Five Funny Tech CEO Nicknames

Insults. Perjoratives. Pet names. Nicknames. I love these, especially the really witty ones. Today let's go through some of my favorite nicknames for tech CEOs. These are notable not just because they're (arguably) good puns, but because they actually describe perception of that person. Whether or not I personally agree (and make no mistake, there are instances where I'm enthusiastically on board), there's no running away from the fact that these are pretty awesome nicknames.

Also, these images were generated by Meta AI, because... well, what else is it good for, really?

1. Scam Altman

This is the CEO of OpenAI. And why, one might ask, is this fine fellow called "Scam"? "Sham" works just as well, but I have a certain fondness for the former because it was coined by no other than Elon Musk, who, quite fittingly, is the next entry after this one.

Slimy AF.

Fairly or otherwise, Altman is widely associated with AI hype and overpromising. You say "Snake Oil Salesman" and immediately I see this guy's face in my mind. 

To be fair, tech isn't just tech. A commercial angle has to exist in order to justify its existence. So having a "salesy" tech CEO isn't necessarily such an outrageous thing. It's more Altman's constant overpromising of what OpenAI can deliver, that irks people. I mean, how many times do people have to hear from this guy's mouth that AGI is coming in a few months?

2. Phony Stark

Not an instant classic unless you're also a Marvel fan. But if you are, you'd be familiar with Elon Musk's predilection for styling himself after a certain fictional genius-billionaire-playboy-philanthropist.

SpaceX-hole.

Too bad all he's got is the money. The requisite charm and wit to be an actual Tony Stark is squarely in the minds of his fevered fanboys.

And let's not act like Musk didn't do his darnedest to earn that nickname. His constant cringy posturing on X, that insufferable grin and the superfluous attention-seeking antics (because if you're already the richest person on this planet, why do you need that attention?) completely nail the performative tech CEO stereotype.

Hey, if the shoe fits...

3. Zuckerborg

This made me spit-take, because both the target and the reason for the name, are instantly recognizable.

Cringy robot.

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, has long been famous for looking robotic. Which is probably unfair because he talks pretty naturally.

It all started during the Cambridge Analytica debacle, where he showed up looking less lively than a wax replica. It's almost no exaggeration to say that an entire generation was brought up on memes of Zuckerberg looking like a, well, Zuckerborg.

4. Jeff Beelzebos

Jeff Bezos, owner of tech giant Amazon, is conflated with the Devil for good reason. Which makes this one pretty clever.

Modern-day slave-owner.

Bezos is infamous for Amazon's widely-criticized treatment of their warehouse workers, said to border on the inhumane. Timed bathroom breaks, unreasonable work quotas, low wages and unsafe working environments - these issues have been mostly discussed and dissected by the general public.

Come on now, if this is what you're known for in addition to being insanely rich, why wouldn't people associate you with Beelzebub?

5. Tim Crook

I'll be honest - I have no idea why former Apple CEO Tim Cook is seen as so unethical as to warrant this nickname. I looked it up. Apparently, violating antitrust conventions and using child cheap labor in China. Basically, typical big-company CEO shit.

Bad guy?

I get why these would make him unpopular. Just not sure this makes him a crook. Did this guy actually break any laws? Maybe I'm the problem and I should stop interchanging the terms "crook" and "criminal".

But hey, if we're just looking for good witty nicknames, this one surely qualifies.

What's in a nickname?

There were some other options which I left out precisely because they're so obvious. I mean - calling Jeff Bezos, "Bozos". Or Mark Zuckerberg, "Zuckface". Really?! That's not witty, that's just juvenile. There's a difference.

Sticks and stones may break my bones...
T___T

Uproars over user data privacy

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.

Shots fired.

Facebook responded by putting up full-page ads criticizing Apple's latest initiative, and claiming that those changes would hurt small businesses.

And then it was on.

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.

Get a grip, children!

Not-so-privately,
T___T

On Apple's decision to remove HKmap.live

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.

Peace,
T___T

How Apple came to pull the plug on Facebook and Google

Prickling privacy pirates!

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.

How'd you like them apples? (heh heh)
T___T