#tim_

À l’occasion du 35e anniversaire du web : lettre ouverte - Un blog furtif
▻https://grenoble.ninja/a-l-occasion-du-35e-anniversaire-du-web-lettre-ouverte

Ce texte est une traduction d’un article intitulé « Marking the Web’s 35th Birthday : An Open Letter » publié par Tim Berners Lee, inventeur du Web, sur Medium.

35 ans après avoir inventé le Web, Tim Berners-Lee réagit enfin : il est bouleversé par l’usage que l’humanité a fait de sa création - jeuxvideo.com
▻https://www.jeuxvideo.com/news/1865740/35-ans-apres-avoir-invente-le-web-tim-berners-lee-reagit-enfin-il-est-bou
▻https://image.jeuxvideo.com/medias-crop-1200-675/171042/1710419092-7294-card.png

« Je n’aurais jamais pu prédire ce que ça allait devenir »

35 ans plus tard, Tim Berners-Lee a accordé une interview au média américain CNBC pour célébrer l’anniversaire de sa création. L’informaticien est formel : « Quand tout a commencé, jamais je n’aurais pu prédire que ça allait devenir, avec tous ces changements », explique-t-il.

Bouleversé par l’évolution de sa création, Tim Berners-Lee estime que certaines évolutions ne sont pas allées dans le bon sens. Il estime que les flux des réseaux sociaux, associés aux algorithmes des intelligences artificielles, ont contribué à attiser les « sentiments de colère, de contrariété et de haine » des gens. Il estime aussi que la facilité à produire des contenus en tout genre de manière pléthorique a entrainé une perte de contrôle concernant la propriété des données des personnes et des entreprises.

#Web #Tim_Berners_Lee

La filiera della lana “senza frontiere” dell’arco alpino
Scienze umane e sociali

https://cleaver.cue.rsi.ch/public/rete-due/programmi/cultura/laser/2083536-v5rdjj-Gregge-di-pecore/alternates/r1x1/2083536-v5rdjj-Gregge-di-pecore#.jpg

La lana, che in passato era merce preziosa capace di stimolare e alimentare l’economia locale, ha perso negli ultimi decenni il suo valore a causa della concorrenza internazionale. Oltre a non essere utilizzata per produrre filato, la lana deve essere smaltita, secondo le norme europee, come rifiuto speciale. Non solo non produce benessere e ricchezza, ma è diventata nel tempo un enorme problema per i pastori.

Per contrastare questo fenomeno è partito da pochi mesi, il progetto #Alptextiles, nel tentativo di ricostruire a livello transnazionale la filiera tessile, partendo proprio dalla lana. Promosso dall’archivio di Etnografia e Storia Sociale di Regione Lombardia con diversi partners europei quali scuole, musei e università di Italia, Svizzera, Austria, Germania, Francia e Slovenia, il progetto punta prima di tutto a mettere in relazione le diverse realtà legate alla filiera della lana.

I fili prodotti in Italia, e in particolare in #Val_Camonica incontreranno quelli dell’Austria del #Montafon, sui telai di tessitura della #Valposchiavo, per creare un nuovo tessuto.

A #Poschiavo abbiamo incontrato alcuni protagonisti del progetto “senza frontiere: #Cassiano_Luminati, direttore del #Polo_Poschiavo; #Adriana_Zanoli, artigiana e decoratrice e #Tim_Marchesi, allevatore e pastore.

▻https://www.rsi.ch/rete-due/programmi/cultura/laser/La-filiera-della-lana-%E2%80%9Csenza-frontiere%E2%80%9D-dell%E2%80%99arco-alpino

#laine #filière_laine #textile #Alpes

La publicité digitale : son utilité pour la société, ses problèmes actuels, les causes et comment travailler aux solutions
▻https://www.journaldunet.com/adtech/1527983-la-publicite-digitale-son-utilite-pour-la-societe-ses-probleme

https://img-0.journaldunet.com/qC8VwX4q6JZVRzMUK4x3FHysU1M=/1500x/smart/abc63300ef3f492aa5cf9b33da0c8d80/user-jdn/10038263-leo-goldfeder.jpg

Les rapprochements ces dernières années entre le lobby du secteur de la publicité digitale (l’Alliance Digitale, ex IAB) et les organismes d’état indépendants (Cnil, Autorité de la concurrence & Arcom) sont un premier pas pour une régulation plus efficace. Il a notamment été productif en 2020 concernant l’interprétation et l’application de loi RGPD sur le recueil du consentement des données personnelles.

Est-il nécessaire de créer un organisme d’État indépendant spécifique à la publicité digitale ? Comme cela a été fait pour la finance de marché passé la crise des subprimes de 2008, comme nous le rappelle le livre « Le grand krach de l’attention » de Tim Hwang, qui compare ces deux secteurs ? Est-ce que l’Arcom peut monter au créneau, avec un budget renforcé ? Comment travailler avec la Cnil et l’Autorité de la concurrence, qui ont accéléré leurs travaux pour notre secteur depuis quelques années ? Comment prendre en compte les arguments des associations de protection des données personnelles comme Noyb ? Faut-il espérer créer des big techs européennes, laisser Google Meta Amazon Apple Amazon dominer le secteur, ou favoriser l’entrée des big techs chinois (BATX) ?

#Publicité #Tim_Hwang #Publicité_numérique

Epic Games Is Cutting About 900 Jobs, or 16% of Staff - Bloomberg
▻https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-28/epic-games-is-cutting-about-900-jobs-or-16-of-staff

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/izyWXctschMc/v0/1200x826.jpg

Epic Games Inc., the maker of the popular Fortnite video game, is laying off 870 employees as it seeks to rein in costs.

“For a while now, we’ve been spending way more money than we earn,” Chief Executive Officer Tim Sweeney wrote in a memo to employees seen by Bloomberg News. “I had long been optimistic that we could power through this transition without layoffs, but in retrospect I see this was unrealistic.”

The job cuts will affect about 16% of the workforce, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named disclosing information that’s not yet public. Epic didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

Fortnite maker Epic Games to cut nearly 900 jobs, 16% of workforce
▻https://www.axios.com/2023/09/28/fortnite-epic-900-cuts

https://images.axios.com/lXGbFdFQ7cmCHRnbJ7ylXHVUH-g=/0x0:2308x1298/1366x768/2023/09/28/1695919260494.png

What they’re saying: Sweeney blamed the cuts on unrealistic growth expectations at the privately held company.

"For a while now, we’ve been spending way more money than we earn, investing in the next evolution of Epic and growing Fortnite as a metaverse-inspired ecosystem for creators.
“I had long been optimistic that we could power through this transition without layoffs, but in retrospect I see that this was unrealistic.”

Epic Games Lays Off Over 800 Employees - Game Informer
▻https://www.gameinformer.com/2023/09/28/epic-games-lays-off-over-800-employees

https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-media.gameinformer.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/2020/07/09/c9d93b84/epic_games_logo_1.jpg

Epic Games has announced it is laying off roughly 16 percent of its workforce, resulting in around 830 employees losing their jobs.

Layoffs at Epic - Epic Games
▻https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/layoffs-at-epic

https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/eg-news-thumbnail-1-576x576-1b5068fe7512-576x576-8e4123810de1.png

As we shared earlier, we are laying off around 16% of Epic employees. We’re divesting Bandcamp and spinning off most of SuperAwesome.

#jeu_vidéo #jeux_vidéo #business #ressources_humaines #licenciements #tim_sweeney #moteur_de_jeu #jeu_vidéo_fortnite

Rising Interest Rates Might Herald the End of the Open Internet | WIRED
▻https://www.wired.com/story/rising-interest-rates-might-herald-the-end-of-the-open-internet

https://media.wired.com/photos/64ac93e906bd08d2f808b2e2/191:100/w_1280,c_limit/ideas_interest_rates_open_internet.jpg

Web 2.0 took off with help from the economic conditions of the 2000s. Recent moves from Reddit and Twitter signal that that era is coming to an end.

Tim Hwang is a policy analyst and the author of Subprime Attention Crisis, a book about the global bubble of programmatic advertising. Follow him on Twitter @timhwang.

Tianyu Fang is a writer and researcher. He was part of Chaoyang Trap, an experimental newsletter about culture and life on the Chinese internet. Follow him on Twitter @tianyuf.

Photo-illustration: WIRED Staff; Getty Images

The open internet once seemed inevitable. Now, as global economic woes mount and interest rates climb, the dream of the 2000s feels like it’s on its last legs. After abruptly blocking access to unregistered users at the end of last month, Elon Musk announced unprecedented caps on the number of tweets—600 for those of us who aren’t paying $8 a month—that users can read per day on Twitter. The move follows the platform’s controversial choice to restrict third-party clients back in January.

This wasn’t a standalone event. Reddit announced in April that it would begin charging third-party developers for API calls this month. The Reddit client Apollo would have to pay more than $20 million a year under new pricing, so it closed down, triggering thousands of subreddits to go dark in protest against Reddit’s new policy. The company went ahead with its plan anyway.

Leaders at both companies have blamed this new restrictiveness on AI companies unfairly benefitting from open access to data. Musk has said that Twitter needs rate limits because AI companies are scraping its data to train large language models. Reddit CEO Steve Huffman has cited similar reasons for the company’s decision to lock down its API ahead of a potential IPO this year.

These statements mark a major shift in the rhetoric and business calculus of Silicon Valley. AI serves as a convenient boogeyman, but it is a distraction from a more fundamental pivot in thinking. Whereas open data and protocols were once seen as the critical cornerstone of successful internet business, technology leaders now see these features as a threat to the continued profitability of their platforms.

It wasn’t always this way. The heady days of Web 2.0 were characterized by a celebration of the web as a channel through which data was abundant and widely available. Making data open through an API or some other means was considered a key way to increase a company’s value. Doing so could also help platforms flourish as developers integrated the data into their own apps, users enriched datasets with their own contributions, and fans shared products widely across the web. The rapid success of sites like Google Maps—which made expensive geospatial data widely available to the public for the first time—heralded an era where companies could profit through free, mass dissemination of information.

“Information Wants To Be Free” became a rallying cry. Publisher Tim O’Reilly would champion the idea that business success in Web 2.0 depended on companies “disagreeing with the consensus” and making data widely accessible rather than keeping it private. Kevin Kelly marveled in WIRED in 2005 that “when a company opens its databases to users … [t]he corporation’s data becomes part of the commons and an invitation to participate. People who take advantage of these capabilities are no longer customers; they’re the company’s developers, vendors, skunk works, and fan base.” Investors also perceived the opportunity to generate vast wealth. Google was “most certainly the standard bearer for Web 2.0,” and its wildly profitable model of monetizing free, open data was deeply influential to a whole generation of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists.

Of course, the ideology of Web 2.0 would not have evolved the way it did were it not for the highly unusual macroeconomic conditions of the 2000s and early 2010s. Thanks to historically low interest rates, spending money on speculative ventures was uniquely possible. Financial institutions had the flexibility on their balance sheets to embrace the idea that the internet reversed the normal laws of commercial gravity: It was possible for a company to give away its most valuable data and still get rich quick. In short, a zero interest-rate policy, or ZIRP, subsidized investor risk-taking on the promise that open data would become the fundamental paradigm of many Google-scale companies, not just a handful.

Web 2.0 ideologies normalized much of what we think of as foundational to the web today. User tagging and sharing features, freely syndicated and embeddable links to content, and an ecosystem of third-party apps all have their roots in the commitments made to build an open web. Indeed, one of the reasons that the recent maneuvers of Musk and Huffman seem so shocking is that we have come to expect data will be widely and freely available, and that platforms will be willing to support people that build on it.

But the marriage between the commercial interests of technology companies and the participatory web has always been one of convenience. The global campaign by central banks to curtail inflation through aggressive interest rate hikes changes the fundamental economics of technology. Rather than facing a landscape of investors willing to buy into a hazy dream of the open web, leaders like Musk and Huffman now confront a world where clear returns need to be seen today if not yesterday.

This presages major changes ahead for the design of the internet and the rights of users. Twitter and Reddit are pioneering an approach to platform management (or mismanagement) that will likely spread elsewhere across the web. It will become increasingly difficult to access content without logging in, verifying an identity, or paying a toll. User data will become less exportable and less shareable, and there will be increasingly fewer expectations that it will be preserved. Third-parties that have relied on the free flow of data online—from app-makers to journalists—will find APIs ever more expensive to access and scraping harder than ever before.

We should not let the open web die a quiet death. No doubt much of the foundational rhetoric of Web 2.0 is cringeworthy in the harsh light of 2023. But it is important to remember that the core project of building a participatory web where data can be shared, improved, critiqued, remixed, and widely disseminated by anyone is still genuinely worthwhile.

The way the global economic landscape is shifting right now creates short-sighted incentives toward closure. In response, the open web ought to be enshrined as a matter of law. New regulations that secure rights around the portability of user data, protect the continued accessibility of crucial APIs to third parties, and clarify the long-ambiguous rules surrounding scraping would all help ensure that the promise of a free, dynamic, competitive internet can be preserved in the coming decade.

For too long, advocates for the open web have implicitly relied on naive beliefs that the network is inherently open, or that web companies would serve as unshakable defenders of their stated values. The opening innings of the post-ZIRP world show how broader economic conditions have actually played the larger role in architecting how the internet looks and feels to this point. Believers in a participatory internet need to reach for stronger tools to mitigate the effects of these deep economic shifts, ensuring that openness can continue to be embedded into the spaces that we inhabit online.

Tim Hwang est l’auteur de “Le grand krach de l’attention”
►https://cfeditions.com/krach

https://cfeditions.com/krach/ressources/couv_krach_grand.jpg

#Tim_Hwang #Internet_ouvert #Open_data

Peak social media: The ads machine | Financial Times
▻https://www.ft.com/content/3c34d62d-20d3-47e3-b487-8d78edd0d4ac

https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%3A%2F%2Fd1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net%2Fproduction%2Fd0cd2ea7-06f9-4c36-b0b5-bd0778a30c5e.jpg?source=next-opengraph&fit=scale-down&width=900

This is an audio transcript of the Tech Tonic podcast episode: ‘Peak social media: The ads machine’

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Elaine Moore
So here’s a question. Who does the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, turn to for advice? There was a time when that person was Roger McNamee. He’s a veteran tech investor. And in 2006, he was sitting in his office in Silicon Valley when his phone rang. (Phone ringing)

Roger McNamee
I get a phone call from one of Mark’s senior executives who said, “My boss is facing a huge crisis and he needs to talk to somebody who is very experienced but not conflicted. Would you be willing to take a meeting with Mark?”

Elaine Moore
McNamee had been putting money into tech start-ups since the 1980s. He knew the scene well. His opinions were respected. Mark Zuckerberg had started Facebook just two years earlier, but his new social media platform was already taking off, gathering millions of users. And Zuckerberg had a big decision to make.

Roger McNamee
Mark came by my office. And keep in mind, he was 22. So this was the middle of 2006. He was 22. I was 50. And he looked just like Mark Zuckerberg. I mean, you know, he had the sandals and the skinny jeans, the grey T-shirt, the hoodie. And we opened the meeting by me introducing myself and saying, “Mark, if it has not already happened, either Microsoft or Yahoo is going to offer $1bn for Facebook. And everybody you know — your board of directors, your investors, your employees, your management team, your parents — are gonna tell you, Mark, sell the company. You’ll have $650mn of your own money. You can go out and change the world. Your venture capitalist will offer to back your next company. He’ll tell you it will be better than Facebook. And I’m here to tell you that that’s all garbage.”

Elaine Moore
McNamee had already watched several tech companies change the face of the internet. He’d seen Google dominate the search engine and Amazon master online shopping, and he thought Facebook had the potential to turn social networking into something just as big. So he told Zuckerberg, don’t sell — not even for $1bn.

Roger McNamee
You’re gonna have the first really huge social media platform that does a really good thing for society, and it’ll only happen if you see this through. If you sell the company, it won’t work that way. He doesn’t say a thing. He goes through a series of thinker poses. He’s obviously thinking really hard about what I said to him, you know, I mean, the presence of an Olympic-class thinker and . . . after five minutes he goes, “What you just said, that story you told, that’s why I’m here. Yahoo’s offered $1bn.” And I said, “Well, do you want to sell the company?” He goes, “I don’t want to disappoint everybody. But no, I don’t want to sell.” And so I explained to him how he could very gracefully explain to everybody that, “Hey, we’re doing really, really well. This is not a good time to sell the company. You signed up to back my vision, and I still believe in my vision, so let’s go for it.” And I was a true believer.

Elaine Moore
Zuckerberg didn’t sell. Instead, he went on to turn Facebook from a social network with a few million users into a global giant that ended up connecting 3bn people around the world. And in the process, he turned social media into a moneymaking machine and Facebook into one of the biggest and most powerful companies in the world. How did he do it? Well, as he told the US Congress years later: with advertising.

Orrin Hatch
Mr Zuckerberg, I remember well your first visit to Capitol Hill back in 2010. You said back then that Facebook would always be free. How do you sustain a business model in which users don’t pay for your service?

Mark Zuckerberg
Senator, we run ads.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Elaine Moore
This is Tech Tonic from the Financial Times. I’m Elaine Moore. This season of the podcast is about the future of social media. I’m asking whether the era of social media — one created by platforms like Facebook more than 15 years ago — is coming to an end. And if so, what comes next? In this episode, how Mark Zuckerberg used ads to turn social networking into a trillion-dollar business and why, after a decade of incredible growth, he now thinks the future of the company lies in a completely different direction.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Advertising powers social media. That’s why the likes of Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp are free. But advertising wasn’t always going to be the dominant business model of the internet.

Ethan Zuckerman
It seemed really peculiar in the late ‘90s that we were going to use the same business model as, say, print magazines. Everyone felt like advertising was just a very poor compromise. Even in the late ‘90s no one liked it. We just couldn’t make anything else work.

Elaine Moore
Ethan Zuckerman is a professor at the University of Massachusetts. He focuses on public policy and media. But back in the ‘90s, he co-founded an internet start-up, a kind of precursor to social media, and it had a problem common to start-ups: how to make money.

Ethan Zuckerman
I was one of the founding team for a company called Tripod.com. Tripod was one of the very first user-generated content sites on the web, which is to say our business model was giving people a little bit of internet space with which they could build their own personal homepages. This turned out to be incredibly popular. We had millions and millions of users who wanted their own little piece of the web. They wanted to talk about their hobbies. They wanted to talk about their interests. What they did not want to do was pay.

Elaine Moore
Zuckerman and his colleagues hoped people might sign up for a subscription to use their platform. But no one was interested. They thought about some kind of system of micropayments, but that didn’t work either. The only way to make money was to sell space on the platform to advertisers. This led to some interesting early innovations in the world of online advertising, like the one that Zuckerman himself invented: the pop-up ad.

Ethan Zuckerman
Advertisers were not completely comfortable with the idea of being on content that didn’t have editorial control. They were very worried that users might say things that were racist or inflammatory or stupid or in some way in conflict with their brands. And so my boss asked me, can you find some way of putting some distance between the advertisement, which we need to survive and the user’s content, which is where we were getting all of our traffic? And in a fit of whatever is the opposite of genius, I came up with the pop-up ad. So the idea was, well, they’re not in the same window anymore. Your homepage is in one window, the ad is in a different window. Everyone will be happy. Spoiler alert: no one was happy.

Elaine Moore
If you used the internet in the late ‘90s and early 2000s, pop-up ads were the bane of your existence. Everywhere you went little adverts would appear all over your screen. It was like a game of Whac-A-Mole. You’d have to go around closing them before you could see the web page you were trying to visit. If that rings any bells, Zuckerman is full of remorse for the hassle he inadvertently caused you. By the early 2000s, browsers started to block pop-up ads. They’re now a relic of the ‘90s internet. But other innovations around advertising were more successful. Early internet builders like Zuckerman found that web pages made by users themselves, user-generated content, told you things about their creators. And it turned out that this information was really useful to advertisers.

Ethan Zuckerman
We were interested in targeting ads based on the content of a user’s page. We used very primitive, very early machine learning to say this is a page about cars or this is a page about video games, and tried to target based on that. Where it’s gone from here, of course, is it’s gotten vastly more surveillance. The way that ad targeting works now is we follow you all over the web and then we try to make guesses at who you are based on what you do.

Elaine Moore
When Facebook came along, it took this idea of targeted advertising to a whole new level. Facebook was attractive to advertisers because it had so many users. That meant a lot of potential customers to see ad, click on links and buy products. But it also had a lot of information about those users. When you signed up for a profile, you provided things like your birthday, your hometown, and your relationship status. Using the like button, you told Facebook all about your interests. But the real turning point came when Facebook started to absorb even more data — tracking the activity of its users, even when they weren’t on Facebook.

Roger McNamee
For the longest time, Mark’s view was “I’m only gonna use the data that people give us inside Facebook.” And Facebook gave advertisers access to things they couldn’t get anywhere else — all kinds of emotional and personal data. But in 2013, Mark changed his position.

Elaine Moore
For the Silicon Valley investor Roger McNamee, Zuckerberg’s decision to start gathering vast amounts of data on users from all over the web was the turning point for Facebook’s business. It could offer advertisers something they couldn’t get anywhere else.

Roger McNamee
They essentially went from not having third-party data to having every piece of third-party data imaginable. And with it, the targeting went from whatever it was, which was not good enough, to something that advertisers perceived as absolutely unique, better than anything available anywhere else. And Facebook, because it had more users than anyone else, could credibly argue in 2013 that they could provide an advertiser with the equivalent of the US Super Bowl, 365 days a year. And that changed everything overnight.

Elaine Moore
Facebook could build up a comprehensive profile of you, putting you into specific categories of consumer and then offering advertisers the opportunity to put exactly the right adverts tailored to you in front of you when you went online. After his first meeting with Zuckerberg in 2006, McNamee began regularly advising the new founder. He invested in the company and says he helped Zuckerberg recruit Sheryl Sandberg, credited with driving the growth of the ads business. But in recent years, McNamee has started to speak out against Facebook’s data-gathering habits and the way that he believes users can be manipulated by disinformation campaigns that undermine society. He says he tried to warn Facebook.

Roger McNamee
I reached out to my former advisees, Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, in October of 2016 to warn them because I thought that it would be bad for the company to get a reputation for undermining civil rights and democracy. I don’t think any company wants that. But it turns out that the temptations offered by data and the ability to manipulate people’s choices, they were irresistible because in the end, every time you did one of the things that caused harm, your stock price went up a lot because those things were so profitable. And when I began talking about the harms of Facebook, people looked at me and go, “Roger, what are you talking about? The stock is going up every day.”

Elaine Moore
It turned out that using data to sell targeted ads was extremely lucrative. The money poured in. Along with Google, Facebook came to dominate global digital advertising. By 2021, it had become a trillion-dollar company. But lately, there are signs that Facebook’s astonishing growth is faltering. At the end of 2021, the platform’s user base shrank for the first time. Last year, for the first time ever, revenues also fell. It led investors and analysts to wonder: is Facebook running out of steam?

Facebook turned itself into a social media giant by gathering huge amounts of data and perfecting the digital ads business.

Steven Levy
Facebook was able to get an amazing amount of information on people with relatively few inputs.

Elaine Moore
Steven Levy has followed Facebook since the beginning. He’s editor-at-large at Wired and spent years embedded with the company for his book Inside Facebook. He says the sophistication of the ads business that Facebook built is extremely impressive.

Steven Levy
One turning point was the like button. By simply indicating what pieces of content you liked, Facebook knew an incredible amount about you. One researcher figured out that with 10 likes, Facebook could figure out your political affiliation, your sexual orientation, and other things. With 30 likes, it would know you as well as a friend. With 100 likes, it would know you as well as a close friend. And with a couple hundred likes, it would know you as well as your spouse.

Elaine Moore
But today there are questions about whether targeted ads can keep delivering the same level of growth for Facebook. It’s getting harder for companies that rely on this business model to make money. Last year, social media companies saw their share prices plummet. Snap, the company behind Snapchat, fell 80 per cent, and Facebook, now rebranded as Meta, saw its market value fall 64 per cent. In response, Zuckerberg cut thousands of jobs.

One problem is that there’s been a general downturn in the economy, which means companies have cut back on the money they spend on advertising. But there’s a broader cause for concern — that the endless stream of data gathered from users, the fuel that powers the whole digital advertising machine might be drying up.

Recently, Apple made a small but significant change to its iPhone privacy settings. Before, apps like Facebook could track user behaviour automatically unless users opted out. Now users were being explicitly asked if they wanted to be targeted for ads. The majority appear to have said no. Meta estimated that this move alone could cost the company $10bn in lost ad revenue.

Steven Levy
When Apple made it more difficult for them, that was a blow because I think Facebook came to take it for granted that its . . . our business was inviolable. They thought that they keep raking it in through advertising and they would have that data that no one else had and deliver value to advertisers that no one else could match. And they wouldn’t have to worry about that.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Elaine Moore
The thing is, Apple changing its privacy settings may not be the last restriction on user data. Over the years, there’s been a growing concern about the amount of information that social media platforms gather. Around the world, regulators want to better police how that data is used. That could mean even less access to data for platforms like Facebook. And as a result, less ad revenue. But some people think there’s an even more fundamental problem — that targeted digital advertising was never as effective as it claimed to be. Maybe the model that helped to build the modern social media economy was always flawed.

Tim Hwang
The dream of digital advertising, you know, what Facebook was selling early on was, “Hey, we’re an advertising company, but we’re way better than traditional advertising. I can find the consumer that is just poised to buy your product. I can deliver this message to them at the right place at the right time, and they will go buy the product.” There’s a lot of research to suggest that those things might just fundamentally not be true.

Elaine Moore
Tim Hwang used to work for Google, the other major seller of digital ad space along with Facebook. He says the whole idea of targeted advertising — using data to offer effective ads — might be oversold.

Tim Hwang
It’s actually unclear whether or not the ad ever, in fact, reaches a person at all. So there’s some data to suggest that basically about 56 per cent of ads are never seen, right? Like it’s delivered to someone’s screen, but they just browse through it. They don’t see it. There’s also a lot of fraud in the system. So it’s actually unclear whether or not that click-through, right, actually belongs to a person or belongs to a bot. So some estimates suggest that even like one out of every $3 spent on the ad ecosystem is fraudulent. Actually, it’s delivered to a bot or delivered to what’s known as a click farm, or someone is sort of paid literally to kind of click on ads.

Elaine Moore
Hwang also says that even when ads do reach the right person, it’s not clear they actually encourage that person to buy the product.

Tim Hwang
What the advertiser sees is we put money into online ads and a person bought the product. One of the interesting things about those consumers is that they would have bought the product anyways even if you hadn’t advertised to them. And so actually in many cases you’re just targeting consumers that would have purchased anyways.

Elaine Moore
But surely digital advertising, it is going towards a more specific group than if you just put an advert into a newspaper?

Tim Hwang
Well, I would actually even challenge that as well. There’s a study that basically suggests about 41 per cent of ad data may be inaccurate. So, you know, the dream is, hey, you can target Tim Hwang. He’s a male, 25 to 35, you know, living on the East Coast of the United States. When actually the ad arrives, it turns out you’re targeting female, 75 to 95, living in the UK. And so I think there actually is real questions even about the veracity of the data collected and whether or not, in fact, you are getting better results.

Elaine Moore
Hwang thinks the entire digital advertising industry is in a bit of a bubble, and he says the current troubles in the ads market — advertisers spending less, worries about access to user data — could expose that.

You talk about this idea that the digital advertising ecosystem is at risk of collapsing or potentially is about to collapse. Why is that happening right now?

Tim Hwang
So I think there’s a couple of things. First one is just the larger macroeconomic environment. The sort of downward pressure on the global economy is causing a lot of industries to pull back on their advertising spend. There’s kind of a question about, like, once you cut all this ad spend, is there actually a change in the bottom line of these businesses? That’s one thing that could really shake the confidence of the industry is, like, what was all this advertising for? If when we cut budgets, there’s not really a huge material impact on our outcomes.

I think the second one that I’ll point out is that there is indeed a big push both on the government side, right, through, say, the EU GDPR or California’s CPRA, and also on the company side, right. Like Apple is increasingly implementing all of these privacy rules. And the worry that you’ve heard from the ad industry is, OK, well, once we lose access to all this data, we just won’t be able to get ads to work as well anymore. And they think we’re about to run this really big experiment, which is, is that the case? Are we actually gonna live in a world where, like, ads are way less effective than they used to be? We may just discover that, like, actually we didn’t need all this data to begin with for ads and that programmatic advertising might have been built on kind of the dream of targeted ads more than the reality.

Elaine Moore
Even if the digital ads market doesn’t crash, as Tim Hwang says it might, it’s no longer providing Facebook with the same levels of growth it once did. The Facebook platform is reaching saturation. It has nearly 3bn monthly active users around the world, but it looks like that might be the limit. Steven Levy, who wrote a book about Facebook, says this is a real problem for Mark Zuckerberg, who he says has been obsessed with growth above everything else since the beginning.

Steven Levy
There’s only so many billions of people on Earth. You can’t get to the people in China, which is the biggest user of the internet and social media in the world. And the last couple of billion are really, really hard to reach. They don’t have much money. And even if you got them on social media, they couldn’t deliver you much profits. So when he goes to Wall Street and announces that there’s no growth, the stock goes down, sometimes dramatically. Without growth, he’s in trouble.

Elaine Moore
Levy says this search for growth explains one of the biggest decisions Mark Zuckerberg has ever made. In 2021, he took his company, the most successful social media company in the world, and changed its name from Facebook to Meta. He announced that the company’s focus was now on building the metaverse.

Mark Zuckerberg
We believe the metaverse will be the successor to the mobile internet. We’ll be able to feel present like we’re right there with people, no matter how far apart we actually are. We’ll be able to express ourselves in new, joyful, completely immersive ways, and that’s going to unlock a lot of amazing new experiences.

Steven Levy
Zuckerberg’s holy grail is to move our social media to the metaverse. It makes sense if you’re obsessed with growth as the pillar of the way you operate a business, then when you can’t keep growing at the rate you were and you are really reaching the ceiling, move to someplace new where you could start from scratch and then grow billions from a few thousand rather than try to eke out the last billion or so.

Elaine Moore
Zuckerberg envisions repeating the success of Facebook in a completely new realm, with users wearing Meta VR headsets to access Meta-run virtual worlds.

Meta video clip
Oh, hey, Mark . . . Hey, what’s going on? Hey, Mark . . . Hi . . . What’s up, Mark? Whoa, we’re floating in space? Uh-huh. Who made this place? It’s awesome . . . This place is amazing.

Elaine Moore
Right now, the jury is still out on whether this huge bet will pay off. So far, take-up has been slow and costs have been high. Operating losses attributed to Meta’s Reality Labs — the part of the company working on the metaverse — exceed $37bn. But there are questions about whether any of us really want to spend our time wearing bulky VR headsets. If Zuckerberg is right, then maybe the future of social media will be in the metaverse. But in the meantime, Levy says all that time and money is adding to a sense that the old Facebook social media platform is stagnating. Not only is it not growing at the same pace, he says, it’s not innovating either.

Steven Levy
You could argue that the social media site has not been particularly innovative for probably a decade. They have generally been mimicking what seems popular in social media at the moment. So Snapchat comes up and Facebook, after unsuccessfully trying to buy it, comes up with a clone. Snapchat comes up with its stories feature, Facebook successfully copies that, first in Instagram, then in Facebook. Clubhouse, which is an audio-only social media product, looked like it was exciting and it’s going to be a big thing. And Facebook came up with its own version, right? You really would be hard-pressed to name a breakthrough product in social media in the last decade that Facebook came up with on its own.

Elaine Moore
Levy says Zuckerberg’s focus on the metaverse isn’t helping with this lack of innovation. He says all the talented people at Meta are working on metaverse projects rather than how to make the existing social media platforms better. So has Zuckerberg given up on Facebook?

Steven Levy
Well, Zuckerberg would never say that he has given up on Facebook, but he should be thinking just as innovatively in the social media as he is in the metaverse. It is a social media company. Its revenues come from social media. And if I were running that company, it would seem to me that my challenge would be to bring innovation to social media. And I don’t think that’s impossible. Maybe if that was your focus, they say, how can we reinvent social media without having to put a headset on but use just the tools of mobile and this connectedness to come up with something new like TikTok did. Maybe that would be the path for Meta.

Elaine Moore
If you want an example of peak social media, Facebook might be it. The breadth of its social connections will be hard for any company to ever replicate. But for many of us, it’s no longer engaging. Its ads business is less robust these days, and there are questions about its appeal to younger users. Even the man who made it all happen, Mark Zuckerberg, is more keen to talk about AI and VR than Facebook communities.

Whether we do or choose to one day live in the metaverse or not, Facebook’s reign as the most important social media platform in the world may be over. But despite this, it’s worth remembering that Facebook is still the biggest social media platform by far. If this is the beginning of its decline, Facebook watchers say that it’s likely to be a long and slow one. And that might be true of social media as a whole.

Steven Levy
Well, giant platforms just don’t go away all at once. They slowly fade. But ultimately, I think people are questioning whether the social media era where social media is, like, a dominant force, is coming to an end where it’ll still exist but no longer be the growth platforms. So there is a sense that social media has sort of reached the end of its innovation and growth stage.

Elaine Moore
In the next episode of Tech Tonic, social media is supposed to be fun, but maybe it’s just not good for us.

Emma Lembke
Why? Like, why is it that my phone has so much control over me? How am I allowing it to do that? And why is no one speaking up about this?

Elaine Moore
US lawmakers are worried that social media is harming us and young people in particular. What does that mean for the future of the platforms?

Katie Paul
Kids are a huge market for these companies and it will really cut into their bottom line if they can no longer collect these data points on children.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Elaine Moore
You’ve been listening to Tech Tonic from the Financial Times with me, Elaine Moore. The producer is Josh Gabert-Doyon, and the senior producer is Edwin Lane. Manuela Saragosa is executive producer. Sound design is by Breen Turner and Samantha Giovinco. Original scoring by Metaphor Music.

And before you go, we’re keen to hear more from our listeners about this show, and we want to know what you’d like to hear more of. So we’re running a survey which you can find at ft.com/techtonicsurvey. It takes around 10 minutes to complete, and we’d appreciate your feedback.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

#Publicité #Tim_Hwang #Médias_sociaux #Facebook

Next-gen content farms are using AI-generated text to spin up junk websites | MIT Technology Review
▻https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/06/26/1075504/junk-websites-filled-with-ai-generated-text-are-pulling-in-money-from-programmatic-ads/?truid=a497ecb44646822921c70e7e051f7f1a

https://wp.technologyreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/programmatic-ad.jpeg?resize=1200,600

Pour bien comprendre le phénomène (l’arnaque !) et le rôle des ^mateformes (ici Google), un seul bon livre : Le grand Krack de l’attention de Tim Hwang
►https://cfeditions.com/krach

The news: AI chatbots are filling junk websites with AI-generated text that attracts paying advertisers. More than 140 major brands are paying for ads that end up on unreliable AI-written sites, likely without their knowledge, according to a new report.

Making money from junk: Most companies that advertise online automatically bid on spots to run those ads through a practice called “programmatic advertising.” As a result, big brands end up paying for ad placements on sites that they may have never heard of before, with little to no human oversight. To take advantage, content farms have sprung up where low-paid humans use AI to churn out low-quality content to attract maximum ad revenue.

Why it matters: Ninety percent of the ads from major brands found on these AI-generated news sites were served by Google, in violation of the company’s own policies. The practice threatens to hasten the arrival of a glitchy, spammy internet that is overrun by AI-generated content, as well as wasting massive amounts of ad money.

https://cfeditions.com/krach/ressources/couv_krach_grand.jpg

#Economie_attention #Tim_Hwang #Google

Pour une #Sécurité_Sociale_de_l’Alimentation (#Dominique_Paturel)

Cette réflexion a pris naissance en 2013 [1], dans les échanges entre deux personnes dont l’une est issue du monde agricole et l’autre de la recherche. L’un comme l’autre, nous constations l’enfermement des personnes recevant de l’#aide_alimentaire, dans une grande difficulté à s’émanciper des dispositifs de distribution et ce, malgré les discours et les pratiques portés par des professionnels ou des bénévoles bienveillants.

En s’appuyant sur la conception développée par Tim Lang de la démocratie alimentaire, nous ne pouvions que nous rendre compte que l’accès à l’alimentation « libre » d’une part et à une alimentation produite plus sainement d’autre part, était d’une inégalité flagrante. La caractéristique de cette inégalité est qu’elle est banalisée par le fait que nous sommes tous des mangeurs, invisibilisant ainsi les rapports de classe. En outre, les politiques sociales et sanitaires généralisent ces inégalités par la désignation d’une population dite vulnérable et à laquelle on destine des dispositifs assistanciels. Le présupposé repose sur une conception libérale de la solidarité basée sur une approche néo-paternaliste. Les cadres de pensée qui ont servi à sortir la France de la faim d’après-guerre, sont les mêmes qui empêchent aujourd’hui de voir la situation dégradée du côté de ce que j’appelle l’accès à la « fausse bouffe » et non à l’alimentation.

En approfondissant notre réflexion, il nous a semblé que tant que l’accès ne serait pas consolidé conformément aux valeurs républicaines, à savoir un accès égalitaire, solidaire et libre, les injustices demeureraient quant aux conséquences sociales et sanitaires. Un modèle de protection sociale pour tous orienté sur un accès égalitaire à une alimentation reconnectée aux conditions de sa production, s’est imposé et c’est cette piste que nous avons suivie. Il s’agissait de reprendre la main sur le(s) système(s) alimentaire(s) par tous les habitants en France et d’être dans les conditions pour le faire : la réponse ne pouvait pas rester que du seul côté des citoyens « éclairés » ou militants. Le modèle de la sécurité sociale nous a semblé le bon cadre pour avancer. À partir de là deux pistes ont été suivies :

– La première incarnée par Ingénieurs sans frontières [2] qui propose « une carte d’assurance alimentaire » ;
– La deuxième inscrite dans l’ensemble de nos travaux et qui est au cœur du séminaire Démocratie Alimentaire.

Aujourd’hui la transition alimentaire est essentiellement mise en œuvre du côté du changement des pratiques alimentaires des mangeurs. Mais l’alimentation étant considérée comme une marchandise comme une autre, à savoir soumise aux rapports de force existant sur le marché, (et même si les initiatives de tous ordres sont bienvenues), la transformation ne sera pas au rendez-vous sans un changement radical de l’offre. Et ce d’autant plus, que le système industriel agro-alimentaire est transnational et que le début de la réflexion de Tim Lang sur sa proposition de démocratie alimentaire part de ce constat : les états ont bien du mal à intervenir aujourd’hui dans la régulation de ce système.

Trois points d’appui au fondement de la Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation :

– Le premier est la reconnaissance du droit à l’alimentation ;
– Le second est la réorientation des outils de politique publique existant en matière d’accès à l’alimentation et en particulier la restauration collective ;
– Le troisième, l’attribution d’une allocation à l’ensemble de la population pour accéder à des produits frais sur le modèle des allocations familiales.

Mais pour que ce système puisse se construire, il nous faut rappeler des éléments de conception qui doivent être socialisés : l’alimentation n’est pas seulement le résultat d’une production agricole ou de transformation agro-industrielle. Il est nécessaire de s’appuyer sur une vision systémique qui prend en compte les quatre activités nécessaires à l’alimentation des humains de tout temps : celle de la production, celle de la transformation, celle de la distribution et celle de la consommation. Ce sont l’ensemble de ces activités qui forment système et les aborder de façon déconnectée soutient le modèle industriel, nous laissant dans une vision minimaliste de l’alimentation comprise alors comme denrée ou produit.

De plus, l’alimentation comme fait social total, comporte des dimensions sociale, culturelle, économique, politique, biologique, etc. On ne peut donc la réduire au seul slogan « les gens ont faim, il faut leur donner à manger », slogan repris de façon globale dans tous les dispositifs de distribution d’aide alimentaire en France et en Europe.

L’alimentation correspond aussi à un modèle ancré dans une histoire nationale. En France, manger ensemble et faire la cuisine sont beaucoup plus important que la qualité des produits et leur provenance. Les gaulois réglaient déjà les problèmes politiques par de grands banquets (Ariès, 2016) [3], d’où l’importance de manger ensemble pour construire du lien social et faire société. On peut ainsi comprendre pourquoi les institutions d’actions sociales et de travail social utilisent l’alimentation comme moyen autour de ce qui est leur mission, à savoir lutter contre l’exclusion sociale. Mais, concevoir l’alimentation comme moyen est aujourd’hui contreproductif pour assurer la transition alimentaire dans la perspective des changements climatiques à l’œuvre et stopper les effets délétères de l’alimentation industrielle.

La Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation doit donc s’appuyer sur l’ensemble de ces éléments pour asseoir sa légitimité. Elle se situe du côté de la transformation alimentaire, de la prévention en santé publique et non curative comme actuellement. Elle fait partie d’une politique de l’alimentation qui doit se désencastrer de ministères de tutelles comme l’agriculture, la santé ou la cohésion sociale. Il ne s’agit pas de créer un xième ministère mais bien de comprendre cette politique comme transversale. Cependant dans un pays centralisé comme la France avec des institutions verticales, une politique transversale a de fortes chances d’être minorée. D’où la proposition de doter cette instance de moyens conséquents et d’obliger les politiques engageant une des activités du système alimentaire à s’inclure (pour partie) dans la politique alimentaire et non d’œuvrer de façon segmentée : la Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation devient alors l’outil majeur pour actionner la transition alimentaire.

Le second point d’appui est de mobiliser les outils de politiques publiques existants au service de ce dispositif, en particulier la restauration collective publique. Nous partons du constat que les lieux, le matériel, les compétences sont présents à travers la mise à disposition de quatre à cinq repas par semaine à midi : pourquoi ne pas utiliser ces ressources en direction de la population habitant ou travaillant en proximité de ces équipements le soir et 7 jours sur 7. Par ailleurs, on peut également en profiter pour réorienter la production et la transformation en redirigeant l’offre alimentaire à l’échelle territoriale.

D’autres outils existent déjà et il s’agirait de renforcer la cohérence au service de la Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation : en soutenant les marchés d’intérêts nationaux dans les régions pour approvisionner les villes et villages et les engager dans la transformation des compétences des intermédiaires ; en cessant de segmenter les plans incitatifs (Climat, alimentation, urbanisme, etc.) et en recherchant comment les articuler ; en concevant des instances démocratiques à l’échelle des territoires de vie pour décider des politiques alimentaires liées à la réalité sociale et concevoir les hybridations nécessaires pour garantir un accès à tous, etc.

Le troisième point d’appui est celui de l’attribution d’une allocation pour tous les habitants en France, fléchée sur l’achat de produits frais : fruits, légumes, produits laitiers, viande, poisson. Ces aliments sont souvent absents pour les familles à petits budgets et sont remplacés par des aliments ultra-transformés. Cette mesure fléchée peut aussi participer à la relocalisation des activités du système alimentaire.

Élaborer un tel dispositif permettrait de faire exploser le « plafond de verre » auquel se confronte une multitude d’initiatives issues de la société civile organisée et de l’économie sociale et solidaire : ainsi la Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation, outre les effets sur la santé, participerait réellement à la transition écologique.

–-

[1] ▻http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/aide-alimentaire/index.php/fr

[2] ►https://www.isf-france.org/articles/pour-une-securite-sociale-alimentaire

[3] Eh non ce n’est pas une invention de Goscinny et Uderzo. Ariès, Paul (2016) Une histoire politique de l’alimentation. Du paléolithique à nos jours. Paris, édition Max Milo.

▻https://www.chaireunesco-adm.com/Pour-une-Securite-Sociale-de-l-Alimentation
#sécurité_alimentaire #sécurité_sociale #alimentation #distribution_alimentaire #alternative #démocratie_alimentaire #Tim_Lang #accès_à_l'alimentation #inégalités #rapports_de_classe #classe_sociale #assistance #néo-paternalisme #solidarité #fausse_bouffe #protection_sociale #transition_alimentaire #droit_à_l'alimentation #restauration_collective #politiques_publiques #allocation #santé_publique #sécurité_sociale_alimentaire

La faillite de « Vice », le groupe de médias américain
▻https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2023/05/15/la-faillite-de-vice-le-groupe-de-medias-americain_6173421_3234.html

https://img.lemde.fr/2023/02/27/0/0/1999/1332/1440/960/60/0/94ca517_1677511967417-dsc04349-2-e1617891290703.jpeg

Le groupe de médias d’information américain Vice s’est déclaré en faillite. Dans un contexte de recul du marché publicitaire, cette annonce était attendue sur le marché depuis quelques semaines. Un consortium, dont la société d’investissement Fortress Investment Group, le principal créancier de Vice, va prendre le contrôle du groupe pour 225 millions de dollars, sauf offre supérieure par d’autres parties, selon le communiqué publié lundi 15 mai.

Vice Media Group, qui avait été valorisé 5,7 milliards de dollars en 2017, produit des contenus dans 25 langues, avec plus d’une trentaine de bureaux dans le monde. Le groupe de médias, à l’accès gratuit, s’appuie principalement sur la publicité pour générer des revenus. Mais avec la dégradation de la conjoncture économique, le marché publicitaire s’est tendu, pour être majoritairement capté par les géants technologiques, comme Google et Facebook . Vice poursuivra ses activités durant toute la procédure, précise le média.

Tiens, c’est exactement ce que dénonce Tim Hwang dans son livre "Le grand krach de l’attention"

https://cfeditions.com/krach/ressources/couv_krach_grand.jpg

#Vice #Publicité #Captation #Tim_Hwang

Dixième tendance de l’étude 366/BVA : La fatigue du buzz - Influencia
▻https://www.influencia.net/dixieme-tendance-de-letude-366-bva-la-fatigue-du-buzz

https://www.influencia.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/site-in-3-1.jpg

En 2004, il y a un siècle, Patrick Le Lay scandalisait l’opinion en déclarant que le métier de TF1, chaîne qu’il dirigeait alors, consistait à « vendre du temps de cerveau disponible » aux annonceurs. En 2004, un certain Mark Zuckerberg, étudiant à Harvard, créait Facebook. Netflix était le nom d’une entreprise américaine d’abonnement à la livraison de DVD. Le smartphone n’existait pas.

En 2022, la France compte 53,5 millions d’utilisateurs actifs sur les réseaux sociaux, et les Français passent en moyenne 1 h 46 chaque jour sur ces derniers. 61 % des foyers français sont abonnés à un service de SVOD et la presse se lit autant sur smartphone que sur papier.

Le « temps de cerveau disponible » ne choquerait plus grand monde aujourd’hui. L’économie de l’attention est devenue le nouvel horizon du capitalisme et d’aucuns, à l’instar de Tim Hwang (Le grand krach de l’attention. Février 2022), établissent un parallèle entre cette « bulle » et celle des subprimes, pronostiquant son explosion imminente. Qu’il s’agisse d’information ou de divertissement, nous sommes donc exposés à une production de contenus permanente, sans cesse croissante, à laquelle chacun doit trouver comment s’adapter.

Entre le FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) et la déconnexion, la majorité des Français oscille. Comme oscillent un certain nombre de médias d’information continue, tiraillés entre la tentation d’aller plus vite que les réseaux sociaux et celle de proposer de « l’analyse », du « décryptage », multipliant ad libitum le commentaire d’experts parfois improbables et valorisant la confrontation, le clash, le « parler vrai ».

Est-ce la pauvreté du débat public qui tire ainsi l’information vers l’écume ou cette information logorrhéique qui tire le débat public vers le bas ?

Toujours dans la récente étude de la Fondation Jean-Jaurès, la première raison évoquée par les Français tentés par la stratégie du repli est la trop grande agressivité du débat public. Le buzz et le clash font indéniablement recette en termes d’audience, mais lassent une part grandissante de la population. Les controverses les plus vénielles comme les plus essentielles semblent se transformer en une lutte à mort, quand elles n’évoluent pas tout simplement dans des univers parallèles, les algorithmes enfermant progressivement chacun dans des bulles de confirmation, sans plus d’autres dialogues contradictoires.

La question de la confiance et de la proximité

La « twiterrisation » de l’information, l’organisation de la conflictualité en continu génère de l’audience, de la reprise, de la visibilité mais son omniprésence fatigue. Abondamment repris par les journalistes, les politiques et les leaders d’opinion, le réseau à l’oiseau bleu n’est pourtant utilisé régulièrement que par moins d’un Français sur dix.

Ce « microcosme numérique » ne reflète pas l’opinion publique. Cette dernière, à l’inverse, prise la proximité. Dans la hiérarchie de la confiance au sein de notre sondage, la presse quotidienne régionale arrive ainsi en tête des médias jugés « dignes de confiance » (67 %), devant la radio (64 %) et avant la presse nationale (58 %), la télévision généraliste (52 %), les chaînes d’information en continu (49 %) et les réseaux sociaux (26 %) (graphique 19). Elle s’impose comme la valeur sûre pour accéder à une information de qualité et faire vivre le débat local.

Si le marché français de la publicité digitale a frôlé les 8 milliards d’euros en 2021, l’immense majorité de ce chiffre d’affaires (environ 85 %) va aux GAFAM. Ceux-ci rémunèrent désormais mieux les éditeurs dont ils utilisent les contenus, mais cela ne saurait suffire à en garantir la gratuité intégrale. Les plateformes numériques ont, cependant, favorisé la culture de l’abonnement. La vraie révolution du modèle économique de nombreux médias, notamment de la presse quotidienne, est là : l’investissement dans la qualité des contenus doit aujourd’hui et demain se financer par l’abonnement numérique. À l’instar des grands quotidiens américains (New York Times en tête), les grands titres français misent sur la qualité journalistique et la diversité de leurs contenus pour séduire de nouvelles audiences, payantes.

La chose peut sembler paradoxale : abreuvé de contenus gratuits en continu, un nombre croissant de Français fait le choix de l’abonnement payant. C’est à la fois une manière de personnaliser sa « consommation » de média et de constituer une sorte de « safe space », un espace informationnel à l’intérieur duquel on est en confiance. Cet espace de confiance peut, bien sûr, être un « entre-soi », structuré autour d’affinités d’opinion, voire militant. Il y a toujours eu des médias typés de droite ou de gauche. À l’heure de l’accélération et de la fragmentation que nous constatons dans tous les domaines, le risque existe, cependant, de voir certains de ces espaces affinitaires se transformer en camps retranchés. Là encore, l’exemple américain fait réfléchir. Celui de Fox News, bien sûr, dont on connaît le positionnement et le rôle politique.

#Fatigue #Buzz #Tim_Hwang #Publicité #BVA #Etudes_comportementale

Why social media companies picked a very tricky time to start charging
▻https://www.fastcompany.com/90855271/why-social-media-companies-picked-a-very-tricky-time-to-start-charging-

https://images.fastcompany.net/image/upload/w_1280,f_auto,q_auto,fl_lossy/wp-cms/uploads/2023/02/p-1-90855271-rob-walker-social-media.jpg

But now, Meta, parent of Facebook and Instagram, is the latest to try to change that dynamic. With its gargantuan ad business slipping lately, Meta has announced it will test a subscription service, charging $11.99 a month (or nearly $24 for both platforms) for access to certain advanced features and customer support, a verified-identity digital badge, and “extra impersonation protection against accounts claiming to be you,” as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg put it. This, of course, follows Elon Musk rolling out a paid version of its familiar verification checkmarks as part of the $8-a-month Twitter Blue service.

This grasping for new revenue streams is understandable: Digital advertising has softened in general, and Apple’s introduction of a do-not-track option on iOS devices has kneecapped ad-dependent digital businesses. That’s helping inspire a spate of add-on fee experiments from multiple businesses: “Snap gives subscribers early access to new features, YouTube serves them fewer ads, and Discord provides more customization options for people’s chat channels,” Vox recently noted,

But models that charge you nothing and instead charge advertisers for access to your attention have succeeded well beyond social media, from search giant Google to countless media sites and entertainment platforms and sponsor-funded apps. If anything, advertising is arguably more dominant than ever. Even Amazon and Walmart generate significant ad revenue—and Netflix, after years of resistance, has lately capitulated to an ad-driven tier.

But that very saturation is surely part of what’s driving the hunt for subscription revenue. Tim Hwang, author of the book Subprime Attention Crisis (which argues that the Internet’s ad-driven ecosystem is far more rickety and vulnerable than it might seem, partly because digital advertising isn’t nearly as effective as claimed), was recently interviewed by New York Times columnist Ezra Klein on his eponymous podcast about the pros and cons of a less ad-dependent online media system. Hwang acknowledges the critique that subscription models can be a walled garden: “A world in which high-quality media sources are moving behind a paywall is one in which low-quality media sources remain out and widely available.” But he still argued for “normalizing subscription” as a means of forcing a “hard conversation” about how information is subsidized, monetized, and spread.

#Publicité #Médias_sociaux #Tim_Hwang

Tim Minchin - The Good Book (Live)
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0

Opinion | How the $500 Billion Attention Industry Really Works - The New York Times
▻https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/14/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-tim-hwang.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/02/14/opinion/14eks-hwang-image/14eks-hwang-image-facebookJumbo.jpg

Un podcast du New York Times avec Tim Hwang.
Tim parle très (très) vite, heureusement, il y a un transcript, et aussi la version française de son livre "Le grand Krach de l’attention’
(►https://cfeditions.com/krach)

https://cfeditions.com/krach/ressources/couv_krach_grand.jpg

Tim Hwang is the former global public policy lead for A.I. and machine learning at Google and the author of the book “Subprime Attention Crisis: Advertising and the Time Bomb at the Heart of the Internet.” Hwang’s central argument is that everything about the internet — from the emphasis data collection to the use of the “like” button to the fact that services like Google Search and Facebook are free — flows from its core business model. But that business model is also in crisis. The internet is degrading the very resource — our collective attention — on which its financial survival depends. The resulting “subprime attention crisis” threatens to upend the internet as we know it.

So this conversation is about the economic logic that undergirds our entire experience of the internet, and how that logic is constantly warping, manipulating and shaping the most important resource we have — our attention. But it’s also about whether a very different kind of internet, built on a very different economic logic, is possible.

#Tim_Hwang #Podcast

Vass Bednar: Digital ads are a desperate gamble in a fantasy economy
▻https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/vass-bednar-digital-ads-desperate-163558047.html
▻https://media.zenfs.com/en/financial_post_articles_610/07c92d7b4ca7e6725f456de8b3c0c3a3

Digital advertising brings in billions of dollars in revenue to Meta Platforms Inc.’s Facebook and Alphabet Inc.’s Google in Canada, with Amazon.com Inc. also emerging as a significant third player, according to recent research from Carleton University’s global media and internet concentration project. Advertising on Google’s search engine and YouTube brought in an estimated $6.2 billion, or $162 per Canadian, in 2021. Meta earned just under $4 billion last year across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, claiming one-third of Canada’s online advertising market, and derives almost all of its revenue from such ads globally. Amazon, a more recent entrant, made an estimated $1.2 billion in revenue from advertising, or almost 10 per cent of all online advertising in Canada. Together, these three tech conglomerates accounted for around 90 per cent of the online advertising market and more than two-thirds of all ad money in Canada.

The online advertising industry is clearly profitable for massive platforms. But we should not confuse its profitability with effectiveness. Platforms earn money when an ad is viewed or listened to by a captive consumer, but that digestion doesn’t guarantee a purchase will occur. Indeed, that elusive purchase is nothing more than a reverie, and we’re all crushing the Kool-Aid in believing it’s a sure thing.

Other research demonstrates that micro-targeted digital ads simply don’t work. As former Google employee Tim Hwang said in his 2020 book Subprime Attention Crisis, ad tech could be the next internet bubble. Further, the returns on investment in digital marketing have been proven to be embarrassingly poor for the companies advertising. One study found that ad-tech middlemen are substantially enriched by the online advertising game, sucking up as much as 50 per cent of all online spending. Another study found that automated micro-targeting performed slightly worse than random guessing. Meanwhile, digital ads are often credited for purchases that would have been made anyway, making them “the most widely used shell game in business today,” writes Sinan Aral in The Hype Machine.

Nonetheless, the ability to collect information about people as they prowl the internet predicates online giants’ ability to command advertising dollars for totally random results. That’s led to a company policy knife-fight between Apple Inc. and everyone else after the tech giant forced developers to obtain explicit consent from users. This has resulted in even less accurate micro-targeting — Facebook’s recent software update practically begs people to subject themselves to being tracked. Apple’s change means online advertising now generally costs more, translating into increased costs for small businesses hoping to reach new and relevant audiences online, on top of the digital fees extorted from developers on mobile application stores. All of this expenditure and effort hinges on the promise that advertising expenditure is richly rewarding, a necessary investment for e-commerce players.

Maybe it is time we start seeing online ads for what they really are: a desperate gamble in a fantasy economy.

#Tim_Hwang #Publicité

Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee wants us to ’ignore’ Web3
▻https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/04/web-inventor-tim-berners-lee-wants-us-to-ignore-web3.html

https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107146251-1667568017098-gettyimages-1244482521-SAM_2546.jpeg?v=1667574481&w=1920&h=1080

Tim Berners-Lee, the computer scientist credited with inventing the World Wide Web, said he doesn’t view blockchain as a viable solution for building the next iteration of the internet.
“In fact, Web3 is not the web at all,” he told an audience at the Web Summit tech conference in Lisbon.
Berners-Lee said people too often conflate Web3 with “Web 3.0,” his own proposal for reshaping the internet.

“It’s a real shame in fact that the actual Web3 name was taken by Ethereum folks for the stuff that they’re doing with blockchain. In fact, Web3 is not the web at all.”

Web3 is a nebulous term in the tech world used to describe a hypothetical future version of the internet that’s more decentralized than it is today and not dominated by a handful of powerful players such as Amazon, Microsoft and Google.

It involves a few technologies, including blockchain, cryptocurrencies and nonfungible tokens.

While breaking our personal data out of Big Tech’s clutches is an ambition shared by Berners-Lee, he’s not convinced blockchain, the distributed ledger technology that underpins cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, will be the solution.

His new startup aims to address this through three ways:

A global “single sign-on” feature that lets anyone log in from anywhere.
Login IDs that allow users to share their data with others.
A “common universal API,” or application programming interface, that lets apps pull data from any source.

Berners-Lee’s not the only notable tech figure with doubts about Web3. The movement has been a punching bag for some leaders in Silicon Valley, like Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

Critics say it’s prone to the same issues that come with cryptocurrencies, like fraud and security flaws.

#Web3 #Tim_Berners-Lee

The Madness of the Crowd
▻https://logicmag.io/intelligence/the-madness-of-the-crowd
▻https://images.ctfassets.net/e529ilab8frl/48aUxBW79ZcMEk2CfmsjBs/d5c5fd43b181e225369a0032bc119f07/rob-curran-sUXXO3xPBYo-unsplash.jpg?w=1200&fm=jpg&fl=progressive

Par Tim Hwang (mars 2017)

As the Trump Administration enters its first hundred days, the 2016 election and its unexpected result remains a central topic of discussion among journalists, researchers, and the public at large.

It is notable the degree to which Trump’s victory has propelled a broader, wholesale evaluation of the defects of the modern media ecosystem. Whether it is “fake news,” the influence of “filter bubbles,” or the online emergence of the “alt-right,” the internet has been cast as a familiar villain: enabling and empowering extreme views, and producing a “post-fact” society.

This isn’t the first time that the internet has figured prominently in a presidential win. Among commentators on the left, the collective pessimism about the technological forces powering Trump’s 2016 victory are matched in mirror image by the collective optimism about the technological forces driving Obama’s 2008 victory. As Arianna Huffington put it simply then, “Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee.”

But whereas Obama was seen as a sign that the new media ecosystem wrought by the internet was functioning beautifully (one commentator praised it as “a perfect medium for genuine grass-roots political movements”), the Trump win has been blamed on a media ecosystem in deep failure mode. We could chalk these accounts up to simple partisanship, but that would ignore a whole constellation of other incidents that should raise real concerns about the weaknesses of the public sphere that the contemporary internet has established.

This troubled internet has been around for years. Fears about filter bubbles facilitating the rise of the alt-right can and should be linked to existing concerns about the forces producing insular, extreme communities like the ones driving the Gamergate controversy. Fears about the impotence of facts in political debate match existing frustrations about the inability for documentary evidence in police killings—widely distributed through social media—to produce real change. Similarly, fears about organized mobs of Trump supporters systematically silencing political opponents online are just the latest data point in a long-standing critique of the failure of social media platforms to halt harassment.

One critical anchor point is the centrality of the wisdom of the crowd to the intellectual firmament of Web 2.0: the idea that the broad freedom to communicate enabled by the internet tends to produce beneficial outcomes for society. This position celebrated user-generated content, encouraged platforms for collective participation, and advocated the openness of data.

Inspired by the success of projects like the open-source operating system Linux and the explosion of platforms like Wikipedia, a generation of internet commentators espoused the benefits of crowd-sourced problem-solving. Anthony D. Williams and Don Tapscott’s Wikinomics (2006) touted the economic potential of the crowd. Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody (2008) highlighted how open systems powered by volunteer contributions could create social change. Yochai Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks (2006) posited a cooperative form of socioeconomic production unleashed by the structure of the open web called “commons-based peer production.”

Such notions inspired movements like “Gov 2.0” and projects like the Sunlight Foundation, which sought to publish government data in order to reduce corruption and enable the creation of valuable new services by third parties. It also inspired a range of citizen journalism projects, empowering a new fourth estate.

Intelligence Failure
The platforms inspired by the “wisdom of the crowd” represented an experiment. They tested the hypothesis that large groups of people can self-organize to produce knowledge effectively and ultimately arrive at positive outcomes.

In recent years, however, a number of underlying assumptions in this framework have been challenged, as these platforms have increasingly produced outcomes quite opposite to what their designers had in mind. With the benefit of hindsight, we can start to diagnose why. In particular, there have been four major “divergences” between how the vision of the wisdom of the crowd optimistically predicted people would act online and how they actually behaved.

First, the wisdom of the crowd assumes that each member of the crowd will sift through information to make independent observations and contributions. If not, it hopes that at least a majority will, such that a competitive marketplace of ideas will be able to arrive at the best result.

Second, collective intelligence requires aggregating many individual observations. To that end, it assumes a sufficient diversity of viewpoints. However, open platforms did not generate or actively cultivate this kind of diversity, instead more passively relying on the ostensible availability of these tools to all.

Third, collective intelligence assumes that wrong information will be systematically weeded out as it conflicts with the mass of observations being made by others. Quite the opposite played out in practice, as it ended up being much easier to share information than to evaluate its accuracy. Hoaxes spread very effectively through the crowd, from bogus medical beliefs and conspiracy theories to faked celebrity deaths and clickbait headlines.

Fourth, collective intelligence was assumed to be a vehicle for positive social change because broad participation would make wrongdoing more difficult to hide. Though this latter point turned out to be arguably true, transparency alone was not the powerful disinfectant it was assumed to be.

The ability to capture police violence on smartphones did not result in increased convictions or changes to the underlying policies of law enforcement. The Edward Snowden revelations failed to produce substantial surveillance reform in the United States. The leak of Donald Trump’s Access Hollywood recording failed to change the political momentum of the 2016 election. And so on. As Aaron Swartz warned us in 2009, “reality doesn’t live in the databases.”

Ultimately, the aspirations of collective intelligence underlying a generation of online platforms proved far more narrow and limited in practice. The wisdom of the crowd turned out to be susceptible to the influence of recommendation algorithms, the designs of bad actors, in-built biases of users, and the strength of incumbent institutions, among other forces.

The resulting ecosystem feels deeply out of control. The promise of a collective search for the truth gave way to a pernicious ecosystem of fake news. The promise of a broad participatory culture gave way to campaigns of harassment and atomized, deeply insular communities. The promise of greater public accountability gave way to waves of outrage with little real change. Trump 2016 and Obama 2008 are through-the-looking-glass versions of one another, with the benefits from one era giving rise to the failures of the next.

To the extent that the vision of the wisdom of the crowd was naive, it was naive because it assumed that the internet was a spontaneous reactor for a certain kind of collective behavior. It mistook what should have been an agenda, a ongoing program for the design of the web, for the way things already were. It assumed users had the time and education to contribute and evaluate scads of information. It assumed a level of class, race, and gender diversity in online participation that never materialized. It assumed a gentility of collaboration and discussion among people that only ever existed in certain contexts. It assumed that the simple revelation of facts would produce social change.

In short, the wisdom of the crowd didn’t describe where we were, so much as paint a picture of where we should have been going.

The vision of collective participation embedded in the idea of the wisdom of the crowd rests on the belief in the unique potential of the web and what it might achieve. Even as the technology evolves, that vision—and a renewed defense of it—must guide us as we enter the next decade.

#Tim_Hwang #Mythes_internet #Sagesse_des_foules #Intelligence_collective

’The third era of Zuck’: how the CEO went from hero to humiliation | Mark Zuckerberg | The Guardian
▻https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/06/mark-zuckerberg-public-image-cambridge-analytica-facebook
▻https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/f9ea33edca9b75c81444946e6afc11dad541e228/0_0_3094_1857/master/3094.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-ali

The exercise is practically an American tradition – executives from airlines, banks, credit agencies and tobacco companies have all been there. But for Zuckerberg, a CEO whose personal image is inextricable from that of the company he founded, it is symbolic of his loss of control of the narrative.

“We now are entering what I would call the third era of Zuck,” said Tim Hwang, who founded the California Review of Images and Mark Zuckerberg, a journal of academic essays on the “visual culture of Mark Zuckerberg”. Hwang sees Zuckerberg as a sort of techie Madonna, cycling through personas as he matures, both shaping and reflecting the culture.

First there was Zuck the “plucky in the college dorm room hacker guy”, said Hwang, who is also director of the Harvard-MIT ethics and governance of AI initiative. Then came “Zuck as world leader” – a period that saw the CEO travelling the world, meeting with elected leaders, occasionally donning a suit and speaking authoritatively about his global ambitions and social values. Zuckerberg and his public relations team successfully exploited Facebook’s signature blurring of the lines between the personal, political and commercial to create “Mark Zuckerberg”: the responsible boss, good husband, loving father, daring philanthropist and credible world leader.

Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, with their daughters in Palo Alto, California. Photograph: Charles Ommanney/AP
Advertisement

Hwang calls this new era Zuckerberg’s “in the wilderness phase”. “This is one of those moments where we’re really fascinated because this huge PR machine has sort of cracked and we can see through, and what we can see is someone way over his head,” he said.

#Mark_Zuckerberg #Tim_Hwang

La Bulle et la Fête - Etourisme.info
▻https://www.etourisme.info/la-bulle-et-la-fete

https://www.etourisme.info/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/champagne-web.jpg

Librement romancé et inspiré par « Le grand krach de l’attention – la publicité une bombe au cœur de l’Internet » de Tim Hwang, écrivain, avocat et chercheur sur l’impact politique des technologies. Toute ressemblance avec des personnages existants serait purement fortuite (ou pas).

https://cfeditions.com/krach/ressources/couv_krach_grand.jpg

Cédric Chabricole était la nouvelle recrue dans la rédaction. Il n’en menait pas large dans le couloir étroit qui le dirigeait tout droit vers le bureau du rédacteur en chef. On pouvait lire « JLB » en lettres capitales, imposantes et dorées sur la porte capitonnée dont l’aspect feutré jurait avec le reste de l’open space central composé de bric et de broc. Avec le succès exponentiel de la jeune entreprise, l’ameublement ne suivait pas le recrutement frénétique des auteurs pour assouvir l’insatiabilité productiviste de JLB. « Un article par jour ou rien ! » C’est le mantra que le rédacteur en chef prononçait tous les matins en sortant de l’ascenseur, d’une voix tonitruante qui faisait sursauter les vaillantes équipes en place dès potron-minet ; elles n’en pouvaient plus de ce rythme de publication insoutenable, mais le capitaine du navire tenait bon. Il faut dire qu’il avait la pression des actionnaires depuis que l’association etourisme.info avait été rachetée par les P&P, de riches canadiens excentriques dont on ne connaissait que les initiales de leur prénom et leur avatar dans le métavers, pour en faire un média international qui dépasserait les frontières francophones.

« J’ai lu votre papier et je suis assez circonspect. J’ai les Canadiens qui me collent aux basques chaque année lors du Conseil d’Administration de clôture des comptes. Ils m’attendent sur les taux de clics heureusement toujours en hausse grâce à François notre webmarketeur senior qui optimise notre budget publicitaire on-line comme un basque, en obtenant des taux d’engagement ha-llu-ci-nants ! ».

François avait été engagé comme community manager puis son poste avait évolué comme gestionnaire de campagnes depuis que le classement des destinations sur les réseaux sociaux était exactement proportionnel à celui des organismes qui investissaient le plus en publicité. Par ailleurs, les influenceurs avaient supplanté les community managers dans l’animation des communautés. Un comble puisque ces mêmes community managers avaient porté aux nues les influenceurs à grandes embardées de programmes d’ambassadeurs et autres rencontres entre Instagrammeurs, sans même se douter qu’ils étaient en train de scier la branche sur laquelle ils étaient assis. On enseignait même l’influence à l’Université avec des listes d’attentes interminables pour intégrer le cursus de formation vers un nouveau métier qui faisait rêver les jeunes bien plus que boulanger, pompier, médecin et même cuisinier dans la restauration. Ce qui n’était pas pour faciliter la pénurie de main d’œuvre dans l’industrie touristique.

— Je vois que vous êtes réceptif, nous allons pouvoir rentrer dans le vif du sujet. Donc mon chez Chabricole, dans votre papier, vous insinuez que nous vivons dans une utopie et vous prétendez que la bulle de la publicité en ligne est prête à exploser alors que le marché a atteint 427 milliards de dollars ! Pour étayer votre thèse, vous faîtes en plus un parallèle avec les marchés financiers. Là sincèrement j’ai du mal à suivre ! Interrogea-t-il d’un air circonspect.

-- Tout à fait répondit Cédric. Le marché de la publicité en ligne s’est largement inspiré de celui des salles de marché. Par exemple, on achète des publicités programmatiques aux enchères en quelques clics, à une vitesse vertigineuse l’inventaire publicitaire et la position des annonces sont mis à jour grâce à de nombreux algorithmes. On vend de l’espace publicitaire comme on vend des confits de canards ! Dit autrement, on regroupe des moments d’attention en actifs liquides distincts qui sont achetés et vendus sans difficultés sur un marché mondial, jour et nuit.

— Je poursuivrais sur ce point Monsieur Bourrin, je veux dire Jean-Luc, se reprit rapidement Cédric. Google et Meta concentrent la majorité des budgets d’annonceurs et leur chiffre d’affaires provient à 90% de la publicité. Ainsi l’apparente gratuité des services pour l’utilisateur est en réalité financée par les annonceurs ! De plus, ces plateformes reversent très peu d’imposition dans le système fiscal des pays depuis lesquels ils dégagent de colossaux bénéfices, surpassant même le PIB de tout un pays. Surtout, ils sont à la fois juges et parties. Google fournit même pernicieusement Analytics, un logiciel d’analyse du trafic des sites Web, la firme maîtrise ainsi la chaîne de bout en bout depuis la gestion des annonces publicitaires (avec AdWords, AdSense) jusqu’aux résultats statistiques (Analytics). Enfin, je terminerais sur ce point : aucun organisme n’est habilité à vérifier quotidiennement la fiabilité des données. Quand bien même ce tiers existerait, privé ou public, on pourrait s’interroger sur sa propre légitimité puisque sa viabilité dépendrait de la pérennité du système dans lequel il s’inscrirait. CQFD ! Conclu-t-il avec l’assurance inébranlable d’un camelot.

Des cris de plus en plus proches venaient distinctement perturber cette séquence mélancolique. Des pas de plus en plus pressés semblaient s’approcher quand soudain la porte s’ouvrit dans un vacarme retentissant. Lorsque François pénétra dans la pièce, il s’exclama :

-- Bourrin, c’est la fin !

-- La fin de quoi bon Dieu ? jura Jean-Luc avec inquiétude.

-- Vous n’avez pas entendu les infos ? La bulle de la publicité en ligne a explosé ! Des lanceurs d’alertes ont tout balancé ! Un dossier long comme mon bras ! Tout le monde panique, Zuckerberg est parti se cacher dans le métavers, plus personne ne sait où il se trouve, c’est malin. Google annonce la fermeture de Adwords et de tous ces services relatifs à la publicité en ligne, c’est un cataclysme. J’en passe ! Mon job est foutu ! Je peux déjà mettre en vente mon appartement à Saint-Jean-de-Luz pour assurer mes arrières. Mais comment ? Si je ne peux plus faire de publicités en ligne, c’est inextricable !

Pendant quelques minutes, le temps était comme suspendu. Plus personne n’osait prononcer un seul mot, même Ludovic avait décroché de son smartphone et semblait lui aussi happé par l’instant fatidique qui se jouait. Seul Pierre semblait complétement détaché de la scène, il avait déjà anticipé et misé sur d’autres leviers de visibilité que la publicité en ligne.

#Tim_Hwang #Krach_attention

An update on Google Play billing in the EEA
▻https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/an-update-on-google-play-billing-in-the-eea

https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-uniblog-publish-prod/images/Adult_on_phone_in_street_9UvQXDl.max-1300x1300.jpg

Developers who choose to use an alternative billing system will need to meet appropriate user protection requirements, and service fees and conditions will continue to apply in order to support our investments in Android and Play. When a consumer uses an alternative billing system, the service fee the developer pays will be reduced by 3%. Since 99% of developers currently qualify for a service fee of 15% or less, those developers would pay a service fee of 12% or lower based on transactions through alternative billing for EEA users acquired through the Play platform.

Tim Sweeney sur Twitter :
▻https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1549409197007175687

Congratulations to Google, fast-following Apple to introduce fake open billing in Europe - “allowing” competing payment services but eliminating their ability to compete by demanding 27% of revenue.

Tim Sweeney sur Twitter :
▻https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1549412449803190272

A store that sells an app should not have any involvement in commerce that is conducted after the app is purchased. It’s like Ford forcing car buyers to buy gas at Ford gas station and inflating prices 30%. It’s none of their business.

Tim Sweeney sur Twitter :
▻https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1549414295024418817

[…]

When Mastercard and Visa process a credit card transaction, they charg 2.5% for the service they perform.

In this case, however, Google is NOT PERFORMING THE SERVICE they charge their 12% fee on.

Google annonce autoriser l’usage d’un système de paiement tiers sur les apps mobiles distribuées via Google Play sur… les deux territoires où cela est désormais légalement obligatoire.

Le patron d’Epic Games, qui se bat contre le duopole de Google et d’Apple au sujet des marges des deux principales boutiques mobiles, critique la part du paiement revenant quand même à Google.

#jeu_vidéo #jeux_vidéo #business #google #google_play #tim_sweeney #epic_games #digital_markets_act #european_economic_area #android #

La publicité programmatique et le spectre de la crise - Nonfiction.fr le portail des livres et des idées
▻https://www.nonfiction.fr/article-11376-la-publicite-programmatique-et-le-spectre-de-la-crise.htm

https://cfeditions.com/krach/ressources/couv_krach_grand.jpg

Cet ancien de chez Google alerte sur les proportions inédites de la « bulle de marché » de la publicité programmatique, tout en établissant un parallèle avec la crise des subprimes de 2008.

La publicité en ligne est en butte à bien des critiques : incitations consuméristes, intrusions dans la vie privée, manipulation des comportements, etc. Toutefois, la performance même de ce procédé n’est jamais remise en cause. À l’inverse, on présuppose à la publicité en ligne — a fortiori la publicité personnalisée, qui cible les consommateurs grâce à des algorithmes — une sinistre efficacité qui, précisément, en amplifierait les méfaits.

Tim Hwang, avocat, chercheur et anciennement responsable des politiques publiques de l’intelligence artificielle chez Google, déconstruit le mythe des algorithmes de ciblage ultraperformants et de l’économie pérenne et florissante que serait celle de la publicité en ligne. Il dévoile, à rebours de cet imaginaire, une conjoncture gangrénée par les pratiques spéculatives et les manipulations des grandes places de marché publicitaires qui maintiennent à flot un secteur profondément défaillant.

#Tim_Hwang #Publicité #Programmatique

Aides aux entreprises, publicité numérique, Etat social... Nos trois conseils lecture du mois | Alternatives Economiques
Le grand Krach de l’Attention par Tim Hwang
▻https://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/aides-aux-entreprises-publicite-numerique-etat-social-nos-trois-conseils/00103584

https://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/sites/default/files/public/styles/for_social_networks/public/field/image/lectures_new_1_0_0.jpg?itok=mY1SHiQv

2/ Dans les coulisses du web : Big seller is watching you

Nos économies contemporaines sont-elles devenues aussi dépendantes de la publicité numérique que du pétrole ? En dressant ce parallèle, Tim Hwang nous montre l’ampleur de ce qui dépend aujourd’hui de la publicité personnalisée en ligne : nos mails, la navigation, les réseaux sociaux, la recherche (Google), etc.

L’ensemble de ces services étant financé par la publicité personnalisée, ou plus précisément programmatique, une technologie stratégique de mise aux enchères des audiences en temps réel. Avocat et chercheur, l’auteur en interroge l’efficacité. Et si les promesses de ce ciblage publicitaire prétendument ultraprécis étaient largement exagérées ?

Dans un style très accessible, Tim Hwang décrit l’opacité des entreprises de ce secteur, le manque de contrôle et se demande même si nous ne sommes pas en pleine bulle spéculative. Ayant travaillé chez Google, il a le mérite d’interroger ce qui ne l’est pas souvent, et ce avec des arguments techniques.

Justin Délepine

Le grand krach de l’attention. La publicité, une bombe au cœur de l’Internet, par Tim Hwang C&F éditions, 2022, 176 p., 22 €.

►https://cfeditions.com/krach

https://cfeditions.com/krach/ressources/couv_krach_grand.jpg

#Tim_Hwang #Publicité

After Sheryl Sandberg’s departure, how long does Facebook have left? - New Statesman
▻https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/big-tech/2022/06/how-long-does-facebook-have-left

https://www.newstatesman.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/00029567-1-1038x778.jpg

The scrappy start-up had morphed into a global advertising behemoth with tens of thousands of employees but its size, reach and revenues failed to protect it from the shifting sands of digital culture and the perils of the attention economy. Since the start of this year, Facebook’s market capitalisation has fallen by 43 per cent.

The received wisdom is that TikTok is to blame for Facebook’s woes. While Zuckerberg and Sandberg controversially secured permission to acquire Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014 respectively, TikTok has remained firmly beyond their grasp. Although Zuckerberg has launched a copycat feature called Reels, it is failing to drive as much revenue as his other products.

Facebook’s problems, however, may reflect a deeper trend within the advertising ecosystem. In Subprime Attention Crisis, Tim Hwang argues that the effectiveness of online ads has been dramatically exaggerated by the American tech giants. As the inefficiency of their commercial offering has been exposed over time, says Hwang, Facebook and Google have been forced to litter their platforms with ever more ad units.

They “force more and more ads into an experience, or into a social media channel, in order to make the same amount of money… and that has the perverse effect of squeezing people away from those platforms,” said the former Google employee in a New Statesman interview earlier this year. The tech giants’ solution to this challenge, Hwang believes, is to direct users to new platforms, before they become so saturated with advertising that they too become unusable.

Beyond buying competitors, copying rivals, producing more products and lobbying for favourable regulations, there is another trick social media companies use to maintain growth expectations and market share. They build ever higher walls around their platforms.

#Facebook #Tim_Hwang #Publicité

Tim Sweeney sur Twitter :
▻https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1526979415095361536

The metaverse is often associated with speculative newness, but the core experiences engaging 100M’s of active users today are about games with music experiences and movie crossovers. Sony’s business is tantalizingly central to it all.

Sony readies for metaverse revolution with cross-platform push | Reuters
▻https://www.reuters.com/technology/sony-readies-metaverse-revolution-with-cross-platform-push-2022-05-18

“The metaverse is at the same time a social space and live network space where games, music, movies and anime intersect,” Chief Executive Kenichiro Yoshida said at a strategy briefing on Wednesday, pointing to the use of free-to-play battle royale title Fortnite from Epic Games as an online social space.

#jeu_vidéo #jeux_vidéo #sony #epic_games #tim_sweeney #kenichiro_yoshida #musique #transmédia #console_playstation_5 #v-bucks #monnaie #bungie #jeu_vidéo_spider-man_miles_morales

Pioneer Rediscovered: The Woman who Brought Female Representation to Games | Video Game History Foundation
▻https://gamehistory.org/wabbit

https://gamehistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/1982-1983-color-adjust-LG-scaled.jpg

Last year, Polygon ran an article about our search for an Atari VCS game developer by the name of “Ban Tran.” As we understood it, Tran was a Vietnamese woman who worked for a short-lived, Texas-based game company called Apollo, where she wrote Wabbit — the first console game to star a human girl — before the company declared bankruptcy towards the end of 1982.

Wabbit - Apollo, October 1982
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0E1MxG5Y4Q

Arcade Game: Solar Fox (1981 Midway)
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTeC8Za9oSs

#jeu_vidéo #jeux_vidéo #rétrogaming #histoire #culture #histoire #préservation #jeu_vidéo_wabbit #console_atari_vcs #année_1982 #apollo #féminisme #console_atari_5200 #micrographic_image #jeu_vidéo_solar_fox #van_tran #video_game_history_foundation #ordinateur_trs-80 #ordinateur_ibm_370 #jeu_vidéo_night_trap #larry_martin #jeu_vidéo_guardian #tim_martin #cash_foley #robert_barber #cbs_electronics #ces #consomer_electronics_show #oracle