Stratechery on privacy fundamentalism
It is disappointing, though, that the maker of one of the most important and the most unavoidable browser technologies in the world (WebKit is the only option on iOS) has decided that an absolutist approach that will ultimately improve the competitive position of massive first party advertisers like Google and Facebook, even as it harms smaller sites that rely on 3rd-party providers for not just ads but all aspects of their business, is what is best for everyone.
In a world full of binary takes on privacy – which, to be, I’ve been guilty of – Thompson has provided a thoughtful counterpoint.
It feels counterintuitive that any more to improve people’s privacy online would help the likes of Facebook and Google. After all, they’re chief among the organisations people want to escape.
But it is a feeling and not more than that, a feeling based on what’re ultimately surface-level understandings of how the internet and all its myriad forces operate.
Privacy is just one element of the web’s power dynamics. A sizeable one, sure. But if we really want to limit the influence places like Google and Facebook have over our life, we have to be careful about how we start picking their powers apart.
The Cook Doctrine comes for your iPhone battery
Craig Lloyd for iFixit:
Apple is locking batteries to their iPhones at the factory, so whenever you replace the battery yourself—even if you’re using a genuine Apple battery from another iPhone—it will still give you the “Service” message. The only way around this is—you guessed it—paying Apple money to replace your iPhone battery for you.
Apple have been lauded for the Cook Doctrine: “We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products that we make.” It’s part of how they make high quality tech.
The desire to control what batteries go into your iPhone (and who gets to put them there) is a natural extension of that. It’s even rational, in a way.
But “rational” doesn’t always mean “good”.
This change is an overreach. Your phone is your phone once you’ve bought it. Even if a third-party battery installed by a bad vendor can damage your phone, that’s your mistake to make.
I do wonder, however, if this change was driven by philosophy or by perceived consumer need. How many complaints at Apple Stores are driven by mediocre repairs from random stores? Is there a number that would make this move seem okay?
Probably not. It’s not a good look. But it’s not a surprising one either.
Your wearable might be prejudiced
Ruth Hailu for Stat News:
Fitbits, Samsung watches, and several other brands rely on only green lights. These lights are simpler and cheaper to use than infrared lights.
In short: Skin with more melanin blocks green light, making it harder to get an accurate reading. The darker your skin is, the harder it gets.
Researchers, health insurance providers, employers and more all use these trackers for a variety of purposes – some trivial, many not. This is a perfect example of all the bias that sneak into things like health and tech. That’s not to say it’s intentional but they’re there all the same.
As for the Apple Watch:
Apple, meanwhile, explained that while its devices rely on green light for continuous monitoring, the device also takes a reading with an infrared light roughly every five minutes.
Craigslists' founder is committed to helping the newspaper industry
Jessica Dolcount for CNET:
Newmark’s dedication to journalism is another one of his seeming contradictions. He’s credited by some with single-handedly taking down the newspaper classifieds industry and strangling local papers of revenue. In February, he gave $15 million to projects that support journalism ethics at a time of deep political divide over where and how we get our information, and how trustworthy those sources may be. Newmark never uttered the term “fake news,” but he wants to fight it.
Great profile of an interesting guy.
How a trade dispute in Asia could affect Apple
Virginia Harrison for the BBC:
In July, Tokyo imposed export controls targeting South Korea’s key electronics sector.
The export curbs apply to three high-tech materials: fluorinated polyimide, photoresists and hydrogen fluoride.
Japan is the dominant producer of those materials which are vital to make memory chips and display screens.
[DBS economist Ma Tieying] says supply disruptions could hit Apple, Huawei and Sony among others in the production of smartphones, computers and televisions.
Comprehensive – and readable – explanation of how a trade biff between Japan and South Korea that has roots in a conflict dating back to 1910 could affect Apple and other tech giants. Economic integration has a lot going for it but it can’t always paper over historical grievances and pride.
Or maybe trade spats are just in vogue now.
Jeremy Renner has an official app (and a song)
Danny Heifetz, doing the lord’s work for The Ringer:
Whether these accounts belong to devoted fans or app administrators creating an echo chamber of Renner love is unclear. If it is the latter, they have succeeded. If it’s the former, I have joined a cult devoted to the poor man’s Mark Wahlberg. But while people on social media make fun of Renner for his pivot to music, the good people of the Jeremy Renner app will see him as I do: just a guy doing his best.
The app is worth downloading for the icon alone.
The problems facing tech journalism
Brian Merchant on the trend of tech companies briefing journalists “on background” for Columbia Journalism Review:
This is a toxic arrangement. The tactic shields tech companies from accountability. It allows giants like Amazon and Tesla an opportunity to transmit their preferred message, free of risk, in the voice of a given publication. It leaves no trace of policy that might later be criticized—that could form part of the public record to be scrutinized by regulators, lawyers, or investors. If the company later reverses course or modifies its position, the egg is on the reporter’s face, not the company’s.
This is a big deal. Companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple are too big – and affect our lives in too many ways – to skirt responsibility for their actions like this.
Merchant goes on to share two recent examples from his work that spell out the problem. He also explains how a lot of this started with Apple – and how the enthusiast press helps sustain the process:
Silicon Valley wasn’t always so hostile to reporters. It used to be relatively open. Apple, probably more than any other company, snapped it closed. In my book about the history of the iPhone, The One Device, I dedicate a chapter to the company’s marketing prowess. Keeping the press at arm’s length was a key part of its strategy.
This controlled access strategy was in force when Apple released the iPod, iPhone, and iPad, and rose to become the most powerful consumer technology company on the planet. It created such a booming demand for this scarce information that a cottage knowledge industry sprang up, with reporters and bloggers competing to break news about items like product update announcements and leaked supply chain specs. Apple learned that it wouldn’t have to open its doors to critics to get its message out—most of the blogging was done by superfans, after all, and Silicon Valley was still enjoying a halo of public goodwill.
Journalists can only do their best work – the investigations and reporting that hold powerful people to account – if they have a certain amount of power themselves. Without it, they have fewer resources to get information from organisations that would rather not share.
There was a time when journalists were a necessary, or at least important, part in shaping one’s image. Companies could benefit from a reputable paper.
Now that superfans have audiences that rival traditional outlets, especially with niche (and thus valuable) audiences, the latter are less important. And those bloggers don’t always share professional journalists' allegiance to a code of conduct.
There are some astonishingly good journos in the enthusiast press, of course. And there are a lot of layers to the problem. Rapid news cycles, an economy that elevates primacy over all else, and a general lack of resources that’s affected most outlets (even the some of the biggest and best) have played their role.
It all coalesces into a difficult reality: journalists need tech companies more than tech companies need journalists. For day-to-day reporting – which is often the foundation of major, groundbreaking investigations – that’s a problem.
Everyone owns your face
Brad Esposito, writing about FaceApp and the hubbub about it being owned by a Russian company, for Pedestrian:
The reality is this: if you’re online in 2019 it’s highly likely that you don’t own the exclusive rights to your own face. That’s scary to think about – and definitely not good – but it is also the result of millions of people endlessly agreeing to a deal with a conglomerate mass of company’s they mistakenly trusted.
As for concerns that FaceApp is a particular worry because it’s Russian, well, it’s not like American companies are representing themselves well:
Yahoo, an American company, was the victim of one of the biggest data breaches in history when billions of user accounts were impacted. Facebook, an American company, went through its own security issues in September, when almost 50 million user accounts were impacted. Recently, Facebook received a $5 billion fine that actually increased Zuckerberg’s net worth by $1 billion. It’s almost like the national origin of these companies has nothing to do with the actual globalised issue.
If nothing else, at least we don’t rely on FaceApp for our day-to-day socialisation and communication. That’s a plus.
Flight Control was one of the reasons I got an iPhone
Flight Control was one of the reasons I got an iPhone.
Getting an expensive phone I could barely afford because of a $1 app didn’t make a lot of sense then and it doesn’t now. I was a broke student and the money – both the monthly payments on my phone plane and the $1 for the app – could’ve been better spent elsewhere.
But the iPhone was cool and Flight Control was compelling. So I got the phone. And Flight Control was my first app.
You can’t download it on iOS anymore, though.
On a finger and a prayer
Flight Control had a lot going for it.
Elegant touch controls were novel enough to make the idea of directing tiny planes with your fingers seem enticing. The music was infectious and eminently hummable.
The game itself was simple: you direct an every increasing number of planes and helicopters runways across a variety of maps. There was a calm field, an aircraft carrier, runways in the Australian desert.
The more planes you land, the faster they come at you until, finally, they collide mid-air and the game ends. It provided just the right combination of ease and stress to make each round easy to fall into.
But a great game needs more than just a lovely premise.
Please enjoy this tasty sandwich
Mobile games can live or die on personality. Flight Control had personality. It was bright and charming and quietly funny.
Each map had its own flair. Every time you landed an aircraft, a bit of encouragement popped on screen, themed for the location.
You’d get a “jolly good” or “smashing” in the calm – now English – field, an “onya mate” in Australia, an “aloha” in Hawaii. It’s a small thing but, when you’re landing planes, small things matter.
But it was the score cards that won me over. They appeared at the end of a game, recapping your score and inviting you to enjoy, among other things, a “refreshing beverage.”
It tickled me in a way few other games do. I have no idea why. I still think about these invitations occasionally – they’re part of my private mind motions.
I’ll get a drink and say to myself “Please enjoy this refreshing beverage.” I’ll make lunch and invite myself to “please enjoy this tasty sandwich.”
Perfect landing
Flight Control was many things. It was an early hit for the iPhone. It was a perfect mix of charm, style and compulsion.
It did make it’s way to the Mac or PC – where it’s still available for download – but Flight Control was the kind of game that could’ve only really taken off on the iPhone. It was perfect for the platform.
iOS remains one of my favourite places for games. There are so many interesting, thoughtful and creative things happening here. The same can be said for any platform for games, of course, but something about iOS appeals to me more than just about anything.
It could be that I always have my phone, it could be the quick bursts of play between bus stops, it could be the fierce competition for attention that leads developers to get a little bit weird.
It could be a lot of things. But I know it all started with Flight Control.
How to regulate the internet
Karen Kornbluh and Ellen P. Goodman for Project Syndicate:
The Digital Democracy Agency would limit the vulnerabilities of the digital system without interfering in content decisions – in the same way that radio, television, cable, and telecommunications providers became more publicly accountable as they developed. Self-regulation played an important role, including through journalism’s own transparency norms. But government regulation – such as common-carrier rules for telecommunications companies, political ad disclosures, restrictions on cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast outlets in the same market, and support for non-commercial broadcasting – was essential to prevent abuse.
While the internet is unprecedented the problems facing it – or at least parts of it – aren’t new. We’ve dealt with them in different forms.
The internet is going to be regulated. Now’s the time to reflect and learn from the past to make sure we do it in a way that preserves, and even improves, the things that make it great.
Microsoft champions progressive values while donating to Republicans
In the dissonance between his words and actions, Mr. Smith resembles another tweeter-in-chief who likes to create an alternate reality on social media.
In that mirror world, Microsoft is a champion of refugees, immigrants, women’s rights, climate science, diversity and inclusion in the workplace, equality for LGBT people, and election security. But the company’s political donations tell a conflicting story.
Most major companies donate to both sides of politics. That’s a given. And for a long time it wasn’t really a problem: companies didn’t pronounce political opinions so most people didn’t care about where they sent their money.
Now outfits like Microsoft (among countless others) have realised that being outwardly progressive is a great branding exercise (especially when you’re chasing younger audiences) but the machinations of donations haven’t caught up to the rhetoric.
And they won’t. They’re too valuable. So they’re just going to hope people don’t pay attention so no-one notices how disingenuous they are.
That is, assuming anyone really cares.
At what point will people decide that a company’s behaviour is so off-base with their personal beliefs that they’ll stop knowingly using their products? (It’s almost impossible to stop using them completely.)
There’s no one answer for that. But it’s something to sit with.
The App Store's search is a disappointment
The App Store’s search needs some love. Right now, it favours people acting in bad faith who can game the algorithm over people making quality apps.
Here’s a recent example.
I download Super Hexagon every time I board a plane. I have no idea why I just don’t keep installed all the time.
I search for it by name because I’m a reasonable man with reasonable expectations about how search works.
Super Hexagon isn’t the first result. Infinite Hexagon – Super Helix is, presumably because it’s infinite and has an added helix. Based on the screenshots (and the name), this game is a total and unquestionable rip-off of Super Hexagon.
The original isn’t even on the screen unless you scroll. It’s app page is bumped below the fold by a story about Super Hexagon lavishing praise on its gameplay and verve.
Is an editorial more valuable to an app than first place in search results? How about when that editorial means you can’t even see the app in said search results without some scrolling?
So. Super Hexagon is such a good game that it deserved an editorial in the App Store. Yet the App Store’s search is so lacking that Super Hexagon doesn’t get top billing in search results when you go looking for it by name, delivering, instead, a rip-off.
Search functionality is hard to build well. And no system will provide perfect results all the time.
But if the goal is to deliver value to customers by surfacing great apps made by talented developers then, in this case at least, the App Store is failing.
Netflix isn't a storytelling company
Jessica Toonkel, Tom Dotan and Beejoli Shah for The Information:
[Netflix] now routinely ends shows after their second season, even when they’re still popular. Netflix has learned that the first two seasons of a show are key to bringing in subscribers – but the third and later seasons don’t do much to retain or win new subscribers.
Despite any PR work to the contrary, Netflix is a subscription machine – not a storytelling company. The latter is just a means to an end, no matter how attached people get to the shows they produce.
It diminishes the artistry but it won’t stop people from producing great work. Creators will make some amazing shows if they go into them expecting a two-season arc. And there will still be people making eight-season epics. They just mightn’t be available on Netflix.
But there’s still reason to be cynical:
Ending a season after the second season saves money, because showrunners who oversee production tend to negotiate a boost in pay after two years.
Convenient.
Jony Ive and the Apple Watch compromise
Much is being said about Jony Ive leaving Apple, from the Wall Street Journal’s reporting to Tim Cook’s “scathing” rebuke. Odds are we’ll never know much of substance.
Any reporting on relationships is, by nature, interpretive – especially if the people involved aren’t talking. How well can you understand your own relationships let alone those of others?
Thomas Ricker, writing for The Verge, highlighted a tiff that’s believable, however:
Ive disagreed with “some Apple leaders” on how to position the Apple Watch. Ive pushed for the Apple Watch to be sold as a fashion accessory, not as an extension of the iPhone. The product that went on sale was a compromise.
The Apple Watch is one of the most interesting products Apple has released in a while. It felt like the compromise it allegedly was.
Apple figured out the Watch – or people figured it out for them, gravitating to its potential as a fitness tracker. And now it’s freeing itself from the iPhone.
Given the path the Watch has taken, it looks like both sides of the debate (if there was one) were wrong. The Watch, at its best, isn’t an extension of the iPhone – even if it had to start life as one – and it’s not quite a fashion accessory.
That lofty status fell to the AirPods.
Funny how a device that knows what it needs to be – and does it well – can become chic. Especially when their looks didn’t exactly endear themselves to people at first.
9 million people play Candy Crush for 3+ hours a day, but there are no but there's no 'addiction problem'
Alan Dale, a senior executive at King, put on a masterclass in disingenuousness while talking to a British Parliament Commons select committee looking into addictive technology.
[Dale] told MPs he did not believe that there was an addiction problem among Candy Crush Saga players.
That’s the kicker.
Dale told the committee that of the 270 million players, 3.4% (9.2 million) play for three or more hours a day, while 0.16% (432,000) play for six or more.
He went on to say that the average player plays Candy Crush for 38 minutes.
“It is a very, very small number who spend or play at high levels. When we speak with them they say they are happy with what they are doing.”
It’s a misnomer to suggest – or even imply – that people with addictions are unhappy. You can be happy and be addicted to something.
That doesn’t mean the addiction isn’t a problem. You’re just not at the stage where you’re aware it’s a problem yet.
None of that is to say that someone playing Candy Crush for hours on end is addicted to the game. Addiction is complex and difficult to diagnose.
But confidently saying your game doesn’t have an addiction problem while relying on people self-reporting that they’re happy is disingenuous to the point of parody.
Dale said an email used to be sent out to players who spent $250 in a week for the first time but that gamers would respond that they would not play if they could not afford it and felt the communications intrusive…
“We will look at the whole area again but we have done it before and they didn’t like it,” he said.
Good job.
When complaints about censorship are about protecting the status quo
Whenever I hear someone talk about the importance of political neutrality online, part of me assumes they’re talking about maintaining the status quo.
Many complaints about online censorship come from conservatives. Pauline Hanson here in Australia is a perfect example – she fluctuates from calling on Parliament to vote on whether or not “it’s okay to be white” to complaining that both she and her party are criticised more harshly than others when negative attention turns their way.
Some people will inevitably raise valid issues. But they also feel disingenuous – especially when you consider that, in most Western countries, conservatives are in power (often comfortably so).
A lot has changed to get us here, but one thing feels important:
Progressives have won the day when it comes to social politeness, while the right have shifted further from the centre in policy and rhetoric.
The right have built a new sense of what’s “okay” to say at a time more people are more prepared to reject that.
Basically, conservatives get to think themselves victims while also being in power.
Best of both worlds.
Media organisations liable for Facebook comments
An Australian judge has ruled that three media organisations “could be considered publishers” of comments made on their Facebook pages and are “therefore liable for them”. Now, they’re open to defamation cases.
Not Facebook, not the commenters themselves. The media companies running the Facebook pages.
I spent a year running social for the a division of the ABC, one of Australia’s biggest media outlet. The tools Facebook provides to moderate pages are woeful at scale. And they’ve spent years teaching people that engagement numbers are the only things that matter (especially as traffic numbers fell off a cliff).
Media outlets bought in – tragically so – and now those two things collided with the hostile world of social media. Someone had to pay. And media orgs have been caught holding the bag.
As I was leaving the ABC, managers were talking about the importance of building a “town square” on social. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have been selling that for years. The importance of discussion. Pity no media outlet has taken comments seriously enough to pull that off. Social media companies sure haven’t.
This case, should it rule against the media outlets, could have major ramifications for companies on Facebook. Moderation is a joke on the platform. Why would you risk it?
The internet's right to partiality
Jeff Kosseff, in interview with Adi Robertson:
Then we get to these early internet services like CompuServe and Prodigy in the early ‘90s. CompuServe is like the Wild West. It basically says, “We’re not going to moderate anything.” Prodigy says, “We’re going to have moderators, and we’re going to prohibit bad stuff from being online.” They’re both, not surprisingly, sued for defamation based on third-party content.
CompuServe’s lawsuit was dismissed because they didn’t moderate content. Prodigy’s wasn’t. Suddenly, moderating user-submitted work on your website is a bad thing.
That really is what triggered the proposal of Section 230. For Congress, the motivator for Section 230 was that it did not want platforms to be these neutral conduits, whatever that means. It wanted the platforms to moderate content.
And now that freedom to be partial is under threat, no matter how much of a red-herring the desire for “neutrality” turns out to be.
It’s a shame Kosseff and Robertson didn’t touch on algorithms in their interview. That’s where a platform’s claim to be distributor falls down and that’s where they need to rethink what it means to be partial. It’s one thing to have the right to remove content with impunity. It’s another to have the right to elevate and promote content.
It’ll be interesting to see how the likes of Facebook and Twitter respond to being challenged here. They don’t seem well equipped to manage a culture war.