Tag Archives: Zuckerberg

Is the MetaVerse a Meta or a Verse?

That is not the question, it is a mere thought and we need to ponder it. You see, I do believe that Meta is close to launching a new dimension in social media, in advertisements and through that we will see a new opening in the approach to marketing and advertising. Google is not ready but could be ready in time, the same could be said for Amazon. Microsoft is however not making that setting with their 5% in Bing, it will die and awkward death. Awkward because the people they approached will leave them. Meta will not offer the handle and handshake that Bing (or Chrome) requires and Bing has nowhere to go. Or as someone in the 90’s once said “All dressed up and no one to blow”, I giggle as it applies more to the outdated marketing tactics then it does the ladies on 42nd street (if you catch my drift). 

So when I see ‘Facebook parent company Meta plummets 26 per cent, loses $332 billion in worst one-day company drop’ (source: ABC). There is no opposition, this is what happened. Yet what is noticeable that the drop is due to “well below analysts’ expectations for the current quarter, a disappointment for a company that investors have become accustomed to delivering spectacular growth” There are two sides here. On the one side either the investors have no long term goal and no comprehension on what Meta is ready to achieve, in that regard the analysts are equally in the dark on what is about to happen. So even as Marky Mark of the book of faces can hold onto what he has now as the next wave will increase his fortune by well over 300% (a personal rough speculation), so the term ‘disappointment for a company’ is the setting of a person who has no clue what is about to unfold. Or it is a person with the narrow focus on the now regardless of what tomorrow will bring. The second setting is seen with ““The downgrade in the earnings outlook by Meta and other companies took markets by surprise,” said Kenneth Broux, a strategist at Societe Generale in London” I am not sure whether this is a repetition of the other fellows view or if it is set on parallel yet not equal measurements. I am not an economist. The Amazon idea (at least one of them) could be applied to Meta, yet it would limit my revenue and I am kinda set on getting my $50,000,000 (post taxation) in the first wave. The second wave would bring me more but there is no way in hell a person like Jeff Bezos would shell out that kind of money without clear numbers (no matter how rich he is) and what I am about to do has NEVER been done before. So there is the turmoil for me. There are a few other reasons why pushing Amazon to higher levels are more rewarding for me (there is the option to kick Microsoft in the balls) a thought that is massively rewarding all on its own, yet it could optionally hurt Google and I have nothing against Google. They are about to get hit by TikTok and the impact of HarmonyOS is getting delayed but it is not out of the way yet, so Google has to face that too. Yet Meta is a drive that Google could benefit to if they resolve locality in their products, because that will be a given. It slightly opposes the 4 clusters that Amazon will gain but it will not hurt Google, Amazon on the other hand would strengthen their clusters through Meta and could optionally several smaller clusters too, Microsoft has close to NOTHING there, all lost marketshare. 

So as we look at the second article That gives us ‘Facebook owner Meta sees biggest ever stock market loss’ (source: BBC). There we see “Meta also warned of slowing revenue growth in the face of competition from rival platforms including TikTok and YouTube, while advertisers were also cutting spending” the lack of ‘temporary’ is a little astounding. There is reduced spending by advertisers yet with the labour lack they have they will have to create a pipeline soon enough and that means advertising and spending, interesting how the BBC overlooked that. And yes TikTok is a threat, but more to YouTube than Meta and the deployment of Meta will take care of that. The question is how Meta will deal with the lull in technology that they face. Let’s give you an example.  You are in the MetaVerse. In that life you have the house you could never afford, you watch TV on a screen you could never afford and you watch the things you love. There we see advertisements and Meta cashes in. Yet over time you get billboard digital screens on billboard (perhaps the three in Ebbing Missouri), but all those elements require new technology and Meta could create them and lose a lot of time or they could set a partnership with Google and Amazon and set a might higher bar. Google and Amazon have their terrains and Meta has an advantage in partnerships, opposing those two will drag the issues in too many dimensions (literally) and it opens up a massively large bag of worms. None of those matters are seen and they will come in 2022/2023. When Google and Amazon set out THEIR plan it will need to be one that embraces Meta. Zuckerberg was one clever cookie when he did the change he wants. The covid issue worked FOR him a little but in this setting (loss of revenue) it works against him. The nice part for him is that those who walked away will have to negotiate new contracts in MetaVerse so that will make his gains a lot better than the losses he has now.

No matter where I look I see everyone parroting the loss story and it is true, he lost (for now) and no one has a clue what is about to happen and hows social media will change the face of both marketing and advertising and when those with their clever little API realises that it stops working in MetaVerse we will get some watchdog howling on behalf of the exploiters who suddenly get the notice that their well is now dry. All revenue belong to Zuckerberg again. A setting none of them seem to realise. I am just happy that my 5G IP is still safe and MetaVerse will not hinder it. It might benefit me, but it is too soon to tell, it could if Amazon gets the proper idea on where marketing and deployed advertising goes, but there are a few if’s in that setting I get that and I am pretty sure that the CTO of Amazon (Werner Vogels) is that clever as well. 

So whatever Meta will become, it is not a verse, perhaps according to the journalists who look at the now and rhyme to yesterday. Yet I am certain that they are utterly in the dark about tomorrow and in most dimensions tomorrow never rhymes, perhaps to borrow and sorrow but not to the tile of style that tomorrow brings, because the rhyme depends on what is, not what might be and what might be will be illuminating to say the least, not the hallucinating of a beast. That is what we face, when Meta deploys we will face an entirely new beast, one advertisers and marketing departments never faced before and as they run from training to training the first 6 months and try to comprehend that they suddenly had to learn a new beast for months, those who were ready will have the entire field for the better part of 6 months at the very least, it will change the game for years and as I see it Google and Amazon have the options, Microsoft falls away like it always does, shouting Azure whilst the never learned the blues.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

You are cordially rejected

Yes, we can be cordially invited and it happens on many occasions, although the cordial part tends to be for weddings and official events like that. So what happens when you are cordially invited to shove off? You see, the Reuters article (at https://www.reuters.com/technology/facebook-owner-meta-forecasts-q1-revenue-below-estimates-2022-02-02/) gives us ‘Meta shares sink 20% as Facebook loses daily users for the first time’, yet this is a mere dip even as the numbers are rising (increased loss) the people at Facebook (aka Meta) are not worried, because they figured out what I saw coming close to half a decade ago and I wrote about it a few days ago. Marketing will change it will evolve as anything will. So the liber facierum people are not worried they are about to change hears in a race where 80% is nowhere near ready and they will be too late, it will be a race that ends up having 4 players Meta, Amazon, Google and TikTok these 4 players are about to own 90% of all advertisements and in the new world Meta will gain a chunk of the other three to some degree. So the 20% loss is a joke compared to the billions they will make from 2023 onwards when Meta deploys, the people who want to be part of that race will be a year late and they will content with the crumbs. So the fun of reading “Dave Wehner, told analysts on a conference call that the impact of Apple’s privacy changes could be “in the order of $10 billion” for 2022” is a little entertaining, it seems like a fun fear setting but the gain that comes the year after will have Apple on the ropes, their losses will be not something they can contemplate at present and they will try to get back into the race in a Apple minded field, but the Apple minded field will change because its environment will change a lot more beyond what Meta is, it will need to adjust its foundations and that is something Apple was never good at. When Meta goes live, it will take up to a year to gain the momentum and they will end with a massive chunk of all advertisement. There is a decent chance they will close to equal what Google was making, so Google will take a hard hit, but their foundation is strong so in Meta they could regain some of their losses. Amazon and TikTok have their own environments, they will loose but keep what they already had in their atmosphere. Microsoft with Bing who only had about 5% will lose close to 50% of that and keep whatever their surf tablet has and it was close to clear for 3-5 years, the changes were in the works and I predicted it and my IP solutions anticipated it in a new direction, but there is no denying the setting Meta will be a much larger player so the 20% loss they have now is one they will get back well over twice over and that is basically the mere foundation. All the other players who are trying to skim off some of the cream that Facebook and Google had, they will be lost. They cannot compete or adjust, they will go to some watchdog and cry like the little chihuahua’s they always were, iterators who do not understand innovation. They will cry unfair and waste the time of as many people as possible whilst they will try to find reason after reason and never looking at their own failings. 

And for me? I just howl and laugh on the sidelines, what I predicted 3-5 years ago, as far as I can tell. The first mention of Neom was in ‘Liberalism overboard’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/08/23/liberalism-overboard/) which I wrote on August 23rd 2018, that was the moment I realised a new marketing system was required, so almost 4 years ago. I finished the concept less than a month later. And that was long before Meta was announced, Meta did not create what I had, but it showed that the alterations were a lot more powerful than I initially contemplated and when that gets added to either the Google or the Amazon system that change will not be a simple alteration, it created the setting for a new powerhouse, no less powerful than Meta and I did it by giving essential choices back to the people, that was the change no one looked at and it was merely the first wave. When it alters and adds to Meta it becomes something more, but that becomes too much speculation because what we are shown is the end result and the Meta system has a lot more and that is still (in the end) an unknown factor but the system I created will allow for adjustments because the power is back with the individual and where ever they want to go the system will adjust (to some degree), yet in one setting meta will force both Amazon and Google to implement a much larger change to locations and localities. That much is a given certainty and there those who want to hijack keywords will be limited to non-location keywords. Meta will force it and if Amazon and Google do not comply they end up losing market share. 

As such, the future is bright, the noise of 20% here, or there does not matter 2023 (optionally 2024) will set in motion a tidal wave of changes and outside of the largest companies none of them can adjust, it is not feasible or achievable. No matter how quick the Google or Amazon systems adjust. Meta is about to get the home field advantage and the visiting team will not be at the 50 line, they will start on the 30 line as the football reference go, the home field advantage will be that big.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Politics, Science

As Credit Cards run dry

That was pretty much the first thing that went through my mind as Reuters gave me ‘UK could speed up criminal sanctions for big tech, minister says’ an hour ago. The article (at https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-could-speed-up-criminal-sanctions-big-tech-minister-says-2021-11-04/) gives us the first dangerous setting ““It will not be two years, we are looking at truncating that to a shorter time frame,” she told lawmakers. “I’m looking at three to six months for criminal liability”” in the first I have all kinds of emotional outbursts as to the uselessness of certain political players. Then there are a few more chapters, yet it is not yet the moment for that (it will come soon enough). When we see “Powers to make executives liable have been proposed as a “last resort” to be introduced at least two years after the rules have been set, the government has said”, we see the first part that it is a timeline change of almost 75%, then there is the statement ‘as a “last resort”’ and I personally believe that none of it will hold up to scrutiny. There is of course the ‘old’ setting of “In general, Facebook may not be held liable for slanderous or defamatory posts due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 protects internet service providers, like Facebook, from liability for content posted to their platform by third-party users” Yet it also means that a demand could be made to hold Journalists up to those same standards, and that is where the shoe stops fitting and the dance ends real quick.

Consider Stephanie Kirchgaessner, someone at the Guardian. On July 19th 2021 she gives us “A phone infected with NSO malware, as Kanimba’s has been, not only gives users of the spyware access to phone calls and messages, but it can also turn a mobile phone into a portable tracking and listening device. In the period before she was alerted to her phone being hacked, Kanimba said she had contacts with the US special presidential envoy for hostage affairs, British MPs, and the UK high commission office in Rwanda – all of which could have been monitored

We now see:
A. ‘A phone infected with NSO malware, as Kanimba’s has been’
So where is that evidence? As such the guardian could be just as liable and hiding behind ‘big tech’ optionally constitutes a case for discrimination and the Guardian is also on Facebook, Twitter and so on, so what gives there?
B. When was the phone infected? Can the moment of infection be proven?

The Daily Mail reported on October 25th 2021 “The alarm was raised after an online harms issue known only to a few people at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport was raised by a senior executive at Facebook in a recent meeting” So we see “I’m looking at three to six months for criminal liability”, basically Facebook would be prosecuted for events that the employees of that government leak on Facebook? How insane is that train? Who would be the conductor of that crazy brain train and with that in sight, when we consider that some of these messages come from all over the globe. And in plenty of those cases the so called trolls are to blame for some messages. When we consider that the track record in the US, UK, EU and larger commonwealth fails to deal with trolls, can we demand more from Facebook? Consider that the Council on Foreign Relations reported on June 7th 2021 “Chinese trolls are beginning to pose serious threats to economic security, political stability, and personal safety worldwide”. So how long until not so intelligent politicians see a larger string of attacks and fine Facebook whilst the business shifts to China where the US, UK and EU have no say in the matter? How stupid does one need to get to consider their stretched credit cards to get fines whilst losing billions in taxable revenue and optionally global revenue? When it all shifts to China (as well as the Russian equivalent) people like Britain’s Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries were too close to clueless to understand the digital media? Yes, we get it, Zuckerberg created a Behemoth, one a lot larger then even he thought was possible, but the rest had no idea whatsoever (I used to work for a few of them). So in all this we see lofty words like ‘criminal liability’, yet that same government (as the BBC reported) gives its population just 1.6% of rape allegations in England and Wales result in someone being charged, something the government has said it is “deeply ashamed” about. Charged, not convicted, that is a mere 80%, leaving 98% of the assailants free to do it again. That government who failed its population for well over three decades thinks it can judge “big tech firms already had the capability to make their platforms safer”, how is that insight gotten? Because as I see it in too many places the people have no clue on digital media issues, especially in social media. 

I believe that this is another ‘tax the wealthy’ stage, this time it is on what I regard as ‘false grounds’. And in that light, lets take a gander into another stage (adjusted stage in this case) of ‘flawed reasoning’

6 Most Common Causes of Wrongful Convictions

Eyewitness misinterpretation.
The stage where the observer does not comprehend all the elements of a digital track and uses his or her status as expert witness, or witness to the event all whilst the stage cannot be seen as a lot of the variables involved are not visible to that witness.

Misinterpretation.
Misinterpretation is set to what is seen, the data behind it and the stage on why and who placed it. In many cases (especially with flamers and trolls) several of these elements are faked and wrong values are captured mainly because flamers and trolls know what to change. This is similar to all the scam calls showing a UK/US number whilst the scammer is in India. YouTube is filled with those examples.

Incorrect forensics.
Is slightly the wrong term, it is incomplete forensics, because governments listened to self righteous pinko’s who demanded privacy and as such digital platforms cannot capture what needed to be captured to do more, so first (overly graphically stated) the government cuts off the hands of the media giant and then tells the media giant to pick up the right ‘pick-a-stick’, how lame is that part of the equation?

False confessions.
There is the cry-baby (hoping to get freebee’s), the trolls and flamers and those with a natural aversion to one side (abortion, politics, vegans), take a subject and there will always be a crying opponent and they are willing to embellish their side and optionally lie on what they feel, all sides that goes straight into social media and often several times over.

Official misconduct.
Basically is is seen on both sides and always will be, I used the government staff leaking lists, but the opposite side is also there (like Amazon staff greasing personal (family) needs. Several options and these things happen and time is the only way to get there, yet the issues mentioned earlier drains close to all resources.

Use of informants.
That is the larger problem, who is a real informant, and who is there to play some political game? The data will not reveal either but it also constitute a wrongful case.  A seemingly small but growing issue on a stage where size is the least visible element of all.

Inadequate defense.
The largest problem issue. It overlaps with technical abilities, privacy abilities and false confessions, they all impact the defence that is offered and as such is the easiest overrun in court or in a hearing. This also is a stage with documentation and as we see with some players at the ICIJ (Pandora papers) as well as the NSO group. There is no adequate defence as the presented attacks are too often absent of evidence, yet still there is a conviction against the players and the media became part of that problem. A stage where defense was not possible because some players were allegedly tainting the field. 

Six elements and they are out in the open, so when we see “Britain’s Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries, who was appointed to the job in September, said she wanted the powers brought forward” I personally wonder whether she is clueless on what is involved, or is this a mere ruse to get fines so the governmental Credit Card is not cut into pieces by too many banks? And if the UK is in that stage, how deep is the EU and the US at present?

Before we leap to rush to the small minded people, lets make sure that they do not end up driving business to players like WeChat. A site that will not adhere to anything that is seemingly non-Chinese.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

The future doorstop

That is how we sometimes see a book, a doorstop, a missile towards our partners (and sometimes really annoying elderly teens), a weight for the papers we need, when a book is not really what we wanted, it gets a secondary function. So even as some saw this specific book as ‘A beautiful defense of the common man and woman against a technological elite’, I consider a book like ‘The Tyranny of Big Tech’ as one that is not stating the issues. 

Did I read it?
Nope, and I do not have to, the article clearly shows a republican (who looks like he recently stopped being a teenager) who is aiming for money from both the left and the right. When we see “According to Hawley, it’s not our politicians, our lawyers, our Ivy League graduates, or our Hollywood celebrities. It’s Big Tech – those big names like Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, and Google that have embedded themselves in our lives to an almost irreversible degree”, I see the beginning of a BS string of texts that will most certainly become debatable and utterly rejectable. You see Zuckerberg attended Harvard whilst designing Facebook, Dorsey came up with the idea for Twitter at NYU, Jeff Bezos was already done with Princeton when Amazon became the idea, Apple was the child of Steve Jobs who attended part of Reed and dropped out, Sergey Brin and Larry Page came from Stanford, so what is left of “not our Ivy League graduates”? Oh and I with my 5G IP am from UTS (Sydney), so there! And when we get to “have embedded themselves in our lives to an almost irreversible degree” we get a lot more. Apple (Macintosh) offered what consumers wanted, Google did the same, Facebook did it even more and created a new digital era and they all OFFERED it to consumers, they planned long term and they won, the small minded people lost. The exception is the Amazon guy who doesn’t need to spend on Shampoo, he offered something to rural people all over the world which they never had access too. In the US this is 60,000,000 people and in the EU it is 125,000,000. One firm aimed for a little over 180 million consumers. The people shops forgot and now Amazon is the bad guy? So this is the setting from the start and the man with the teenager look (Josh Hawley) is already off to a bad start. So when we see “the robber barons reshaped the economy into a corporate monopoly to serve their own ends, in which an aristocratic elite govern above the labouring masses”, all whilst the US government stole from the native Americans whatever they could (99.655% roughly) is like the pot calling the kettle black. In this one pushed what they wanted, the other (current big tech) let the people decide on WHAT they desired and the consumers liked the free 1GB email (Google) whilst the internet providers offered 20MB for a fee. What would you do? That same grocery store (still Google) came up with additional ways to service the consumers (cookies anyone?), the offered shopping, information and choice, whilst those dabbling on the internet wee all about grabbing whatever coins they could get. When the consumers were happy players like Amazon created the Amazon Web Services offering a pay as you go approach, a cloud approach to small businesses. First web services in 2002 and cloud services in 2008, it would take IBM and Microsoft years to offer anything near that, the big tech of then were made basically redundant. And with the pay as you go there was a larger SaaS (Software as a Service) setting. The big 5 became big not because “Big Tech is a direct descendent of the Gilded Age robber barons”, but because they offered choice when the others were unwilling to do so. In this Apple stands alone. They were always the elite DTP solution (a lot more expensive than others) and in 1998 they recognised the needs of the consumer and the iMac was born, all whilst the consumer got the amazing phrase “There’s no step 3!”, an affordable solution in an age where PC’s were still running behind the facts. If you were not up to speed you were either lost or you became an Apple user. All this whilst the writer wants to push “descendent of the Gilded Age robber barons”, a stage none of them pushed for, it merely is in the statements of those who were asleep at the wheel between 1996-2006, they lost it all by not pushing the envelope and 5 companies got ahead. The fifth (Netflix) was like Facebook, it offered something never offered before and whilst we had to seek TV provider after TV provider, they offered what we wanted, movies and specifically movies not hindered by advertisements. They went from sales to rental to streaming and as the firm started in 1998, Hulu, Stan, HBO Max and Disney Plus, some well over a decade AFTER Netflix, so the statement from Josh Hawley is not just bogus, it is utter nonsense. So when we see “Washington, D.C. politicians routinely protect the interests of Big Tech over and against the freedom and well-being of the American people” we see the joke that this book seemingly is. These systems were offered to consumers, you can walk away! I kept my Yahoo account for years later, until the information offered was too outdated or too much adjusted for localisation (against my will), so when we see ‘well-being of the American people’ I wonder what data he can actually produce (raw data, not aggregated and weighted data) and in the grand scheme of things, the US has 320 million people, Europe has 750 million and India has 1.3 billion. All enjoying what the five players are offering. In all that, the US is a mere 15% and on the global scale they do not add up to much, and the US is actually part of that failing. In the era of 1990-2010 American firms remained largely absent on the international scale, relying on someone to pick up the ball and none of them did and the American needs were swallowed by the voice of the consumers, no barons, no lawyers and no politicians. The people wanted what Google offered and Youtube now has over 2,000,000,000 viewers (I am one of them), so far none of the offerers were able to meet this and more important by 2005 both IBM and Microsoft were merely relying on Adobe Flash, these two players had nothing to offer. In 15 years they never really woke up and here I get to use Microsoft against itself with “Microsoft Stream is a corporate video-sharing service which was released on June 20, 2017 that will gradually replace the existing Office 365 Video”, so 12 years of inactivity, in comparison, the Chinese (the makers of Won Ton soup) gave us TikTok one year earlier and now has 100,000,000 active users. Players like IBM and Microsoft have been that much asleep at the wheel. As I personally see it, American BigTech is the only player (all 5 of them) that stops the USA from becoming utterly irrelevant, if they were not there China would be superpower number one and they are close of becoming that anyway, any issues with BigTech and every BS article in every newspaper with  some ‘alleged’ and ‘watchdog’ is merely another delay and it will help China to become the greatest tech power, US politicians (EU politicians as well) are helping China meet that goal.

BigTech, the virgin
BigTech is not holy, it is not innocent and it is no virgin (they got screwed by global politicians again and again, so they are definitely not virgins), BigTech are merely the innovators we always needed and the rest is merely a wannabe player, even Microsoft and IBM have fallen that much from grace. Microsoft had the most powerful console in the world and within 2 years they were surpassed by the weakest console of all (Nintendo Switch), IBM has its own stream of non-successes, and they are all crying to their politicians as to the bad bad tech companies. Most of them had no idea what the digital era was until they were surpassed by a lot of other players (some of them Asian). So when we consider the stage, we need to see the whole stage, not some setting of “Ending Big Tech’s sovereignty is about taking back our own, and we can begin to do that in the lives we live together. Big Tech works relentlessly to force individuals into its ecosystem of addiction, exhibitionism, and fear of missing out. It seeks to create its own social universe and draw all of life into its orbit. But the real social world, the life of family and neighbourhood – the authentic communities that sustain authentic togetherness – can act as a counterweight to Big Tech’s ambitions”, in this phrases like ‘force individuals’ is massively wrong, people have choices. I do not have Facebook on my mobile, I have no need for it there, I do not order from Amazon (I am a support your local hooker kind of guy) and I have currently no Netflix or Disney Plus subscription. That is 3 out of 5, I have an Apple because Microsoft dropped the ball 4 times in the last 5 years and IBM is too expensive for what it offers. I chose! We can all choose and that is where we realise that ‘The Tyranny of Big Tech’ is like a Chicago politician, all hot air and not too much on substance (judging from the article (at https://mindmatters.ai/2021/06/a-book-review-the-tyranny-of-big-tech/). He might at some point present a few parts that are relevant, I am certain that he will, but as a former Missouri’s Attorney General he will tread on places where he knows the answers, so as I see “holding Big Tech accountable where others don’t dare tread. In investigations, in legislation, I merely wonder how much legislation against BigTech made it through? It matters because it is what you can prove that matters, not what you claim. I made no claims, it is all timeline stuff, including the Chinese parts. 

Consider the choices YOU have, and make choices, it is your right. You need not be on Google, you can select Microsoft Bing. You will lose out on a lot but that is the choice you make. For well over 20 years Google offered choices, YOU were the consumer that selected WHERE you wanted to go and you went there. All whilst Microsoft could not be bothered, it seems to me that the Netscape Victory made them lazy and now they are no longer the relevant company, they are merely the Column B (or C) company. And consider being in a place like Antigo Wisconsin. Now try to buy a game, a DVD, a bluray, a 4K movie, a CD and a book. How many of these items will require Amazon? It was the foundation of 4G (Wherever I am) and it will be the stage of 5G (wheneverI want it), so when will 5G be available in Antigo Wisconsin? Consider these points and consider whatever Josh Hawley is trying to imprint on you and consider what you can find out for yourself. BigTech is not evil, BigTech is because the others became lazy, BigTech merely is and governments do not like the self sufficient organisations, the ones that do not make large contributions to them. In the end if you look into the shareholders and stakeholders of some of these players you get a very different picture, one you need to be wary of.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics, Science

Is it me? Perhaps it is!

Yup, we need to look into matters and I am willing to concede that I am the stupid one, yet the BBC is setting a stage that is not set to the proper players and it shows (well, to me it does), so as I look at ‘Facebook, Twitter and Google face questions from US senators’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54721023), we see ““[It] allows digital businesses to let users post things but then not be responsible for the consequences, even when they’re amplifying or dampening that speech,” Prof Fiona Scott Morton, of Yale University, told the BBC’s Tech Tent podcast. “That’s very much a publishing kind of function – and newspapers have very different responsibilities. “So we have a bit of a loophole that I think is not working well for our society.”” You see, the stage is larger, even as we see a reference towards section 230 with the added quote “some industry watchers agree the legislation needs to be revisited”, so can we have these names? 

Section 230
Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content.
Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by third-party users: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides “Good Samaritan” protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

Yet the stage is a lot larger, most common law nations (civil law nations too) have similar protections in place, and ever as we see the repose by Professor Fiona Scott Morton giving us “we have a bit of a loophole that I think is not working well for our society”, most parties refuse to hold the posters of the online information accountable. It is too hard, there are too many issues, but in the end, I call it a load of bollocks, the avoidance of accountability has been on my mind for close to a decade, the lawmakers have done nothing (or close to it). These lawmakers do not comprehend, the politicians are mostly clueless and the technologists cannot abide to the lack of insight that the other two are showing they lack.

So as we see “both sides agree they want to see the social networks held accountable”, yet neither is willing to hold the poster of the transgressor accountable and that is the larger issue. So even as we see the so called political ploys and no matter what the reason is, when we see “Both President Trump and his election rival Joe Biden have called for the removal of Section 230, though for different reasons”, yet both ignore the obvious, the posters want a medium and outside of the US they have all the options to continue. Basically the only thing that the US will accomplish is isolation, all whilst the dreaded posts from those who seek to harm society will never be stopped, they merely change location, and now that the US is ranking 8th on the 5G speed lit at a mere 13.29% of the speed of number one, things will go from bad to worse, limiting big tech is the larger error in their thinking pattern. 

Any form of censorship strangles freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Holding the speakers accountable is not censorship, it merely sets the frame that these social media speakers will be held to account, optional in a court for WHAT they say. It was never that complex, so why push the side that resolves nothing? So whilst we see all these media articles on AI and how AI is NOW the solution that one can purchase, the factual reality is “experts have predicted the development of artificial intelligence to be achieved as early as by 2030. A survey of AI experts recently predicted the expected emergence of AGI or the singularity by the year 2060”, a stage we seemingly forget whenever some short sighted politician makes a twist towards AI and the solution in social media, the reality is that there is no AI, not yet. Forbes (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/06/10/how-far-are-we-from-achieving-artificial-general-intelligence/#389ade286dc4) introduces us to “Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) can be defined as the ability of a machine to perform any task that a human can”, you see, commerce couldn’t wait for AI to come, so they pushed it into AGI, and the AI they all advertise is merely a sprinkle of AI, scripted solutions to singular tasks and even that part is debatable, because the application of AI needs more, I wrote bout it almost two months ago. I wrote “until true AI and true Quantum computing are a fact, the shallow circuits cannot cut through the mess”, I did this in ‘About lights and tunnels’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/09/08/about-lights-and-tunnels/), you see, IBM IS THE ONLY PLAYER that is close to getting the true Quantum computing up and running, Shallow circuits are still evolving and that matters, because they only launched their first quantum computing solution a year ago. When they complete that part we see the first stage when a true AI can become a reality, only then is there an actual solution available to seek out the perpetrators. So as we look at all the elements involved, we can see to a clear degree that 

  1. There is no real solution to the problem (at present).
  2. Section 230 is doing what it was doing, even as there are issues (no one denies that).
  3. As such we need to hold the posters accountable for what they post.

As I see it these three parts are only the top layer, and in no way is adapting or editing section 230 the solution, it might if all nations adopt it, but what is the chance of that? The only thing that the US and its senators achieve is scaring business somewhere else, when that happens the US and its data gathering stage will take a spiralling downward turn, one their economy is certainly seen as a near death experience. I think that these senators need to stop selling shit as peanut butter. To realise that part we merely need to turn the clock back to April 2018 and consider Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) asking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg how he is able to sustain a business model in which users do not pay. The answer was simple “Senator, we run ads” (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2H8wx1aBiQ). A stage where someone was allegedly this unaware of the stage of digital media, when they rely on questions that are a basic 101 of digital media, how can we take the efforts, or the presented efforts of both the democratic and republican houses serious? 

It is a stage where you will need to take a deeper look at what you see, it is not easy and I am not asking you to believe me, I for one might be the one who sees it wrong, I believe that my view is the correct one, but when all these high titled and educated people give sides, I am willing to go own faith that I need to take another look at what I believe to be correct. And wth that, I get to my very first article. The article ‘The accountability act – 2015’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2012/06/19/the-accountability-act-2015/) was me seeing the change in 2012, seeing the need for an accountability act, an essential need in 2015, it never came to be and people more intelligent than me thought it not essential. So whilst I wrote (in 2012) “I believe it is time for things to truly change. I believe that the greed of some is utterly destroying the future of all others. Who would have thought in my days of primary school, that an individual would be able to have the amount of power to bleed entire cities into poverty? It was never in my thought, but then, GREED was always a weird thing. It is the one utter counterproductive sin. You see, greed does not drive forward. Competitiveness does. Innovation does. Greed does not. Greed is the foundation of slavery and submission. It drives one person to get everything at the expense of (all) others”, as such, I saw a setting that we see now more and more clearly, I was ahead of my time (well, my ego definitely is). 

We need a different setting and we can blame the big tech companies, but is that the factual setting? When we use the quote from the AFP giving us “Capitol Hill clashed with Silicon Valley Wednesday over legal protections and censorship on social media during a fiery hearing a week before Election Day in which Twitter’s Jack Dorsey acknowledged that platforms need to do more to “earn trust.””, yet the big tech companies do not write laws do they? Yes they all need to earn trust, but trust is also lost through the newspapers using digital media to set the stage of ‘click bitches’ reacting to THEIR stories, as such, how guilty is big tech? So when we are confronted with the ludicrous headline “Kim Kardashian is accused of having SIX TOES in snaps from THAT controversial birthday getaway: ‘Why is this not trending’”, something that comes up apparently every now and then, yet this is a NEWSPAPER, as such as they also use digital media to push forward their economic needs, the stage of section 230 is a little larger, and the fact that what I personally would see as fake news, we see fake news coming from news agencies, so when we consider that some talk about “earn trust”, I think that we demand this from newspapers and see how long they accept that stage before greed takes over, or should I say the needs for clicks on digital media? A stage we saw in the Leveson Inquiry and as greed took over, I wonder whether these senators have any clue on the stage that is before them and the size of that stage. A stage that has additional sides and I am willing to wager that they haven’t got a clue how many sides they are unaware off. The US (and some others) need big tech to be as it is, if I can innovate 5G beyond their scope, that matter will merely increase when they break up, making the US more and more of a target against innovators they have no defence against, because the innovators are no longer in the US, and those they thought they had are moving away to greener pastures.
It might not hurt the big tech companies with offices outside of the US, but I reckon those senators thought of that, didn’t they?

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media

When Congress becomes something more

So as I stated in ‘The Fantastic Four and the Bully’, the four getting grilled are not the bad guys. Well, there is some debate, but the foundation is that these four tech entrepreneurs are getting grilled by people who are clueless on tech matters. So as some read the BBC part “At issue is the fact that Apple doesn’t allow apps to be installed onto iOS devices from alternative marketplaces, and that it enforces tough rules over the way subscriptions and other digital items can be sold.” The issue soon becomes, will congress be responsible for any bad app and data gathering app that Congress would want to allow for? Even as an android user, I see that there are very few bad apples around, as such most apps are safe. There are a lot more dangerous apps on Android. This is not the fault of Google, there are several ways that a personal device gets to be the victim, there are a lot less issues on Apple, as such and as Congress might demand third party options, will they not be responsible for the damage that they put on Apple and its users? There is another side, a these tech giants come under fire, the chances of Chinese hardware makers making it bigger only increases by 35%-55%, how is that of use to congress? We might see Fitbit mentions and other mentions, but these products are closely followed by Asian alternatives, the entire setting does not add up. Then we get the advertisements, until Google Ads was here, we had DoubleClick, there were versions that equal Epom, with price tags that started at $250 a month, then $1000 a month, $2500 a month and higher. So, can the US Congress give us a list of all the small business and small startups that had that kind of cash? Google Ads was one of the first AFFORDABLE solutions for small business units, the fact that the bulk all switched should be a larger consideration, in addition, Google Ads was one of the first to truly die a larger rise to localisation and languages. Usually one or the other was missing, as such, is the growth of Goole Ads to be blamed on Google, or on all the others who could not be bothered? Not everything is perfect at Google, we all know that, but we also know that the ignorance in congress is a little too large to wonder who they are serving, they claim the people, but in reality? I am actually wondering who they are setting the stage for, I see it as a different stage that the one they tell us we are on.

And even as we accept Sundar’s optional defence of “Today’s competitive landscape looks nothing like it did five years ago, let alone 21 years ago, when Google launched its first product, Google Search”, we need to see that this landscape is largely influenced on the upcoming 5G and as it is now, especially as well over 50% of all searches are done via mobile, the only thing I see coming is that China gets a much larger share of it all and Congress intervening on matters that they do not comprehend is a much larger danger to that happening. I have always been favour of Huawei technology, that does not mean that I want China to have the bulk of all the business. The White House wants us to think it is the same, but it is not. They have set the stage that unites Huawei in a political tool for China to set a much larger field, they were pushed by US stupidity, not Huawei needs. The US took it away and now we see a very different stage, one where Huawei is still independent, but taking the customers that China is pointing at. The stage is changing and Congress is adding fuel to that fire by chastising the big four tech makers, each entrepreneurs. Each understanding the digital landscape. I had no clue in the early 90’s when Amazon started, I thought it was mad to continue when the losses were so great, now the owner has is worth in excess of $35,000,000,000, a personal value that exceeds a lot of nations. I am not saying that all is kind and kosher with each of the four, I am stating that when we are getting told changes, we are properly getting told by people who understand that business and in Congress, I doubt that they can rub together 2 one dollar coins on the subject on digital advertising. The more ‘diplomatic’ answer comes from Facebook’s own Zuckerberg. With “Our story would not have been possible without US laws that encourage competition and innovation. I believe that strong and consistent competition policy is vital because it ensures that the playing field is level for all. At Facebook, we compete hard, because we’re up against other smart and innovative companies that are determined to win” and some of them are Chinese. Some are Russian and others are all over the place, yet Facebook has other problems too, privacy and marketing do not go hand in hand, not in their granular market and that is where part of the problem lies. We could decide that from the four, they are the bad apple in this, but that would be wrong. I worked for people who had no idea how to dress a Facebook market when it was offered to them, their bullet point presentations could not deal with that unknown side of business, that was the strength for growth for Facebook, it was so new, there were no defining borders and there is where we see part of that problem, a lot never caught on, not to the degree that Facebook represents and there I see the dangers of the US Congress, they are not that clued in (as I personally see it). So as we get to one of the topics ‘One of the matters concerning the committee is the degree to which three of the tech companies now control the market for online adverts’ we need to recognise that these players made it affordable for a lot of businesses, the old way was dictatorial and something only rich companies could afford, they refused to give way and when Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon gobbled up the small fry, the large fry moved positions because their provider was no longer the bee’s knees. Three never ruled it, the grew it changing the rulers and the old stage should never return. And finally, according to numbers one in three uses Bing and Microsoft search and are therefor exposed to Bing Ads, so why is Microsoft not in that stage? There are 4 players and one has well over 20%, so why is Microsoft not in the meeting? Is that asking for too much?

Those who have read my articles over the year have seen that I have chastised each and every one of these four (5 if you include Microsoft), but here I see no blame, not from any of the 5, the stage was set, the rules were followed and when the opportunity was there 20 years ago, most would not wonder there, I was a personal witness when some stated that there was no future for a business form of Facebook in 1997, as such what is the US Congress bitching about? And as we look at the article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-53582909) we see the graph by eMarketer, yet Microsoft and their Bing is absent, why is that? So whilst they claim it is merely about the smaller rivals, it is about something more and something different, I wonder if we will ever be told the truth. As I personally see it, the members of congress have a different set of needs and I wonder what they are.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Direction X

It is the Columbian (at http://www.columbian.com/news/2018/apr/15/harrop-facebook-wont-alter-its-lucrative-practices-without-regulations/) that gives us a light to work with today. A light that some US congressman and US Senators have been pushing for, so it is fun to have a go at that point of view. Now, do not mistake my opposition to it as a way to invalidate the view. I do not agree with the point of view, but many have it. So I see it as a way to inform the readers on the things that they need to know. Froma Harrop starts with three events. We see:

  • Mark Zuckerberg in 2006: “We really messed this one up. …We did a bad job of explaining what the new features were and an even worse job of giving you control of them.”
  • Zuckerberg in 2010: “Sometimes we move too fast. … We will add privacy controls that are much simpler to use.”
  • Zuckerberg early this year: “It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. … There’s more we can do here to limit the information developers can access and put more safeguards in place to prevent abuse.”

Now, they are valid events, but the dimensionality is missing. With the exception of certain Google products, Facebook has been the biggest evolving platform on a near daily basis, the integration with mobile apps, mobile reporting, stories, clips, annotated pictures, travelling, and so much more. Over a period of 10 years Facebook went from a dynamic page (for each user or group) to a collected omnibus of information available to all their friends. That is a level of growth that even Microsoft has not been able to compete with and in all this, there will always be mistakes. Some small and trivial and some will be bang up monsters of flaws. Compare this to Microsoft who did not push forward with its Xbox360, no it offered for sale a more powerful machine whilst trimming the functionality down by close to 20% (personal projected loss) with the shift from Xbox360 to Xbox One and Xbox One to Xbox One X. A data collecting machine of greed (whilst everyone is ignoring the data that Microsoft is uploading), pushing users like a bully, to do what they wanted the user to do or be left out. So when exactly did Facebook do that to that degree? Sony with its PlayStation at least pushed forward to some degree.

Froma makes a nice case with: “The law will require them to obtain consent for use of personal information in simple language. (Users shouldn’t have to take a night course to understand privacy and security settings.)“, this is nice in contrast to some consoles (like the Sony consoles) who suddenly made it illegal to use second hand games on their consoles in their terms of service, they quietly backed away when it blew up in the faces of Microsoft. In all this, yet with my sense of humour and realising where this article was, it was not without a giggle that I took a look at the Columbia Journal of European Law (at http://cjel.law.columbia.edu/preliminary-reference/2017/mind-the-gap-loopholes-in-the-eu-data-privacy-regime/) where we see “any set of information relating to individuals to the extent that, although the information is not processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose, the set is structured, either by reference to individuals or by reference to criteria relating to individuals, in such a way that specific information relating to a particular individual is readily accessible“, which now leads to “This language of “specific information [that] is readily accessible” indeed was interpreted by the English courts in a manner conflicting with the Directive. In Durant v. Financial Services Authority, the English and Wales Court of Appeal formulated a two part test to evaluate whether a filing system is caught by the Directive:” and that now leaves us with “(i) [T]he files forming part of [the filing system] are structured or referenced in such a way as clearly to indicate at the outset of the search whether specific information capable of amounting to personal data [] is held within the system and, if so, in which file or files it is held; (ii) [The filing system] has, as part of its own structure or referencing mechanism, a sufficiently sophisticated and detailed means of readily indicating whether and where in an individual file or files specific criteria or information about the applicant can be readily located.

So in that case Froma is left with a piece of paper to be stationed where the sun does not shine and it merely took the case Durant v. Financial Services Authority to show its ‘lack‘ of complexity, or did it? She is right that ‘Users shouldn’t have to take a night course to understand privacy and security settings, it merely took law lord Sir Robin Ernest Auld (a former Lord Justice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales) a hell of a lot more than a night course, more like 25 years on the bench as a lawyer, an elected judge and his ascension to lord justice of the appellant court to get it all figured out.

So as we get that out of the way we also need to look at “The companies will have to notify users of a data break-in within 72 hours of its discovery. They’ll have to give up monopoly control of the personal information; people will have the right to obtain a copy of their data and share it with others“, it took Sony a hell of a lot longer to figure out that they were breached and notify people. So now consider the breaches of Equifax (143 million), eBay (145 million), Yahoo (3 billion) and Target stores (110 million). the implication of alerting that many people is not just weird, it is actually dangerous as people tend to overreact do something stupid and lock their accounts, these 4 events could set the stage for close to 4.5 billion locked accounts. The entire 72 hours, that whilst the discovery does not guarantee that the intrusion is stopped opens the entire system up for all kinds of hackers to have a go at that victim and truly make a much bigger mess of it all. Now the people should be informed, but the entire 72 hours was (as I personally see it) pulled out of a hat. In all this the latest Facebook issue was not done by hackers, it was done by corporations who intentionally abused the system, they set their profit knowingly at the expense of the users of that system and exactly who at Cambridge Analytica is currently under arrest and in prison? It seems to me that Facebook, clearly a victim here, has made mistakes, yet the transgressors are not held to vigorous account, yet the maker of the system is. Now, let’s be clear, Mark has clearly some explaining to do. Yet, when we see “Facebook failed in an attempt to get a handle on the Cambridge Analytica scandal Monday, after British authorities ordered its auditors to vacate the political consultancy’s offices” (source: Fortune), all this whilst the offices of Cambridge Analytica ended up being raided 5 days later, I have never seen authorities giving bank robbers that level of leeway, so why was this level of freedom given to Cambridge Analytica? When we consider that this data could be transplanted to writable objects (Blu-ray) in mere hours, it seems to me that giving them 5 days to wipe the evidence is a lot more questionable than merely thumping Facebook for the flaws.

The one part I truly disagree with is “Many of us have a need to connect and share. But expecting much privacy in a business model that relies on selling your information is highly unrealistic“, you see, here we see two levels of privacy, that what the person shares, free of will and that what is accessed. In one part the privacy from the outside is partially an easy thing, because Google with AdWords has shown that to be a clear option, their advertisers can create and address a population to the granularity available, yet the results of this marketing is done in a level of aggregation, individual records per person are not available. The fact that apps could capture it was a given, but the fact that all unique identifiers were optionally possible was kept in the shadows and that is where Cambridge Analytica worked. Now, this is a generalisation, but it fits the overall issues. Facebook could have done better, yet it was massively naive when it thought that the paying corporations would not try to get their fingers on EVERY part they could. In that I wonder what data the insurance companies in the end got a hold on.

So when I see “Tech investor Jason Calacanis has set up a contest — the Open Book Challenge — to create a Facebook replacement. Finalists will be given $100,000 and residence in a 12-week incubator“, when we see it in the light of “Facebook has delivered Zuckerberg a net worth of over $60 billion” must be the easiest pickings for Jason Calacanis that any entrepreneur has ever been a part of. It is like the pyramid games after 15 rounds whilst the top person stayed on top never having to pay more than 0.0001% of the total earning, not even Las Vegas in its wildest times offered such odds.

So I am very much against regulations, it is merely a way for governments to get a hold of that data. Now I am not against that if it truly serves national security, but the fact that actual criminals and terrorists use such systems to elude identification and strike form a distance merely makes it a waste of time and most analysts know this. Now, we also know that when we know where exactly to look, Facebook could reveal stuff, but to hold those billions of accounts to optionally find merely one person is an extremely bad application of time management.

In the end, the one additional part I liked was Zuckerberg stating “It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook. I run it. And I’m responsible for what happens here”. I like it because of the realisation that in all the bungles of IBM in the last 30 years, especially the PS/2 range, at what point did any of them stand up and tell their consumers that they screwed up? Especially in line of the setting that the average Model 80 (80386) computer was 400% more expensive at merely 28% of the power of a Taiwan clone, in addition the on board time clock battery has given the user more headaches than a hammer and the graphical underperformance offered should be forgotten at the drop of any hat.

So in this Zuckerberg kept his head high and in all this the entire setting of data abuse is still not addressed by either the US or UK government, in all this there is absolutely no indication that the abusers will be facing punishment or prison, so in all this the law failed the people a lot more than Facebook ever did, especially in the light of issues like this have been going on for years, but we do not get to read that part, do we?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science