Facebook has started rolling out end-to-end encryption (E2EE) across Messenger, continuing its efforts to bring E2EE across its platforms.
E2EE is the gold standard in secure communications, encrypting data so that only the sender and recipient can read the messages. WhatsApp already included E2EE for messaging, and recently rolled it out for chat backups.
The company is now implementing E2EE across Messenger. CEO Mark Zuckerberg made the announcement in a Facebook post.
End-to-end encrypted voice and video calls are now rolling out on Messenger, and we’re introducing opt-in end-to-end encryption for group chats and group audio and video calls too. I’m proud that we continue to extend encryption across more services.
Facebook is killing off the Oculus brand on the heels of its “Meta” rebrand.
Facebook made headlines Thursday when it announced its anticipated rebrand. The company chose the name Meta, a nod to its attempt to build a “metaverse” where AR, VR and in-person reality converge. Like the Alphabet/Google relationship, Meta will be the parent company, with Facebook one of the brands under its umbrella.
In his post revealing the rebrand, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said none of the company’s brands would change.
Our mission remains the same — it’s still about bringing people together. Our apps and their brands aren’t changing either. We’re still the company that designs technology around people.
Despite that, it appears the company is doing exactly what Zuckerberg said they wouldn’t and are killing off the Oculus brand. In a post of his own, Andrew Bosworth, VP of AR/VR, said the Oculus brand is no more.
Starting in early 2022, you’ll start to see the shift from Oculus Quest from Facebook to Meta Quest and Oculus App to Meta Quest App over time.
We all have a strong attachment to the Oculus brand, and this was a very difficult decision to make. While we’re changing the brand of the hardware, Oculus will continue to be a core part of our DNA and will live on in things like software and developer tools.
Only time will tell what other changes are in store following the company’s rebrand.
Facebook has followed through on rumored plans to rename itself, going with the name “Meta.”
Facebook was rumored to be considering a name change to better reflect its various endeavors and to distance itself from the scrutiny it has garnered. CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in a post that the company would rebrand itself as Meta.
To reflect who we are and the future we hope to build, I’m proud to share that our company is now Meta.
The move is reminiscent of Google’s rebrand, when Google become one of many brands under the Alphabet parent company. Zuckerberg seems to be taking the same approach, with Facebook being relegated to just one of the company’s many brands — including Instagram, WhatsApp and Oculus — under the new Meta parent.
Zuckerberg said the rebrand will allow the company to focus on “the metaverse,” its term for the convergence of visual reality, augmented reality and in-person reality.
From now on, we will be metaverse-first, not Facebook-first. That means that over time you won’t need a Facebook account to use our other services. As our new brand starts showing up in our products, I hope people around the world come to know the Meta brand and the future we stand for.
It remains to be seen if the rebrand will be successful, especially in helping the company move away from the scrutiny it’s under.
Facebook is considering the possibility of changing its name, both to better reflect its future ambitions and distance itself from existing scrutiny.
Few companies are more well-known, or less favorably viewed, than Facebook. Nonetheless, the company is the 800-pound gorilla among social media platforms, and has bought up smaller rivals, like Instagram and WhatsApp, further cementing its lead.
Despite its roots, Facebooks is devoting considerable resources to what it calls “the metaverse,” a mixture of virtual, augmented and in-person reality. Sources told The Verge that the new name is a closely-guarded secret within the company, with Zuckerberg likely to unveil it October 28 at the company’s Connect conference.
It seems likely Facebook may go a similar route as Google, placing Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus and its other properties underneath a parent company, the equivalent of Google’s Alphabet.
No matter how well-planned or how valid the reasons, a name change is always a risky proposition for an established brand. Only time will tell if Facebook’s gamble will pay off.
Facebook announced it is building a Yellow Pages feature into WhatsApp, allowing users to look up local business information.
Once a staple of everyday life, the Yellow Pages directory have fallen out of favor, replaced by digital alternatives. In Facebook’s quest to monetize WhatsApp, and make it a critical business tool, the company is looking to provide a digital Yellow Pages feature that will help users find local business information.
CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the feature in a Facebook post:
We’re building a modern-day Yellow Pages into WhatsApp where you can look up and contact local businesses right inside the app. Launching in São Paulo today, and hopefully more places soon.
WhatsApp has added a major new feature, making it possible to encrypt chat backups with end-to-end encryption.
WhatsApp is one of the most popular messaging platforms. While the app has offered end-to-end encryption for years, if a user chose to backup their chats via iCloud or Google Drive, those backups did not have the same level of encryption.
The company has now added that, with Mark Zuckerberg making the announcement on Facebook, and emphasizing the technical hurdles that were overcome.
We’re adding another layer of privacy and security to WhatsApp: an end-to-end encryption option for the backups people choose to store in Google Drive or iCloud. WhatsApp is the first global messaging service at this scale to offer end-to-end encrypted messaging and backups, and getting there was a really hard technical challenge that required an entirely new framework for key storage and cloud storage across operating systems.
The feature is good news for all users and adds another significant layer of privacy and security.
Facebook plans to pay content creators some $1 billion through 2022 in an effort to ward off rivals.
Facebook has been facing increased pressure from rivals, such as TikTok and Clubhouse, and is facing its slowest growth rate in company history. As a result, the company is increasingly looking at different ways to increase engagement and continue attracting content creators and users alike.
The latest endeavor, announced by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, involves paying out $1 billion through 2022.
“We want to build the best platforms for millions of creators to make a living, so we’re creating new programs to invest over $1 billion to reward creators for great content they create on Facebook and Instagram through 2022,” wrote Zuckerberg. “Investing in creators isn’t new for us, but I’m excited to expand this work over time. More details soon.”
It will be interesting to see if Facebook’s efforts yields results.
Signal may not be as popular as Facebook’s WhatsApp, but even Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg may use the competing product.
Facebook caused a furor when it announced it would share WhatsApp user data with other Facebook-owned companies. The fallout was severe, with many users switching to the more secure Signal. Elon Musk also came out as a vocal proponent of Signal in the aftermath, further driving its growth.
Interestingly, it appears Mark Zuckerberg also uses Signal. Days ago, data for 533 million Facebook users was leaked online. Although the data is from at least a couple of years ago, it still includes a wealth of information. Security researcher Dave Walker perused the data and found Zuckerberg’s information was part of it.
Even more telling, the phone number listed for Zuckerberg is also associated with a Signal account.
In another turn of events, Mark Zuckerberg also respects his own privacy, by using a chat app that has end-to-end encryption and isn't owned by @facebook
This is the number associated with his account from the recent facebook leak. https://t.co/AXbXrF4ZxE
Twitter has banned President Trump from its platform permanently, following an initial ban of 12 hours.
Social media platforms have been under increased fire in the way of Wednesday’s insurrection at the US Capitol. While Twitter and Facebook have long been slow to ban political figures in the name of public interest, many critics and experts have blamed Trump’s rhetoric for inciting the insurrectionists. As a result, calls mounted for Twitter and Facebook to take more aggressive action to ban Trump and cut him off from his preferred method of communication.
Facebook announced on Thursday that it would ban Trump for the remainder of his presidency. In the post announcing the decision, CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained the reasons.
We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great. Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.
Twitter has now taken an even stronger stance, banning Trump permanently from its platform.
The company explains its decision-making process in detail in a blog post, outlining the company’s belief that Trump’s recent tweets violate its Glorification of Violence Policy.
As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.
Social media firms are under increased scrutiny for their role in society’s ills, with many politicians on both sides of the aisle wanting the protections afforded by Section 230 rolled back.
It remains to be seen if Twitter and Facebook’s actions will be enough to stave off significant regulatory changes.
Facebook moderators are protesting the company’s decision to require them to come back to the office amid the pandemic.
For months, Facebook allowed content moderators to work from home. Recently, however, the company required them to come back into the office. Moderators have penned an open letter, criticizing executives for not taking their safety seriously, and not paying them enough to take risks Facebook requires.
After months of allowing content moderators to work from home, faced with intense pressure to keep Facebook free of hate and disinformation, you have forced us back to the office. Moderators who secure a doctors’ note about a personal COVID risk have been excused from attending in person. Moderators with vulnerable relatives, who might die were they to contract COVID from us, have not.
The moderators take Zuckerberg to task for benefiting significantly from the pandemic, with his fortune nearly doubling during it, but not passing on any benefits to the people making Facebook’s success possible. While Zuckerberg is worth over $100 billion, the moderators are only paid roughly $18/hour.
The letter also addresses the toxic nature of the job, something that has become intolerable when the pressure of the pandemic is added on.
Before the pandemic, content moderation was easily Facebook’s most brutal job. We waded through violence and child abuse for hours on end. Moderators working on child abuse content had targets increased during the pandemic, with no additional support.
Now, on top of work that is psychologically toxic, holding onto the job means walking into a hot zone. In several offices, multiple COVID cases have occurred on the floor. Workers have asked Facebook leadership, and the leadership of your outsourcing firms like Accenture and CPL, to take urgent steps to protect us and value our work. You refused. We are publishing this letter because we are left with no choice.
The moderators highlight how Facebook’s artificial intelligence algorithms have so far failed to replace the human element, making the moderators more important than ever. It remains to be seen if Facebook will address the moderators’ concerns.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has expressed his concerns about an upcoming ban of social media app TikTok.
TikTok has become widely popular around the world, and has been the big winner among social media platforms during the pandemic. Some might think a TikTok ban would be in Facebook’s best interest, but that isn’t how Zuckerberg sees it.
According to BuzzFeed News, Zuckerberg said: “A lot of people are out there saying that this helps Facebook and my reaction to that is only in the most narrow sense. Yes, they are a competitor this year, and this month, next month maybe our engagement will go up. Maybe it will make Reels a little bit easier just to roll out. But you don’t run a company for the next month or the next quarter.”
Zuckerberg is evidently concerned that banning TikTok sets a bad precedent that could one day be used by other countries to ban Facebook. It remains to be seen if a ban will actually happen, as the ban isn’t set to take effect until September 15. In the meantime, Microsoft is working to purchase TikTok’s US operations. Should that happen, the precedent Zuckerberg is worried about may never come to pass.
Facebook has made a major change to how it handles political ads, giving users the ability to hide them for the first time ever.
Facebook has been under ongoing scrutiny and criticism for how it handles political ads. Critics across the political spectrum have accused Facebook of not doing enough to combat misinformation. The company has so far resisted attempts to police political ads, exempting them from any kind of fact-checking. This has created an environment where a politician can say virtually anything about a rival, with no consequence.
In an op-ed in USA Today, CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended the company’s stance, saying “accountability only works if we can see what those seeking our votes are saying, even if we viscerally dislike what they say.”
At the same time, for those who want to log on to Facebook to catch up with friends, see what the family is up to and watch a cute cat video or two, all without the stress of being bombarded by political ads, Facebook’s new feature will be a welcome one.
“Starting today for some people and rolling out to everyone in the US over the next few weeks, people will be able to turn off all social issue, electoral or political ads from candidates, Super PACs or other organizations that have the ‘Paid for by’ political disclaimer on them,” reads a company blog post. “You can do this on Facebook or Instagram directly from any political or social issue ad or through each platform’s ad settings. However, we know our system isn’t perfect. So if you’ve selected this preference and still see an ad that you think is political, please click the upper right corner of the ad and report it to us.”
It’s probably a safe bet this feature will be one of the most used options Facebook has ever rolled out.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said that up to half of the company’s positions could permanently shift to remote work.
As the coronavirus pandemic swept the globe, company after company moved its workers to remote work. In many cases, it has been successful enough that companies are looking at making it a permanent option.
Twitter recently announced that all employees with positions that allowed it could work from home forever. Now Facebook is joining the trend, albeit at a more gradual pace.
“We’re going to be the most forward-leaning company on remote work at our scale,” Zuckerberg told The Verge. “We need to do this in a way that’s thoughtful and responsible, so we’re going to do this in a measured way. But I think that it’s possible that over the next five to 10 years — maybe closer to 10 than five, but somewhere in that range — I think we could get to about half of the company working remotely permanently.”
Facebook is by far the largest company to commit to permanent remote work, and its example will hopefully be followed by many more.
In a call to the press, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the company is struggling to keep up with increased WhatsApp usage.
As more and more people stay home, communication services like WhatsApp are serving as a vital lifeline to help people get connected and stay in touch with their loved ones and work. Under those circumstances, Facebook and WhatsApp are feeling the strain.
According to Mashable, Facebook has already doubled server capacity for WhatsApp. Zuckerberg indicated the problem is likely to get worse.
“This isn’t a massive outbreak in the majority of countries around the world yet,” Zuckerberg said. “But if it gets there, then we really need to make sure we’re on top of this from an infrastructure perspective to make sure that things don’t melt down.”
Referencing New Year’s Eve as the busiest day of the year, Zuckerberg continued: “We are on a sustained basis well beyond what that spike is on New Year’s. Just making sure that we can manage that is the challenge that we’re trying to make sure that we can stay in front of.”
As the pandemic continues to worsen, Facebook and similar services will have their work cut out trying to stay ahead of demand.
A group of app developers is suing Facebook over an alleged “anticompetitive scheme” and monopolistic behavior, according to NBC News.
In a proposed class-action lawsuit, “a group of companies behind now-defunct Facebook apps is suing the social media giant, claiming illegal monopolistic behavior.” The lawsuit is based on documents that NBC News and other journalists gained access to last year, and that paint a less-than-appealing picture of Facebook, and Mark Zuckerberg in particular.
According to those documents, Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives, used user data as a bargaining chip to keep other app developers in line, all the while portraying the moves as being in the interest of protecting user privacy.
The complaint alleges that “this action seeks to halt the most brazen, willful anticompetitive scheme in a generation — a scheme that verges on final, irreparable completion as of the date of this Complaint. Facebook stands today as a paragon of unbridled market power.”
The Mercury News quotes Yavar Bathaee, a partner at law firm Pierce Bainbridge and co-lead counsel as saying: “Facebook faced an existential threat from mobile apps, and while it could have responded by competing on the merits, it instead chose to use its might to intentionally eliminate its competition.”
This is just the latest scrutiny and legal challenges Facebook has faced, both in the U.S. and in Europe. For a company trying to reassure users and legislators alike that it can play fair, this is the last thing the company needs.
More than a year after WhatsApp’s founders resigned in protest, Facebook is backtracking on its plans to include ads in the messaging app, according to The Wall Street Journal.
WhatsApp’s founders, Jan Koum and Brian Acton, were so strongly opposed to ads being implemented in the app that “the two changed WhatsApp’s terms of service to explicitly forbid displaying ads in the app, and complicating any future efforts to do so,” people familiar with the matter told the WSJ.
When Facebook acquired WhatsApp, Mark Zuckerberg said he agreed that ads were not a good fit for messaging platforms. Eventually, however, Facebook starting looking for ways to recoup the $22 billion price tag and put ads on the table. Koum and Acton’s response were likely an effort to stave off Facebook’s changing views.
As Facebook became more determined to implement ads, the two founders decided to part ways with the company, leaving “a combined $1.3 billion in deferred compensation” on the table.
Now, it appears that Facebook has again had a change of heart. According to the WSJ, the team responsible for figuring out how to best integrate ads into WhatsApp has been disbanded, and “the team’s work was then deleted from WhatsApp’s code.”
Instead, WhatsApp is focusing on commercial interactions, since the messaging service is increasingly being used by companies to provide customer service. This opens all new ways for Facebook to monetize the platform without undermining the privacy and security that made it what it is today.
According to VentureBeat, Facebook has ended the ability to sign up for Messenger without a Facebook account.
In the past, individuals who wanted to use Facebook Messenger could use their phone number to sign up. In an email to VentureBeat, the social media giant confirmed that ability is now gone.
“If you’re new to Messenger, you’ll notice that you need a Facebook account to chat with friends and close connections,” the email said. “We found that the vast majority of people who use Messenger already log in through Facebook and we want to simplify the process. If you already use Messenger without a Facebook account, no need to do anything.”
As expected with a change this big, VentureBeat is reporting the transition has not been entirely smooth, with some users’ accounts being restricted.
Facebook has made no secret about its desire to integrate its various messaging platforms, including Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram. The company wants its users to be able to communicate across its platforms. In a post, Zuckerberg emphasized this point:
“**Interoperability**. People should be able to use any of our apps to reach their friends, and they should be able to communicate across networks easily and securely.”
Needless to say, regulators are not exactly thrilled with this approach and there has been talk of the FCC trying to get an injunction to prevent the integration. It will be interesting to see if this move triggers further scrutiny.
Facebook is testing a new tool that will make it easier for users to move their images and photos to other platforms, according to a report on SFGate. Facebook has come under increasing scrutiny by lawmakers and regulators for how it handles user data.
According to the report, “U.S. and European regulators have been examining Facebook’s control of personal data such as images as they look into whether the tech giant’s dominance is stifling competition and limiting choice for consumers. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has reacted by calling for new rules to address ‘data portability’ and other issues.
“Facebook said that as it worked on a new set of data portability tools, it had discussions with policymakers, regulators, and academics in the U.K., Germany, Brazil and Singapore to learn about which data should be portable and how to protect privacy.”
The new tool will allow users to migrate data to Google Photos first, with other services to come later. The tool will be available in Ireland first, tweaked based on feedback and then rolled out to users worldwide in the first half of 2020.
Fitbit made news recently when it was announced that Google would be purchasing the wearables firm. According to CNBC, it appears Facebook was also interested and “bid several times to acquire” the company.
An SEC filing referred to “Party A,” a previously unidentified third party who made several bids to buy Fitbit.
“According to the filing, Fitbit CEO James Park had dinner with ‘the chief executive officer of Party A’ on June 11, 2019 to discuss the wearables technology landscape. That person would be Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, sources said. Park and other members of Fitbit’s senior management had dinner with Zuckerberg again on July 2, the filing said. Zuckerberg and Park met once more in September, according to the filing.”
Evidently Facebook’s best offer, one they would not budge from, was $7.30 a share. A day after Facebook made its final offer, Fitbit signed an exclusivity deal with Google for $7.35 a share.
While some users have understandably been concerned about privacy in the wake of the announcement Google was purchasing Fitbit, it’s probably a safe bet that far more users would be concerned if Facebook was the buyer.
Few technologies have sparked as much debate, held more promise or terrified more people than artificial intelligence (AI). Depending on who is talking, AI promises to usher in a new technological era or precipitate the demise of humanity.
Notable individuals such as Mark Zuckerberg, Ray Kurzweil and Sam Altman have been strong proponents of AI development, even going so far as to believe the potential benefits create a moral imperative to pursue AI research. Others, such as Elon Musk, Clive Sinclair and the late Stephen Hawking, believe true AI may represent the greatest existential danger to the human race.
With so much controversy, governments are getting drug into the middle of the debate, trying to navigate what role they should play in regulating AI, with Germany the latest to wade in on the topic. In 2018, the German government formed the Data Ethics Commission to “develop ethical benchmarks and guidelines as well as specific recommendations for action, aiming at protecting the individual, preserving social cohesion, and safeguarding and promoting prosperity in the information age.”
Last week the commission released an opinion on AI development, recommending more regulation and government involvement.
“The Data Ethics Commission holds the view that regulation is necessary, and cannot be replaced by ethical principles. This is particularly true for issues with heightened implications for fundamental rights that require the central decisions to be made by the democratically elected legislator. Regulation is also an essential basis for building a system where citizens, companies and institutions can trust that the transformation of society will be guided by ethical principles.”
AI proponents and tech experts are already speaking about against the commission’s findings, voicing concern that the focus on regulation will stifle innovation.
“Europe wants to be more competitive in the digital economy,” wrote Eline Chivot, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Data Innovation in Brussels. “But it cannot substitute regulation for innovation. Rather than trying to achieve competitiveness in AI through policies designed to disadvantage foreign providers and promote European digital sovereignty, European policymakers should instead focus on developing an AI strategy that invests in people, data, and digital infrastructure, and creates a more innovation-friendly regulatory environment, so that European firms can better compete with China and the United States.”
One thing is certain: The debate about AI, its future and the best way to safely develop the technology is far from over.
“Typically, you separate great brands to create enterprise value,” says Scott Galloway, a Professor of Marketing at NYU Stern School of Business. “Mark Zuckerberg is trying to encrypt the backbone between WhatsApp, Instagram, and the core platform Facebook, such that he has one communications network across 2.7 billion people or the population of the southern hemisphere plus India. What could go wrong? I actually, and I’ve said this before, I think Mark Zuckerberg is the most dangerous person in the world.”
Scott Galloway, a well-known and popular Professor of Marketing at NYU Stern School of Business, discusses Facebook’s possible implementation of a single communions platform for all of its apps utilized by 2.7 billion people. Galloway was interviewed on Bloomberg Technology.
Connecting Whatsapp, Instagram, and Facebook – What Could Go Wrong?
What we have here is the mother of all conjoining of triplets (referring Facebook’s plan to use the same messaging backend on all of its platforms). That is, typically, you separate great brands to create enterprise value. Mark Zuckerberg is trying to encrypt the backbone between WhatsApp, Instagram, and the core platform Facebook, such that he has one communications network across 2.7 billion people or the population of the southern hemisphere plus India. What could go wrong?
I actually, and I’ve said this before, I think Mark Zuckerberg is the most dangerous person in the world. If you look at key moments in our history where we moved to tyranny, one of the key steps is someone consolidates the media. The notion that we’re going to have one individual deciding the algorithms for an encrypted backbone of 2.7 billion people is frightening, regardless of that person’s intentions or not. They’re even talking about putting the Facebook brand on each of these.
Is This a Prophylactic Move Against Antitrust Action?
I think what Mark Zuckerberg is doing is taking prophylactic moves against any sort of antitrust such that he could say, “It’d be impossible to unwind us now.” This is absolutely bad for the planet and bad for society. It’s clear where they’re going, an encrypted backbone, conjoin the triplets, and claim that if you do anything you’re going to kill all of us.
Typically antitrust plays out over the course of years or even decades. The idea to try and conjoin the companies as quickly as possible, such that they can make a nationalist argument, and they’re making it now. They are arguing that the Chinese are coming for us with their AI weaponized companies and you need a big company (to combat them). In fact, we’re the only ones that can do a stable currency coin.
They’re going to try and make the same argument around encrypting the backbone. The fact is the FTC and the DOJ, as they’ve shown at least stomach some for, should go on background and say, “This is not going to prevent us from splitting you up, so be careful.” There has never been a greater failure in FTC or DOJ history them approving the acquisition of Instagram. I think we all probably regret that now.
Zuckerberg Connecting Whatsapp, Instagram, and Facebook. What Could Go Wrong? – Scott Galloway
