Click. Connect. Learn.

All posts in user control

FaceBook Screwed Up User Data Again. And Their Sorry This Time. Really. Kind Of.

So, Facebook changed people's default email addresses so that the facebook.com email address became the default, replacing whatever email the actual human connected to the email address had chosen as their default. And people didn't like that.

Sad Facebook

But Facebook is sorry, kind of, and they really kind of mean it.

A Facebook spokeswoman said Tuesday that "in hindsight" the company probably should have better explained the email switchover.

This is what Facebook does. They screw with your data, and then they apologize.

It's what you sign up for when you join Facebook.

At what point will people finally understand that Facebook cares about the details of what you do, who you do it with, and where you do it, but they don't actually care about you?

And now, I'm looking forward to the next event where Facebook plays fast and loose with user data, and then apologizes. If history is any indicator, we should have another good screwup and another faux-pology before the end of 2012.

Image Credit: Image found at and reused from Study: Too Many Open Facebook Could Make Sad

What We Can Learn From Louis CK

In December of 2011, Louis CK began selling videos of his most recent standup show - Live at the Beacon Theater - on his web site. For $5, the purchaser could:

  • Stream the video up to 4 times; and
  • Download a copy of the video up to 4 times.
  • Later, he added an audio-only version of the show; people who had already bought the video had the audio added to their list of purchased items.

Both versions are DRM free; so, you can actually play this video anywhere you want, on any device, without dealing with arbitrary regional restrictions, or other studio-induced hassles getting in the way.

Louis CK

On the page where you can buy the show, he addresses how the lack of DRM could enable people who wanted to torrent the show:

Look, I don't really get the whole "torrent" thing. I don't know enough about it to judge either way. But I'd just like you to consider this: I made these files extremely easy to use against well-informed advice. I was told that it would be easier to torrent the way I made it, but I chose to do it this way anyway, because I want it to be easy for people to watch and enjoy this video in any way they want without "corporate" restrictions.

Please bear in mind that I am not a company or a corporation. I'm just some guy. I paid for the production and posting of this video with my own money. I would like to be able to post more material to the fans in this way, which makes it cheaper for the buyer and more pleasant for me. So, please help me keep this being a good idea. I can't stop you from torrenting; all I can do is politely ask you to pay your five little dollars, enjoy the show, and let other people find it in the same way.

I had heard about this in passing back when it launched, but hadn't made time to check it out. But last week, we were talking about this at FunnyMonkey World Headquarters, and Candice said something that made it click:

I was able to buy it, stream it using my phone, and play that stream on my television, right then.

This is the way things should be. The technology required to make this simple exists. The things that get in the way are the result of distributors not being able to figure out their business strategy. The rhetoric of studios (and really, of most media organizations, including the press) is that they are looking out for "the artists" but the reality is that they are still struggling to figure out how to adapt to a world where distribution, marketing, creation, and curation are a whole lot easier due to the internet.

(It's also worth noting that individual recording artists have been slowly moving away from traditional labels. Radiohead is probably one of the more visible/more recent to play with different types of releases outside a major label, and Nine Inch Nails have also released albums online for much less than the cost of storebought, label-distributed CDs. Damian Kulash, Jr, also described the failure of traditional labels in the current space. There is a lot of prior art here before Louis CK.)

In reading through Louis CK's original announcement, he defines one of the key differences between what he did with the release of Live at the Beacon Theater versus doing comparable work for an entertainment company:

The material in the video was developed over months on the road and has never been seen on my show (LOUIE) or on any other special. The risks were thus: every new generation of material I create is my income, it's like a farmer's annual crop. The time and effort on my part was far more than if I'd done it with a big company. If I'd done it with a big company, I would have a guarantee of a sizable fee, as opposed to this way, where I'm actually investing my own money.

He also lays out some of the ways that a standard video distribution would differ from his web-based sale:

(T)hey would have charged you about $20 for the video. They would have given you an encrypted and regionally restricted video of limited value, and they would have owned your private information for their own use. They would have withheld international availability indefinitely.

He also has some interesting things to say about the relative value of money:

I learned that money can be a lot of things. It can be something that is hoarded, fought over, protected, stolen and withheld. Or it can be like an energy, fueled by the desire, will, creative interest, need to laugh, of large groups of people. And it can be shuffled and pushed around and pooled together to fuel a common interest, jokes about garbage, penises and parenthood.

And, from his follow up post, when he describes how they hit one million in sales over the first 12 days:

I never viewed money as being "my money" I always saw it as "The money" It's a resource. if it pools up around me then it needs to be flushed back out into the system.

In 12 days, in 5 dollar increments, 200,000 sales combined to create one million dollars. And that's a nice piece of change; admittedly small by entertainment industry standards, but a good payday for a reasonably sized, talented team. And, in this case, the money was split 4 ways: a quarter to recoup expenses, a quarter as a bonus to his staff, a quarter given to five charities, and a quarter for Louis himself.

The example that Louis CK provide here is one that we can all learn from - and when I say "we" I mean people working in education and educational content distribution.

  • You can make money selling content without DRM;
  • When you treat people like rational actors, most will respond like rational actors. There will always be people who make bad choices, but if the expectations are rational, the behavior relative to those expectations will also be rational;
  • When your business model gets between what you produce and the people who want to use it, you need to examine your business model. DRM and restrictive licensing impairs the ability of people to use and interact with information. Information doesn't need to be free, but the exchange of ideas needs to be free, and the underlying information needs to be accessible;
  • In 2012, ease of use is held hostage by business models. With venture-funded education startups on the rise (aka, more private companies looking to feed on money set aside for public education), people are looking at education as a niche to exploit, rather than a means to empower individuals and improve our society;
  • Greed gets in the way. As Louis says, "money can be a lot of things." In our search for the big ideas that will scale almost infinitely, we overlook smaller scale examples that are excellent. We need to find the things that are "like an energy, fueled by the desire, will, creative interest, need to laugh, of large groups of people." If we prioritize excellence and access - rather than scalability - we have the potential to help more people, more quickly. Premature scaling can be fatal;
  • Never back away from an experiment. It's how we learn.

Technology is work, education is work, business is work; all areas are filled with smart, creative, people doing innovative things. Our desire to fetishize "the best" or "the first" or "the thought leaders" (cult of TED, anyone?) blinds us to the excellence we have around us. We can be comfortable without being rich, be successful without disrupting the existing paradigm, and enact meaningful change without ignoring the historical achievements of those who have come before us. Louis CK's successful - and ongoing - experiment gives us another example of sharing information in a way that empowers the creator, empowers the consumer, and uses technology effectively. He allows things to stay simple.

Image Credit: "Louis CK" found on Comedians Looking Awesome.

Google and Data Collection

Last May, Google announced that it had accidentally collected personally identifiable information as part of capturing data for the Street View functionality of Google Maps.

A look at the technical aspects of what was collected, and why, tends to support Google's explanation that this was accidental, and not anywhere near as big a deal as people wanted it to be.

New Camera

Please don't misunderstand - Google has plenty of issues with user privacy, and the ramifications for student privacy as more K-12 schools transition to Google Apps are mind-boggling. But, the kerfuffle over data collected for Street View is overblown.

Moreover, Google appears to be taking steps to mitigate this, and they are candid about their role in the failure, and clear about the steps they are taking to improve it. Other companies with widespread privacy issues (cough cough Facebook cough cough) could learn from how Google is handling this.

Image Credit: Photo "New 'Camera'" taken by Sherman Tan, published under an Attribution license.

Bad Execution As A Feature

A great new feature that comes with the Facebook Groups: any friend can add you to any group, without your permission.

And, it's really easy to impersonate someone!

So, I wonder how long it will take for a teacher to get in trouble for belonging to a group they were added to by a "friend."

I don't know how many more times I'll need to say this, but I'll add this additional time to the pile of others: Facebook is a business, and Facebook only cares about your interests up to the point where they can study them and profit from access to them. That is why they allow you to "connect" with things. Any benefit you receive is purely incidental.

Syndicate content