If you sign up to Ashley Madison, you don't have to think about what you're doing as cheating, but "outsourcing your sex life."

"In 2018 we expect our life partners are going to be everything to us — they've got to be my best friend, they've got to be sexually compatible, they have to be great at coparenting," Ruben Buell, Ashley Madison's president and chief technology officer, told Business Insider.

"We have to have the same vision of finances, we have to have the same hobbies, the same interests... There's so much pressure on that one relationship, everything has to be right.

"And sometimes, the vast majority of it is right, but maybe there's something that's not."

This is one of the reasons Ashley Madison currently sees 20,000 new sign ups a year, and over 40,000 affairs happen on the site every day.

Even after the data leak back in 2015, people came back to Ashley Madison. Buell said the company had to focus on the security and privacy in the whole company after what happened, and now it realises how important it is to keep user information as secure as possible.

"It's the upmost importance to us, and I think the firm has done a really great job and really brought itself back to life," he said. "And I think the users see that."

Cheating isn't something that happens once in a blue moon. Shutterstock/ wavebreakmedia

People don't generally cheat because they want to leave their relationship, he claimed, but to outsource their sex life.

Research from sociologist Alicia Walker last year found that women in particular "cheat to stay."

"They very much presented this scenario that their marriages are either completely sexless, or orgasmless — at least for the women themselves," she told Business Insider at the time. "They very much convey that: if I don't do something to address this, I'm going to end up leaving. I'm going to end up breaking up my family, breaking my children's hearts, breaking my husband's heart, and I just don't need that."

A fling isn't worth tearing a family apart, Buell said, so if cheating is going to happen it may as well be in a way that causes the least obvious harm.

He said Ashley Madison's main competitor isn't another website, it's the workplace. But instead of hooking up with a colleague, or meeting someone in a bar, he said Ashley Madison offers discretion.

It also means you're going to meet someone on the same page as you, and in a way, things are more honest from the get go.

"The community at Ashley Madison is a very open minded community, it's also one where you have less risk," Buell said. "It's actually contrary to what you think, because a lot of relationships at Ashley Madison start from a very honest place. So you have two people who really aren't trying to hide anything."

When dating traditionally, you can go out with someone four or five times before you start to show them your true self. But on Ashley Madison, Buell said, the flaws are all visible right off the bat.

"If a person is going to have an affair you should probably have a better type of affair," he said. And plenty of people are looking for something that Ashley Madison can offer, as "it's just human nature."

"We don't operate in 50 different countries and 17 different languages because it's a small thing that happens once in a blue moon," he said.

"I think at some point we learn that life isn't exactly the fairy tale we were told when we were little boys and girls. Life is real. Our average users are in their 30s in their 40s, they've lived life, and they've realised sometimes they've got to do something for themselves."

Amazon admitted this week that it experimented with using machine learning to build a recruitment tool. The trouble is, it didn't exactly produce fantastic results and it was later abandoned.

According to Reuters, Amazon engineers found that besides churning out totally unsuitable candidates, the so-called AI project showed a bias against women.

To Oxford University researcher Dr Sandra Wachter, the news that an artificially intelligent system had taught itself to discriminate against women was nothing new.

"From a technical perspective it's not very surprising, it's what we call 'garbage in and garbage out,'" she told Business Insider.

Garbage in, garbage out

The problem boils down to the data Amazon fed its algorithm, Wachter speculated.

"What you would do is you go back and look at historical data from the past and look at successful candidates and feed the algorithm with that data and try to find patterns or similarities," said Wachter.

"You ask the question who has been the most successful candidates in the past [...] and the common trait will be somebody that is more likely to be a man and white."

Reuters reported that the engineers building the program used résumés from a 10 year period, which were predominantly male. Amazon did not provide Business Insider with the gender split in its engineering department but sent us a link to its diversity pages. Its global gender balance is 60% men, with 74% of managerial roles being held by men.

"So if then somebody applies who doesn't fit that profile, it's likely that that person gets filtered out just because the algorithm learned from historical data," said Wachter. "That happens in recruitment, and that happens in basically everywhere where we use historical data and this data is biased."

Garbage in, garbage out (sometimes abbreviated to "GIGO") just means that bad input will result in bad output, and it's the same with bias. The problem is that it's incredibly difficult to filter out algorithmic bias, because the algorithms we build pick up on human prejudices.

"What is the algorithm supposed to do? It can only learn from our semantics and our data and how we interact with humans, and the moment there is no gender parity yet, unfortunately," said Wachter.

Machine learning can produce self-fulfilling prophecies

This is far from the first time a computer program has displayed human bias. "It's just yet another example of how algorithmic decision-making and AI in general can actually reinforce existing stereotypes that we have in our society," said Wachter.

In 2016, a ProPublica investigation found that a computer program called COMPAS, designed to assess the risk of criminals re-offending, was discriminating against black people. As an example, the program deemed an 18-year old black girl who briefly stole a child's scooter to be more likely to re-offend than a 41-year old white man with two prior convictions for shoplifting power tools.

Wachter points out that COMPAS's software asked questions which led to individuals being judged by their social environment, such as "Was one of your parents ever sent to jail or prison?" or "How many of your friends/acquaintances are taking drugs illegally?"

"This is not about the individual anymore, that is about your social environment, and being judged based on other people," said Wachter. "If you apply that to every single person, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy."

Scanning for bias

That isn't to say there's no use in perfecting our algorithms in the meantime. The first thing we can do is come up with effective methods for spotting bias inside them.

An Amazon warehouse worker. Sean Gallup/Getty Images

"There's been a lot of discussion in the field about trying to come up with standards and testing periods before we deploy those systems," Wachter said. "If you have a very easy to understand algorithm detecting bias will be easier but when it comes to machine learning, a very opaque system, testing for bias and discrimination, or even understanding what's going on in that system, will become more and more difficult."

Wachter has worked closely devising ways to check for bias in machine learning models, and her work has been cited by Google in its "What If" tool, which lets users analyse machine learning models without writing extra code. She believes that before companies can deploy a system, they should be able to pass a standardised test that demonstrates it's not biased.

"Especially when it comes to employment, you should have some statistical evidence that your system isn't biased. And if you can't provide that, maybe you shouldn't use [the system] for making important decisions," she continued.

Amazon said in a statement that its hiring tool "was never used by Amazon recruiters to evaluate candidates." A source told Reuters that Amazon recruiters looked its recommendations, but they never solely relied on it for actual decision-making.

"An algorithm doesn't get grumpy"

Although rooting out algorithmic bias poses a technical challenge, Wachter is confident that using AI properly could actually improve fair decision-making in our society.

"If you look at it from the other perspective, if we play this right and if we work on data providence [...] I actually think algorithms could be a better decision-making tool than humans," she said. "An algorithm cannot lie to you, you cannot force an algorithm, you cannot entice or bribe an algorithm."

She also thinks that algorithmic decision-making could help cancel out a profoundly human quality — moodiness. "Algorithms are more consistent as well. If I sit on an employment panel for eight hours, my mood will swing from time to time. I might get angry, or grumpy, or hungry, so that could influence my judgement," she said. "An algorithm doesn't get grumpy or moody or hungry."

Wachter's not in favour of removing human oversight altogether, rather she believes that humans and AI play to each other's strengths. "I think ideally they would be complementary and cancel out each other's blind spots," she said.

Business Insider

A thumping majority of young people in Britain would vote to cancel Brexit, according to an aggregate of recent Survation polls by the BBC. Alex Lovén is not your usual young person, however.

The 30-year-old is Britain's richest young entrepreneur, boasting a net worth of £55 million. He also happens to be a staunch advocate of the UK leaving the European Union — both for the good of his business and the country.

Lovén revealed his gung-ho views in an interview with Business Insider after he was named one of the UK's most influential people in tech for building his online retailer Net World Sports. He said he wants to get out of the European Union before it is too late and the bloc of 28 countries collapses.

"Brexit was right for the UK," said Lovén. "I firmly believe at some point the EU will cease to exist. Really, if you look at southern Europe, there are so many issues smouldering, whether it be Italy, whether it be somewhere else. If something's going to collapse, it's better to be the first people out than the last people out."

He was referring to Italy's ongoing budget crisis, which has seen its government clash with the European Union over its spending plans. Lovén added that Europe has shrunk as a percentage of the world economy. Some of Net World Sports' biggest customers are outside of the EU and the managing director is relishing the prospect of Britain striking new trade deals.

"We have a natural affinity with the Commonwealth countries yet we can't even strike trade deals with these countries, which we have a history with and that speak English," he said. "It's so short-sighted just to look within the borders of Europe because there's a whole world out there that's moving so quickly."

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase. Brian Snyder/Reuters

He was critical of other business leaders who have backed Remain for what he sees as selfish reasons. He highlighted JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who has repeatedly warned that Brexit will mean job losses at the bank. "Of course they [JPMorgan] didn't want to leave the EU. They didn't want anything to change. Change is hard work, for an organisation as big as they have… it's like [turning] a supertanker," he said.

Instead, Lovén identifies more with Dyson founder James Dyson who has supported Britain leaving the EU. "I assimilate with the glass half full of the James Dyson's [of this world], not with the doom and gloom of others," he explained.

And the entrepreneur's arguments were not just economic. He says many people, especially those from poorer backgrounds like himself, have lost a sense of their national identity being in Europe.

"The EU blew it basically. They don't directly collect taxes off anybody and obviously, we pay into Europe, but they don't directly tax anybody [but] how have they manifested in this crazy position where they're so disliked by so many?" he said. "Faceless bureaucrats not making one discernible difference to people's lives apart from telling them things they don't want to hear."

First Lady Melania Trump says she does not always see eye-to-eye with her husband, President Donald Trump, regarding his inflammatory posts on Twitter.

"I don't agree always what he posts, but his action is his action," Trump said during an interview with ABC News. "And I tell him that."

Trump, who is spearheading her "Be Best" initiative to "take responsibility and help our children manage the many issues they are facing today," acknowledged that her husband's rhetoric on Twitter vastly differs from her campaign's theme.

"And I know I will be hit with criticism talking about cyber bullying," Melania said. "But it will not stop me to do what is right."

The president has published a tweet nearly every day after taking office. Frequently, those message are meant to disparage political opponents, which sometimes include derisive nicknames.

Despite the stark contrast between the president's Twitter habits and Melania's anti-bullying initiative, she claimed that he did not try to stop her from launching her campaign.

"He didn't say not to do it, he's very tough on Twitter," Melania said. "But he understands that I want to help next generation and the children."

For her "Be Best" initiative, Melania partnered with the US Agency for International Development and made a solo trip to hospitals in Ghana, elementary schools in Malawi, and an elephant orphanage in Kenya.

"BE BEST will champion the many successful well-being programs that provide children with the tools and skills required for emotional, social, and physical health," a campaign statement said on its website.

"The campaign will also promote established organizations, programs, and people who are helping children overcome some of the issues they face growing up in the modern world."

If you're one of the victims of the recently revealed hack of Facebook, you should be extra careful on the internet — and extra watchful of your other online and offline accounts.

The data hackers gleaned from the social network could be used for identity theft, and to access accounts ranging from those at banks and other financial institutions to online stores. It also could be used in so-called spear phishing attacks, in which hackers use the information they know about particular users to send them personalized messages that convince them to leak their passwords or other critical data.

"Given the scale of this — which was really surprising — and how much information was scraped … people can be legitimately concerned," said Justin Brookman, director of privacy and technology policy at Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports.

Some 30 million accounts were compromised in the attack, which Facebook first announced two weeks ago. The hackers were able to gain access to names and phones numbers of nearly all of those users as well as personal details such as birth dates, relationship status, gender, and education and work histories for 14 million of them.

The exposure of those kinds of personal details can be particularly dangerous to people who are trying keep a low profile, such as those who have been the victims of domestic abuse or protestors worried about reprisals from their governments. It can also create problems for people who were trying to keep certain parts of their lives private from the wider world, such as their sexual orientation or their religious affiliations.

The data from Facebook could be used to access bank accounts

But it can be risky to everyday users as well. That's because in the hands of malicious actors, this data can be used to hijack accounts on other services besides Facebook.

The password reset feature on many sites asks users to answer certain security questions. Those questions often ask for just the kind of personal details that were revealed in the Facebook hack, Brookman said.

But it's not just online accounts that are at risk. Information such as names and birth dates can also be used to gain access to banking accounts or medical records over the phone, said John Simpson, director of privacy and technology at Consumer Watchdog, a consumer advocacy group. That kind of information "can be tremendously empowering" to hackers, he said.

"They can take that information and definitely parlay it into information that can scam the individual," he said. "Potentially, there's some real damage that can be done to people."

Even the leak of just a phone number can pose a risk. To protect their accounts on various websites, many users have been turning on two-factor authentication, a security technique that often requires users when logging into their accounts to enter a special code in addition to their passwords. Many sites send that code via the SMS text messaging system to users' cell phones.

Security researchers have known for years, though, that the SMS system is vulnerable to hacking attacks. By knowing a user's phone number, a malicious actor could potentially intercept the two-factor authentication code and use it to gain control of the user's account.

It could also be used in targeted email attacks

Another potential danger comes from spear-phishing attacks. Typically in such an attack, a hacker sends an email that induces a user to click on a link to a spoofed site and enter their login information. The malicious actor usually uses what they know about the target — their friends, their family, their life experiences — to convince them that the email is legitimate.

Even seemingly innocuous information about a person can be used in such attacks. The more data a hacker has about someone, the more believable they can make the email lure. One set of data that was exposed in the Facebook hack was the locations where users had checked in using Facebook's app.

A hacker might be able to take that information and purport to be a representative of a target's credit card company, potentially even saying that the company had noticed their card being used on the date and place of the check in, said Michelle Richardson, director of the privacy and data project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, an advocacy group.

"These guys are really crafty," she said.

Because users often reuse passwords on multiple sites, they may find lots of their most sensitive and valuable accounts at risk if they fall victim to such a scam.

There are steps you can take to protect yourself

You can find out whether you were affected by the Facebook attack by logging into your account and going to a security page the company has set up. If you were affected, there are several steps you should take to protect yourself, security and privacy experts say:

Regardless of whether your account was affected, you might also want to consider deleting or deactivating your Facebook account, especially if you don't use it often. If you plan to keep your account, you should also think about limiting what you share on it.

"People share stuff on their Facebook profiles they wouldn't want shared with rest of world," said Brookman. He continued: "There's historical data that's out there about you that could potentially be leveraged against you or used to hack your account or compromise your friends'."

Now read:

Gear for making outdoor fitness more enjoyable

The deadline for bids on a $10 billion cloud computing contract from the Department of Defense closes on Friday. The deal won't be officially awarded until April 2019, but the process has already drawn plenty of controversy since the bidding process officially began in July.

The deal, called the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract, is winner-take-all, meaning it will only be awarded to a single company. And right now, Amazon Web Services is the runaway favorite to be that winner.

"It's between AWS and Microsoft Azure, to be honest," said Renee Murphy, a principal analyst at Forrester. "AWS is probably in the running to get it. They have the strongest relationship with the top secret levels of the government."

Amazon is considered the frontrunner because of the certifications it already has, and its existing relationship with the government. In 2013, the CIA awarded the company a $600 million contract, and last year, AWS introduced Secret Region, a service designed for the CIA that can handle data classified at the "Secret" level.

IBM and Oracle are still in the running for the contract, along with AWS and Microsoft. Google bowed out of the competition earlier this week, saying it wouldn't align with corporate values, but also because portions of the contract were out of scope with their current government certifications.

Rival tech titans, however, have suggested that the process was flawed from the very start, in such a way that the retailer was the only company that could win.

"When you delve into the nitty gritty [requirements of JEDI], it's clear that some of them are written with one company in mind," said Sam Gordy, General Manager for IBM US Federal, in an interview with Business Insider. Oracle and IBM have both filed formal protests against the Department of Defense over the JEDI contract.

The Department of Defense declined to comment, citing pending litigation. Amazon and Oracle declined to comment. Microsoft and Google did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.

The JEDI protests

Several companies have voiced their opposition to the winner-take-all approach, saying that a multi-cloud solution would be stronger and that JEDI's requirements seem aimed at one specific company.

In August, Oracle filed a protest against the Pentagon's decision to award the contract to one company, instead of multiple. On Wednesday, days before bids were due, IBM announced it would also file a protest against the Department of Defense's insistence on using only one cloud, instead of several from different companies. Even Microsoft, which is seen as the other major contender for JEDI, is said to have criticized the process.

"The focus here is ensuring that we do the right thing for national security," said Gordy. "We protest because we believe that's the right thing to do. Businesses are all moving to a multi-cloud environment because of resiliency in their system, flexibility and security."

As for Google: The search giant dropped out saying that the JEDI contract could conflict with its corporate values, just months after employees protested management for the company's involvement in Project Maven — a program with the Pentagon to use artificial intelligence to analyze drone footage. However, the company also chimed in against the notion of relying on a single cloud.

"Had the JEDI contract been open to multiple vendors, we would have submitted a compelling solution for portions of it," a spokesperson said in a statement. "Google Cloud believes that a multi-cloud approach is in the best interest of government agencies, because it allows them to choose the right cloud for the right workload."

IBM CEO Ginni Rometty Business Insider/Julie Bort

Amazon is leading, and Google dropped out

Right now, Amazon is the only company that holds the highest security authorization to handle government data. To work for the Defense Department, companies need additional clearance from the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), which gives out security authorizations from IL-2 to IL-6, with IL-6 handling information rated Top Secret.

According to the JEDI contract requirement, companies should be able to manage IL-5 data. According to a publicly-viewable document from the Department of Defense, Oracle, Microsoft and IBM have received IL-5 authorizations for certain cloud services they offer. Google, which dropped out of the race earlier this week, only holds the IL-2 requirement. On the other hand, Amazon is the only company that holds IL-6 authorization, which applies to its AWS Secret Commercial Cloud Services for government agencies.

"I think frankly, that cybersecurity plan was what led [Google] to withdrawing," said Rick Holgate, senior director and analyst at Gartner. "That's consistent with attitude they've taken with the US federal government. If [its cloud offering is] satisfactory, they don't feel a need or inclination to go beyond that or go further."

Compared to other JEDI competitors, Google is also behind on the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP), a security certification on handling government data. Google was certified in March to handle data at the "moderate" level, while Amazon, Microsoft and Oracle have certifications at the "high" level for their government cloud services.

That's why it makes sense that Google backed off, Murphy says. The process involves not only updating systems to meet federal requirements, but also documentation and hiring third party assessors to scan and hack the system for vulnerabilities.

"The step between moderate and high is extreme," Murphy said. "If you're not in any form of certification process currently, it's going to take you months and months to get into the pipeline. The government isn't going to do business with you if you're not FedRAMP certified."

Besides, it's expensive: Achieving this certification is an expensive process, as it costs $2.25 million to achieve authorization and $1 million annually to maintain it. Google could certainly afford it, but it is a cost.

Catching up to Amazon

Microsoft isn't backing away from the competition, however, and some think that it's just as viable a competitor as Amazon.

On Tuesday, Microsoft said it's on track by early next year to match Amazon and obtain the IL-6 "Top Secret" classified data certification.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella Microsoft

"There's this thinking that it's wired for AWS," Holgate said. "Microsoft is equally valid in this space. Based on their track record, they have the ability to deliver the contract they're looking for. It's a starting point to be a multiple cloud environment for the Department of Defense."

As for the other two companies in the running, IBM previously had a cloud deal with the Army and expects to be able to obtain that IL-6 authorization. IBM currently only has a FedRAMP moderate certification, but it is "confident we can secure all certifications required to support JEDI," an IBM spokesperson said. Oracle also has an active relationship with the Pentagon, as the Department of Defense uses many of the company's databases.

Oracle co-CEO Mark HurdFlicker/Oracle PR

Even if other companies are able to catch up, Amazon has the advantage of already being able to fulfill the top government requirements. If another company were to win the contract, it has a tight timeline to get its authorization in order. It must be able to host classified information within six months, and top-secret information within nine months; Amazon could do it today, in theory.

"There's nothing that would prohibit them from meeting these requirements as long as they're willing to invest," Holgate said. "I think what may have given Oracle and IBM pause with the JEDI solicitation is the scope and magnitude of the services they're looking for. They're requiring services at all levels of classification, which also involves IL-6."

Still, Holgate points out that the government will offer other cloud contracts in the coming years.

"There tends to be this discussion around JEDI on the winner-take-all vehicle," Holgate said. "It's not in any way a winner-take-all vehicle. It's certainly a pretty significant vehicle. Whoever wins it will have a significant contract. There's other cloud contracts out there. The idea that there will be one cloud provider in the Department of Defense forever is misleading."

The recent Facebook hack in which the private information of millions of users was stolen is an unfortunate reminder that our passwords aren't always as safe as we think they are.

This is where two-factor authentication (2FA) comes in. While 2FA likely wouldn't have stopped your data from being stolen from Facebook, it can prevent unwanted people from logging into your accounts, even if they have your password.

You're probably familiar with 2FA in the form of a text message - like when you log in to an account from a new browser or computer, and you're prompted to enter a code that's sent to you via text message. While this method is definitely more secure than simply using a password, it's not the most secure method of 2FA — especially if someone has access to your phone.

If you really want to protect yourself, you need to do what's called "physical" two-factor authentication.

Using a physical security key is one of the safest ways to protect your accounts — and it's not that expensive or complicated. Instead of typing in a passcode from a text message for 2FA, a physical security key needs to be plugged into your device when prompted, which allows you to log in. One of the more well-known security key companies, Yubico, sells security keys for as cheap as $20. You can purchase security keys for both computers and mobile phones, meaning your accounts are safe no matter where you generally access them.

Setting up a security key is pretty simple, and only takes a few minutes. For the purposes of this article, a Yubico Yubikey will be the point of reference.

You don't have to do anything to the actual key to set it up — just take it out of the packaging and it's ready to go. Next, you'll need to choose a service to secure with your key. Social media and email services tend to support physical two-factor authentication, and so do operating systems like Mac OS and Windows. You can also use a security key with password managers that keep track of and fill out your passwords for you.

Here's a list of some services that support physical two-factor authentication, from Yubico:

The above links provide instructions detailing how to set up a security key with each service. For Yubico's full list of websites and services that support physical 2FA, click here.

Once your key is set up, using it is pretty simple. It's important to keep your key with you, such as on a keychain, so you're always able to log in (although if you don't have your key handy, you can also enable additional log-in methods).

When you attempt to log in to your account, the website or service will prompt ask for your security key. All you need to do is plug it in to the device, usually via USB port. On a Yubikey, you'll need to press a small button on the key once it's plugged in.

If you're using a smartphone, you tap the key on the device instead of plugging it in, and the phone authenticates you through a wireless NFC signal.

After that, you're logged in and good to go. The process hardly takes longer than typing your password — but it's much more secure.

Facebook has been hacked, and to put it gently, it's really, really bad.

On Friday, the social network revealed that the hack it first disclosed last week has affected 30 million users, and 14 million of them have had highly personal data including locations, search history, relationship status, gender, and more exposed.

It's a catastrophic lapse in security, exposing potentially compromising user information that could put victims at risk of identify theft — and it could not have come at a worse time for Facebook.

Facebook's terrible year risks sparking regulatory action

In case you hadn't noticed, Facebook's last year or so has been, again gently, not great.

The Silicon Valley company has lurched from scandal to scandal, barely recovering from one until the next one hits. First it was used to spread misinformation and Russian propaganda during the 2016 election. Then it was implicated in fueling genocide by disseminating hate speech in Myanmar. Then political research firm Cambridge Analytica was revealed to have misappropriated 87 million users' data. And so on, and so forth.

Against this backdrop of egregious screw-ups, politicians and regulators are increasingly discussing the possibility of regulation targeting Facebook and other tech giants. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), known for being outspoken on tech issues, called on Congress to to act.

"With each new, high-profile privacy breach, it's ever-clearer that Congress needs to establish some guardrails for social media platforms to protect consumer data while encouraging American innovation," he told Business Insider in a statement.

At Facebook's F8 conference in April this year, it had looked like the worst was behind the company, and Mark Zuckerberg tried to turn a page. But this recent hack shows Facebook's problems have caught up with it once again — and the odds of its woes turning into the spark that ignites a new wave of regulation have only increased.

Facebook is also already on the decline

But Facebook also faces another, more insidious problem: It's losing its grip on its users.

Growth of Facebook's core app is flatlining in the US, and actually dropping in Europe. In general, the amount of time people spend in the app is declining.

In a recent research note, Cowen analyst John Blackledge highlighted that the average daily time spent on Facebook had dropped noticeably over the past year, even as other apps grow.

Cowen

It's too early to say whether the hack will have any impact on time spent in the core Facebook app, but it seems unlikely to have helped, even as initial reactions to Friday's revelations have been furious.

And it seems probable that the news will further sour attitudes towards Facebook among people who have yet to sign up for the social network, making the possibility of new growth even more difficult.

Facebook's new shining star is Instagram, which is growing in audience (and time spent on platform) even as Facebook declines, and has thus far stayed largely uncontaminated by Facebook's scandals and increasingly radioactive brand.

Will Facebook's recent hack change this? We don't yet know — but it complicates a delicate transition period for the company, especially as Facebook is expected to more closely integrate Instagram following the abrupt departures of its two cofounders following reported clashes with CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

In short: A security breach of this magnitude would be a catastrophe at any company. But for Facebook, it's as if it were trying to turn a corner, only to smack head-first into a brick wall.

Got a tip? Contact this reporter via Signal or WhatsApp at +1 (650) 636-6268 using a non-work phone, email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., WeChat at robaeprice, or Twitter DM at @robaeprice. (PR pitches by email only, please.) You can also contact Business Insider securely via SecureDrop.

Several of San Francisco's most powerful tech CEOs publicly locked horns on Friday over a measure that would make the city's largest businesses pay a greater share of the bill for homelessness services.

In a series of tweets, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and the Irish-born CEO of Stripe, Patrick Collison, debated Proposition C, a measure on the ballot for voters in the city in the November election that would raise taxes on large companies to help San Francisco deal with an intractable homelessness problem.

Benioff, who founded and runs the largest company in San Francisco, has endorsed Prop C, though it could ultimately cost Salesforce millions of dollars in city taxes. Benioff has issued a statement on Twitter and bought ads supporting the measure.

The San Francisco Controller's Office estimates that the tax would bring an additional $250 million to $300 million in revenue for the city each year and affect 300 to 400 local businesses; it would apply to those with more than $50 million in San Francisco gross receipts, as well as companies headquartered in the city.

In a tweet on Friday, Dorsey said he disagreed with Benioff's support for Prop C.

"I want to help fix the homeless problem in SF and California. I don't believe this (Prop C) is the best way to do it," Dorsey said, adding that he supported San Francisco Mayor London Breed and California state Sen. Scott Wiener's "commitment to address this the right way."

"Mayor Breed was elected to fix this," Dorsey added. "I trust her."

Collison later voiced support for Dorsey.

The exchange highlights what has become a thorny and embarrassing problem for San Francisco, where the sight of tents, human waste, and indigence is a jarring contrast to scooter-riding techies who work for some of the most valuable companies in the world.

Twitter has been a long-standing target of criticism because several years ago it negotiated a controversial tax break as an incentive for it to remain in San Francisco and move into its Market Street headquarters.

Breed, who was elected in June, has expressed opposition to Prop C. In a statement earlier this month, she said the city should do an audit of what it's already spending on homelessness services "before we double the tax bill overnight."

Benioff responded sharply to Dorsey, suggesting the Twitter CEO was not doing his part to curb homelessness.

"Which homeless programs in our city are you supporting?" Benioff said. "Can you tell me what Twitter and Square & you are in for & at what financial levels? How much have you given to heading home our $37M initiative to get every homeless child off the streets?"

If you've painstakingly tried to get Snapchat filters to apply to your cat without luck, your time has come.

Snapchat just announced the introduction of cat lenses, meaning the app is now able to reliably detect cats' faces. Previously, the lenses were only meant for human faces, but you could get it to work on your pets if you were lucky.

For some reason, Snapchat has chosen to focus specifically on cats, and not other animals.

In a tweet announcing the new feature, Snapchat showed off a few of the filters in action — including a cat with bats flying around its face, and a few cat owners taking selfies with their grumpy-looking, glasses-wearing cats.

Business Insider does not have a cat on hand, and was unable to test the new feature, but we'll report back when we do.