It was with some amusement that I spotted this article in recent times. In it, Meta head honcho Mark Zuckerberg is reported to have debunked the suggestion that AI experts aren't joining Meta for money.
For context, Zuckerberg has been luring top AI experts from Apple, Google and OpenAI. Interesting news, though not exactly noteworthy now, is it? Big Tech firms poaching from other Big Tech firms; nothing to see here, move along.
Meta catching those flies.
What was noteworthy was Zuckerberg's reaction to the suggestion that these new hires are joining for more than just the monstrous paycheck. He said these people were joining Meta for the opportunity to build superintelligent AI systems without all the red tape and shit. Obviously, I'm just paraphrasing here, but you get the gist!
Wow, Zuck. Just wow.
Just to be fair, while that statement elicited incredulous laughter, there have been reports that some companies in the AI race have been less than enthused about AI research for the sake of AI research, seeing it as more of an avenue for profit. The thinking of business people, basically.
And of course, being able to play with fancy new toys with almost unlimited resources is always nice. I imagine the "no red tape" thing was icing on top of a substantial cake.
But to say it's not about the money? That's a load of Facebook-shaped cap and we know it.
Facebook-shaped cap.
While I will concede that money probably isn't the only motivation, the fact remains that it's a pretty sizeable one.
Everyone, in some shape or form, is doing it for the money. Anyone who isn't, is either already unimaginably rich or just nuts. Meta's recent acquisition of Apple's top AI engineer is costing them USD 200 million a year. That's not chump change, chum. (Say that three times fast, I dare you!) Apple declined to meet that price. Yes, Apple!
What about the claim of building a superintelligence? Well, that requires context. For intelligence, what are we comparing against? The idiots currently raging on Social Media about Sydney Sweeney's jeans? The ones busy politicizing the death of Hulk Hogan? That's not a terribly high bar, really.
Final thoughts
All this is not to say that these AI experts shouldn't take the money. Au contraire, they absolutely should. AI could be the thing of the future, that much is true. But it's hard to tell because that's what they all once said about NFTs and the Metaverse. Meta was even named after the latter!
Therefore, these AI experts should make hay while people are still willing to pay them that amount of money, on the off-chance that this doesn't last. As history has proven, tech can be a fickle mistress.
"It's not about the money, money, money"... really?!
T___T
It's unclear exactly when the term "BSOD" entered the public consciousness. More than a decade ago when I was working as desktop support, I knew the term to mean "Blue Screen Of Death", alluding to Microsoft's infamous default screen which warns users of a system crash. Thus, it was a little strange to see the term "BSOD" being bandied around the last couple week.
Suffice to say, the term "BSOD" has found its way into several conversations over the course of the past few weeks as Microsoft systems around the world crashed in a cacophony of azure-colored screens. The outage was caused by cybersecurity vendor CrowdStrike, as a consequence of their security program Falcon pushing a faulty update to the Microsoft branch. Once the update was downloaded and installed by roughly 8 million machines worldwide, it resulted in those systems crashing.
The fix, according to CrowdStrike, was to reboot the machines in Safe Mode, remove the file, and then reboot the machines in Normal Mode. Nothing fancy if you've ever worked in desktop support, but perhaps a little out of the grasp of the average end-user. The desktop support personnel of these affected companies would have been on high alert especially during the initial weekend.
Damage
It's all very well to say "8 million machines crashed", but it would be far more illuminating to know ˆ those machines were doing and ˆ they were deployed. For the most part, home users who had no compelling reason to install CrowdStrike's Falcon program, were spared the outage. It should also be noted that China, having long moved on from the days where a significant portion of the country was using Windows, was unaffected (to my knowledge thus far) by this outage.
For significantly larger corporations in USA and Canada, large swathes of Europe, and India; however, this was a different story. Airline queues were jam-packed as systems went down. Healthcare and emergency services were similarly impacted as hospital IT systems using Microsoft 365 crashed. And banks - easily the biggest item on the list. Minutes of lost service could translate to millions of dollars in transactions gone, potentially, and in terms of these outages, we're talking days.
This was seen a lot.
The irony here, of course, is that CrowdStrike was employed by these companies for the express purpose of guarding against malicious attacks much like this outage. Though this is one case where we should attribute the cause to incompetence rather than malice.
CrowdStrike's error was a null pointer exception, if the Internet is to be believed. These are fairly common; not really high-level stuff. From testing procedures, deployment practices and just good old due diligence, the number of potential shortfalls in any of these areas could have resulted in the faulty update being pushed.
Silly comments
Social Media has been rife with glee from Apple fans gloating that we should all stop using Microsoft products because this was the greatest outage in history, and that Apple has never been affected to this scale. That's ridiculous when you consider that the conditions that led to these outages - cybersecurity threats, third-party cybersecurity vendors, faulty software updates - would be present in all modern operating systems regardless.
Use Apple products instead!
Covert to MacOS to avoid outages? Absurd.
Such deranged comments are ultimately the province of mere fanboys allowing emotion rather than logic to guide the words that come out of their mouths. I'm inclined to be forgiving here; I'd be less understanding if those words came from actual tech professionals.
Finally...
It's early days yet. The fallout is still being felt around the world, though much of the initial damage has been, hopefully, resolved. Still, this is not something we'll all be forgetting anytime soon.
Microsoft. Google. Amazon. Apple. FacebookMeta. Twitter. What do all these companies have in common? They're big tech, and since last year, they have been engaging in massive layoffs. Ostensibly, this came about because they all massively overhired in preparation for a tech boom that did not come to pass. And now that reality has hit, these companies are jettisoning employees like it's going out of fashion.
Google and Meta have not been slacking in that department either. Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg, respectively, went on record to say, that they "take full responsibility for this decision" and take "full responsibility for the decisions that led us here". I'm not sure what "full responsibility" here entails, but OK. A lot of that vaunted "full responsibility" going around. Google's severance packages seem pretty great, so that's something.
What does all this mean for the tech sector in Singapore?
Well, for starters, big tech offices in Singapore are also cutting back on hiring. Fresh graduates dreaming of getting a start in big tech will probably not be realizing those dreams anytime soon. Other than that, this changes very little.
Tech is still booming. Companies both big and small, across all industries, all need tech and those that aren't recently-started outfits are going into a process of digitalization. It's no longer a luxury; the fact that tech is pervasive in many areas of life, has turned it into a necessity. The pay may not be quite the same, and the value-add on the CV isn't all that sexy, but opportunities are there.
Tech is everywhere.
People need to remember that tech is not just big tech; it's everywhere. Finance. Logistics. Healthcare. Entertainment. The possibilities are endless. Tech professionals who let go of this perception that career success only means working in big tech, will get on just fine. As for the rest? They'll sort themselves out, or show themselves out.
Personally...
When I was a young web developer, like many others, I dared to harbor dreams of one day making it into big tech. The closest I ever got was being an agency contractor to one such firm. Looking at the way things are now, perhaps that's for the best. This is not to gloat at the misfortune of those who have been laid off, but to marvel at how well I've been thriving in spite of not "making it". The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, but in all honesty, I can't complain.
Would my life have been far more interesting if I had succeeded in being part of the movers and shakers of the tech industry? Perhaps. I'll never know.
Dreaming about big tech.
I do know that, notwithstanding the generous severance packages, I'm probably in a better position than those who are in limbo right now. Sure, they have big tech on their resumes and that's always a plus. But how would that benefit them? Like, using it as a bargaining chip into another big tech company which is probably also laying staff off? They could apply at smaller outfits, but even if they were willing to take that hit in both remuneration and status, what company would risk taking on employees who are used to "bigger" things?
So many questions.
The takeaway
It's not the end of the world. Not even close. It's not even the end of the tech industry.
Demand for tech is not going down, but as far as big tech is concerned, the demand was grossly overestimated in the first place. And now that the growth has been found to be not as great as initially projected, the layoffs are taking place to cut costs. Nothing to be alarmed about. Unclench those buttcheeks!
What in the world just happened? Facebook is changing names!
Last month, in what feels like it should have been more of an earthshaking moment, Mark Zuckerberg announced in a series of public conferences, that Facebook would now be named Meta Platforms, Inc. It was not to be just a cosmetic name change. The change went deeper than just a name and logo.
The existing Social Media and communications platforms - Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp - will take up half of Meta. The other half will be dedicated to the construction of a metaverse. Just what in the heck is a "metaverse", you may ask? Tt is a virtual world where, if Zuckerberg achieves his vision, users can interact with an augmented or virtual reality environment in real-time. Hence, "Meta".
A metaverse!
Cynically, of course, one could see this as a matter of branding for Zuckerberg, nothing more. If he's to be believed, this was the direction they were heading all along and the name change is just meant to reflect that. The problem, according to him, is that Facebook is currently seen a a Social Media company. (No shit, really?!)
This move might prove to be worthwhile for Zuckerberg. After all, the abovementioned platforms all depend on mobile technology for propagation. That makes Facebook, as a company, vulnerable to the rules imposed by Google and Apple. And we all know Facebook has faced strong opposition to both entities in the recent past.
But what if Zuckerberg were able to pivot Facebook to a new kind of platform, one which wasn't dominated by Google and Apple? I'm not even gonna front - the possibilities are, to say the least, intriguing.
The Meta-conclusion
Honestly, I can't see the name change sticking. We're talking about over ten years' worth of inertia at this point. And let's be real here - "Meta" isn't exactly catchy or original. And the less said about the sheer lameness of the logo, the better. Seriously, were they maybe hoping to be as unimpressive as possible?
What's more pertinent, however, is the nature of Facebook's - ahem, excuse me, Meta's - business model. If they are truly pivoting to virtual reality, that is a huge deal if they manage to pull it off. Will they? The technology is there, but how much of it could truly permeate a market where internet strength can be spotty at best? Your guess is as good as mine.
What's up with Facebook? From that on-off war with Apple to the WhatsApp exodus, Facebook are making news for a variety of very poor reasons these days. And then there was this thing with Australia - yes, the country - just two weeks back.
It seems that this started when the Australian Government introduced a new bit of legislation that would compel Facebook (or other companies, such as Google) to pay news media outlets every time someone used their platform to share a link to a news article. Granted, this doesn't exactly sound fair to Facebook, but this isn't what I'm here for today. What I want to talk about is how Facebook reacted.
Google attempted a bit of bluster about removing themselves from Australia, but after Microsoft - rather opportunistically, I might add - backed Australia up, with the threat of being replaced by Microsoft's own search engine, Google decided to play ball.
No more Facebook for Australia?
Facebook, on the other hand, decided that they would no longer show any more news sources from Australia if that meant they would have to pay. From a business point of view, this is entirely legitimate, but quite understandably, some quarters saw this as an attempt at intimidation.
And then Facebook flexed their muscles. They blocked all news with Australian IP addresses from showing on their platform. Unfortunately, in the process, they also accidentally blocked emergency services and public information, and the backlash was immediate.
Where Facebook went wrong
As far as I can see, Mark Zuckerberg has always been about profits rather than power. Facebook is not really interested in promoting any sort of political idealogy or influencing people; rather, they're far more interested in making money and dominating the market. However, due to the nature and ubiquity of Social Media, they are in a power of position and they bear watching.
And many eyes have been watching them for a while. Nations wary that the platform might enable insurrectionists. Help spread misinformation, or even just inconvenient information. Ultimately, wary of the sheer influence and power of such a tech platform.
Pulling Australian media content was one thing. But it was very clumsily implemented, resulting in unintended consequences. Now those wary of Facebook's power are not only concerned with Facebook's power and willingness to use it, but also with Facebook's incompetence. Power is far more dangerous in the hands of those ill-equipped to handle it. It's like having a sleek powerful racecar... driven by an intoxicated child.
Is the FB racecar driven by a child?
With that heavy-handed move, regardless of the eventual outcome with Australia, Facebook essentially made the target on their back a lot bigger and more prominent. Good going, Zuckerberg. Subtlety definitely isn't your strong suit.
In a nutshell
The term "speak softly and carry a big stick" comes to mind. Of course, one may argue, with the size of Facebook's stick, why should they have to speak softly? Because they can't take on the combined might of all the nations opposed to being held ransom by Facebook's power. It will be a long and costly battle, with little reward for victory. Unless you're some kind of V-For-Vendetta anti-Government nutjob where sticking it to the authorities is the reward, dying on this particular hill accomplishes pretty much nothing of actual value. Facebook is a business entity, and its primary and overriding directive is to remain profitable.
As a business, consumer trust can be a huge issue. Already Facebook faces challenges in the form of data breaches, privacy concerns and more. Add this latest mishap to the mix and you can see why that stunt really didn't help their case at all.
It has been a crazy few weeks. Well, for the world at large, with the threat of COVID-19 and all, the entire year of 2020 and beyond has been nothing short of insane. But for the USA, things went a little extra nuts with that riot on the Capitol on the 6th of January.
I've avoided talking about it till now, because I firmly believe that as a Singaporean, it's not really my place to comment on USA politics. After all, I happen to find it extremely stupid and off-putting when non-citizens presume to tell Singaporeans what to think about Singapore's Government. Thus, I try not to do that. Until it begins affecting my industry. Then all bets are off.
The result of the fiasco where then-President Donald Trump was accused of inciting the mob to storm the Capitol, was that he was subsequently removed from Twitter and Facebook. Up to now, that "inciting" part is a bit of a mystery to me. I read a transcript of that speech and it just about put me to sleep.
Trump banned for egging people on?
But anyway, back to Trump's removal from Social Media.
In related news, Social Media app Parler also had a rough time of it. Admittedly, I'd never heard of them until recently. Apparently, they were the destination and gathering point for all the extremist Right-wing groups, and their numbers surged when Twitter and Facebook began to purge those from their platform. Despite calls do do so, Parler refused to do likewise and purge these groups, citing Freedom of Speech or somesuch. However, this was soon brought to an end when Apple and Google removed the app from their respective platforms so that no one could install the app from those platforms. And then the nail in the proverbial coffin was introduced when Amazon, Parler's hosting provider at that time, withdrew their services citing Parler's refusal to remove content that incited violence.
In effect, both Donald Trump and the extreme faction of Right-wingers were pretty much cut off from Social Media. True, there was still e-mail and internet, but they no longer had a voice. Or, at least, they no longer had a platform from which they could spread their message.
Tech platforms taking sides?
It didn't take long for Left-wingers (and Trump-haters in general) to gloat that tech appeared to have finally chosen to side with them. Or their counterparts, the Right-wingers, to decry big tech for exactly the same thing. And indeed, it did appear that Twitter, Facebook, even Pinterest, had dropped all pretense of impartiality and done what they've been dying to do all along - embrace their Leftist base.
Taking sides.
I think these deluded children have forgotten one fact. These are tech businesses. They're not interested in your politics beyond what they can do to make money out of it. Nor should they ever be. Alienating roughly half your user base in order to pander to the dramatics of the other half, is a poor business decision.
There have been cries as to how tech is practicing censorship and stifling the oh-so-important Freedom of Speech. With all due respect, Freedom of Speech refers to Government action. These are private entities. As such, Twitter, Facebook and Amazon, among others, were perfectly within their rights - whether legally or ethically.
Also, Donald Trump didn't leave Twitter and Facebook much choice in the matter here. Trump's speech, as insignificant as it may have been to me personally, undeniably meant something else to his base. And allowing him to keep stoking the fire in light of what happened at the Capitol, would have been highly irresponsible. So no, I don't think what they did was wrong. But it does raise some troubling questions.
Who to entrust with that kind of power?
Trevor Noah, one of my favorite comedians, has openly criticized big tech in the clip below. No, not for doing what they did, but for doing it too late.
What he said stood out to me, and as much as I enjoy watching him, it wasn't entirely in a good way.
"I think it's really funny how Social Media companies say they don't have a magic button to stop hate online, but then when Trump lost, suddenly they were like, oh we do have that button, here it is! So what - now these companies want a cookie for doing the right thing too late?"
On one hand, the dude has a point. Things should never have gotten as far as they did. And the fact that these companies seemingly waited till Donald Trump was soon to be no longer President, to act, does look an awful lot like cowardice.
On the other hand, what constitutes the right thing?
Some might say - supporting causes that should be supported, and not tolerating causes that don't deserve your support. But who gets to decide that? These things are highly subjective. Do we really want Apple to decide which apps can or can't be online? Do we really want, say, Twitter, deciding what people can and can't read in public discourse? Sure, Trump-haters might be all for it now, but forget Trump. Look beyond petty grievances, and you'll realize how scary this is if big tech can be politicized to this extent.
Already, we have articles like these claiming that the Capitol riots should not be confused with the violence of Black Lives Matter or the HongKong protests that took up much of 2019. That's a matter of perspective, and highly subjective. What is an objective fact, is that laws were broken and public property was damaged, and lives were lost. Tech companies can, of course, be trusted to make decisions according to objective fact. It's when they are called upon to make subjective moral value judgements on behalf of their very diverse user base, that we might want to start worrying.
What if Amazon one day decides that they don't want you to exist online?
If you can't go to Amazon to host your app, where else could you go that has the same reach? If you can't build a Social Media presence on Facebook or Twitter, could you simply go elsewhere? Technically, you could, but options are slim to none.
Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, et al, cannot and should not be faulted for having the huge user base they have today. But the fact remains that the recent banning of Trump and the deplatforming of Parler has laid bare the scary amount of power they do hold.
It's a mind-boggling amount of power to have, and nobody wants that responsibility. Remember the case of Matthew Prince and The Daily Stormers roughly three years ago? Back then, Prince said something similar to what Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, is saying today - no one should have that kind of power, and decisions like these set a dangerous precedent.
Already, Twitter has the nigh-impossible task of enforcing its own rules consistently. Is it fair to expect them - or anyone, for that matter - to be the Moral Police? Sure, last week it was Donald Trump that got the short end of the stick. Who cares? He deserved it, right? But see... what happens when the big tech companies decide someone else deserves it? Someone you actually like? One day, it's the President of the USA, albeit an outgoing one. What's to stop these big tech companies from denying service to, say, Singapore? What if for some reason or other, Facebook suddenly decides that Singaporeans don't deserve Social Media?
Finally...
Some will tell you that these tech companies are private entities, and they can conduct business as they see fit. They aren't obliged to be consistent, or owe anyone any explanation regarding their decisions. And they certainly don't owe anyone a platform.
I'm not disputing any of that; it's all absolutely true.
But bear this in mind - business relationships are built on trust. If a company cannot be trusted to be transparent and act with some logical consistency, and instead is seen making arbitrary decisions based on internal or external pressures, that's bad for business. Something I suspect these companies are all too aware of.
This blogpost was meant as a commentary on what has transpired lately between tech giants Facebook and Google, but in light of recent events, has been somewhat expanded.
If you haven't heard about the latest spat between Apple and Facebook by now, you're probably living under a rock somewhere, or this stuff just doesn't interest you very much. Honestly, I wouldn't blame you either. These two have a love-hate relationship that goes way back when.
The most recent one started when Apple announced Privacy Policy changes with their new operating system, iOS 14. This would compel developers who wish to make iOS apps, to inform the app's users as to how their data is being tracked, and seek these users' explicit permission to do so. A year before that, Apple's CEO Tim Cook appeared to take a shot at Facebook in this column.
Consumers shouldn't have to tolerate another year of companies irresponsibly amassing huge user profiles, data breaches that seem out of control and the vanishing ability to control our own digital lives.
The back-and-forth has only grown over the course of the past week, though from personal observation, public opinion seems decidedly tilted in Apple's favor. Still, the two sides of the argument are not without their respective merits and I beg your indulgence as I examine them here.
Apple's side
Apple's stated position is fairly straightforward, as it were - users should be informed as to how they are being tracked, and they should have a choice.
The slightly less straightforward part is that currently, users that are being tracked are invariably using some free service somewhere, and this is bad for Apple's subscription-based business model. So does this mean that Apple aren't genuinely concerned abut user privacy? I think a more useful question here would be - do users actually stand to gain if Apple gets their way?
Facebook's side
Facebook argues that being able to track user data, and thus, provide targeted ads, is a great source of revenue and helps keeps services and content free. Granted, giving users a choice invariably means that many of them aren't going to make choices that would please Facebook.
They are also arguing that small businesses (many of which apparently also depend on Facebook) would suffer if users were able to disallow tracking, though I really don't know anybody who actually buys that Facebook is really that concerned about small businesses. Even some of their own employees think that this is corporate bullshit.
My side
What do I think about all this? For starters, regardless of Apple's true intentions, I see no harm (to users anyway) in giving users a choice. Knowledge is power, after all. Apple isn't disallowing tracking on iOS - but ensuring that users know about it and can choose whether or not to let it happen. That's all right in my book.
On the other hand, I don't actually have a problem with allowing the likes of Facebook and Google to track me... and if I do have a problem, I can always choose not to use their services. Say what you like about Google and Facebook, but their services, even the free ones, are quality. They provide me many conveniences in life such as email, maps, site analytics and Social Media. But nothing in life is actually free, and certainly nothing stays free forever. I accept that if I want to continue using their products without paying a cent for them, I am going to have to give something back. And in this case, it means my data - browsing history, geographical locations, online purchases, and so on. Do I like it? No, I certainly don't. But I can live with that tradeoff.
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, has this motto: Move fast and break things. Well, it looks like Zuckerberg is going to have to do some of that fast-moving if Apple gets its way. Or perhaps the problem is precisely that Facebook moved too fast in capitalizing on targeted data as a main source of revenue, and now it's too late to course-correct. After all, it's been years and certain things are entrenched.
How much do you value your privacy, then? I'm sure plenty of people would choose not to be tracked, and that's fair. Would they be open to having to actually pay for the services they use? Because we can't have it both ways. We've all had it good up to now, but change is inevitable.
In other news...
Yesterday, Singapore had her own little furore when it was revealed during a Parliamentary Session that the TraceTogether tokens that I wrote about last June, could indeed be used to trace people. Apparently, the Criminal Procedure Code gives the Singapore Police Force blanket permission to do so. This was at odds with the statement Minister of Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan had made back then, that the data from TraceTogether would only be "purely for contact tracing. Period.".
Amid the cries of righteous fury from the unwashed masses, I'm willing to give Balakrishnan the benefit of the doubt when he says that he forgot about that provision. The man's a doctor by trade, not a lawyer. And there were more pressing concerns at the time... such as a global pandemic. Cynically, he could have, of course, decided to omit that little detail deliberately. And knowing what drama queens some of my fellow Singaporeans are, I find it hard to blame him.
But blame him, I shall.
Man, did it ever occur to him that this would come back to bite him in the ass later? No one of reasonably sound mind is arguing that terrorists and criminals should be exempt from having the data in their TraceTogether tokens tracked (though, if you are, feel free to take the next shuttle to Mars - I don't think you and I belong on the same planet), and yes, it's common sense that the police should have the power to use every means available to them to track down criminal activity. But why, in that case, make such an easily disprovable statement at all? So silly.
This can be used to track you.
However, my position regarding this apparent breach of data privacy remains similar to my stance towards Facebook and Google tracking my data; mainly, I don't give a shit. Sure, I value my privacy. I just happen to value my civic duty a little more.
And to all those lovely folks raising a ruckus over this, here's some food for thought.
Just because the police can use that data against you, it doesn't follow that they will. What possible reason would they have to do so? Your phones are connected to the internet. You probably drive a car that has a GPS installed. There's CCTV all over the island. And you're worried about this token? Are you for real?
This would be like if I had a loaded gun in one hand, and a Swiss Army knife in the other, both of which could be used to kill you... and you obsessed over your cholesterol levels.
Well, apparently Google and Apple are belatedly getting into the act. They just announced that they will be partnering to produce such an app that will work on both their platforms. I assume that means sharing resources and producing some cool shit, such as Bluetooth-based technology for aid in contact tracing.
Singapore's equivalent
And I hate to sound like a nationalistic jackass here, but we got there first. That's right - I didn't have a hand in the creation of TraceTogether, but it is my country and my industry that produced it and I'm feeling unreasonably proud at this moment.
TraceTogether
Other countries have asked if Singapore would license the code to them, and our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vivian Balakrishnan, had this to say.
"We believe that making our code available to the world will enhance trust and collaboration in dealing with a global threat that does not respect boundaries, political systems or economies."
I don't like the guy (can't even remember why right now) but that is one awesome response. We're making this beauty open-source, thus making Singapore's work even more relevant to the world at large.
A possible problem with Google and Apple's proposed collaboration
Privacy has been kind of a hot-button issue ever since Google started using location tracking. Sure, we could always turn it off, but the fact remains is that Google collects a lot of data about its users. And users have absolutely no reason to believe that this won't be abused in the future. I mean, look at the state of the world as it was even before the Coronavirus outbreak started.
How do we balance a user's right to privacy with the immeasurable potential to save lives? There's no clear, correct answer. Even Singapore doesn't have the answer, though I think TraceTogether is a sensible compromise many of us can accept. However, I'm not going to offer the typical American response and declare that Singapore's solution works for every country simply because it works for Singapore. This is something every country needs to decide for themselves.
Eye in the sky.
Even in Singapore, there are those who refuse to install the app because they don't trust the Government not to abuse the privilege. They're concerned about their privacy and possible intrusions into it despite the fact that the COVID-19 situation in Singapore is getting worse, and everyone's lives, not just their privacy, is being threatened.
To these people, I say: It's not about you. It's not about what kinky porn you've been viewing on your phones or what embarrassing private business you've been up to. This is about all of us. There's a bigger picture out there, and you're not seeing it. It's all well and good to be prepared to die for your privacy. Are you prepared to let others die, as well?
Think about it. Stop thinking about yourselves for maybe one goddamn second.
The first month of 2020 kicked off with a Parliamentary tussle when Minister Chan Chun Sing provided statistics on how employment in Singapore had increased by nearly 60,000 between 2015 and 2018. MP Pritam Singh challenged him to provide a breakdown across all industry sectors in the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs); and furthermore, to provide breakdowns for the data between Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) because up to that point, Singaporeans and PRs had been categorized under a single group. Minister Chan responded with the following (rather defensive) rebuttal, which, incidentally, led to an amusing slew of memes around his retort "what is the point behind the question?"
"We can get you the numbers. But let me say this. What is the point behind the question? First, has local unemployment increased with all these efforts? The answer is a resounding 'no'. Our people are getting good jobs. Are our wages going up? Yes, and it's faster than many other countries. Those are proof points to show that we are doing right by Singaporeans.
But I'm always very cautious about this constant divide, Singaporean versus PR. The insinuation seems to be that somehow Singaporeans are not benefiting."
While I probably wouldn't have put it that way, I'm inclined to agree that while a breakdown would certainly provide more information, it's pedantic at best for the purposes for which this data was intended - to track how well the ITMs are doing. I assume that MP Pritam Singh was making the request out of purely academic interest, and admittedly viewing that data for the Infocomm and Media sector would be very interesting for me personally.
There is also the small matter of the other point that Minister Chan raised. Singaporean unemployment had gone down. But seeking the data in order to establish whether or not PRs were benefiting more than Singaporeans comes across as - dare I say it? - petty and small-minded.
Foreigners in the tech sector
In certain segments of Singaporean society, there's been a fair amount of resentment towards foreigners due to the perception that they steal jobs that rightfully belong to "true-blue born and bred" Singaporeans. Hence the inclination to check if more higher-paying jobs are being occupied by foreigners than locals.
And you know what? They probably are. So what? Do people honestly imagine that these higher-paying jobs could be just as easily done exclusively by local talent? Without a certain amount of foreigners coming in to fill those positions, the global tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, IBM and Microsoft would have significantly less incentive to set up shop here. And that means the opportunities I've had for the past few years would be non-existent. I would probably still be sweating it out for cheap local bosses - you know, the kind who pay you just 3,000 SGD a month and expect your immortal soul in return.
Modern-day slavery.
Sure, I may not be earning as much as many foreigners. But I'm earning way more than I used to. Sometimes, comparing what you have now with what you used to have, makes a heck of a lot more sense than comparing it with what others have. With the former, you at least see progress. With the latter, you'll never be happy because your aspirations (what others have) will exceed your abilities (what you can get).
Simply put, I don't care who's doing better than me. I only care that I'm doing a lot better than I used to.
In my workplace
When I tell people that I'm the only Singaporean developer in a team full of foreign developers, they're quick to jump and point to unfair hiring practices and foreigners being favored over locals, and that someone like me is being hired only to satisfy the quotas for local workers and increase the allotted quota for foreigners.
Firstly, that's rubbish. The foreigners I work with are on Employment Passes, which are not subject to foreign headcount quotas at all.
Secondly, Singaporeans have been interviewed for the job before. Exceedingly few of them made it. And if I'm an example of a Singaporean who survived that interview process, I shudder to think how shit unqualified the others must be if they didn't.
Thirdly, administration-wise, it is actually easier to hire a Singaporean than a foreigner. Employment Passes take time to get approved. And if candidates need to go through Government security screening, foreigners take roughly twice the time it takes for a local.
Lastly, of all the Singaporeans who actually got the job, very few stayed past one year. Apparently it was too much work for too little pay. I happened to have come from worse conditions; ergo I was happy to stay. Also, many Singaporeans have been conditioned to look down on contract positions and any position that has no potential for them to rise through the ranks. It helps that I've never wanted a higher-ranking post, because accepting that increase in responsibility for just a little bit more pay just never made any practical sense to me. I suspect quite a few people want those jobs not because they actually want them, but because they've been conditioned to think that they should want them. Because of "Career Progression" or some such bullshit.
So, no. In my organization's case, it's not that companies don't want to hire locals. It's more that locals are either disinterested or unqualified for my position.
Sure, there are always going to be people who deride this news, and label it Wayang. And they do have a point - it seems to be the smaller companies that bear the brunt of the investigations.
But you see, it is precisely these smaller companies that flout these regulations because they have a more intense need to. The bigger ones - the really huge ones - have too much to lose by not following the laws of the land. And they're less concerned about squeezing every drop of blood and sweat from their employees. Facebook is more interested in invading our privacy for profit. Google is more interested in tracking our every move and appearing not to be evil. As for Apple, they've got child labor in China sweatshops - quite legally too, as it happens - why would they waste time screwing over a relatively paltry number of Singaporeans on this tiny island?
So, if one of these mega-corporations doesn't want to offer you that cushy five-figure salary, it's probably not because they have any preference towards foreigners. It's more likely that you're just not good enough. These huge tech companies have very stringent acceptance criteria, and it's rarely a case of where you're from, but how qualified you are. More often than not, that describes a foreigner. And they're hardly going to break a sweat over losing prospective hires to employment regulations in Singapore, because there's an exceedingly long line of talented people who want to join their ranks.
Talent in various shapes and forms.
The other reason I want these mega-corporations around, is because I have relatively recent, very unpleasant memories of working for local employers with an exceedingly strong affliction of The Chinese Towkay Syndrome. Back then, in the tech sector, it was an employer's market and these bosses were as exploitative as they come. The presence of large multi-national tech corporations with a plethora of employee benefits and higher wages, keeps these guys honest because they're no longer the biggest or only game in town. And if this means that a big chunk of higher-paying jobs are going to foreigners, so be it.
Why employers seem to prefer foreigners
The common misconception seems to be that foreigners are better workers - more diligent, more knowledgeable, more accommodating, more everything. And, of course, cheaper. Undoubtedly, some of them are. But that's not where their true value lies.
Foreigners are generally only able to work in Singapore if issued a pass of some sort - a Work Permit, S Pass or Employment Pass. When employment ends with an organization or the pass has expired, they have a limited time to stay in Singapore to find another employer willing to take them on. Things get complicated fast if they have family here, perhaps children studying in local schools.
Therefore, since their continued employment exists at the pleasure of their employers, foreigners are generally more obliging. Also, if they're here alone with not many family and friends, there's not much for them to do in their spare time and they're usually more than happy to take on extra work.
Eat shit, and like it.
Simply put, a foreigner will put up with demands that a local won't. They'll eat shit, and smile while they do it. Locals are far more likely to walk away if it gets too hot in the kitchen, because we can. Foreigners simply don't have that luxury.
So for those who like to complain about the lack of Home Ground Advantage, this is your Home Ground Advantage. And it's no small one. In fact, its so big that many companies would rather not deal with it. If you need proof of this, take your average docile foreigner and issue him or her PR status, and see how swiftly their attitude changes when their stay is no longer directly dependent on the goodwill of their employer.
Should the data be released to the public?
Absolutely! Do it!
Assuming that disgruntled Singaporeans actually find evidence that more PRs are occupying higher paying jobs than Singaporeans, just what are they going to do about it? Move out of Singapore to greener pastures? If they actually had the ability to thrive elsewhere, I suspect they would have done it already, as opposed to squawking on Social Media.
Just go.
No, this is Singapore and we are a nation of Champion Grumblers. The late great Lee Kuan Yewsaid so himself. The Government should have faith that we'll accept the reality of the situation and get back to work. We complain excessively, of course, but when push comes to shove, we ultimately choose the most sensible and pragmatic option. Let's not ever change that.
Those that don't want to accept the reality of Globalization have the option of leaving. And they should. At the very least, it will give them a taste of what it's like to be a foreigner somewhere else and be the ones eating shit while those countries' locals complain about them for a change.
In closing
Singaporeans are a competitive lot. We hate losing. And we especially hate losing out. That's a good thing.
However, being competitive is meaningless if we are not also competent. Aim high by all means; though if something is out of reach, better yourself in order to reach it. Demanding that the Government make things easier ("fairer") for us is one thing, but let's not abandon our responsibility for our own career development.
Does that mean I think that the noise-makers on Social Media clamoring for more transparency from the Government ought to tone it down a notch, then?
Oh heavens, no. Not a chance.
Sure, the Government's job would be a lot easier if we all simply went along like mindless sheep, but here's the thing: governance isn't meant to be easy. Anyone going into governance thinking that it's easy is under a severe delusion and needs to be disabused of it ASAP. Governance requires character of sterling quality. Running things for a few million loud complainers isn't easy... but neither is maintaining good standing and friendly relations with countless other nations with far larger populations and longer histories, some of whom have nuclear warfare capabilities. If a would-be Governor can't cope with the former, he or she has no business at all attempting the latter.
So keep holding their feet to the fire, you lovably noisy malcontents. Just don't forget to help the Government do their jobs by keeping yourselves employable. Because if all we're good for is raising a fuss on Social Media, Minister Chan Chun Sing's stated dream of locals one day taking those high-paying jobs may never come to fruition.
The Hong Kong protests are still ongoing after more than fifteen weeks and these look to be harrowing times for the Pearl of the Orient. Amid all the hubbub, one fascinating aspect is how software tech ties into all this. Specifically, how web and mobile technology tie into it. That's a subject to dwell on another day - today I want to talk about something that happened weeks ago. The mobile app HKmap.live got pulled from the Apple App Store.
Now this by itself isn't that big a deal. Apps get uploaded and pulled all the time. The remarkable thing here are the circumstances around which this happened.
Apple pulled the app originally in early October, claiming that the app allowed users to evade law enforcement, and almost as quickly did the mobile app administration version of the Tokyo Drift, putting it back up and claiming it was a mistake. Then about a week later, Apple once again removed the app, and this time their CEO Tim Cook went online to provide an explanation.
"It is no secret that technology can be used for good or for ill. This case is no different. The app in question allowed for the crowdsourced reporting and mapping of police checkpoints, protest hotspots, and other information. On its own, this information is benign. However, over the past several days we received credible information, from the Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau, as well as from users in Hong Kong, that the app was being used maliciously to target individual officers for violence and to victimize individuals and property where no police are present. This use put the app in violation of Hong Kong law. Similarly, widespread abuse clearly violates our App Store guidelines barring personal harm."
There have been voices from some quarters accusing Apple of not knowing right from wrong and allowing politics to interfere in tech. In principle, I agree. Tech should not be influenced by partisan politics. But here's the thing - while I don't like it, the world being what it is, I have to accept that this happens. To some degree or other, politics does have an effect on technology and how it is applied.
I don't think Apple was wrong to pull HKmap.live from their App Store. The only problem I have with their decision is them being so goddamn wishy-washy about it. Either allow the app or don't, but stick to your guns.
What is HKmap.live?
It's a mobile app that uses crowdsourced input from its users to provide a real-time report of police activity in Hong Kong, tracking movements of police officers. As one could imagine, such a utility would be of great help to the protestors. Unfortunately, it would also be of great help to attacks on the police force. There's been multiple reported incidents of police officers being targetted and assaulted, their families harassed. Whether the app actually has anything to do with this, as claimed by the Hong Kong Police, is yet to be proven. Yet, it doesn't take too much stretching of the imagination to see how this could be abused.
The app can still be run on the devices it is currently installed on and will still run on web browsers, though new downloads are no longer available. Even without HKmap.live, with other apps being able to perform pretty much the same function, it's unclear as though how much harm is actually being prevented by its omission from the App Store.
Why Apple was in the right
All tech providers are bound to obey the laws of the land, and if Hong Kong tells Apple that HKmap.live is in violation of their laws, endangers police officers and should be removed, Apple is obliged to acquiesce. That's not to say I think the pressure from Beijing didn't make an iota of difference; au contraire, I think it made all the difference in the world. But as far as I can see, Apple exercised their only feasible option, from both a legal and business point of view.
Why only HKmap.live, then? The question some laypeople are asking is, why only pull HKmap.live when other apps can do pretty much the same amount of damage? Why single HKmap.live out?
Well, the answer is pretty simple. It's a matter of manpower.
If Apple were to attempt to eradicate all apps in the App Store that could pose a danger to policemen, they would have to comb through the billion odd apps in there. Apple doesn't have time for that. They're too busy selling overpriced iPhones to their fanboys. The best they can do is respond to highlighted issues, investigate and react.
Messaging!
Wonder why messaging apps aren't pulled? They're a means of communication among the protestors, after all. (Telegram in particular seems pretty popular now). Because everyone knows that would be futile. Even if Apple removed all messaging apps from the App Store, what about games that have messaging functions? Where does it end?
That's the principle behind it. Respond to specific complaints, and do as little as possible. Apple isn't interested in protecting the lives of the Hong Kong Police. They're interested in staying on the right side of the law in the territories in which they operate. As they should be.
But what about freedom, democracy and stuff?
I'm definitely not a fan of China's heavy-handedness. From the NBA incident to PewDiePie, there have been numerous instances of China flexing their political muscle to silence and censor with regard to the ongoing spat with Hong Kong protestors. And as a Singaporean, I haven't forgotten the entire Terrex incident back in 2016 either. Make no mistake, China can be a right pain in the ass when she wants to be.
Not so peaceful.
I was happy to cheer these Hong Kong protestors on when all they were doing were peaceful marches. Months later, the protests are not so peaceful anymore. As a responsible adult, I am not going to encourage these guys to burn their city in the name of
"Freedom and Universal Suffrage", all the while sitting there safely behind my computer
screen. I'm not going to spout self-righteous bullshit like
"some things are more important than wealth and stability" when it's
not my wealth and stability that's under threat.
But let me just say this - Hong Kong is the city that these protestors live in. If they'd rather see it burn just to give China a black eye (and even then, how much of a black eye that would even be is up for debate), it's not for me to judge.
It's not my city they're burning. It's not my livelihood they're affecting and it's not my future they're claiming to fight for.
Similarly, these are not my country's policemen who are being targeted. If Hongkongers think that policemen getting assaulted and their families harassed is a small price to pay for change, that's their prerogative. But I certainly wouldn't recommend helping them to do it.
There's a story that broke about last couple weeks, when Apple caused a certain amount of chaos in Facebook and Google offices.
Apple lays the smackdown.
How this came about
Apple has this policy that no apps hosted on their App Store will infringe on user privacy in any way. Facebook was running apps that, with the permission of their users, tracked their personal data to the tune of up to 20 USD per month. So was Google. Ever wonder how is it Google seems to always know exactly where you are? There's your answer.
To get around Apple's policy, Facebook ran those tracking apps through their membership in Apple's Developer Enterprise Program. For those who don't know what that is, that's a platform which allows subscribed corporations to bypass Apple's App Store when deploying apps that are meant for internal use. Like Facebook's lunch ordering app or campus bus booking app, for example.
Facebook, as mentioned earlier, was paying users for their data, but as Apple had a data privacy policy on their App Store, elected to run those apps on the Developer Enterprise Program instead, passing the users off as their own staff. Google did much the same thing. Essentially they were in violation of the policy and hoping to bypass scrutiny.
And when Apple found out, there was hell to pay.
Well, OK, not exactly. What Apple did was to pull the plug on Facebook's membership. They did the same thing to Google a day later. The main point was to invalidate the certificates to Apple's business software, which meant that the tracking apps for both Facebook and Google were no longer able to work. However, since Facebook's legitimate internal apps were also distributed via this license, this left Facebook employees scrambling as their access to internal apps was summarily cut off from their iOS phones and Macs.
Did Apple do the right thing?
There's no argument about it - they did. Look, I'm an Android user and not at all an Apple fanboy, but let's give credit where it's due.
Facebook and Google broke clearly defined rules, and even attempted to sneakily bypass those rules in Apple's own house. Purely from a selfish point of view, Apple couldn't let that stand. From an ethical point of view, even if Facebook had technically broken no rules, there are exceedingly few iPhone users (who aren't also Facebook employees) who would take Facebook's side where data privacy was concerned. Hell, there are very few smartphone users who would trust Facebook where their data privacy is concerned, period! (I personally don't give a monkey's left nut. I'm of the opinion that if something comes free, like Facebook, there's always a catch. That said, I don't use Facebook much anymore so...)
This isn't even similar to the Patreon case, where users were arbitrarily de-platformed. In this case, Apple had more than ample cause for action, and past precedent to back it up. It's telling that Facebook and Google did not argue the decision but instead issued public apologies.
Did Apple do it for the right reasons?
Now, this one's mighty contentious. While Apple said they did this to "protect user privacy", I'm of the opinion that this came at a very convenient time for Apple.
Just prior to this episode, the iPhone app FaceTime had a serious bug that enabled anyone to turn someone else's iPhone into a live mic. And just when Apple was dealing with the inevitable fallout, who else should screw up but Facebook and Google, right in their backyard. Talk about a fall guy (or guys) to distract users from Apple's own mess!
Also, it's no secret that Apple's CEO Tim Cook and Facebook head honcho Mark Zuckerberg aren't exactly enamored of each other... Cook might have done the right thing here, but I'd bet my last dollar he was experiencing no small amount of personal satisfaction while doing it.
Is it over?
Oh hell, no it ain't over. Apple might have shown Facebook and Google who's boss in this one instance, and there's no disputing that Apple accounts for a huge chunk of mobile web traffic in case any of them feel like pulling this stunt again in future, but Apple's dominance doesn't quite extend itself to desktop browsing, where Safari is currently languishing behind the likes of Chrome.
This is just the beginning, folks. The battle of the tech giants started a while back, but now shots have been fired. And some have landed. If nothing else, Facebook and Google have egg on their faces. Round One to Apple - now let's see how it goes.
Remember back in March, I wrote a piece on a friend who loved Apple? Well, my buddy here just took his love to a whole new level.
His name is Jermyn, and a couple weeks back, he held a wedding shoot with his girlfriend-turned-wife Suat Huang (lovely woman, by the way) at - get this - the newly opened Apple Store along Orchard Road.
Then something even more glorious happened. The story got picked up by various news outlets. At first, it was mostly those from Singapore, such as The Straits Times and Mothership.
Then Mashable and The Inquirer and Time picked up the story. Then Zing, a news outlet from Vietnam, where they're just returned from their honeymoon. Then UOL Estilo, from Brazil. Then WAPA, from Puerto Rico. Rambler from Mother Russia. And finally, so far, Sohu from China!
Holy shit.
Dudes, they say the path of true love never did run smooth. In your case, it traveled the goddamn globe and back. According to Jermyn, it was all the wife's idea. Gotta say, that's brilliant.
Hey, but I have something these news outlets don't. For one, I was actually a guest at the wedding. I was there. I even put on pants (there's an inside joke in that circle about how I don't wear pants, but that's nothing more than a vicious lie. I do wear pants... sometimes).
From left: His Teochewness,
the bride, the groom,
Cheryl Tay
and Jarrod Luo.
And I have pics to prove it! Suck on that, Mashable et al!
