The New MacBook Pro: A Perfectly Fine Laptop For No One In Particular

Apple&;s new top-of-the-line laptop is impressively lightweight, but it may not be the home run longtime MacBook Pro users were hoping for.

BuzzFeed News; Apple

The all-new MacBook Pro is the laptop that loyal MacBook Pro users have been waiting for since 2012. But it might not be the one they were expecting.

Apple’s new laptop, which starts shipping in mid-December, is lighter and thinner than its predecessor. There’s a model with a tiny touchscreen called the Touch Bar, and a 13-inch model without, aimed at replacing the MacBook Air.

When the fourth-generation Pro offering was announced in October, the first major redesign for the premium laptop line in four years, the Maclash was very strong.

Gone is the strip of physical function keys, MagSafe charger, SD card reader, HDMI, mini DisplayPort, and USB ports. It&;s all been replaced with multiple USB-C ports and a headphone jack (OMG&;&033;), which is the only legacy input that remains.

Apple has removed the ports that some thought made the MacBook deserving of its Pro moniker.

“I’m out of apologia juice for defending Apple,” tweeted David Heinemeier Hansson, creator of the Ruby on Rails web development framework. “Those complaining about Apple’s current Mac lineup are not haters, they’re lovers. They’ve spent 10+ years and 5+ figures on Macs,” tweeted @lapcatsoftware, a self-described longtime Mac developer.

Meanwhile, some Mac users complained that the the new MacBook Pro appears to be underpowered for its price. The machine runs on last year’s Intel Skylake chip, and not the more recent, slightly more powerful Kaby Lake (which the chipmaker claims is about 12% faster in raw performance).

So, were the complaints warranted?

In my week and a half-ish with the new MacBook Pros, I found the laptops to be impressively fast and lightweight, but perhaps not quite the home run for which diehard MacBook Pro users had hoped. I tried both Touch Bar and non-Touch Bar models. The 13-inch non-Touch Bar laptop is clearly a win for those looking to upgrade aging Airs, as it’s lighter, thinner, and more powerful than the Air line.
But it’s not clear who exactly the MacBook Pro with Touch Bar is for — other than early adopters who won’t mind toting around a handful of dongles in order to push USB-C, the port of the future, forward.

The MacBook Pro’s marquee feature is the Touch Bar, a new Retina, multi-touch screen that displays a set of additional controls that change according to what apps you have open.

The MacBook Pro’s marquee feature is the Touch Bar, a new Retina, multi-touch screen that displays a set of additional controls that change according to what apps you have open.

The Touch Bar is so slick and smooth, it feels frictionless. It’s a virtualization of the keys you’d typically find at the top of the keyboard, with some more bells and whistles.

The whole gang’s still there: the ESC key, music controls, volume control, the Launchpad shortcut that I’ve literally NEVER seen anyone use, a dedicated Siri button, etc. Touch Bar can be customized in a number of ways with actions like Screenshot and Show Desktop (my favorite *hide everything* trick for when people creep up from behind).

As one might expect at this early stage, the only apps with Touch Bar support right now are Apple-designed ones like Photos and Mail, and some applications make better use of Touch Bar than others.

My favorite is viewing PDFs in Preview, which you can quickly highlight with a single tap. The bar also allows you to stay in full screen longer in the Photos app by placing a menu of touch-based editing tools right at your fingertips. In Final Cut Pro, you can precisely trim clips with your finger, which feels more ergonomic than using your trackpad. In QuickTime, being able to scrub videos backwards and forwards with precision is pretty sweet, too.

Finger input feels easier, faster, and more precise than clicking and dragging on a trackpad. Another neat feature is that adjusting volume and brightness only requires a single swipe: Instead of multiple key taps, you can press and hold the volume icon and then move your finger back in forth to adjust.

Nicole Nguyen / BuzzFeed News

Other Touch Bar functions, like tab preview in Safari, seem more forced.

Other Touch Bar functions, like tab preview in Safari, seem more forced.

As you can see here, Touch Bar&039;s Safari tab previews are insanely small and difficult to read; It’s hard to imagine anyone would select a tab using the Touch Bar instead of the control + tab shortcut. That said, it is fun to swipe through all 123,801,293 of your open tabs.

Another is the emoji bar in Messages, which, at first, seemed great for quickly selecting frequently used emoji. However, to find something specific, you have to scroll and scroll and scroll, which seems silly when there’s already a great keyboard MacOS shortcut for it (control + command + spacebar = emoji heaven).

Nicole Nguyen / BuzzFeed News


View Entire List ›

Quelle: <a href="The New MacBook Pro: A Perfectly Fine Laptop For No One In Particular“>BuzzFeed

Bill Mitchell's Revenge

Via Twitter: @BluegillRises

Last Thursday, just after 11 a.m., I got a text from Bill Mitchell.

“Hi Charlie. Will BuzzFeed be doing a &;post-truth&039; follow-up article on me :),” it read. It was unexpected and my heart sank just a little bit. I screenshot his initial text and sent it to my editor with a note: “Ugh, Bill Mitchell just owned me so hard.”

Late Tuesday night, when Trump’s victory became all but certain, Mitchell was the among the first people I thought of. Last month, I’d interviewed him for a profile in which I quoted pollsters and journalists calling him “the dumbest motherfucker on the internet” and “fascist Jack Handey”; I dubbed him “the Trump movement’s post-truth, post-math anti-Nate Silver” and gestured incredulously at his tweets.

Bill Mitchell was home alone, holed up in his makeshift studio, when Donald Trump finally silenced the haters. He’d had been invited to a couple of election night parties, but Mitchell preferred to be alone with his 148,000 Twitter followers to watch the phenomenon that he’d predicted for the last 15 months — with 100% certainty, no less — come to fruition. First, Indiana and Kentucky came in strong. Then, there was a surge in Pinellas County in Florida — Mitchell’s personal bellwether and a heartening sign. Almost all at once, the blue firewall in the northern states began to crumble, revealing a wide Trump path to victory. At 10:51 p.m., the AP called Florida for Trump. Seven minutes later, victory in his sights, Mitchell took to Twitter:

For Mitchell, Trump’s victory was the ultimate vindication. After a year and a half of scornful taunts and mocking retweets from liberal mainstream journalists and pollsters; after constant Twitter arguments and unflattering, condescending stories about his lack of experience and expertise; after 15 months of unfaltering certainty in the face of endless criticism, Bill Mitchell — a strong-jawed, silver-haired executive recruiter from North Carolina with a Twitter account, a gift for “word images,” and no prior political experience — was no longer the butt of anyone’s smug joke.

Quite the opposite, in fact. Trump’s ground game, it appears, was actually in our hearts. And Mitchell was one of the few pundits to get it right. So what happens now? If Trump&039;s win was a victory for everyone who&039;s ever doubted the establishment and the old media and its experts and their numbers, then Mitchell is arguably that movement’s most enthusiastic voice. To hear Mitchell tell it, “new media prevailed,” and he wants a seat near the head of its table.

Mitchell, of course, didn’t have any special access to facts that the liberal media didn’t. Despite his claim of “diving into the internals” of polls — a standard practice of professional pollsters as well — Mitchell’s true success came from his gut: Intuition suggested Trump was the man for the moment and for the movement that captured his own imagination. As he presciently suggested last month in our first interview: “It has nothing to do with audio tapes or Hillary scandals or any of that. Donald Trump will win because this is a change election and Donald Trump is change candidate. At the end of the day that’s all that will matter.” He was right.

Mitchell is far from a professional analyst, which will serve him well as a member of the new right media in Trump’s America. Mitchell’s gut — his intuition as a member of an unseen voting class that came out at the polls for Trump — is what has set him up, perhaps more than anyone else, as the face of this very real mainstream media-refuting world. As a nationalist voice, Mitchell could very well be — no matter how unofficial — the voice of this administration: enthusiastic, unflinchingly loyal, and more pleasant and palatable than its more racially charged alt-right counterparts.

“Even though I expected a win, I’ll admit when Pennsylvania dropped, it was a little surreal,” he told me over the phone Saturday morning. “I felt just so alive — I think it’s a bit like being around when World War II was declared over. I just felt very fortunate to be around to see it.” On the phone, Mitchell took pains not to gloat but was clearly reveling in the win — he’d just bought a 70-inch TV and planned to break it in over the weekend. When I asked what we’d all missed in his Twitter punditry, Mitchell suggested that his haters had made him into a caricature rather than divining the kernel of truth hidden behind his often-bombastic language. Exhibit A: yard signs and rally attendance.

The media mocked him ruthlessly for putting undue weight behind rallies over polling — a fatal error, according to Mitchell. “Rallies equal newly engaged voters,” he said. In 2008 Obama had tens of thousands who stand in line for six hours because they want to experience and taste and feel all this.” Mitchell refers to them as the “monster vote” and suggests that it’s these perhaps previously disenfranchised voters who aren’t on pollster call lists. “And so the big question was, will the 20 million who didn’t vote in 2012 come out for Trump? I kept saying it’s going to happen, no question — it’ll be something like 2008 where the previously quiet black vote came out for Obama. And it did.” It’s also worth noting — while his predictions were overly enthusiastic — that Trump would do better with Latino and black voters, and there&039;d be a low black voter turnout.

“I’m more interested in trying to become a Sean Hannity type, though … it would take a long time to reach his excellence.”

As a result of his 15-month loyalty to the , election night was good to Mitchell. By his own (unconfirmed) estimate, his Twitter page racked up 80 million impressions and 400,000 retweets that evening. When victory was certain, he claims to have received thankful direct messages from Trump’s two sons, Eric and Donald Jr., as well as campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, thanking him for his enthusiasm and analysis over Twitter. “I won&039;t tell you what they said, but it was very nice and appreciative.”

According to Mitchell, Conway and the Trump sons had been in “very casual, infrequent communication” with Mitchell during the last month of the campaign. “I would update them on my take on polling and they&039;d get back to me and maybe they&039;d say how they felt about it,” he said. He stressed that his relationship to the Trump campaign was at arm’s length and mostly just cordial, mutual admiration: “If I were to describe Trump’s kids, I’d say they’re just really nice and pleasant normal folks, which is remarkable considering how rich they are.”

When asked if he’d take a job in a Trump administration, if offered, he said he’d decline, denying the world a glimpse at White House press secretary Bill Mitchell. “I don&039;t want to be a politician. I’m more interested in trying to become a Sean Hannity type — though to be anywhere near that level would be a miracle since it would take a long time to reach his excellence.”

Starting Monday, Mitchell’s going to set out to make his dreams of professional punditry a reality. He’s hopeful that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner will start up a Trump TV and would be interested to find a role in that. For now, he’s successfully raised over $10,000 for his radio and YouTube show, which is syndicated on an AM radio station in Cleveland, and he hopes to grow that out across the country, like conservative media scions Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones. He says he’d be willing to move from his home in suburban Charlotte to DC or maybe even New York for the right kind of job in broadcasting.

“I think the wall will become the next new great American monument. Like the Statue of Liberty, the wall is a monument to our sovereignty.”

Whatever his role, Mitchell would like it to be part of an insurgent, new media movement. Like many Trump supporters, Mitchell felt betrayed by the spin of the CNNs and legacy outlets of the world and wants to usher in a new era of media for the swath of voters the mainstream media didn’t see coming. “It’s been so gratifying to get messages and tweets saying, &039;You got me through this — you were my lifeline,&039;” he said, adding, “I don&039;t think Trump could’ve won without social media and our movement.”

Now, as one of many self-proclaimed leaders of that movement, Mitchell hopes to help its voice grow louder, and doesn’t see much of a home for the mainstream. “If I got my news only from CNN I’d have hated Trump, too,” he said, noting that CNN was spin and that people are craving “the facts” more than ever. “I don&039;t think the media can come back from this. They don’t learn their lesson and a tiger doesn&039;t change its stripes,” he lectured. “The only way the majority of media gets it right in the future is if they get replaced by the new media.”

Though we’re just days in, Mitchell is energized by President-elect Trump. And talking to Mitchell, you get a sense for the type of punditry to expect from Mitchell and even a new media. Odds are it will be fawning (“Trump just wins — trust his judgment”); suspect of so-called political correctness (“CNN sees racism EVERYWHERE. It gets pretty damned old”); and confident (“This win feels like a cool breeze across my heart on a hot day”).

On Trump’s suggestion that he’ll keep certain tenets of Obamacare: “Trump realizes life isn&039;t black and white — it&039;s always a shade of gray. Obamacare is a crap sandwich camouflaged in a nice bun. He’ll keep the bun and get rid of the crap.”

On “the wall”: “I think the wall will become the next new great American monument. Like the Statue of Liberty, the wall is a monument to our sovereignty. That&039;s what I&039;d say if I were on his marketing team.”

On bringing aboard legacy politicians to “drain the swamp”: “History will look back to the Trump presidency as the Era of Good Ideas. They’ll realize this was a ‘good idea presidency’ as opposed to the Obama era of ideology. If Dems present good ideas to President Trump he&039;d put them in the mix. You have a good idea, you’ve got a seat at the table.”

Via yourvoiceradio.com

His bet paid off, but still I wondered how he’d been able to be so certain in the face of withering criticism. As usual, Mitchell had a saying to describe his strategy.

“My philosophy is that fortune favors the bold,” he said, practically smiling through the receiver. “If you&039;re going to predict, do it 100%. Think about it — you&039;re right and they’ll never forget you. If you’re wrong, you’re wrong. But if you make your prediction and say, ‘Oh, I’m only 60% certain,&039; then nobody’s going to remember.” So Mitchell trusted his gut and went all in. As for the haters and the trolls? Mitchell described it like a war video game. “If you’re walking around and nobody is shooting at you then you&039;re not going the right way. The closer you get to the goal, the more intense the fire becomes,” he said. “The media always attacks the people they&039;re the most afraid of — so they must be afraid of my message.”

Still, it’s unclear, even after being blindsided by the Trump’s victory, what to make of the liberal media’s response to Mitchell’s analysis. As Ezra Klein — by his own admission, a conventional liberal pundit the likes of which Mitchell now holds gloating rights over — wrote for Vox following my profile, Mitchell’s influence was less about any kind of fear and more about identity-confirming. “Mitchell makes liberals look good, and he confirms their worst stereotypes about anti-science conservatives. Mitchell makes the press look good, and he confirms their worst stereotypes about blind partisans believing whatever they want to believe,” he wrote. Looking back in hindsight now, there may be more to it than that; as one reporter put it to me, “It feels like we were all making fun of him for weaknesses present in our side, too.”

It’s possible that Mitchell then didn’t just confirm his detractors’ worst stereotypes but also acted as a blank Twitter avatar on which to project our worries about partisan group-think and confident, data-free punditry. Which is why, in the wake of Trump’s victory, reckoning with Mitchell’s accurate prediction cuts deep. Sure, Mitchell saw a silent voting class and an enthusiasm few deigned to recognize, but margins were slim and what feels like a monumental defeat for many could have easily been a win if 1 out of 100 voters shifted their vote to Clinton. It might be less that Mitchell is an oracle and knew what we didn’t and more that nobody really knows anything, despite everyone thinking they did.

Quelle: <a href="Bill Mitchell&039;s Revenge“>BuzzFeed

Survey Question Indicates Facebook Getting Nervous About Fake News

Lluis Gene / AFP / Getty Images

Is Facebook getting nervous about the proliferation of fake news on its platform? Sure seems so.

A Facebook survey question spotted Sunday night by Tom Warren, an editor at The Verge, offers “fake information” as a possible reason why respondents don&;t see Facebook as being good for the world.

Facebook surveys its users all the time — and it&039;s unclear how long this survey has been running — but was shared at a time when Facebook is under heavy criticism for allowing fake news spread throughout its platform and in the run up to the election.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has publicly defended his platform&039;s approach to fake news on two occasions since Nov. 8, initially calling the notion that fake news swayed the election a “pretty crazy idea,” and then saying it was “extremely unlikely.”

Asking “which of the following is the most important reason why you disagree or strongly disagree that Facebook is good for the world,” Facebook offers a number of responses, including: “Facebook has too much fake information or too many fake people on it.”

As some users have pointed out, Facebook seems to be taking an approach to fake news inconsistent with how it has previously described the influence of its platform.

“Facebook and Twitter cannot take credit for changing the world during events like the Egyptian Uprising, then downplay their influence on elections,” said Columbia student Karen K. Ho in a tweet Saturday. Entrepreneur Anil Dash, also in a tweet, offered a similar argument: “Everyone who buys advertising should listen to Zuckerberg saying that Facebook is ineffective at influencing people.”

Asked if the survey means Facebook sees fake news as a significant problem, the company did not immediately respond.

Quelle: <a href="Survey Question Indicates Facebook Getting Nervous About Fake News“>BuzzFeed

Trump-Supporting Startup CEO Kicked Out of Y Combinator

Milo Yiannopoulos and Gab.ai CEO Andrew Torba

Via Twitter: @torbahax

On the Friday after the US Presidential election, Andrew Torba, CEO of Gab.ai, a social network favored by conservatives, was kicked out of Y Combinator, the influential Silicon Valley startup accelerator, for violating its harassment policy. Torba, a fervent Trump supporter, called members of the Y Combinator community “cucks” and told them to “fuck off” earlier that day in a heated Facebook discussion about racism after the election. “I am actually surprised it took them this long to excommunicate me,” Torba told BuzzFeed News, “Y Combinator doesn’t accept conservatives and they don’t accept Trump supporters.”

Torba was speaking from Restoration Weekend, a right-wing political conference in Palm Beach, Florida, attended by alt-right figurehead Milo Yiannopoulos, Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon, and Brexit leader Nigel Farage.

In the Facebook thread, before he was booted from Y Combinator, Torba wrote:

“All of you: fuck off. Take your morally superior, elitist, virtue signaling bullshit and shove it.

I call it like I see it, and I helped meme a President into office, cucks.”

Via Facebook

Over the phone and in the conservative press Torba has been claiming that he was removed from Y Combinator because he tweeted “build a wall,” a reference to President-elect Donald Trump. Y Combinator partner Kat Malanac, who was part of that Facebook thread, said the tweet brought Torba’s actions to Y Combinator’s attention but thatTorba was removed “for speaking in a threatening, harassing way toward other YC founders,” which violates its ethics policy,” she said by email.

After he was kicked out of Y Combinator, Torba addressed Malanac on the same Facebook thread:

“if you feel ‘unsafe’ from from [sic] me saying ‘fuck off’ or ‘build a wall,’ you probably shouldn’t be on the internet.”

Via Facebook

Torba&;s version of events will likely be well-received by the crowd at that Restoration Weekend, where he is scheduled to give a talk on free speech on Saturday. Torba’s narrative has already been embraced by right-wing media like Chuck Johnson&039;s GotNews, which said he was “PURGED” from Y Combinator “for a tweet” supporting Trump.

After the election, Torba reactivated his Facebook account. “I was looking at what people were posting and taking screenshots… just them whining about losing the election,” he told BuzzFeed News, emphasizing that names were removed from the screenshots. One of the screenshots was from a Latino startup founder who posted a status update expressing fear for minorities after the election: “Tomorrow, being a Hispanic, Black, Muslim or woman in the USA is going to be very scary.” Torba tweeted that screenshot with the words “Build the wall.”

Torba referred to his tweet as a meme and got upset when he saw “an indirect reference to the meme” on a Facebook post from Garry Tan, a former Y Combinator partner.

Via Facebook

Tan had posted a link to a story about increased incidents of aggression towards minorities and asked if anyone had seen it happen first-hand. Y Combinator alum Anisa Mirza, the CEO of Giveeffect, offered Torba as an example of that behavior, but without using his name. Mizra is friends with the Latino founder whose status Torba screenshot and tweeted. She wrote that a member of her Y Combinator batch “(you can probably guess who)” took a screenshot of her friend’s Facebook status about “being a Mexican and afraid” without the friend knowing.

On the phone with BuzzFeed, Torba said he got upset that they were talking about him, so he jumped into the thread. “Get over yourself Anisa. Say my name when you talk about me, coward. Build the wall,” he wrote. According to Torba, his response resulted in a “massive pile on,” so he said, ‘You know what, fuck you all. Just leave me alone.’”

As the argument in the Facebook thread intensified, Torba began posting screenshots of it on Twitter with the names of Y Combinator alumni visible. While he was in Palm Beach for the conference, Torba received a phone call from Jon Levy, Y Combinator&039;s in-house counsel, telling him that he had been “banned,” said Torba. His log-in for Bookface, a private social network for the Y Combinator community was disabled.

“[F]ree speech is of course allowed,” Sam Altman, the president of Y Combinator’s parent company, told BuzzFeed News by email, “harassing, which [Torba] did to several members of our community, is not. have a look through his twitter/fb.”

Manalac told BuzzFeed News that Y Combinator has removed founders from its network before, but never publicized the move. “We didn&039;t plan on publicizing this either, but Andrew chose to be vocal about it, likely to get more attention for his site.” Gab.ai was not a part of Y Combinator. Torba was accepted into the program’s winter 2015 batch for another startup called Kuhcoon, a Facebook ads management platform.

Torba claimed that he was being treated him differently than Peter Thiel, a part-time investor at Y Combinator and another outspoken Trump supporter, because Thiel is a billionaire. In the last leg of the campaign, Thiel, who is also on Facebook’s board of directors, donated $1.25 million to support Trump’s presidential bid. At the time, activists pressured Altman and Mark Zuckerberg) to sever ties with Thiel. Altman and Zuckerberg both refused, citing the importance of diversity of opinion.

Y Combinator, however, stressed that the issue was harassment. Tan, who left the firm a year ago, said alumni and partners have been trying to keep dialogue open. “I see everyone, at least on this side of reality, try to be really reasonable with [Torba]. I’ve seen other interactions that were really personable,” Tan told BuzzFeed News, calling the discussion “a tempest in a teapot.”

“This is the kind of Facebook interaction that ends up happening,” said Tan, who noted that yesterday was the first time he had been “directly targeted” by Torba. “It probably helped to get more right-wing members to sign up.”

“ There are legitimate reason to support Trump,” Tan said, but posting threats “if you have more or less a troll army behind you, to me that’s too far.”

The troll army Tan is referring to is Gab.ai, which has been described by some as an alt-right social network. “Imagine a 4chan that is basically all alt-right Trump supporters and he’s their leader of sorts. He created the site. Imagine a sort of like Bizarro Zuck or Bizarro Jack,” said Tan, referring to the founders of Facebook and Twitter, respectively. “He has a social network of people who will basically validate whatever he says.”

According to Tan, Torba’s advertising startup had been making money and doing fine. “He just reached this boiling point,” as rhetoric around Trump intensified, particularly on Facebook. Torba “got a lot deeper in this alt-right world and he just went all the way when he made Gab.ai,” said Tan.

On the phone, Torba rejected the idea that he or Gab.ai were part of the alt-right. “I do not identify as alt-right. I am a conservative Christian, I am a Republican,” he said. “I don’t know why people label me.”

Torba said he had been “facing this backlash” for six months, ever since he came out as a Trump supporter. “It is pretty sad that I have to say ‘came out’ in 2016,” said Torba, who claimed he was called a racist, bigot, “and every whine in the book.”

The response prompted Torba to relocate to Austin, Texas this fall, he claimed. “I didn’t feel safe anymore in Silicon Valley as a conservative. I felt like such a minority that I just didn’t feel safe being there anymore.”

Torba said that he had been introduced to Thiel last week by conservative blogger Michelle Malkin. Torba met Malkin because she has an account on Gab. Thiel hasn&039;t responded yet, but Torba told BuzzFeed News, “I would put him on the board on in a heartbeat.”

Quelle: <a href="Trump-Supporting Startup CEO Kicked Out of Y Combinator“>BuzzFeed

Facebook Acquires Key Software Tool Used To Keep It Accountable

As questions swirl about the relationship between the dissemination of misinformation on Facebook and the outcome of Tuesday&;s election, the company announced it was acquiring a software company whose product is used by outsiders to understand how content spreads on the network, and hold it accountable.

The company, Crowdtangle, monitors engagement (likes, comments, and shares) on on Facebook posts via data pulled from Facebook&039;s API. Crowdtangle&039;s software can help its users understand how content spreads on Facebook through reports that span many months and thousands of posts.

I&039;ve used Crowdtangle to examine whether Facebook was keeping to its pledge to fight fake news on its platform (no clear victory) and whether publishers using Instant Articles were gaining an edge over their competitors (yes). The New York Times also used Crowdtangle to report on massive political meme pages on Facebook, and how the information they publish moves around on the social platform. Other journalists used it to track the proliferation of misinformation that flooded Facebook in the months leading up to the election.

Facebook&039;s acquisition of Crowdtangle does not necessarily mean reporters&039; access to this important data will be revoked, but it inevitably will lead to challenging moments. What will Facebook do when Crowdtangle reveals data that Facebook isn&039;t ready to release (as it did with my Instant Articles story)? Or when the story Crowdtangle&039;s data tells doesn&039;t jive with Facebook&039;s official line?

Asked if Facebook will preserve reporters&039; access to Crowdtangle&039;s data, even if that data tells an unflattering story about Facebook, a Facebook spokesperson pointed me to its official statement: “Publishers around the world turn to CrowdTangle to surface stories that matter, measure their social performance and identify influencers. We are excited to work with CrowdTangle to deliver these, and more insights to more publishers.”

Crowdtangle&039;s existence was of course always dependent on Facebook, since Facebook could have cut off Crowdtangle&039;s access to API if it felt the company was causing more grief than good. But now questions like “I&039;m seeing something weird on Facebook, can you help me look into it?” will be much harder for Crowdtangle&039;s team to answer. How they respond will be a critical test of Facebook&039;s willingness to be transparent with reporters and by extension, the public.

Quelle: <a href="Facebook Acquires Key Software Tool Used To Keep It Accountable“>BuzzFeed

Mark Zuckerberg Says Fake News On Facebook Didn’t Change The Election

Paul Sakuma for Techonomy

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Thursday rejected charges that the social network&;s promotion of false pro-Trump news articles could have affected the outcome of the presidential election.

“I think the idea that fake news on Facebook — of which it&039;s a very small amount of the content — influenced the election in any way is a pretty crazy idea,” he said.

In the months leading up to November 8, fake news traveled far and wide on Facebook. Its algorithm-driven Trending feature repeatedly promoted untrue stories. Hyperpartisan political pages racked up hundreds of thousands of comments and likes on sensational and misleading stories about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And many of those viral claims were made by Macedonian teens who profited handsomely by gaming the social network, as BuzzFeed News has found.

Zuckerberg was speaking onstage at Techonomy, a science, business, and technology conference held on Thursday, two days after Election Day. It was held at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Half Moon Bay, a picturesque seaside town between San Francisco and Silicon Valley, where many liberal-minded tech executives and employees were still coming to grips with the fact that America had voted to send Trump to the White House.

“Part of what I think is going on here is people are trying to understand the results of the election,” he said. “I think there is a certain profound lack of empathy in asserting that the only reason why someone could have voted the way they did is because they saw some fake news.”

Zuckerberg noted that hoaxes aren’t a brand-new phenomenon, either. “There have been hoaxes on the internet, there were hoaxes before,” he said. “We do our best to make it so that people can report that, and as I said before, we can show people the most meaningful content we can.”

He added, “Voters make decisions based on their lived experience. One part of this that I think is important is we really believe in people. You don’t generally go wrong when you trust people that understand what they care about and what’s important to them, and you build systems that reflect it.”

The CEO also argued that, compared to traditional media, Facebook&039;s newsfeed exposes people to a variety of opinions — and is not an echo chamber, as many have criticized the social network of being.

“The media diversity and diversity of information that you&039;re getting through a social system like Facebook is going to be inherently more diverse than what you would have gotten from watching one of three news stations and sticking with that and having that be your newspaper or your TV station 20 years ago,” he said.

Earlier in the day, a Facebook spokesperson had told BuzzFeed News: “While Facebook played a part in this election, it was just one of many ways people received their information – and was one of the many ways people connected with their leaders, engaged in the political process and shared their views.”

Quelle: <a href="Mark Zuckerberg Says Fake News On Facebook Didn’t Change The Election“>BuzzFeed

Women Take Stock Of Silicon Valley In Trump’s America

Bill Holmes / Flickr / Via Flickr: flaneur

With a Donald Trump presidency now imminent, women in tech, a lucrative industry that’s already rife with unconscious bias and other challenges for non-white men, are concerned that the barriers of entry to their field may grow even higher.

The 53 million Americans who voted Trump into office were able to accept or at least ignore the president-elect’s comments on women — “fat,” “slob,” — and allegations from half a dozen women who have accused him of sexual harassment or assault. But female leaders in Silicon Valley are worried about what a national leader with this track record means for women and people of color in their industry.

“Electing a President that is openly hostile to women is a threat for women in every industry,” wrote Andreessen Horowitz partner Kim Milosevich in an email, though she added that past battles have made progress, and doesn’t “think women in this country will easily give up those gains, and I hope that we will fight harder than ever for our future.”

On Twitter, younger women are voicing concerns about what a Trump victory means for the number of women entering into STEM fields.

Trump’s campaign has flip-flopped on the question of equal pay, and he made no statements about creating STEM jobs, or STEM education, facts that Donna Harris, startup CEO and co-founder of DC-based accelerator 1776, finds worrisome in and of itself. But she’s also concerned that the things Trump did say on the campaign trail could impact the number of women choosing to enter into a male-dominated field like tech.

“We’ve seen high profile incidents of harassment [in tech], and we’ve now elected a president who has been very vocal as to his attitudes about women, and his attitudes about harassment,” she said. “Locker room talk, or boys will be boys — that’s what causes a lot of women to decide this field is not for them. They see it as offensive, and it creates an atmosphere where they feel they’re not welcome.”

“Locker room talk, or boys will be boys — that’s what causes a lot of women to decide this field is not for them.”

Joanne Chen, a partner at Foundation Capital whose career has taken her from engineering to Wall Street to venture capital, said she hopes Trump’s election won’t reverse the incremental improvements gender diversity advocates in Silicon Valley have achieved so far.

“It&;s a wake up call to take action in big and small ways,” Chen, who organizes Female Founders events in Silicon Valley, said. “I’m an immigrant, I’m an engineer, and I’m a woman. What does that mean for me? For female entrepreneurs? For investors? … I’m wondering what Trump as president means for things like that.”

What Comes Next

Of course, while female venture capitalists, technologists, engineers, and executives do face barriers, especially if they’re women of color, they tend to have more political capital (and capital capital) to exert than other Americans. Catherine Bracy, director of community organizing at Code for America, said women in tech should be thinking about how to leverage that privilege “to prevent as much damage to our nation and our most vulnerable residents as possible from a Trump presidency.”

Heather West, director of public policy at Mozilla, echoed that sentiment on Twitter.

Some in Silicon Valley are already thinking about what can be done to ensure that Trump’s win doesn’t discourage members of underrepresented populations from working in tech. Redoubling commitments to diversifying staff, to include both women and people of color, seems like an obvious first step.

Citing Ebay’s CEO as one example, Project Include founder Ellen Pao, an outspoken advocate for diversity in Silicon Valley, said she’s hopeful tech firms will take Trump’s win as an opportunity to reexamine their commitment to diverse hiring.

“The election was a wake-up call about the amount of work we have to do to give everyone a fair chance to succeed in tech, in STEM education, in all kinds of businesses, and across all areas of the United States,” Pao wrote in an email. “I&039;m hopeful to see people are ready to roll up their sleeves and do the work that still needs to happen.”

Karla Monterroso is director of programming for Code 2040, an organization aimed at achieving total equality in the tech industry in the next 34 years. The organization’s founder, Laura Weidman Powers, is currently a senior policy advisor in the White House; it seems inevitable that Code 2040 won’t have the same kind of access to the Trump administration. But Monterroso is hopeful nonetheless.

“Our goals — we have a conviction around them happening regardless of this election,” she said. Specifically, Monterroso pointed to Pandora, a Code 2040 partner and tech company based in Oakland that’s just released ambitious diversity goals — the company plans to employ a staff that is 45% people of color by 2020, or the year of the next presidential election.

“The election was a wake-up call about the amount of work we have to do to give everyone a fair chance to succeed.”

Meanwhile, in Boston, engineer Brianna Wu, whose life was threatened during Gamergate in 2014, is talking seriously about running for political office. Wu said she wants to be a positive model for members of underrepresented groups who feel like a career in tech, or access to capital, or a role in politics, is out of their reach.

“What did Donald Trump show on Tuesday? You can be the most qualified woman in the world, and the man that abuses you is still going to win that office and be taken more seriously. And I think that&039;s a disastrous message,” she said. “It’s clear the system as it’s working isn’t working for a lot of us, not for black people, Muslim people, or LGBT people, and it’s definitely not working for women. And I think the only way to get past that is to get more people with that lived experience into these roles.”

Wu said, if she became an elected official, one of her first priorities would be bringing more tech jobs to her constituency, and advocating for tax credits for companies that hit diversity and inclusion goals.

An essential part of improving diversity at tech companies goes beyond simply hiring — it’s making sure people of color and women feel like their fears and concerns are being heard and addressed by their colleagues and employers. Cristina Cordova, who leads partnerships at Stripe, had advice for tech companies that want to foster environments of inclusion.

“Many women and people of color in tech have told me about the emails/talks they received from their company leadership post this election,” Cordova wrote on Twitter. “To those who work at companies with leadership that hasn&039;t addressed this INSANE election, maybe it&039;s time to consider a job somewhere else.”

Quelle: <a href="Women Take Stock Of Silicon Valley In Trump’s America“>BuzzFeed

Facebook And Twitter Didn’t Fail Us This Election

Drew Angerer / Getty Images

In the rush to make sense of President-elect Donald Trump, one of hundreds of seemingly logical conclusions is that the social platforms we live on — the newest, most powerful tools of media, discovery, and expression — didn’t live up to their promise. That after years of promoting themselves as tools to connect the world and elevate all voices, what we got instead was a sharp public increase in ideological division, fake news, and harassment. All this makes makes it easy to point toward the Facebooks and Twitters of the world and say that they failed. But the truth is more unsettling: they really didn’t fail at all.

In fact, throughout the fifteen month election slog, Facebook, Twitter and the social platforms we live on functioned exactly as designed — rapidly disseminating information, providing a real-time look into the pulse of the nation. Throughout the cycle and almost without exception, they were reflective of the national mood and elevated a political movement by giving voice to a previously unheard constituency — just as the companies had hoped they would. Argument, opinion, ideology — all these things were amplified widely and powerfully across Twitter, Facebook, and places like Reddit. In the end, these platforms worked exactly as their founders intended — just on behalf of a group they didn&;t see coming with views that many who worked on their development are now struggling to come to terms with.

Coming as it does after Trump’s unexpected election win, this kind of reckoning feels fresh and raw. But it’s nothing new. For the last ten years, the crash of utopian idealism against the rocks of human reality has arguably been the defining story of the internet.

And the heart of this tension is a theoretically admirable commitment to free speech. You see it with Reddit, a social news site conceived to be the front page of the internet — the pulse of a democratized medium. In 2013, Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian explained his thoughts on the internet’s promise to Forbes, noting that “ideas spread faster and further than ever before, whether they’re yours to learn or to share. To join in the industrial revolution you needed to open a factory, in the internet revolution you need to open a laptop.”

Three years later, and two days after the recent presidential election, Leslie Miley, Twitter’s former engineering manager, offered a similar analogy. “The impact of Twitter and Facebook — their ability to rapidly disseminate information without a chance to process it — is analogous to building out factories or automobiles in the early part of the 20th century and not realizing the environmental and health effects,” he said. “In this rush to build and to acquire users and money, [some of the information] getting spread is not accurate and you [don’t have] time to react in any way but emotionally.”

As a megaphone for political discourse, Twitter was vital to the campaign of President-elect Donald Trump, who used 140 character missives to bypass the press, rake in earned media, program cable news talking points, and rally supporters. As a flat platform, Twitter did what it was supposed to. The result was the empowerment of the insurgent political movement of the alt-right who, through a coordinated effort of trolling and online organization, drove enthusiasm and momentum against the establishment and for Trump. Trolling and ideologies aside, the mechanics of this weren’t much different than those of the Iranian Revolution protestors, or the Arab Spring, or even Black Lives Matter, all of which Twitter was lauded for empowering.

“I remember conversations we had at Twitter while watching the Arab Spring and the Boston Bombing,” Miley said. “At some point I said, ‘don&039;t we have a responsibility not to distribute certain information? At what point are we going to see some user use our platform to spread wrong information and people die from it?’” And Miley had good reason to ask that question: “I could see this happening at twitter and no one else was asking that — it’s just a rush to build and a rush to &039;disrupt.’ There’s no fact-checking on the information our platform spreads. Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat — they could give a goddamn about facts.”

Facebook, in response to earlier election related questions from BuzzFeed News, said the platform was “one of many ways people received their information.” A spokesperson for Twitter provided the following statement: “… Scapegoating social media for an election result ignores the vital roles that candidates, journalists, and voters play in the democratic process.” Facebook responded to an additional request for comment, noting that Zuckerberg would be speaking at the Techonomy conference later today; Twitter has not responded to an additional request for comment.

As the reality of a Trump administration sinks in, the reckoning has just begun for many who’ve helped to build platforms like Twitter and Facebook. In a conversation yesterday, one former senior Twitter employee, present in many of the company’s crucial strategy meetings, said that Twitter’s failure to define itself helped provide the structure that embraced, amplified and extended Trump’s message to an audience keenly attuned to hearing it.

“The company&039;s inability and unwillingness to choose what it needed to be and defaulting into this anything goes state — having it be the ‘honeypot for assholes’ — is haunting us today,” the source said, noting that Twitter is President-elect’s platform of choice to amplify perhaps his most coherent message.

“Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat — they could give a goddamn about facts.”

“If you&039;re Donald Trump and you say, ‘God, if we could just scare people enough and make them feel sufficiently insecure; if we could play upon their deepest apprehensions and worries and just have a platform to effectively distribute that message then we’d be in good shape,”” the source said. “Well, we got it. …If alienated, lesser-educated, disproportionately white men and white women needed a digital platform to validate their alienation and apprehensions, well, you&039;d build them the retweet.” It’s worth noting, the source said, how Trump used Twitter’s retweet feature to amplify the voices of white supremacists and professional trolls as part of his message to the American people, all without saying it himself. “The retweet allowed a prominent public figure like Donald Trump to share with his millions of followers, in the absence of a full on endorsement, a kind of winking attaboy with the most vile people in the world.”

Instagram: @donaldjtrumpjr

For Vivian Schiller,the former CEO of NPR who once headed up Twitter’s news operation, Twitter isn’t so much a filter bubble as a platform for weaponizing ideology. “The fact that Twitter is often instant and relentlessly reverse chronological and unfiltered means it&039;s very hard to hide from ideas,” she told BuzzFeed News “That comes with some nasty byproducts, like trolls and abuse, but it&039;s nearly impossible to be in denial on twitter. It&039;s the opposite of a space safe from uncomfortable ideas.” The rawness, which can often manifest in surfacing the worst humanity has to offer, in other words, is baked into the platform’s DNA.

Twitter wasn’t drawn up this way, As with Reddit, enabling hatred, misogyny, xenophobia, and abuse was not the founders intent. But like Reddit, Twitter’s idealistic, maximalist free speech origins lacked a clear thesis and definition to define its evolution. As one former Twitter employee told me back in August, homogenous leadership at Twitter was at the heart of the company’s struggle with abuse; simply put, the straight white leadership didn’t adequately envision how their platform could be used for evil. “They were often tone-deaf to the concern of users in the outside world, meaning women and people of color,” the former employee said.

“It&039;s the opposite of a space safe from uncomfortable ideas.”

Ethan Zuckerman, the Director for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab cites the platforms’ exponential scaling as part of the problem. “These platforms were designed as villages and then became cities and continents and there just wasn’t that kind of long-term planning involved,” he said.

Zuckerman cited the backlash in recent days against Facebook News Feed, for its algorithmic approach to its News Feed. “I don’t think somebody sat at Facebook sat down and said, ‘let’s create an amazing propaganda machine to delegitimize mainstream media as a whole,’” he said of News Feed’s share and like based incentive structure that has exacerbated filter bubbles and the sharing of fake news. Schiller echoed this point as well.. “Don’t blame Facebook,” she wrote. “They could not have been clearer when they released this statement on June 29th [which read,] ‘Our top priority is keeping you connected to the people, places and things you want to be connected to — starting with the people you are friends with on Facebook’. With this blog post, they quite literally declare themselves in the filter bubble business.”

“What all platforms ought to be doing now is studying themselves as aggressively as all of us are studying them,” Zuckerman said. “They need to be asking, ‘is this where we want our technology to go?’ And these companies have to think of an abuse department as a community management department that’s constantly asking, ‘what do we want to be?’”

That sort of self-introspection has, historically, been rare at the big platforms. Twitter’s response to its ten years of amplifying harassment has rarely produced more than a tacit acknowledgement of the problem and a resolve not to stray from its free speech foundings while Facebook’s commitment to news is consistently overshadowed by its ambition to connect the world and to show users what they want. In both cases, like Reddit, the arduous process of examining their roles and course correcting often loses out to the idealistic promise of the original vision.

“I wouldn’t say that Twitter and the platforms did what they were supposed to do, but they definitely did what they&039;re presently set up to do,” the senior former Twitter employee said. “And that’s because nobody has ever really intervened to fix them in ways that were quite fixable if you just had a thesis for what it was supposed to be. We&039;ve built our own weapon of social destruction and haven&039;t handled it with care. I think that’s a fair conclusion.”

Miley echoed the thought. “Black Lives Matter used Twitter with ruthless effectiveness. So did Gamergaters. And guess who else learned to use it with ruthless effectiveness? Trump and the alt-right — few did it better.”

“We&039;ve built our own weapon of social destruction and haven&039;t handled it with care.”

In the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, there’s a reckoning occurring among Silicon Valleys rank and file.But it’s not at all clear if it extends to the founders of Twitter and Facebook, who continue to shape those platforms. For now, these leaders seem more apprehensive to acknowledge their role and more willing to discuss the internet we wanted and thought was possible than the internet of our current reality.

Last night, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted vaguely about politics and the role that his companies (Dorsey is also CEO of Square) might play in the future. But he stopped short of acknowledging Twitter’s role in the months and years leading up to the election. “I commit to using the privilege I currently have to always speak this truth to power, and to ensure the common good leads everything we do,” he said. Similarly, a statement from Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, was sober, hopeful and ambitious, but did not acknowledge questions of media responsibility that have dogged the social network for the past 15 months.

In response to a Bloomberg article about Facebook’s role in the election, a Facebook spokeswoman also shied away from any culpability saying, “while Facebook played a part in this election, it was just one of many ways people received their information – and was one of the many ways people connected with their leaders, engaged in the political process and shared their views.”

There are two ways to interpret that statement. The first, as a defensive abdication of responsibility. The other? The platform worked just as it was supposed to do.

Quelle: <a href="Facebook And Twitter Didn’t Fail Us This Election“>BuzzFeed