Adobe starts an advertising campaign against Apple!
'We Love Choice' - 'We Love Apple'
This is getting hotter and hotter. This is the official reaction from Adobe.
This article refers to the internet as the "weapon of choice" for the Taliban. The reason the article gives for why the internet is deemed a weapon in this case is due to the distribution of misinformation. If this is the case the internet should deemed to be a weapon in the hands of any government in the world. Misleading information is a problem everywhere and this is why people need to be diligent when looking at information on the web.
This study explores an under-studied layer of Chinese Internet censorship: how Chinese Internet companies censor user-generated content, usually by deleting it or preventing its publication. Systematic testing of Chinese blog service providers reveals that domestic censorship is very decentralized with wide variation from company to company. Test results also showed that a great deal of politically sensitive material survives in the Chinese blogosphere, and that chances for its survival can likely be improved with knowledge and strategy. The study concludes that choices and actions by private individuals and companies can have a significant impact on the overall balance of freedom and control in the Chinese blogosphere.
PIR = parallel importation restriction. Basically, every country around the world (except a choice few like Hong Kong and New Zealand who did away with it) is a 'territory' so far as publishing is concerned. If you publish a book in Australia, you can't just ship it over to the US and sell it wholesale to the bookstores over there. No, you have to find a publisher over there who will by the licence to reproduce the book for that market.
India looks to be thinking about doing away with that. On the plus side for consumers, they'll have access to the entire Amazon e-book range - Hooray! Publishers won't be so happy, as they will lose out on royalties from selling 'local' e-books (hardcopy books will also be affected, but that's not at issue here).
Of course, it doesn't work both ways - India will still have to go through the usual channels to publish overseas. the US protects its own.
Australia debated this last year, you may remember. Woolworths and Coles were all for PIR abolition, but not really anyone else was ...
Governments say they need Internet censorship, surveillance of the Internet, internet filtering system and so on to protect their citizens. But they should know that they are taking the freedom of choice away from the individual and also taking the responsibility away from the individual.
The founder and Chief Executive of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, announced at a recent conference that Facebook's Open Graph project will soon enable an even greater degree of personalisation as people surf the net.
I think this probably has implications for user experience, in terms of viewing popular sites through the prism of social networking - and it gives sites more authority to store data about individuals.
Because Facebook seems to be so pervasive nowadays, it seems like we won't have much say in the matter...
Also business implications. This is direct competition for Google's increasingly personalised 'user experience', not just Buzz and the raft of location services but the uniquely personal search that has slipped quietly onto our browsers.
How can we be concerned about what governments know about us when we've handed willingly to businesses so much more information!
Allison, that's a great point, I've tried to quit using the site but I stop when I realise that I won't know about upcoming social events - unfortunately its the primary means of communication used by some friends!
Yes and I think Facebook take full advantage!
A lot of my friends have been posting notes on FB about changing privacy settings now that the new features have come in. So, people are trying to resist but in a more subtle way than dropping out of FB altogether.
The strong view from parents was that the government's proposal goes too far and would take away their freedom of choice around what information they and their children can access.
Google Australia says here that the mandatory internet filtering is too wide and they believe that the filtering not only would slow user access speeds, but also questions the legitimacy of the measure because of the associated restrictions on access to information