Newspapers Woo Bloggers with Mixed Results

Newspapers Woo Bloggers with Mixed Results
Newspaper Web sites attracts about an equal number of readers in the 18-to-24-age range, about the same amount as blogs. This in turn has made the newspapers try to attract more readers from that demographic by incorporating blogs to their list of online offerings
Originally caught off guard by blogs, newspapers and old-guard news agencies are now racing to present their own. So far, the results have been mixed. Some newspapers dive their readers a voice that they never had before but other larger circulations have had to deal charges of plagiarism as well as being branded boring.
The century-old news agency, The Associated Press signed a cross-marketing deal with a search-engine for blog postings named Technorati. Technorati agreed to scan for blogs that include links to AP stories. The Technorati search engine will then create a Web page where it will display the blogs in addition to original AP stories.
Technorati has also made a deal with Washington Post Co., parent company to Washington Post and Newsweek.
Recently, BlogBurst, a blog syndication service, had a group of publishers that signed up for their services among them were the Arizona Republic, Des Moines Register and San Jose Mercury News. Newspapers can publish any of the more than 1,500 blogs featured by the service, under the terms of the agreement.
Some paper even offer tools on their Web site that enable readers to create their own blogs, which can then be posted on the paper's Web site.
There are many problems that the newspapers face with their blogs. Some have hired professional writers to write blogs but have been charged with plagiarizing material that hey had written for other publications.
Some have had conflicts with their own policies.
I like the freedom and the ability to express oneself of blogs. They are the newest form of freedom and the also a very powerful tool that allows one person to be heard.

What does Google know about you?

Google, the largest and most powerful search engine in the world, was requested by the US Department of Justice last August to hand over all the searches made through it in one random week. The reason the US government made this request was to produce a reasonable estimate of how many pornography sites are cataloged by search engines, and what fraction of those sites are careful about excluding minors. The same demand was apparently made of Google's competitors Yahoo!, Microsoft and AOL, who complied without a fight. Google resisted the move, therefore prompting the US attorney general to ask the Federal District Court in San Jose, California, to compel Google to comply.

The subpoena is part of an effort to rescue the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) – a law that was defeated by the Supreme Court two years ago after it was judged contrary to the First Amendment. The government maintains that it needs a week’s worth of Internet searches in order to figure how possible it is for children are to find pornography online.

Google will not say the number of searches that are made on it. It claimed more than 250,000,000 searches were made a day in the spring of 2003, which giving us a sense that that number possibly doubled by now.

Google tracks these searches by its users on the web using "cookies," small files downloaded to a user's computer which make it recognizable to the site, used by most commercial sites. Google's cookie gives them complete, identifiable record of everything your computer asks for online. This can't be tied into your personal information automatically, unless you sign up to Google’s other services. These free services consist of downloadable software applications for Microsoft Windows, even though Google’s services adhere to a privacy policy. Unfortunately, the Google desktop will index all the documents on your hard disk that gives them free range to find anything ever put into your computer.

The Chinese government aspires to pressure Google, or Yahoo!, or MSN, to try to get hold of this knowledge, as the case of Chinese journalist Shi Tao, recently sentenced to ten years in jail by the Chinese authorities on the strength of evidence provided by Yahoo!

Google is really in the media business, delivering readers to advertisers. It offers advertisers extraordinarily detailed, knowledge about the reading preferences of their customers. Google can guarantee significance in its ad targeting for its advertisers because it knows what you're interested in. You tell it with every query and the ads are freshly served up for every question.

I am afraid that Google albeit a great search engine could eventually lead us to be spied on by our own government. Our trust and lack of knowledge in these search engines makes us easily susceptible to be targeted by anyone whether it is advertisers, government and quite possibly terrorists if they had the right technology or price.

Dotster Named in Massive cybersquatting

Dotster was charged in unlawfully participating in a massive cybersquatting operation that targeted such companies like Cingular Wireless, Disney, Ikea, Google, Neiman Marcus, Playboy, and Verizon. Dotster is a one of the largest domain name registrars named in a new federal lawsuit filed by high-end retailers Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman. They alleged that Dotster abused its position as a registrar by "checking out" hundreds of domain names that bear a resemblance to the correct names and then keeping the ones that were only visited by Web users who couldn’t spell so well.

For example, when CNETNews.com typed NeimuMarcus.com instead of NeimanMarcus.com, they found that the Web page included code that referenced Dotster and subsidiary RevenueDirect.com as well as featured ads for Neiman Marcus rivals Bloomingdales and JCrew.

Cybersquatting is the practice of registering domain names that could violate a company’s trademark. Cybersquatting is also known as typosquatting. There have been other disputes before which included Apple claiming iTunes.co.uk but the Dotster lawsuit has a new twist. The registrar used its special status with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to obtain misspelled domain names for a few days to measure the amount of traffic and then keep the ones that would be profitable in terms of advertising.

The lawsuit filed by the law firm of Christie Parker and Hale Perkins Cole charges Dotster with violation of federal laws against trademark infringement and dilution, federal cybersquatting laws, and Washington State consumer protection laws against deceptive acts and practices.

I am not surprised that even registrars are guilty of such deceptive acts because in the end profit is the name of the game to all corporations. There has to be severe penalties for corporations that take advantage of their position of power. It is easier said then done but whatever can be done must be done.

Net Neutrality

There’s a new battle looming ahead in the United States. A battle of over communications that sets cable and telephone companies against those who believe that the Internet is the last bastion of free and independent stream of thoughts and ideas. Corporate greed threatens the Internet, an open roadway for innovation and creativity, into becoming just another system controlled and corrupted by how much money can to be made."Network neutrality" is a voluntary but guiding principle of the Internet, which ensures that all users are entitled to access content and services or run applications and devices of their choice. It promotes open competition and improvement among services providers at the same time preserving the independence and accessibility of the World Wide Web. The Internet allows any user to act as their own personal network programmer unlike the cable companies who select content on our behalf.If the telephone and cable companies got their way, the Internet would go into a reverse revolution of sorts. The companies would make not only users pay access the Internet but they would make content producers pay for using their wires or "pipes’ to deliver it. They would limit their fastest services to those who would pay more discriminating in favor of their own applications. This would shut out or slow down competing services.The threat is real, major telecommunication companies such as AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon are planning to discriminate against the online content and services. Wanting to turn the Internet into a "pay-for-performance" market place.The Consumer Federation of America, Free Press, and Consumers Union ran a national poll that showed:*75 percent of Internet users are concern of not being allowed to choose an ISPs or being charged double for Internet services.*70 percent are concerned about ISPs blocking or slowing down access to Internet service or sites.*54 percent want Congress to intervene on the behalf of the principles of net neutrality.I am in total agreement with the principles of net neutrality. I am completely against major corporations that exploit the masses for their own corporate interest. This greed is what is bringing this country down. They not only hurt us, the American people, as well as the rest of the world by their actions but they ruin the future of coming generations. I believe that Congress needs to pass legislation to stop the corporate wolves from gobbling up and controlling all access to the Internet.

Net Neutrality

There’s a new battle looming ahead in the United States. A battle of over communications that sets cable and telephone companies against those who believe that the Internet is the last bastion of free and independent stream of thoughts and ideas. Corporate greed threatens the Internet, an open roadway for innovation and creativity, into becoming just another system controlled and corrupted by how much money can to be made."Network neutrality" is a voluntary but guiding principle of the Internet, which ensures that all users are entitled to access content and services or run applications and devices of their choice. It promotes open competition and improvement among services providers at the same time preserving the independence and accessibility of the World Wide Web. The Internet allows any user to act as their own personal network programmer unlike the cable companies who select content on our behalf.If the telephone and cable companies got their way, the Internet would go into a reverse revolution of sorts. The companies would make not only users pay access the Internet but they would make content producers pay for using their wires or "pipes’ to deliver it. They would limit their fastest services to those who would pay more discriminating in favor of their own applications. This would shut out or slow down competing services.The threat is real, major telecommunication companies such as AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon are planning to discriminate against the online content and services. Wanting to turn the Internet into a "pay-for-performance" market place.The Consumer Federation of America, Free Press, and Consumers Union ran a national poll that showed:*75 percent of Internet users are concern of not being allowed to choose an ISPs or being charged double for Internet services.*70 percent are concerned about ISPs blocking or slowing down access to Internet service or sites.*54 percent want Congress to intervene on the behalf of the principles of net neutrality.I am in total agreement with the principles of net neutrality. I am completely against major corporations that exploit the masses for their own corporate interest. This greed is what is bringing this country down. They not only hurt us, the American people, as well as the rest of the world by their actions but they ruin the future of coming generations. I believe that Congress needs to pass legislation to stop the corporate wolves from gobbling up and controlling all access to the Internet.

There’s a new battle looming ahead in the United States. A battle of over communications that sets cable and telephone companies against those who believe that the Internet is the last bastion of free and independent stream of thoughts and ideas. Corporate greed threatens the Internet, an open roadway for innovation and creativity, into becoming just another system controlled and corrupted by how much money can to be made."Network neutrality" is a voluntary but guiding principle of the Internet, which ensures that all users are entitled to access content and services or run applications and devices of their choice. It promotes open competition and improvement among services providers at the same time preserving the independence and accessibility of the World Wide Web. The Internet allows any user to act as their own personal network programmer unlike the cable companies who select content on our behalf.If the telephone and cable companies got their way, the Internet would go into a reverse revolution of sorts. The companies would make not only users pay access the Internet but they would make content producers pay for using their wires or "pipes’ to deliver it. They would limit their fastest services to those who would pay more discriminating in favor of their own applications. This would shut out or slow down competing services.The threat is real, major telecommunication companies such as AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon are planning to discriminate against the online content and services. Wanting to turn the Internet into a "pay-for-performance" market place.The Consumer Federation of America, Free Press, and Consumers Union ran a national poll that showed:*75 percent of Internet users are concern of not being allowed to choose an ISPs or being charged double for Internet services.*70 percent are concerned about ISPs blocking or slowing down access to Internet service or sites.*54 percent want Congress to intervene on the behalf of the principles of net neutrality.I am in total agreement with the principles of net neutrality. I am completely against major corporations that exploit the masses for their own corporate interest. This greed is what is bringing this country down. They not only hurt us, the American people, as well as the rest of the world by their actions but they ruin the future of coming generations. I believe that Congress needs to pass legislation to stop the corporate wolves from gobbling up and controlling all access to the Internet.

Reporters without Borders

Reporters without borders
Interest in the Internet, which has absolutely revolutionized the world’s media, has caught everyone’s attention including many of the world’s dictators. Dictators have become aware of this tool of free expression. Such countries like China have begun to use their wealth to censor the Internet proving that like traditional media that it too can be controlled. "Cyber-dissents," have been monitored and even jailed for stirring up anti-government sentiments. China has drafted a set of very harsh rules to target any cyber-dissidence. These actions began a ripple effect of imitators in other anti freedom of press countries.
China, Vietnam, and the Maldives were the only ones to jail cyber-dissidents in 2003. Now many countries have done the same or worse. Punishments range from imprisonment to torture. Governments’ censorship of the Web has expanded from monitoring to banning sites and even needing official permission to own computers. Burma uses sophisticated technology to spy and copy what’s on cybercafes computer screens every five minutes. These counties have acquired this technology and know how from the American firms. These same countries have passed on their cyber-spying techniques to other counties as well. The European Union has recently implemented Internet rules that require Internet service providers (ISPs) to keep records of customer’s online activity.
In the Americas, Cuba imprisoned twenty and killed seven journalists in 2005; others faced surveillance or exile. Columbia is weak from civil war, Mexico’s drug trafficking hampers all aspects of journalist’s freedom. Peru and Venezuela use verbal and physical threats making the journalists censor themselves. In the United States, not wanting to reveal her sources, a journalist was imprisoned for the first time. In Peru, President Hugo Chavez broadcast a law about the media’s "social responsibility." This gave the national telecommunications commission power to ban radio and TV that incited anti-sentiment towards his government.
In Bolivia, President Carlos Mesa was forced to resign over a dispute of nationalization of gas reserves. The media has remained free unaffected by this instability. In two separate incidents reporters were physically attacked one by the police and the other by drug traffickers.
I believe that censorship is wrong when it comes to the Internet. The Internet is the only place where a single user can make his or her voice heard and could possible make a difference as well as bring about changes. Unfortunately with dictatorships, this is not open to discussion and so the dismantling of the Internet in these countries is a sad and unsettling fact. I am also very disillusioned with American firms that just want to make money no matter what the outcome of their actions may be.