We stand by our product.
A spokesperson for Coin, a product that digitally consolidates users’ credit and bank card information so they only have to carry one piece of plastic. But the product’s terms of service states: “You are solely responsible for your own losses or losses incurred by Coin and others due to any unauthorized use of your account.” So if the company’s data isn’t secure, apparently that’s the users’ fault.
I always start with Facebook.
The only way that could work is to monitor all of the likely picks on an hourly basis to track their updates against one another. It’s likely that the Romney campaign will attempt to scrub Wikipedia of distasteful information on the nominee right before the announcement’s made, and we don’t know when that will be.
Still, that data is only an indicator; the best that it gets media outlets is baseless speculation that isn’t of any use to actual reporting. This is why no right-minded editor will dedicate any resources at all to the refresh-Wikipedia-all-day-and-keep-a-running-Google-Docs-spreadsheet-of-the-number-of-edits-and-who-made-them beat.
A neat alternative for an enterprising media outlet would be to have a programmer build something akin to a real-time index that automates figures about edits to profiles. Alternatively, outlets could just slap a question-mark after a speculative headline or the wretched “UNCONFIRMED” disclaimer before it, but I doubt this will happen. Maybe I’m naive.
On the flipside, if I had the privilege of working for or with Wikipedia, I’d recommend they develop a real-time index of edits made to the profiles of those thought to be up for the GOP VP nomination, since they can probably automate those updates quicker than a lot of folks and, unlike media outlets, aren’t encumbered by all the other parts of the news cycle that need attention.
Media outlets that follow this Tumblr: Is any of this inaccurate/unfair? Programmers who follow this Tumblr: Is such automation possible/easy?
There is an article today about Google laying down internet infrastructure.
This above all is likely Google’s smartest move yet. While the internet feels open and that it belongs to the software side of the platform (those who create websites, apps, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) it’s actually owned by carriers. That means it’s not really really open. Only those who own infrastructure are really in the driver’s seat.
Google takes a position by creating its own infrastructure, which it can then do whatever it wants with. Of course, in order for it to do a lot of things it will likely need to have relationships with the carriers (or build a lot of internet infrastructure itself). It gets a little more complicated than this but it’s move above is likely a good thing.
Meanwhile, while Facebook might own more users than Google+, Google between all of its products is in the better position, especially now that it has an infrastructure play. That doesn’t mean Facebook can’t partner with a carrier, like Microsoft has, but it’ll all depend on where/what/when Facebook anticipates its future and what position it takes.