Heavy Facebook users make bad choices – study

A recent study from Michigan State University suggests Facebook might be having more of an impact on our lives than simply making us less socially capable.

With several departments contributing to the research, the results suggest some slightly worrying trends. As with everything to do with academia and theoretical pursuits, claims have to be taken with a pinch of salt, though it will hardly come as a surprise that our obsession with the virtual world is having a negative effect in our physical one. In this case, the academics suggest our ability to make sensible and logical decisions is being impaired.

Entitled ‘Excessive social media users demonstrate impaired decision making in the Iowa Gambling Task’, the paper measured how reliant on social media users are, then asked the same users to take the ‘Iowa Gambling Task’, which is thought to simulate real-life decision making. The results suggest the more reliant individuals are on social media networks, the higher the likelihood these individuals would make riskier decisions.

71 Facebook users were asked to rank their own social media habits with a measure known as the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale, before taking the Iowa Gambling Task. The Iowa Gambling Task presents four virtual decks of cards, with the user told each deck holds cards that will either reward or penalize them, with each deck being weighted differently. Two of the decks offer larger rewards, though the losses outweigh the gains, while the other two have smaller rewards and lesser punishments, allowing for a net gain.

Most healthy participants sample cards from each deck, and after about 40 or 50 selections are fairly good at sticking to the good decks, whereas some with various mental conditions to persevere with bad decks, sometimes even with the knowledge they are losing money. The concept of ‘chasing the loss’ seems to be quite apparent here.

In a world where social media networks are potentially creating echo chambers for more extreme opinion, the combination with less considered decision-making leads to a worrying outcome. Perhaps this might be one explanation why some recent decisions in elections and referendums are removed from what would be considered the status quo and would appear to be more ‘confrontational’ than behaviour see during yesteryear.

“We observed that more severe, excessive SNS (social networking sites) use is associated with worse performance in the last 20 trials of the IGT (Iowa Gaming Test),” the paper states.

“Our results have important societal implications. SNS use is ubiquitous and continues to grow, likely resulting in more individuals displaying excessive, problematic SNS use. Meanwhile, companies continue to develop features on SNS platforms to make them even more compelling.”

Those who self-identified as excessive Facebook users performed notably poorer in the tests than those who believed themselves to have a more moderate approach to social media. The behaviour was perhaps most worrying in the final stages of the test, as while the excessive users had the same amount of time to realise which decks were ‘bad’ and which were ‘good’, the riskier choices were still made.

What is worth noting is the limitations of the research. Firstly, the work has been conducted in a controlled, theoretical environment, not the real-world. Secondly, only the impact of Facebook users were measured, not all social media sites. Thirdly, the Iowa Gaming Test is not without its critics. Finally, this test was conducted in a mathematical fashion not clinical, which is an important differentiation to make when claiming conclusions which are linked to psychological behaviour.

That said, the tests should encourage more investigation. Today’s world is being increasingly influenced by the footprint and power of social media, though little work has been done to understand the long-term impacts or even tightly regulate the space. This might be down to the age of this segment, in comparison to traditional industries the internet is still a baby, or due to the fact few outside Silicon Valley understand how Silicon Valley actually works. Whatever the reason, the internet players have been granted a relatively light-touch regulatory landscape.

As the days roll into years, we will discover more of the positive and negative impacts of social media on our lives, though considering the rate of expansion, this education process might be taking too long. Social media sites are rapidly developing in every aspect of our physical and virtual lives, while simultaneously collecting the profits to fuel more aggressive growth in the years to come. The more we find out about platforms like Facebook and the potential impact on our lives, the less we like, though this has done little to slow the gathering momentum behind the segment.

After a year which has seen the rise of extreme political groups utilising the power of social media, Facebook curating the biggest data privacy scandal to date, Google misleading the user over location tracking policies, as well as numerous other nefarious activities, perhaps this paper is further evidence governments need a tighter handle on the internet. Few would complain over greater regulatory scrutiny in this sector, though whether governments have the know-how and resource to actually do it is another matter.

Samsung imposes Facebook on its smartphone customers and blocks uninstall

Smartphone giant Samsung has apparently struck a deal with Facebook to force the installation of the app on its phones.

The move, which was highlighted by Bloomberg, is not by itself remarkable. It’s not uncommon for smartphone OEMs to partner with third parties to preinstall their stuff on phones, although push-back against ‘bloatware’ has made this less common than it once was. What is causing some degree of backlash is the fact that it’s not possible to uninstall this imposed Facebook app, only to disable it.

The Bloomberg story quotes a Facebook spokesperson as saying the disabled app is effectively uninstalled as is no longer collects data for Facebook, but if that’s the case then why prevent its removal? Samsung didn’t provide Bloomberg with any further explanation.

This correspondent can confirm that this doesn’t just apply to new phones. I recently did a factory reset of my old Samsung Galaxy S7 in order to bequeath it to my son. Once the process was complete I was surprised to see the Facebook app appear on the home screen and can confirm that I wasn’t given the option to uninstall it.

Which raises a significant issue with the imposition of social media apps on phones that other reports seem to have overlooked: mental health. In a recent appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt revealed a sharp increase in reported mental health issues among US teenagers and young adults in the last decade. As you can see in the clip below he theorises that a major contributing factor to this is social media use, especially on smartphones.

Many parents, this one included, have decided that their children should not use any form of social media, including IM apps such as Whatsapp, due to the threat they pose to their mental health. Not only does social media seem likely to make children more socially obsessive, self-conscious and distracted, it also facilitates some forms of bullying and leaves a digital footprint that it seems likely their adult selves will regret.

For this reason, on top of the general arrogant presumption involved in trying to commercially manipulate your own customers, this looks like a bad move by both Samsung and Facebook. Neither of them are in the strongest position to throw their weight around these days and the smartest thing to do in the light of this revelation would be for them to reinstate the ability to uninstall the Facebook app from Samsung phones.

 

Privacy International points GDPR finger at Facebook

An investigation from privacy advocacy group Privacy International on the flow of personal information has questioned whether Facebook and its advertisers are violating Europe’s GDPR.

To date there have not been any major challenges using the data privacy regulation. There have of course been numerous violations of user privacy, but as these incidents occurred prior to the implementation of GDPR, the old-version of the rules and punishments were used. This investigation from Privacy International could prove to be a landmark.

The investigation itself questions whether Facebook and the app-developers which use its platform for data collection and user identification is acting responsibly and legally. Using the Facebook Software Development Kit (SDK), data is automatically sent back to the social media giant, irrelevant as to whether consent has been collected, or even if the user has a Facebook book account.

“Facebook routinely tracks users, non-users and logged-out users outside its platform through Facebook Business Tools,” Privacy International states on its website.

“App developers share data with Facebook through the Facebook Software Development Kit (SDK), a set of software development tools that help developers build apps for a specific operating system. Using the free and open source software tool called ‘mitmproxy’, an interactive HTTPS proxy, Privacy International has analysed the data that a number of Android apps transmit to Facebook through the Facebook SDK.”

After testing dozens of different apps, Privacy International claims 61% automatically transfer data to Facebook the moment a user opens the app, while others routinely send Facebook data that is incredibly detailed. Some of these users may be logged out of the platform or might not even have a Facebook account in the first place. Developers tested include travel comparison app Kayak, job search company Indeed and crowd-sourced search service Yelp.

Looking at the Kayak example, not only was information transferred back to Facebook once the app was opened and closed, but also during each stage of the search process. In the example Privacy International gives, the user selected a flight from London Gatwick to Tokyo between December 2 and 5, Narita Airport was then selected, before another search was conducted searching for hotels for two adults in the city. All of this information was sent to Facebook without prompt, despite Kayak claiming, ‘don’t worry, we’ll never share anything without your permission’, when the user signs in.

Alone this information is useful, but not incredibly so. However, when you consider the huge number of apps which will be sending information back to Facebook, an incredibly detailed picture of the user can be built. Using the other apps tested in this investigation, Facebook could also learn or make assumptions about the user’s religion (Muslim Pro), music interests (Shazam), salary and disposable income (Indeed Job Search) and interest in physical activities (MyFitnessPal). All of this information could be used to feed incredibly personalised advertisements to the user.

The big question which remains is whether this could be perceived as a violation of GDPR. Facebook has stated it released an update to the SDK which allowed developers to suspend the automatic data transfers, though this was only for version 4.34 and later. With the Opt-out section (the Google advertising ID) automatically turned off, some might suggest the user is being led as opposed to asked.

Another factor which could work against Facebook is the collection of data on users who do not have Facebook accounts; this is much more suspect. As per GDPR, a company has to have a specific and justified reason to collect personal information. It does appear Facebook is collecting information on users despite having no purpose or valid reason to do so.

With fines for violating GDPR up to 3% of annual turnover, the stakes are very high. This could prove to be one of the first tests of the rules, designed to protect the privacy of the general public, and few will be surprised Facebook is a central character in the story. With the social media giant seemingly antagonising many governments around the world, we suspect there will be a queue forming to have a swing with the sharp GDPR stick.

The Silicon Valley inquisition gathers pace

A number of independent online commentators have been blacklisted by technology giants for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

The past few weeks have seen another round of purging of content creators who rely on the internet for a living. The reasons for doing so are varied but usually default to some kind of transgression of their terms and conditions of use. However these Ts and Cs tend to be vaguely worded and appear to be selectively enforced, leading to fears that these decisions have been driven as much by subjective ideology as exceptional misbehaviour on the part of creators.

If there is an ideological bias it would appear to be against those commentators that are advocates of freedom of speech and unfettered dialogue. On the other side of the fence you have those who are concerned with concepts such as ‘hate speech’, which seek to ensure nothing that is deemed ‘offensive’ should be tolerated in the public domain.

Those latter terms are ill-defined and thus subject to a wide range of interpretation, which means rules that rely on them will, by definition, be subjectively enforced. In spite of that there is growing evidence that Silicon Valley companies are unanimous in their assessments of who should and shouldn’t be banned from all of their public platforms.

We have previously written about the coordinated banning of InfoWars from pretty much all internet publication channels and a subsequent purge of ‘inauthentic activity’ from social media. Now we can add commentator Gavin McInnes to the list of people apparently banned from all public internet platforms and, most worryingly of all, the removal of popular YouTuber Sargon of Akkad from micro-funding platform Patreon.

The internet, social media and especially YouTube have revolutionised the way in which regular punters get access to information, commentary and discussion. Free from the constraints imposed on broadcast TV, YouTubers have heralded a new era of on-demand, unfettered, user-generated content that has rapidly superseded TV as the viewing platform of choice.

Their primary source of income has traditionally been the core internet model: monetizing traffic via serving ads. But YouTube has been removing ads from any videos that have even the slightest chance of upsetting any of its advertisers for some time, forcing creators to call for direct funding from their audience to compensate.

The best-known micro-funding service is Patreon, which is where many YouTubers send their audience if they want to pay for their content. Any decision by Patreon to ban its users can therefore have massive implications for the career and income of the recipient of the ban. Sargon is thought to have had revenues from Patreon alone in excess of £100,000 per year, a revenue stream that has been unilaterally cut off without even a warning, it seems.

Every time an internet company moves against a popular internet figure there is inevitably outcry on both sides of the matter. Prominent advocates of free speech such as Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin have tweeted their support for Sargon, while many media are actively celebrating the punishing or outright removal from the internet of people they don’t like.

The age-old debate concerning the optimal balance between safety and freedom is being won by those biased in favour of the former on the internet. The leaders of those companies are in a difficult position regarding censorship of their platforms but they seem to be basing their decisions on fear of the internet mob rather than rational, objective enforcement of universal rules. This isn’t a new phenomenon but it seems to be rapidly getting worse.

To finish here’s YouTuber and independent journalist Tim Pool giving his perspective while he still can.

 

China’s social credit system set to kick off in Beijing in 2020

The Chinese state wants to control its citizens via a system of social scoring that punishes behaviour it doesn’t approve of.

This initiative has been widely reported, including an excellent piece from ABC Australia, but this marks one of the first times a specific timescale has been attributed to it. Bloomberg reports that Beijing, China’s capital city, plans to implement the social credit system by the end of 2020, which will affect 22 million citizens.

The full plan has been published on a Chinese government website, and we currently have our Beijing bureau sifting through it to bring you our own take on the primary material. But for the time being we’re relying on Bloomberg’s account, which highlights just how sinister this sort of thing is.

People who accumulate higher social ‘scores’, the rules and algorithms for which are presumably opaque, subjective and nebulous, get access to special privileges, while those who fall foul of the system will apparently be unable to move even a single step. This is hopefully at least a bit hyperbolic, but it does indicate that a lot of the sanctions attached to a low score focus on the ability to travel.

Mobile technologies, including smartphones, social media, facial recognition, etc, will clearly play a big part in this Orwellian social manipulation strategy. The fact that our every action, or even inaction, now leaves a permanent digital fingerprint makes this sort of thing possible in a way that it never has been before. If you want a further sense of quite how seamlessly it could metastasize beyond China, watch the episode of Black Mirror called Nosedive, a preview of which you can see below.

 

Facebook says sharing is increasingly going private

While announcing another solid set of numbers, Facebook revealed that sharing is increasingly moving to private channels.

This presents some business challenges for Facebook as monetising services such as instant messaging has proven to be more difficult than just slapping ads in the middle of public streams. As a consequence Facebook’s share price fluctuated a fair bit during the earnings call on the back of knee-jerk reactions from investors.

“Public sharing will always be very important, but people increasingly want to share privately too — and that includes both to smaller audiences with messaging, and ephemerally with stories,” said Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in a public Facebook post. “People feel more comfortable being themselves when they know their content will only be seen by a smaller group and when their content won’t stick around forever. Messaging and stories make up the vast majority of growth in the sharing that we’re seeing.

Now, it’s worth noting that one of the main reasons people prefer our services — especially WhatsApp — is because of its stronger record on privacy. WhatsApp is completely end-to-end encrypted, does not store your messages, and doesn’t store the keys to your messages in China or anywhere else. This is important because if our systems can’t see your messages, then that means governments and bad actors won’t be able to access them through us either.”

It’s very interesting that Zuck chose to attribute such importance to privacy. There have, of course, been all sorts of panics this year around data privacy, with the Cambridge Analytica scandal still clearly fresh in Zuck’s mind. People are rightly more aware than ever of the implications of publishing their personal stuff on the internet and it’s possible that we may have reached peak social media sharing.

Another contributing factor may be the increasing likelihood of being permanently banned from social media platforms for posting content that falls fowl of increasingly broad censorship parameters. Most recently Facebook has taken down accounts associated with conservative activist group The Proud Boys and it seems likely that the move to private messaging is influenced by fear of being banned.

Zuck noted that a lot of this private sharing happens over platforms he owns – Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp – but censorship attention has now moved to his other main property: Instagram. The Daily Beast, NYT, and Verge have all written recently about how much horridness there is on Instagram and how shouldn’t be tolerated. As public sharing becomes increasingly risky, this move to private is likely to accelerate.

Don’t listen to the moaners, phones are great – Three

Three has launched a new marketing campaign designed to counter all the moaning about how bad phones are for you.

In a new campaign, simply named ‘Phones are Good’, the telco imagines how historical moments would have been different if smartphones had been around. From Henry VIII on Tinder, to the Titanic with GPS, it’s a bit of fun which indirectly encourages people to use the internet more, playing directly into Three’s USP.

“At a time when we are being told to get off our phones, Three’s customers are actually using them three and a half times more than other providers,” said Shadi Halliwell, Chief Marketing Officer at Three. “That’s because, unlike others, we understand how real people use their phones.

“And although we shouldn’t be on our phones 24/7, if it weren’t for our mobiles how would you find love lounging on the sofa? Buy new shoes while sitting on the toilet? Or get a chicken cooked, seasoned, garnished and delivered to your door at the drop of a hat? As the Best Network for Data, it is our duty to challenge the cynics, and help everyone see that Phones Are Good.”

As you can see from the video below, it’s a creative way to get Three’s message across, and quite entertaining.

While Three is suggesting all these wonderful ideas on how mobile phones could have changed the course of history, there is of course the other side of the coin…

  • If the Mesopotamians had used MyBuilder.com for its reviews of local tradesmen, their grain storage units would have never leaked and beer would not be a thing
  • The Spanish Armada of 1588 could have been successful in its mission to conquer England if Sir Francis Drake was taking numerous selfies for the perfect Instagram post instead of gazing onto the horizon
  • Had a clumsy Chinese chef been following a YouTube recipe he might not have dropped a natural coagulant called nigari into a pot of soybean milk and created Tofu
  • Juliet might never have fallen for Romeo had she done a bit of Facebook stalking beforehand (admittedly this didn’t really happen)
  • If Percy Spencer had been using a calorie counting app, he would have never had that chocolate bar in his pocket and invented the microwave
  • Finally, without the power of Twitter the US might have a logical and caring human being in charge…

Of course, the revolutionary impact of mobile devices, not just the smartphone, is countered with negatives. Instead of talking to that lonely women on the bus, we stare at cats playing the piano and or toddlers biting siblings fingers. But, we more connected to family members on the other side of the planet. There’s always rough with the smooth.

Ultimately Three is attempting to push the advantages of the internet and encourage more people to consume more data. As the telco which sells itself to the more digital-enthusiastic users, using the internet more benefits it. It sells itself on data volume more than anything else.

The idea of the smartphone contradicts all the lessons of politeness and paying attention which we were taught as children. Perhaps the next thing we should be worried about is virtual reality. Parents have been telling children all around the world sitting too close to a TV screen is bad for your eyes, yet VR places a screen inches in front of your face.

Facebook and Twitter coordinate once more over censorship

Facebook recently removed hundreds of accounts for ‘inauthentic’ behaviour and many of those affected have also seen their Twitter accounts suspended.

In a press release entitled ‘Removing Additional Inauthentic Activity from Facebook’, Facebook explained that its doesn’t like inauthentic behaviour, by which it means accounts that seek to mislead people about their real identities and/or objectives. While there is some concern that this could be driven by the desire to influence politics, Facebook reckons it’s mostly ‘clickbait’, designed to drive and then monetise internet traffic.

“And like the politically motivated activity we’ve seen, the ‘news’ stories or opinions these accounts and pages share are often indistinguishable from legitimate political debate,” said the release. “This is why it’s so important we look at these actors’ behaviour – such as whether they’re using fake accounts or repeatedly posting spam – rather than their content when deciding which of these accounts, pages or groups to remove.”

So Facebook is not saying it’s the arbiter of ‘authentic’ speech, which is very wise as that would put it in a highly compromised position. Instead it’s taking action against people posting political content via supposedly fake accounts or who are seen to generate spam. It seems to be hoping this will allow it to remove certain accounts that focus on political content without being accused of political meddling or bias.

All this context and preamble was offered to set up the big reveal, which is that Facebook has removed 559 Pages and 251 accounts that have broken its rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behaviour. It looks like the timing of this renewed purge is influenced by the imminent US mid-term elections, with Facebook keen to avoid a repetition of claims made during the Cambridge Analytica scandal that it facilitated political meddling by allowing too much of this sort of thing to take place during the last US general election.

Of course Facebook is free to quality control its platform as much as it likes, but if it is seen to lack neutrality and objectivity in so doing, it runs the risk of alienating those of its users that feel discriminated against. In this case the loudest dissent seems to be coming from independent media, some of which feel they have been mistakenly identified as clickbaiters.

The Washington Post spoke to ‘Reasonable People Unite’, which was shut down by Facebook, but which claims to be legitimate (let alone authentic). Meanwhile Reason.com reckons libertarian publishers were targeted and spoke to the founder of The Free Thought Project, who also found himself banned in spite of claimed legitimacy.

Matt Agorist, who writes for The Free Thought Project, tweeted the following, and his subsequent piece indicated that his employer had also been removed from Twitter. This seems to be another manifestation (Alex Jones having been the most high-profile previous case) of coordinated activity between the two sites that, together with YouTube, dominate public debate in the US. A number of other publishers removed by Facebook seem now to have been suspended by Twitter.

Other independent journalists have joined the outcry, including Caitlin Johnstone and Tim Pool in the video below. The latter makes the point that many of those purged seem to be left-leaning, which at least balances the previous impression that right-leaning commentators were being disproportionately targeted, and that many of the accounts taken down may well have been guilty as charged. But the inherent subjectivity involved in determining the relative legitimacy of small publishers is a problem that is only amplified by this latest move.

It seems unlikely that the primary objective of these social media giants is to impose their world view via the censorship of content they disagree with, but this kind of coordinated banning does feel like unilateral speech policing and that should be of concern, regardless of your political position. Twitter doesn’t even seem to have made any public statements on the matter. Meanwhile the range of views considered ‘authentic’ by these private companies seems to be narrowing by the day.

 

Even Snapchat is getting into the original content game

With social networking services seeking to improve the quality of content they host by making their own, even ephemeral messaging service Snapchat has felt compelled to act.

Snapchat has been teasing the idea of creating its own video content for at least a year, but this somewhat counter-intuitive move has taken a while to become reality. There is presumably only a very specific type of video content that is best consumed via a mobile messaging apps and now we finally get to see what that is.

“Today, we’re excited to debut Snap Originals – exclusive shows created by some of the world’s greatest storytellers, with new episodes released every day,” said the announcement. “Our first slate of Snap Originals includes Co-Ed, a new comedy from the Duplass Brothers; Class of Lies, a mystery thriller from one of the minds behind Riverdale; and Endless Summer, a docuseries following rising stars in Laguna Beach — from Bunim/Murray, the creators of Keeping Up with the Kardashians.

“Snap Originals will also feature new Show Portals, letting you swipe up and step inside a scene from a Show to experience it for yourself. Snap Originals will also have Lenses, Filters, and other fun ways for you to share the show experience with your friends.

You can see the promotional video below. It indicates that Snapchat is trying to do some novel things that play to the strengths of video consumed via a smartphone. This trend also reinforces the consensus that video-driven mobile data consumption is growing exponentially and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

 

Facebook eyes up the connected home space

Facebook has seemingly taken its first steps towards the connected home market with the launch of Portal.

As it stands, Portal is being marketed simply as a video calling product, though with partnerships with various content streaming channels and a tie-in with Amazon’s Alexa, the future could see Facebook enter the fray as a competitor in the smart home hardware segment.

Two products will be released to start with, Portal and Portal+. Portal will feature a 10-inch 1280 x 800 display, while Portal+ is a larger model with a 15-inch 1920 x 1080 pivoting display. Powered by AI, Facebook claims the smart camera automatically pans and zooms to keep everyone in view, while smart sound features minimize background noise and enhances the voice of whoever is talking. How effective the AI remains to be seen, however now the idea of smart communications products have been normalised in the home it won’t be too long before some pretty impressive products will start hitting the market.

Such a venture could prove to be a very useful gander for the Facebookers, as diversification is going to need to happen sooner or later. With younger demographics searching elsewhere for their social media fix, Snapchat and Facebook-owned Instagram benefiting, pressure will soon start to mount on the advertising business.

Shareholders are used to exceptional year-on-year growth figures, but it wouldn’t be a surprise to see these flatten; people are becoming less engaged by the platform, therefore spending less time exposed to adverts, while recent figures have shown key markets are not boosting total subscription numbers. Sooner or later a threshold will be hit; only so many adverts can be placed in front of users. Perhaps this is where the Portal products can help.

Unlike the other internet giants Facebook hasn’t really done an exceptional job of diversification. It has added more advertising products (i.e. different ways to engage users on the platform), but this isn’t genuine diversification. If the audience for the core product declines, Facebook’s business suffers; it doesn’t matter how many products there are if no-one is one the other side of the screen to see them.

Google or Amazon however have supported their core business with outside bets. Think of the cloud computing businesses they own, or the content platforms, or ventures into the grocery sectors. These are ventures which diversify enough to ensure negative impacts on the core business do not have a significant impact, however, close enough to lean on the brand and expertise.

With the Portal products, Facebook could make a play for the focal point of the smart home. This has a couple of interesting benefits, one of which will be controlling the gateway and therefore access to the consumer. By operating a window to the consumer, the owner of the window can charge access to gaze through. Partnerships are already in place with the likes of Spotify Premium, Pandora, and iHeartRadio, as well as Food Network and Newsy. This is a business model which could certainly be successful should Portal offer scale.

It is a simple, but effective idea. The window owner would also have the opportunity to launch new services and products which be installed as default, offering an entry-point to the data economy, in the same way Google dominates the mobile OS space with Android.

The focal point of the smart home is still an on-going battle, though Amazon and Google do seem to be winning with their smart speakers. The telcos have a chance with the router, though the proactive nature of the internet players is wrestling the ecosystem behind the speakers. However, today’s generations demand screens. Amazon has been trying to launch its own smart device with a built-in screen for months, though a difficult relationship with YouTube has not helped the situation.

Should Facebook be able to launch a video-orientated product, with high-enough specs, deep connections to the smart home ecosystem and smart enough AI applications, it could make a dent in the market. No-one has really produced a product which grips onto the space, and priced at $199 and $349, it isn’t out of the question for the Portal and Portal+.

Unsurprisingly, Facebook has made a point of security. AI applications are stored on the device, meaning data will be processed locally not transferred to the cloud. It’s almost as if Facebook has accepted it has a terrible reputation for data collection and management, and is offering an alternative to trusting the team with your personal information.

The big question is whether people trust the Facebook brand enough to give the business such prominent influence over so many different aspects of their lives. Even with a physical cover for the camera lens, users might be sceptical, though if there is ambition for additional services, there is a lot of work which will need to be done. The brand is not in a very good position when it comes to credibility and trust.

Another area which might prove to be a stickler for the product is that you have to have a Facebook account for it to work. This might not prove to be an issue at all in the long-run, though considering there will be people who don’t have and don’t want a Facebook account, or people who have intentionally deleted theirs as a result of recent scandals, it might be immediately ruling out a number of potential customers.