Serendipity35

 

Mark Zuckerberg was testifying recently in a landmark antitrust trial brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Meta. The FTC alleges that Meta, through its acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014, has unfairly maintained a monopoly in the social networking market. The government claims these purchases were part of a strategy to "neutralize" competitors and stifle innovation

I wrote a post here in 2006 when Facebook first became available to the general public. Initially, it was launched in 2004 as "TheFacebook" and was limited to Harvard students. Over time, it expanded to other universities and eventually opened up to anyone aged 13 or older with a valid email address in 2006. I have repurposed that old post here in an updated version.

I jumped in right away. I was at a university, and I immediately thought this would be big with students, and that the faculty needed to know what it was about. The faculty was not interested in the presentations I offered. I did one on "social media" and where it was headed.

Facebook wasn't the first or the only player.

• MySpace was very popular at the time, and it was the go-to platform for music lovers and personal profiles.
• YouTube launched in 2005 and was gaining traction as the place for video sharing.
• Flickr was the favorite for photo sharing and had amateur as well as professional photographers.
• LinkedIn: Focused on professional networking, it was already carving out its niche.
• Friendster's popularity was waning, but it was still a notable player in the early social media scene.
• The lesser-known Orkut gained popularity in Brazil and India but not in the U.S. It was Google's failed attempt at social networking.

In 2004, the soon-to-be social networking giant was a baby called "The Facebook.” The19-year-old co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg needed to explain the concept behind the site,. Check out this explanation he did in his first-ever television interview with CNBC on April 28, 2004.

In my 2006 post, I wrote about the American fascination with turning nouns into verbs, so for a time people were saying that you could be "facebooked."  That verb meant the action of 1) looking someone up on Facebook or 2) asking someone to be your friend on Facebook.
"I Facebooked that girl I met at the party last night, and she Facebooked me this morning, so now we're friends."

You could also "poke" someone which was a suggestive term for a kind of gentle message without content. You could send an email-style message to them or leave a message on their "wall."

It is interesting to read what Zuckerberg said 19 years ago about the website and consider where it is today. The definition of Facebook, according to founder Mark Zuckerberg in 2006:

"The idea for the website was motivated by a social need at Harvard to be able to identify people in other residential houses. Harvard is a fairly unfriendly place. While each residential house listed directories of their residents, I wanted one online directory where all students could be listed. And I've always enjoyed building things and puttering around with computer code, so I sat down and in about a week I had produced the basic workings of the site. 
We had a launch plan to enter into other colleges based on where friends would be most likely to overlap, so the site spread organically based upon that model, and now we operate on a broad spectrum of campuses. It doesn't make sense to exclude anybody or any college from the resources that Facebook offers. This is a product that should be fun and useful for all college students.
We don't view the site as an online community. We bill it as a directory that is reinforcing a physical community. What exists on the site is a mirror image of what exists in real life.
To a certain extent, the website is unfortunate because it oversimplifies things. Everybody's concept of having a friend is different. It can definitely blur the relationships that exist between people. But in the end, I think that thefacebook can only reinforce preexisting communities. We think we have been particularly successful in strengthening those relationships that exist between people who are only “fringe friends.
It's not unusual for us to receive an email from somebody saying, "I spend all of my time on your website and now I have less of a social life than I had before." We would much rather have people meet people through the website and go out and party than stay at home on a Friday night reading other people's profiles. And it's surprising, but we have actually received far less complaints about stalking than we otherwise would have expected."

Here are some of my 2006 stats about Facebook:
- 12 million users (*MySpace has 54 million users)
- 300 million page views per 24-hour period - page views surpasses Google
- Facebook comes in seventh in terms of overall traffic on the entire Web
- 70% of users use the site every day
- 85% use it once a week
- 93% visit monthly
- The site makes more than a million dollars a month in ad revenue
- Since its start, a high school edition and a photo upload and tagging option were added

I joined Facebook mostly to see what it was all about. I knew that my college-aged sons both used it. (It seemed like my younger son - a freshman in 2005 - met a hundred people at his school through Facebook during orientation and the first weeks, plus all his high school friends at other schools that were added to his friends list, and then their friends who added him.

I felt pretty sad at first because I had no one to add to my list. I started with my sons, who "allowed" me to be their friend list (you do have to approve someone's request to be added), though they made me promise never to put something on their wall. Facebook was not really for mom and dad.

Because early on, parents and adults played no real role in Facebook (though alumni can create accounts for their alma mater) I didn't expect to find any of my classmates there. Faculty could have a profile at their school, but that was rare in 2006.

What really bothered me at first was that my profile said, "You have 0 friends at NJIT." I planned to do a presentation to faculty at NJIT about this new website, so I had to Facebook a few students that I thought would say yes to my request. Then I started searching students I had taught in my former K-12 days. Found a few and sent them a message. And that led to a few of their classmates finding me. Social networking...

When I did my first presentation, I had 37 friends - which by Facebook standards was pretty pathetic. It for younger readers to imagine these early social media ( aterm no one was using) times. I only had 55 people on my AOL AIM buddy list, so 37 seems was about right.

When I showed the site to faculty and academic and non-academic friends, the most common comments were:
Yeah. So what's the point? [Remember, most of my friends are old.]
Why does everyone seem to have an alcoholic drink in their hand in all the pictures? [sad but true]
Many more females than males on Facebook. [True]
Wouldn't it scare you if you had a daughter and she was posting pictures, her dorm room #, email address and other info online? [Yes}
Doesn't it scare you that your sons are doing that? [To a degree - but maintaining a common double standard, not as much.]
What about identity theft? [As with any sitaution where you reveal personal information, facebook could open you up to id theft by giving someone enough information to attempt to create a fake account.]

One comment I heard did turn out to be true later that year. "Don't you think employers will check this kind of site when screening clients?" I had heard that but I doubted it would be widespread. It turned out that employers could get access through employees who were students, faculty and alumni from an applicant's school. I saw a posting that said "Monster.com [a very popular jobs site in 2006] is who you portray you are, but Facebook is who you really are."

In the fall of 2005, North Carolina State University disciplined several students for underage drinking after a resident assistant found party photos of them on Facebook. A few days after students rushed the football field following a Penn State win over Ohio State, campus police found pictures of the incident containing identifiable students on Facebook. Northern Kentucky and the University of Kentucky both have disciplined students they had seen drinking in pictures posted on Facebook. Campus police at George Washington University use Facebook to find underage drinkers. Employers and the career center at the University of Kansas use Facebook to evaluate students being considered for KU jobs.

People commented that "You can't seriously think that these people actually have 345 "friends?" Well, not the way we may have once defined "friend." I'm pretty confident that someone who has 345 friends on Facebook realizes that they are not friends in the same way as their 6 close friends that they see face-to-face regularly.

In 2006, I Facebooked Mark Zuckerberg. He had 323 friends already, but hey, you can always use another friend, right?

I was working last week on a post about the early days of Facebook when the news hit that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and former COO Sheryl Sandberg were testifying in an ongoing antitrust trial examining whether Meta monopolized the personal social networking market by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014. (see https://www.euronews.com/next/2025/04/17/metas-antitrust-trial...)

Then, I was diverted by another news story about a federal judge who ruled that Google violated antitrust laws by unlawfully dominating the online advertising market with its technology. The decision opens the door for U.S. prosecutors to seek a breakup of the tech giant’s $1.8 trillion ad-tech business.

The court found that Google monopolized two key segments of the digital advertising ecosystem: tools used by publishers to manage ad space, and the platform that connects those publishers with advertisers. By tying the two products together, Google made it difficult for competitors to gain traction. A second hearing will determine what steps the company must take to restore competition.

The ruling follows a separate decision in August, in which another judge found that Google had illegally dominated the markets for online search and text advertising. Remedies in that case are still pending, though the government has proposed that Google divest its Chrome web browser.

• Google’s digital ad network declared an illegal monopoly, joining its search engine in penalty box
• Google, explained: Here’s how it captures the online ad industry

In 1981, American physicist and Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman gave a lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in which he outlined a revolutionary idea. Feynman suggested that the strange physics of quantum mechanics could be used to perform calculations. Quantum computing was born. The illustration here shows what one might have imagined it to be back in 1981 - a lind of science-fiction computer.

Quantum computing is a revolutionary area of computing that uses the principles of quantum mechanics to process information in fundamentally different ways than classical computers. In classical computing, information is processed using bits, which are binary and can represent either a 0 or a 1. In quantum computing, however, the fundamental units of information are called qubits. Qubits can exist in a state of 0, 1, or both simultaneously, thanks to a quantum property called superposition. This allows quantum computers to perform multiple calculations at once.

I am not a physicist or computer engineer, so I don't want to go too deeply into that realm. Reading about this, I see the word "entanglement" and have some memory of Einstein referring to quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance." He was skeptical since it seemed to defy the principles of classical physics and his theory of relativity. Einstein doubted entanglement, but modern experiments have confirmed its existence and shown that it is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. In quantum computing, entanglement creates strong correlations between qubits, even when they are far apart.

Entanglement enables quantum computers to solve certain types of complex problems much faster than classical computers by leveraging these interconnected qubits. Quantum computers are particularly well-suited to tasks involving massive datasets, optimization problems, simulations, and cryptography. However, they are still in their early stages of development and face challenges such as error rates, stability, and scalability.

In the same way that AI is already in your daily life - even if you don't notice or acknowledge it - quantum computing could be used in everyday activities. It could revolutionize drug discovery and personalized medicine by simulating molecular interactions at an unprecedented speed, leading to faster development of cures and treatments. By solving complex optimization and learning problems, quantum computers could significantly enhance AI's capabilities, leading to smarter assistants and systems.

Cryptography and cybersecurity's current encryption methods could be broken by quantum computers, but they could also enable quantum-safe encryption, making online transactions and communications more secure. There's good and bad in almost every discovery.

In logistics, smarter traffic systems to more efficient delivery routes, quantum computing could optimize logistics, reducing fuel consumption, travel times, and costs.

And quantum computing could impact improved energy solutions, financial modeling, material design, and many things we haven't even considered yet.

Of course, there are challenges. Qubits are highly sensitive to their environment. Even minor disturbances like temperature fluctuations, vibrations, or electromagnetic interference can cause qubits to lose their quantum state—a phenomenon called decoherence. Maintaining stability long enough to perform calculations is a key challenge. Many quantum computers require extremely low temperatures (close to absolute zero) to operate, as qubits need highly controlled environments. Building and maintaining these cryogenic systems is both expensive and challenging.

Small-scale quantum computers exist, but scaling up to thousands or millions of qubits is a monumental task and requires massive infrastructure, advanced error correction mechanisms, and custom hardware, making them cost-prohibitive for widespread adoption.

On the education side of this, quantum computing sits at the intersection of physics, engineering, computer science, and more. A lack of cross-disciplinary expertise will slow down progress in this field.

I saw the quote pictured above that goes back to 1979 when artificial intelligence wasn't part of the conversation. "A computer must never make a management decision," said an internal document at the big computer player of that time, IBM. The why of that statement is because a computer can't be held accountable.

Is the same thing true concerning artificial intelligence 46 years later?

I suspect that AI is currently being used by management to analyze data, identify trends, and even offer recommendations. But I sense there is still the feeling that it should complement, not replace, human leadership.

Why should AI be trusted in a limited way on certain aspects of decision-making?

One reason that goes back at least 46 years is that it lacks "emotional intelligence." Emotional intelligence (EI or EQ) is about balancing emotions and reasoning to make thoughtful decisions, foster meaningful relationships, and navigate social complexities. Management decisions often require a deep understanding of human emotions, workplace dynamics, and ethical considerations — all things AI can't fully grasp or replicate.

Because AI relies on data and patterns and human management often involves unique situations where there might not be clear precedents or data points, many decisions require creativity and empathy.

Considering that 1979 statement, since management decisions can have far-reaching consequences, humans are ultimately accountable for these decisions. Relying on AI alone could raise questions about responsibility when things go wrong. Who is responsible - the person who used the AI, trained the AI or the AI itself? Obviously, we can't reprimand or fire AI, though we could change the AI we use, and revisions can be made to the AI itself to correct for whatever went wrong.

AI systems can unintentionally inherit biases from the data they're trained on. Without proper oversight, this could lead to unfair or unethical decisions. Of course, bias is a part of human decisions and management too.

Management at some levels involves setting long-term visions and values for an organization. THis goes beyond the realm of pure logic and data, requiring imagination, purpose, and human judgment.

So, can AI handle any management decisions in 2025? I asked several AI chatbots that question. (Realizing that AI might have a bias in favor of AI.) Here is a summary of the possibilities given:

Resource Allocation: AI can optimize workflows, assign resources, and balance workloads based on performance metrics and project timelines.

Hiring and Recruitment: AI tools can screen résumés, rank candidates, and even conduct initial video interviews by analyzing speech patterns and keywords.

Performance Analysis: By processing large datasets, AI can identify performance trends, suggest areas for improvement, and even predict future outcomes.

Financial Decisions: AI systems can create accurate budget forecasts, detect anomalies in spending, and provide investment recommendations based on market trends.

Inventory and Supply Chain: AI can track inventory levels, predict demand, and suggest restocking schedules to reduce waste and costs.

Customer Management: AI chatbots and recommendation engines can handle customer queries, analyze satisfaction levels, and identify patterns in customer feedback.

Risk Assessment: AI can evaluate risks associated with projects, contracts, or business decisions by analyzing historical data and current market conditions.

As I write this in March 2025, the news is full of stories of DOGE and Elon Musk's team using AI for things like reviewing email responses from employees, and wanting to use more AI to replace workers and "improve efficiency."  AI for management is an area that will be more and more in the news and will be a controversial topic for years to come. I won't be around in another 46 years to write the next article about this, but I have the feeling that the question of whether or not AI belongs in management may be a moot point by then.