Summary of “The Messy, Confusing Future of TV? It’s Here”

One, an ESPN-branded streaming sports service, will be available early next year, while the other, focusing on Disney movies and shows, will go live in 2019.A day later, Facebook announced Watch, a tab inside the main Facebook app that will soon host a slate of professionally produced video series.
The company says people will be able to enjoy premium fare like “Returning the Favor,” starring the “Dirty Jobs” host Mike Rowe; a reality show about tiny houses; and “Bae or Bail,” which Facebook describes thusly: “Unsuspecting couples put their relationship and wits to the test as they’re thrown into terrifying scenarios.”
Their theory is that the more time Facebook users spend watching video, the more ads they’ll see.
Facebook doesn’t have a huge library of popular content like Disney, but it does have a treasure trove of data about the personal tastes and preferences of its more than two billion registered users, and presumably plans to use that data to target ads at exactly the people companies want to reach.
More than $70 billion per year is spent on traditional television advertisements, and as that pile of money shifts to digital video, Facebook presumably wants to make sure a hefty chunk ends up in its own pockets.
On the surface, these seem like very different strategies – selling premium video to an existing audience of fans, versus giving away premium video in an effort to sell hyper-targeted ads and attract a network of amateurs.
There are already Netflix and Hulu, single-company services like CBS All Access, and “Skinny bundles” such as PlayStation Vue and Sling TV, not to mention the endless amateur video available from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
“One of the barriers to entry for the consumer right now is simply confusion,” said Paul Verna, the principal video analyst at eMarketer, a media research firm.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Facebook knew about Snap’s struggles months before the public”

This isn’t the first time Facebook has used Onavo’s app usage data to make major decisions.
The info reportedly influenced the decision to buy WhatsApp, as Facebook knew that WhatsApp’s dominance in some areas could cut it out of the loop.
To be clear, Facebook isn’t grabbing this data behind anyone’s back.
The revelation here is more about how Facebook uses that information rather than the collection itself.
Former Federal Trade Commission CTO Askhan Soltani tells the WSJ that Facebook is turning customers’ own data against them by using it to snuff out competitors.
Tech lawyer Adam Shevell is concerned that Facebook might be violating Apple’s App Store rules by collecting data that isn’t directly relevant to app use or ads.
No matter what, the news underscores just how hard it is for upstarts to challenge Facebook’s dominant position.
How do you compete with an internet giant that can counter your app’s features the moment it becomes popular? This doesn’t make Facebook immune to competition, but app makers definitely can’t assume that they’ll catch the firm off-guard.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Big brother is here, and his name is Facebook”

Rather, our loss of privacy and Big Brother’s influence on us are brought about by none other than our penchant for sharing on social media.
Did you know that the social network may have the capability to listen in even when we are not actively sharing information or using the mobile app?
Given the amount of permissions we give social networks when we install apps on our mobile devices, we might as well just hand them over privileged access to our personal lives.
You can easily access the social network through your mobile web browser and set it to “Desktop mode”.
You can leave Facebook in favor of other social networking services.
What exactly can we look forward to in social networking, when Facebook seems to be the apex of social networking apps today?
Perhaps decentralization is key to ensuring a secure social network built for the long run.
Nexus is actually launching its initial coin offering, which aims to raise resources and give users the chance to own a part of the social network through cryptographic tokens.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Facebook worker living in garage to Zuckerberg: challenges are right outside your door”

A worker in one of Facebook’s cafeterias, they have also raised an important question: “Is he going to come here?”.
Here, on a quiet street of modest bungalows, Nicole and her husband Victor, who also works at a Facebook cafeteria, live in a two-car garage with their children, aged nine, eight and four.
On Friday, the couple were among about 500 Facebook cafeteria workers who elected to join a union, Unite Here Local 19.
At times, the challenges make the couple nostalgic for the days before Facebook moved to Menlo Park.
Now she works at cafeterias with names like “Epic” and “Living the Dream”, and the distance between the two classes of Facebook worker can feel immense.
Facebook recently held a “Bring your kids to work” day, but cafeteria workers’ children were not allowed.
A spokeswoman for Facebook said none of the company’s contingent or contract workers have access to facilities such as clinics, gyms, or bring-your-child-to-work days, but that other policies were a matter between the contractor and the workers.
“People think, oh, you’re working for Facebook, you’re doing great,” Victor said.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Priscilla Chan is running one of the most ambitious philanthropies in the world”

Priscilla Chan remembers the moment she decided to become a doctor.
In the past 18 months, Chan has added a new job to her resume: She’s also in charge of what will likely be one of the most well-funded philanthropies in human history.
Chan is running the day-to-day operations of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the philanthropic investment company she created with her husband in late 2015, announced along with the birth of their first daughter, Max.
Known more colloquially as CZI, the relatively new effort has an ambitious tagline: “Advancing human potential and promoting equal opportunity.” Practically, that means Chan and Zuckerberg are focused on improving industries like education, medicine and even the criminal justice system.
At 32, Chan is one of the youngest people to helm of one of the most ambitious and well-funded philanthropic organizations in the world.
While sources say Chan is not involved in making Facebook decisions, many believe Facebook, one of the 10 most valuable companies in the world, would not be what it is today without Chan’s often invisible influence on its founder.
Added Benchmark partner Matt Cohler, an early Facebook employee and close friend of Chan and Zuckerberg’s: “Mark, over the history of at least the last 13 years, has just made almost without exception an extraordinary series of decisions over and over and over again and just exercised incredible judgment. I think wanting Priscilla to be his partner showed as good judgment as anything he’s ever done.”
The big decisions at CZI are shared by Chan and Zuckerberg, but Chan has taken on much of the day-to-day responsibilities.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The end of the internet startup”

Some critics say, they’ve gotten better at controlling and locking down key parts of the internet’s infrastructure, closing off paths that early internet companies used to reach a mass market.
Most important, Google bought a little-known mobile software company called Android in 2005, laying the foundation for Google’s eventual dominance of smartphone operating systems.
If these companies had remained independent, they easily could have emerged as major competitors to Google and Facebook.
Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman rebuffed acquisition offers from Google and Yahoo, taking the company public in 2012.
“At one point,” writes Businessweek’s Brad Stone, “Quidsi executives took what they knew about shipping rates, factored in Procter & Gamble’s wholesale prices, and calculated that Amazon was on track to lose $100 million over three months in the diaper category alone.” As a venture-backed startup, Quidsi couldn’t sustain those kinds of losses, so the company wound up selling to Amazon in 2010.
“Mark Zuckerberg had a huge advantage with Facebook because the pressure that normal people have of building a company was replaced by the lightness of him just playing around with ideas,” said Mike Maples, an investor at the firm Floodgate.
In the 1980s, great companies like Microsoft, Adobe, and Intuit were founded to make software for PCs. Those companies still make plenty of money – just like Intel does – but there isn’t a lot of room for desktop PC software startups today.
There are only so many things you can do with a web browser or a smartphone, and maybe companies like Google, Facebook, and Snap have already locked down the most important markets.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Facebook Algorithm Mom Problem”

Anecdotally most in social media have long known that doing this type of workflow causes your content to be treated like a second class citizen, particularly on Facebook which greatly prefers that users post to it manually or using one of its own apps rather than via API. This means that the Facebook algorithm that decides how big an audience a piece of content receives, dings posts which aren’t posted manually within their system.
Simply put, if you don’t post it manually within Facebook, not as many people are going to see it.
My mom, who seems to be on Facebook 24/7, immediately clicks “Like” on the post.
The Facebook algorithm immediately thinks that because my mom liked it, it must be a family related piece of content-even if it’s obviously about theoretical math, a subject in which my mom has no interest or knowledge.
Now Facebook’s algorithm has created a self-fulfilling prophesy and further narrows the audience of my post.
As a result, my post gets no further exposure on Facebook other than perhaps five people-the circle of family that overlaps in all three of our social graphs.
I can post about arcane areas like Lie algebras or statistical thermodynamics, and my mom, because she’s my mom, will like all of it-whether or not she understands what I’m talking about or not.
The problem is: Facebook, despite the fact that they know she’s my mom, doesn’t take this fact into account in their algorithm.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Facebook is getting ready to test paid subscriptions with publications”

These options would seem to accommodate metered publications including Facebook skeptic The New York Times; and The Wall Street Journal and The Economist, which make a certain selection of articles free and put the rest behind a paywall.
One publisher said Facebook is leaning toward letting them be handled through the mobile web, which would eliminate a layer of complexity and the app stores’ cut and would let publishers have more control over pricing and data.
In the end, the question for publishers like the Times and Journal that have been cool on Instant Articles is whether there’s an advantage to Facebook’s proposal of letting them sell subs through Instant Articles instead of posting to Facebook the old-fashioned away and letting people subscribe by traveling to the publisher’s own site.
Facebook aims to test them with a small group of publishers at the end of the year and expand them to others in 2018.
The movement on subscription sales comes as Facebook has been trying harder to win over publishers that are getting increasingly frustrated over their lack of ability to monetize their content on the platform and are also getting in some cases what they feel is better treatment from other platform giants, Google and Apple News.
As part of its charm offensive, Facebook in January launched the Facebook Journalism Project, which has involved working with publishers to understand what they want to get from the app.
Publishers have been seeking ways to sell subscriptions since Facebook rolled out Instant Articles in 2015 and have been been clamoring for more ability to monetize their content on the platform through advertising as Google and Facebook have swallowed up more and more of the digital ad pie.
“We are in early talks with several news publishers about how we might better support subscription business models on Facebook,” Campbell Brown, head of news partnerships, said via a Facebook spokesperson.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Facebook can track your browsing even after you’ve logged out, judge says”

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Facebook of tracking users’ web browsing activity even after they logged out of the social networking site.
The plaintiffs alleged that Facebook used the “Like” buttons found on other websites to track which sites they visited, meaning that the Menlo Park, California-headquartered company could build up detailed records of their browsing history.
Clicking on the Facebook “Like” button on a third party website – for example, theguardian.com – allows people to share pieces of content to Facebook without having to copy and paste the link into a status update on the social network.
Australian internet security blogger Nik Cubrilovic first discovered that Facebook was apparently tracking users’ web browsing after they logged off in 2011.
Responding to Cubrilovic, Facebook engineer Gregg Stefancik confirmed that Facebook has cookies that persist after log-out as a safety measure but that the company does not use the cookies to track users or sell personal information to third parties.
In 2014 Facebook started using web browsing data for delivering targeted “Interest-based” advertising – which explains why you see ads for products you have already been looking at online appear in your Facebook feed.
To address privacy concerns, Facebook introduced a way for users to opt out of this type of advertising targeting from within user settings.
“We are pleased with the court’s ruling,” said a Facebook spokeswoman.

The orginal article.

Summary of “There’s No Money in Internet Culture”

As Verizon completed its acquisition, a number of Tumblr employees, as well as those at other Verizon-owned properties, like the Huffington Post, were laid off.
The site is enormously popular among the coveted youth crowd – that’s partly why then-CEO Marissa Mayer paid $1 billion for the property in 2013 – but despite a user base near the size of Instagram’s, Tumblr never quite figured out how to make money at the level Facebook has led managers and shareholders to expect.
Even once the timeline became open to advertising, it was tough to find clients willing to brave the sometimes-porny waters of the Tumblr Dashboard.
Looked at from a bottom-line perspective, Tumblr is an also-ran like its parent company – a once-hot start-up that has eased into tech-industry irrelevance.
Looked at from another angle Tumblr is among the most important sites online – a central hub of what is nebulously known as “Internet culture.” Most recently, the site gave us Dat Boi, the unicycling frog, but Tumblr’s most famous legacy is probably the reaction GIF, which was popularized by Tumblr accounts like What Should We Call Me. Tumblr’s reblog structure, which created lengthy, publicly shared conversations between strangers, also helped popularize the concept of the Discourse, the internetwide conversation happening all at once.
There are many reasons for this – for one thing, it’s tough to sell a high-quality ad experience to executives at Coca-Cola when you first have to explain what a meme is and why it’s “Viral.” On top of all that, there are reams of porn, hate speech, copyright infringement, and more porn floating around on these platforms, easily accidentally placed adjacent to a company’s studiously inoffensive ad. Maybe more importantly, Tumblr and Vine and the like never had data-mining operations as sophisticated as, say, Facebook.
Which means Tumblr has to hope for patience and kindness from Verizon while it seeks a way to make money.
The overall stumbles of building centralized hubs of internet culture mean that, going forward, content might soon be consumed not by one large audience on a single platform, but by thousands of smaller audiences across a variety of online spaces.

The orginal article.