Group items tagged

Kind of a scary headline after today's class. Not quite what it sounds though. .. Or is it? Google owns or controls content. Now Google owns more content. If you look at Benkler's definition of layers (via Lessig), both the physical layer and the content layer have been subject to ownership and freedom exists/ed mainly on the layer of logic or code. Google is just a giant content aggregator.

Facebook has apologised for the "Draw Mohammed Day" group and blocked the offending content from being accessed in Pakistan, rather than removing the content. I find it interesting that a company has taken responsibility for content published by users, but since they are a publisher of content they should probably be treated in the same way that a news publisher may be treated when publishing content, regardless of whether that content was developed by them or not. Brings up the issue of content moderation also.

Report demonstrating Microsoft Bing is filtering content in some "Arabian" (Arabic speaking?) countries. They are filtering largely sexual content but also non-sexual content relating to homosexuality and other taboo topics. 

google revealed information about government agencies' requests for removing searched contents from google, Australia is the ninth.

 Is it OK to rely on members to moderate and monitor  content or should companies be responsible for the content that their users post?  

The evershifting sands of media and content. Theoretically, as McLuhan says, the media is the message. Practically speaking, the world is full of examples of companies (Google/Apple) trying to control both the content and the infrastructure and there becoming very little difference between them.

The UK Government are proposing to introduce a Digital Economy Bill.  The owners of copyright material will be able to pursue individuals who are sharing their content and take legal recourse.  Persistent offenders can eventually be blocked by their ISP. "Persistent" offenders will have received 50 notices before the Government can request that the ISP block their access to the internet. Sites that host material / content that breaches the bill will be issued with a series of take down notices. This impacts all sites - not just those whose servers are based in the UK.  If the site does not comply with the take down notice it will be possible for the site to be blocked within the UK. 

Apple has taken down two apps from German media, as they were considered offensive. This moves towards censorship could extend to a larger control of editorial content. Do media have to comply? 

Everyone's probably bookmarked this article already! Sentencing senior Google execs on the grounds of profiting from illegal acts is probably also technically correct. Google's defense is the neutrality of the internet, which is questionable as Google do adjust content to suit, for their own profit. Which layer is this issue on? Will increasing controls on content change our internet beyond recognition? Marcuse says that tolerance can not tolerate hateful speech and acts or it is no longer truly tolerant. That's quite a conundrum!

An article on how the increasing flow of internet traffic could potentially lead to a form of 'gatekeeping' of users by providers. It has always been perceived that there was network neutrality as providers charged a flat rate for unlimited internet access. However, the article argues that this is not the case as there has aways been some form of management of traffic so that an acceptable level of service is maintained. An extreme example is the court case between BitTorrent users and the provider Comcast. Comcast blocked this service as it was effecting service. This was challenged by users who initially won. However in a challenge by Comcast, Washington found in their favour as it found that the Federal Communications Commission could not decide how Comcast should manage its network. Another interesting point made is the potential for service providers to charge content providers who attract a large amount of traffic.This way good service is guarenteed, through essentially sharing the burden of cost. Obviously this is fiercely opposed by businesses. Clearly this all has the potential to change the relationship between users, content providers and service providers.

Is the Internet free? Certainly not, just the fix pricing gives the virtual buffet of digital content that seemly and resonablly free to us, but is it really? Files sharing has reached the point that entertainment workers saying, enough is enough and they will do whatever it takes to ease this trend. Is our free culture of the Internet about to over though? Not quite, after years of habits enjoying content freely, it's not a over night change for people to accept to be charged.

"When ICANN last considered ".xxx," board members also expressed worries that the suffix would leave the agency in the business of regulating content, or the type of material that would find itself there." Aside from all the ways, this is unworkable and unlikely to bring the results anticipated, let's not make ICANN or TLD administrators responsible for regulating anything... else.

"When ICANN last considered ".xxx," board members also expressed worries that the suffix would leave the agency in the business of regulating content, or the type of material that would find itself there." Aside from all the ways, this is unworkable and unlikely to bring the results anticipated, let's not make ICANN or TLD administrators responsible for regulating anything... else.

Good article on the social and political uses of social media (sic.) in Indonesia. There have been attempts to filter/censor content, but so far they have been avoided. Uses of Twitter, Facebook by politicians is also described. 

"One of the big challenges in the debate so far has been combating the myth that the filter is - or ever was - a cyber-safety tool designed to keep kids safe online. It's not. It's designed to "harmonise" censorship laws, not protect children from inappropriate content. It's censorship for its own sake." This is interesting as EFF Australia are running a campaign to educate people not normally involved in debates around the internet - indeed, the campaign targets people who may be inclined to suport the idea of a filter: mums and dads.

Shutdown of large torrents site in Russia for allegedly distributing illegal content. Not read in detail.

A great industry site with news, discussion and features about web design, web content, Information Architecture etc.

Is this the end of the story? Google seems to challenge China by taking out the filters to content

SEDO (Search Engine for Domain Offers) has partnered with VeriSign (the operator of the valuable .com and .net gTLDs, amongst other network inrastructure) to conduct a .TV auction between 1 April - 8 April 2010. Having a semiotic association with rich media content and a memorable quality, it seems likely the auction will attract bids from brand names already harnessing rich media content and looking to capitalise on new revenue streams that the expansion of gTLDs offers. Reserves will be around $5000 for each auctioned name ( a list of all names can be found at http://sedo.com/search/searchresult.php4?auctionevent=tvPremium&tracked=&partnerid=&language=us ) causing some annoyance amongst those who have already made costly .TV purchases in excess of the reserved price.

This article discusses how a protest was organised against th Federal Government's Internet and Content filter plan in Australia. However, the attendance for this protest was lacking. Many arguements against the filter have stated that, it is simply a "false sense of security." Protesters continue to urge the public to write emails, make phone calls, and apply public pressure.

For Google, the project is a pre-emptive move to get a foothold in the living room as more consumers start exploring ways to bring web content to their TV sets.