Drawing the parallels between Facebook and ‘The Matrix’: Is Zucky the ‘Architect’…

“You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.” -Morpheus, The Matrix

I’m sure many of you have seen this film. Keanu Reeves plays the part of Tom Anderson, an average office-rat by day, and Neo, a computer programmer/hacker by night. He is recruited by a group of ‘rebellions’ and eventually takes the ‘red pill’ (over the ‘blue pill’: ignorance is bliss?), thus embracing the painful truth that the world as he knows it is one big computer program. He is told that his mind has been controlled by intelligent machines for the duration of his life, as well as the fact that these machines harvest the bioelectrical energy of humans, who are kept docile within the Matrix, a simulated reality of the world (sound familiar). Without this ‘bioelectrical energy’, the machines would cease to live.

The idea of ‘The Matrix’ has been influenced by numerous religious beliefs and philosophies including those of Abbott, Plato, and Descartes. The thought of our world being controlled and monitored by intelligent machines is both scary, yet highly unlikely.

However, as the internet becomes an increasingly habitual platform for facilitating communication and personal relationships, there are an increasing number of parallels that can be drawn between the giant social networking sites and ‘The Matrix’.

“Your appearance now is what we call “residual self image”.
-Morphues, The Matix

Yesterday, we had posted an editorial detailing the unsettling news that Facebook, the site that serves as a platform for creating and maintaining your ‘residual self-image’, may allow children under the age of 13 to use the social networking service. This move was inevitable, though the dropping stock price has served as a catalyst. Facebook has been keeping tabs on it’s users for years, and now it is moving on to children, and FB most likely knows more about you and me than our closest friends. Furthermore, the  social networking service sells this information, one of it’s biggest money makers. It’s other revenue sources include advertisements, and online games. All these sources of revenue rely on the continued and consistent use of the service by it’s user base. No users, no money…Can you see the parallels?!? Let’s break it down:

Facebook: Users + Activity = Money.
Matrix Intelligent Machines: Humans + Bioelectric Energy = Life.

Now, let’s not be too cynical…doesn’t every company rely on this equation? Without users/humans/consumers, the company has no market to sell it’s products, and without these users/humans/consumers putting in some energy, the products the company is selling won’t be bought. However, what other company has the vast knowledge of it’s userbase like Facebook does? Furthemore, what other company makes billions of dollars selling this information? Answer: None…

Do you control your information on Facebook, or does Facebook control the information on you??

-C. Sullivan

Look Ma! 2000 Friends!

I am always perplexed and yet simultaneously curious when I see a child walking around with an iPad, smartphone, or any other type of mobile device. Are these items making children more savvy? Maybe parents want their children to become technologically proficient to stay ahead of the curve-especially in such a competitive work environment. In case you didn’t realize, I am being overtly facetious. Anyway, when I was eight, I was outside playing backyard football, shooting hoops and doing what normal children do: or did? In any event, a rumor has surfaced that Facebook now intends on allowing users under the age of thirteen to use the social platform. Sounds like a fantastic idea to me! What an altruistic move by Facebook; they definitely want to extend their service to younger people so as to enhance their lives. Since the company went public, the companies stock has precipitously declined. As we all know, and as I have stated time and time again: Facebook lacks a steady stream of REVENUE, as people continue to move to mobile devices. So what does the company do? The answer is so simple: exploit the youth – a completely untapped goldmine. With users under the age of thirteen, the company will surely increase its 900 million users significantly. Of course, the company says that the kids accounts will be linked to their parents, so as to provide protection. However, this possible move is clearly a ploy to generate more money. More children than adults will be using Facebook from a browser. That means that the company will be able to generate more advertising dollars, as well as make money from games that children will surely nag their parents to buy. The ironic thing is that I write this blog as I develop my own smart phone product. So I guess it’s not in my interest to rag children for carrying smartphones, tablets, etc. On the other hand, I don’t think that youngsters should have these devices. I think that they subject themselves to things that they are not ready to see, and should not see. Furthermore, it makes children vulnerable to sick people that are on the web simply to associate with kids. If less children carried smart phones correlated with OptiLaunch making less money off our products, I have no qualms: good! I’d rather children be safe than exploit them to the myriad of liabilities they face on the web.

Bottom line is this…Facebook knows that the majority of everyday interactions between children under the age of 13 are mediated by the childrens’ parents. Once the parents lose this control, there is no telling what kind of serious danger children can put themselves in (they don’t know any better!!).

Facebook…Zucky…Take a step back and think of a better way to rake in profits than exploiting youths.

-D. Spinelli

Limitations of Technology, or Marketing Conspiracy?

For the past five years or so I have bought a number of computers (both PC and Mac) and smartphones (Blackberries, iPhones, Androids) and have disposed of each and every single one within a couple of years after purchase. Up until a few months ago, I have always assumed that that there was some inevitable hardware or software issue that caused most of these devices to become nearly incapacitated after a couple years of use. Only recently have I realized that this problem applies to technology as a whole. Is this issue an actual shortcoming of current technology?? Or is it a grand marketing scheme?? Whatever the case may be, American consumers quickly abandon “devices” for the new “new” thing. According to a Forbes article, Americans spend $35 billion annually on mobile devices. Personally, I have abandoned plenty of technology that worked just fine, for the newest device. Is this an extension of good marketing or is technology increasing so quickly that we are forced to keep up or be left in the dust? Besides scrapping devices that worked for ones that are dubbed “better”, I have also had a myriad of devices that have failed on me, and therefore forced me to either buy a new one or switch to a different device (I don’t even want to divulge the number of PC’s or iPhones that I’ve been through – #thankgod for insurance. When a device fails on you, then you have two choices: (1) buy the same one, or (2) spend the extra bucks and get the newest edition. The fact that computers, tablets and mobile devices tend to have problems makes me wonder if technology is made to fail. It makes complete sense. Why would Apple or Dell make a product that will last a decade, and always run like it’s fresh out of the box? It is not in a technology company’s best intrest to create a product that has an extremely long life span. Big tech companies need to sell tablets, laptops, smart phones, iPods, etc., and therefore must continue to put out products that are not made to last, or that will soon be replaced by a “better” product. These “better” products are usually nothing more than a nuance on a previous one. Americans are more guilty than any other people for falling into the trap of abandoning perfectly good tech for a newer version. Why do we do this? Also, on a side note, I had the privilege of working for a very large commercial insurance company in the Extended Warranty Department (as an underwriter). I know from experience that all those mobile devices that you trade in are “refurbished” and resold (BIG MONEY!). American retailers learned early in the 20th century that consumers will readily buy disposable products. Is that the case today with technology? I truly believe so.

-D. Spinelli

NBA is Fixed

I don’t know about most people, but the NBA regular season could potentially be the most boring sport to view. There’s no defense, and star players are constantly calling for the ball so that they can increase their stats-even if it’s detrimental to the team’s performance. Carmelo Anthony will drop 38 points on 15 for 45 shooting (very commendable Carmelo). I might as well watch the AND 1 Mix Tape Tour (“SPYDAAAAAA!”). At least the viewer knows what he or she is getting into. The commentary is more exciting and the trick shots are pretty damn cool. In any event, I am writing to comment on the NBA as a whole and the controversy that has surrounded it for some time-especially during the current playoff season. On a side note, I was happy to see Michael Jordan’s Bobcats not receive the first overall pick in next years draft (side note: the New Orleans Hornets, who are owned by the NBA, had a 14% chance of getting the #1 pick, and they got it….fixed??). There’s something about Jordan’s aloof attitude that makes me cringe. If you don’t agree, watch his Hall of Fame induction speech – it’s pretty comical. I’m sure Jordan rushed off to the casino after last night’s disappointment to gamble away his feelings. Anyway, while watching this years playoffs, I can’t help but wonder if it’s rigged. Did anybody see the five technical fouls that were awarded to the Celtics in game 1 against the favored Heat. Ray Allen was given a technical for jumping in the air with his back turned to the referee. I’m not quite sure, but isn’t jumping a big part of basketball? Kevin Garnett was given a technical for flicking the ball back to the referee. I’m calling BS on those techs. However, the controversy extends so far beyond the ill-advised techs given in Game 1. Last night I was astounded by the incompetence that the referees displayed. With the came tied in overtime Rondo went up for a layup and was clearly slapped in the face by Dwayne Wade – no call!?!? That led directly to a fast break and a dunk by Haslem. Not only did the refs blow that call, but later in OT Wade drove to the basket and used his legs to create separation between himself and Kevin Garnett (basket and foul – count it!) Why is it that referees can look at Flagrant 2’s, but not Flagrant 1’s. The myriad of questionable calls makes me ponder the motives of the officiating crews – Tim Donaghy, remember that clown? But the dearth of good officials is an extension of the NBA hierarchy. Simply put, David Stern is either lackadaisical, or has ulterior motives. It’s no secret that advertising is where the big money comes from: not only for the networks, but for the NBA itself. So, the best match ups between the most hyped up teams, with the most loyal fans, equals more viewers, which in turn leads to more advertising revenue. Are these games a self-fulfilled prophesy:it makes complete sense. Why isn’t David Stern doing anything about these abysmal calls? Maybe I’m cynical or downright paranoid, but something is awry; I can feel it. Thoughts? Sentiments? Rebukes? I’m all ears.

-D. Spinelli

Apple: The Modern Day Standard Oil

I came across this article discussing how today, Apple removed an app called Airfoil Speakers Touch, which has been in the app store for over 3 years. The app allowed users to share and stream audio in a quick and easy manner. While some speculate that the removal of the app is because of a lack of compliance, others believe that Apple removed the app because they plan on coming out with their own version in iOS 6. I would be surprised if the former were the case…(the apps been out for 3 years). Yes they came out with a new version a month ago, but it doesn’t seem to add up. There were not any significant changes in version 3 of Airfoil Speakers Touch. So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the latter of the two scenarios is true and that Apple plans to release it’s own technology and does not want any competition. If this is the case, it is not only disheartening, but it is also imprudent. Apple was founded under a different set of morals, and their products have always mirrored these morals. Now Apple is acting in a completely undemocratic manner…dictatorship? Monopoly (not technically)? The fact that Apple can whimsically do away with any app without just reason makes you kind of wonder if they are turning into the big brother from their 1984 commercial. Remember, the one that the individualist hero brought down with a single throw of her hammer. Also makes me think of the drawing of Standard Oil personified as an octopus grabbing onto all of its small competitors. Is that what Apple is doing? Are they trying to create a monopoly in certain sectors so as to turn over greater profits? Is Apple the Standard Oil of our era? Either way, it is a bit scary.