Google is not a traditional corporation. They don’t intend to be. So let the crazy train begin as Google reinvents the alphabet.
Well, not exactly, but their new company is called Alphabet. According to Google founder Larry Page, Alphabet is going to be a collection of companies. The way I read it, Alphabet sounds more like a movement than a company. With the intention of raising up strong leadership, Alphabet will appoint a CEO for each company, with Larry Page and Google co-founder Sergey Brin watching over them as they see fit. Stocks will be affected. Alphabet will replace Google as the public entity. All shares will be automatically transferred into Alphabet, with the same rights and rules. Google will be the largest of the Alphabet companies, just a little trimmed down. Examples are Calico (which specializes in medicine, biology, and other life sciences), Drive (which has your cloud storage), Boston Dynamics (building monster Robots), and?Nest (a thermostat company). ?Of course they’re the more known companies like You Tube, Android, and Google Maps. Page and Brin say they chose the name Alphabet because it represents a group of letters that together put together the English language. Together, these Google companies will put together a language called Alphabet…or at least that’s the goal.
I see Alphabet is getting a lot of news today. I may be naive in saying this, but I don’t see the big deal. These companies have already been a part of Google. Now they’re just being part of a company called Alphabet, which is basically Google morphed. Alphabet is even being run by the same people. The stocks may be affected (and from I’m reading, they already are) by this merging, if you want to call it that. It could give CEOs great opportunity to advance that they wouldn’t have otherwise. But I don’t see anything new that Google isn’t already doing. Is Alphabet worth all the media hype?
This is a busy time for Apple. They already have the World Wide Developers Conference and the preparation of their upcoming streaming service. But CEO Tim Cook is using this platform to expose a problem in the tech community.
That problem is the lack of diversity in tech based employment. Recently, mega tech companies gave themselves diversity report cards. Even the companies were alarmed at how few African-Americans, Latinos, and women were employed with them. Cook took at long look at his own company, Apple. He discovered just 7% of his roster are African-American, compared to 13% of the overall US population. This statistic, among others, gave Cook a wake up call, and now he’s taking action. He pledged $10 million to organizations like National Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT), an organization dedicated in getting girls interested in computer technology. Ruthe Farmer, one of NCWIT’s leaders, insists it’s important to teach girls technological skills at an early age. One tactic is an annual summer camp called App Camp for Girls. It teaches junior high girls how do develop apps and code software. Then there’s former school teacher Ms. Natasha Usher. She’s built apps to connect with her students. She works with World Wide Developers Conference to bring scholarships to African-Americans interested in app technology. She hit it on the head when she said, “You don’t have to be a young, white male in order to code.”
We need more people like that to combat lack of diversity in technology. Here’s another problem: ourselves. How often do we discourage girls from being tech savvy? When they want computer gadgets to improve their minds, how often do we give them dolls and make up kits instead? Or when a young African-American or Latino kid shows tech savvy skills, how often is he bullied for ‘acting white’? And we wonder why there’s a diversity problem in the tech community. Let’s encourage our kids’ dreams of building the next big app, or founding the next social media site, or incorporating the next company. Where will the next Steve Jobs come from?
How do you get your news? If you’re like me, probably through alternative media and social media sites like Facebook. Facebook is catching on and wants to help alternative media givers and receivers alike.
This is where Facebook instant articles comes in. Now any publisher, whether you’re the New York Times or a struggling author in your mother’s basement, can publish articles on their new app. Effective today, the only publishers involved right now are the big boys: National Geographic, Buzz Feed, NBC News, BBC News. But don’t go rushing to publish articles just yet. While they’re not calling this ‘an experiment’, that’s how they’re treating it. There are other concerns: If they publish their articles on Facebook, will Facebook automatically own the articles? That’s a valid concern. But if you do publish an instant article, it’s expected to load immediately on the Apple app. You can use your own tools, though they have some really cool ones, like the Paper app. Here’s the part publishers will really like: they keep all the revenue made from Instant Articles. And if they have unsold merchandise, Facebook will sale if for you and you still get 70% of the pie. Publishers control most of the look and content of the article. Facebook leaders assure publishers this is strictly to give users a better reading experience, not to start their own publishing company. Should we believe them?
From what see now, I do believe them. It answers the question I had in the last paragraph…for now. Facebook can always tighten up the rules and gain more control; I hope they don’t. Facebook instant articles can go a long way if they just let the publishers be themselves and control their content, so long as the publishers exercise some responsibility and respect. Could the next big author or publisher be discovered through Facebook instant articles?
There was a time when Facebook and video streaming wouldn’t even be in the same sentence. Now, Facebook takes in around four billion videos a day. Four billion. Let that sink in. The vast majority of those videos come through mobile devices.
This has Facebook investors and advertisers’ ears. While there’s been no public talk of launching Facebook video advertising, there has already been public meetings. Questions are being asked about making big money off Facebook videos. But CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other Facebook leader dodged those questions, giving no indications of such intentions. In fact, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg downplayed such intentions, claiming video ads may not be good for financial growth. According to one respected technology analyst, video ads will contribute 5% this year. That may not sound like much, but remember, Facebook is a multi-billion dollar entity. But I find it interesting just this morning, they announced an alliance with a media program called Anthology. Anthology pairs up businesses and media, determining which media is a good fit for which company…to promote of Facebook, of course. Facebook’s logo is on Anthology’s front page. They’re already bring in the big boys as partners. I’m talking big boys like Oh My Disney, The Onion, Vox Media, College Humor, among others.
Facebook is definitely planning something in the video advertising field. Why else would you spend unknown money, time and energy to form an alliance with a company like Anthology? I think this alliance was formed because Facebook knows it’s heading toward choppy waters, and they’re using Anthology as a great sail and navigational tool. If the social media conglomerate does get further in the video streaming game, especially advertising videos, what about competitors from You Tube and others? Facebook is being so hush-hush because they know what could happen if competitors know too much. That’s actually a smart move. Do you think Facebook is serious about video streaming and video advertising?
ISIS: It’s a name that strikes terror in the hearts of freedom loving people around the world. They murder, torture, rape, and pillage innocent human beings wherever they go. Now they target social media.
Terrorist group Isis and their sympathizers are threatening Twitter, their employees and even co-founder Jack Dorsey. The social media giant has received hate email and death threats because they block accounts with ties to Isis. They released a post on website JustPaste.it telling Twitter, “…your virtual war on us will cause a real war on you.” They cursed Twitter for closing their accounts. ?They claim by taking this act, Twitter became targets for their supporters scattered among them, even hinting their might be Isis supporters close to them. But Twitter’s policy clearly states direct, specific threats of violence will not be tolerated on their site. So the extremist group decided to get around that by using Twitter as a recruitment tool. Twitter soon caught on and blocked them, despite the extremist group trying to get back on. It’s been a cat and mouse game for months, because every time Twitter shut an account down, an Isis sympathizer would restart one. A Twitter spokesperson said their security and law enforcement are investigating such threats.
Hurrah for Twitter! I’m glad Twitter is taking a stand to such brutality and tyranny. I encourage Jack Dorsey and other Twitter leaders to stay strong. The bully picks on those who can’t and don’t fight back, and thank goodness for Twitter fighting back. To say Isis and their supporters are bullies is a major, major understatement. These extremists often use social media to lure people to their sadistic cause. They lure men, even from Europe and the US to fight for them. They lure women and teenage girls to marry into their group. They even put up a vlog of them serving ice cream to children. We’re not dealing with barbarians eating rats living in mountains. Isis is a well organized, sophisticated organization led by very educated and charismatic sociopaths who will do anything to grow their twisted cause. Thank goodness Twitter is putting a stop to it. Shouldn’t we encourage other social media conglomerates to do the same?
In China, a major censorship crackdown is underway. Here in America, Google found itself in hot water and reversed a controversial decision. Is online censorship near?
Earlier this week, it was announced Google would ban sexually explicit content from their Blogger site. Days later, they reversed that decision, claiming it would have negative effects on those who express themselves with nudity and adult content. This ban would affect those with Blogger accounts for 10 years. Instead, Google’s Blogger will crack down on commercial porn. I wonder did Google reverse this decision because they know Blogger users could easily go to Tumblr and other social media sites.
Then there’s the latest Chinese crackdown on the Internet. New laws are being passed to further tighten their government control over the Web. To make way, more than 60,000 online accounts are being deleted. But it’s Chinese Internet conglomerates that lead this censorship charge, such as Alibaba Group Holdings and Tencent Holdings. But they’re telling the Chinese people the crackdown is to combat terrorism, porn, ID theft and other social ills. Effective March 1, laws will go up throughout China to prohibit ‘deceitful’ identity and demand online users to submit personal information while registering for online services. If you’re approved by the registry, then you’ll be able to use the Internet…under a watchful eye.
These are just two reasons I wonder if online censorship is closer than we think. I’m thankful Google reversed their original decision. I’m convinced they did it because a lot of Blogger users cried foul and some probably even threatened to take their business elsewhere. But China has one of the strictest online policies in the world. I’m concerned about social online ills as much as anybody, but forcing the people to register is hardly going to change anything. Whose to say an online hacker or predator won’t slip through the cracks even after he/she registers? Can China’s strict online policies come to the US? Or is that too far-fetched?
