2020年8月7日 星期五

On Tech: Trump swings against TikTok, WeChat

President Trump signed executive orders against two popular China-based apps. Let me try to explain.

Trump swings against TikTok, WeChat

Kiel Mutschelknaus

The most honest explanation for the White House’s latest move is this: ????? But I’ll do the best I can.

On Thursday, the Trump administration signed executive orders that seemed to seek a ban on two China-based smartphone apps, TikTok and WeChat, from operating in the United States or interacting with U.S. companies. This step was a long time coming, but it still felt surprising.

The practical significance of these White House mandates and a similar State Department policy statement this week aren’t exactly clear yet. Two high-profile apps might be gone from the United States in 45 days, or not. But the philosophical implications are concerning.

On paper at least, internet policy in the United States is creeping a little closer to what happens in countries like Russia and India: The government makes draconian rules about what technology its citizens are allowed to use. And it can be hard for people to know if those rules are based on legitimate national security concerns or expressions of nationalism.

If you’ve been following this newsletter, you know that some U.S. officials are worried about TikTok potentially handing over reams of data collected on Americans to the Chinese government, and helping spread a Chinese-friendly view of the world. There are similar fears about WeChat, which is widely used in China and also by Chinese people abroad and those who do business there.

ADVERTISEMENT

What we have now is a series of just plain weird things that could get even weirder. First, in the case of TikTok, the U.S. government is effectively negotiating — in public — a sale between a foreign company, ByteDance, and an American company, Microsoft.

And I don’t know what will happen to WeChat, or how either order would be enforced. Is the White House going to demand that Apple, Google or U.S. internet providers prevent people from downloading WeChat and TikTok? Would this apply to Apple and Google outside the United States, too?

And what happens to video games like League of Legends and Fortnite, and the carmaker Tesla? WeChat’s parent company, Tencent, owns all or parts of those properties.

It’s possible none of this will happen: Executive orders sometimes never become action.

What we’re seeing now is a struggle to figure out the right approach to U.S. digital security. (At least, I think that’s the goal.)

ADVERTISEMENT

TikTok is a black box that siphons large amounts of data about users (like other social networks) and is likely beholden to orders of the Chinese government.

Chinese security forces have used WeChat to spy on and intimidate members of the Chinese diaspora. Chinese-backed hackers regularly try to steal sensitive digital information about Americans and secret business information of American companies.

The internet, like everything else, should be subject to appropriate government regulation and rules. I mentioned Russia and India because those countries sometimes cross the line between protecting citizens and cutting them off from the outside world.

The United States isn’t threatening to turn off the internet, as India sometimes does. But the U.S. government is taking a hard line to cut off apps that Americans rely on, and it’s not clear how much protection Americans will gain in return.

ADVERTISEMENT

It feels like there must be a middle ground — as my colleague Kevin Roose recently suggested — that addresses some of the potential risks of foreign-owned apps without resorting to extreme measures.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

A 1904 illustration of Standard Oil.Udo J. Keppler/Buyenlarge, via Getty Images

When antimonopoly memes ruled

There are tempting comparisons between today’s American tech superpowers and the industrial monopolies of a century ago. What we really need are the old memes.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, industrial conglomerates like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel were regularly portrayed as octopuses or other tentacled creatures in illustrations, editorial cartoons and other visual depictions.

I kept coming across these octopus drawings as I dug into the history of U.S. antitrust law, which was a response to those old industrial monopolies. This history is relevant today, of course, because a handful of American tech superpowers are now being compared to those Gilded Age trusts.

Edward O’Donnell, the chair of the history department at College of the Holy Cross, said tentacled monsters were very popular images a century ago to depict anxieties about big corporations unfairly wielding power and poisoning food, mistreating workers and bending government officials and competitors to their will.

The octopus was, yes, a meme.

There’s this famous 1904 illustration of Standard Oil (see above) with one tentacle wrapped around the U.S. Capitol building, another squeezing white collar and blue collar workers and others grabbing at depictions of the shipping, steel and other industries.

The Curse of California,” which appeared in a satirical magazine in 1882, showed the bosses of the Southern Pacific railroad in the eyes of a monster that was squeezing miners, farmers, wealthy power brokers, wheat exports and stage coaches.

Illustrators of the age knew what teens on TikTok and Russian propagandists on Facebook figured out nearly a century later: A powerful visual can influence public opinion about important topics.

You may recognize that the tentacled creature is also a visual used in anti-Semitic tropes. This is not a coincidence, Dr. O’Donnell said. Institutions and people who were believed to have achieved power unfairly and abused it have often been depicted with octopus images.

In addition to Jews and monopolists, subjects that got the tentacles treatment included British imperialism in the 19th century, the Soviet Union under Stalin and 1940s Japan. And now, it seems, the 21st century technology superpowers.

Before we go …

  • It’s not an election day. It’s election days/weeks: The institutions most responsible for our understanding of government — the news media and, yes, social networks — are preparing for how to communicate the results of this November’s U.S. elections.My colleague Ben Smith wrote earlier this week about news organizations planning for voting results to take days or weeks, in part because of heavier use of mail-in voting during the pandemic. BuzzFeed News also wrote that some Facebook employees are worried that longer ballot counting will create opportunities for people to use Facebook to undermine the legitimacy of the election.
  • The risks of turning mental health care into an app: Talkspace, the app that lets people text and chat with a licensed therapist, has made therapy much more accessible, but my colleagues Kashmir Hill and Aaron Krolik also found cases in which the company treated patient confidentiality cavalierly and prioritized marketing over patient welfare.Their reporting, Kash and Aaron wrote, suggested “that the needs of a venture capital-backed start-up to grow quickly can sometimes be in conflict with the core values of professional therapy.”
  • Microsoft Excel is changing our genes (sort of): Scientists have run into trouble when alphanumeric symbols of genes like “MARCH1” are misread as dates when they’re typed into Excel spreadsheets. And because it’s apparently easier to change scientific nomenclature than to change the settings in Excel, the names of about 27 genes have been changed to avoid spreadsheet misinterpretation, according to The Verge.

Hugs to this

A young gorilla is trying, and failing, to get his father to goof around with him. (The kid gorilla is Gus, by the way. Elmo is the big poppa.)

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

2020年8月6日 星期四

On Tech: The cult of the tech genius

It's time to rethink how we treat and enable these brilliant -- but damaging -- tech personalities.

The cult of the tech genius

Dalbert B. Vilarino

There’s a certain type of technology personality that automatically leaps into our imagination. You know him. (It’s almost always a him.)

It’s the audacious, maybe slightly off kilter, sharp-elbowed technology genius who makes all the magic happen. People like Steve Jobs, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.

Many of us — including journalists like me — are fascinated by these tech geniuses, and we can be quick to turn against them if they make catastrophic mistakes. The fall of singular geniuses is often blamed on their personal flaws. How could he, we ask?

The problem, though, isn’t only personal failure. It’s the mythmaking that creates the singular genius in the first place. When a person is imbued with the power and confidence that he can do no wrong, should we be really surprised when he does wrong?

This is a year of reckoning with big structural problems. It’s also worth thinking about how the cult of singular individuals helps create a structurally rotten tech industry.

Let me point you to Anthony Levandowski. The technologist who led Google’s self-driving car project was sentenced this week to 18 months in prison for stealing company secrets on his way to another job. Levandowski’s lawyers said that he made a life-changing mistake. But it didn’t come out of the blue.

ADVERTISEMENT

Levandowski openly flouted Google’s rules for years and exercised bad judgment. I’ll never forget a 2011 incident reported in The New Yorker when Levandowski took a Google driverless car on a freeway before it was ready and swerved to avoid a collision in a way that seriously injured his colleague. Instead of reflecting on whether his forbidden test drive was irresponsible, Levandowski seemed to regard it as a useful data-collection exercise.

That type of behavior was lavishly rewarded — until Levandowski left Google and the company turned against him. And he’s not the only rule-breaking genius that Google loved.

Determined, confident and rule-bending people have birthed successful companies and world-changing inventions. That makes it easier, perhaps, to shrug off the occasional company implosion or federal prison sentence.

But we should all pause and look deeper at the fallout created by the singular genius myth.

Tejal Rao, the California restaurant critic for The New York Times, wrote this week about the phenomenon of the genius chef. It sounded familiar to me.

ADVERTISEMENT

She wrote that the reimagining of chefs as auteurs gave them license for creativity that improved food and dining, but it also justified systemic deficiencies and abusive work cultures and ignored the contributions of almost everyone else.

In technology, we can see the good done by singular individuals like Bezos, who created Amazon, and Jobs, who co-founded Apple. But we can’t tally the full cost of the genius myth.

How many Levandowskis are there rotting companies from the inside? What new ideas never got off the ground because a lone genius obscured everyone else’s contributions? Who got pushed out of the industry because they didn’t fit the mold?

Some iconic tech companies — Google, Apple, Microsoft, Uber and Oracle — are now run by hired hands, not the singular geniuses that they’re associated with. This may be natural turnover as companies mature. But I hope it’s also a sign that the industry is rethinking whether singular geniuses are the best path to success.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

ADVERTISEMENT

Can you copy your way to success?

Yes. Yes, you can.

The history of the technology industry is littered with evidence that having a great idea is no guarantee of success. Someone can take the same idea and improve it, or outright steal it.

Microsoft was not the first company to make a visual interface for a desktop computer. Facebook was not the first social network. The iPhone was not the first personal pocket computer. Those were the right products at the right time backed by the right company, with the benefit of a little luck and ruthlessness.

It’s easy to mock Facebook for making a copycat of TikTok, the hottest app of the moment. And before that, for making … uh … a different TikTok copycat. And before that, for copying Snapchat’s photo-and-video diaries called Stories.

But as I said, copying happens. A lot.

The danger is, the company doing the copying can sometimes miss what made the original so good.

Some of the early feedback I’ve seen from people trying Facebook’s TikTok copy, Instagram Reels, have pointed out that it isn’t centered around something like TikTok’s “For You Page,” which is a constant scroll of one video after another tailored to your tastes by TikTok’s computer systems.

You don’t have to follow people or hashtags to find entertaining videos. The app does all the work. (Yes, a computer system steering you to one video after another can also be dangerous.)

The question for Facebook, then, is not whether it copied TikTok — it did — but has it copied TikTok effectively.

Before we go …

  • The tricky line of health misinformation from the White House: On Wednesday Facebook deleted a video clip posted by President Trump’s campaign in which Mr. Trump said that children were “virtually immune” to the coronavirus. (That view is not supported by most medical experts.) Twitter also temporarily put limits on the campaign’s account until it deleted the same video clip.Both companies’ efforts to crack down on false or misleading information about the pandemic have been tested by the president’s sometimes questionable claims about potential coronavirus treatments and cures.
  • Drilling into a specific example of Google’s power: The dominance of tech superpowers is a big-picture issue that is best explained by going deep at one slice of it. Bloomberg Businessweek looks at how therapists’ reliance on finding clients from Google ads has hurt some of their businesses, because they’re getting outbid by therapy consolidators that are savvier at marketing. And Google’s push toward computer-generated advertising copy and real-time answers to searches often doesn’t work well for mental health information.
  • The potentially high cost of a tiny convenience: OneZero writes that the technology to wirelessly charge smartphones and other gadgets uses substantially more electricity than merely plugging devices into a wall socket. The extra power consumption is negligible on the individual household level, according to the publication’s calculations, but the collective environmental cost might not be if wireless charging becomes widespread.

Hugs to this

When piggy meets puppy, it is adorable.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/