Google’s “Fuchsia” smartphone OS dumps Linux, has a wild new UI

Taking a look at Google’s mysterious third operating system.

Fuchsia really seems like a project that asks “how would we design Android today, if we could start over?” It’s a brand-new, Google-developed kernel running a brand-new, Google-developed SDK that uses a brand-new, Google-developed programming language and it’s all geared to run Google’s Material Design interface as quickly as possible. Google gets to dump Linux and the GPL, it can dump Java and the problems it caused with Oracle, and Google can basically insulate itself from all of Android’s upstream projects and bring all the development in-house. Doing such a thing on the scale of Android today would be a massive project

The hardest part might not even be developing the OS, but coming up with some kind of transition plan from Android, which has grown to be the world’s most popular operating system. The “cross platform” feature of the Flutter SDK sounds important for a transition plan. If Google could get developers to start writing apps in Flutter, it would be creating an app ecosystem that ran on iOS, Android, and, eventually, Fuchsia.

Build a Better Monster

We’re all trying to understand why people can’t just get along. The emerging consensus in Silicon Valley is that polarization is a baffling phenomenon, but we can fight it with better fact-checking, with more empathy, and (at least in Facebook’s case) with advanced algorithms to try and guide conversations between opposing camps in a more productive direction.

A question few are asking is whether the tools of mass surveillance and social control we spent the last decade building could have had anything to do with the debacle of the 2017 election, or whether destroying local journalism and making national journalism so dependent on our platforms was, in retrospect, a good idea.

We built the commercial internet by mastering techniques of persuasion and surveillance that we’ve extended to billions of people, including essentially the entire population of the Western democracies. But admitting that this tool of social control might be conducive to authoritarianism is not something we’re ready to face. After all, we’re good people. We like freedom. How could we have built tools that subvert it?

.. The economic basis of the Internet is surveillance. Every interaction with a computing device leaves a data trail, and whole industries exist to consume this data.

.. It is the primary source of news for a sizable fraction of Americans, and through its feed algorithm (which determines who sees what) has an unparalleled degree of editorial control over what that news looks like.

.. Together, these companies control some 65% of the online ad market, which in 2015 was estimated at $60B. Of that, half went to Google and $8B to Facebook.

.. These companies exemplify the centralized, feudal Internet of 2017. While the protocols that comprise the Internet remain open and free, in practice a few large American companies dominate every aspect of online life. Google controls search and email, AWS controls cloud hosting, Apple and Google have a duopoly in mobile phone operating systems. Facebook is the one social network.

.. There are two interlocking motives for this data hunger: to target online advertising, and to train machine learning algorithms.

.. A considerable fraction (only Google and Facebook have the numbers) of the money sloshing around goes to scammers.

.. The more poorly current ads perform, the more room there is to tell convincing stories about future advertising technology, which of course will require new forms of surveillance.

.. The real profits from online advertising go to the companies running the casino—Facebook and Google.

.. we assumed that when machines reached near-human performance in tasks like image recognition, it would be thanks to fundamental breakthroughs into the nature of cognition. We would be able to lift the lid on the human mind and see all the little gears turning.

What’s happened instead is odd. We found a way to get terrific results by combining fairly simple math with enormous data sets. But this discovery did not advance our understanding. The mathematical techniques used in machine learning don’t have a complex, intelligible internal structure we can reason about. Like our brains, they are a wild, interconnected tangle.

.. The algorithms learn to show people the things they are most likely to ‘engage’ with—click, share, view, and react to. We make them very good at provoking these reactions from people.

.. If you concede that they work just as well for politics as for commerce, you’re inviting government oversight. If you claim they don’t work well at all, you’re telling advertisers they’re wasting their money.

Facebook and Google have tied themselves into pretzels over this. The idea that these mechanisms of persuasion could be politically useful, and especially that they might be more useful to one side than the other, violates cherished beliefs about the “apolitical” tech industry.

.. All the algorithms know is what they measure, which is the same for advertising as it is in politics: engagement, time on site, who shared what, who clicked what, and who is likely to come back for more.

The persuasion works, and it works the same way in politics as it does in commerce—by getting a rise out of people.

But political sales techniques that maximize “engagement” have troubling implications in a democracy.

.. One problem is that any system trying to maximize engagement will try to push users towards the fringes. You can prove this to yourself by opening YouTube in an incognito browser (so that you start with a blank slate), and clicking recommended links on any video with political content. When I tried this experiment last night, within five clicks I went from a news item about demonstrators clashing in Berkeley to a conspiracy site claiming Trump was planning WWIII with North Korea, and another exposing FEMA’s plans for genocide.

This pull to the fringes doesn’t happen if you click on a cute animal story. In that case, you just get more cute animals (an experiment I also recommend trying). But the algorithms have learned that users interested in politics respond more if they’re provoked more, so they provoke. Nobody programmed the behavior into the algorithm; it made a correct observation about human nature and acted on it.

Social dynamics on sites where people share links can compound this radicalizing force. The way to maximize engagement on Twitter, for example, is to say provocative things, or hoist an opponent’s tweets out of context in order to use them as a rhetorical bludgeon. Twitter rewards the captious.

.. So without explicitly coding for this behavior, we already have a dynamic where people are pulled to the extremes. Things get worse when third parties are allowed to use these algorithms to target a specific audience.

.. Political speech that tries to fly below the radar has always existed, but in the past it was possible to catch it and call it out. When no two people see the same thing, it becomes difficult to trace orchestrated attempts to target people in political campaigns. These techniques of micro-targeted political advertising were used to great effect in both the Brexit vote and the US election.

.. This is an inversion in political life that we haven’t seen before. Conversations between people that used to be private, or semi-private, now take place on public forums where they are archived forever. Meanwhile, the kind of political messaging that used to take place in public view is now visible only to an audience of one.

.. Politically engaged people spend more time online and click more ads. Alarmist and conspiracy-minded consumers also make good targets for certain kinds of advertising. Listen to talk radio or go to prepper websites and you will find pure hucksterism—supplements, gold coins, mutual funds—being pitched by the same people who deliver the apocalyptic theories.

Many of the sites peddling fake news during the election operated solely for profit, and field-tested articles on both sides of the political spectrum. This time around, they found the right to be more lucrative, so we got fake news targeted at Trump voters.

.. Apart from the obvious chilling effect on political expression when everything you say is permanently recorded, there is the chilling effect of your own peer group, and the lingering doubt that anything you say privately can ever truly stay private.

.. Orwell imagined a world in which the state could shamelessly rewrite the past. The Internet has taught us that people are happy to do this work themselves, provided they have their peer group with them, and a common enemy to unite against. They will happily construct alternative realities for themselves, and adjust them as necessary to fit the changing facts.

Finally, surveillance capitalism makes it harder to organize effective long-term dissent. In an setting where attention is convertible into money, social media will always reward drama, dissent, conflict, iconoclasm and strife. There will be no comparable rewards for cooperation, de-escalation, consensus-building, or compromise, qualities that are essential for the slow work of building a movement. People who should be looking past their differences will instead spend their time on purity tests and trying to outflank one another in a race to the fringes.

.. Moreover, powerful people have noted and benefited from the special power of social media in the political arena. They will not sit by and let programmers dismantle useful tools for influence and social control. It doesn’t matter that the tech industry considers itself apolitical and rationalist. Powerful people did not get to be that way by voluntarily ceding power.

.. Consider the example of the Women’s March. The March was organized on Facebook, and 3-4 million people attended. The list of those who RSVP’d is now stored on Facebook servers and will be until the end of time, or until Facebook goes bankrupt, or gets hacked, or bought by a hedge fund, or some rogue sysadmin decides that list needs to be made public.

.. We need the parts of these sites that are used heavily for organizing, like Google Groups or Facebook event pages, to become more ephemeral

.. These features are sometimes called ‘disappearing’, but there is nothing furtive about it. Rather, this is just getting our software to more faithfully reflect human life.

.. You don’t carry all your valuables and private documents when you travel. Similarly, social sites should offer a trip mode where the view of your account is limited to recent contacts and messages.

..  I’ve pushed for “Six Fixes” to the Internet. I’ll push for them again!

  1. The right to examine, download, and delete any data stored about you. A time horizon (weeks, not years) for how long companies are allowed to retain behavioral data (any data about yourself you didn’t explicitly provide).
  2. A prohibition on selling or transferring collections of behavioral data, whether outright, in an acquisition, or in bankruptcy.
  3. A ban on third-party advertising. Ad networks can still exist, but they can only serve ads targeted against page content, and they cannot retain information between ad requests.
  4. An off switch on Internet-connected devices, that physically cuts their access to the network. This switch should not prevent the device from functioning offline. You should be able to stop the malware on your refrigerator from posting racist rants on Twitter while still keeping your beer cold.
  5. A legal framework for offering certain privacy guarantees, with enforceable consequences. Think of this as a Creative Commons for privacy. If they can be sure data won’t be retained, users will be willing to experiment with many technologies that would pose too big a privacy risk in the current reality.

.. At a minimum, we need to break up Facebook so that its social features are divorced from the news feed.

.. But it cannot simultaneously be the platform for political organizing, political campaigns, and news delivery.

.. Shareholder pressure doesn’t work, because the large tech companies are structured to give founders absolute control no matter how many shares they own.

.. The one effective lever we have against tech companies is employee pressure. Software engineers are difficult to hire, expensive to train, and take a long time to replace. Small teams in critical roles (like operations or security) have the power to shut down a tech company if they act in concert.

.. Unfortunately, the enemy is complacency. Tech workers trust their founders, find labor organizing distasteful, and are happy to leave larger ethical questions to management. A workplace free of ‘politics’ is just one of the many perks the tech industry offers its pampered employees. So our one chance to enact meaningful change is slipping away.

Google vs Uber with Judge Alsup

I want to start briefly with our document production, which is due on Friday. We are making good progress. And I am expecting that by Friday we will be able to produce documents that are at Uber that are responsive to the Court’s order. Now — THE COURT: Responsive or all documents? MR. GONZÁLEZ: Well — THE COURT: That’s a cleverly worded thing. I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. I know what you’re telling me.

.. And if you think for a moment that I’m going to stay my hand, because your guy is taking the Fifth Amendment, and not issue a preliminary injunction to shut down what happened here, you’re wrong. This is a very serious — now, some of the things in your motion are bogus. You’ve got things in there like lists of suppliers as trade secrets. Come on. It undermines the whole thing.

But there are some things in that motion that are very serious. They are genuine trade secrets. And if you don’t come in with a denial, you’re probably looking at a preliminary injunction.

.. If his truck driving company gets shut down because of theft of trade secrets on a record that he’s not willing to deny, too bad for him. Too bad. Listen, I’m not sympathetic to it. You represent somebody who’s in a mess. Well, they’re in a mess too.

.. THE COURT: You’ve got it all wrong. You’re trying to put the burden on me and on them. They have made a record. You are not even a party to the case. Uber is the party to the case. And on this record there is a good chance that Uber is going to get hit with a preliminary injunction come May 3rd. And if you want to deny the facts, go ahead. If you want to stand moot because of the Fifth Amendment, that’s your privilege. But you’re not going to slow this down — you’re not going to slow this down because of this kind of a situation. I’m sorry. The equity is on their side, not on your side.

.. THE COURT: No. This is — this is a nonstarter. I’m not going to get diverted off into you coming in here with — with no motion whatsoever, nothing, and trying to get special pleading because you represent somebody big, and get an under-seal hearing so the public can’t hear it. That’s not going to work.

.. If your guy is involved in criminal activity and has to have criminal lawyers of the caliber of these two gentlemen, who are the best, well, okay, they got the best. But it’s a problem that I can’t solve for you. And if you think I’m going to cut you slack because you’re looking at — your guy is looking at jail time, no.

.. If the Court grants our petition, then it means that this trade secrets issue goes into arbitration. And if he testifies there, it’s — it’s in confidence. It’s a big difference.

THE COURT: Ridiculous. It’s not in confidence. The United States Attorney can go subpoena information all day long.

.. If I cannot get a declaration from him, then, Your Honor, I’m going to do the following: We’re going to demonstrate to you that we are not using any of these things that they say he may have taken. That’s my point. And it’s a very important point. THE COURT: That would be a legitimate point

.. THE COURT: Listen, please don’t do this to me again. There’s going to be a lot of adverse headlines in this case on both sides. And I can’t stop that. And that’s — the public has a right — in fact, this whole transcript, I’m going to make it public. There’s nothing — what do you say?

.. if there’s not a clear-cut path to showing that those 14,000 documents weren’t used, then you’re looking at a preliminary injunction.

.. If you all keep insisting on redacting so much information, like — and you’re the guilty one on that, Mr. Verhoeven — then arbitration looks better and better. Because I’m not going to put up with it. If we’re going to be in a public proceeding, 99 percent of what — 90 percent, anyway, has got to be public. The stuff — this employment agreement by Google, it’s laughable that you want to keep that under wraps. Just laughable.

.. And I feel that so strongly. I am not — the U.S. District Court is not a wholly owned subsidiary of Quinn Emanuel or Morrison & Foerster or these two big companies. We belong to the public.

.. We are specifically not waiving either of those rights or privileges. And we would ask the Court, it’s simply the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 question of identifying the name of a vendor who reviewed materials. This is something that can wait. THE COURT: No, it can’t wait. There is no basis for making this wait. At least on the record that I have now. And you were free for the last two weeks to bring any motion that you wanted, instead of a sandbag motion out of left field and the way you’re doing it here today. So the answer is no. Your objection is made for the record. Good. Okay.

.. THE COURT: And if you don’t — if you can’t order your guy to do what he’s required to do to meet the charges Mr. Verhoeven has leveled against him, and has proof to back it up, that sounds to me — then, to finish my thought, too bad.

.. Now, when I was practicing law, the idea that you could withhold the author of a document in a privilege log was also laughable. No such thing.

.. So maybe what you need to do is bring your own lawsuit against Uber. But I’m not giving you that relief right now. If you brought a formal motion with points and authorities that said I had to do that, of course, I would definitely consider that. But off the top of my head and the way this is being presented out of left field today, I would say you’re out of luck on that.