Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text
Survivor of US Drone Attack:
Obama Belongs on List of World's Tyrants

Poisoning Black Cities: Corporate Campaign to Ethnically Cleanse US Cities Massive Marches in Poland
Against Authoritarian Threat of Far-Right
Ethiopia’s Invisible Crisis: Land Rights Activists Kidnapped and Tortured

Global Perspectives Now Global Perspectives Now
Showing posts with label Yahoo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yahoo. Show all posts

Is There's a '2% Black Solution' In Play at Tech Corps?: Mysterious 'Consistency' at Google, Yahoo and Facebook — Only 2% of Their Workforces is Black

There a 'strange' consistency among the biggest Internet tech companies with regard to their hiring (or lack of hiring) blacks: Let's call it "the 2% solution." For Facebook and Yahoo, only 2% of their workforce is black, for Google it's a "whopping" 1%. For a number of years, companies like Google and Yahoo refused to release data on the ethnic/gender make up of their work forces, hiding behind the "trade secret" excuse. Now we know what they were hiding. These geek giants don't even pretend to make an effort at including blacks who are no doubt frozen out due to the subjective interview process and the nature of the culturally biased screening employed by these companies.


So-called 'diversity' hiring figures for Facebook (top left), Yahoo (top right) and Google (bottom): The percentage of black  employees never reaches higher than two percent.
So-called 'diversity' hiring figures for Facebook (top left), Yahoo (top right) and Google (bottom): The percentage of black
employees never reaches higher than two percent. So what's the job description of those blacks who do work for these
companies?  One wouldn't be surprised if most had job titles like "security" and "maintenance."

New stats show Facebook is run by a bunch of white dudes, just like Yahoo & Google


By Ruth Reader
Facebook released its company diversity stats in a blog post yesterday. The post, by Facebook’s Global Head of Diversity Maxine Williams, discussed the company’s commitment to diversity — but even she admits Facebook has a long way to go.
Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg may run the show at Facebook, but she’s mostly directing white guys. Facebook is 70 percent male and 57 percent white, but white guys really reign supreme at the senior level, where they occupy three-quarters of the jobs...

Hispanics make up four percent, multiple ethnicities three percent, and black employees make up two percent of the company workforce. Those demographics are pretty evenly distributed across tech, non-tech, and senior level jobs.

Read More


Top 10 Reasons Why Corporate Social Media is Not Your Friend, and Dark Social Media Is: Corporate Social Media Sites Are 'Crippled' On Purpose

The t-shirt and jeans are meant to give you that "he's not really  a manipulative, greedy billionaire" feeling.
The t-shirt and jeans are meant to give you that "he's not really
a manipulative, greedy billionaire" feeling. (Mark Zuckerberg, a
co-founder of Facebook: Photo by TechCrunch)
Social media sites like Facebook are deliberately "crippled" by their programmers to keep you from your friends, serve you up to advertisers and rob your money.  Did you know that only 7-8% of your Facebook friends can see your posts and that you have to pay Facebook a "promotion" fee so that 92 - 93% of your Facebook friends can actually see what you posts? In addition, only 3% of those who "like" your business or non-profit page are kept up to date with your posts, the rest are kept in the dark: unless you pay Facebook a fee, of course.  Happen to know a friend or family member is on Facebook and you would like to find them? Try searching for them using the "search" engine inside of Facebook. Unless they are already "friends of a friend" your chances of ever finding them through Facebook is virtually nil.Ronald David Jackson

By Bruce A. Dixon, BlackAgendaReport
For a long time now, we've all been told, and have told each other, that corporate social media is the way to build businesses, audiences and brands. What if this is about as true as the old saw about real estate prices only going up? What is “dark social media” and how is it different from Twitter, Facebook and the rest.

It's new, it's now, it's cool, learn how... everybody's on it, everybody's doing it. For some time now, we've been told you cannot build a business, find old friends or organize much of anything without the indispensable aid of corporate social media, especially Facebook and Twitter. But what if this is about as true as other stuff the supposedly wise and informed told us in recent years, like that real estate prices could be counted on to always go up?

Human societies are based on lots of horizontal communication. What if corporate social media is little more than a gigantic scam to extract revenue from the otherwise ordinary communication the internet permits between groups and individuals, between people and businesses, and among communities of interest. What if corporate social media ultimately aims not to open up but to throttle and restrict those conversations to make them artificially scarce and valuable commodities. What if corporate social media's business model is to thrive on content its proprietors don't create, and to place itself between that content and prospective audiences, even to substitute itself for the web sites, email lists and media offerings of content creators?

With a billion users, Facebook is far and away the largest player in the world of corporate social media, so all these criticisms apply to Facebook. But many also apply to Twitter, Pinterest and their little brothers as well.

Here are the top ten reasons why corporate social media is NOT your friend, and dark social media is.
  1. Facebook currently limits the number of your “friends” who can see your posts to about 7 or 8%. What? You thought that “friends” list was yours? It's not. It's theirs. And think about it, if you had a thousand friends, and 25 of them, that's 2.5% posted 3 or 4 times a day, another 25 posted once a day, and a hundred posted once a week, that would be at least 150 daily posts for you to comb through, leaving little room for Facebook to insert ads and promoted content which customers have paid for into your news feed.

  2. Facebook will let you talk to the other 92 or 93% of your friends, but you have to pay for that privilege. You buy an ad, or you “promote” the post by paying Facebook. Essentially Facebook is “broken on purposeso it can extract payment from you to do what you imagined it would do anyway, keep you in touch with your friends. You can get around this to a very limited extent by “tagging” each post with the names of individuals, or joining dozens of Facebook groups and individually sharing posts in the groups. But this is a time consuming process which has to be repeated with each post. If Black Agenda Report, with only a dozen or so new articles each week, we'd be on Facebook three or four hours each publication day.

  3. Facebook, along with Twitter and other corporate social media platforms provide you no way whatsoever to contact or individually identify your Facebook “friends” outside its own walled garden. Again, those lists of Twitter followers, and Facebook friends aren't really yours at all.

  4. Facebook limits the “organic reach” of your business or nonprofit organization page to about 3% of those who say they “like” you. Presumably those people “liking” your page imagined this would keep them up to date with what you're doing. Not so. Neither Facebook nor Twitter provides you any way to identify those “likes”, and Facebook won't allow you even to send a message to them. Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose you've got a business or a worthy cause, and a list of thousands of customers, prospects, clients, or past and potential volunteers and like minded donors. If I offer to take care of deliveries to that list, but won't let you see their names, their email addresses, or how many and which of them I actually deliver to, would that be OK with you? No? Now please tell me again why corporate social media which pretty much does that is essential to building your business, your brand, your cause.

  5. Facebook will gladly sell you advertising directed at the 97% of your “likes” who otherwise might never see your stuff. Actually, these people WILL see what you offer if they go out of their way to your Facebook page. But with the same amount of effort, they could have visited your web site independently of Facebook, couldn't they?

  6. Third party vendors are eager to sell you all the “Facebook likes,” “Facebook friends” and Twitter “followers” you're willing to pay for. They might be located in Egypt, Sri Lanka or Croatia, and never interact with your product or page again, but you can count them as “likes.” Twitter and Facebook do not endorse these parasitic vendors, but the mythology around corporate social media being so important to your business or organizational “presence” on the web keeps them in business as well.

  7. If someone hostile to your politics, your business or your person lodges a spurious complaint to Facebook, or Yahoo, Google or YouTube, say, that you're an anti-Semetic copyright-violating whistle blowing vegan child molester, what these providers generally do is simply cut your account off without notice. Their terms of service often relieve them of the bother of even sharing the exact nature of the complaint against you let alone investigating it, and explicitly state that “your” lists are really theirs. I know people who've lost thousands of business contacts and years of content in Yahoo and Google email accounts, lists and YouTube contents this way.

  8. Facebook, Twitter and other corporate social media platforms don't just track your every move while you're on Twitter or Pinterest or Facebook. If you close the browser tab without logging off or purging cookies, they usually continue to record and transmit all your internet activity home for data miners to crunch. Such data, both raw and refined are major revenue sources.

  9. While Facebook, Twitter and all the social media platforms rely on YOU and people like you for their compelling content, they deliberately aim to place themselves between you and your readers, customers, and clients, to substitute your Facebook presence for your own offerings elsewhere on the internet. Do you actually visit all the articles you pause over in your Twitter feed? Nobody else does either. We habitually comb through 140 character snippets and hundred word Facebook brain farts while seldom leaving the corporate social media plantation, and imagine we've actually visited those web sites, those sources. There are already folks whose ONLY daily internet experience is Facebook, and books like “The Shallows” explain how our internet reading makes us practically unable to read book length arguments, reluctant to follow any single line of inquiry for more than a minute or three.

  10. Dark social media is “dark” because it's social media untraceable by Big Data and corporate marketers. It's direct email sent from your own lists and your own listserves. Dark social media was around before Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter, and remains the proven way for individuals, causes and businesses to reach, retain and maintain contact with friends, customers, clients, and like minded souls. Using dark social media to expand the reach of your business or project, to engage audiences directly and without an intermediary is often a more fruitful way to spend scarce resources. Corporate media won't tell you this and neither will the “social media consultants,” sometimes because they don't believe fat meat is greasy, and other times because disinformed customers are more profitable.
Remember all those real estate professionals and “wealth building experts” who told us home values would never go down? Some of them actually believed it that swill. Some others knew better, but were watching their own bottom line, not those of their customers or the public. This is not so different.

Facebook does some really nice things, and many of us have and interacted (online at least) with a ton of interesting people. But it may be time for your business, your social movement or project or you as an individual to reconsider the effort and resources devoted to maintaining a presence on Facebook, Twitter and corporate social media platforms. If you've already got two or three thousand Facebook friends or tens of thousands of “likes” that aren't fakes a bit of continued effort on Facebook and Twitter is probably required.

Bruce A. Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report, a state committee member of the Georgia Green Party and a partner in an internet technology firm. He lives and works near Marietta GA and can be reached via  emailed at bruce.dixon@blackagendareport.com.



 Reprinted with permission from Black Agenda Report.

How Microsoft and Yahoo Are Selling Politicians Access to You — And They Won't Tell You Your iInformation is Used for Political Targeting.

Photo by Robert Scoble.
Photo by Robert Scoble.
By Lois Beckett, ProPublica
Microsoft and Yahoo are selling political campaigns the ability to target voters online with tailored ads using names, Zip codes and other registration information that users provide when they sign up for free email and other services.

The Web giants provide users no notification that their information is being used for political targeting.

In one sense, campaigns are doing a more sophisticated version of what they've always done through the post office — sending political fliers to selected households. But the Internet allows for more subtle targeting. It relies not on email but on advertisements that surfers may not realize have been customized for them.

Campaigns use voters records to assemble lists of people they're trying to reach — for instance, "registered Republicans that have made a donation," Yahoo's director of sales Andy Cotten told ProPublica. Microsoft and Yahoo help campaigns find these people online and then send them tailored ads.

These messages don't just pop up in Yahoo Mail or Hotmail. Because Microsoft and Yahoo operate huge networks that provide advertising on some of the most popular web destinations, targeted ads can appear when a voter visits a swath of different sites.

Microsoft and Yahoo said they safeguard the privacy of their users and do not share their users' personal information directly with the campaigns. Both companies also said they do not see the campaigns' political data, because the match of voter names and registration data is done by a third company. They say the matching is done to target groups of similar voters, and not named individuals.

According to Microsoft, President Obama's re-election campaign has recently done this kind of targeting, and both national political parties have done so previously.

The marketing site ClickZ, the Wall Street Journal, Slate and others have previously noted the ability of campaigns to target online ads to specific groups of voters. But what has not been detailed is which companies are now making the targeting possible by providing users' personal information — and which have decided it's off-limits.

Google and Facebook told ProPublica they do not offer this kind of political matching service.

Google's privacy policy classifies political beliefs as "sensitive personal information," which should not be used for online ad targeting. Facebook does allow political campaigns to target political advertisements, but only on the basis of political beliefs reported by the users themselves, rather than information culled from their voting records.

Jules Polonetsky, a former chief privacy Officer at AOL, and now the director of the Future of Privacy Forum, said political targeting has grown more aggressive in recent years.

Polonetsky recalls conversations within the online ad industry about "not wanting to do things like targeting users based on donor history" because "all of that was considered far too sensitive and likely to alarm users and set off privacy concerns."

"Today, those barriers have been leapt over with abandon," he said.

Industry experts argue targeted advertising can help campaigns save money by advertising more efficiently, a factor that could level the playing field for smaller campaigns.

Privacy advocates note that there's no way to track what messages campaigns are showing to different targeted groups — or whether politicians may be pandering to different voters.

"Whenever a campaign or other big organization knows much more about you and your habits than you know about them, any voter is open to manipulation," said Chris Calabrese, the privacy lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Neither presidential campaign would comment on how it targets voters.

"We have no interest in telling our opponents our digital strategy," said Obama campaign spokeswoman Katie Hogan. "However, this campaign has always and will continue to be an organization that respects and takes care to protect information that people share with us."

Mitt Romney's campaign, which also uses sophisticated microtargeting tactics, did not respond to requests for comment. Targeted Victory, a firm that specializes in digital political targeting, had done nearly $4 million of work for Romney's presidential campaign as of March. Targeted Victory's advertised services include reaching voters online using voter registration data. The company's co-founder, Zac Moffat, currently serves as the Romney campaign's digital director. Neither Moffat nor Targeted Victory would comment on whether the Romney campaign is using voter records to reach potential supporters online.

Microsoft would answer questions about its targeting services only through a public relations spokesperson, who also asked that her name not be used. Microsoft's chief privacy officer, Brendon Lynch, did not respond to requests for comment.

Yahoo would not comment on specific clients, but said it has worked with Democrats and Republicans.

The Republican National Committee worked with both Yahoo and AOL to match Internet users to voter lists in 2007, according to Becki Donatelli, co-founder of Connell Donatelli, one of the most prominent Republican digital strategy firms. Contacted by ProPublica, AOL would not explain how its targeting service works.

The Republican National Committee also wouldn't provide details about its practices, but a spokeswoman said, "Targeting is one part of a larger playbook we have and will continue to employ. We follow legal guidelines and industry best practices." The Democratic National Committee did not respond to requests for comment.

When you see an online ad, you may assume it's comparable to a billboard — identical to everyone who walks by. But that's not the case for many ads. In the milliseconds it takes for a page to load, advertisers can identify a particular user visiting a site, and choose ads to display based on what they know about that user.

For instance, surfers may be shown a shoe ad if they recently visited a shoe site. Most of this sort of targeting doesn't require your name. Political targeting does. Campaigns may want to reach only reliable party members, or independents who might swing their way.

In order to do this, campaigns assemble lists of names from public records of voters they hope to reach, using such criteria as party registration, turnout history and previous donations. The campaigns often hire companies that harvest vast amounts of consumer data about individual Americans, further refining their voter lists with factors not publicly available such as income, education, magazine subscriptions, and purchasing habits.

Finding voters online is difficult, since no public record connects voters to a particular Internet address.

That's where Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and other lesser-known companies come in. Their enormous stores of registration data can serve as the bridge between particular Internet users and their voter information.

Online advertising is delivered with the help of cookies, tiny files that companies place on surfers' browsers. Cookies can be used to track people as they move from site to site, helping specialized firms most users have never heard of create detailed records of the sites users visit and the links they click. This tracking is typically done through anonymous ID numbers; the tracking firms and advertisers don't know you by name.

Microsoft and Yahoo's targeting service combines two crucial factors: their knowledge of users' personal information and their ability to add cookies to browsers. Over the years, Internet users have given these companies their name when they signed up for free programs like the Microsoft suite of services known as Windows Live, which includes Hotmail. (Microsoft said it does not sell campaigns access to information users provide when they register for Office or other Microsoft products they've bought.)

Microsoft and Yahoo both said the cookies aren't connected directly to names or other personally identifying information. Instead, they use a complicated process to match coded voter information back to anonymous cookies on particular users' browsers.

But many parts of the process remain unclear since the companies were reluctant to explain the details of their matching and targeting.

Microsoft said that the credit reporting giant Experian performs a "double-blind" match between Microsoft's data and campaigns' data. Yahoo uses another massive data company, Acxiom. Both Experian and Acxiom also offer similar matching for commercial clients who want to find previous customers online.

"They don't need your permission to do this," said William McGeveran, a data privacy expert at the University of Minnesota Law School. As long as a company has not explicitly promised users not to do this kind of matching, the process is legal for both political and commercial entities, McGeveran said.

Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL all point out that users who don't want to be targeted can opt out.

"At AOL, we take privacy very seriously," Caroline Campbell, a company spokeswoman, wrote in an email. "We strongly support self-regulation, consumer transparency and choice, and responsible uses of data."

The Network Advertising Initiative, an industry group, offers a one-page site that allows users to turn off targeted advertising from a long list of prominent companies. Another industry group, the Digital Advertising Alliance, also offers a one-page opt-out site.

But you need to realize you're being tracked before you can decide whether to opt out.

Under the online ad industry's self-regulations, most targeted ads are marked with a tiny blue triangle and a phrase like "Ad Choices." Web surfers can click on this icon, read some general information about targeted ads, and find a link to a page that will allow them to opt out of receiving such ads in the future. Few ever notice or understand the symbol.

Speaking to an industry audience at the CampaignTech conference in Washington, D.C., in April, Cotten, from Yahoo, said less than one percent of Yahoo's users have chosen to opt out of targeted advertising.

"Most users are not even cognizant that they're being targeted," he said.

Nor are the companies' privacy policies much help.

Microsoft's privacy policy makes no mention of matching people's names and Zip codes against voter lists.

The Microsoft online privacy highlights page notes that the company collects users' personal information, and that "We use the information we collect to provide the services you request. Our services may include the display of personalized content and advertising." Like Yahoo and other companies, Microsoft's privacy policy is broken up over several different Web pages.

In an "advertising privacy supplement" Microsoft explains it may target ads using data from other companies, as well as "demographic or interest data, including any you may have provided when creating a Windows Live ID (e.g. age, ZIP or postal code, gender)." It does not say whether it classifies users' first and last names as "demographic or interest data."

"You are in charge of deciding whether we know anything about you," Microsoft explains elsewhere. "But the more you tell us about yourself, the more we can help you find information or products you want."

Yahoo's more straightforward privacy policy on data matching explains that the company may combine its users' personally identifiable information with information from other companies in order to customize ads. It names CampaignGrid, a political targeting firm, as one company that helps Yahoo! "provide more relevant content and advertising." Yahoo told ProPublica users' registration data is "consensually provided."

AOL's advertising privacy policy explains that it may customize ads "by using the registration data or other household data you have provided or that we have acquired from other companies."

The voter matching process is still far from perfect. Blaise Hazelwood of Grassroots Targeting, a Republican firm, said that the process is expensive, and that it's typically only possible to locate 20 to 40 percent of a given list of voters online in a typical matching process.

"You're not getting everyone," she said, "but the people you get, it's great."

Hazelwood was one of the first to use this tactic. She worked with Resonate, a data and targeting company, to deliver online ads to groups of Louisiana voters during Bobby Jindal's 2007 gubernatorial campaign.

In a 2008 campaign supporting a California proposition to ban gay marriage, Republican firm Connell Donatelli targeted online ads at registered Democrats over the age of 55, Kate Kaye of Clickz News first reported. One of the firm's strategists compared online voter matching to "a stealth bomber."

This spring, the Federal Trade Commission, which maintains the national "Do Not Call" registry, called for Web companies to implement a "Do Not Track" mechanism "that would provide a simple, easy way for consumers to control the tracking of their online activities."

Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL have agreed to implement "Do Not Track," but how exactly websites and advertisers will have to respond to the setting isn't clear.

In a surprise move, Microsoft recently made "Do Not Track" the default setting for the latest version of Internet Explorer browser, a decision that has received fierce pushback from the advertising industry and a key policy group.

Defending its stance, Microsoft's chief privacy officer last week cited a recent Pew study that found that 68 percent of respondents "were 'Not OK' with targeted advertising."


Reprinted with permission from ProPublica

Yahoo Details its Mostly-Male Employee Diversity Data for the First Time

For years tech firms like Yahoo have resisted providing data on the diversity of their workforces. Companies like Google and Yahoo hid behind the excuse that such information was a trade secret. The (lack of) diversity data for Google and Yahoo seems strangely similar.
Ronald David Jackson


Yahoo diversity data


Yahoo diversity data



By Josh Lowensohn
Yahoo today became the latest tech company to reveal the gender and ethnic demographics of its employees, disclosing that the majority of those workers are white males. Yahoo's broken down both gender and ethnicity profiles for its 12,200 employees globally and in the US where the company is headquartered. It's also detailed those genders and ethnicities across its tech workers, non-tech workers, and leadership group, which comprises predominantly of white males...
Results from the three are difficult to compare primarily because of size. Google employs nearly 50,000 people globally, which is more than four times the size of Yahoo. LinkedIn, meanwhile has about 5,400 employees. Nonetheless, Yahoo and LinkedIn are more similar, with women in both companies coming in at less than 40 percent of overall employees. The two companies also had very close white and Asian ethnicity makeup among its US employees.

Read More

NSA's Giant Tech Collaborators: Don't Believe Google, Apple, Facebook, Yahoo, Etc — They KNEW About NSA Spying On Customers and Provided 'Full Assistance'

Photo by Danja Vasiliev
NSA general counsel Rajesh De says big tech companies like Yahoo and Google provided ‘full assistance’ in legally mandated collection of data.


By
The senior lawyer for the National Security Agency stated on Wednesday that US technology companies were fully aware of the surveillance agency’s widespread collection of data.

Rajesh De, the NSA general counsel, said all communications content and associated metadata harvested by the NSA under a 2008 surveillance law occurred with the knowledge of the companies – both for the internet collection program known as Prism and for the so-called “upstream” collection of communications moving across the internet.

Asked during a Wednesday hearing of the US government’s institutional privacy watchdog if collection under the law, known as Section 702 or the Fisa Amendments Act, occurred with the “full knowledge and assistance of any company from which information is obtained,” De replied: “Yes.”

When the Guardian and the Washington Post broke the Prism story in June, thanks to documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, nearly all the companies listed as participating in the program – Yahoo, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and AOL – claimed they did not know about a surveillance practice described as giving NSA vast access to their customers’ data. Some, like Apple, said they had “never heard” the term Prism.


Read More

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...