Tag Archives: YouTube

Billie Eilish makes her “secret” TikTok Debut and the content is…Wow

Shared Anecdote from her childhood leads to shocking physiological demonstration for the ages

Billie Eilish has jumped on the TikTok bandwagon and made her debut on the popular (potentially soon-to-be shut-down?) social media platform on Friday.  Her appearance is almost shockingly stark and impromptu; as is somewhat the norm for TikTok videos. Nevertheless seeing her calm, collected and insanely disheveled then proceeding to ram an entire Ukulele Head into her outstretched mouth does take things a bit, um. Out-there. 

Read More: 7 New Movies Releasing Soon to Rescue Us for the Holidays

Click to see ” I Would Leave Me If I Could
and help Independent bookstores.
Also available on Amazon.

One wonders, will she regret this in 5 years? Or is this just a bravely frank illustration of her strength of character? A deeper look into her private-yet-public ethos for fashion with her mix of Chanel Accessories and intently baggy body-hiding outfits?… Maybe just a selfie-video-goof on a boring off-day.

Only a couple days of the account being live and two posts in, she’s already quickly racked up tons of followers, with 4.3 million and 25 million likes.  Her amusing username, which initially appeared to be an attempt to hide the fact that this is coming from the biggest music star on the freaking planet, in other words, a secret account, has now been widely disseminated via the media @coochiedestroyer5.

New Account, of course, goes viral immediately

In her first video she tests out the viral Time Warp scan filter.  In her latest video, Eilish attempts a quite unusual challenge, apparently, something she did once when she was 15 years old – trying to fit the head of a ukulele into her mouth.  Ultimately she ends up gifting her followers with the insanely hilarious results.  

Billie TikTok debut comes shortly after she’s just released her latest song and music video for “Therefore I am”. 

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1327790004454756352/pu/vid/576x1024/aNHrK6LY04HWCY6V.mp4?tag=10

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

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

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

Apple’s Pro Lineup is Expanding: Just like the Minds of Creators

Not a problem but an opportunity to get ahead of the trend

In episode 3 of season 21 of ‘Law and Order’, aired last week, an attempt at a joke was made. It was only half-a-chuckle worth of humor and mildly outdated. The upshot was that anyone under 30 is a wannabe social media influencer and anyone over 30 hates social media and influencers.

This is true only in the sense that there is a perception that the new and ubiquitous side-hustle is to selfie-video yourself into a million followers on TikTok mindset is exploding, which it is.

And that it’s happening concurrent with the post-pandemic rejection of traditional employment. The logic being that to start a YouTube channel (TikTok etc) and get a life as a creator that is worth more ( albeit with well known downsides) than a 9 to 5.

Once again there’s a disconnect between Apple with its finger on the pulse of society and high tech appetites, and the ‘media’, ever stuck in an imaginary war between ‘consumers’ and ‘pros’.

So what is “Pro” in a world where everyone wants to produce pro content?

A, now funny, bunch articles published on the eve of Apple’s recent hardware reveal event on March 8th, detailed exactly why there would definitely not be a release of an upgraded ‘mac-mini style’ workstation. The general idea was that the consumer market is bigger and more important and, therefore, Apple would be smart ad postpone the ‘less important’ pro products.

Of course, that turned out to be wrong and the highlight of the event was the release of what’s now called the Mac Studio, including the double stacked mac-mini-styled knock off of the insanely expensive Mac Pro and the partner Studio Display. Many of those articles have been deleted, likely due to the embarrassment of being 100% dead opposite of what transpired.

Next Mitchell Clark , in The Verge, writes that Apple has a “Pro Problem” and is somehow lost in its branding. Apparently, according to the post, Apple is too quick on the trigger to brand something Pro and will have no choice but to start a new, presumably, semi-pro line up using the the new ‘Studio’ moniker.

While this has, in a sense, um, already happened, it is a sign of something entirely different and much more meaningful that is being either willfully ignored or lost in the forest for the trees.

To be fair, the article is, ultimately taking a positive spin on this, positing that changing all “pro” products to the tag “studio” would be smart and that the term “pro” is too restrictive.

What this side-steps is the reality of what the entire Pro-plus-Studio product category is all about. The idea that anyone that uses Apple desktop or MacBook Pro gear for digital content creation would also own an iPhone and possible an iPad is now a given.

What’s new is the huge strides that Apple is making on a daily basis in the ability for all Apple products to add value to all other Apple products. This is a complex transition that literally began at the inception of each product line and will reach a peak of interoperability in around March of 2024 (prediction).

And the Pro lineup, whatever it will be called at that time is, and will continue to be, at the forefront of that transition and insanely great transformation.

Always cheering makes for a dull story

As an aside, it is a well known media technique to couch an Apple ‘puff piece’ in the guise of a takedown. It makes sense, if you endlessly gush on the genius of Apple’s strategy and products, you come across like a fan-boy-ass-kisser and worse, like a shill trying to make bank on Apple just by applauding anything that comes down the pike.

The truth is that this anti-but-really-pro thing works.

The premise of this article, that Apple knows exactly what it’s doing and that there is a monumental shift taking place in society where the meaning of ‘Pro’ is not getting muddied by Apple, but rather, expanding and morphing into something new and huge, is less sexy than just saying, Apple’s lost and they muffed it, dude.

With or without Apple, the meaning of ‘Pro’ is changing, by the minute

The imaginary line that exists between a Pro user and a consumer is blurring. And, according to the verge article, it’s Apple’s fault by designating its high end Phones as Pro and Pro Max, while at the same time also ‘real’ pro gear like the Mac Pro and the Pro Display XDR.

What is really happening is that there is a rapidly growing demographic that needs the kind of computational prowess that was once insanely expensive, but at a semi-pro price.

If you are an influencer or a wannabe (supposedly this is ‘everyone under 30’, right?) and you are getting by on skimpy iPhone apps but want to get into software like Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro and so on, but need the power to produce in a hurry, what are your options?

Until the new Mac Studio Lineup those options were very pricy. Very. But now imagine a world where you could have an iPhone 13 Pro or Pro Max, a Mac Studio set up and, if you get a few sponsors or subscribers, a MacBook Pro with M1 Max for the road.

By all accounts you now have a full production ensemble with the power (more powerful than Mac Pro is already the headline) to do what would have had a price of tens of thousands of dollars, closer to 20k, just a year ago.

Now it’s only slightly more than what the non-pro cost in 2021.

The tail wags the dog or does it?

The real, and obviously more complex reality, is that Apple is both leading and following the real demographics in the Pro revolution that is already afoot.

The shift from influencers using glamorous instagram photos of lavish lifestyles (fake or not) to get status has changed into video driven authenticity and art leading the way and this trend is already impacting everything.

Facebook has a TikTok account now. Instagram has shifted to video first and is trying to escape photos altogether, the ‘creativity’ element in being a content creator is off the charts and getting more competitive by the second. NFTs are still not dead and being added as a thing to mainstream apps and platforms.

So, no, Apple does not have a “Pro Problem” they are trying to tailor the solution to the market. And the solution is more pro users than ever (what used to be called ‘pro-sumer’ in a now archaic and ridiculous sounding phrase) are getting more powerful tools and at a lower than ever cost.

Sorry not to be able to do a faux Apple take-down on this time. Does Apple make mistakes? Hell yes. Just this time it is the biggest non-mistake ever, and it wold be incredulous or worse to say otherwise. Glory to the Mac Studio and ‘Pro” users everywhere.

Related Articles:


Check out Lynxotic on YouTube

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at Bookshop.org

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

Germany’s Far-Right Political Party, the AfD, Is Dominating Facebook This Election

Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Ahead of a national vote this month, Citizen Browser data shows that posts promoting the AfD party appeared more than three times as often as rivals’

Earlier this month, Germany’s far-right nationalist political party Alternative für Deutschland, or the AfD, posted on Facebook. Widespread support for Sharia law among Muslims in Afghanistan, the group claimed, illustrated the danger “wenn sich Massen von Afghanen auf den Weg nach Deutschland und Europa machen” (“when masses of Afghans make their way to Germany and Europe”).

The post was soon shared by thousands of users and commented on by thousands more. It was one of many posts by AfD-related pages over the past couple of months that railed against immigration or, another popular topic, disparaged COVID-19 restrictions as unnecessary.

Despite its modest size in Germany, the AfD has been remarkably successful on Facebook. Data obtained through The Markup’s Citizen Browser project, in partnership with Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung, shows how the AfD has gained tremendous traction on Facebook in the run-up to a historically contentious national election to replace Angela Merkel, the long-serving chancellor, later this month. 

The Citizen Browser project, which collects data from a diverse panel of 473 German Facebook users, shows the party and its supporters have peppered Facebook with pages promoting its ideology, with posts on those pages appearing in our panelists’ news feeds at least three times as often as those from any rival party. 

Fewer unique panelists had posts from AfD-related pages appear in their news feeds than posts from the sister parties of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) and the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CDU/CSU), which led in this count, and from Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (Alliance 90/The Greens). But the data shows AfD deeply engaged with its core audience: The users who did see content from the AfD tended to see it repeatedly, and the AfD was especially good at reaching its own supporters.

Citizen Browser captures up to 50 posts from a panelist’s Facebook news feed one to three times a day. The Markup catalogued every time a post from a page named for a German political party appeared in our panelists’ feeds over the past two months, from July 20 to Sept. 16, 2021. We included any pages that mentioned “AfD” or one of its political rivals (“SPD,” “CDU,” or “FDP,” for example) in its name. We did not determine whether the page was officially sanctioned by the party itself. We removed any pages meant to disparage a party.

Posts from more than 200 different pages promoting the AfD party—the most pages of any party we looked at—appeared in our panelists’ feeds. While the quantity of pages promoting the center-left Social Democratic Party, the SPD, followed closely behind with 175 pages, posts from AfD pages appeared four times as often in our panelists’ news feeds. Our panelists were shown posts from the AfD more than 3,200 times, while they were shown SPD posts only about 760 times. 

The other major political party in Germany, the center-right Christian democratic political alliance, or the CDU/CSU, fared slightly better. Posts by pages related to those parties appeared in panelists’ news feeds around 850 times. But the AfD’s posts still appeared more than three times as often. 

The AfD’s dominance of our panelists’ news feeds is especially stark considering the makeup of our Citizen Browser panel in Germany. Our panel consists of more people who identified themselves as SPD and CDU/CSU supporters—62 and 82, respectively—than the 44 who identified themselves as AfD supporters. 

Those who did report aligning with the far-right party had an average of 55 posts from AfD-related pages appear in their news feeds in the eight weeks of data we examined. By comparison, supporters of the CDU/CSU had an average of just six CDU- or CSU-affiliated posts appear in their feeds.  

“Given its very limited number of participants, data from The Markup’s ‘Citizen Browser’ is simply not an accurate reflection of the content people see on Facebook,” Facebook spokesperson Basak Tezcan said in an emailed statement. “We actively reduce the distribution of content that is sensational, misleading, or are found to be false by our independent fact-checking partners. Our approach goes beyond addressing the issue post-by-post, so when Pages or Groups repeatedly share this kind of content, we reduce the distribution of all the posts from those Pages and Groups.”

The AfD did not respond to a request for comment.

Our analysis has limitations. Citizen Browser tracks a small percentage of Facebook users in Germany compared to the tens of millions of Germans on the platform and is unlikely to perfectly mirror what Facebook shows all of its users in Germany. On Sept. 1, Facebook introduced a new interface that affected captures for 3 percent of the panel across all parties. Some captures for this small subgroup of panelists could not be included in this study. 

But the panelists represent a diverse set of party affiliations across the political spectrum in the country, from AfD supporters to centrists to far more liberal users.

And AfD’s savvy on Facebook has been documented in past elections. 

The AfD’s Rise on Social Media

The AfD launched in 2013, initially as a conservative party harnessing skepticism of the European Union. Though it failed to reach the vote threshold for representation in the German Bundestag in the federal election that year, the group’s facility with social media quickly became evident.

“Directly in their beginning, in 2013, they began to install a very strong network of interconnected Facebook accounts for nearly all local branches of the party,” said Isabelle Borucki, an interim professor at the University of Siegen who studies German political parties online. The AfD operates on many platforms, but Borucki said it was clear the party “understood especially how this network works.”

By the next federal election, in 2017, the AfD had shifted further to the right, tightening its focus on issues like immigration. That year, the party captured about 12 percent of votes, part of a rising tide of right-wing populism in many Western countries. That performance made the party the third-largest in the Bundestag, behind the far more established SDP and CDU/CSU.

It isn’t just Facebook where the AfD has performed well, either. This year, a report from Süddeutsche Zeitung and AlgorithmWatch that relied on data from hundreds of users showed how Facebook-owned Instagram seemed to favor right-wing content, with posts from the AfD tending to appear higher up in users’ feeds. 

While it’s difficult to say how social media popularity translates to votes, many observers have attributed the AfD’s growth, at least partially, to its social media strategy.

“They managed to use social media to explode and find people and citizens that weren’t interested in politics before,” said Juan Carlos Medina Serrano, a Ph.D. student at the Technical University of Munich who has studied the AfD’s use of social media and is now heading data operations for Germany’s Christian Social Union party.

In past elections, researchers and journalists have tried to measure how well the AfD has reached users on Facebook compared to other political parties. Like The Markup, they also found that the AfD has been able to use Facebook to find a large online audience.

After the 2017 national election, a Washington Post analysis noted that AfD posts had been shared more than 800,000 times that year, far outpacing all other major parties put together.

In 2019, one report found that AfD posts on Facebook accounted for about 85 percent of shared content from German political parties, according to Der Spiegel. A researcher told the outlet at the time that the AfD had become “the country’s first Facebook party.”

Facebook has highlighted its efforts to combat misinformation in past German elections. In 2017, after the last German federal election, the company said it had removed tens of thousands of suspicious accounts to clamp down on the spread of false information. 

Facebook also announced earlier this month that it had removed a network of pages associated with Germany’s anti-lockdown Querdenken movement that promoted violent content and health misinformation. The movement is not directly aligned with a political party, although it shares its COVID-skeptical perspective with the AfD.  

This month’s vote may present new challenges for the social network. In June, Politico reported that there had been a spike in election-related misinformation as far-right social media users appeared to be laying the groundwork to make claims of election fraud after the vote.

What’s Driving the AfD’s Success on Facebook?

Experts point to several factors that have contributed to the AfD’s Facebook presence. 

As the Citizen Browser data shows, the AfD and its supporters tend to run more active pages in general than their rivals, setting up relatively small, localized pages that garner support across the country. 

The AfD, researchers say, also relies more on sensational, aggravating content, which is a perspective Facebook rewards with greater reach. “They trigger anger, fear—I would say anarchic or basic emotions,” Borucki said. “Those trigger people and affect people more than bare facts.” One recent AfD post found in our dataset bemoaning “climate hysteria,” for example, led to more than 5,000 “angry” reactions on Facebook. 

This strategy seems to be catching on with other political groups. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that some European parties had shifted policy positions to align with what performs well on Facebook, including more negative content.

The CDU didn’t respond to The Markup’s requests for comment, and the SPD declined to comment.

Like many conservative politicians in the United States, the AfD has been eager to court voters skeptical of COVID-19 restrictions and vaccines, leaning into a populist stance against preventative COVID-19 measures. 

Facebook says it attempts to automatically tag any content related to COVID-19 with a flag sending users to reliable information. The Citizen Browser data shows that, of the posts shown to our panelists, posts from the AfD were by far the most likely to be tagged by Facebook as being related to COVID-19. Our panelists were shown AfD posts tagged by Facebook for being COVID-related more than 250 times. In contrast, our panelists were shown posts from the SPD with tags related to COVID-19 fewer than 15 times, and this was the second most tagged in our dataset.

Many of the AfD posts inveigh against lockdown measures and suggest that the vaccines may not be as effective as health officials claim. A post about infections spread in a club that required proof of vaccination, for example, called vaccine-related restrictions quatsch, or nonsense. 

The group’s posts remain popular, but it’s also not clear whether those posts are leading to new votes. The party is projected to end up in fourth or fifth place in the upcoming election.

Since the 2017 election, Medina Serrano said, the AfD’s explosive growth on Facebook seems to have leveled off. Now, he said, the party has gone from a strategy of looking to pull in new voters to one of cementing its base in German politics through Facebook.

“It’s more about maintaining the base than growing—it’s already capped, in my opinion,” Medina Serrano said. “But we’ll see the results on election night.” 

This article was originally published on The Markup By: Angie Waller and Colin Lecher and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.


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

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

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

In Response to The Markup’s Reporting, Some YouTubers Are Ditching the Platform

Photo Credit / Will Norbury / Unsplash

They said Google’s decision to block advertisers from seeing “Black Lives Matter” and other social justice YouTube videos was the last straw

By: Aaron Sankin

Following a recent Markup investigation revealing a secret Google Ads blocklist that hides Black Lives Matter YouTube videos from advertisers—but allowed them to find videos related to “White lives matter”—some small YouTube creators have pledged to leave the platform.

“I will not post any further content on the platform,” Carrie the One, a drag queen and YouTuber with a few dozen followers, said in an email. “I hope that by walking away from YouTube, we can inspire others to join us and put enough pressure on them to change course and do better for all of us.”

“I understand it’s one of the largest media sharing sites,” wrote another streamer who goes by the name Jambo and is mostly on Twitch, “but morals matter, and theirs are not for me.”

Both said that the decision was not hard for them because they hadn’t dedicated much time to YouTube content and didn’t depend on its ad revenue for their livelihood.

Google would not comment on the defections.

The Markup’s two-part investigative series, published earlier this month, dug into the Google Ads portal that allows advertisers to pick specific YouTube videos and channels for their ads. We found that Google’s blocklist missed most of the hate terms and slogans we checked but blocked equivalent social justice terms.

When we took our findings to Google, the company blocked all but three of the hate terms, but it also increased exponentially the number of social justice terms it blocked for ad searches, eliminating advertisers’ ability to search for 83 percent of the terms on our list, including “Black excellence,” “civil rights,” and “LGBTQ.”

The Markup also found discrepancies in how different religions were treated. When we first tested the portal last November, we found that terms like “Muslim parenting” and “Muslim fashion” were blocked for searches, whereas “Christian fashion” and “Christian parenting” were not—nor were the anti-Muslim hate terms “white sharia” and “civilization jihad.”

Rather than lift its ban on phrases containing “Muslim,” Google Ads now also blocks those and other innocuous words in combination with “Christian,” “Buddhist,” and “Jewish.”

As the investigation traveled on social media last week, with thousands of people sharing posts about it, dozens tweeted that they’d had enough and would quit the platform.

We spoke to eight YouTubers who said they were quitting, each with relatively small followings of less than 2,000 YouTube subscribers apiece. They said their decisions to leave the platform reflect a desire to push back at a powerful tech company they believe has done a poor job of listening to their concerns.

“I was pretty disgusted that a platform would use such thinly-veiled tactics and exhibit such overt disregard for the experiences and voices of marginalized folks,” Carrie the One said in an email.

“We know that racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and islamophobia exist and thrive within the systems and structures that our society operates within, but to see those same forces INTENTIONALLY employed by a platform that claims to protect the same folks they are targeting was more than I felt like I could tolerate.”

Google would not respond to The Markup’s questions for the original investigation about why terms like “Black Lives Matter” were blocked—or why it expanded the block.

In response to questions for this story, Google spokesperson Christopher Lawton said in an email: “We know that many brands want to reach audiences who are interested in social justice causes and we want our creators who make videos about these topics to thrive on YouTube.”

He added that YouTube “videos about topics like Black Lives Matter, Black culture and Black excellence, can and do monetize on YouTube, along with topics related to a wide range of social justice issues,” meaning that if advertisers can find these videos despite the block, the videos themselves can run ads.  

Graham Jenkins, a video game streamer who uploads on the channel 170Out, said the revelations in The Markup’s investigation pushed him over the edge.

“It’s been on my mind to move from YouTube for a little while now,” Jenkins said in an email. “This isn’t the first time that YouTube has blocked phrases like this but allowed right-wing content to stay unchallenged. I think there was an issue where they blocked LGBT content previously, but are quite happy to allow anti-LGBT videos to remain untouched.”

He was referring to research in 2019 by a group of YouTube creators that showed the platform was systematically demonetizing videos that contained LGBTQ content. YouTube was also criticized for knowingly leaving homophobic content accessible on its platform.

Jenkins said he would stop uploading new content to YouTube as soon as he found another platform that is free for videos of any length. 

“Sadly, there are currently not any other strong distribution options out there to compete with YouTube…”

— streamer who goes by the handle Glam Shatterskull

That might not be so easy. Other YouTubers told The Markup that the platform’s massive reach and ease of use made the choice to stop posting there more difficult.

“Sadly, there are currently not any other strong distribution options out there to compete with YouTube,” said a streamer who goes by the handle Glam Shatterskull and previously posted video gaming content to the platform.

“I would love to see Twitch flesh out its video production offerings,” he said. “In the meantime I will most likely be building out my own website to host video content.”

These content creators weren’t the only ones with harsh words for Google following revelations about its advertising blocklist.

The method Google used to add previously unblocked terms to its blocklist in response to our investigation makes future similar watchdog reporting impossible.

The blocked terms are now indistinguishable in the code from the responses the portal gives for gibberish. Because we now cannot know for certain which terms are blocked, as opposed to the platform not finding any related videos, Google has shielded itself from future scrutiny of its keyword blocks on Google Ads.

This didn’t sit right with Sen. Ron Wyden (D–OR), who authored legislation in 2019 that sought to require tech companies to audit their algorithms for bias.

“Google clearly has a lot of work to do to block hateful videos from advertisers,” said Wyden, who said he plans to  reintroduce the bill. “Hiding how it screens those videos is exactly the wrong way to respond to legitimate reporting.”

Lawton, the Google spokesperson, declined to comment on Wyden’s criticism.

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

Recent Articles:


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

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

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

Elon Musk promises Starlink’s internet Max Speed will Double by end of 2021: in UK some say it already did

What began as a “Better Than Nothing Beta” is morphing into to a better than expected sign-up drive

According to SpaceX, there are now more than 1,000 subscribers actively using the service. With its current beta version, the Starlink satellite kit for both domestic and international, users can expect data speeds ranging from 50Mb/s to 150 Mb/s and latency from 20 to 40 ms. 

In a response on Twitter, Musk promised that speeds would double to up to 300 Mb/s later this year. He also mentioned that the latency should improve to 20 ms. 

“When satellites are far from Earth, latency is high, resulting in poor performance for activities like video calls and online gaming. Starlink satellites are over 60 times closer to Earth than traditional satellites, resulting in lower latency and the ability to support services typically not possible with traditional satellite internet,” based on the Starlink’s website. 

The speed is the key and faster (with lower latency) is what everyone needs

300 Mb/s will be a very welcome speed upgrade, particularly for those in low to medium population density areas that are the primary target. Musk noted that those in city and urban areas, cellular will often have more advantages than satellites since those systems will be improving also, with 5g roll outs, for example.

Musk’s goal is to have most of the Earth covered and at least partially subscribed by 2022.

Those living in rural areas of the UK and using the beta version of the Starlink satellite are already seeing higher-than-originally-promised internet speeds. 

Many who had previously only had traditional (traditionally slow and bad that is) satellite internet were astounded by the extent of the improvement, and pleasantly surprised on measurements how fast the service already is, considering there are many continuous improvements yet to come.

According to an interview from one user who lives in Bredgar, Kent, his household’s service often lagged between .05 and 1 Mb/s making simple tasks like streaming Netflix or downloading video games impossible or nearly so. Using Starlink he now averages 175 Mbps to 215 Mbps which a stark difference than his prior service.

For the rest of this year and into the foreseeable future more Starlink satellites are expected to be launched into orbit nearly every week, and the eventual total could reach over 30,000, the number already approved by the FCC (max total 42,000!). It is unclear if that number will be necessary, or ever achieved, but the service will see steady improvements as the total density increases.

Also, Musk has indicated that, beginning in 2022, there will be a new satellite design upgrade featuring laser systems to allow for satellite to satellite interaction. Speeds after those improvements come online might eventually reach 2Gbps which is faster than the terrestrial fiber systems currently available to consumers.

If you want to order, or pre-order with a timeline based on the availability in your area, you can register on the Starlink website. Bear in mind that the program is currently limited to users in select regions in the Northern US, Canada and the UK. The price for the Beta service is $99 a month plus a $499 one-time fee for the equipment. 


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

Find books on Space ExplorationSustainable Energy and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

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

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

YouTube Highest Paid List for 2020 out, and yes #1 is 9yrs old

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Top 10 YouTube stars and their earning power for the year

Most of the 2019 top earners spots have carried forward into 2020 and continue to rake in millions of dollars and subscribers for their video clips. With Ryan Kaji at #1 and Mr. Beast at #2 it appears that the absolute top of the YouTube pyramid, both have a formula that just keeps on going. Both the numbers based on earning and, even more so, views, are absolutely astronomical – implying a kind of snowball effect for the top accounts.

Surprising because of his age, yet at the same time not so surprising, is how 9-year-old Ryan Kaji of “Ryan’s World” has once again placed at the very top of the list for the highest paid YouTuber for 2020.  Starting up in 2015, his videos have since totaled a whopping 43,907,425,279 views (43 billion!).

Last year he earned $26 million and this year he earned a considerable amount more at $29.5 million.  That is a whole lot of money for making videos that show the young boy unboxing toys, creating DIY arts and crafts and science experiments. 

According to Forbes:

“The nine-year-old star is flying high—literally. This November he became the first YouTuber featured in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade with a float based on his superhero alter ego. It was a marketing ploy as much as it was a thrilling moment for the kids who tune into Kaji’s videos of DIY science experiments, family storytime and reviews of new toys. That’s just the start: The bulk of his business comes from licensing deals for more than 5,000 Ryan’s World products—everything from bedroom decor and action figures to masks and walkie talkies.”

#1 Ryan Kaji

  • Earnings: $29.5 million
  • Views: 12.2 billion
  • Subscribers: 41.7 million

#2 Mr. Beast (Jimmy Donaldson)

  • Earnings: $24 million
  • Views: 3 billion
  • Subscribers: 47.8 million

#3 Dude Perfect

  • Earnings: $23 million
  • Views: 2.77 billion
  • Subscribers: 57.5 million 

#4 Rhett and Link

  • Earnings: $20 million 
  • Views: 1.9 billion
  • Subscribers: 41.8 million

#5 Markiplier (Mark Fischbach)

  • Earnings: $19.5 million
  • Views: 3.1 billion
  • Subscribers: 27.8 million

#6 Preston Arsement

  • Earnings: $19 million 
  • Views: 3.3 billion
  • Subscribers: 33.4 million

#7 Nastya (Anastasia Radzinskaya)

  • Earnings: $18.5 million
  • Views: 39 billion
  • Subscribers: 190.6 million

#8 Blippi (Stevin John)

  • Earnings: $17 million 
  • Views: 8.2 billion
  • Subscribers: 27.4 million

#9 David Dobrik

  • Earnings: $15.5 million
  • Views: 2.7 billion
  • Subscribers: 18 million

#10 Jeffree Star

  • Earnings: $15 million
  • Total Views (from June 2019 to June 2020): 600 million
  • Total Subscribers: 16.9 million

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

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

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

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

The Social Dilemma 2.0: Follow the Money Edition

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Netflix

More than two months ago we published a review and commentary on the Netflix Documentary The Social Dilemma entitled :

The Social Dilemma: Forget the Critics and Watch this Important Netflix Documentary Now

As the title indicates, the original review finds the documentary important and more than worth viewing, even to the extent that it should be considered as something that’s important beyond the entertainment value. And while nothing in that article needs, from our perspective, to be altered and still stands, there is an omission that has grown in importance over the intervening weeks and months.

The omission was not only in the review, and virtually every other review we’ve seen, but also is a glaring one in the film itself. As a matter of fact that omission is so large and so glaring that it warrants a deeper look. Hence the title of this piece: The Social Dilemma 2.0: Follow the Money Edition.

Why “Follow the Money”? Because the film, in its admittedly excellent execution, chose to follow a personal, social and psychological thread in its storytelling arc, and, out of necessity, since the subject matter is so huge and complex, took the comments from the “insider experts” who comprised the on-camera interview segments, and featured mainly those that reinforced the personal, family and social perspective.

Indeed, the film included a fictional family, presumably meant to show how, mainly social media platforms such as facebook, were negatively affecting individuals and society as a whole, through fake news and internet-addictions fostered by the software and algorithm designs.

And this “slant” was carried almost to the point, by the very end of the show, of connecting the software based social media designs and corporate behavior of Facebook and others, to the larger growing malaise in society and the world at large.

Unfortunately, by using the fictional family, trying to show how both young and old are impacted, the scope, depth and severity of the underlying problem was, in essence, minimized.

Read more: Dig deeper into Netflix’s “The Social Dilemma” with these books on the dangers of Social Media

Above: Photo / Netflix

Based on online public comments people seemed to take away that the idea that the film was accusing social media and facebook in particular of, was of causing people to become addicted to social media, for greed and profit, and that this was pretty much the center of the problem.

Google, Amazon and others were only mentioned in passing and the greed and economic problems associated with big tech was touched on and passed over in order to make the case, inadvertently, but nevertheless, that this was an individual, social and personal problem, and one that could be blamed on social media technology.

Arguments and rebuttals arose over the finer points of addictive behavior in general and how social media or internet addiction was just one of many human foibles, and how no hard proof could be compiled to link facebook or any other online platform indisputably to any particular individuals behavior, blah, blah, blah.

All of this became an easy, knee-jerk way to dismiss, out of hand, all the deep and serious problems that were hinted at in the groundbreaking documentary and thereby stop, effectively, any possibility for the film to become a general wake-up call to all who want to isolate and identify the massive, expanding and world destroying effect these monolithic tech behemoths are having on life on this planet.

Which is what the film aspired to and had to potential to be a beginning of.

In our original review we made an attempt to shift some of the focus, away from the more narrow one of looking at individual personal problems and affronts that are being perpetrated, bad as that is, toward a more global and economically based set of concerns.

To that end we cherry picked quotes from the on-camera interviews in the film in order to point out that there was a larger, even more dangerous set of issues at stake that were only hinted at in the film. (We have reprinted a few of them interspersed below)

“Companies like Google and Facebook are some of the wealthiest and most successful of all time. They have relatively few employees. They just have this giant computer that rakes in money, right? Now, what are they being paid for? That’s a really important question.”

-Jaron Lanier, founding father of virtual reality, computer scientist

This quote is and inquiry into the deeper issue; one that is car larger than the question of whatever dangers there may be for individuals who may experience negative symptoms of “internet and social-media addiction”.

Focusing on the personal problems of users of social media in this context is like looking at a planet whose economic system is based on brutal exploitive human slavery and wanting to discuss the food, or living conditions or wardrobe choices offered to the 7 billion slaves.

“This is a new kind of marketplace now. It’s a marketplace that never existed before. And it’s a marketplace that trades exclusively in “human futures”. Just like there are markets that trade in pork belly futures or oil futures. We now have markets that trade in human futures at scale. And those markets have produced the trillions of dollars that have made the internet companies the richest companies in the history of humanity”

-Shoshanna Zuboff PhD., Harvard Business School Professor, emeritus and author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”

Like tobacco companies in the US 50 or more years ago the tech giants need helpless, addicted, impoverished victims to hold up their empire. And, just in the same way, the cost of using the “product” of big tech is pain, suffering and eventually death. And ultimately, just like with Big Tobacco , when the customer base “wakes up” all the empires will collapse, seemingly in a heartbeat.

In the meantime, unfortunately, misdirecting the scope and center of the problem is helping to maintain the empires and poses no threat to them, managing only to confuse and obfuscate the size and severity of the real problem that has emerged.

Above: Photo / Netflix

The real problem with having four companies control a massive percentage of the economy with virtually unlimited profit margins and almost no employees

As the quote above states. These “internet” firms are raking in trillions of dollars in a business model that is based on various forms of exploitation and virtual human trafficking.

This is where we diverge from, and must go far deeper into the problems, than the documentary was able to go.

Firstly, it was left unclear who exactly the firms are that are being singled out in the film. By calling the film “The Social Dilemma” which echos “The Social Network” film based on the origin story of Zuckerberg and Facebook, there’s an implication that Facebook is the “main” problem.

Naturally this choice was logical given that ex-Facebook and ex-Google heavyweights were represented in the interviews. However this is a huge, misleading and erroneous perspective.

Of the huge tech monopolistic-monoliths Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft are the most dangerous. (Apple, in an exception, however, for example, as it designs and builds actual physical products, although it is often unfairly combined with the other 4).

For the sake of simplicity, Microsoft, appearing, deceptively, like harmless-looking old grandfather by comparison, would be a complicated choice to tie into any exposé, therefore was never mentioned. (that we are aware of).

As a matter of fact, Amazon could have had a whole separate yet equally disturbing documentary assigned to its “alleged” crimes and misdemeanors, but ex-Amazon employees would be unlikely to come forward, potentially due to fear of retribution and possible bodily harm.

Thus, one is left with Facebook & Google and then Google becomes partially let off the hook, in the documentary, by focus on “social media”.

The Real Crimes are Economic and based on Inherently Evil Business Models that can not be Removed without causing the Giants Themselves to Collapse

And that’s why they can not be “reformed”. Like a somnambulistic slave population from some kind of dystopian sci-fi fantasy, within a short span of around twenty-five years of internet life, we have seen the emergence of an entirely new and, unfortunately ugly, economic system.

This new system created Jeff Bezos’ obscene, circa 200 billion fortune, as well as the behavioral diseases explored covered extensively in “The Social Dilemma”. The system has also created the sick twisted saga of WeWork and the exploitative business models of companies like Uber and Grub-hub and the like, thereby creating the “gig economy”.

The pandemic that began in 2020 has massively accelerated this highly problematic “new economic order” until Amazon is closing in on being the largest single employer in the USA. (currently #2 with over 750,000).

Why is that not something to applaud? Doesn’t that make them “ok” while Facebook is the real villain?

To the contrary, it can be argued that Amazon’s business model is even more destructive than Facebooks, with it’s vast system of not only exploiting workers but maintaining a serfdom of suppliers and small business “marketplace partners” who are eaten-up and spat-out with a viciousness no historical dictator could ever hope to match.

It is an historical fact that all of the (non-amazon) retail trade is seen by Amazon as an enemy to be eliminated, and that their explicit goal is to destroy the possibility of any economic transaction taking place, in countries where they operate, without Amazon earning a cut – a kind of Amazon-tax on all transactions. “Your margin is my opportunity” as Bezos famously cackled.

This mirrors, in products and computer services, the model of Facebook and Google have in online traffic and ad income, whose goals are to control and take a massive profit from at least 99% of all “digital” advertising revenues. These already represent the majority of all advertising and are growing in total amount and percentage every year.

“In 2019, digital will account for 50.1% of total media ad spending worldwide thanks to strong growth from major digital ad sellers like Google, Facebook, Alibaba and Amazon.” (emphasis mine)

— Source eMarketer

The turning point we have reached, in other words, is one where the sheer size, power and dominance of these firms threatens to overwhelm our entire economy (what’s left of it after the pandemic).

And further, to succeed in controlling it, so totally, as to raise the likelihood that their cancerous behaviors and business models will ultimately cripple and kill the economy itself. Just in time for Global Warming to hit home.

The reason for such pessimism (shared incidentally by those insiders interviewed in “The Social Dilemma”)? Isn’t this all just “good ol’ capitalism”? Isn’t complaining about it just the “whining of losers”?

The problem lies in the self-destructive and totally out of control algorithmic dictatorship systems that these “genius” firms have built.

Take Amazon, again, for example. It’s power and dominance is based on bilking it’s marketplace parters (which have, during the life of the company, contributed the lion’s share of the revenue and an even larger percentage of the profits), and then using those funds to sell it’s own products at a large loss (an illegal activity, rarely prosecuted in the US, known as the loss-leader strategy), in order to harm and, if they succeed, destroy all external competitors (try selling products at less than cost at a massive scale with no source of funds to pay for the disparity).

This neat “fly-wheel”, which is the real one, not the one Bezos has bragged about for decades, is supplemented by enticing Chinese producers to further destroy the domestic market for any US competitors, and, voilà! this wonderful project is actually subsidized by the USPS.

When this monstrosity of a “turbo-charged-Ponzi Scheme” manages to starve its “partners” (millions of small business marketplace sellers) and enemies (everyone else) literally to death, customers will also die (financially).

That is if the government doesn’t intervene first.

The fear of government intervention at Facebook, Google and Amazon is palpable. The lost cases and launched actions are mounting month by month and year by year.

The worst case scenario is only possible if the connection is somehow kept “secret” long enough to deflect blame onto the government, addicted and victimized individuals and / or anyone one else they can attack.

Just like the whistle blower in “The Insider” who was threatened and forced to live in fear until Big Tobacco was finally held to account, we are all hostages of the largest most virulent form of anti-competitive-monopolistic behavior in history. And it is time to wake up.

Forget your internet addiction and all the smoke screens blocking the truth from being seen. The internet, and the communication and economic lifeline that it has become for all of us, is too important to be controlled by 3 or 4 obscenely massive companies.

The longer it takes to dismantle the current malfunctioning system and build a new one, the more we will all suffer and contribute to future suffering, at a scale that is impossible to imagine.

There is a bright spot in all of this! The corner has been turned on people taking notice that there is a problem with the way things are, regarding monopolistic control of the internet realm.

Companies that create build and actually provide and sell physical products, such as Apple and Tesla (and others) are, while far from perfect, not part of the gang that grows almost limitlessly based on exploitation. They do depend on prosperity to survive, since they research and design and innovate cutting edge technologically advanced products (expen$ive), that need to be bought by someone, at the end of the day.

That is why I believe that they, and others like them, will, more and more, become part of the solution, rather than trying to compete directly by being even more exploitative and evil than the others.

Next up: “The Social Dilemma 3.0” will be about business models that need to emerge if we are going to survive and prosper. Thanks for reading and stay tuned.


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

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

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

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

Above: Photo / Netflix

Steve Bannon banned from Twitter : “War Room” episode removed from YouTube

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Bannon calls for Dr. Fauci and FBI’s Wray to have “heads on a pike”

Steve Bannon, ex-White House advisor and former Breitbart executive chairman seems to have gotten himself into some more trouble.  His Twitter account @WarRoomPandemic for his podcast show has been suspended for violating the rules against glorifying violence. 

Read More: Billie Eilish, Lil John, Johnny Depp, Jack Black and more Say “Hell No” to Trump Train

The video in question, has Bannon, along with his co-host Jack Maxey, discussing hypothetical scenarios they would recommend for Trump if he were re-elected for a a second term.  Bannon can be heard saying he would fire FBI Director Christopher Wray and Director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Next, Bannon took the talk much further, by bringing up beheading the men, “I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats.”

In addition to Bannon’s Twitter account being suspended, one episode from “Steve Bannon’s War Room” has been removed by YouTube. Alex Joseph, a spokesperson for the platform, says “We’ve removed this video for violating our policy against inciting violence. We will continue to be vigilant as we enforce our policies in the post-election period.”  Bannon’s channel received a strike due to the policy violation and will be restricted from uploading any new videos for at least a week. YouTube gives channel operators three strikes before an account becomes permanently terminated and they are banned from the platform for life.

Bannon’s Ludicrous Empire is Collapsing

Facebook is the latest platform to have removed the video, having left the video live for a total of 10 hours, while it racked up hundreds of thousands of views. It remains unreported at this time if any other platforms including iTunes, Soundcloud, Stitcher, Google Play or Spotify, which also stream the podcast, have taken any action in the removal of the episode(s).

Bannon’s official website for his podcast “War Room: Pandemic”, up until November 5th, was powered by Mailchimp. The company took to Twitter to also confirm that the account has been closed and will no longer serve to host the War Room’s newsletter.

 Back in August, Bannon was arrested and charged with fraud, he is currently out on bail as he awaits his trial which is set to take place around May 2021.  Bannon did not take any precautions to self-sensor during his podcast, as one might think he would, given that he is currently on bail for federal charges. The latest podcast rant could easily be interpreted by the courts as threatening a federal official, which, if seen as such, could be grounds for revoking his bond and potentially result in his arrest on further charges. 

Read More: Steve Bannon and three others charged with Fraud -Arrests made with the help of USPS

Even actresses and comedian, Kathy Griffin weighed-in on Bannon’s violent ramblings. Griffin, back in 2017 shared the now infamous photo of herself carrying a decapitated head that resembled Trump. She received significant backlash for years after she posted the controversial image, which resulted in many lost career opportunities, along with receiving nasty messages and even death threats.


Please visit our store on Google and our sister site on bookshop.

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

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

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

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

Bright spots in a sea of gloom: “Songbird” on YT finds Inspiration in a Contentious Election

Writing and singing parody send-ups, this 17 year old is adding joy where depression reigns 

Looking back on 2020 from a safe future distance, mostly it will still look like the dumpster-fire insanity that it feels like in real-time. But one strange thing might actually be a reason to wax nostalgic. Anti-Trump inspired creativity. 

Tik Tok, YouTube, and even Twitter have given outlet and opportunities to vent and for the more creative among us to express frustration and outrage in a way that creates a kind of beauty, or at least entertainment. 

Read More: Yet another White House aid: Stephen Miller tested covid-19 positive

A young YouTube creator fits this description and has already built a following for her parody songs that showcase her lyrics and vocals. While the election itself looms and the news and rhetoric builds to an apocalyptic climax, something that has a quality of soothing truth could easily get lost in the dim and chaos. 

Therefore, we are embedding a few of her videos and a bit of biographical info that can introduce you to a break from the storm of insanity, while still staying on topic. After all this is the most important election of our lives…

Read More: Gasping for Air: A Balanced Message from, who else, The Lincoln Project

We reached out to 17 year old student, musician and actor, who joined YouTube in August 2020 after coming across one of her videos. She goes by the name “SongBird” and started what she described as “a fun and creative project”, while at home to quell the boredom that can come while being on lockdown during the pandemic.

In the short time she’s been online she has gotten over 320k views and 5.7k subscribers. Her videos are thoughtfully produced and her attention to details in her lyrics, vocals and overall performance serve as both inspiring and entertaining.

She sings simple truths on Trump and his administration without channelling any hate or unnecessary divisiveness. She is a talent and an obvious rising star. Below is the interview:

When did you begin singing and writing songs? 

I have been singing all of my life, and it is one of my favorite things to do. I have been lucky enough to be in quite a few musicals and shows, and I love to perform. I began writing parodies in earnest very recently, but I have been sketching out parodies for a long time, and I love to play with rewriting songs I know well. 

What led to you deciding to do parody songs related to the 2020 election? 

I am really inspired by the work of Randy Rainbow, and I thought I would try my hand at this art form. He has helped me pay more attention to the news and politics and shown me a creative way to raise awareness while having fun at the same time.

I am very passionate about the environment and very upset at all the things this administration has done, from withdrawing from the Paris Accord to gutting the Migratory Bird Act.

Trump’s treatment of women and his handling of the pandemic have also been infuriating. Although I am not old enough to vote in this election, I want to encourage everyone who can to vote in November since our democracy depends on it. 

How do you put together the songs – is each one written then performed weekly?

I usually hear about some dumb thing or crazy lie that Trump has said recently, and I mentally scroll through the songs I know and look for a song that might fit. When the right song clicks, it is so exciting.

I often start with the refrain, and then my mother has to endure me walking around the house all week, singing bits of my parody. I also sometimes stay up very late writing. I am a full-time high school student without a lot of extra time during the week, so I tend to polish and film these videos on weekends.

For the visuals, I do not have any video editing skills or applications, but I wanted a way to use pictures, so I decided: why not use a totally easy low-tech approach: large printed photos of political figures on sticks. Over the weeks, I have improved the design of the pictures on sticks, making double-sided ones that I can spin around, which has been a lot of fun.

The fact that I can’t edit the videos forces me to do it in one take, which sometimes means 30 takes to get it right (this was true for He Will Hurt God). Sometimes, as in the case of Vlad Guy, it clicks more quickly, like about 10 takes. 

Anything else you want to add?

I mostly made these recordings as a fun assignment for myself to keep me happy during quarantine, and I never thought the videos would leave my circle of friends.

My mind is blown by all of the views, subscribers, and encouraging comments from viewers around the world. Randy Rainbow has brought me so much joy, and it makes me so happy to think that, through these parodies, I am able to bring laughter to people in a similar way in this difficult time. 


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

Find books on PoliticsRacial Equality & Justice, Sustainable Energy and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

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

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

The Social Dilemma: Forget the Critics and Watch this Important Netflix Documentary Now

This is not just entertainment: This is Real

As you might be aware, a new documentary is on the top ten most watched list on Netflix and is getting a lot of attention. The Social Dilemma is a well made documentary, directed by Jeff Orlowski, that aims to reveal the problems, very very big problems that have arisen, mainly in the past decade in the way social media and internet platforms generally, are operating and prospering.

While that may sound harmless at first blush, it’s the sheer scale; trillions of dollars, and the lack of any product or service, other than to advertisers, that begs the question: at what expense to humanity?

This is a big, important subject and is one that is extremely difficult to cram into an “entertaining” documentary. Here, an attempt is made to tackle that difficulty in two main ways.

First there are many on-camera interviews with almost exclusively former and current Silicon Valley insiders, many of whom where partially responsible for the very systems and methods that are being called into question here, and second, the two inter-twined semi-fictional dramatic elements, clearly meant to help viewers that may lose interest in discussions of algorithms, machine learning and corrupt business models.

Choosing insiders is not an oversight but by design

The choice of such a long list of high level tech insiders as interviewees is important and meaningful. The very fact that people, most of whom profited and made careers out of building these systems and platforms, are willing, now, to passionately speak out about them, and agree that they are horrific mistakes that have the potential to destroy not just people’s lives but humanity and the planet itself, speaks volumes.

Read more: Dig deeper into Netflix’s “The Social Dilemma” with these books

While there are many other scholars, journalists and witnesses that could, and should, have their ideas and opinions heard, it is the extreme fact that insiders are willing to address these problems so candidly and so passionately, that helps this to be a mind-blowing and impossible to ignore documentary film.

Companies like Google and Facebook are some of the wealthiest and most successful of all time. They have relatively few employees. They just have this giant computer that rakes in money, right? Now, what are they being paid for? That’s a really important question.

-Jaron Lanier, founding father of virtual reality, computer scientist

The film must be seen, and the information absorbed, to understand the true importance, but, in a nut-shell, what is becoming more obvious by the minute is that the combination of massive power based on worldwide near-monopoly status, and a business model that has no contribution to make or product to sell, has allowed these platforms to amass trillion dollar fortunes in a lethal mix that must be stopped at all costs.

”The first fifty years of Silicon Valley the industry made products, hardware, software, sold them to customers, nice, simple business. For the last ten years the biggest companies in Silicon Valley have been in the business of selling their users”.

-Roger McNamee, Early Facebook investor and Venture Capitalist

Critics fail to see the film’s urgency and instead nitpick it as an imperfect entertainment product

There are layers of irony in the fact that the weaknesses decried by many critical articles written about this film are the same ones that the film is pointing to, and a major force, one that propelled these online platforms to positions of virtually unlimited power in the first place: human weaknesses and short attention spans.

”The classic saying is: “if you’re not paying for the product, then, you are the product”

-Classic Silicon Valley truism

The interviews are powerful and the quotes and alternately chilling and illuminating. So much so that it is actually difficult to absorb all at once. Many reviewers chose to simplify this reality by boiling the many serious quotes down to “dystopian” cliché, as if the end of the world is a topic for a cartoon movie review. Others harped on the weakness of the acted-out semi-fictional stories as not being the optimum way to get the real data and facts across.

The two narrative threads portrayed by actors revolve around an imaginary semi-suburban mixed family and their interactions with technology platforms and social media and a fictional visualization of the “back end” of the software systems used by the giant platforms (Facebook, Google, etc).

This back end software is elevated to a “triple-android” character, portrayed by Vincent Kartheiser, of Madmen fame, as sort of automaton-triplets that embody the actions of the software, AI and the integrated instructions, presumably from Zuckerberg himself (or the equivalent at Google or other platforms. (character name is, revealingly, “AI”)

This is a new kind of marketplace now. It’s a marketplace that never existed before. And it’s a marketplace that trades exclusively in “human futures”. Just like there are markets that trade in pork belly futures or oil futures. We now have markets that trade in human futures at scale. And those markets have produced the trillions of dollars that have made the internet companies the richest companies in the history of humanity”

-Shoshanna Zuboff PhD., Harvard Business School Professor, emeritus and author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”

While these filmic-devices are not ideal or particularly precise in showing the problems with the entire complex system, they are, nevertheless, a good choice to find a way for the statements of the interviewees to be dramatized. They can help people who are not technical analysts to viscerally grasp the deep and serious problems being discussed. Without these elements the film’s audience would be, almost certainly, far smaller. This fact was not appreciated by many reviewers, however.

”Many people call this ‘surveillance capitalism’. Capitalism profiting off of the infinite tracking of everywhere everyone goes, by large technology companies whose business model is to make sure that advertisers are as successful as possible”

-Tristan Harris, Google’s former design ethicist and co-founder of The Center for Humane Technology

One reviewer even mistook the fictional anthropomorphic portrayal of software algorithms and artificial intelligence, all three by the same actor, as a real “unnamed” social platform and that these characters were supposed to be employees of the “unnamed” platform!

All of this confusion is directly related and lies at the heart of the eponymous dilemma being addressed. If the interview subjects, many of whom have become extremely rich from their contributions, are terrified of the evil power of these systems and platforms, what can be done to stop them from getting even bigger and more powerful and eventually destroying us all?

What chance of understanding and solving the problem to the rest of us have?

”How much of your life can we get you to give to us? We often talked about, at Facebook, this idea, of being able to just “dial that” as needed. And we talked about, you know, Mark (Zuckerberg) have those dials… “let’s dial up the ads a little bit”, dial up the monetization, just slightly… At all these companies there’s that level of precision”

-Tim Kendall, Facebook / former director of monetization, Pinterest / former president, CEO / Moment

Such a question sounds almost like a joke to anyone who has not followed and investigated the rise of these behemoths and the “legal” and yet criminal behaviors they perpetrate on a global scale, amplified by computing and financial powers that would have been unimaginable even 2 decades ago.

Therein lies the rub.

The beginning of the end of malignant big tech structures or of us?

The only criticism that stands out to this reviewer is that the message of doom was portrayed as an open question with not much in the way of suggestions for solution, or ways forward other than “delete your social media accounts”.

”there are times when there is a national interest, there are times when the interests of people, of users, is actually more important than the profits of somebody who is already a billionaire”

-Roger McNamee, Early Facebook investor and Venture Capitalist

While that, in and of itself, is a start, the reality is that governments around the world, particularly in Europe and Australia have convicted the giants of criminal behavior on multiple occasions and there are many pending anti-trust actions, not to mention grass roots support for radical change to laws and regulations as a response to the truly destructive nature of these platforms.

“These markets undermine democracy and they undermine freedom and they should be outlawed. This is not a radical proposal. There are other markets that we outlaw. We outlaw markets in human organs. We outlaw markets in human slaves. Because they have inevitable destructive consequences.”

-Shoshanna Zuboff PhD., Harvard Business School Professor, emeritus and author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”

In an odd way the truth of even the most hyperbolic statements is what makes it so hard to keep people engaged. If these platforms and, in particular the dangerous and destructive business models that they are allowed to operate under, are not replaced or at least broken up, this could represent an even larger threat to humanity than climate change or nuclear war, so where do we start to dismantle them?

”We could tax data collection and processing. The same way that you, for example, pay your water bill, by monitoring the amount of water that you use. You tax these companies on the data assets that they have. It gives them a fiscal reason to not acquire every piece of data on the planet.”

-Joe Toscano, Google / Former experience design consultant and author of “Automating Humanity”

This is where interviewing and asking some very distinguished people who were, in part, responsible for building these systems, falls apart. Why should they be expected to have a solution for a problem that they, admittedly, were a part of creating?

”What I see are a bunch of people who are trapped, by a business model, and economic incentive and shareholder pressure that makes it almost impossible to do something else.

-Tristan Harris, Google’s former design ethicist and co-founder of The Center for Humane Technology

The answer is, of course, that they should not be expected to be the ones with the solutions – though their support of finding solutions and tackling the problems is very valuable, indeed. This is why this film deserves not criticism as an imperfect entertainment vehicle, but rather support and recommendation, as an important beginning in recognizing the threat posed by these business models; to mental health, economic prosperity and political stability of all nations.

”Whether it is to be utopia or oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment…”

-R. Buckminster Fuller, Inventor, Author, Futurist

Please Subscribe to help us bring you more news and stories like this: Lynxotic YouTube Channel


Check out all our Tech Coverage

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

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

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

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

Independence Day 2020: still all about Great Music and Fun

Maybe we should call this the people’s playlist…

“America The Beautiful” broadcast from Washington DC on 4th of July. Nothing wrong with that. Perhaps this year in particular – with many reasons to remind ourselves of our rights under the constitution and while we consider the future of the nation, perhaps some historical classic and meaningful titles are in order. Some great songs from our hallowed past, many with a more thought provoking auditory emanation of the American Dream, and perhaps that reflect the real lives and loves of Americans.

This Land Is Your Land

The ultimate people’s anthem. Endlessly influential, from Bob Dylan to Springsteen all the way to the present day. Not to be forgotten. Ever.

The Star-Spangled Banner (Jimi Hendrix)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKAwPA14Ni4

Misunderstood, yet insightful to the nth degree. Performed at Woodstock (50 year anniversary happening now) at the height of unrest during the Vietnam War. For many, perhaps the peak and final moments of the 60s. Has taken on mythic status and while the controversy has faded, the insight and bittersweet love for the country shines through, to this day. Hendrix was a veteran and knew exactly what “rockets red glare” really sounded and felt like.

Born In The USA

In the parade of the misunderstood “Born In The USA” may stand as the most misinterpreted song ever. Pride at being born in the USA? Absolutely. Look at the rest of the lyrics to get the more nuanced take on what it means.

America, West Side Story

What can you say? Classic all the way.

Living In America

Anything by James Brown is an American Treasure.

America The Beautiful (Ray Charles)

Ditto

A bit more from The Boss and some lesser known gems to round out the tour:


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

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

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

Algorithms in Your Life: YouTube Claims it Pulled Bogus Propaganda but Google Algo not Designed for that

A Story that’s Getting Old, Lies and Deception are Flooding All Outlets on Precipice of 2020 Election Year

Over the past few months, false videos on YouTube posing as established American news outlets have garnered millions of views. Selling themselves as CNN or Fox News, these fake accounts present inflammatory and fabricated content to their viewers, effectively deceiving the American public by spreading misinformation.

The Google-owned YouTube says they have taken down as many of these videos as it can, but companies such as CNN insist that the website needs to do more to proactively inhibit such activity. After all, the source of the problem is rooted deep within the very fiber that keeps YouTube (and the current monopolized Internet as a whole) running.

What is really going on in the YouTube case is an exploitation of two fundamental aspects of the Internet. Namely, these fake accounts are taking advantage of the web’s free ranging platform, and they are manipulating the data-based algorithms that keep the Internet efficiently feeding billions in ad revenue to the platforms like, google search, YouTube, Facebook and Amazon.

The web’s “free” policy refers to the fact that anyone can post anything on the Internet, although “free” in this case is a deceiving concept. Long before the Internet was a global phenomenon, the system was built upon a somewhat libertarian foundation where all users had equal access and unrestricted contribution power to information. The potential fault in this model, however, is that there is little accountability or security. As we are seeing today, with so much unchecked info, lying becomes easy and the line between true and false greys.

Algorithms are the Gatekeepers, Automation for Advertising Dollars

As for the algorithms, websites like YouTube, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and so on, depend on formulas that learn more about you the more you use them. A term that is gradually beginning to become more important but not yet fully understood, an algorithm is a set of instructions, managed by Artificial Intelligence.

The key point is that the companies mentioned above maintain total secrecy as to the settings of the algorithm, however, by viewing the public results it is clear that in all cases the algorithm is programmed to benefit advertisers, and thereby increase profits for the companies.

As per wikipedia:

“In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm is a finite sequence of well-defined, computer-implementable instructions, typically to solve a class of problems or to perform a computation. Algorithms are unambiguous specifications for performing calculation, data processing, automated reasoning, and other tasks.”

This is how YouTube recommends videos for you, Facebook shows you suggested posts, Amazon advertises things that fit your taste, and Google can anticipate your searches before you even type anything in. It is based mostly off of your previous use—your activity provides data that these tech companies manipulate, own and sell (which you unwittingly agreed to by clicking the ubiquitous “terms of service” agreement).

However, as the access to Internet platforms, and therefore the ability to interact with others, has become a virtual monopoly controlled by the platforms, the ethics surrounding data rights and algorithms have become less clear.

Most Internet users have allowed access to their personal information in some way or another. Through “free” email accounts, social media, messages, pictures, purchases, and so on, your entire identity is encrypted somewhere in the cybernetic ether, and you have little control over it.

The consequences of this go beyond just getting offered offensive videos or unsolicited ads. The companies that made the bogus CNN accounts, for example, cleverly played YouTube’s algorithms so you would be redirected there after watching legitimate news stories. Because the majority of people consume news through their computers, fake news and real news have become increasingly difficult to distinguish.

More and More Political Manipulators are Gaming the Algos

Moreover, these misleading accounts are not always coming from Internet trolls. Some of them are run by malicious enterprises or foreign governments trying to influence geopolitical processes. Such was the case behind the now well known, infamous case of Cambridge Analytica’s interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.

Cambridge Analytica—a British political consulting firm—marketed for the Trump campaign using people’s Facebook data. At the height of the campaign, the company allegedly consulted with Russian officials to assist in Trump’s eventual election.

Due to the algorithmic control of websites like Facebook, once Cambridge Analytica had information on a single user, it was able to acquire information on every person that that single user ever interacted with online. Via just a handful of connections, the company was able to quickly collect data on nearly the entire nation. Thus, even if you avoided all of Cambridge Analytica’s tricks, you could still be targeted through just a few degrees of separation.

There is really no way of knowing who Facebook is sharing your data with or how they are using it. In fact, you don’t even know what your own data is, as most websites bar their users from accessing the very information that they provide. The only way to find out how you are being targeted is by consuming the suggested version of yourself that these tech companies feed back to you.

The situation is certainly eerie on a personal level, but it also transcends the individual to impact phenomena on a far greater scale. With the Trump administration as evidence, Cambridge Analytica’s approach obviously worked in some capacity. Likewise, businesses and organizations can manipulate data to promote their version of the world. Through the unrestricted world of the Internet, powerful users can alter history, conflate truths, and shape the American psyche into thinking whatever they deem real.

Certain sectors of the government have been working to try and fix this problem. Mark Zuckerberg has gone before Congress to answer for Facebook’s place in the Cambridge Analytica case. Likewise, the California Consumer Privacy Act will take effect on January 1st, giving people greater personal data rights in the Golden State.

Don’t expect the companies mentioned above, having a combined market value of more than $3 trillion, to cooperate or rein in this problem voluntarily. This algorithmic dictatorship benefits criminals like those that were behind the Trump election meddling, but most of all the system benefits the platforms themselves, at a level that is mind-bogglingly obscene. This system will change only when they are broken up or gone.

Data is the most profitable resource on the planet (recently topping oil), and it is because of our data inputs that Google and Facebook, among others, remain “free” websites. The real price for online “services” like search and social platforms is very high indeed and users are getting scammed out of more than they may realize.

Ultimately, like in politics and life itself, it is the masses, the users themselves in this case, that can decide if they want an algorithmic dictatorship, or if it is time to sweep away the current dysfunctional system and replace it with one where the price is not so steep.


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

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