Just saw this. How much info do you really want to give Facebook?
Here’s what Facebook Graph Search is doing next | VentureBeat: "Once Facebook dumps all the Open Graph data into the mix — way beyond what pages you like, including what you bought, sites you’ve commented on, your online game scores, etc. — the computations get even more complex, the filters for relevance even more clever."
Unless there is other information such as addresses or bank accounts or other identifiers used, you cannot make an assumption programmatically that two individuals are in fact the same person.
I assume that many of these tracking companies do, in fact, know who they are following and can figure out one person from another. But again, I don't think they are actually going to be blocking people who don't give them the correct birth date unless there is a very specific reason to supply it. And if they do start blocking people because people try to hide personal info about themselves from companies like Facebook, then the privacy wars are going to get kicked up a notch or two.
If the PayPal user is linking to a legitimate bank or credit card and there have been no problems and the user has been using PayPal, I doubt that PayPal is going to delete the user. (eBay has had some sketchy people/companies selling stuff there, so I don't think eBay goes out of its way to delete people.)
Now, a company like Facebook could start deleting people if their birthdates don't match up, but I suspect that those who get deleted will figure it is time to take a break from Facebook anyway.
These companies don't want to delete people unless there's a real problem for the companies. I doubt that providing an incorrect birth date (unless you are a minor) is actually much of a problem for Facebook. Of course, they want as much accurate info as possible to sell your data, but that's precisely why people don't always provide it. Facebook is going to have to figure out that privacy balance.
Most websites (unless they are liquor sites) don't require you to provide birth dates.
I'm sure companies are already comparing data. If they want to start deleting people who don't provide accurate birth dates on social media (it's not like these important financial records), so be it.
I'm noticing that while Techdirt advocates playing nice with copyright, trademark, and media coverage issues, many of the highlighted examples are about fights of one sort or another that then generate lots of press coverage.
I am wondering if the norm will become fighting rather than letting things go or working things out quietly behind the scenes precisely because fighting gets a whole lot more coverage. If you feel attention is better than no attention, even if you risk getting negative attention, then maybe you'll go that route.
For example, in two very recent examples, Banks here and Musk with Tesla, engaged in Twitter trash talk. They either didn't think about any negative consequences or did and felt the exposure was worth it.
I bring this up because I haven't been confident that we can count on norms of behavior to get everyone to play nice. What if norms of behavior are going the other way and encouraging everyone to trash talk as a way to play the game?
Those of us who support environmental causes would love it if a bunch of people bought Teslas to spite the media. If people feel buying a Tesla is a way to get even with the New York Times, I hope we see more controversy like this.
And I'm sure Tesla would be happy, too: whatever it takes to sell more cars and get more charging stations across the country.
If there is a backlash that favors Tesla and generates more sales as a result, good.
Tesla won this one: I understand, far better than I did coming in, the capabilities and limitations of that car. And, had I the wherewithal, I would buy one IN A HEARTBEAT, because it would fill my needs very well.
Then no problem. Perhaps Broder is actually working with Tesla to generate some controversy to boost interest in Tesla. Hollywood creates fake feuds for promotional reasons. Maybe this one is a fake feud, too.
HAD BRODER ADMITTED WHAT HE WAS DOING UP FRONT, WE WOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING THIS.
And I am saying that if Musk hadn't responded the way he did, we wouldn't be discussing this.
Environmental issues and sustainability are my primary causes in life so I support companies like Tesla and want them to succeed.
However, from a PR standpoint, you either very carefully pick and choose who you let review your products or you take what you can get.
I don't know if Broder has a bias against renewal energy, but Tesla's PR people should know that if he does. If there is any indication they will get a review they don't want, they shouldn't offer the product for a test drive. Or at least for a drive that doesn't have a company person riding along.
From your comments, I gather you don't like media much (or at least places like the NYT and Wired). And that's fine. But someone with your feelings probably shouldn't seek out reviewers who work at those publications. Do you see? If you don't trust the New York Times, then by God, don't ask them to review your product.
So when I run out of fuel, or lock up the motor because I refused to get oil changes, I can blame the manufacturer for "not designing an idiot-proof car"??
I don't think you understand precisely what goes into engineering a product, not with statements like that.
But I do understand customer service. Some retailers are famous for accepting returned products, no questions asked. And others stand by a 100% money-back guarantee. They hope that by doing this, they show confidence in their products and that the satisfied customers will outweigh the bad ones.
People will screw up products and not necessarily take the blame for them. And then they will say negative things about your product online. This is the nature of dealing with consumers. Any company that wants to sell to consumers has to learn how to deal with complaints, whether they are based on reality or not.
If a customer has a complaint and you fix it, you have increased the chance of long-term customer loyalty.
You can bitch about Broder all you want, but if you are dealing with customers, you will be confronted with a full range of people. If you can do it with a smile, it will serve you well.
this idiot is not 'average' he is below average, and lied, or misrepresented the truth.
If you are designing products for consumers, you will run into your share of liars and idiots. THAT'S the point. You need to design products that are fairly idiot-proof or you at least need to prepare for the fact that those products may be misused. And the nature of social media is that even more people will share their real or imagined bad experiences. Slamming anyone who has a bad experience will only make the company look bad, and that has been the case for Tesla. Not because of the product, but because of the Musk's response.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe next time the reporter rides along and Tesla does the driving
And, really, that's not the real issue at all: the real issue is that Broder LIED ABOUT HIS TREATMENT OF THE CAR.
Let me repeat that: BRODER LIED.
As I said before, if you have reason to think a journalist isn't going to give you the review you want, you don't give that journalist the product to review. Broder has been around for a long time. He's written enough stuff that people should have a pretty good idea of what he is likely to write. (Like I said, I haven't paid enough attention to his work to know if he has biases, but anyone contacting him for a review should have done that research.)
That's what you pay a PR or marketing communication person to do: to help you get good press coverage and/or to moderate damage when you get bad coverage.
And keep in mind that now the press tends to be anyone online. So there are certainly other people who WILL lie to trash a product. So you have to learn to deal with it in a way that will help, not hurt, you.
It's much better to say, "Sorry our product didn't work for you the way we expected. Let's go over things and see what went wrong. And after we review the issues you had, let's try this again."
And now it comes out that Broder is an oil company shill?? Even worse, for the NYT, Broder, and their apologists.
I suppose I should know more about this, because I follow environmental stories closely. But I haven't paid any attention to what Broder writes on energy policy. I read what the New York Times publishes, but don't remember thinking about his biases one way or the other. I've never paid attention to his by-line.
However, if it is the case that he is pro-fossil fuel vehicles and anti-electric vehicles, shouldn't Tesla have known this and maybe not given him the car for a test drive?
In other words, if a trap was set for them, shouldn't they have anticipated this? That's what PR is all about.
My truck gets about 270-300 miles on a tank, so how is that any better than a Tesla? My wife's Focus gets around 350 or so--again, not to significantly different, ESPECIALLY when you do the sensible thing and stop for fuel WELL BEFORE you hit empty.
Isn't the issue more about how infrequently there are charging stations for the Tesla rather than its range?
Some people like to drive their gasoline cars until they are nearly empty. Others like to refuel them way before they get near empty. With an electric car requiring specialized charging options, there's less flexibility to accommodate driver preferences.
I'm glad there are Teslas and other electric cars. But I don't think they have ever been pitched as the primary car for the average family as of yet. The pioneers have to establish the market first and then eventually it will filter down to everyone else.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe next time the reporter rides along and Tesla does the driving
I think you're incorrect, or at least being disingenuous. ...
So plugging in, hitting the head, sitting down for a meal or a drink and snack, and then hitting the road again isn't too far beyond what we already do with gas burners.
Not sure I get your point. Are you saying Broder should have been able to drive the Tesla like any other car without needing to know anything about it? There is no learning curve with the Tesla?
What I have been saying is that Musk claims Broder intentionally screwed up the test drive. If something like that is a possibility and you're a company that can't take that in stride, then don't give your reviewer that opportunity. If you want to make sure the test drive can't be screwed up, then I suppose you should conduct the test drive yourself and just demo it for the media.
Look, any company that provides anything to the media for a review runs the risk of getting a bad review. You've just got to be prepared for that risk. Some companies only provide review products to media they know will write favorably about them. Others hand out enough review copies that they hope they will at least get some good ones out of the exercise and will ignore the bad ones. And in other cases, if the reviews are all bad, then perhaps they decide the product needs more work.
But I think you are massively underplaying the ability to grow an economy without associated negative consequences.
I think it is possible, too, but not the way it is happening now. Collectively we're doing too little and not enough of what might be useful.
It's amazing what China has managed to do in terms of economic development. But the photos of air pollution there are literally breath taking. That economic progress has come at a huge environmental cost. I am hopeful, however, that China will lead the world in renewable energy.
Humanity will adapt to whatever develops, but I am not sure it is going to be a smooth transition. I think humans tend to be more reactive than proactive.
The upside of recession is that consumption goes down. People drive less. They live in smaller homes or move back in with families. They buy used stuff or they rent/share.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quality of life
This was the part of the article I was referencing.
____
“There is a pattern in the past of civilization after civilization wearing out its welcome from nature, overexploiting its environment, overexpanding, overpopulating,” Wright said when I reached him by phone at his home in British Columbia, Canada. “They tend to collapse quite soon after they reach their period of greatest magnificence and prosperity. That pattern holds good for a lot of societies, among them the Romans, the ancient Maya and the Sumerians of what is now southern Iraq. There are many other examples, including smaller-scale societies such as Easter Island. The very things that cause societies to prosper in the short run, especially new ways to exploit the environment such as the invention of irrigation, lead to disaster in the long run because of unforeseen complications. This is what I called in ‘A Short History of Progress’ the ‘progress trap.’ We have set in motion an industrial machine of such complexity and such dependence on expansion that we do not know how to make do with less or move to a steady state in terms of our demands on nature. We have failed to control human numbers. They have tripled in my lifetime. And the problem is made much worse by the widening gap between rich and poor, the upward concentration of wealth, which ensures there can never be enough to go around. The number of people in dire poverty today—about 2 billion—is greater than the world’s entire population in the early 1900s. That’s not progress.”
On the post: Facebook Apparently Doesn't Believe Anyone Over 100 Could Use The Service, 104 Year Old Has To Lie
Re: Why give Facebook your real age anyway?
Here’s what Facebook Graph Search is doing next | VentureBeat: "Once Facebook dumps all the Open Graph data into the mix — way beyond what pages you like, including what you bought, sites you’ve commented on, your online game scores, etc. — the computations get even more complex, the filters for relevance even more clever."
On the post: Facebook Apparently Doesn't Believe Anyone Over 100 Could Use The Service, 104 Year Old Has To Lie
Re: Re: I and others will rue the day...
I assume that many of these tracking companies do, in fact, know who they are following and can figure out one person from another. But again, I don't think they are actually going to be blocking people who don't give them the correct birth date unless there is a very specific reason to supply it. And if they do start blocking people because people try to hide personal info about themselves from companies like Facebook, then the privacy wars are going to get kicked up a notch or two.
On the post: Facebook Apparently Doesn't Believe Anyone Over 100 Could Use The Service, 104 Year Old Has To Lie
Re: Re: Re: I and others will rue the day...
If the PayPal user is linking to a legitimate bank or credit card and there have been no problems and the user has been using PayPal, I doubt that PayPal is going to delete the user. (eBay has had some sketchy people/companies selling stuff there, so I don't think eBay goes out of its way to delete people.)
Now, a company like Facebook could start deleting people if their birthdates don't match up, but I suspect that those who get deleted will figure it is time to take a break from Facebook anyway.
These companies don't want to delete people unless there's a real problem for the companies. I doubt that providing an incorrect birth date (unless you are a minor) is actually much of a problem for Facebook. Of course, they want as much accurate info as possible to sell your data, but that's precisely why people don't always provide it. Facebook is going to have to figure out that privacy balance.
Most websites (unless they are liquor sites) don't require you to provide birth dates.
On the post: Facebook Apparently Doesn't Believe Anyone Over 100 Could Use The Service, 104 Year Old Has To Lie
Re: I and others will rue the day...
On the post: Facebook Apparently Doesn't Believe Anyone Over 100 Could Use The Service, 104 Year Old Has To Lie
Why give Facebook your real age anyway?
This article says "has to lie." How about, "wants to lie"?
On the post: Copyright And The Harlem Shake: Selective Enforcement
Re: Re: Controversy gets coverage
Azealia Banks Starts Twitter Beef with Diplo, Releases 'Harlem Shake' Video | Fashion Magazine | News. Fashion. Beauty. Music. | oystermag.com
And Musk using the word "fake" about Broder's review is provocative.
On the post: Copyright And The Harlem Shake: Selective Enforcement
Controversy gets coverage
I am wondering if the norm will become fighting rather than letting things go or working things out quietly behind the scenes precisely because fighting gets a whole lot more coverage. If you feel attention is better than no attention, even if you risk getting negative attention, then maybe you'll go that route.
For example, in two very recent examples, Banks here and Musk with Tesla, engaged in Twitter trash talk. They either didn't think about any negative consequences or did and felt the exposure was worth it.
I bring this up because I haven't been confident that we can count on norms of behavior to get everyone to play nice. What if norms of behavior are going the other way and encouraging everyone to trash talk as a way to play the game?
On the post: What The Tesla / NY Times Fight Teaches Us About The Media
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I'm sure Tesla would be happy, too: whatever it takes to sell more cars and get more charging stations across the country.
If there is a backlash that favors Tesla and generates more sales as a result, good.
On the post: What The Tesla / NY Times Fight Teaches Us About The Media
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then no problem. Perhaps Broder is actually working with Tesla to generate some controversy to boost interest in Tesla. Hollywood creates fake feuds for promotional reasons. Maybe this one is a fake feud, too.
On the post: What The Tesla / NY Times Fight Teaches Us About The Media
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I am saying that if Musk hadn't responded the way he did, we wouldn't be discussing this.
Environmental issues and sustainability are my primary causes in life so I support companies like Tesla and want them to succeed.
However, from a PR standpoint, you either very carefully pick and choose who you let review your products or you take what you can get.
I don't know if Broder has a bias against renewal energy, but Tesla's PR people should know that if he does. If there is any indication they will get a review they don't want, they shouldn't offer the product for a test drive. Or at least for a drive that doesn't have a company person riding along.
From your comments, I gather you don't like media much (or at least places like the NYT and Wired). And that's fine. But someone with your feelings probably shouldn't seek out reviewers who work at those publications. Do you see? If you don't trust the New York Times, then by God, don't ask them to review your product.
On the post: What The Tesla / NY Times Fight Teaches Us About The Media
Re: Re: Re:
I don't think you understand precisely what goes into engineering a product, not with statements like that.
But I do understand customer service. Some retailers are famous for accepting returned products, no questions asked. And others stand by a 100% money-back guarantee. They hope that by doing this, they show confidence in their products and that the satisfied customers will outweigh the bad ones.
People will screw up products and not necessarily take the blame for them. And then they will say negative things about your product online. This is the nature of dealing with consumers. Any company that wants to sell to consumers has to learn how to deal with complaints, whether they are based on reality or not.
If a customer has a complaint and you fix it, you have increased the chance of long-term customer loyalty.
You can bitch about Broder all you want, but if you are dealing with customers, you will be confronted with a full range of people. If you can do it with a smile, it will serve you well.
On the post: What The Tesla / NY Times Fight Teaches Us About The Media
Re:
If you are designing products for consumers, you will run into your share of liars and idiots. THAT'S the point. You need to design products that are fairly idiot-proof or you at least need to prepare for the fact that those products may be misused. And the nature of social media is that even more people will share their real or imagined bad experiences. Slamming anyone who has a bad experience will only make the company look bad, and that has been the case for Tesla. Not because of the product, but because of the Musk's response.
On the post: What The Tesla / NY Times Fight Teaches Us About The Media
A good article to read
"If an average driver needs such hand-holding from an automaker to make the trip, it’s the wrong car for the trip."
On the post: What The Tesla / NY Times Fight Teaches Us About The Media
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe next time the reporter rides along and Tesla does the driving
Let me repeat that: BRODER LIED.
As I said before, if you have reason to think a journalist isn't going to give you the review you want, you don't give that journalist the product to review. Broder has been around for a long time. He's written enough stuff that people should have a pretty good idea of what he is likely to write. (Like I said, I haven't paid enough attention to his work to know if he has biases, but anyone contacting him for a review should have done that research.)
That's what you pay a PR or marketing communication person to do: to help you get good press coverage and/or to moderate damage when you get bad coverage.
And keep in mind that now the press tends to be anyone online. So there are certainly other people who WILL lie to trash a product. So you have to learn to deal with it in a way that will help, not hurt, you.
It's much better to say, "Sorry our product didn't work for you the way we expected. Let's go over things and see what went wrong. And after we review the issues you had, let's try this again."
On the post: What The Tesla / NY Times Fight Teaches Us About The Media
Re: Re: Still Digging
I suppose I should know more about this, because I follow environmental stories closely. But I haven't paid any attention to what Broder writes on energy policy. I read what the New York Times publishes, but don't remember thinking about his biases one way or the other. I've never paid attention to his by-line.
However, if it is the case that he is pro-fossil fuel vehicles and anti-electric vehicles, shouldn't Tesla have known this and maybe not given him the car for a test drive?
In other words, if a trap was set for them, shouldn't they have anticipated this? That's what PR is all about.
On the post: What The Tesla / NY Times Fight Teaches Us About The Media
Re: Re: Both have egg on their faces
Isn't the issue more about how infrequently there are charging stations for the Tesla rather than its range?
Some people like to drive their gasoline cars until they are nearly empty. Others like to refuel them way before they get near empty. With an electric car requiring specialized charging options, there's less flexibility to accommodate driver preferences.
I'm glad there are Teslas and other electric cars. But I don't think they have ever been pitched as the primary car for the average family as of yet. The pioneers have to establish the market first and then eventually it will filter down to everyone else.
On the post: What The Tesla / NY Times Fight Teaches Us About The Media
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe next time the reporter rides along and Tesla does the driving
So plugging in, hitting the head, sitting down for a meal or a drink and snack, and then hitting the road again isn't too far beyond what we already do with gas burners.
Not sure I get your point. Are you saying Broder should have been able to drive the Tesla like any other car without needing to know anything about it? There is no learning curve with the Tesla?
What I have been saying is that Musk claims Broder intentionally screwed up the test drive. If something like that is a possibility and you're a company that can't take that in stride, then don't give your reviewer that opportunity. If you want to make sure the test drive can't be screwed up, then I suppose you should conduct the test drive yourself and just demo it for the media.
Look, any company that provides anything to the media for a review runs the risk of getting a bad review. You've just got to be prepared for that risk. Some companies only provide review products to media they know will write favorably about them. Others hand out enough review copies that they hope they will at least get some good ones out of the exercise and will ignore the bad ones. And in other cases, if the reviews are all bad, then perhaps they decide the product needs more work.
On the post: What The Tesla / NY Times Fight Teaches Us About The Media
Re: Re: Maybe next time the reporter rides along and Tesla does the driving
If you want to control what the press writes about you (which isn't easy), then I suppose you control (stage manage) the demonstration, too.
On the post: Should We Be Measuring Happiness As An Economic Measure?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quality of life
I think it is possible, too, but not the way it is happening now. Collectively we're doing too little and not enough of what might be useful.
It's amazing what China has managed to do in terms of economic development. But the photos of air pollution there are literally breath taking. That economic progress has come at a huge environmental cost. I am hopeful, however, that China will lead the world in renewable energy.
Humanity will adapt to whatever develops, but I am not sure it is going to be a smooth transition. I think humans tend to be more reactive than proactive.
The upside of recession is that consumption goes down. People drive less. They live in smaller homes or move back in with families. They buy used stuff or they rent/share.
On the post: Should We Be Measuring Happiness As An Economic Measure?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quality of life
____
“There is a pattern in the past of civilization after civilization wearing out its welcome from nature, overexploiting its environment, overexpanding, overpopulating,” Wright said when I reached him by phone at his home in British Columbia, Canada. “They tend to collapse quite soon after they reach their period of greatest magnificence and prosperity. That pattern holds good for a lot of societies, among them the Romans, the ancient Maya and the Sumerians of what is now southern Iraq. There are many other examples, including smaller-scale societies such as Easter Island. The very things that cause societies to prosper in the short run, especially new ways to exploit the environment such as the invention of irrigation, lead to disaster in the long run because of unforeseen complications. This is what I called in ‘A Short History of Progress’ the ‘progress trap.’ We have set in motion an industrial machine of such complexity and such dependence on expansion that we do not know how to make do with less or move to a steady state in terms of our demands on nature. We have failed to control human numbers. They have tripled in my lifetime. And the problem is made much worse by the widening gap between rich and poor, the upward concentration of wealth, which ensures there can never be enough to go around. The number of people in dire poverty today—about 2 billion—is greater than the world’s entire population in the early 1900s. That’s not progress.”
Next >>