Facebook: Running Out of Users? No, Just Nibbling on Its Foot
July 25, 2019
About that Facebook growth? The US may be saturated, and FBF or Facebook fatigue may be kicking. Rumors about “phantom” Facebookers in far flung countries won’t die. The regulators are flocking with legal eagles, and some countries see Facebook as a piggy bank filled with easy money.
What else could go wrong?
According to Information (no, that’s the name of an online publication), quite a bit. “Facebook Secret Research Warned of ‘Tipping Point’ Threat to Core App” discloses allegedly confidential information that doom approaches with a Like icon. (We will take a look at secrets let loose in our August 6, 2019, “DarkCyber” video program.)
What’s the Facebook secret?
…if enough users started posting on Instagram or WhatsApp instead of Facebook, the blue app could enter a self-sustaining decline in usage that would be difficult to undo. Although such “tipping points” are difficult to predict…
Here’s a Venn diagram (remember those you algebra lovers?) to prove this “secret”:
These could be Facebook’s five circles of social hell. Source: Information (that’s a great name when searching!)
To simplify, Facebook is cannibalizing itself. Without a flow of “real,” honest to goodness users of “old” Facebook, it’s possible for the core service to shrink and maybe die.
No, no, no, howls one group of FB Likers. Yes, yes, yes, shout another group which collectively dislikes Facebook.
Several observations:
- Monopolies do what they do, steered by the invisible hand of digital leprosy
- Reversing the cannibalism is going to take more than high school science club management methods, apologies, and writing checks to assorted nation states
- A weakened Facebook can fall prey to the MySpace disease, the digital pneumonia which thrives in poorly managed social spaces.
Net net: Worth watching. Get your popcorn, kick back, and think how certain government agencies will obtain high value information from a weakened Facebook.
Stephen E Arnold, July 25, 2019
Google: Some Interesting News Regarding an Interesting Company?
July 9, 2019
DarkCyber noted a handful of interesting Google news items. We assume that each of these is true, or in the words of one podcast, “actual factual” information.
First, Digital Journal reports that Google is working on cold fusion. The write up explains:
Cold fusion is a hypothesized type of nuclear reaction taking place at room temperature (hence the reference to ‘cold and contrasting to the “hot” fusion which papers within stars or as part of hydrogen bombs). There is currently no accepted theoretical model that would allow cold fusion to occur, and when attempted results have not been reproducible.
Nevertheless, Digital Journal reports via Physics World:
Google together with several research institutes in the U.S. is reported to have reopened what they call the “cold case” of cold fusion. Despite the many failures to observe cold fusion, the scientists contend that the case is not yet closed, and that cold fusion energy is indeed achievable. Google are investing $10 million into the project and there are thirty scientists involved.
Second, “YouTube Software Engineer Injures 8 in Drug-Induced Fourth of July Rampage, Police Say” reports that a person allegedly a Google YouTuber, ingested LSD and behaved in an manner which caused Sonoma county officers to shoot him.
The news story summarized these actions by the alleged Googler:
- To get past his friends trying to stop him, Koffi choked one, stabbed one with a pencil and punched two in the chest, side and face.
- While trying to get away in his rental car, he hit the car parked behind him and lodged the sedan into the house’s garage.
- Koffi ran down the street before a security guard began questioning him. He stabbed the guard’s chest with the metal stake end of a landscape light, then sped away in the guard’s running and unlocked truck.
- On the road, he hit two pedestrians. He then struck a woman walking on a bluff. After hitting a wall, he drove through the side yard of a home and got back on the road in time for two patrol cars to pull up.
- Koffi accelerated toward the officers, ramming into one patrol car as a deputy fired a gun. He didn’t stop until he was shot at least three times through the windshield.
Third, Google researchers allegedly discovered a way to brick (disable) Apple iPhones with an iMessage. According to BGR (Boy Genius Report):
The only fix is a factory reset and there’s no way to recover lost data that wasn’t backed up….The good news is that Apple patched this issue in iOS 12.3, which means that you’re safe as long as you’ve updated to the latest stable iOS release, or if you’re on an iOS 13 beta.
Cold fusion, LSD, and bricking iPhones — linked with a single threat: The Google. Dare I use the acronym: HSSCMM? No, not even high school science clubs could pull off these three events in a week or so.
Stephen E Arnold, July 9, 2019
Google to Kiwis: You Are Flightless Birds, Not Us
July 5, 2019
I read “Google Suspends Trends Email Alerts in New Zealand after Breaching Court Order.” The headline caught my attention. New Zealand? Home of Kim Dotcom. Get away spot for some Silicon Valley Lord of the Rings admirers? A handy place to experience earth tremors.
The write up reminded me:
Google has backed down in a spat with the New Zealand government after its email alert system Trends breached a court order suppressing details of a high-profile murder case. According to Reuters and AFP, Google has suspended its Trends feature in the country following outcry from the New Zealand government.
I can understand Google’s point of view. New Zealand is a mere country and a small one at that. It is far away, and it does not click as much as an important country’s residents.
The hassle surfaced because an automated Google alert named the person who killed another. Stating the alleged killer’s name was a no no. Google ignored that court order.
Google said, “Yo, we’re sorry.” However, Google was not too keen on making changes to its systems because a mere country wanted the US firm to follow the laws of that lesser nation state.
Here’s the nifty part. The write up reported:
New Zealand politicians reacted strongly to this reply, with justice minister Andrew Little accusing Google of “flipping the bird” at the country’s legal system.
What’s the problem with Google (a big virtual country) doing what’s good for itself. Plus, little countries have to be careful because Google has digital firepower and could use it to send a message. Oil embargo? Forget that? How about no email and no Web traffic?
The write up included this statement:
In the UK, for example, politicians have argued that Facebook is incapable of policing “harmful” content on its platform, and needs to be overseen by domestic regulators. In France, Google has been fined millions of dollars for failing to meet EU data privacy laws. And in New Zealand, Facebook was strongly criticized by prime minister Jacinda Ardern for failing to stop the spread of videos of the Christchurch terrorist attacks. “They are the publisher not just the postman,” said Arden in March. “There cannot be a case of all profit no responsibility.”
Get real. This is the Google politicians and officials are irritating. What about removing New Zealand and the UK from Google Maps?
If you are not on Google, you don’t exist. Understand?
Stephen E Arnold, July 5, 2019
YouTube: About Face
July 5, 2019
DarkCyber noted another example of high school science club management methods. “YouTube Reinstates Yanked Ethical Hacking Videos” reports:
YouTube’s clear as mud moderation rules were once again confused this week as the site pulled a bunch of ethical hacking videos, only to reinstate them shortly afterwards.
The UK news source reports that Google allegedly said to another online information service:
“With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call,” a Google spokesperson told The Verge after the videos were restored. “We have an appeals process in place for users, and when it’s brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it.”
The Inquirer.net writes:
Iffy moderation on YouTube. Surely not.
DarkCyber wants to point out that “iffy” is a standard operating procedure when implementing high school science club management methods. The science club is, by definition, correct. There is a corollary about consistency; that is, “What the science club does is, by definition, consistent.
You have to be in the science club to appreciate the truth of this statement.
Stephen E Arnold, July 5, 2019
Google: The Deciders Decide and Damage Some Security Data Flows
July 4, 2019
I read “YouTube Strikes Infosec Channels for Instructional Hacking Content.” DarkCyber view is that some information which routinely makes its way into open source should not be there. But, hey, we’ve been accused of being dinosaurs before. DarkCyber’s beloved leader, Stephen E Arnold, coined the term “Googzilla” and its reptilian connotations definitely applies to some of the DarkCyber team.
The point of the write up strikes DarkCyber as:
‘Youtube banning security disclosures doesn’t make products more secure, nor will it prevent attackers from exploiting defects – but it will mean that users will be the last to know that they’ve been trusting the wrong companies, and that developers will keep on making the same stupid mistakes…forever.’
Several observations:
ITEM 1: DarkCyber’s sparkling fountains of fire describes the management of some Silicon Valley firms as following the management precepts of “high school science clubs.” This means that bright, arrogant, confident, and generally mathy type people create an us-them dichotomy. Then the “us” people create a tidy little world which allows pranks, outstanding decisions, and numerous snide comments to pass for intelligence. Apply the HSSC method and you get…
High School Science Club Management Methods
A good example is a decision which is short sighted, difficult to explain, and probably as practical as driving a US Fourth of July parade war fighting vehicle to a party at the local Burger King.
ITEM 2: Figuring out what is positive information versus negative information is subjective. This means that one person will see the dress as one color and another person will see the garment as another color. Which is it? Don’t ask me, just ask the people at the search company. I know I can’t figure out what people will “perceive.” Obviously, the HSSCMM allows this type of decision making. The science club is, by definition, right. Plus, now member of the science club have lots of money.
ITEM 3: When making the Loon balloon into a commercial company or insisting that search results are relevant, Silicon Valley type companies are delightful. When these firms decide what information is technically permissible or not allowed demonstrates their decision making capabilities. If there were viable MBA programs, perhaps this type of deciderism would become a case study. Oh, right, MBA programs are facing some headwinds now.
Net net: The deciders decide. The followers follow. Medieval methods are good. The punishment? Banishment. DarkCyber assumes this is preferable to a dungeon in Mountain View or a ban on Philz coffee.
Stephen E Arnold, July 4, 2019
GSA Inspector General Finds Something Obvious
July 3, 2019
I read “GSA IG: Federal Acquisition Service Ineffective in Administering Enterprise IT Modernization Contract.” Startling. Amazing. Shocking.
The write up explained:
The IG said that FAS failed to ensure that the Transition Ordering Assistance task order met the requirements for the EIS information technology modernization initiative, resulting in “high rates of spending with minimal transition progress.” Other findings include deficiencies in planning and management, invoicing and contractor performance assessments.
How does one address the shortcomings?
Easy.
Get in the consultants. Form a team. Work up “metrics for work completion”. Make sure these are in line “with budget concerns.” Then everyone implement “interagency agreements.”
Who knew that solving a problem would be so straightforward.
Why do these problems exist? Maybe consultants and staff struggling to deal with certain types of complex interactions.
What happens to projects underway as these recommendations are followed? Maybe more inefficiency, delays, and waste.
Camus might have dropped Sisyphus as his hero and substituted the GSA’s Inspector General?
Stephen E Arnold, July 3, 2019
Machine Learning: Whom Does One Believe?
June 28, 2019
Ah, another day begins with mixed messages. Just what the relaxed, unstressed modern decider needs.
First, navigate to “Reasons Why Machine Learning can Prove Beneficial for Your Organization.” The reasons include:
- Segment customer coverage. No, I don’t know what this means either.
- Accurate business forecasts. No, machine learning systems cannot predict horse races or how a business will do. How about the impact of tariffs or a Fed interest rate change?
- Improved customer experience. No, experiences are not improving. How do I know? Ask a cashier to make change? Try to get an Amazon professional to explain how to connect a Mac laptop to an Audible account WITHOUT asking, “May I take control of your computer with our software?”
- Make decisions confidently. Yep, that’s what a decider does in the stable, positive, uplifting work environment of a electronic exchange when a bug costs millions in a two milliseconds.
- Automate your routine tasks. Absolutely. Automation works well. Ask the families of those killed by “intelligence stoked” automobiles or smart systems on a 737 Max.
But there’s a flip side to these cheery “beneficial” outcomes. Navigate to “Machine Learning Systems Are Stuck in a Rut.” We noted these statements. First a quote from a technical paper.
In this paper we argue that systems for numerical computing are stuck in a local basin of performance and programmability. Systems researchers are doing an excellent job improving the performance of 5-year old benchmarks, but gradually making it harder to explore innovative machine learning research ideas.
Next this comment by the person who wrote the “Learning Systems” article:
The thrust of the argument is that there’s a chain of inter-linked assumptions / dependencies from the hardware all the way to the programming model, and any time you step outside of the mainstream it’s sufficiently hard to get acceptable performance that researchers are discouraged from doing so.
Which is better? Which is correct?
Be a decider either using a black box or the stuff between your ears.
Stephen E Arnold, June 28, 2019
Google Maps: A Metaphor for the Here and Now Google
June 28, 2019
In a way, I have some sympathy for the GOOG. The company, allegedly an online search service, demonstrated the inherent irrelevance of its systems and methods. I read the allegedly true story “EasyAsk Drive 7-% More Revenue” which was the headline displayed over the CNN story about Google Maps directing more than 100 individuals to a muddy field. Yep, the ad covered up the story. That’s our here and now Google.
Sure, the story was amusing even if the title was obliterated in a quest to get me to license a product in which I have zero interest. According to the write up:
Technology isn’t always foolproof, as about 100 Colorado drivers learned when Google Maps offered them a supposedly quick way out of a traffic jam.
That’s a refreshing assessment of a really screwed up mess.
I learned:
The alternate route took drivers down a dirt road that rain had turned into a muddy mess, and cars started sliding around. Some vehicles couldn’t make it through the mud, and about 100 others became trapped behind them.
Google explained the problem this way:
“We take many factors into account when determining driving routes, including the size of the road and the directness of the route,” the company said in a statement. “While we always work to provide the best directions, issues can arise due to unforeseen circumstances such as weather. We encourage all drivers to follow local laws, stay attentive, and use their best judgment while driving.”
I love the royal we.
Let’s review the flaws this single incident and news story reveal:
- Just bad information. Google Maps direct people to routes which are not passable
- Sheep like humans. Humans depend on Google to do the thinking for them and end up with incorrect information
- Talk down rhetoric. Google explains the problem with parent type talk.
- Desperate advertisers. Marketers are paying to put their message in front of people indifferent to the annoyance a person like me experiences when an irrelevant ad covers up the headline of something that interests me.
The drivers are not the only ones stuck in the mud. Quite a mess.
Stephen E Arnold, June 28, 2019
Bilderberg Attendees
June 28, 2019
Who attended the exclusive Bilderberg meeting this year?
It is the most prestigious and consequential meeting you may never have heard of, and it has been going on since 1954. The Bilderberg Meeting is an annual conference where elites from Europe and North America discuss the fate of the world. Originally formed to avoid another World War, the gathering includes some 120 to 150 of the world’s top movers and shakers in politics, industry, finance, academics, and the media. This year’s meeting was held in Dresden, Germany, the first week of June and, thanks to From the Trenches World Report, we know who was invited—just see the “Bilderberg 2019 Annotated Members List.” Blogger Video Rebel introduces their roster:
“I prefer an in depth look at the participants which is why I have been doing annotated Bilderberg participants lists for several years. This year has lots of AI experts. As usual lots of military experts and bankers plus media and politicians. But lots of experts in populist revolts and movements. Based on their invitations to attend, they seem to want to co-opt gender studies, Gays, Greens and the Trump administration.”
We are interested to see the increase in AI experts; that makes sense right now. Navigate to the write-up for the full list, but here are some names that caught my eye: Jared Cohen, Jared Kushner, Eric Schmidt, and Peter Thiel. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall for some of those conversations!
Cynthia Murrell, June 24, 2019
Google: Hunting for Not Us
June 26, 2019
There was a dust up about song lyrics. As I recall, the responsibility did not fall upon the impossibly magnificent Google shoulders. A supplier may have acted in a manner which some “genius” thinks is a third party’s problem. Yep, a supplier.
I just read “Tracing the Supply Chain Attack on Android.” The write up explained that malware with impossible to remember and spell names like Yehuo found its way on to Android phones via the “supply chain.” I don’t know much about supply chains, but I think these are third parties who do work for a company. The idea is that someone at one firm contracts with the third party to perform work. When I worked as a “third party,” I recall people who were paying me taking actions; for example, texting, visiting, emailing, requiring me or my colleagues to attend meetings in which some of the people in charge fiddled with their mobile devices, and fidgeted.
The write up digs through quite a bit of data and reports many interesting details.
However, there is one point which is not included in the write up: Google appears to find itself looking at a third party as a bad actor. What unites the “genius” affair and the pre installed malware.
Google management processes?
Yes, that’s one possible answer. Who said something along the lines that if one creates chaos, that entity must address the problems created by chaos?
But if a third party did it, whose problem is it anyway?
Stephen E Arnold, June 26, 2019
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
