Murdoch tears at net neutrality.

2009-12-02 17:00:56

#1

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6836|CH/BR - in UK

There were rumours recently - started by Jason Calacanis - that Murdoch had made a deal with Bing after requesting Google stop mentioning his site from now on. First of all, if exclusive deals start being given to search engines, we'll have to access dozens of them before we can find the sites we want, so for the consumer, this really doesn't make sense.

But later it was established as a rumor. However, it moved Google to allow for pay wall features in Google News.

What do you think? Do you think Murdoch was right to do this? Do you prefer consumer oriented or business oriented internet? And finally, do you think this will make a difference in the long run?

-kon

2009-12-03 03:31:52

#2

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6439|what

Of course it will make a difference.

I've been following the Net neutrality issue for awhile now.

"Ars Technica has a write-up on the unregulated telegraph of the 19th century, which gives a view into what could happen to an internet lacking any regulation mandating neutrality. The owners of the 'Victorian internet' used their control of the telegraph to prop up monopolies, manipulate elections, facilitate insider trading, and censor criticism."

And this could very easily happen again. If you control the news media, especially media searched by the consumer, you can manipulate any and all results shown without objectivity.

Another reason this seems likely, the simple reason for money. Newspapers don't sell as they used to. Ad revenue for online media is falling, with improved ad blockers and overall browsing of online news has declined this year.

"The Washington Post reports that US newspaper circulation has hit its lowest level in seven decades, as papers across the country lost 10.6 percent of their paying readers from April through September, compared with a year earlier. Online, newspapers are still a success — but only in readership, not in profit. Ads on newspaper Internet sites sell for pennies on the dollar compared with ads in their ink-on-paper cousins. 'Newspapers have ceased to be a mass medium by any stretch of the imagination,' says Alan D. Mutter, a former journalist and cable television executive who now consults and writes a blog called Reflections of a Newsosaur.

If you can buy and sell your newspaper rights to be displayed by the search engines, which do have high profits, online News media can make a profit. You buy cnn.com news results from Google, who'll display cnn.com articles whenever there's a possible news searched for. Cnn.com then in turn see more traffic as any news browsers are redirected to their site. Google may also benefit because suddenly media outlets are making bids to be the highest and most returned result.

Or, the opposite can happen. Google buys the rights to provide cnn.com articles more prominently. They have the money, and Cnn.com need the added revenue. Google has the advantage of being the new more popular search engine because Cnn.com traffic is proxied through google when they search for news.

There's so many ways it can be manipulated from a conglomerate like Yahoo! Search, with Yahoo! News, in conjunction with a TV station/Newsprint - net neutrality is really tempting to simply ignore.

2009-12-03 18:09:49

#3

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6836|CH/BR - in UK

So, basically, we're screwed unless the government steps in - and passes regulation against this kind of crap.

-kon

2009-12-03 18:13:20

#4

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|5985

konfusion wrote:
So, basically, we're screwed unless the government steps in - and passes regulation against this kind of crap.

-kon

Government going against the Media. lol, we are screwed.

2009-12-03 18:19:22

#5

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6887|132 and Bush

AussieReaper wrote:
I've been following the Net neutrality issue for awhile now.

It wont go away .

I posted this a couple years ago.
Easily my favorite breakdown.

Not while we have this big wall built out of the shredded first amendment ..

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-12-03 18:56:21

#6

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

If the net ever became inundated and closed by mass media conglomerates, a 'free net' would form as a reaction. Whether it would be forced to go underground or not is a valid question but it would be very difficult to place severe limitations on something we've all come to expect to be wide open. There will always be a new search engine that comes along to replace Google or Yahoo if they became malicious towards an open web. There might even be another person out there with the convictions of the man that owns Craigslist. He cares almost nothing for money which is why his site is not only almost entirely free, but also one of the most popular on the entire net.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-12-03 19:11:05

#7

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6809|...

More $$$ faggotry, like most things in the USA it seems. Old men who don't get it. Burn it down.

2009-12-04 08:31:05

#8

loubot: O' HAL naw!; +470|6865|Columbus, OH

BING soxs dawg ballz

2009-12-04 08:44:08

#9

cpt.fass1: The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n; +329|6982|NJ

In theory I think the net is like the wild west and actually give small business and artist ways to make money.

But if they stop the net neutrality maybe people will start going out more, it might actually be good. It is regulated by the consumer and not the companies because the consumer will be the ones paying the money..

At John, where would the underground stuff happen on the web? Everything goes through the telecommunications and would be blocked?

2009-12-04 08:45:02

#10

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

cpt.fass1 wrote:
In theory I think the net is like the wild west and actually give small business and artist ways to make money.

But if they stop the net neutrality maybe people will start going out more, it might actually be good. It is regulated by the consumer and not the companies because the consumer will be the ones paying the money..

At John, where would the underground stuff happen on the web? Everything goes through the telecommunications and would be blocked?

Proxies? There's always a way if there is will.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-12-04 09:41:38

#11

cpt.fass1: The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n; +329|6982|NJ

I wonder if the cost would be worth the effort? Because then everyone would need to proxie and the amount of Underground websights probably wouldn't be worth the effort.

Maybe people will start writing letters again..

Then it will take 2 days to get back a LOL.

2009-12-04 10:31:23

#12

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6936

I don't see how anyone who uses the internet could be against Net Neutrality.

2009-12-04 12:55:23

#13

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

cpt.fass1 wrote:
I wonder if the cost would be worth the effort? Because then everyone would need to proxie and the amount of Underground websights probably wouldn't be worth the effort.

Maybe people will start writing letters again..

Then it will take 2 days to get back a LOL.

Well, frankly, not everything should be free. Craigslist is actually a blight and a cancer for society precisely because the guy that runs the company is an anti-social misfit who has cost thousands of people their jobs. He's almost single handedly wiping out the newspaper industry because of their lost ad revenue. This, coupled with the push to put everything online is really putting a crimp on journalism as a whole. I would personally not want to depend on bloggers for my news

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-12-04 15:21:53

#14

cpt.fass1: The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n; +329|6982|NJ

Hmm well you pay for the web service, and if your website gets enough hits you can charge for ads.

And if Craigslist wasn't around how would that girl drinking on friday night with the boobs and the face know I want her?

Would i have to talk to her?

2009-12-04 17:11:53

#15

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6836|CH/BR - in UK

JohnG@lt wrote:
cpt.fass1 wrote:
I wonder if the cost would be worth the effort? Because then everyone would need to proxie and the amount of Underground websights probably wouldn't be worth the effort.

Maybe people will start writing letters again..

Then it will take 2 days to get back a LOL.
Well, frankly, not everything should be free. Craigslist is actually a blight and a cancer for society precisely because the guy that runs the company is an anti-social misfit who has cost thousands of people their jobs. He's almost single handedly wiping out the newspaper industry because of their lost ad revenue. This, coupled with the push to put everything online is really putting a crimp on journalism as a whole. I would personally not want to depend on bloggers for my news

Yeah, journalists are much more trustworthy. Like the iPhone song guy, who writes books about OSX, and owns and uses macs almost exclusively. People like that are very unlikely to be biased, unlike bloggers. ^^

-kon

2009-12-04 21:04:56

#16

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6961|Canberra, AUS

Murdoch wants to use news sources as his personal propaganda machine (read: the amazing sudden importance his news outlets give to any anti-google story), fuck him.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-12-06 04:34:41

#17

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6439|what

"Google has expanded its remit once again with the quiet launch of Google Dictionary. Google word search definitions now redirect to Google Dictionary instead of to Google's long term thesaurus goto site, Answers.com, which is expected to take a serious hit in traffic as a result. Dictionary pages are noticeably more plain and faster loading than their Answers.com equivalents, and unusually feature web citations for the definitions of each word. This means that, unlike most dictionaries, Google considers ginormous a word."

Thoughts?

2009-12-06 05:58:53

#18

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6836|CH/BR - in UK

@AussieReaper - this means I'm going to be using Ninjawords from now on

-kon

2009-12-06 15:50:01

#19

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6961|Canberra, AUS

AussieReaper wrote:
"Google has expanded its remit once again with the quiet launch of Google Dictionary. Google word search definitions now redirect to Google Dictionary instead of to Google's long term thesaurus goto site, Answers.com, which is expected to take a serious hit in traffic as a result. Dictionary pages are noticeably more plain and faster loading than their Answers.com equivalents, and unusually feature web citations for the definitions of each word. This means that, unlike most dictionaries, Google considers ginormous a word."
Thoughts?

Google is free to do as it chooses. If another company relies on Google for their hits then tough luck, you can't expect another company to act in your interests on the internet.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-12-06 16:34:58

#20

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6439|what

All google has to do is see what is popular, make it own page (doesn't even have to be of a better standard) and redirect as much traffic it wants to it's own website.

That's anti-competitive no matter how you look at it.

2009-12-06 17:48:29

#21

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:
All google has to do is see what is popular, make it own page (doesn't even have to be of a better standard) and redirect as much traffic it wants to it's own website.

That's anti-competitive no matter how you look at it.

Why? You don't HAVE to use google. It's not the only search engine.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

I support complete net neutrality.	85%	85% - 34
I think there must be limits.	0%	0% - 0
I don't support net neutrality.	15%	15% - 6
Total: 40

BF2S Forums Murdoch tears at net neutrality.

Poll

konfusion wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Board footer