How A New Button Will Revolutionize Facebook Forever

Facebook doesn't know you. No matter what Mark Zuckerberg says. Sure, the Feds might have made 25,000 requests for user data, but it's unlikely they learned anything other than Facebook users' affinity for cuddly cat photos and re-posted Pinterest quotations.

For a clear example of Facebook's failure to know who you are, look no further than the quiet end to Facebook Gifts, the social network's attempt to get you to buy real-life items for your friends' birthdays, engagements, and anniversaries.

As Forbes' contributor Mark Rogowsky points out, Facebook Gifts was a laughable failure:

"I looked at it four times in the past few days just to get a sense of what Facebook thought my friends might like. Three female friends had birthdays. Only of them has a young child, but somehow, all of them are good candidates for an $11 “mustache pacifier,” because, as Facebook puts in, “even babies need disguises.” There is so much wrong with this gift, it’s hard to know where to begin."

The issue is that, for all its claims about tracking users' behavior online, Facebook is unable to parse what "Likes" mean. Did you "Like" your friend's post about hamster balls because you want a hamster ball yourself, or did you merely think it was cute? Do you "Like" Pizza Hut because you find their pizza to be superior, or were they offering a 25% coupon if you clicked "Like" on their Facebook page? "Like" is such a general term, it can be maddeningly obscure: you may "Like" mustache pacifiers because you think they're a hilarious thing, but you'd never actually spend the money to buy one.

It's a well-known story that before Facebook decided on the "Like" button, they considered creating an "Awesome" button. Zuckerberg and Co. made the wise choice to go with "Like," which was more universal across cultures and age groups, applicable as a noun and a verb, and had a wide enough breadth to be used in many different contexts. The "Like" button helped spread Facebook far and wide because it didn't require much thought or discernment from the user-- one could "Like" something as a gesture of support for a friend, they could "Like" it because it made them smile, they could "Like" an opinion they agreed with or an article they thought was worth sharing. "Like" and "Share," the two methods of acknowledging and spreading content through Facebook's news feed, are pretty much the same. I'd argue there's no distinction between the two, other than "Share" allowing someone to pass along objectionable or shocking content without having to awkwardly "Like" it.

But while the vagueness and multiple applications of "Like" and "Share" helped grow Facebook, they're terrible descriptors. They lack the ability to communicate desire. And if you're a company that ultimately needs to make money by selling things (or advertising them), that's a problem.

However, a recent decision by a federal judge in Michigan could pave the way for a new button that will revolutionize Facebook forever.

What is this magical button? A "Want" button.

Back in 2010, Facebook was working on the idea. They even tested it out among a few retailers in 2012. However, another company, based in Detroit, had previously created an app called "Want Button" that allowed users to create wishlists of products on Facebook.The two parties were locked in a legal struggle until earlier this month, when a judge tossed the case and both companies agreed the court battle was over.

The decision paves the way for something that has been in the works for a while. TechCrunch thought it would happen two years ago. The legal hurdle cleared, its likely we'll see a "Want" button instead of "Like" appear on e-commerce sites and beneath product posts on your Facebook newsfeed sometime in the near future.

Anyone arguing that users won't "Like" the new button (and there have been many naysayers, mostly from the vocal "add a dislike button" crowd) haven't been paying much attention to sites like Pinterest, where users frequently create whole boards of aspirational items they desire. By getting users to voluntarily reveal the products and services they want, rather than just "Like", Facebook can create a better profile of its users, enabling advertisers to better target their audience and allowing the site to recommend complimentary products as gifts. Facebook Gifts 2.0 would draw from a better database of its users' desires and be able to churn out more accurately curated suggestions. None of this is a bad thing.... wouldn't you rather Facebook recommended birthday gifts you'd actually want?

The "Want" button is coming, people. And I expect it to help Facebook greatly in its efforts to enter the e-commerce field-- where the company will finally justify its billion-dollar valuation.

The Alarming Second Term of Barack Bush

CNN is struggling to figure out why President Obama's approval rating has dipped among young people.

Gee, what could the youth of America possibly have a problem with? Warrant-less surveillance, drone strikes on American citizens, overzealous federal prosecutors?

That's the Bush-era stuff we thought we'd gotten rid of when we made Obama President. Now he's seemingly embraced and expanded upon these violations of the constitution and America's liberties.

The question comes down to this: Do you trust your government will always use these "tools" in a responsible way without oversight? Okay. Now, imagine the other party is in charge. Do you still trust your government will always use these "tools" in a responsible way without oversight?

Keep in mind, the government is not one, seamless entity: it's comprised of individuals, most of whom we didn't vote for and don't know. Who's to say Jimmy CIA doesn't have a crush on some chick, and taps the hell out of her electronic communications JUST BECAUSE HE CAN? Without oversight, without warrants, anyone can do anything and nobody will ever find out about it.

UPDATE: That's exactly what happened.

This may be a-okay with the older folk, but for younger people, already chafing against their parents monitoring their activities, the specter of being watched by government babysitters for the rest of their lives is not a thrilling idea.

I May Have Figured Out Bob Benson, But Probably Not

Last season on AMC's Mad Men, Meagan Draper was the breakout character, stealing our hearts with "Zou Bisou Bisou," and basically looking hot in underwear. This season, a new character has emerged..... and while he has clearly stolen our favorite buxom redhead's heart, he's creeping the rest of us the fuck out.

I'm talking of course, about smiling Bob Benson.

Internet speculation has been running wild. Who is this happy, well-adjusted man, on a show where everyone is broken in some way? HE MUST BE A PSYCHO KILLER!!!

I was reading one blog's theory when a paragraph got me thinking (emphasis mine):

He's an Army-trained registered nurse, and he's available now only because he's brought my father back to full health.
-Bob Benson to Pete Campbell in "The Better Half"

Bob Benson is up to something. He's a good guy, sure. He loves to help out, and he's good at it. But he's also a liar.

When Bob sends a "royal spread" to Roger Sterling's mother's wake, Ken Cosgrove confronts him. "I was just thinking of when my father died," Benson told Cosgrove in "The Doorway," the premiere episode of Mad Men's sixth season. Unless Benson has two fathers -- one who has died, and another who has been brought back to full health by an Army-trained registered nurse -- he's being dishonest.

 Hold the phone. This blogger didn't realize it, but I think they just stumbled onto the answer. Who is Bon Benson?

He's Don Draper's son. The ACTUAL Don Draper's son.

We know Don Draper, ad man, is actually Dick Whitman, prostitute's kid. Don Draper died in Korea, and Dick stole his identity. Draper's real wife tracked Dick down, and they developed a mother-son kind of relationship. But we know absolutely nothing else about the Don Draper that died in the war. Maybe he had a child (a love child hidden from his wife, or known about but never mentioned). This child grew up, and discovered that someone was using his father's name. "When my father died," refers to when the young Bob Benson learned his dad died in the war. "An army-trained registered nurse brought my father back to full health"-- that's a reference to someone who helped Dick Whitman recover from his war injuries, something the young Bob Benson may have learned about later.

In this context, Bob Benson isn't a liar. He technically has two fathers, one dead and one who recovered, both named Don Draper.

I don't know if the timeline works out, but it's an interesting idea. Bob Benson knows Don's/Dick's secret.

This Revolution Should Not Be Televised

If you were a first time watcher of NBC's Revolution this week (and given the dwindling ratings, that's unlikely), you may have been confused. 

"I thought they had no power? No one seems to act like it."

Indeed, with all the helicopters, cars, automatic weapons, computer screens, glowing pendants, you'd think at least one of these characters or the people they meet who spent the last decade-plus in the dark would be fascinated and perhaps a bit hopeful by the newfound presence of electricity. But like the writers of the show, they seem to have stopped caring much about the concept of a world without power after the first few episodes. 

However, this is not a show undone by the lack of devotion to its core concept. It's a show undone by shoddy internal logic and woefully insufficient character building. This is a show where characters do mind-numbingly stupid things just to advance the plot. Where a flashback seemingly designed to inform a character's backstory (ala LOST) lasts about a minute and is largely cliched and pointless (the big baddie's backstory thus far? He once slept with his former best friend Miles's girlfriend. Ooh.)

Fine actors are absolutely wasted in their parts. The biggest example--besides Juliet from LOST seeming angrier to be on this disaster with each episode--was the show's use of Mark Pellegrino (Jacob from Lost). When he first appears, it's as little more than a background character... But his acting ability instantly marks him as someone more capable than the actor he shares scenes with, the one-dimensional Monroe. When he finally does get significant lines in the script, it's to explain that he's "one of Monroe's oldest and closest friends," something not even hinted at in the previous episodes. Pellegrino is so good he actually sells it with the hurt, wounded look in his eyes. But no matter. Spoiler Alert: He's killed a few scenes later, illustrating something that we already know: Monroe's a paranoid crazy man who kills pretty much anyone he's ever had a one on one conversation with. 

That brings up another crucial failing of the show. Monroe is so one-dimensional that you question why anyone would follow his lead. In one episode, he orders the townspeople to be rounded up and locked inside a building, which he then orders to be set on fire. Mark Pellegrino briefly questions this, but no one seems to want to stop this lunacy. Are they all just as crazy as Monroe? What is it about the guy that inspires his followers? Couldn't anybody else do his job better? The guy has ELECTRICITY for goodness sakes, and instead of rebuilding his territory and giving the power to his people, instead uses it to ineffectually pilot helicopters that are no good at targeting anything but extras and redshirts with efficiency. Do you know what would happen if the Monroe republic was the only place with electric light, heat, tv, Internet, etc? The other countries would surrender to Monroe immediately. Their people would demand it, in order to access the technology. Instead, Monroe treats it like a toy. And not even an important toy. The number of pendants and generators that have been easily slipped out of his camp must number in the hundreds at this point. 

That's another thing. Juliet from Lost and the-random-scientist-we-forgot-about that was shot in this most recent episode (another good actor given little to do and dispatched this week) both are able to put together these portable electric amplifiers pretty easily. WHY AREN'T THEY DOING THIS? Why didn't they start doing it from minute one of the blackout? They could have sold these things and made billions. Or given them to the Georgia federation and Governor Ben Affleck in California (the show's best moment). Heck, why even make the trek to "The Tower" at all?? (The Tower, obstensibly, has the ability to turn the nanobots off and restore power everywhere) Just build a million of those generator thingys and it becomes a moot point.

 In this last episode, the characters all find themselves in a contrived "who-done-it?" plot at an airfield in the middle of nowhere. Despite knowing their final destination would be out of range of their gas tank, they don't bring extra fuel. At this abandoned airfield, characters WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WERE ON THE HELICOPTER start dying in gruesome ways. Someone is killing them. Guess who?

No, seriously, guess who? They story briefly becomes interesting, because the fact is, everybody except for Charlie and Miles could be the killer. Nora's coming down from hallucinogenic drugs after being tortured for no apparent reason (seriously, how hard is it to find Miles? Monroe bumps into him every other episode), Neville's an established villain who's tried to kill everybody multiple times, his son was offered some shady job by a Monroe spy, the scientist-we-forgot-about was just torturing Nora a few scenes back, and Hudson... well, I guess he's mad about losing his wife, but he's apparently okay enough to joke about it.

How does this crew figure out who the murderer is? Do they set a clever trap? Analyze the scene and evaluate the clues (Clue was the title of this episode)? No. The scientist-we-don't-remember sees that the knife used to kill the guys was manufactured in Maryland, and Hudson happened to be in Annapolis a few days ago. How this proves anything is beside the point, and it doesn't really matter, because Hudson shoots and kills the scientist before attempting to kill Miles. He's shot by Neville's son, and Neville seems kind of proud. It's a heartwarmer.

The AvClub recap commenters weigh in: 

"So I don't get how the knife's origin proves anything...like saying..."Hey, this was made in China...who's been in China recently."

"And why on earth are people making knives? There must be a thousands of knives lying around from before the collapse that would be of far better quality than could be made without electricity."

"The knife was clearly manufactured, i.e pre-power outage, unless they've adapted steam power to again enable mass production of uniform, interchangeable parts, which would be interesting if only the show's creators gave even a single thought to creating a believable, consistent world!"

All valid points.

"Monroe just blew up Miles' last campsite, so how would Nora [tortured in a windowless room for 21 days] even know where he'd go next?"

" instead of just shooting Miles in the head at any opportune moment in Georgia, Hudson concocts an elaborate scheme to strand everyone including himself in the middle of nowhere and pick them off one by one. Assuming he succeeds, how exactly is he going to get word to Monroe's people with enough evidence to get his wife back?"

So true.

Is there any saving this thing? Can it be more than a vehicle for hate-watching? 

Sure. Kill all the characters, refocus the show on a mysterious island, and make a plane crash happen. Rename the show Lost and hire a writing staff that knows how to make believable characters.

The Boy Who Cried "False Flag"

Conspiracies are fun, aren't they? Sure, you could just repeat the official line--"Muslim extremists carried out a terror attack"-- but that's BORING. It's far more exciting to imagine we're all living in some Die Hard-Mission Impossible-Manchurian Candidate mash-up, and the true culprits aren't the guys with mountains of evidence against them, but instead, covert shadow government agents seeking to turn America into a police state in the most complicated, meticulously planned, secret operation in history.

What movie keeps you on the edge of your seat--the one where it's clear who the bad guy is.... or the one with the unpredictable plot twists? THE KILLER WAS PRETENDING TO BE THE DEAD GUY ON THE FLOOR THE WHOLE TIME!!! OMG!!!

Of course, there are people who actually take these conspiracy theories seriously. In New Hampshire, they call these people "state lawmakers", the rest of us call them idiots. But I suspect that the majority of those espousing these conspiracy theories aren't true believers. Indeed, follow someone's conspiracy story long enough, and you'll hear them contradict themselves. People who are making it up as they go along suffer this problem.

I think they do it because the world is a sometimes scary, sometimes dull place. And conspiracies give us that jolt to the heart... that idea that we're in a battle against foes only the sharpest of us have the eyes to see.

Which is fine and all... except that there actually have been "false flag" operations in the past, sometimes to devastating effect. Our whole current kerfuffle with Iran has its basis in Operation Ajax, a joint British-American plot to overthrow Iran's democratically elected leader and replace him with a dictator more friendly to Western policies. Calling every single event from the past decade into question--as sites like InfoWars have--is like the being the boy who cried wolf. When "false flag," becomes associated with the crazies and the idiots, it makes it that much easier for an actual false flag operation to succeed. Anyone who raises a stink about something will be lumped in with the nutjobs.

Maybe InfoWars is the conspiracy--to make us believe any "false flag" is just a figment of some crackpot's imagination.