The Transport Guy: Google built a new Trojan Horse to get inside every aspect of your life (GOOGL)

Steve Kovach October 21, 2017 at 05:30AM

• Google is taking hardware seriously after years of experimentation.
• But it doesn't have a chance at becoming another Apple or Samsung.
• Instead, Google's hardware division will be used to sneak the company's AI technology into everything else.

Suddenly, Google is starting to look like a hardware company.

As the holiday gadget-buying season approaches, Google's offerings are starting to look more like what you'd see from Samsung or Apple, not a search giant.

It started this week with the launch of the new Pixel 2 phones, which despite their ugly designs and iffy screens got largely positive reviews. Next come a slew of new gadgets — wireless earbuds, an attractive new Chromebook, jumbo and mini versions of its Google Home smart speaker, a GoPro-like camera, and a refined version of its virtual reality headset.

Google has dabbled with hardware in the past without much success, but the company now appears to be serious about turning it into a real business. Last year, the company put Rick Osterloh, the former president of mobile phone maker Motorola, in charge of its hardware efforts. More recently, it spent more than $1 billion to bulk up its capabilities by acquiring portions of HTC's phone business.

At first glance, hardware seems like a sideshow for Google

But if Google now seems more serious about hardware, it hasn't exactly explained why it is. Almost all of its of its revenues still come from advertising. The high-end phone market, where its new Pixel smartphones will compete, is already saturated, giving Google little hope it can break through.

Even if it is able to spur broad consumer interest in the devices, Google's track record for meeting demand hasn't been good. Last year, for example, it had a dreadful time making enough of its original Pixel phones. By some estimates, the company sold little more than 1 million of them. To put that in perspective, Apple sells about 1 million iPhones every few days, on average.

In terms of its potential impact on Google's overall sales, the company's hardware effort doesn't look like it will ever be anything more than a small sideshow to its core search business.

But that doesn't mean it's unimportant. 

Google sees AI as its next Android

Google hinted at why it's putting so much effort into hardware at its press event earlier this month when it introduced the new Pixels and showed off its other upcoming products. The underlying theme of that event was Google Assistant, the company's voice assistant technology that competes with Amazon's Alexa and Apple's Siri.

Google clearly sees Assistant — and artificial intelligence more generally — as its next big foundational technology, one that could soon rank up there with its search technology and Android. And reading between the lines of the press event, it seems clear that Google sees its hardware effort as a kind of Trojan Horse for its AI efforts, a way to sneak its assistant and its AI into consumers' homes and lives.

For all the talk in the tech industry about the new computing devices that could replace the smartphone, such as augmented reality goggles and smartwatches, the software underlying those devices will likely be more important than the gadgets themselves. Because it's the intelligence underlying those devices that will make truly make them sing. And among the major tech players, Google is in the best position possible to power these next generation devices, because its artificial intelligence and related "smarts" are the best in the world.

Google Assistant is only about a year old, but it's already proving itself more capable than older rivals such as Siri, Alexa, and Microsoft's Cortana. Google's advantage is that Assistant can draw on the wealth of information the company has gleaned about you from your search history, Gmail account, and more, and that Assistant can stitches all that information together better than any of its competitors.

Google is stuffing its hardware with AI

Google's key challenge is to get Assistant and its related AI technologies inside more devices and into the hands of more consumers. Its new hardware products indicate how it plans to do just that.

All of Google's new products incorporate its AI technologies in one way or another. For example, Google Clips, its new camera, uses AI to monitor what's happening around it to determine the best time to take short video clips. It then transfers those clips to Google Photos, the company's photo storage service, which offers image recognition that's constantly improving thanks to machine learning. 

Google's also stuffed its AI into its new Pixel Buds, its wireless earbuds that can translate languages in real time, like something you'd see on "Star Trek." And it's built Assistant into many of its other new products, including the Pixel 2 phones, its new Home speakers, and its Pixelbook laptop.

The search giant is using its hardware to spur other device makers to use its AI 

Now that the company has added AI into its own hardware products, its challenge is to convince its hardware partners to adopt its AI technology too, just like they did Android last decade. But that's where Google's own hardware comes into play.

Google's devices serve as benchmarks for manufacturers who build devices that rely on Android and the search giant's other platforms. Assuming that's the case here, there likely soon will be lots of other products that include Google's AI technologies. 

You can already see this starting to play out. Regardless of the manufacturer, all new Android phones ship with Assistant. Manufacturers including Sony, Panasonic, and soon Sonos are building Assistant into their smart speakers.

Google's AI is even making its way into more mundane devices. For example, LG announced earlier this year that you'll soon be able to control its washing machines and robot vacuums via Assistant. ("OK Google, vacuum my living room.") Down the road, the integration of artificial intelligence into such everyday gadgets and appliances could offer the biggest opportunity for the technology. 

By using its hardware to sneak its AI into your life, Google is positioning itself to lead that revolution.

SEE ALSO: Sheryl Sandberg got everything wrong about Facebook's role as a media company

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Meet the two guys who invented the first-ever spreadsheet

Google built a new Trojan Horse to get inside every aspect of your life (GOOGL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Here's a video of Jeff Bezos smashing a champagne bottle on a windmill

Steve Kovach October 19, 2017 at 06:15AM

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos posted the following video to his Twitter account Thursday:

Fun day christening Amazon’s latest wind farm. #RenewableEnergy http://pic.twitter.com/cTxeXdsFop

— Jeff Bezos (@JeffBezos) October 19, 2017

We assume he made it down safely.

SEE ALSO: Big Tech is now Big Media and it's time we started treating it that way

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Google Pixel 2 vs iPhone X: The biggest differences between the two

Here's a video of Jeff Bezos smashing a champagne bottle on a windmill from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Facebook and Google's political advertising problem goes beyond fake Russian accounts (GOOG, FB)

Steve Kovach October 18, 2017 at 11:04AM

• Facebook and Google employees helped promote anti-Islam ads to voters in swing states.
• The ads violate the norms of political advertising you'd see in traditional media.
• Big tech platforms that spread political advertising need to fix the problems now and be more transparent.

As the story of ad abuse on Facebook, Google, and Twitter during the US 2016 election has unfolded, there's been one common theme: Russian bots, fake accounts, and other shadowy actors took advantage of automated online advertising platforms to influence American voters.

But with the latest revelation, Facebook and Google can no longer hide behind the convenient excuse that everything that happened was the algorithm's fault.

According to a Bloomberg report Wednesday, Facebook and Google employees worked with the conservative nonprofit group Secure America Now to showcase ads that contained anti-Islam rhetoric.

One of the ads that ran, according to Bloomberg, was the one you can watch below. It shows an alternative reality where France is run by Shariah law. The ad was targeted to people in swing states during the 2016 US election, the report says.

It's unclear if all the ads from the group were similarly over-the-top. But this ad weakens the argument that big tech platforms are just dumb vessel's for other groups' messages. Google and Facebook consciously decided this was appropriate content to accept payment for and to help promote. Beyond the question of whether or not political ads need to be regulated on tech platforms, we're now faced with questions about what Google and Facebook's standards are when working with a group that wants to use their powerful tools to target voters.

Is hate speech OK? Is fear mongering OK? We have no idea what Facebook and Google's standards are beyond the fact that Secure America Now and the media company it hired, Harris Media, were willing to pay up.

Until now, one of Facebook and Google's biggest defenses was that the ad abuse on their platforms were happening under their noses, and the kinds of ads specifically designed to promote polarizing topics came from fake accounts and other malicious forces trying to game the system.

Innocent bystanders or accomplices?

Wednesday's Bloomberg report blows a hole in that argument, and shows that the very heart of Facebook and Google's ad businesses can cater to anyone with enough money to spend, no matter what the message may be. I can't think of a bigger sign that Big Tech doesn't care about what runs on their platforms beyond literally helping spread such distasteful messages when paid to do so. Facebook even helped Secure America Now experiment with new video ad formats it was testing, according to the report.

Google told Bloomberg it removed some of Secure America Now's ads, and Facebook executive Andrew Bosworth told me on Twitter that employees didn't work on creative for the ads. But they still helped target and promote the ads on their respective platforms, which hardly makes them innocent in spreading such vile messages.

To be clear, this is different than Facebook "embedding" members of its ad team with the Trump campaign last year to help it target ads better. As my colleague Mike Shields pointed out last week, that's a normal service that Facebook has offered political campaigns from across the political spectrum.

Instead, this is an example of Facebook and Google catering to an advertiser to promote and target ads that easily fall outside political advertising norms in traditional media.

The threat of regulation for political advertising still looms large for Facebook, Google, and other tech companies. Senator Mark Warner is expected to present a bill on that very matter soon. Facebook has already promised to be more transparent about political advertising on its platform, and Google and Twitter have indicated they're willing to make changes too. 

Now we know they have to take it a step further and be transparent about their level of involvement spreading the same type of polarizing messages previously attributed to Russian hackers and bots.

SEE ALSO: Facebook and the rest of Big Tech are now Big Media, and it's time we start treating them that way

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The 5 most annoying changes in the new iPhone update — and how to fix them

Facebook and Google's political advertising problem goes beyond fake Russian accounts (GOOG, FB) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Companies replacing workers with robots are missing out on a huge opportunity — and it might doom them

Zach Williams, Shana Lebowitz and Steve Kovach October 18, 2017 at 08:05AM

Scott Galloway, professor of marketing at NYU Stern School of Business and the author of "The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google" says that employing a huge fleet of robots does not always benefit a business' bottom line. Human employees offer an advantage for retail businesses even during a time when tech companies are increasingly pushing robots as replacements. Following is a transcript of the video.

Scott Galloway: To give you a sense of just how powerful Amazon is, when Amazon opened one store, Amazon Go — whose key feature was that it used artificial intelligence to get rid of cashiers.

Effectively, you heard this giant scream across the US labor force where of the 11 million cashiers in the US — that's more than primary teachers in terms of actual numbers — about 3 of those 11 million probably lost their job. They just don't know it yet.

And in every retail boardroom, we're talking about store optimization which is Latin for "fire people." I believe however the opportunity in retail is to invest in not artificial intelligence but organic intelligence. 

People no longer go to stores for products. So the winners in retail, The Home Deports, the Best Buys, the Sephoras are investing in their "Blue Shirts," their "Golden Aprons," and their "Cast."

Because if you are going into a store, you want someone there. You want the most impressive supercomputer in the history of the world. And that is an individual who is well-trained.

So while tech is zigging, there's an opportunity for retail to zag. Starbucks is the original gangster here, spending more money on benefits than they do on coffee.

When you go into a Starbucks you feel better about the experience because the person behind the counter, the barista, actually seems to be enjoying their job, or feel as if they are getting paid well and learning something. 

Join the conversation about this story »

Companies replacing workers with robots are missing out on a huge opportunity — and it might doom them from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: There's a psychological reason why being open to failure often leads to insane success

Joe Avella, Shana Lebowitz and Steve Kovach October 16, 2017 at 08:21AM

Scott Galloway, professor of marketing at NYU Stern and the author of "The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google" shows how some of the biggest successes in tech have also had major public failures. He explains why failure is an important aspect of success. Following is a transcript of the video.

Scott Galloway: So there's a famous chart that shows, it says, what people think success is and it has a straight upward line and then what success really is and it's a jagged, multi-art adventure. And that is accurate.

Scott Galloway, professor of marketing NYU Stern and the author of “The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google.”

If you are not in your own professional life and your professional career kind of wiping out and getting beaned in the face every once in awhile you aren't trying hard enough. And these companies are great at failure.

They're fantastic at taking big risk. Putting metrics on them and just as importantly pulling the plug and performing infanticide on projects that aren't working and then moving on to the next thing. Whether it was auctions or the phone with Amazon or Facebook and some of their targeting, all of these companies have had huge missteps, but it just doesn't matter because they on average win. They have a great batting average. And as Jeff Bezos said they’ll take a risk, a one-in-ten risk if they think it can pay off 100x.

That isn’t the way traditional companies think. Old economy companies typically won't green light anything unless it has more than a 50% chance of winning, and then even worse than that, after it’s launched, and it’s become the pet project of people at the top, everyone else enters into consensual hallucination with the CEO that this thing is working and sometimes let this kind of gross, ugly child live longer than it should.

So, one, these companies are more disciplined about taking more risk, but they’re also more disciplined about pulling the plug on these things.

Join the conversation about this story »

There's a psychological reason why being open to failure often leads to insane success from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Facebook and the rest of Big Tech are now Big Media, and it's time we start treating them that way

Steve Kovach October 14, 2017 at 06:00AM

Sheryl Sandberg and her peers in Silicon Valley may not want to admit this, but Big Tech has become Big Media. 

And with that change comes major responsibilities — ones that the tech giants are currently shirking. 

Sandberg, the chief operating officer of Facebook, made news this week when she steadfastly refused to acknowledge in an interview with Axios editor Mike Allen that her company is in the media business.

She may be the most prominent denier of Big Tech's new role, but she's not the only one. Sandberg's colleague, Andrew Bosworth, Facebook's head of consumer hardware, echoed her position on Twitter this week.

Their argument goes like this: because tech companies generally don't employ journalists who report and write the news, they can't be media companies.

But that position ignores the facts of how the media business has changed and how people today consume news, information and entertainment.

Facebook's news feed has become what the front page of the newspaper was for older generations of people; at least 66% of the social network's 2 billion users rely on it as a news source, according to a 2016 Pew study. Meanwhile, consumers turn to Twitter for breaking news, and they search Google for news updates. 

But consumers didn't just change their media habits on their own. The tech companies argument also conveniently disregards how the big tech companies themselves have purposefully and intentionally tried to become go-to news destinations.   

Facebook purposely designed its algorithms to customize users' news feeds to show them the stories and other information they're mostly likely to engage with, whether by clicking on a headline or typing in a comment. Google not only operates Google News and touts live news events on YouTube, but it's even altered its core search feature to show links to relevant articles above search results when users search for newsworthy items. And Twitter has launched numerous features, including a "What's Happening Now" page and a "Moments," to highlight news stories and information. 

Perhaps most damning to Big Tech's line of argument is the impact those companies, particularly Facebook and Google, have had on the rest of the media business. Advertising is the lifeblood of media companies. And with ads increasingly shifting away from traditional media such as newspapers and television to digital ones such as the web and mobile devices, old media companies have been trying to move in that direction too.

But they're failing, thanks to Big Tech. Last year, Facebook and Google accounted for 99% of all the growth in digital advertising, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau, leaving peanuts for the rest of online media platforms. That dynamic will almost certainly repeat itself this year. 

And that's not to mention Big Tech's broader effort to become Big Media. Facebook, Google and Twitter, as well as Apple and Amazon, are all all aiming at Hollywood by investing in originally produced entertainment videos, television shows and movies. 

In a very real way, Facebook and the other companies are deciding what news millions of people see. There's just no disputing the fact that Big Tech has massive influence over the way people consume media.

But it's also become increasingly clear that the big tech companies aren't shouldering the responsibility that comes hand in hand with that influence. 

The denials from Sandberg and others about even being in the media business are just a piece of that. A bigger, more important example is how the companies have reacted to the growing pile of evidence that propagandists linked to Russia manipulated their sites and systems in an effort to influence last year's election. 

In the days after the election, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave his infamous "pretty crazy" comment about the notion that his company influenced the result by distributing propagandistic fake news. (He recently took those comments back.) While Google CEO Sundar Pichai acknowledged that such fake news could possibly have swayed voters and said the company needed to crack down it, his company and the other members of Big Tech, have done little to solve it 11 months later.

And it's not clear if the tech companies will ever fix the fake news and propaganda problem on their own, despite the public outcry. In recent months, executives at Google and other companies have argued — privately — that the problem was just too big to solve. Much of the value these companies believe they have comes from allowing users to post pretty much whatever they want to their sites. If the companies were to more thoroughly police what users post, they worry they would lose that openness and undermine their sites' appeal. 

But Big Tech will likely only be able to duck from its duties for so long. If it won't accept the responsibility that comes from it's transformation into Big Media on its own, it may be forced to. 

Already there are rumblings among different governments that they may step in. A pair of senators concerned that Russian-backed groups surreptitiously tried to influence last year's election are working on a bill that would force companies like Facebook to track and, in some cases, publicly disclose the purchasers of political ads. Meanwhile, the UK is considering formally reclassifying Facebook and Google as media companies, which would subject them to new legal responsibilities.  

So whatever Sandberg might say, it's clear that tech has taken over media. And Big Tech is running out of excuses for why it should see the benefits that go along with that change — but not bear the burdens.

SEE ALSO: Sheryl Sandberg got everything wrong about Facebook's role as a media company

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The 5 best hidden features from the latest iPhone update

Facebook and the rest of Big Tech are now Big Media, and it's time we start treating them that way from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Alphabet has quietly incorporated its internet balloon project, a sign it could spin out as a new company soon (GOOG, GOOGL)

Steve Kovach October 12, 2017 at 02:56PM

Alphabet has quietly upgraded its internet balloon initiative from a research lab "project" to an official corporation, setting the stage for what could be the latest standalone business to spin out from Google's parent company.

Project Loon, which develops solar-powered balloons that beam internet access down to earth, has been incorporated as Loon Inc, according to regulatory filings. 

Business Insider first noticed Loon was listed as "Loon Inc." in a recent filing to the FCC seeking permission to float Loon balloons above Puerto Rico and provide internet access to areas affected by hurricane Maria. Previously, Loon was officially referred to as a project under Alphabet, or under X, the Alphabet subsidiary dedicated to creating ambitious "moonshot" technologies.

Loon's incorporation is a sign that Alphabet may be preparing to spin Loon out of the X division and let it operate as its own company. Alphabet went through a similar process last year with Waymo, the company formed out of X's self-driving car project. X also spun out Dandelion, a geothermal energy company, earlier this year, but Dandelion is not under the Alphabet umbrella.

A Loon spokesperson declined to comment.

Next candidate

One person close to X told Business Insider a few months ago that Loon was the next likely candidate for a spin out of X. In February, Alphabet X's business tapped Alastair Westgarth, a telecom industry veteran, to be the new CEO of Project Loon. 

Getting spun out from the mothership often indicates that Alphabet believes an experimental technology or product has matured enough to be ready for commercialization. That gives the spinout company the freedom to pursue its own business objectives, while at the same time subjecting it to the financial pressures of an independent business.

Google has previously said that it believes Loon's "floating cell towers in the sky" could one day become a business that generates billions of dollars in revenue. So far however, Loon has only seen limited deployments in areas like Sri Lanka, Peru, and more recently Puerto Rico.

As a standalone company, Loon would join a growing roster of Alphabet subsidiaries, known as "Other Bets," such as high-speed internet service Access, smart appliance maker Nest and Waymo, the self-driving car company. In the second quarter of the year, Alphabet's Other Bets posted an operating loss of $772 million, on revenue of $248 million.

Spencer Hosie, a lawyer representing Loon competitor SpaceData in a lawsuit, told Business Insider that he noticed the change in Loon's status in the recent FCC filing. Hosie said he plans to add Loon Inc. as a defendant in SpaceData's case against Alphabet. It's unclear when exactly Alphabet incorporated Loon, but Hosie said he suspected that it could have been as recently as last week.

Julie Bort contributed to this report. 

SEE ALSO: Everything you need to know about the iPhone X

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Google Pixel 2 vs iPhone X: The biggest differences between the two

Alphabet has quietly incorporated its internet balloon project, a sign it could spin out as a new company soon (GOOG, GOOGL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Sheryl Sandberg got everything wrong about Facebook's role as a media company (FB)

Steve Kovach October 12, 2017 at 09:52AM

How would you classify a company that:

• distributes news and information to billions of people every month?
• is a major source of news and information for a large chunk of those billions of people?
• runs ads against that content, generating billions in revenue every quarter?
• is paying content creators ranging from the NFL to Insider to make original video programming that streams to mobile devices, computers, and connected set-top boxes?
• is funding and producing its own original television shows?

Most would call that a media company. And most would expect that media company to adhere to the standards, safeguards, and rules that all media companies do.

Facebook, which does all of the above, will not concede it's a media company.

On Thursday, Facebook's COO told Axios editor Mike Allen that Facebook is not a media company, a classification the company has avoided for years. The renewed questions about the company's role in the intersection of tech and media come as the debate around fake news and fake Russian ads on the platform heat up. The UK is already considering regulations that would treat Facebook more like a media company, for example.

But Sandberg deflected, pointing to the fact that Facebook is run by technical workers and engineers. In her view, the company doesn't produce news content, therefore it can't be a media company.

"At our heart we’re a tech company," Sandberg said when Allen asked if Facebook was a media company. "We hire engineers. We don’t hire reporters. No one is a journalist. We don’t cover the news. But when we say that, we’re not saying we don’t have a responsibility. In fact we’re a new kind of platform... as our size grows, we think we have more responsibility."

That's an incredibly narrow view of what a media company is. Sandberg's definition of a media company seems to be a news organization that hires journalists and producers to make news content. But media companies are broader than that. They curate content. They distribute it. The generate ad revenue from it.

A company like Facebook, which distributes media and makes money off it by selling ads is, by definition, a media company. Sandberg is right to point out that Facebook's size means it has a massive responsibility to distribute accurate information. But she's wrong to deny it serves many many of the functions of a media company.

It doesn't matter that computers or algorithms or engineering geeks are making editorial decisions. They're still serving the editorial functions of a media company. In fact, Sandberg said earlier in the interview that Facebook was serving an editorial role by showing users related articles to news stories they see their News Feed and hiring fact-checking organizations to vet some content.

She's also wrong to say Facebook doesn't hire journalists. The company hired former NBC anchor Campbell Brown in January to head up the company's news division and work with other journalists to maximize their use of Facebook's platform.

There are numerous reasons why Facebook would be reticent to admit it's a media company. It could harm its sky-high valuation, which is currently at about $500 billion. That's a tech company valuation, not a media company valuation. It would also open Facebook up to regulatory rules in the US and other countries that it would rather avoid.

But the abuse on Facebook's platform, from fake Russian ads to fake news spreading as recently as last week's Las Vegas shooting, show a greater need for Facebook to start acting like the media organization that it is. The sooner Facebook admits that, the better.

SEE ALSO: Tech companies are embarrassing themselves with how they handle fake news

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The 5 most annoying changes in the new iPhone update — and how to fix them

Sheryl Sandberg got everything wrong about Facebook's role as a media company (FB) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Scott Galloway correctly predicted Amazon would buy Whole Foods — here's who he thinks Amazon should acquire next

Corey Protin, Shana Lebowitz and Steve Kovach October 12, 2017 at 07:30AM

Amazon purchased Whole Foods a little less than four months ago. Whole Foods products are already appearing on Amazon, and Alexa devices have made it to the shelves of Whole Foods. 

With this just the latest in a long list of companies Amazon has acquired, we were wondering who would be next. To answer that question we brought in Scott Galloway, a professor of marketing at NYU Stern School of Business and the author of the new book, "The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google." The following is a transcript of the video.

Scott Galloway: Next acquisition for Amazon would be Nordstrom. I think the most logical, or strategically rational, acquisition for Amazon would be Nordstrom.

Amazon now has a license to get into the wealthiest refrigerators in the nation. And they are targeting the wealthy with their acquisition of Whole Foods, but they still don't have license or permission to get into our closets because the aspirational beauty and fashion brands don't want to distribute through Amazon; however, buying Nordstrom would get them those relationships overnight.

Nordstrom is an exceptionally well-run company. They're in Seattle. This thing just fits kind of hand-and-glove; however, there's an X factor here. And the X factor is that Nordstrom is family controlled, meaning the decisions are made around the Thanksgiving dinner table as opposed to its shareholder meeting. So we'll see.

But likely the acquisitions that'll take place will be little unknown companies that help fill out, or fill in, some holes in their fulfillment network. But you can also see the company going after some niche cable networks, maybe an AMC or a Scripps, as they realize original content creates intensity across those 60% of US households that are now Prime members by going in and picking up some cable broadcast companies.

Join the conversation about this story »

Scott Galloway correctly predicted Amazon would buy Whole Foods — here's who he thinks Amazon should acquire next from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: SCOTT GALLOWAY: Amazon is using an unfair advantage to dominate its competitors

Nathaniel Lee, Shana Lebowitz and Steve Kovach October 11, 2017 at 10:00AM

Scott Galloway, professor of Marketing at NYU Stern and the author of "The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google", explains how Amazon's "Type 2" investments are the key to its incredible success. Following is a transcript of the video.

Scott Galloway: So people ask what Amazon's core competence or advantage is, relative to the other members of the four and it comes down to storytelling. And that is Jeff Bezos' essential rap has not changed in 15 years and it's a pretty intoxicating visionary rap, where they're gonna invest massively across some consumer truisms that aren't perishable: value, convenience, selection, speed. 

And the marketplace keeps bidding up the stocks. As a result, they have access to cheaper capital than any company in modern history. Amazon can now borrow money for less than the cost of what China can borrow money. As a result, they are able to throw up more stuff against the wall than any other firms. If the phone doesn't work, if it fails, if auctions don't fail, it's a speed bump for them, whereas, other companies will probably be either put out of business or see their stock cut in half.

Some Plan B investments that had worked, they launched a company based on their own infrastructure and storage needs called "AWS" that now everyday, adds the entire capacity that they needed when they launched it for themselves internally, and is the number one share leader and what is the most profitable, fastest-growing business in tech to cloud with triple the share of the number two, Microsoft. This year, Amazon will spend $4.5 billion on original television content, second only to Netflix, who increased their budget to $2 billion when they heard Amazon's footsteps behind them. 

Amazon can go into non-core categories and show up and be dominant in record time because they have access to cheaper capital. Effectively, this company is playing unfair and winning.

Join the conversation about this story »

SCOTT GALLOWAY: Amazon is using an unfair advantage to dominate its competitors from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: This 'crazy, irrational decision' Apple made 20 years ago turned out to be the key to its outrageous success over Samsung

Joe Avella, Shana Lebowitz and Steve Kovach October 10, 2017 at 07:12AM

Scott Galloway, professor of marketing at NYU Stern and the author of “The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google” explains the one decision Apple made which, called crazy and outrageous at the time, turned out to be the key reason for their explosive growth over Samsung. Following is a transcript of the video.

Scott Galloway: Apple made this crazy irrational decision 20 years ago to forward integrate into the medium that was supposedly going away.

So if you were to ask people what one decision created more shareholder value than any one decision in the history of business, most people would say Apple's decision to launch a phone. And I believe that they would get the brand right but the decision wrong. The iPhone is an incredible device creating more profits than any item in history.

But the thing carrying the Apple to the largest margins, margins that are somewhere in between Hermès and Ferrari in terms of operating margin, is its brand equity or its halo. Now, what did they do differently to establish this unbelievable resonance as a brand? Samsung, their closest competitor spends double on advertising. They also spend double on online advertising. So where has Apple reinvested that capital?

Apple made this crazy irrational decision 20 years ago to forward integrate into the medium that was supposedly going away. Stores. And they have somewhere between five and six billion dollars in store leases now on their balance sheet and have reallocated capital out of traditional broadcast media, which is declining every day in effectiveness, into the store where people still make physical contact if you will. They still consummate the relationship with the brand at the point of purchase.

So you have this temple to the brand which is this unbelievable experience called an Apple Store, and then you have this very mediocre experience called an AT&T or Verizon connect your phone experience for Samsung and the other Android players. The biggest value-creating decision in the history of modern decision: Apple’s crazy decision to forward integrate into stores.

Join the conversation about this story »

This 'crazy, irrational decision' Apple made 20 years ago turned out to be the key to its outrageous success over Samsung from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: One type of marriage that's most likely to end in divorce — according to a relationship scientist

Nathaniel Lee, Shana Lebowitz and Steve Kovach October 08, 2017 at 06:00AM

Eli J. Finkel, professor at Northwestern University and the author of "The All-or-Nothing Marriage," explains one type of marriage that is most likely to end in divorce. Following is a transcript of the video.

Eli Finkel: I'm a psychologist which means that most of the research I do involves things like bringing couples to our psychology laboratory and then videotaping them and coding their behaviors and then following them over time to see how happy they are or whether they break up.

And one of the things that was deeply alarming to me when I did that was discovering just how different marriage rates and divorce rates are among people who are better educated versus worse educated.

It turns out, and I was surprised to find this out, that among people who are college educated, the divorce rates have actually plummeted since about 1980, they have come down significantly since ... their high around 1980.

But people who don't have a high school degree, people who are relatively uneducated have a higher divorce rate than ever, and a lower marriage rate, and when they are married, the marriages tend not to be as satisfying.

And the issue isn't just that they are opting out of divorce because if they had a better option, if they thought, "Well, I would rather not get divorced," then that might be totally fine.

But they respect the institution as much as people who have more education, they have the same instincts about what makes for a successful marriage as people who have more education.

What I think is going on is it's really difficult to have a productive, happy marriage when your life circumstances are so stressful and when your day-to-day life involves, say three or four bus routes in order to get to your job. 

Join the conversation about this story »

One type of marriage that's most likely to end in divorce — according to a relationship scientist from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Tech companies are embarrassing themselves with how they handle fake news (FB, GOOG, TWTR)

Steve Kovach October 07, 2017 at 05:00AM

If you searched for "Las Vegas Shooter" or "Stephen Paddock" on YouTube after Sunday's mass shooting, here's a sampling of some of the videos you would have seen:

One video was titled "Proof Las Vegas Shooting Was a FALSE FLAG Attack - Shooter on 4th Floor"

Another: "Las Vegas Shooting Narrative Debunked in 3 Videos"

Yet another: "Las Vegas (Antifa?) Shooting"

And: "Las Vegas Gunman Stephen Paddock Was Anti Trump Far Left Activist"

You get the idea.

BuzzFeed's Charlie Warzel had the best roundup of the YouTube search results in a story he published Wednesday. While I shouldn't have to point this out, none of those videos, nor the slew of other clips that YouTube recommended to its users as related content, were based on fact. Police believe Paddock was the only perpetrator of the shooting that left 58 people dead, and there is no evidence of any motive or association with militant groups. 

Not all the videos YouTube promoted about the incident were fabrications. There were also plenty of videos from reputable news sources. But it's clear that YouTube failed miserably in serving as a useful hub for news and updates about an important event. 

Visitors to YouTube, the world's largest video site, were fed the ramblings of tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists. The fact that YouTube also had legitimate news videos about the incident on its site may actually have made things even worse: The ludicrous and the legitimate, the absurd and the authoritative, were all mixed together, free of any context or differentiation, on equal terms in the eyes of viewers.

A cycle of failure

It wasn't until Thursday, more than three days after the shooting, that YouTube decided to do something and rushed out a planned change to the search algorithm designed to promote news videos from authoritative sources. A source close to YouTube told me the earlier-than-planned rollout of the change was in response to criticism of how it handled the Las Vegas shooting videos.

It's been 11 months since the 2016 US election, when the plague of fake news and abuse on internet platforms became a mainstream problem. Since then, Facebook, Google, and Twitter have all made attempts to change their algorithms and services to combat the problem. But despite their efforts and all that time, it still requires a journalist or noisy critic to point out a problem before something gets fixed.

Then come the half-hearted apologies and promises to do better. And the cycle repeats itself.

In April, for example, Google said it made changes to its search algorithm to favor authoritative sources for news, just like YouTube did this week. Facebook has made several changes to combat fake news like automated tips for spotting fake news and a new pop-up window that gives you information on the news source you're reading.

And yet, all these platforms continue to screw up. Every new update, every new press release, every new headline designed to show there's an investment into the problem ends up being trumped by a new controversy. When Facebook announced this week it was throwing 1,000 new employees at the ad abuse problem on its site, NYU professor and author of the tech business book "The Four", Scott Galloway called it "pissing in the ocean."

The problem is too big for incremental updates and promises to do better after each screwup.  And these sites have become so massive and influential, that they have a responsibility to get it right. 

Unfortunate timing

In an interview with The Verge last week Google CEO Sundar Pichai discussed the responsibility Google has as the distributor of massive amounts of information.

"Today, we overwhelmingly get it right. But I think every single time we stumble. I feel the pain, and I think we should be held accountable," Pichai said.

In a telling case of unfortunate timing, at the very moment Pichai's comments were published, the online platforms he oversees were promoting a bunch of garbage about Las Vegas. 

Google, YouTube's parent company, promoted a conspiracy theory thread on 4Chan in its search results and took hours to get rid of it. And competitors like Facebook performed equally poorly, with the social network's "crisis response" page for the Las Vegas shooting promoting unconfirmed reports and conspiracy theories from sites like Gateway Pundit

One way to be held accountable is to be proactive and transparent, something none of the companies claiming they feel a sense of responsibility have adequately done. For example, Facebook's pledge to hire those 1,000 new employees to monitor ad abuse and tweak its algorithm came with a shocking lack of detail and transparency. We have no clarification on how the employees will be trained, whether they're contractors or full-time workers, or what standards they'll be operating under. It's the latest promise to do something from a company that has proven over and over that it's ill-prepared, or un-motivated, to handle the darker edges of its platform. The same goes for its peers.

These companies employ some most brilliant minds in the world. They should be more than capable of tackling this problem and fixing it. Instead, they routinely wait for someone on the outside to point out a mistake before it gets fixed. 

That's embarrassing. But even worse, it's dangerous. 

SEE ALSO: Facebook's response to fake Russian ads isn't going to cut it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Google repeatedly mock Apple at its October Pixel event

Tech companies are embarrassing themselves with how they handle fake news (FB, GOOG, TWTR) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Facebook thought about disclosing election manipulation by Russia in April, but waited until September (FB)

Steve Kovach October 06, 2017 at 06:57AM

Facebook omitted references to Russia in a public report published in April about manipulation on the site during the 2016 election, according to a new Wall Street Journal report.

The company eventually disclosed in September that it had found about 3,000 ads from Russia-linked fake accounts. Those ads were viewed by about 10 million people, the company said. There may still be more Russia-linked abuse on Facebook that hasn't been discovered yet.

A Facebook spokesperson told the WSJ that the company didn't disclose the Russia-linked activity in April because the company was still looking into the matter. The 3,000 ads weren't discovered until after the April report.

Facebook said last month that it would soon require more transparency from political ads. The company also said it would hire 1,000 more people to monitor ads for abuse.

SEE ALSO: Facebook's response to fake Russian ads is not going to cut it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here are all the major changes coming to your iPhone September 19

Facebook thought about disclosing election manipulation by Russia in April, but waited until September (FB) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Outside criticism forced YouTube to change its search results after Las Vegas shooting conspiracy theories spread (GOOG)

Steve Kovach October 05, 2017 at 10:59AM

YouTube is revamping the way its search algorithm picks videos to display on the site, after a spate of clips promoting false conspiracy theories about Sunday's Las Vegas shooting were prominently featured on its site.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, is changing the algorithm that determines the most relevant videos, a source familiar with the matter told Business Insider. Although the change to the search algorithm was already in the works, YouTube decided to roll it out sooner in response to criticism of the way it handled results when users searched for "Las Vegas Shooting."

YouTube also plans to change the "up next" video recommendation feature, the person said. That change is still under development however, and will not be introduced immediately. 

A series of news reports and criticism on social media in recent days have highlighted how YouTube promoted false and misleading videos about the deadly Las Vegas shooting.

Police have identified Stephen Craig Paddock as the man who opened fire from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, killing 58 people and injuring more than 500. Yet conspiracy theory videos that appeared near the top of YouTube's search results in recent days claimed there were multiple shooters, that the shooting was a "false flag" attack, and that the shooter was a member of the left-leaning group Antifa.

The source did not specify what changes YouTube is making to its algorithm to differentiate authoritative news videos from conspiracy theory videos. News of the change was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

YouTube is also planning to revamp the related videos its shows users after the first video finishes playing. According to a BuzzFeed report the recommendations were also replete with misleading or false videos that the report said could lead users "down an algorithm-powered conspiracy video rabbit hole." 

 

SEE ALSO: Facebook's response to the fake Russian ads isn't going to cut it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I won't trade in my iPhone 6s for an iPhone 8 or iPhone X — here's why

Outside criticism forced YouTube to change its search results after Las Vegas shooting conspiracy theories spread (GOOG) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Facebook needs to stop hiding behind excuses and release the fake Russian ads (FB)

Steve Kovach October 04, 2017 at 03:31PM

Facebook is running out of time and excuses.

On Wednesday, the two lawmakers leading an inquiry into Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 US elections urged Facebook to show the American public the subversive ads that appeared on its social network.

There's nothing private about the ads, of course — Facebook already showed the very same ads to 10 million of its users at the time they were purchased over the past two years.

But now Facebook says the ads must remain concealed behind lock and key, too hot for the average citizen to gaze at, apparently. 

Facebook's explanation for its lack of transparency keeps changing. 

In September, Facebook said it couldn't make the ads public due to the ongoing investigations and federal law.

But on Wednesday Senators Mark Warner and Richard Burr, the two leaders of the Senate's Russia inquiry, said that Facebook was welcome to make the ads public if the company wanted to.

In fact, Warner said Facebook should release the ads.

"It's important for the public to see," Warner said.

The Senators' green light is not enough though. Facebook now says its hands are tied because of a different investigation. 

As Business Insider's Alex Heath reported on Wednesday, the blame has shifted to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. 

“Due to ongoing investigations, including the special counsel, the company is limited in what it can release," a source familiar with the matter told Business Insider.

An inconvenient truth

Aside from the investigation, the exact rationale for withholding the ads — which again, were already widely posted on Facebook — remains a mystery. 

That means the public has no choice but to speculate about Facebook's rationale, and that's not good for Facebook. 

Consider the facts: Russian actors used Facebook's automated ad platform and spent about $100,000 to run about 3,000 ads designed to influence the election. Some of the ads were targeted at Facebook users in Wisconsin and Michigan, two states Hillary Clinton unexpectedly lost last year, according to CNN. Ten million people saw the ads.

Facebook missed it all.

And these are just the ads we know about. Facebook has said it's possible it will uncover more.

Keeping the ads hidden and not commenting on why it's doing so only makes Facebook look like it's trying to avoid an embarrassing reminder that the company is ill-equipped to take on the monumental task of policing abuse on its platform or creating a chilling effect from other advertisers.

Passing the buck

To be sure, there's a lot of passing-the-buck going on among all sides here. 

Senators Warner and Burr are telling Facebook to release the approximately 3,000 ads linked to Russian bot accounts, while insisting that they are not able to do so themselves. It's possible that the evidence collected in the course of the investigation contains sensitive information. But if the Congressional investigators have concluded that the ads are OK for Facebook to make public, it's difficult to see why the senators can't unseal the information themselves. 

Still, if Facebook really wants to regain the public's trust, it should stop hiding behind investigations. 

This transcends Facebook's ability to sell ads and to make money. This transcends other abuses on its platform like spam and trolling. This is about a foreign government attempting to hack our electoral system.

Throwing 1,000 people at the problem won't fix it. Tweaking algorithms won't fix it. Refusing to clarify how you intend to make political ads more transparent or work with the FEC to do so won't fix it.

Only actual transparency into the process will put things on the right path to make sure this doesn't happen again.

Make the ads public.

SEE ALSO: Digital political ads should be regulated just like they are on TV

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I won't trade in my iPhone 6s for an iPhone 8 or iPhone X — here's why

Facebook needs to stop hiding behind excuses and release the fake Russian ads (FB) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Investigators will look at YouTube and Gmail in the Russia inquiry (GOOG)

Steve Kovach October 03, 2017 at 01:40PM

In addition to Facebook and YouTube, Google will also be scrutinized by investigators in relation to the Russia inquiry. All three companies are expected to testify to congress on November 1, as previously reported.

In Google's case, investigators will focus on a variety of services the company makes, especially YouTube and Gmail, Bloomberg first reported.

Google began an internal review of any potential abuse from Russian actors last week, the Bloomberg report says. A Google spokesperson confirmed to Business Insider that the company removed the Kremlin-run news organization Russia Today (RT) from its Google Preferred network. Google Preferred connects content creators with higher-paying advertisers. The move comes after increasing concerns over a January report from the Director of National Intelligence that linked RT to Russia's attempts to undermine the 2016 US election.

However, RT still exists on YouTube. Some view RT as more like state-run news organizations like BBC or Al Jazeera, not necessarily shady anonymous actors trying to game internet platforms. Twitter said last week that it found ads from RT on the service.

The Bloomberg report also says investigators will look at Gmail, after John Podesta's personal account was broken into last year.

The Google spokesperson declined to comment on the rest of the Bloomberg report.

SEE ALSO: Facebook's response to fake Russian ads is not going to cut it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Everything we know about the Apple 'iPhone X' — which should be announced today

Investigators will look at YouTube and Gmail in the Russia inquiry (GOOG) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Facebook blew its response to fake Russian ads (FB)

Steve Kovach October 02, 2017 at 02:47PM

Facebook doesn't just have a fake news problem. It also has a fake ads problem.

Last month the company disclosed that it found about 3,000 ads that ran during the 2016 US election that were run by fake accounts linked to Russia. While the company hasn't shown the ads publicly, there's evidence that they were designed to influence voters by promoting polarizing topics. It was a wild abuse of Facebook's automated ad platform.

Facebook's answer: Throw bodies at the problem. 

Facebook announced on Monday that it would hire 1,000 people in the coming months to monitor automated ads on the social network and remove those that don't meet its guidelines. If that sounds familiar, it's because it's almost the same response Facebook had in May after a string of incidents where users live-streamed suicides and killings. Facebook said then that it would hire 3,000 new content moderators on top of the 4,500 it already had.

In addition to the 1,000 new hires announced Monday, Facebook said it's going to beef up its algorithms using machine learning to automatically detect abusive ads.

Ignoring the obvious fact that these moves come far too late, there's still a massive lack of transparency about what Facebook says will make its advertising more transparent.

Here's what we still don't know:

• Are the new employees who will be monitoring content full time staffers or contractors?
• Where are they based?
• What kind of training will they go through and what specifically are they looking for?
• What kind of machine learning improvements will Facebook make and what kind of content will the algorithm start flagging that it isn't flagging today?
• Is Facebook working with the FEC and other governments to come up with ad monitoring standards, or is it developing these standards on its own?

Facebook didn't say, and a spokesperson declined to comment beyond the company's formal announcement from Monday morning.

But Facebook needs to say more. And it needs to do so quickly.

Trust ain't enough

This isn't a product launch like a new Instagram filter or video streaming service. This is a response to very real threats to democracy in the US and around the world. It's about making sure a foreign actor can't buy influence in an election and manipulate the public discourse. Facebook isn't entitled to the luxury of secrecy that's available for business endeavors.

That's especially so since Facebook has offered little evidence that it's up to the task of monitoring content on its platform — both on the ad side and the user-generated content side. The company has been trying to get quash fake news for nearly a year now. Yet the rash of bogus news that spread across the social network on Monday following the shooting in Las Vegas was an unfortunate reminder that the problem persists. No matter how many people Facebook assigns to the task, the problem is remains far from solved.

Politicians and regulators are already starting to draft their own ideas for how to deal with the threat of deceptive ads, a regulatory intervention that Facebook and other internet companies are unlikely to welcome (even though some regulations are sensible and long overdue). 

If Facebook thinks it can fix this problem on its own, then it needs to do more than fill the air with vague soundbytes stating its intentions to do good, as it did on Monday. The company needs to tell us how it plans to control what looks more and more like a runaway train. 

Right now, Facebook is basically asking the public to trust an organization that has shown no desire to fix its fundamental problems until after a major screwup. That's unacceptable. 

And with the stakes so high, trust and more bodies, aren't going to cut it anymore.

 

SEE ALSO: Online political ads should be regulated, just like they are on TV

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here are all the major changes coming to your iPhone September 19

Facebook blew its response to fake Russian ads (FB) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: There's a big board battle brewing at Uber

Steve Kovach September 30, 2017 at 09:48AM

There's a new battle brewing in the ongoing war for control at Uber as the company prepares to reset itself after appointing a new CEO.

On Friday night, former CEO Travis Kalanick surprised the company by appointing two new members to the board, apparently without notifying the company and other board members. An Uber spokesperson told Business Insider the move was "a complete surprise."

Kalanick's appointments came ahead of the board's meetings to consider new rules of governance for the company that would change shareholder voting rights and potentially the structure of the board.

In a statement to Business Insider Friday night, Kalanick basically admitted his surprise appointments were designed to get in front of the proposed changes to the board structure. Kalanick had power over those two empty seats, and he appointed Xerox chairwoman Ursula Burns and former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain.

"I am appointing these seats now in light of a recent Board proposal to dramatically restructure the Board and significantly alter the company’s voting rights," Kalanick said in his statement. "It is therefore essential that the full Board be in place for proper deliberation to occur, especially with such experienced board members as Ursula and John."

Recode's Kara Swisher and Theodore Schleifer reported more details on the proposals that the board is considering next week. Some of the changes could reduce the voting power Kalanick and other shareholders have. According to Recode, some of the options on the table include:

• Removing special voting power of some shareholders like Kalanick and the VC firm and early Uber investor Benchmark.
• Kalanick would lose one of the three board seats he controls, and a representative from SoftBank, which is considering a major investment in Uber, would get the seat instead.
• Kalanick would be able to appoint someone to the third board seat he controls, but with restrictions attached, like approval from Uber's new CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. The seat must also be filled by a c-suite executive from a Fortune 100 company.

Obviously, most of these new proposals would limit Kalanick's power on the board, which could explain why he decided to appoint members to the empty board seats he controls without any warning. Recode's report says some of these proposals will be considered by the Uber board on Tuesday. 

SEE ALSO: Kalanick appoints two new Uber board members in a surprise move

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Apple unveil the iPhone X

There's a big board battle brewing at Uber from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: When it comes to political ads, it's time for Facebook and Google to be held to the same standards as ABC and CBS (FB)

Steve Kovach September 30, 2017 at 05:45AM

You probably saw it dozens, if not hundreds of times in the months leading up to the US presidential election last year.

A political ad would air. And at the end, you'd see a clear message about who paid for or endorsed the spot, whether it was Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or any of the numerous candidates or political action committees. 

Such messages have been the standard in political advertising since 2002, when Congress passed a campaign reform law that required them. Now, whenever a political message runs on television or in any other traditional mass media, you can see who paid for the ad. I think we can all agree that kind of transparency is a good thing.

However, that disclosure requirement doesn't apply to online ads. As a result, when you see a political ad on Facebook or Google or other sites, it can be impossible to tell who was behind it, whether it was a particular candidate, a PAC, a non-profit — or a fake account run by groups linked to Russia. 

You just don't know.

But you should. Facebook, Google and the other giant online services have become hugely influential when it comes to spreading news, information and advertising. As such, they should be held to similar standards as other forms of media when it comes to political advertising.

Facebook is a case in point for why such standards are needed. As it turns out, there were plenty of ads placed by fake Russia-linked accounts during the 2016 election cycle. There's reason to believe those ads were part of a propaganda effort intended to influence voters without them understanding who was behind it.

Facebook disclosed earlier this month that it discovered about 3,000 such ads, and last week it turned them over to the congressional committees investigating Russia's alleged attempts to meddle with the election. 

Belatedly Facebook itself has recognized the danger. Company CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who initially dismissed the idea that anyone tried to surreptitiously use his company's social network to influence the election through fake news or ads, is now singing a different tune. In the wake of the latest disclosures, he promised to require more transparency for political ads placed on Facebook.

Going forward, political ads will have to show the Facebook pages that paid for them. And Facebook users will be able to see what messages advertisers are targeting at particular audiences on the social network, he wrote in an open letter.

"I care deeply about the democratic process and protecting its integrity," Zuckerberg said in a video message broadcast through his Facebook page. "I don’t want anyone to use our tools to undermine our democracy."

Those are good first steps, but they don't go far enough.

It's unclear, even with these steps, whether users will be able to know the actual individuals or companies — rather than the Facebook pages — that are funding particular ads on the social network. It's also unclear what Facebook will do ensure that the accounts behind those ads are legitimate. 

Much of the advertising on Facebook is set up through a self-service online tool. That feature seems ripe for abuse.

Just last week, for example, Pro Publica discovered it was possible for someone using Facebook's automated ad tool to buy ads targeting "Jew haters" and other nasty groups. Facebook removed those categories, and blamed its algorithm for making them available in the first place. But the company hasn't given a clear picture of how it'll keep people using fake accounts from abusing that tool in the future. 

And the problem with online political ads is much bigger than Facebook. 

On Thursday, Twitter said it found 201 fake accounts linked to the same Russian actors who set up fake accounts on Facebook. But that is likely just a small fraction of the abuse on that platform. Sen. Mark Warner blasted the company for basing its disclosure purely on the same accounts linked to the ones Facebook found, saying it "either shows an unwillingness to take this threat seriously or a complete lack of a fulsome effort."

And we haven't even heard from Google yet.

Even if such companies were earnestly trying to contend with the problem posed by online political ads, there's reason to doubt their ability to solve it on their own. These, after all, are the same companies that have struggled to contend with other ways people have abused their services, from using them to send spam to live-streaming murders over them.

That's why it's time for governments to step in — and for the big online service providers to work with them constructively. The best thing Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and the like could do is to work with the Federal Election Commission and Congress to come up with a standard for online political advertising just like we have for television, radio, and print.

"All of these tech firms would benefit from a clear set of guidelines from the FEC or governments around the world," said Daniel Kreiss, a professor of political communication at the University of North Carolina's School of Media and Journalism. "On one hand we can say Facebook has too much power. On the other hand, I don't think they're well equipped to do that. This is why governments should set guidelines."

Congress has neglected the issue of online political ads for years, but it finally looks like it may rise to the challenge, thanks to the Russian influence investigation. 

Senators Mark Warner and Amy Klobuchar are working on a bill that would require internet companies with 1 million or more users to keep a public record of political ads purchased on their services, according to CNN. Those companies would have to disclose information on political advertisers spending $10,000 or more on political ads.

For reference, Facebook said the fake Russian accounts bought about $100,000 worth of ads through the company's automated advertising tools.

But even Warner and Klobuchar's legislation likely won't be enough to address the problem. 

The advantage of advertising online is that it provides more bang for the buck than traditional advertising. Even a small ad spend can have a big impact. So setting the limit for disclosure at $10,000 of ad spending may be placing the bar way too high. Kreiss, for one, argues it should be far lower.

And political advertising is only one of many areas on these online services that's prone to abuse and could be used to manipulate the political process. There's also trolling, fake news, bots, and more. 

But the legislation is a move in the right direction. It recognizes that online political advertising is one aspect of the abuse and manipulation problem that can be addressed relatively easily. We already have a model for how to do it in the form of the standards applied to other media.

Here's hoping Congress passes the legislation or something like it. Facebook and other online services are no longer niche websites used by the few. They're the sources of news and information for billions. Their reach and influence is arguably larger than television. At the very least, they should be held to the same standards as other forms of mass media.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The 5 best hidden features from the latest iPhone update

When it comes to political ads, it's time for Facebook and Google to be held to the same standards as ABC and CBS (FB) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: I used to hate the Apple Watch, but I became obsessed after using it as a fitness tracker (AAPL)

Steve Kovach September 28, 2017 at 08:23AM

I've never been shy about my disdain for smartwatches.

Every company from Google to Apple to the now-defunct startup Pebble overpromised and under-delivered on wearables. There wasn't a clear purpose for smartwatches other than they were geeky and kind of handy in certain situations. As I've said with each Apple Watch version I've reviewed, it's a nice thing to have, but not essential like a smartphone.

So I did something different this year when testing the new $399 Apple Watch Series 3. I kept my Apple Watch usage as limited as possible and focused on something most Watch fans seem to think it's the best at: fitness tracking.

And you know what? The Apple Watch did a damn good job.

After a week using the Apple Watch as a fitness tracker, I've done a full 180. I haven't worn an Apple Watch regularly since late 2015, but now I'm addicted to it. It turns out that ignoring a lot of the extra stuff like third-party apps, phone calls, and Siri queries makes the Apple Watch a much more focused and useful gadget. It's how Apple should've started things with the Apple Watch instead of packing in so many features in an effort to make the device everything to everyone.

(A quick side note: The Apple Watch Series 3 has a new non-fitness feature worth mentioning. It's the first Apple Watch with a cellular connection, so you can use it without your phone. Unlike some early testers, I found the cellular connection worked fine, and I was able to receive calls, texts, notifications, and use Siri. But I don't think most people will need the cellular version unless they have a desire to go phone-free a lot. Maybe runners will like it? I don't know. It's not for me. Plus, your carrier will charge you an extra $10 per month.)

Encouragement

I'm pretty good about working out regularly. Not to brag, but I like waking up at 5:30 a.m. and running down to the gym for an hour so I can get my workout out of the way before my day really starts. But there are some days I cheat. I'm too tired, or stayed out too late the night before, or I'd just rather sleep the extra hour.

The Apple Watch's Activity app encouraged me to get moving. When I put the Watch on for the first time each day, I'd get an alert summarizing my activity from the day before and encouraging me to beat what I did the day before. It's that little extra push that convinced me to get off my butt and move. I only missed one workout this week.

You can also share your workouts with other friends who have Apple Watches, nudging them to work out or bragging about your own achievements. I tried this with my colleague Kif, who's also testing the Apple Watch Series 3, and it added a fun, competitive element to my workouts. I'm also happy to say I beat him to closing my activity rings most days. If you're the competitive type and need a little extra encouragement, workout sharing is a great feature on the Apple Watch.

Workouts

There are a bunch of third-party workout apps for the Apple Watch, but I stuck with the one that Apple ships with the watch. It seems to work pretty well, and has all the standard workouts you'd expect, like elliptical, indoor run, and indoor rowing. The app tracks your pulse and estimates how many calories you burn with each workout. You can also string multiple workouts together if you decide to mix things up in a session.

My only problem is there isn't a weight-lifting workout. Instead, you have to track weight-lifting sessions with the "Other" workout mode, which equates your workout to a brisk walk. I doubt it's the best way to track how many calories you really burn while lifting weights. 

All your workout data gets pushed to the iPhone's activity app, so you can get a full summary of what you accomplish each day. It also ties into the Health app on iPhone, which can monitor vitals like your pulse using the Apple Watch's sensors. Over time, you can get a pretty good snapshot of your activity and progress. It made me want to keep the Apple Watch on just so I could track my progress better. That alone is worth it.

All that other smartwatch stuff

Of course, the Apple Watch does so much more than fitness tracking. It can run apps, play music, bring you information from Siri, and a lot of other functions that mimic your smartphone. But the iPhone does all of that, and it does it a lot better than the Apple Watch.

Apps are still the worst part of the Apple Watch. It's tough to use most of them on the tiny screen, and some run painfully slow. It took over a minute for my Lyft app to load the other day. Meanwhile, many developers have realized the Apple Watch just isn't worth it. Twitter, Amazon, Google, and others have all removed their Apple Watch apps. It's a smart move.

The one thing I do like: notifications. The Apple Watch is perfect for calendar alerts and reading incoming text messages on the go. I limited notifications from just about every other app though to save me from insanity with my wrist buzzing every time the president prompts a heart-stopping news alert or someone mentions me on Twitter.

Stay focused

If you want an Apple Watch, I suggest staying as focused as possible. Use it for fitness tracking, limited notifications, and — gasp! — telling the time. Don't install any third-party apps. Apple's biggest mistake was making the Apple Watch do too much before it was ready.

The Apple Watch gives you the foundation of a great gadget, but you also have to do a little work to make it work.

SEE ALSO: The iPhone 8 review

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Everything we know about the Apple 'iPhone X' — which should be announced today

I used to hate the Apple Watch, but I became obsessed after using it as a fitness tracker (AAPL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: There's growing concern that Russia-linked Twitter bots influenced the 2016 election (TWTR)

Steve Kovach, Alex Heath and Reuters September 28, 2017 at 06:50AM

Executives from Facebook, Google, and Twitter will appear before the US Congress in the coming weeks as lawmakers probe Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 US election, committee sources said on Wednesday.

A Senate aide said executives from the three firms had been asked by the Senate Intelligence Committee to testify at a public hearing on Nov. 1.

News of the hearings comes among growing concern over the influence of Russian-operated fake accounts on social networks. The New York Times reported Wednesday that Twitter bots linked to Russia have been spreading politically charged messages as recently as last weekend, promoting hashtags and trending topics like #standforouranthem and #takeaknee, following President Donald Trump's controversial NFL comments last Friday. Russia-linked bots also spread similar polarizing topics during the 2016 election, the report says.

Twitter representatives will appear at a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, a person familiar with the matter told Business Insider.

“Twitter engages with governments around the world on public policy issues of importance and of interest to policymakers," a Twitter spokesperson told Business Insider. "We are cooperating with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its inquiry into the 2016 election and will meet with committee staff next week. Twitter deeply respects the integrity of the election process, a cornerstone of all democracies, and will continue to strengthen our platform against bots and other forms of manipulation that violate our Terms of Service.”

The leaders of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee said the panel would hold an open hearing with technology companies as part of its investigation.

"In the coming month, we will hold an open hearing with representatives from tech companies in order to better understand how Russia used online tools and platforms to sow discord in and influence our election," the committee's top Democrat, Representative Adam Schiff, and Representative Mike Conaway, the Republican leading the investigation, said in a statement.

Facebook said last week that it was turning over ads from fake accounts linked to Russia to US investigators. Facebook said earlier this month it discovered about $100,000 worth of ads from fake accounts linked to Russia that ran during the 2016 US presidential election.

Some US lawmakers, increasingly alarmed about evidence that hackers used the internet to spread fake news and otherwise influence the 2016 election, have been pushing for more information about the influence of social networks in particular.

The Senate and House intelligence committees are two of the main congressional panels probing allegations that Russia sought to interfere in the U.S. election to boost Republican President Donald Trump's chances at winning the White House, and possible collusion between Trump associates and Russia.

Moscow denies any such activity, and Trump dismissed any talk of such collusion.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle and Dustin Volz at Reuters; Editing by Peter Cooney)

SEE ALSO: Mark Zuckerberg fires back at Trump over claims of collusion with the media

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The 5 best hidden features from the latest iPhone update

There's growing concern that Russia-linked Twitter bots influenced the 2016 election (TWTR) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: An Uber investor is suing the company and former CEO, alleging fraud

Steve Kovach September 26, 2017 at 09:36AM

A Texas-based retirement fund that invested in Uber is suing the company and its former CEO Travis Kalanick, alleging that the company made misleading statements about its business to drum up billions of dollars in investment starting in June 2014. 

Irving Firemen's Relief Retirement Fund filed the lawsuit in California federal court on Tuesday. The lawsuit does not say how much Irving Firemen's Relief Retirement Fund is suing for, but alleges that Uber has lost at least $18 billion in private market value as a result of a series of scandals and controversies.

We're still digging through the lawsuit, and will update this post with more information as we get it. 

An Uber representative declined to comment.

This story is developing.

You can read the lawsuit here:

Plaintiff Irving Firemen’s Relief & Retirement Fund lawsuit filing against Uber and Travis Kalanick by Steven Tweedie on Scribd

SEE ALSO: The stunning string of blows that upended Uber, the world's most valuable startup

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Apple unveiled the 'iPhone X' — here are the best features of the $999 phone

An Uber investor is suing the company and former CEO, alleging fraud from Business Insider: Steve Kovach