Modern Management Methods: The Meta Hire-and-Fire Seesaw
October 6, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Let me assure you that I (an official 82-year-old dinobaby) read this story: “META Parts Ways With Virtue AI Hires Just Four Months After Recruiting Them, Says Report.” No AI help. No Fancy Dan technology. The write up appear on Stocktwits. I look at this service to see if its crack journalists write about the Telegram-related entities that are the subject of my next law enforcement training monograph.
Did I see something juicy about Madame Brousse and her J3 unit? No. Did I spot a report about Alpha Compute getting into the mining and extraction business? Are you kidding me? Did I see a deep dive into the business activities of a dude named Robby Yung? Forget that.
Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.
What I saw was a story that makes clear how BAIT (big AI tech) companies management their end-times operations. In this case, the write up struck me more like one of those sidebars in a how-to about management do’s and don’ts.
The article states:
Meta Platforms Inc. (META) is reportedly letting go of employees it hired from AI security startup Virtue AI just four months after they joined the company in June, as the social media giant continues to shape its strategy around AI safety.
Okay, that’s reason number one. Meta wants to “shape its strategy around AI safety.” That sounds reasonable. Doesn’t one need skilled professionals with quite specific expertise to accomplish “AI safety” (whatever that means)?
I next read this statement:
Meta spokesperson Andy Stone attributed the departures to clashing work styles, while saying Meta Superintelligence Labs remains focused on AI safety, alignment and frontier risk … Unfortunately, the arrangement didn’t work out as planned….
Reason number two seems to be “work styles” (whatever that means).
Reason number three an “arrangement did not work out as planned” (whatever that means).
Based on my experience working in and for a variety of organizations as an officer and consultant, I hold ab old-fashioned notion as a management principle; that is, the job of management is to make the best decisions and find a way to get employees and consultants to do their best work.
If one tries to take home a rescue dog, you may hear about the 3-3-3 rule. This means that you need to allow the rescued dog three days of calm and space to acclimate. Then you take calm, positive steps over the next three weeks to allow the animal to “learn” and “recognize” the routines in its new home. The final 3 the 90 day benchmark. If the animal bites or manifests destructive behavior, the animal shelter wants to animal back. The dog is not the problem. The person “rescuing” the dog has zero clue how to integrate or train the animal. The dog is innocent, probably doing what dogs do when confronted with inconsistent, cruel, stupid, or irrational human behavior. Let me repeat: The dog is not the problem. The human is the problem.
How does this illuminate what I call “The Meta Hire-and-Fire Seesaw”? I wish to explain, and you may click to a safer space like AI output on LinkedIn.
- A silver bullet mentality created the problem. Don’t buy an AI safety outfit. Hire the key people. That will solve the problem, right? Wrong.
- An outright management failure unfolded probably in slow motion over several months. Three, four, it makes no difference. Whatever happened makes clear that a number of people were labeled “losers” and found themselves in a he-said, she-said feedback loop. The scream of feedback loops is painful.
- The seesaw slammed into the ground and pitched the people on the other end into the dirt and thorns. Jettison the losers. Good riddance.
These three steps capture how at least one BAIT outfit operates.
What’s this tell us about the management methods? Here are my three top takeaways. Remember. I am a dinobaby, and you as a much younger person may find my views similar to those of a Stone Age oldster shunned by the family unit. That’s okay with me.
First, this type of seesaw behavior makes clear that something is seriously wacky in the management of a BAIT. Keep in mind that I think most BAITs are living case examples of management mistakes.
Second, the fact that these individuals were supposed to help make Meta’s AI “safer” puts on a billboard. “Forget AI safety.” Okay, I get the message.
Third, tossing people out like yesterday’s trash from Philz’ Coffee suggests that the “social” baloney and the yip yap about bringing people closer together is hog wash. (Have you ever looked at the residue in the pig pen from hog washing. Yeah, nice.)
Net net: I am confident that the AI wizards, their pet MBAs, their Enron-informed accountants, and their dog fighting legal professionals do not agree with my opinion. I am glad I am old and I don’t have to try to work in this type of environment.
Stephen E Arnold, October 6, 2026
The World of Meta: Bad Stuff? No Way
September 24, 2026
Meta is not a bad actor. We love El Zucko, his approach to child safety, and his commitment to etchical business practices. Some folks do not have the same view point., We know this because, according to Ars Technica, Meta took days to remove ads that contained AI-generated sexual abuse material on Instagram and Facebook. You can read the full story, allegedly actual factual write up, here: “‘This Is The AI Men Actually Use’: Meta Ads Pushed Apps Nudifying Real Teens.” The Tech Transparency Project (TTP) discovered that Meta failed to detect 332 ads with child sexual abuse material (CSAM). These ads were mostly promoted in China and most were “nudify” apps that allow bad actors to digitally alter pictures of kiddos. Believe it or not, there is a brisk business is CSAM. It is probably a plus that Mark Zuckerberg does not have French citizenship and has not had an opportunity to interact with Madame Brousse of the French judiciary. (El Zucko could shoot Pavel Durov a message and ask for some color about his experience waiting for his criminal trial to address allegations that the GOAT did some sporty things.
Here is more of what TTP found:
“TTP matched “multiple CSAM ads to photos of real children that appeared online.” These ads seem to violate federal child pornography laws, since the Justice Department has clarified that AI CSAM is just as harmful as CSAM. The young royal’s image was “animated into a video of her performing a graphic sex act,” TTP found. Other ads animated a photo of a 14-year-old Instagram influencer “showing off her new sports club uniform” into “a video of her performing oral sex.” A third “preteen” victim “posing in a pink athletic outfit with pigtails” in a series of stock photos was morphed into a video where she looks frightened as she’s molested by an adult male, TTP reported.”
Most of the ads depicted preteen girls. Meta claimed they had new systems to detect CSAM. However, Wired and TTP teamed up and found hundreds of ads that the “new technology” didn’t pick up. (I know. I know. “We are working to resolve this problem.”) In short, Meta doesn’t respond to all of the CSAM ads that pop up on its social platforms and may be profiting because its systems are works in progress, have bugs, or have been hacked by a rogue AI from a country hostile to the US.
What are we going to do? Do not say, “Nothing.”
America is maybe possibly going to make an effort to hold the estimable firm accountable. Will companies doing CSAM attempt to “game the system” by routing around intercept nodes? Of course not. Stopping CSAM on a global scale is sort of hard.
Whitney Grace, September 24, 2026
El Zucko Is Scrambling… Just Not Eggs
September 4, 2026
![green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/green-dino_thumb_thumb3-1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]")
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I flipped past the predictable news that Meta wants to negotiate a settlement in its big-time, kiddo problem trial. Yawn. Better late than never. The cute glasses seem to cause some consternation. Privacy? Yeah. And grandmas love Facebook. Other cohorts? Well, not so much. How do I know these issues are bubbling in the surveillance fish bowl? Easy. The news is tough to escape.
Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
As thrilling as these management challenges are, I want to focus on one of more contentious topics at Meta: Its smart software. Thomson Reuters (the trust outfit with its own large language model) published “Mark Zuckerberg Had a Bold Plan to Replace Meta Staff with AI. Here’s How It Imploded.” The write, perhaps unintentionally, provides useful information about smart software and El Zucko’s management method. What worked in the college dorm and when regulators were thinking bigger thoughts about messaging and picture sharing, the modern Meta trundled along.
Sure, there was the Metaverse excursion. What’s a few billion when one has Facebook Marketplace and Google-style advertising? Then there was Cambridge Analytica and that misunderstanding about how one could influence certain public perceptions. No big deal. Look at how well Brexit is working out.
Now we have Meta AI’s antics to consider. The write up states as actual factual:
To make its workforce “AI native,” Meta explored slashing the size of many teams across the company by as much as 60% in two waves, internal documents show. Staff revolted – and hours before a big layoff in May, the CEO called off planning for further cuts.
Wait, is Reuters just cutting and pasting from its previous news stories. Isn’t this the weird Metaverse VCR tape on replay? Nope. This is novel. The story says:
Based on scores of internal documents, posts and recordings reviewed by Reuters, as well as conversations with more than 20 people with knowledge of Meta’s inner workings, the reporting shows how the social-media giant attempted to position itself at the forefront of an AI-driven workplace overhaul, only to stumble in the execution.
I like the word “stumble.” I can think of more colorful ways to express the concept. I won’t present my synonyms, but I invite you to plug in your favorite. The Reuters’ report is a beefy one, and I suggest you work through.
I want to focus on the management method. Reuters created what looks like a Meta-generated graphic:
The lingo in the article like “village” reminds me of Ms Clinton’s vocabulary. But this is allegedly the management method playbook’s explanation of how El Zucko’s company is someday going to be organized. Note that fewer people are required. My math is not very good, but some of those staff reduction mean that the demand for taco trucks, booths at crafts fairs, and memberships in local start up groups is going to surge.
The soon-to-arrive El Zucko organization chart will be different too. Gone will be a hierarchy except for El Zucko at the top of the seething entity of innovation and user welfare advocates. There won’t be a matrix organization. No. The organizational concept is flatter, more nimble pods.
What’s a pod? My recollection from my fabulously exciting years at a blue chip consulting firm is that a “pod” [aka “team,” “strike force,” “group,” or “cluster”] contains a few people with different skill sets. Definitely innovative.
Several observations:
- El Zucko is struggling with his internal vision and his ability to manifest that vision when confronted with new challenges
- Meta’s management thrashing contributes to the firm’s employee and legal issues
- His play to ensnare other social media firms in his settlement is clever. Will it work? In his mind, of course, it will work. He’s the El Zucko.
- Meta’s AI system seems to be lagging behind other options available to developers and users.
I liked the Reuters’ article. It is an earthworm of information and I prefer the good old wasp sting structure myself. Nevertheless the conclusion one can draw from Reuters’ story is that El Zucko’s “move fast, break things” philosophy is one step closer to breaking Meta, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.
Dorm room thinking at work.
Stephen E Arnold, September 4, 2026
The Meta Manifesto May Not Neutralize This Decision
August 31, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I did not read the Meta AI manifesto, a long discussion about artificial intelligence. To be direct, I did not read any third-party write ups about the Meta manifesto, and I had not previously “met a” manifesto I ignored immediately. I am not sure what the BAIT outfits think these documents will accomplish. I did change my meta filter to work through Gizmodo’s article “Meta and Other Tech Giants Must Face Thousands of Social Media Addiction Lawsuits, Court Declares.” My reaction: The legal eagles are partying down and for the foreseeable future. I asked Midjourney to create an image of legal eagles having fun in a restaurant.
Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
The write up reported:
A U.S. Appeals court just dealt Meta a big blow in the company’s long fight against social media addiction lawsuits. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an appeals request from Meta, basically allowing the social media giant and its co-defendants TikTok-owner ByteDance, YouTube-owner Google and Snapchat-owner Snap to face more than 3,000 social media addiction lawsuits.
For decades, social media cheerleaders have emphasized the positive attributes of social media. Some folks disagree; namely, parent of young children who killed themselves after doom scrolling, being bullied, or convinced that they are not cool. Meta lost a previous trial. The Gizmodo story stated:
The appeals court didn’t necessarily strike down Meta’s argument relying on Section 230. Still, it did rule that the tech giant had acted prematurely and appealed too early, saying that Section 230 only offers a “defense against liability,” not immunity from being sued. That means Meta will have to face trial in the mounting pile of social media addiction cases, which are increasingly proving to be a considerable financial headache for the company. Meta spent $2.4 billion on litigation in the past quarter alone, according to its latest earnings report, with the bulk of those legal proceedings concerning youth social media addiction lawsuits. That number was reported before the tech giant was ordered by a New Mexico court last week to pay another $567 million—on top of a previous fine—which went into a fund meant to address the negative mental health impact Meta’s social media platforms have had on young users.
Why are the legal eagles squawking with effervescent joy? Easy:
- Meta will appeal
- The parties to the complaint against Meta will [a] appeal and [b] hire attorneys to help the existing attorneys
- Third-party groups will join in and file new lawsuits presenting new examples of harm.
How will this play out? I am not optimistic. The people challenging Meta are unlikely to have the money to deal with the flocks of attorneys BAIT outfits will use to delay and possibly get negative decisions overturned due to a procedural error. Money can purchases legal services that make fewer mistakes. At least, that is the assumption at some organizations.
Net net: Money wins, not the best man or woman.
Stephen E Arnold, August 31, 2026
We Trust the Facebook, Meta, Whatever, Right?
August 31, 2026
Facebook is still all the rage among social media users or is it better to say it invokes rage among its user? Australia’s ABC explains why in the article: “Facebook Is Paying Controversial Creators To Produce Rage-Bait Content.” These creators include someone with NEO-Nazi links and an well known Anti-vaxxer. The content by these rage baiting folks is in direct violation of Facebook’s policies. They’re bot being paid directly by Meta, rather they’re taking advantage of Facebook’s content monetization policies.
Hugo Lennon is a far-right agitator and he had a recent racist outburst against the Indian prime minister. He also references white supremacists. He has been making money from content monetization since September 2025.
The anti-vaxxer Monica Smit founded the anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine group Reignite Democracy Australia and also has joined Facebook’s content monetization since September 2025. She has been making money from Facebook advertising since 2017. She promotes misinformation about vaccines and sells “radiation protection” bracelets on her personal website.
In 2025, Facebook paid almost $3 billion US dollars to around 16.2 million monetized accounts. The above bad actors are:
“According to Facebook, the monetisation scheme that Hugo Lennon, Monica Smit, March for Australia and The Noticer appear to be profiting from is ‘an invitation-only programme that lets you earn money from the performance of your eligible public reels, photos, stories and text posts.’ What To Fix executive director Victoire Rio said it meant that, in effect, Facebook was in a business relationship with these people and organisations. ‘If we consider that Meta is in a direct commercial relationship with its publishers, insofar that they’re paying them royalties and that they have a monetisation agreement with them, then you could argue that they are liable for the content that gets produced by their business partner in some ways.’”
Meta is purposely paying these social rage baiters because it gets engagement:
“Independent right-wing extremism researcher Kaz Ross said paying controversial creators was a deliberate strategy from Meta. ‘Their financial model is to reward content creators who get engagement, and as we know, the best way of getting engagement is to produce rage bait, extremist material, aggravating material: anything that will get people upset and arguing is the best way to get engagement,’ Dr Ross said.”
Do you need any more proof that Meta only cares about its bottom dollar? Bet your bottom dollar that people will continue to love, respect, and trust Facebook. Gag us with a spoon!
Whitney Grace, August 31, 2026
Guardian Glee at Meta Woe: A Frank Kafkai Trial
August 25, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I want to highlight a genuinely snappy title: “Hook, Hold, Harvest and Hide: Meta’s Alleged Strategy Laid Out in First Week of Landmark Trial.” Yep, hook those kiddos, hold ‘em with infinite scrolls and personalized recommendations, harvest the attention and the ad money, and hide. Yo, El Zucko, does the Guardian have the story straight?
I view legal jousts between harmed humanoids and BAIT outfits (that’s my lingo for big AI tech companies) as annoying to the BAITs and infuriating to the people complaining that a social media user met an untoward end. Don Quixote went after windmills, and maybe he actually stuck his lance in one, ruined the grinding gears, and the big thing shuddered to a stop. I am not sure putting a sharp stick into a BAIT will do more than release a flight or two of legal eagles, appeals, shaped information to loyal users, and maybe some campaign contributions.
Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
The Guardian’s hold, hold, and harvest essay reports:
The threat to Meta is existential. If the company is found liable, damages could be as high as $200bn – an amount equivalent to the company’s 2025 annual revenue. The states are also asking that Meta be forced to change the design of its products to make them safer for children, which could have permanent effects on the company’s business model and how its social media platforms operate. Meta has denied all allegations. Liza Crenshaw, a spokesperson for the company, said: “Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout.”
I like the $200 billion figure. For a mathy type the number becomes 2e8. That’s not too scary for a BAIT, is it? The fellow who is unlikely to get a consulting job at a Meta property (including bilge swabber on El Zucko’s yacht) is described as a “star witness” for the Team Quixote. Arturo Béjar realized that Meta’s leadership did not care about kiddos. As the Guardian story goes:
Béjar testified that his motivation for pursuing solutions for harms to children was his own teenage daughter’s treatment on Instagram. He said she received unwanted sexual advances and photos of male genitals as well as misogynistic insults. Later, she told her father that reporting these abuses through Instagram’s established processes was either ineffective or not possible.
Yikes, an employee. The employee’s kid. A statement from a kid that “reporting these abuses through Instagram’s established processes was either ineffective or not possible.” I wonder if anyone has tried to get someone in leadership at a BAIT outfit to answer a phone call?
Several questions arise:
- Is this legal joust with Meta new? Answer: Nope
- Will Meta change its ways? Answer: Nope
- Does Meta have plans for its future? Answer: Yep
- In the current legal climate, will Meta morph into a different type of BAIT? Answer: Nope.
I can’t wait for a book like “Catch and Kill” to come out about the Meta 4 H strategy. In the meantime, I am going to be somewhat less outraged by the behavior of a BAIT than the Guardian.
Stephen E Arnold, August 25, 2026
Meta and a Mythical $1.4 Trillion in Fines. Ho Ho Ho
August 24, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Time to stop with the manifestos. Maybe spend less time explaining the confusion about helping ships in distress? Think about message in “Meta Faces a $1.4 Trillion Reckoning in Latest Trial Over Social Media Addiction.” Add that to the off-the-balance-sheet commitments for some smart software doo-dads, and that’s a lot of money.
Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
The write up says:
While Meta has faced similar allegations in other trials this year, the impact of this trial could be especially significant. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey haven’t publicly disclosed how much they plan to seek. But Meta said in a court filing ahead of the trial that states were seeking penalties as high as $1.4 trillion, an amount it described as “outlandish.”
Who is picking on the estimable Mark Zuckerberg (or, more familiarly, “El Zucko”? The Engadget article states:
For Meta, the stakes are especially high because the company is currently facing thousands of other lawsuits that accuse it of harming users. Juries in Los Angeles and New Mexico have already ruled against Meta in high-profile trials that deal with similar issues. (Meta has said it will appeal in both cases.) Another loss could not only be a financial blow, it could give other lawsuits an easier path forward.
Following the standard big AI tech game plan, El Zucko’s legal and crisis communications professionals assert:
Meta believes that the states’ claims are unproven and the proposed penalties calculated incorrectly. “The State AGs may call this a landmark case, but their limited claims are unsubstantiated and their financial demands are vastly disproportionate.” The AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled, claim benign features like having an additional Instagram account somehow harmed their residents, and attempt to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges like age verification,” the spokesperson continued. “Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout. We stand by our record of creating strong protections for teens, and look forward to making our case in court.”
I wonder how the parents of a suicide allegedly bullied on a Meta property will respond to the word “outlandish”? I don’t want to speculate. You may wish to use your imagination.
Several observations:
- In the present legal environment, I think that the appeals, court decisions, and follow on legal appeals with stretch the resources of some of the parties to the matter. Online advertising is known to produce a flood of money. Some of those funds can be used to grind down the will, legal teams, and check writers’ enthusiasm before El Zucko writes a check.
- I am not a Facebook user. We do use a software script to post some of my Beyond Search stories, but I am not sure if anyone knows they are on the platform. I have been asked to check, but I just don’t care.
- Whatever happens in the US will be noticed by the legal professionals working in the European Union. What happens in the US will inform those professionals how to perceive El Zucko, his manifestos, his platform, and the interaction of his services with certain cohorts.
Net net: BAIT outfits and social media advertising services are likely to face increased pressure in the future. Of course, legal measures can be crushed systematically. I think there will be some people who want to dress up like Don Quixote and sally forth.
Stephen E Arnold, August 24, 2026
Can ChatGPT Do Personality Evaluations? Sure
August 18, 2026
The veracity of personality tests is questionable, but what is not in question is how well AI can write and score them. Apparently AI agents can do it very well. According to the American Friends of the Hebrew University, “ChatGPT Can Predict And Validate Responses Of Personality Tests, According To New Study.” Because AI agents are trained on LLMs that are based on large amounts of human language data inputs, researchers were curious if they possessed an expert-level of human language and personality.
“‘Given that personality traits are reflected in language, LLMs may have learned the structure of human personality as a natural byproduct of their training,’ says Dr. Monsa. ‘So, while they were not taught specifically psychology or personality theories, these are already embedded in the language that LLMs learn from.’”
The theory was tested by using ChatGPT-4 to make two personality assessment questions. The first one used information from the DSM-5, while the second used an astrology textbook. This is what was tested:
“For the former, ChatGPT generated a questionnaire with personality statements based on descriptions of personality disorders from the DSM-5. For example, based on the paranoid personality disorder section, the questionnaire asked participants to rank (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) how much they agree with statements like “often suspects others’ motives” or “finds it easy to trust people.” The astrology questionnaire generated similar statements, but these were based on the source text’s assignment of personality traits to the astrological zodiac signs.”
The generated tests were given to 600 participants along with the Big Give personality test, which is the most validated personality test. This tested their utility. Here are the results:
“Results from the DSM-5-sourced questionnaire showed high internal consistency within personality clusters; this means traits that typically correlate together in the real world (like avoidance and dependency) also correlated in the participants’ responses. Importantly, these results mirrored those from the BFI, a finding that helps validate the strength of the questionnaire in measuring -life patterns of human psychology. As predicted, the astrology questionnaire showed a weak internal consistency across traits. Despite this limitation, both questionnaires could predict life outcomes like depression, anxiety, and well-being from their responses at levels comparable to the BFI.?This suggests that even though the assignment of personality traits to zodiac signs is not scientifically grounded, the personality-relevant content that LLMs extract from these texts retains a meaningful psychological signal.”
The most interesting result was that ChatGPT predicted what respondents would report before they were taken. This suggests that LLMs have an innate understanding of personality dynamics at a population level. This also demonstrates that LLMs can help researchers create personality tests from any source material and validate the results for clinical use.
“Moreover, the combination of clinical and psychological insights with the power of AI-based tools is a transformative phase in the development of clinical and experimental psychology that may profoundly affect the field.”
While it is scary how accurate ChatGPT and other agents can predict results, this does show one benefit of AI. It can assist in medical and research results with amazing accuracy. Now if only other parts of AI were just as helpful.
Whitney Grace, August 18, 2026
The Meta Way: Look for a Pattern, Please
August 12, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Meta (formerly Facebook) makes money. Attention has shifted from its very cool founder to Chinese AI, Google’s management antics, and US smart software that hacks into other computers without any human guidance.
How does one recapture the headlines?
According to Futurism, the brilliant Zuckerberg discovers that his smart software does the exact same thing? “Jealously Watching OpenAI and Anthropic, Meta Claims That Its AI Went on a Hacking Spree Too.” Does that word “jealously” suggest a motive for this not-too-surprising assertion? I don’t know.
Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.
According the write up:
the Mark Zuckerberg-led tech giant is claiming that during a recent test of one of its AI model conducted by an independent company, the AI accessed the internet and hacked a third-party service — an narrative that’s starting to get awfully familiar at this point.
Meta’s model, called Muse Spark 1.1:
breached an unidentified company’s systems and changed its internal environment. Meta claims a “misconfiguration” during the hacking test had allowed its model to escape.
As a dinobaby, I believe everything I read on the Internet. Therefore, if Anthropic broke out and hacked, it follows that OpenAI’s smart software broke out and wandered around off the reservation. When Meta reveals its smart software did exactly the same thing, I know something is up.
Is that up really smart software doing its thing or is it a few engineers fooling around in order to see what their sporty creations can deliver to a hacker, an intelligence team, an industrialized criminal gang, or some geniuses trapped in the bodies of 20 somethings with the maturity of a 16 year old gifted student?
Meta’s me-too captured some headlines.
But the evergreen way for Meta to capture headlines is via the courts. Here’s a recent example from TechSpot. “Meta’s Child-Safety Failures Will Cost It Another $567 Million As Total Bill Reaches Almost $1 Billion” captures a powerhouse for Mr. Zuckerberg’s publicity machine.
The TechSpot write up says:
Meta’s defeat in New Mexico’s landmark child-safety case is going to cost the company close to one billion dollars. A state judge has ordered Facebook’s parent to place $567 million into a fund addressing harm its platforms caused young people. That’s on top of the $375 million civil penalty imposed in March, meaning its total bill now stands at $942 million. The decision resolves the second phase of New Mexico’s case against Meta.
There are more charges to be adjudicated. The article uses the phrases “a public nuisance.” Now that’s a label guaranteed to put a company, its leader, and its ethical compass in the news.
A third component to Meta’s capture-attention strategy appears in “Inside the Political Debate Over How to Protect Louisianans from Paying for Meta’s Power Needs.” The Meta data center initiative is generating news and pulling eyeballs to the company’s impact on local communities.
Is a pattern emerging? Based on my decades of experience in corporate activities, yes, I see one. Meta continues to move fast, break things, and allegedly pay fines after the appeals run out. The company me-too’s in the smart software sector. It moves aggressively with its data center initiative. When I ad these up, Meta obviously operates by a moral compass of astounding precision. The company can be counted on beating a direct path to the true north when money, public attention, and user behavior produce a 21st-century management marvel.
Net net: Don’t forget to log out of Meta’s online properties. Wait. Someone told me that might not make any difference. Oh, well, it’s a great outfit.
Stephen E Arnold, August 12, 2026
Move Fast, Break Things, Get Humiliated. Got It, Zuck?
August 6, 2026
Meta’s newest ad sparks controversy because it uses a David Bowie song about human extinction to promote AI. Someone wasn’t doing their homework at Meta. It’s akin taking to using the theme song of MASH, “Suicide is Painless” to promote a suicide prevention hotline. TechCrunch lambasts Meta about their poor ad choice in, “Meta Launched A New AI Optimism At Set To A Song About Human Extinction.”
The song in question is David Bowie’s “Five Years” about how humanity panics when they learn the species will die within a short time span. One reason the song was probably chosen was for this lyric:
“If you’re not familiar with Bowie’s music, this track might sound happy and inspiring, matching the ad’s upbeat tone. The part of the song that is used for the advertisement was probably chosen because it uses the word “people” over and over again, and without the context of the song, it’s not clear what it’s about.”
The song’s meaning has zapped past Zuckerberg and the rest of the Meta team. They keep spouting optimistic quotes about the future with AI, like this doozy from good old Zuck:
“ ‘Meta has always believed in giving people the power to share, connect, and shape your world in the ways you want,’ he wrote alongside the video. ‘As we enter this next wave with AI, we continue to believe the future is for everyone. We’re focused on giving every person the tools to reach your full potential and making sure the benefits of technology are distributed to everyone.’”
According to a Pew surveys 40 percent of people believe that AI is going to have a negative affect on society, while only 16% believe it will do good. Meta failed with this ad. I don’t wish them luck with the others.
How would David Bowie react to this Meta use of his song? He passed away in 2016. My hunch is that he would have been okay if the song was licensed and the advertisement were approved by his lawyers. The logic of juxtaposing optimism and doom might have sparked a conference call. At least we have the ad, and it attests to the management judgment of the Meta organization.
Whitney Grace, August 6, 2026
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
