All posts in “Mark Zuckerberg”

Here’s how to make Alexa control a toilet because why not

[embedded content]

Alexa-controlled toilets are a thing in 2018 but cost thousands. An enterprising person can make their own by following these instructions. It takes a bit of work, multiple components and about $750 (plus the cost of the toilet) but the end result is a voice controlled toilet and everyone needs that in their life.

The trick is buying a bidet that has an IR remote and then using a Adafruit Wifi development board to trigger another device to flush the toilet. Easy!

Home voice control has long been considered the gold standard for home automation and Alexa and Google Home are making it easier than ever to make a personal Jarvis. It was just two years ago Mark Zuckerberg set a personal challenge to develop a AI system to control different part of his home and now it just takes a little hacking and coding for someone to do the same — but Zuck’s AI system has Morgan Freeman’s voice, which alone puts it on a different level from Alexa.

How ad-free subscriptions could solve Facebook

At the core of Facebook’s “well-being” problem is that its business is directly coupled with total time spent on its apps. The more hours you pass on the social network, the more ads you see and click, the more money it earns. That puts its plan to make using Facebook healthier at odds with its finances, restricting how far it’s willing to go to protect us from the harms of over use.

The advertising-supported model comes with some big benefits, though. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly said that “We will always keep Facebook a free service for everyone.” Ads lets Facebook remain free for those who don’t want to pay, and more importantly, for those around the world who couldn’t afford to.

Ads pay for Facebook to keep the lights on, research and develop new technologies, and profit handsomely in a way that attracts top talent and further investment. More affluent users with more buying power in markets like the US, UK, and Canada command higher ad prices, effectively subsidizing the social network for those in developing nations where ad rates are lower.

Ads and the envy spiral

The issue is that the ad model rewards Facebook for maximizing how long we spend using it, often through passive content consumption via endless News Feed scrolling. Yet studies show that it’s this kind of zombie browsing that hurts us. Spending just 10 minutes passively consuming Facebook can make us feel worse.

Passive Facebook usage leads to envy, which leads to declines in life satisfaction

We fall into envy spirals. The study’s author wrote that “Continually exposing oneself to positive information about others should elicit envy, an emotion linked to lower well-being”. A 2011 study concluded “people may think they are more alone in their emotional difficulties than they really are” after browsing everyone’s manicured life highlights on Facebook.

This research has clearly had an impact on Zuckerberg, who explicitly announced on the Q3 2017 earnings call that “Protecting our community is more important than maximizing our profits . . . Time spent is not a goal by itself. We want the time people spend on Facebook to encourage meaningful social interactions . . . when people are spending so much time passively consuming public content that it starts taking away from the time people are connecting with each other, that’s not good.”

To that end, Zuckerberg has announced a slew of changes to Facebook, though they’ve been relatively minor. Facebook is showing fewer news articles, public posts, and viral videos while prioritizing what leads people to comment and interact with each other. The result was a 50 million hours per day reduction in how long people spend on Facebook. That might sound like a lot, but it’s actually only a 5 percent decrease. Discussing how to quantify what’s “meaningful”, Facebook’s VP of News Feed Adam Mosseri this week admitted that “We’re trying to figure out how to best measure and understand that.”

Making truly forceful changes could have a much more significant impact on time spent, and potentially ad revenue. That creates resistance to confronting people with how long they spend on its apps, reducing spammy reengagement notifications, or creating more powerful ‘do not disturb’ options.

Facebook Clear

And so, we have a company that wants to make us feel better but earns money off making us feel worse, and that promises to stay free despite the negative incentives inherent in ad-based business models.

That’s why I think Facebook should introduce an ad-free subscription option in addition to its existing ad-supported free service.

By charging a monthly fee to remove ads, Facebook could begin to decouple its business from time spent. This would allow it to keep revenue stable even while making bigger changes that enhance well-being while decreasing how long we spend on its apps.

It’s not a totally foreign idea for Facebook, as WhatsApp used to charge a $1 per year subscription in some countries. And Facebook could defend itself against election interference and other political meddling by offering an option to hide all ads.

For users who can afford the fee and want to pay, they’ll get a more purposeful experience on Facebook where they only see what’s organically surfaced in the News Feed. This would allow people to reclaim the time they waste viewing ads, and spend it having meaningful interactions with their friends and communities — thereby fulfilling Facebook’s mission.

For users who can’t afford the fee or don’t want to pay, their Facebook experience remains largely the same. But as the percentage of total users monetized by ads decreases, Facebook gains more flexibility in how it builds its apps to be more respectful of our mental health. And since it’s already reaching saturation in some markets, it’s less risky to refocus from growth to aligning monetization with its mission.

Facebook’s average revenue per user could be used to set a price for an ad-free version

Facebook could charge a similar rate to what it currently earns from users via ads (and the tiny amount it still gets from game payments). In the U.S., Facebook earned $84.14 per user, while earning an average worldwide of $20.21. Charging $1.65 per month, or even $7 per month to remove ads from Facebook could feel very reasonable to some users. The rate would increase yearly to stay in-line with ad revenue or follow its current growth trajectory. Facebook might only get a few percent of people to pay, but that would still be tens to hundreds of million people.

Syncing subscription prices without bonus options to revenue per non-subscriber would let Facebook continue to concentrate on developing features for everyone.


But getting a truly significant percentage of users shifting to subscriptions would likely require Facebook offering additional premium features beyond removing ads. Product and engineering talent and resources previously focused on ads could be redirected to this development.

Facebook would have to avoid reserving critical features for paid users otherwise it could make non-subscribers feel betrayed and slighted, like second-class social network citizens. This late in the game, it’d be tough to take anything away from existing users. Facebook couldn’t make its free version just a demo or shell of the paid version like Spotify.

Instead Facebook would need to take cues from apps like Tinder, which charges extra for features like unlimited swipes, undo a swipe, and only seeing people who’ve already right swiped you. Gamer chat app Discord offers cosmetic boosts to your profile like choosing your display name, high resolution screen sharing, and animated profile avatars.

What could these bonus features look like on Facebook? It could offer similar cosmetic upgrades, such as a badge next to your user name to make you stand out like verified profiles, extra profile customization options, displayable virtual goods, or profile pic special effects. It could sell content quality improvements like higher resolution image and video uploads, or let people exceed the 5000 friend limit.

Or perhaps most appealing would be additional curation tools, like advanced manual controls for deciding what shows up in your News Feed — which Facebook used to offer. Back in 2007 you could filter out relationship status changes, links, photos, and more. I’m sure some people would happily shell out cash to banish baby photos or politics from their feed. If browsing unfulfilling content is one of the problems, selling additional controls could let people solve it for themselves. There’s plenty to offer that wouldn’t interfere with the experience of anyone who doesn’t pay.

Facebook’s manual News Feed curation controls from 2007 via GigaOm

Before The Backlash Grows

There’s little risk in testing the idea. Facebook is constantly running all sorts of feature experiments through its “Gatekeeper” system that lets it show slightly different versions of the service to different tiny subsets of users. Facebook could beta test subscriptions in a smaller English-speaking country like New Zealand that approximates the culture of its core markets but is more contained and less critical to its business than the U.S. If it can’t find the right feature set that makes people pay, scrap it.

One concern is that Facebook benefits from having a giant unified user base all accessible to advertisers who crave scale. The ability to hit a huge percentage of a demographic with promotions in a short time, such as for a new movie release, attracts advertisers to Facebook. That appeal could decrease if a portion of users subscribe and never see ads, with Facebook giving up more power to Google in their advertising duopoly.

But Zuckerberg has already committed to some short-term loss of profits in his quest to promote well-being. In the long-run, letting users pay if they want could keep them loyal while letting Facebook configure its News Feed algorithm for what enriches everyone. Building safeguards against overuse today could save Facebook from a stronger backlash in the future. Facebook should always be free, but letting some people pay could give Facebook the freedom to make itself a healthier part of our lives.

For more on the need for Facebook’s push into time well spent, read our feature piece “The difference between good and bad Facebooking”

Facebook is so desperate for engagement, it’s spamming users via their 2FA numbers

Please, please come back.
Please, please come back.

Image: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Facebook is feeling lonely these days. 

The social media behemoth has seen a decline in traffic in recent weeks along with millions of users leaving its platform, and it appears to be taking rather drastic measures to win them back. Specifically, spamming the hell out of them in a most unfortunate place. 

So says one account holder, Gabriel Lewis, who tweeted that Facebook texted “spam” to the phone number he submitted for the purposes of 2-factor authentication. And no, he insists he did not have mobile notifications turned on. 

What’s more, when he replied “stop” and “DO NOT TEXT ME,” he says those message showed up on his Facebook wall.

Lewis explained his version of the story to Mashable via Twitter direct message. 

“[Recently] I decided to sign up for 2FA on all of my accounts including FaceBook, shortly afterwards they started sending me notifications from the same phone number. I never signed up for it and I don’t even have the FB app on my phone.”

Lewis further explained that he can go “for months” without signing into Facebook, which suggests the possibility that Mark Zuckerberg’s creation was feeling a little neglected and trying to get him back. 

According to Lewis, he signed up for 2FA on Dec. 17 and the alleged spamming began on Jan. 5. 

A screengrab showing when Lewis first signed up for 2FA on Facebook, and the beginning of the alleged spam.

A screengrab showing when Lewis first signed up for 2FA on Facebook, and the beginning of the alleged spam.

Image: Gabriel Lewis

We reached out to Facebook to find out just what, exactly, is going on here. Is this some kind of bug? Perhaps a limited test? We have received no response as of press time. 

Importantly, Lewis isn’t the only person who claims this happened to him. One Facebook user says he accidentally told “friends and family to go [to] hell” when he “replied to the spam.” 

This doesn’t look good for for Facebook. Zeynep Tufekci, a self-described technosociologist, professor at UNC, and frequent Facebook critic, voiced some particularly strong concerns.  

As far as Lewis is concerned, Facebook attempts to woo him back have more or less backfired. “I feel like they are constantly pushing me to come back to the service but this is not the way to do it.”

After all, no one likes a desperate ex. 

[embedded content]

Facebook looks to be testing comment downvoting

Your comment is terrible.
Your comment is terrible.

Image: Ted Soqui/Getty Images

Hating on your friends’ dumb Facebook posts is on the verge of getting a whole lot easier. 

Ever the innovator, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears to have found a way to transfer all the bickering in your feed into something much more orderly. Specifically, downvotes. 

On Thursday, various people took to Twitter to voice their surprise at a new feature they say they spotted on the sprawling social media platform. If their reports are accurate, it appears to allow you to downvote comments you don’t like. 

This has long been a feature on sites like Reddit, but Zuckerberg has long been adamant about refusing to add a “dislike” button to his service. 

And yet, according to a thread on Reddit spotted by The Daily Beast reporter Taylor Lorenz, a version of that button has made its way into some users accounts. 

We’ve reached out to Facebook for more details, and will update this when we hear back. Meanwhile, the co-founder of Reddit — which employs upvoting and downvoting — chimed in. 

It’s important to remember that Facebook often tests out new products on subsets of its users, and doesn’t always make them available to everyone. 

Still, if Facebook is testing this, it shows that Zuckerberg is willing to try a little structured negativity on his site. After all, Facebook already has plenty of the unstructured variety. 

[embedded content]

Facebook promoted lies and conspiracy theories following Amtrak crash

Same old.
Same old.

Image: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Facebook just can’t help itself. 

Following news Wednesday morning that an Amtrak train full of Congressional Republicans crashed into a truck, the social media site was soon promoting conspiracy theories and lies purporting to explain the sinister forces behind the tragedy that left one person dead. 

For a company that has publicly and repeatedly been accused of enabling the spread of so-called “fake news,” this is just yet another major misstep in a long line of missteps

First spotted by The Daily Beast’s Ben Collins, Facebook’s screw up du jour involved the “People Are Saying” section of Trending Topics. The phrase “Charlottesville, Virginia,” which is near where the train wreck occurred, was trending, and clicking through brought a Facebook user to a page with information about the incident. 

Scrolling down the page just a bit would get you to the “People Are Saying” section — a collection of theoretically on-topic posts by Facebook users. Unfortunately, the posts Facebook chose to highlight promoted outlandish conspiracy theories and straight up blamed Democrats for the crash. 

Image: facebook

Interestingly, Collins and this reporter were shown many of the same conspiracy-promoting messages. 

One such post read, in part, as follows: “The amount of vitriol the ‘left’ had about the Presidents [sic] address, and even people on the internet calling for his death (probably paid agitators), this could be a either a false flag or inside job.”

And Facebook selected that post to feature, along with another which claimed the crash was “something like radical liberal Democrats would do.”

Image: facebook

The very top People Are Saying post wasn’t much better and implied that Democrats might have somehow been involved in the wreck. 

Image: Facebook

We reached out to Facebook to determine how posts are selected to be featured in People Are Saying, and how the above posts were selected. And, shocker, the long and short of it is that no people are involved in the process on Facebook’s end — suggesting that like many things at the company, it’s automated

“Trending includes a separate section of people’s individual posts related to the news event; it’s essentially a comments section,” explained a Facebook spokesperson. “We built this as a way for you to easily see what others are saying around a topic. The type of stuff we’re seeing today is a bad experience and we’re going to work to fix the product.”

A bad experience, indeed. 

Facebook has one of the largest megaphones on the planet, and what it chooses to do with it matters. Abdicating the selection process for People Are Saying to an algorithm does not absolve the company of responsibility when said algorithm spotlights conspiracy theories and lies. 

When Facebook promotes a post that claims “Democrats just sabotaged a train full of Republicans and made it crash into a garbage truck,” it’s doing all of us a disservice. Which, in the end, this coming from a company that has struggled to come to terms with its effect on everything from our democracy to users’ mental health, shouldn’t be much of a surprise. 

But that doesn’t make it OK.

Https%3a%2f%2fblueprint api uploaders%2fdistribution thumb%2fimage%2f84002%2f8bbc743c 0300 4fab 9e8a bc54f030504d