The Bangladesh Today (10-02-2018)
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
SCIENCE & TECH<br />
SaturDay, february <strong>10</strong>, <strong>2018</strong><br />
5<br />
What is mark’s new year’s resolution<br />
Julia carrie WonG<br />
Amid unceasing criticism<br />
of Facebook's immense<br />
power and pernicious<br />
impact on society, its CEO,<br />
Mark Zuckerberg,<br />
announced Thursday that<br />
his "personal challenge"<br />
for <strong>2018</strong> will be "to focus<br />
on fixing these important<br />
issues".<br />
Zuckerberg's new year's<br />
resolution - a tradition for<br />
the executive who in previous<br />
years has pledged to<br />
learn Mandarin, run 365<br />
miles, and read a book<br />
each week - is a remarkable<br />
acknowledgment of<br />
the terrible year Facebook<br />
has had.<br />
"Facebook has a lot of<br />
work to do whether it's<br />
protecting our community<br />
from abuse and hate,<br />
defending against interference<br />
by nation states, or<br />
making sure that time<br />
spent on Facebook is time<br />
well spent," Zuckerberg<br />
wrote on his Facebook<br />
page. "We won't prevent<br />
all mistakes or abuse, but<br />
we currently make too<br />
many errors enforcing our<br />
policies and preventing<br />
misuse of our tools."<br />
At the beginning of<br />
2017, as many liberals<br />
were grappling with Donald<br />
Trump's election and<br />
the widening divisions in<br />
American society, Zuckerberg<br />
embarked on a series<br />
of trips to meet regular<br />
Americans in all 50 states.<br />
But while Zuckerberg was<br />
donning hard hats and<br />
riding tractors, an increasing<br />
number of critics both<br />
inside and outside of the<br />
tech industry were identifying<br />
Facebook as a key<br />
driver of many of society's<br />
current ills. <strong>The</strong> past year<br />
has seen the social media<br />
company try and largely<br />
fail to get a handle on the<br />
proliferation of misinformation<br />
on its platform;<br />
acknowledge that it<br />
enabled a Russian influence<br />
operation to influence<br />
the US presidential<br />
election; and concede that<br />
its products can damage<br />
users' mental health.<br />
By attempting to take on<br />
these complex problems<br />
as his annual personal<br />
challenge, Zuckerberg is,<br />
for the first time, setting<br />
himself a task that he is<br />
unlikely to achieve. With 2<br />
billion users and a presence<br />
in almost every country,<br />
the company's challenges<br />
are no longer bugs<br />
that can be addressed by<br />
engineering code.<br />
Facebook, like other<br />
tech giants, has long maintained<br />
that it is essentially<br />
politically neutral - the<br />
company has "community<br />
mark Zuckerberg sets a personal challenge<br />
each year.<br />
Photo: noah berger<br />
standards" but no clearly<br />
articulated political orientation.<br />
While in past years,<br />
that neutrality has enabled<br />
Facebook to grow at great<br />
speed without assuming<br />
responsibility for how<br />
individuals or governments<br />
used its tools, the<br />
political tumult of recent<br />
years has made such a<br />
stance increasingly untenable.<br />
<strong>The</strong> difficulty of Facebook's<br />
task is illustrated in<br />
the company's current<br />
conundrum over enforcing<br />
of US sanctions against<br />
some world leaders but<br />
not others, leaving<br />
observers to wonder what<br />
rules, if any, Facebook is<br />
actually playing by.<br />
Zuckerberg acknowledged<br />
that the problems facing a<br />
platform with 2 billion<br />
users "touch on questions<br />
of history, civics, political<br />
philosophy, media, government,<br />
and of course<br />
technology" and said that<br />
he planned to consult with<br />
experts in those fields.<br />
But the second half of<br />
Zuckerberg's post, in<br />
which he discusses<br />
centralization and decentralization<br />
of power in<br />
technology, reveal Zuckerberg's<br />
general approach:<br />
proposing technological<br />
solutions to political<br />
problems. If Zuckerberg is<br />
interested in decentralization<br />
of power, he might<br />
wish to address his company's<br />
pattern of aggressively<br />
acquiring its competitors<br />
- or simply copying<br />
their features.<br />
Instead, the executive<br />
introduced a non sequitur<br />
about encryption and<br />
cryptocurrency, neither of<br />
which will do anything to<br />
address Facebook's role<br />
in, for example, stoking<br />
anti-Rohingya hatred in<br />
Myanmar. If Zuckerberg<br />
truly intends to spend a<br />
year trying to figure out<br />
how the blockchain can<br />
solve intractable geopolitical<br />
problems, he would be<br />
better off just doing<br />
Whole30.<br />
escaping from social media for a year<br />
an investment is something that has intrinsic value, not speculative value.<br />
Photo: Getty images<br />
be informed about investing in bitcoin<br />
tecHnoloGy DeSK<br />
I've been watching this bitcoin situation<br />
for a few years, assuming it would just<br />
blow over. But a collective insanity has<br />
sprouted around the new field of "cryptocurrencies",<br />
causing an irrational<br />
gold rush worldwide. It has gotten to<br />
the point where a large number of<br />
financial stories - and questions in my<br />
inbox - ask whether or not to "invest" in<br />
BitCoin.<br />
Let's start with the answer: no. You<br />
should not invest in Bitcoin. <strong>The</strong> reason<br />
why is that it's not an investment; just<br />
as gold, tulip bulbs, Beanie Babies, and<br />
rare baseball cards are also not investments.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se are all things that people have<br />
bought in the past, driving them to<br />
absurd prices, not because they did<br />
anything useful or produced money or<br />
had social value, but solely because<br />
people thought they could sell them on<br />
to someone else for more money in the<br />
future.<br />
When you make this kind of purchase<br />
- which you should never do - you are<br />
speculating. This is not a useful activity.<br />
You're playing a psychological, win-lose<br />
battle against other humans with money<br />
as the sole objective. Even if you win<br />
money through dumb luck, you have<br />
lost time and energy, which means you<br />
have lost.<br />
Investing means buying an asset that<br />
actually creates products, services or<br />
cashflow, such as a profitable business<br />
or a rentable piece of real estate, for an<br />
extended period of time. An investment<br />
is something that has intrinsic value -<br />
that is, it would be worth owning from<br />
a financial perspective, even if you<br />
could never sell it.<br />
To answer why bitcoin has become so<br />
big, we need to separate the usefulness<br />
of the underlying technology called<br />
"blockchain" from the mania of people<br />
turning bitcoin into a big dumb lottery.<br />
Blockchain is simply a nifty software<br />
invention which is open-source and<br />
free for anyone to use, whereas bitcoin<br />
is just one well-known way to use it.<br />
Blockchain is a computer protocol<br />
that allows two people (or machines) to<br />
do transactions (sometimes anonymously)<br />
even if they don't trust each<br />
other or the network between them. It<br />
can have monetary applications or in<br />
sharing files, but it's not some instant<br />
trillionaire magic.<br />
As a real-world comparison for<br />
blockchain and bitcoin, take this example<br />
from the blogger <strong>The</strong> Unassuming<br />
Banker. Imagine that someone had<br />
found a cure for cancer and posted the<br />
step-by-step instructions on how to<br />
make it online, freely available for anyone<br />
to use. Now imagine that the same<br />
person also created a product called<br />
Cancer-Pill using their own instructions,<br />
trade marked it, and started selling<br />
it to the highest bidders. I think we<br />
can all agree a cure for cancer is<br />
immensely valuable to society<br />
(blockchain may or may not be, we still<br />
have to see), however, how much is a<br />
Cancer-Pill worth?<br />
Our banker goes on to explain that<br />
the first Cancer-Pill (bitcoin) might initially<br />
see some great sales. Prices would<br />
rise, especially if supply was limited<br />
(just as an artificial supply limit is built<br />
into the bitcoin algorithm). But since<br />
the formula is open and free, other<br />
companies quickly come out with their<br />
own cancer pills. Cancer-Away, Cancer-<br />
Bgone, CancEthereum, and any other<br />
number of competitors would spring<br />
up. Anybody can make a pill, and it<br />
costs only a few cents per dose.<br />
Yet imagine everybody starts bidding<br />
up Cancer-Pills to the point that they<br />
cost $17,000 each and fluctuate widely<br />
in price, seemingly for no reason.<br />
Newspapers start reporting on prices<br />
daily, triggering so many tales of<br />
instant riches that even your barber<br />
and your massage therapist are offering<br />
tips on how to invest in this new "asset<br />
class".<br />
Instead of seeing how ridiculous this<br />
is, more people start bidding up every<br />
new variety of pill (cryptocurrencies),<br />
until they are some of the most "valuable"<br />
things on the planet. That is<br />
what's happening with bitcoin. This<br />
screenshot from coinmarketcap.com<br />
illustrates this real-life human herd<br />
behavior:<br />
You've got bitcoin with a market value<br />
of $238bn, then Ethereum at<br />
$124bn, and so on. <strong>The</strong> imaginary value<br />
of these valueless bits of computer<br />
data represents enough money to<br />
change the course of the human race,<br />
for example, eliminating poverty or<br />
replacing the world's 800 gigawatts of<br />
coal power plants with solar generation.<br />
Bitcoin (AKA Cancer-Pills) has<br />
become an investment bubble, with the<br />
complementary forces of human herd<br />
behavior, greed, fear of missing out,<br />
and a lack of understanding of past<br />
financial bubbles amplifying it.<br />
To better understand this mania, we<br />
need to look at why bitcoin was invented<br />
in the first place. As the legend goes,<br />
in 2008 an anonymous developer published<br />
a white paper under the fake<br />
name Satoshi Nakamoto. <strong>The</strong> author<br />
was evidently a software and math person.<br />
But the paper also has some inbuilt<br />
ideology: the assumption that giving<br />
national governments the ability to<br />
monitor flows of money in the financial<br />
system and use it as a form of law<br />
enforcement is wrong.<br />
This financial libertarian streak is at<br />
the core of bitcoin. You'll hear echoes of<br />
that sentiment in all the pro-crypto<br />
blogs and podcasts. <strong>The</strong> sensiblesounding<br />
ones will say: "Sure the G20<br />
nations all have stable financial systems,<br />
but bitcoin is a lifesaver in places<br />
like Venezuela where the government<br />
can vaporize your wealth when you<br />
sleep."<br />
<strong>The</strong> harder-core pundits say: "Even<br />
the US Federal Reserve is a bunch 'a'<br />
crooks, stealing your money via inflation,<br />
and that nasty fiat currency they<br />
issue is nothing but toilet paper!" It's all<br />
the same stuff that people say about<br />
gold - another waste of human investment<br />
energy.<br />
Government-issued currencies have<br />
value because they represent human<br />
trust and cooperation. <strong>The</strong>re is no<br />
wealth and no trade without these two<br />
things, so you might as well go all in<br />
and trust people.<br />
<strong>The</strong> other argument for bitcoin's "value"<br />
is that there will only ever be 21m of<br />
them, and they will eventually replace<br />
all other world currencies, or at least<br />
become the "new gold", so the fundamental<br />
value is either the entire world's<br />
GDP or at least the total value of all<br />
gold, divided by 21m.<br />
People look at me with disbelief when i explained that i did not use Whatsapp.<br />
Photo: lionel bonaventure<br />
Knut traiSbacH<br />
At the end of 2016, I sent a message to all my contacts: "After<br />
31 December, I will not use WhatsApp any more. Instead, I<br />
will use Threema and Signal. On New Year's Eve, I closed my<br />
WhatsApp account and deleted the app from my phone. A<br />
few clicks later, I'd left all my family, friend and work groups,<br />
the school groups of my children and all my individual contacts.<br />
During the first minutes of 2017, I saw my friends typing<br />
on their phones while mine remained unusually silent.<br />
Suddenly I was not available anymore. It felt strange, uncomfortable,<br />
daring and good.<br />
My initial reasoning for such a drastic step had little to do<br />
with mindfulness or the want of being disconnected. I had<br />
installed WhatsApp in 2012 only because all my friends had<br />
it. By the end of 2016, the ubiquitous chat app started to send<br />
me annoying periodical reminders that it would stop working<br />
because the operating system of my beloved Nokia phone<br />
was no longer supported.<br />
<strong>The</strong> notifications made me wonder whether I should be<br />
using non-Facebook-owned alternatives and stop spending<br />
so much time on convenient but seldom meaningful chats.<br />
My defiance turned into a social experiment: I bought a<br />
smarter phone but uninstalled the application that, Facebook<br />
says, "one billion people around the world use … every day to<br />
stay in touch with their family and friends."<br />
My app-stinence had a promising start. Good friends sent<br />
text messages during New Years Day, called or responded to<br />
my calls. Instead of typing and recording messages, I<br />
returned to having actual conversations on the phone. My<br />
family and closest friends even installed one of the new non-<br />
Facebook messaging apps I had suggested, but suddenly I<br />
went from having 70 contacts to just 11 on my list.<br />
At the beginning, I often felt isolated and as if I had abandoned<br />
friends. Some contacts ebbed away, while I had to<br />
withstand the odd awkward look of disbelief and discontent<br />
from others when I explained that I did not use WhatsApp.<br />
After a few weeks, I noticed that I checked my phone less,<br />
did not scroll through my contact list to look for updated profile<br />
photos or send messages to people low on the conversation<br />
list just to say hello. I began to read more. But I also<br />
learned what it meant to miss out and not to be part of groups<br />
anymore.<br />
When I met friends, I needed to be updated about earlier<br />
group exchanges. I had to continually ask my wife about discussions<br />
in our kids' school groups. She became understandably<br />
annoyed when forced to scroll through 94 new messages<br />
about the next birthday party or unexpected drama in the<br />
kindergarden of our two toddlers.<br />
In the ensuing discussions over the past year, it became<br />
more difficult than I thought to defend my step in terms of<br />
privacy and data stinginess. Those sympathetic with my decision<br />
often said that for work and social reasons they had no<br />
alternative.<br />
A colleague pointed out that he had no Facebook account,<br />
so the matching between accounts for advertising purposes<br />
was not possible. I knew that in Europe Facebook had been<br />
asked to "pause" the data sharing from WhatsApp. "But what<br />
happens with the data of up to one billion people that has<br />
been matched and shared already?" I asked<br />
Facebook has not been obliged to delete this data. That we<br />
do not know precisely how this data is used to nudge and<br />
influence us without us noticing, worried me. "Anyways, I<br />
have nothing to hide," several friends told me, hardly concealing<br />
their annoyance. <strong>The</strong> main question that I started to<br />
ask then was: why do we trust private companies more than<br />
we trust our governments?<br />
Our default position is to mistrust strangers and governments,<br />
but we trust convenient services without really knowing<br />
anything about them. We trust that private companies<br />
use our data to "improve our lives", but we hardly reflect on<br />
where our lives are taken. Facebook paid $19bn for a company<br />
that has encrypted the contents of messages since 2016<br />
and does not advertise.<br />
Clearly there is value in information about our habits and<br />
contacts, not just the content of our conversations. Companies<br />
create personal profiles with our data, but these profiles<br />
are about who we are, not about who we want to be. During<br />
the last year I realised how little we know and how little we<br />
care. We do not regard our data as a scarce and valuable commodity.<br />
Data seems like time; we just assume it is there. Over<br />
coffee I asked a friend: "If you had only one piece of personal<br />
data left to spend, how would you spend it?" He laughed,<br />
paused and then his phone whistled.<br />
How to stop ads using Google tools<br />
Samuel GibbS<br />
Google is rolling out a new<br />
tool that will stop so-called<br />
reminder ads from following<br />
you around the internet,<br />
typically used to try to get<br />
users to come back after virtual<br />
window shopping. <strong>The</strong><br />
new settings will allow users<br />
to "mute" these reminder<br />
ads, but only on a case-bycase<br />
basis, not as a setting to<br />
stop them in their entirety.<br />
Jon Krafcik, group product<br />
manager for data privacy<br />
and transparency at<br />
Google, said: "You visit<br />
Snow Boot Co's website,<br />
add a pair of boots to your<br />
shopping cart, but you<br />
don't buy them because you<br />
want to keep looking<br />
around. <strong>The</strong> next time that<br />
you're shopping online,<br />
Snow Boot Co might show<br />
you ads that encourage you<br />
to come back to their site<br />
and buy those boots.<br />
"Reminder ads like these<br />
can be useful, but if you<br />
aren't shopping for Snow<br />
Boot Co's boots anymore,<br />
then you don't need a<br />
reminder about them. A<br />
new control within Ads Settings<br />
will enable you to<br />
mute Snow Boot Co's<br />
Google's reminder ad muting tool.<br />
reminder ads." <strong>The</strong> new<br />
tool allows users to view all<br />
the reminder ads currently<br />
tracked to your profile from<br />
one of the over 2m sites<br />
that use Google's advertising<br />
services. Users can then<br />
choose to mute individual<br />
reminder ads and view<br />
those that they've already<br />
muted with their Google<br />
Ads settings. Once on the<br />
page, users can click the X<br />
Photo: Google<br />
next to the companies they<br />
no longer want to see ads<br />
from. "We plan to expand<br />
this tool to control ads on<br />
YouTube, Search, and<br />
Gmail in the coming<br />
months," said Krafcik.<br />
Muting lasts for 90 days,<br />
but Google is quick to point<br />
out that it only affects sites<br />
and services using its ads<br />
platform and that other ad<br />
services also provide similar<br />
reminder ads, meaning<br />
this will not be a magic bullet<br />
for all irritating ads.<br />
Google has also beefed up<br />
its general ad muting tool<br />
to allow users to mute more<br />
ads on more apps and sites.<br />
When users mute an ad<br />
they don't like on one<br />
device, that preference will<br />
now be carried over to other<br />
devices on which they<br />
are logged in.