Mediaboss Marketing

There's so much internet censorship in India now that it is surprising that instead of outrage you find the Indian media actually building the case for censorship, writes Shivam Vij

Hundreds of web pages now stand blocked in India, the government has openly been appealing to internet companies to pre- or post-screen content and remove what the government wants it to remove. One Google Transparency Report after another has been revealing how the number one target of the government is criticism of politicians and government. Just imagine what would the Indian media's response to such censorship have been like had it been hundreds of books or articles we were talking about? Instead of asking Facebook to 'pre-screen' our posts, had Kapil Sibal [ Images ] been asking for someone to pre-screen articles in the newspapers, would it not be like the Emergency of 1975?

Okay, point taken. Let us not trivialise the Emergency, which entailed jailing of dissidents and forced sterilisation and so on. But still, there's so much internet censorship in India now that it is surprising that instead of outrage you find the Indian media actually building the case for censorship. What about hate speech, they ask. What about the trolls, why is there so much abuse on the internet?

In the latest round of censorship the victims include mainstream media outlets -- Firstpost.com, Al Jazeera, the Times of India [ Images ], the Telegraph of the UK and ABC of Australia [ Images ]. And yet, all we are asking is: why do the trolls troll so much? I reliably know that the government also tries to have removed from the internet TV news videos, and they have also been pressing mainstream media outlets like the Times of India to do something about their comments section. The exasperated refrain, "Anyone can say anything on the internet!" is heard from politicians and journalists alike. What gives?

The Indian media favours internet censorship because it has been at the receiving end of the internet for a long time, and now that politicians have begun to face the heat, they're only too happy to say, "Yes! Go for them trolls!"

The over-use of the word 'Hate' suggest that there is all that to the issue. But hate can be subjective. Arnab Goswami will say the criticism of his style of news presenting is Hate, and may be there are people out there who Hate him for his style, but is expressing such hatred illegal? Is it violative of the law, of the Constitution of India? Does it cross the limits set out in the "reasonable restrictions" laid out in Article 19 (2) -- which was, ironically, India's First Amendment?

If yes, then why are we not seeing FIRs and police complaints and court cases? If I distribute a pamphlet that incites violence against someone, or tries to provoke a communal riot, the government will take action against me under the law. There will be IPC and CrPC and I will get to hire a lawyer and defend myself. But on the internet the government's response is to deal with ISPs and internet companies, bypassing the safeguards for citizens laid out by the Constitution.

How does the Indian media respond to such grave violation of fundamental rights? By asking why there are no laws to regulate the internet, such as the laws to regulate print and TV news! That is a gross lie the Indian media has been turning into perceived truth by repeating it ad nauseum. In truth, there is more regulation of the internet than of newspapers or news channels. Apart from IPC and CrPC there is the IT Act and the IT Rules. By contrast, how often has the Broadcast Code been implemented? Why is TV news reluctant to allow government regulation, and instead setting up show-piece self-regulation bodies? Why are they so upset about Justice Katju's suggestion that news TV should come under the Press Council of India's ambit? Is there a single editor in favour of giving more teeth to the Press Council of India?

Of course, social media is not a news organisation. Comparing the act of millions of individuals tweeting, well, whatever they like, to professional news work, is comparing apples and oranges. The Delhi [ Images ] editors understand as much. But even if we were to compare apples and oranges the hypocrisy of the Delhi Editorial Elite apparent in their resisting "regulation" for themselves but asking for "regulation" of the internet.

In this us-and-them binary that the Delhi Editorial Elite build, they are being way too generous to themselves. We didn't need Radia tapes to know how Responsible and Honest and Independent the Indian media is. But when two magazines did a story on the Radia tapes -- after months of the entire Delhi Editorial Elite knowing of their existence -- the Delhi media initially chose silence. But the barrage of criticism online forced the media to stop pretending those tapes have no 'news value'.

See the rest here:
Why is the Indian media pro-internet censorship?

Summary: The emergence of new social networking services such as Pinterest and a growing base of disgruntled 3rd party developers for the leading services shows that changes in the social networking industry are far from over. It's also causing a rethinking of the business models and partner ecosystems of what's become the old guard, Facebook and Twitter.

Social networks have long relied on the kindness of what are essentially strangers in order to thrive. You might be thinking I'm talking about the people that use them, and I am. But I'm also referring to two other constituencies of social networks that are nearly as important and which happen to be vital for their long term growth and health: Developers and advertisers.

That's not all either. As a social networks get larger in size and longer in the tooth, they must add employees and venture capital firms to the mix as well, who want good returns on their time, effort, and investments. These groups end up pulling the business in different, competing directions. However, the tension resulting from the cross-purposes between all of these constituencies isn't really surprising. After all, social networks -- like businesses -- are themselves made of people. Differing agendas, objectives, and priorities are part of the mix, like any community of individuals.

But of all these, it's developers and advertisers that are coming into focus recently as moves by popular social networking services such as Twitter have begun alienating the former as they appear to proactively cater to the latter. In particular, this week's scrubbing of 3rd party app source names from tweets means that Twitter is essentially white-washing its developers' app presence from its feeds. What does this mean exactly? Going forward, when one posts to Twitter from Hootsuite or Tweetdeck or Instagram, no one will be able to tell which app was used.

While the source of the app that posted a tweet may not seem very important to users, it's critical for a developer that has spent their time and money creating a new type of Twitter client and relies on its visibility to succeed. And this where the rub is, because developers were arguably instrumental in building Twitter into what it is today. When I talked with Alex Payne, Twitter's API lead, back in 2009, he reported nine out of 10 users of the entire service were already using 3rd party clients to post and consume tweets. Developers had literally became the public face of the service for most users. What's more, they helped provide the myriad user experiences and features that no single company could provide by itself.

Related: Twitter edges out third party clients with tighter API rules

Now that the service is enormously popular, with over 500 million registered users as of this year, Twitter apparently wants to deal itself back into being the primary intermediary with the user. Increasingly restrictive rules for what developers can do continue to be announced. For its part, Facebook has also lowered the boom several times on those that helped build it out in its early days, when they needed every 3rd party app they could get back in 2007 to propel them past MySpace, the market leader at the time.

Of course, as I observed as Facebook prepared to go public, the dual opposing pressures of protecting customer privacy while endlessly inventing ever more sophisticated ways to monetize their data was going to be a tall order indeed. For the most successful social networks today, both of these issues will ultimately end up penalizing 3rd party developers that have invested in the platform. At the same time the host social networks will end up trying to preserve the most valuable aspects of the data only for themselves.

Those who've following my writing over the years knows that I'm quite bullish on strategically using open APIs as a way to scale partnership and harness innovation as cost-effectively as possible. It's a brilliant strategy for startups, and the smart use of open APIs directly led to the success of Internet giants such as Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook who've all used them to rapidly create marketshare, network effects, and vibrant partner ecosystems. Today, few startups launch without an API coming a short while later. But the end game for 3rd party developers seems increasingly bleak for social networks, at least how the services are designed as businesses today.

Then there's the issue that the current social networking monoculture, where the vast majority of people are using a few large services, hasn't changed much recently. Because of this, I think a strong argument can be made that they have inherently begun to limit innovation and create stagnation in the marketplace as they attempt to consolidate control. But with the recent provocations to developers (API restrictions) and users (privacy concerns) and the rise of a some compelling competing services, it may not be situation that lasts very long.

See the article here:
Is the social networking monoculture ready to crumble?

Sometimes the problems engulfing the U.S. patent system can seem like a thousand shades of gray where it's hard to sort the good guys from the bad. And then, at other times, the absurdity of the system just smacks you right on the face.

The latter is the case in a bizarre piece of patent litigation involving several companies, including The New York Times, a mobile technology that sends links through text messages, and an obscure inventor who has turned his patent portfolio into a weapon of mass litigation.

First, let's introduce the players in this legal digital drama.

In this corner, we have Richard J. Helferich, an engineer based in Southern California who has been awarded at least 22 patents, according to a search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website.

Little seems to be known about Helferich. But his list of patents stretch back to 2002, and cover a range of mobile-related technologies that are assigned to a company called Wireless Science based in Chatsworth.

Helferich has also apparently created another company, Helferich Patent Licensing, or HPL, which has filed 23 lawsuits over the past four years against companies such as Best Buy and the National Basketball Association, according to a story by the Washington Post.

The strategy is pretty straightforward. The suits claim the company is violating a patent, but then HPL offers to settle for $750,000. The Post report that about 100 companies took

This also appears to be the strategy being pursued in The New York Times case. Helferich holds a patent for the process of sending a text message containing a link to your mobile phone.

While patent law can be thick, patents are supposed to be awarded for inventions that are "non-obvious." Sending links through a text message would seem to be both obvious and inevitable.

Fortunately, the Times has chosen to fight. It's accepted the legal challenge in court, and it has also appealed the underlying patent to the patent office.

Continued here:
O'Brien: Case demonstrates why "patent" has become a dirty word

Wide receiver Randy Moss, who's held two press conferences since joining the 49ers in March, again declined an interview request Tuesday while sitting at his locker.

Asked if he would give a state-of-the-team comment, Moss replied: "Nope."

Maybe next week, heading into the regualr-season opener at Green Bay?

"Probably not," Moss answered.

A league spokesman said Moss is expected to comply with the league's media policy when the regular-season schedule beings next week. That includes making himself available to the local media one day during the week and also postgame.

Moss has held only two press conferences: On a conference call March 12 upon signing a one-year contract, and on the first day of training-camp practice July 27.

Moss did respond to a question after the 49ers' exhibtion opener Aug. 10, when asked how it felt to return after a year's hiatus, and he gladly replied: "It wasn't a big difference, but it was alright."

Moss declined comment after the 49ers' second exhibition, Aug. 18 in Houston. He was not in the locker room by the time reporters entered after Sunday's exhibition in Denver.

Moss did answer a Sacramento Bee reporter's question three weeks ago, when asked to compare his speed with that of Olympic-sprinting champion Usain Bolt. "The fastest I ever ran was 29 (mph), and I popped a hamstring doing it," Moss said.

Follow this link:
For San Francisco 49ers' Randy Moss, mum remains the word

TAMPA, Fla. Amid the jeers, chants and sometimes vulgar signs Monday at the protests against Republicans, demonstrators reserved an extra level of derision for one, simple word: Texas.

Yes, the Lone Star State.

So often a point of pride for displaced Texans across the country, the state was reduced to a punch line as protesters marched in muggy temperatures and rains spinning off of Tropical Storm Isaac.

The reporting mission Monday morning seemed simple enough: find a demonstrator from Texas and chronicle the trip to Florida for the anti-convention rallies.

The problem was that there were no Texans to be found, especially with the expected crowd of 5,000 cut to a couple hundred by the bad weather and perhaps the heavy police presence.

I asked the Occupy Wall Street folks. I asked the group fighting to save the beleaguered U.S. Postal Service. I asked those marching in support of everything from immigration rights to gay rights to womens rights.

One youngish protester in full black garb offered, I have relatives in Texas. A middle-aged woman said warily, George W. Bush is a Texan and others had far worse things to say about him.

Most just seemed bemused by the thought that a red-blooded Texan would join their cause, never mind the states tradition of independence and occasional dissidence.

And more than a few eyed with disgust my Dallas Morning News press credential, replete with a Lone Star flag background.

That was until I met Ramy Khalil, 36, a socialist who grew up in Houston and still has a 713 phone number.

More here:
Tom Benning’s Quick Take: ‘Texas’ a dirty word among protesters at Republican convention