On a crazy night Zuckerberg, KimDotCom and Guy Kawasaki all join rooms at the same time
Clubhouse, the red hot “social audio” app which is growing, even by invitation only by the millions per week. Part of the appeal is the up-close and personal audio interactions that happen among people from all walks of life; including big names. Last week it was Elon Musk “interviewing” the CEO of Robinhood (see video below).
KimDotCom is a bit of a crazy one, could be perhaps called infamous rather than famous, as the founder of “MegaUpload” and the New Zealand Extradition saga. There’s a strange kind of irony to having Mark Zuckerberg show up. Obviously it shows how Clubhouse is just too hot to ignore – it will probably spur rumors that he is circling the rooms with designs on acquiring or copying the app.
We have been testing Clubhouse for a future feature article and it is truly remarkable what the atmosphere is while using the app. The intimacy of group audio, combined with a kind of democratic algorithm / interface (for the most part), makes for a social media experience that is nothing like any other platform that has caught on.
In some ways it’s like being at a huge trade show like CES and going to a keynote or a panel discussion. However, the fact that it is live 24/7 365 days a year makes for more impromptu access, more spontaneity and more… chaos (sometimes for good or…).
I’m tryna see Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook in the same Clubhouse room
Clubhouse was launched, in what may be the most fantastically serendipitous timing ever, in March 2020. Tearing a page, ironically, from the Zuckerberg and Facebook playbook, it has been and continues to be an invitation only club.
After the session with Zuckerberg was over one of the “Stage” speakers coined the term “Digital Teepee” to describe the feeling of being in such an intimate setting with such a controversial figure like Mark Zuckerberg. Others speculated what his motivations might have been to join the club.
Here’s what Mark Zuckerberg said on Clubhouse about AR, VR, and Remote Work
In a nod to the “Trade-show” aspect the first affinity group was… Venture Capitalists
In an interesting twist, however, the initial focus for invites was not on college students, as was the case with the early days of facebook, but mainly consisted of venture capitalists.
Perhaps this was indirectly related to the fact that , Alpha Exploration Co., the company behind Clubhouse was launched after a $12 million investment came from Andreessen Horowitz after they had only been in existence for approximately two months.
The invitations are being handed out more liberally now and the “club” is growing at over a million users per week at the moment. The demand is so extreme, however, that invites are even being sold on eBay in the US and even on equivalent platforms in China and elsewhere.
In a first, in what will almost surely crash the app again, Netflix will be doing a promotional room (which has never happened before) to promote Zendaya’s new film‘Malcolm & Marie’ which will be live on Netflix tomorrow.
Apple gets serious about exploitative surveillance business models, and it’s about time
Six months ago when we first published “Cracks in The Wall: Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook Silently Declare Wars Against Each Other” we were worried. Although we firmly believed it was a just war, and that the time was at hand for the rotten underbelly of the internet and, more than anything else, for the business model of Facebook to be excoriated out in the open, using the term “war” in conjunction with Apple seemed over-the-top and even inflammatory.
We stuck with the title and now, looking back, it was accurate if not 100% polite. After new privacy features in iOS 14 and macOS Big Sur were made public, Facebook and Zuckerberg took it as an attack on its tracking-first-business model and fought back with some rhetoric about how Apple was going to harm small businesses.
The first feeble attempt at fighting back was a full page ad in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other outlets, where Facebook alleged: “these changes will be devastating to small businesses” with the supposition that small businesses depend on Facebook’s darling invention; tracking-based advertising, and need it to build their brands and to sell products.
Missing from this self-serving logic is the price of this form of targeting and data collection – in dollars, literally billions of them charged to those same small businesses, and in the cost to virtually all “users” who’s privacy is sacrificed with little to no consumer benefit and many, many potential detriments.
This is not just some sort of scrap between rival companies, it’s all our futures at stake
With the salvo of clear and decisive comments made by Tim Cook at the Computers, Privacy and Data Protection conference, and in interviews with various magazines, the righteous and timely battle against demonstribly evil internet business models is for real now, with the unnamed but obviously targeted Facebook at the top of the list.
The quote from Tim Cook in the title above exactly captured the current reality: the excellent documentary titled ‘The Social Dilemma’ did not go nearly far enough in exposing the danger of surveillance based business models that should not be allowed to exist
As if Facebook has ever been a friend to small business. The concept that has been clear for many years is that the surveillance capitalism, for the most part invented by Facebook, that Apple is now declaring war against, was always an obscene and disastrous one for every person on the planet, other than Mark Zuckerberg.
“If a business is built on misleading users, on data exploitation, on choices that are no choices at all, it does not deserve our praise. It deserves reform,”
Apple CEO, Tim Cook, speaking at the Computers, Privacy and Data Protection conference
However, with a vast power over almost all digital advertising (sharing, with Google, more than 70%) and no competition to speak of where anyone could go for “social media” access, 3-5 years ago it was hard to imagine how anything could slowdown, let alone stop, Facebook’s inexorable rise.
In what will be a huge theme for this decade, only giants can fight and hope to win against other giants.
Right now, as of Tim Cook’s declaration of war on the “data-industrial complex” and with numerous anti-trust and other legal actions against Facebook pending, it suddenly seems plausible that a real change, a much needed change, could finally come in the way that human beings communicate via that immense network of devices we call the internet.
“Technology does not need vast troves of personal data, stitched together across dozens of websites and apps, in order to succeed.”
— Tim Cook
In an exclusive interview with Michael Grothaus at Fast Company Cook stated: “In terms of privacy—I think it is one of the top issues of the century, we’ve got climate change—that is huge. We’ve got privacy—that is huge. . . . And they should be weighted like that and we should put our deep thinking into that and to decide how can we make these things better and how do we leave something for the next generation that is a lot better than the current situation.” (emphasis mine)
This statement, though perhaps hyperbolic to some, is at the heart of our coverage of Apple, Google, Facebook and “Big Tech” in general over the last few years. In fact, this idea can go further and deeper as… “privacy” is just the tip of the iceberg and the predatory infrastructure that the data-collection and exploitation business model enables is even more dangerous and is a threat to the entire economy.
Of the new “Big 5” (Apple, Musk, Facebook, Google, Amazon) only Apple and the affiliated Elon Musk enterprises actually have proprietary products or products and services that benefit humanity in a concrete way.
Elon Musk has sustainable energy and sustainable transportation as stated goals of Tesla, while SpaceX, has reaching Mars (to give earthlings a second planet available in case we screw this one up) and, now with Starlink, building a second broadband internet backbone in space.
Apple, while on the one hand being inadvertently responsible for both Google and Facebook in different ways (more on that soon in a subsequent post), is at the heart of the real reason why internet business models and structures are key to our survival and to humanity’s ability to survive and reverse global warming by evolving, enhanced communication.
Apple is no longer just an electronic device maker. Software, hardware, A.I., possibly an electric car, and services are all merging and reaching what we call “Apple Singularity”. Apple has the potential to trigger a monumental shift in the ways we communicate online – networked human communication – away from the trash-filled nightmare of the present day – where three obscenely massive companies: Facebook, Google and Amazon, have built business models that do not rest on innovative products or services but on predatory systems that enslave users, gouge small businesses and do very little in adding benefit to humanity as a whole.
“At a moment of rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms, we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement — the longer the better — and all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible. It is long past time to stop pretending that this approach doesn’t come with a cost — of polarization, of lost trust and, yes, of violence”
Tim Cook
What the three massive deadbeats do is make a small handful of individuals and shareholders very rich. Fortunately, the issues with these business models are finally being questioned. But this is only the beginning.
The unthinkable is now at least possible to imagine: a world where Facebook does not have unlimited power to take, and profit from, our data
Once a real understanding of the degree of inferiority of these models, when measured by the costs vs. the benefit to humanity itself, becomes clearer, the government regulation and involuntary changes forced by the market will begin and quickly accelerate.
It is the combination of the lack of substance or concrete contribution by firms with a predatory business model casing the harm, in ways that are partially invisible, up until now, and make them so dangerous.
The danger is social, political, and in then end affects our economy and the lives of nearly every person who uses the services of those companies. Which is very nearly the entire population.
The economic damage that is being caused by the business models invented by these companies is, much like global warning, so massive that it threatens the entire planet, but the lack of attention we are giving it is based on ignorance of the magnitude of the danger.
Apple and Tim Cook’s perspective is extremely important and key to lighting a spark to ignite fires that will burn away that ignorance. The “big-tech” world that Apple, led by Steve Jobs, had a huge hand in creating, desperately needs a shake up and it needs to start now. This has nothing to do with a handful of huge companies fighting over control of the internet – it’s not about one winning, it’s about further damage being stopped, and a new, better internet being allowed to emerge.
Now, Tim Cook and Apple are beginning a long battle to make that happen on behalf of all of us.
Bezos knocked from #1 slot that he has held since 2017
According to Bloomberg, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX just passed up Jeff Bezos as the world’s richest person. While this, in and of itself is a fact that many will likely fetishize, the real story here is why and how.
There could not, IMHO, be two people more diametrically opposed in terms of motivation, inspiration and method. Both obscenely rich now? Of course. In each case because of stock holdings in companies they founded? Right again.
After that it is all a study in contrasts and contradictions. For example, as recently as Christmas eve 20o8 Elon Musk was nearly bankrupt and was on the verge of losing both SpaceX and Tesla. Later as recently as 2019, Tesla was in a deep financial hole.
Was this a case of bad management? Apparently not. What it was related to was the prime difference between Bezos and Musk. Musk has always only had one mission. Was it having the world’s most dominant eCommerce company? (or any other kind). One that would destroy entire business categories and be called the “grim reaper” due to it’s destruction of markets and competitors?
No – Musk has always wanted to save the world from itself. Tesla’s stated official mission is:
Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy. … Teslabelieves the faster the world stops relying on fossil fuels and moves towards a zero-emission future, the better.
Tesla / Elon Musk
Perhaps the cynical would say this is just some kind of veil hiding a capitalist and monopolist hunger a la Bezos. But they’d be wrong. Musk has openly stated that he is willing to share various proprietary technical information with his competitors if it would help the world’s transition to sustainable energy succeed faster. Would Bezos give away Amazon’s secrets. Take a guess.
Another interesting tidbit – Both SpaceX and Tesla have publicly disavowed all copyright claims to their photos, videos or other marketing assets. They also do zero paid advertising. This is brilliant and has made them money in the end, but more importantly it is additional proof that it is the success of the mission, a mission that ultimately benefits all humanity more than any singe individual, that is paramount in his thinking.
Though Musk may not realize it, he and Steve Jobs are kindred spirits
The only other highly successful tech visionary that had this kind of focus on the real success, which can by definition only ever be success for all, if Steve Jobs. With so much misinformation and focus on meaningless stats, like whose stock is worth the most paper dollars (printed at will by the Fed) at any given moment, it is often misunderstood that the mission and the sincerity and effectiveness of the mission that will always matter in the end.
Probably the greatest gift Bezos ever has or ever will give to humanity was via his divorce. Any other “charitable” act he will ever commit will be, first and foremost, have the goal of improving his image and stroking his massive ego.
Therein lies the difference.
Early Thursday Tesla shares (TSLA) rose by 6%, and further lifting the CEO’s stock holdings and options by $10 billion, resulting in the net worth of approximately $191 billion.
Musk edged past the Amazon founder who is currently has the net worth of around $187 billion.
Musk, who pinned the following past tweet from 2018 explained his intentions and how he will use money from his success, “You should ask why I would want money. The reason is not what you think. Very little time for recreation. Don’t have vacation homes or yachts or anything like that.”
About half my money is intended to help problems on Earth & half to help establish a self-sustaining city on Mars to ensure continuation of life (of all species) in case Earth gets hit by a meteor like the dinosaurs or WW3 happens & we destroy ourselves
The battle is getting very public and will get louder and nastier
The full page newspaper ads taken out by Facebook, where they proclaim themselves the champion of small business and attack Apple directly are interesting and curious on many levels.
It will take a series of articles to attempt to untangle the confusions and endless, often intentionally fostered, misconceptions that will most certainly arise in this battle of titans.
At the heart of the matter is, however, the largest misconception humanly possible, the idea that these monstrously huge companies, and how they operate, are anything at all related to “normal”.
The fact that all of us have seen the role of the internet in general increase over the last 20+ years, and have therefore had to deal with, and in some cases, go through and cooperate with these behemoths, may be the status quo that has developed, particularly in the last decade, but it is without precedent on many levels.
The size, power and influence is beyond comprehension and this clouds every issue
Before even beginning to contrast one giant against another one must first confront the very existence of entities of this magnitude. It’s fair to say that never in history has such a tiny group of companies, and by extension, individual humans, controlled so much of the economy and so much of that impacts the society and our experiences.
This chart is not current. If it were the disparity would be far larger and even more astounding:
This information, for a human, is so out of whack that you would have to stare at this chart for days before it could even sink in. And, as it it only a chart of size, built on company market capitalization, the power and influence, which represents and ever larger disparity, is not represented.
The dominance overall is so extreme as to be humanly incomprehensible. And by all measures the disparity between the big tech firms and “everybody else” grows literally by the second.
If you are afraid of A.I., you’re too late, the world is already controlled by computers and software via these companies
Facebook is probably the best example to illustrate the problem of market power and dominance on a level that is so far beyond traditional methods of measurement that even government antitrust investigations are barely able to begin to access the potential violations.
“The questions below might seem odd, or even absurd. But what is really absurd is that they are, for the most part, never asked. “
The questions below might seem odd, or even absurd. But what is really absurd is that they are, for the most part, never asked. Since the iPhone and later Samsung / Android revolutionized information and photo sharing, it has been accepted as a simple reality that Facebook controls nearly all the “social networking” that is done with that data. Why?
What is Facebook? Most would say they are a “social media company” but that can mean anything you want it to mean. They claim they are in the business of “connecting people” yet they derive massive wealth and profit from advertising, and “monetizing” their network, the largest network of “social users”, by far.
And if they are interested in connecting people, then what do those people own of the network that they themselves comprise? That would be nothing.
What say do they have in how they are used to “monetize” the network that they literally “are”? None.
What trust do they have to surrender to the company, which includes Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and more (all controlled 100% by a guy named Zuckerberg)? 100%
“What ‘say’ do they have in how they are used to “monetize” the network that they literally ‘are’? None.”
— D.L.
Who authorized Facebook (or Google) to amass vast databanks of private personal information from a huge chunk of the world’s population, and use that data to amass fortunes of unheard of size using secret proprietary algorithms that they have zero requirement to disclose? Well, technically, users, inadvertently and without understanding, did. Otherwise: No-one.
Well, technically all of this was “allowed” via Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, and states that an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. This, effectively, protects websites and “platforms” such as Facebook, from lawsuits in the case that a “user” posts something illegal. There are exceptions, for example, for copyright violations, sex work-related material, and violations of federal criminal law.
This fact does not remove responsibility for building a system that gives massive financial benefit to Facebook, Google, etc and very little, in reality, by way of return or influence to the “user”.
It’s as if a man figured out a way to use mental-telepathy to rob banks and could never be caught or prosecuted due to the fact that no one had ever robbed a bank that way before. And then he claimed that he should be allowed to continue doing it forever, with impunity.
What would Facebook and Zuckerberg have if the billions of “users” stopped using its network? Nothing.
How little sense this makes just goes on and on. There could be 100s of pages of similar questions and answers and the end result would be a slightly better understanding of the absurdity of the very existence of such a “service” or company or whatever this is.
Why absurd? In a nutshell, Facebook controls private networks that exist “inside” a more public network called, for lack of a better term, “the internet”. And, because of what could be termed a mistake of history they represent a dominant, near monopoly, in the “space” which in this case is currently called “social networks”.
The dominance and the definition of monopoly can be argued endlessly (and likely will be in the coming antitrust cases) but, in the end, the numbers don’t lie. Only one person benefits, in direct payments of trillions of dollars, from a near monopoly in social networks. The billions of people, the very people who are the network, do not.
A bleak analysis, perhaps, but is there any light at the end of this tunnel?
The current increase in antitrust cases, both in the US and Europe, is a canary-in the-coal-mine moment and the wars over all the arising issues has begun and will go on for years.
The fact that Facebook is heavily advertising that they are the “good guy” while Amazon and Google do the same, is both ridiculous and sad, since “good guys” don’t have to buy ads to draw attention to that fact.
And the fact that these companies have already started, both in word and deed, to attack each other directly, is an indication of just how serious and all pervasive these mega-wars will be. This is just the beginning.
While none of the companies depicted on the chart above can be said to be without blame for the world of injustice and malfunction that is the internet, and by extension, our world, there is one company that stands apart from the others in so many ways and for so many reasons that they, amazingly, represent some hope within the madness.
And, not coincidently, they are the one that is already being attacked, in print and software, as the wars begin: Apple.
How Apple actually represents hope to clean up the tech universe that, arguably, they are most responsible for having created, is likely a hard sell with those that want to lump all these huge companies together. Because, after all, they are all huge.
However, nothing could be further from the truth. More on this and other burning questions in our next episode, so stay tuned.
The opinions expressed “pro” or “con” regarding big tech abuses of power are both overlooking far more serious issues that lie beneath
After years of public and insider opinion gradually shifting from a state of wonder, awe and hero worship of tech giants and their founders and CEOs, toward a more skeptical stance, and now, finally, government action begins; the fundamental issues that lie beneath are still barely mentioned, let alone widely understood.
In a filing at the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., on December 9th, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission, together with 46 states, plus the District of Columbia and Guam, alleged that Facebook employed anticompetitive tactics, allowing it to bully and bury its rivals. In a strongly worded brief it recommends that the massive company be broken up, specifically by divesting itself of Instagram and WhatsApp.
While past antitrust cases were complex and difficult to understand fully, particularly for the general public, from the little known A & P case in the 30s and 40s to Standard Oil and Ma Bell / AT&T, in each case there were complex issues to address.
However, one simple thing tied them together that could be understood by virtually anyone: businesses that have a win-at-all-costs approach to business tactics and then achieve monopoly power almost always use that power to fulfill ambitions based on self-perpetuating greed at the expense of society as a whole.
Many, from all walks of life, particularly in the U.S., worship the ethos of “winner take all” and even if they are at the lowest levels of the economic ladder still cheer on the most ruthless and morally bankrupt “winners” as heroes, using a bizarre logic, that somehow they might one day see themselves in the winners circle.
This perspective is similar to societies where dictators, such as Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, or emperors are worshiped fervently by the very people that are most exploited and downtrodden under their regimes. Perhaps this is a hardwired genetic human trait, impossible to alter.
In the case of tech giants of the internet era, beginning with Microsoft and its antitrust case, a similar dynamic is no less present, and, no different from the steps that dictators take to encourage obedience and worship from their subjects. In this case it’s massive amounts of money and power used for required self-serving PR and the brutal economic repression of any dissenting voices.
Try to find a book on Amazon’s Jeff Bezos that is not a hero-worship nonsense-title purporting to offer you a way to become a “business genius” like him. You will find a few exceptions, of course, these purporting to offer “hard-hitting” investigative journalism and a sober look at the “real facts”.
These will be watered down, meekly subservient, weak and impotent tombs barely scratching the surface of any negative perspectives on the real problems Amazon and its founder have created, not only for millions of people around the world but for society as a whole.
Even among those that are the most incisive and have a real desire to “dig-deep” and reach the roots of the real problems, there is often still the a priori assumption that somehow, the 26 year evolution of business models that could “succeed” in internet and software based business are to be measured on a scale that presumes that the business models themselves are basically valid, simply because they were able to survive and create massive, nearly immeasurable, wealth for a tiny handful of individuals. .
Taking into account the pervasive pro-big-business bias, it is a miracle in a sense, that the public opinion has shifted so far, to the point where antitrust actions can be seen as valid, by enough of the public at large, that these giant monopolistic tech companies are called into question at all.
The miracle, if we call it that, is only a reflection of just how purely evil and out of control the situation has become, and how many people have been harmed, and in how many different ways this harm has occurred.
From teen suicides to thousands of bankrupt and struggling small businesses to privacy rights trampled in the dirt, the list of abuses and harm, if it were ever brought to light, could fill a thousand page treatise and would read like a recounting of the atrocities of war.
And then there’s the fact that the war is fought with computer code and over territory that has no physical address
Much as collateralized debt obligations and other arcane “synthetic” financial products nearly collapsed the entire world economy in 2008, partially due to the intentional complexity, which served only to hide the stupidity, complex computer algorithms are now at the heart of an ever larger and even more dangerous economic debacle that continues to unfold.
And much of the lack of any pushback against this is the simple ability to hide behind the complex computer methods and concepts that have allowed tech giants to build an even bigger and more dangerous kind of monopolistic behavior than even the so called “Robber Barons” of the Gilded Age.
Even those, in government or in the press, who are pushing back are doing so with, apparently, little understanding of the real dangers that are buried in the code and in the tricks used by very sophisticated, technologically educated people in control of these trillion dollar behemoths.
For example, Facebook is already claiming that the government should not be able to question the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp because they already approved the mergers at the time they happened.
In his excellent article published on medium.com , Will Oremus points out:
But I looked up the FTC’s public statements following those reviews, and it states explicitly that the matter should not be considered permanently settled.
“This action is not to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred,” the FTC’s closing letter said. It added, “The Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require.” Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Also in that article, titled; ‘Competition Is for Losers’: How Peter Thiel Helped Facebook Embrace Monopoly the idea succinctly embodied in the title which refers to a Wall Street Journal piece on Thiel’s book “Zero to One” which he describes as having been “embraced as a business bible in Silicon Valley and beyond” and quotes from including this characterization:
(Thiel) made the case for monopoly as the ultimate goal of capitalism. Indeed, “monopoly is the condition of every successful business,” he asserted. With it, you’re free to set your own prices, think long-term, innovate, and pursue goals other than mere survival. Without it, you’re replaceable, and your profits will eventually converge on zero.
And this provides the context within which the current struggle unfolds. To understand the real dangers of the total domination of the internet, which has become the vital lifeline of our economy and social existence, by a handful of trillion dollar companies, that not only embrace limitless greed and dictatorial status within their industry, but see it as the divine right that they hold, and believe they are entitled to aspire toward without interference.
And in another context such behavior would be known as immoral, destructive to society and social justice, and if the laws are adequate to apply; criminal.
And there’s the rub. The antitrust statutes, possibly already inadequate to take on this new kind of robber, have also been weakened since the 80s. Add to that how the pre-existing biases are heavily slanted toward minimizing any accountability for such behavior and is follows that any real reform must rise from the public at large.
The birth of the internet was anything but immaculate
The tragi-comic farce of the story, when seen through the lens of internet history, is how Facebook, Google and Amazon all followed the same absurd arc.
From “underdogs” with massive losses and no income to ridiculously “valuable” “FANG” members championed from the rooftops as heroic winners of darwinian battles to build out the internet for profit. And, finally, after decades of unfettered expansion, being seen more and more for what they are: profit-seeking scams using each a different method to restrain competition and destroy the most valuable asset humanity has ever built: the internet itself.
The complexity of the scams is still the most useful cloak for them to hide behind, each with a different insanely complicated way to force what is a public asset, the internet, into a tool for private greed, at the expense of any real innovation. And the victims are not the competitor firms that they might have destroyed (or bought), but rather the entire population of any territory that they control, with North America being the center of the empire.
The question asked for example of Google or Facebook should not be, “do they provide any services from the public can benefit, in exchange for their obscenely privileged monopoly control over “search” and “social networking”, respectively. The question should be “are they the best possible solution, from the perspective of what is in the best interest of society, for those extremely important functions in our new digital world.
It is not enough to say that “consumers have chosen” each as their go-to tool. If any company or group of companies could do a better job of enabling humanity to communicate, interact and become educated via the internet, why should those other solutions be buried forever under a mountain of greed and self-interest?
This is the infinitely elusive point: No different than Bernie Madoff, the damage they have wrought, by destroying what could have been, will only be understood once they are either gone or forced to cease what they depend on for domination, which would lead to their ultimate demise over time, just as Peter Thiel himself stated:
Without (a monoply), you’re replaceable, and your profits will eventually converge on zero.
Or as Jeff Bezos explained, in what his become his predatory raison d’être: The competition is always one-click-away. This makes every other online seller, in his view, an enemy that must be destroyed at all costs, no matter how small, no matter how weak.
In this sick paranoid view of the world it is truly an all or nothing struggle for survival, with death of all competitors, literally and figuratively, the only acceptable outcome.
With this mindset at the heart of these companies, and with the government and most of the press taking a milk-toast submissive approach (in contrast) the struggle to rein in these monstrous, utterly corrupt empires, will take years if not decades.
However, 2020 will always be seen as the beginning of the end the the gruesome mistake of history that these companies represent.
Companies that achieved dominance and monopoly control of a system meant for public benefit, through the most destructive methods they were able to devise, and then redoubled efforts infinitely to expand using those same destructive and corrupt methods.
In the end there is only one power large enough to intervene, as already at their current size, and while, like a virus, they double in power and economic domination almost annually, and that is the power of the billions that use their platforms everyday. Change will arise when they have damaged themselves by damaging the very societies they prey on, and once damaged, those societies will have no choice but to shed them like the murderous parasites that they are.
That will not happen anytime soon. The general view of these companies, is still very mild and forgiving. And it’s important to note that each case is different and this article applies only to Facebook, Google and Amazon.
Just as most have either forgiven or forgotten the massive bailouts that criminal companies were gifted during the 2008 financial crisis, the perception that these massive tech companies are at worst mildly anti-competitive and at best harmless and just practicing good, successful capitalism, will not be changed overnight.
It can only come after much more pain at the hands of this corrupt system that currently controls the internet, and therefore, our digital lives.
In a filing at the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., on December 9th, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission, together with 46 states, plus the District of Columbia and Guam, alleged that Facebook employed anticompetitive tactics, allowing it to bully and bury its rivals. In a strongly worded brief it recommends that the massive company be broken up, specifically by divesting itself of Instagram and WhatsApp.
“For nearly a decade, Facebook has used its dominance and monopoly power to crush smaller rivals and snuff out competition. By using its vast troves of data and money, Facebook has squashed or hindered what the company perceived to be potential threats.”
–New York attorney general, Letitia James, representing the state group, at a news conference
After the 18 month long investigation, charges are finally arriving, well after Facebook has already made extensive retaliatory changes to its products. The changes that were implemented, which interlinked the functionality of Facebook apps with Instagram and WhatsApp, are clearly meant to try and make it technically impossible, or at least difficult for them to function separately again.
This amounts to a way of using computer code to fabricate a “moat”, basically an excuse or impediment which they hope, apparently, would make it impossible to reverse the changes, in the event they are forced to sell off the previously separate companies.
The brazen and obvious action which appears designed to impede and block any remedies that the court could impose is reminiscent of the now infamous “move fast and break things” motto often attributed to Mark Zuckerberg, and the, just as famous, Silicon Valley truism “Ask forgiveness not permission”.
This kind of preemptive obstruction, while not necessarily illegal in any way, is nevertheless a perfect reflection of the attitude also associated with Facebook via Peter Thiel: “Competition is for Losers” phrase which stems from title of a WSJ article on Thiel’s book and which was adopted fondly by the billionaire.
It is important, from a layman’s perspective, to note that being big or being, effectively, a monopoly, is not enough, necessarily, to justify drastic government imposed remedies. The behavior, however, in other words, wether or not there was abuse of the power a monopoly affords, is crucial.
In the past several years Facebook has been found to be guilty of abuses, primarily in European cases, as have Google and Amazon. All the evidence, so pervasive as to be easily noted by even a casual observer, points to a pattern of behavior that could be seen, and possibly even proven to be, predatory and abusive of market power.
The response from Facebook has been anything but substantive, with the initial defense being a very weak statement that the government should not be allowed “do-overs”:
“Those acquisitions were cleared and if you can buy a company, and eight years, 10 years later, the government can clear them and unwind it — that’s going to be a really big chilling problem for American business, we are not going to be competitive around the world,”
Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, in a recent interview with Tamron Hall
The facts in no way back up this surprisingly flaccid response, since the mergers were, in fact never, “approved” just not blocked at the time, and in public statements, in writing, the FTC clearly and specifically stated:
“This action is not to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred, The Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require.”
As for the decades old “we are not going to be competitive around the world,” comment that is the oldest excuse for awarding big internet companies with special status to run amok going back to Al Gore’s “Internet Superhighway” exemptions from the early 90s.
To quote Kara Swisher in a recent New York Times opinion piece:
“Those charged with regulation have given companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon a very wide berth to grow into some of the most valuable entities in the history of the planet. Their founders are among the richest people ever.”
— Kara Swisher, in the New York Times
And, in case anyone is feeling sorry for poor Facebook, it’s also pertinent to point out that what they claim to need or be entitled to is exactly the kind of special treatment and license to break rules that others would have to abide by.
And that status and privilege is exactly what enabled Facebook (and Amazon and Google) to become so massive and so intensely inclined toward abuse of market power in the first place.
“Action as the public interest may require. “ Remember that phrase, you may be hearing it often, over the next few years, in relation to Facebook, Google and Amazon. And, in the end, it is the public verdict in the marketplace that will ultimately have the power to intercede with enough force to achieve change.
As antitrust suits loom, a digital tax appears as additional government option
Related to French “digital tax” hopes, and which may have future repercussions for other tech related regulation attempts, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook have” signs on for the “Tech for Good Call”. Amazon has declined which Apple continues to negotiate, according to reports.
A list was released by the French government with signatures of 75 executives of tech companies who have signed up to the initiative so far. Notably, the list included Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Microsoft President Brad Smith. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Apple’s Tim Cook were absent, however.
For nearly three years President Emmanuel Macron of France has attempted to convince tech giants to begin collaborating with governments to seek remedies for a list of global challenges. Examples are; fighting hate speech online, preserving privacy or paying a so-called “digital-tax”, presumably to offset negative economic effects of the overwhelming dominance of big tech.
Reuters reports that Macron’s advisers said on Monday that the president had asked tech companies to sign up to a new initiative called “Tech for Good Call” underlining principles for the post-COVID world. This development comes as “anti-big-tech” sentiment is increasing, particularly during the massive profit spike the giants are enjoying due to a devastating world-wide pandemic.
A general publicity based initiative could be leverage for negotiations to rein in tech giants
Also, according to Reuters, the “Tech for Good Call” includes a non-binding pledge to “contribute fairly to the taxes in countries where (they) operate”; refrain & prevent the dissemination of “child sexual abuse material, terrorist or extreme violence online contents”; and “support the ecological transition”, in addition to other things.
Though not legally binding, it is expected that the French will use this tentative agreement to in negotiations during upcoming global forums on regulating Big Tech.
In addition to antitrust suits underway in the US and Europe, the idea of a “digital tax” is being explored and attempted with France and Australia leading the way.
The building chorus for regulation against Google and Facebook stem from the extremely dominant position each holds online, with Google having near total control of search traffic and advertising, while Facebooks monopoly in social media concerns its use of that position to monetize private data through advertising.
Also, according to Reuters, the “Tech for Good Call” includes a non-binding pledge to “contribute fairly to the taxes in countries where (they) operate”; refrain & prevent the dissemination of “child sexual abuse material, terrorist or extreme violence online contents”; and “support the ecological transition”, in addition to other things.
Though not legally binding, it is expected that the French will use this tentative agreement to in negotiations during upcoming global forums on regulating Big Tech.
In addition to antitrust suits underway in the US and Europe, the idea of a “digital tax” is being explored and attempted with France and Australia leading the way.
The building chorus for regulation against Google and Facebook stem from the extremely dominant position each holds online, with Google having near total control of search traffic and advertising, while Facebooks monopoly in social media concerns its use of that position to monetize private data through advertising.
“The supportive chorus of elected officials is giving assurance to [the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)] and the [Federal Trade Commission (FTC)] that they have the political support they need to blunt [the companies’] efforts … to pressure the agencies to back off or water down their cases,” former FTC Chairman William Kovacic told WSJ.
Search Battle Lynxotic Predicted is about to Breakout Big time
In a year that has already offered AppleOne, 5G, and perpetual AirTag teases, Apple Inc might have yet another major project hidden up its sleeve. According to a report from the Financial Times, the tech company has recently partaken in research and development indicative of creating a new original search engine.
For years, Google has been the default search engine on Apple devices. This is part of an ongoing deal between the two companies where Google pays Apple a pretty penny to foreground their services. Now, however, Google is facing an antitrust suit from the Department of Justice. This case claims that Google has a monopoly over search and directly sites its relationship with Apple as evidence.
If the DOJ manages to win against Google, it could be the end of its search engine arriving pre-encrypted in all iPhones, iPads, and Macs. Thus, an in-house Apple search engine comes at an opportune time. Not only will it provide Apple with a new default search platform, but it will also muster some competition against Google— one of the things that the antitrust case desperately calls for.
Any Engine at All by Apple is Earth-shattering to the Status Quo of Big Tech
Nothing is set in concrete about this speculative Apple search engine yet. All we know for sure is that the latest version of iOS 14 shows signs of increased search technology. Under the upgraded operating system, iPhone users can type in questions directly on their devices’ home screens and arrive at Internet results without any middleman. This has also led to an uptick in Apple’s spidering tools, which comb and datafy the web for a smoother search experience.
These changes in iOS 14 are subtle, but given the context, they could be laying the seeds for something much larger. Tellingly, former Google head of search John Geannandrea also oversees these recent Apple advancements. Geannandrea joined Apple three years ago, and while his main focus at the company has been Siri thus far, he obviously has the expertise and experience for helming a Google-like project.
Some believe that Siri is the base of Apple’s increased search interests. Perhaps the new technologies are simply working to refine the voice assistant rather than setting up a wholly alternative Google competitor. At the same time, though, with the proper expansion, Siri could very well evolve into a worthy Google rival, especially if it becomes the one-stop search engine on all Apple devices.For now, users will just have to wait while events unfold. Experts say that the antitrust case against Google will go on for years, and if Apple is indeed developing its own search engine alternative, it will likely take just as long.
New Reports call for laws to rein in giant monopolies
Amid a zany week of political theater and election drama, the federal government has actually managed to make quiet, nonpartisan progress on an important issue. On Tuesday, October 7th, Democratic members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust finally released a long-awaited report concerning the dominant technological companies in America and their legally dubious corporate power.
The report comes at the end of a sixteen-month investigation into the tech giants, arriving to the conclusion that America’s four biggest tech companies—Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Apple— all partake in anti-competitive practices that could be reprehensible by law.
Essentially, with the exception of Apple, these four conglomerates have created near-monopolies in their respective fields. Amazon controls 40% of e-commerce in America, and endorses business models that squander the competition and abuse third-party sellers through data mining. Apple has argued that they do not have a monopoly stake in phones, Android (google) and Samsung, have a larger worldwide base, and in other areas Apple has an even less dominant position. Only in dollar denominated success do they hold the absolute top spot.
Google has an even larger monopoly on Internet searches, also utilizing data to bind users to their content and prioritize their services over all other websites.
Facebook, meanwhile, is a hegemonic vacuum for social media outlets, endorsing a “copy, acquire, and then kill” technique according to the report. Essentially, rather than compete with other platforms, Facebook sucks them into inescapable, self-serving positions.
Apple is not in quite as much hot water as the other three companies. The report mainly accuses Apple of binding its users to the Apple Store, which creates an extra, sometimes expensive, hurdle for App developers to get over if they want their product widely available. The report accuses Google of doing something similar with Android, saying that the software forces people to use Google on their devices.
Of course, all of these companies have denied any illegality in their actions— each citing the free market and defending their business practices as entirely fair when responding to the report.
Generally in gridlock and inept, this is one area where Government must act decisively
However, Congress does not seem to agree. In light of the recent report, many Democrats are in favor of rewriting the U.S. Antitrust Laws to better protect a fair, competitive economy. Traditionally, the Antitrust Laws keep businesses in check on behalf of consumers, but they have not been touched in decades, and capitalism has developed immensely since then.
The amount of power that these three companies have garnered demonstrates that the laws now need to consider affairs between businesses as well, lest a handful of power-hungry entities override the market.
Some Republicans, however, have pushed back against the idea of rewriting the Antitrust Laws. Notably, Representative Kelly Armstrong from North Dakota did not sign the committee’s report on Tuesday. While he agrees that something nefarious is at hand with these tech companies, his remedy focuses on greater oversight from the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, upping the enforcement rather than adjusting the laws itself.
Even if certain politicians disagree on how to address the issue, the nonpartisan support for cracking down on big-tech in America is nevertheless a milestone, and it comes at a crucial time. While thousands of Americans are facing economic strife due to the COVID-19 pandemic, billionaires (especially tech moguls) are seeing their stocks skyrocket.
According to a financial study covered in USA Today, billionaires now hold more of the world’s wealth than ever before— $10.8 trillion. Tech billionaires in particular hold $1.8 trillion of that, a whopping 42.5% increase from just a year and a half ago.
The bulk of American Antitrust Laws were written at the turn of the twentieth century. Since then, the state of the world has changed. The state of the economy has changed. And perhaps most immensely, the state of technology has changed. Algorithmic dictatorships are growing almost as quickly as class divides in America. So perhaps it is time for the law to change as well.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
“The Social Dilemma” a documentary now available to watch on Netflix, exposes some hard truths and dangers of social networking. Former employees from juggernaut tech companies including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest and many others are interviewed, many of whom co-invented and developed the very structures and business models that are creating major problems as broken-down and discussed in the docu-drama.
Not much of a spoiler alert, but social media companies not only sell our user data, but in conjunction use all that data to create an ultra-sophisticated psychological profile, ultimately to have the powerful ability to manipulate us. Your privacy, surveillance capitalism, positive intermittent reinforcement, artificial intelligence (AI), algorithms, dopamine hits, are just some of the terms used within the film and very much prevalent in social media.
There are only two industries that call their customers ‘users’: illegal drugs and software”
Edward Tufte
We’ve curated a list of books written by the former tech employees that appeared in the documentary, as well as provided some additional information from the publisher. Click to see more book information, we’ve provided links for purchase that if interested that helps out independent books stores.
We live in the age of the algorithm. Increasingly, the decisions that affect our lives–where we go to school, whether we can get a job or a loan, how much we pay for health insurance–are being made not by humans, but by machines. In theory, this should lead to greater fairness: Everyone is judged according to the same rules.
But as mathematician and data scientist Cathy O’Neil reveals, the mathematical models being used today are unregulated and uncontestable, even when they’re wrong. Most troubling, they reinforce discrimination–propping up the lucky, punishing the downtrodden, and undermining our democracy in the process. Welcome to the dark side of Big Data.
NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER – A former Wall Street quant sounds the alarm on Big Data and the mathematical models that threaten to rip apart our social fabric–with a new afterword. “A manual for the twenty-first-century citizen . . . relevant and urgent.”–Financial Times. NATIONAL BOOK AWARD LONGLIST – NAMED ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS OF THE YEAR BY The New York Times Book Review – Boston Globe – Wired – Fortune – Kirkus Reviews – The Guardian – Nature – On Point
Automating Humanity is an insider’s perspective on everything Big Tech doesn’t want the public to know–or think about–from the addictions installed on a global scale to the profits being driven by fake news and disinformation, to the way they’re manipulating the world for profit and using our data to train systems that will automate jobs at an explosive, unprecedented scale.
Toscano provides a critique of modern regulation, including parts of the new European Union’s General Data Proctection Regulation (GDPR) suggesting how we can create proactive, adaptable regulation that satisfies both the needs of consumer safety and commercial success in the international economy. The content touches on everything from technology, economics, and public policy to psychology, history, and ethics, and is written in a way that is accessible to everyone from the average reader to the technical expert. Click Here to See “Automating Humanity” and help Independent Bookstores. Also Available on Amazon.
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff
In this masterwork of original thinking and research, Shoshana Zuboff provides startling insights into the phenomenon that she has named surveillance capitalism. The stakes could not be higher: a global architecture of behavior modification threatens human nature in the twenty-first century just as industrial capitalism disfigured the natural world in the twentieth.
Zuboff vividly brings to life the consequences as surveillance capitalism advances from Silicon Valley into every economic sector. Vast wealth and power are accumulated in ominous new “behavioral futures markets,” where predictions about our behavior are bought and sold, and the production of goods and services is subordinated to a new “means of behavioral modification.”
The threat has shifted from a totalitarian Big Brother state to a ubiquitous digital architecture: a “Big Other” operating in the interests of surveillance capital. Here is the crucible of an unprecedented form of power marked by extreme concentrations of knowledge and free from democratic oversight. Zuboff’s comprehensive and moving analysis lays bare the threats to twenty-first century society: a controlled “hive” of total connection that seduces with promises of total certainty for maximum profit–at the expense of democracy, freedom, and our human future. Click Here to See “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism” and help Independent Bookstores. Also Available on Amazon.
Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now by Jaron Lanier
You might have trouble imagining life without your social media accounts, but virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier insists that we’re better off without them. In Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now, Lanier, who participates in no social media, offers powerful and personal reasons for all of us to leave these dangerous online platforms.
Lanier’s reasons for freeing ourselves from social media’s poisonous grip include its tendency to bring out the worst in us, to make politics terrifying, to trick us with illusions of popularity and success, to twist our relationship with the truth, to disconnect us from other people even as we are more “connected” than ever, to rob us of our free will with relentless targeted ads. How can we remain autonomous in a world where we are under continual surveillance and are constantly being prodded by algorithms run by some of the richest corporations in history that have no way of making money other than being paid to manipulate our behavior? How could the benefits of social media possibly outweigh the catastrophic losses to our personal dignity, happiness, and freedom? Lanier remains a tech optimist, so while demonstrating the evil that rules social media business models today, he also envisions a humanistic setting for social networking that can direct us toward a richer and fuller way of living and connecting with our world. Click Here to See “Ten Argument for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts” and help Independent Bookstores. Also Available on Amazon.
The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt
Click Here to See “The Righteous Mind“ and help Independent Bookstores. Also Available on Amazon.
Drawing on his twenty five years of groundbreaking research on moral psychology, Haidt shows how moral judgments arise not from reason but from gut feelings. He shows why liberals, conservatives, and libertarians have such different intuitions about right and wrong, and he shows why each side is actually right about many of its central concerns. In this subtle yet accessible book, Haidt gives you the key to understanding the miracle of human cooperation, as well as the curse of our eternal divisions and conflicts. If you’re ready to trade in anger for understanding, read The Righteous Mind.
In this “landmark contribution to humanity’s understanding of itself” (The New York Times Book Review) social psychologist Jonathan Haidt challenges conventional thinking about morality, politics, and religion in a way that speaks to conservatives and liberals alike. Click Here to See “The Righteous Mind” and help Independent Bookstores. Also Available on Amazon.
Apple will expose the worst of predatory surveillance by Facebook, Amazon and Google with new privacy features
While wrong is wrong regardless of the perpetrator, when it comes to gargantuan tech behemoths, a company with a clearly defined mission such as Apple or Tesla are in a different category than Amazon, Facebook and Google.
While Tesla’s stated mission is to “accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy” and Apple’s original mission statement, written by Steve Jobs was “to make a contribution to the world by making tools for the mind that advance humankind”, predatory vultures hide behind ridiculous slogans like “aim to be Earth’s most customer centric company” (while decimating partners and competitors by any means necessary) and “don’t be evil” (don’t get caught) and “to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together” (…all while stealing data for profit from every person on earth).
Click to See “Steve Jobs“ and to help Lynxotic and Independent Bookstores. Also Available on Amazon.
It’s just not the same – particularly as Steve Jobs, while at Apple, pushed himself and his company to invent and build many powerful examples of “tools for the mind” and Elon Musk’s Tesla brought the electric car back from the dead (after it was nearly snuffed out by big oil) and is making incredible headway in revolutionizing battery and solar technology, all with a view to literally save the planet from a climate catastrophe.
Bezos? Became the richest living human via the destruction of millions of small business and jobs all while undercutting competitors by selling virtually anything he got his hands on at a significant loss; simply to cause the demise of any competitor or partner that might threaten his rise to idiotically massive personal wealth.
Zuckerberg? Pioneered ways to suck data from virtually every human with a view to monetizing every living soul exclusively for himself and his company. Illustration? Dividing Facebook’s market cap by the number of employees it has yields the sum of $14,906,500.00 per employee. Macy’s? That’d be $16,829. (Thanks to Scott Galloway for the numbers)
Google merely owns (91.75% as of June 2020) the search entryway to all web sites. It decides if you should or should not find them. If it can boost profits by hiding one and featuring another, either through “paid search” or by pointing you toward its own properties while hiding competitors from you, it will do exactly that. Ask the European Union’s anti-trust investigators. For them, this company is a convicted law breaker.
Announced at WWDC 2020, Apple is adding serious features to its various new operating systems. One big feature in Safari is the ability to track, and block as desired, all manner of data intrusions. These are not only identified, but shown and tracked and analyzed with a kind of professional dashboard, showing just how invasive and persistent these invisible spies are.
Apple is big, with more than 1.4 billion devices. Starting in around 2021 they will all be able to identify and block data surveillance by Amazon (the largest of all spies), Google and Facebook, among others. Thanks that’s not a big deal? Think again.
…the overall stance being taken regarding online tracking and surveillance should be seen for what it is: the first step to correcting the mistake of history that allowed the internet to be kidnapped and held hostage by a handful of companies that pretend to be “free” or “customer obsessed” while they are, in fact, Robber Barons that make the Standard Oil monopoly look like Santa Claus.
– D.L.
Tracking the Trackers will Change Your Life
Tracking the trackers is a clear and aggressive privacy stance, taken by the one company among the big four, that does not have a huge stake in you being the victim of online surveillance and tracking.
Not to say that Apple is blameless. Many are complaining about its fee structure for software sold by third parties via the app stores. While this issue is certainly a valid one, the overall stance being taken regarding online tracking and surveillance should be seen for what it is: the first step to correcting the mistake of history that allowed the internet to be kidnapped and held hostage by a handful of companies that pretend to be “free” or “customer obsessed” while they are, in fact, Robber Barons that make the Standard Oil monopoly look like Santa Claus.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
With half the world seemingly at the beach, and most of us focused on the right way to survive coming out of lock-down, you may have missed the incredibly active news coming out of the tech space. Not just space itself, but a variety of interesting looks toward the future, both in law and anti-trust issues and, yes, space itself both from the fantasy as well as reality perspective.
With the coronavirus pandemic implications for the economy and business at the forefront of looming threats, at least in terms of non-medical issues, the big tech giants; Amazon, Google and Facebook are all getting warnings that the government are a-coming with serious questions as to the behavior of the former, if not outright legal actions. And the people at large, in particular small business owners may not be far behind.
A Bully with a “Nice” Promise is Still just a Bully:
Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock
Funny thing about promises made by politicians and owners of public companies. Although truth will eventually come out due to public access to accounting, these are often so far in the future that virtually anything can be promised today with no need for a specific plan or transparent numbers to back them up. Click to see complete story.
From “Star Trek” to “Star Wars,” “Interstellar” to “2001,” outer space has been the primary setting for a wide range of science fiction and action movies over the years. Still, never has a film actually been shot in the infinite frontier. Sure we have footage from the stars (even from the moon and Mars), but no feature film has been bold enough to actually construct a full-length narrative with principal photography occurring in space. Click to see complete story.
On Friday, May 15th, Facebook announced that it will be buying Giphy— the world’s most popular GIF site on the internet, social media, and messaging services. Giphy is already an integrated part of iMessage, Tinder, Slack, and Twitter, and Facebook now owns it for a reported $400 million. Click to see complete story.
It is safe to say that Google is a hegemonic force in the digital world. The site practically has a monopoly on internet searches and it holds nearly a third of the money tied up in online advertising. Because of the United States’ lax laws regarding cyber security, Google’s dominance has largely gone unchecked over the years. That is, until now. Click to see complete story.
A long, slow, converging consensus is coming to expose Facebook, Amazon and Google
On Friday, May 15th, Facebook announced that it will be buying Giphy— the world’s most popular GIF site on the internet, social media, and messaging services. Giphy is already an integrated part of iMessage, Tinder, Slack, and Twitter, and Facebook now owns it for a reported $400 million.
Acquiring a GIF-generating site seems inconspicuous enough for Facebook, the social media conglomerate that already owns Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus VR, and many other subsidiaries. Nevertheless, the purchase raised some red flags in Washington, especially for Democrats like Senators Elizabeth Warren (MA) and Senator Amy Kolchubar (MN) as well as Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and David Cicilline (RI), all of whom have been critical of major corporate mergers throughout the coronavirus pandemic.
Because of COVID-19, many small businesses are facing immense hardships. They are in a vulnerable state, desperate for money and far more likely to sell out. By contrast, major corporations not only have the funds to stay afloat, but also the continued stability to take advantage of the smaller, more jeopardized companies. Senator Warren and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez have thus proposed the “Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act” to halt all big-business mergers until the situation gets better for their small business counterparts.
Hence, Facebook’s purchase of Giphy comes at a dubious time. Giphy is no small time company, but Facebook’s ownership of it could still lead to increased exploitation down the road. Because the site is integrated into so many different apps and services already, it will provide Facebook with covert entrance’s into all of those platforms’ data.
As brought to the foreground in 2016’s Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook keeps an overabundance of data on each of its users. The site tracks and analogs everything we do, and that information does not remain confidential. Facebook sells it to other services, businesses, or even political assets, usually (but not always) for the sake of marketing.
With WhatsApp and Instagram already in house Giphy appears to be a bridge too far
With Giphy under the site’s control, Facebook’s data-mining efforts will overreach even farther. It will be able to access information from our Tweets, iMessages, Tinder matches, and even business correspondences via Slack. Evidently, the purchase entails a whole lot more than just the newfound ability to insert GIFs directly into our statuses.
click to see “Life After Google” and help Lynxotic and all independent bookstores.
The politicians against business mergers during the pandemic are by-and-large the same people who have been fighting Facebook for the past few years, demanding heightened security and increased regulations for big-tech across the board. Right now, the Department of Justice is planning antitrust charges for Google and many attorney generals are investigating Amazon for their monopolistic control over the market. If these cases prove successful, we might finally see some legislation passed to keep the long-unrestricted tech moguls in check.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has not yet commented directly on the Giphy acquisition, nor has he provided a public response to the “Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act” proposition. In typical Facebook fashion, all the website has really done to help in these trying times is create a new “hug” reaction icon. It’s a nice addition, but hardly makes up for the company’s clear manipulation of the present circumstances.
If there is one shred of good news amidst the purchase so far, it is that Giphy will thankfully not be removing their library of embarrassing Mark Zuckerberg GIFs. Moreover, we can also take solace in the fact that there are many more GIF-worthy Zuck moments to come.
Like Al Capone alleging an alternate Crime as a quicker way to Prosecute Social Media Gangster?
Facebook is in hot water once again; this time with the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS filed a lawsuit against the social network company for undervaluing a property it sold to an Irish subsidiary in 2010. The suit went to court in San Francisco on February 18th and Facebook expects that it will last three to four weeks.
If Facebook loses the suit, then the company will owe the IRS up to $9 billion in unpaid taxes plus interest and penalties. Facebook, however, refuses to plead guilty, claiming that its estimates were accurate when proposed, as the company was yet to receive immense ad revenue or reach wide international appeal in 2010.
Click to buy “Facebook: The Inside Story” and at the same time help Lynxotic and All Independent Local Bookstores
Just to clarify, what Facebook “sold” to Ireland in 2010 was not exactly a proper sale. Essentially, it was the original “American” Facebook outsourcing itself to its “Irish” Facebook subordinate. Such is not an uncommon practice for global businesses, especially in tech, for Ireland has very low corporate tax rates and thus is an easy place for companies to pocket extra billions of dollars in royalties every year.
While perhaps ethically shady, all of this is indeed legal for an American enterprise. It is but a sneaky loophole that Facebook is certainly not the first or last to take advantage of. According to the IRS, though, Facebook undersold itself to Ireland and thus ends up with a tax evasion charge.
Although a Pittance for the Giant Company there appears to be a Growing Pattern of Problems at Facebook
This is not the first time that a tech company has been caught red-handed getting criminally avaricious with this loophole. The European Union charged Apple Inc over $15 billion for receiving illegal Irish tax benefits in 2016. Similarly, just last year Google paid $1 billion after a French investigation dug into its international tax record. Google announced at the end of 2019 that it would stop abusing Ireland and the Netherlands for their tax incentives.
The trial is ongoing, and will see statements from Facebook executives such as hardware chief Andrew Bodsworth and Chief Technology Officer Mike Schroepfer amongst others. CEO Mark Zuckerberg will likely not be called to the stand this time around. His legal testimonies will probably remain before Congress, wrapped in the realms of international espionage and data rights rather than dry taxation discrepancies. After all, to a company like Facebook or a guy like Zuck, what is $9 billion but a temporary fluctuation?
Infamous or just Out of Control, New Origin Story Details could Shed light on the Gargantuan Beast
Facebook has been one of the most important enterprises of the twenty-first century so far. With well over a billion users worldwide, few companies have received more coverage and attention than Mark Zuckerberg’s social network, which is only celebrating its sixteenth birthday this month.
Naturally, as the World Wide Web enters its thirties in the 2020s, tech writers and modern scholars in all fields are starting to reference Facebook as a contemporary relic and topic of interest. In the future, we will likely find entire library sections worth of books dedicated to Facebook and its impact on the planet. We have already seen a handful of texts as well as an Oscar nominated David Fincher movie (“The Social Network”) that flesh out the website’s story and societal intricacies.
On February 25th, however, we may finally get an initial, definitive book written about Facebook. Steven Levy’s “Facebook: The Inside Story” is part Zuckerberg biography, part corporate history, part digital humanities study, and part sociological analysis, focusing in intimate detail on the rise, development, impact, and complications that Facebook has undergone since its initial lowly launch out of a 2004 Harvard University dorm room.
Steven Levy is a lead editor at Wired.com and has also written for The New Yorker, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, and Esquire amongst other publications. He is one of the world’s foremost technology journalists, covering the latest of industrial achievements (and pitfalls) over the past couple decades. He has published seven books before “Facebook: The Inside Story,” including ones centering on the Macintosh computer and on the iPod. “Facebook” is his first book to focus on a singular website, though, and it is the amalgamation of over ten years worth of research, journalism, and reporting on the topic.
Click to buy “Facebook: The Inside Story” and at the same time help Lynxotic and All Independent Local Bookstores
Levy’s relationship with Zuckerberg goes way back to 2006, when the entrepreneur was but a young university student trying to get his inter-collegiate social network site called “TheFacebook” up from the ground. As a devoted reporter, Levy has naturally met with Zuckerberg many times over the years and has religiously followed Facebook since its beginnings.
These years of relationships, interviews, and studious dedication have given Levy a keen insight into Facebook. In addition to unparalleled interpersonal access to Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, the author also incorporates the experiences of other Facebook employees and users into his book, painting a holistic picture of the website from the inside and out.
Levy expertly chronicles the site’s somewhat tragic-hero trajectory, from Facebook’s nefarious beginnings to Zuckerberg’s infamous trial against the Winklevoss twins, from its “golden age” of uncontroversial influence in the early 2010s to its current hot-water situation following the 2016 election Cambridge Analytica scheme and the modern awareness regarding data rights.
Thoroughly Researched with an Attempt at a Definitive Take
Over five-hundred and ninety two pages, the book shares everything in a riveting narrative fashion, but Levy does not spare the reader some thoughtful analysis in the process. Today, we might associate Facebook (not to mention its extensive subsidiaries such as Instagram and Whatsapp) with contentious matters of privacy and ethicality, with grey legal areas and questionable security practices. Mark Zuckerberg’s name alone might evoke feelings of contempt, and one might immediately link him to his blundering appearance before Congress in 2019 or gross examples of an algorithmic dictatorship.
Levy does not shy away from these interpretations and complications surrounding Facebook, but he also reminds us that a time once existed when Zuckerberg was seen as an ingenious hero and Facebook was praised as a platform that could connect the world.
And connect the world it did… but now the consequences of doing so are coming to the foreground. Whether your deleting your account, boycotting the website, or fervently posting updates every hour of the day, Facebook has likely impacted you in someway or another over the past two decades. Thus, Levy’s book is not just an interesting read, but an important one—what is likely to be the first of many exhaustive books written about the network that tethered, shaped, and perhaps shrewdly deformed the modern social world.
Consensus Building Rapidly Against the Business Models of Internet Giants
Earlier this week, Amnesty International, a non-governmental organization from the UK, called Google and Facebook’s practices of omnipresent surveillance on people around the world an “assault on privacy.” The organization, which focuses on human rights, recently released a report outlining how these two major tech companies hold too much power and should change their business models to stop infringing on users’ personal information.
Amnesty International’s accusations may seem extreme, but that does not mean that they are inaccurate. While Google and Facebook might appear to be free websites, the reality is that you pay for their services with your data. Whenever you search for something, you feed the sites information—information that they can sell, manipulate, market, or use for a countless number of other things, some of them perhaps unethical.
The upside is that data is cheap, and therefore these websites are not about to start charging you. The downside, however, is that there are really no limits to how tech juggernauts like Google or Facebook (or Apple, or Amazon, or Microsoft for that matter) use the data you provide them. No concrete laws in the United States monitor these companies’ use of data, and given that the Internet was built as a place of free-flowing information, there are no internal boundaries that stop these websites from taking full, unrestricted advantage of your information.
This is not the first time that Facebook and Google have been called out for issues regarding privacy and cyber-ethics. Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has found himself before Congress on more than one occasion recently. Ever since it became known that Cambridge Analytica used web data to falsely advertise on Facebook during the 2016 elections, the social network’s surveillance tactics have been in question.
Benign Monarchs? Not Likely.
As for Google, the website practically has a monopoly on web-searches across the world. The search engine accounts for 90% of the Internet searches on Earth, and it is not always transparent about what it does with the resulting data. With such huge numbers, though, Google can afford to distribute your extensive information to just about anyone—even government organizations or institutions with malintent.
The two companies usually respond to these kinds of accusations with vague optimism about current and future cyber-safety. Google claims to have changed its model within the last year, making the site more user-friendly and giving its patrons more control. Meanwhile, Facebook has largely stood its ground when it comes to online freedom. Zuckerberg and other Facebook officials have suggested that they will heighten security, but they simultaneously stand by that censorship on any scale is constrictive and antithetical to the website’s intent.
Facebook also owns Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp, and several other websites/apps that are used across borders, making the issue a conglomerate and worldly one. Although they are both American companies by origin, both Facebook and Google are international entities. Thus, creating laws around their practices is a complicated and culturally sensitive process.
At the same time, though, these enterprises have been going unchecked and unchallenged for well over a decade now. When they started, the digital world was much smaller and very different than it is now. Technology has changed, and so has the world— now the rules that govern it must follow suit.
Facebook Attempts to Rebrand itself with New, Colorful All-Caps Logo for all Owned and Acquired Apps
In the fifteen years that Facebook has graced our computer screens, the website has undergone many aesthetic and technical changes, yet its lower-case, white printed name set against a blue background has stood the test of time as the company’s unmistakable corporate logo. However, even the most familiar things must evolve at some point. Despite its long run, Facebook’s corporate logo is finally changing and the change is far from subtle.
Facebook’s updated logo no longer reads “facebook” but instead shouts “FACEBOOK” in all-caps, slightly bolded Helevetica font. According to Mark Zuckerberg, the new logo is meant to offer a sense of security and optimism, with its soft edges and comfortable spacing reminding users that the website was created to bring people together.
Perhaps even more dramatically than the all-caps decision, though, Facebook’s new logo is also losing its signature blue and white color combo. The company’s name will now be written in transitional colors, changing hue depending on the application it is seen on.
The logo will be seen on multiple applications, as Facebook also announced that it will start branding itself more straightforwardly on the company’s other apps and sites. One may not know that Facebook owns Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus, Workplace, Portal, and Calibra. The company plans on making this Facebook-family of services more blatantly related, printing “from Facebook” on each homepage using the new logo.
New Facebook Marketing Stunt Comes Amidst Political Strife and Corporate Pitfalls
This re-branding marketing stunt could not have come at a more astute time for Facebook. The company has been in hot water for well over a year at this point, and the pot is beginning to boil over.
During the 2016 election, the Cambridge Analytica British Consulting Firm used Facebook to steal data and falsely advertise for the Trump campaign. Since then, the company has been accused of profiting off of fake-news and not doing enough to police their content.
New multi-colored version of the Logo released as an animated GIF
Just a couple weeks ago, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grilled Mark Zuckerberg before Congress, exposing the young CEO’s ignorance as well as his lack of initiative to address Facebook security issues and protect its users.
Similarly, Senator Elizabeth Warren has scathingly called out Facebook during her Democratic presidential campaign. Part of her anti-corporation platform includes breaking up the big tech conglomerates—that means Apple, Google, Amazon, and yes, Facebook. Essentially, Warren gave a voice to the widely accepted belief that Facebook currently holds too much control and has become an unchecked power.
No—Facebook is not on great terms with its users nowadays. More and more people are deleting their accounts on the site that once ruled social media, following the #deletefacebook trend growing across the globe. Sadly, there is not a whole lot Facebook can do about the underlying causes, though. As dumbfounded as Zuckerberg may have seemed before congress, these cyber-security questions are far from simple.
For now, Facebook is doing what it can for itself. It is changing its image, hoping that the updated logo and united approach to the multiple apps will revamp interest in the site and maybe just cover up some of the hostility it currently faces. A new logo doesn’t actually solve anything. Facebook will still remain the same old site it always has been. So how do we take the new logo? As a sign of corporate reformation on Facebook’s behalf? Or as a symbolic front to distract user’s from the company’s inaction? Or is it just a logo? A marketing ploy like any other meant to make the website more modern and appealing to digital passerbys.
Zuckerberg stumbled and evaded while attempting to respond to AOC on Facebook Behaviors and Policies, especially its Political “Lie Exemption” Policy
While Mark Zuckerberg’s controversial Libra cryptocurrency project is what initially got him into the House for another hearing on October 23rd, the House Financial Services Committee Members took this as an opportunity to express their concerns about Facebook’s paramount involvement in a variety of controversial issues.
Each committee member was given five minutes to address their Facebook policy concerns with Zuckerberg, and they did not waste their time, especially Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as she interrogates him regarding Facebook’s influential role in endangering the nation’s democracy and general safety.
Here’s a brief rundown of the topics she addresses that continue to put Zuckerberg and his insidiously dangerous Facebook ‘megaphone‘ under hot water to this very day:
Libra Cryptocurrency: Another Scam to hide behind an Outsourced Entity in order to Evade Accountability? This time, he’s going for the Poor and “Unbanked”
On June 14, 2019, Zuckerberg released his plans to launch a cryptocurrency project called Libra on Facebook, and since then, it’s been facing a lot of criticism from the government and anti-trust regulators.
The Libra cryptocurrency is a part of Facebook’s future mobile payment system, proposed at Facebook’s annual developer conference in April. The crypto currency project aims to allow Facebook’s 2.4 billion worldwide users to exchange payments with minimal fees and without the need for a third-party software.
“It’s not that Facebook is evil, which it may or may not be. Facebook hasn’t shown an ability to think through unintended consequences or prevent bad actors from weaponizing its platform.”
ScotT Galloway, Marketing Professor at NYU, Author of “The Four”, well-known for his unsparing critiques of influential tech companies
But, while the idea appears to have good intentions behind it, much like many of Zuckerberg’s other ideas, the problems and potential dangers are in the details.
So, the real issue is in how the Libra cryptocurrency project can potentially influence Facebook’s extremely wide global user base in a number of negative ways.
“If 50 percent of Facebook users all of a sudden use this coin, then you potentially have a new reserve currency globally. If you would weaponize a global currency and start monkeying with it, you could have what capitalists fear more than war: a recession–or some sort of a global economic meltdown.”
SCOTT GALLOWAY
California Representative Congressman Brad Sherman interrogated Zuckerberg extensively on this topic during the Financial Services Committee Hearing, which illustrated these repercussions specifically.
Brad Shermon eloquently points out a pattern that Zuckerberg struggles to answer. He appears to be attempting to hide behind platitudes of egalitarian ideals in order to avoid accountability for content controlled by his platform.
“…but for the richest man in the world to come here and hide behind the poorest people in the world and say that’s who you are trying to help, you are trying to help those to whom the dollar is not a good currency—drug dealers, terrorists and tax evaders..”
Rep. Brad Sherman to Zuckerberg at the House FInancial Services COMmittee Hearing
Cambridge Analytica: AOC cites Facebook’s Biggest Scandal that brought ‘Catastrophic Impact’ to American Democracy in the 2016 Election
But the House Financial Services Committee wasn’t having it, and AOC Exposes Facebook’s Flaws for All to See:
"So, you won't take down lies or you will take down lies? I think that's just a pretty simple yes or no."
Complete exchange between @RepAOC@AOC and Mark Zuckerberg at today's House Financial Services Cmte hearing.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez begins her five-minute interrogation by citing Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal from 2018. Her reasoning is that, before even considering the Libra cryptocurrency issue, it’s important to analyze how Facebook handled Cambridge Analytica because the Libra cryptocurrency project has potential for far worse.
Essentially, AOC gave Zuckerberg a chance to make a case for himself. He had an opportunity to show that he and Facebook are equipped to adequately deal with the repercussions of establishing Libra, and to answer this fundamental question: has Facebook learned from its past mistakes regarding the Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal so that they could take the necessary actions to ensure that data scandals won’t happen again?
Next she asks, what year and month did Zuckerberg first become aware of Cambridge Analytica? He doesn’t remember, but it was probably around March 2018, when the scandal became public.
When did Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg become aware of Cambridge Analytica? Again, Zuckerberg says he doesn’t know, so AOC asks a follow-up question. Did anyone on his leadership team know about Cambridge Analytica prior to when the initial report came from The Guardian on December 11, 2015? Now, for this one, Zuckerberg believes that this was the case and that members of his leadership team were tracking it internally. Additionally, he takes this opportunity and appears to try to avoid responsibility by saying that he was aware of Cambridge Analytica as an entity, but he also wasn’t aware of how they were using Facebook specifically.
When was the issue discussed with his board member Peter Teal? Once again, Zuckerberg proclaims his ignorance, to which AOC iterates that his answers are unacceptable. It is unacceptable that he did not properly discuss the “largest data scandal” with respect to his company that had “catastrophic impacts on the 2016 election.”
While Zuckerberg flaggingly scrambles to defend himself by explaining that they did discuss the issue when it happened, he fails to answer whether Facebook is capable of being accountable for their actions by addressing their mistakes with handling data privacy so that they wouldn’t be repeated. If Facebook truly cared about handling data privacy, then they would have taken extensive measures to address the issue. Maybe then, Zuckerberg would’ve actually remembered enough about the issue to answer AOC’s questions.
Facebook Policy allows Politicians to Pay to Spread Misinformation
Zuckerberg’s seemingly flagrant irresponsibility with regards to handling Facebook leads AOC to confront him on the current hot topic: “Facebook’s official policy to allow politicians to pay to spread disinformation in 2020 elections and in the future.” She demands to know how far this policy could be pushed before Facebook decides to fact-check and take down these posts, because, again, they have the potential to influence the next election directly.
Could politicians enact voter suppression by advertising wrong election date to zip codes with primarily black communities? Zuckerberg vaguely explains that content will be taken down if it were to cause an obvious immediate harm. Okay, but what if it’s not obvious? Will his answer suffice then? The answer is likely no, because infinite ways can be found to dodge this issue, then, once again, and we’re back to square one.
Further she presses him, Could she (AOC) run ads targeting Republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the Green New Deal? Zuckerberg is unsure, but answers that she probably could. Elizabeth Warren recently did something similar in her “Zuckerberg Supports Trump” ad.
Does Zuckerberg see the potential problem here with a complete lack of fact-checking on political advertisements? To that, he appeals to common morals: lying is bad. His logic is that he doesn’t want to prevent constituents from seeing that politicians had lied, which clarifies that Zuckerberg won’t take these ads down.
The problem with this logic is that the general public is assumed to have the ability to differentiate between lies and the truth. But, as this current presidency has proven, many, if not most, people clearly do not.
Thoughts on Zuckerberg’s On-Going Dinner Parties with Far-Right Figures? Debatable, or so he tries to imply.
Further, Zuckerberg’s on-going dinner parties in which he cultivates relationships with known politically far-right figures is also suspicious. After all, there have been numerous times that alt-right entities abused social media platforms in the service of discrimination and hate crimes.
Did Zuckerberg discuss the alleged social media bias against conservatives, and does he believe that this bias exists? Zuckerberg indicated that he couldn’t remember the question or answer it, appearing to want to avoid confirming or denying these associations under oath, so AOC moved on.
Next she asked Zuckerberg to explain why he named the Daily Caller, a publication well-documented to have ties to white supremacists, an official fact-checker for Facebook? Once again, Zuckerberg tries to escape responsibility by saying that they don’t actually appoint independent fact-checkers and that they come from an independent organization called the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) that has rigorous standards for who they allow to serve as a fact-checking entity.
White-supremacist-tied publications meet a rigorous standard for fact-checking? Zuckerberg had no answer, which is again, an indicator that she had pushed him into areas he would prefer to avoid. After research, it turns out that he lied, or at minimum mis-led in his answer on multiple points, First, the (IFCN) have generally “certified” a total of 62 organizations globally, but it is, indeed, Facebook and presumably Zuckerberg personally, that chose the 6 in particular that are Facebook partners.
There’s a Pattern Here: Facebook and other Social Media Platforms Need to be held Accountable
Clearly, Zuckerberg still thinks that he could get by with excuses in an effort to absolve himself from the endless blame that Facebook receives from The Media for meddling with numerous socially-influential affairs.
It’s hard not to notice that while Mr. Zuckerberg has been given many chances to make amends for Facebook’s failures, the opportunity has been for naught, apparently, because his private for-profit company is only interested in maintaining user engagement, which he now claims is in the name of free speech and equality. However, clearly, these cannot actually be achieved without specifically executing processes that address the discriminatory practices.
Imagine a Monster Dictator who claims he wants to Free us all from “Traditional Gatekeepers” while he Controls the Ultimate Gate with Iron Fist
Here, a man who almost single-handedly controls the world’s largest social network – with users counted in billions, implies that there is any connection whatsoever with heroes of the history of journalism and what is now disparaged as “The Media” but was once called the 4th Estate.
People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world — a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society. People no longer have to rely on traditional gatekeepers in politics or media to make their voices heard, and that has important consequences.
– Mark Zuckerberg
Claiming that, somehow, thousands of independent newspapers with tens of thousands of writers and editors, challenging governments and investigating corruption and lies is similar in any way to a digital dictatorship that controls every word or image through its algorithms, and has as its only goal to maximize private profits, is an outrage – and yet this point has only been hinted at in even the most critical coverage.
Express Ourselves at Scale? Really? As long as His Algorithm deems it in Facebook’s Monetary Interest
Mentioning the “traditional gatekeepers” blocking voices, as if his private, for-profit platform has no gate and makes no decision in which voices are heard and by whom is a lie, told in plain sight, so enormous it is shocking.
Except, as he clearly hopes, on hearing vague pronouncements about a fantasy world, most will just switch focus, away from the real way his digital empire functions to some kind of vague discussion of “free speech”. And, in the case of political advertising, speech that he collects millions of dollars to promote and propagate, with no thought of actual free speech that will be drowned out and silenced by his dictatorial decision. That’s the real gatekeeper at work.
Talking about “free speech” as having any role whatsoever on a platform where exposure is controlled 100% by the same network’s private corporate ownership is worse than any Jospeh Goebbles propaganda the Nazi’s ever came up with and is an Orwellian nightmare come to life.
Since Zuckerberg’s speech was clearly designed to confuse and cover up this simple, obvious fact, using Trump style repetition of simple irrelevant lies to influence people to abandon the more complex truths, the underlying truth bears repeating.
I heard #MarkZuckerberg's ‘free expression’ speech, in which he referenced my father. I'd like to help Facebook better understand the challenges #MLK faced from disinformation campaigns launched by politicians. These campaigns created an atmosphere for his assassination. pic.twitter.com/h97gvVmtSZ
Yelling “fire” in a Crowded Theater is of no use if the Crowd can be digitally disappeared at any time
Claiming that “censorship” of “free speech” is not appropriate for a platform that controls who sees and hears that content 100% at all times has to stand as the criminal obfuscation of the century.
As misleading propaganda it is brilliant in its stupidity. To imply that any speech at any time is “free” on a platform that controls access by each and every user at all times is ludicrous at best and vile propaganda at worst.
Have millions of dollars to spend to ensure that your lies are seen by millions? No problem. Have inflammatory disgusting views to share? Sure, the algorithms love anything that increases “engagement”.
On the other hand, as members of the actual 4th Estate found out during the “Great Purge” of 2018, if Zuckerberg & Co decide that you should not be seen for any reason, usually a reason that pertains to increasing profits for Facebook, then you are disappeared, Pinochet style, and can forget about your “free speech” being heard or seen ever again.
Nice way to build a “5th Estate “ to protect us from “traditional gatekeepers”.
We intentionally made a Facebook ad with false claims and submitted it to Facebook’s ad platform to see if it’d be approved. It got approved quickly and the ad is now running on Facebook. Take a look: pic.twitter.com/7NQyThWHgO
Algorithmic Crimes are the Real Story, bigger and worse than Traditional Antitrust Violations
Just mention the word “algorithm” and we all tend to get glossy-eyed and begin to lose interest.
Never mind that the results of your Google search are controlled by algorithms that “decide” what you should be allowed to see or not, while what you may buy is controlled by the private, infinitely biased algorithm employed by Amazon, whose only goal is to increase its own profits at your expense. And then there’s Facebook.
A master of dystopian science fiction would be hard pressed to envision a more sinister, hellish world than the one we already inhabit, where what you think, what you think you “know”, what you believe and what you consume are all controlled by what are essentially robot brains, owned and controlled by evil private corporations with trillion dollar market caps.
And Mr. Zuckerberg has the nerve to talk about “Free Speech” on Facebook? In the words of Greta Thunberg “How dare you!”, and as in the struggle against the powers that profit from the accelerated extinction of future generations, it’s time to end the Algorithmic Dictatorships and, via the real Fourth Estate and free the billions that are, as yet, unknowingly victimized, by whatever means necessary.
According to “a source knowledgeable about the probe” and quoted by Reuters and The Washington Post in stories today, more than 30 attorneys general will announce the investigation next week.
In response to the news Google issued the following statement:
“We continue to work constructively with regulators, including attorneys general, in answering questions about our business and the dynamic technology sector”
Google representative Jose Castaneda
The source also intimated that the probe would be focused “on the intersection of privacy and antitrust”, but did not give any further detail.
In July, the US Justice Department announced that it would begin a broad investigation into the possible anticompetitive practices of the largest technology companies. It has been considered likely that Google, Amazon, Facebook and possibly even Apple would be in the crosshairs.
The Federal Trade Commission, who are also responsible for the enforcement of antitrust violations, is looking into Amazon and Facebook and whether they have abused their dominance in online retail and social media, respectively.
Google, after having large fines levied against them in Europe in March for antitrust violations relating to online advertising, will now face the task of changing the outcome of similar accusations of misconduct in the US.
Amazon also has had difficulties coming out on top in European cases. Only yesterday in Paris, the Commercial Court handed down a verdict against the online giant, resulting in a 4 million euro fine and a demand that 7 key clauses in their agreement with “marketplace seller partners” be brought into compliance with French laws.
Meanwhile, Facebook is also under scrutiny as they are under investigation by the FTC for a potential breach of antitrust regulations. Similar to Google in the European case mentioned above, the probe into facebook involves its social media, digital advertising and mobile applications.
Graphic / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock
In a separate matter, Facebook is also under scrutiny by the European Commission in questions relating to its new Crypto Currency “Libra”. A more general inquiry into its possibly anticompetitive behaviors within the EU in also underway.
Overall, it appears likely that these various probes are only the beginning, as all of the massive tech companies mentioned are already the target of governments and politicians, particularly in the US and Europe.
In a peculiar twist, both Republicans and Democrats in the US seem to agree on at least one thing, that these companies are too big and too powerful and should be investigated at minimum and potentially targeted in antitrust actions for illegal behaviors.
The Trump Administration, AOC, Elizabeth Warren, even Joe Biden have come out in favor of breaking up big tech at the hands of the government, after serious violations of antitrust law have been established.
First is was the FaceApp that added years to your face with its app filter, in the FaceApp Challenge – with questionable issues regarding the origins (Russia) and terms of service agreement.
Now, from a more reassuring source, namely researchers in the US, including some from the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, we have the opportunity to see our selfies (and celebrity snaps) transformed into pseudo-classical portrait styles.
The web site upload system, currently down due to massive demand, uses GAN (Generative Adversarial Network) results from 45,000 images in the art history archives to create a new photo based on the original plus the relevant data instructions from the scan.
“With AI Portraits Ars anyone is able to use GAN models to generate a new painting, where facial lines are completely redesigned.
The model decides for itself which style to use for the portrait. Details of the face and background contribute to direct the model towards a style.
In style transfer, there is usually a strong alteration of colors, but the features of the photo remain unchanged. AI Portraits Ars creates new forms, beyond altering the style of an existing photo.”
AI Portraits Ars Web Site
As can be seen from the montage above (and the version with names added below) the results are often flattering in an odd ancient sort of way. Also, some, such a Keanu Reeves, are obvious (?) whereas others you might never guess!
So below the results and thanks for playing!
The AI Portraits web site should be back up shortly, assuming the rush to try it out eventually slows!
Don’t get me wrong, I am down with trips to see the Summer Blockbuster Sequels, Re-makes and Prequels, kids in tow and everyone knowing what to expect.
The Lion King, a film with huge promotion and advertising, and, in spite of the critics complaining about it being a computer generated clone, story wise, will nevertheless kill at the box office, Toy Story 4, an always skillful addition to the long and vaunted story of Toy Story, Spider-man: Far From Home, where nobody knows what number this sequel is, 6(?), by now we just pay and watch.
All of these are perfectly ok, solid summer tent pole fare, and only those living under a proverbial rock could miss seeing them at some point this season.
But an entertainingly ridiculous, and yet dark and even topical film (addressing “toxic masculinity” as a problem and a punch line at the same time), that has no superheroes and no computer generated kitty cats? That, I admit, I did not see coming.
“The Art of Self Defense”, currently in theaters, is the second film by writer / director Riley Sterns and stars Eisenberg who plays Casey Davies, an introverted, passive weakling who, after being attacked by a gang, is inspired to search for self defense methods.
After exploring the possibility of arming himself, he happens across an advertisement for a karate dojo.
This, inevitably, leads to a continuous transformation as the weakling gains not only skills of self defense, but goes on a wild ride into the universe of aggression and toxic masculinity that is at once incredible entertaining, tremendously funny and also, somehow, unsettling. It carries an altered tone in light of the recent explosion of animalistic behavior exposed from the likes of Weinstein, JefferyEpstein, and the guy in the White House.
A SEQUEL TO KARATE KID? Ha Ha, Nope
Alessandro Nivola is spot-on as the charismatic Sensei, while Imogen Poots is the perfect macho-chick foil as Anna, but the film ultimately rests on, and revolves around, it’s identity as the perfect vehicle for Eisenberg’s trademarked awkward, meekness. A meekness that belies a dark, yet thoughtful intensity beneath.
In a world of endless super hero sequels and remakes, I don’t about you, but for this scribe, a dark, intense and absoforkinglutely hilarious indie comedy is a powerfully satisfying and welcome break from all that, and some of the dire realities of our world as well.
