Second, Third, and Fourth-Order Effects of Social Marketing and Mass Securitization

Several years ago, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg crowed that he was able to use the database to retroactively predict with 33% accuracy with whom people would hook up a week later. This was widely viewed as very creepy (and was not spoken about again until recently) but you can guess that this was a dog whistle meant for potential advertisers. The advertisers have listened, and now Google is scrambling to catch up with Facebook on social search (and then advertising).
It’s impossible to get clear numbers on how well this stuff works. Even Facebook and Google probably have no clear numbers, but they certainly have clear enough indications. Google obviously has a clear enough indication to reform their entire company around this. So we can assume it is real. It all seems plausible enough, right?


So we can easily assume that this trend will continue, and that Google and Facebook will correlate increasing amounts of data on us, our friends, our coworkers, and the people we encounter, and will sell this data to advertisers who will essentially be placing bets on our behaviour. If there is a 27% chance that a given couple will marry within the next nine months, then there is a 14% chance that each of their closest long-distance friends will want to buy a plane ticket to the ceremony. Therefore, as an advertiser, you buy a tranche of ads for people whose out-of-town friends are soon to marry. The MapReduce job is an exercise for Google’s new Malaysian coding shop, the tranche is sold to the highest bidder via AdWords. Bada-bing, ca-ching.


As a second-order effect, this advertising activity begins to affect the behaviour of these out-of-town friends. A measurable jump in the number of people attending out-of-town weddings results, and the price on these ads consequently rises. Advertising grows markets all the time, so this is not surprising.


Now we emerge into science fiction-ville. An analyst-bot for a huge trading firm is trawling the AdWords marketplace, looking for interesting tranches for which the price has become overweight, and happens upon the out-of-town weddings advertising market, which is suddenly hugely oversubscribed. It pops up on the screen of a junior analyst (of the human variety) who clicks through to approve the creation of a out-of-town weddings futures market, which the trading firm then (automatically) proceeds to sell to its customers, and then (automatically) takes a short position.
An analyst-bot for one of the advertising agencies flags this new offering, and raises it to the desk of the (human) product manager for this market. She promptly buys into the futures market, betting that the market will rise. She talks to an executive VP and gets approval to buy a large product placement with a popular television show to feature a destination wedding as an upcoming plot. She does not get approval for a proposed contribution to a PAC formed by the National Organization for Marriage, as the VP is gay and cites the growing market for same-sex weddings.


Of course, this assumes that the securitization of everything will continue apace. Certainly there has been no progress in stemming the tide, and I don’t expect it to happen (barring a bloody worldwide insurrection against the dominant economic order).


What are some other examples of the weird things that could result from social marketing combined with this level of financial automation?

• A new global baby boom triggered by businesses embracing new market development, caused by an algorithmic storm of projected demand for diapers, crude oil, softwood lumber, and manual labour. [The whole thing is triggered by a rounding bug in an Excel spreadsheet.]

• Investment banks engage in wide-scale manipulation of tampon supply futures indexes by using sponsored advertisements to influence birth control method preferences so that women favour Depo-Provera over oral contraceptives.

• The Corrections Corporation of America gets into a bidding war with Indian defense contractors on a cheap-labour-supply futures index, which is based on the relative probability of incarceration due to attempted drug sales by American teens.  The Indian defense contractors are shorting this to offset their own risk (due to the effect of rural broadband penetration shortfalls on the gold mining talent pool), and the market becomes very volatile.  To ease this situation, the CCA makes a large automated contribution to a tough-on-crime SuperPAC.

• Asperger's patients become a new hot dating commodity, as their profiles are moved to the top of the activity ranking by social networks who wish to boost their visibility to advertisers who are bidding extremely highly for their ad dollars.  Social networks optimize their users lives to improve their value to advertisers.  This results in nerds getting laid a whole lot more, and lots more little Asperger's-prone nerdlings (who have truly wonderful advertising potential).

So just remember kids, just because you don't click on those ads in Facebook doesn't mean that those ads aren't clicking on you. And with Google+ and Facebook embedded in every single webpage, you can run, and you can hide, but you cannot avoid being aggregated, and those aggregations will be monetized until they control your every move. Resistance is futile.

---

Re-reading this hours later I realized that what I'm describing here is a much less rosy portrait of the same technological trends outlined by Bruce Sterling in his seminal short story Maneki Neko back in 1998. Except of course his story has excellent characterization, plot, and narrative drive.

Bankers cautious on Eurozone breakup

While some banks are calling for contingency plans in the case of the breakup of the Eurozone, a large majority of investment banks, hedge fund managers, and responsible commentators are saying "hold on a minute."

"Where am I supposed to put the money?" said Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs. "As CEO, I'm committed to maximizing corporate profits, and while Goldman Sachs will obviously make bank on this one that will make the real estate bubble look like a pinprick, I personally haven't even figured out what to do with my bonus from that yet."

Most economists agree that a breakup of the Eurozone would mean an immense realignment of riches, and complain that the term "percent" is becoming particularly unwieldy in describing the distribution of wealth. "My friends and I can't even explain how rich we are anymore. Saying 'We're the 0.00001%' is too hard to understand," lamented hedge-fund manager Peter Thiel. U.S. lawmakers are studying proposals for mandating use of a new term "permega", in which percentages would be replaced by fractions based on a million, as part of the recently introduced Division Is So Hard (DISH) Act.

Tax experts welcome the possibility of change, saying that they are running out of zeros when expressing tax liability to their clients. "You need to pay 0.0000001% of your income in tax this year" is just too hard for many of my esteemed colleagues to follow, said H&R Block CEO William Cobb. "Keep in mind, most investment bankers have graduated in the past 5-10 years from top educational institutions in the United States, and although they all got straight As and graduated at the tops of their classes, so did everyone else."

Although momentum has been significant on the DISH act, with ten co-sponsors in the Senate, opposition is growing. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is leading the charge against such a change, arguing that math isn't the problem and the tax code itself is at fault. "We can't keep applying the same logic, putting another zero in front of the tax burden of our nation's most productive workers. My smartest staffers tell me that by simply putting a minus sign in front of the tax rate we could reverse the trend and start getting those numbers under control, especially for workers in the affected brackets. We wouldn't have to invent a new symbol, either."

Notwithstanding these efforts by legislators to soften the blow, plans are proceeding apace to launch new currencies in place of the Euro. "We're still trying to work out how we can absorb all of the wealth of the Euro, as well as all of the wealth in the new currencies that will be introduced," said Mr. Blankfein. "We applaud the efforts of our friends in European governments to include us in discussions on how to build a variety of efficient banking systems that will benefit world economic growth."

However, Mr. Blankfein sounded a note of caution on current U.S. legislative efforts to ease the transition. "Of course we appreciate all of the help we can get, but right now that's up to the European Union. The U.S. government should stay focused on efforts to finance the next round of bailouts."

AGPL revisited: how MongoDB licensing differs from MySQL

Now that the Affero General Public License (AGPL3) is actually being used by successful projects, I'm looking at it again. Specifically, MongoDB is AGPL3 licensed, and it is being used for commercial applications. But how?!? I though the AGPL was complete communism, and that's what excited me so much about it - one touch of the the brush, and the whole batch of milk is stained vermillion, and your entire enterprise now belongs to Richard Stallman so he can use it to fund GNU HURD.

The AGPL actually has some pretty fixed boundaries:

A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.

Upon reflection, the AGPL isn't as restrictive as I once thought. Let's take what I consider to be the most successful GPL (v2) product: MySQL*, and consider what would have happened if it had been released under AGPL instead. Since Amazon used MySQL code to build RDS, under the AGPL Amazon would be forced to release the code they use to provide the RDS service. They would not be forced to release the code for Amazon.com** however: that would clearly be outside the boundaries set out in AGPL.

Also consider that Facebook uses MySQL internally, with something like 4000 MySQL databases to power much of their site, and they've made many changes to MySQL in order to make that possible, some of which they've made public. If MySQL had been AGPL-licensed, they would have been required to make those changes publicly available under the same license.

Google is also reportedly one of the largest users of MySQL, and in a similar spirit they have released some of their tools. However, they released these tools under the more permissive Apache 2.0 license: if MySQL had been released under AGPL3, Google would most likely have been forced to release these tools under AGPL3 as well.*** And now that Google is also offering Google Cloud SQL made with GPL-based MySQL, they don't have to share their work as they would if MySQL were AGPL3-based.

All of this to say: if you want to use MongoDB to power a web app, have fun: the boundaries within the AGPL3 are there to help you, and probably won't require you to hand over your code to every visitor. However, if you see MongoDB and think "hey, that's cool, I'm going to offer a web service with the MongoDB API and become a cloud provider of NoSQL data storage, just like Amazon SimpleDB" then you will have made a derivative work, and you'll have to share those changes with the world under AGPL3.

Finally, IANAL, not in any jurisdiction, and if you base your legal strategy on lay analyses found on personal blogs, then sadly you're not alone and you're in very risky company. Best of luck, however, in finding a copyright attorney who will dig through these issues for you and give you an opinion for less than $500k.

---

* The Linux kernel is more widely used than MySQL, but it's so mixed up with other licences that it can't just be GPL anymore, not honestly - and the copyrights are owned by so many different people that nobody can claim ownership. MySQL, on the other hand, was always extremely diligent about maintaining ownership of every line of code they include in their distribution (which made acquisition by Sun and Oracle all the more attractive).
** ... that is, provided Amazon.com was built using MySQL, which it isn't AFAIK.
*** They could still licence their code any other way they want, as they own it, but they'd be required to license it under AGPL3.

Be angry over corporate control of media, not political partisanship

National Public Radio published an article about the public's lack of trust in the media. They point to examples perceived political bias at CNN and Fox News, and the biases of the reporters in question, but they pointedly ignore corporate influence on news coverage.

But focusing on the popular political differences between Democratic and Republican news outlets is convenient for an organization like NPR, which is beholden to the corporate sponsors who pay for large 23% of its budget. One need only hear "brought to you by Archer Daniels Midland, Supermarket to the World" to understand who has influence over NPR's editorial policies. It really doesn't behoove NPR to point out that the public shouldn't trust NBC's analysis of war planning, since NBC's parent company General Electric does on the order of two billion dollars per year in DOD contracts.

The differences between Democratic and Republican policies are conveniently distracting, pitting the snake handlers vs the sodomites, the sheet-wearers vs the welfare queens, etc. Consolidation of media ownership continues apace, with major corporations effecting central control of all types of media. The recent media extinction events have helped speed this process, and media co-ops have yet to attract a major audience.

The media can't police itself, it sold us out a long time ago. But its attempts to shift the blame for its lack of public trust to its reporters and editors is increasingly obvious and ineffective.

The cross-species dinosaur team meets to discuss the ideal design for a mammal

Distributed is the new Object Oriented

In the 80s, Object Oriented development promised a fundamental reshaping of the software development landscape, and it had distinct religious overtones. (You can tell it was religious because Object Oriented is capitalized.) It was going to be better in every way from procedural programming - everything would be reused, bugs would be eliminated, and mass love would result. Like Theravada Buddhism, once you accepted the Four Noble Truths of Encapsulation, Inheritance, Polymorphism, and Modularity everything else followed. This fever gripped the development world for twenty years, and thousands of developers never made the mental shift necessary to embrace it.

Leaders often made the fateful decision to rewrite existing procedural apps in object oriented technologies. Did the resulting programs run better? Um, no. Did they conquer the marketplace? God no. Did they run faster? Hell no. Windows Vista is a prime example; I'm not going to rehash any personal case histories because the pain is still too great. I'll let you know when I'm strong enough to cry.

Distributed development is as different from Object Oriented as Object Oriented is from procedural development. Most of the existing cadre of developers will never get this stuff, just as most procedural developers never figured out OO. Hadoop / MapReduce and Erlang require a rethinking of how problems should be solved, and a rethinking of what problems can be solved. Instead of figuring out how to best rewrite yesterday's apps with today's technologies, it's much better to treat them as solved problems and move on.

Spam now leverages social networks

I've been getting spam lately purporting to be from a former co-worker. Apparently they harvested her MSN Messenger list – it impersonates her hotmail account and sends to my work account.

This was probably due to a virus which hijacked MSN messenger, it's a notoriously problematic service: between the service outages, trojans and viruses, its usefulness is debatable. But even as Microsoft gets its security act together a decade too late, the attack is inevitably shifting someplace else.

With social networking sites asking for email passwords to "import connections", people respond quickly. After all, they say it's safe, and you can always change your password later (but you don't). As it has been pointed out, as an industry we've trained people to type passwords, and that's what they do – whether it's a good idea or not, and that's why phishing is so successful. But once they have your contact list they can keep that forever, and it's a wonderful tool for a spammer.

Facebook and Twitter are unlikely to misuse this data too egregiously, they are connected to real money and companies with reputations to protect. But Pownce, which is going out of business – what about their data? And tacky little utilities like Twitterank which spam your stream, you'd better believe they're warehousing your connections. And your private messages. And everything else. You can put these things together and draw meaningful conclusions about the people involved.

Science fiction has been talking about spambots impersonating your family and friends for years, but now it's happening for real, and expect to see a whole hell of a lot more of it. Expect to start seeing requests from friends and family, asking for money through new and unfamiliar websites (or even familiar websites that have been compromised). Expect increasingly strange and subtle requests: you may not even know what they're really trying to get you to do, or why. In short, this is going to get deeply weird, really fast.

Bailout failout and the fallout

I had been anticipating the passage of the bailout by writing an[other] impassioned screed, a call to arms to punish representatives who voted away our future for a few extra points on the Dow. I have become so used to Congress bowing to corporatist rule that I never expected that it could be voted down, but it was. So let's take a moment to celebrate: for the moment, you've escaped an additional personal debt load of $2,300 that would have gone right into the balance sheets of companies that have well and truly wrecked our economy.

Now that the bill is dead (for the moment) a lot more details are coming out: it turns out that the "assurances" and "compromises" on the bill were window dressing. The full $700B would have committed immediately, the executive compensation measures were meaningless, and the oversight provisions were toothless. Basically, the bill got a lot longer last week, but it never got any better.

Very rich and well placed media figureheads, investors, and politicians are tut-tutting this sad state of affairs, saying "people just don't understand the magnitude of this issue." Oh, but darlings, we do understand. We understand far too well what happens when we spend far more than we take in for far too long, we understand bad investments and cutting our losses, and we're maybe starting to understand when we're being manipulated. And maybe, just maybe, we're starting to resist.

I wrote my congressmen every single day last week. I wrote them again today, and I'm going to keep up the pressure. My house representative, Hank Johnson (D-GA-7^th) voted against the bill so I sent him a nice campaign contribution as a thank-you note. If your representative voted for the bailout, you can ask for a change in the next vote, as there almost certainly will be one.

A thoughtful letter on the bailout from Rep. David Obey (D-WI-7th)

I wrote a note to Representative David Obey of the 7th district in Wisconsin. He wrote this very thoughtful and honest reply, which seemed refreshingly free of bullshit. Obviously he's going to vote for the bill, but he avoids the condescension, evasion, misdirection, and outright prevarication of shitheels like Isakson. Hopefully after Obama takes office in January we will see reversal of that indefensible bankruptcy bill and finally see some more meaningful reform. What the hell, maybe we'll get another New Deal. It's about time.

---

September 27, 2008

Dear Mr. LeDuc:

Thank you for contacting me about the President’s request for a massive $700 billion bailout of the financial markets.

As you might expect, I have heard from many, many people who are unhappy, fearful, and frustrated by what has been going on, and the vast majority are staunchly opposed to the President’s proposal for what is, in effect, a blank check. I am, too, and let me make it perfectly clear that I have no intention of giving this, or any other President, a blank check to do with as he wishes. We've seen that before when the President demanded that Congress give him a blank check for Iraq - with disastrous consequences.

We are currently paying a huge price for the fact that for over 20 years we’ve had massive deregulation of the financial sector of our economy and, at the same time, economic policies that have favored the top dogs at the expense of everybody else.

If you take all of the income growth that has occurred in this country in the last eight years and see who got it, over 95 percent of all of the income growth in the country went to the wealthiest 10 percent of families. That means 90 percent of American families – 9 out of 10 – were left to struggle to get a piece of just 4.7 percent of the total income growth that’s occurred in the last eight years.

As a result, people who, in real terms, have had their income frozen for nearly a decade have tried to keep their heads above water by borrowing. In fact, over the last eight years, mortgage debt alone has gone up by $7 trillion, almost seven times as much as the national debt that we hear so much about.

And with the umpire off the field because of the relentless drive for less regulation by the Reagan and Bush Administrations, and on occasion the Clinton Administration as well, many on Wall Street who were looking for a way to make a bigger buck than ever have made the problem worse.

I fought that pressure time and time again.

For example, I was one of 57 members in the House who opposed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was enacted during the FDR Administration. Glass-Steagall was enacted to keep investment banking and community banking separate, because they didn't want the high-flying, risk-taking actions of investment bankers to infect the community banking system. It stood us in good stead for generations. During debate on the House Floor during the vote to repeal Glass-Steagall, I said that the bill was:

"consumer fraud masquerading as financial reform. There is nothing wrong with modernizing financial institutions. It is nice to see that my colleagues are going to try to set up one-stop shopping services for financial services. But returning 1999 to 1929 is not reform in my book.”

At this point, we don’t know what will be negotiated with the White House, but we do know that they have the Congress over a barrel because if we don't do something credit markets are likely to freeze up. It doesn't just mean that Wall Street is going to be crippled; the people who will be left holding the bag are American families. The impact on Wall Street will have trickle down consequences for every family in America, and if Main Street business can't get credit, there could be thousands of businesses that go under and we could have the worst economic mess since the Great Depression. So something has to be done.

As Franklin Roosevelt said in his inaugural address in 1932 when he was facing a similar collapse of the financial sector of the economy, "we need action and now." We must provide that action at the same time we make every effort to build in assurances that protect American taxpayers.

Middle income families have missed out on the production of wealth in recent years and taxpayers have been ripped off with giveaways to the wealthy and well-connected, paid for by ballooning the deficit and passing the costs onto future generations.

We’re looking for a number of changes to the Administration’s proposal to protect the taxpayer’s interest.

First, we are trying to ensure that the taxpayer will get the benefit of any recovery in the value of the assets the government would buy from financial institutions.

Second, we are trying to find a mechanism by which Wall Street can pay a significant share of the tab so taxpayers don't get stuck with the whole load.

Third, there needs to be an independent review board looking over the shoulder of the Fed as it makes financial decisions to blow the whistle if problems develop.

Fourth, there certainly should be limitations on compensation to the executives of the companies receiving federal aid and no golden parachutes.

Fifth, there needs to be a reinvigoration of oversight by regulatory agencies to prevent this from happening again.

And that’s just scratching the surface. There are a number of other things that need to be done, too.

I also hope we’ll see a change in the bankruptcy law passed, over my objection, by the last Congress, which did not take into account that some people are unable to make their mortgage payments or credit card payments simply because they’d either lost their jobs or had a health problem. Certainly we ought to be able to provide some sort of relief for people in that kind of situation, so that people on Main Street are getting the same sort of considerations as the big shots on Wall Street.

You should also know that, as I write this letter, Congress is considering legislation that I authored to try to help people on Main Street who are suffering because of this crisis. We're trying to make greater investments in the country's infrastructure by beefing up our sewer and water construction and highway and airport construction in order to create a good number of well paying private sector jobs. We also want to extend unemployment insurance to help address the fact that 600,000 Americans have lost their jobs this year. And we are also trying to provide some budget support for states so they do not wind up knocking poor children off health care rolls.

Please be assured that, as we move forward to confront this challenge, the needs of taxpayers, homeowners, and working Americans and their families will be uppermost in my mind.

Thank you again for taking the time to get in touch.

Sincerely,
David Obey
Your Congressman

Not one god-damned red cent for Wall Street

I'm just as deep in the stock market as anyone else is these days. After all, government policy has been urging employers to gut pension plans (remember guaranteed retirement benefits?) in favour of investment plans (with only a set contribution, but no guaranteed returns). So most of my retirement savings is tied up in the stock market, which is a risky gamble. I could lose it, but I wanted the big payoffs that stocks might provide, so I took a chance.

That's how the free market is supposed to work, right? Isn't that what Nobel-prize winner Milton Friedman said? Isn't that the ideology which has been ascendant in the US for the past twenty-eight years? If the banking industry isn't working miracles with all of those fantastic new financial instruments they've cooked up, and are in fact just building an elaborate confection that is collapsing on itself, why should we prop it up? It sounds like a huge proportion of the finance industry is doing things of no real economic value. They need a huge handout (plenty of which they'll pass back as "campaign contributions"), and if we give it they'll demand another huge handout in a year after they waste this one.

So fine, let my portfolio lose seventy-five percent of its value. Even ninety-five percent – we'll work it out. I'd rather spend a trillion dollars helping people in need than wasting it on more empty suits. Recessions are necessary: endlessly trying to apply the juice to extend a boom just makes the crash that much harder, and that's what we're seeing now. So let it go, and then we'll work out a more relevant (and possibly even less corrupt) financial system.

Bush said today the sky is falling so we've got to unlock the US Treasury with no questions asked and no accountability. He's the same guy that wanted to gut Social Security and put it all in the stock market! (Wow, too bad we didn't get to experience all of that great growth, huh?) First, we had to surrender all of our civil liberties because the terrorists were going to kill us all with box cutters. Second, we had to invade another country because they were going to nuke our balls. Now we're supposed to give an enormous birthday present to Wall Street because they blew our money on bear whores and cocaine. The man has no credibility. Fool me thrice: go fuck yourself.

Giving a huge payoff to this gang of crooks won't do a damned bit of good; it just encourages them to do it again. Write your senators and representative and tell them no. Maybe some regulation is in order. Maybe the banks need to be nationalized. Maybe mortgages need to be refinanced en masse. Maybe some depositors are going to lose their money (me included). So be it: when there is hell to pay, I'll pay it, but I won't pay one god-damned red cent in protection money.

Tropicana: How not to run a loyalty campaign

Tropicana has a long-running loyalty campaign for their orange juice: you get 10 Aéroplan miles for each bottle of sugar-water you buy. They print a little code at the top of each carton, and you go to their website and enter the code to get your points. Sounds great, right?

The problem is that Tropicana can't seem to print the codes legibly. Every single time you try to enter a code, there's some problem or other: either the code is completely illegible, or the code isn't recognized, or a cosmic ray strikes their server, but whatever it is, you don't get your points. Furthermore, if you're trying gamely to puzzle out the code, the system locks you out, figuring you're trying to guess the code randomly. Check out these beauties:

Although I don't like to ascribe to malice what is more easily explained by negligence and sheer incompetence, this has been going on for years. I can't help but suspect at this point Tropicana's behaviour is willfully fraudulent: they print the offer on the carton to influence buyer behaviour, but they make it too irritating, difficult and time consuming to actually get the points. They could easily prove me wrong by fixing this problem, but something tells me they won't.

Google's quality problem

Google's service used to be of the highest quality. As the company has grown, it maintained that quality – despite their famous eternal "betas", their work was actually very reliable.

I'm starting to see quite a lot of exceptions to that. I saw my first Google server error a couple of months ago (after eight years of using it), and since then I've seen a lot more.

Recently I decided to try Google Knol. Whoops... can't verify my identity:

Then Blogger went psycho, out of the blue while scrolling down my blog page:

And today I saw an article about Google Translation Center. I thought "hey, I hope this works..." and sure enough, it doesn't let me sign up:

What's going on? Google is trying hard to grow its business beyond search-based advertising revenues, and at the same time it is trying hard to drive traffic which results in advertising revenues. As they do this they risk diluting their famous brand with low-quality attempts to solve new problems.

BoingBoing's credibility crisis

Bloggers have been crowing about their increasing relevance and importance, and it's hard to argue. I certainly get more news through RSS feeds than ever, although I also read newspapers (online). But blogs are a relatively new phenomenon, and there isn't exactly a strong code of journalism. They're making it up as they go along, and sometimes that's painfully obvious.

BoingBoing.net is caught up in a dramafest, having purged its archives of all articles containing references to a fellow blogger who apparently "displeased" an editor. No explanation or criteria is forthcoming, although all arrows point in one direction: Xeni Jardin (a very serious journalist).

Now I ask you, if A.M. Rosenthal had ordered the destruction of all articles in the NYT archives containing references to Truman Capote because, well, Abe was jealous of Truman's shinier head, would that fly?

Blogs will soon overtake what they call the "mainstream media" and if so, people will hold them to something resembling journalistic standards. They can't use the "Daily Show" argument to try to wriggle out of accountability: when they raise serious issues, they're serious about them. BoingBoing wields tremendous referential power, and they've been caught exercising it poorly. Credibility is a hard thing to build, and such an easy thing to throw away.

Not your PayPal

Sometimes the best service can be ruined by greed. I find it particularly insulting how PayPal continually defaults to direct debit from chequing instead of paying through my credit card. I've been burned by this, trying to make a purchase quickly and realizing after the fact that I've just hit my bank account instead of my credit card. I have repeatedly set my primary method of payment to credit card, yet PayPal continually and consistently ignores this preference and requires me to override chequing at every purchase. This practice is misleading and dishonest, and illustrates the lack of respect that PayPal has for its customers.

When you set it back to credit card, PayPal tries to convince you not to, stopping you in your tracks:

Paying with your bank account offers the highest level of PayPal protection and security, plus these advantages:

• No Fees -- Payments made using your bank account don't accrue interest fees
• Instant Payment -- Bank account payments are processed instantly
• Convenience -- Paying with your bank account means that your payments always go through -- instantly.
  Note: Sellers with Personal accounts cannot receive credit card payments. Any PayPal user can receive bank account payments.
• Safety -- Your bank account information is kept safe through the highest grade commercially available encryption and is extensively covered against unauthorized use

Do you still want to make this payment with a credit card?

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. PayPal tries to muddy the waters here, raising the spectre that the recipient might not be able to get the money. Um, if they have a personal account you can't even send them money with a credit card, so there's no danger of them not being able to receive their money. They also try to give the impression that using a credit card might delay the payment, when actually they use the credit card to guarantee the slow bank account transfer. They even flash the terrorsafety card, implying that the terroristsmafia will get hold of your credit card number, when in fact the merchant has no idea which method you're using. (If the merchant were able to find out, they'd probably avoid PayPal like the plague.)

See, this is how PayPal makes money. They withhold 2-3% from what they pay the merchant for the transaction whether it comes from your credit card, your bank account, or your PayPal balance. So of course they want to take it from your bank account – ACH fees are much cheaper than credit card settlement fees. But don't worry about poor little PayPal. They also make money from foreign exchangefees, transaction fees, and float.

If PayPal provided some incentive to use direct debit over credit card (like, maybe, a discount) that would be another story, but instead PayPal presents bogus benefits of direct debit that just don't make sense. Because they cannot legitimately convince someone to forgo thirty extra days to pay to have the money sucked immediately out of their bank account, instead they engage in this sort of chicanery.

Believe it or not, I use PayPal quite a bit because it is convenient. As annoying and opaque and arbitrary as they can be, they almost always beat the banks for immediacy and limited hassle. For example, they make foreign exchange relatively cheap and easy – heck, they make it simple as hell. But the little touches sometimes colour the whole experience, and I think PayPal suffers from contagion from its prematurely sclerotic and abusive corporate parent.

Tools by tools no longer cool

For a while there I thought that Microsoft was going to take everybody down with Visual Studio Team System. They'd take their superior IDE and debugging environment, add testing and fix their crappy version control system, and they'd own the world. "Nobody else will be able to deliver everything in one package," I thought. "They'll undercut everybody else until they own the landscape, and then they'll milk us like the clueless cows we are."

I even chose Perforce for a version control system. I looked at CVS and decided it was crap; Subversion was still not there, and everything else was just not good enough. "Microsoft uses Perforce," I thought, "and how wrong could they be?" (At that point I was still in fear and awe of Microsoft. Hell, I even thought Longhorn was going to rule the world.)

How different the world is suddenly. Yes, Microsoft has a beautiful IDE that permits you to smoothly debug Windows software. But who can afford to run web software on Windows? It is simply murder on a business model. And desktop software on Vista? Yeah, right. As a result, Team System is terribly quaint all of the sudden. Trac, Subversion (or Git if you're really cool), and BaseCamp are really all you need for web development, so why would you bother administering a SQL server database and a domain controller and an exchange server and a project server and a team system server and buying CALs for all of the above and along with the hardware to run it -- all for tens of thousands of dollars? And if you want to do truly distributed development between a core team, external contractors, or even (gasp) a wide community, Team System won't even do it. And there's the rub: that's the way software is built today.

Yesterday I saw an ad for Perforce: they're giving away a 2-user version, "No questions asked." Whoop-tee-doo, who cares. They can't even give that away. Microsoft versus Borland versus IBM was like a tyrannosaurus fighting a triceratops and a pterodactyl. It just doesn't matter.

"Specially Selected Potatoes"

front

back

Marketers are quite aware that people are reading the ingredients on packaged poison food, and they've long since come up with more palatable euphemisms for things like monosodium glutamate.

But now canny marketers are not just exercising ploys to hide bad ingredients, they're also tarting up perfectly normal foods with nonsensical superlatives. For example, from a bag of Lay's Classic Potato Chips: "Specially selected potatoes". Specially selected for what qualities? Cheapest possible production costs? Minimal nutritional value? Highest possible pesticide concentrations? Most egregious carbon footprint? I'm guessing that maybe they mean they're selecting them for something positive, but the sheer meaninglessness of the phrase compromises the intent of ingredient disclosure: to factually inform the purchaser what is in the bag.

To expect the media to cover this trend would be naïve: they depend on the largess of corporate advertisers. To expect food merchants to properly educate the public is clearly not in their self interest. To expect politicians to do anything would be equally naïve: they won't even allow the prohibition of known poisons from food without extreme pressure, and they have campaign fundraising to worry about. The judiciary and the civil service may try to do the right thing, but they are routinely stymied. If we can't trust the labels, maybe we shouldn't buy their crappy packaged food at all.

Tools and emergent complexity: exonerating Twitter and Rails

Twitter has had substantial downtime over the last several days, and this has prompted no end of commentary and analysis. Ruby on Rails was initially blamed for the problems a year ago, then exonerated, then blamed again (and exonerated again). But blaming the hammer for improperly driving a screw is not very illuminating; blaming a screwdriver for how it drives a nail even less so, and although using a hammer and screwdriver combination to drive a large number of finishing nails probably isn't the best solution, until a better machine is invented you wouldn't necessarily know that.

The reason Twitter is having difficulties is that it truly is a novel application. The rules are deceptively simple on the surface, but the emergent complexity is profound, especially as you start to build a massive database of users (which Twitter certainly is now doing). The sort of many-to-many relationships embodied in the way people follow one another, coupled with the different options on what sorts of tweets you want to see, and the different ways of interfacing – the website, instant messaging, text messaging, a raft of third party applications (Twhirl, gTwitter, FriendFeed, et cetera, etc, &c, ...), the ability to track specific terms...

All of this adds up into an extremely complex system that gets exponentially harder to manage as the user base grows. The telephone systems' switching rules are simple by comparison: they are simple, one-to-one connections that connect, persist a short time, and go away, leaving nothing but possibly a billing record (and definitely an entry in an NSA database). A tweet goes onto a user's own list, their friends lists, possibly the lists of friends-of-friends, the list of anyone who is tracking that term, sends it out via SMS, instant messenger and the API, AND persists the message forever; if the user then decides to delete it or make it private then it is removed from all of those lists. Simple, huh? Oh yeah, and it has to do all of that in realtime.

Twitter is built on Ruby on Rails, which came from a simple project management application. Obviously a simple project management application isn't designed to robustly handle the type of complex operations outlined above. It turns out nothing is, which is why Twitter has no easy solutions at hand. Their difficulties in scaling would have likely happened with any existing platform, as not even airline reservation and telephone switching systems handle such a flood of interrelated and interdependent traffic coming from so many different sources – traffic that doubles in two months.

Evan Williams and company invented something new, and they shouldn't be blamed for not initially understanding the true potential and nature of the beast. Although it isn't profitable, it continues to attract investors; anything with this kind of growth and engagement is interesting to businesspeople. NTT invested for a reason, and it's not just because it is popular (and profitable) in Japan. This is an example of how next-generation communication is working: modern switching rules, attention-based networking – a step beyond instant messaging, a step beyond SMS and a step sideways from the phone system. The right tools for the job probably don't exist yet; maybe Erlang is a step in the right direction.

Lastly, I don't blame the Twitter staff for doing experiments on the site during the day. They live in the United States and there's no reason they should have to stay up all night. Besides, we should face the sobering conclusion that Japan's market and the rest of Asia might be more important to Twitter than the depressed, aging, and troubled North American market. From that standpoint, the US is a cheap, talented labour pool crafting clever mercantile goods to send to Asia in exchange for hard currency. Oh, how the worm turns.

Yahoo! Microsoft is dead.

It is with a six-pack of schadenfreude that I consider the collapse of Microsoft's attempt to eat Yahoo. Particularly hilarious is this zinger from Steve Ballmer:

At the heart of our strategy is a commitment to bring the benefits of competition, choice, and innovation to everyone who uses the Internet.

Competition? from a convicted monopolist? Hollow laugh. Choice? Only until they use cross-subsidy to wipe out their competitors. Innovation? Microsoft has never had an original idea other than Microsoft Bob.

The yellow press is full of speculation that Ballmer's job is on the line. As a replacement, let me be the first to recommend former SCO head Daryl McBride. He has lots of experience that will help in Microsoft's probable new line of business: threatening people with lawsuits. The RIAA route is the last avenue of the irrelevant.

Affero GPL: fear and loathing, or ignorance and indifference?

A friend of mine tried to set up a project on SourceForge using the Affero GPL. Six months later they got back to him and added the AGPL to their (loooong) list of supported licenses. To date, Google Code doesn't support the AGPL. Granted, Google may not be particularly interested in the AGPL from a business standpoint (they want to make money off hosting and one-to-many-many-many services). SourceForge seems to have gotten over its queasiness. Does Google have something against the AGPL, or do they just not think about it?

Asimov really is dead

I've been a subscriber to Asimov's Science Fiction magazine since I was a teenager. I have always loved scifi, from the juvenile wonders of Heinlein to the half-bug orgies of China Miéville. Short stories are the core of scifi, where the new ideas get kicked around, and sometimes they're good reading. Usually I could get at least one good story out of each issue.

Lately my enjoyment of this magazine has ebbed. The quality of the stories seems to be going downhill, and the circulation seems to be pacing that trend. Having subscribed for many years, there are many older stories I've read that I'd like to revisit, but I don't keep stacks of rotting acid pulp around the house anymore. You'd think that these stories would be available on the website, but you'd be wrong – the magazine remains steadfastly rooted in the past century: although they do sell a crappy DRM version through another publisher, the back catalog isn't available to current subscribers.

I really want to encourage people to write this stuff, but this medium's flaws are no longer tolerable. It's not that I'm cheap: I don't even mind the (stupid) surcharge for living outside the USA, and I'll pay for quality. But better stuff is now being published online, both in text and audio, which I really enjoy and which doesn't have embarrassing cover art. It is sad that a vehicle for a genre about the future stays so firmly wedded to the past, but there's a lot of that going around.