Profit and Public Opinion
All the big tech majors - Apple, Google, Facebook and Twitter had a busy week. While Facebook filed for its historic IPO, Apple faced severe backlash for its harsh labour practices in China. Meanwhile, Google and Twitter too came under ire for their new censorship policies. Thanks to the New York Times expose, Apple once again fights allegations of horrific human rights abuses in its Chinese supplier network and in retaliation, thousands have signed an online petition demanding the tech giant to clean up its act (at change.org). While CEO Tim Cook has expressed outrage over the NYT report, one can't but help wonder about the gross negligence of its workers' plight.
Apple, with a cash pile of $97 billion post its massive Q1 2012 results, could certainly do much more than improve their working conditions instead of splurging money on waging patent wars against Samsung, HTC (and hence indirectly at Google). As Nilay Patel of The Verge remarks - if even a portion of the NYT piece is true, some of that profit has come at a very real, very human cost for which Apple shares culpability because of how it oversees its supply chain. Some of that blame also belongs to us, the consumers, who purchase technology products and don't demand better labor practices from the companies that supply them. Catch the full NYT article here.
Facebook goes public - After making a 3.71 bn $ in revenues for the year 2011, the social network filed its much rumored IPO with the SEC (crashing its website subsequently) aiming to raise a huge $5bn through the flotation. With Mark Zuckerberg all set to net a fortune of 28 bn $, only time holds the key as to whether this new Facebook friend request to the public will pay off. Considered as one of the biggest IPO's in the tech world after Google's in 2004, Facebook's every single move from now on will be under the microscope of the investors, and with its main revenue streams being ads and games (courtesy Zynga), it will have to justify the 100 bn $ valuation the IPO is likely to fetch.
Apple, with a cash pile of $97 billion post its massive Q1 2012 results, could certainly do much more than improve their working conditions instead of splurging money on waging patent wars against Samsung, HTC (and hence indirectly at Google). As Nilay Patel of The Verge remarks - if even a portion of the NYT piece is true, some of that profit has come at a very real, very human cost for which Apple shares culpability because of how it oversees its supply chain. Some of that blame also belongs to us, the consumers, who purchase technology products and don't demand better labor practices from the companies that supply them. Catch the full NYT article here.
Facebook goes public - After making a 3.71 bn $ in revenues for the year 2011, the social network filed its much rumored IPO with the SEC (crashing its website subsequently) aiming to raise a huge $5bn through the flotation. With Mark Zuckerberg all set to net a fortune of 28 bn $, only time holds the key as to whether this new Facebook friend request to the public will pay off. Considered as one of the biggest IPO's in the tech world after Google's in 2004, Facebook's every single move from now on will be under the microscope of the investors, and with its main revenue streams being ads and games (courtesy Zynga), it will have to justify the 100 bn $ valuation the IPO is likely to fetch.
Search behemoth Google, in the meanwhile, grabbed the media spotlight for all the wrong reasons. After missing share market expectations in its Q4 results citing a slump in revenue per ad clicks and Europe's economic downturn, Google is trying hard to maintain its lead. Earlier this month, it unveiled a new personalized search feature called Search, Plus Your World, which aims to include relevant content from its fledgling social network Google+, thereby pushing down Facebook and Twitter results. The takeaway is that Google, by hook or crook, is not in a mood to let go off its third attempt at social networking (after the resounding failures of Wave and Buzz) and seems to be hell bent on thrusting it upon its users in one way or the other.
Predictably sparking off anti-trust concerns, Twitter expressed disappointment over the move and a couple of its engineers joined hands with a like-minded few from Facebook and MySpace (does it still exist, by the way?) to come up with a bookmarklet that looks up for a more relevant result than its corresponding Google+ counterpart. The bookmarklet (a JavaScript piece of code) is available at focusontheuser.org, which also details how the new search feature gives undue preference to Google+ when compared to Facebook/ Twitter results. However, as with many Google products, users can thankfully opt out of this feature.
Predictably sparking off anti-trust concerns, Twitter expressed disappointment over the move and a couple of its engineers joined hands with a like-minded few from Facebook and MySpace (does it still exist, by the way?) to come up with a bookmarklet that looks up for a more relevant result than its corresponding Google+ counterpart. The bookmarklet (a JavaScript piece of code) is available at focusontheuser.org, which also details how the new search feature gives undue preference to Google+ when compared to Facebook/ Twitter results. However, as with many Google products, users can thankfully opt out of this feature.
If you feel the Search+ feature is polemic enough, you are badly mistaken. Beginning last week, Google initiated an extraordinary move to merge more than 60 individual privacy policies of its various products into a single one that's a lot shorter and easier to read. It is leaving no stone unturned to let its users know of this fact; be it highlighting in the top right corner of the browser window during a Google Search (with a line that goes: We're changing our privacy policy and terms. This stuff matters.) or through emails (with the subject line: Changes to Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service).
Going into effect starting from the 1st of next month, this policy update is very significant and nonetheless very ambiguous. Let's admit Google knows more about us than our friends or relatives for that matter. Yet so far, this user data were all separate entities. For instance, until recently YouTube accounts were fairly anonymous, not even a Google id was required to create one. The subsequent Google+ integration to many of its products were deemed innoxious as they too had an opt out.
But the latest revamp is quite different. It's not hard to imagine the consequences of merging your Gmail, Profile, YouTube, Maps, Picasa, Orkut, Google+, Docs, Reader, Contacts information in addition to accessing your location (via Latitude) and other data stored in your Android phones. Today, millions of people rely on Google services, especially after the proliferation of Android smartphones (which require a Google account to start with). By collating this data, Google can easily track and gain insight into a user's online behavior, which would become a powerful analytic tool for targeted advertising. Lets say, I open my Android smartphone and broadcast my location (say, the Forum Mall, Bangalore) to my friends through Latitude; Google (now knowing my location) can come up with local search results and ads when I am doing a Google search.
This real-time sharing of information across its services has come under stringent criticism, with EU regulators writing to the company to halt its policy update saying it needs to investigate whether the proposals sufficiently protect users' personal data. While Google insists that user privacy controls haven't changed a bit (can be accessed via their Dashboard service), it has chosen to remain mum on how it's planning to address the concerns over sharing of user activities. What's more worse is that there's no opt out unlike the previous Search+ thingy. You just have the option to either concede to their terms or completely delete your Google account if you choose to disagree with them. The privacy policy is all up here.
Going into effect starting from the 1st of next month, this policy update is very significant and nonetheless very ambiguous. Let's admit Google knows more about us than our friends or relatives for that matter. Yet so far, this user data were all separate entities. For instance, until recently YouTube accounts were fairly anonymous, not even a Google id was required to create one. The subsequent Google+ integration to many of its products were deemed innoxious as they too had an opt out.
But the latest revamp is quite different. It's not hard to imagine the consequences of merging your Gmail, Profile, YouTube, Maps, Picasa, Orkut, Google+, Docs, Reader, Contacts information in addition to accessing your location (via Latitude) and other data stored in your Android phones. Today, millions of people rely on Google services, especially after the proliferation of Android smartphones (which require a Google account to start with). By collating this data, Google can easily track and gain insight into a user's online behavior, which would become a powerful analytic tool for targeted advertising. Lets say, I open my Android smartphone and broadcast my location (say, the Forum Mall, Bangalore) to my friends through Latitude; Google (now knowing my location) can come up with local search results and ads when I am doing a Google search.
This real-time sharing of information across its services has come under stringent criticism, with EU regulators writing to the company to halt its policy update saying it needs to investigate whether the proposals sufficiently protect users' personal data. While Google insists that user privacy controls haven't changed a bit (can be accessed via their Dashboard service), it has chosen to remain mum on how it's planning to address the concerns over sharing of user activities. What's more worse is that there's no opt out unlike the previous Search+ thingy. You just have the option to either concede to their terms or completely delete your Google account if you choose to disagree with them. The privacy policy is all up here.
I am not done with Google yet. Notwithstanding the policy changes, it has opened up a new can of worms (along with Twitter) by pushing a new update to their blogging service Blogger. Twitter, last week, announced that it can now censor tweets on a country-by-country basis, wherein a tweet, if considered offensive depending on the laws that govern a nation, will be withheld in that country, while keeping it available in the rest of the world. On its removal, users will receive a message of Tweet withheld or @Username withheld in place of the tweet or the user account.
While this reactive content removal is yet to be rolled out to the public, proponents of freedom of expression have assailed the change and have threatened to boycott Twitter if it comes into effect. RSF's head of social media, Lucie Morillon remarked - Twitter will collaborate with the censors, and help them prevent the publication of criticism of the government or denunciations of corruption. The micro-blogging site, combined with Facebook and YouTube, played a pivotal role in the Arab Spring uprisings, with protesters using it to organize and spread news about the demonstrations. The move is thus likely to affect these middle-east countries, which along with North Korea, Vietnam, Thailand have tighter censorship regulations and requirements (forget China, where both Facebook and Twitter are blocked).
While this reactive content removal is yet to be rolled out to the public, proponents of freedom of expression have assailed the change and have threatened to boycott Twitter if it comes into effect. RSF's head of social media, Lucie Morillon remarked - Twitter will collaborate with the censors, and help them prevent the publication of criticism of the government or denunciations of corruption. The micro-blogging site, combined with Facebook and YouTube, played a pivotal role in the Arab Spring uprisings, with protesters using it to organize and spread news about the demonstrations. The move is thus likely to affect these middle-east countries, which along with North Korea, Vietnam, Thailand have tighter censorship regulations and requirements (forget China, where both Facebook and Twitter are blocked).
But Twitter is on the defensive and claims that until now, if such a legal request were to be made, the offensive content was removed globally. While this can be perceived as the company's tactical step to expand its global presence by appeasing the respective governments (Thailand has already welcomed the initiative), it is definitely bound to stifle the voices of the citizens.
Barely days after Twitter's announcement, Google announced a similar country-specific censorship for Blogger. The new rules, already applicable in India (my blogger address automatically redirects to therarefied.blogspot.in instead of therarefied.blogspot.com), Brazil, Honduras and Germany, follow the same reactive taking down of content as Twitter. If a blog breaks an Indian law, Google can block it in the country but make it available elsewhere. People have once again voiced their concerns against the Intenet companies, and the opinions are varying.
Tech blog Techdirt said, 'If more and more companies follow the lead of Google and Twitter, as seems quite likely, it could represent the beginning of the end of the truly global Internet... In its place will be an online world subject to a patchwork of local laws.' Read Write Web was rather more optimistic, 'This is a way around censorship. Would you rather Blogger and Twitter be blocked in some countries outright?'
When SOPA and PIPA were to be discussed in the US Senate last month, these giants vehemently opposed the laws telling it would threaten free speech, but I wonder if all that was an eyewash in light of the latest developments. I understand that Google, Facebook, Twitter tread along a delicate line facing constant pressure from the governments to pull down objectionable content, but it seems rather absurd of them to give the nations a weapon to silence public opinion for doubling up their revenues.
Tech blog Techdirt said, 'If more and more companies follow the lead of Google and Twitter, as seems quite likely, it could represent the beginning of the end of the truly global Internet... In its place will be an online world subject to a patchwork of local laws.' Read Write Web was rather more optimistic, 'This is a way around censorship. Would you rather Blogger and Twitter be blocked in some countries outright?'
When SOPA and PIPA were to be discussed in the US Senate last month, these giants vehemently opposed the laws telling it would threaten free speech, but I wonder if all that was an eyewash in light of the latest developments. I understand that Google, Facebook, Twitter tread along a delicate line facing constant pressure from the governments to pull down objectionable content, but it seems rather absurd of them to give the nations a weapon to silence public opinion for doubling up their revenues.
Comments
Post a Comment