Despite the tough situation for Facebook, I suspect they are somewhat pleased that the focus right now is on an older data breach instead of on the toolset and functionality they provide currently that people aren't talking about.
Although the media is currently focusing on Cambridge Analytica and the simple targeting they offer to ad buyers using likes/interests, the reality is that advanced buyers can buy/collect data elsewhere, chop and segment it as they please, upload names and email addresses, and have Facebook automatically match the data that they have with fairly high accuracy to users on Facebook.
This removes any of Facebook's "liability" in terms of targeting using likes and interests in their system, but still allows anyone with the data and know how to do as they please and still reach all the users they want using Facebook's tools.
Sure, Facebook will take a hit with this, but ultimately Facebook can and will get away with the current narrative that this was something that only happened years ago and they are better now.
To me, the current toolsets and targeting using your own uploaded data is what is even scarier. Facebook will just shirk all responsibility this way but still allow for the same thing to happen in the future.
I'm a little disappointed in this post given China's penchant to controlling news/media/content.
I see how this could easily be manipulated into an extremely powerful propaganda tool - especially hiding behind a guise of "algorithms" are doing all the work - and yet it is not mentioned at all in the post.
We have already seen how content systems like Facebook, Google, and Twitter can be manipulated via botnets, but when a central power manages this it can obviously get significantly worse.
Does this concern you as an investor who lives in America?
I am afraid I cannot do justice to this question by answering it in a few sentences in this forum. Toutiao is one of the first apps in China to enable creators to write content and find audience without having to go through other media outlets. So in a way they are transforming the way information is made available to people. If you would like to discuss more email me directly at anu@ycombinator.com
I agree it's tough to do justice in a few sentences in a forum, which is why I assumed it would be done in the very in depth and otherwise interesting article you wrote :)
In my opinion it's the absence of this topic from the article that makes YC look tone deaf once again by glossing over a serious repercussion that technology can have on society for the sake of self-promotion -- especially given current events regarding the manipulation of social networks by foreign entities and a very serious history of censorship and media control.
All media are controlled by the government in China, not just Toutian. It certainly can be manipulated easily for propaganda. However, it is now a common problem even for a company like the Facebook's fake news problem.
Yeah me too, Hype Machine is fantastic for that. Such an undervalued service nowadays. If you haven't subscribed as a supporter I'd recommend it http://hypem.com/supporters
Initially we went with a similar membership concept, except people subscribed to one writer directly, and got access to the collective. It barely worked, and we moved over to more of a crowdfunding model which was about 100x more effective.
In the end we worked with major publications and hundreds of journalists, had a million dollar matching fund program, and paid out millions of dollars to writers directly, but it still didn't work as a big business.
This makes me think Medium is pretty clueless about what they are getting into - especially after raising more than $100 million.
Have always been interested in why few startups try to do this. "Netflix for journalism" seems like such a low hanging fruit pitch, at least to get funding that you'd think more folks would have at least tried.
After moving to the crowdfunding model, what was the primary problem? Were the unit economics not conducive to retaining good writers who would attract readers, or conversely was there no way to sustain a margin for the platform?
The problem is the same one that Medium will likely soon find out.
The news market is a heavily competitive one, with hundreds of sites offering everything for free with ads. As a result, most people just don't see the need to pay for news. They can find the exact same information in a million other places, and the friction from going from 'free with ads' to 'pay for content' is fairly considerable.
It's like trying to sell a smartphone app. The pressures against it are considerable due to the race to the bottom and a large percentage of people just don't see the point in paying.
So it's a business that's hard to build trust in, requires a decent amount of marketing/awareness, will attract a far smaller audience than the free sites and ends up being a difficult one to monetise properly.
Totally agree. The only advantage I could see them working is being able to act as a central platform for paid outlets.
Digital subscriptions (NY Times, Washington Post) have seen a boost since the election in the U.S., but does anyone pay for multiple subscriptions? It's frustrating - even as someone who really wants to support media - that each outlet has their own barrier.
This is so different from how we consume other media (video: Amazon Prime, HBO, Netflix; music: Spotify, Apple Music) where I can get access to a library and it makes the tradeoff with finding a free version online easier to deal with.
To my knowledge, major publishers have never tried this and they instead are caught in the digital impression arbitrage game.
Admittedly, Medium doesn't have those publishers on board but I do think that's an angle the market has not tested/figured out.
We're sorry to see you go, {first_name}. We've marked your account to be deleted. Please bear in mind that we cannot recover your account after it has been deleted.
You can always create an account again in the future if you change your mind! You can do so by visiting get.uber.com.
Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you need anything else.
I provided a reason (scabbing during the NYC strike), and they sent me a topical response:
---
We share your concern that this ban will impact many thousands of innocent people. That’s why Uber is committed to financially compensating drivers affected by the ban, so that they can continue to support their families while they are prevented from returning to the US. For more information you can read our CEO’s statement at: http:// t.uber.com/eo.
While I’m sorry to hear about your concerns, I’ve gone ahead and deleted your account as requested.
Of course, if I can assist with anything further please let me know.
Received the same response when I cited the same reason for deleting (among a few others).
Interesting that this PR push comes in the very message that confirms your account has been deleted (and after they warn it can't be brought back). It's past the point of potential retention without attribution gymnastics.
They know you're gone, it's just an attempt to impact sentiment enough to discourage you from encouraging others to quit.
>The spokeswoman said Uber sent the message to about 40 users who specifically referenced the allegations while deleting their accounts. She also said Uber has stopped sending the message to customers
Yep - just posted my response because thought it would be interesting to see others. Anyway, seems like they have some functionality to provide canned responses based on events and the reason you provide.
I've used this service a few times and have to say it's fantastic. Compared to setting up LaTeX on a mac to manipulate a few docs every now and then, it's a dream.
Something of note - not a single woman on here. Pregnancy, birth control... so many expensive, and common medical procedures that are very relevant to all female founders have been overlooked or neglected.
As someone who has gone through YC, I think a lot of the kind of absolute talk you are pointing out has to do with consistent messaging and providing general advice to an entire group of people who might not have the experience to understand for themselves what the best way to proceed is.
Obviously in reality, things are a lot more nuanced than 'always', but when your goal is to help as many companies at once, where the degree of experience varies, it often help to simplify the problem. In one-on-one situations, the partners can give you more personalized insights and in general are quite insightful.
This isn't just great for international founders, it's great for anyone in YC!
As an international founder, the two things I took away in my batch were: 1) How to deal with visa issues - which can be gruelling + take time and money. That being said, just being associated with YC helps you out a lot. They can recommend great lawyers and alumni who've gone through similar experiences. 2) If you have a non-english sounding accent, pg is likely gonna scream at you when you try to pitch. It's kinda weird, but try not to let it get you down.
Although the media is currently focusing on Cambridge Analytica and the simple targeting they offer to ad buyers using likes/interests, the reality is that advanced buyers can buy/collect data elsewhere, chop and segment it as they please, upload names and email addresses, and have Facebook automatically match the data that they have with fairly high accuracy to users on Facebook.
This removes any of Facebook's "liability" in terms of targeting using likes and interests in their system, but still allows anyone with the data and know how to do as they please and still reach all the users they want using Facebook's tools.
Sure, Facebook will take a hit with this, but ultimately Facebook can and will get away with the current narrative that this was something that only happened years ago and they are better now.
To me, the current toolsets and targeting using your own uploaded data is what is even scarier. Facebook will just shirk all responsibility this way but still allow for the same thing to happen in the future.