Facebook vs. Google and Your Data

This morning, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo had this thoughtful editorial post about Facebook, Facebook Acts Like a Law Unto Itself. The gist of it is that Facebook is and has been exceptionally reckless with their user's personal data.

As I read through his piece, the thing that came to mind for me is a bit of the contrast between Facebook and some of the other tech companies out there that often get painted with the same broad brush. Take Google as an example. While we often here about how much data Google has on everyone, historically, I don't think Google has shared or exposed that personal user data in the same way that Facebook has built it's business doing. Sure, advertising represents a huge portion of Google's business and you can now do more specific audience targeting, but I think Google has been far more protective when it comes to access of user's personal data.

The Roots of Their Business Model
When I think about the history of Google, it always seems more like the story of a organization of software engineers that fumbled it's way into a successful business as opposed to a team of people trying to build a successful, dominating business. Google's search engine was doing it's thing and growing it's base well before they ever rolled out their Adwords experiment. Adwords made their company, but it's success was in no small part enabled by the accessibility that they built into the core of the program. But ultimately, Adwords was really an experiment. And remember the values that they espoused in those early days -- that they wouldn't simply place ads or rank results based on dollars spent, a quality relationship to the results needed to be maintained?

Over the years, even as Google has experimented in many directions and had their fair share of encounters with regulators and legal systems, for the most part (to my knowledge), they have made an effort to keep their user data secure. Perhaps that may have crossed some bounds when they pushed toward Google Plus and their efforts to compete with Facebook -- and as the company began to run more like a business and less like a collective of engineers sitting on a magic money-making machine -- but even then, I think Google has behaved differently.

Contrast that with Facebook's origins as, essentially, something more like a dating site. Facebook has essentially sold it's user base on the notion that sharing as much personal data with them as possible is a good thing. I remember a story from years ago about how Facebook manipulated your feed algorithm in order to help drive your engagement. The methodology anecdote went something like this: if you are a guy and your engagement metrics were dropping off, Facebook's algorithm knows that you were more likely to be engaged if you posted a pic - so they would push a woman in your friends list to post a pic which would, apparently, increase the likelihood that you would post a pic. And be more active on their platform.

Try and think of an analogous behavior from Google.

Yesterday on Twitter, I came across this thread from Francis Chollet that I think summarized some of the real danger underlying Facebook.

The problem with Facebook is not *just* the loss of your privacy and the fact that it can be used as a totalitarian panopticon. The more worrying issue, in my opinion, is its use of digital information consumption as a psychological control vector. Time for a thread

It's definitely worth your time to take a read through his thread.

Google, Mobile Usability Site Optimization and the Tyranny of the Algorithm

While we all recognize that the world is being reshaped by smart phones and mobile devices, there is still this difficult gray area that lives in the difference between mobile and the traditional desktop. Even Google struggles with it. Here's an example -- if you search YouTube on your desktop device, you can view a host of music videos, official ones from the artists associated with them. Try to view them on your mobile device and you'll have a difficult time. It's not the video format, it's their content rules that block your access.

Despite issues like this, there are people out there that want to remake the Internet, to change it so that you have "equal" access to the contents of the web, regardless of device. It's a noble goal, but it significantly underplays some critical differences between the desktop world and the mobile world. The "madness" destroying "the best minds of our generation" seems to be this fixation on making the desktop world function like the mobile world. Take Windows 8 and the "Metro" interface as an example. Or many of the stupid crossover features in the Yosemite version of Mac OSX. From a design standpoint, it's worse that the lowest common denominator, it's trying to force the desktop to adapt to the mobile-touch model.

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness,
     starving hysterical naked

Google has now decided that the rest of the world must follow this edict. If you're a webmaster, you've probably already received notices and alerts that they are updating their indexing rules to include mobile usability as a ranking factor in indexing. It doesn't matter if the vast majority of your traffic is not mobile, Google has decided that you need to tune your content for mobile.

For some industries, mobile traffic is anything but the norm. For a couple of sites that I manage, mobile traffic probably represents less than 10% of the traffic -- the business is primarily B2B and customers go from office desktops to the resources on the site. There just isn't a huge demand for importing 3D CAD files onto your iPhone. However, back in the halls of Google, this year's graduate class of geniuses has suddenly decided that Aunt Minnie should be able to see those pages of CAD files with an experience that corresponds to the same one an engineer with a high-end CAD station can.

Here's the crazy part -- remember when they decided that they wanted to include Google+ considerations in your search results? Because clearly you want a personalized search experience and, when your friend 'likes' those CAD files, it probably means that you'll want to check them out too. Anyway, Google is already delivering some level of "personalization" in their search results. But is is reasonable for them to tap a different ranking for desktop and mobile? It used to be, but not anymore. So says Google. Because it doesn't matter what you think you know about your customers, Google has decided that they know better. And they will change the world. You could ignore it, but that won't just affect the small percentage of people who might have a lesser experience on your site because they were using a mobile device. Now, it will affect your visibility to all of your customers.


Accessibility is not the same on the web as it is in real life. This "one-size-fits-all" approach, making everything adapt to mobile is deluded at the core. It's true that, when I'm mobile I want access to things like Salesforce.com -- and I need access to all of my data there. I want recipes and directions and sometimes shopping. I price compare. Sometimes I look up stuff in order to explain it. But, even if it were available on my phone, I wouldn't use my phone to create artwork in Adobe Illustrator. And more to the point -- I don't want Adobe to re-engineer Illustrator so that the one somebody-somewhere-who-has-decided-that-it-would-be-cool-if-they-could-use-Illustrator-on-their-phone is satisfied. This is not progress. This is not thoughtful product roadmap. These are outliers, problems best addressed by extensions or accessories.

A better path would be if Google simple called attention to potential mobile issues, but didn't include it in ranking -- unless you were ranking on a mobile device. I'd be cool with that. But they don't ask me. And it's their algorithm. We just have to live under it.

The Problem with Google's Campus Development Proposal

So the news of the week is that Google has proposed a significant overhaul of its business campus over in the Shoreline area of Mountain View. From Mountain View's The Voice,

Google gave the Voice a look at the plans Friday morning for a 3.4 million-square-foot campus to hold 10,000 new employees, the first buildings Google will have designed and built in Mountain View, despite the city being home to its headquarters since its inception. 

Of course, Google isn't the only one proposing new development, Google, LinkedIn and five real estate developers have submitted plans to build millions of square feet of new offices. Along with Google's proposal, there are a host of other civic improvements that they've bundled in too. The crazy thing about all of this is not the unique architecture, it's really more about trying to imagine another 10,000 people going in and out of that area each day. As anyone who has tried to navigate the intersection between 101 and 85 during rush hour knows, even with Google buses hauling thousands of Google employees in and out, the area is still a congested mess. Even if you consider their current numbers where about 1/3 of Google employees arrive by Google bus, that's still another 5000 or so cars trying to squeeze their way into the area.

The reports on the radio were all making a big deal about housing -- where are all of these new Googlers going to live? The reality is that that's really a minor part of the story. Unless the downtown Mountain View train station is redeveloped to look more like Tokyo station, with multiple train lines running through in multiple directions, the Magic Eightball prediction for traffic in the area is FUBAR.

The other funny thing about this is the "this will bring 10,000 new jobs into the area" message, the great canard of the "tech boom". The real truth underlying this "boom" is that this "10,000 jobs" number is not "people that need a job here in the area" -- this is not a new factory hiring local workers to come in and operate the machinery -- it's more likely 10,000 prestigious college graduates and international Visa holders brought in from everywhere else. I know that sounds like a joke, but having lived in Mountain View for fifteen years, I've had many Google neighbors but none of them lived here before they were hired by Google. In short, for most of the "new generation" of tech companies, there is a simple rule -- if you already live here, you're probably too old (unless you're a student at Stanford or Berkeley).

Don't get me wrong -- I think that the new architecture is interesting and would be a welcome addition to the office park. But beyond those buildings, those open spaces and those bike paths, there needs to be a lot more investment in how people get around. Money being what it is, I expect that it is unlikely to expect "the character" of Mountain View to remain the same as it was even 10 years ago, but what it's destined to become is a mess unless the infrastructure to support all of this is developed.

Google Glass - Here Comes Trouble

I must say, I was reading through the news headlines today and I came across this tidbit about somebody getting arrested in a movie theater for wearing Google Glass. Of course, it's one of those surprising stories that isn't all that surprising.

These days, it's difficult to go for more than a few days without hearing yet another story about someone wearing Google Glass and getting into trouble -- trouble that's a result of wearing Google Glass. From the woman that got busted for driving while wearing Google Glass, to people in bars and even people in the bathroom, people wear the device and trouble quickly becomes their next fashion accessory.

I have to wonder whether this is the kind of pre-launch product coverage that you want to have. Unlike the early hype on Google+ (before people really got a chance to use it), I'm not running into people that are anxiously anticipating owning the product. In that way, if these kinds of stories were post-launch, it might seem more like a "News of the Weird" episode than an ominous harbinger of unexpected problems.

In that way, I'm hard pressed to think of a compelling reason why I want one.

Exploring the Impact of Government Data Monitoring

I don't have to comment on here, but I came across a couple of noteworthy stories that you may or may not have seen in this weeks news.

First, this story about a family who discovered that a coincidental Internet search of "pressure cookers" by the wife and "backpacks" by the husband resulted in "how to get a visit from the cops".

Next, we have this piece from the Guardian, looking at the potential impact of government data monitoring programs on cloud computing. Will this be the death of the Internet?

Full disclosure: this post is published on Blogger, a Google product, and is accessed over the Internet. Therefore, it is potentially subject to the concerns raised in the above stories. Caveat emptor.

Why Google Should Not Do Tradeshows

Add this post to the long list of reasons why I'm not expecting a job from Google. As a general rule, unless you're a comic, anything that makes you look like an idiot is probably bad for your brand. 

As someone who still finds my way to an exhibition floor now and again, I've seen my share of tradeshow sights. From big booths to small booths and busy booths to empty booths, I've seen a range of booth behavior -- attentive, bored, obnoxious, and drunk. But one of the most disappointing and frustrating things to encounter at an event is a booth that ignores you, that can't answer your questions, or exudes arrogance. And that pretty much sums up my experience with Google at tradeshows.

If you've encountered a Google booth, see if this matches your experience. Rather than being involved with the show, the people in the booth seem to be participating in a party that none of us are invited to. It's like you've invaded the space of some clique gathered at the university center.

I can only remember three times that I've actually seen Google booth staff show some signs of engagement in the event that they were participating in.

• The SMX Search Marketing Expo conference. This was sort of home court for the Google team and they actually sent people who could speak to their tools and products. And, while they weren't the most amazing booth staff that I've ever encountered, if you were grading Google booth staff on a curve, this was their dream team.
• At OFC/NFOEC, the Google Fiber team was out, trying to recruit telecom engineers. In their talent search, they were trying to collect as many leads as possible. So, when it came to trying to hire people, they were pretty focused. 
• I think I also remember them at one of the old MacWorld shows -- back in the day when Apple was still at the event and it was in Moscone South. At that time, I remember the Google booth guys running their charging station and talking about Google apps with people that walked up to the booth. I even remember one guy talking to some kid that was there with his mom. It's funny how that seems like such a contrast from my more common Google-tradeshow encounters.

But the worst part of the whole experience is that, even if you can suffer through be ignored and you stand around for long enough force an engagement, the people that they have staffing the booth appear to be unable to answer any questions related to the products featured at the event. It's like staffing a customer service desk, gathering a line of customers, and then proceeding to visibly ignore them.

When you create an exclusive work environment, your bound to build an air of elitism into the mix. But most people don't actually encounter real, live employees for Internet businesses like Facebook or Twitter. But what most retail B2C businesses understand -- something that's probably lost on the culture of the Internet business -- is that each employee is a brand ambassador and each encounter with the public is image-shaping moment. Most people will treat accidental encounters as just that, but an appearance at an event is a show. Do you really want ignorant, arrogant, and useless to be the adjectives describing your business?

How Marissa Mayer Became Wayne Gretzky

So the top story in this week's news around here was Marissa Mayer taking over as CEO of Yahoo. Sarah Lacy had a nice look at the situation with, Why on Earth Did Marissa Mayer Say Yes to Yahoo? All in all, part of what made this such big news is just how unexpected this is. You've got all of the right elements for a great story.

First there's the Yahoo story: 
Once dominant Internet company, stumbling through repeated leadership challenges. So much potential (users, technology, brand), if it could just find the right missing ingredients to keep it's leadership position in today's market.

Then there's Marissa Mayer:
Technology celebrity/rock star with some big trophies from one of the dominant Internet companies of the 2000's. Sort of a female Buckaroo Banzai, she was a notable player on the team that repeatedly beat Yahoo in those championship games of several years back. In that way, she is a nod to accepting that strategic wrong turn that Yahoo took so many years ago -- 'if we had just gone that way, WE would have been Google.'

It's that sort of 'bring in a star to build a dream team' solution that makes so much sense in a theoretical world, but doesn't always play out in reality. Here's a great example.

The Great One
Years ago, the St. Louis Blues found themselves in playoff series after playoff series, but were unable to unable to win the cup. This despite having one of the top goal scoring forwards, Brett Hull. When St. Louis traded for Wayne Gretzky, there was this idea floated that, not only had they added this missing ingredient that would carry them through to the Stanley Cup, but we should also be prepared to be blown away by the combination of Gretzky and Hull. But it didn't happen. Chemistry, it turns out, is more than the sum of a couple of great ingredients.

Marissa Mayer may face a similar situation at Yahoo. Sure, there are all of the things that you can say make for a perfect fit, but the challenges that Yahoo faces are probably deeper and more entrenched than what you see on the surface. More often than not, the myth of a single hero as a solution to a systematic challenge is just that, a myth. Ultimately, only time will tell if there is real chemistry here... and real change.

Frustrating Aspects of Blogger - Lost Posts, Accidental Publishing, and more

If you use blogger, perhaps you've experienced this. You spend hours or days crafting a post. Then, as you get ready to publish it, you go back in to make edits. You make a change, then decide that you don't like that change. So you undo. Suddenly, your entire post is gone. A blank text area has replaced all of those words you put together. Quickly, you try to recover before Blogger's auto-save replaces your precious text with nothing. Too late. It's gone.

This morning I lost another post to the monster that lives underneath Blogger. To say that it's frustrating is an understatement. Part of the problem is auto-save, but part of the problem seems to be something in the way that Blogger handles undo. Of course, the whole thing would be moot if Blogger provided something like subversion on the auto-saves for a given session. Would it be complicated? Perhaps. But I, for one, think it would be totally worth it compared to the frustration of the lost post.

The Accidental Publish Feature
Another Blogger problem that's frustrated me several times recently seems to be related to the interface. Several times, as I started to type the title of my post, I accidentally hit the return key instead of the shift key or the apostrophe -- it happens. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Blogger seems to automatically click the Publish button based on that return. The next thing you know, I'm publishing posts like "The". Then deleting them.

I suppose in the high speed world of Google, two-steps is too long for publishing. Think about the drop out rate in the publishing pipeline!

Ah well, don't mind me. I'm just grumpy because I lost another post.