Like, Comment, Subscribe: How YouTube Conquered the World

I'm no longer feeling the warm fuzzies for Google. This book is primarily about YouTube. However, the use of algorithms instead of humans is scary. Algorithms seem good when looking retrospectively. However, for anything future looking, they are subject to manipulation. You get algorithms to respond to algorithms. Do we get to the state where computers are creating videos that are watched by computers and monetized by ads generated by other computers? 

This book is a fairly objective look at Youtube's rise and the many challenges it has faced. Creators often struggle when a simple algorithm change greatly curtails their viewership. Quality is not so important as engagement. Algorithms that pick the next video can easily lead people into echo chambers where their beliefs are amplified. Curtailing one person's hate speech curtails another person's legitimate conversation. To some there is not enough monitoring. To others there is too much. Even Kids Youtube can let not-good-for-kids content slip through. Even worse the "next video" feature can lead people down an endless trail of morass. YouTube as a platform has too much power to influence our thoughts. Yet, there is not anyone that really understands how this power is used. Even monetization is based on algorithms to show the maximum amount of advertisements that don't hurt viewership. It feels like we should keep away, rather than let it be consumed with regularity. 

Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus: How Growth Became the Enemy of Prosperity

This is a refreshing approach to the question of income inequality. The problem is not so much the people, but the system that we have that puts a high premium on growth and consolidation. The financial provides strong benefits to consolidation and carving off singular domains. Consumers like the convenience of dealing with a single entity, rather than with multiple different people. It is easier going through a central source (like and Amazon or Uber), even though this leads to a huge amount of control on inequality. In turn, these businesses can use their clout to further "regulate" smaller companies out of the market (often under the guise of protecting consumers.)

The book has a balanced approach that attempts to present things objectively, identifying why like a system that seems less than ideal and why some of the "solutions" do not seem to fully work. Supporting local business and people that we interact with regularly helps move the big corporation out of the picture. There are many alternatives to the "big corporations". However, using them will involve some trade offs. Are we willing to make the changes? Or do we just want to complain and ask the government to become even more overbearing (and exacerbating the problem further)?

Filter Bubble

Companies like Google, Facebook, Axiom and Blue Kai know a lot about you. They can use this to taylor websites and advertising to individual users. This can have serious impact on our society.

Huge amounts of information are produced every day. Determining what is relevant is a huge challenge. That is where algorithms come in. Google taylors search results to the individual users. Facebook's news feed is based on what it thinks users are interested in seeing. Advertisers and retailers also customize their online promotions based on what they think users will be interested in seeing. This can cause people to reside in a "bubble" where they only see things that they like. They may not see opposing viewpoints or anything that allows them to think. This is even more worrisome since most of this data filtering is done transparently without users knowing they are living in a bubble. (Perhaps this is a form of "mind control" where the big companies can gradually nudge people in a direction they would like.)

Personalization is treated as a "black box" by most companies. The companies themselves may not even know exactly what results are being returned. They can tweak algorithms based on feedback. However, they probably could not tell exactly what type of results would be returned. The algorithms can use various different data points to personalize. Thus, even if a user is not logged on, their location, computer or web browser could identify them and provide personalized results.

This book rambles on to sound the alarm against "filter bubbles" that allow individuals to live in their isolated worlds filtered to provide what they want. This will keep out information from opposing viewpoints. It will also tend to stock them up with the most "sensational" junk-food content rather than the "good for you content." This could result in a dumbing down of society as people don't work their brains to get around new thoughts. Also, it can make it more difficult for new thoughts and media to get out there. (Since discovery is often based on "likes", only things most like what already exist will tend to get more exposure. Thus, even though it is theoretically easier for new things to be discovered, it is actually much more difficult to find innovation.

The filter bubble is often transparent to users, and can gradually steer content to more extreme viewpoints. This can lead to highly cantankerous partisan discussions. (Since each side is not exposed to the opposing view, they not even understand how others can feel that way.) Even worse, people wont realize they are living in the filter bubble and assume that everybody else is receiving the same information. Discovering "new" ideas can actually be more difficult than it was in the days when everybody was force-fed the same broadcasts.

I was expecting this book to be a discussion of the difficulty we have today of "filtering" through all the information out there. Instead, it focussed on the danger of a personalized web. The two are tightly related. However, this book seemed to spend a lot of time rambling from bullet point to bullet point. It contained plenty of good ideas, but the connections where not very strong.

The amount of information out there is enormous. Discovering useful information is becoming more and more difficult. The quantity of "junk" out there seems to be growing at a faster rate than the amount of useful data. Fifteen years ago, it was easy to put a website out there and get visitors interested in the content. You might get a few random spammers or bots, but most traffic was legitimate. Similarly, if you wanted to search for something, you could use one of the numerous search engines and find relevant sites. The search results may contain a bunch of sites that you were not interested in, but this was more a result of bad algorithms than bad sites.

Today, however, there is so much junk out there. You may have to wade through numerous spam and junk sites to get to the site you want. People are much less likely to find a site that somebody just put up. I see more traffic on this blog than on my proto-blog from 1996. However, the quality of traffic seems to be much worse (at least judging from the ratio of real comments to spam comments.) It is harder to discover quality new content. And it is harder for quality new content to be discovered.

I find myself spending more time on "established" sites. They may occasionally guide me to independent sites. However, they are more likely to simply direct to other well-known commercial sites. With so much information out there, curation has to be done somewhere. I don't have the time to do it (or even to create an algorithm to do it.) I'm dependent on somebody to do it for me. Since this is a huge undertaking, these "somebodies" will likely be large corporations that need to earn money. Since I am cheep, putting up with advertising is my most likely "payment". This puts me in a position vulnerable to being influenced by whatever the corporation or the advertisers desire. (Ironically, at the same time the internet is giving away unlimited content for the price of advertising, broadcast media has become more reliant on "subscriber fees" as part of its business model.) Thus, we become subject to whatever whims the big algorithms have. Is this really much different from being beholden to the broadcaster's desires? At least with the broadcasters, we were likely to find something new we liked. With personalization we can find ourselves further ghettoized. (I'm often finding that problem with online radio. I can create a station that plays songs I like within a very narrowly defined range. However, I get sick of the same type of music and want more variety. However, it is difficult to get variety without a bunch of junk. I'd almost prefer to have a DJ picking the music for me.) I still haven't found a recommendation engine that does a really good job. With the glut of information out there, one of the big challenge is filtering the unique from the derivative. Perhaps now is the time to reinvent the web.

Planet Google

[September 2009] If you want to know the origins of many of the Google features popular today, this is the book to read. If you are looking for a behind the scenes look at the people and personalities behind the company, this book is probably not for you. The author is clearly an outsider who knows a lot of the details of the company, but not much more than anybody who had dedicated time to studying it. There is very little intimacy with the Google founders or key players. However, the details of the different 'business ventures' of Google provide an effective 'behind the scenes' view of what Google was thinking when rolling out features like mail, and why it had to buy Youtube after being beat out in video.

The phone memory money grab

One of the great things about android phones is the external sd card slot. My Samsung Galaxy Exhibit came with 2GB of flash memory. For under $30 I could put in a high speed 32GB micro SD card for storing photos and audio.

The Nexus 4, however, doesn't have an SD card slot. Instead, you can pay $50 extra to get 8 GB more storage. This seems like a page from Apple's book, where for a mere $100 you can get an extra 16GB of memory. And of course, there is no upgrading either of these. So if you later decide you need a few more GB, you are AWOL. A lovely case of planned obsolescence

Luckily, Samsung still allows you to plug in SD cards. Sure, they'll sell you a phone with 16GB more memory for $50-$100 more. But, they'll also let you plug in $10 16GB microsd if you later decide you need a little more room for your audiobooks. Hmm... Maybe that is one of the reasons they are now dominating the market.

Google: The End of the World as we Know It

Another book on the rise of the Google juggernaut. I wonder how these will look a few decades from now? Will Google crash and burn? Or will it continue to maintain its strong influence? I can see some parallels to Xerox or even Bell Labs from a few decades back. Both companies had cash-cows that were gushing in money, and used that to invest in great engineering research. Some of the many modern technologies like the mouse and graphical user interface came from these sources. However, the companies failed to take advantage of these, and eventually, the companies faltered when their mainline business gradually eroded.

This book doesn't consider the eventual fall of Google. Instead, it is concerned with the fall of media companies at the hands of the internet. Google is often seen as a "frenemy". It is trying to play nice, however, the forces are taking away the markets where old media had thrived. Google eliminated many of the inefficiencies that allowed old media to charge top dollar. While some respond by attacking Google, the smart companies are the ones that adapt. However, it is difficult. Most advertising is going online. However, online advertising only brings in 10% of what newspaper advertising does. How can newspapers survive? How can movies, music and books survive in the internet age?

The book posits many of the questions, but does not provide many answers. It does, however, provide plenty of biographical sketches and snippets in to the lives of (mostly former) googlers. It also has the somewhat self-introspective view of media writing about troubles facing media. Journalism is seen as a vital resource. The collaboration in true journalism is lost in blogging. How can this be maintained, even if the whole business of newspapers cannot? Perhaps an ASCAP for news articles? Or maybe micropayments? These are mentioned by the book, but no solution is given.

The book flows fairly well, and gets us to Google in late 2009. It doesn't go very far in depth with the company, but provides enough details of major issues to keep things interesting.

Is the internet making us dumb?

I stumbled across this article in the Atlantic monthly (ironically, while googling something totally different.) The author notes that the ability of so much data online allows us to get information quickly, greatly reducing what were once long hours in the library. However, in the process, we have lost some of the ability to concentrate in deep thoughts and long text.
It was funny, that I even found the article itself to be much longer than a typical internet read. It sounds like he is right on. Google is in fact making us stupid - while at the same time augmenting our intelligence in other areas, just as writing and publishing have done earlier.
The scariest part about this is the strong interdependence. With more and more dependent on the net, we find it difficult to function without it. I've seen an office pretty much shut down when the internet connection goes down. What work can you do without the net? I remember 10 years ago finding it a real challenge to work when the company had blocked outgoing internet connections. And that was back when offices were not nearly so net-dependent. Attempts to serve as a company gatekeepers can be a challenge both to productivity and morale. But, the lack of connectivity can be devastating. And even more worrisome is the central 'google' gatekeeper. It seems search results have been getting worse - probably as a result of more junk out there. But other times, the junk filtering eliminates the valuable results that you are in fact looking for. Will we one day have a great index tied in to our brains? By that time the computers may just decide they've had enough of this 'slavery'...