company:the facebook

  • #facebook Pro — An Open Letter
    https://hackernoon.com/facebook-pro-an-open-letter-c43edd70a91e?source=rss----3a8144eabfe3---4

    Facebook Pro — An Open LetterDear Mr. Zuckerberg,I created my Facebook account back in 2013 on the last day of my senior year in high school. At the time, I was pretty late to the Facebook party — I think I may have been the last kid in my grade to join, and I bet most of my friends entered high school with already bustling profiles.When I signed up, I remember being struck by the tagline on the login page: “Join Facebook. It’s free, and always will be.”Why is that, Mark?I happen to believe that you’re providing a very valuable service — one that I would be more than happy to pay for — and I find it a bit strange that you won’t let me give you my money. After all, every other company on the planet provides a service in exchange for cash; so it’s not unreasonable to ask for proper compensation. What’s (...)

    #facebook-pro #blockchain #dear-mark-zuckerberg #privacy

  • Mark Zuckerberg’s Plans to Capitalize on Facebook’s Failures | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/mark-zuckerbergs-plans-to-capitalize-on-facebooks-failures

    On Wednesday, a few hours before the C.E.O. of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, published a thirty-two-hundred-word post on his site titled “A privacy-focused vision for social networking,” a new study from the market research firm Edison Research revealed that Facebook had lost fifteen million users in the United States since 2017. “Fifteen million is a lot of people, no matter which way you cut it,” Larry Rosin, the president of Edison Research, said on American Public Media’s “Marketplace.” “This is the second straight year we’ve seen this number go down.” The trend is likely related to the public’s dawning recognition that Facebook has become both an unbridled surveillance tool and a platform for propaganda and misinformation. According to a recent Harris/Axios survey of the hundred most visible companies in the U.S., Facebook’s reputation has taken a precipitous dive in the last five years, with its most acute plunge in the past year, and it scores particularly low in the categories of citizenship, ethics, and trust.

    While Zuckerberg’s blog post can be read as a response to this loss of faith, it is also a strategic move to capitalize on the social-media platform’s failures. To be clear, what Zuckerberg calls “town square” Facebook, where people post updates about new jobs, and share prom pictures and erroneous information about vaccines, will continue to exist. (On Thursday, Facebook announced that it would ban anti-vaccine advertisements on the site.) His new vision is to create a separate product that merges Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram into an encrypted and interoperable communications platform that will be more like a “living room.” According to Zuckerberg, “We’ve worked hard to build privacy into all our products, including those for public sharing. But one great property of messaging services is that, even as your contacts list grows, your individual threads and groups remain private. As your friends evolve over time, messaging services evolve gracefully and remain intimate.”

    This new Facebook promises to store data securely in the cloud, and delete messages after a set amount of time to reduce “the risk of your messages resurfacing and embarrassing you later.” (Apparently, Zuckerberg already uses this feature, as Tech Crunch reported, in April, 2018.) Its interoperability means, for example, that users will be able to buy something from Facebook Marketplace and communicate with the seller via WhatsApp; Zuckerberg says this will enable the buyer to avoid sharing a phone number with a stranger. Just last week, however, a user discovered that phone numbers provided for two-factor authentication on Facebook can be used to track people across the Facebook universe. Zuckerberg does not address how the new product will handle this feature, since “town square” Facebook will continue to exist.

    Once Facebook has merged all of its products, the company plans to build other products on top of it, including payment portals, banking services, and, not surprisingly, advertising. In an interview with Wired’s editor-in-chief, Nicholas Thompson, Zuckerberg explained that “What I’m trying to lay out is a privacy-focused vision for this kind of platform that starts with messaging and making that as secure as possible with end-to-end encryption, and then building all of the other kinds of private and intimate ways that you would want to interact—from calling, to groups, to stories, to payments, to different forms of commerce, to sharing location, to eventually having a more open-ended system to plug in different kinds of tools for providing the interaction with people in all the ways that you would want.”

    L’innovation vient maintenant de Chine, en voici une nouvelle mention

    If this sounds familiar, it is. Zuckerberg’s concept borrows liberally from WeChat, the multiverse Chinese social-networking platform, popularly known as China’s “app for everything.” WeChat’s billion monthly active users employ the app for texting, video conferencing, broadcasting, money transfers, paying fines, and making medical appointments. Privacy, however, is not one of its attributes. According to a 2015 article in Quartz, WeChat’s “heat map” feature alerts Chinese authorities to unusual crowds of people, which the government can then surveil.

    “I believe the future of communication will increasingly shift to private, encrypted services where people can be confident what they say to each other stays secure and their messages and content won’t stick around forever,” Zuckerberg tells us. “This is the future I hope we will help bring about.” By announcing it now, and framing it in terms of privacy, he appears to be addressing the concerns of both users and regulators, while failing to acknowledge that a consolidated Facebook will provide advertisers with an even richer and more easily accessed database of users than the site currently offers. As Wired reported in January, when the merger of Facebook’s apps was floated in the press, “the move will unlock huge quantities of user information that was previously locked away in silos.”

    Le chiffrage des messages est loin d’être une panacée pour la vie privée, ni pour la responsabilité sociale des individus.

    Zuckerberg also acknowledged that an encrypted Facebook may pose problems for law enforcement and intelligence services, but promised that the company would work with authorities to root out bad guys who “misuse it for truly terrible things like child exploitation, terrorism, and extortion.” It’s unclear how, with end-to-end encryption, it will be able to do this. Facebook’s private groups have already been used to incite genocide and other acts of violence, suppress voter turnout, and disseminate misinformation. Its pivot to privacy will not only give such activities more space to operate behind the relative shelter of a digital wall but will also relieve Facebook from the responsibility of policing them. Instead of more—and more exacting—content moderation, there will be less. Instead of removing bad actors from the service, the pivot to privacy will give them a safe harbor.

    #facebook #Cryptographie #Vie_privée #Médias_sociaux #Mark_Zuckerberg

  • Zuckerberg, Going for the KILL
    https://hackernoon.com/zuckerberg-going-for-the-kill-c8edd3ca02ec?source=rss----3a8144eabfe3---

    One for all, and all for one.It seems like Mark Zuckerberg is preparing himself for the final countdown. The final blow to end users #privacy, and not just #facebook users, but #whatsapp, and Instagram users, for all three are under his wings, his umbrella of “TRUST”, his massive data collecting empire which feeds itself from the thoughts, feelings, passions, interests, and posts of others, a Vampiric data sucking machine.Facebook has proven, time and time again, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is more than willing to infringe on your privacy if it’s efforts brings them a little more cash.WhatsApp and Instagram are part of the Facebook companies, which means they share data with one another.If someone is concerned about how Facebook has been handling, or rather mishandling their (...)

    #blockchain #cybersecurity

  • Facebook removes hundreds of pages ’linked to Russian site’
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/17/facebook-removes-hundred-of-pages-allegedly-linked-to-russian-site-sput

    Social network says it has taken down 289 pages connected to Kremlin-backed news website

    Facebook has removed hundreds of pages believed to be connected to the Kremlin-backed Sputnik news website for allegedly breaching its rules. The Facebook pages, which were targeted at individuals in former Soviet satellite states, either pretended to be independent news services or had names designed to appeal to fans of particular individuals, regions, or foods. “Despite their misrepresentations of (...)

    #Facebook #manipulation #censure

    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/184d65a1d00c76d9219fe3de72532575feba8ff8/0_148_3500_2100/master/3500.jpg

  • The beginning of the end of the Facebook era
    https://hackernoon.com/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-facebook-era-f5cb03c1c45e?source=rss----

    And the division of labor of social mediaI’ve been off of Facebook for more than six months. My reason for quitting was primarily because I felt aimless, scrolling through an endless feed of content with no particular theme or underlying motivation — no greater purpose for generating awareness, spreading knowledge or happiness; even the strengthening of #community which social media intends — or at least claims — to do is not being successfully achieved by Facebook.My life has improved since then, for many reasons, not least of which being: the realization and consequent relief of the incredible awkwardness of the idea of posting personal updates to an audience of hundreds of people, of whom only a few dozen (if even that) actually care.But aside from my personal life-standard improvement as a (...)

    #future-of-work #social-media #society #division-of-labor

  • User Growth and Engagement: A Hacker Metric
    https://hackernoon.com/user-growth-and-engagement-a-hacker-metric-39d2c0335234?source=rss----3a

    What We Thought of the #facebook IPO at The Time: A Hacker MetricOriginally published May 28, 2012If you’re like me, you’ve had enough of the Facebook IPO story. For #tech entrepreneurs struggling to build stuff, the cacophony of recent press is just more noise. That’s why when my friend Andrew Chen posted an insightful analysis of Facebook user data, I was happy to get back to learning from what the company did right instead of debating what its bankers did wrong.Chen calculated Facebook’s historical ratio of daily active users (DAU) to monthly active users (MAU) and the stats are startling. Since March 2009, when the earliest data is available, approximately 50% of Facebook users logged in daily.As other technology companies struggle to maintain DAU to MAU ratios of 5% or less, Facebook’s (...)

    #business #facebook-ipo #startup

  • Instagram : from Facebook’s ’best hope’ to Russian propaganda campaign tool
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/18/instagram-facebook-russian-propaganda-ira

    The app was ‘perhaps the most effective platform’ for the Russian online propaganda campaign by the Internet Research Agency This January, as Mark Zuckerberg was embarking on his quest to “fix” Facebook, one writer proposed a bold idea : make Facebook more like Instagram, “the Facebook-owned app that isn’t destabilizing society”. Instagram was no panacea, according to the New York Times tech columnist, but the downsides of the largely visual network – making “some of its users feel ugly and (...)

    #Facebook #algorithme #élections #manipulation

    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/0e4d52b9967cd6d525839632bfdec9bf85888592/0_133_3981_2389/master/3981.jpg

  • The three types of WhatsApp users getting Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro elected | World news | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/25/brazil-president-jair-bolsonaro-whatsapp-fake-news

    If the Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s charge to the White House were jet-propelled by Facebook, the rise of Brazil’s likely next president, the far-right firebrand Jair Bolsonaro, owes much to WhatsApp.

    The Facebook-owned messaging app is wildly popular in Brazil, with about 120 million active users, and has proved to be the ideal tool for mobilizing political support – but also for spreading fake news.

    To understand the motivations, hopes and fears of Bolsonaro’s tens of millions of supporters I joined four pro-Bolsonaro WhatsApp groups.

    After four months of receiving an average of 1,000 messages per group, per day, this is what I found:

    There are three key clusters of members, who I classified as Ordinary Brazilians, Bolsominions, and Influencers.

    They use sophisticated image and video editing software to create convincing and emotionally engaging digital content. They are smart and know how to manipulate content into memes and short texts that go viral.

    They work fast to undermine any person or news outlet that criticizes Bolsonaro. For example, after the French far-right leader Marine Le Pen’s described some of Bolsonaro’s comments as “extremely unpleasant”, the Influencers quickly published a meme accusing her of being a communist.

    Some of the fake news stories are simply astonishing. A group of “movers and shakers” created a bogus flyer claim that Bolsonaro’s leftist rival Fernando Haddad, planned to sign an executive order allowing men to have sex with 12-year-olds.

    During the first round of votes they repeatedly circulated fake videos that showed malfunctioning electronic voting machines in order to reinforce the idea that the elections were rigged.

    These three groups have different roles, but they have a lot in common: they share a total disbelief in Brazil’s representative democracy and have concluded that the system only serves those at the top.

    Despite their support for the idea of military intervention, they don’t want a new dictatorship, arguing instead that Brazil needs someone to end the corruption that has benefited politicians of both the left and the right – and devastated the country’s economy.

    #Whatsapp #Brésil #Infox

  • EXCLUSIVE : Meet the Reporters Whose Pages Were Shut Down By Facebook - Sputnik International
    https://sputniknews.com/us/201810121068814924-Reporters-Pages-Shut-Down-By-Facebook

    C’est mon beau-frère américain qui m’a transmis l’info : sous couvert de lutte contre les #fake_news, les réseaux sociaux des #GAFA (Facebook et Twitter, notamment) ont fermé des centaines de pages et de comptes appartenant à des journalistes indépendants ou juste plutôt critiques sur la société américaine. À l’approche des #élections de mi-mandat, il s’agit d’une #censure brutale et inquiétante.

    Signalons que mon beau-frère est un Républicain plutôt progressiste, mais un Républicain quand même, même s’il n’a jamais pu blairer Trump.

    Facebook purged hundreds of pages from its platform on Thursday. But instead of the usual targets - namely Russia and Iran - Thursday’s ban shut down accounts operated by independent American reporters and activists, Sputnik News has learned.

    Facebook said the pages were “working to mislead others about who they are, and what they are doing,” but the co-founder of one of the pages, The Free Thought Project, tells Sputnik News Facebook’s claim couldn’t be further from the truth.

    Most of the pages that were banned and viewed by Sputnik News were independent media outlets and pages that advocated for marijuana legalization or shined a light on police brutality.
    Anti-Trump Facebook event posted by the Resisters page, which has been accused of being set up by the alleged Russian troll farm Internet Research Agency.
    Facebook
    The Kremlin Line? Facebook’s Latest Ban Nets Resistance Pages, Anti-Trump Events

    In total, Facebook removed 559 pages and 251 personal accounts “that have consistently broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior,” the social media giant said. “Given the activity we’ve seen — and its timing ahead of the US midterm elections — we wanted to give some details about the types of behavior that led to this action,” Facebook said, going on to accuse the accounts of manipulating the platform to make their content appear more popular, hawking fake products or functioning as ad farms that tricked “people into thinking that they were forums for legitimate political debate.”

    — Jon Ziegler “Reb Z” (@Rebelutionary_Z) October 12, 2018

    The founder of one of the pages — The Anti-Media — said he had no knowledge of his page engaging in any such behavior. The Free Thought Project co-founder similarly denied Facebook’s accusations. Rachel Blevins, a reporter for RT America whose personal journalism page was nixed, also denied inauthentic behavior.

    Just hours after its ban from Facebook, Twitter suspended Anti-Media from its platform, following a pattern of social media companies successively banning users that has been demonstrated in the past. For example, Facebook, YouTube and Apple all banned the far-right conspiracy theory site InfoWars around the same time. And after the CIA-funded cybersecurity firm FireEye contacted Facebook, Google and Twitter, each company banned a number of accounts allegedly linked to Iran.

    — Alex Rubinstein (@RealAlexRubi) September 6, 2018

    In the case of InfoWars, Twitter eventually followed suit.

    While many warned that the ban of InfoWars from social media would establish a slippery slope, they were often mocked and ridiculed. Thursday’s onslaught on independent media appears to have confirmed their suspicions, however.

    — Anya Parampil (@anyaparampil) August 6, 2018

    Facebook has been partnering with the Digital Forensics Lab, an arm of the Atlantic Council think tank — a neoconservative group funded by Gulf monarchies and defense giants like Raytheon — to weed out inauthentic users from its platform. Similarly, it has been partnering with the neoconservative Weekly Standard magazine to fact check so-called fake news.
    Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif.
    © AP Photo / Ben Margot
    Facebook Bans Russia-Linked Social Media Firm for Alleged ’Scraping’ of Users’ Data

    Journalist Abby Martin, who hosts “The Empire Files” on TeleSur English, told Sputnik News after TeleSur’s page was temporarily removed from Facebook, “The shuttering of progressive media amidst the ‘fake news’ and Russiagate hysteria is what activists been warning all along — tech companies, working in concert with think tanks stacked with CIA officials and defense contractors, shouldn’t have the power to curate our reality to make those already rendered invisible even more obsolete.”

    Sputnik News contacted a number of journalists caught up in the ban. Below is what they had to say, edited extremely lightly for clarity.

    Independent reporter John Vibes, who contributes to The Free Thought Project and other websites:

    This signifies a re-consolidation of the media. Cable news media controlled the narrative for most of modern history, but the internet has lowered that barrier to entry and allowed the average person to become the media themselves. This obviously took market share and influence away from the traditional media, and it has allowed for a more diverse public conversation. Now it seems the platforms that have monopolized the industry are favoring mainstream sources and silencing alternative voices. So now, instead of allowing more people to have a voice, these platforms are creating an atmosphere where only powerful media organizations are welcome, just as we had on cable news.

    People think that we are just providing an activist spin on the news, but they don’t see the families struggling to have their voice heard. For example, when someone is shot by police, mainstream media sources often just republish the press release from the police department, without presenting the victim’s side of the story. We give the victims and their families a voice, which is essential to keep power in check. This also goes for bigger issues like foreign policy as well; multiple full-scale invasions of Syria have been prevented because of information that the alternative media made viral.

    “Information exchange” activist Jason Bassler, who co-founded The Free Thought Project and solely founded Police the Police, both of which were banned:

    We were verified by Facebook with a little check mark next to our name, so they know we are a legitimate organization/outlet. They have seen our “Articles of Organization” which was issued by the state of Louisiana, which is where my partner and The Free Thought Project co-founder lives.

    We have even paid Facebook to boost our posts and for likes in the past, meaning they gladly took our money for a product that they ended up manipulating and backing out on. It wasn’t much, maybe $1,200 over the past 6 years. Do we get that money back now?

    We have already had the lawyers at Rutherford Institute (a nonprofit civil liberties organization) send them a letter late last month about unfair treatment by third-party “fact checkers,” which they ignored and never responded to.

    I was motivated [to start The Free Thought Project] by the injustices I saw on social media during Occupy Wall Street in 2011. I knew I had an obligation to get involved somehow and to share information critical for liberty and peace. I never thought I would have built fan pages of 5 million fans, nor did I ever think we would employ and give jobs to nine other activists (at one point), but I was inspired to do what I could to plant seeds and combat the mainstream media’s bullsh*t narratives, to keep police and government accountable, to make sure people knew their rights and how to interact with police.

    All that’s gone now with a click of a button. Six years of hard work, literally seven days a week, working our as*es off finding stories, researching them, writing them, making thumbnails and titles for them, making graphics and videos for them, sharing them on various social media outlets.

    What’s next? I will fight this until I am utterly exhausted. We will fight back tooth and nail. I don’t care if that means protesting in front of Facebook headquarters (which I’ve already considered doing many times in the past two years), I will make sure people know how corrupt and untrustworthy Facebook is if it’s the last thing I do. You can’t just steal years of hard work from someone and not expect there to be consequences. I will do everything I can to make their lives miserable. That’s a promise.

    Rachel Blevins, a correspondent for RT America:

    Today I was locked out of my Facebook account for four hours, and my public page was “unpublished.” There appears to be no explanation for this other than the vague claim from Facebook that my page was taken down because it was “administered by a fake account, misleading users or violating the Facebook spam policies.” I am the only person who publishes posts on my page; the only posts I publish are articles I have written or videos of my reports, and I only post one or two times a day — which rules out all of the claims that I have violated Facebook’s policies.

    My page had nearly 70,000 followers before it was taken down. I have poured the last four years into building my page as a journalist, and I have noticed recently that the reach seems to have been stifled and that the engagement on my posts was down significantly. I know that I am not the only one who has become a victim of this purge, and there are hundreds of other pages — many of which had millions of followers — that have been taken down with no warning and no explanation.

    Ford Fischer, the founder of the media startup News2Share, had a number of his live streams removed during the purge, although they were later restored:

    This attack was a long time coming. Facebook has been slowly clamping down on independent media. First, they removed more extreme pages and made it harder for the surviving ones to make a living by hurting their algorithms (unless they paid, of course!). Then they started purging those that didn’t quickly respond to their ID requests. Today, hundreds of pages belonging to the family of independent media, especially those that question state authority, were removed without explanation. This is just one step further toward the total state and corporate takeover of what you’re allowed to think.

    Nicholas Bernabe, founder of The Anti-Media:

    Our approach generally is to cover stories and angles that corporate media underreport or misreport and to amplify activist and anti-war voices and stories. All of our content is professionally fact-checked and edited.

    I got into this line of work because I felt there was a need for media that challenged mainstream assumptions and biases in politics. I wanted to shed light on corruption and wrongdoing against oppressed peoples and cover the harsh truth about American foreign policy.

    Over the last 28 days, we reached 7,088,000 people on Facebook.

    The timing of this purge is rather dubious in my view, coming shortly before the midterm elections. This could be an attempt by Facebook itself to affect the outcome of the coming elections. The Twitter suspension caught me by surprise. I can only speculate that these suspensions were a coordinated effort to stifle our message ahead of the coming elections.

    By Alexander Rubinstein.

    #démocratie

  • Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before It Breaks Democracy? | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/17/can-mark-zuckerberg-fix-facebook-before-it-breaks-democracy

    Since 2011, Zuckerberg has lived in a century-old white clapboard Craftsman in the Crescent Park neighborhood, an enclave of giant oaks and historic homes not far from Stanford University. The house, which cost seven million dollars, affords him a sense of sanctuary. It’s set back from the road, shielded by hedges, a wall, and mature trees. Guests enter through an arched wooden gate and follow a long gravel path to a front lawn with a saltwater pool in the center. The year after Zuckerberg bought the house, he and his longtime girlfriend, Priscilla Chan, held their wedding in the back yard, which encompasses gardens, a pond, and a shaded pavilion. Since then, they have had two children, and acquired a seven-hundred-acre estate in Hawaii, a ski retreat in Montana, and a four-story town house on Liberty Hill, in San Francisco. But the family’s full-time residence is here, a ten-minute drive from Facebook’s headquarters.

    Occasionally, Zuckerberg records a Facebook video from the back yard or the dinner table, as is expected of a man who built his fortune exhorting employees to keep “pushing the world in the direction of making it a more open and transparent place.” But his appetite for personal openness is limited. Although Zuckerberg is the most famous entrepreneur of his generation, he remains elusive to everyone but a small circle of family and friends, and his efforts to protect his privacy inevitably attract attention. The local press has chronicled his feud with a developer who announced plans to build a mansion that would look into Zuckerberg’s master bedroom. After a legal fight, the developer gave up, and Zuckerberg spent forty-four million dollars to buy the houses surrounding his. Over the years, he has come to believe that he will always be the subject of criticism. “We’re not—pick your noncontroversial business—selling dog food, although I think that people who do that probably say there is controversy in that, too, but this is an inherently cultural thing,” he told me, of his business. “It’s at the intersection of technology and psychology, and it’s very personal.”

    At the same time, former Facebook executives, echoing a growing body of research, began to voice misgivings about the company’s role in exacerbating isolation, outrage, and addictive behaviors. One of the largest studies, published last year in the American Journal of Epidemiology, followed the Facebook use of more than five thousand people over three years and found that higher use correlated with self-reported declines in physical health, mental health, and life satisfaction. At an event in November, 2017, Sean Parker, Facebook’s first president, called himself a “conscientious objector” to social media, saying, “God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.” A few days later, Chamath Palihapitiya, the former vice-president of user growth, told an audience at Stanford, “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works—no civil discourse, no coöperation, misinformation, mistruth.” Palihapitiya, a prominent Silicon Valley figure who worked at Facebook from 2007 to 2011, said, “I feel tremendous guilt. I think we all knew in the back of our minds.” Of his children, he added, “They’re not allowed to use this shit.” (Facebook replied to the remarks in a statement, noting that Palihapitiya had left six years earlier, and adding, “Facebook was a very different company back then.”)

    In March, Facebook was confronted with an even larger scandal: the Times and the British newspaper the Observer reported that a researcher had gained access to the personal information of Facebook users and sold it to Cambridge Analytica, a consultancy hired by Trump and other Republicans which advertised using “psychographic” techniques to manipulate voter behavior. In all, the personal data of eighty-seven million people had been harvested. Moreover, Facebook had known of the problem since December of 2015 but had said nothing to users or regulators. The company acknowledged the breach only after the press discovered it.

    We spoke at his home, at his office, and by phone. I also interviewed four dozen people inside and outside the company about its culture, his performance, and his decision-making. I found Zuckerberg straining, not always coherently, to grasp problems for which he was plainly unprepared. These are not technical puzzles to be cracked in the middle of the night but some of the subtlest aspects of human affairs, including the meaning of truth, the limits of free speech, and the origins of violence.

    Zuckerberg is now at the center of a full-fledged debate about the moral character of Silicon Valley and the conscience of its leaders. Leslie Berlin, a historian of technology at Stanford, told me, “For a long time, Silicon Valley enjoyed an unencumbered embrace in America. And now everyone says, Is this a trick? And the question Mark Zuckerberg is dealing with is: Should my company be the arbiter of truth and decency for two billion people? Nobody in the history of technology has dealt with that.”

    In 2002, Zuckerberg went to Harvard, where he embraced the hacker mystique, which celebrates brilliance in pursuit of disruption. “The ‘fuck you’ to those in power was very strong,” the longtime friend said. In 2004, as a sophomore, he embarked on the project whose origin story is now well known: the founding of Thefacebook.com with four fellow-students (“the” was dropped the following year); the legal battles over ownership, including a suit filed by twin brothers, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, accusing Zuckerberg of stealing their idea; the disclosure of embarrassing messages in which Zuckerberg mocked users for giving him so much data (“they ‘trust me.’ dumb fucks,” he wrote); his regrets about those remarks, and his efforts, in the years afterward, to convince the world that he has left that mind-set behind.

    New hires learned that a crucial measure of the company’s performance was how many people had logged in to Facebook on six of the previous seven days, a measurement known as L6/7. “You could say it’s how many people love this service so much they use it six out of seven days,” Parakilas, who left the company in 2012, said. “But, if your job is to get that number up, at some point you run out of good, purely positive ways. You start thinking about ‘Well, what are the dark patterns that I can use to get people to log back in?’ ”

    Facebook engineers became a new breed of behaviorists, tweaking levers of vanity and passion and susceptibility. The real-world effects were striking. In 2012, when Chan was in medical school, she and Zuckerberg discussed a critical shortage of organs for transplant, inspiring Zuckerberg to add a small, powerful nudge on Facebook: if people indicated that they were organ donors, it triggered a notification to friends, and, in turn, a cascade of social pressure. Researchers later found that, on the first day the feature appeared, it increased official organ-donor enrollment more than twentyfold nationwide.

    Sean Parker later described the company’s expertise as “exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.” The goal: “How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?” Facebook engineers discovered that people find it nearly impossible not to log in after receiving an e-mail saying that someone has uploaded a picture of them. Facebook also discovered its power to affect people’s political behavior. Researchers found that, during the 2010 midterm elections, Facebook was able to prod users to vote simply by feeding them pictures of friends who had already voted, and by giving them the option to click on an “I Voted” button. The technique boosted turnout by three hundred and forty thousand people—more than four times the number of votes separating Trump and Clinton in key states in the 2016 race. It became a running joke among employees that Facebook could tilt an election just by choosing where to deploy its “I Voted” button.

    These powers of social engineering could be put to dubious purposes. In 2012, Facebook data scientists used nearly seven hundred thousand people as guinea pigs, feeding them happy or sad posts to test whether emotion is contagious on social media. (They concluded that it is.) When the findings were published, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they caused an uproar among users, many of whom were horrified that their emotions may have been surreptitiously manipulated. In an apology, one of the scientists wrote, “In hindsight, the research benefits of the paper may not have justified all of this anxiety.”

    Facebook was, in the words of Tristan Harris, a former design ethicist at Google, becoming a pioneer in “ persuasive technology.

    Facebook had adopted a buccaneering motto, “Move fast and break things,” which celebrated the idea that it was better to be flawed and first than careful and perfect. Andrew Bosworth, a former Harvard teaching assistant who is now one of Zuckerberg’s longest-serving lieutenants and a member of his inner circle, explained, “A failure can be a form of success. It’s not the form you want, but it can be a useful thing to how you learn.” In Zuckerberg’s view, skeptics were often just fogies and scolds. “There’s always someone who wants to slow you down,” he said in a commencement address at Harvard last year. “In our society, we often don’t do big things because we’re so afraid of making mistakes that we ignore all the things wrong today if we do nothing. The reality is, anything we do will have issues in the future. But that can’t keep us from starting.”

    In contrast to a traditional foundation, an L.L.C. can lobby and give money to politicians, without as strict a legal requirement to disclose activities. In other words, rather than trying to win over politicians and citizens in places like Newark, Zuckerberg and Chan could help elect politicians who agree with them, and rally the public directly by running ads and supporting advocacy groups. (A spokesperson for C.Z.I. said that it has given no money to candidates; it has supported ballot initiatives through a 501(c)(4) social-welfare organization.) “The whole point of the L.L.C. structure is to allow a coördinated attack,” Rob Reich, a co-director of Stanford’s Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, told me. The structure has gained popularity in Silicon Valley but has been criticized for allowing wealthy individuals to orchestrate large-scale social agendas behind closed doors. Reich said, “There should be much greater transparency, so that it’s not dark. That’s not a criticism of Mark Zuckerberg. It’s a criticism of the law.”

    La question des langues est fondamentale quand il s’agit de réseaux sociaux

    Beginning in 2013, a series of experts on Myanmar met with Facebook officials to warn them that it was fuelling attacks on the Rohingya. David Madden, an entrepreneur based in Myanmar, delivered a presentation to officials at the Menlo Park headquarters, pointing out that the company was playing a role akin to that of the radio broadcasts that spread hatred during the Rwandan genocide. In 2016, C4ADS, a Washington-based nonprofit, published a detailed analysis of Facebook usage in Myanmar, and described a “campaign of hate speech that actively dehumanizes Muslims.” Facebook officials said that they were hiring more Burmese-language reviewers to take down dangerous content, but the company repeatedly declined to say how many had actually been hired. By last March, the situation had become dire: almost a million Rohingya had fled the country, and more than a hundred thousand were confined to internal camps. The United Nations investigator in charge of examining the crisis, which the U.N. has deemed a genocide, said, “I’m afraid that Facebook has now turned into a beast, and not what it was originally intended.” Afterward, when pressed, Zuckerberg repeated the claim that Facebook was “hiring dozens” of additional Burmese-language content reviewers.

    More than three months later, I asked Jes Kaliebe Petersen, the C.E.O. of Phandeeyar, a tech hub in Myanmar, if there had been any progress. “We haven’t seen any tangible change from Facebook,” he told me. “We don’t know how much content is being reported. We don’t know how many people at Facebook speak Burmese. The situation is getting worse and worse here.”

    I saw Zuckerberg the following morning, and asked him what was taking so long. He replied, “I think, fundamentally, we’ve been slow at the same thing in a number of areas, because it’s actually the same problem. But, yeah, I think the situation in Myanmar is terrible.” It was a frustrating and evasive reply. I asked him to specify the problem. He said, “Across the board, the solution to this is we need to move from what is fundamentally a reactive model to a model where we are using technical systems to flag things to a much larger number of people who speak all the native languages around the world and who can just capture much more of the content.”

    Lecture des journaux ou des aggrégateurs ?

    once asked Zuckerberg what he reads to get the news. “I probably mostly read aggregators,” he said. “I definitely follow Techmeme”—a roundup of headlines about his industry—“and the media and political equivalents of that, just for awareness.” He went on, “There’s really no newspaper that I pick up and read front to back. Well, that might be true of most people these days—most people don’t read the physical paper—but there aren’t many news Web sites where I go to browse.”

    A couple of days later, he called me and asked to revisit the subject. “I felt like my answers were kind of vague, because I didn’t necessarily feel like it was appropriate for me to get into which specific organizations or reporters I read and follow,” he said. “I guess what I tried to convey, although I’m not sure if this came across clearly, is that the job of uncovering new facts and doing it in a trusted way is just an absolutely critical function for society.”

    Zuckerberg and Sandberg have attributed their mistakes to excessive optimism, a blindness to the darker applications of their service. But that explanation ignores their fixation on growth, and their unwillingness to heed warnings. Zuckerberg resisted calls to reorganize the company around a new understanding of privacy, or to reconsider the depth of data it collects for advertisers.

    Antitrust

    In barely two years, the mood in Washington had shifted. Internet companies and entrepreneurs, formerly valorized as the vanguard of American ingenuity and the astronauts of our time, were being compared to Standard Oil and other monopolists of the Gilded Age. This spring, the Wall Street Journal published an article that began, “Imagine a not-too-distant future in which trustbusters force Facebook to sell off Instagram and WhatsApp.” It was accompanied by a sepia-toned illustration in which portraits of Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, and other tech C.E.O.s had been grafted onto overstuffed torsos meant to evoke the robber barons. In 1915, Louis Brandeis, the reformer and future Supreme Court Justice, testified before a congressional committee about the dangers of corporations large enough that they could achieve a level of near-sovereignty “so powerful that the ordinary social and industrial forces existing are insufficient to cope with it.” He called this the “curse of bigness.” Tim Wu, a Columbia law-school professor and the author of a forthcoming book inspired by Brandeis’s phrase, told me, “Today, no sector exemplifies more clearly the threat of bigness to democracy than Big Tech.” He added, “When a concentrated private power has such control over what we see and hear, it has a power that rivals or exceeds that of elected government.”

    When I asked Zuckerberg whether policymakers might try to break up Facebook, he replied, adamantly, that such a move would be a mistake. The field is “extremely competitive,” he told me. “I think sometimes people get into this mode of ‘Well, there’s not, like, an exact replacement for Facebook.’ Well, actually, that makes it more competitive, because what we really are is a system of different things: we compete with Twitter as a broadcast medium; we compete with Snapchat as a broadcast medium; we do messaging, and iMessage is default-installed on every iPhone.” He acknowledged the deeper concern. “There’s this other question, which is just, laws aside, how do we feel about these tech companies being big?” he said. But he argued that efforts to “curtail” the growth of Facebook or other Silicon Valley heavyweights would cede the field to China. “I think that anything that we’re doing to constrain them will, first, have an impact on how successful we can be in other places,” he said. “I wouldn’t worry in the near term about Chinese companies or anyone else winning in the U.S., for the most part. But there are all these places where there are day-to-day more competitive situations—in Southeast Asia, across Europe, Latin America, lots of different places.”

    The rough consensus in Washington is that regulators are unlikely to try to break up Facebook. The F.T.C. will almost certainly fine the company for violations, and may consider blocking it from buying big potential competitors, but, as a former F.T.C. commissioner told me, “in the United States you’re allowed to have a monopoly position, as long as you achieve it and maintain it without doing illegal things.”

    Facebook is encountering tougher treatment in Europe, where antitrust laws are stronger and the history of fascism makes people especially wary of intrusions on privacy. One of the most formidable critics of Silicon Valley is the European Union’s top antitrust regulator, Margrethe Vestager.

    In Vestager’s view, a healthy market should produce competitors to Facebook that position themselves as ethical alternatives, collecting less data and seeking a smaller share of user attention. “We need social media that will allow us to have a nonaddictive, advertising-free space,” she said. “You’re more than welcome to be successful and to dramatically outgrow your competitors if customers like your product. But, if you grow to be dominant, you have a special responsibility not to misuse your dominant position to make it very difficult for others to compete against you and to attract potential customers. Of course, we keep an eye on it. If we get worried, we will start looking.”

    Modération

    As hard as it is to curb election propaganda, Zuckerberg’s most intractable problem may lie elsewhere—in the struggle over which opinions can appear on Facebook, which cannot, and who gets to decide. As an engineer, Zuckerberg never wanted to wade into the realm of content. Initially, Facebook tried blocking certain kinds of material, such as posts featuring nudity, but it was forced to create long lists of exceptions, including images of breast-feeding, “acts of protest,” and works of art. Once Facebook became a venue for political debate, the problem exploded. In April, in a call with investment analysts, Zuckerberg said glumly that it was proving “easier to build an A.I. system to detect a nipple than what is hate speech.”

    The cult of growth leads to the curse of bigness: every day, a billion things were being posted to Facebook. At any given moment, a Facebook “content moderator” was deciding whether a post in, say, Sri Lanka met the standard of hate speech or whether a dispute over Korean politics had crossed the line into bullying. Zuckerberg sought to avoid banning users, preferring to be a “platform for all ideas.” But he needed to prevent Facebook from becoming a swamp of hoaxes and abuse. His solution was to ban “hate speech” and impose lesser punishments for “misinformation,” a broad category that ranged from crude deceptions to simple mistakes. Facebook tried to develop rules about how the punishments would be applied, but each idiosyncratic scenario prompted more rules, and over time they became byzantine. According to Facebook training slides published by the Guardian last year, moderators were told that it was permissible to say “You are such a Jew” but not permissible to say “Irish are the best, but really French sucks,” because the latter was defining another people as “inferiors.” Users could not write “Migrants are scum,” because it is dehumanizing, but they could write “Keep the horny migrant teen-agers away from our daughters.” The distinctions were explained to trainees in arcane formulas such as “Not Protected + Quasi protected = not protected.”

    It will hardly be the last quandary of this sort. Facebook’s free-speech dilemmas have no simple answers—you don’t have to be a fan of Alex Jones to be unnerved by the company’s extraordinary power to silence a voice when it chooses, or, for that matter, to amplify others, to pull the levers of what we see, hear, and experience. Zuckerberg is hoping to erect a scalable system, an orderly decision tree that accounts for every eventuality and exception, but the boundaries of speech are a bedevilling problem that defies mechanistic fixes. The Supreme Court, defining obscenity, landed on “I know it when I see it.” For now, Facebook is making do with a Rube Goldberg machine of policies and improvisations, and opportunists are relishing it. Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, seized on the ban of Jones as a fascist assault on conservatives. In a moment that was rich even by Cruz’s standards, he quoted Martin Niemöller’s famous lines about the Holocaust, saying, “As the poem goes, you know, ‘First they came for Alex Jones.’ ”

    #Facebook #Histoire_numérique

  • Dear #facebook, Kindly Fix the White Screen of Death Error
    https://hackernoon.com/dear-facebook-kindly-fix-the-white-screen-of-death-error-f9f06d9b0dad?so

    Why Facebook seriously needs to upgrade its customer support.Facebook is the biggest social media platform in the world with 2.2 billion monthly active users. Nowadays, everyone has a Facebook account, from celebrities to politicians to probably even your grandmother and they spend more time on it than ever before.Although using Facebook is very easy-peasy and complaint free but occasionally users face issues which can be resolved by going through the Facebook Help Center forum. However, if the problem encountered is not at user-end and more from the server side. Then what? How will you fix that?The answer is you can’t!Facebook White Screen of DeathRecently I came across an error which makes your Facebook account inaccessible on both your mobile phone and computer. This strange error is (...)

    #facebook-bug-bounty #tech-open-letter #facebook-marketing #social-media

  • What’s Not Included in Facebook’s ’Download Your Data’
    https://www.wired.com/story/whats-not-included-in-facebooks-download-your-data

    When members of Congress asked Mark Zuckerberg earlier this month who owns Facebook users’ personal data, the Facebook CEO had a convenient response. Eight times during his testimony, he cited a feature called “Download Your Data,” to show that Facebook users really are in control. “Yes, Congressman. We have a ‘download your information’ tool. We’ve had it for years,” Zuckerberg told US representative Jerry McNerney (D-California). “You can go to it in your settings and download all of the content (...)

    #Facebook #données #BigData #historique

    • But “Download Your Data” hardly tells you everything Facebook knows about you. Among the information not included:

      • information Facebook collects about your browsing history
      • information Facebook collects about the apps you visit and your activity within those apps
      • the advertisers who uploaded your contact information to Facebook more than two months earlier
      • ads that you interacted with more than two months prior

  • Life Inside S.C.L., Cambridge Analytica’s Parent Company | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/life-inside-scl-cambridge-analyticas-parent-company

    There were times during our conversation when the employee seemed as bemused as anybody that a company that was started in the early nineteen-nineties with some intuitive but eccentric ideas about group psychology—one of Oakes’s first ventures was selling aromas to stores, to persuade customers to buy more—was now at the center of a transatlantic conversation about voter rights, data privacy, and the integrity of the world’s most important social network. But the employee was also clear that access to big data, particularly in the form of Facebook, combined with S.C.L.’s long interest in psychological profiling and audience segmentation, had been able to equip political campaigns with digital weapons that most voters were unaware of. “You can get philosophical about this and say that Facebook being an advertising platform masquerading as a social platform is the start of the rot and the tool was always there,” the employee said. S.C.L.’s executives were the wrong people who came along at the wrong time. “There were always going to be dodgy fuckers willing to work for rich people, and the S.C.L. was just an example of the dodgy fucker.” (S.C.L. did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the company claims that it destroyed the Facebook data, in October, 2015, and that it played no role in the Presidential election.)

    The employee welcomed the current attention on S.C.L.’s methodology and behavior, whether it was illegal, or whether it should have been. The leaders of the company were not interested in these questions. “Alexander is not constrained by the sort of worries we are seeing expressed right now,” the employee said. “It really is about getting money together.” The employee continued, “What is wonderful about now is this bit of it is being opened, and I think it is bloody important, because something as catastrophic as Brexit and Trump—the technical possibility of that—is achieved through this dark shit. And this dark shit can be done by fucking cowboys. And, for lots of people who worked for the organization, it wasn’t supposed to be this way.”

    Some of S.C.L.’s methods had merit. Oakes’s insight in forming the B.D.I. was to aim messages at social groups—rather than at individuals—and to place a low expectation on persuading people to change their minds. In a “classic S.C.L. project,” the employee explained, the company would use subcontractors, survey companies, and academics in the run-up to an election to create what it called a “super sample.” “We would speak to sixty thousand people, and we wouldn’t say, ‘Who are you going to vote for?’ ” the employee said. “We would say, ‘How do you feel about life?’ ” S.C.L.’s data concentrated on local concerns, such as housing, water shortages, or tribal conflict. “With all of that, we would delineate a strategy for them to win by focussing on targeted groups that we had identified within the population,” the employee said. “It is not so much, let’s make these people do this thing; it is, can we take this thing in such a way that the people who should get it do get it?”

    #Facebook #Cambridge_analytica

  • News from Facebook – iA
    https://ia.net/topics/news-from-facebook

    Everything that Facebook does in the near future has to be interpreted in the stark neon light of fighting antitrust laws. Zuckerberg is ready for big sacrifices to avoid the governmental beatdown. Cutting news organizations out of the main feed already cost him 3.3 Billion. He knew that beforehand. He also knew that news organizations would not love him for his big change of mind. But compared to having the government step in and break up the Facebook Kingdom, 3.3 Billion and a couple of angry journalists is a very small price.

    #facebook #presse #antitrust

  • Data-hungry Facebook seeks younger recruits
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/10/data-hungry-facebook-seeks-younger-recruits-messenger-kids

    The social network’s new Messenger Kids app is doubtless well intentioned – but also helps to get the under-13s hooked by the Facebook habit In one of those coincidences that give irony a bad name, Facebook launched a new service for children at the same time that a moral panic was sweeping the UK about the dangers of children using live-streaming apps that enable anyone to broadcast video directly from a smartphone or a tablet. The BBC showed a scary example of what can happen. A young (...)

    #Facebook #Messenger #enfants #profiling #BigData

  • When it comes to Facebook, Russia’s $100,000 is worth more than you think
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-it-comes-to-facebook-russias-100000-is-worth-more-than-you-think/2017/09/11/b6f8dde6-94c7-11e7-aace-04b862b2b3f3_story.html?tid=sm_tw

    As if we needed more evidence that Facebook influenced the election.

    Last week, the social-media company revealed that during the 2016 presidential campaign it sold more than $100,000 in ads to a Kremlin-linked “troll farm” seeking to influence U.S. voters. An additional $50,000 in ads also appear suspect but were less verifiably linked to the Russian government.

    In the grand — at this point, far too grand — scheme of campaign spending, $150,000 doesn’t sound like much. It’s a minor TV ad buy, perhaps, or a wardrobe makeover for one vice-presidential candidate. But in the context of Facebook, it matters quite a bit. Not just for what it might have done to the election but also for what it says about us.

    MAKE MARK ZUCKERBERG TESTIFY
    https://theintercept.com/2017/09/11/make-mark-zuckerberg-testify

    LAST WEEK, after what must have been a series of extremely grim meetings in Menlo Park, Facebook admitted publicly that part of its revenue includes what appears to be politically-motivated fraud undertaken by a shady Russian company. The social network, perhaps motivated by a Washington Post scoop on the matter, released a statement outlining the issues at hand, but leaving the most important questions unanswered. Only Facebook knows these answers, and we should assume they won’t be eager to volunteer them.

    After last week’s reports, Facebook received a round of emails and calls from reporters asking for clarifications on the many glaring gaps in the social network’s disclosure:

    What was the content of the Russian-backed ads in question?
    How many people saw these ads? How many people clicked them?
    What were the Facebook pages associated with the ads? How many members did they have?
    What specific targeting criteria (race, age, and most importantly, location) did the Russian ads choose?
    Given that Facebook reaches a little under 30% of the entire population of our planet, the answers to these questions matter.

  • Facebook worker living in garage to Zuckerberg : challenges are right outside your door | Technology | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/24/facebook-cafeteria-workers-wages-zuckerberg-challenges

    As the Facebook CEO travels across the US to ‘learn about people’s hopes and challenges’, the cafeteria workers at his company struggle to make ends meet

    #californie #inégalités #facebook

  • Facebook blocks Chechnya activist page in latest case of wrongful censorship
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/06/facebook-chechnya-political-activist-page-deleted

    The barring of a non-terrorist group for ‘terrorist activity’ sparks debate – again – about how overloaded moderators can handle content fairly and accurately Facebook censored a group of supporters of Chechen independence for violating its community standards barring “organizations engaged in terrorist activity or organized criminal activity”, the latest example of the social network mistakenly censoring government dissidents. The Facebook group, Independence for Chechnya !, was “permanently (...)

    #Facebook #algorithme #censure

    • Ca n’a rien à voir avec les modérateurs, facebook edite des listes de groupes terroristes, nom, drapeau et portrait des chefs. Si une page est labellisées terroriste elle part dans un service spécial qui valide ou non la üremière décision. Si le label est confirmé l’utilisateur va rejoindre une liste de personnes radicalisées et liste qui pourra etre transmise aux gouvernements. Le Hezbollah est pour fb comme pour le gvt américain, un groupe terroriste. Fb est plus que liée à la politique étrangère du gouvernement ricain mais il peut aussi passer des accords particuliers avec certains gouvernements.
      Freestyle, le FLNC n’est plus concidéré par fb comme terroriste mais comme groupe de haine à l’instar par exemple du KKK. Accord avec le gouvernement francais ?

  • Sci-fi doesn’t predict the future. It influences it.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/05/sci_fi_doesn_t_predict_the_future_it_influences_it.html

    Predicting the future is a mug’s game, anyway. If the future can be predicted, then it is inevitable. If it’s inevitable, then what we do doesn’t matter. If what we do doesn’t matter, why bother getting out of bed in the morning? Science fiction does something better than predict the future: It influences it.

    If some poor English teacher has demanded that you identify the “themes ” of Mary’s Frankenstein, the obvious correct answer is that she is referring to ambition and hubris. Ambition because Victor Frankenstein has challenged death itself, one of the universe’s eternal verities. Everything dies: whales and humans and dogs and cats and stars and galaxies. Hubris—“extreme pride or self-confidence” (thanks, Wikipedia!)—because as Victor brings his creature to life, he is so blinded by his own ambition that he fails to consider the moral consequences of his actions. He fails to ask himself how the thinking, living being he is creating will feel about being stitched together, imbued with life force, and ushered into the uncaring universe.

    Many critics panned Frankenstein when it was first published, but the crowds loved it, made it a best-seller, and packed the theaters where it was performed on the stage. Mary had awoken something in the public imagination, and it’s not hard to understand what that was: a story about technology mastering humans rather than serving them.

    In 1999, Douglas Adams—another prodigious predictor of the present—made a keen observation about the relationship of young people to technology:

    I’ve come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

    1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

    2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

    3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

    Internet social networks were already huge before Facebook: Sixdegrees, Friendster, Myspace, Bebo, and dozens of others had already come and gone. There was an adjacent possible in play: The internet and the web existed, and it had grown enough that many of the people you wanted to talk to could be found online, if only someone would design a service to facilitate finding or meeting them.

    A service like Facebook was inevitable, but how Facebook works was not. Facebook is designed like a casino game where the jackpots are attention from other people (likes and messages) and the playing surface is a vast board whose parts can’t be seen most of the time. You place bets on what kind of personal revelation will ring the cherries, pull the lever—hit “post”—and wait while the wheel spins to see if you’ll win big. As in all casino games, in the Facebook game there’s one universal rule: The house always wins. Facebook continuously fine-tunes its algorithms to maximize the amount that you disclose to the service because it makes money by selling that personal information to advertisers. The more personal information you give up, the more ways they can sell you—if an advertiser wants to sell sugar water or subprime mortgages to 19-year-old engineering freshmen whose parents rent in a large Northeastern city, then disclosing all those facts about you converts you from a user to a vendible asset.

    #Science_fiction #SF #futur

  • The Human Fabric of the Facebook Pyramid – SHARE LAB
    https://labs.rs/en/the-human-fabric-of-the-facebook-pyramid

    In this article, we will try to map some elements of Facebook’s human fabric, the social structure and the power relations within the company.

    We will investigate and reflect upon the phenomenon of Facebook in terms of the social networks of its employees. We will also consider the social relations between the members of Facebook’s management board and other spheres of society. This article is a contribution to the contemporary critique of the strong ties between political establishments and global business, i.e. that of the issue of the revolving door.[2] In short, we will deal with the phenomenon of digital capitalism.

    #réseaux #facebook #visualisation #États-Unis #Mark_Lombardi

    • shows that Facebook as an employer mostly recruits people from U.S. universities. This means that in spite of acting globally, this company does not see the need to represent the structure of its users around the world.

      ...

      Even though the world is at the point of postglobal development (a point where global is already reached and the new local is what the market needs), the deep embeddedness of the company in the economic, political and social elite/establishment of one society/country is what makes the company strong enough to act globally – and not, as is often thought, through the cooperation of the elites around the world.

  • Mark Zuckerberg’s surprise visit to Ohio family boosts rumor of political run
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/29/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-dinner-ohio-family

    Moore family of Newton Falls, Democrats who voted for Trump, hosted the Facebook CEO who is visiting all 50 states amid speculation of a run for office An Ohio family said they learned just 20 minutes before dinner on Friday evening that a planned mystery guest would be the Facebook founder and billionaire Mark Zuckerberg. “I knew we were having a mystery guest and that was about it,” Daniel Moore told a local newspaper, the Vindicator of Youngstown. “It was completely incredible.” The (...)

    #Facebook #marketing #domination #élections

  • Silicon Valley exploits time and space to extend frontiers of capitalism | Evgeny Morozov | Opinion | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/silicon-valley-exploits-space-evgeny-morozov


    La frontière électronique a repoussé les limites du capitalisme en lui permettant d’occuper une partie grandissante de notre cerveau, corps et temps. Avec ce vecteur d’omniprésence touchant aux limites de son expansion c’est à l’espace interstellaire de reprendre le relais pour les fantaisies de croissance illimitée. Bienvenu dans le far-ouest de l’espace.

    The US Congress quietly passed an important piece of legislation this month. The Space Resource Exploration and Utilisation Act – yet to be signed by Barack Obama – grants American companies unconstrained rights to the mining of any resources – from water to gold. The era of space exploration is over; the era of space exploitation has begun!

    While the 1967 Outer Space Treaty explicitly prohibits governments from claiming planets and other celestial resources, as their property, Congress reasoned that such restrictions do not apply to the materials found and mined there.

    The bill’s timing might, at first, seem surprising – after all, Nasa, the US space agency, is almost constantly fighting against budget cuts – but is easily explained by the entrance of new space explorers on to the scene, namely the Silicon Valley billionaires who are pouring millions into “disrupting” space, Nasa, and the space programme of yore. From Google’s Eric Schmidt and Larry Page to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Tesla’s Elon Musk, Silicon Valley’s elites have committed considerable resources to the cause.

    And while the long-term plan – to mine asteroids for precious metals or water, which can then be used to fuel spaceships – might still be a decade or more away, Silicon Valley has a very different business proposition in mind. Space, for these companies, offers the most cost-effective way to wire the unconnected parts of the globe by beaming internet connectivity from balloons, drones and satellites.

    Morph’s Outpost on the Digital Frontier
    http://morphsoutpostonthedigitalfrontier.blogspot.de
    On arrive de loin. A l’époque de la space shuttle les limites du cyber-espace étaient encore inconnues et illimitées.

    Wired wrote briefly about Morph’s Outpost in the September/October 1993 issue, online at
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/streetcred.html?pg=8

    Morph’s Outpost - By Will Kreth

    Don’t knock programmers. Contrary to popular belief, many of them do have lives and look nothing like the bespectacled, pasty-faced, Jolt-cola- slurping traitorous overweight hacker depicted in Jurassic Park (personally, I was thrilled when he got eaten in the Jeep). Some of them ride mountain bikes, kayak, play alto sax and read books by Peter Matheissen. Some of them were never interested in programming until HyperCard, while others have been working on PC’s since the birth of the Altair in the ’70s. Until recently, they’ve been stuck wading through various patently dull programming magazines for the information they needed to stay on the edge.

    The rise of interactive multimedia has given birth to a new crop of programmers, and they’re starving for deep technical information about their current (albeit over-hyped) obsession. Now they have a new magazine dedicated to their cause. Morph’s Outpost on the Digital Frontier is the brainchild of Craig LaGrow, a founder of the popular Computer Language, and Editor-in-Chief Doug Millison. Augmenting the magazine’s seriously technical treatment of authoring environments and the like is a whimsical cartoon character named (what else?) Morph, who runs his Outpost on the boundary between cyberspace and the digital jungle. He’s the silicon- surfing Sherpa who’ll outfit you with the “intel” you need to make the right decisions on hardware, software, scripting tricks, and marketing your creations. Morph, who looks as if he just came out of a graffiti-artist’s spray-paint can, has assembled several notable names within the industry to contribute to the Outpost on a regular basis - like Rockley Miller (publisher and editor of Multimedia and Videodisc Monitor), Richard Doherty (editor of Envisioneering), Tony Bove (publisher and editor of the Macromedia User Journal and the Bove & Rhodes Inside Report), and Michael Moon (of the market research firm Gistics, Inc.). Do you know your XCMDs from CLUTs? Script-X from a 3:2 pull-down ratio for mastering a videodisc? Then Morph’s Outpost on the Digital Frontier is a must-read for all you seasoned media fanatics surfing the Digital Pipeline.

    Digital Work CyberTrends
    http://people.duke.edu/~mccann/q-work.htm
    Un an après la catastrophe de la Challenger l’espace sans fin du monde digital se traduisait en job opportunities sans limites.

    Work in Cyberspace
    Rise of the Personal Virtual Workspace
    Rise of the American Perestroika
    The Demise of the Job
    Rise of Entreployees
    Rise of the Movable Job
    Demise of the Department
    Rise of the Project
    Demise of the Hierarchy
    Rise of Multimedia in Corporations
    Big Business in Your Little PC
    Rise of the Digital Wealthy
    Devolution of Large Entities
    Rise of the Individual
    Rise of the Video Communications
    Rise of Internet Collaboration
    Rise of the Virtual Office
    Rise of Soft Factories
    Dematerialization of Manufacturing
    Put Your Knowledge to Work
    Rise of New Organizational Structures
    Demise of the Branch
    Rise of Document-centric Computing
    Rise of Intranet
    Rise of Knowledge Worker Hell
    Rise of a New Life in the Web
    Rise of Business Ecosystems
    Death of Competition
    Rise of New Industry Definitions
    Rise of Intellectual Mobility
    Rise of the Internet Job Engine
    Rise of Coordination-Intensive Business
    Rise of the Internetworked Business Structures
    Rise of Global Networks
    Rise of Globalization
    Rise of the Underdeveloped
    Rise of Free Agent, USA

    InfluenceHR | The Shift From Wellness to Well-being : Empowering a Workforce with a Whole-employee Approach
    http://influencehr.com/sessions/the-shift-from-wellness-to-well-being-empowering-a-workforce-with-a-who
    Depuis on chasse du cerveau dans la silicon valley , alors il faut faire des efforts pour en attirer les meilleurs.

    Speaker:
    Dr. Michael M. Moon, CEO and Principal Analyst, ExcelHRate Research and Advisory Services
    Workplace wellness is undergoing a transformation from a limited view of employee physical wellness to a more holistic view that also includes employees’ emotional, mental, and financial well-being — inside and outside the workplace. To really engage employees, employers need to provide the right balance of resources, programs, tools, and technology to enable employees to own and manage their well-being along with building a culture that supports these initiatives. The HR vendor community has a tremendous opportunity in helping employers to empower their employees to own their well-being through innovative technologies that deliver personalized learning, feedback, and targeted interventions.

    Michael Jay Moon - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jay_Moon#Awards_and_associations
    C’est l’occasion pour les vieux hippies et les habitants de première heure de la vallée de silicone de vendre quelques conférences.

    Moon was a contributing editor for Morph’s Outpost from 1993-1995, launching the magazine and writing a monthly column. A technical publication on emerging multimedia design technology, it was based on the design of ’60s underground newspapers. He was a blogger for Customer Engagement Agencies, DAM for Marketing and Engagement Marketspace. In 2000, he co-authored Firebrands: Building Brand Loyalty in the Internet Age with Doug Millison. The book is now available in 13 languages.

    Closing the Digital Frontier - The Atlantic
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/closing-the-digital-frontier/308131
    Une chosequi ne change jamais dans le monde capitaliste est l’incertitude. Où trouver the next big thing (#TNBT), commen investir, comment survivre. Alors les spécialistes annoncent des vérités assez simples pour plaire aux décervelés de la finance.

    The era of the Web browser’s dominance is coming to a close. And the Internet’s founding ideology—that information wants to be free, and that attempts to constrain it are not only hopeless but immoral— suddenly seems naive and stale in the new age of apps, smart phones, and pricing plans. What will this mean for the future of the media—and of the Web itself?

    Michael Hirschorn July/August 2010 Issue

    Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft : Which Will Fall First ?
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/01/06/google-apple-facebook-amazon-microsoft-which-will-fall-first

    Which company will fall first, Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, or Microsoft? originally appeared on Quora: the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights.

    Answer by Terrence Yang, Angel investor, on Quora:

    I own stock in Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft, but if I had to pick which tech giant I think will fall first, I would pick Facebook.

    That being said:

    Zuckerberg’s latest moves include:
    Keeping control of Facebook even after he donated almost all his Facebook stock to charity. Facebook shareholder suit alleges secret texts from Marc Andreessen to Mark Zuckerberg.
    Being the only public company CEO to skip Trump’s tech summit. I bet most shareholders wanted him to attend.
    Making his 2017 resolution “to have visited and met people in every state in the US by the end of the year. After a tumultuous last year, my hope for this challenge is to get out and talk to more people about how they’re living, working, and thinking about the future.” Mark Zuckerberg - Every year I take on a personal... Maybe he is sincere in trying to better understand America, given that Facebook, together with Google, account for almost all the online ad revenue. Google and Facebook are booming. Is the rest of the digital ad business sinking?
    Zuckerberg said he is no longer an atheist and that religion is very important (hat tip Hunter Johnson). (Mark Zuckerberg says he’s no longer an atheist, believes ‘religion is very important’.)
    All of these moves are more consistent with someone laying the groundwork for a possible run for political office someday than with someone singularly focused on growing the Facebook empire. What would Steve Jobs do?
    People have speculated before about Zuckerberg’s aspirations to run for President. (Does Mark Zuckerberg Want To Run For President?)
    I believe his actions are an investment risk factor. At the margin, his latest moves drove some investors to sell Facebook stock (raising its cost of capital) and possibly providing cheaper capital to the Facebook’s competitors (if investors sell Facebook and buy Snap, for example).
    Facebook’s metrics are wrong, though others (Google?) may have the same issue. It’s not just Facebook: Digital advertisers say internet metrics are often wrong Facebook Says It Found More Miscalculated Metrics.
    Robert Scoble says spatial computing will dominate, meaning you will be able to physically walk around in the real world and see virtual items placed on them. Scobleizer - Entrepreneur in Residence.
    Scoble said he would ask Zuckerberg this: “How are you going to compete with a “mixed reality” release of the iPhone that’s coming in 11 months? I expect that iPhone will sell 60 million in first weekend…"
    Scoble goes on to say: “That’s more VR sold than all others combined. In one weekend … If I were at Facebook I’d get the entire Oculus team to pivot. Toward mixed reality glasses. Why? Microsoft’s execs already told me they are betting 100% on mixed reality (with its Microsoft HoloLens product). The strategy at Microsoft is “Cloud + Hololens.” That’s it. The entirety of a $455 billion company is betting on mixed reality.” Apple Strategy 2017. Very important change to iPhone coming (hat tip to Leo Harsha).
    Oculus headset sales are low. VR is taking longer to take off than some guessed. VR headset sales by device 2016 | Statista.
    Instagram is doing a great job copying Snap’s popular features and avoiding the unpopular ones (fast follower). But they don’t have anything like Spectacles yet. Instagram’s Best Move in 2016? Copying Snapchat — The Motley Fool Snapchat vs. Instagram: Who’s Copying Whom Most?
    Even Zuckerberg’s write-up and videos about Jarvis home AI reveals Facebook’s weaknesses. While Amazon, Google and Apple can combine hardware and software to give you a better, more seamless experience via Echo/Alexa or the Google and Apple equivalents. To date Facebook only has software.
    Some others cite Microsoft or Apple as the most likely to fail. I disagree.

    SILICON VALLEY (THE BIG FIVE) RULEZ

    Tech Companies Are Dominating the Stock Market as Never Before (July 29 2016)
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/29/the_world_s_5_most_valuable_companies_apple_google_microsoft_amazon_facebook.

    Tech’s ‘Frightful 5’ Will Dominate Digital Life for Foreseeable Future ( JAN. 20, 2016)
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/technology/techs-frightful-5-will-dominate-digital-life-for-foreseeable-future.html?_r

    The Big 5 are Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook
    (August 2, 2016)
    http://www.greenm3.com/gdcblog/2016/8/2/the-big-5-are-apple-google-microsoft-amazon-facebook

    The Big 5 Year in Review : Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook (December 29, 2015)
    https://stratechery.com/2015/the-big-5-year-in-review-apple-google-microsoft-amazon-and-facebook

    #silicon_valley #capitalisme #technologie #disruption