Category Archives: Internet
Do you remember hearing a while back about Facebook shutting down? Yeah, it was apparently supposed to happen today or something. And it’s totally plausible. Because internet companies that have over 600 million users typically shut down virtually overnight.
The rumor was first reported by The World Weekly News which is, as you know, the second most reliable news organizations after yours truly here at Autistic Disdain. Then it was picked up by another news outlet that apparently has some kind of reputation for actual news reporting (this claim has not been verified at the time of publishing).
The rumor goes that someone heard Zuck say he hates his life or something, and he’s gonna shut Facebook down to de-stress. Maybe go to a spa or something. Travel around for a year, maybe. Experience life while he’s still young, get back to the whole “worldwide revolutionization of web-based social interaction” once he gets back from backpacking his way through Canada.
When WWN pressed their source for info on why Zuckerberg couldn’t just give control of his company to someone else, they replied, “Come on. Do you know anyone who understands social interaction as well as Mark Zuckerberg? Of course not. No one else can possibly understand how people interact with each other using the internet. We’re lost without him. The internet is lost without him.”
The rumors turned out to be entirely false, though further investigation did reveal that, in the event of an inexplicable CEO breakdown, Facebook does at least have a contingency plan to offload the more important duties of Facebook like Farmville, poking, and accidentally revealing drunken photos of yourself to your boss to third-parties.
I forgive you. Because that’s what Jesus would do.
But Jesus also said “If your browser causes you to crash, cut it off.”
A Chrome user
I really don’t want to become that guy. Fox News is an easy target. Really, it doesn’t take much skill to make fun of them. To wit: Fox News takes on sexting. I could stop this article here, and I will have done my job of making you laugh. But let’s take a look through this, shall we?
The article begins by talking about the brave new world of technology we find ourselves in. Ooh! Fox is going to talk about Groupon? Maybe foursquare? Netflix? No, texting. And it’s alter ego: sexy texting. Or sexting. As the kids are calling it these days. By the way, kids? Don’t sext. Ever. Seriously.
Fox then goes on to put forth the most pointless persuasive argument that has ever been set in HTML: convince you that sending sexy messages and pictures can be fun. You might also be interested in their ten-page report on how cookies taste good, sunny weather is more pleasing than bad weather, and a scatching expose on the dangers of fire to the human skin. Did you know fire is hot?! Check out the story for more.
But just in case you’re over 18 and haven’t hit puberty yet, here’s a couple choice reasons for why using technology for sex might be a thing you want to do:
The embarrassment factor is removed because you don’t have to see the person while you’re typing your naughty thoughts.
I don’t know what the big deal is. I type naughty things to people while I’m face to face with them all the time. Seems to work out ok. It is perhaps a bit more inefficient than just saying them, I’ll admit. I suppose that just adds to the excitement, though.
And perhaps my favorite:
It brings the fun back to sex. It’s not supposed to be so serious after all.
Yes. That’s right. Fox News, along with the power of technology, is going to help you put the fun back in sex. Because sex isn’t fun anymore. Just one of the many problems technology solves.
But! Saying things and sending pictures are not the only things you need to do to be sexy on the intertexts. You need acronyms.
Here are a few of the more common sexting acronyms:
GYPO: Get Your Pants Off
IAYM: I Am Your Master
IWSN: I Want Sex Now
K4Y: Kiss For You
LMIRL: Let’s Meet In Real Life
MOOS: Member Of The Opposite Sex
MOSS: Member(s) Of The Same Sex
NALOPKT: Not A Lot Of People Know That
S2R: Send To Receive
TDTM: Talk Dirty To Me
WIN: Want It Now
It should be noted, these are the most common sexting acronyms if you’re picking up hookers on Craigslist. If you’re attempting to sext any real people, these will not be very effective. Rule of thumb: forcing someone to check Urban Dictionary to understand what you’re saying is not sexy. Ever. Also, kudos to Fox for slipping that “I Am Your Master” thing in there. I was fairly certain after that lesbian bondage debacle, it was taboo for folks on the right to get on the subject of abnormal fetishes.
OK, so they might not be the most creative sayings or abbreviations in the world.
Then we get some helpful tips on how to sext properly:
Take it slowly. Sexting can quickly go from fun to creepy if you keep it up for too long or escalate too quickly. So, pace yourself and follow your partner’s lead.
You should also mention, during the sexting, that you got your tips from Fox’s website. Few things will impress a lady and be entirely not creepy than telling your lover that you learned how to do this on the internet. Trust me. Also, “follow your partner’s lead” is one of those things that sounds great in practice, is actually a circular dance of awkwardness.
Ask before you text. Don’t surprise someone with a sext until you are sure he or she is into it. That is one mistake that you simply cannot undo.
Um. Listen, uh…guys…while the whole “don’t spring sexy messages on someone” is a good principle in general, please, please, please don’t take this advice literally. “Is it ok if I send you sexy messages and/or pictures?” is the least sexy sentence in the world. Sentences that are actually more sexy than this include:
“Hey, baby, what’s your favorite orifice?”
“I’m still dripping mucus, but I think I’m more or less over this debilitating cold, so, you wanna go or what?”
“We’re having sex or the puppy gets it.”
There. Ok? I did it. I made fun of Fox for being stupid about a technology-related subject. Now can I please go back to making fun of people that aren’t Fox? Come on, tech world. You can be ridiculous on your own. You don’t need Fox’s help.
Let me come out right and say two things: 1.) This is probably going to be less funny than my usual articles. 2.) I can’t stand Glenn Beck. At all. In the slightest. I don’t typically get involved too much in televised news. I find it much easier to read my news online from a variety of sources. Then when I hear something that doesn’t quite add up, I just press Ctrl-T, start typing, and before long Google will have led me to a resource of information that helps me make sense of the inane, childish, vague, fear/anger-mongering bullshit I’ve just heard. Except, this time, according to Glenn Beck, that will lead me to ruin.
Let’s be honest. Glenn Beck is a conspiracy nut. He never learned to grasp the difference between correlation and causation. As a “self-educated” man, he has hoarded information, but never had any proper training on how to use it. Reducto ad absurdum. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Straw man. These words are gibberish to Glenn Beck. Which is why “Google sometimes talks to the government” is tantamount to “Google is in bed with the government“.
The video begins with Egypt, as most news shows do lately. He begins by stating that the outcome of these protests is going to be determined by the people who are the best organized. And who organized these Egyptian protests? Why, it’s none other than Wael Ghonim, a Google executive. “Google executive” here meaning “Head of Marketing of Google Middle East and North Africa“. Not someone in Mountain View. Just a marketing guy stationed in Dubai. And, it’s important to note, this guy left Dubai and went to Egypt to organize these protests without Google’s knowledge or permission. According to Ghonim, he actually “tricked” Google into letting him return to Egypt by citing a “personal problem”.
Around one minute and twenty-two seconds into this video, Glenn makes the jump from “someone who works for Google was involved in the Egyptian protests” to “Google is involved in government overthrows”. The first person involved took action that was done without Google’s recommendation, approval, or even knowledge, as stated before, and the second executive that’s involved? We never even hear his name. Clearly Glenn doesn’t think that this person is as worthy of the attention. Given that, in this context, even Ghonim is unworthy of any noteworthy connection, I’d wager that the connection between Google proper and the Egyptian government overthrow is tenuous, if it even exists at all. Except that Schmidt is proud of one of his employees for performing brave, life-risking acts in a region that is highly unstable, in an effort to stand up for his principles. How dare Google extol praise on such a man. Evil.
I’m going to skip over the rather amusing part where Beck continually refers to Google as a mere “search engine”.
“I’m not afraid that Google is reading my email, or tapping your phone lines, or stealing grandma’s recipes.”
That’s amusing. Because that’s what everyone else is afraid of.
“That kind of paranoia is reserved for the left during the Bush administration for Microsoft.”
Wait. What? You know what, nevermind.
By the two-minute fifteen mark, Beck has stated that “I’m not so sure as I look into Google, that I want to use their products any more than I have to, and some of their products, I think I have to.” For starters: there’s not a single Google product, not search, not Gmail, not Google Maps, not Android, not anything that is of such ubiquitous power in the technology world that there are no competent alternatives. Even search, where Google is more or less the undisputed king, has its rival Bing. Bing, while not my favorite search engine, is more than capable of getting you around the internet, and Microsoft will be more than happy to counter nearly all of Google’s online services with their own digital offerings, as with Maps and Hotmail.
Though, I’m curious why you’re suggesting we stop using Google products. You say you hate boycotts, but if you’re to be trusted (and people do trust you, Mr. Beck), Google is not a service you should be using. Confusingly, we’re given the conclusion before we’re given the evidence. It’s almost as if the point is not the truth, but the fear.
“I’m not feeling very comfortable about the current direction of Google, the more I find out.”
I assume you’ll have something more than “Google sometimes says nice things about employees who do brave things without the company’s knowledge or approval.”
It turns out, Mr. Beck does have quite a bit to say about why he doesn’t trust Google. He lists several reasons. The first of which is that they work with the NSA. This cooperation began when, early last year, a Chinese group (allegedly approved of by the Chinese government) hacked into Google’s servers, among many, many others. Google began working with the NSA to prevent future attacks of this kind from occurring. Let me repeat: Google’s involvement with the National Security Agency began when Google decided to protect its own as well as other U.S. networks from outright attacks from the evil communist China. It’s also worth noting that Google spoke with the Chinese government during that ordeal. Google is now said to have ties to Chinese militants who seek to overthrow America. Or something.
Glenn also lists Google’s work with the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency on his list of reasons to fear Google, openly admitting “I don’t even know what that is!” Well, Glenn, I’ll gladly tell you. The NGA is an organization that deals with the collection, analysis, and distribution of geospatial intelligence or, in the most laymans terms, map data. That’s right. The NGA (formerly known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, if that tells you anything) basically deals with high-tech maps. Google’s involvement with the NGA could be as simple as building tools and systems to manage map/surveillance data to aid the military. You know, since they’re kind of good at that. Of course, it could also be as sinister as helping the government spy through your computer’s webcam, but I’ll leave the burden of proof on that one to you.
Then, of course, he stops in on Net Neutrality. The evil, evil principle that he’s gotten so unbelievably wrong before. I could spend pages and pages going over how wrong he’s gotten the concept of net neutrality in previous videos, but suffice to say a.) the first video I saw of him discussing the principle, he implied it was a government attempt at controlling content and giving free internet to everyone, rather than simply regulating traffic such that all websites, applications, and ideas have an equal shot at getting their traffic from point A to point B (an admittedly conplex and controversial topic), and 2.) it was this video that made me unable to stomach the man at all.
He then goes on to say that Eric Schmidt is on the White House Council for Science and Technology. He leaves it at that. It seems the fact that Google advises the government on anything means they’re “in bed” with the government. Of course, Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt, and Mark Zuckerberg are all meeting with President Obama today. So I guess it’s less of “being in bed with” and more of “having an orgy with” the White House in this case.
Frankly, as long as technology-inept senators like Orrin Hatch, Ted Stevens, and John McCain are the norm, I think the government can use all the advice they can get on how to deal with technology. Though, I suppose, since we don’t know exactly what is being said, it clearly must be evil.
We’re then treated to a lengthy diatribe about how Google is connected or giving money to a variety of name drops that, I’m sure if I followed the show, I’d be aware of why they’re detrimental to my health, my self-esteem, and how they will stab my tires and murder my unconceived children. Out of context, though, I have no idea why these people and organizations are evil. Frankly, getting into any inaccuracies or foggy information about Van Jones, MoveOn.org, George Soros, or any of the other horrifying name drops is outside the scope of Autistic Disdain’s interest or attention span. Let’s stick with the gadgets, shall we?
Thankfully, after a commercial break, Glenn brings it back to the world of technology as he comes to the third (?) reason why you should be wary of Google.
“They’re not working hard enough on your privacy.”
Glenn cites “the WiSpy incident” wherein Google’s Google Maps cars were discovered to have accidentally (though that word was never used) collected data from surrounding unsecured WiFi networks. Of note: it was Google that came forth with the announcement that they’d accidentally collected this data. It was widely reported that this included passwords, credit card numbers, and various other pieces of important-sounding data, however the data was incidental, studied to determine how it was gathered, then legally and properly destroyed. Glenn informs us that the FCC was working with Google to remedy the problem, though, according to Glenn Beck, they’re probably not working too hard, since Google has ties to the White House. A claim that’s not really substantiated given that the FCC’s probe only began last November after the FCC decided it was not satisfied with the FTC’s probe into the issue, which has already concluded. Furthermore, according to a statement from the FTC, Google has already committed to destroying the data. I suppose the government doing double duty on a case is basically the same thing as it slacking off because of evil ties to the government. If Eric Schmidt weren’t so cozy with Van Jones, there’d be three or four government agencies investigating Google instead of just two. And even if none of that were true, the data was mined from unsecured WiFi networks. There is no such thing as private broadcast, and if you have not secured your WiFi network, you are broadcasting a signal to everyone within range of your router. Though, I suppose Beck’s principle of Personal Responsibility ends somewhere just short of learning how to secure your wireless network.
Then there’s Google Buzz incident. Amusingly, Beck cites Google Buzz as one of the primary reasons why Google is evil. If anything, the Google Buzz incident should be used as evidence of Google’s stupidity. When Buzz was first launched, it built a “suggested” social network for Buzz based on your contact information and how frequently you contact certain people. Sounds like a clever idea, except the list of people in your new “Friends” list was made public. A problem that was remedied very quickly after an unbelievably loud outcry. A problem which is also indicative of a very stupid decision, not a very evil one.
Finally, Beck gets to the finality of his argument, once again quoting Eric Schmidt, in one of his standard “we know roughly where you are and what you want” statements, turning the possible future Schmidt has always talked about—your phone reminding you to get milk when you’re on your way home—into something odd and scary. And finally, he comes clean:
“Sometimes, the way Schmidt and Google as a whole think….is creepy.”
So, let me see if I’ve got this straight. A technology organization that’s run almost entirely by engineers, a group that is identifiable as intelligent, not typically fluent in societal norms, and often comes up with brilliant ideas that are a little too odd for normal people’s liking…that group sometimes comes across as creepy.
Stop the fucking presses.
In all honesty, this is the biggest reason why people are bothered by Google (and also why nerds and technophiles are the first to get excited or defend Google’s products). Google is run by engineers. Engineers frequently rush in to an exciting project without giving much consideration into how weird it will seem. It’s actually kinda cool! It’s part of what makes this wonderful technology we love so much happen. We’re just seeing it in an extremely large scale from a corporation. Is it weird? Yes! Is it something that needs to be kept in check? Of course! Does it make Google evil? …Not really?
Beck goes on to quote the “young people will be able to change their name” statement from Schmidt, which Schmidt appearing on the Colbert Report insists was a joke. Though, Glenn Beck thinks he’s totally serious. And you know, if he is, it’s horrifying. I mean, can you imagine what would happen if people were allowed to distance themselves from mistakes made as a child? Why it would be as awful as when youth imprisonment records are expunged upon turning 18! Which is what happens! Ahhhhh!
Perhaps my favorite point of all is when Glenn begins talking about how the “liberals” stood up against Microsoft during the Bush administration (ah, I see where you were going with tha-…no, wait. I still don’t get it), decrying them as a huge evil organization, and saying they were too powerful. But:
“If you begin to have questions on Google, will the press treat you as [someone standing up against a big evil company] or a conspiracy theorist?”
Um, Glenn? They’ll treat you as someone standing up against a big evil corporation.
All of us internet citizens come from various corners of the net. Our tendrils in most sites, but with only a few we call home. And yes, we have tendrils. If I have any corner of the internet I’ve called home, it’s been Gawker Media for the past couple years. I’m part of a vibrant commenting community, and I frequent many of the blogs owned by Gawker Media. Blogs that, I’ll note, can’t shut up about how awful Google is. No, seriously! You think Glenn is compiling all of this crap on his own? With the exception of the Van “MoveOn” Soros crap, most of the complaints about Google can be found on so called “liberal” media sites like the Huffington Post, Gawker, and the New York Times. Curiously, that last link’s URL reads “google-admits-to-snooping-on-personal-data”, while the headline was apparently at some point changed to “Google Says It Inadvertently Collected Personal Data”. A headline that is changed to make a not-terribly-sensational story sound not-terribly-sensational? More like liberal bias, am I right?!
To be perfectly honest, this entire piece is absurd, start to finish. The only parts I can’t outright refute are the connections to the various evil-sounding people Google is allegedly “connected to”, though that’s only because those aren’t areas I’m terribly knowledgeable in. The areas that I am informed on, it’s obvious that Glenn, when he’s not wildly misleading people, or issuing veiled denouncing cries of evil, is outright lying to his audience. How am I expected to take any connection to Van Jones seriously, when Glenn has a history of wildly misunderstanding net neutrality, and can’t even get the opening point, that Google “inserted itself into the Egypt story” right?
Here’s the thing. Everyone’s biased. That’s just a fact of life. But watching televised news feels more like getting my education from an inbred family of Alabaman hicks who’ve been parroting the same ideas to each other for years without any new perspectives or genetic material inserted into the ecosystem for a long time. Fun fact: we humans love companionship so much that we will cling to a sense of community, which is generated and nurtured by common ideas and beliefs, far easier than we will cling to truth. In short, when an organization reaches a homogeneous mixture of ideas, more people will choose to adopt the popularly-held beliefs to attain a sense of belonging than those that will challenge the established ideas for the sake of truth.
Which is why Fox News is the home of Glenn Beck.
That being said, Glenn? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Glenn Beck, Fox News? You guys stay the hell out of the tech world, and I’ll stay out of yours. Cool?
Most major rumors tend to have a broad spectrum of plausibility. Before the Nexus One came out, for example, one rumor said it would cost as much as $1,000. Another rumor said Google was going to buy Microsoft and force Steve Ballmer to personally build every single handset by hand and then give the devices away for free. Part of that last sentence is actually true. And typically the truth of the rumors fall somewhere in the middle. The same principle is true of the mythical Facebook phone.
Some rumors said Facebook was going to be building an entire operating system all on their own. This is likely largely due to Facebook’s extensive experience in writing low-level hardware control software that one typically encounters while designing a website. Ah, who doesn’t remember writing their first WiFi controller in Web Design 101. Of course other rumors, started by highly questionable sources stated that there would be no Facebook phone at all.
As usual, the rumors of the Facebook phone fell somewhere between “We’re not building anything” and “We’re building everything.” And TechCrunch got to watch some guy fiddle with it. You know what it’s got? Widgets! You know…like on your Android app! Or integrated Facebook contacts! Like in Android!
“Well, that’s all well and good for folks who are on Android, OC, but maybe this is targeted to people who want that kind of Facebook experience, but don’t want an Android phone? Maybe this phone is for them? Did you think about that?”
A valid question! And yes I did! Answer: tough cookies! This is an Android phone! This is merely a Facebook skin, much like HTC’s Sense or Motorola’s Motoblur. Actually. No. Wait. It’s exactly like Motorola’s Motoblur.
I think my favorite part of this walkthrough is when the guy shows off Facebook chat (and I quote): “which you might not have had before.” Facebook chat, of course, being a part of the standard Facebook app on Android. Though, admittedly, I can’t speak for our overseas friends, whom this Facebook phone will be targeting first. Maybe they just don’t have Facebook chat in Europe, who knows?
Curiously, one of the biggest tech news stories of the day is not that Kyocera, the company that can’t make your printer right built a dual-screen phone. No, the big story is apparently that Gizmodo changed their site. It has made headlines. It has made commenters angry. It has set the twitterverse positively abuzz with fresh rants about how now this website looks different. Scandal!
Which is, perhaps, the most surprising aspect of it all. A redesign of a website has people talking. For my part, I’ve been around the internet for a good many years now, and I’ve seen more than my share of site redesigns. I’ve even performed a couple myself. Few ever rival the outcry of Facebook redesigns, although that is a special case. You can’t begrudge a group of 500 million users a little unbridled rage when they wake up and their time-sensitive Farmville crops are now located under a differently-labeled button. What is an internet netizen to do?!
Yet this redesign has sparked feedback and criticism on the Inquisitr, Reddit, heck even the venerable friend of Gizmodo Adam Savage. Shots are being fired at Gawker Media and their platform-wide redesign from all directions. And the effects are certainly farther reaching than a mere gadget blog. While Gizmodo is certainly one of their more popular sites, joining the ranks of Deadspin, their sports site and Gawker proper, that’s by no means the end of Gawker Media’s reach. Jezebel for women’s gossip and news, Kotaku for the video game circles, even Lifehacker for the productivity-minded folks who would as soon read Business Insider as they would Psychology Today or Instructables. This is no niche corner of the net, folks. While it may not be huge in every circle, this redesign is being talked about by a wide variety of demographics all over the internet.
And that’s half the point.
Unfortunately for Gawker Media, that’s not all of it. There’s still the little matter of page views. And unfortunately, on opening day, page views have taken a major hit. This could be because of the redesign, but it could also be because, for half the day, most sites were barely functioning. Yet it’s all anyone can talk about.
This redesign was heralded as an entirely new way of thinking. A radical new approach that borrows from a variety of sources, combining them together in one slick, innovative package that polarizes its intended audience and, ultimately, attempts to do nothing less than change the course of the industry’s future.
You could take that description and apply it neatly to most Apple products. One thing that is true of both this redesign and any review of a new Apple product is that the critics and the fans will be the loudest and most outspoken. Critics, usually, louder than most. And yet, that constant, very public, very loud debate is typically what drives a large portion of the growth of popular new products. Would Macs sell as well if there weren’t devoted fanboys willing to evangelize their platform as strongly as they do? Would the iPhone discourse be nearly as exciting if Android weren’t there to serve as the shadow of Microsoft, threatening the same fate for the iPhone as Macs suffered at the hands of Windows machines in the 90s? Is tedium ever as interesting as controversy?
If you’ve read any blog owned by Gawker Media for an even remotely lengthy period of time, you already know Nick Denton’s answer to that.
This new design reflects something more far-reaching than a mere site redesign. This is a gambit. A bet. To see if a blog can be changed into something more than a simple reverse-chronological list of articles. Or at least that’s how Nick Denton seems to see it. It’s not about reorganizing a site’s content. It’s about implementing a model for media distribution that will set the standard for the internet from here on out. The internet is still fairly new. Can Gawker Media be the potter’s hands that shapes the internet into the universal media platform it was destined to be? Or will it fall into darkness with all that is left of its dot-com-boom kin?
And for what it’s worth, this is no metaphor. Denton is literally betting on this design. You know, in addition to the whole gambling the future of his entire media company.
I suppose the real question is, do the various Gawker Media blogs have enough loyal fans that they’ll be able to generate the kind of support needed to sustain them through a heavy transition like this? Or is this kind of move too bold for an established media company like Gawker to pull off?
Also, this article isn’t nearly as funny as the nature of this site demands it be. So to make it up to you, here’s a video of some dude doing an Elmo voice at a Taco Bell drive thru:
I do not know who David Dalka is. But he is a man who is mighty peeved at Facebook, and indeed, the internet at large, for moving around pixels! In general, I find TechCrunch to have the second-most inflammatory, inane, hogwash writing, worthy of the unsavory glare of my autistic disdain. This piece, on internet updates, is simply unprecedented in the gloriousness of it’s crap. A thorough review, if you please:
The piece begins with a reminder that not so long ago, the internet was outraged-furious I daresay!-when Facebook introduced a slightly smaller default font-size. I remember where I was that day. The day the internet turned red with anger, and the wrath of the internet community was felt such that it had not been felt since 4chan committed its first DDoS. The death toll was in the hundreds of thousands.
But what our dear friend Mr. Dalka has courageously pointed out is that this font size change was not merely made to instill bloodlust in every living soul to ever walk the earth. No, the objective is something much more sinister and evil: ads.
Yes. Ads. You know them, right? They’re those things that allow the internet to run for free? And, while yes, some sites are rather intrusive with them (the Yahoo! home page, anything from a major cable network, Gizmodo), most major sites prefer to have at least a little class with them. Until recently, Facebook was one of those classy individuals that opted for small, text-based ads with a small image, practically a thumbnail, above them.
Here’s the insidious part of the plan: Facebook used a smaller font size to get users used to a small middle column so they could place small, text-based ads with a small image, practically a thumbnail next to them!
That’s right, dear readers. Facebook’s ads have now gotten slightly wider, and slightly shorter! If you are not already heading towards your gun cabinet, you may turn in your Internet Citizen card this moment. Mr. Dalka sums up the situation far better than I ever could have:
Do they actually disrespect your personal space that much? Is this how little (pun totally intended) Facebook thinks of you, their userbase? Unfortunately, the answer seems to be yes.
Now, while many of you may be ready to leave a nasty, profanity-filled comment on Mr. Dalka’s article solely for that pun (and you’d be well within your rights), I want you to look past it and see his larger point:
This conversation is about much, much more than Facebook….Only you have the power to end this cycle of abuse by social networks and it is time for the web community to stand up and shout that they are sick and tired of constant terms of service changes, privacy changes, steps backward in usability that degrade our mutual experience, comfort level with the sites we use and our enjoyment of the web.
This is the core of his argument. As you are well aware, it is in the Internet Citizen’s bill of rights to constantly enjoy every single site you ever use. It is also expected that every site be made perfect before release. Features may not be added, nor accommodated for. And perhaps most importantly, your personal preferences should always dictate the design of a site viewed by 500 million users. You can see a prime example of this last right demonstrated by Dalka here:
Amazingly, the new ad sizes have been mentioned favorably in certain circles.
Do you see what he did there? There is someone on the internet who sees how adding a couple more, mildly intrusive ads, while still managing to maintain almost exactly the same user experience, can be a good thing both for users and for Facebook. Facebook, in case you forgot, is that company that’s providing an always-on service to 500 million active users completely free of charge. However, none of that matters. Mr. Dalka has invoked the IC’s Bill of Rights to establish that none other than his own opinion is right. Not much more we can do from here.
The pinnacle of this righteous fight came here:
The same is true of social networking sites. This is typically not seen as a problem by individuals. It also goes unnoticed by most traditional brand marketers as they are used to expiring, non-measurable media in the pre-Internet era of marketing and often not held accountable by senior management. Once fully understood by senior business executives, the microeconomics of marketing channels has emerging implications for enterprise business strategy, marketing budget resource allocation and eventual redefinition of the skill sets required to lead businesses into the future successfully.
…….I need to be honest. I-…I have no idea what the hell any of that means. Frankly, I don’t have the mind for translating corporate bullshit into lay speak. But it seems that the jist of what he’s saying is that startup internet companies need to be required to have a clear idea of how they’re going to make money before folks invest in them. So that….folks like Dalka don’t have to ever have changes on their websites? Hell if I know. You know how in the new Indiana Jones movie, there’s that one crazy old guy and while, yeah, he’s probably brilliant, no one really understands anything he’s saying? No? You didn’t watch the fourth Indy? Ah, well. You’re not missing much.
In any case, Mr. Dalka? You’re a moron. Sites change. For that matter, so do mobile apps, desktop apps, heck, pretty much any piece of software changes. You learn, you adapt. You grow with the tech. That’s the way it’s worked since the first PC, that’s the way it’s going to continue to work. And no. Startups can’t know exactly what they’re doing before they decide how to monetize things. The internet is growing and changing at such a rapid pace, even the “visionaries” who are paving the way have no idea what they’re doing. And that’s how tech works.
In the immortal words of Jessi Eisenberg: “We don’t know what it can be, we don’t know what it will be. We know that it is cool.” Such is the way of the internet.
Get used to it.
Remember when the first iPhone came out? And you couldn’t do anything on it but mess with the browser or calculator? And then the App Store came out and suddenly the iPhone was worth having? Well, that’s basically what Macs have been like this whole time. Without an App Store of their own, they’re pretty much worthless. But, starting January 6th, no more!
Nevermind that you could always install third-party software. Nevermind that Macs actually have one of the cleanest, simplest install methods around. No. We need an App Store! Developers have been clamoring for hundreds of years that they have been completely incapable of distributing their apps in any meaningful way without an App Store. A couple decades ago, Apple launched their platform “the internet” (along with other such innovations as USB, computers, and electrons). This was a pretty good start. But ultimately, it’s only now, with the coming advent of the Mac App Store, finally developers have the ability to let people download software they have written.
The future, ladies and gentlemen!
So, in case you hadn’t heard, Gawker Media sucks at security. Over the weekend, they pretty much screwed up everything, including leaking their commenters, editors, and admins usernames (which include emails) and passwords, insinuating their commenters are peasants, and generally putting me in a cranky mood.
Yet, today, I get the email pictured above. It’s a security notification from Hulu, letting me know that I need to reset my password after the breach. Ah, well, that’s all well and-wait, Hulu?!
Yes, Hulu just wanted to let me know that I use the same email on both sites, and since I might use the same password on both, I should probably change it. In fact, not only should I probably change it, I have to change it. My old password is now disabled. Proactively!
I’m no expert in managing multi-million dollar web-based content delivery systems. However, I’m sure that someone at the table where the decision was made to compare The List of emails and passwords leaked to their own internal user database stood up and said “Um, hey, you know, maybe we shouldn’t do this?” I’m equally certain this person was ignored. Then shot. Then ignored some more.
I’m not sure how many other companies are doing this. I’m not sure why they’re doing this. But, for my part, I’m not particularly fond of the idea of a company using leaked data from a security breach to “proactively” aid their customers. I can handle it quite alright on my own, thank you. My password was not the same on these two sites. And hey, if yours was? Maybe some script kiddie getting access to your account will be the push you need to engage in better security practices. Especially if you’re one of these geniuses.
But hey, I suppose this isn’t really that big of a deal, right? I mean, they’re using the data proactively! Pro! It’s not like they’re doing something like accidentally collecting random bits of data devoid of context, never looking at the data, and actively working with government agencies to clean up the victimless mess while never doing anything with the data at all. That’s just evil.