Podcasts about facemash

What happens when a Harvard dropout builds a global empire on the idea of connection... and then becomes one of the most emotionally disconnected figures in tech? This week, Amanda and Chelsea are joined by Robert Evans of Behind the Bastards (@bastardspod) to unpack the cult-like control of Mark Zuckerberg, the boy wonder turned code-powered control freak. From the chaos of Facemash to the calculated calm of Meta, we trace the evolution of Zuckerbergs's leadership style and how his obsession with efficiency, rating systems, and surveillance shaped one of the most influential companies in the world. We'll explore employee testimonies, bizarre office rituals, and the cognitive dissonance of a CEO preaching human connection while undermining it at every turn. Subscribe to Sounds Like A Cult on Youtube!Follow us on IG @soundslikeacultpod, @amanda_montell, @reesaronii, @chelseaxcharles.  Thank you to our sponsors! Start earning points on rent you're already paying by going to https://joinbilt.com/CULT  Find exactly what you're booking for on https://Booking.com, Booking.YEAH! Head to https://www.squarespace.com/CULT to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code CULT No matter how you say it, don't overpay for it. Shop data plans at www.MINTMOBILE.com/CULT.   Please consider donating to those affected by the Los Angeles Fires. Some organizations that Team SLAC are donating to are:  https://mutualaidla.org/ https://give.pasadenahumane.org/give/654134/#!/donation/checkout https://shorturl.at/SGW9w   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of Do This, Not That, host Jay Schwedelson emphasizes the importance of taking action and getting started on your goals, rather than waiting for the perfect moment. He shares insights on how successful companies often begin with simple ideas and evolve over time, highlighting that having a detailed plan isn't always necessary to achieve success.=================================================================Best Moments:(00:50) The value of getting started on your goals(01:58) There is never a perfect time to begin(02:33) Facebook's humble beginnings as FaceMash(03:12) Airbnb's initial concept for industry conferences(03:41) Mattel's origins as a picture frame company(04:29) Personal anecdote about career advancement in Jay's company(05:17) Richard Branson's advice on seizing opportunities(05:56) Barbara Corcoran's perspective on unplanned success(06:52) Sponsor message for Marigold email marketing platform(07:58) Jay's humorous story about avoiding neighbors(11:02) Promotion for free email certification program at certifiedguru.com=================================================================MASSIVE thank you to our Sponsor, Marigold!!Marigold is a relationship marketing platform designed to help you acquire new customers and turn them into superfans with their best-in-class loyalty solutions. Don't take my word for it though, American Airlines, Honeybaked Ham, Title Boxing, and Notre Dame University are also customers!Regardless of your size, check out Marigold today to get the solution you need to grow your business!Check out this free content from marigold that Jay has loved digesting, 5 Steps For Selecting The Right Email Marketing Platform.

Facebook bestaat deze week 20 jaar. Inmiddels is het moederbedrijf omgedoopt tot Meta, maar de reis begon op 4 februari 2004. Eerst als Facemash, een site waarop vrouwelijke studenten werden beoordeeld, daarna snel als Facebook. We lopen langs hoogte- en dieptepunten en kijken ook vast vooruit.Naast Facebook in deze aflevering: KPN verhoogt en verlaagt de snelheid en prijzen, mensen doen nu al domme dingen met de Vision Pro en koffiedik kijken met rooskleurig uitzicht.Sponsors:Ontdek of Eneco Dynamisch bij jou past via eneco.nl/testBUNNI helpt zzp'ers met hun boekhouding: handige tools, chat met experts en hulp met je aangifte. Kost 10 euro per maand, maar je krijgt van ons twee maanden cadeau via bunni.nl/brightTips uit deze aflevering:Podcast: Hoge Bomen van BNR Nieuwsradio over het Belgische familiebedrijf DPG van Christiaan van Thillo. Dochter DPG Nederland is het grootste mediabedrijf van Nederland met radiozenders als Q-Music, dagbladen als het Algemeen Dagblad, tijdschriften als Libelle, sites als Nu.nl en dadelijk mogelijk de tv-zenders van RTL Nederland. Het bepaalt dus grotendeels wat we zien, horen en lezen.Serie: Mr. & Mrs. Smith op Amazon Prime Video. Andere insteek dan de gelijknamige film uit 2005. Hier ook een echtpaar met spionnen maar deze kennen elkaar juist niet en gaan samen op missies en leren elkaar daar kennen. Leuke actie, vreemde missies, mooie locaties, soms comedy, soort hele vreemde rom-com eigenlijk. Kijkt leuk weg.Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, we're casting our minds back to 2004, when NASA landed the Spirit rover on Mars; the last episode of Friends aired; George W Bush was re-elected US president, and the number one hits were LMC's Take Me To The Clouds Above in the UK and Hey Ya! By Outkast in the US.Over at Harvard University, computer science student Mark Zuckerberg is coding in his dorm room. Lately, he's been nurturing a reputation as a minor enfant terrible on campus after creating the shortlived site FaceMash, which allowed students to rate each other's hotness.Today, Wednesday, 4th February, he's about to push “publish” on TheFacebook, which would later become simply Facebook.So what does Facebook look like at 20, and what can we learn from this social networking phenomenon?To help me answer this and more, I'm joined by Jason Mander, Chief Research Officer at leading global consumer research platform GWI, to dive into their vast research platform and take a deep dive on Facebook at 20.Here are the key statistics Jason mentioned on the podcast, extracted from the GWI platform.75% of people in the UK use Facebook monthly, 66% use it weekly, and 50% use it dailyBoomer Facebook usage has increased 20% over the last decade, with around 66% of boomers currently using itGen Z and student Facebook usage has decreased compared to 10-20 years ago, though around 66% of Gen Z still use itHalf of 13-14 year olds are on Facebook, despite declining usage among younger generationsTikTok, Instagram and Snapchat are the most popular platforms among childrenMeta owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger – the top 4 platforms in the UK15% of UK residents purchase secondhand items online weeklyAround 50% of Brits use eBay for selling items, 25% use Facebook Marketplace, and smaller percentages use sites like GumtreeThree quarters of Millennials and Gen X in the UK use Facebook, with stable usage over the last 10 yearsInstagram ranks as the 4th most used social media platform in the UK, used by around 60% of peopleFacebook Messenger ranks 3rd for pure messaging platforms in the UKiMessage overtakes Messenger among younger Gen Z96% of Gen Z in the UK use at least one Meta platform like Facebook, Instagram, WhatsAppBoomers' Facebook usage is up 20% in the last decadeMore on JasonJason on LinkedInJason on TwitterYou can listen to the episode with GWI Tom Smith here.Your Host: Actionable Futurist® & Chief Futurist Andrew GrillFor more on Andrew - what he speaks about and recent talks, please visit ActionableFuturist.com Andrew's Social ChannelsAndrew on LinkedIn@AndrewGrill on Twitter @Andrew.Grill on InstagramKeynote speeches hereAndrew's upcoming book

Le 4 février 2004, un certain Mark Zuckerberg, jeune étudiant d'Harvard crée Facemash, une plateforme de notation des étudiantes de l'université. Facemash, rapidement devenu “Facebook”, est en 2012 un réseau social innovant utilisé par près de 3 milliards de personnes. Cette année-là, l'entreprise fait la plus grosse entrée en bourse de l'histoire des entreprises de la tech, pour 112 milliards de dollars.Mais Facebook fête aujourd'hui ses vingt ans avec moins de superbe : le réseau social amiral de Meta, reste contesté pour son rôle d'amplificateur de fausses infos et son utilisation des données personnelles à des fins commerciales. Facebook est-il devenu un monstre qui a échappé à son créateur ? Ou son modèle est-il, depuis le début, problématique ? Peut-il être régulé ? Olivier Ertzscheid, maître de conférences, auteur du livre "Le monde selon Zuckerberg : portraits et préjudices", répond aux questions de Sur Le Fil. Réalisation : Clara Guillard Sur le Fil est le podcast quotidien de l'AFP. Vous avez des commentaires ? Ecrivez-nous à podcast@afp.com ou sur notre compte Instagram. Vous pouvez aussi nous envoyer une note vocale par Whatsapp au + 33 6 79 77 38 45. Si vous aimez, abonnez-vous, parlez de nous autour de vous et laissez-nous plein d'étoiles sur votre plateforme de podcasts préférée pour mieux faire connaître notre programme ! Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

En 2004, Mark Zuckerberg lance "Thefacebook" depuis sa chambre d'étudiant à Harvard. Mais un an plus tôt, tout avait commencé avec "FaceMash", un site controversé de jugement de photos d'étudiants.

Facebookoprichter Mark Zuckerberg heeft woensdagavond Amerikaanse tijd de app Threads in gebruik genomen. Na jarenlang een concurrentiestrijd proberen aan te gaan komt Meta eindelijk met hun antwoord op Twitter: Threads. Hier kun je online realtime gesprekken voeren - exact hetgeen wat je ook op Twitter doet. De app vertoont sowieso aardig wat gelijkenissen met Twitter, zoals bijvoorbeeld de vormgeving, tekstgebaseerde berichten, en het posten en reposten van berichten. Supermakkelijk en niet heel verrassend, na het downloaden van de app kan je je Threads account koppelen aan je Instagram-account -ook een telg van Zuckerberg- en exact dezelfde mensen volgen die je op Instagram ook volgt. Zo gepiept.  Threads lijkt een geduchte concurrent te zijn voor Twitter, dat ook baat heeft bij de Twitter perikelen van afgelopen weekend, waarbij Twitter een 'tijdelijke' limiet aangekondigde voor het aantal berichten dat gebruikers kunnen lezen. Dat viel niet in goede aarde bij de Twitteraars. Zuckerberg zelf was op de eerste dag ook zeer actief op Threads en hield de 'score' nauwkeurig bij. Hij zei op zijn persoonlijke account dat Threads in de eerste vier uur 5 miljoen aanmeldingen had.  Gelanceerd dus in Amerika, maar nog niet beschikbaar in de Europese Unie, volgens Meta heeft dat te maken met onduidelijkheden rond de Europese regelgeving Verder in deze Tech Update: Schrijvers Mona Awad en Paul Tremblay hebben een rechtszaak aangespannen tegen OpenAI, het bedrijf achter de tool voor kunstmatige intelligentie ChatGPT, en beweren dat de organisatie de auteursrechtwetgeving heeft geschonden door haar model op romans te "trainen" zonder toestemming van auteurs. Volgens de twee kwam de chatbot met wel ‘zeer nauwkeurige samenvattingen' van hun boeken en komen de teksten wel heel erg overeen met de inhoud van hun boeken. De politie in China heeft een voormalig student opgepakt die wordt verdacht van het stelen van universiteitsgegevens van zijn -vrouwelijke- medestudenten. De 25-jarige man verzamelde foto's en gegevens van zijn vrouwelijke medestudenten en gebruikte deze om een website te maken waarbij hij hun aantrekkelijkheid beoordeelt. Dat heeft veel weg van Mark Zuckerberg's website uit 2013, FaceMash, waarop bezoekers de foto's van Harvard-studenten konden vergelijken en  beslissen wie aantrekkelijker was.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Meta, the owner of Facebook, is shaking up social media with an app some are calling the 'Twitter killer'.  Threads will offer a very similar service, but it will be powered by the massive machine Mark Zuckerberg has built since starting FaceMash, as Facebook was first known, in his university dorm room.   In the battle between the tech titans Twitter owner Elon Musk has been making a few moves of his own – but none of these have been well-received.  So who will come out on top? And perhaps, more importantly, do either of these contenders have what it takes to defeat a rapidly rising TikTok?  Today on The Front Page, Melanie Spencer, the group CEO of advertising and marketing company Thompson Spencer helps Damien try make sense of the scrappy battle for social media. Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network. Host: Damien VenutoProducer: Shaun D WilsonExecutive Producer: Ethan SillsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Office of the Data Protection Authority is honoured to have Elizabeth Renieris, an expert on data governance and the human rights implications of new and emerging technologies, as our 2023 Bijou guest lecturer. The author of Beyond Data: Reclaiming Human Rights at the Dawn of the Metaverse, her passion for data protection was ignited at university when a classmate hacked into internal residential house directories, scraped the student ID photos of female residents from their pages and pitted the undergraduate women against each other on a website called Facemash. Her classmate was Mark Zuckerberg, who went on to control one of the most powerful companies in the world. Introduction by Bailiwick of Guernsey Data Protection Commissioner Emma Martins. More at: https://www.odpa.gg/project-bijou/the-bijou-lecture/the-bijou-lecture-2023/

In this episode of Add To Cart, we checkout a guy who aims to make the valuation and trading of ecommerce business much more realistic and fair. Blake Hutchison is the CEO of Flippa - a global marketplace for buying and selling online businesses. Founded in 2009, Flippa has 3 million users worldwide who can browse for content sites, SaaS businesses, ecommerce businesses, apps and digital services. As a matchmaker to connect buyers and sellers, Flippa's notable sales include Mark Zuckerberg's former website Facemash, overnight success story shipyourenemiesglitter.com and Retweet.com. Links from the episode:The Exit podcast: Defining Modern Day Start Ups with Nick Swinmurn, Founder of ZapposBlake Hutchison from Flippa: A Guide to Buying and Selling Online Businesses | #273Questions answered in the podcast:What is the weirdest thing you've ever bought online? Who is your favourite retailer? Which retail fad do you wish was history?Can you recommend a book or podcast that our listeners should immediately get into? Finish this sentence. The future of retail is… This episode was brought to you by…esuiteAbout your co-host: Blake Hutchison from FlippaBlake leads the team at Flippa, the leading marketplace globally to buy and sell sites, stores and digital properties. Flippa empowers individuals and companies to take control, to take ownership and thrive in this new small business economy. You can contact Blake at LinkedInAbout your host: Nathan Bush from eSuiteNathan Bush is a digital strategist, Co-founder of eCommerce talent agency, eSuite and host of the Add to Cart podcast. He has led eCommerce for businesses with revenue $100m+ and has been recognised as one of Australia's Top 50 People in eCommerce four years in a row. You can contact Nathan on LinkedIn, Twitter or via email.Please contact us if you: Want to come on board as an Add To Cart sponsor Are interested in joining Add To Cart as a co-host Have any feedback or suggestions on how to make Add To Cart betterEmail hello@addtocart.com.au We look forward to hearing from you! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of Add To Cart, we are joined by a guy who aims to make the valuation and trading of ecommerce business much more realistic and fair. Blake Hutchison is the CEO of Flippa - a global marketplace for buying and selling online businesses. Founded in 2009, Flippa has 3 million users worldwide who can browse for content sites, SaaS businesses, ecommerce businesses, apps and digital services. As a matchmaker to connect buyers and sellers, Flippa's notable sales include Mark Zuckerberg's former website Facemash, overnight success story shipyourenemiesglitter.com and Retweet.com. In this chat, Blake shares his thoughts on what makes a business investable, how to make the exit process smooth sailing for all involved and why he believes in those who execute today and measure tomorrow.Links from the episode:The Exit Dinner with FlippaShopify Plus (sponsored)Packeo (sponsored)Questions answered:Is there a ‘right time' to sell an ecom business? What is the typical multiplier on Australian ecommerce business valuations right now? What's been your favourite acquisition story via the Flippa platform?This episode was brought to you by… Shopify PlusPackleoAbout your host: Nathan Bush from eSuiteNathan Bush is a digital strategist, Co-founder of eCommerce talent agency, eSuite and host of the Add to Cart podcast. He has led eCommerce for businesses with revenue $100m+ and has been recognised as one of Australia's Top 50 People in eCommerce four years in a row. You can contact Nathan on LinkedIn, Twitter or via email.About your co-host: Blake Hutchison from FlippaBlake leads the team at Flippa, the leading marketplace globally to buy and sell sites, stores and digital properties. Flippa empowers individuals and companies to take control, to take ownership and thrive in this new small business economy. You can contact Blake at LinkedInPlease contact us if you: Want to come on board as an Add To Cart sponsor Are interested in joining Add To Cart as a co-host Have any feedback or suggestions on how to make Add To Cart betterEmail hello@addtocart.com.au We look forward to hearing from you! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

RJ, we miss you. Kyle Maggio, Shaun Geddes, and Danny B discuss whether it's time to panic about Barrett and whether we should stop the constant begging for a Julius trade. Oh, and they also play some FaceMash! Tune in NOW @TheKnicksWall @TKWPodcast @KyleMaggio @iHateShaun @Dan_NY_B --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/theknickswall/support

Listen again as Hoja, Kiki, and Mohanad take a deep dive into the history of Facebook, from Zuckerberg's shady 2003 hot-or-not website FaceMash, to the election-swaying, misinformation-spreading, outrage-amplifying social network we know (and hate) today. They talk about their first memories of Facebook, the worst misinformation their family members have shared, and why, despite their better judgment, they just can't seem to give it up. Plus, Hoja asks for an R-rated apology from her dog, and Kiki surprisingly says sorry to the anti-vaccine mandate crowd.   Please note, I'm Sorry contains mature themes and may not be appropriate for all listeners.    You can find out more about our show @lemonadamedia on all social platforms, or follow us on Instagram @imsorry_podcast.    Click this link for a list of current sponsors and discount codes for this show and all Lemonada shows: https://lemonadamedia.com/sponsors/    Joining Lemonada Premium is a great way to support our show and get bonus content. Subscribe today at bit.ly/lemonadapremium.    For additional resources, information, and a transcript of the episode, visit lemonadamedia.com.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bradley talks to Rob Lalka, professor at Tulane's Freeman School of Business, about Facemash, Catch 27, a student of his who had an eight-figure exit in 11 months, and what tech still doesn't get about politics. 

REDIFF - Il a 23 ans, il est en section psychologie à l'université Harvard. Il porte des jeans plutôt mal coupés, des sweats shirts à capuche siglés, il a les cheveux bouclés qui virent au roux. Pas vraiment un physique de tombeur comme certains étudiants américains champions de base-ball mais il n'en n'a cure. Mark, il préfère son ordi, il est féru de programmation informatique, et son kiff à lui, c'est de mettre les gens en relation plutôt que de les rencontrer. L'année dernière, en 2003, Mark Zuckerberg avait lancé le site Facemash. Le principe, au relents bien sexistes: soumettre deux étudiantes au vote de ces messieurs qui doivent choisir laquelle semble la plus hot. Écoutez Jour J avec Flavie Flament du 20 juillet 2022.

Amid a crisis, Facebook renames itself An embattled Facebook Inc. is now called Meta Platforms Inc., or Meta for short, to reflect what CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Oct. 28 is its commitment to developing the new surround-yourself technology known as the “metaverse.” The social network itself will still be called Facebook. Skeptics immediately accused the company of trying to change the subject from the Facebook Papers, the trove of leaked documents that has plunged the social media giant into its biggest crisis since it began life as FaceMash in 2003. (AP) AirCanada CEO pledges to ‘improve my French' Air Canada chief executive officer Michael Rousseau on Nov. 4 apologized for remarks suggesting he did not need to speak French, Canada's second language, even though the airline is officially bilingual. “I apologize to those who were offended by my remarks,” Rousseau said in a statement. “I pledge today to improve my French.” Rousseau was backtracking from remarks to reporters in Montreal on Nov. 3 that triggered widespread criticism in the predominantly French-speaking province of Quebec, where the airline is headquartered. (Reuters)  These articles were provided by The Japan Times Alpha.

Il a 23 ans, il est en section psychologie à l'université Harvard. Il porte des jeans plutôt mal coupés, des sweats-shirts à capuche siglés, il a les cheveux bouclés qui virent au roux. Pas vraiment un physique de tombeur comme certains étudiants américains champions de base-ball, mais c'est le cadet de ses soucis. Mark, il préfère son ordi, il est féru de programmation informatique, et son kiff à lui, c'est de mettre les gens en relation plutôt que de les rencontrer. L'année dernière, en 2003, Mark Zuckerberg avait lancé le site Facemash. Le principe : soumettre deux étudiantes au vote de ces messieurs qui doivent choisir laquelle semble la plus hot. Ecoutez Jour J avec Flavie Flament du 16 décembre 2021

Hoja, Kiki, and Mohanad take a deep dive into the history of Facebook, from Zuckerberg’s shady 2003 hot-or-not website FaceMash, to the election-swaying, misinformation-spreading, outrage-amplifying social network we know (and hate) today. They talk about their first memories of Facebook, the worst misinformation their family members have shared, and why, despite their better judgment, they just can’t seem to give it up. Plus, Hoja asks for an R-rated apology from her dog, and Kiki surprisingly says sorry to the anti-vaccine mandate crowd. Please note, I’m Sorry contains mature themes and may not be appropriate for all listeners. You can find out more about our show @lemonadamedia on all social platforms, or follow us on Instagram @imsorry_podcast. Need help saying sorry? Got any public apology fodder? Email us at imsorry@lemonadamedia.com or send us a DM on Instagram. Joining Lemonada Premium is a great way to support our show and get bonus content. Subscribe today at bit.ly/lemonadapremium. Click this link for a list of current sponsors and discount codes for this show and all Lemonada shows: https://lemonadamedia.com/sponsors/ For additional resources, information, and a transcript of the episode, visit lemonadamedia.com.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the 49th episode of ZemachFM, we are taking a look at Facebook’s company profile. We will be discussing the history of Facebook, how Facebook was founded by the five original founders Marck Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz, and Chris Hughes. We also take a look at what products and services that Facebook is shipping currently. Episode Timeline 02:22 Episode Introduction 03:30 How accurate was the movie, The Social Network 05:05 How was Facebook was started 06:20 The contribution of Facemash to the development of Facebook. 09:30 The Facebook of Harvard 10:20 Early founders of Facebook 12:04 Expansion of Facebook to other colleges 13:00 The involvement of Saun Parker 14:20 The move to the name Facebook 15:45 The Winklevoss brothers 16:55 The deposition with Edwardo Saverin 18:55 The Saun parker drug incident 21:00 Recent incidents caused by Facebook 22:32 The Cambridge Analytica incident 25:25 Facebook acquisitions 27:45 The WhatsApp acquisition 28:35 Current products and services from Facebook 32:49 Facebook and RayBan collaboration 34:00 AR and VR at Facebook 34:36 Facebook and the software development environment Contact the hosts Henok Tsegaye Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Abdulhadmid Oumer Twitter Instagram linkedIn Follow Zemach FM and give us comment

Bob talks with Princeton scholar Orestis Papakyriakopoulos about the social media titan's latest assault on transparency, and the all-too-familiar blame-shifting that followed it. That has become standard operating procedure from a company Bob describes as “amoral, except when it's immoral.”TEDDY ROOSEVELT: Surely there never was a fight better worth making than the one which we are in.BOB GARFIELD: Welcome to Bully Pulpit. That was Teddy Roosevelt, I'm Bob Garfield. Episode 4: It Wasn't Me, It Was My Dog. Last week, Facebook abruptly shut down a research program by scholars, at New York University's Ad Observatory, who had been monitoring the company's political advertising inventory.NEWSCASTER: Now, this whole battle started on Tuesday when Facebook disabled the accounts of researchers at the NYU Ad Observatory, Facebook explaining, quote, “NYU's Ad Observatory project studied political ads using unauthorized means to access and collect data from Facebook in violation of our terms of service. We took these actions to stop unauthorized scraping and protect people's privacy in line with our privacy program under the FTC order.”BG: Yes, Facebook's product management director, Mike Clark, claimed in a blog post that the company's hands were tied by the government. You know, just like Son of Sam claimed it was his dog who ordered him to kill.Within 24 hours, Wired magazine and others revealed that the FTC consent order provided no such thing. Even the agency's Bureau of Consumer Protection weighed in, with acting director Samuel Levine writing to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg saying, quote, “I am disappointed by how your company has conducted itself in this matter.”Please note that Levine didn't say surprised, just disappointed, because the history of Facebook is the history of Facebook conducting itself in disappointing ways, voicing shame and regret from the bottom of its heart, and then returning to deceptive and greedy business as usual.MARK ZUCKERBERG (MONTAGE): We didn't take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake and it was my mistake. This was a major breach of trust and, and I'm really sorry that this happened. We have a basic responsibility to protect people's data. And if we can't do that, then we don't deserve to have the opportunity to serve people.NEWSCASTER: In 2003, Zuckerberg apologized in the Harvard Crimson for any harm done after his website FaceMash asked users to rate people's hotness. Three years later, Zuckerberg said Facebook, quote, “really messed this one up,” following user complaints that the newly launched news feed invaded their privacy.NEWSCASTER: Zuckerberg apologized once again in 2007 for an uproar over the company's Beacon advertising system, saying, “I know we can do better.”BG: That last part courtesy of CBS News. So the FTC wasn't surprised about the latest phony excuse for systematic opacity, and neither was Orestis Papakyriakopoulos, a postdoctoral research director at Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy. He's speaking to me from Athens, Greece. Orestis, welcome to Bully Pulpit.ORESTIS PAPAKYRIAKOPOULOS: Glad to be here, Bob.BG: All right, we'll get to your work shortly. But I want to begin with the NYU project. What were they studying?OP: So, the NYU researchers had an Ad Observatory project. They were trying to monitor what ads are placed on Facebook and who sees them, like which demographics are targeted and so on — in order to provide additional transparency on how online advertising takes place.BG: And what was the method? Were they, in fact, scraping content or metadata from the site in some clandestine fashion, as Facebook alleged?OP: No, actually, they've developed a plugin that you put on your browser, the Ad Observer, and they asked users all over the world to use their plugin, and practically the plugin was recording what the users saw. So in this way, they could see which ads a user was targeted.BG: Wait, so when Facebook invoked protecting user privacy, all of the users had proactively downloaded the browser extension and were giving explicit permission to the NYU people to see what ads they were being served.OP: Exactly, but when Facebook uses the term users, they mean the advertisers who placed the ads. The advertisers did not give their permission to NYU to collect the information about the targeted ads.BG: [chuckling]OP: Yeah, exactly.BG: I see, so the advertisers who pay money to have their ads seen we're skittish about having their ads seen.OP: Exactly.BG: Now, the whole point of the Facebook algorithm is that consumers get more and more content they have demonstrated interest in by clicking on it or commenting or sharing. That very same algorithm, though, takes the same user behavior data and allows advertisers to micro target to exactly the consumer profile they're most interested in, whether to buy a car or toothpaste or a political worldview.OP: Yeah, so Facebook's business model until today is to use this data they collect to place personalized advertisements and they sell the space and they sell the tool they've developed so advertisers can place their ads.BG: Selling the tools they've developed. This gets to the next sensitive area of privacy, because the FTC order that the company invoked last week came with a five billion dollar fine for violating an earlier 2012 consent decree after Facebook was caught not only being careless, but mercenary with users personal data. Can you remind me what the specifics were of the original complaint?OP: Sure. So back in 2012, the FTC claimed that Facebook was violating numerous privacy rules. And more specifically, for example, users believed that they had put their accounts to private settings or some information that they had on their profile were not public, but advertisers still had the opportunity to collect this data. Another example of what was violated back then is that although users were deleting their profiles or saying that taking their information down, third party entities were still able to collect this data, although the users had removed their consent access on the platform.BG: So then came the new order in 2019, in which the FTC said Facebook was found to be, quote, “deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information.” Can you summarize the 2019 case?OP: Sure. So going back to 2012, because Facebook violated specific rules, the FTC said that Facebook needs to change how it functions to make more clearer representations of what holds in privacy terms and what not, to inform users as well as to switch off all these back doors that gave data about users to third party individuals. And although Facebook started doing that, for example, what happened is that although new apps were not able to get this data, if you had an older up, you still were able to collect information. And this is the window that was exploited also by Cambridge Analytica, that the company used an app that was created in the past for a different purpose and started collecting data about users, and these data the users have not given their consent to give the data to the company.BG: And this wasn't like, oops, careless of me. This had to have been done with malice aforethought.OP: Yeah. So definitely Cambridge Analytica did it because they found an opportunity there to collect all this data. I don't know if Facebook knew about the backdoor or not, but definitely they did not do their job right.BG: And then sat on the information for two years before the story finally blew up in the media.OP: And going back to now to 2019, the FTC said, hey, Facebook did not conform to our claims. There are still issues with data privacy and Facebook need to conform to the older rules. Plus, there were some new issues that appeared. For example, Facebook need to make more transparency in how they use their face recognition technology and their platform. The FTC implemented stronger accountability mechanisms in cases that Facebook violates against the norm, and so on.BG: So once again, disappointing but unsurprising. And just ,as is was the case with Cambridge Analytica, simply astonishing indifference to the abuse of its targeting algorithm. And this is whether permitting Trump friendly or Boris Johnson friendly foreign agents to spread toxic lies in a political campaign, or the Myanmar Buddhist military to incite pogroms with false accusations against the Muslim Rohingya minority. I've often described the company as amoral, except when it is immoral. Would you care to argue against that proposition?OP: So definitely Facebook as every company, they look at their self-interest. This is what they were doing in the past and they are keep doing now. Their model is to collect as much data they can and find ways to sell it to get the most profit out of it. That also means that not disclosing a lot of things that are going on on the platform because these might make them accountable and also make them impose restrictions on their business model.BG: And in fact, in the Cambridge Analytica affair, there were a number of universities and the United States Senate trying to look into how it could have all taken place. Facebook vowed transparency, but instead actually tried to stymie some researchers by failing to make its API fully available and so on. How cooperative were they even when they were most in the crucible following Cambridge Analytica?OP: Generally, Facebook I think that transparency efforts of Facebook belong more to the marketing part of the company rather than an actual effort of the company to be more open with scientists and policy makers and so on. So they always try to give minimal data under rules that protect them 100 percent. And also the quality of the data information they provide usually is not able to answer key questions about the nature of the platform, how does it affect the society, the democracy and so on.BG: All right. Let's talk about your work at the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton. According to your center's website, your research, quote “provides ideas, frameworks and practical solutions towards just, inclusive and participatory socioalgorithmic ecosystems through the application of data intensive algorithms and social theories.” So what, what do you do?OP: So, for example, in the case of Facebook and online platforms in general, we try to understand how the tools and the algorithms they deploy are used politically, to place political ads to influence the public opinion. And as part of it, we look at Facebook, Google and YouTube, which belongs to Google, for example — or other platforms like TikTok, which are used a lot for political communication — and we ask who has access to the tools of the platforms, how do the tools of the platforms function and what effects they might have in the society. Like, who sees an ad, why, why they don't see an ad, is there probably a potential from discrimination, to are there other issues that may come as a side effect of seeing specific ads, and other further research questions.BG: Now, I want to go back very briefly to the NYU people. Facebook claimed they had offered those researchers an alternative method with its very own FORT researcher platform, which in the name of science and transparency and societal good, it beneficently makes available to scholars. In fact, FORT stands for Facebook Open Research and Transparency. But you read that Mike Clark blog post about NYU and you were like, yeah, right, because you and your team tried to take the FORT and found it heavily defended.OP: Exactly, and they said first they have a political ads library that is open to the public and they also provide the FORT data set where researchers can get access. And to start with the minor thing, the political ads library's too general and does not actually provide information about who placed an ad to whom. You can also more or less see some general statistics about ads, like general demographics and location, who saw it, as well as the content of the ad.BG: It seems to me as if someone was being investigated for murder and the person of interest says to the cops, here is the evidence you may choose from. I will provide this. You can use this and only this for making your case.OP: Exactly, that's the one thing, and they also claim that they have the FORT data set. And it's interesting because back in February, the group I am in, we tried to get access to that data set and they provided us with a contract which we had to sign in order to get the data set without telling us what the data set includes. And this agreement that Facebook gave us said that actually Facebook possesses the power to decide if our research can get published or not. So we could do some research. They could review it then and they would say, OK, this is publishable or this is not, otherwise you need to remove that or that and so on. Which we found really problematic. Research need to be free, otherwise it becomes censored. And we asked them first, OK, can you tell us more? We cannot sign a contract without knowing what data we are getting, of course. And second, are we going to have the freedom to answer our research question? And the first answers of Facebook was we are not able to negotiate the terms we are proposing because this is mandated by the FTC and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Which of course did not hold. The FTC decrees don't say anything about how researchers can access Facebook data.BG: When Facebook played the FTC card last week, you were you were like, oh, I've seen this movie before. They're invoking government regulation that in fact, doesn't regulate the thing that they're trying to hide.OP: Exactly. And because we saw how they treated the NYU researchers, and we were frustrated that they used again the FTC argument, we said, OK, we need to speak up and talk about our own experience because this cannot go on.BG: So just to reiterate, it's a mystery package that you don't get to unwrap until you've signed an onerous contract, which specifies, among other things, that if Facebook doesn't like what you want to publish based on your access to FORT, then it just censors you. I want to return to the letter that the FTC official wrote to Mark Zuckerberg after the NYU controversy erupted last week. He addressed the subject of Facebook's trustworthiness to keep its word, not only only the long haul, but like in any time period whatsoever. He observes, quote, “Only last week, Facebook's general counsel, Jennifer Newstead, committed the company to ‘timely, transparent communication to Bureau of Consumer Protection staff about significant developments.' Yet the FTC received no notice that Facebook would be publicly invoking our consent decree to justify terminating academic research earlier this week. Had you honored your commitment to contact us in advance, we would have pointed out to you that the consent decree does not bar Facebook from creating exceptions for good-faith research in the public interest.” They broke their promise and they did it absolutely immediately. How is anybody supposed to, in academia or elsewhere, supposed to deal with a company that appears to be out of control?OP: I think that the answer is not company specific, but more general, like there need to be regulations that define what data online platforms and tech companies should provide to researchers, as well as how, because it's not only about the data that Facebook holds, it's also the data that Google holds and all the other platforms. And although focus is usually on Facebook, the other platforms also have a very high degree of opacity. So I do believe that policymakers and politicians need to step up and say, we need to bring regulation that forces Facebook and the other platforms to change how they function, to change what they disclose and what they not.BG: All right, so there was a 2012 consent decree in which Facebook promised to make corrections to how it does business. It violated that consent decree, leading to the 2019 update, which expanded the government regulation and also fined them five billion dollars. Now, I know you're a data scientist and an engineer, but I'm going to ask you now to be a lawyer, too, because in the 2019 decree, the FTC said, quote, “It is ordered that respondent (that's Facebook) in connection with any product or service, shall not misrepresent in any manner, expressly or by implication, the extent to which the respondent maintains the privacy or security of covered information” — including, and this skips a few lines, “the extent to which the respondent makes or has made covered information accessible to third parties.” Now, I'm not a lawyer either, but it seems to me that what happened last week with NYU is explicitly a violation of that clause. They misrepresented the way they treat covered information, data that is, under the pretext of privacy or security. Is there going to be a 2021 update to the 2019 update to the 2012 order?OP: I'm not a lawyer, but Facebook tries to exploit ambiguity in ways that conforms to their interests. And for example, that is to say that we are protecting users privacy in order to not allow the NYU researchers to understand how their tools are used.BG: All right. You say ambiguity. This looks pretty expressly stated to me, but I guess this isn't your table. I will ask you what this all means. What are the implications of this dust-up involving a, you know, relatively small research project? What are the implications for the rest of us?OP: It is an issue for the academic community because we as academics struggle to understand technological tools and how they affect the society with very little help in general. And really, this tool has also been invaluable for a lot of researchers and was a useful resource to understand Facebook ads, but generally it also shows how much power we have as academics. And we we need to make calls to policymakers to change things, because the research and the knowledge we can extract will be useful for them and the rest of the society.BG: And concerning your work at Princeton, I know you haven't published yet, but I wonder if there's a sneak preview that you can offer of, if not your absolute finding some interesting tidbits along the way.OP: First, we find limitations, strong limitations, what the data the provided can actually say, like we find unexplainable moderation practices like why ads were removed or not removed, although they define specific guidelines about how ads should be. We also find that a lot of ads are related to protected groups. And there are questions to understand how these protected groups were targeted and make political statements about it. But also, it's not also about our research. Like we are able to access only the data that Facebook gives through their political ads library. So there are thousands or even millions of ads that are placed and researchers cannot get access to them at all. And that's why NYU's project was such a great resource, because there was no other way to get information about these advertisements. I find it personally troubling that there is so much opacity about online ads, but on other ads, like on TV or on radio, you get so much information. And they know there are legal and historical reasons why they are treated differently, but they should not.BG: I want to ask you one final thing, Orestis. Like the wildfires that right now are ravaging Greece and California and elsewhere around the world, authoritarianism is raging. Disinformation has become not just an art, but a science. Millions and millions of people are foolishly swallowing lies and disinformation fed them by cynical politicians. The world is literally in flames. Why do companies like Facebook not rush to provide whatever data they can in support of better academic understanding of what is happening on our screens and in our psyches?OP: I think they followed the idea of the less we provide, the safer we are. I do believe that if we had access to data, we could find positive effects of social media as well. So I don't believe that everything is bad. It's not black and white, but I think they believe that the less they give, the more protected they are because they are afraid that if a very strong regulation is passed, they will lose the ability to, to keep having the same business model they have until today with the same profits.BG: Orestis, thank you so much for joining me.OP: Thanks for having me Bob.BG: Orestis Papakyriakopoulos is a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy. Papakyriakopoulos was perhaps admirably circumspect in casting doubt more on capitalist self-interest than Facebook per se. But whenever these blowups occur, I think back to the first scene of the 2010 movie The Social Network, in which Zuckerberg, played by actor Jesse Eisenberg, is getting dumped by his girlfriend.GIRLFRIEND: You are probably going to be a very successful computer person. You're gonna go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a nerd. And I want you to know from the bottom of my heart that that won't be true. It'll be because you're an a*****e.BG: OK, we're done here. Before I sign off, though, I must remind you, I must implore you to comment, rate, share what you've heard here today. And not just Bully Pulpit, but the other Booksmart Studios shows like John McWhorter's Lexicon Valley and Amna Khalid's Banished, both of which programs are like, whoa — tell friends, neighbors, family members, stop strangers on the street. The success of Booksmart, the impact of our work depends as much on you as on us. So please spread the word.Also, if you become a paying subscriber to Booksmart Studios, you will get extended interviews, additional content of other kinds, access to the hosts and in my case, continued access to my weekly column, which is, for the moment, free to sample. Now then, Bully Pulpit is produced by Mike Vuolo and Matthew Schwartz. Our theme was composed by Julie Miller and the team at Harvest Creative Services in Lansing, Michigan. Chris Mandra and N'Dinga Gaba are our audio engineers. Bully Pulpit is a production of Bookmart Studios. I'm Bob Garfield. Get full access to Bully Pulpit at bullypulpit.substack.com/subscribe

The first actual social media site was released in 1997 called Six Degrees and after that MySpace, FACEMASH, that became THE FACEBOOK, and they dropped the "the" and went with just FACEBOOK and since then we have many options for social connection and interaction but for what? What is the point and purpose of social media for you? Why did you get on it to begin with? Do you find yourself stressed out by the management of all the sites, or not? Join your favorite trio as they discuss their introductions to social media as well as the blessings and lessons they've learned being on it. Thanks for tuning in to FAITH, FUN, and MOTIVATION.

Our fifteenth episode in which we watch and review the biographical film The Social Network, directed by David Fincher, which documents the life of Mark Zuckerberg, the founding of Facebook and some of the lawsuits that followed. It stars Jesse Eisenberg as a young Mark Zuckerberg, who creates a website called Facemash that rates photos of female students at Harvard, which leads to the founding of Facebook. We didn't have any submissions this week, but if you're a creator and want to have your work reviewed, message us! Music by Thom & Ben WEBSITE: https://entertainmentofexcellence.weebly.com INSTAGRAM: https://instagram.com/eofepodcast TWITTER: https://twitter.com/eofepodcast WATCH THE SOCIAL NETWORK: https://www.justwatch.com/uk/movie/the-social-network BUY THE SOCIAL NETWORK DVD/BLU-RAY: https://amzn.to/2CjzCOI

Welcome to the History of Computing Podcast, where we explore the history of information technology. Because understanding the past prepares us for the innovations of the future! Todays episode is on former Social Networking pioneer, Friendster. Today when you go to friendster.com you get a page that the social network is taking a break. The post was put up in 2018. How long did Rip Van Winkle Sleep? But what led to the rise of the first big social network and well, what happened? The story begins in 1973. Talkomatic was a chat room and was a hit in the PLATO or Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations community at the University of Illinois, an educational learning system that had been running since 1960. Dave Woolley and Douglas Brows at the University of Illinois brought chat and then the staff built TERM-Talk the same year, adding screen sharing and PLATO Notes would be added where you could add notes to your profile. This was the inspiration for the name of Lotus Notes. Then in the 80s came Bulletin Board Systems, 84 brought FidoNet, 88 brought IRC, 96 brought ICQ, and in 96 we got Bolt.com, the first social networking and video website with SixDegrees coming in 1997 as the first real social media website. AOL Instant Messenger showed up the same year and AOL bought ICQ in 99. It was pretty sweet that I didn't have to remember all those ICQ numbers any more! 1999 - Yahoo! And Microsoft got in the game launching tools called Messenger at about the same time and LiveJournal came along, as well as Habbo, a social networking site for games. By 2001 Six Degrees shut down and Messenger was shipped with XP. But 2002. That was the year the Euro hit the street. Before England dissed it. That was the year Israeli and Palestinian conflicts escalated. Actually, that's a lot of years, regrettably. I remember scandals at Enron and Worldcom well that year, ultimate resulting in Sarbanes Oxley to counter the more than 5 trillion dollars in corporate scandals that sent the economy into a tailspin. My Georgia Bulldogs football team beat Arkansas to win the SEC title and then beat Florida State in the Sugar Bowl. Nelly released Hot In Here and Eminem released Lose Yourself and Without Me. If film, Harry Potter was searching for the Chamber of Secrets and Frodo was on a great trek to the Two Towers. Eminem was in the theaters as well with 8 Mile. And Friendster was launched by Jonathan Abrams in Mountain View California. They wanted to get people making new friends and meeting in person. It was an immediate hit and people flocked to the site. They grew to three million users in just a few months, catching the attention of investors. As a young consultant, I loved keeping track of my friends who I never got to see in person using Friendster. Napster was popular at the time and the name Friendster came from a mashup of friends and Napster. With this early success, Friendster took $12 million dollars in funding from VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Benchmark Capital the next year. That was the year a Harvard student named Mark Zuckerburg launched FaceMash with his roommate Eduardo Saverin for Harvard students in a kinda' “Hot or Not” game. They would later buy Instagram as a form of euphoric recall, looking back on those days. Google has long wanted a social media footprint and tried to buy Friendster in 2003, but when rejected launched Orkut in 2004 - which just ran in Brazil, tried Google Friend Connect in 2008, which lasted until 2012, Google Buzz, which launched in 2010 and only lasted a year, Google Wave, which launched in 2009 and also only lasted a year, and of course, Google + which ran from 2011 to 2019. Google is back at it again with a new social network called Shoelace out of their Area 120 incubator. The $30 million dollars in Google stock would be worth a billion dollars today. MySpace was also launched in 2003 by Chris DeWolfe and Tom Anderson, growing to have more traffic than Google over time. But Facebook launched in 2004 and after having problems keeping the servers up and running, Friendster's board replaced Abrams as CEO and moved him to chairmen of the board. He was replaced by Scott Sassa. And then in 2005 Sassa was replaced by Taek Kwn and then he was replaced by Kent Lindstrom who was replaced by Richard Kimber. Such rapid churn in the top spot means problems. A rudderless ship. In 2006 they added widgets to keep up with MySpace. They didn't. They also opened up a developer program and opened up APIs. They still had 52 million unique visitors worldwide in June 2008. But by then, MySpace had grown to 7 times their size. MOL Global, an online payments processor from Malaysia bought the company in 2009 and relaunched the site. All user data was erased and Friendster provided an export tool to move data to other popular sites at the time, such as Flickr. In 2009 Friendster had 3 Million unique visitors per day. They relaunched But that dropped to less than a quarter million by the end of 2010. People abandoned the network. What happened? Facebook eclipsed the Friendster traffic in 2009. Friendster became something more used in Asia than the US. Really, though, I remember early technical problems. I remember not being able to log in, so moving over to MySpace. I remember slow loading times. And I remember more and more people spending time on MySpace, customizing their MySpace page. Facebook did something different. Sure, you couldn't customize the page, but the simple layout loaded fast and was always online. This reminds me of the scene in the show Silicon Valley, when they have to grab the fire extinguisher because they set the house on fire from having too much traffic! In 2010, Facebook acquired Friendster's portfolio of social networking patents for $40 million dollars. In 2011, Newscorp sold MySpace for $35 million dollars after it had been valued at it peak in 2008. After continuing its decline, Friendster was sold to a social gaming site in 2015, trying to capitalize on the success that Facebook had doing online gaming. But after an immediate burst of users, it too was not successful. In 2018 the site finally closed its doors. Today Friendster is the 651,465th ranked site in the world. There are a few thing to think about when you look at the Friendster story: 1. The Internet would not be what it is today without sites like Friendster to help people want to be on it. 2. The first company on a new thing isn't always the one that really breaks through 3. You have to, and I mean, have to keep your servers up. This is a critical aspect of maintaining you're momentum. I was involved with one of the first 5 facebook apps. And we had no idea 2 million people would use that app in the weekend it was launched. We moved mountains to get more servers and clusters brought online and refactored sql queries on the fly, working over 70 hours in a weekend. And within a week we hit 10 million users. That app paid for dozens of other projects and was online for years. 4. When investors move in, the founder usually gets fired at the first sign of trouble. Many organizations simply can't find their equilibrium after that and flounder. 5. Last but not least: Don't refactor every year, but if you can't keep your servers up, you might just have too much technical debt. I'm sure everyone involved with Friendster wishes they could go back and do many things differently. But hindsight is always 20/20. They played their part in the advent of the Internet. Without early pioneers like Friendster we wouldn't be where we are at today. As Heinlein said, “yet another crew of Rip Van Winkle's” But Buck Rogers eventually did actually wake back up, and maybe Friendster will as well. Thank you for tuning into another episode of the History of Computing Podcast. We're lucky to have you. Have a great day!

Summary Brian Mayer talks about those days and times in a relationship where things pivot and take a turn for the worse or for the better.  Rarely does a pivot happen that does not significantly alter the course of the relationship.  Pivots can be things that happen from internal forces or external events.  The internal pivots often early in the relationship can happen with little thought or effort but later in life they may take more effort.  Whatever the reason though pivot points are important.  We hope you enjoy today's episode.  For more information and additional resources please visit our website at http://www.theremarriedlife.com Today's Goodies The dictionary defines a pivot as something of “crucial importance in relation to the development or success of something else.”  Did you know that Facebook used to be called Facemash and it was nothing like the social media platform it is today.  It used to be a site that would put two pictures of people together asking which was more attractive.  Talk about the right pivot! Starbucks up until the early 1980's sold espresso machines and beans.  A trip to Italy by the founder had him inspired by the coffee shops there and now we know it as the most famous coffee shop in the world.  Michael Jordan constantly used feeling slighted as fuel to pivot to frequently greater heights.  The best example of this with him occurred when he got cut from his high school basketball team and then went on the win a National Championship in basketball at the University of North Carolina.      So what about the pivot points in a relationship that change the trajectory of where you are headed as a couple.  There are lots of them including: Your first meeting Your first kiss Saying I love You for the First Time Meeting Families Taking a Trip Staying Over For the Night Getting Engaged Getting Married Having Your First Child Having Each Additional Child A Financial Windfall or Calamity A Health Scare An Affair A Major Conflict A job loss Loss of a Child Think about the pivotal moments in your relationship.  Then think about in the moment which way you felt your relationship moving.  Then finally think about as you look back and have more space from the moment even those that seem negative, did they ultimately damage your relationship or ultimately strengthen it.  For me and my wife Heather with have had lots of pivotal moments in our relationship.  There are a couple that really stand out to me that in the moment felt negative and felt like a tidal wave might wash us under.  Heather's cancer scare while we were dating and what we did about it Disagreements about parenting and what we did about it  As I look back on my relationship with my wife it is those moments that ultimately strengthened our marriage and we both can look back and almost glorify the struggle if you will.  We can often say wow look what we have come through.  With these moments we gain confidence to say that there is almost nothing that we can't make it through now.     As we wrap up, I would encourage you and your partner whether you have been together for a few months or a few years, to think back to some of these pivotal moments and ask some of these questions of each other focusing on your own experience through the issue.  What was that pivotal moment? How did you feel as you were going through it?  Angry, sad, lonely, excited, happy, overjoyed, fearful etc What were the things that you or your partner did that helped? What things happened that did not help? As you look back if you have some distance, did it strengthen you and prepare for the pivotal moments to come?  Hope you enjoyed today's message.  Resources: None Mentioned Today Thanks For Listening! With so many things that take time in our lives, I more grateful than you know that you took time to listen to this podcast episode.  If you liked this episode and believe that it would be beneficial to a friend, family member, or colleague, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. The Remarried Life Facebook Group is a community of people just like you who get and give support.  Please join today!  ​ As always remember that marriage is nothing something you have, it is something you do.  Talk to you next week unless you are binge listening in the future in which case I will talk to you in about a minute!  Take care.

Pivoting is something that we hear a lot about in business, especially in the startup space. Facebook began life as Facemash, Instagram grew out of Burbn and YouTube started out as a video dating site. All of these famous names started out moving in one direction and changed course for a variety of reasons. It’s… The post https://www.excellence-expected.com/episode127/ (How Amy Schmittauer Successfully Pivoted SavvySexySocial and What You Can Learn) appeared first on https://www.excellence-expected.com (Excellence Expected, by Mark Asquith).