I produced this video for the U.S. Air Force Center for Strategy and Technology, as part of its annual study about strategy and air power in the future.
CSAT will use the video in its presentation about the accelerating progression of technology toward the singularity. The singularity is the hypothetical future emergence of greater-than-human superintelligene through the combination of biology and technology – artificial intelligence.
Google has started blacklisting websites that screw over customers, after the New York Times exposed an embarrassing loop-hole in the search giant’s method of ranking.
The article revealed how a website called DecorMyEyes.com treated customers badly to purposely egg on bad reviews and comments, which created link-backs to the website, and improved its rank in search engines.
Google said in its blog that it was “horrified” to read about peoples’ experience with DecorMyEyes, and immediately put together a team to look for an algorithmic solution to this loop-hole.
“That team developed an initial algorithmic solution, implemented it, and the solution is already live,” Google said in its blog. ”I am here to tell you that being bad is, and hopefully will always be, bad for business in Google’s search results.”
Google claims its algorithm can now detect websites that provide extremely poor user experience, but it did not go into detail about how the algorithm evaluates these websites – for fear of informing people how to game its system.
I am definitely in favor of Google punishing sketchy websites, but being too sensitive to all forms of negative criticism could open a whole new loop-hole: allowing competitors to blacklist one another by spreading false complaints and poor customer reviews across the Web. Hopefully Google’s new algorithm understands how to tell the difference between genuine reviews, and fabricated spam.
Google and Verizon on Monday revealed their new proposal for how Internet providers should manage their networks, and “net neutrality” advocates are not happy about it.
The policy establishes two sets of rules for two parallel Internets: broadband and mobile wireless.
The broadband Internet will play by the traditional net neutrality rules, which advocates a free-and-open Web that does not discriminate and does not require websites to pay for higher exposure to customers. In other words, an equal playing field: Youtube (in its early stages) had just as much of a chance of popping up at the top of searches as Real Player (the video streaming leader of its time). May the best website win.
Controversy arises over the new rules for wireless networks: no net neutrality; anything goes – including allowing providers to block websites, and charge customers for different tiers of the Internet. The proposal also leaves open the possibility of letting providers have this same control over content on all future innovations in the wireless industry.
Because wireless innovation is the future of the Web, net neutrality advocates fear Google may have just signed over control over the Internet’s future to the corporate providers that care more about driving their bottom lines than genuine innovation and social integration. The new Google-Verizon policy sets an historic precedent that all Internet providers can now look at and say, “Well if Google says it’s okay, then that’s how we’ll do it from now on.”
The only entities that stand in this policy’s way are Congress and the FCC. But the FCC’s power over the Internet was badly marginalized by a Supreme Court case that sided with Comcast last summer. And most of Congress doesn’t understand how the Internet even works (think Republican Senator Ted Stevens, who called the Internet “a series of tubes.”)
What others have to say
Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg’s joint op-ed in the Washington Post: The proposal we outlined Monday as a suggested policy framework for lawmakers translates these principles into a fully enforceable broadband Internet policy. In developing this framework, we were guided by two principles: our commitment to an open Internet, and the need for continued investment in broadband infrastructure, which is critical to U.S. global competitiveness.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps: Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That’s one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.
PC World: Let’s use an analogy. Assume that the FCC called a meeting to declare pizza the best food ever. Then Google and Verizon meet on the side and call a press conference to declare that pizza is, in fact, the best food ever. Awesome! We all agree. Right? Well, when you look at the details, Google and Verizon are declaring pizza the best food ever as long as it doesn’t have pepperoni and it is only eaten indoors while sitting on folding chairs. All other scenarios are still open to interpretation.
Mashable: The proposal’s points about “additional online services” could be another area of serious contention. In fact, many of the journalists on the conference call expressed concern about it. Verizon and Google have agreed that wireline broadband providers can offer “additional online services” that don’t operate within these rules as long as they are “distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service.”
Jeff Jarvis (former president of Advanced Internet): I am baffled by the Google-Verizon agreement on nonnet-nonneutrality. I’m mostly baffled by why Google would put its name to this. What does it gain? As I see it, the agreement makes two huge carve-outs to neutrality and regulation of the internet: mobile and anything new… Mobile is the internet. Mobile will very soon become a meaningless word when — well, if telcos allow it, that is — we are connected everywhere all the time. Then who cares where you are? Mobile? doesn’t matter. You’re just connected. In your car, in your office, in your bedroom, on the street. You’re connected. To what? To the internet, damnit.
Craig Aaron (Director of Free Press): We need the FCC — with the backing of Congress and President Obama — to step and do the hard work of governing. That means restoring the FCC’s authority to protect Internet users and safeguarding real Net Neutrality once and for all… Such a move might not be popular on Wall Street or even in certain corners of Silicon Valley, but it’s the kind of leadership the public needs right now.
Google Inc. and Verizon Communications have found themselves in a PR nightmare after news broke alleging that the two companies are meeting to change the “net neutrality” rules that govern the Web.
Both companies immediately denied the accusations –Verizon released a blog post; Google released a tweet. But Google CEO Eric Schmidt had already admitted earlier in the week that the two companies are meeting “to get an agreement on the definition of what net neutrality is.”
“We’re trying to find solutions that bridge between the hardcore net neutrality view and the telecom view,” Schmidt said at the Techonomy Conference, a day before the NYT story broke.
Net Neutrality has historically functioned as the Internet’s most golden principle, which advocates no restriction on any online content or communication by Internet Providers and governments. This also includes purposely slowing down access to some websites, while speeding up access to websites that are willing to pay.
The New York Times article alleged that Google and Verizon were working out a deal that “could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.”
As soon as the story broke, the FCC immediately canceled all closed-door meetings related to regulating Internet traffic and establishing net neutrality, according to The Wall Street Journal. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said he thought the deal undermines broader issues.
“Any outcome, any deal that doesn’t preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet for consumers and entrepreneurs will be unacceptable,” he told reporters.
The FCC, watchdog organizations and even some companies directly affiliated with Google now stand ready to challenge any Google-Verizon agreement that involves paying different prices for faster transmission speeds.
Google and Verizon are discussing a deal this week that could shift the balance of power over the Web, and end the sacred law of net neutrality that now governs the way content exists online.
The New York Times reports that the deal would allow Verizon to manage its broadband Internet network as it pleases (without Google challenging it), if Verizon promises to allow Google’s websites to load faster than other websites.
If these allegations are correct, the decision would set an historic president: opening the flood gates to giving Internet providers control over what loads quickly for users, and what lags – based on how much websites are willing to pay. And because Google now takes speed into consideration when indexing its content, this would inevitably give Internet providers much of the power and discretion over what pops up at the top of Google searches.
The New York Times also reports that the decision could lead to replacing net neutrality with a pay-tier system similar to television, where consumers pay for access to higher premium levels of service. In other words, some Youtube videos may be off-limits unless you buy the “Super Gold Roadrunner Premium Package.”
———-UPDATE———-
Google and Verizon both denied the NYT’s allegations today, saying that they do not plan to upend net neutrality. But Google CEO Eric Schmidt said Wednesday that the two companies are meeting to come to an agreement on the definition of “net neutrality.”
“We have been talking to Verizon for a long time about trying to get an agreement on the definition of what net neutrality is. We’re trying to find solutions that bridge between the hardcore net neutrality view and the telecom view.”
Have you ever wondered how much information really exists online? New data suggests that 1.2 Zettabytes (1.3 trillion gigabytes) is now stored in cyberspace – which amounts to 339 miles of fully-loaded iPads stacked to the sky.
The International Data Corporation reported that the amount of digital information grew 62 percent in 2009. And more than 35 percent of that information exceeds the capacity that exists to store it.
Experts believe social media is driving the increase, as millions upon millions of users cram the Web with Facebook updates, tweets and videos of sneezing pandas. User-generated content makes up 70 percent of the digital universe (more than 880 gigabytes).
Luckily, the responsibility for storing all of this information rests with the enterprises that facilitate it: Google, Facebook, Twitter, CNN and whoever owns the server that carries the particular website you’re visiting.
The International Data Corporation estimates that by 2020, business transactions on the Internet will reach 450 billion per day.
To put all this information into perspective Wikibon developed a nice little breakdown, which I have embedded below.
Facebook may seem free, but its cost comes in the form of giving up control of your personal information.
Facebook demonstrated how much power it had over its users two weeks ago when it announced its new data-sharing policy, Open Graph.
Unless you’ve updated your privacy settings in the past two weeks, Facebook has started sharing information on your Facebook profile with its partner websites, which use the data to personalize your Web experience when you visit their websites. Some of these partners include Pandora, Microsoft, Yelp and CNN.
Facebook has enabled you to opt out of the program, but not until after it automatically opted everyone in without permission.
According to Mashable.com, the new policy only allows Facebook to share your information with companies for the purpose of enhancing your experience when you visit them, and to make it easier for companies to target specific customers with ads along the sidebar.
“On one hand, having your web experience customized to your tastes, interests and relationships is appealing. On the other, it’s going to be hard to keep track of all of the personal data you’ll be publishing to the graph for all to see — and there might be some opportunities for abuse by less scrupulous companies.”
Facebook’s new policy prompted Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) last week to request that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) create guidelines for how social networking websites can use user information.
How to opt out of Facebook’s Open Graph
Opting out of Facebook’s new data-sharing program is simple, but a little tricky to find.
Click Accout => Privacy Settings => Applications and Websites => Edit Settings
Finally, uncheck the box next to the statement: “Allow select partners to instantly personalize their features with my public information when I first arrive on their websites.”
Google released a new app on Tuesday that reveals how much pressure it faces from nations around the world to turn over private information and to censor content.
The Government Requests tool shows the public how often each government asks Google for private data on users, or asks Google to remove websites from its search index for reasons other than copyright infringement. It also reveals what percentage of those requests Google has fulfilled.
Google VP David Drummond wrote in a blog post that Google hoped the tool would lead to greater transparency on government censorship and data requests.
“Google, like other technology and telecommunications companies, regularly receives demands from government agencies to remove content from our services… We also regularly receive requests from law enforcement agencies to hand over private user data,” Drummond wrote. “The vast majority of these requests are valid and the information needed is for legitimate criminal investigations. However, data about these activities historically has not been broadly available. We believe that greater transparency will lead to less censorship.”
The Government Requests Tool breaks down data from the last half of last year, between July 2009 and December 2009. But Google plans to update this data regularly.
Google admits that the information is not as accurate or comprehensive as the company would like it to be, but it plans to improve the detail and transparency of the program over time.
The app does not reveal data from China, because Google said China has classified the information as state secret.
Brazil racked up the most requests. The U.S. government made the fourth most requests of any nation.
Twitter finally unveiled its plan today for how the global microblogger plans to generate revenue.
Using Google’s business model of selling keyword advertising, Twitter plans to start selling what it calls “Promoted Tweets.”
When someone searches Twitter for a keyword or phrase, Twitter will generate its list of real-time tweets from users who have mentioned that word or phrase. But scattered throughout those user tweets will be “Promoted Tweets,” generated by companies who pay Twitter to advertise with specific keyword.
Twitter will label Promoted Tweets when advertisers are paying, but they will appear as ordinary tweets when they feed to a timeline of someone who follows that particular brand.
Twitter also plans to control spam by eliminating Promoted Tweets when people don’t interact with them – replying, retweeting or favoriting.
“Promoted Tweets must meet a higher bar—they must resonate with users,” Twitter’s blog stated. “That means if users don’t interact with a Promoted Tweet… the Promoted Tweet will disappear.”
Advertisers that have signed up for Twitter’s Promoted Tweet program include Best Buy, Bravo, Red Bull, Sony Pictures, Starbucks and Virgin America, according to Twitter’s blog.
My reaction is that this could add a whole new dimension to the concept of advertising. Advertisers can now monitor current events, and buy Promoted Tweets whenever a high-profile event relevant to their business blows up on the news or in pop culture.
For example, let’s say Google chooses Kansas City for its universal Internet project. Web-related businesses in Kansas City could then buy Promoted Tweets on Twitter under the keywords “Google chooses Kansas City.” Web managers who follow that kind of high-profile tech news may then search Twitter for reactions, come across some Kansas City businesses relevant to their industry and choose to look into those particular companies.
Promoted Tweets could also enhance fundraising efforts during natural disasters. The American Red Cross could advertise Promoted Tweets under the keywords, “Haiti earthquake,” and reach users who search that topic.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
China Business News reports that Google may plan to shut down its operations in China on April 10.
The report cited an unidentified Chinese sales agent for Google, but Google has not yet confirmed whether that is true.
Google will allegedly announce its decision on March 22, and has given its Chinese workforce the option of moving to its U.S. headquarters.
Discussions about a possible pull-out started when Google threatened to stop censuring search content, including Tibet and Tienanmen Square references, which China has banned from public knowledge. Tensions reached a breaking point in February when Chinese government programmers allegedly hacked into Google’s G-mail in an attempt to catch a Chinese activist.
Peter Lui, Google’s former financial controller for the Asia Pacific region, told Bloomberg that Google’s alleged decision to pull out has “burnt bridges” with its largest market in the world.
“There is no way Google can ever come back,” he said.
Google will likely survive without China. The question is whether China can rebuild a search engine as efficient as Google, and how its citizens will interpret Google’s decision.
Andy Greenhaw specializes in multimedia journalism, social media marketing and motion graphic video production. He's proficient in Adobe After Effects, Premiere, Final Cut Express, PhotoShop, Illustrator, Soundbooth, Camtasia, Web design and copy writing for SEO.
I can produce almost every form of content on a highly professional level, and I know how to viralize it through social media.
