
Consumer advocates say the company isn’t doing enough to protect the public, and regulators need to step in.
“It’s clear there’s not a major prioritization or investment in resources in policing the terms of service or ensuring that prohibited products are not sold,” said Lori Wallach, a director at the nonprofit organization Public Citizen. “It may be more profitable to have the ‘wild, wild west’ of sales, but it’s also much more dangerous for consumers.”
“We categorically disagree with this claim,” Graham replied.
Automating Enforcement
When Rachel Johnson Greer joined Amazon in 2010 as a product safety program manager, she said she found many problematic products for sale, from unapproved treatments of erectile dysfunction to illegal police radar jammers.
“They were up for sale and selling happily away on Amazon,” Greer said.
She said some troubling products were sold directly by Amazon itself, which she and others said relies on a mostly automated purchasing process.
“Ships and sold by Amazon is Amazon. This is how it all started,” said Greer, who worked for the company until 2017. “They built algorithms to figure out which books they needed to buy and then how much.”
It was Greer’s job to put an end to sketchy sales, she said. Her team wrote programs to flag undesirable products and amassed a universe of terms to feed an automated policing system. She said the tool eventually could scan billions of line items in the catalog in about five minutes.
But it proved flawed, she said. The system by its nature was confined to known threats—things it had seen before. Greer said new problems emerged all the time and slipped right through initial safeguards, only to be flagged by customers after something went wrong.
“The biggest problem with Amazon’s system to begin with is that nearly everything is reactive,” she said. “The reality is when you have a system that relies on finding defects per million, that means that there will always be defects.”
She said some third-party sellers devised “clever, tricky ways to list products. And these rules couldn’t catch it because they hadn’t been written by a human who was thinking in clever, tricky ways.”
One current employee of the restricted products team wearily put it like this: “No matter how much we remove, there’s always more.”
Graham did not directly respond to these descriptions of the company’s difficulties in keeping restricted items off the site. Instead, he said more generally that Amazon strives “to make sure that all products in our store are safe” and “we continuously monitor the products sold in our stores.”
Yet we found an unproven treatment to fight cancer with electromagnetic frequencies that is banned by Amazon’s policies—a rife machine—had been on the site for five years. The listing was removed after we contacted Amazon.
While most of the specific banned listings we brought to Amazon’s attention were removed, similar items that we did not report to the company remained live, including some listings by the same third-party sellers.
Many of the sellers of the banned items that we found continued to sell banned products, including Lead and Steel, which sold gun accessories, and another company, which sold a compound that reviewers said they used as injectable drugs. When we asked Amazon about this in follow-up questions, those storefronts disappeared from Amazon.com.
Graham denied that injectable drugs were sold on its platform, saying they were not sold for that purpose but rather marketed for “research” in the listing. Of the two compounds we found, the World Anti-Doping Agency designates one, TB-500, as a “prohibited substance,” and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency warned athletes about the risks of the second one, BPC-157, as not approved for human use. Customer reviews on the listing showed people were injecting the product.
Graham said the company removed the listings and would add them to its banned product list “out of an abundance of caution.” But as of publication, both compounds could be found for sale by other sellers on Amazon.com.
Amazon isn’t the only online retailer that has had to grapple with policing the unruly world of third-party e-commerce, where just about anybody can sell just about anything. Falkowski said he bought some of his drug-making supplies on another site.
Some marketplaces are known for thoroughly reviewing products before they go up.
Apple, which offers mobile apps from third-parties, checks the code before any app or update appears in the App Store, for instance. According to its site, Apple uses a combination of automated systems and hundreds of human experts speaking a total of 81 languages to review them before posting.
“We take responsibility for ensuring that apps are held to a high standard for privacy, security, and content,” Apple’s website states, “because nothing is more important than maintaining the trust of our users.”
Amazon’s users appear to know exactly what they’re buying, even when banned products are lightly disguised.
Lead and Steel listed a gunsmithing tool for an AR-15 as a “paperweight desk organizer,” posting a photo of the vise block holding paper clips and erasers.
Customers joined in on the ruse in reviews. “Helps when you need to do a hands free clean up of your desktop,” wrote one. “Locks items solidly into place, will Load plenty of paper clips or tacks.”
Another customer retorted, “Sorry. I’m not playing along. I can buy AR-15 parts all day on Amazon.”
To go along with the vise block, Amazon’s “frequently bought together” tool suggested other gunsmithing tools, showing at least one of Amazon’s automated systems received signals that it was not an office product.
Graham, the Amazon spokesperson, declined to explain why the items were still for sale, even though the “frequently bought together” tool seemed to recognize they were related to firearms.
Lead and Steel, which declined to be interviewed for this story, had sold at least four dozen vise blocks from that posting since it went up in December, according to reviews, until we reported it to Amazon, which pulled the listing.
On the Hunt for Honey Oil Equipment
Vic Massenkoff, a retired fire investigator from Contra Costa County, Calif. said he tried years ago to get Amazon to take down dangerous equipment—but said he was frustrated by what he sees as the company’s inaction.
He said he’d seen too many fires caused by the process of extracting highly potent hash oil, or “honey oil,” from marijuana using butane and in 2013 decided to investigate where the equipment could be found for sale. He said he found it on Amazon.com.
“There it was lined up, everything from the extraction tubes, to the grams digital scales, to the silicone pads, the silicone containers, to the digital thermometers,” Massenkoff said. “Everything you would need to set up shop.”
When he clicked on a listing for the glass tubes, Amazon’s recommendation engine suggested he buy the other items needed to make and use hash oil. He kept screenshots of the suggestions.
“There is no safe way to make butane honey oil,” he said in an interview.
He said he emailed Amazon from his work email to alert the company to the danger. He still remembers the reply: “Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We have assigned it to someone on our staff to research this.”
He said he got one other email from Amazon and then heard nothing.
Graham, the Amazon spokesperson, declined to say how the company handled Massenkoff’s complaint, for which he said The Markup had provided no “evidence.”
Amazon’s current rules ban the sale of equipment to make hash oil; we were able to find it on the site.
In Netflix top 10 recently as the premonitions keep cropping up
First, to be clear, this series was produced by Crackle (Originally Sony Crackle) and in-all 3 seasons were produced between 2016 (first premiered on September 6, 2016) and 2018. It stars Adam Brody, Edi Gathegi, Otmara Marrero, Martin Freeman, Ron Perlman, Addison Timlin, and Mira Sorvino.
On November 15, 2017, the series was renewed for a third season which was released on November 1, 2018. On May 4, 2021, all three seasons were made available on Netflix and surged up into the top ten in spite of the age.
The correspondences are loose, as is the connection between the subject matter and the real world analogs. The series is dramatic and emotional more than technical and the title “StartUp” is a bit meh. It conjures up images of Silicon Valley nerds and other tech bros and lame plots with outdated “dot-com” plot twists.
“StartUp” could not be further from any of that. Set in Miami (great first choice) it has the reputation of that city for money laundering, drugs and financial crimes as a backdrop.
Ultimately it’s about life and loss, the life and death struggle to find the “American Dream” and at the same time has connections to Crypto, Alt Coins, Web 3.0, The Dark Net, the criminal underworld, specifically financial crimes, Silk Road and, of course, tech start ups and venture capital.
The intertwining of this trio from disparate backgrounds is awkward but at the core of the story
It begins with “Izzy” Isabella Morales, who is a genus code crunching hacker who’s struggling to try to launch a crypto coin, “GenCoin” that she has been working on for over five years, since her time on scholarship at Stanford.
There’s not a lot of detail about her code and I don’t recall the term “blockchain” being mentioned, but they do mention bitcoin throughout the show and, considering it was around 2016 during production it is interesting to see where much of the plot fits 2021 far more.
A kind a linking character in the show is FBI agent, Phil Rask played by Martin Freeman who serves, wonderfully, to give exposition and a factual tour of the Miami crime scene and how he, and the FBI are swimming in a virtual ocean of corruption. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em appears to be his motto as he is actively soliciting bribes from the jump.
Nick’s father, who is both well connected in the upscale world of financial corruption that operates openly within the big banks and corporations of the established Miami elite, is put into a jam by Agent Rask, forcing him to search for a fast escape from Miami.
Reluctantly, Nick is pulled into his father’s criminal dealings, the last thing he ever wanted, and as a result crosses paths both with FBI Agent Rask and, ultimately, invests in Izzy’s GenCoin project using his Dad’s dirty money. Once Izzy connects to Nick Talman (Adam Brody), the plot takes off.
Ronald Dacey who is a Haitian “gang leader” has a special, unique and unexpected role to play in the series. He is the human embodiment of the way the system favors the white collar criminals at the top, including the FBI, in this case, while the poor minority populations, epitomized by the tough Haitian ghetto in Miami, are forced into drug dealing and violent turf wars just to survive.
It turns out that Izzy, Nick and Ronald are not really that far removed from one another as they soon find out that a big chunk of the money Nick got from his Father turns out to belong to Ronald and his “gang”. The money was supposed to be laundered and managed by the bank where Nick’s father worked.
In an intense climax of the initial establishing episodes, the unlikely three, like a crypto-criminal Mod-squad end up as partners in the start up that they create to launch Izzy’s Gencoin.
GenCoin comes across as a kind of mini-Ethereum or alt-coin ahead of its time, and at the same time there is a dramatic interaction where the anti-government and grey-market potential and meaning of crypto is, albeit simplistically, superimposed on a critique of the social structures of the status quo.
Once again epitomized first by Miami corruption and criminal financial history as a way to underscore the desperate need, and also from the point of view of the show’s heroes, who decide to fight for a massive world changing digital transformation.
Though disconcerting at times, personal struggles and pain are superimposed over the passionate striving of the main characters
So, while all of this and the show in general, is dramatic with endless plot twists and great long-form character portrayals by the stars, particularly Ronald played by Edi Gathegi and Isabelle Morales played by Otmara Marrero, the correspondences that jump out during the show seem to emerge in strange and sometimes eerie ways.
For example, at one point they attend a huge “crypto convention” in Miami (first time in Miami after previously being held in LA) and, while they are not particularly successful in that instance, the size and stature of the show mirrors the conference that is happening literally as this article is being written (June 4-5, 2021) also in Miami (!).
While the BitCoin conference has been around since 2019, that year the number of attendees was only 1900 and is expected to be far more this year. While it is a coincidence that Miami was chosen in 2021 for the first time, it is a bit uncanny when watching a 5 year old episode where the exact conference is held in the exact location…
Another interesting corresondence has to do with events that transpire in the second and third seasons (spoiler alert). Through wild, dramatic twists and turns Gencoin is no longer the focus and the trio re-unite to launch a second tech project “Araknet” which is portrayed in the film as a kind of “dark-web 3.0 network”.
Interestingly, there are several very current projects that, while not directly a mirror of Araknet, have many of the same qualities and goals, though with less dramatic and sinister details. The biggest is that Dfinity and Internet Computer are trying to “extend”the current public internet network rather than launch a separate “private” Web 3.0 that has decentralized privacy at its core.
The DFINITY Foundation is a not-for-profit scientific research organization based in Zurich, Switzerland, that oversees research centers in Palo Alto, San Francisco, and Zurich, as well as teams in Japan, Germany, the UK, and across the United States. The Foundation’s mission is to build, promote, and maintain the Internet Computer.
One example is “Internet Computer” which is being developed by Dfinity, a start up in Switzerland. They are developing, in simplified terms a kind of blockchain based “internet 3.0” hence the cute catchy name.
Araknet promotional marketing from “StartUp” sounds again, bizarrely considering the time frame, like what you can read on the Dfinity web site today.
A slightly less direct correspondence is Helium. A project to crate a separate iOT network using long-range wireless nodes to create a decentralized wireless infrastructure.
The show emphasizes heavily the human drama and struggles of three special individuals as they try to find a path through a world of financial corruption, explosive technology changes and a disire to fight for freedom more so than individual wealth or power exclusively.
The show deserves its popularity and the attention it has been given. I would recommend it with the warning that the prophetic foreshadowing of today, while remarkable, is not the primary through-line of the narrative.
Three and a half million likes in less than 24 hours? Sure, if you are Jason Stratham on TikTok. And it’s the first video on a brand new account. The only video on the account so far. And you are dancing while you divulge your stats.
Looking at the comments, however, nearly 70,000 of them, a large number are asking “is this real”. Deep-fakes are most definitely real. Several accounts used Tom Cruise Deep-fake video to try to spoof an official TikTok account for the star. And a few stray clips of Brad Pit at a script reading spawned a series of fake accounts trying to look like Brad’s personal “rogue” account.
But, wait, there’s also Billie Eilish who started a “secret” personal account in November 2020 and posted some fascinatingly bizarre ukulele footage, apparently just for kicks, as she surely has no need for more publicity. The account was so unique and, well, strange, that it was hard to imagine that it could be fake.
Sure enough, yesterday what appears to be an outtake from her recent music video with some hilarious captions and stickers popped up on the, mostly dormant, account and has since gone viral. All of which pretty much cements the “it’s definitely real” theory.
As for Jason Statham? We are going to go out on a limb here and say that he is following Billie Eilish’s lead and this is a real account. The fact that there is a single video with a full body dance clip of what absolutely appears to be the star is a tip-off. Secondly if this is his head deep-faked onto someone else’s body, that’s a pretty perfect body double.
Also, the original sound mix seems to indicate that there was method that went the extra mile.
What’s your take? Send us comments or your detective results and let us know if you think this is real, like we do, or if this is just some amazing wizardry at a next level of deep-fake-ness, which thousands of comment writers on TikTok seem to believe…
Above: Official Trailer for “Wrath of Man” Credit: MGM
In addition to Statham, he is joined by a slew of actors including: Alex Ferns, Holt McCallany, Scott Eastwood, Jeffrey Donovan, Laz Alonso, Josh Hartnett, Niamh Algar, Raúl Castillo, Post Malone, Lyne Renee, Anthony Molinari, Deobia Oparei, Tadhg Murphy, Babs Olusanmokun, Darrell D’Silva, Chris Reilly, Matthew Illesley, Rebecca Calder, Jason Wong, Alessandro Babalola, Cameron Jack, Montana Manning, Rocci Williams, Josh Cowdery, and Eve Macklin.
The evolution of content continues at warp speed due to pure individual creativity
By now, the open algorithm, where a new account can blow-up in the first week because videos are not pre-judged by past performance or prior stats is well known and a huge draw to creators.
The apps and filters and tricks that are provided by the software are also extremely enticing. There are many videos (“TikToks”) that feature how-to and DIY tips for using various hacks to get SFX into your clip.
But, by far, the biggest draw and quality that most sets TikTok apart from virtually all other social media is the character of the creators themselves. And the diverse and unique spectrum of what can be perceived as successful and popular on the app is a creation of the creator and user community itself.
The contrast with Instagram and Facebook couldn’t be more extreme
After sampling 20 hours of TikToks a year ago and comparing those to today, what stands out most is how the same qualities that seemed like a blast into a different universe a year ago, compared to what came before, are now much more developed and refined, if a concept like refinement can be applied to absolute quirky free expression.
What stands out is the level that creators are embracing the platform, not just to get seen and build stats, and possibly influence earning potential, but to communicate. With sometimes almost shocking honesty what they really believe in and and especially who, exactly, they are. That confidence is contagious and gives the experience an addicting quality, and yet, it’s a more positive addiction than any other social media experience.
Most intriguing, from a journalists point of view, is how highly intelligent, mostly self-educated creators are devoting enormous energy toward propagating highly valuable, yet often overlooked, insights about society, finance, internet business, wealth and, well, life itself. All without concern for an immediate reward.
There’s an electric feeling that, once given a platform and a megaphone, the chance exists for a world of information and constantly changing ideas to be rescued from the bland pit of ignorance and convention that is the weakness with most of media product.
Above: 3 TikTok Creators / Photos from TikTok
A faint echo of hope, bouncing back from the dream of a better future
News and media web sites, that bend and contort content choices out of fear of revenue reductions, are rightfully lambasted and called-out for lack of coverage in areas that are critically important and yet given scant or negative coverage.
The ethos of being yourself, with or without glamor, and still be accepted, or even rising to the top echelons of stat-killing influencers, is not just a theoretical fairytale but is a visible reality all across the community.
You just have to look at what is popular, or even just showing viewer interest generally, and you’ll see incredibly creative people who made the choice to double-down on their uniqueness, rather than trying to conform to some social standard of bland attractiveness or fake charisma.
Because of the emphasis on the “content” of the content, for the most part, rather than slick visuals and production values, or a fake self-aggrandizing fantasy image bolstered by props like mansions, hot cars, make-up and wardrobe, etc. there’s a feeling that great clips will be rewarded for authenticity, more often than not.
The ethos and attitude that pervades the experience as a passive user is an organic outgrowth, in part, of the openness of the algorithm, and appears to be a more honest reflection of what people will “like” if not manipulated with dark patterns and all of ‘Zuckerbergian’ tricks.
Above: 3 TikTok Creators / Photos from TikTok
Don’t mess with the recipe: just let it grow and evolve
Of course, no app or community is perfect and the best of what is happening on TikTok could disappear at any time. On the whole, however, it seems like the app is now locked into a situation where if TikTok were to lose that “magic”; the magic created by the community of creators themselves, it would destroy the actual formula that built the success of the platform.
And, hopefully, that reality will therefore prevail and will continue and allow millions of creators to grow, share insights and evolve together into a force that could, one day, make the rest of social media adopt at least some of those positive qualities, in order to maintain their own fan base and popularity. Or they will just disappear, to be replaced by a new type of online exchange that has not yet been conceived.
The TikTok indicator is saying crypto is here to stay…
It was, astoundingly, less than a month ago, May 8th, 2021, that Ethereum reached an all time high of $4,169. That was two days after Dogecoin, full of Musk momentum, hit .69 cents, after starting the year around .10 cents. Bitcoin had peaked about a month earlier at $63,674 on April 12th.
As is so often seen in manias, bubbles and feeding frenzies, at the time you could not find a person in America who was not talking about crypto. The proverbial shoe-shine boy was now your cousin, your uncle even your grandmother and they were all bursting with FOMO after reading the articles, especially the ones about the Dogecoin millionaires, who had made fortunes starting with a tiny sum.
Now, many of those same people are seeing a typical reversal, correction, bear phase, whatever you want to call it, and they are just as convinced of crypto’s demise today as they were that it was a sure-thing less than a month ago.
The kids get it and are not backing down
Much like TikTok itself, the later arrivals to the huge phenomena that is Crypto are the old and out-of-touch, not the young and fast. Interestingly, an anecdotal survey of young and successful crypto “influencers” on TikTok and other social media are not shocked about the downturn. They get it.
Many have been learning about and actively involved with the crypto world for years. There is a real sense that the corrupt events that led to the financial crisis and near collapse in 2008 shaped their thinking and hardened their resolve to search for a better way. Crypto’s ideals and independent foundations have provided that in a real, tangible way, it seems.
While the mainstream of the media and the bulk of the financial establishment swing from an almost grudging respect to complete derision and rejection, it appears to be the underlying concepts and ideologies that present such a stark contrast in the perspective of up and coming generations.
While perhaps no less vulnerable to the excitement of 20,000 % gains and other sensational enticements, there is a somewhat surprising depth and resolve that is demonstrated in a level headed and clear thinking allegiance to the reasons crypto was created in the first place.
The outlandish price gains (and drops) are only window dressing
At the core of the question of crypto’s eventual widespread adoption and long term success lies a simple truth: fiat currencies and the governments that print them are a big problem for the world’s future. And, naturally, the new generations of the future will be those that are most affected.
What Elon Musk recently called “The true battle… between fiat & crypto” is one that Gen-Z appear to understand in ways that 100-year-old billionaires like Warren Buffet and his side-kick Charlie Munger do not. Or maybe they just side with the financial establishment they helped build, to the bitter end.
For any reading this that also “get it”, it would be wise to understand that, even at this early phase in the future of “the true battle” there is an army rising. It is not one of suicidal fossil fuels and battlefield tanks but one of ideology and belief in the possibility of a better way.
The army that will stand up for the survival and continued development of cryptocurrencies and blockchain and “DeFi” are not a few random conscripts, they are the generations of the future and they have chosen a side.
For that reason, all signs point to an unlikely permanent collapse of cryptocurrencies and an impossibility of banning or stopping them. It is already too late to prevent their eventual rise.
There’s a joke somewhere in here but it’s hard to see it through the tears
Woody Allen’s onscreen counterpart, Alvy Singer, complaining about Hollywood Award Shows in “Annie Hall” remarked that a category of award for “Greatest Fascist Dictator” would not surprise him, and that Adolf Hitler would probably win.
Amazon, viewed from some neutral future date or by aliens from another planet would surely win the award for “Greatest Company to Amass Wealth & Power by Intentionally Losing Money” award. Or maybe just “World’s Biggest Ponzi Scheme”.
For now the fawning books and articles on the greatness of “Bezos’ Behmouth” continue to pile up.
An exception to the fawning fan fiction is “Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power” by David Dayen. The author also commented cogently on the current situation with Amazon and MGM. His thoughts shed much needed light on the simple and yet sadly overlooked truth about Amazon: its core mission is to monopolize not just online sales but all transactions that take place in the economy where a “cut” of those transactions can be extracted.
What’s with all these awards? They’re always giving out awards. Best Fascist Dictator: Adolf Hitler. — Alvy Singer
This viewpoint, it would seem, can be traced back to a rare case where Jeff Bezos let his guard down and accidentally explained a core concept of the Amazon business model.
He said, simply: “Your margin is my opportunity”.
With this seemingly innocuous and widely misinterpreted phrase he unleashed the dogs of hell on the world of commerce. The MGM deal, according to Dayen, who is also editor of The American Prospect, is yet another attempt to gut an industry with techniques designed to use predatory pricing strategies to crush all rivals.
The sub-head from his article states: “The company wants to control pricing on everything, and funnel as many transactions to itself as possible.”
Meanwhile, somehow, this statement is finally being generally understood in its real context.
Yet what is astounding is that this is not a supposition or an accusation, but rather is a stated fact, and how this company has behaved and operated for decades.
Putting 2+2 together, the common interpretation that there is an “innocent” pro-customer meaning possible, is finally being seen for the absurdity that it is.
Simple, Effective and Disgusting: Selling below cost or at a loss to harm competition
We’ve seen how that goes. In this case, since Amazon does not make any data available on the profitability of various business segments, using nearly $9 billion to enhance its “free with Prime” business creates yet another loss-leader opportunity to destroy the margins of all other streaming platforms, who, like other businesses actually have to make a profit or at least break even, unlike Amazon due to its cross-subsidization of products and services.
Amazon wants to control all economic activity in the United States and the world. It wants a cut of every transaction. — D. Dayen
Amazon as “cross-subsidized content devourer” is how Dayen described the inevitable outcome of the deal in his article.
He also succinctly argues that by using its virtually unlimited power and resources to devour an ever larger share of the market, ultimately the result will be to drive up costs for competitors (for I.P., production and star power) and achieve the goal of squeezing the already slim margins for those poor schmucks (or rich schmucks like Disney, HBO, Netflix, etc.) that don’t have an unlimited budget for intentional losses.
The playbook is so obvious and familiar that it’s almost laughable. That is, if not for the death and destruction that always follow in the next chapters of this plot schema.
They pick on an established industry where no one will have sympathy for the rich victims – did anyone feel sorry for Borders or other large book retailers? Does anyone cry over the loss of Diapers.com or Quidisi? When Birkenstock complains does anyone listen?
How can gutting the streaming industry or unassailable giants like Disney and HBO be bad? Isn’t it just capitalism at its finest? Should we start preparing the award now for “Greatest Consolidator of Content in History”?
But what about the “loss leader” system? What about the ultimate outcome of less competition and higher prices overall, an obvious harm to consumers, regardless of how stupid and convoluted the route is to get there?
By moving the market in a way that will make streaming a terrible business for any company that has to compete with this, “oughta be illegal” script, margins will, if the gambit succeeds, face a similar fate to the one that anyone who used to be in the retail book industry, or any of the other entire industries that Amazon has received kudos for destroying, knows all too well.
Dayen also makes the point that, once this thinly veiled ploy is seen for what it is, the harm, not only to Amazon’s competitors but to the general public, should be obvious and impossible to ignore.
Citing the similarities with the recently brought antitrust action by the Washington, DC attorney general, it is exactly this kind of pernicious practice, that Amazon has not only gotten away with for decades, but Bezos has been lionized for “inventing”.
That lawsuit, which deals with an Amazon clause in 3rd party marketplace terms and conditions (since altered to disguise its true intent) that 3rd party sellers must sell anywhere outside Amazon’s marketplace at the same or higher price that they have listed on Amazon, is a sign of a gradual shift toward seeing the real meaning of Amazon’s behavior.
Since there are massive, exorbitant fees added to every transaction for all 3rd party sellers, the only way for them to make any profit at all is to tack on the cost of those fees, meaning artificially higher prices.
Amazon has ways to retaliate through “dark patterns” of its own special stripe, by manipulating buyers behaviors on its web site, making sure that sellers that don’t toe the line will get, essentially, zero sales.
For Amazon this kind of bullying and blackmail is a “win-win-win”. They see and have tattooed into their DNA all pain, suffering and loss for anyone other than the company (AMZN) as a gain for them.
3rd party sellers caught in hell trying to survive while paying fees up to 43% or more without recourse to try and recoup by selling anywhere else at lower prices?
Amazon congratulates themselves. Sellers undercutting each other, in spite of those fees in an effort to behave like a “mini-Amazon” and getting into a race to the bottom death match with each other? Yippee! Great for Amazon, when they are dead, there are always new victims waiting in line to enter the cage.
How about sellers that obtain goods illegally, counterfeit, illegal imports, stolen products, remainders and aftermarket overstock? They are GREAT for Amazon because they put even more pressure on the individual, honest sellers to immolate themselves trying to survive (and eventually die via pricing suicide) while Amazon can claim to be offering lower prices!
Oh, and when they “do their best” to stop all those illegal sellers, albeit at a snails pace, they are bailed out by section 230 and can point to their “partners in crime”, the counterfeiters, the knockoffs from China, the illegal imports and the stolen and aftermarket goods and say: “We tried our best, these are just a few bad apples” laughing all the way through every board meeting.
“Your margin is my opportunity”, indeed.
Above: Photo Collage by Lynxotic
There are no mitigating factors here. There is no “good guy” or customer obsessed hero. Just evil and the dead or dying. Wake the fuck up, America.
The praise and adulation continues, even as the $400 million yacht is being prepared for its maiden voyage
It’s as if Bezos is given award after award for the “genius” of selling 1$ bills for .75 cents. Championed for using a strategy that masquerades short term margin destruction as “customer obsession”, pretending that the dumping levels of pricing won’t in the long run flip into price gouging and the destruction of competition.
Somehow the massive detriment to consumers and the society at large is overlooked amid all the parties celebrating the “genius”.
But have the chickens finally come home to roost? Is anyone seeing a pattern of systematic use of the same tactics over and over, applied to each and every sector that Amazon chooses to “disrupt”? They didn’t get the nickname “grim reaper” for nothing. The problem is that it was meant as a compliment.
It is a sea change in the antitrust orientation, a sea change that is desperately needed, and with Lina Kahn and Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, it might be just over the horizon. Could even have a chance to come about.
That change, so long overdue, could finally begin the process of dismantling the damage wrought and and still to come, if there is no interdiction.
The worm will eventually turn. When? After decades of obvious abuse and criminal behavior, completely and willfully ignored (too complicated to see).
Will there eventually be so many victims that they will outnumber the duped and the sycophants? Stay tuned.
This is a world where four major banks control most of our money, four airlines shuttle most of us around the country, and four major cell phone providers connect most of our communications. If you are sick you can go to one of three main pharmacies to fill your prescription, and if you end up in a hospital almost every accessory to heal you comes from one of a handful of large medical suppliers.
Over the last forty years our choices have narrowed, our opportunities have shrunk, and our lives have become governed by a handful of very large and very powerful corporations.
Today, practically everything we buy, everywhere we shop, and every service we secure comes from a heavily concentrated market.
Dayen, the editor of the American Prospect and author of the acclaimed Chain of Title, provides a riveting account of what it means to live in this new age of monopoly and how we might resist this corporate hegemony.
Through vignettes and vivid case studies Dayen shows how these monopolies have transformed us, inverted us, and truly changed our lives, at the same time providing readers with the raw material to make monopoly a consequential issue in American life and revive a long-dormant antitrust movement.
Journalists have used scrapers to collect data that rooted out extremist cops, tracked lobbyists, and uncovered an underground market for adopted children
By: The Markup Staff
The fruits of web scraping—using code to harvest data and information from websites—are all around us.
Scrapers are also the tools of watchdogs and journalists, which is why The Markup filed an amicus brief in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court this week that threatens to make scraping illegal.
The case itself—Van Buren v. United States—is not about scraping but rather a legal question regarding the prosecution of a Georgia police officer, Nathan Van Buren, who was bribed to look up confidential information in a law enforcement database. Van Buren was prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which prohibits unauthorized access to a computer network such as computer hacking, where someone breaks into a system to steal information (or, as dramatized in the 1980s classic movie “WarGames,” potentially start World War III).
In Van Buren’s case, since he was allowed to access the database for work, the question is whether the court will broadly define his troubling activities as “exceeding authorized access” to extract data, which is what would make it a crime under the CFAA. And it’s that definition that could affect journalists.
Or, as Justice Neil Gorsuch put it during Monday’s oral arguments, lead in the direction of “perhaps making a federal criminal of us all.”
Investigative journalists and other watchdogs often use scrapers to illuminate issues big and small, from tracking the influence of lobbyists in Peru by harvesting the digital visitor logs for government buildings to monitoring and collecting political ads on Facebook. In both of those instances, the pages and data scraped are publicly available on the internet—no hacking necessary—but sites involved could easily change the fine print on their terms of service to label the aggregation of that information “unauthorized.” And the U.S. Supreme Court, depending on how it rules, could decide that violating those terms of service is a crime under the CFAA.
“A statute that allows powerful forces like the government or wealthy corporate actors to unilaterally criminalize newsgathering activities by blocking these efforts through the terms of service for their websites would violate the First Amendment,” The Markup wrote in our brief.
What sort of work is at risk? Here’s a roundup of some recent journalism made possible by web scraping:
The COVID tracking project, from The Atlantic, collects and aggregates data from around the country on a daily basis, serving as a means of monitoring where testing is happening, where the pandemic is growing, and the racial disparities in who’s contracting and dying from the virus.
This project, from Reveal, scraped extremist Facebook groups and compared their membership rolls to those of law enforcement groups on Facebook—and found a lot of overlap.
The Markup’s recent investigation into Google’s search results found that it consistently favors its own products, leaving some websites from which the web giant itself scrapes information struggling for visitors and, therefore, ad revenue. The U.S. Department of Justice cited the issue in an antitrust lawsuit against the company.
In Copy, Paste, Legislate, USA Today found a pattern of cookie-cutter laws, pushed by special interest groups, circulating in legislatures around the country.
New Braided Solo Loop & Pride Edition Nike Sport Loop announced via Apple Newsroom
Apple first launched the Apple Watch Pride Edition in 2016. The company’s unique bands have been a visible illustration of the ways in which Apple supports, and is proudly made up of members of the LGBTQ+ community. On on May 17th, 2021, the New Braided Solo Loop and announced with the subheading that it “represents the breadth of LGBTQ+ communities and experiences”.
The reactions on twitter were all over the map, to say the least. Many were sniping about the high price of the special band. Others seems to just be sniping as anti-Apple folks will do, but there were also plenty of defenders of the empire and Tim Cook himself.
Some of the criticism, sad and hilarious at the same time, was from people knocking Tim Cook as a presumably “straight-white-male” and defenders felt the need to remind them in a reply that he himself, is in fact publicly gay, giving him a different perspective on the LGBTQ+ movement and it’s importance overall.
“Apple's commitment to support the ongoing work toward equality.” More like, “ Apple's commitment to support the ongoing work toward fill up our pockets” Give the money made to a charity, then we talk.
There also seemed to be a lot of confusion over finances. The fact that there were associated donations to charities and pro-LGBTQ+ orgs seemed to be widely misunderstood or not recognized by would-be detractors. Again there were defenders who came to the aid of the reading-impaired:
There are obviously further questions people can ask about how much of the money goes to LGBT+ supporting organizations, or whether the organizations are the correct ones to support or whether there are better ways to support people.
Another aspect of the special product launch was the timing: “On International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia (IDAHOBIT), Apple debuts the new Apple Watch Pride Edition band and dynamic watch face, both of which incorporate a broader set of colors inspired by multiple Pride flags that have represented the diverse LGBTQ+ community throughout its rich history.”
In case the explanatory text above was not 100% clear the following is also spelled out in the Apple press release:
Apple donates all the proceeds to International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (IGLA), The Trevor Project, and LGBT+ youth charity GLSEN.
The 2021 edition of the Apple Watch Pride Edition Braided Solo Loop includes black and brown strips that symbolize Black and Latinx communities, in addition to those who have passed away from or are living with HIV/AIDS.
The light blue, pink, and white stripes represent transgender and nonbinary individuals.
Cook, who in 2014 became the first chief executive of a Fortune 500 company to publicly come out as gay, also added the following:
Black, Brown and transgender activists have always been at the heart of the LGBTQ+ movement. The new Apple Watch Pride Edition Braided Solo Loop honors their legacy and reaffirms Apple’s commitment to support the ongoing work toward equality.
Tim Cook / Twitter
Thanks for the visibility and for taking actions, so proud to have you on the LGBTTTQIA+ community 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
Above: Christian Bale, playing Dr. Michael Burry in “The Big Short“
The more things change, the more they stay the same
Shorting in the stock market has gotten a bad rep recently among the “WallStreetBets” crowd on Reddit, and those that were in the run-up frenzy over Game-Stop and AMC, Koss, etc. This was, for the most part, due to a lack of understanding of what shorting is, how it works and why it adds liquidity and has other benefits to markets as a whole.
Many of the crowd from that frenzy has now moved on to the crypto frenzy, which has a lot of speculators worried after relatively large drops in many of the top coins. Similar to the misunderstanding of short positions many of the speculators in crypto are new arrivals and, for a short time, had no experience of the fact that volatile, fast moving instruments, such as shares in tech companies or “alt-coins” also go down faster than slow moving investments. They don’t “only go up” as was the “slogan” for the Game Stop crowd and others at the time.
Michael Burry, the genius founder of Scion Asset Management, the firm that was chronicled in “The Big Short” (both the book and the film) which tells the story of how Burry bet against the US housing market at the peak of the bubble and experienced massive success when his billion dollar bet paid off.
That bet was, as the name of the book implies, the longest of long shots, and in the movie the skepticism and outright scorn and derision that he experienced for even thinking of taking that gamble was shown and formed the backbone of the story.
The power of that story was how a man with knowledge and experience could see clearly, even with one good eye, what millions of “experts” either could not see or were too corrupt to admit or accept.
That the housing market and the products devised to profit off of it, mortgage backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and so forth, were about to take the entire world economy to the brink of doom.
A collapse did occur, and were it not for desperate and questionable bail-outs by the governments and the central banks around the world, could have collapsed the world economy to a level that would have taken decades to recover from.
Instead this “largest band-aid” in the history of the universe has been followed up by larger and larger ones until as of the writing some 14 trillion has been created to prop up the original “fix” and kick the can further and further down the road.
Fast forward to 2021 and see where Burry sees a big opportunity now…
Michael Burry, the same man who say the end of the housing bubble in 2006 and 2007, and bet big against the one market that no one, literally no one, believed could ever go down, appears to believe that the end of the road for the current speculative bubble ( at least in Tesla stock prices) is near.
Michael Burry’s Scion Asset Management has disclosed a major, half-a-billion dollar short position against Tesla Inc.
Scion Asset Management disclosed via a regulatory filing on May 17th that purchases were made for bearish put options on 800,100 shares in Tesla. In the disclosure was also the further information that, as of the end of the first quarter, the options had a value of US$534 million.
“my last Big Short got bigger and Bigger and BIGGER,” Burry said in a tweet from February, apparently referring to Tesla’s large surge in market capitalization. “Enjoy it while it lasts,” he continued.
It appears that, as of May 18th, he may have deleted his Twitter account entirely. Which, if true, may be over concerns that the SEC could have questions about the tweets, as wells as earlier tweets he made referring to other short position in GameStop Corp.
As can be seen in the tweet above, Elon Musk has announced that he is working with Dogecoin developers to improve system transaction efficiency. He feels, apparently that this ongoing development, an effort to improve energy efficiency, no doubt, is “promising.
This comes after both his silly kinda-sorta negative jokes from his Saturday Night Live appearance a week ago, and his subsequent announcement regarding bitcoin and issues with energy consumption (see below).
Regardless of those issues being about perception or reality, which is an ongoing hot debate within the crypto community, at least the issue of making crypto even more viable as a medium of exchange and store of value is being talked about in good faith serious tones.
This is an indicator of his highly positive attitude and beliefs regarding the future of Bitcoin, Dogecoin and cryptocurrencies in general.
PR nightmare abated and pre-empted by announcement that Tesla will no longer accept Bitcoin
In a sudden about-face Elon Musk announced that Tesla would not accept Bitcoin for its environmentally friendly electric vehicles after all. This, after the company made big news when it purchased $1.5 billion of the cryptocurrency which was revealed in an SEC filing.
In the first quarter report of 2021 the company revealed that it sold a portion of its Bitcoin and netted a $101 million profit. That number represented nearly a fourth of the reported total profits for the quarter.
An even larger contributing factor to the positive news at the time was the massive sales of regulatory credits were $518 million. In other words, profit from Bitcoin and government subsidies was basically 100% of the upside. Car sales, not so much.
Enter the massive media frenzy over the energy use “wasted” on Bitcoin mining and you have a PR disaster waiting to happen for Tesla and Musk. Naturally, clever lad that he is, it was prudent to cancel, at least temporarily the policy of allowing customers to pay with Bitcoin.
Odd thing is, there are many worse things sucking up energy than Bitcoin. And the mining will not stop or slow down because Tesla is not getting any for its cars. But the perception that there’s a “great cost to the environment” from crypto-mining is enough to make this sudden announcement mandatory from a PR standpoint.
Though not mentioned in the tweet where this policy change was announced, it is unlikely that Tesla will go forward with accepting Dogecoin, which was mentioned recently by Musk also, due to the perceived similarities in the mining process.
In the statement attached to Musk’s tweet he also states that they will potentially use a crypto currency if it can be used at an energy cost of less than 1% of Bitcoin per transaction.
This is a separate issue from the mining energy usage but it has also been a criticism that the energy expended to transact using Bitcoin is very high, compared to what is a separate question. Perception is at the root, but wanting more efficient crypto is certainly a laudable goal.
This part of the statement will no doubt lead to feverish speculation as to which cryptocurrency might meet his stated requirements.
Elon Musk’s support for cryptocurrency is, like his commitment to sustainable energy, a positive stance and, before his personal success became completely overblown, a courageous one.
Taking on the fossil fuel industry, it’s easy to forget, was no easy feat in the early days. And, similarly, the inevitable upcoming clash between crypto-adherents and governments (printers of fiat currencies) will need established eminent “super-citizens” to give crypto a chance of survival.
For that reason it is good to see that this does no represent a rejection of crypto itself on Musk’s part, but a necessary response to mounting criticism based on the perception of hypocrisy.
You can bet that, if there is a way to mine with sustainable energy sources (actually in many ways already happening) he will reverse his stance yet again.
Singer Grimes made a cameo and was present alongside partner Elon Musk on the recent Saturday Night Live episode. The artist posted photos taken backstage, including with musical guest Miley Cyrus, a few days later, adding that she was recently hospitalized due to a panic attack.
This isn’t the first time Grimes has been open and shared information about her mental health issues, explaining in a 2012 interview she struggled with bad social anxiety and sometimes experienced panic attacks.
Grimes played Princess Peach in a Super Mario type themed sketch. It was also revealed the two went to a crypto-themed after party. Its not exactly clear if social anxiety or other factors played into those situations.
The artist also posted the following on her Instagram page:
Forgot to post these cuz I somehow caused myself to have a panic attack and went to the hospital yesterday which tbh was quite scary and I suppose it’s a good time to start therapy 😑😑😑. But nonetheless – wowwwww @mileycyrus is good live and so chill! So grateful to the SNL team for being so kind and letting me sneak in as princess peach snd so proud of my beautiful E (which I know will upset the grimes fans so I apologize in advance) but he killed it
National Alliance on Mental Health
Grimes sharing her struggles only helps to highlight the reality that millions of Americans face daily with mental health issues. The month of May also happens to be mental health awareness month. Now you are not alone. If you are struggling and need support. The NAMI HelpLine can be reached Monday through Friday, 10 a.m.–8 p.m., ET. 1-800-950-NAMI (6264) or info@nami.org
New challenges as the two “try” to get their way to parenthood
The Apple Original series, which in Season 1 followed Nikki, played by Esther Smith, and Jason played by Rafe Spall, as a London couple. Unsurprisingly, as the title gives away, they are trying and having some difficulty conceiving. With the realization that maybe adoption is the only route for them to raise a child, the two are put to the test and experience a rollercoaster of emotions along the way.
Season 2, which is set to release to Apple TV+ users on May 21, will continue to follow the journey to the next level as the two have finally been approved to adopt and take the huge step of welcoming a child into their home. This leads to challenges, such as finding a child they connect with and making a decision between a girl or boy. Juggling all the adoption events, school visits, all while also maintaining work schedules, wannabe family life soon becomes a whole lot more to deal with than Nikki and Jason anticipated.
The cast will also include the return of the Season 1 primary ensemble including: Imelda Staunton, Oliver Chris, Ophelia Lovibond, Darren Boyd and Robyn Cara.
Check out the below official trailer for “Trying” Season 2: The first two episodes will debut globally on May 21 and the remaining six episodes will be released weekly every Friday.
Scorsese’s latest and long awaited big project, titled “Killers Of The Flower Moon,” has been in development under Paramount since early 2019. The Apple Studios film started Production in April 2021 in Osage County, Oklahoma and no release date has yet been announced.
The film is an adaptation of the 2017 book, “Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI,” by bestselling author David Grann. The book follows the federal investigation into the series of “accidents” and murders of Osage County Native Americans in 1920s Oklahoma, which later became known as the “Reign of Terror”. It’s a slow burning true story that will lend itself well to Scorsese’s hardboiled, historical take on narrative film.
In a statement announcing the official start of production, Scorsese said:
“To be able to tell this story on the land where these events took place is incredibly important and critical to allowing us to portray an accurate depiction of the time and people. We’re grateful to Apple, the Oklahoma Film and Music Office and The Osage Nation, especially all our Osage consultants and cultural advisors, as we prepare for this shoot. We’re excited to start working with our local cast and crew to bring this story to life on screen and immortalize a time in American history that should not be forgotten.”
–– Martin Scorsese
The all-star cast to includes Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, Native American actress Lily Gladstone as his wife Mollie Burkhart. Robert De Niro as William Hale and Jesse Plemons as Tom White. In addition, the cast includes: Tantoo Cardinal, Cara Jade Myers, JaNae Collins, Jillian Dion, William Belleau, Jason Isbell, Louis Cancelmi, Scott Shepherd, Sturgill Simpson and many others. The film will include multiple indigenous actors in order to provide a respectable and honest representation relating to the movie’s sensitive subject matter.
In a sudden about-face Elon Musk announced that Tesla would not accept Bitcoin for its environmentally friendly electric vehicles after all. This, after the company made big news when it purchased $1.5 billion of the cryptocurrency which was revealed in an SEC filing.
In the first quarter report of 2021 the company revealed that it sold a portion of its Bitcoin and netted a $101 million profit. That number represented nearly a fourth of the reported total profits for the quarter.
An even larger contributing factor to the positive news at the time was the massive sales of regulatory credits were $518 million. In other words, profit from Bitcoin and government subsidies was basically 100% of the upside. Car sales, not so much.
Enter the massive media frenzy over the energy use “wasted” on Bitcoin mining and you have a PR disaster waiting to happen for Tesla and Musk. Naturally, clever lad that he is, it was prudent to cancel, at least temporarily the policy of allowing customers to pay with Bitcoin.
Odd thing is, there are many worse things sucking up energy than Bitcoin. And the mining will not stop or slow down because Tesla is not getting any for its cars. But the perception that there’s a “great cost to the environment” from crypto-mining is enough to make this sudden announcement mandatory from a PR standpoint.
Though not mentioned in the tweet where this policy change was announced, it is unlikely that Tesla will go forward with accepting Dogecoin, which was mentioned recently by Musk also, due to the perceived similarities in the mining process.
In the statement attached to Musk’s tweet he also states that they will potentially use a crypto currency if it can be used at an energy cost of less than 1% of Bitcoin per transaction.
This is a separate issue from the mining energy usage but it has also been a criticism that the energy expended to transact using Bitcoin is very high, compared to what is a separate question. Perception is at the root, but wanting more efficient crypto is certainly a laudable goal.
This part of the statement will no doubt lead to feverish speculation as to which cryptocurrency might meet his stated requirements.
Elon Musk’s support for cryptocurrency is, like his commitment to sustainable energy, a positive stance and, before his personal success became completely overblown, a courageous one.
Taking on the fossil fuel industry, it’s easy to forget, was no easy feat in the early days. And, similarly, the inevitable upcoming clash between crypto-adherents and governments (printers of fiat currencies) will need established eminent “super-citizens” to give crypto a chance of survival.
For that reason it is good to see that this does no represent a rejection of crypto itself on Musk’s part, but a necessary response to mounting criticism based on the perception of hypocrisy.
You can bet that, if there is a way to mine with sustainable energy sources (actually in many ways already happening) he will reverse his stance yet again.
Haters like Buffet and Mark Cuban’s cheerleading are off base and spreading confusion
Disclaimer first: This opinion article is not investment advice and does not advocate buying any investment vehicle or currency
There are so many misconceptions propagated far and wide these days that it’s hard to choose a place to start. First it’s important to recognize that crypto currencies are not stocks or companies, yes that’s obvious but one of the biggest “anti” argument these days is that there’s an absurdity to the aggregate total value of a “coin” being more than the market cap of the stock of a particular company.
“Ethereum is now worth more than Bank of America”, this nonsense comparison goes, as if the market cap of a stock and the price of a coin times the number of coins in existence has any meaning whatsoever.
Following this logic, however, beneath all the hype, both pro-crypto and anti-crypto, lies a hidden thread to an actual underlying truth.
Though based on obvious common sense, this thread is potentially confusing and convoluted, to say the least. But without seeing it clearly the misconceptions will just keep getting more ridiculous.
In order to illustrate the conundrum a bit of background is needed. For example:
Stocks, in the US are priced in dollars. But how are dollars priced? Isn’t just as accurate to say that when the “price” of the DJIA moves higher (3,4050 at this writing) it is the value of the dollar, in relation to the DJIA that went down?
While this requires a kind of mental gymnastics, these are only due to the constant bombardment meant to keep you from seeing this 100% valid way of viewing stock valuations based in dollars.
There’s another kind of tacit misinformation and that is stating that “inflation” is only relevant when it’s measured by the government. For example if the “bull market” that began in 2009 and continues into 2021 represented a huge increase in stock prices, that is asset inflation.
The inverse of asset inflation is a reduction in dollar value. Less shares of a given stock can be bought for the same number of dollars. The dollars are worth less.
And further, crypto, such as BitCoin is measured as having more or less value in dollars. Who is to say the massive rise in the dollar “value” of BitCoin is not representative of a decline in the “intrinsic” value of dollars.
The truth is often hidden in plain sight and that is what drives traditional markets
And that is precisely the point. BitCoin’s existence, which is locked in the mind of Satoshi Nakamoto (if he indeed exists) was indicated cryptically (no pun intended) to be a kind of answer to the instability of the global financial system as was evidence in the crisis of 2008. Taking place nearly concurrently with the birth of the idea of BitCoin.
Seeing the dollar as having a “stable” value and measuring a companies value, via it’s share price, is, let’s just say, perhaps 100 times more absurd than the Dogecoin dog.
Why? Because, for nearly a century the dollar is not backed or moored to anything but the government’s hope that it will retain value and laws that prohibit you and I from using other vehicles as “legal tender”.
The data (and opinions) on this are seemingly endless and yet absolutely critical to understanding our monetary system and where crypto may or may not fit in.
Horseshoe Nails and The Isle of Yap
Many interesting historical facts point toward the reality that money and coinage has always been just as much about the abstract belief in the system, more than any particular “intrinsic” value.
On the Micronesian Isle of Yap there was a functioning monetary system based on huge stones. A New York Times article, published in 1971 described the curious system:
“Every piece has an owner, and everyone knows who the owner is. Even when the money changes hands, it usually stays put. Yapese stone money is the largest and heaviest “coin” in the world.
In earlier days, brave islanders paddled by canoe 300 miles across open ocean to Palau where they cut slices from huge stalactites and brought them back as money. The value depended on how many men were drowned bringing them back. Nowadays, value is usually determined by measurements. We heard various versions, ranging from $10 radial inch to $42 a foot.”
Another article explains that many “wealthy” home (hut) owners displayed their money by leaving it leaning against the front of the house, where all could see the prosperity.
And, as for the prevention of fraud and corruption in any monetary system? Could any be more corrupt than the one that led to credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities imploding and all the BS that nearly brought down the world’s banking system?
And that is not new either. In the 1800s traveling bank examiners journeyed throughout the US to check on the gold reserves claimed by various banks. More often than not, they found far less gold than was claimed (in today’s fractional banking system little attempt is made to reduce the leverage in the system).
A common, clever, trick to try to “leverage” what little gold was actually on hand was to pile gold coins and ingots on top of a bed of horseshoe nails, hoping that the examiner would weigh the entire concoction only, and never notice the bogus hidden attempt to bolster the weight.
Bitcoin’s system at least attempts to circumvent this typically human brand of fraud and corruption.
In the article “What is Cryptomining” on Techspot a chart was published to illustrate how Satoshi Nakamoto tried to solve the classic trust delimma with the proof of work mining system.
“For example, if Alice has $100 at the beginning of the day, she could promise Bob, Charlie, and David independently that she’d send them each $100 by the end of the day. While Alice could show them that she owns $100 and they’d all be content and agree to the transaction, Alice only has $100. Thus, if at the end of the day, the public ledger (which once finalized is set in stone, so to speak) includes 3 transactions initiated by Alice for $100, the system would be broken and no one would want to use it.
With a centralized system such as in modern day banks, there would exist a single ledger that can validate how much money a certain individual has, and thus it can guarantee that the customer cannot spend more than they own. When talking about a decentralized, peer-to-peer system, however, who’s there to stop a clever individual from spending their money multiple times quickly before getting caught?
To address this potential issue, crypto miners enter the playing field. Essentially, miners play the role of the decentralized banker, and will perform the required gruntwork to ensure that the system is functioning as expected without double-spending. In return for their work, they will be rewarded with some cryptocurrency.”
Buffet, Cuban, Musk & Munger
In clonclusion, Buffet, Munger and The Wall Street Journal may have knowledge and experience but they have also derived benefit from a system that favors those already holding capital, one that also has a tendency to crush those trying to build it.
So, it’s fairly obvious that they are “talking their book” and data mining to produce a self-congratulatory outcome, when they expound on all the reasons that they hate crypto (Munger even called it “disgusting”).
As for Musk and Cuban, what’ve they got to lose? At least they “get it”, at least they are open to the idea of a future that has crypto as a part of the financial system. But where will they stand if there is government resistance in a big way, and if attempts to stop the entire crypto movement or “de-fang” it in ways that make it less viable as a true alternative to the status quo? That, my friend, will be the 1000 BitCoin question.
Was it really a knock on Crypto, or was there a hidden plug in the details?
Elon’s big night in NYC was awkward, as expected and he should probably keep his day job. The highlight, for pretty much everyone on earth (not sure about mars), was the Weekend Update segment where Musk appeared as Lloyd Ostertag, a crypto “expert” dressed in professorial garb.
Watch the clip below, and you will notice that, although the punchline was a dis’ on Doge, saying, or rather “admitting” that it’s a “hustle”, a detailed listening to Musk’s entire speech reveals some gems that go in the opposite direction, for those that follow crypto, and, well, money.
The dollar is just as real (or unreal) as DogeCoin
In a comedy skit looking like it was designed to avoid scrutiny by the SEC, the writers at SNL, presumably with Musk’s help, decided to put a negative spin on both mentions of DOGE during the show. First, in an exchange with his Mom, Maye, Musk sheepishly grins and nods after she says she “hopes it won’t be DogeCoin” referring to her Mother’s day gift.
He eventually capitulates and, after saying that DogeCoin is “about as real as that dollar” he “concedes” that “it’s a hustle”.
Elon Musk, as LLoyd Ostertag on Saturday Night Live, May 8th 2021
Later, in the “Weekend Update” segment Musk plays “Lloyd Ostertag” who calls himself the “DogeFather” – and the anchors ask repeatedly, in a somewhat dismissive tone, “what is DogeCoin?”. The gag is that he, as Ostertag, eventually capitulates and, after saying that DogeCoin is “about as real as that dollar”, “concedes” that “it’s a hustle”.
While the bulk of his appearance in the segment does reconfirm and support his actual views, in a smirking and slightly deprecating way, as Ostertag”, it also underscores a deeper truth that cryptocurrencies are “as real as the dollar” (some would say more real). However, in the end, the punchline is a negative way to sweep all of that away, with a nod to Buffet, Munger and the SEC, thereby toeing the line and insuring himself one less courtroom headache.
DOGE has the last laugh? Is Crypto dead? Doubtful…
As of Sunday, May 9th, DOGE is hovering around .51 cents. The Muskian peak was .74 cents on May 7th. This means that, although there was a decline on the “news” that Musk would not break the SEC rules by blatantly pumping DogeCoin on live national TV, the coin is still up approximately 33% for the week, 734% for the last month and 19,446% for the last year. And, according to Elon Musk, aka Lloyd Ostertag, aka the DogeFather, it is “about as real” as that dollar in your pocket.
Is any chosen form of “money” any more of a “hustle” than another?
Elon’s big night in NYC turned out, not surprisingly, to be less than climactic for the Shiba Inu meme crypto coin DOGE as it was seen sinking during the show and on Sunday. A wise man once said “correlation is not causation” and yet can anyone or anything be responsible for the drop in the high flying cryptocoin other than Elon and his Mom?
In stock market lingo this was what’s known as a “date certain” event. Meaning, the entire world knew that Elon would be on SNL and would, one way or another, mention DOGE, given that he has been endlessly associated with the coin in the media, and it’s a “joke” that has to be told, if only to prove to the SEC that he is really just joking. “Look guys, I am literally on a comedy show talking about this”, he seems to be saying.
“Buy the Rumor, Sell the News”
For good measure, and to avoid scrutiny by the oversight body, he, and the writers at SNL, decided to put a negative spin on both mentions of DOGE during the show. First, in an exchange with his Mom, Maye, Musk sheepishly grins and nods after she says she “hopes it won’t be DogeCoin” referring to her Mother’s day gift.
He eventually capitulates and, after saying that DogeCoin is “about as real as that dollar” he “concedes” that “it’s a hustle”.
Elon Musk, as LLoyd Ostertag on Saturday Night Live, May 8th 2021
Later, in a sketch with 100% focus on the crypto coin, the “Weekend Update” segment features Musk playing “Lloyd Ostertag” who calls himself the “DogeFather” – who is asked repeatedly “what is DogeCoin”. He eventually capitulates and, after saying that DogeCoin is “about as real as that dollar” he “concedes” that “it’s a hustle”.
While the bulk of his appearance in the segment does reconfirm and support his actual views, in a smirking and slightly deprecating way, as Ostertag”, it also underscores a deeper truth that cryptocurrencies are “as real as the dollar” (some would say more real). However, in the end, the punchline is a negative way to sweep away all of that, with a nod to Buffet, Munger and the SEC, toeing the line and insuring himself one less courtroom headache.
Was it the Day of reckoning for Dogecoin? Possible but doubtful
As of Sunday, May 9th, DOGE is hovering around .51 cents. The Muskian peak was .74 cents on May 7th. This means that, although there was a decline on the “news” that Musk would not break the SEC rules by blatantly pumping DogeCoin on live national TV, the coin is still up approximately 33% for the week, 734% for the last month and 19,446% for the last year. And, according to Elon Musk, aka Lloyd Ostertag, aka the DogeFather, it is “about as real” as that dollar in your pocket.
In her new book, Klobuchar tries to connect the historical roots of antitrust actions to populism and her own ancestry. That’s not all, however. Although difficult, particularly for readers who are not legal scholars, there’s an important and deeper historic thread here that she is aiming to contribute to.
That job is to find a way to illuminate how the digital age, with all its challenges and complexities, can come to terms with the simple question of how to measure damage that is being done by big tech monopolies, through sheer size, power and lack of external accountability.
Moreover, there is an issue of how antitrust law and practice veered away from the remedies and goals, first established during the Gilded Age, toward a laissez-fair, anti-regulatory stance that gained steam in the Regan years.
That shift is, in many ways, to blame for the current extreme state characterized by dangerous levels of concentrated wealth and power by big tech.
This effort may seem like one that is doomed to being ignored by all but the already long-since converted. But, make no mistake, it is a topic that will grow, reverberate and become more relevant as the current administration in Washington consolidates and comes into its own.
“People have just gotten beaten down. I wanted to show the public and elected officials that you’re not the first kids on the block with this. What do you think it was like back when trusts literally controlled everyone on the Supreme Court, or literally elected members of the Senate before they were elected by the public?”
— Amy Klobuchar, in Wired interview with Steven Levey
When President Biden recently nominated Lina M. Khan to the Federal Trade Commission, in addition to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, who announced earlier this month he would join the National Economic Council, he set forth a clear path for an antitrust direction that has the potential to be more than just rhetoric and window dressing.
Khan is an unequivocal proponent of a new era of antitrust, one that is, not coincidentally, along the lines of what Klobuchar advocates. Likely sharing these ultra clear views from her long and celebrated research, Khan, along with Wu, is a key addition to Biden’s growing roster of Big Tech critics, and there is already a blueprint for actions and cases that will build to a crescendo over the next several years.
Biden’s call for the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, meanwhile, a hotly contested and possibly flawed legal shield some feel is exploited by Internet platforms, is another indicator of the tenor of the coming actions.
In a sense, with this bestselling book [on Amazon: #1 in Political Economy, #1 in Government Management, #1 in Business Law (Books)] the gargantuan task of connecting the culpability of massive, nearly infinitely powerful behemoths, each in it’s own territory, to the social and economic catastrophes that they’ve brought down on the world.
However, while politicians like Klobuchar may not have the charisma and energy to set a fire under the population, it is the very deeds themselves that will eventually conspire to ignite an uprising and put pressure on the government and the courts to take real, substantive measures. And with young, new faces and minds such as possessed by Khan and Wu, ultimately there is a bulwark of criticism against monopolist abuses building in government and among the public at large.
“I am never saying, ‘Get rid of their products.’ But let’s have more of the products that give you more choices. You can keep one product, but it’s better to have other products, because we’re not China.”
Amy Klobuchar in Wired interview with Steven Levey
In response to Klobuchar’s quote above Steven Levey in Wired wrote; “In other words, Facebook could keep it’s main app, but the public might benefit if Instagram and WhatsApp were not Mark Zuckerberg productions.”
While this kind of “moderate” view may not be the earth shattering remedy that would turn the juggernauts around in a heartbeat, from Zuckerberg’s perspective it would not be ideal, to say the least.
And, since we have seen the unfettered and viral growth of big tech, for at least a quarter century in some cases, and since there was a aura of hero worship afforded their leaders for most of that time, a break-up, such as that could ultimately turn out to be the beginning of more sweeping changes. A welcome outcome for those that have been harmed the various monopolistic structures that rule nearly all our lives, or at least it seems, at times.
Levey then asked Klobuchar why legislators so often embarrass themselves in hearings with irrelevant partisanship, clueless technical questions, and time-wasting grandstanding. Her response;
“Welcome to my life,” she says. “I get it—there’s going to be hearings that are irritating to people who know a lot. But that’s a great argument for tech to use because they don’t want this oversight.”
Amy Klobuchar in Wired interview with Steven Levey
In defense of using the word “antitrust in the title, while also advocating its eradication in future she responded:
“Well, I thought antitrust was an interesting word”. “It’s not only about this body of law; it’s also about not trusting anyone.”
Amy Klobuchar in Wired interview with Steven Levey
Perhaps it is more the course of history that led to the current and incredibly extreme situation and obscene dominance by big tech that is what should never have be trusted to arise in the first place.
Perhaps these firms will one day be seen, looking back from future generations, as a temporarily necessary, but evil mistake of history, as was the toothless interpretation of laws that led to their rise from “scrappy underdog startups” into malignant monopolies run amok.
A secretive algorithm that’s constantly being tweaked can turn influencers’ accounts, and their prospects, upside down
By: Dara Kerr
It was the middle of the pandemic, and Mason McClellan had just started his first semester of college in Georgia. He was stuck at home, learning remotely, and had more time than expected on his hands. So, one night he made a few short videos loosely based on small-town news stories and posted them to TikTok.
“I made five videos in the first day, went to sleep, and then ended up with 50,000 followers out of nowhere,” McClellan said. “Then I was like, ‘I gotta make more videos now.’ ”
He kept going. Over the next three days, he made several more videos and amassed one million followers—a major milestone in the world of TikTok. Views on his videos continued to tick up throughout the fall, and several million more followers streamed in. McClellan began to make money off his account, roughly $500 a week, but then, in January, it took an unexpected turn—he started hemorrhaging followers, losing roughly 200,000 in a matter of weeks.
“Since Jan. 18, I haven’t had a day that I’ve gained followers,” McClellan said. “Before late February, even my followers weren’t seeing my videos.”
McClellan hadn’t taken time off, posted taboo content, or altered the style of his videos. On his side of things, nothing had changed. And he isn’t alone: Jan. 18 was a pivotal day for many TikTok creators who say they saw inexplicable drops in followers.
No other platform can provide the explosive virality that TikTok is known for—Charli D’Amelio became famous for casual dance routines on the app and now has her own TV show, and rapper Lil Nas X credits TikTok for the meteoric rise of his song “Old Town Road.” Who goes viral is largely dictated by a discovery-based system in which TikTok’s algorithm puts together an endless “For You” feed where viewers spend most of their time picking and choosing who to follow.
Unlike YouTube, Instagram, and Snapchat, which depend on creators building a network of followers, TikTok’s algorithm can put videos at the top of the For You scroll and turn people into overnight sensations. But similarly, if videos suddenly disappear from that feed, creators’ prospects can evaporate. Those people who’ve centered their lives around performing on the app can be left trying to figure out how to stay relevant on an impenetrable, constantly changing platform. The growing industry around TikTok resembles the promise and callousness of early Hollywood—burgeoning creativity, swift fame, and little by way of worker protections—except that instead of studios creating stars, it’s a faceless, inscrutable machine.
“What is so incredibly precarious is often the [algorithmic] tweaks that are unannounced. They can wreak havoc on a creator’s livelihood,” said Brooke Erin Duffy, associate professor of communication at Cornell University, who studies social media and digital labor. “There’s always been this unpredictability, and creators have little to no recourse.”
TikTok spokesperson Hilary McQuaide declined to comment on questions about the company’s algorithm, specifically how often it’s changed and if creators are told about such changes.
The private company, which is owned by China’s ByteDance, arrived in the U.S. in 2018 and is estimated to be valued at around $50 billion. TikTok has acknowledged the mystery around its algorithm. Last June, it wrote a blog post about how the For You page generally works, saying it shows people videos based on their stated interests, such as pets or travel, and how they engage with certain videos and accounts.
A few months earlier, TikTok announced the launch of its Transparency and Accountability Center, saying experts would be able to observe its moderation policies in real time and examine the code that drives its algorithm.
McQuaide declined to comment on questions about the center but pointed The Markup to a September blog post that says nearly two dozen experts and lawmakers virtually visited the center and were guided through various demonstrations on TikTok’s safety and security practices.
Meanwhile, creators say they still feel largely left on their own.
“The TikTok algorithm is very opaque,” McClellan said. “You have to post O.K. content, but after that it’s really just random chance that your videos are going to blow up.”
Shadow Bans, Algorithm Tweaks, and Censorship
Jan. 18—the day many TikTok creators reported a sudden drop in followers—has gained some infamy in the networks creators use to trade complaints and insights into the mysteries of the algorithm. One Reddit forum directly discusses the “myths and questions about the Jan 18 suppression” with theories about a possible unannounced tweak to the algorithm.
Speculation also points to what creators call “shadow banning,” which is the belief that TikTok silences accounts without explanation. With shadow banning, nothing changes in what creators see, but they’re invisible to most everyone else.
Rumors around shadow banning are rife on TikTok, with nearly six billion videos hashtagged with #shadowbanned and more than 300 million with #unshadowbanme. YouTube tutorials, Quora forums, and entire websites are filled with tips and tricks for people hoping to get rid of TikTok shadow bans. The “Tiktokhelp” subreddit even has a popular topic tag titled “algorithm question/shadowbanned,” which is filled with thousands of comments about supposed shadow bans and advice on how to avoid them.
Cameron Hickey, project director for algorithmic transparency at the National Conference on Citizenship, studies the spread of disinformation on TikTok and other social media platforms and believes all of these sites do some sort of algorithmic downgrading. Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube have also been accused of shadow bans.
“Are they shadow-banning? I’m sure of it,” Hickey said. “How do we prove it? We don’t know.”
One of the reasons shadow-banning myths have especially taken off on TikTok could be that the company appears to be more proactive in content moderation than other social media platforms.
“They are taking down individual content from creators, and we see creators constantly complaining about that. It says to me that they’re much more aggressive and they seem less beholden to a very strict set of criteria,” Hickey said. “Facebook’s default is to let stuff stay on the platform. TikTok seems to be the opposite.”
TikTok bans violent extremism, hateful behavior, adult nudity, and more. In its community guidelines, it says it enforces its rules “using a mix of technology and human moderation.” Additionally, for videos that “could be considered upsetting or depict things that may be shocking to a general audience—we may reduce discoverability, including by redirecting search results or limiting distribution in the For You feed.”
TikTok’s McQuaide declined to comment on questions about content moderation, Jan. 18, or shadow banning.
Last May, Black TikTok creators organized a protest against the company, saying their content was being shadow-banned and censored. TikTok denied those claims. Then, in late May, just after the killing of George Floyd and the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter surged across all social media, TikTok admitted to a glitch in its system and made a rare apology.
“At the height of a raw and painful time, last week a technical glitch made it temporarily appear as if posts uploaded using #BlackLivesMatter and #GeorgeFloyd would receive 0 views,” TikTok’s U.S. general manager Vanessa Pappas and director of creator community Kudzi Chikumbu wrote in a June 1 blog post. They explained the glitch was a display issue, and the posts still generated billions of views. “Nevertheless, we understand that many assumed this bug to be an intentional act.”
The incident happened just months after The Intercept got hold of internal documents from TikTok that outlined what seems to be a clear example of shadow banning. The documents instructed moderators to exclude creators with “ugly facial looks,” “abnormal body shape,” “too many wrinkles,” and other physical features from the For You feed because they could “decrease the short-term new user retention rate.” TikTok responded to The Intercept saying those guidelines were an attempt to prevent bullying and were no longer in use.
Dopamine Hits and Trying to Make It
Tinuade Oyelowo watched the conversations around Black creators feeling marginalized at the same time she was starting to get into TikTok herself. The Brooklyn-based artist’s goal was to promote her work and to come off as a body-positive Black woman and spread that vibe to others. Her first video shows her skateboarding along a river waterfront, and when she loses her balance, she flashes a thumbs up. But Oyelowo hasn’t experienced the same rapid success as McClellan.
“It felt like crawling up on my bare hands to get 500 [followers],” Oyelowo said. “To get to 500 was really really difficult. I was posting and posting videos.”
At first, she tried all the tricks to get views and followers, like a 30-day video challenge and “follow trains” in which creators promise to follow whoever follows them. She even joined a private Facebook group led by a marketer who promised to reveal the secret to success on TikTok. “And then things just naturally started to pick up without me doing anything,” Oyelowo said.
She said seeing those pings roll in on her videos gave her the dopamine hits that social media is known for. “It is definitely addictive,” Oyelowo said. “I would argue it’s not even the likes that are the addiction, it’s the validation and the feeling of being seen.”
Duffy, the associate professor at Cornell, said this idea of being seen is hardwired into the way TikTok works. “For content creators, their livelihoods depend upon their ability to get visibility,” Duffy said. “With this entire system, it extracts labor. And more specifically, it extracts labor to direct attention to the platform.”
Christian Barnes, of St. Louis, has steadily grown his TikTok audience since last summer and now has 1.5 million followers. Many of his videos involve comical skits in which a quiet school kid surprises his teacher and classmates with unexpected dance moves or musical skills. He posts about four times a week, and each video takes roughly three hours to create and upload. He shoots and edits the videos at night once he comes home from his day job waiting tables. It can be exhausting, he said. So, a couple of months ago he decided to take a three-day break.
“You definitely get tired sometimes and lose motivation,” Barnes said. “That’s why I decided to take a break that one time. I was like, ‘This is too much for me.’ ”
When he started uploading videos again, he noticed they were getting fewer views than normal. Trying everything he could think of, such as interacting with his followers and posting consistently, he got his audience back. But it took weeks. To this day, Barnes has no idea what happened.
“There are a lot of times I go out of town and I’m scared I’ll lose views if I’m not uploading videos all the time,” he said.
Despite that, Barnes said he enjoys making videos and hopes to one day parlay his work on TikTok into a full-time job. On a good week, he’ll make a couple hundred dollars from TikTok’s creator fund, which the company set up last July as a way for popular creators to earn money from video views. He’s also sponsored by a water bottle company and color contact lens maker and uses their products as props in his videos.
Chasing the Pot of Gold
Barnes doesn’t yet have an agent, but over the past year, it’s become common for Hollywood talent agencies to sign TikTok stars. They promote creators and act as middlemen in making deals with brands. D’Amelio, for example, is repped by United Talent Agency, which has managed actors like Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie. A3 Artists Agency’s roster lists around 200 digital creators, including Avani Gregg, who has 33 million followers and Larray, who has 23 million. With such massive audiences, TikTok creators can be good at bringing in money.
“As an agency, we get paid when they get paid,” said Keith Bielory, an A3 partner in alternative programming, digital media, licensing, and branding. “This could be a lucrative industry for years and years to come.”
A3 helps influencers in every area except growing their TikTok fanbase. In the instances when the algorithm seems to be causing a drop in followers, Bielory said, he’ll reach out to his TikTok contacts for insight into what’s happening. Ultimately, however, it’s up to the influencers to keep up engagement.
“A lot of people can go viral, but can they back that up?” Bielory said. “The folks that we work with create content for a living. It’s a lot of pressure to keep that going.”
Tha Lights Global, a smaller talent agency that focuses on hip-hop artists, has represented influencers for years. One of the first dance memes to go viral on social media was from two Detroit rappers the agency represented, Zay Hilfigerrr and Zayion McCal, who came out with “Juju on That Beat” in 2016. Jordan Tugrul, co-owner of Tha Lights Global, said influencers he works with can spend hours a day creating TikTok videos. One of the agency’s goals is get them to think beyond the social media platform.
“They’re going against thousands of other people their age who want to be in the spotlight as well,” Tugrul said. “TikTok might not be around forever, and you cannot rely on that.”
“The influencer space is still often referred to as the ‘wild wild west’, and it’s a place where creators can be taken advantage of,” Gabrielle Carteris, the union’s president, wrote in an email to The Markup. “This agreement is there to help empower and give self-determination to influencers, who are oftentimes trying to navigate their professional careers without much guidance—they’re true pioneers in this space.”
For now, SAG-AFTRA is focused on helping creators negotiate with brands and doesn’t yet assist in dealings with TikTok or other social media platforms. But, Carteris said, “This agreement is just a first step; we’re always exploring what is needed in this community.”
Despite their ups and downs on TikTok, McClellan and Barnes still regularly make videos and don’t plan to stop anytime soon. For Oyelowo, the novelty has worn off.
She has more than 1,000 followers and still likes making videos for fun but posts just once a week, at best. Spending hours trying to tap into what’s trending and scouring her Facebook group for advice is tiring, she said, especially given the whims of TikTok’s algorithm.
“You invest time in it because it’s this odd mystery puzzle,” Oyelowo said. “With algorithms, in theory, there is a potential solution, there is a way to figure it out—everybody is chasing that pot of gold in some way. But it’s a moving target.”
