Facebook's Quest for World Domination

Fifteen years ago, we all assumed that either Coca-Cola or Disney would be the first corporation to take over the world.  Five years ago, it was Google.  However, it now looks like world domination will come from an even newer entrant: Facebook.  In fact, it’s looking more and more like Facebook is positioning itself to do to Google in the 2010’s what it did to MySpace in the 2000’s.

The 2000’s saw the rise of online social networking, in which people could set up their own profiles and connect to other “friends” online.  Friendster was the first network to really take off, and it was soon supplanted by MySpace, which in turn was soon overtaken by Facebook.  Interestingly enough, MySpace seems to have reinvented itself as a vertical network geared toward music artists, as it is now still the go-to place for artists and bands looking to be discovered.  Facebook, meanwhile, has become by far the largest online social network, boasting over 400 million active users.  If it were its own country, it would be the third largest in the world population-wise, 33% bigger than the United States.

Google was established in the late 1990’s.  Its innovation as a search engine was its method of searching.  Whereas most conventional search engines of the time ranked results based on the number of times the search terms appeared on the page, Google set up a new system that analyzed the relationships between websites.  This system, called PageRank, determines a website’s relevance by counting the number of pages that link back to a given site, and the importance of those pages, relying on “Googlebots,” or programs that automatically browse the internet looking for new pages, changes to pages, and new connections between pages.  This system is what gave Google its competitive advantage over other search engines, propelled it to the top of the search industry, and helped it become the behemoth that we know and love today.

You may have seen how you can now log in to several third party (not Facebook) websites and applications using your Facebook identity, and “Like” stories from other websites such as CNN, Fox News, or Cracked, which then show up in your News Feed.  What’s actually going on is that Facebook is relying on a principal called collective intelligence, or “crowdsourcing,” to crawl the internet for relevant pages and make them more easily accessible, in a way similar to Google’s bots.  The difference is that Google relies on computer programs to algorithmically determine a given page’s relevance.  Facebook, on the other hand, relies on its network of 400 million human beings, each equipped with human intuition and linked to an average of 130 friends, to comb the internet in search for useful and relevant pages.  This gives Facebook a huge competitive advantage because computer logic is still no match for human intelligence and intuition.  It’s still in the beginning stages, but I suspect that in the coming years we will begin to use Google less for our search needs and use Facebook instead.

Bottom line: if you think Facebook is huge now, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

In Defense of Moderation

One thing I really like about the Buddha’s teachings is his emphasis on the “Middle Way,” which he describes as a path of moderation between (among other applications) the paths of overindulgence and extreme asceticism.  Petronius gives similar counsel, reiterated by Joseph F. Smith: “Moderation in all things.”  This idea seems pretty straightforward and intuitive, and there are many applications for it.  After all, when two people are arguing and each is telling his or her side of the story, it is often the case that the true story is somewhere in between.  The middle of a normal distribution curve is where most of the occurrences lie, with the extremists on either side numbering much fewer.

It seems however, that the extremists tend to be the most vocal.  Today’s political situation is a perfect example of this.  Whereas I would wager that a large chunk of Americans’ political views depend on the issue, and fall somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum, it seems that those few on the far ends of both sides are the most visible and vocal about their demands.  They seem not to be willing to cooperate with those on the other extreme, and sometimes even those in the middle, and often resort to bickering and name calling.

As a political moderate, having scored high in Empathy on the StrengthsFinder test and taken courses dealing with negotiations, it seems to me that the best way to achieve harmony in dealing with other people is to work toward negotiated agreements.  It is rarer than we might think, that two opposing parties want the exact opposite of each other, so in many cases it is possible for each side to concede little, and in exchange gain something that is worth a lot more to them.  Hateful rhetoric and fear-mongering don’t do anything to help, and in fact only hinder progress and dialog by convincing constituents that the opponents are really enemies who can’t be negotiated with.

In many decisions we make, we can encounter information overload.  We want to consider all of the available information in order to make the right decision, but often there is simply too much information available, and it is difficult or impossible to internalize all of it and all the while keep an objective point of view.  Sometimes the only thing we can do is take in all the information we can, make the wisest decision possible, and respect others who don’t make the same decision as we do.  They simply absorbed a different subset of the available information than we did.  Whether it is the decision to believe in God or not, or what political positions to take, we can’t possibly process all the available data out there without already having tentatively placed our allegiances.  Therefore, we are very unlikely to all come to the same conclusion.  As I mentioned in a previous post, sometimes the only way to coexist with those whose beliefs are different from our own is to practice mutual respect and implement the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”  In an increasingly diverse society, this rule only becomes more vital.

The duty of a scientist is to form the best intellectual framework available with the information at hand, and always be aware that further truth may still be forthcoming.  We should therefore be open to adjusting our theories to accommodate new truths we discover.  Being willing to admit we were wrong is not the mark of a flip-flopper, but of a wise human being more concerned with learning and growing than appearing right.

An important caveat to this philosophy is revealed when we take a look at Petronius’ whole quote.  What he actually said was, “Moderation in all things, including moderation.”  Sometimes we have to take a stand for what we believe in.  We can’t let people take advantage of our respect and allow ourselves to be walked on.  Furthermore, we need to have the moral courage to stand up for what we believe to be right.  In situations where moderation would require a compromise of our integrity, we need to stand firm.  We can, however, be respectful about it.  That, in turn, is how we earn the respect of others.