Results 1 to 4 of 4
Thanks Tree3Thanks
  • 1 Post By Macduff
  • 1 Post By johnflesh
  • 1 Post By Macduff

Thread: George Gilder Says Facebook (And Google) Central Control Model Is Doomed

  1. #1
    Penny for your thots Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    88,192
    Thanks
    24683

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA

    George Gilder Says Facebook (And Google) Central Control Model Is Doomed

    The timing could not be better. The same week that Facebook stock prices went into full meltdown (the largest one day loss in market history (though that headline is a little bit of hype - percent decline is the real thing to look at)), was also the same week that George Gilder's new book, Life After Google (henceforth LAG), was published.
    The book is a critique of the centralist model which applies to Facebook as well as Google (though Google is the prime mover). Facebook canít seem to recover from its security issues, and as LAG pointed out, itís an endemic and structural problem. The Googles and the Facebooks centralize data analysis -- that's their model: centralized collection of information about us which then can be put through 'big data' analytics. It's an economy of scale play. But with central data, you now have neatly gathered all that valuable information together right where hackers already know to look. So, hackers and manipulators hack and manipulate, then Facebook has to hire an army of coders/censors to spot fake news and look for a Russian under every bed. Costs money.
    All of this is following the Gilder forecast like actors following a script. The centralized model of which Google is the Prime Mover, but Facebook is a fellow demiurge, is doomed. This is not a tweakable situation. The whole model of the world - central accumulation of data, users as product not customer (which I wrote about here last April).


    What I said then (partly inspired by my reading of Gilder's early drafts) was,
    "Let's face the fact that a big part of Facebook's problem is its business model. As Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, pointed out: Facebookís users are not really its customers; they're its product. Now, of course, that's true of almost any media company, or at least any media company that lives by advertising. When you watch television, you are not the customer, you are the product. The advertisers are the true customers, and the media company is selling soap sellers access to your eyeballs. Okay, we're all used to that already. Social media like Facebook is different, though. Unlike TV, whenever you're watching social media, social media is watching you. And it sells what it sees to its real clients, its advertisers, which includes political campaigns. But people don't like to have their eyeballs and their personal information sold. There was bound to be some kind of collision."
    The collision I spoke of is a slow-motion collision, the bumper hit the wall when the hacking scandal broke, but only now are the shock waves beginning to show up in an engine which has been bent enough to diminish the drive shaft. It might take ten years for all of this to be felt.
    Now all of this might be wrong, or it all might be ten years ahead of us. My point as an investor is that with a PE of mid-30s before the call, the risk was just not worth taking. Sure, if FaceTwittGoog world was the inevitable future of mankind, huge data farms with AI hacking us and selling its download of our precious preferences to vendors, then it might have been necessary to pay 36 years' worth of earnings to own a share. But with inevitability very much in doubt and revenues flat and angry governments and the cost of security rising, investors start to turn their minds away from newfangled New Media valuation metrics (like revenue growth) and back towards fundamental things like earnings and price, and even to old-fangled things like leadership and character. And when that happens, the spell is over. Life After Google is the spell-breaker. The free-because-you-are-the-product-not-the-customer model, which allowed huge aggregations of market share (because what is apparently free is highly in demand), is being shown as not free at all (unless you value your time, attention, peace of mind, and privacy).
    https://finance.townhall.com/columni...oomed-n2506140

    We all should start reading up on blockchain because that looks like the next business model for the internet.
    Thanks from johnflesh

  2. #2
    Shitposting Rank 4 Missle Command Champion johnflesh's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    21,733
    Thanks
    12040

    From
    Colorado
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain

    For those not familiar with a blockchain, read up. It's a bunch of nerdy crap developed by people who see the flaws and gaping security holes in our current systems and methods. You see, we decided to develop technology based on 2 factors: "it's cool," and "it'll sell." We didn't stop and think that "it's not secure." So now, after billions and billions of dollars are lost each year to glitches, hackers, inside theft, etc - people decided to start doing something about it.

    Instead of explaining what a blockchain is, why we need it could also be explained in the same sense:

    Let's use online transactions as an example.

    Currently if I make a transaction it's likely using 1 of 2 methods (direct pay or tokenized) - both using centralized computing. When I connect to acme.com and purchase a new widget - the order, my funds and information used to obtain those funds and all my private information required are sent to a single database, with possibly a backup. Here the company can complete sales, pull reports, monitor employees, monitor sales, and conduct customer service. These records are accessed any time anyone needs anything from them. That goes for hackers too. Under this system hackers only need to find the access to the single database. If acme.com is not up to speed on securing their database, or even if they did apply some - it's likely acme.com would not be able to thwart a hacker or attack of their system.

    And under that system, even a hacker is not the only threat. Employees are just as much a risk of exposing or misusing private information as a hacker. This fact alone has been a party to the PCI and HIPAA policy which does govern employees and their actions, in part.

    With blockchain all information is created multiple times across a decentralized network. Information on the database is actually on multiple databases (if-you-will). If information is going to be deleted, changed or altered in any way - it must pass checks and balances within the blockchain network under a consensus of humans, autonomous and established peer-to-peer rules. This authentication, mass-collaboration rule usually results quicker, safer and cheaper transaction methods.

    My example was a transaction - however this can be applied to any information you wish to not only secure, but share securely.

    Blockchain has received a lot of 'bad press' among some techno-geeks but there is this sort of political/purist battle raging among the old guard and the new guard. The new guard always wins - it's just lucky they have security at the forefront - over "cool" and "neat" technology that has gotten us into a lot of trouble as a species.
    Thanks from Macduff

  3. #3
    Penny for your thots Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    88,192
    Thanks
    24683

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by johnflesh View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain

    For those not familiar with a blockchain, read up. It's a bunch of nerdy crap developed by people who see the flaws and gaping security holes in our current systems and methods. You see, we decided to develop technology based on 2 factors: "it's cool," and "it'll sell." We didn't stop and think that "it's not secure." So now, after billions and billions of dollars are lost each year to glitches, hackers, inside theft, etc - people decided to start doing something about it.

    Instead of explaining what a blockchain is, why we need it could also be explained in the same sense:

    Let's use online transactions as an example.

    Currently if I make a transaction it's likely using 1 of 2 methods (direct pay or tokenized) - both using centralized computing. When I connect to acme.com and purchase a new widget - the order, my funds and information used to obtain those funds and all my private information required are sent to a single database, with possibly a backup. Here the company can complete sales, pull reports, monitor employees, monitor sales, and conduct customer service. These records are accessed any time anyone needs anything from them. That goes for hackers too. Under this system hackers only need to find the access to the single database. If acme.com is not up to speed on securing their database, or even if they did apply some - it's likely acme.com would not be able to thwart a hacker or attack of their system.

    And under that system, even a hacker is not the only threat. Employees are just as much a risk of exposing or misusing private information as a hacker. This fact alone has been a party to the PCI and HIPAA policy which does govern employees and their actions, in part.

    With blockchain all information is created multiple times across a decentralized network. Information on the database is actually on multiple databases (if-you-will). If information is going to be deleted, changed or altered in any way - it must pass checks and balances within the blockchain network under a consensus of humans, autonomous and established peer-to-peer rules. This authentication, mass-collaboration rule usually results quicker, safer and cheaper transaction methods.

    My example was a transaction - however this can be applied to any information you wish to not only secure, but share securely.

    Blockchain has received a lot of 'bad press' among some techno-geeks but there is this sort of political/purist battle raging among the old guard and the new guard. The new guard always wins - it's just lucky they have security at the forefront - over "cool" and "neat" technology that has gotten us into a lot of trouble as a species.
    I think the idea of decentralizing the internet is pretty exciting. I was watching a documentary about the Silk Road network and their use of TOR servers. Now I'm not interested in buying drugs online. But it would be nice to buy something online and not get bombarded by ads for the thing I just bought. Or to have social networks not controlled by a big corporation.
    Thanks from johnflesh

  4. #4
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    22,209
    Thanks
    3447

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Yes, some of these platforms are being developed to replace Facebook, twitter and all using blockchain tech... this precludes high level censorship.

    The closest is that people who are abusive of the systems are eventually downvoted to where they will only appear to subscribers.

    Oddly; gab.ai a replacement for Twitter was banned from android and apple app stores because they put it on the user to block people they find offensive.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 7th November 2017, 07:45 AM
  2. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 2nd September 2017, 03:52 PM
  3. Google/FaceBook To Remove Fake News Sites
    By HayJenn in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15th November 2016, 11:44 AM
  4. facebook, Twitter, Google could be shut off in Russia
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27th September 2014, 12:40 PM
  5. Google to Compete with Facebook - Google+
    By johnflesh in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 30th August 2011, 12:37 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed