Google Tesla: A New Play for the Final Frontier?
May 14, 2021
I read some real “news provided by Google Cloud”. The story was “Google Cloud and SpaceX’s Starlink to Deliver Secure, Global Connectivity.” The write up said:
Google Cloud and SpaceX today announced a new partnership to deliver data, cloud services, and applications to customers at the network edge, leveraging Starlink’s ability to provide high-speed broadband internet around the world and Google Cloud’s infrastructure. Under this partnership, SpaceX will begin to locate Starlink ground stations within Google data center properties, enabling the secure, low-latency, and reliable delivery of data from more than 1,500 Starlink satellites launched to orbit to-date to locations at the network edge via Google Cloud. Google Cloud’s high-capacity private network will support the delivery of Starlink’s global satellite internet service, bringing businesses and consumers seamless connectivity to the cloud and Internet, and enabling the delivery of critical enterprise applications to virtually any location.
Tweets ensued. Pundits pundited.
Most of the comments focused on the key words the wordsmiths at the GOOG included; for example:
- Edge
- Organizations
- Private network
- Rural
- Seamless connectivity
Google knows what words are popular and elicit clicks. Very terrestrial.
However, the tie up — if it works out and does not get marginalized like Google’s Dodgeball, Orkut, and WebAccelerator efforts — could be something slightly more ambitious than connecting people to persistent advertising.
The deal makes the on-again, off-again lovebirds Google and Tesla the hot couple. The immediate payoff is publicity, usually good for a company’s stock price. The deal also may irritate some of the space-crazed wizards at Amazon, who also offer cloud services. Advertisers may like the idea of global delivery of compelling messages about vacation rentals, chicken sandwiches, and grammar checking software.
I see three different angles.
The first is that the Google – Tesla thing may represent a method for providing a new type of meta-fabric for innovation. If the service works, advertising may be available for those wanting to distribute messages globally to specific individuals who are going to buy something no matter where they are.
Second is that the service will be space-based. That alone provides a marketing and hyperbole edge. Even if the service burns up in the earth’s atmosphere, the deal is a juicy one. Think about those mid tier consultants writing “reports” this weekend. Boom. Consulting opportunities.
Third is that if the visions of the Musk-its (not Muscovites mind you) and the Googlers come to pass, we have a new type of information company in development. If the blended system works, the old AT&T is going to look even more old fashioned than it does at this time.
Net net: Satellites, a Saturday Night Live host, smart advertising, the “cloud” — what’s not to like? Will regulatory authorities buy the terrestrial spin in the Google news release? Probably. In the absence of regulatory controls, the sky’s the limit. Maybe I should say “the solar system” or maybe the “universe” is the limit. Amazon, Microsoft, Apple? Your move.
Stephen E Arnold, May 14, 2021
Speak Using Our Words, Or Do Not Speak
May 14, 2021
Google has learned from legal misfortune, both its own and other companies’. That is why, “To Head Off Regulators, Google Makes Certain Words Taboo.” The Next Web post outlines several of the major antitrust investigations the company currently faces at home and abroad. It also describes the role language played in past lawsuits brought against Google and, notably, Microsoft. We learn employees are given specific instructions on their language and other parts of communication both inside and outside the company. Having acquired some internal documents, the journalist known as The Markup writes:
“The taboo words include ‘market,’ ‘barriers to entry,’ and ‘network effects,’ which is when products such as social networks become more valuable as more people use them. ‘Words matter. Especially in antitrust law,’ reads one document titled Five Rules of Thumb for Written Communications. ‘Alphabet gets sued a lot, and we have our fair share of regulatory investigations,’ reads another. ‘Assume every document will become public.’ The internal documents appear to be part of a self-guided training session for a wide range of the company’s more than 100,000 employees, from engineers to salespeople. One document, titled ‘Global Competition Policy,’ says it applies not only to interns and employees but also to temps, vendors, and contractors. The documents explain the basics of antitrust law and caution against loose talk that could have implications for government regulators or private lawsuits. In one of the documents, which appear to be written by the legal team, employees are advised to choose their words carefully and use only third-party data when referencing Google’s ‘position in search’ in sales pitches. They are further cautioned never to print or hand out their slides.”
The documents helpfully suggest alternative words, including “industry,” “space,” “area,” or the name of a region instead of “market;” “valuable to users” rather than “network effects;” and “challenges” instead of “barriers to entry.” Though employees may (mis)use terms innocently, history tells us lawyers and regulators can and will seize upon certain definitions to build their cases. The higher in the company one is, the riskier careless language becomes. Especially sensitive are phrasings that suggest Google dominates any market, intends to “crush” its competition, or makes any choice for its own advantage rather than for the benefit of users. Because, of course, Google would never do that.
Cynthia Murrell, May 14, 2021
The Amusing Antics of Big Tech Monopoly-Type Companies
May 13, 2021
If I use my imagination, I can hear the comments in the TV room of a fraternity house near the Chambana campus of the University of Illinois. “Dudes, we can make the losers at Sigma Nu look really stupid.” Then the snort, snort, snort of perceived victory over lesser beings.
I thought about this hypothetical bro-moment when I read two stories this morning.
The first is “Microsoft Edge Blocks Firefox Installer, Says It’ll Hurt Your PC.” Firefox has had its share of challenges. There’s the money thing, the management thing, and the number of users thing. Microsoft, the all-time leader in security, has determined that Firefox is allegedly a danger. The write up reports:
“Firefox Installer.exe was blocked because it could harm your device,” the warning read, with users only able to click through to see more details rather than continue the download. Techdows says that all versions of the Firefox Installer, including release, beta, dev, and nightly, appear to be affected, with multiple Reddit threads detailing download issues. Some users were able to download and install Firefox using Edge after disabling Microsoft Defender SmartScreen, a program.
That seems like a predictable response from those who have witnessed commentary in the hypothetical frat house.
The second is “Google: We Put YouTube TV in the Main YouTube App. What Now, Roku?” The idea is that Roku, the hardworking salary man of online video, is going to be reminded that the Google is the top dog. The write up states:
Google announced in a blog post that it was just going to run an end-around on Roku and stick the YouTube TV app in the YouTube app.
No one fools around with Mother Google.
What do these frat mentality actions by two large companies tell us? Perhaps these are routine business practices in the regulation and consequence free datasphere of 2021? Could these actions indicate that fraternity type thinking remains a core part of the technology world in the US? Or is there a darker implication; for instance, these actions are perceived as just what has to be done to ensure that big outfits get larger?
From my point of view, I find the frat-style a reminder that what characterizes those in extended adolescence appears to be the warp and woof of high technology: Competitive products are harmful or too stupid to cope with Googley reality.
Stephen E Arnold, May 13, 2021
Googley Logic: Can Money Buy Success, Innovation, and Insecurity?
May 12, 2021
Two items caught my attention this morning. No, I am not talking about warfighting, a horse trainer’s about face on the use of controlled substances in the horsey world, or melting the Eredivisie trophy into 42,000 champion stars. (Almost everyone is special in the Ajax fan world!)
Nope. Nope. Nope.
The first item is the Wall Street Journal’s story “Google Plans to Double AI Ethics Research Staff.” The story will demand payment for Mr. Murdoch’s gem of journalism. The main idea for the story is that Google will pump more cash into “the team tasked with evaluating code and product to avert discrimination…” How will this management tactic work out? I cannot predict the future. My hunch is that when it comes to figuring out averting discrimination, the “team” may find itself in some interesting chalk board meetings with the coach. If have fiddled with models to make the numbers flow, you may not appreciate how those subjective decisions can cascade through smart systems. Toss in the knock on effects of unmonitored feedback loops, and you get some darned thrilling moments in smart software outputs. Is it possible that by spending money be demonstrates the decider thought process used by a high school science club to determine what toppings are put on a vegetarian pizza?
The second item is “YouTube Announces a $100 Million Fund to Reward Top YouTube Shorts Creators over 2021-2022.” I don’t think the 2021-2022 refers to the age of the YouTube stars who qualify. The main point of this write up is to illustate that the Google is serious about short form video. Like other me-too innovators, the GOOG is using money to signal its innovative excellence. YouTube appears to have been blissfully ignorant of TikTok’s become a hot property — what? — four or five years ago. Now the Google is prepared to spend big to develop its new, revolutionary service. TikTok, the cash splash says, you are toast. Maybe Alphabet will issue a TikTok video to the song “I’m Gonna Get You” once the rights issues are worked out. Here’s a verse from the tune:
When you’re driftin’ off to sleep
Close your eyes and think of me
Make it easy on yourself
Don’t dream about nobody else
Is this a nightmare or a lullaby?
Let’s step back.
These two management actions raise some questions for me; for example:
Can money buy trust for Google’s management with regards to ethical AI?
Can money buy innovation in short form video and other new media formats?
Can Alphabet Google YouTube management respond in effective ways to the legal challenges about how it does business, the Amazon surge in product search, and the surprising proliferation of ads in Google search results, maps, and other “free” services?
I have zero insight into the workings of the Google. The firm’s management decisions are fascinating to observe: So big, yet so darned high school science club and certainly “diverse.”
Stephen E Arnold, May 12, 2021
Xoogler Meredith Whittaker Explains How to Be Google Grade
May 7, 2021
I read the interview called “Ex-Googler Meredith Whittaker on Political Power in Tech, the Flaws of ‘The Social Dilemma,’ and More.” Very Silicon Valley. You will need to work through the transcript yourself. Here are the points I circled as checkpoints for being Google Grade. The phrase in my lingo means “How to keep your job at the GOOG.” I identified six behaviors; your mileage may vary.
- Be a white male.
- Float above the concerns of non-Google grade type people.
- Emulate senior Google leaders; for example, the affable, other directed Jeff Dean.
- Ethics. Ho ho ho. Embrace phenomenological existentialism within the Google context.
- Respond like a Pavlovian dog or pigeon when money and power are the payoff.
- Fight the impulse to be a contrarian.
And the interview ends on an interesting note. The Xoogler allegedly said:
It’s going to be really hard to repurpose that toward democratic, people-driven ends, given the consolidation of power that is right now dominating those infrastructures and given the neoliberal capitalist incentives that are driving those who dominate those infrastructures.
Maybe not hard, just too late.
Stephen E Arnold, May 7, 2021
Privacy Challenges with Android Contact Tracing App
May 6, 2021
Why are we not surprised? We learn from The Markup that “Google Promised its Contact Tracing App Was Completely Private—But it Wasn’t.” The COVID contact-tracing framework, developed in a unique partnership with Apple, was used by several government agencies in their official apps. Millions of citizens took CEOs Sundar Pichai (Google) and Tim Cook (Apple) at their word that personal data would be kept private and downloaded the apps.
To trace contacts, enabled devices exchange anonymized Bluetooth signals with each other whenever people with the app are within 6 feet for 10 minutes or more. To make it harder to identify users, those symbols are changed every 15 minutes and are created from a key that changes every 24 hours. On Android (Google) devices, the exchanged signals are saved to the system logs where they are securely buried unless the user tests positive and chooses to share that information. At least, that’s the idea. Reporter Alfred Ng cites AppCensus forensics lead Joel Reardon as he writes:
“The issue, Reardon said, is that hundreds of preinstalled apps like Samsung Browser and Motorola’s MotoCare on Android devices have access to potentially sensitive information that the contact tracing apps store in system logs—a byproduct of how the preinstalled apps receive information about user analytics and crash reports. … Studies have found that more than 400 preinstalled apps on phones built by Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, and other companies have permission to read system logs for crash reports and analytic purposes. In the case of contact tracing apps, Reardon found that the system logs included data on whether a person was in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19 and could contain identifying information such as a device’s name, MAC address, and advertising ID from other apps. In theory, that information could be swept up by preinstalled apps and sent back to their company’s servers. He has not found that any apps have actually gathered that data, but there’s nothing preventing them from doing so.”
Ah, third-party preinstalled apps. Perhaps Google could be forgiven for overlooking that vulnerability if they had taken it seriously when it was brought to their attention. This past February, AppCensus researchers hired by the Department of Homeland Security found the problem and alerted Google. (They found no similar problems with the iPhone version.) Alas, Google has not fixed what Reardon calls a “one-line thing.” Instead the company has issued vague promises of rolling out an update of some sort at some time. Very reassuring.
Cynthia Murrell, May 6, 2021
The Addiction Analogy: The Cancellation of Influencer Rand Fishkin
May 5, 2021
Another short item. I read a series of tweets which you may be able to view at this link. The main idea is that an influencer was to give a talk about marketing. The unnamed organizer did not like Influencer Fishkin’s content. And what was that content? Information and observations critical of the outstanding commercial enterprises Facebook and Google. The apparent points of irritation were Influencer Fishkin’s statements to the effect that the two estimable outfits (Facebook and Google) were not “friendly, in-your-corner partners.” Interesting, but for me that was only part of the story.
Here’s what I surmised from the information provided by Influencer Fishkin:
- Manipulation is central to the way in which these two lighthouse firms operate in the dark world of online
- Both venerated companies function without consequences for their actions designed to generated revenue
- The treasured entities apply the model and pattern to “sector after sector.”
Beyond Search loves these revered companies.
But there is one word which casts a Beijing-in-a-sandstorm color over Influencer Fishkin’s remarks. And that word is?
Addiction
The idea is that these cherished organizations use their market position (which some have described as a monopoly set up) and specific content to make it difficult for a “user” of the “free” service to kick the habit.
My hunch is that neither of these esteemed commercial enterprises wants to be characterized as purveyor of gateway drugs, digital opioids, or artificers who put large monkeys on “users” backs.
That’s not a good look.
Hence, cancellation is a pragmatic fix, is it not?
Stephen E Arnold, May 5, 2021
Selective YouTube Upload Filtering or Erratic Smart Software?
May 4, 2021
I received some information about a YouTuber named Aquachiggers. I watched this person’s eight minute video in which Aquachigger explained that his videos had been downloaded from YouTube. Then an individual (whom I shall described as an alleged bad actor) uploaded those Aquachigger videos with a the alleged bad actor’s voice over. I think the technical term for this is a copyright violation taco.
I am not sure who did what in this quite unusual recycling of user content. What’s clear is that YouTube’s mechanism to determine if an uploaded video violates Google rules (who really knows what these are other than the magic algorithms which operate like tireless, non-human Amazon warehouse workers). Allegedly Google’s YouTube digital third grade teacher software can spot copyright violations and give the bad actor a chance to rehabilitate an offending video.
According to Aquachigger, content was appropriated, and then via logic which is crystalline to Googlers, notified Aquachigger that his channel would be terminated for copyright violation. Yep, the “creator” Aquachigger would be banned from YouTube, losing ad revenue and subscriber access, because an alleged bad actor took the Aquachigger content, slapped an audio track over it, and monetized that content. The alleged bad actor is generating revenue by unauthorized appropriation of another person’s content. The key is that the alleged bad actor generates more clicks than the “creator” Aquachigger.
Following this?
I decided to test the YouTube embedded content filtering system. I inserted a 45 second segment from a Carnegie Mellon news release about one of its innovations. I hit the upload button and discovered that after the video was uploaded to YouTube, the Googley system informed me that the video with the Carnegie Mellon news snip required further processing. The Googley system labored for three hours. I decided to see what would happen if I uploaded the test segment to Facebook. Zippity-doo. Facebook accepted my test video.
What I learned from my statistically insignificant test that I could formulate some tentative questions; for example:
- If YouTube could “block” my upload of the video PR snippet, would YouTube be able to block the Aquachigger bad actor’s recycled Aquachigger content?
- Why would YouTube block a snippet of a news release video from a university touting its technical innovation?
- Why would YouTube, create the perception that Aquachigger be “terminated”?
- Would YouTube be allowing the unauthorized use of Aquachigger content in order to derive more revenue from that content on the much smaller Aquachigger follower base?
Interesting questions. I don’t have answers, but this Aquachigger incident and my test indicate that consistency is the hobgoblin of some smart software. That’s why I laughed when I navigated to Jigsaw, a Google service, and learned that Google is committed to “protecting voices in conversation.” Furthermore:
Online abuse and toxicity stops people from engaging in conversation and, in extreme cases, forces people offline. We’re finding new ways to reduce toxicity, and ensure everyone can safely participate in online conversations.
I also learned:
Much of the world’s internet users experience digital censorship that restricts access to news, information, and messaging apps. We’re [Google] building tools to help people access the global internet.
Like I said, “Consistency.” Ho ho ho.
Stephen E Arnold, May 4, 2021
Google Caught In Digital and Sticky Ethical Web
May 3, 2021
Google is described as an employee first company. Employees are affectionately dubbed “Googlers” and are treated to great benefits, perks, and work environment. Google, however, has a dark side. While the company culture is supposedly great, misogynistic, racist attitudes run rampant. Bloomberg via Medium highlights recent ethical violations in the article, “Google Ethical AI Group’s AI Turmoil Began Long Before Public Unraveling.”
One of the biggest ethical problems Google has dealt with is the lack of diverse information in their facial recognition datasets. This has led to facial recognition AI’s inability to recognize minority populations. If ethical problems within their technology were not enough, Google had created an Ethical AI research team headed by respected scientists Margaret Mitchell and Timnit Gebru.
Google had Gebru forcefully resign from the company in December 2020, when she refused to retract a research paper that criticized Google’s AI. Mitchell was also terminated in February 2021 on the grounds she was sending Google sensitive documents to personal accounts.
During their short tenure as Google’s Ethical AI team leads, Mitchell and Gebru witnessed a sexist and racist environment. They both noticed that women with more experience held lower job titles than men with less experience. When female employees were harassed and incidents were reported nothing was done.
Head of Google AI Jeff Dean appeared to be a supporter of Gebru and Mitchell, but while he voiced supported his actions spoke louder:
“Dean struck a skeptical and cautious note about the allegations of harassment, according to people familiar with the conversation. He said he hadn’t heard the claims and would look into the matter. He also disputed the notion that women were being systematically put in lower positions than they deserved and pushed back on the idea that Mitchell’s treatment was related to her gender. Dean and the women discussed how to create a more inclusive environment, and he said he would follow up on the other topics….
About a month after Gebru and Heller reported the claims of sexual harassment and after the lunch meeting with Gebru and Mitchell, Dean announced a significant new research initiative, and put the accused individual in charge of it, according to several people familiar with the situation. That rankled the internal whistleblowers, who feared the influence their newly empowered colleague could have on women under his tutelage.”
Google had purposely created the Ethical AI research team to bring attention to disparities and poor behavior to their attention. When Gebru and Mitchell did their job, their observations were dismissed.
Google shot itself in the foot when they fired Gebru and Mitchell, because the pair were doing their job. Because the pair questioned Google’s potential problems with Google technology and fought against sexism and racism, the company treated them as disruptive liabilities. Mitchell and Gebru’ treatment point to issues of self-regulation. Companies are internally biased, because they want to make money and not make mistakes. However, this attitude creates a lackadaisical attitude towards self-regulation and responsibility. Biased technology leads to poor consequences for minorities that could potentially ruin their lives. Is it not better to be aware of these issues, accept the problem, then fix it?
Google is only going to champion itself and not racial/gender equality.
Whitney Grace, May 3, 2021
Google Bets: Chump Change
April 30, 2021
In the midst of stakeholder ebullience about Alphabet Google’s money making prowess, I spotted one interesting comment. “Alphabet Reports Q1 2021 Revenue of $55.3 Billion” included this statement:
The closely-watched “Other Bets” continues to lose money. It reported $198 million revenue primarily generated by Verily and Fiber from $135 million in Q1 of 2020. However, it lost $1.15 billion compared to $1.12 billion in the same quarter of last year.
For a company of Alphabet Google YouTube’s scale this is a modest loss. However, it does beg a couple of questions:
- Is the data analysis used to decide upon what to wager flawed?
- Is there high value information about the firm’s management of certain projects contained in these increasing and continuing losses?
Alphabet does online advertising and data vending. Innovation may be more of a reach than some expected.
Stephen E Arnold, April 30, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
