This video is sponsored by Brilliant. The first 200 to use the link in the description
get 20% off the annual subscription. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, and dear
friend to 100 million real, human, people, has an announcement. First, just a reminder, this is a good company
- we do good things here - like providing a public space to share news and information. But, did you know, sometimes people also like
talking in private? Weird, but we’re here to serve you. If the world wants more private messaging,
Facebook will provide it! Doing this is not easy, by the way. We’re making huge sacrifices over here! And, sure, we’re not perfect, we’ve still
got lots of work to do - so don’t blame us when we inevitably mess this up, and don’t
expect any real, tangible changes anytime soon. Now, if you’re like me, you saw this headline,
yawned, chuckled, rolled your eyes, and got back to watching a robot drive a robot across
the desert in silence. But I think that’s a mistake. The first part, I mean. Right now, three of the biggest companies
on earth - Facebook, Google, and Apple - are telling vastly different, conflicting stories
about your privacy. So, who can you really trust? Marketing 101: Every company is telling a
story. About who you are, who you should be, and,
more specifically, why 40 pounds of dehydrated marshmallows, which, double as a soft pillow-filling
material, will help you become that person. Some stories are subtle, others… not. And some can coexist. Everyone loves a good Apple versus Google
headline, but, the truth is, on the whole, the two have probably been more symbiotic
than competitive. One sells advertisements, and the other, screens
through which to see them, disproportionately bought by an advertiser’s favorite demographic:
young people with disposable income. Although, this is kind of just an accident. A few years ago, Apple made it really easy
to block ads on your iPhone, which, for them, is a nice, but not really earth-shattering
feature. For Google and the rest of the advertising
industry, it was ahhh, less than ideal. I guess the lesson is don’t let 75% of your
revenue come from a company with totally opposite priorities. The human was just crossing the street, but
that’s the end of the world for the ant. Today, the only difference is that each company
is much more actively trying to step on the other, with their mutually-exclusive stories
about collecting your data. First, Google, embraces it - arguing that
you shouldn’t just tolerate their using your data, you should want it. One because giving your phone more information
makes it more useful. Your phone is your secretary, and the more
it knows about you, you more it can do for you. It’s easy to say you value your privacy,
people overwhelmingly do. But, then, in practice, do you really care
that Google can read your email if it means you can tell your phone to “book a car”
and, because it already knows when and where, it automatically does it for you? People have certainly sold their data for
a lot less. And, two, because all this data, in aggregate,
makes these services better, cheaper, and more accessible to, say, people in poverty. Critics argue these tools aren’t really
free, you just pay with data instead of dollars. Well, says Google, if data has value, then
donating it is charity. Let Google see your photos, and Translate
gets better at reading text, which helps disadvantaged people navigate the world. Really, you're a hero. Everything from Gmail, to Chrome, Photos,
Drive, and Translate, relies on collecting your data, and, thus, convincing people of
one or both of these stories. Apple, meanwhile, rejects the whole concept. Tim Cook argues that’s a fake trade-off
designed to justify a business model where you are the product, not the customer. Not only does your iPhone not need your data
to be useful, it says, it doesn’t even want it. For Apple, storing your information is only
a liability. Now, whether you buy that logic or not, you
have to stop and admire its genius. Because, if Google says your data is what
allows it to sell cheaper products, then Apple can argue it’s higher prices are a feature. You should feel good paying more for an iPhone,
because it’s proof Apple doesn’t need to sell you out to advertisers. On the other hand, this argument is also harder
to explain. While Tim is busy waxing poetic about privacy,
Google just points to the price tag - everyone wants to save money. And, finally, Facebook, denies it. “The Future is Private”, it says, so while
the old website emphasized the News Feed - an open, public place to talk, The “Town Square” is becoming more like
a “living room”. Now, with the redesign, it’s all about private
groups and communities. Notice, by “private” it means ‘exclusive’
or ‘separate’, not necessarily “your data stays between you and your device, or
you and the receiver”. In other words, it gets to capitalize on the
buzzword - like ‘Cloud’, ‘AI’ or ‘blockchain’ before it, without having to make any significant
changes. Google also announced something new: The idea is that, say, you’re typing a new
acronym - instead of sending that data to Google’s servers to determine whether it’s
a new word to add to its dictionary, or just a typo, your phone itself computes that locally. This way your phone can make use of your data,
without Google, the company, being able to see it. It’s similar to Apple’s “Differential
Privacy”, with just as bad a name. It’s interesting because: A) Unrelated to all this, phones are getting
so good that people don’t feel the need to upgrade so often. Using the A12 chip on the iPhone XS to send
Snapchats is kind of like using a Ford Super Duty to haul your child’s teddy bear. But, when more work is being done on-device,
rather than, in the cloud, all that power is suddenly useful. and, B), If Google can have its cake and eat
it too - give you both privacy and a better product, then Apple just looks more expensive. That’s why these companies are so enthusiastic
all the sudden about privacy. No-one forced their hand so much as gave them
an opportunity. The priorities of a growing company, like
Facebook in 2010 when it got caught sharing your private information, are very different
from those of an established, dominant one, like Facebook today. A growing company is much more willing to
move fast and break things because that’s what it takes. It’s easy to do a bad thing, get big by
doing it, and then say “Look at us, aren’t we cool for not doing that bad thing anymore!” See: Uber. It may be strategically smarter to fix a problem
later than do the right thing all along. Facebook got where it is today by eating up
your data. But, now, it’s an open question whether
it really needs it anymore. Even if every Facebook message were encrypted
tomorrow, it would still be able to show you relevant ads. How? Because they had years to train those algorithms
with the data they now so courageously encrypt. So they get PR-points for doing what they
would’ve done anyway: try to draw back the kids these days who’ve left in favor of
Instagram, Discord, and Snapchat. Facebook and Google have the same basic business
model: selling tailored advertising. The difference is, the latter provides way
more value, so it can afford to be much more honest about the trade. So, am I saying don’t trust Facebook? Yes. Not because Mark Zuckerberg is evil, more
like “detached from reality”. Now, don’t get me wrong, sometimes I like
my CEO’s detached from reality. It’s just that someone sober needs to trip
sit so things don’t get out of control. Usually we call that a board of directors,
but when the CEO has the power to appoint and fire board members, well, that kinda defeats
the purpose. The problem is Facebook has three kinds of
shares, Class A - which are so generously offered
for purchase to you and me, come with 1 vote each. Class B, 10 votes. And Class C, come with no voting rights. Can you guess which kind Mark gives to charity? So, even though, on paper, Zuckerberg “only”
owns about 28% of shares, he has about 53.3% of all the voting power, granting him majority
control. Because of this, Facebook’s board of directors
has about as much power as North Korea’s parliament. Zuckerberg will be voted out right after Kim
Jong-Un loses an election. Okay, so what about Apple? Does it really care about your privacy? Personally, I hope not. Much better the reason they build secure,
private products is that they’re financially incentivized to. Good, caring, trustworthy people retire, get
fired, and pass away, but incentives, I can trust. People who proclaim ‘Apple just wants your
money’ are missing the point… Who knows what Apple’s true motivations
are?, whatever that means. But, also, who cares! Zuckerberg once said “I think it’s important
that we don’t all get Stockholm Syndrome, and let the companies that work hard to charge
you more, convince you that they actually care more about you.” And, I agree - billion-dollar companies tend
to be kinda... single-minded. So, follow the business model. The only thing you should trust is that a
company will try to do what’s in its best financial interest. So, make sure their’s is, at least, kinda
aligned with yours. Whenever there’s a big hack, Tim Cook will,
predictably, do a few interviews about privacy, trying to convince you that Apple’s interests
are most aligned with yours. With every update, Google, will try to do
the same, by giving you more features and more value in exchange for your data. And, Facebook, will… keep apologizing. Now, it’s just a question of whose story
you buy. The surprising thing about Facebook is that
it doesn’t really need that much information to know who you are. As the probability lesson on Brilliant.org
explains, a little bit of data has a lot of predictive power. For example, Facebook sees you’re visiting
its website from Berkeley, California, a city of 122,000 people. But, you also joined an expecting mother’s
Facebook group, and recently traveled to Vancouver. There are lots of pregnant Californians and
many people recently visited Vancouver, but, together, the overlap is just small enough
to guess who, exactly, you are. Brilliant teaches you the math, science, and
computer science behind technology like this, in interactive lessons and short, easily-digestible
daily challenges. You can use the link in the description to
start learning for free, and the first 200 people to subscribe will get 20% off the annual
premium subscription, so you can view all the Daily Challenges in the archives and unlock
dozens of problem-solving courses. Thanks again to Brilliant and to you for watching
this video.
Hey Evan! Great video! And by the way I’m following your Skillshare classes to make my own video. I have a newfound respect for you it took me over 6 hours and it’s not even that good!
Hey, loved your video - as always. 👏👏 u really work hard
Man, at the very least it’s refreshing to find informative videos that clear up some grey areas and gaps in my world knowledge; but some of these videos are way more than that, I’m learning something new every watch. Will definitely recommend.