TIME Social Media

Twitter Wants to Dominate Apps By Winning Over Developers

Twitter Inc. Headquarters As Company Raises $1.8 Billion After Boosting First Debt Sale
The Twitter Inc. logo is seen on coffee mugs inside the company's headquarters in San Francisco, California, U.S., on Friday, Sept. 19, 2014. Bloomberg—Bloomberg via Getty Images

Social network wants to expand its reach beyond tweets

Twitter is trying to make itself an essential part of the app ecosystem with a new suite of tools aimed at mobile developers. Those tools, announced Wednesday and bundled together in a free service called Fabric, put Twitter in more direct competition with Google and Facebook for control of the mobile future.

Fabric is comprised of a suite of individual tools that together help developers deal with many of the issues they face getting their apps up and running. Crashlytics, a company Twitter bought in 2013, will help developers analyze crash rates for their apps and improve stability. MoPub, another recent Twitter acquisition, is an ad exchange that allows developers to easily serve ads in their apps that are bid on in real-time auctions. The third leg of Fabric, called Twitter Sign In, will let people sign into different apps using their Twitter login credentials rather than a username and password specifically for that app. Similarly, a new service called Digits will let people sign into apps using their cellphone number instead of a username and password.

Outside of Digits, Twitter had offered some form of these services before, but they hadn’t been wrapped up in one simple-to-use interface. Announced at the company’s first-ever mobile developer conference, Fabric is something of an olive branch Twitter is extending to the development community after the social network tightened access to its API a few years ago. Whether app makers will play nice with Twitter now remains to be seen.

TIME Internet

Monica Lewinsky Just Joined Twitter

Here she goes

Updated Oct. 20, 10:30 a.m. EST.

Monica Lewinsky joined the flock on Monday morning, and here’s what she had to say:

Vanity Fair, which featured her tell-all story earlier this year, was the first to confirm her new account. It quickly received a Verified checkmark.

Is it just that she’s excited to join Twitter? Or is Monica getting ready to tweet her way through the 2016 election?

MONEY Markets

The Word on Wall Street Is It’s Okay to Be Bullish Again

After the market's triple-digit rebound on Friday, the bulls came out in force — on TV and social media. Here's how the talking heads explain the state of the market after one scary week.

After dramatic drops on Monday and Wednesday, the market took a turn for the better at the end of the week.

And the bulls started coming out of the woodwork.

“…the mid-week storm in the market was really a passing sun shower — though we did not know it at the time,” — Jonathan Lewis, chief investment officer, Samson Capital Advisors.

“…we remain steadfast with our multi-year bull-market scenario, as corrections and periods of consolidation are necessary ingredients to any prolonged bull market.” — Brian Belski, chief investment strategist BMO Capital Markets

“Whether the complete correction is over I’m not positive yet, but there looks to be some relative calm. I think the next leg is going to be higher.” – Jim Iuorio of TJM Institutional Services via CNBC

“The time to rebalance [and buy stocks] is when doing so requires courage and when things look ugly. Right now, investors are worried and see things as being ugly.” – David Kotok, chairman of Cumberland Advisors

A common theme from the bulls is that for all the worries about the global recovery, the U.S. economy looks solid:

“Ironically, the pullback in stocks has occurred against a backdrop of a strengthening U.S. economy.” — Gregg Fisher, chief investment officer at Gerstein Fisher

“The question is whether it is actually the beginning of a bear market. I don’t think so because I don’t expect a recession in the U.S. anytime soon.” — Edward Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research

Of course, Yardeni goes on to add that:

“the Eurozone and Japan may be heading in that direction now. So is Brazil. China is slowing significantly.”

Shouldn’t investors be worried, then, that a recession in the European Union could reverberate in the U.S.?

Fear not, the bulls have an answer for that:

“The impact of an E.U. slowdown on U.S. growth would be minimal: U.S. exports to the E.U. are a small proportion of GDP (2.8% in 2013)…” notes UBS economist Maury Harris.

Many point out that economic factors have not really shifted since a month ago, when the stock market seemed just fine.

“You can go deep in the weeds in this if you like, but the fact is that nothing fundamental has changed in recent weeks or months or quarters,” writes Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

In fact, global economic worries, which have led to lower oil prices, may end up being a boon.

Screen Shot 2014-10-20 at 9.38.52 AM

Many experts are saying that this week’s wild market swings are actually just the result of “narrative fallacy,” which leads investors to come up with explanations for market moves where they don’t necessarily exist — in this case placing blame on external forces like Ebola and fears of rising interest rates.

But who’s to say that the bulls aren’t the ones who are now coming with plausible-sounding explanations for why the rally should keep going?

For the record, the bears have more entertaining explanations in their quiver. For instance, there’s the McDonald’s theory. As in, “as the Big Mac goes, so goes the global economy.”

Permabear Marc Faber, who edits the Gloom Doom Boom site, noted the following:

“Now, McDonald’s is a very good indicator of the global economy. If McDonald’s doesn’t increase its sales, it tells you that the monetary policies have largely failed in the sense that prices are going up more than disposable income, and so people have less purchasing power.”

And Mickey D’s sales have been slumping badly lately.

Then there’s the so-called dental indicator.

Bloomberg Businessweek reported a nifty theory that says that the rate at which Americans cancel scheduled follow-up visits offers a good clue about the real state of the consumer — and in turn the financial markets.

“This is a forward indicator signifying lack of consumer confidence.” — Vijay Sikka, president of Sikka Software, as told to Bloomberg Businessweek

And the follow-through rate on follow-up dental visits has sunk to about where it was in 2007, just before the last downturn/bear market.

At this stage, it’s impossible to tell whether this is the start of bear market or a buying opportunity. However, what’s absolutely clear is that big dips are just a normal part of being a stock investor.

Despite anxieties about the Dow’s sudden plunge this week, if you look at historical performance, the index typically turns negative for the year often enough that it’s not a good doomsday indicator, says author and investment adviser Josh Brown.

Screen Shot 2014-10-20 at 9.39.39 AM

And at the end of the day, who’s to say which wacky theories wind up being right or wrong?

Screen Shot 2014-10-20 at 9.40.18 AM

MONEY job hunting

The 7 Social Media Mistakes Most Likely to Cost You a Job

magnifying glass over twitter logo
Dado Ruvic—Reuters

Jobvite's latest social recruiting poll shows exactly what hiring managers are looking for when they check your Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter accounts.

Your Facebook postings might win over your friends—but they could also cost you a job, a new study finds.

Recruiting platform Jobvite has released the 2014 edition of its annual Social Recruiting Survey, and the results might be disconcerting to those who tweet first and ask questions later. The data shows 93% of hiring managers will review a candidate’s social profile before making a hiring decision.

And that review matters: 55% have reconsidered a candidate based on what they find, with most (61%) of those double-takes being negative.

According to respondents, the worst thing you can do is make any kind of references to illegal drugs. That should probably be common sense—but in case it’s not, know that 83% of recruiters say doing so is a strong turn off. (Perhaps more interesting: 2% of hiring managers think it’s a positive.) Also on the “obviously don’t do this” list are “sexual posts,” which 70% of recruiters say will count against you (only 1% are fans). Two thirds told Jobvite that posts including profanity reflected poorly; over half didn’t like posts on guns, and 44% saw posts about alcohol as concerning.

“Okay,” you say, “but I keep my nose—and my posts—clean, and I wouldn’t think of making any of the 10 stupidest social media blunders MONEY recently wrote about. So what have I got to worry about?”

Well, you might want to take another read of what you’ve written: 66% of hiring managers said they would hold poor spelling and grammar against candidates.

You might also want to consider keeping your political affiliation to yourself, since slightly over 1 in 6 recruiters said that was a potential negative.

And hey, while you’re revising your LinkedIn profile, polish your halo a little: Jobvite’s survey said that information about volunteering or donations to charity left 65% of recruiters walking away with a positive impression.

The survey also showed what other positive qualities recruiters are seeking on social—although the results aren’t that surprising. Respondents said they try to determine things like professional experience, mutual connections, examples of previous work, and cultural fit.

The study also lends some insight into how recruiters use different social networks. LinkedIn is clearly the king of the hill—79% of respondents say they have hired through the network, vs. 26% through Facebook and 14% through Twitter. Nearly all hiring managers will use LinkedIn for every step of the recruitment process, including searching for candidates, getting in contact, and vetting them pre-interview.

In contrast, Facebook is primarily used for showcasing the employer’s brand and getting employees to refer their friends. About two-thirds of recruiters also use the network to vet candidates before or after an interview. Twitter appears to be the platform least used by hiring managers, and is used similarly to Facebook, but with less of an emphasis on candidate vetting.

No matter what the platform, however, the takeaway for workers is clear: Best be vigilant not to post anything you wouldn’t mind an employer or potential employer seeing. Make sure to check your Facebook privacy settings, but don’t depend on them because they’re known to change frequently.

And remember, just because your social media postings haven’t hurt you yet, doesn’t mean they won’t. When MONEY’s Susie Poppick talked to Alison Green, founder of AskAManager.org, she had a simple message to those unconcerned about their online presence: “To people who don’t lock down their accounts because ‘it’s never been a problem,’ I say, you don’t know whether that’s true.”

Read next: 10 Job Skills You’ll Need in 2020

TIME apps

People Can Now Pay Each Other Via Twitter in France

BRITAIN-INTERNET-COMPANY-TWITTER
The logo of social networking website 'Twitter' is displayed on a computer screen LEON NEAL—AFP/Getty Images

Digital payments in 140 characters or less

A new digital payment service in France will let people pay each other via Twitter for free.

French banking group BPCE announced details Tuesday about the new app, S-Money, which can be downloaded from iTunes or Google Play and allows users with a French credit card and phone number to link their card information to Twitter to begin making payments to other individuals or organizations and companies that have downloaded the service.

Payments are capped at 250 euros (about $317) for individuals and 500 euros ($635) for charities in times of crowd-funding. Users also have to use a specific format for their payments to be accepted. S-Money has opted for € rather than the written version of euros, for example.

While other digital payment platforms have the option of privacy for payments, all Twitter payments are visible to the public–so discretion is advisable.

MONEY pay gap

Why Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella STILL Has It Wrong on Raises for Women

Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella
Manish Swarup—AP

The exec has taken back his comments that we should count on karma to boost our salary, but that doesn't mean he gets what it means to be a female at work today.

Easy for a dude to say that women should have “faith that the system will actually give you the right raises as you go along.” Especially a dude who makes $7.6 million and sits at the top of one of America’s largest companies.

But Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, who made that comment in answer to a question about how women should ask for a salary increase—in front of a room full of women at the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing on Thursday—at least seems to have realized the error of his statement.

On his blog last night, he acknowledged:

I answered that question completely wrong. Without a doubt I wholeheartedly support programs at Microsoft and in the industry that bring more women into technology and close the pay gap. I believe men and women should get equal pay for equal work. And when it comes to career advice on getting a raise when you think it’s deserved, Maria’s [Maria Klawe, computer scientist and moderator] advice was the right advice. If you think you deserve a raise, you should just ask.

Great that he owned the mistake. But what’s worse, the fact that he didn’t realize that women are paid 22 cents less on the dollar than our male peers—or the fact that he still doesn’t realize it’s not as simple as “just asking” for us?

Yes, We Pay a Penalty for Not Asking

Assuming you care remotely about women’s issues, you’ve seen the research showing that few women negotiate salaries. (By the by, it goes all the way up the ladder. Nadella’s fellow C-suiter GM’s Mary Barra noted at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit that she had never in her career asked for a raise. The emcee then polled the audience on how many of them also had never asked, and “the majority of the conference’s high-powered female attendees raised their hands,” according to Fortune‘s Broadsheet.)

Our reticence has a compounding effect over our careers. By not asking right off the bat, Carnegie Mellon economics professor Linda Babcock has said, we leave lost earnings “anywhere between $1 million and $1.5 million” on the table.

But We Pay a Penalty for Asking, Too

Yet Babcock’s research found that we may be on to something with our sense of caution. Simply stating the case for why we deserve a raise doesn’t tend to get women to the same result as it does men. In fact, it can actually hamper our career progress.

For a study published in 2005, Babcock and Hannah Riley Bowles, a senior lecturer in public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School, asked participants to watch videos of men and women asking for a raise. The guys and gals in the video used the exact same scripts.

The result? Participants liked the men and agreed to give them the bump in pay, but found the women too aggressive. While they gave her the raise, they did not like her. In particular, male study participants were less willing to want to work with the female negotiator.

We know that being well liked—a quality we women struggle with starting from the first grade-school birthday party we’re not invited to—is also key to getting ahead. So we’re caught between a high heel and a hard place.

Or, as Joan Williams, founding director of the Center for WorkLife Law, put it in The Huffington Post,

If women act too feminine and don’t ask, they end up with lower salaries. If they act too masculine and ask, then people don’t want to work with them. Women walk a tightrope between being too feminine and too masculine. Men don’t, which is one reason why office politics are trickier for women than for men.

So We Have to Give an Oscar-Winning Performance to Get What We Want

The research Babcock and Riley Bowles have done has found that women have to be more, well, “womanly” in their approach in order to get the raises and promotions that they deserve and come out the other side smelling like a rose.

You know—positive, solicitous, and putting others first. Less shark, more 1950s housewife.

Acknowledging herself that these findings are “depressing,” Babcock (along with Riley Bowles) concluded that being collaborative—trying to take the perspective of the company and hiring manager and using “we” statements instead of “I”—tends to be more effective than other approaches. They’ve also emphasized trying to be “authentic” by using language that feels comfortable.

That doesn’t feel the same as “just ask”—it requires us to act a part when what we simply want is for our managers to respect us as workers and people in a gender-neutral way.

We want to be able to walk in and say, “I brought in $2 million in business this year and am underpaid relative to my position,” and be better paid and just as well liked at the end of it.

You know, like a dude.

Related:
5 Ways Women Can Close the Pay Gap for Themselves
When She Makes More: How to Level the Financial Playing Field

TIME ebola

Fear, Misinformation, and Social Media Complicate Ebola Fight

Twitter Shadow Sillhouette
Dado Ruvic—Reuters

Information—both accurate and not—spreads faster thanks to sites like Twitter and Facebook

Based on Facebook and Twitter chatter, it can seem like Ebola is everywhere. Following the first diagnosis of an Ebola case in the United States on Sept. 30, mentions of the virus on Twitter leapt from about 100 per minute to more than 6,000. Cautious health officials have tested potential cases in Newark, Miami Beach and Washington D.C., sparking more worry. Though the patients all tested negative, some people are still tweeting as if the disease is running rampant in these cities. In Iowa the Department of Public Health was forced to issue a statement dispelling social media rumors that Ebola had arrived in the state. Meanwhile there have been a constant stream of posts saying that Ebola can be spread through the air, water, or food, which are all inaccurate claims.

Research scientists who study how we communicate on social networks have a name for these people: the “infected.”

Trying to stem the spread of bad information online actually shares many similarities with containing a real-world virus. Infected Internet users, who may have picked up bogus info from an inaccurate media report, another person on social media or word-of-mouth, proceed to “infect” others with each false tweet or Facebook post. “We have millions and millions of people on these social networks,” says Ceren Budak, a researcher who studies online communications at Microsoft Research. “Most of them in certain cases are not going to have reliable information, but they’re still going to keep talking.”

Part of the problem is the piecemeal way in which people now gather their news. According to a Pew Research Center study, almost a third of U.S. adults get at least some of their news from Facebook, where authoritative sources are jockeying for position with friends and relatives. Experts say people are more likely to trust information that comes from people they know. “When your friends say something to you, it’s not just the information itself,” Budak says. “It’s the fact that ‘Oh, he’s my friend and I trust him. Therefore I trust the piece of information.’”

Meanwhile on Twitter, a single false statement can quickly affect thousands. During the confusion following the bombing of the 2013 Boston Marathon, would-be online sleuths misidentified a missing college student as a primary suspect in the case. His name ended up trending nationally on Twitter, though he had nothing to do with the attack. When hackers broke into the Associated Press’s Twitter account last spring and posted a message claiming that the White House had been attacked, the S&P 500 Index immediately tumbled, briefly wiping out about $130 billion in value.

People like to believe they aren’t gullible enough to fall for a hoax or rumor, but research shows that isn’t always the case. If a piece of information is highly surprising or comes from a trusted source, experts say people are more likely to spread it. A 2011 University of Michigan study of five rumors on Twitter showed that 43% of the users studied seemed to believe the false information they were posting (rather than debunking it or posting it neutrally).

Moments of crisis, when there’s a vacuum of accurate information, only exacerbate this. “Fear has a role,” says Emilio Ferrara, a postdoctoral fellow at Indiana University’s Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research. “If I read something that leverages my fears, my judgement would be obfuscated, and I could be more prone to spread facts that are obviously wrong under the pressure of these feelings.”

Quick, accurate information disseminated as widely as possible, experts say, is the only way to combat the spread of falsities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for its part, has been sending out constant updates on Ebola on its website and social media accounts. Less than three hours after confirming the Ebola case in Dallas, the CDC sent a tweet featuring detailed, illustrated explanations for how people can and can’t contract the virus. It’s been retweeted more than 4,000 times, a record for the agency. The CDC also hosted a Twitter chat Oct. 2, answering more than 150 questions about Ebola. “Rumors move much more quickly in the social media space than they would have otherwise,” says Barbara Reynolds, head of public affairs for the CDC. “People want information and one of the best things we can do is give them information in a way that they can take it in and manage their emotions.”

Still, timely information may not be enough to stem fear-mongering on the Web. Asking the social networks themselves to monitor bogus information is a non-starter, rumor experts say, as that could basically amount to censorship. The most effective way to beat back a rumor that won’t die is to get influencers in different spheres to spread correct information in their individual networks of friends. “The people who are being misinformed are not necessarily the people who were listening to CDC to begin with,” Budak says. “It’s really crucial to study this problem as a network problem and to leverage the connections between ordinary people.”

To some extent, that’s already happening. Tweet Like a Girl, a humor-focused Twitter account with more than 1 million followers, tweeted the CDC’s “Facts About Ebola” image and warned followers to stop “freaking out.” The message has been retweeted almost 12,000 times, spreading much further than it did through the original CDC tweet. In this case, one of the most-shared messages of the Ebola crisis is spreading fact instead of fiction.

Alexandra Sifferlin contributed to this report.

TIME Companies

Twitter Is Suing the Government So it Can Tell You More About Surveillance

The Twitter logo is displayed on a banner outside the New York Stock Exchange on Nov. 7, 2013 in New York.
The Twitter logo is displayed on a banner outside the New York Stock Exchange on Nov. 7, 2013 in New York. Andrew Burton—Getty Images

Twitter is making a First Amendment argument over transparency

Twitter is suing the U.S. Justice Department to disclose more information about the types of data the government seeks about Twitter users. Twitter, which has acted as a staunch free speech advocate in the past, wants to publish more detailed information in its biannual transparency report information about how many Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) orders and National Security Letters (NSLs) it receives from the government.

FISA orders and NSLs allow the government to secretly gather communications data on what it says are national security threats. Recipients of such requests cannot legally disclose that they have received them. However, following revelations about government surveillance from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, the U.S. government reached an agreement with several tech giants to allow them to publish information about how many sensitive data requests they received, but only in very broad ranges. In one variant of the stipulations, for example, companies can only disclose that they received between 0 and 999 FISA court requests for data about Twitter’s users.

Twitter — not one of the companies that reached the settlement with the government — wants to be more specific about how many data requests it receives, which it believes it has the constitutional right to do.

“It’s our belief that we are entitled under the First Amendment to respond to our users’ concerns and to the statements of U.S. government officials by providing information about the scope of U.S. government surveillance – including what types of legal process have not been received,” the company wrote in a blog post. “We should be free to do this in a meaningful way, rather than in broad, inexact ranges.”

Unlike other tech companies like Google, Twitter does not specifically break out the number of FISA court requests it receives in its transparency reports. Overal, Twitter receives less government requests for user data than larger Internet companies like Google and Facebook.

The case was filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court of Northern California.

 

TIME ebola

Watch How Word of Ebola Exploded in America

Exclusive Twitter data shows how conversation about the virus has escalated dramatically

As Ebola has taken more lives and crept into more countries, the virus has come to dominate both news headlines and social media conversation. On Twitter, a whopping 10.5 million tweets mentioning the word “Ebola” were sent between Sept. 16 and Oct. 6 from 170 countries around the world. The map below, based on data TIME obtained exclusively from Twitter, shows how the conversation blew up in early October.

The country where Ebola dominates conversation most is Liberia, where the virus has already claimed more than 2,000 lives. In terms of sheer volume, though, most Ebola tweets are sent from the United States. Global conversation about the disease exploded after a Liberian man was diagnosed with the disease at a Dallas hospital on Sept. 30. On the night of Oct. 1, Twitter users were firing off missives about Ebola at the rate of more than 6,000 per minute, up from about 100 per minute before Sept. 30. Check out the heat map of Ebola tweets below to see how quickly talk of the virus spread following its arrival in the U.S.

Here’s a breakdown of the tweets per minute about Ebola over the last several weeks:

Research scientists who study the way we communicate on social networks borrow much of the terminology that’s used by health officials who are trying to control an epidemic. Internet users who pick up misinformation and false rumors are known as the “infected,” and they can infect others with every errant tweet or Facebook post. Much of what has been posted on social media about Ebola has been helpful—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s illustrated tweet explaining how the virus spreads has been retweeted more than 4,000 times—but there have also been bogus rumors about Ebola reaching Idaho and an unwarranted panic after a passenger became sick on a flight in Newark, N.J.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser