The UpStream

Every week, there is a trend on the internet. Whether it be memes of moths or eating Tide pods, almost everyone is exposed to these short-lived trends. Normally they are harmless, including the Tide pod thing, as long as you didn't swallow the detergent. Sometimes the trends are beneficial, such as the fundraising campaign that was the Ice Bucket Challenge.

But, what if the trend is specifically designed to be harmful? The trend of the week involves an app called FaceApp, which allows you to upload a photo and have it age your face, theoretically showing you what you might look like in 50 years. However, this process was not designed to be just a fun viral trend but is designed to be a data collection and AI training method. The app was designed by a Russian company called Wireless Lab, and the photos that you are uploading are being sent to servers in the country. From the company's privacy policy, uploading a photo grants,

a perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, fully-paid, transferable, sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, creative derivative works from, distribute, publicly perform and display your User Content, and any name, username or likeness provided in connection with your User Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed, without compensation to you.

These images and the permission you give the company provide everything that is needed to train artificial intelligence to create better and more believable fake images and videos. The more you use the app, the more help you could potentially be giving Russian organizations to create these photos and videos.

Just like with the personality quizzes on Facebook that became the basis for the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the problem comes down to users carelessly and willfully giving away their data. Before you use these types of gimmicks, think about the information involved and how it can and will be used by others.

The past year has not been kind to independent unlimited movie passes. The European brand Sinemia that came to the US in 2018, shut down operations, citing their inability to find profitability. This followed the nearly constant disaster that has been MoviePass, which has struggled for over a year to keep its lights on. The company has changed its offering several times, reducing the unlimited movies, changing prices, and canceling the one-year prepaid subscriptions.

This week, the company made another big move for the worse, temporarily shutting down operations. At 5 AM Eastern, the MoviePass mobile app ceased functioning, making it impossible for subscribers to purchase movie tickets, making the service completely unavailable. according to a statement, the company said that the move is only temporary, and is being done to improve the mobile app. According to CEO Mitch Lowe,

There's never a good time to have to do this. But to complete the improved version of our app, one that we believe will provide a much better experience for our subscribers, it has to be done.

We have listened and we understand the frustrations of our subscribers. To provide the level of service you deserve and we can be proud of, we need to improve our mobile app. We plan to make this improvement by utilizing an enhanced technology platform, which is in the final stages of completion.

However, this explanation has been met with skepticism. Updating a mobile app does not require the developer or publisher to terminate operation of the existing version to complete a new version unless the team is completely incompetent. While some aspects of the way the app works have suggested some incompetence on the part of the development team, this is a bold and stupid move for a company already on the verge of collapse.

The most likely scenario here is that the company is actually making a big business move behind the scenes and cannot have the brand fully active to complete. With rumors of Regal Cinemas planning to launch its own in-house competitor, with details leaking this week, it's possible that MoviePass is analyzing the market to decide whether or not to continue operations at all.

Since Amazon got started its business model has changed significantly. Originally, the company sold only books, and only through its own distribution channel. As the company grew, it expanded its offerings, selling products other than books, and eventually opening the platform up to third-party sellers. That change took Amazon from being a traditional retailer and made it more like a flea market, where they provide the space and others use the space to sell their own products.

That virtual store concept has allowed the retailer to grow its product assortment while not having to grow its distribution network. It has also kept the company separated from potential lawsuits, especially in sales that are between a third party seller and a customer. That is until a recent court ruling in the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, which stated that Amazon can be held liable for sales in which the company only acts as a payment processor.

The case revolves around an incident in which a customer, Heather Oberdorf, purchased a retractable leash through the Amazon Marketplace from seller Furry Gang. Furry Gang shipped the product directly from their facility in Nevada to the customer. The leash broke, and the cord struck the owner in the eye, blinding her. She sued Amazon in 2016 for the defective product after she was unable to locate any representative of the seller. Amazon was also unable to contact Furry Gang since they stopped selling on the Marketplace in 2016.

The ruling is a reversal of several lower court rulings, all of which have said that Amazon has no legal liability for products and sales that they are not involved with. The ruling was mostly based around the idea that Amazon's Marketplace allows the sellers to separate themselves behind a level of anonymity. This separation leaves customers with little or no recourse in the event of a defect. This reversal could potentially open other sites, like eBay or Craigslist, up to liability for sales that they broker. This will likely cause sites like Amazon to require sellers to identify themselves, either as individuals or corporations, giving customers direct recourse.

It's not unusual for the details of a Kickstarter or Indiegogo campaign to change between the funding and fulfillment phases. In most cases, the changes are minor, not affecting the usability or deliverability of the product. In the case of Shenmue 3, the change is enough to require refunds to backers.

During the funding phase of the campaign, the company promised that backers would receive a Steam key on the day of the game's launch. That promise was logical at the time, as Steam was really the only game in town. In the three years since the campaign ran, things have changed. Epic Games and Discord have both launched their own game stores, with Epic taking the approach of signing exclusivities.

Unfortunately for backers of the Shenmue 3, developers YSNET and publisher Deep Silver made a deal with Epic for a year of exclusivity on the Epic Games Store. This means that it is not possible for them to accurately fulfill their obligation, as there will be no Steam access to the game at launch. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney claims that the fault lies with Valve, who will not allow them to generate Steam download keys a year before the game will be available for purchase, though this is an insane claim. The fault lies with the publisher who has chosen to change the promised distribution method at the last moment. Plus, giving backers a key that they cannot use for at least a year would not have been a better situation than not fulfilling the obligation at all.

Because of this exclusivity deal, backers who are not interested in participating in the Epic Games Store ecosystem can request a refund from the company. The refunds will be paid out by Epic Games, as part of the deal. If backers are still interested in receiving their fulfillment via Steam, the keys will be sent out one year after Epic Games Store launch, but you must specifically request this option.

Starting with the release of the Galaxy S7 in 2016, Samsung has produced all of its flagship phones with an IP68 water-resistance rating. This rating means that the device can survive for 30 minutes or less underwater at depths no more than 1.5 meters. As part of this addition, the company has featured the capability in its advertising, both online and on television. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) claims that the advertising has misled consumers on the reality of the phone's water response. According to ACCC Chair Rod Sims,

The ACCC alleges Samsung's advertisements falsely and misleadingly represented Galaxy phones would be suitable for use in, or for exposure to, all types of water, including in ocean water and swimming pools, and would not be affected by such exposure to water for the life of the phone, when this was not the case.

According to the claim, in many of the advertisements, Samsung featured people using their phones at the beach and in swimming pools, suggesting that the phone would be safe in these environments. Unfortunately, IP68 only applies to freshwater, not saltwater or chlorinated water, such as in pools. The commission claims that Samsung has rejected warranty claims because of water damage, and notes on its website that the phone is only rated for freshwater.

Samsung recognizes the complaint and plans to fight it in court. According to a statement,

Samsung stands by its marketing and advertising of the water resistancy of its smartphones. We are also confident that we provide customers with free-of-charge remedies in a manner consistent with Samsung's obligations under its manufacturer warranty and the Australian Consumer Law. Customer satisfaction is a top priority for Samsung and we are committed to acting in the best interest of our customers.

There is no timeline for the case, but it would appear that Samsung is not going to let the accusation stand. The company has had enough negative publicity in the past year, especially with the Galaxy Fold failures, and cannot afford additional controversy.

With the rise of streaming video services has come a new way for traditional TV shows to get a second chance at life. Some shows have seen massive popularity through Netflix and Hulu long after their cancelation. The Office is the best example of this, continually representing the top show on Netflix. Others have been resurrected after a network has canceled the series. The Mindy Project was saved from oblivion by Hulu, while Arrested Development was revived by Netflix.

This week, the script was flipped, as Netflix original series One Day at a Time was saved by cable network Pop TV after being canceled by Netflix. This represents a first for the industry, as a series has never been canceled by a streaming service and picked up by a traditional appointment television channel. While at first, this appears to show the resilience of cable television, the reality might be a little different. Pop TV is owned by CBS, who has their own struggling streaming service. By picking up a popular former streaming exclusive series and potentially making it available only on CBS All Access after airing, they could be looking to bolster the subscriber count for their service.

For now, this is all conjecture, however. Neither CBS or Netflix has said what the fate of the original 3 Netflix seasons will be, or the future of season 4. It is possible that the two companies have an agreement to allow the original seasons, and potentially the new seasons as well, to stream on Netflix. The two do have an existing cooperative agreement, with Star Trek Discovery being available on Netflix outside of the United States. However, this would be the ideal scenario for CBS to try to lure some One Day at a Time loyal Netflix subscribers over to the CBS All Access dark side.