Tech Bros Are Not Stoopid. You Are.
April 29, 2026
The Nation posted“The Anti-Intellectualism of the Silicon Valley Elite.” Let’s think about that for a moment. Do the technology elite, the leaders in Silicon Valley, and the future of mankind lack intellect?
Look at these notable contributions: Data centers that suck power and scare animals. Social media. 24×7 surveillance. Lots of money for them and their fellow travelers.
Outstanding achievements.
The Nation’s article states:
“As the historian Richard Hofstadter noted, a fierce anti-intellectual spirit has long animated American culture, but it has typically targeted the knowledge elite from below. What’s striking about today’s brand of anti-intellectualism is that it infuses the American knowledge elite; it stems from the bedrock conviction among tech oligarchs that they have mastered everything and have nothing left to learn. In this cloistered vision of tech-driven learning, they believe that deep intellectual work—the kind you do when you author a complex piece of music, for example—has little or no inherent value. Their disdain for it has fueled their attacks on higher education, the humanities, and learning for its own sake, which they believe has no purpose beyond its inevitable digitization and monetization.”
The write up points out that some tech elites think learning for learning’s sake does not deliver a payoff. High school and college education are not useful unless a wizard is a late bloomer can join one of the BAIT (big AI technology) companies.
What else does the article reveal:
“As ardent monopolists, they’ve managed to believe they’ve cornered the market on critical thinking. Everyone else needn’t be troubled by the rigors of learning, since they exist solely to serve as drones in the tech regimes of the future.”
Does this sound in line with “all men are created equal”? My view is that Silicon Valley bros are indeed elitists, oligarchs, champagne socialists, idiots with money, toxic masculinity, and gangsters made of zeros and ones.
Yep, the tech bros want females to be “trad wives” and pay attention to the kiddies. The tech bros do the man concerns. Lesser entities support the new construct. And what about emotional intelligence of empathy and compassion?
Hey, just ask Gemini, OpenAI, or another of the AI utilities. The outputs will set you on the right path.
Whitney Grace, April 29, 2026
Does Google Believe That Addiction Is Good?
April 2, 2026
![green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]_thumb](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/green-dino_thumb_thumb3_thumb-1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]_thumb")
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I believe everything I read on the Internet. You may be different in your views. I noted this story in the New York Post: “YouTube Staffers Deliberately Aimed for Viewer Addiction, Killed Safety Tools for Kids: Court Docs.” As you may now, my team and I absolutely love the Google. Over the years, I have had a few trivial interactions with Googlers. When Google had just morphed from Backrub into the enhanced version of Clever and basic Web indexing, Larry Page and I disagreed about the importance of truncation, both forward and back. (Note: This was an issue important in a major US government procurement in Year 2000 to 2001.) I then chased down a senior Googler to tell that estimable individual that I was using the neologism “Googzilla” in my second monograph about Google’s strategy and technology. That person was delighted. Since that interaction, I happily talk about Googzilla. I even used some art that resembled a semi-happy Japanese movie monster as cover art. Over the years, Googlers and I have have interacted with the estimable firm communicating the fact that I was not ready to marry Googzilla and my keeping my affection in check.
A meeting in which the methods for creating habitual viewing of videos is discussed. The member of leadership goes directly to the point. That outstanding business thinker wants reassurance that addiction will come about. Let the rest of the group argue about other topics. Thanks, Venice.ai. Once again I did not bump into your guard rails. Aren’t I the good little LLM user?
This story in the New York Post, therefore, strikes me as having a couple of kernels of truth in it. Let’s see what is offered by the cited story, shall we?
I noted this passage:
YouTube employees admitted that their goal was “viewer addiction” and killed proposed safety tools for kids because they wouldn’t provide a sufficient “ROI” — financial lingo for “return on investment,” according to bombshell court documents reviewed by The Post.
I don’t think the word “bombshell” is necessary. The court stenographers and the folks who slap on Bates’ numbers just process that which flows to them. But “bombshell” is colorful. The key point, from my point of view, is that Googlers took specific action to create “viewer addiction.” From my admittedly limited information about the Google, I think the reason the addiction path looked appealing boils down to the incentive plans and the value of generating revenue. Google is definitely more into money than worrying about delivering on point, relevant, and timely search results my own experience has suggested.
The write up includes this snappy statement:
…The “goal is not viewership, it’s viewer addiction.”
I am not surprised. YouTube is social with the follower thing and the comments. The recommendations, as flawed as they are for me, seem to attract the attention of those who manifest quite specific interests in topics against which advertisers messages can display. I get recommendations for French instrumental music, the history of mayonnaise, and a 10th grade mathematics examination. Definitely relevant to someone, just not this dinobaby. Let’s see. I was in the 10th grade in 1958 and 1959. That works out to about 70 years ago. News flash: When confronted with the weird math my great uncle who worked with Kolmogorov, I plug the problem into ChatGPT. Works for me!
Here’s another statement from the article:
During the state trial last month, YouTube executive Cristos Goodrow testified that the app was “not designed to maximize time” and the company doesn’t “want anybody to be addicted.” This summer’s federal case in Oakland, however, includes an internal YouTube presentation from April 2018 recounting study findings that “excessive video watching is related to addiction” and that it results in a “’quick fix’ of dopamine.’”
Could this be a prevarication or a fundamental lack of knowledge about the whiz kid Googlers were doing when not playing Foosball? It would not surprise me if a member of Google leadership did not know what was happening. Management processes seems to be idiosyncratic and inconsistent. Once the estimable firm could not pay me because no one in accounting knew how to output a check. How’s that for rock solid business process fundamentals? I was impressed. Not even the failing start ups for whom I did work were able to issue checks until the VCs pulled the plug.
The highlight of the article is an Google slide. It sure looks like the Google slides I saw from the period between 2004 and later. Here’s the one from the write up. Obviously it is the work product of a person named Howard (name means nothin to me) and Gunamtillake (nope, I am drawing a blank for this person too). The image is the property of the Google and probably now the courts and the New York Post.
The headline for this slide is “Excessive video watching is related to addiction.” Who knew? Obviously, the Google.
I urge you to read the full article. It contains some nifty phrases like “big tobacco moment” and Google’s surveillance business” and “kids as pawns.” But this is, in my opinion, the juiciest passage in the cited article:
Multiple federal judges have ripped Google for destroying chat logs that should have been preserved, including US District Judge James Donato, who furiously condemned the practice during a 2023 antitrust case as “a frontal assault on the fair administration of justice” that “undercuts due process.”
A curious person might ask, “Now what?” Answer: Nothing.
Google has a vision. Googzilla is very focused.
Net net: Without meaningful regulation and substantial penalties for the individuals who cause the laws, rules, and regulations to be ignored, BAIT (big AI tech) companies will just keep moving on down the road to the pot of gold at the end of their digital rainbows. Can the damaged be remediated? Answer: Not easily. Will BAIT outfits operate in a different way? Answer: As I write this, it is April Fool’s Day. Surely you are joking.
PS. Act fast to access the information available from CourtListener.com. Some content, like my Telegram essays, have a habit of going to the digital graveyard without warning and quickly. Here’s the full link. Yep, my team and I absolutely think Googzilla is the cutest company on the planet.
Stephen E Arnold, April 2, 2026
Why Worry? Be Happy. Big Tech Is
March 24, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
With the growing dependency on land and water, AI data centers are popping up quicker than nuclear power plants post World War II. Nana Nwachukwu published a piece on The Conversation with a startling comparison: “We Are In A Digital Version Of The Enclosures – Like The Landowners, Big Tech Has Power Without Responsibility.”
Thanks, Venice.ai. Do much user testing with your new interface? I understand. Speed is better than user satisfaction.
If you’re unfamiliar with British history, during the 18th-19th centuries the English parliament passed over 4,000 enclosure acts that stole public land from peasants. The land was given to aristocrats and the church. The same thing is happening says economic historian Karl Polanyi, because resources that once sustained the community are now being targeted by bigwigs. The resources are transformed into commodities and force people to depend on markets they don’t control.
With those lands came certain responsibilities, but the new landowners rejected them.
Nwachukwu noticed something similar with the lack of culpability with Big Tech. One example is Grok was used to generate images of scantily clad women. She also mentions this:
“As a former Trusted Facebook Partner, I am familiar with how content moderation used to work. Platforms such as Meta (when it was Facebook) ran programs where activists and civil society organizations could flag harmful content directly to human reviewers for outright removal or labelling. While these arrangements were imperfect, they were a form of negotiated governance where communities retained input into what stayed and what was taken away.
A year ago, Meta announced it was ending its fact-checking program and moving to “community notes” modeled on X’s systems. Users now moderate each other. Meta framed this as a trade-off for free expression. I regard it as a withdrawal of responsibility while retaining control.”
Big Tech seems to touch everything some people do. The power of these firms seems to be regulated. The EU investigates, fines, and then repeats without causing meaningful change to the behavior of certain US companies. Checks and balances are not working or not in place. How is that freedom of scope working out? Yeah, great.
Whitney Grace, March 24, 2026
Has Paragon Knocked NSO Group Off the Leader Board for Great Marketing?
March 2, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
NSO Group has been a good example of what happens when PR and marketing is viewed as no big deal. These two soft functions are definitely significant in certain contexts; for example, public awareness of mobile security.
I am not sure if the information in “The Israeli Spyware Firm That Accidentally Just Exposed Itself” is 100 percent accurate. I have not seen many references to this article published on February 12, 2026. I am writing this short blog post on February 23, 2026. It is possible that the write up simply is not that significant in the midst of some kinetic outfits near Iran and the constant refrains of Epstein Epstein Epstein.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
What does the write up say as actual factual.
Here’s the main point of the story from Ahmedeldin’s report:
Israeli surveillance company Paragon Solutions briefly exposed its own spyware dashboard on LinkedIn, revealing the hidden architecture of a billion-dollar surveillance empire built on the backs of journalists, activists, and ordinary people.
Yep, good old LinkedIn. I am not 100 percent certain why spyware, intelware, and policeware vendors [a] have a LinkedIn page or [b] why those working as contractors or employees at these *ware firm allow individuals to put any information on any social media about what is secretive products for specialized applications. The fact that LinkedIn was a conduit strikes me as a big time mistake in governance. I personally have not felt comfortable with *ware outfits pitching their “products” after egregious security breaches have taken place when these types of systems were up and running. The problems range from commercial nightmares like SolarWind to nation state issues like the October attack on festival goers in Israel. Yep, governance is more important than marketing or over confidence.
Here’s a secondary point in the write up:
Once spyware achieves device-level persistence, access pathways inevitably extend beyond the narrow confines vendors claim and describe. The technical reality is clear: if you can compromise a device, you can access everything…. The $900 million valuation of Paragon Solutions reveals the brutal economics of surveillance capitalism.
The article wants to make darned sure the reader knows that governments cannot be trusted with sophisticated *ware. In the context of certain nation states going all in for smart software from third parties, the idea is planted that bad things will happen. News flash: Bad things have already happened and regulators and law makers have not been able to do much about these “leaky” systems.
What’s the fix? What’s the reader supposed to do?
Here’s the conclusion to the write up:
This is a crisis of global proportion, a threat to human dignity that crosses borders and transcends politics. The question is no longer whether we should be concerned about surveillance. The question is whether we will allow this system to continue unchecked, whether we will demand accountability from those who profit from our vulnerability, whether we will reclaim our digital lives from those who would turn our devices into tools of control.
Where’s the fix? Where’s the citizen pressure on elected officials? Where’s the external repair person for the damaged moral compasses in the leadership of certain big tech companies?
I hear crickets.
Stephen E Arnold, March 2, 2026
Apple: Waking Up Is Hard to Do
October 16, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read a letter. I think this letter or at least parts of it were written by a human. These days it can be tough to know. The letter appeared in “Wiley Hodges’s Open Letter to Tim Cook Regarding ICEBlock.” Mr. Hodge, according to the cited article, retired from Apple, the computer and services company in 2022.
The letter expresses some concern that Apple removed an app from the Apple online store. Here’s a snippet from the “letter”:
Apple and you are better than this. You represent the best of what America can be, and I pray that you will find it in your heart to continue to demonstrate that you are true to the values you have so long and so admirably espoused.
It does seem to me that Apple is a flexible outfit. The purpose of the letter is unknown to me. On the surface, it is a single former employee’s expression of unhappiness at how “leadership” leads and deciders “decide.” However, below the surface it a signal that some people thought a for profit, pragmatic, and somewhat frisky Fancy Dancing organization was like Snow White, the Easter bunny, or the Lone Ranger.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
Sorry. That’s not how big companies work or many little companies for that matter. Most organizations do what they can to balance a PR image with what the company actually does. Examples range from arguing via sleek and definitely expensive lawyers that what they do does not violate laws. Also, companies work out deals. Some of these involve doing things to fit in to the culture of a particular company. I have watched money change hands when registering a vehicle in the government office in Sao Paulo. These things happen because they are practical. Apple, for example, has an interesting relationship with a certain large country in Asia. I wonder if there is a bit of the old soft shoe going on in that region of the world.
These are, however, not the main point of this blog post. There cited article contains this statement:
Hodges, earlier in his letter, makes reference to Apple’s 2016 standoff with the FBI over a locked iPhone belonging to the mass shooter in San Bernardino, California. The FBI and Justice Department pressured Apple to create a version of iOS that would allow them to backdoor the iPhone’s passcode lock. Apple adamantly refused.
Okay, the time delta is nine years. What has changed? Obviously social media, the economic situation, the relationship among entities, and a number of lawsuits. These are the touchpoints of our milieu. One has to surf on the waves of change and the ripples and waves of datasphere.
But I want to highlight several points about my reaction to the this blog post containing the Hodge’s letter:
- Some people are realizing that their hoped-for vision of Apple, a publicly traded company, is not the here-and-now Apple. The fairy land of a company that cares is pretty much like any other big technology outfit. Shocker.
- Apple is not much different today than it was nine years ago. Plucking an example which positioned the Cupertino kids as standing up for an ideal does not line up with the reality. Technology existed then to gain access to digital devices. Believing the a company’s PR reflected reality illustrates how crazy some perceptions are. Saying is not doing.
- Apple remains to me one of the most invasive of the technology giants. The constant logging in, the weirdness of forcing people to have data in the iCloud when those people do not know the data are there or want it there for that matter, the oddball notifications that tell a user that an “new device” is connected when the iPad has been used for years, and a few other quirks like hiding files are examples of the reality of the company.
News flash: Apple is like the other Silicon Valley-type big technology companies. These firms have a game plan of do it and apologize. Push forward. I find it amusing that adults are experiencing the same grief as a sixth grader with a crush on the really cute person in home room. Yep, waking up is hard to do. Stop hitting the snooze alarm and join the real world.
Net net: The essay is a hoot. Here is an adult realizing that there is no Santa with apparently tireless animals and dwarfs at the North Pole. The cited article contains what appears to be another expression of annoyance, anger, and sorrow that Apple is not what the humans thought it was. Apple is Apple, and the only change agent able to modify the company is money and/or fear, a good combo in my experience.
Stephen E Arnold, October 16, 2025
AI Can Be a Critic Unless Biases Are Hard Wired
June 26, 2025
The Internet has made it harder to find certain music, films, and art. It was supposed to be quite the opposite, and it was for a time. But social media and its algorithms have made a mess of things. So asserts the blogger at Tadaima in, “If Nothing Is Curated, How Do We Find Things?” The write up reports:
“As convenient as social media is, it scatters the information like bread being fed to ducks. You then have to hunt around for the info or hope the magical algorithm gods read your mind and guide the information to you. I always felt like social media creates an illusion of convenience. Think of how much time it takes to stay on top of things. To stay on top of music or film. Think of how much time it takes these days, how much hunting you have to do. Although technology has made information vast and reachable, it’s also turned the entire internet into a sludge pile.”
Slogging through sludge does take the fun out of discovery. The author fondly recalls the days when a few hours a week checking out MTV and Ebert and Roeper, flipping through magazines, and listening to the radio was enough to keep them on top of pop culture. For a while, curation websites deftly took over that function. Now, though, those have been replaced by social-media algorithms that serve to rake in ad revenue, not to share tunes and movies that feed the soul. The write up observes:
“Criticism is dead (with Fantano being the one exception) and Gen Alpha doesn’t know how to find music through anything but TikTok. Relying on algorithms puts way too much power in technology’s hands. And algorithms can only predict content that you’ve seen before. It’ll never surprise you with something different. It keeps you in a little bubble. Oh, you like shoegaze? Well, that’s all the algorithm is going to give you until you intentionally start listening to something else.”
Yep. So the question remains: How do we find things? Big tech would tell us to let AI do it, of course, but that misses the point. The post’s writer has settled for a somewhat haphazard, unsatisfying method of lists and notes. They sadly posit this state of affairs might be the “new normal.” This type of findability “normal” may be very bad in some ways.
Cynthia Murrell, June 26, 2025
Lights, Ready the Smart Software, Now Hit Enter
June 11, 2025
Just a dinobaby and no AI: How horrible an approach?
I like snappy quotes. Here’s a good one from “You Are Not Prepared for This Terrifying New Wave of AI-Generated Videos.” The write up says:
I don’t mean to be alarmist, but I do think it’s time to start assuming everything you see online is fake.
I like the categorical affirmative. I like the “alarmist.” I particularly like “fake.”
The article explains:
Something happened this week that only made me more pessimistic about the future of truth on the internet. During this week’s Google I/O event, Google unveiled Veo 3, its latest AI video model. Like other competitive models out there, Veo 3 can generate highly realistic sequences, which Google showed off throughout the presentation. Sure, not great, but also, nothing really new there. But Veo 3 isn’t just capable of generating video that might trick your eye into thinking its real: Veo 3 can also generate audio to go alongside the video. That includes sound effects, but also dialogue—lip-synced dialogue.
If the Google-type synths are good enough and cheap, I wonder how many budding film directors will note the capabilities and think about their magnum opus on smart software dollies. Cough up a credit card and for $250 per month imagine what videos Google may allow you to make. My hunch is that Mother Google will block certain topics, themes, and “treatments.” (How easy would it be for a Google-type service to weaponize videos about the news, social movements, and recalcitrant advertisers?)
The write worries gently as well, stating:
We’re in scary territory now. Today, it’s demos of musicians and streamers. Tomorrow, it’s a politician saying something they didn’t; a suspect committing the crime they’re accused of; a “reporter” feeding you lies through the “news.” I hope this is as good as the technology gets. I hope AI companies run out of training data to improve their models, and that governments take some action to regulate this technology. But seeing as the Republicans in the United States passed a bill that included a ban on state-enforced AI regulations for ten years, I’m pretty pessimistic on that latter point. In all likelihood, this tech is going to get better, with zero guardrails to ensure it advances safely. I’m left wondering how many of those politicians who voted yes on that bill watched an AI-generated video on their phone this week and thought nothing of it.
My view is that several questions may warrant some noodling by a humanoid or possibly an “ethical” smart software system; for example:
- Can AI detectors spot and flag AI-generated video? Ignoring or missing may have interesting social knock on effects.
- Will a Google-type outfit ignore videos that praise an advertiser whose products are problematic? (Health and medical videos? Who defines “problematic”?)
- Will firms with video generating technology self regulate or just do what yields revenue? (Producers of adult content may have some clever ideas, and many of these professionals are willing to innovate.)
Net net: When will synth videos win an Oscar?
Stephen E Arnold, June 11, 2025
Blockchain: Adoption Lag Lies in the Implementation
April 15, 2025
Why haven’t cryptocurrencies taken over the financial world yet? The Observer shares some theories in, "Blockchain’s Billion-Dollar Blunder: How Finance’s Tech Revolution Became an Awkward Evolution." Writer Boris Bohrer-Bilowitzki believes the mistake was trying to reinvent the wheel, instead of augmenting it. He observes:
"For years, the strategy has been replacement rather than integration. We’ve attempted to create entirely new financial systems from scratch, expecting the world to abandon centuries of established infrastructure overnight. It hasn’t worked, and it won’t work. … This disconnect highlights our fundamental misunderstanding of how technological evolution works. Credit cards didn’t replace cash; they complemented it. They added a layer of convenience and security that made transactions easier while working within the existing financial framework. That’s the model blockchain has always needed to follow."
Gee, it makes sense when you put it that way. The write-up points to Swift as an organization that gets it. We learn:
"One of the most promising developments in this space is the international banking system SWIFT’s ongoing blockchain pilot program. In 2025, SWIFT will facilitate live trials, enabling central and commercial banks across North America, Europe and Asia to conduct digital asset transactions on its network. These trials aim to explore how blockchain can enhance payments, foreign exchange (FX), securities trading and trade finance without requiring banks to overhaul their systems."
That sounds promising. But what about consumers? Many are baffled by the very concept of cryptocurrency, never mind how to interact with it. Intuitive interfaces, Bohrer-Bilowitzki stresses, would remove that hurdle. After all, he notes, folks only embrace new technologies that make their lives easier.
Did the esteemed Observer overlook these blockchain downsides?
- Distributed autonomous organizations look more like Discord groups and club members
- Wonky reward layers
- Funding “hopes” is losing some traction
- Web3 seems to filled with janky STARs.
Novelty alone is not enough to drive large-scale adoption. Imagine that.
Cynthia Murrell, April 16, 2025
YouTube: Another Big Cost Black Hole?
March 25, 2025
Another dinobaby blog post. Eight decades and still thrilled when I point out foibles.
I read “Google Is in Trouble… But This Could Change Everything – and No, It’s Not AI.” The write up makes the case that YouTube is Google’s big financial opportunity. I agree with most of the points in the write up. The article says:
Google doesn’t clearly explain how much of the $40.3 billion comes from the YouTube platform, but based on their description and choice of phrasing like “primarily include,” it’s safe to assume YouTube generates significantly more revenue than just the $36.1 billion reported. This would mean YouTube, not Google Cloud, is actually Google’s second-biggest business.
Yep, financial fancy dancing is part of the game. Google is using its financial reports as marketing to existing stakeholders and investors who want a part of the still-hot, still-dominant Googzilla. The idea is that the Google is stomping on the competition in the hottest sectors: The cloud, smart software, advertising, and quantum computing.
A big time company’s chief financial officer enters his office after lunch and sees a flood of red ink engulfing his work space. Thanks, OpenAI, good enough.
Let’s flip the argument from Google has its next big revenue oil gusher to the cost of that oil field infrastructure.
An article appeared in mid-February 2025. I was surprised that the information in that write up did not generate more buzz in the world of Google watchers. “YouTube by the Numbers: Uncovering YouTube’s Ghost Town of Billions of Unwatched, Ignored Videos” contains some allegedly accurate information. Let’s assume that these data, like most information about online, is close enough for horseshoes or purely notional. I am not going to summarize the methodology. Academics come up with interesting ways to obtain information about closely guarded big company products and services.
The write up says:
the research estimates a staggering 14.8 billion total videos on YouTube as of mid-2024. Unsurprisingly, most of these videos are barely noticed. The median YouTube upload has just 41 views, with 4% garnering no views at all. Over 74% have no comments and 89% have no likes.
Here are a couple of other factoids about YouTube as reported in the Techspot article:
The production values are also remarkably modest. Only 14% of videos feature a professional set or background. Just 38% show signs of editing. More than half have shaky camerawork, and audio quality varies widely in 85% of videos. In fact, 40% are simply music tracks with no voice-over.
And another point I found interesting:
Moreover, the typical YouTube video is just 64 seconds long, and over a third are shorter than 33 seconds.
The most revealing statement in the research data appears in this passage:
… a senior researcher [said] that this narrative overlooks a crucial reality: YouTube is not just an entertainment hub – it has become a form of digital infrastructure. Case in point: just 0.21% of the sampled videos included any kind of sponsorship or advertising. Only 4% had common calls to action such as liking, commenting, and subscribing. The vast majority weren’t polished content plays but rather personal expressions – perhaps not so different from the old camcorder days.
Assuming the data are reasonably good Google has built plumbing whose cost will rival that of the firm’s investments in search and its cloud.
From my point of view, cost control is going to become as important as moving as quickly as possible to the old-school broadcast television approach to content. Hit shows on YouTube will do what is necessary to attract an audience. The audience will be what advertisers want.
Just as Google search has degraded to a popular “experience,” not a resource for individuals who want to review and extract high value information, YouTube will head the same direction. The question is, “Will YouTube’s pursuit of advertisers mean that the infrastructure required to permit free video uploads and storage be sustainable?
Imagine being responsible for capital investments at the Google. The Cloud infrastructure must be upgraded and enhanced. The AI infrastructure must be upgraded and enhanced. The quantum computing and other technology-centric infrastructures must be upgraded an enhanced. The adtech infrastructure must be upgraded and enhanced. I am leaving out some of the Google’s other infrastructure intensive activities.
The main idea is that the financial person is going to have a large job paying for hardware, software, maintenance, and telecommunications. This is a different cost from technical debt. These are on-going and constantly growing costs. Toss in unexpected outages, and what does the bean counter do. One option is to quit and another is to do the Zen thing to avoid have a stroke when reviewing the cost projections.
My take is that a hit in search revenue is likely to add to the firm’s financial challenges. The path to becoming the modern version of William Paley’s radio empire may be in Google’s future. The idea that everything is in the cloud is being revisited by companies due to cost and security concerns. Does Google host some sketchy services on its Cloud?
YouTube may be the hidden revenue gem at Google. I think it might become the infrastructure cost leader among Google’s stellar product line up. Big companies like Google don’t just disappear. Instead the black holes of cost suck them closer to a big event: Costs rise more quickly than revenue.
At this time, Google has three cost black holes. One hopes none is the one that makes Googzilla join the ranks of the street people of online dwell.
Net net: Google will have to give people what they will watch. The lowest common denominator will emerge. The costs flood the CFO’s office. Just ask Gemini what to do.
Stephen E Arnold, March 25, 2025
A Swelling Wave: Internet Shutdowns in Africa
March 18, 2025
Another dinobaby blog post. No AI involved which could be good or bad depending on one’s point of view.
How does a government deal with information it does not like, want, or believe? The question is a pragmatic one. Not long ago, Russia suggested to Telegram that it cut the flow of Messenger content to Chechnya. Telegram has been somewhat more responsive to government requests since Pavel Durov’s detainment in France, but it dragged its digital feet. The fix? The Kremlin worked with service providers to kill off the content flow or at least as much of it as was possible. Similar methods have been used in other semi-enlightened countries.
“Internet Shutdowns at Record High in Africa As Access Weaponised’ reports:
A report released by the internet rights group Access Now and #KeepItOn, a coalition of hundreds of civil society organisations worldwide, found there were 21 shutdowns in 15 African countries, surpassing the existing record of 19 shutdowns in 2020 and 2021.
There are workarounds, but some of these are expensive and impractical for the people in Cormoros, Guinea-Bassau, Mauritius, Burundi, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, and Kenya. I am not sure the list is complete, but the idea of killing Internet access seems to be an accepted response in some countries.
Several observations:
- Recent announcements about Google making explicit its access to users’ browser histories provide a rich and actionable pool of information. Will these type of data be used to pinpoint a dissident or a problematic individual? In my visits to Africa, including the thrilling Zimbabwe, I would suggest that the answer could be, “Absolutely.”
- Online is now pervasive, and due to a lack of meaningful regulation, the idea of going online and sharing information is a negative. In the late 1980s, I gave a lecture for ASIS at Rutgers University. I pointed out that flows of information work like silica grit in a sand blasting device to remove rust in an autobody shop. I can say from personal experience that no one knew what I was talking about. In 40 years, people and governments have figured out how online flows erode structures and social conventions.
- The trend of shutdown is now in the playbook of outfits around the world. Commercial companies can play the game of killing a service too. Certain large US high technology companies have made it clear that their service would summarily be blocked if certain countries did not play ball the US way.
As a dinobaby who has worked in online for decades, I find it interesting that the pigeons are coming home to roost. A failure years ago to recognize and establish rules and regulation for online is the same as having those lovable birds loose in the halls of government. What do pigeons produce? Yep, that’s right. A mess, a potentially deadly one too.
Stephen E Arnold, March 18, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
