“Go woke, go brokeGo woke, go broke” is, of course, absolutely different than ‘cancelling’. Because ‘cancelling’ is when someone the right *likes* is boycotted. This is customers speaking with their dollars!
The Ohio House wants to ban bans on plastic bags? The party of less government … Unless you aren’t doing what I want you to do. Then we need a law! Obviously a *state* law because the Feds cannot possibly come up with a law that addresses the needs of such a diverse group of people. Sigh!
Why is it always too soon to discuss how gun control (or precluding those with mental illnesses from possessing guns) might have averted a mass shooting but it isn’t too soon to discuss how rounding up foreigners for mass deportation might have saved Mollie Tibbetts life?
We had the Senate & House Facebook thing playing Tue/Wed – kind of background noise because anyone who didn’t realize a billion dollar corporation offering a “free” service was making money somehow on the back-end … well, didn’t bother thinking about it. But there were a few interesting tidbits (not the least of which being how many things one can claim, before a Congressional panel, to be ignorant of in spite of the topic being germane to the core operation of one’s company). The thing that stood out most to me through two days of testimony is that no one questioned the validity of the underlying service – consumerism is good, hence serving ads more likely to convince a person to buy the product is good too. I’ve got friends exclaiming that they’ve found products they’d never have known existed without targeted ads — which to me sounds like you’ve spent money on “stuff” that you didn’t need enough to go out and research something to fill that gap. Not a bad thing per se, but certainly not the laudable endeavor they make personalized advertising out to be. The flip side to presenting me ads that are more likely to convince me to buy something (assuming this is true, which dunno … sounds good on the face of it, but I tend to be put off by it and less likely to buy something) is, well, me buying more ‘stuff’ which is not always to my economic benefit.
But when they got onto the topic of Facebook Pixels (which work around people who block third party cookies), it got me thinking about the lack of control we all have over metadata. A lot of companies serve a menagerie the third party cookies from their site, and then execute a couple of third party JS trackers too. Because, as a company, it provides those third parties with data that potentially help drive sales. In theory. But do those marketing companies have some kind of non-compete clauses included in the contract they write with WIN? Can FB, Adobe, Google, etc have code embedded in a telco’s site, take the info they gather from my telco’s embedded JS code, and use it to promote non-telecom services? Cable TV even though it competes with a component of our business? An alternate telecom even though it’s a major line of our business? Is there a meta-category of “people who looked at my site but also looked at two competitors sites” v/s “people who have only looked at my site”? At least that’s governed by contract and might be tightly controlled — although I doubt an org like Facebook tracks the provenance of each bit of metadata it collects to isolate its usage, that’s based on a feeling rather than any knowledge of their internal algorithms.
Employees visiting various sites — what data to we leak and how can that be used? It’s not like my company has any sort of agreement in place to control how CompanyX uses data gathered as our employees use CompanyY’s web site. My super paranoid brain goes to the potential for abuse — a competitor using our information against us. Not the marketing company directly – like FB doesn’t sell my name and data (that’s what they make their money on after all, using my data to throw me into advertising buckets) … but the company gathering the data can get acquired. Quite a few companies use Triblio – some niche B2B tracking thing as well as Google Analytics. Now Google isn’t a big acquisition target, but some small B2B marketing company? VZ bought Yahoo, so it’s not like the only thing they’re buying is towers and fiber. VZ buys Triblio and we’re in the beginning stages of forming some new product line through some company that uses Triblio. VZ doesn’t exactly know what we’re planning to sell in six months … but they’ve got a good idea. Or even industrial espionage — it’s getting to the point it makes a lot more sense to target one of these data brokers than to target a specific company.
I get that’s a little far-fetched and more than a little paranoid. Is targeted marketing effective for companies too – are company-targeted ads convincing the company’s employees to buy more stuff on the company’s behalf?
As a company are we benefiting, harmed, or indifferent to information being gathered from our employees as they navigate the web. Employees are going to show up from an assigned netblock most of the time (i.e. from the office or VPN), so it isn’t like it’s a super-hard-to-ascertain where the individual works. Is there benefit to blocking the tracking ‘stuff’ on a corporate level (and maintaining a default browser config that blocks third party cookies)? Is there harm in blocking the trackers? The parade of horrors approach would say with Facebook/Google specifically, widespread blocking would necessitate some other revenue stream for the company (i.e. we’d end up buying 1$ hundred search passes or something). Dedicated targeted advertising companies – beyond putting a company out of business (e.g. Triblio which seems to be a dedicated marketing data company) or reducing revenue (e.g. Adobe since they’ve got other profitable lines of business), not much direct impact. A vividly imagined parade would be worldwide recession as psychologically engineered spending prompts disappear and consequently consumer spending retracts. Worst thing I can come up with is being perceived as a bunch of hypocrites who track everything customers do on their site but specifically took efforts to prevent employees from being tracked around the web.
Trump is (what’s the 140-character limit version of bloviating??) about not funding rebuilding efforts in Puerto Rico. No idea if the same goes for Texas or Florida, but either way. The thing of it is, someone will fund the rebuilding. Oxfam is already going in to help. Yeah, the same Oxfam that goes into third world countries following disasters. I guess we could save money by letting some NGO mange the rebuilding efforts.
But isn’t that the nation-state version of Reagan’s welfare queen? Someone who has is capable of self-sufficiency but instead goes the easier/cheaper route of letting “us” pay for their lifestyle?
I’m not claiming astonishment Trump would suggest this – his companies, after all, went the same route. Why undertake painful cutbacks or difficult work when you can just stick investors with the debt and stiff contractors? What does bother me, though, is that no one draws the parallel.
For those keeping score at home, taking a knee (or linking arms) in protest during the national anthem should lead to immediate employee termination because the flag has been so disrespected. Walking out in protest during the national anthem? Absolutely the right thing to do.
The most ironic aspect of Pence’s worst-fake-spontaneity-in-memory protest is that it essentially proves the point Kaepernick was making. Racial inequality is a thing, and not a trivial little thing that inconveniences a few people a year. It’s a big thing that causes hundreds if not thousands of people to DIE, maybe hundreds of thousands more to be incarcerated, and who knows how many embarrassed and inconvenienced each year. If you’re an old white dude, you can walk out on the anthem. If you aren’t … you’re fired!
In 2008, Miami-Dade enacted Ordinance 08-34 requiring cranes be able to withstand load from 140 mph winds. Construction companies objected — they’d need to spend more money ensuring public safety, and really how often are 140 mph winds ripping through Miami? Courts deemed the local regulation to cover worker safety and not public safety; the OSHA requirement, which is something like 90 mph, superseded the local government’s Ordinance (I think the 11th Circuit decision actually said it was a multi-purpose regulation … but since the requirement touched on workplace safety, OSHA wins). I wonder, as cranes come crashing into buildings in downtown Miami, if the court would revisit that decision.
I worked for a company that operated each regional area as an independent entity. Each had their own set of rules, regulations, processes … they just shared a common HR staff and all of the money rolled up to the same ledger. Their “sell” to this approach was that it allowed different regions with different requirements to make rules that met their customer’s needs. The unfortunate example that got cited, though, was a military base out in Virginia. *That* region had a policy where, upon being deployed overseas, a military family could have their account flagged as forward deployed. The the account would not be suspended for non-payment and no collections attempts would be made. Which is nice – but why weren’t military bases in other regions afforded the same courtesy? Or customers stationed at the base in Virginia who happened to retain their cell phone from their family’s home in Kansas? Essentially, I could never understand what about cellular service could need to be customized for a specific region where it was a completely unreasonable policy in other regions. There are areas where a single nation-wide regulation makes sense.
Construction regulations, on the other hand, seem very location specific. And a area where a nationwide minimum standard would be far more reasonable. I doubt there’s a lot of concern about coastal flooding in Denver. Snow load regulations for equipment in South Texas is silly, but I wouldn’t want to sleep next door to a crane in NYC that didn’t fall under some snow load reg. Builders in Maine don’t need to worry too much about tornado damage, but construction sites between OKC and Tulsa can reasonably be required to lash down their materials at the end of each day to avoid debris being flung all over the countryside. And, yeah, cities in Southern Florida can reasonably want large pieces of equipment to have higher wind load ratings than a crane in Seattle.
Furthermore — why is it “states rights” people only support the state’s rights to be *more* Republican? Why should Cali need a waiver to have stricter air quality and fuel efficiency rules? Why should Miami be unable to have higher standards for wind force? It isn’t like Washington needed a waiver to set their minimum wage above the federal set-point.