Facebook, leaning toward evil.

Facebook has patented the news feed. The opportunity for mayhem is incredible.

This patent is just wrong. It would be like a newspaper patenting narrow columns. It's not right. They already have a strangle-hold on my data. This is the last straw. I'm leaving Facebook.

Change always hurts

It's funny how people vote for politicians advocating "Change" and then when it comes to actually changing, people balk. This is for a good reason: all change hurts somebody.

Take health care reform. That's a big change, and it will surely hurt insurance companies. I am not being flippant: insurance companies have investors who want to make a profit, and those investors could very well be me or you thanks to the 401(k) investment. Health care reform, in it's current incarnation, will also cost more money, and increasing the size of the government, hurting the taxpayer's wallet. The hope is that such a change will improve people's lives, overall.

I voted for Obama, but I have to admit his healthcare reform initiative took me by unhappy surprise. With all the crap going on the world, and with the US already bleeding money thanks to two thankless wars, why now? Why not wait until the wars are over, we stop bleeding money, and can make these changes without making the government any larger than it already is?

I want smaller government, not larger. I think there are very few Americans of any party that want a larger government. This is not a matter of principle, it's a matter of practicality: the federal government already appears to be a hulking, wasteful lumbering thing. Rewarding the government for a job poorly done is no way to spend resources. If the government were more effective, doing only those things which require a fierce concentration of power and resources, then I would be more open to giving it more money.

Change is always painful. We just have to be smart in judging whether some pain now will yield benefits in the future. The interesting thing is that, if you take virtually *any* historical decision, even ones that we now perceive as good, or even great, you will find enormous opposition. The creation of central park was going to bankrupt New York. Desegregation was going to destroy America. Entering world war 2 was going to bankrupt us and needlessly entangle us in world affairs. Landing on the moon was going to be a wasteful misuse of government resources, and probably kill the astronauts. Revolt against Britian was needless, and going to end in utter defeat.

Unintended Consdequences of Lightwieght Activism

About a year ago I took a stand against membership cards. I found out today that my small act of rebellion changed the policies of a major corporation, derailed one of it's marketing campaigns, and got someone fired.

The relatively recent rash of "membership cards" at virtually every retail store was troubling to me. On a superficial level, I was annoyed at having to carry all of these cards just to get the ordinary price. It was clear to me that, rather than enabling "discounts" these cards actually just warded off penalties - non-carriers are penalized for not having one, or not presenting it. On a deeper level, I knew the true purpose of these cards and it bothered me: they give the store a valuable database not only of personal contact details, but also behavior data. You are what you buy, and these companies can learn a lot about you from your spending habits. While the use of this information would normally be innocuous, it frightens me. At no time in history were such complete records possible to keep on a such a wide scale. It's not clear how they can be misused.

One day, while at the local Ralph's, it occurred to me that I could solve both concerns at once. I could register a card with a fake name and address, an easy-to-remember phone number (562 500 5000), and then encourage others to use that phone number as well. This was an act of lightweight activism. And today I found that it was far more successful than I hoped. Indeed, it got someone fired.

According to Mary, my checkout clerk today, around 30 people at the one store were using the number. It was directly because of this, according to her, that they discontinued the free gas initiative. And finally, a checkout clerk was fired for suggesting that a customer who had forgotten their card use the number. She said all of this with a quivering lip, and was obviously very angry with me. "So YOU are the one who registered that number!" she began accusingly.

(Of all the accusations I found the "free gas was discontinued because of you" the most interesting. I put a fake name, "Guy Faux" and a fake address "123 Main St. Seal Beach" so I never received anything from Ralphs. I suppose if they just printed unnamed vouchers some lucky person at or near that address was getting a lot of free gas. I expected the mail to get returned to sender.)

I too am angry that someone got fired over this, but for very different reasons. The clerk got fired for helping a customer. That's just wrong. I can totally understand that the company does not want it's employees systematically undermining any system, no matter how ill-concieved. But to fire someone over this? Why isn't Mary angry with management? They are the ones who did the firing! Heck, I never told any of the clerks to share the number. It just sort of caught on.

An act of rebellion, someone lost their job, many people protected their privacy for a short time, a random person got free gas. All of this because I picked a fake number and encouraged a few people to use it. Wow. What a strange world we live in.

For the record, I advocate doing away with these ridiculous cards entirely. Places like Trader Joe's need to be commended for not imposing on their customers like this. If you agree you can act by doing something like what I did, but perhaps on a smaller scale. Figuring out what the public needs and wants should be up to the "feel" of the store manager, not the output of an OLAP data center that then dispatches impersonal orders around the globe.