Facebook is gaslighting the web. We can fix it. - Anil Dash
Anil Dash says that Facebook is gaslighting us: they are feeding us false information to make us doubt our own reason, and specifically false information about their own intentions and actions. Specifically Facebook is spinning stories about why it is changing various policies — like Open Graph, sharing content in Facebook via RSS, and others.
Anil Dash via dashes.com/anil
Facebook has moved from merely being a walled garden into openly attacking its users’ ability and willingness to navigate the rest of the web. The evidence that this is true even for sites which embrace Facebook technologies is overwhelming, and the net result is that Facebook is gaslighting users into believing that visiting the web is dangerous or threatening.
In this post I intend to not only document the practices which enable this attack, but to also propose a remedy.
[…]
This is the network of services designed to warn users about dangers on the web, one of the most prominent of which is Stop Badware. From that site comes this description:
Some badware is not malicious in its intent, but still fails to put the user in control. Consider, for example, a browser toolbar that helps you shop online more effectively but neglects to mention that it will send a list of everything you buy online to the company that provides the toolbar.
I believe this description clearly describes Facebook’s behavior, and strongly urge Stop Badware partners such as Google (whose Safe Browsing service is also used by Mozilla and Apple), as well as Microsoft’s similar SmartScreen filter, to warn web users when visiting Facebook. Given that Facebook is consistently misleading users about the nature of web links that they visit and placing barriers to web sites being able to be visited through ordinary web links on their network, this seems an appropriate and necessary remedy for their behavior.
Read the whole piece. Important.
I fooled with the fun 24 hour hack called I am, I do.
The best question is ‘What advice would you give for someone wanting to follow a similar path’. My answer:
Turn off your TV and read. Write poetry late at night when you feel that you don’t understand something. Look for distant analogies. Search for broad answers to deep questions.
Some Degree Of Separation
The six degrees of separation meme has surfaced again, based on new research from Facebook — in collaboration with researchers at the Università degli Studi di Milano — that suggests the average path length from one Facebook user to another has fallen to 4.74, and has been shrinking as Facebook has grown larger.
The N degrees of separation idea was first suggested in a short story by the Hungarian author Frigyes Karinthy:
Stowe Boyd, Everything is Different
In Albert-László Barabási’s Linked, the author explains that the origin of the “six degrees of separation” notion that underlies all social networking theory was the brain child of a Hungarian writer, Frigyes Karinthy. In 1929, Karinthy published his forty-sixth book, a collection of short stories entitled Everything Is Different (Minden masképpen van), which is now out of print and apparently lost to us.
Albert-László Barabási, from Linked
The short story collection was a critical failure and soon sank into obscurity. It has been out of print ever since. […] But there is one story, entitled “Lánceszemek,” or “Chains,” that deserves our attention.
“To demonstrate that people on Earth today are much closer than ever, a member of the group suggested a test. He offered a bet that we could name any person among earth’s one and a half billion inhabitants and through at most five acquaintances, one of which he knew personally, he could link to the chosen one,” writes Karinthy in “Lánceszemek.” And indeed, Karinthy’s fictionaly character immediately links a Nobel prizewinner to himself, noting that the Nobelist must know King Gustav, the Swedish monarch who hands out the Nobel prize, who is in turn a consummate tennis player and plays occasionally with a tennis champion who happens to be a good friend of Karinthy’s character. Remarking that linking to celebrities is easy, Karinthy’s character demands a more difficult assignment. Next he tries to link a worker in Ford’s factory to himself: “The worker knows the manager in the shop, who knows Ford; Ford is on friendly terms with the general director of Hearst Publications, who last year became friends with Árpád Pásztor, someone I not only know, but is to the best of my knowledge a good friend of mine — so I could easily ask him to send a telegram to the general director telling Ford that he should talk to the manager and have the worker in the shop quickly hammer together a car for me, as I happen to need one.” Though these short stories have been neglected, Karinthy’s 1929 insight that people are linked by at most five links was the first published appearance of the concept we know today as “six degrees of separation.”
And Now, Everything Is Different
The “six degrees” meme was rediscovered decades later by Stanley Milgram, who engendered an entire branch of science through his groundbreaking investigations into social networking. His initial foray into the field nearly confirmed Karinthy’s magic number five. Milgram’s research was astonishingly similar to Karinthy’s Ford example — getting random people in various Midwestern cities to pass along a letter through their personal contacts, heading toward one of two Massachusetts residents. And after all was said and done, the average number of hand-offs in the successful cases turned out to be 5.5; rounded up, this is the core for the “six degrees of separation” concept.
Another few generations have passed since Milgram’s 1967 experiment, and the principles of social networks have entered the popular mindset. We think of the world as a much smaller place than those that came before us. We are living in McLuhan’s global village, where one person’s actions can lead to a cascade of effects across the Globe: not through some disembodied “invisible hand,” but by the interaction of people who are known to each other. Our ability to influence those that we know means that what we do can propagate through the social matrix that shapes our world, and can open doors, shift political debate, or quell a rumor.
And because we know that this is how the world wags — that even the least networked of us is connected to everyone if he is connected to at least one other person — now, everything is different. So, we have lifted the title of Karinthy’s forgotten book to serve as the initial piece for this journal, dedicated to social networking in business, because now everything is different.
The world of business — where “networking” has been a gerund for decades — is rediscovering the latent power of social networks. Personal and business relationships are being reappraised in light of social networking technology and techniques, in ways that were too costly or simply impossible prior to the twenty-first century.
While the Facebook researchers nodded their heads at Milgrams work, I dug out this old piece and reproduced in its entirety, so that people can see that the idea is much older, and was originally projected to be five degrees, which is the approximate number offered up by this new research. And Milgram’s working hypothesis might just as well have been rounded down to 5, as well.
There is no doubt that as people become more socially connected, as a general rule, the mean path length across the entire world will drop. As that happens, the world grows smaller, and what happens to someone far away can feel as if it was next door.
We can only hope that this will lead to a great sense of community and solidarity, instead of the squabbling and feuding that dominates world affairs.
- Forget ‘six degrees’—we are actually closer (news.cnet.com)
- Separating You and Me? 4.74 Degrees (nytimes.com)
- Facebook cuts ‘six degrees of separation’ to four (telegraph.co.uk)

Mapping New York’s startup scene. Richard Florida has a great piece on why timing is right of NYC’s tech move as the new Silicon Valley.
- “In 2010, Silicon Valley accounted for the lion’s share of venture-capital investment by far:…” (stoweboyd.com)

(via underpaidgenius)
Lessig Blog, v3: Ok, so f*ck it. I'm back.
Lessig is blogging again. On Tumblr this time:
Larry Lessig, Lessig Blog, V3
Twenty-seven months ago, I announced the hibernation of my blog. It is with deep deep embarrassment that I confess that for about the last 24 of those 27 months, I have been trying to find a way back. The latest of these efforts has again failed, but I am not going to wait any more. I want a a blog again. Someday I may get it back in a form and style that I like. Meanwhile, I will use the magic here at tumblr, and see if I can recruit the help I need to make it something more.
And he’s looking for help.
Connected Kids
I pulled some data from a presentation from the K5 Learning Blog. Kids today are amazingly connected, but less involved in the physical world:
- More US kids aged 2-5 can play a computer game than ride a bike.
- 19% of kids aged 2-5 know how to play a smartphone app; 9% know how to tie their shoelaces.
- More kids aged 2-5 can open a browser than swim unaided.
- Kids aged 0-8 spend an average of 1 hour 44 minutes watching TV or video daily, 29 minutes reading, 29 minutes listening to music, 25 minutes playing computer or video games, and 5 minutes using new mobile devices.
- Kids aged 8-18 spend 7 hours 38 minutes using entertainment media daily: more than 53 hours per week. That’s an hour more than 2004 (6 hours 30 minutes). Because they multitask [non-rivalrous media] they pack 10 hours 45 minutes into those 7 hours and 38 minutes.
- 65% of kids aged 0-8 watch TV at least once per day. That’s 37% of kids aged 0-1, 73% of kids aged 2-4, and 72% of kids aged 5-8.
- Kids under 2 spend twice as much time watching TV and videos than being read to (1 hour 54 minutes versus 53 minutes per day).
- For kids aged 8-18, live TV consumption declined by 25 minutes from 2004 to 2009, but total TV consumption went up thanks to the Internet, cell phones, and iPods. 59% (2 hours 39 minutes) consisted of watching live TV, and 41% (1 hour 50 minutes) consisted of time-shifted TV, DVDs, online, or mobile.
- 53% of kids aged 2-4 have used a computer, 90% of kids aged 5-8 have.
- 25% of kids are going online daily by age 3, 50% by age 5.
- Cell ownership among kids 8-18 rose from 39% in 2004 to 65% in 2009.
- 7-12th graders spend an average 1 hour 35 minutes per day sending and receiving texts.
- 51% of kids aged 0-8 have played a console game, 81% of kids aged 5-8. 17% of kids aged 5-8 play console games at least once a day, 36% play then at least once per week.
- 27% of kids aged 2-5 screen time is used with new digital devices.
- 29% of parents have downloaded apps for their kids aged 2-5 to use.
- iPod ownership for kids aged 8-18 rose from 18% in 2004 to 76% in 2009.
- 23% of kids aged 0-8 watch educational TV shows, 8% use educational programs on the computer, 7% play education games on new mobile devices.
sources: AVG (2010), Kaiser Family Foundation (2010), Joan Ganz Cooney Center (2011), Sesame Workshop (2010), Common Media Research (2011)
It’s a pile of data and no analysis, aside from the implied negatives of kids not knowing how to ride bikes, swim, or tie their shoelaces, or their sketchy parents downloading apps for them but not reading to them as much as they might.
- More Kids Sleep With TV, Study Finds (blogs.wsj.com)

@stoweboyd: @benparr All the best in your travels, brother!
November 22, 2011 at 04:35AM via http://bit.ly/uPvvd3
Ben Parr has been fired from Mashable, apparently, although he doesn’t say so in his parting post.
But of the three major smartphone operating systems, Android is still by far the most confusing. It’s also the least likely to inspire joy.
(via parislemon)
If This Then That
Thanks to the new cross-connection tool, If This Then That, I set it up so that tweets that I favorite are posted to my stoweboyd.com Tumblr account. Yesterday one of those posts was curated as a top #tech post.

I am still in need of better curation tools, but ifttt.com helps a lot.
Lying about the future produces history.
Umberto Eco
(via deepthinking)


