This post is cross-posted from my joint newsletter with Ranjan Roy, The Margins. Please check it out, and consider subscribing.

I love WWDC, Apple’s annual developer’s conference. Ever year Apple announces new software in early June, and then in September the new devices come out. It’s always fun to play with new the new iGizmos, for me at least, but there’s something fundementally more fun, more exciting with seeing new software, bestowing your existing stuff with new functionality.

This year’s WWDC was sort of special too. As many others have pointed out, it seemed like the first developers conference Apple ever held since it got over the iPhone. Mind you, iPhone is still the rainmaker, but it’s not the main focus anymore. There are new technologies like SwiftUI, setting the tone for the next few decades of iPhone UI development. There’s Catalyst, bridging the gap between iPad and macOS apps. What stole the show for me was Sign In with Apple.

Here’s the short version: Apple now allows (more on this “allows” later) developers to eschew building their own authentication mechanism and just delegate it to Apple. In more human terms, you can now sign in to your favorite app using your Apple ID, just like you could with Facebook or Google. And of course, it works everywhere including the web. In one swoop, Apple joined the fight to be the identity provider online. 

There were many things that leaked before this conference, but as far as I could tell, this announcement came out of nowhere, which makes it doubly exciting, as well as scary.

Of course this new feature comes with Apple-esque twists, main one being privacy. First of all, Apple will not share anything with the developers other than your name and email (and a stable key that you can use in your database). That is a big departure from Facebook or Google’s systems, where the developers can request myriad of information on the users. Of course, Apple doesn’t have the same high fidelity of data on its users that social media / adtech companies in the first place.

Adtech Won’t Like This

The real surprise came late though. Apple will just allow a third-party sign in, but also allow users to hide their email addresses from the developers. When a user wants to “hide their email”, Apple will generate a throwaway email address (per user and account combination), pass that on to the developer, and relay all the messages to the user.

This is not a novel feature; you could always do this to some degree with Gmail with the “address+suffix@gmail.com” trick. This isn’t perfect, but it at least allows you to give individual email addresses per service. There are also services that will generate throwaway, disposable emails. However, both of those options remained popular only among a small group of people. Deploying this relatively sophisticated approach to privacy in such a user-friendly manner to billions is a true and true Apple move.

This will change things. There are two main reasons why developers want you to create an account on their platform. The first is that having a persistent identity. This buys you the ability, for example, to store the data on the server so that you can later sign-in from a different device, or after a device reset. If this explanation is bland, it’s only because this is something we take for granted that every service should do this.

The other reason why developers do want you to login has only emerged in the last few years. As more and more of our lives moved into the apps, and those apps began sucking more and more types of data, smart people realized all this data can be turned into cold-hard cash, especially in the form of hyper-precise (though rarely hyper-accurate) profiles for ad targeting. The interesting thing is, the sum of all this information these apps collect is generally bigger than its parts.

Differently put, if you want to maximize the value, you need to “join” (or merge) different types of data from different apps. Now, you can see where I am going with this. The unique identifier that ties your data from all the different apps is your personal email address. This is why Apple providing a unique email, in essence hiding the primary key for those accounts to be merged, is a big, big deal. For many years, many developers, especially small ones, would essentially build apps not to make money via the app itself, but rather to have enough users to sell their user’s profiles to the highest bidder.

Will Developers Adopt Apple Sign In?

Let’s assume for now Sign in With Apple is “good” for the end-users. Yet, Apple would still need to get the developers on board. So, will they? I’m going to try to answer two questions at the same time, from the developers’ perspective: A) Are third party logins good? B) Is Sign in With Apple a good option?

First of all, this third party sign in stuff generally works. If anything, they work too well. Facebook Login, for all its flaws, is much easier to use than having to enter a username and password for every app you use. Sure, very rarely it is down, and you are royally screwed for a few minutes, but that’s few and far between. And yeah, it does add a bit of complexity maintaining multiple identity profiles for each account, but that’s a small variable cost, on top of the fixed cost of supporting third-party logins in the first place.

But the wins are huge. Having worked on this stuff professionally across many companies, I can tell you that there are more ways for users to get confused and mess things up filling in the most basic form than there are stars in the sky. If you can make a user simply tap a blue button that says “Login with Facebook”, you’d much rather do that than build a huge login form with all its intricacies. 

If anything, I’d expect Apple’s solution to be even more frictionless since they fully control the OS and they can build native interactions. Things like Facebook Login do work, but only through elaborate hacks. Every once in a while, you’ll have users who get stuck in some weird loop because their connection to Facebook dropped, or their phone failed to open a browser app. Apple’s system, at least on the UI side, will be more robust and less error prone.

Lastly, this might make a tiny sliver of users more likely to use your product. There’s a small, but arguably vocal, set of people for whom privacy is a major concern. An Apple provided login system where your identity is protected could make your product more attractive to some. 

It also helps that the system will come with some anti-fraud mechanisms.Apple’s login system will tell you whether a user who just signed in might be a fraud-y user, based on device level data. Google can, to some extent, provide similar functionality but Facebook is limited to what it can gather via its apps and server side data. If you want to adjudicating a user’s identity, it’s generally better to do it closer to the user. Such set of features might be attractive to some developers and users alike, but it probably won’t move the needle much.

That’s…about it? What about the cons? There are not that many, but they matter.

Well, the major one is that using a third-party login system severs your direct relationship with your users. This is not a binary thing, of course. In either you will still have an email address to reach your users, but it’ll always be mediated by Apple, in the case of Apple Sign In. Not only you’ll be unable to work with data brokers for some cheap ad dollars, but also you’ll also lose the ability to buy services from other brokers, link your users’ profiles with data from other providers, with whom you might have legitimate agreements with.

But, that’s not all. Apple didn’t obviously mention this in the presentations, but it didn’t take long people to find out the stick in the documentation. If you are using a third-party login provider in your app, you have to . support Sign in with Apple as well. Now, that is fun! I have been thinking about this since I’ve watched the keynote and read the documentation up and down (hope your weekend was as fun as mine!).

The Verdict on Apple Sign-In

I think Apple Sign-In is a good thing for the world. However, I do not think it’s not something many developers will be jumping at implementing. But they will have to, and we’ll be better for it.

First of all, while I acknowledge the ease of using third-party logins on the apps I use, the privacy implications of using them make me uneasy. I try not to use third-party whenever possible, and instead create individual accounts that I manage with 1Password. This is admittedly a bit more work, but not too tedious. Thus, I welcome Apple butting its way into the apps and providing a more privacy-focused alternative.

Of course, you could make the argument that the fact Apple “forcing” its developers to use these products is a cheap shot. This, I think, overlooks a bit of reality. Look, I see the aesthetic appeal of letting the “better product win in the free market”, where Apple converts developers by building a “better” login system. But it’s not that simple.

I am not huge a free-market dogmatist, but if you were to take the free-market idea to its extreme, you’d also concede that this is, after all, Apple’s walled garden and it has the right to enforce any rule it so damn wishes. Of course, market definition is a tough one, and given the increasing scrutiny of Apple using its dominant position in one market to hurt competition in others would make tamper this instinct a bit.

Moreover, I do think that Apple will have to work hard to get this right. There’s a common tripe in Silicon Valley that Apple doesn’t get social. Now, I don’t think authentication systems are particularly “social” things, but they are still not in Apple’s usual bailiwick. The reason why third party logins work is partly they absorb the complexity, and expose very little to the end user. This stuff isn’t that trivial to build, and nothing is ever easy at Apple’s scale. 

Other companies like Snapchat and Twitter also built similar systems before, but neither of them gained much traction, simply due to the vast popularity of Facebook and Google’s systems. Networks effects are hard to overcome. More ironically, Facebook itself touted an anonymous login option a few years back, but it was never rolled out.

It’s worth thinking whether Apple could make Apple login more attractive to developers by providing certain privileges to certain apps. There are definitely some levers here. Screwing with the App Store search results would be a bridge too far, but Apple could potentially feature apps it likes prominently on the App Store. But then, I think Apple would try to steer clear of explicit rewards to those apps over that don’t, especially to protect itself against regularity scrutiny but also to maintain the quality of the App Store.

A lot of this will also depend how constraining Apple’s guidelines will be for developers who use Sign in with Apple. For example, the company requires the Apple Sign In option be placed on top of other providers, and be very prominent. The Cupertino-based company could be notoriously picky but also capricious with such details.

In the end, I view the world of business through the lens of competition. It’s the fear of competitors that your consumers can flock to that aligns a company’s incentives with its users. For many years, social networks like Facebook and search engines like Google enjoyed a relatively relaxed marketplace where there wasn’t much to worry about in terms of rivalry. This came at huge costs to us all, including erosion of privacy. I am glad Apple is taking a stab at this. Whether this will work, that’s a different question. I am keeping my hopes up.

What I’m Reading

WWDC 2019: The Things You May Have Missed: The list of things Apple announced on stage and in developer sessions at WWDC this year was staggering. I’ve watched the keynote and perused some of the new documentation and definitely missed some stuff. This by Patrick Balestra is a good comprehensive list. Most them are on the technical side, but there are some interesting gems here that point to where Apple might be going next. A few definitely jumped at me. (Ordering mine)

• IMDF (Indoor Mapping Data Format) is a new concept introduced by Apple that provides a generalized, yet comprehensive model for any indoor location, providing a basis for orientation, navigation and discovery. @ortwingentz

• Apps are to request “Always” access to the device location but users will see an alert when an app tries to access the location from the background that prompts them to “Always Allow” or to “Change to Only While Using”. Users are also presented with a map clearly showing that the app was tracking the location. In this way, users are not forced to take a decision upfront when installing the app for example. quicklywilliam
• App Store Connect will soon get a near real time sales view showing you the last 24 hours. @lesmond
• App deletions statistics will also be available as part of App Analytics in App Store Connect. @ilyakuh

Why Bankers Can’t Stop Running (Subscription Required): I’ve only recently picked up running as a hobby. There are definitely days I dread going for a run. But never have I felt, after a run, that it was a bad idea. It messes with your head. This Financial Times columnist runs through (hah!) a bunch of high powered executives who make time for their runs, no matter how busy they are, and wonders why and how. I’ve went on a 5 mile run after reading this.

Mora also runs with colleagues and is one of the organisers of an annual event for Goldman’s summer interns and other runners at the bank. “For a junior out of college looking for a job, it’s another way for them to connect,” Mora says. “One day they’re sitting at a desk working with them, the next day at 5.30am they’re running the Brooklyn Bridge with a managing director, a partner, someone from the firm, running alongside them.”

Between 40 and 50 people join the run annually. Hu says he tries “to run with colleagues in every city” when he travels —something that I’ve done too, with varying levels of success. On a trip to Dublin, where Citigroup Europe is based, he went running with Ireland’s then junior finance minister Eoghan Murphy, who took him on the same stretch of beach where I once enjoyed my daily runs.

This post is cross-posted from my joint newsletter with Ranjan Roy, The Margins. Please check it out, and consider subscribing.

There are certain things reasonable people can disagree on. Should you douse your fries in ketchup or mayo? Which is better, Star Trek or Star Wars? Does god exist, and if so could we tell? There was a time, back when I had more a lot more energy and a lot less concern for psychological wellbeing of others, I thought these were debate-worthy questions.

Now, I don’t particularly care about any of those, but I also don’t think having strong opinions on such questions makes anyone a bad person. You might be a bit tedious, and maybe I’d ask you to stop Redditing in real life, but still, I’d grab a beer with you.

There are also other types of questions I don’t debate anymore. Not because I don’t care, but because having a strong opinion on these questions other than the ones I hold does make you a person I’d rather not interact with. For example, I don’t think earth is flat. Nor do I think vaccines cause autism, or that US government faked the moon landing. These are generally settled debates, if there was one to begin with.

When is white supremacy not good?

Yet, Twitter The Company, is still divided on this issue seemingly. 

Motherboard reports (emphasis mine):

Twitter is conducting in-house research to better understand how white nationalists and supremacists use the platform. The company is trying to decide, in part, whether white supremacists should be banned from the site or should be allowed to stay on the platform so their views can be debated by others, a Twitter executive told Motherboard.

Now, in 2019, you’d think we’d have also settled the debate on white supremacy. If not, let me share my views. White supremacy is a bad, vile, sick, horrible ideology that is based on nothing but pure hatred for other human beings. It has no redeeming quality and it has no place in modern discourse. You definitely do not need to or want to engage with a white supremacist, unless you are a professional politician and / or ethicist. None of those are up for debate. I am not even sorry if this absolutism bothers you.

I do not want to make the assumption that Twitter executives think white supremacy is good. Statistically speaking, there’s probably an employee or two who thinks that way, and to be kind, they can go fuck themselves. I also do not consider Jack Dorsey to be particularly #woke, but I also don’t think you need to be socially progressive to be a good CEO.

I am, however, deadly curious about how on earth you embark on a mission where you have to answer the question “Do I want to have white supremacists on this platform, which I run for profit?” and expect to come up with any answer other “No, Jack. White supremacists are bad”.

Obviously I am caricaturizing things a bit. Repeatedly yelling “white supremacy is bad!” is probably not a good way to un-radicalize those who have been lost, or make the world safer who are threatened by this such sick ideologies. Social media companies’ laissez faire approach is partly to blame for the increasing, but it’s not the only reason.

Yet, on a more logistical level, the idea that Twitter The Company has to go on this long soul searching mission to figure this out is quite crazy. I do not want to harp on Jack Dorsey too much here, but it’s really hard not to. The man’s entire brand is built on the idea that you should always think as hard as possible, to the point of not doing anything ever.

Here, let me lie down set hard truths on the table for all of us to consider, because really, we are all parts of the problem.

It’s just Business

White supremacists make Twitter money. They count as daily active users. They create engagement. Twitter shows ads to white supremacists, and takes a cut when those ads make money. White supremacists and their activity are forever embedded in the machine learning models. You don’t have to see a single Nazi tweet to have interacted with them in some way. Your tweets, your likes, everything you do on Twitter, everything you see on your timeline is influenced, monetized and funded by some white supremacist somewhere.

There’s so much shit smeared on the walls of this house, we don’t even notice it anymore. Instead, we are just discussing what color of brown we like.

There are some cliched oppositions to the idea that Twitter should just call it a day, and ban white supremacists off of Twitter. The first is that Twitter discriminately banning people off of its platform would amount to curbing of free speech. The flaw with this argument is almost too obvious to point out; Twitter is a for-profit company that has no obligation to keep any sort of speech on its site.

This is really beating a dead horse, but Twitter is not a public square, nor is it an marketplace of ideas that is run as a courtesy to its users. Twitter exists only to make money for its shareholders, and every day Twitter keeps the white supremacists on its site, it is making money off of that activity. EU-funded research puts the number of alt-right users on the site at around 100,000 minimum. Subjecting itself to the whims of the sickest people on earth based on the naive belief that the only antidote to bad speech is more speech is one thing. Pretending this does not make you money, or it’s not part of the calculus, is insulting the intelligence of everyone.

Will They, Won’t They?

Till now, I have been assuming Twitter did have the ability (in addition and as opposed to willingness). This is admittedly a generous assumption, but not a crazy one. A common argument bans is that Twitter actually may not have the ability to identify, ban, and keep the white supremacists off of its platform. But let me flip the argument on its head. Is Twitter worth anything if it cannot keep a modicum of decorum on its site?

Partly, I do not buy the idea that there are so, so many white supremacists on Twitter that an even an expansive manual cull couldn’t make a substantial difference. The aforementioned EU research puts a floor of 100,000 alt-right members on the platform, which is a big number, but not unmanageable for a well-run company. A big operation might be costly, and there could be some false positives. But if de-platforming of people such as Alex Jones to Milo Yiannopoulos have shown anything, it is that they work, and the resulting censorship frenzy around censorship generally dies off once the media cycle moves on to the next Trump tweet.

We talk about Balkanization or “splinternet” often on this newsletter. It’s worth pointing out Twitter already blocks certain content, and bans people often in countries like Germany, and yes, Turkey, where I am originally from. Twitter’s cooperation with the Turkish authorities for silencing dissent is dishonorable, but I do not particularly fault them for it. 

However, what Twitter wants to do and what it is being forced to do are two different things. Lumping them together doesn’t help. Not many people at Twitter HQ are excited about blocking journalists’ account on Erdogan’s request within Turkey. It is, however, very clear (I think?) that Twitter does think white supremacists are bad, yet they prefer to have them on their platform.

In the end, I will wholeheartedly concede that these questions are easily answered from outside then outside. From my time at Uber, I’ve seen first-hand how what appears as a small fix, a minor change in policy could be impossible to put into action for reasons unknown to even the most knowledgable experts. But then, there was also a lot of legitimate concerns with Uber’s previous management, and it resulted in a hell of a year for the company, and eventual ousting of its CEO. Twitter might very well be afraid not just losing users and engagement, but actual physical safety of its employees and executives.

And that’s really the rub. Twitter made this bed, and now has to sleep in it. Once you associate yourself with the sickest of all, you are forever stuck there. There’s no way out. Unless, that is, they choose to find one.

What I’m Reading

Grow Smarter, Faster: How Axios drives engagement with user-level data: Normally Ranjan is loathe to promote his company’s stuff on The Margins. It keeps us indie. But, he’s got me thinking a lot about newsletter analytics. One thing I never thought about was the focusing on the individual readers, as opposed to the crowds, as is common on web marketing. His team just interviewed the VP of Growth at Axios exactly on this subject and it fits my experience building this newsletter well:

“You don’t simply get a 50% open rate by having a 100% opener and a 0% opener. You get two distinct cohorts that you act upon in different ways.” Simply put, some of your audience is engaged and some isn’t. So why do we treat them all the same? We should not measure success as an aggregate, but instead try to understand if the right people are highly engaged.

The Incels Getting Extreme Plastic Surgery to Become Chads: There’s no burying the lede here. The pick-up artists gave way to the incels (“involuntarily celibates”) and now they are undergoing surgery to make themselves look more like those they hate. Cringing doesn’t even being to describe my feelings but I still couldn’t stop reading. Internet does weird things to people:

Mike recently got a jaw procedure called BSSO, plus a hair transplant. After the surgeries, he met two girls at his other job, teaching comedy, whom he considered “cute,” and he took this as a sign of success. Now he’s investing in cryptocurrency in hopes of getting more procedures with Eppley. In a recent forum thread, he posted a selfie specced out with angles and degrees, measurements of his features; he then found a photo of Tom Cruise and gave it the same treatment. (Mike’s jaw angle was 69.02 degrees; Tom’s was 76.31.) “I want to solve this woman thing,” he told me.

This post is cross-posted from my joint newsletter with Ranjan Roy, The Margins. Please check it out, and consider subscribing.

Intrinsic motivation is hard to muster, but it is powerful. Back when I worked at a cloud storage company, our CTO really wanted us to be excited about our End-to-End Encrypted (E2E) offering. He believed, rightly so, that without E2E, any rogue employee could look at any customer’s data. So we built a small web application that randomly pulled photos from employee’s accounts and put them on a giant TV screen for everyone in the office to see. There was a small backlash; the employees were encouraged to use the product for their daily use but no one really agreed to have their coworkers see the photos of their kids.

The giant screens, however, stayed for a few months until we actually finished the E2E features fully integrated.

Encryption was thrust back into the headlines, albeit in a roundabout way. Financial Times reported last week that the Israeli spyware company, NSO Group, developed a tool that used Facebook’s WhatsApp voice call feature to install a surveillance software directly.

It is scary stuff (emphasis mine):

WhatsApp, which is used by 1.5bn people worldwide, discovered in early May that attackers were able to install surveillance software on to both iPhones and Android phones by ringing up targets using the app’s phone call function.

The malicious code, developed by the secretive Israeli company NSO Group, could be transmitted even if users did not answer their phones, and the calls often disappeared from call logs, said the spyware dealer, who was recently briefed on the WhatsApp hack.

You get a missed call, and game-over. You may not even be aware that you’ve been hacked! It doesn’t get much worse (better?) than that.

Facebook’s WhatsApp is famous for deploying end-to-end encryption to billions of people worldwide. That seems like a noble thing. It is likely that WhatsApp founders actually believed in the benefits bestowed upon with the encryption scheme. But then, they also said [advertising sucks], so who knows? You can’t buy loyalty they say, but turns out, you can rent it.

I’ve talked long about whether Facebook merging all its chat applications into a giant Voltron of a messaging app while also introducing E2E is a privacy-forward act.

I wrote back then:

First, the encryption. Zuckerberg might appear to leave data on the table when he decides to encrypt all communications, but that’s hardly the case. Facebook doesn’t use the contents of the messages today for advertising. Yet the company’s targeting is so good and people more predictable than they think, people accuse the company of listening their private conversations. Moreover, even when Facebook encrypts all the messages you send and receive, it will still be collecting tons of other sources of data, such as the metadata about the messages, location information gathered but the apps, your browsing habits via the various trackers on the web, data shared by apps that use Facebook SDKs, and the huge troves of data buys from other data brokers. None of that, seemingly is changing.

In some way, the NSO Group’s hack (seemingly) has little to do with end-to-end encryption; rather it relies on a bug in the larger app to install a surveillance tool that captures things before they are encrypted by the app.

The end in “end-to-end” sort of hides the fact there are several layers that exist before the data is fully encrypted, in a way that makes it invisible to the transport layer. First of all, you have to type it in to your phone, which exposes what you type to people (or cameras, mind you) around you. Even if your screen is covered, and keyboard, you are still leaking data from your keyboard, both visually and acoustically. 

But then there’s also the operating system that your app is running on; you simply rely on the fact that your keyboard isn’t logging things as you type them, your camera isn’t recording when it shouldn’t, so on and so-forth. There are a lot of “loose” ends before the end-to-end shrouds your messages in mathematical secrecy. And then, there’s the recipient. In most cases, you have no idea what situation the recipient is in or who he or she might be. For all you care, they might be just broadcasting your texts to the building across from them.

Encryption is just part of the puzzle, it is definitely not panacea.

Relatedly, Bloomberg writer Leonid Bershidsky stirs the pot:

“End-to-end encryption” is a marketing device used by companies such as Facebook to lull consumers wary about cyber-surveillance into a false sense of security. Encryption is, of course, necessary, but it’s not a fail-safe way to secure communication.

Bershidsky’s piece generated its own controversy and I admit I hesitated before linking to it, granting it further clicks and page views. The provocative tone makes it hard to tell if it was written in good faith, and the original headline (“WhatsApp hack shows End-to-End-encryption is pointless”) did not do it many favors. Something about WhatsApp encryption does make people say dumb things, I think. *cough*Guardian*cough*.

To make the obvious painfully obvious, I do not think E2E is a marketing ploy, but rather a necessity at this point. Whether that necessity is driven by public demand for privacy (good!) or Zuckerberg et al wanting to defer any sort of responsibility for what happens on its platform (bad!) is a different discussion. 

However, the point Bershidsky tries to make but gets lost in his inflammatory rhetoric is that if you are targeted by a state-level actor, you are probably done for. The Mariana trench level of depth hardware and software stack ensures someone will forget to plug a hole somewhere. And of course, the many, many, points of leverage a government has over people around you practically ensures that only the most life-long dedicated evade the Big Brother’s watchful eyes. If all fails, there’s always a wrench somewhere.

Then, a more interesting thing to ponder is whether you would want truly unbreakable E2E communications widely available to everyone at all times. My knee-jerk reaction to this is “Yes” but at the same time, “But how?”. Think hard enough, and you might even end up at “Maybe not?”.

We’ve seen that as there’ll be E2E communications, there’ll be ways to work around them. It is painfully naive to think we’ll hit on a technology to fix all those before the technology to break it all won’t develop. I am not a quantum technology expert, but some people are worried.

And there’s the human side. Be it Signal, Facebook’s WhatsApp, Wire, or Telegram, or Apple’s iMessage, or Wickr, we are at the mercy of a few people to get a ton of software and hardware right, and do the right thing all the time. We practically ran the internet on a buggy cryptography library for more two years before anyone noticed, and that was open source software. 

I admit I don’t have a good answer here.

On one side, I do not want people over at Menlo Park to peer through my chats on Facebook’s WhatsApp nor do I want people in Switzerland to go through my ProtonMail email. I am not sure if they cannot right now, but I know without E2E, they can. I’ll take that side of the deal, and you should too. Similarly, basic encryption protects you from a customs officer at the border having a bad day, or an ex-boyfriend that just wants some dirt. The same argument goes for mitigation dragnet surveillance. Not everyone, yet, can afford NSO Group’s software.

Moreover, E2E makes data stored in the cloud much, much less valuable. I believe that there are unaccounted liabilities in data, one of which is how the vast quantity of it presents a nice fat prize to focus all hacking efforts on. Properly encrypted data turns the data into an amorphous blob that is of no use to anyone.

Yet, how do you explain to tens of Indians or Myanmar residents that you simply cannot control people’s behavior, when you are benefiting from the encryption mostly? Apple put on a brave face when it resisted FBI’s attempts, but will it be able to do the same if there was a bigger threat to national security? Will Microsoft? Would we even know that these companies cooperated with the government? If Google tomorrow drops a key logger on your phone, I am not sure if anyone would be the wiser.

This stuff is not going to be fixed by us being miserable about it, but rather having a real debate between technologists and other stakeholders. This will mean working with governments, but also investing in new technologies. The other options are not workable.

Going back to the company I mentioned in the beginning. I am not sure how much the shame-board helped, but we eventually finished implementing what we called The Vault at the time; a folder that you could optionally put your data in. It’d be slightly slower, and some of the features like search and thumbnail generation wouldn’t work on all devices, but it “worked”. Yet, turns out, turning yourself into a dumb hard drive in the cloud is not much a business model. So that idea got scrapped. 

There’s a lot more to say about that, but hey, I am not going to put that in writing or even tell you online. I’ll tell in person. Between us 😉

What I’m Reading

Why Books Don’t Work: Andy Matuschak, a well known software engineer, talks why books (or lectures for that matter) aren’t great mediums for people to actually learn and integrate things from and presents his own (experimental) solution. Andy is always at the forefront of learning sciences, and I’m looking forward to see where he goes with this:

Instead, I propose: we don’t necessarily have to make books work. We can make new forms instead. This doesn’t have to mean abandoning narrative prose; it doesn’t even necessarily mean abandoning paper—rather, we can free our thinking by abandoning our preconceptions of what a book is. Maybe once we’ve done all this, we’ll have arrived at something which does indeed look much like a book. We’ll have found a gentle path around the back of that intimidating slope. Or maybe we’ll end up in different terrain altogether.

The Night The Lights Went Out: This is part harrowing, and part hilarious. Writer Drew Magary describes in gory details how he woke up from a chemically induced coma after a traumatic brain injury. I don’t want to spoil anything, but you owe it to yourself to read this:

[…] But I do know that I’m different. Still me, but not quite. All the pieces of me aren’t all lined up exactly as they were, and I haven’t fully accepted this yet. I liked who I was before all this. I’m not sure about this new fella.

This post is cross-posted from my joint newsletter with Ranjan Roy, The Margins. Please check it out, and consider subscribing.

Taking Stock of Stocks

What determines the price of a given stock? If you want to be academic about it, you’d expect it to be net present value of all future expected cash flows to the stockholders. In reality, though, it’s set by supply and demand; a stock price goes up when other people want to buy it. Of course, the stock holders do expect some benefits, so those two theories do say the same thing. This is all Financial Markets 101, and you don’t even need an MBA to know this stuff, as my co-host kindly pointed out.

Anyway, talking about stock prices, the ride share behemoth (Disclaimer: My former employer and I have some stock) Uber went public the last week. 

It hasn’t been going particularly well. 

DealBook from The New York Times:

Uber suffered the worst first-day dollar loss of any U.S. I.P.O. ever.That’s a terrible start for the biggest market debut in years. What was supposed to be a celebration turned into an exercise in expectations management: “I think we came public on a tough day, and a tough week,” Dara Khosrowshahi, the company’s C.E.O., told Mike Isaac of the NYT.

Let’s be real: It’s a fool’s errand to do any sort of deep dive on a stock that’s a couple days old. And it’s easy to go full Pessimists Archive and sneer at news companies calling it doom and gloom on other tech stocks that didn’t well on its IPO day, only to rise to never-before-seen heights. Amazon this, Facebook that. Again, Intro Corp Finance stuff. 

On the other hand, there are certain expectations of a company on its IPO day, and of them is that their stock go up a bit. Not too much, since the spread between the opening price and the eventual price ends up in the underwriters’ pocket instead of the company, but a few points up is good for the soul.

Of course, it’s pointless to judge a company by its IPO. But that doesn’t mean that the stock price is entirely meaningless. This stuff matters to some people! If you were, say, an Uber employee with stock options (or Reserved Stock Units), you’d rather have the stock go up. Maybe your employer doesn’t get much more on the listing day, but you do, or at least feel that way, since you’d be locked up for 6 months. I don’t think there are many people whose options are underwater (and Uber switched to RSUs in late 2014), but either way, higher stock price is good for most people.

Stocks Rule Everything Around Me

I talked here before stock options a bit, since that’s a major part of the compensation packages at tech industry. Both prospective and future employees (and former) follow the stocks of their favorite companies closely. If the stocks go down enough, you can see the recruitment funnel tighten, and the talent attrition go up.

A fair question here is why tech companies favor such equity heavy compensation packages. A satisfyingly folksy answer is that early stage companies with not much revenue but lots of growth potential don’t have much money, so equity is all they have. And, sure, it has the nice side-effect of aligning the interests of The Company with its employees, which should ideally make you work…better? There’s a hint of socialism at play in this arrangement too, if you squint a bit.

Again, I’ve gone on record saying that if you are joining an early stage firm, stock is where you want to be since the profits flow to the capital as opposed to labor in our system. It’s just the smart thing to do. But the origin story of equity have stock packages does sound a bit more financial engineering-y than a rosy, meritocratic system. 

Take it from Aswath Damodaran, the towering figure of valuation at NYU Stern: (Emphasis mine)

In particular, accounting rules allowed companies to grant options to employees and show no cost, at the time of the grant, if the options were at the money. Not surprisingly, companies treated as options as free currency and gave away large slices of equity in themselves to employees (and, in particular, to the very top employees), while claiming to be spending no money. If and when the options were exercised later, companies would report a large expense (reflecting the difference between the stock price at the time of the exercise and the exercise price) and show that expense either as an extraordinary expense in the income statement or adjust the book value of equity for it. 

After a decade of fighting to preserve this illogical status quo, the accounting rule makers finally came to their senses in 2006 and changed the rules on accounting for option grants. Companies were required to value options, as options, at the time of the grant and expense them at the time (with the standard accounting practice of amortizing or smoothing out softening the blow). This is the law that is triggering the large stock-based employee option expenses at Twitter and other companies like it, that continue to compensate employees with equity. It is worth noting that the change in the accounting law has also resulted in many companies moving away from options to restricted stock (with restrictions on trading for a few years after the grant), since there is no earnings benefit associated with the use of options any more.

Valuation is hard, and even seasoned professionals make mistakes all the time. And while the financial facade of numbers and jargons lend the industry an aura of objectivity, the reality is quite different. There are issues around integrity (people lie), motives (some people want high prices, some people low) and then competence (well, people suck). 

Let’s say you magically were able to account for all that. Still doesn’t help. Many highly educated people who have studied at a small number of schools (which itself is a problem), and learned the material from even fewer number of canonical sources differ in their analysis. 

And then there is the issue of comparison. Different companies describe similar businesses in different ways, which makes comparisons extremely hard. This gets exponentially harder when not just the companies themselves are new, but also their industries. As a fresh-faced almost MBA grad, I read the Uber and Lyft S-1 documents couple times over, and my head was spinning. 

Turns out I wasn’t alone, even people whose jobs are reporting on stuff is confused:Shira Ovide@ShiraOvideI’m not kidding when I say I have read this Uber S-1 glossary section every day for a month. And I still have to check the definitions of all its customized financial metrics. May 10th 201922 Retweets139 Likes

A knee-jerk reaction to such dizzying complexity is that these companies are hidingbehind this complexity, but I am not convinced. This ride-hailing stuff is quite new as a business, and there are no real precedents to some of the key metrics. We went through such adjustment periods when social media companies were growing up too. Eyeballs made way to Daily and Monthly Actives, vanity figures like cumulative user numbers to more business relevant ones such as Average Revenue Per User. As Uber and Lyft mature, they will better at telling their stories. Markets, in their infinite wisdom (one hopes?) will figure out what metrics really matter. 

But, the key question remains: When there are tons of people who constantly get it wrong, what are you supposed to do as an individual tech employee to value your stock?

Show Me the Money

A good way to think here is how your compensation package is set. Similar to the stock price discussion above, one way is to anchor it on how much you make for the firm. It can’t pay you the exact amount of value you add, then the firm would make no money. It also clearly can’t you pay you more, since then why would the firm hire you? So, you end up making just a bit under what you make for the firm. 

But of course, in reality, in tech and other relatively liquid labor markets, companies end up paying to most people enough to keep them employed here rather than there. If you are an efficient markets person, like I am, the ultimate way to price those options would be to get as many offers as possible, and see the point they converge to for your private stock options.

This isn’t really ideal, since different companies will judge you differently (a self-driving expert is worth more to Google than she is worth to Netflix, but an UI engineer could make more at Facebook than at either) but it’s one way. If you are particularly enterprising, you can peruse the H1-B salaries or find someone with access to Option Impact or one of those storied salary databases. Or, of course, you could just move to in Norway or Sweden, where such data is more publicly available. That does sound like cheating though.

Stock based compensation is here to stay, whether anyone likes it or not. And this stuff is not always pleasant, watching your net worth tumble down as Jim Cramer goes on screaming on CNBC. Just ask LinkedIn employees how they felt before Microsoft acquisition closed.

They didn’t feel good:

The rapid devaluation has posed more than just a problem for investors. LinkedIn’s employees are paid largely in stock, and therein lies the rub: Around the company’s new 26-story skyscraper that opened in downtown San Francisco in March, as well as the corporate headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., there have been persistent whispers about whether LinkedIn could retain its top talent as the marketplace clobbered their incomes.

Yet, Yet

I’ve argued before the situation is not ideal, and industry should change its terms to give earlier employees a more realistic chance at building wealth. Before that happens though, employees should do their best to evaluate their portfolio for the long horizon, avoid short term rash decisions, and most importantly diversify their holdings. Seriously, this stuff is so easy you could even fit on an index card.

There are established financial dynamics to IPOs in general, but what captures the attention is the human aspect. Every big IPO is fodder for some drama, and this being the Uber IPO, it’d be amiss if something wasn’t out of the ordinary, unexpected, and utterly polarizing. The plummeting stock price is what stole the show this time. 

Now, ask yourself: would the same people who are claiming that such a dramatic drop is actually good be saying the opposite if the price went up? 

I have my guesses. Now, if you’ll allow me, I’m going to look at some stock tickers…

What I’m Reading

The dangerous world of being paid in shares: How tech firms’ massive rewards are coming back to bite them: Well, this is fitting. Alex Stamos, the former Facebook Chief Security Officer and others argue that tech stocks cause employees to outsource their morality to Wall Street, which I guess is not as good as Silicon Valley. The piece is behind a paywall, but you can login to read it:

[Alex Stamos:]”Markets have demonstrated that they don’t care about social responsibility – they only care about what the quarterly numbers look like and what guidance they are given on future revenues… it’s incongruous with our beliefs about changing the world in a positive way that we’re inheriting the lower Manhattan school, or the City of London school, of what makes a responsible company. There’s more to responsibility than returning value to shareholders.”

Chris Eberle, a former director at Facebook who gave out and received many “secret taps on the shoulder”, agrees. “When you’re incentivised through stock grants, everything becomes about what’s important to Wall Street,” he says. At Facebook, that led employees to “not look too closely” at anything that might diminish Facebook’s most important numbers, such as user growth and engagement.

When Bitcoin Grows Up: Seems like a million years ago now, from the madness of 2017. But Bitcoin is up again, for better or worse. A good time to re-read this piece by John Lanchester in London Review of Books. Just the story of how the founder of Silk Road got caught is worth reading the entire thing in full:

On 1 October 2013 Ulbricht was sitting in a public library in San Francisco, logged into Silk Road via the library’s wifi. He was in an online chat with an FBI agent whose job was to make sure Ulbricht was still online when his colleagues swooped. Ulbricht was at a desk across from a slight young Asian woman when a couple of typical San Francisco street people began arguing loudly just behind him. He turned to look, and the young woman grabbed his laptop: she was an FBI agent. So were the street people. Nice one, the Feds. Ulbricht was logged into Silk Road under the account ‘/Mastermind’. Game over for Dread Pirate Roberts. Ulbricht went on trial in 2015, was convicted, and is serving two life sentences without the possibility of parole.

This post is cross-posted from my joint newsletter with Ranjan Roy, The Margins. Please check it out, and consider subscribing.

If you asked a ton of people “Which country controls the internet?”, what would the answer be? Most people, I am guessing, would first balk at the question but then probably say United States. 🇺🇸!🇺🇸!🇺🇸!

There’s a bunch of reasons to think that way. On the surface, most companies that people associate with “Internet” are concentrated to a tiny, earthquake-prone region in the US. It’s not that Tim Cook is dying to do Trump’s bidding, but there’s some truth to the idea that if Uncle Sam really flexed his muscles, say by sending some people with guns over to Silicon Valley, he could get all those folks to cooperate. My co-host Ranjan thinks this is a bit extreme, but then, I am Turkish and he’s not.

But there’s also some technical realities too. For example, ICANN, the non-profit that controls the DNS scheme is based in California. To gloss over a ton of technical details, that gives ICANN the ability to own the relationship between human-readable addresses (like typing in TheFacebook.com in your browser) and the IP addresses, that refer to the servers. Now, ICANN has a tumultuous relationship, to say the least, with the US government and every few years, there are calls to make ICANN’s authority be moved to an international body. To this day, though, the organization remains in sunny Southern California, only occasionally being thrusted to headlines when it tries to raise some revenues by introducing questionable Top-Level Domains, like .amazon. 

“I come from Cyberspace”

Yet, there’s also the globally shared sensation that internet is somewhat above the regular, day-to-day, international drama. It’s all digital, global, connected, and you know, good. It was designed to be supranational, in some sense, rather than international. It rises above those pesky, arbitrary notions of land borders, regional disputes, sectarian differences. Internet is just there, encompassing us all, like the air we breathe.

Not my words! Take it from John Perry Barlow. The iconic figure once penned a fiery manifesto at a World Economic Forum, after being struck by the arrogance and the dismissal of the world leaders of the incoming cyber revolution. He even called it, provocatively, “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” and boy did he not mince his words:

We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.

Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.

Barlow later backed those claims down a bit, but the libertarian thrust of his manifesto never really died down. We are in this beautiful mess, with Facebook accidentally kindling genocides, YouTube promoting anti-vaccination content and god-knows-what-else to kids, partly due to this line of thinking.

Enter Russia

Yet, the borders seem to persist. The internet recently was abuzz with the news that Russia is now setting up a new perimeter for its own internets. 

Here’s Financial Times:

The Balkanisation of the internet has entered another phase, with Russian president Vladimir Putin signing a law to give the country a “sovereign internet” that the Kremlin will be able to disconnect from the global web.

The move was expected and follows other attempts to cut off users from the world wide web. There’s been the Great Firewall of China, an Iranian move to isolate itself, and the recent temporary blocking of Facebook and other social networks by the Sri Lankan government after the Easter Sunday bombings.

Balkanization is not a technical term, but it largely refers to dividing the “global internet” into more local internets (or intranets, kind of arbitrary here) that are controlled by individual countries. Of course, the fact that Russia is the one doing it makes it extra-uneasy, given the country is hardly a bastion of free expression. This feels bad, as in not done in good-faith, at least to my Western ears. You don’t have to be a technolibertarian to think Balkanization is not ideal.

But, here’s an idea: ask the question that I posed in the beginning “Which country controls the internet?” to someone in China. I don’t know the answer, but the Chinese friends I’ve asked said “Well, people don’t really think of US internet companies”, so that’s sort of an answer. 

Is Chinese internet the same as our (?) Western internet? If not, what’s that relationship? Maybe it’s a subset, or maybe a federated one that occasionally talks to ours, on Chinese government’s terms? We really do not have good models to fully understand them yet.

Even if they did know of the American internet (bear with me here), it’s not even clear they would even care at this point:

Two economists from Peking University and Stanford University concluded this year, after an 18-month survey, that Chinese college students were indifferent about having access to uncensored, politically sensitive information. They had given nearly 1,000 students at two Beijing universities free tools to bypass censorship, but found that nearly half the students did not use them. Among those who did, almost none spent time browsing foreign news websites that were blocked.

As much as we’d like to believe that Internet (internet?) is not just a set of technologies, but in fact a manifestation of the notion that “information wants to be free”, a force of nature that just cannot be held back due to its sheer size and complexity, China seems to be doing fine with their firewall.

In fact, not just fine, but China’s internet protectionism has not just kept Chinese dissidents at bay, but it also allowed the country to nurture and develop its own technology giants such as Tencent, Baidu, and more recently (more on this soon!) Bytedance. It’s hard to argue, if you are a Chinese investor, that the Great Firewall has not been a good thing. 

China decided to carve out its own internet from the greater network, yet it’s still the same internet, running on the same technologies. But that’s not the only way you could have your internet. If you are especially enterprising, have a tendency to generally do things in your own way, could also just build an entire internet, or something that resembles it, by inventing a whole set of new technologies.

Comme ci comme ça

Take a look at France, where I temporarily live. Unbeknownst to many in the United States, this beautiful land of wine and cheese had its own “internet”, way before Al Gore invented it across the Atlantic. Allow me to introduce you to Minitel.

Essentially, an end-to-end system with its own terminals, Minitel allowed people all over France to communicate, do commerce, and generally have a good time. You could set up a “website”, browse other sites, chat with people, and of course, get their rocks off. The closest analogue I can think of in the US would be the Bloomberg terminals, which like Minitel, runs on its own “parallel” internet, with its own protocols, own terminals.

Minitel enjoyed some limited success, but in the end it was shut down in 2012, and it remains as one of those ahead-of-its-time technologies that historians fawn over, and provide more fodder for my French friends to assert their arrogance. But, it’s also an interesting experiment in a country developing, it’s own set of technologies from the ground up, and building a national network that works well.

And some of those tendencies stick around. Just a few weeks ago, French government announced they would be switching to Tchat, an internally developed instant-messaging system based on Matrix protocol. The switch did not go swimmingly (French), with embarrassing security mishaps allowing strangers to enter government chat rooms. Yet, you can imagine French intelligence not being too psyched with Macron using Telegram (which I bet he still does). And there’s also Qwant, a European search engine that parts of French administration is encouraged to use.

It’s a time-tested tradition to make fun of French eccentricities. Yet, still in the United States, you can’t read a single newspaper without hearing about Huawei and its ascension to being the 5G backbone provider of choice around the world. Can you say in the same breath that internet is truly global, and then argue that the nationality of the technology provider is a deal-breaker?

Mind in Cyberspace

Maybe, the answer is “yes”. The same United States recently forced Grindr, a dating app popular with the gay community, to divest its Chinese ownership, over fears the sensitive data it has over American citizens could become a liability. I talk often here on data as liability, but the the issue here is larger than that.

Whether we like it or not, some notion of borders, along with national sovereignty and protections seem to be slowly making their way to the digital space.

Some companies will surely be more equipped to handle these new challenges than others. For example, you can even imagine Facebook’s new push towards end-to-end encryption in this sense a bit. While E2E is most likely a hedge against anti-trust regulation and a deference tool against surveillance, it also has the nice feature of turning data into amorphous blobs that you can’t really meaningfully “manage. In other words, you either allow Facebook entirely in your country, or not.

Some of the previous attempts, such as region locks on DVDs, to borders on the cyberspace have fallen flat. The long-term effects of GDPR is yet to be seen, but it also did have a slight Balkanizing effect where some US firms like LATimes and Instapaper simply stopping to operate in Europe . On the other hand, if California has its way with its GDPR-lite, and there is no federal equivalent, things could get even more hairy in US.

What’s certain now, is that, the old rules of the internet are being rewritten right now. And whether we like it or not, the borderless, stateless, cyberspace is not going to be happening anytime soon.

What I’m Reading

The 5 Years That Changed Dating: A wonderful piece about how Tinder both changed dating, and not, for the better, and for the worse. The many anecdotes about compartmentalization of romance and how apps like Tinder both foster and hamper that dynamic is fascinating.

People used to meet people at work, but my God, it doesn’t seem like the best idea to do that right now,” Finkel says. “For better or worse, people are setting up firmer boundaries between the personal and the professional. And we’re figuring all that stuff out, but it’s kind of a tumultuous time.”

A Conspiracy To Kill IE6: An early YouTube engineer talks about how a few renegade engineers started a skunkworks effort to wean people off of Internet Explorer 6, without any approval from the Google corporate machine. A fascinating play-by-play, but also goes to show how much power a few engineer can wield.

The code was designed to be as subtle as possible so that it would not catch the attention of anyone monitoring our checkins. Nobody except the web development team used IE6 with any real regularity, so we knew it was unlikely anyone would notice our banner appear in the staging environment. We even delayed having the text translated for international users so that a translator asking for additional context could not inadvertently surface what we were doing.