Facebook Scams: A Warning or a Tutorial?
May 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
This headline caught my attention: “Facebook Marketplace’s Dirty Dozen: The 15 Most Common Scams and How to Avoid Them.” I had hopes of learning about new, clever, wonderfully devious ways to commit fraud and other larcenous acts. Was I surprised? Here’s a list of the “15 most common scams.” I want to point out that there is scant (a nice way of saying “No back up data”) for the assertions. (I have a hunch that this “helpful” write up was assisted with some sort of software, possibly dumb software.) Let’s look at the list of the dozen’s 15 scams:
- Defective or counterfeit gadgets. Fix: Inspection required
- Bait-and-switch. Fix: Don’t engage in interaction
- Fake payment receipts. Fix: What? I don’t understand
- Mouth-watering giveaways. Fix: Ignore
- Overpayment by a buyer. Fix: What? I don’t understand
- Moving conversations out of Facebook. Fix: Don’t have them.
- Fake rental posting. Fix: Ignore
- Advance payment requests. Fix: Ignore
- Asking for confirmation codes. Fix: Ignore
- Asking for car deposits. Fix: Say, “No”
- Requesting unnecessary charges. Fix: Ignore
- Mailing items. Fix: Say, “No”
- Fake claims of lost packages. Fix: What?
- Counterfeit money. Fix: What?
- Clicking a link to fill out more information. Fix: Don’t
My concern with this list is that it does not protect the buyer. If anything, it provides a checklist of tactics for a would-be bad actor. The social engineering aspect of fraud is often more important than the tactic. In the “emotional” moment, a would-be buyer can fall for the most obvious scam; for example, trusting the seller because the request for a deposit seems reasonable or buying something else from the seller.
Trying to help? The customer or the scammer? You decide. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good cartoon. In your wheelhouse, is it?
What does one do to avoid Facebook scams? Here’s the answer:
Fraudsters can exploit you on online marketplaces if you’re not careful; it is easy not to be aware of a scam if you’re not as familiar. You can learn to spot common Facebook Marketplace scams to ensure you have a safe shopping experience. Remember that scams can happen between buyers and sellers, so always be wary of the transaction practices before committing. Otherwise, consider other methods like ordering from Amazon or becoming a third-party vendor on a trusted platform.
Yep, Amazon. On the other hand you can avoid scams by becoming a “third-party vendor on a trusted platform.” Really?
The problem with this write up is that the information mixes up what sellers do with what buyers do. Stepping back, why is Facebook singled out for this mish mash of scams and tactics. After all, in a face-to-face deal who pays with counterfeit cash? It is the buyer. Who is the victim? It is the seller. Who rents an apartment without looking at it? Answer: Someone in Manhattan. In other cities, alternatives to Facebook exist, and they are not available via Amazon as far as I know.
Facebook and other online vendors have to step up their game. The idea that the platform does not have responsibility to vet buyers and sellers is not something I find acceptable. Facebook seems pleased with its current operation. Perhaps it is time for more directed action to [a] address Facebook’s policies and [b] bring more rigor to write ups which seem to provide ideas for scammers in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, May 27, 2024
Meta Mismatch: Good at One Thing, Not So Good at Another
May 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I read “While Meta Stuffs AI Into All Its Products, It’s Apparently Helpless to Stop Perverts on Instagram From Publicly Lusting Over Sexualized AI-Generated Children.” The main idea is that Meta has a problems stopping “perverts.” You know a “pervert,” don’t you. One can spot ‘em when one sees ‘em. The write up reports:
As Facebook and Instagram owner Meta seeks to jam generative AI into every feasible corner of its products, a disturbing Forbes report reveals that the company is failing to prevent those same products from flooding with AI-generated child sexual imagery. As Forbes reports, image-generating AI tools have given rise to a disturbing new wave of sexualized images of children, which are proliferating throughout social media — the Forbes report focused on TikTok and Instagram — and across the web.
What is Meta doing or not doing? The write up is short on technical details. In fact, there are no technical details. Is it possible that any online service allowing anyone able to comment or upload certain content will do something “bad”? Online requires something that most people don’t want. The secret ingredient is spelling out an editorial policy and making decisions about what is appropriate or inappropriate for an “audience.” Note that I have converted digital addicts into an audience, albeit one that participates.
Two fictional characters are supposed to be working hard and doing their level best. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How has that Cloud outage affected the push to more secure systems? Hello, hello, are you there?
Editorial policies require considerable intellectual effort, crafted workflow processes, and oversight. Who does the overseeing? In the good old days when publishing outfits like John Wiley & Sons-type or Oxford University Press-type outfits were gatekeepers, individuals who met the cultural standards were able to work their way up the bureaucratic rock wall. Now the mantra is the same as the probability-based game show with three doors and “Come on down!” Okay, “users” come on down, wallow in anonymity, exploit a lack of consequences, and surf on the darker waves of human thought. Online makes clear that people who read Kant, volunteer to help the homeless, and respect the rights of others are often at risk from the denizens of the psychological night.
Personally I am not a Facebook person, a users or Instagram, or a person requiring the cloak of a WhatsApp logo. Futurism takes a reasonably stand:
it’s [Meta, Facebook, et al] clearly unable to use the tools at its disposal, AI included, to help stop harmful AI content created using similar tools to those that Meta is building from disseminating across its own platforms. We were promised creativity-boosting innovation. What we’re getting at Meta is a platform-eroding pile of abusive filth that the company is clearly unable to manage at scale.
How long has been Meta trying to be a squeaky-clean information purveyor? Is the article going overboard?
I don’t have answers, but after years of verbal fancy dancing, progress may be parked at a rest stop on the information superhighway. Who is the driver of the Meta construct? If you know, that is the person to whom one must address suggestions about content. What if that entity does not listen and act? Government officials will take action, right?
PS. Is it my imagination or is Futurism.com becoming a bit more strident?
Stephen E Arnold, May 27, 2024
Legal Eagles Get Some Tail Feathers Plucked about BitTorrent
May 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
One Finnish law firm thinks it should be able to cut one party in out of the copyright enforcement process—the rightsholders themselves. The court disagrees. TorrentFreak reports, “Court Rejects Law Firm’s Bid to Directly Obtain BitTorrent Users’ Identities.” Writer Andy Maxwell explains:
“Requirements vary from region to region but when certain conditions are met, few courts deny genuine copyright holders the ability to enforce their rights under relevant law. One of the most fundamental requirements is that the entity making the claim has the necessary rights to do so. … In an application submitted to Finland’s Market Court on March 15, 2024, the law firm Hedman Partners Oy sought a court order to compel an unnamed internet service provider to provide the personal details of an unspecified number of subscribers. According to Hedman’s application, all are suspected of sharing copyrighted movies via BitTorrent, without first obtaining permission from two Danish rightsholders; Mis. Label ApS and Scanbox Entertainment A/S. Hedman Partners are well known for their work in the piracy settlement business in Scandinavia. The company fully understands the standards required before courts will issue a disclosure order. However, for reasons that aren’t made clear, the law firm would prefer to deal with these cases from a position of greater authority. This application appears to have served as the testing ground to determine whether that’s possible under Finland’s Copyright Act.”
The short answer: It is not possible. For the long, legalese-laced answer, see the article. Why did Hedman Partners try the move? Maxwell points out settlement efforts spearheaded by aggressive third-party legal teams tend to bring in more cash. Ah, there it is. A decision in favor of the firm would certainly not have benefitted the BitTorrent users, he notes. We may yet see whether that is correct—Hedman Partners has until June 18 to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Will law enforcement step in?
Cynthia Murrell, May 27, 2024
Bullying Google Is a Thing
May 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Imagine the smartest kid in the fifth grade. The classmates are not jealous, but they are keenly aware of the brightest star having an aloof, almost distracted attitude. Combine that with a credit in a TV commercial when the budding wizard was hired to promote an advanced mathematics course developed by the child’s mother and father. The blessed big brain finds itself the object of ridicule. The PhD parents, the proud teacher, and the child’s tutor who works at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory cannot understand why the future Master of the Universe is being bullied. Remarkable, is it not?
Herewith is an illustration of a fearsome creature, generated in gloomy colors, by the MidJourney bot, roaring its superiority. However, those observing the Big Boy are convulsed with laughter. Why laugh at an ageing money machine with big teeth?
I read “Google’s AI Search Feature Suggested Using Glue to Keep Cheese Sticking to a Pizza.” Yep fourth grade bullying may be part of the poking and prodding of a quite hapless but wealthy, successful Googzilla. Here’s an example of the situation in which the Google, which I affectionately call “Googzilla,” finds itself:
Google’s new search feature, AI Overviews, seems to be going awry. The tool, which gives AI-generated summaries of search results, appeared to instruct a user to put glue on pizza when they searched "cheese not sticking to pizza."
In another write up, Business Insider asserted:
But in searches shared on X, users have gotten contradictory instructions on boiling taro and even been encouraged to run with scissors after the AI appeared to take a joke search seriously. When we asked whether a dog had ever played in the NHL, Google answered that one had, apparently confused by a charity event for rescue pups.
My reaction to this digital bullying is mixed. On one hand, Google has demonstrated that its Code Red operating mode is cranking out half-cooked pizza. Sure, the pizza may have some non-poisonous glue, but Google is innovating. A big event provided a platform for the online advertising outfit to proclaim, “We are the leaders in smart software.” On the other hand, those observing Google’s outputs find the beastie a follower; for example, OpenAI announced ChatGPT4o the day before Google’s “reveal.” Then Microsoft presented slightly more coherent applications using AI, including the privacy special service which records everything a person does on a reinvented Windows on Arm device.
Several observations are warranted:
- Googzilla finds itself back in grade school with classmates of lesser ability, wealth, and heritage making fun of the entity. Wow, remember the shame? Remember the fun one had poking fun at an outsider? Humans are wonderful, are they not?
- “Users” or regular people who rely on Google seem to have a pent up anger with the direction in which Googzilla has been going. Since the company does not listen to its “users,” calling attention to Googzilla’s missteps is an easy way to say, “Hey, Big Fella, you are making us unhappy.” Will Google pay attention to these unexpected signals?
- Google, the corporate entity, seems to be struggling with Management 101 tasks; for example, staff or people resources. The CFO is heading to the exit. Competition, while flawed in some ways, continues to nibble at Google’s advertising perpetual motion machine. Google innovation focuses on gamesmanship and trying to buy digital marketing revenue.
Net net: I anticipate more coverage of Google’s strategy and tactical missteps. The bullying will continue and probably grow unless the company puts on its big boy pants and neutralizes the school yard behavior its critics and cynics deliver.
Stephen E Arnold, May 24, 2024
The Death of the Media: Remember Clay Tablets?
May 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Did the home in which you grew from a wee one to a hyperspeed teen have a plaster cast which said, “Home sweet home” or “Welcome” hanging on the wall. My mother had those craft sale treasures everywhere. I have none. The point is that the clay tablets from ancient times were not killed, put out of business, or bankrupted because someone wrote on papyrus, sheep skin, or bits of wood. Eliminating a communications medium is difficult. Don’t believe me? Go to an art fair and let me know if you were unable to spot something made of clay with writing or a picture on it.
I mention these older methods of disseminating a message because I read “Publishers Horrified at New Google AI Feature That Could Kill What’s Left of Journalism.” Really?
The write up states:
… preliminary studies on Google’s use of AI in its search engine has the potential to reduce website traffic by 25 percent, The Associated Press reports. That could be billions in revenue lost, according to an interview with Marc McCollum, chief innovation officer for content creator consultancy Raptive, who was interviewed by the AP.
The idea is that “real” journalism depends on Google for revenue. If the revenue from Google’s assorted ad programs tossing pennies to Web sites goes away, so will the “real” journalism on these sites.
If my dinobaby memory is working, the AP (Associated Press) was supported by newspapers. Then the AP was supported by Google. What’s next? I don’t know, but the clay tablet fellows appear to have persisted. The producers of the tablets probably shifted to tableware. Those who wrote on the tablets learned to deal with ink and sheepskin.
Chilling in the room thinking thoughts of doom. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Keep following your security recipe.
AI seems to be capable of creating stories like those in Smartnews or one of the AI-powered spam outfits. The information is recycled. But it is good enough. Some students today seem incapable of tearing themselves from their mobile devices to read words. The go-to method for getting information is a TikTok-type service. People who write words may be fighting to make the shift to new media.
One thing is reasonably clear: Journalists and media-mavens are concerned that a person will take an answered produced by a Google-like service. The entering a query approach to information is a “hot medium thing.” Today kicking back and letting video do the work seems to be a winner.
Google, however, has in my opinion been fiddling with search since it “innovated” in its implementation of the GoTo.com/Overture.com approach to “pay to play” search. If you want traffic, buy ads. The more one spends, the more traffic one’s site gets. That’s simple. There are some variations, but the same Google model will be in effect with or without Google little summaries. The lingo may change, but where there are clicks. When there are clicks, advertisers will pay to be there.
Google can, of course, kill its giant Googzilla mom laying golden eggs. That will take some time. Googzilla is big. My theory is that enterprising people with something to say will find a way to get paid for their content outputs regardless of their form. True, there is the cost of paying, but that’s the same hit the clay table took thousands of years ago. But those cast plaster and porcelain art objects are probably on sale at an art fair this weekend.
Observations:
- The fear is palpable. Why not direct it to a positive end? Griping about Google which has had 25 years to do what it wanted to do means Google won’t change too much. Do something to generate money. Complaining is unlikely to produce a result.
- The likelihood Google shaft a large number of outfits and individuals is nearly 99 percent. Thus, moving in a spritely manner may be a good idea. Google is not a sprinter as its reaction to Microsoft’s Davos marketing blitz made clear.
- New things do appear. I am not sure what the next big thing will be. But one must pay attention.
Net net: The sky may be falling. The question is, “How fast?” Another is, “Can you get out of the way?”
Stephen E Arnold, May 24, 2024
Google Takes Stand — Against Questionable Content. Will AI Get It Right?
May 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
The Internet is the ultimate distribution system for illicit material, especially pornography. A simple Google search yields access to billions of lewd material for free and behind paywalls. Pornography already has people in a tizzy but the advent of deepfake porn material is making things worse. Google is upset about deepfakes and decided to take a moral stand Extreme Tech says: “Google Bans Ads For Platforms That Generate Deepfake Pornography.”
Beginning May 30, Google won’t allow platforms that create deepfake porn, explain how to make it, or promote/compare services to place ads through the Google Ads system. Google already has an Inappropriate Content Policy in place. It prohibits the promotion of hate groups, self-harm, violence, conspiracy theories, and sharing explicit images to garner attention. The policy also bans advertising sex work and sexual abuse.
Violating the content policy results in a ban from Google Ads. Google is preparing for future problems as AI becomes better:
“The addition of deepfake pornography to the Inappropriate Content Policy is undoubtedly the result of increasingly accessible and adept generative AI. In 2022, Google banned deepfake training on Colab, its mostly free public computing resource. Even six years ago, Pornhub and Reddit had to go out of their way to ban AI-generated pornography, which often depicts real people (especially celebrities) engaging in sexual acts they didn’t perform or didn’t consent to recording. Whether we’d like to or not, most of us know just how much better AI has gotten at creating fake faces since then. If deepfake pornography looked a bit janky back in 2018, it’s bound to look a heck of a lot more realistic now.”
If it weren’t for the moral center of humanity, Google’s minions would allow lead material and other illicit content on Google Ads. Porn sells. It always has.
Whitney Grace, May 24, 2024
Silicon Valley and Its Bad Old Days? You Mean Today Days I Think
May 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Sam AI-Man knows how to make headlines. I wonder if he is aware of his PR prowess. The kids in Redmond tried their darnedest to make the “real” media melt down with an AI PC. And what happens? Sam AI-Man engages in the Scarlett Johansson voice play. Now whom does one believe? Did Sam AI-Man take umbrage at Ms. Johansson’s refusal to lend her voice to ChatGPTo? Did she recognize an opportunity to convert the digital voice available on ChatGPTo as “hers” fully aware she could become a household name. Star power may relate to visibility in the “real” media, not the wonky technology blogs.
It seems to be a mess, doesn’t it? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. What happened to good, old Bing, DuckDuckGo, and other services on the morning of May 23, 2024. Oh, well, the consequences of close enough for horseshoes thinking perhaps?
And how do I know the dust up is “real”? There’s the BBC’s story “Scarlett Johansson’s AI Row Has Echoes of Silicon Valley’s Bad Old Days.” I will return to this particularly odd write up in a moment. Also there is the black hole of money (the estimable Washington Post) and its paywalled story “Scarlett Johansson Says OpenAI Copied Her Voice after She Said No.” Her is the title of a Hollywood type movie, not a TikTok confection.
Let’s look at the $77 million in losses outfit’s story first. The WaPo reports:
In May, two days before OpenAI planned to demonstrate the technology, Altman contacted her again, asking her to reconsider, she said. Before she could respond, OpenAI released a demo of its improved audio technology, featuring a voice called “Sky.” Many argued the coquettish voice — which flirted with OpenAI employees in the presentation — bore an uncanny resemblance to Johansson’s character in the 2013 movie “Her,” in which she performed the voice of a super-intelligent AI assistant. “When I heard the released demo, I was shocked, angered and in disbelief that Mr. Altman would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not tell the difference,” Johansson wrote. “Mr. Altman even insinuated that the similarity was intentional, tweeting a single word ‘her’ — a reference to the film in which I voiced a chat system, Samantha, who forms an intimate relationship with a human,” she added.
I am not sure that an AI could improve this tight narrative. (We won’t have to wait long before AI writes WaPo stories I have heard. Why? Maybe $77 million in losses?
Now let’s look at the BBC’s article with the reference to “bad old days.” The write up reports:
“Move fast and break things” is a motto that continues to haunt the tech sector, some 20 years after it was coined by a young Mark Zuckerberg. Those five words came to symbolize Silicon Valley at its worst – a combination of ruthless ambition and a rather breathtaking arrogance – profit-driven innovation without fear of consequence. I was reminded of that phrase this week when the actor Scarlett Johansson clashed with OpenAI.
Sam AI-Man’s use of a digital voice which some assert “sounds” like Ms. Johansson’s voice is a reminder of the “bad old days.” One question: When did the Silicon Valley “bad old days” come to an end?
Opportunistic tactics require moving quickly. Whether something is broken or not is irrelevant. Look at Microsoft. Once again Sam AI-Man was able to attract attention. Google’s massive iteration of the technological equivalent of herring nine ways found itself “left of bang.” Sam AI-Man announced ChatGPTo the day before the Sundar & Prabakar In and Out Review.
Let’s summarize:
- Sam AI-Man got publicity by implementing an opportunistic tactic. Score one for the AI-Man
- Ms. Johansson scored one because she was in the news and she may have a legal play, but that will take months to wend its way through the US legal system
- Google and Microsoft scored zero. Google played second fiddle to the ChatGPTo thing and Microsoft was caught in exhaust of the Sam AI-Man voice blast.
Now when did the “bad old days” of Silicon Valley End? Exactly never. It is so easy to say, “I’m sorry. So sorry.”
Stephen E Arnold, May 23, 2024
Rentals Are In, Ownership Is Out
May 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
We thought the age of rentals was over and we bid farewell to Blockbuster with a nostalgic wave. We were so wrong and it started with SaaS or software as a service. It should also be streaming as a service. The concept sounds good: updated services, tech support, and/or an endless library of entertainment that includes movies, TV shows, music, books, and videogames. The problem is the fees keep getting higher, the tech support doesn’t speak English, the software has bugs, and you don’t own the entertainment.
You don’t own your favorite shows, movies, music, videogames, and books anymore unless you buy physical copies or move the digital downloads off the hosting platform. Australians were scratching their heads over the ownership of their digital media recently The Guardian reported: “‘My Whole Library Is Wiped Out’: What It Means To Own Movies And TV In The Age Of Streaming Services.”
Telstra TV Box Office informed customers that the company would shutter in June and they would lose their purchased media unless they paid another fee to switch everything to Fetch. Customers expected to watch their purchased digital media indefinitely, but they were actually buying into a hosting platform. The problem stems from the entertainment version of SaaS: digital rights management.
People buy digital files but they don’t read the associated terms and conditions. The terms and conditions are long, legalese documents that no one reads. They do clearly state, however, why the digital rights management expectations are. Shaanan Chaney of Melbourne University said it’s unfair for customers to read those documents, but the companies aren’t liable:
“ ‘Such provisions are fairly standard among tech companies. Customers can rent or buy films via Amazon Prime, and the company’s terms of service states the content ‘will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming … but may become unavailable … Amazon will not be liable to you’.”
Apple iTunes has a similar clause in their terms and conditions, but they suggest customers download their media and backing them up. Digital rights management is important, but it’s run by large corporations that don’t care about consumers (and often creators). Companies do deserve to be paid and run their organizations as they wish, but they should respect their customers (and creators).
Buying physical copies is still a good idea. Life is a subscription and no way to cancel
Whitney Grace, May 23, 2024
US Big Tech to EU: Please, Knock Off the Outputs
May 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I read “Big Tech to EU: “Drop Dead.” I think the write up depicts the US alleged quasi monopolies of indifference to the wishes of the European Union. Stated another way, “The Big Dogs are battling for AI dominance.” The idea is that these outfits do not care what the EU wants. The Big Dogs care about what they want.
The write up contains several interesting statements. Let me highlight a handful and encourage you to read this article which explains some of the tension between governments and companies with more cash than some nation states. In fact, some of the Big Boys control more digitally inclined people than the annoying countries complaining about predatory business models. The illustration shows how much attention some Big Dogs allow EU and other government regulatory authorities.
The Big Dogs of technology participate in a Microsoft Teams’s session with and EU official. The Big Dogs seem to be more interested in their mobile phones than the political word salad from the august official. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Keep following your security recipe.
Consider this statement:
Right from the start, it was obvious that the tech giants were going to war against the [European Digital Markets Act or] DMA, and the freedom it promised to their users.
But isn’t that what companies in a free market do?
Here’s another gem:
Apple charges app vendors a whopping 30 percent commission on most transactions, both the initial price of the app and everything you buy from it thereafter. This is a remarkably high transaction fee —compare it to the credit-card sector, itself the subject of sharp criticism for its high 3-5 percent fees. To maintain those high commissions, Apple also restricts its vendors from informing their customers about the existence of other ways of paying (say, via their website) and at various times has also banned its vendors from offering discounts to customers who complete their purchases without using the app.
What’s the markup for blue chip consulting firms or top end lawyers? Plus, Apple is serving its shareholders. As a public company, that is what shareholders have a right to expect. Once again, the underlying issue is how capitalism works in the US market.
And this statement:
These are high-stakes clashes. As the tech sector grew more concentrated, it also grew less accountable, able to substitute lock-in and regulatory capture for making good products and having their users’ backs. Tech has found new ways to compromise our privacy rights, our labor rights, and our consumer rights – at scale.
Once again the problem is capitalism. The companies have to generate growth, revenue, and profits. Can a government agency manage the day-to-day operations of these technology-centric firms? Governments struggle to maintain roads and keep their Web sites updated. The solution may have been a bit more interest 25 years ago. In my opinion, the “better late than never” approach is not going to work unless governments put these outfits out of business… one way or another.
Net net: The write up is not about Big Dog tech companies ignoring the DMA. The write up wants the basic function of publicly-traded companies to change. Go to a zoo. Find a jungle cat. Tell it to change its stripes. How is that going to work out?
Stephen E Arnold, May 23, 2024
Googzilla Makes a Move in a High Stakes Contest
May 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
The trusted “real news” outfit Thomson Reuters published this popular news story about dancing with Googzilla. The article is titled by the click seekers as “Google Cuts Mystery Check to US in Bid to Sidestep Jury Trial.” I love the “mystery check.” I thought FinCEN was on the look out for certain types of transactions.
The contest is afoot. Thanks, MSFT Copilot.
Here’s the core of the story: On one side of the multi-dimensional Go board is the US Department of Justice. Yes, that was the department with the statues in the area where employees once were paid each week. On the other side of the game board is Googzilla. This is the digital construct which personifies the Alphabet, Google, YouTube, DeepMind, et al outfit. Some in Google’s senior management are avid game players. After all, one must set up a system in which no matter who plays a Googzilla-branded game, the “just average wizards” who run the company wins. The mindset has worked wonders in the online advertising and SEO sector. The SEO “experts” were the people who made a case to their clients for the truism “If you want traffic, it is a pay-to-play operation.” The same may be said for YouTube and content creators who make content so Google can monetize that digital flow and pay a sometimes unknown amount to a creator who is a one-person 1930s motion picture production company. Ditto for the advertisers who use the Google system to buy advertising and benefit by providing advertising space. What’s Google do? It makes the software that controls the game.
Where’s this going? Google is playing a game with the Department of Justice. I am certain some in the DoJ understand this approach. Others may not grasp the concept of Googzilla’s absolute addiction to gaming and gamesmanship. Casinos are supposed to make money. There are exceptions, of course. I can think of a high-profile case history of casino failure, but Google is a reasonably competent casino operator. Sure, there are some technical problems when the Cloud back end fails and the staff become a news event because they protest with correctly spelled signage. But overall, I would suggest that the depth of Googzilla’s game playing is not appreciated by its users, its competition, or some of the governments trying to regain data and control of information pumped into the creatures financial blood bank.
Let’s look at the information the trusted outfit sought to share as bait for a begging-for-dollars marketing play:
Google has preemptively paid damages to the U.S. government, an unusual move aimed at avoiding a jury trial in the Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit over its digital advertising business. Google disclosed the payment, but not the amount, in a court filing last week that said the case should be heard and decided by a judge directly. Without a monetary damages claim, Google argued, the government has no right to a jury trial.
That’s the move. The DoJ now has to [a] ignore the payment and move forward to a trial with a jury deciding if Googzilla is a “real” monopoly or a plain vanilla, everyday business like the ones Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft have helped go out of business. [b] Cash the check and go back to scanning US government job listings for a positive lateral arabesque on a quest to the SES (senior executive service). [c] Keep the check and pile on more legal pressure because the money was an inducement, not a replacement for the US justice system. With an election coming up, I can see option [d] on the horizon: Do nothing.
The idea is that in multi-dimensional Go, Google wants to eliminate the noise of legal disputes. Google wins if the government cashes the check. Google wins if the on-rushing election causes a slow down of an already slow process. Google wins if the DoJ keeps piling on the pressure. Google has the money and lawyers to litigate. The government has a long memory but that staff and leadership turnover shifts the odds to Googzilla. Google Calendar keeps its attorneys filing before deadlines and exploiting the US legal system to its fullest extent. If the US government sues Google because the check was a bribe, Google wins. The legal matter shifts to resolving the question about the bribe because carts rarely are put in front of horses.
In this Googzilla-influenced games, Googzilla has created options and set the stage to apply the same tactic to other legal battles. The EU may pass a law prohibiting pre-payment in lieu of a legal process, but if that does not move along at the pace of AI hyperbole, Google’s DoJ game plan can be applied to the lucky officials in Brussels and Strasbourg.
The Reuters’ report says:
Stanford Law School’s Mark Lemley told Reuters he was skeptical Google’s gambit would prevail. He said a jury could ultimately decide higher damages than whatever Google put forward.
“Antitrust cases regularly go to juries. I think it is a sign that Google is worried about what a jury will do,” Lemley said. Another legal scholar, Herbert Hovenkamp of the University of Pennsylvania’s law school, called Google’s move "smart" in a post on X. “Juries are bad at deciding technical cases, and further they do not have the authority to order a breakup,” he wrote.
Okay, two different opinions. The Google check is proactive.
Why? Here are some reasons my research group offered this morning:
- Google has other things to do with its legal resources; namely, deal with the copyright litigation which is knocking on its door
- The competitive environment is troubling so Googzilla wants to delete annoyances like the DoJ and staff who don’t meet the new profile of the ideal Googler any longer
- Google wants to set a precedent so it can implement its pay-to-play game plan for legal hassles.
I am 99 percent confident that Google is playing a game. I am not sure that others perceive the monopoly litigation as one. Googzilla has been refining its game plan, its game-playing skills, and its gaming business systems for 25 years. How long has the current crop of DoJ experts been playing Googley games? I am not going to bet against Googzilla. Remember what happened in the 2021 film Godzilla vs. Kong. Both beasties make peace and go their separate ways. If that happens, Googzilla wins.
Stephen E Arnold, May 22, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
