Slashdot Mirror
Zuckerberg is Sitting on More Data About What People Want To Do Online Than Anyone Else in the World, Former Facebook Chief Security Officer Says (cnbc.com)
Former Facebook executive Alex Stamos explained how Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg is able to consistently make decisions that only make sense with the benefit of hindsight. From a report: "Mark Zuckerberg is sitting on more data about what people want to do online than anyone else in the world," said Stamos, who was speaking at the Washington Post's technology and policy conference on Wednesday evening. He cited the acquisitions of private messaging WhatsApp in 2014 for $19 billion, and photo-sharing service Instagram in 2012 for $1 billion, as examples of bets "that people think are insane but turn out to be prophetic because he knows the direction the world is going," Stamos said. Further reading: Facebook Used Its VPN App To Track Competitors, Documents Reveal.
I'll bet Google knows even a bit more about what EVERYONE wants to do online.
But I'd grant that Facebook is probably second in line.
Facebook does probably know more about how everyone REACTS to various things online...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Also, if you're buying companies at a point when they're already worth billions, that's not exactly being "prophetic".
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I bet there's a lot of people who would like him to take all that data he's sitting on and shove it ... you get the idea.
I think that those overlords would like to have everyone think that they know more about you than they really do. Even more so, they'd like their paying customers to think the same.
But yes, they do have access to lots of data on us all.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
What a crock. I was forced to use WhatsApp while I was working on a project a while back. We all knew it was connected to Facebook, didn't want anything connected with them on our phones, and tried to suggest an alternative (Signal was what we lobbied for at the time) but were told "Management has spoken". As soon as the contract ended, everyone I worked closely with on the project deleted it. As for Instagram: what a time sink that is. If that's where the world's going, we're all in it. Deep.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I think that those overlords would like to have everyone think that they know more about you than they really do.
I agree, what they have is a lot of raw data - and as we can all see by the ads we are served, a lot of bad assumptions about who we are. Algorithmically they probably do not know as much as many think they do.
But the potential is there, especially if they chose to target individuals for more careful analysis... that's what makes them more potentially dangerous I think, especially Facebook might have embarrassing content for almost any future political candidate (though I would also argue embarrassing information from the past has been devalued greatly and may not have much impact going forward).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Some were saying that paying billions for a messaging service and a photo thingy, which weren't making any money and had no real idea how to monetize their service, was insane. Others understood that the Zuck wasn't paying for the service, but for eyeballs. Not exactly a new concept, but (according to some) he overpaid, by quite a bit. You might say that the "prophetic" part is that Facebook understood that those services were worth a lot more to them than to themselves or to others. It's like buying Boardwalk when you already own Park Place in Monopoly, and you're ready to stick some hotels on those suckers.
FB could have easily duplicated the Instagram and WhatsApp services themselves, and current FB users would have flocked to them... but would they have been able to win over the non-faceBook customers? Especially with Instagram and WhatsApp already out there? There's still plenty of #deletefacebook-ers with a burning hatred for everything Zuckerberg owns, but still find it very hard to completely do away with WhatsApp.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Facebook knows how you want everyone to see you.
Google knows what you really desire.
The fact that these "genius" think they "know more about people than anyone else," is yet another mind game for the analytical thinkers among us. What does he know, exactly? Can he make reliable sociological predictions with this newfound power? Oh, that's right. No one can. So far they can't feed me ads that are interesting to me. It seems like if they knew who I was, they'd be able to assemble adds that spoke to my interests. There's a lot of unjustified bravado flowing around in Tech. I've been in tech for 22 years. I've seen a lot of unmitigated and unsubstantiated bravado from analytic types in tech in the past.
I don't use Facebook
I WON'T use Facebook
I always use an Ad Blocker and I do not allow cookies to be set.
Corporatism != Free Market
Zuck has an enormous number of data points on like, a billion people. So?
All that means is that he knows the same thing as everyone else does about everyone else.
They download porn and jack/jane off to it. They watch video compilations of people getting injured in embarrassing and (therefore hilarious) ways. They order pizza and dildoes and copies of the Complete Works of Steven King. They open a private or incognito-mode browser instance, and read about how to treat disgusting repulsive skin lesions and herpes outbreaks, then when they’re sure that they learned what they came to find out, they log off the computer, reformat all its disk drives or SSDs, then set it on fire, and hurl it, still blazing, over a cliff.
Then they’ll realize that Mothers Day was last week, and text apologies for missing it to their moms.
The information Facebook allegedly has in its possession is, i suspect, next to worthless, because we all already know all about it.
Every day on /. there seems to be some new outrage about Facebook. And every day I'm delighted that I don't have a Facebook account.
Why does the article fail to mention the duds of Zuckerberg's acquisitions? For every WhatsApp or Instagram there are Facebook's disaster bets like:
MailRank, Nextstop, Spool, ParaKey, Snaptu, FriendFeed, Octazen, Divvyshot, ShareGrove, Zenbe, Chai Labs, Hot Potato, Drop.io, Rel8tion, Beluga, RecRec, DayTum, Sofa, Push Pop, Friend.ly, Strobe, Gowalla, Caffeinatedmind, Tagtile, Glancee, Karma, Acrylic, Threadsy
Zuckerberg insight? More like a ton of expendable cash, no consequences for using it, and the increased statistical probability of hitting on a winner eventually.
With all the money he's got, tell him to get his lazy ass up and by a decent chair. Quit sitting on the data storage box.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
He used the benefit of his data trove to know this post was going to be made on Slashdot...
This article is just out to kiss Zuckerberg's ass. As a counterexample we have the Oculus acquisition, distinctly unprophetic. No, the world is not planning to do all its interpersonal interaction wearing head mounted displays. Reminds of of "Grand Architect Gates" where Gates was held up as somehow visionary, despite evidence to the contrary. Result: the Longhorn fiasco.
Zuckerberg is just a dickhead voyeur with PHP skills who won the lottery.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.