#zuck sucks too though

[pepsiandmentos]

apparently zuckerberg does ju-jitsu so i’m looking forward to elon musk having his head bashed in

[heartsleevemag]

Friday Five

by Vi McDonald

Welcome to this week’s installment of Heartsleeve Magazine’s Friday Five playlist! From up-tempo tracks that’ll make you feel like you’re in an eighties movie, to some of the crunchiest, coolest new rock tunes, here are five songs that kept our blood pumping this week.

1. "Bad At Letting Go" – Leland, MUNA

Danceable and in denial, Leland's "Bad At Letting Go" is replayable in the way that only a MUNA collab can be. Depicting a romance where things have gone wrong but Leland doesn't want anyone to know, it's about burying your emotions but having them bubble up to the surface anyway. MUNA's influence shines especially brightly, from the production to the vocals to the theme of honest avoidance, as they croon in the second verse, "The tears that are slipping right off of my skin, I don't want 'em to sink in."

2. “Welcome to the DCC” — Nothing But Thieves

With a sound that would be perfectly at home in a neon cyberpunk dream, Nothing But Thieves' new eighties-inspired dance track introduces a new world. "Welcome to the DCC" tells of a utopian heaven called Dead Club City where "If you believe it, it can happen." Even though it'll get you moving, the track has a thrumming tension underneath that hints the DCC might be too good to be true. The video suggests this too, with characters getting sucked into the DCC universe through advertisements and entering a world where there's nothing but endless partying and neon lights. "It's almost time for us to open the doors to you," NBT shared as a caption for the music video. What else will Dead Club City have in store?

3. "Just A Girl" - From The Original Series "Yellowjackets" – Florence + The Machine

Florence Welch once said, "You said that rock and roll is dead. But is that just because it has not been resurrected in your image?" And when Florence decides to resurrect a classic like No Doubt's 1995 hit "Just A Girl," in her image, it infuses the track with an ethereal, foreboding energy. Fitting for the psychological horror-drama show Yellowjackets, this track is a spooky, cinematic rock masterpiece. Tense cymbal crashes and uneasy strings crash open into chaotic harmonies over the song's four-minute runtime – this track singlehandedly convinced me to binge Yellowjackets in its entirety before the new season premieres.

4. "SCARING ME" – Cleopatrick

You got me – this one's not a new discovery. More of a rediscovery, "SCARING ME" is the third track on Cleopatrick's 2022 EP, DOOM. After becoming particularly enthralled with (and seriously overplaying) the two opening tracks, "ZUCK," and "OK," I decided to revisit the EP. "SCARING ME" winds down from the heavier sound of the first two tracks, but continues the theme of examining how relationships are affected by modern society, and how the things that we do affect those relationships. The instrumentation is probably the coolest part – after the song went viral, the band shared how it was made on Tiktok, using layered textures and vocals as an instrument. Cleopatrick is "gonna do a coupl shows" – their words, not mine – in the UK this summer. Check 'em out here.

5. "CHOKER" – ROMES

The very definition of a modern rock track with grunge and 90s influences, "CHOKER" showcases the heavier side of Romes' music. "If you've ever felt emotionally strangled, trapped inside your own mind, or felt like there's no way out, just know that someone else is fighting through it too. You're not alone," the band shared on Instagram following the song's release. And it feels that way, lyrics like "I wanna feel what it feels like to exist," holding a raw desperation that feels cathartic and expressive, like this was something the band had to get out in order to keep going.

Listen to the Friday Five playlist and check out last week's additions on our Spotify, and don't forget to follow us so you don't miss the next one!

[thecatboyfriend-moved]

hi good afternoon even though its morning for you because timezones, ily and i think you're a cool person and i suck at interacting and people stuff but either way i think you're a neat person

hihihihi!!!! ily2!!!! and aH tyzm!!!! ur a cool perzon too and i zuck at interacting too and ur amazing ily!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[aseriesofunfortunatejan]

Oh yeah I guess I should mention that obviously I won't be using tumblr Blaze. I think we're sucking staff's dick a little too much and, surprisingly, do not have $10 of disposable income

If you can spend $10 on making a meme that won't even get that many notes, good for you I guess? I mean, I'm being genuine. I don't have qualms with it. But as far as post advertising goes, it's pretty damn expensive. You can get ~100 likes and a few comments on Instagram for less than 1€ in my experience (don't recommend it, though, it's dumb and Zuck sucks), so an actual creator can't use Blaze to advertise their content the way they could on other social media.

Either way, I don't care about it. Tumblr was already putting posts in my dash I didn't ask for anyway

[dankdcsdeliberations]

Snap out of it

This week’s post is about Snapchat. You like what I did with the headline? Classic dad joke. I’ve got four kiddos, so, it’s in my nature.

Snapchat was founded in 2011 and when I first heard about it, it was all related to porn and nudies. I wonder how many things on the internet were made famous because of sex? Kim Kardashian?

Today, roughly 80 percent of internet users ages 18-24 are using Snapchat. And, of actual Snapchat users, 90 percent of them are ages 13-24. So it’s hitting a really young demographic. It’s especially popular with women as roughly 60 percent of women from the aforementioned age brackets are on the platform.

Marketing on Snapchat can be tricky. While the youth demographic is certainly there, in 2018, the platform lost 3 million users. Even with that major loss though, engagement went up amongst their loyal users from 181M to 190M. So, if your organization relies heavily on reaching young people, Snapchat must be seriously considered in your portfolio.

I am NOT a Snapchat user. I’ve had an active account for awhile, but I just didn’t like it the first time I used it. And now, after having to use it for almost a week, I’m still not into it.

Why? The main reason is because of Instagram. Instagram straight up ripped off Snapchat’s “stories.” They did it. It’s a fact. And they did it unapologetically.

For a 38-year-old married man, Snapchat doesn’t have anything to offer me. Too few of my friends are on there. The disappearing videos and texts don’t create a draw, and their “stories” function exists on Instagram and actually works better.

I asked some kids from my church youth group and I got mixed-bag results. Nearly all of them have an account, but about half were active. I asked the active kids why they like the platform and the primary answer was that Snapchat had a better DMing system. I then asked whether they had Instagram and every single one of them said yes and that they were active on that platform too.

This photo is a screenshot of a Snap. It’s important to note, another feature of Snapchat is that when you screenshot it, the person who posted the Snap is notified.

In this photo, there is obviously a filter of some kind, and then my friend Emily added some fun words to describe what she was about to do. This was all made popular by Snap. Today, it’s also found on Instagram and Facebook.

Knowing they had their best features stolen, Snapchat introduced games you can play with your friends. Unfortunately, none of my friends wanted to play games with me -- probably because they don’t actually use Snapchat frequently enough.

I have no doubt that this feature will eventually be stolen by good ‘ol Zuck. And honestly, that sucks for everybody.

Bottom line, Snapchat is another good channel to try and reach younger audiences, but you’re likely to reach the same audiences on Instagram.

[awkward-whiteboy]

1-200

200 Questions to Ask Me!

200: My crush’s name is:  ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 199: I was born in: Michigan198: I am really: Depressed, bored, hungry, lonely197: My cellphone company is: Verizon196: My eye color is: Brown/ugly195: My shoe size is: 11194: My ring size is:8.5193: My height is: 6″3192: I am allergic to: Medicine, tree dust191: My 1st car was: The piece of shitmobile190: My 1st job was: Illegal  ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 189: Last book you read: How to Think About Weird Things Critical Thinking for a New Age. (Yes it’s a college textbook, but if you love debating with people on the internet [ though this is pointless] this book is a must read).188: My bed is: a college loft that I fear is going to fall any second. 187: My pet: Pet no, mascot my HARAMBE FLAG! 186: My best friend: @rinkatai @aesthetichalestorm @bookerdewiit 185: My favorite shampoo is: Whatever I have in the shower when I’m showering184: Xbox or ps3: either, but Mario Kart trumps them all183: Piggy banks are: cool if they aren’t the break ones182: In my pockets: wallet, room keys, a “Thanks asshole” note someone graciously wrote me 181: On my calendar: Peoples birthdays, and predictions for stupids shit. (5 for 6 on them being right)180: Marriage is: dumb, combining debt together over a stupid ceremony. Why not just say fuck it and save the money for a sweet house and lots of animals179: Spongebob can: keep coming out. I love that show. If given the time, I could probably quote almost all the episodes178: My mom: is my mom177: The last three songs I bought were? People buy songs? I can name albums: Reaching into infinity, Begining of the End, One More Light176: Last YouTube video watched: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsx0d3p4SMQ

175: How many cousins do you have? That I talk to, 3,4. total like 22+

174: Do you have any siblings? Youngest of 5

173: Are your parents divorced? No

172: Are you taller than your mom? Yes

171: Do you play an instrument? Guitar and Trombone

170: What did you do yesterday? Stayed up til 5 am playing Garrys Mod

[ I Believe In ]

169: Love at first sight: Sort of, doesnt work out though

168: Luck: Luck is an undeclared claim.

167: Fate: Nope

166: Yourself: Never. I always fail

165: Aliens: Hard to say, 

164: Heaven: No

163: Hell: I am a living hell

162: God: not a god, but a something

161: Horoscopes: Nope

160: Soul mates: Yes

159: Ghosts: No

158: Gay Marriage: Marriage is Marriage, IMO calling it Gay marriage is trying to make it different than regular marriage.

157: War: Yes

156: Orbs: YEs

155: Magic: No

[ This or That ]

154: Hugs or Kisses: Hugs

153: Drunk or High: Both.  ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°) ͡°)

152: Phone or Online: Phone

151: Red heads or Black haired: Red Heads, but thats just from my experience

150: Blondes or Brunettes: Brunettes

149: Hot or cold: Mild

148: Summer or winter: Winter

147: Autumn or Spring: Spring

146: Chocolate or vanilla: Vanilla

145: Night or Day: Night

144: Oranges or Apples: Apple

143: Curly or Straight hair: Curly

142: McDonalds or Burger King: BK

141: White Chocolate or Milk Chocolate: White Chocolate

140: Mac or PC: PC

139: Flip flops or high heals: Flippers

138: Ugly and rich OR sweet and poor: Sweet and Poor

137: Coke or Pepsi: Don’t care, just gots to be diet

136: Hillary or Obama: Norm is my OTP  ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°) ͡°)

135: Burried or cremated: Cremated, that way I’ll still be around people when im dead because no one would come willing if I was buried

134: Singing or Dancing: My singing is 1 of a kind

133: Coach or Chanel: Chanel because meme

132: Kat McPhee or Taylor Hicks: Kat McPhee, only because I don’t know any of them and Hick is a bad name with my life.

131: Small town or Big city: Both

130: Wal-Mart or Target: Target

129: Ben Stiller or Adam Sandler: Ben Stiller

128: Manicure or Pedicure: Pedi

127: East Coast or West Coast: Weast Coast  ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°) ͡°)

126: Your Birthday or Christmas: Birthday, people notice me :)

125: Chocolate or Flowers: Flowers

124: Disney or Six Flags: Datknee… Disney

123: Yankees or Red Sox: Neither

[ Here’s What I Think About ]

122: War: Pointless, but happens, Realistically, will never end.

121: George Bush: All politics have goods and bads, we’ve had better, but we also had far worse.

120: Gay Marriage: Always said

119: The presidential election: Popular vote and the current way are both fraud by the way America is. A completely new system is needed.

118: Abortion: Not a women so my opinion is not valid or needed. Honestly I hate kids. so Pro

117: MySpace: Last i checked (like a year ago,) its pretty much a Soundcloud.

116: Reality TV: Stupid

115: Parents: Do what they do. Different generation so their ways of parenting are theirs.

114: Back stabbers: Too many in my life… DAMN… MAYBE THIS IS WHY I AM FUCKED UP.

113: Ebay: I spend too much money on it

112: Facebook: Fuck the Zuck

111: Work: Never had a legal job

110: My Neighbors: Can go shove a knife up their asses 

109: Gas Prices: Better than the past

108: Designer Clothes: I’m making a separate post about this.. I might be in a bit of trouble with my college over this.

107: College: I don’t fit in anywhere. only friends I have I went to High school with. 

106: Sports: Really wish I played football in High school. I know I wouldn’t play at my school, but a smaller one I would.

105: My family: Family is family

104: The future: WIll not be brighter. 

[ Last time I ]

103: Hugged someone: Too long ago

102: Last time you ate: yesterday (2:00pm 12/13/2017)

101: Saw someone I haven’t seen in awhile: Emotional abuser has a drug dealer that lives in my colleges town. Saw her :/ cried for hours.

100: Cried in front of someone: Summer 2017

99: Went to a movie theater: whenever IT came out. Got in trouble with my colelge cause of roommates

98: Took a vacation: too long ago

97: Swam in a pool: summer 2017

96: Changed a diaper: never

95: Got my nails done: never

94: Went to a wedding: Spring 2017

93: Broke a bone: with a doctor knowing never, but like 6 years ago

92: Got a piercing: None

91: Broke the law:  ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°) ͡°)

90: Texted: I stubbed my nose on the elevator

[ MISC ]

89: Who makes you laugh the most: Doc

88: Something I will really miss when I leave home is: Nothing

87: The last movie I saw: Cure For Wellness

86: The thing that I’m looking forward to the most: Going home so I wont be alone with my depressing thoughts and questionable music

85: The thing im not looking forward to: going to the meeting

84: People call me: Davie Crocket Davy Divad Garbage, fucker loser, pretty much every name in the book

83: The most difficult thing to do is: pretend to be normal

82: I have gotten a speeding ticket: Talked the cop out of it with my mindfucking bullshittery

81: My zodiac sign is: Scorpio

80: The first person i talked to today was:

@rinkatai

79: First time you had a crush: 9th Grade

78: The one person who i can’t hide things from: Rink

77: Last time someone said something you were thinking: Last week

76: Right now I am talking to: Myself 

75: What are you going to do when you grow up: Good question  ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°) ͡°)  

74: I have/will get a job: No, I cant do interviews I alwasy fuck them up or never get called back

73: Tomorrow: hopefully do something better

72: Today: Watched 9 hours of netflixs

71: Next Summer: Too far to determain

70: Next Weekend: Too far to determain

69: I have these pets: None

68: The worst sound in the world: College kids screaming because finals when they are just being cliche

67: The person that makes me cry the most is: myself

66: People that make you happy: Happy? whats that

65: Last time I cried: Today

64: My friends are: Rin Doc 

63: My computer is: Fucked up because everything I own always gets fucked up

62: My School: College sucks, High School : IN A LOT OF HOT WATER

61: My Car: is a piece of shit

60: I lose all respect for people who: treat me bad… damn thats like 95% of the people I see

59: The movie I cried at was: The Producer

58: Your hair color is: Ugly Brown

57: TV shows you watch: The OFfice

56: Favorite web site: Higher or Lower Youtube

55: Your dream vacation: Somewhere with the right person

54: The worst pain I was ever in was: The emotion and things I live with everyday.

53: How do you like your steak cooked: However it is cooked

52: My room is: MY STUFF IS CLEAN roommate 1 is not

51: My favorite celebrity is: Too many to name

50: Where would you like to be: A better state of mind

49: Do you want children: NO

48: Ever been in love: Sadly

47: Who’s your best friend: Rin Doc

46: More guy friends or girl friends: Girl Friends

45: One thing that makes you feel great is: Dark humor

44: One person that you wish you could see right now: :’(

43: Do you have a 5 year plan: I only plan 5 minutes in advance

42: Have you made a list of things to do before you die: No, honestly asking 10th grade me, i only planned up till graduation

41: Have you pre-named your children: NO KIDS

40: Last person I got mad at:  ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°) ͡°)

39: I would like to move to: Sanity land

38: I wish I was a professional: Musician

[ My Favorites ]

37: Candy: Sour Skittles or Mega Sours

36: Vehicle: Piece of Shit Mobile

35: President: Suliman with the Onion hat

34: State visited: Iowa. 

33: Cellphone provider: Verizon

32: Athlete: Cardale Jones

31: Actor: Bill Mother Fucking Murry

30: Actress: Emma Watson

29: Singer: Davey Jones, Davey Havok, Chester, and many more

28: Band: Too many, but I will say I’ve personally met one of them

27: Clothing store: cheap ones

26: Grocery store: cheap ones

25: TV show: Office, Simpsons South Park TWD

24: Movie: Cure For Wellness Clockwork Orange, Cant remember the name, but the original hunger games… the japanese one

23: Website: youtube

22: Animal: panda pugs

21: Theme park: cedar point

20: Holiday: leif erikson day

19: Sport to watch: hockey

18: Sport to play: football

17: Magazine:  ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°) ͡°)

16: Book: Too many

15: Day of the week: Monday. Because I play a game of what sucks more… I win a lot

14: Beach: na

13: Concert attended: Alice Cooper 3x, Deep Purple, Stone Sour, Skillet, Motley Crue 2x, FFDP, Wayland, Valraven, Alterbridge, Iron Maiden, going to see Judas Priest with someone in April

12: Thing to cook: Pasta and muffins

11: Food: ^

10: Restaurant: places with spicy chicken nuggets rice pudding and chicken noodle soup

9: Radio station: 101 WRIF Q106

8: Yankee candle scent: N/A

7: Perfume: N/A

6: Flower: Idk Roses or Marigolds

5: Color: Black orange green

4: Talk show host:  ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°) ͡°)

3: Comedian: A lot

2: Dog breed: PUG

1: did you answer all these truthfully? Like 4 are not :/

[lifesobeautiful]

3 Stoic Tenets That Can Help Improve Your Life

As a personal development junkie, the internet is a weird place for you to find tips in managing your emotions and achieving your goals.

One fine day, you get inspiration to read 100 books because a random dude confessed that they are life-changing. You purchase ten books and start reading them.

Which books should you start with? Easy peasy.

Look at the reading lists of those fancy billionaires: Zucks, Billy, and Musk.

A week later, you see a 5-minute video of a guy that didn’t consume alcohol for a year and how it changed his life.

No surprise at what you’ll do next.

Obviously, first, you share it with your friends with the caption #LifeGoals. Then, you fool yourself that you can pull off that enormous goal.

Until…

In a couple of weeks, you encounter an article showing how a guy quit his job to travel the world. He now earns $10,000 per month writing.

Well, well, well…

You now need to have a couple of drinks to sort this out.

In a month, the novelty of these goals wears off. Back to square one. You return to your usual routine.

Even if you want to improve, your emotions and ambitions can lead you astray. Behavioural change is difficult.

For help, let’s turn towards the ancient school of philosophy: Stoicism.

Here are three stoic beliefs that will help you build mental resilience and propel you towards your self-improvement goals.

Treat your emotions separately from events

Fuck being happy. Fuck being sad.

Seriously.

Self-improvement is challenging because, when faced with resistance, we cave in.

You have sufficient time and resources. But to justify your failure in taking the first step, you construct false stories, blaming external factors.

Stop.

It’s you, stupid.

Specifically, managing your emotions is the key to making progress.

Stoicism calls forth acknowledging that the conflict is internal.

In the words of Marcus Aurelius, “You have power over your mind, not outside events. Realize this and you find strength.”

Once you recognize the fact, you’ll stop making up delusional stories and blame worldly events to justify your indiscipline. Rather, you’ll focus on your inner emotional turmoil. It will prevent hindrance of your progress.

For example:

You’re building a writing habit. Your goal is to show up every day and write as little as 100 words. Initially, internalizing the new behavior is more important than finishing an article.

Now, treat writing separately from how you feel at the time you arrive at the keyboard. You need to suck it up and do it anyway because you owe it to the world.

See Also: 5 Key Insights For A Happy Life From Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations

You can’t control the outcome of your efforts

Suppose you have aspirations to become the next Jimi Hendrix. You tell yourself that “you’ll become a legendary guitar player”.

Unfortunately, you won’t really know if you’ll be able to do that despite putting your best effort.

Other external factors like luck, timing, and genes also play a part in the results you’ll get. Ultimately, you can only control your actions.

Hence, in the chaotic world, it makes sense to trust the process and commit yourself to every moment honestly. Seneca mentions that Stoics take every action with a reserve clause – “If nothing shall occur to the contrary” (for taking uncertainty into account).

It’s similar to phrases like “God willing” and “If the fates allow” in Christian writings.

Practically, you can apply this tenet to your self-improvement goals by road mapping an achievable quantitative goal. Instead of imagining and telling yourself that you’ll build a successful business in three months, write down the specific steps that you’ll execute.

See Also: 4 Powerful Ways To Stay Motivated And Reach Your Goals Through Tough Times

Take action and apply your knowledge

Stoic philosopher Epictetus believed that reading too many books and internalizing their content is not equivalent to progress. Application of that knowledge is what will impart wisdom.

Now, though the advice is 2000 years old, it’s more relevant in today’s digital era because of infomania.

“Motivational porn”.

That’s the term used for readers that scour through self-improvement articles and never take action (hope, that’s not you).

If you read self-improvement articles, then you’re trying to soothe an itch.

Ultimately, you got to realize that the people serving such literature (both the writer and the website publishing it) are making a business out of it. They are trying to help you but you need to move beyond deriving entertainment from such articles.

If you’re looking for a shiny and quick solution to fix your problem, then you won’t find any.

Reading and planning might become a habit and soon an excuse for inaction. So, get on the field and sweat a little.

Implement one tenet in your life and get some shit done today.

The post 3 Stoic Tenets That Can Help Improve Your Life appeared first on Dumb Little Man.

This article was first shared from Dumb Little Man

[sheminecrafts]

Facebook co-founder, Chris Hughes, calls for Facebook to be broken up

The latest call to break up Facebook looks to be the most uncomfortably close to home yet for supreme leader, Mark Zuckerberg.

“Mark’s power is unprecedented and un-American,��� writes Chris Hughes, in an explosive op-ed published in the New York Times. “It is time to break up Facebook.”

It’s a long read but worth indulging for a well articulated argument against the market-denting power of monopolies, shot through with a smattering of personal anecdotes about Hughes’ experience of Zuckerberg — who he at one point almost paints as ‘only human’, before shoulder-dropping into a straight thumbs-down that “it’s his very humanity that makes his unchecked power so problematic.”

The tl;dr of Hughes’ argument against Facebook/Zuckerberg being allowed to continue its/his reign of the Internet knits together different strands of the techlash zeitgeist, linking Zuckerberg’s absolute influence over Facebook — and therefore over the unprecedented billions of people he can reach and behaviourally reprogram via content-sorting algorithms — to the crushing of innovation and startup competition; the crushing of consumer attention, choice and privacy, all hostage to relentless growth targets and an eyeball-demanding ad business model; to the crushing control of speech that Zuckerberg — as Facebook’s absolute monarch — personally commands, with Hughes worrying it’s a power too potent for any one human to wield.

“Mark may never have a boss, but he needs to have some check on his power,” he writes. “The American government needs to do two things: break up Facebook’s monopoly and regulate the company to make it more accountable to the American people.”

His proposed solution is not just a break up of Facebook’s monopoly of online attention by re-separating Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — to try to reinvigorate a social arena it now inescapably owns — he also calls for US policymakers to step up to the plate and regulate, suggesting an oversight agency is also essential to hold Internet companies to account, and pointing to Europe’s recently toughened privacy framework, GDPR, as a start.

“Just breaking up Facebook is not enough. We need a new agency, empowered by Congress to regulate tech companies. Its first mandate should be to protect privacy,” he writes. “A landmark privacy bill in the United States should specify exactly what control Americans have over their digital information, require clearer disclosure to users and provide enough flexibility to the agency to exercise effective oversight over time. The agency should also be charged with guaranteeing basic interoperability across platforms.”

Once an equally fresh faced co-founder of Facebook alongside his Harvard roommate, Hughes left Facebook in 2007, walking away with what would become eye-watering wealth — writing later that he made half a billion dollars for three years’ work, off of the back of Facebook’s 2012 IPO.

It’s harder to put a value on the relief Hughes must also feel, having exited the scandal-hit behemoth so early on — getting out before early missteps hardened into a cynical parade of privacy, security and trust failures that slowly, gradually yet inexorably snowballed into world-wide scandal — with the 2016 revelations about the extent of Kremlin-backed political disinformation lighting up the dark underbelly of Facebook ads.

Soon after, the Cambridge Analytica data misuse scandal shone an equally dim light into similarly murky goings on Facebook’s developer platform. Some of which appeared to hit even closer to home. (Facebook had its own staff helping to target those political ads, and hired the co-founder of the company that had silently sucked out user data in order to sell manipulative political propaganda services to Cambridge Analytica.) 

It’s clear now that Facebook’s privacy, security and trust failures are no accident; but rather chain-linked to Zuckerberg’s leadership; to his strategy of neverending sprint for relentless, bottomless growth — via what was once literally a stated policy of “domination”. 

Hughes, meanwhile, dropped out — coming away from Facebook a very rich man and, if not entirely guilt-free given his own founding role in the saga, certainly lacking Zuckerberg-levels of indelible taint.

Though we can still wonder where his well-articulated concern, about how Facebook’s monopoly grip on markets and attention is massively and horribly denting the human universe, has been channelled prior to publishing this NYT op-ed — i.e. before rising alarm over Facebook’s impact on societies, democracies, human rights and people’s mental health scaled so disfiguringly into mainstream view.

Does he, perhaps, regret not penning a critical op-ed before Roger McNamee, an early Zuckerberg advisor with a far less substantial role in the whole drama, got his twenty-cents in earlier this year — publishing a critical book, Zucked, which recounts his experience trying and failing to get Zuckerberg to turn the tanker and chart a less collaterally damaging course.

It’s certainly curious it’s taken Hughes so long to come out of the woodwork and join the big techlash.

The NYT review of Zucked headlined it as an “anti-Facebook manifesto” — a descriptor that could apply equally to Hughes’ op-ed. And in an interview with TC back in February, McNamee — whose more limited connection to Zuckerberg Facebook has sought to dismiss — said of speaking out: “I may be the wrong messenger, but I don’t see a lot of other volunteers at the moment.”

Facebook certainly won’t be able to be so dismissive of Hughes’ critique, as a fellow co-founder. This is one Zuckerberg gut-punch that will both hurt and be harder to dodge. (We’ve asked Facebook if it has a response and will update if so.)

At the same time, hating on Facebook and Zuckerberg is almost fashionable these days — as the company’s consumer- and market-bending power has flipped its fortunes from winning friends and influencing people to turning frenemies into out-and-out haters and politically charged enemies.

Whether it’s former mentors, former colleagues — and now of course politicians and policymakers leading the charge and calling for the company to be broken up.

Seen from that angle, it’s a shame Hughes waited so long to add his two cents. It does risk him being labelled an opportunist — or, dare we say it, a techlash populist. (Some of us have been banging on about Facebook’s intrusive influence for years, so, er, welcome to the club Chris!) 

Though, equally, he may have been trying to protect his historical friendship with Zuckerberg. (The op-ed begins with Hughes talking about the last time he saw Zuckerberg, in summer 2017, which it’s hard not to read as him tacitly acknowledging there likely won’t be any more personal visits after this bombshell.)

Hughes is also not alone in feeling he needs to bide his time to come out against Zuckerberg.

The WhatsApp founders, who jumped the Facebook mothership last year, kept their heads down and their mouths shut for years, despite a product philosophy that boiled down to ‘fuck ads’ — only finally making their lack of love for their former employer’s ad-fuelled privacy incursions into WhatsApp clear post-exit from the belly of the beast — in their own subtle and not so subtle ways.

In their case they appear to have been mostly waiting for enough shares to vest. (Brian Acton did leave a bunch on the table.) But Hughes has been sitting on his money mountain for years.

Still, at least we finally have his critical — and rarer — account to add to the pile; A Facebook co-founder, who had remained close to Zuckerberg’s orbit, finally reaching for the unfriend button.

from iraidajzsmmwtv https://tcrn.ch/2LxhdlC via IFTTT

[technicalsolutions88]

The latest call to break up Facebook looks to be the most uncomfortably close to home yet for supreme leader, Mark Zuckerberg.

“Mark’s power is unprecedented and un-American,” writes Chris Hughes, in an explosive op-ed published in the New York Times. “It is time to break up Facebook.”

It’s a long read but worth indulging for a well articulated argument against the market-denting power of monopolies, shot through with a smattering of personal anecdotes about Hughes’ experience of Zuckerberg — who he at one point almost paints as ‘only human’, before shoulder-dropping into a straight thumbs-down that “it’s his very humanity that makes his unchecked power so problematic.”

The tl;dr of Hughes’ argument against Facebook/Zuckerberg being allowed to continue its/his reign of the Internet knits together different strands of the techlash zeitgeist, linking Zuckerberg’s absolute influence over Facebook — and therefore over the unprecedented billions of people he can reach and behaviourally reprogram via content-sorting algorithms — to the crushing of innovation and startup competition; the crushing of consumer attention, choice and privacy, all hostage to relentless growth targets and an eyeball-demanding ad business model; to the crushing control of speech that Zuckerberg — as Facebook’s absolute monarch — personally commands, with Hughes worrying it’s a power too potent for any one human to wield.

“Mark may never have a boss, but he needs to have some check on his power,” he writes. “The American government needs to do two things: break up Facebook’s monopoly and regulate the company to make it more accountable to the American people.”

His proposed solution is not just a break up of Facebook’s monopoly of online attention by re-separating Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — to try to reinvigorate a social arena it now inescapably owns — he also calls for US policymakers to step up to the plate and regulate, suggesting an oversight agency is also essential to hold Internet companies to account, and pointing to Europe’s recently toughened privacy framework, GDPR, as a start.

“Just breaking up Facebook is not enough. We need a new agency, empowered by Congress to regulate tech companies. Its first mandate should be to protect privacy,” he writes. “A landmark privacy bill in the United States should specify exactly what control Americans have over their digital information, require clearer disclosure to users and provide enough flexibility to the agency to exercise effective oversight over time. The agency should also be charged with guaranteeing basic interoperability across platforms.”

Once an equally fresh faced co-founder of Facebook alongside his Harvard roommate, Hughes left Facebook in 2007, walking away with what would become eye-watering wealth — writing later that he made half a billion dollars for three years’ work, off of the back of Facebook’s 2012 IPO.

It’s harder to put a value on the relief Hughes must also feel, having exited the scandal-hit behemoth so early on — getting out before early missteps hardened into a cynical parade of privacy, security and trust failures that slowly, gradually yet inexorably snowballed into world-wide scandal — with the 2016 revelations about the extent of Kremlin-backed political disinformation lighting up the dark underbelly of Facebook ads.

Soon after, the Cambridge Analytica data misuse scandal shone an equally dim light into similarly murky goings on Facebook’s developer platform. Some of which appeared to hit even closer to home. (Facebook had its own staff helping to target those political ads, and hired the co-founder of the company that had silently sucked out user data in order to sell manipulative political propaganda services to Cambridge Analytica.) 

It’s clear now that Facebook’s privacy, security and trust failures are no accident; but rather chain-linked to Zuckerberg’s leadership; to his strategy of neverending sprint for relentless, bottomless growth — via what was once literally a stated policy of “domination”. 

Hughes, meanwhile, dropped out — coming away from Facebook a very rich man and, if not entirely guilt-free given his own founding role in the saga, certainly lacking Zuckerberg-levels of indelible taint.

Though we can still wonder where his well-articulated concern, about how Facebook’s monopoly grip on markets and attention is massively and horribly denting the human universe, has been channelled prior to publishing this NYT op-ed — i.e. before rising alarm over Facebook’s impact on societies, democracies, human rights and people’s mental health scaled so disfiguringly into mainstream view.

Does he, perhaps, regret not penning a critical op-ed before Roger McNamee, an early Zuckerberg advisor with a far less substantial role in the whole drama, got his twenty-cents in earlier this year — publishing a critical book, Zucked, which recounts his experience trying and failing to get Zuckerberg to turn the tanker and chart a less collaterally damaging course.

It’s certainly curious it’s taken Hughes so long to come out of the woodwork and join the big techlash.

The NYT review of Zucked headlined it as an “anti-Facebook manifesto” — a descriptor that could apply equally to Hughes’ op-ed. And in an interview with TC back in February, McNamee — whose more limited connection to Zuckerberg Facebook has sought to dismiss — said of speaking out: “I may be the wrong messenger, but I don’t see a lot of other volunteers at the moment.”

Facebook certainly won’t be able to be so dismissive of Hughes’ critique, as a fellow co-founder. This is one Zuckerberg gut-punch that will both hurt and be harder to dodge. (We’ve asked Facebook if it has a response and will update if so.)

At the same time, hating on Facebook and Zuckerberg is almost fashionable these days — as the company’s consumer- and market-bending power has flipped its fortunes from winning friends and influencing people to turning frenemies into out-and-out haters and politically charged enemies.

Whether it’s former mentors, former colleagues — and now of course politicians and policymakers leading the charge and calling for the company to be broken up.

Seen from that angle, it’s a shame Hughes waited so long to add his two cents. It does risk him being labelled an opportunist — or, dare we say it, a techlash populist. (Some of us have been banging on about Facebook’s intrusive influence for years, so, er, welcome to the club Chris!) 

Though, equally, he may have been trying to protect his historical friendship with Zuckerberg. (The op-ed begins with Hughes talking about the last time he saw Zuckerberg, in summer 2017, which it’s hard not to read as him tacitly acknowledging there likely won’t be any more personal visits after this bombshell.)

Hughes is also not alone in feeling he needs to bide his time to come out against Zuckerberg.

The WhatsApp founders, who jumped the Facebook mothership last year, kept their heads down and their mouths shut for years, despite a product philosophy that boiled down to ‘fuck ads’ — only finally making their lack of love for their former employer’s ad-fuelled privacy incursions into WhatsApp clear post-exit from the belly of the beast — in their own subtle and not so subtle ways.

In their case they appear to have been mostly waiting for enough shares to vest. (Brian Acton did leave a bunch on the table.) But Hughes has been sitting on his money mountain for years.

Still, at least we finally have his critical — and rarer — account to add to the pile; A Facebook co-founder, who had remained close to Zuckerberg’s orbit, finally reaching for the unfriend button.

from Social – TechCrunch https://tcrn.ch/2LxhdlC Original Content From: https://techcrunch.com

[marketingplaybook]

The Facebook News Feed is Changing to Favor Person to Person Engagement

“It looks like the Facebook News Feed is changing to prefer user-to-user engagement and squeeze out brands and passive activity (which isn’t clearly defined) and possibly even ads, though there could be some caveats there for brands like news and groups and live videos, but we really don’t know yet, they could all be screwed, too, but let’s chill and wait a while to see what happens” was my original title.

That’s how freaking convoluted this is.

Facebook dropped a potential bombshell of an announcement today — at least on brands and publishers. A major change is being made to the news feed that will favor people and negatively impact the visibility of page content.

My head is spinning for one primary reason: As often is the case with Facebook announcements, it’s light on details. Lots of words, but few specifics. Without specifics, we fill in the blanks. And when we fill in the blanks, we all start interpreting the announcement differently based on our own biases and experiences.

A great example of this is how Josh Constine of TechCrunch interpreted the announcement. We’ll get to that in a minute.

Before I go any further, let me say one thing: We don’t know. It sounds bad. But we don’t know exactly how this will impact your brand or mine until this actually rolls out.

Let’s do our best to decipher this. Step by step, let’s go through the announcement, the background, what it all means, and a few of my own personal thoughts.

A Message from Mark Zuckerberg

You can read Mark Zuckerberg’s entire message here:

A few primary points…

“…we’ve always put friends and family at the core of the experience.”

“But recently we’ve gotten feedback from our community that public content — posts from businesses, brands and media — is crowding out the personal moments that lead us to connect more with each other.”

Immediately, we see the problem. Facebook sees person-to-person interaction as the “core” Facebook experience. The brand stuff is fine, too, but there’s a lot of it. And it’s starting to take over.

“The research shows that when we use social media to connect with people we care about, it can be good for our well-being.”

That’s good! But…

“…passively reading articles or watching videos — even if they’re entertaining or informative — may not be as good.”

Zuckerberg implies here that interaction with people is inherently healthy whereas interacting with typical brand content (articles, videos, “entertaining or informative” content) is often passive and not so good.

I guess that means changes are coming…

“The first changes you’ll see will be in News Feed, where you can expect to see more from your friends, family and groups.”

Something for brands to keep in mind. If you get slammed by this change, groups could be your way back in. But that also could be one more frontier for brands to manipulate and ruin.

“As we roll this out, you’ll see less public content like posts from businesses, brands, and media. And the public content you see more will be held to the same standard — it should encourage meaningful interactions between people.”

Confusing. You’re going to see less content from brands, businesses, and media. Time to start preparing for the worst. But then a sudden ray of sunshine. There will be some public content that we see more? As long as it encourages “meaningful interactions between people”?

Zuck continues to suggest that despite saying we’ll see less brand content, maybe not all brands are screwed…

“For example, there are many tight-knit communities around TV shows and sports teams. We’ve seen people interact way more around live videos than regular ones. Some news helps start conversations on important issues.”

Sounds great! We have a chance. But just as you were getting your hopes up…

“But too often today, watching video, reading news or getting a page update is just a passive experience.”

So, it sounds like live videos are still good. But other video — and news — are bad because they lead to a “passive experience.”

“Now, I want to be clear: by making these changes, I expect the time people spend on Facebook and some measures of engagement will go down. But I also expect the time you do spend on Facebook will be more valuable.”

Is this true??

These changes are meant to improve the user experience. If you’re having a better experience on Facebook, would you spend less time on the platform? Or does this have something to do with the mindless trash that leads to online addiction? Less of that, so less time? Not sure.

Broken Down by TechCrunch

The media source I trust most when it comes down to Facebook topics is Josh Constine of TechCrunch. But as I read his interpretation of the announcement, I’m either dense or there is still plenty that I don’t know or understand.

From Josh:

“Facebook is making a huge change to its News Feed algorithm to prioritize friends and posts that spark comments between them at the expense of public content, news outlets, and importantly, the total time spent and ads you see on the social network.”

Nearly all of that sentence is consistent with what I read in Zuck’s announcement, except for one key word: “ads.” Nowhere did Zuck mention ads. And neither did Adam Mosseri, Head of News Feed, in his News Feed FYI announcement.

Would this change impact ads? I don’t know why it would, unless Facebook chooses to show fewer of them. But I didn’t see anything that would indicate that.

One wildcard here is that diminished organic reach could increase competition and costs. But that still doesn’t mean fewer ads.

Josh continues:

“Live videos generating discussion, star social media creators, celebrities, Groups posts, local business events, and trusted news sources are other types of content that should get a boost.”

Is this true??

“Star social media creators” are public figures and pages. News sources are pages. Celebrities have pages. Local business events come from pages. Trusted news sources are pages. They aren’t people. Why would they get a boost?

Video Explanation

This video explanation from Mosseri does a better job of helping me grasp what might be happening here. Watch it…

A few primary points from the video…

Mosseri says:

“Now, we’ll also consider whether a potential interaction is between two people or between a person and a page, which are the accounts run by businesses, organizations, and public figures. Person to person will be more valuable than person to page.”

That doesn’t leave any room, in my interpretation, for live videos from pages, local business events, news stories, etc. All of that falls under the “businesses, organizations, and public figures” that should see a negative impact of this update.

“Connections with people in your network will get the biggest boost because interacting with people you’re close to is more meaningful.”

Once again, no mention of any caveats for pages.

“We’re also going to prioritize exchanges that took more time and care.”

This is a key point that is critical to this update. For far too long, weaknesses in the news feed have been exploited with click bait headlines, engagement bait, and other manipulations from brands. Typically, they get lots of engagement as a result, but not strong engagement that would take “more time and care.”

The key here appears to not only be comments, but thoughtful comments. Or, from the video, “typing out a long and thoughtful reply.”

Once again, passive scrolling is bad. And what seems to be implied is that watching video without sound isn’t valuable. Even clicking to watch the video may not be a strong signal. And I’m even thinking that reactions (like, love, haha, etc.) aren’t going to get nearly as much weight as they may have previously.

Engagement Bait: Don’t Even Think About It

Facebook seems to be a step ahead of marketers these days. They’re sick of us. They’re tired of making updates, only to see marketers exploit a weakness. As a result, yet another change needs to be made to the news feed.

Facebook sees the next flurry coming. “Oh, comments are good? Sweet! Comment below to be eligible for a free iPad!”

Nope. From Mosseri’s announcement…

“Using ‘engagement-bait’ to goad people into commenting on posts is not a meaningful interaction, and we will continue to demote these posts in News Feed.”

What Does This Mean For Your Page?

Let me make this easy for you:

We. Don’t. Know.

It certainly sounds like people will be favored over pages in the news feed. We’ve heard this before. It certainly sounds like organic reach may take a deep dive. But, depending on how you interpret this, there may be room for brands that “do it right.”

In case you’re wondering, no. This is not proof that Facebook is implementing that catastrophic Explore tab test that moved all brand content. Once again, Mosseri is right on top of it…

I don’t know if your organic reach is going to disappear. I don’t know if this will impact ads. Facebook has attempted to make changes to the news feed in the past that didn’t seem to change much of anything. So, we really don’t know.

We wait. We test. Then? We talk about it.

My Gut Reaction

I hate reacting to something that is so ambiguous, but I’m going to do it anyway…

Not everyone uses Facebook the same way. I purposefully see more brand and publisher content in my news feed than posts from friends. That’s only partly because I’m an antisocial jerk. But it’s mainly because I care most about political and sports news.

That’s the stuff I actually want to see. I don’t comment on those posts. I don’t provide “long and thoughtful replies.” Will I stop seeing that content?

If I do, that would kind of suck. That would be bad for my Facebook experience.

Facebook, of course, recommends using the “See First in News Feed” option that will still apply, even for brands.

But, come on. No one is going to do that. Even I won’t do that.

My Philosophical Reaction

Something needed to be done.

I have an admission to make: I don’t enjoy Facebook from the user’s perspective nearly as much as I once did.

Granted, it’s crazy that I’ve been using the site for about 11 years now. I was obsessed with the platform in the early days to connect with friends. Loved everything about it.

Then I got older. The world got crazier. Brands started ruining it. Trolls took over. Everyone became a political expert. Fake news. Click bait.

It just isn’t nearly as fun for me as it once was. As a more “mature” user, I’m much more careful about what I post. As a result, what I post on my personal profile is usually boring (there was a time when I posted mindless updates CONSTANTLY). I rarely comment. And I NEVER comment on a page post.

Instead, I use Facebook — as a user — passively now. I do exactly what Facebook doesn’t want me to do. And they’re right: Using Facebook passively results in a negative experience.

Facebook has a point. Most brand content really does suck now. When it’s “engaging,” it’s often manipulative. News publishers prey on our biggest fears and pain points. Everything is breaking news. Controversy. Shocking.

It’s freaking exhausting.

I want to escape. Using Facebook as a user right now is the complete opposite of escape. But I’m hooked. I can’t leave. Dopamine and stuff.

Facebook is in a tough spot here. I want my Facebook experience to be better. But is Facebook simply a product of a sick, ridiculous world right now that makes us all depressed and panicked? Or is there something Facebook can do to help us enjoy it all again?

I guess that’s what Facebook is trying to figure out. I appreciate the attempt, especially if it may be at the expense of their own revenues.

Your Turn

This is going to be a controversial announcement. There will be hysteria. There will be panic. The reaction will be very similar to the the comments you read under a political post on Facebook. It’s going to be nuts.

What are your calm, measured thoughts?

Let me know in the comments below!

The post The Facebook News Feed is Changing to Favor Person to Person Engagement appeared first on Jon Loomer Digital.