One of many quotes from former Google employees:
Joe Cannella, former senior account manager: “Basically, you end up spending the majority of your life eating Google food, with Google coworkers, wearing Google gear, talking in Google acronyms, sending Google emails on Google phones, and you eventually start to lose sight of what it’s like to be independent of the big G, and every corner of your life is set up to reinforce the idea that you would be absolutely insane to want to be anywhere else.”
“To which the majority of folks will say ‘boo-hoo, poor spoiled Googler’. But that’s sort of the point. You are given everything you could ever want, but it costs you the only things that actually matter in the end.”
The further I got into the article, the more I realized that the hit that Google is that they portray themselves to be different. Yet according to these employees they’re creating a culture that is no different than the a lot of corporations in America.
I’ll take it a step further. One could argue that they’re describing sounds like a lot of church environments. Mediocre management, focusing solely on metrics and not promoting talent.
via Google employees confess all the things they hated most about working at Google | The Independent
D.L. Mayfield for Sojourners writes:
Writer Nate J. Lee, responding to a video put out by Hillsong church to announce their intention to plant a church in San Francisco (including the phrases “God has great plans for this city” and “San Fran, the best is yet to come!”), wrote this: “Any kind of language that implies that God’s work or God’s plan starts when we arrive … is indicative not only of terrible theology, but of white Christian exceptionalism, the oppressive belief that the correct kind salvation and healing can only be facilitated through us, on our terms with our methods—and us always happens to be white missionaries, white pastors, and white churches.”
The whole article hit home for me. As someone who works for church with a multi-campus model, I’m finding that it’s easier to go into an area that is on an economic upward swing and launch a campus, then go into an area that has little economic viability.
This creates a problem by which these new campuses are contributing to an ongoing systemic problem. While I believe these churches are well-resourced and well-intentioned, I think they don’t realize the damage they’re perpetuating.
via Church Planting and the Gospel of Gentrification | Sojourners
David Brooks, writing for The New York Times:
We’ve got this perverse situation in which the vast analytic powers of the entire world are being spent trying to understand a guy whose thoughts are often just six fireflies beeping randomly in a jar.
Read the entire piece. Just a brutal takedown of Trump.
via When the World Is Led by a Child – The New York Times
Tomorrow, I’ll be on The Church Communications Facebook Group doing a live session on how to use a major message calendar for your church’s communications. It’s at 2pm and you can watch it by going here.
If you’ve never used Major Message Calendar, it’s an easy to way to consolidate all our church communications on single spreadsheet. If used correctly, it can simplify communications, ease planning headaches and help you avoid emergencies. See you there!
From Ashley Carman, writing for The Verge:
It’s important to understand, however, that the way startups like Slice (which owns Unroll.me) and the giants of Google and Facebook treat your data is extremely different. Google and Facebook analyze information about you gathered through your email, social networking habits, demographics, and location, and use that data to entice third-party companies to advertise with them. In other words, the information they have on you allows them to sell access to your eyeballs for targeted ads in your news feed or sponsored search results.
Startups like Slice, on the other hand, collect information about you and other users and sells it to outside firms. Once it’s handed off, the client can do what it wants with the data. In both cases, however, data is sold in the aggregate, meaning you personally aren’t identified. Although admittedly, compiling a report specifically for Uber feels a little icky in light of recent negative press.
This is good explanation of the the differences between Facebook, Google and other free services. However, the lesson from Unroll.me is that you get what you pay for. If it’s free then most likely your data is the product that will be sold.
This is why I’m hesitant to go all in on Facebook as publishing platform. While they do have the audience, I’m not sure I want hand everything over to someone who ultimately is interested in selling my data.
via Unroll.me cofounder’s rant reminds us to be wary of free services – The Verge
New research from the American Journal of Epidemiology:
Using this rich source of data, we were able to investigate the associations of Facebook use and of real-world social network activity with self-reported physical health, self-reported mental health, self-reported life satisfaction, and BMI. Although there were some variations in the significance of the different measures across outcomes, a clear pattern emerged. Our results showed that although real-world social networks were positively associated with overall well-being, the use of Facebook was negatively associated with overall well-being.
I’ll be spending next weekend pouring over this data.
via Association of Facebook Use With Compromised Well-Being: A Longitudinal Study | American Journal of Epidemiology | Oxford Academic
Kurt Gessler, Deputy Editor for Digital News at The Chicago Tribune writes:
At the Tribune, we have a fairly stable and predictable audience. We had around a half million fans at the end of March and have seen slow but steady growth in the last year. Most Facebook posts fell into the 25,000 to 50,000 reach range — with a few big successes and few spectacular failures each day, usually based on the quality of the content or the quality and creativity of the share.
But starting earlier this year, we started to see far more misses. And not reaches in the low 20,000’s but 4,000 reach or 6,000 reach. Digital Editor Randi Shaffer was one of the first to notice.
Interesting post with a lot of data to back up his claim. We haven’t seen the same issues with our content, however we’ve also greatly reduced the number of posts to Facebook that contain outside links.
via Facebook’s algorithm isn’t surfacing one-third of our posts. And it’s getting worse