The Senate hearing about Facebook was a bigger deal than it might have seemed, both because it happened and because of what was said.
First, a reminder that social media has big benefits, before diving back in to Facebook’s burgeoning scandal; it seems clear the company doesn’t understand exactly what it is facing.
The answer to “What Was Facebook Thinking” may be less about strategy and more about not understanding the type of company Facebook was meant to be. Plus, why regulation probably isn’t imminent.
More on the fallout from Facebook and Cambridge Analytica: why Google and Facebook are different, why that explains how they treat data, and why Facebook seems so oblivious.
The Facebook brand is, due to Facebook’s strategic choices, about not respecting privacy. That is why the Cambridge Analytica story is such a problem for the company.
Twitter’s earnings were both less and more impressive than they appeared; plus, a lesson I have learned about direct versus brand advertising, and what it means for both Twitter and Snap.
When it comes to struggling companies like Snap, bullishness is all relative — and there’s a big red flag in their earnings. Then, John Perry Barlow passed away: his influence was immense, even on surprising entities like Disney.
Snap had strong results that build on progress made last quarter; the company is looking less like Twitter, at least for now. Then, FOX spends on football, even as the Sports Linchpin weakens.
Amazon Health was not about the health insurance industry, but about Amazon. Then, Facebook’s earnings were stronger than most appreciate (and as predicted), while Microsoft’s hybrid strategy continues to pay off.
Facebook will assign reputation scores to news sources, and the solution is far better than most of the company’s critics would have you think. There are, though, unintended consequences.