Month: November 2024

Bluesky Changes How Replies Are Sorted by Default ⇥ bsky.app

From the official Bluesky account:

With this release, you can now display replies by “hotness,” which weights liked replies that are more recent more heavily.

I believe this replaced the past reply sorting of oldest to newest. People seem worried this can be gamed, but there is good news: you can just change it. There are options for oldest replies, newest replies, most-liked, and one that is completely randomized. Also, you can still set it to prioritize people you follow.

Imagine that: options for viewing social media that give control back to users. Threads is experimenting, but Meta still fundamentally distrusts users to make decisions like these.

Margrethe Vestager Is the Dam Breaker ⇥ nytimes.com

Adam Satarino, New York Times:

But as Ms. [Margrethe] Vestager closes out her era in Brussels, regulating the tech industry has become more mainstream around the world. Thanks to her, Europe is now widely seen as the pioneer of the toughest laws against tech. U.S. regulators have in recent years followed Europe by bringing antitrust lawsuits against Google, Apple, Meta and Amazon. Regulators in South Korea, Australia, Brazil, Canada and elsewhere are also taking on the tech giants.

Vestager’s term has been defined by patience. Owing to both the rapid growth in size and complexity of technology firms, and tedious legal processes, these cases have taken considerable time. Some of the earliest cases Vestager brought have just been settled. It is still too early to tell whether the many changes resulting from these cases will have a radical effect on the technology landscape.

However, as Satarino writes, her approach has been influential worldwide. The technology in seemingly every country outside authoritarian states like China and Russia has been under the thumb of big companies most often based in the United States. Sometimes, those products and services clash with local expectations and values, or consume business viability. Not all of these corporations got where they are by illegitimate means, or are unanimously behaving in illegally anticompetitive ways. But it is sensible to investigate and become a correcting force.

For too long, regulators were too hesitant to question tech companies. These businesses were perpetually too new and too complicated. Vestager broke the dam.

Competition Bureau Sues Google for Anti-Competitive Conduct ⇥ canada.ca

Competition Bureau Canada:

The Competition Bureau is taking legal action against Google for anti-competitive conduct in online advertising technology services in Canada. Following a thorough investigation, the Bureau has filed an application with the Competition Tribunal that seeks to remedy the conduct for the benefit of Canadians.

This has become a familiar announcement: a consumer protection agency, somewhere in the world, is questioning whether a giant technology conglomerate has abused its power. A dam has burst.

U.S. Federal Trade Commission Launches Broad Microsoft Investigation ⇥ bloomberg.com

Leah Nylen, Josh Sisco, and Dina Bass, Bloomberg:

The US Federal Trade Commission has opened an antitrust investigation of Microsoft Corp., drilling into everything from the company’s cloud computing and software licensing businesses to cybersecurity offerings and artificial intelligence products.

Seems like a lot of people who thought Microsoft would escape antitrust investigations in the U.S. might have been a little too eager.

This kind of scrutiny is a good thing, and long overdue. Yet one of the unavoidable problems of reducing the influence of these giant corporations now is the pain it is going to cause — almost by definition. If a corporation is abusing its power and scale to such a degree the FTC initiates an investigation, unwinding that will have — to put it mildly — an effect. We are seeing this in the Google case. This is true for any situation where a business or a group of people with too much influence needs correcting. That does not mean it should not happen.

It is true that Microsoft’s products and services are the backbone of businesses and governments the world over. These are delivered through tight integrations, all of which encourages further fealty to this singular solution. For example, it used its dominant position with Office 365 to distribute Teams for free, thereby making it even harder for other businesses to compete. It then leveraged Outlook and Teams to boost its web browser, after doing the same with Windows. If it charged for Teams out of the gate, this would be having a different discussion.

Obviously, the FTC’s concerns with Microsoft’s business practices stretch well beyond bundling Teams. According to this Bloomberg report, the Commission is interested in cloud and identity tying, too. On the one hand, it is enormously useful to businesses to have a suite of products with a single point of management and shared credentials. On the other hand, it is a monolithic system that is a non-starter for potential competitors.

The government is understandably worried about the security and stability risks of global dependence on Microsoft, too, but this is odd:

The CrowdStrike crash that affected millions of devices operating on Microsoft Windows systems earlier this year was itself a testament to the widespread use of the company’s products and how it directly affects the global economy.

This might just be Bloomberg’s contextualizing more than it is relevant to the government’s position. But, still, it seems wrong to me to isolate Windows as the problem instead of Crowdstrike itself, especially with better examples to be found in the SolarWinds breach and its track record with first-party security.

‘Surveilled’ Documents Ronan Farrow’s Reporting on Spyware ⇥ newyorker.com

Ronan Farrow, the New Yorker:

Decisions by the White House and by Republican lawmakers about spyware will have implications across a variety of policy areas that Trump and his associates are upending and that reach far beyond Washington. In recent years, an array of states, including Texas, Florida, and California have reportedly purchased spyware and other surveillance technologies; legislators and regulators will dictate whether that trend continues. Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, at least two states have already used private personal data to prosecute people for getting abortions. That practice could expand with more widespread and affordable access to this technology.

This article appears to have been timed to coincide with the release of a new documentary on HBO, showing Farrow reporting out stories on NSO Group and other commercial spyware makers. It is not the most substantive piece and I think that plus the headline — “The Technology the Trump Administration Could Use to Hack Your Phone” — is more distracting than it is illuminating. U.S. administrations have, since George W. Bush, used terrorism as a means of hand-waving away civil liberties protections, including domestic spying. Barack Obama’s administration famously killed U.S. citizens without trial, an action which remains shocking to me to this day regardless of who carried it out. In his first administration, Donald Trump compromised the legitimacy of all manner of domestic and foreign politics.

So, to the question of whether the U.S. would begin using fancy spyware on citizens’ phones under any administration, the answer seems more like a question of when and not if. It is just one more tool of a long series of violations. The next Trump administration seems unlikely to be more restrained than the first but, when this happens, I bet it becomes part of the churn-and-burn media cycle. It will barely register except to those who already find this sort of stuff disturbing.

By the way, the documentary itself is fine. It is only about an hour long and is mostly a behind-the-scenes look at the reporting. I am not sure that there is anything new-for-2024 within. Farrow’s New Yorker articles about the subject are far more illuminating.

Mozilla Is Worried About the Proposed Fixes for Google’s Search Monopoly ⇥ pcmag.com

Michael Kan, PC Magazine:

Mozilla points to a key but less eye-catching proposal from the DOJ to regulate Google’s search business, which a judge ruled as a monopoly in August. In their recommendations, federal prosecutors urged the court to ban Google from offering “something of value” to third-party companies to make Google the default search engine over their software or devices. 

“The proposed remedies are designed to end Google’s unlawful practices and open up the market for rivals and new entrants to emerge,” the DOJ told the court. The problem is that Mozilla earns most of its revenue from royalty deals — nearly 86% in 2022 — making Google the default Firefox browser search engine.

This is probably another reason why U.S. prosecutors want to jettison Chrome from Google: they want to reduce any benefit it may accrue from trying to fix its illegal search monopoly. But it seems Google’s position in the industry is so entrenched that correcting it will hurt lots of other businesses, too. That does not mean it should not be broken up or that the DOJ’s proposed remedies are wrong, however.

Google’s Speculation on Apple’s Advertising Ambitions ⇥ businessinsider.com

Peter Kafka, Business Insider:

Titled “Operation Black Walnut,” the 2022 report appears to have been assembled by Google strategists to try to imagine what kind of ad business Apple might eventually build out one day.

Apple’s current ad business is mostly confined to selling ads on its App Store search results page. But the report’s authors speculate that Apple could eventually start selling ads that run on other people’s apps and eventually on the web via its Safari browser. It might eventually become a $30 billion business, they guesstimate.

The iPhone continues to be Apple’s big moneymaker but, right after it is a big bucket labelled “Services”. Some of that is thanks to monthly recurring charges for iCloud, media streaming, video games, news, and fitness stuff. That is what probably comes to mind when you head “Apple Services”. But there are a few more things in that bucket: AppleCare, payments, advertising, and the App Store. Those last two categories are looking less solid than they once did.

Included in “advertising” is the revenue sharing agreement between Apple and Google, which is probably going to take a $20 billion per year haircut. That is about 20% of Apple’s entire annual “Services” revenue, and 16% of its total profits for 2024. Also, regulators are chipping away at the company’s lock on its cut of in-app payments.

The Google document is speculative and external to Apple, so it does not represent Apple’s actual strategy. This is what Google, an advertising company, thinks Apple could do if it wanted to really commit to selling ads. Does losing its Google revenue share tip Apple’s hand? I sure hope not, but I am not the person trying to figure out whether to take a massive financial hit for users’ trust and enjoyment. If Apple has good taste, I hope it will make the right call.

Brazil Antitrust Body Rules Apple Must Permit External Payment Methods in iOS Apps ⇥ reuters.com

Andre Romani and Alberto Alerigi Jr., Reuters:

Brazilian antitrust regulator Cade said on Monday that Apple must lift restrictions on payment methods for in-app purchases, among other things, as the watchdog moved to proceed with an investigation into a complaint filed by Latin America e-commerce giant MercadoLibre.

It would look very silly to me if Apple continues to deal with these consistent findings in country after country after country after country in individualized ways instead of updating its rules globally. Very silly, indeed.

How Sports Betting Has Changed the U.S. ⇥ rollingstone.com

David Hill, Rolling Stone:

PASPA, which stands for the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, was a law in the U.S. that prohibited sports betting, except in a few states, like Nevada. It was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2018, and ever since, sports gambling has exploded into the American zeitgeist. Ads for sportsbooks have dominated televised events, made their way into the stadiums and arenas of professional and collegiate sports alike, and even onto the jerseys of the athletes themselves. Talk of point spreads and totals, once taboo over the airwaves, are now not only common topics among the sports commentariat, but also displayed in the chyron scoreboards right on the screen. It seems like everyone who isn’t betting on sports likely has someone in their life who is. Revenues for sports-betting companies reached nearly $11 billion in 2023, up 44.5 percent from the year before.

[…]

According to NCPG, 16 percent of sports bettors meet the criteria for clinical gambling disorder. Men between the ages of 18 and 24 are particularly at risk, creating what [NCPG executive director Keith] Whyte calls a “ticking time bomb” of young people growing up not knowing what it’s like to not have a sportsbook in their pocket at all times.

Drew Gooden made a video about the same subject and, last year, the Fifth Estate investigated sports betting in Canada after it was legalized here in 2021.

It is strange to me how the world of sports gambling is now just an open business like any other. It makes sense to me that it is legal, but to integrate it so tightly with every aspect of a competition is something I admit to being confused about and a little troubled by. I do not mean to be squeamish about adults having a little fun. But it seems to now be just part of how sports are discussed: not about athletics or strategy, but about all the money you could make. Or, probably, lose.

If one downloads Apple’s Sports app, for example, betting odds are displayed near the top of the screen for every game, just below the current score. This is on by default; it is up to users to turn it off. While a user cannot make a bet from within the app, it seems to treat this vice with uncharacteristic casualness.

Chrome and Competition

Michael Liedtke, Associated Press:

The proposed breakup floated in a 23-page document filed late Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Justice calls for sweeping punishments that would include a sale of Google’s industry-leading Chrome web browser and impose restrictions to prevent Android from favoring its own search engine.

[…]

Although regulators stopped short of demanding Google sell Android too, they asserted the judge should make it clear the company could still be required to divest its smartphone operating system if its oversight committee continues to see evidence of misconduct.

Casey Newton:

In addition to requiring that Chrome be divested, the proposal calls for several other major changes that would be enforced over a 10-year period. They include:

  • Blocking Google from making deals like the one it has with Apple to be its default search engine.

  • Requiring it to let device manufacturers show users a “choice screen” with multiple search engine options on it.

  • Licensing data about search queries, results, and what users click on to rivals.

  • Blocking Google from buying or investing in advertising or search companies, including makers of AI chatbots. (Google agreed to invest up to $2 billion into Anthropic last year.)

The full proposal (PDF) is a pretty easy read. One of the weirder ideas pitched by the Colorado side is to have Google “fund a nationwide advertising and education program” which may, among other things, “include reasonable, short-term incentive payments to users” who pick a non-Google search engine from the choice screen.

I am guessing that is not going to happen, and not just because “Plaintiff United States and its Co-Plaintiff States do not join in proposing these remedies”. In fact, much of this wish list seems unlikely to be part of the final judgement expected next summer — in part because it is extensive, in part because of politics, and also because it seems unrelated.

Deborah Mary Sophia, Akash Sriram, and Kenrick Cai, Reuters:

“DOJ will face substantial headwinds with this remedy,” because Chrome can run search engines other than Google, said Gus Hurwitz, senior fellow and academic director at University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. “Courts expect any remedy to have a causal connection to the underlying antitrust concern. Divesting Chrome does absolutely nothing to address this concern.”

I — an effectively random Canadian with no expertise in this and, so, you should take my perspective with appropriate caveats — disagree.

The objective of disentangling Chrome from Google’s ownership, according to the executive summary (PDF) produced by the Department of Justice, is to remove “a significant challenge to effectuate a remedy that aims to ‘unfetter [these] market[s] from anticompetitive conduct'”:

A successful remedy requires that Google: stop third-party payments that exclude rivals by advantaging Google and discouraging procompetitive partnerships that would offer entrants access to efficient and effective distribution; disclose data sufficient to level the scale-based playing field it has illegally slanted, including, at the outset, licensing syndicated search results that provide potential competitors a chance to offer greater innovation and more effective competition; and reduce Google’s ability to control incentives across the broader ecosystem via ownership and control of products and data complementary to search.

The DOJ’s theory of growth reinforcing quality and market dominance is sound, from what I understand, and Google does advantage Chrome in some key ways. Most directly related to this case is whether Chrome activity is connected to Google Search. Despite company executives explicitly denying using Chrome browsing data for ranking, a leak earlier this year confirmed Google does, indeed, consider Chrome views in its rankings.

There is also a setting labelled “Make searches and browsing better”, which automatically “sends URLs of the pages you visit” to Google for users of Chromium-based browsers. Google says this allows the company to “predict what sites you might visit next and to show you additional info about the page you’re visiting” which allows users to “browse faster because content is proactively loaded”.

There is a good question as to how much Google Search would be impacted if Google could not own Chrome or operate its own browser for five years, as the remedy proposes. How much weight these features have in Google’s ranking system is something only Google knows. And the DOJ does not propose that Google Search cannot be preloaded in browsers whatsoever. Many users would probably still select Google as their browser’s search engine, too. But Google Search does benefit from Google’s ownership of Chrome itself, so perhaps it is worth putting barriers between the two.

I do not think Chrome can exist as a standalone company. I also do not think it makes sense for another company to own it, since any of those big enough to do so either have their own browsers — Apple’s Safari, Microsoft’s Edge — or would have the potential to create new anticompetitive problems, like if it were acquired by Meta.

What if the solution looks more like prohibiting Google from uniquely leveraging Chrome to benefit its other products? I do not know how that could be written in legal terms, but it appears to me this is one of the DOJ’s goals for separating Chrome and Google.

‘Opinion: Bluesky Is a Dangerous Echo Chamber Because No One Wants to Hear From Me, Specifically’ ⇥ thebeaverton.com

Sam Adams, on Bluesky [sic]:

funny how all the “Bluesky is an echo chamber” opeds sound exactly the same

Mary Gillis, the Beaverton:

So imagine my surprise when instead of welcoming me with open arms and the thousands of new followers I was expecting, Bluesky shunned me.

Why? Because I have some opinions they disagree with. And instead of respecting my inalienable right to be debated, they just… blocked me. Like I’m some kind of annoyance, rather than the iconoclastic and fascinating truth-teller which I know myself to be.

Quality satire.

Every arena of discussion has boundaries for what is acceptable. But only some viewpoints are considered part of an “echo chamber”, and the people who espouse them ought to be subjected, I guess, to abuse and intolerance. I wonder why that is.

Sill Collates Top Links From Your Accounts on Bluesky and Mastodon ⇥ sill.social

Sill allows you to connect your Bluesky and Mastodon accounts — one of each — and see what links are popular among the accounts you follow. As Andy Baio says, it is “like Nuzzel was for Twitter”.

Tyler Fisher:

As decentralized social media continues to grow, I believe it is important to build a strong ecosystem of third party tools that support these networks and embellish their functionality. Sill adds an important piece of that puzzle, a way to get the biggest stories from your networks without remaining glued to your feeds. Above all, Sill promotes a healthier way to use social media.

I have been using Sill for about a week. If it feels familiar, that could be because I posted about it last week before Fisher was ready for broader adoption. I took down my link, but I kept using it because it is fantastic. If you want a high-level overview of what people are linking to, you should check out Sill.

App Store Search Queries Appear to Violate Data Minimization Practices ⇥ mastodon.social

Mysk:

This is an example of what the App Store app shares with Apple when you search for an app. Everything you type in the search field is recorded as an event and associated with your Apple ID before it is sent to Apple. […]

Data is sent to Apple in near real-time (the difference between the Event Time and the Post Time).

I can understand why Apple would want to correlate typed text with autocompletion or suggestions. I can also see why Apple would want to attach completed search queries to an Apple ID. I disagree with both of these things, but I can understand wanting to know whether helpful recommendations are appearing soon enough, and making results more relevant to a user. In theory.

What I cannot understand is why Apple wants to record all typed text and completed queries and correlate those to millisecond-level time codes and attach all that to someone’s Apple ID. This is the very opposite of data minimization — a reality which is unfortunately common among Apple’s services. It is not “tracking” by the company’s definition, which is exclusively concerning third-party sharing, but it violates the spirit of user privacy.

Adam Mosseri Says Threads Will Now Show You More of the Stuff You Have Said You Are Interested in Seeing ⇥ threads.net

Adam Mosseri in a Threads post:

We are rebalancing ranking to prioritize content from people you follow, which will mean less recommended content from accounts you don’t follow and more posts from the accounts you do starting today. For you creators out there, you should see unconnected reach go down and connected reach go up. This is definitely a work in progress – balancing the ability to reach followers and overall engagement is tricky – thanks for your patience and keep the feedback coming.

I read this as more of an apologetic concession than an actual strategy change, and that struck me as odd. Would the Threads team not be glad to deliver to users what they have elected to see, instead of doing a whole bunch of math to badly guess at stuff they might be interested in? The language here is weird, too; Mosseri immediately focuses on the metrics.

However, I think this accurately represents how Threads is viewed. Look at the replies to Mosseri’s post and — while I do not want to imply there is a consistent theme — there are lots of people who are leaning on recommendations with the objective of growing their following and reach, and they are worried. These are the people who see social media as a place for furthering their brand. They are not interesting. The only way they are able to grow their audience is by treating a recommendations algorithm as a problem to be solved.

Mosseri did not say suggested posts would be eliminated from the For You feed, only that the balance would shift. From my experience with it today, it really seems to be better. About half the posts are from accounts I follow, and the rest are proximate to things I care about. It feels completely different from the Threads of a week ago. It is actually — dare I say it? — not bad. At least, that is the case right now. I bet Threads next month will feel entirely changed again.

The Decaf Project ⇥ youtube.com

Here is something I am very excited about: James Hoffmann has finally figured out a way to do what he has been calling — for years — the “decaf project”. The goal is to taste the same batch of coffee decaffeinated in three different processes, and alongside the caffeinated batch.

I am looking forward to this. I ordered my tasting kit from Rosso right here in Calgary; kits are available from dozens of roasters worldwide. If you really like coffee, you might consider ordering one for yourself, too.

Release the X Files ⇥ msnbc.com

Mike Masnick, for MSNBC:

Turns out for the “Twitter Files” crew, “creeping authoritarianism” isn’t so creepy when it’s your team doing the creeping.

Before, we were told that White House officials’ merely reaching out to social media companies about election misinformation was a democracy-ending threat. Now, the world’s richest man has openly used his platform to boost one candidate, ridden that campaign’s success into the White House himself, and … crickets. The silence is deafening.

One might point to Masnick’s seat on Bluesky’s board of directors as evidence of some kind of conflict of interest; indeed, that is the only complaint I have seen from anyone named in this article or associated with the “Twitter Files”. Sure, it would have been a good idea to disclose that in Masnick’s author bio or somewhere in the piece. But that is not a substantial explanation for the different response to two White House-connected social media platforms after the manufactured alarmism over internal Twitter moderation deliberations.

It is possible these writers — Michael Shellenberger, Rupa Subramanya, Matt Taibbi, and Bari Weiss — might eventually post some token objection to Musk’s governance of X and his close government ties. Trump’s Truth Social might even worry them. But there will be no response similar to the Twitter Files: no Congressional hearings at which one of the writers declares (PDF) this a “grave threat”; no wall-to-wall media coverage; and no awkward pretensions about the gravity of this relationship. Instead, these same writers will — as they did during the last Trump presidency — likely mock anyone fretting about this very real close coordination happening right before our very eyes.

‘The App Store Era Must End’ ⇥ macworld.com

Jason Snell, Macworld:

A few years later, Apple began planning how to bring the Mac into the App Store universe. However, macOS was designed in a much earlier era and didn’t offer the level of lockdown that Apple built into iOS. Rather than attempting to lock down the Mac and make it more like iOS, the company wisely chose a different path.

Today’s macOS is a reflection of that decision, and it’s undeniably the right one – not just for the Mac but for every computing device we own.

A blistering but entirely fair analysis. If you are a developer or you are familiar with this history, I do not know that there is a new argument here. But to see them in a single document is compelling.

You may also disagree with Snell’s description of the MacOS model as “undeniably the right one” — maybe your preferred software model has zero permission or authorization prompts. I get that; I, too, am not always thrilled with the way third-party software works on MacOS. Alas, many of the permission dialogs are a patch for ineffective or nonexistent privacy regulations, so all we need to do is fix that. How hard can that be?

I worry the App Store model and the regulatory response has irreparably damaged Apple’s entire ethos. Not destroyed, but definitely damaged. Apple prides itself on making the entire widget: hardware, software, and services. No competitor has a similar model. It has gotten away with this through a combination of user trust, and not being nearly big enough for regulators to be concerned about. But the iPhone fundamentally upset both these qualities.

As Snell writes, the App Store gives users confidence in the software they are downloading and it means Apple has staggering control over all the platforms it used to call “post-P.C. devices”. I think that robs users’ trust. I, for one, am excited by the potential of the Vision Pro, but I know it will always be constrained because of the app model it shares with iOS devices.

Also, because the iPhone is so popular, it is understandable why regulators would want to be a democratic check on corporate power. Alas, their remedies could shake up Apple’s whole-widget ethos.

There are certainly plenty of people who believe Apple should be able to do with the iPhone what it wishes, and that — thanks to the power of the free market — people who do not like those changes will simply go buy something else. Perhaps. But perhaps, too, Apple’s influence over a billion users worldwide is something worth checking on. If Apple had responded more amenably to concerns raised over the past decade, maybe it would not find itself in this position today — but here we are.

Anyone Can Buy Data Tracking U.S. Soldiers and Spies ⇥ wired.com

Dhruv Mehrotra and Dell Cameron, Wired:

A joint investigation by WIRED, Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR), and Netzpolitik.org reveals that US companies legally collecting digital advertising data are also providing the world a cheap and reliable way to track the movements of American military and intelligence personnel overseas, from their homes and their children’s schools to hardened aircraft shelters within an airbase where US nuclear weapons are believed to be stored.

A collaborative analysis of billions of location coordinates obtained from a US-based data broker provides extraordinary insight into the daily routines of US service members. The findings also provide a vivid example of the significant risks the unregulated sale of mobile location data poses to the integrity of the US military and the safety of its service members and their families overseas.

Yet another entry in the ongoing series of stories documenting how we have created a universal unregulated tracking system accessible to basically anyone so that, incidentally, it will make someone slightly more likely to buy a specific brand of cereal. This particular demonstration feels like a reversal of governments using this data to surveil people with less oversight and fewer roadblocks.

The FTC is apparently planning to address this by, according to these reporters, “formally recogniz[ing] US military installations as protected sites”, which is a truly bananas response. The correct answer is for lawmakers to pass a strong privacy framework that restricts data collection and retention, but doing so would be economically costly and would impede the exploitation of this data by the U.S. and its allies. Instead, the world’s most powerful military is going to tell scummy data brokers not to track people within specific areas all over the world.

Reporters and researchers, meanwhile, will continue to point out how this mass data collection makes everyone vulnerable. It feels increasingly like splitting hairs between the surveillance volunteered by U.S. industry, and that which is mandated by more oppressive governments. I recognize there is a difference — the force is the difference — but the effect is comparable.

IMG_0001, IMG_4228 ⇥ walzr.com

Last week, I linked to a very cool project in which Ben Wallace pointed to the seemingly endless depths of barely labelled iPhone video uploads on YouTube. Here are a couple more things along similar lines.

First, Riley Walz built a viewer to shuffle between five million of these videos. There are all manner of music recitals, and people driving exotic cars, and amateur horror shorts, and softball games, and dogs playing — and more. Did not work in Safari for me, but it was fine in a Chromium-based browser; this could just be a me problem. (Via Andy Baio.)

Second, Pete Ashton pointed me to a pair of 2012 projects: one of videos from YouTube, another of photos from Flickr. All share a specific filename in the same format: “IMG_4228”. Each media type is displayed in a unique way. The images are a slideshow. But the videos are all played together in a screen recording; I think that is especially fascinating.