Home

Google is famous for its unofficial corporate motto, “Don’t be Evil” (uh, and for making web search useful again). Since going public and aggressively expanding their business across the world, much of the criticism of Google’s business practises has been focused on whether they have decisively ignored this credo.

For evidence of this moral grey-area look no further than google.cn, Google’s Chinese portal, which has been slammed for its adherence to the Chinese government’s strict censorship rules. Google has made the argument (and I must admit that from a pragmatic rather than moral point of view, it’s valid) that in order to do business in China they must comply with local laws and - this is the clincher - it’s better that Chinese citizens have access to some of Google’s index than none at all.

I’m not normally one to side with moral purists, but in this case Google’s argument really annoys me, and smacks of double-standards. Google’s not afraid to challenge the US government on broad issues such as Net Neutrality, why bend over for the Chinese? It’s a little worrying to see that in each case Google has picked the side of the fence that has more money on it - not a comforting precedent. How long before we see a tiny asterisk next to their proud corporate credo?

The reason I write this now is because of two links that I followed from a Slashdot comment. Compare, if you will, a search for “Falun” (Gong, the outlawed Buddhist religious order) in China and the US.

One could argue whether it’s Google or the Chinese Government that is truly “evil”, but why would a company that prides itself on good corporate citizenship voluntarily assimilate itself into the machinery of oppression?

There’s nothing I love more than a good Astro-Turf campaign, and US telecommunications providers have been dishing it up in spades.

At “Internet of the Future“, you can view a homespun-looking flash animation describing how internet providers want to open up “new lanes of traffic” for special applications (video-on-demand, for example) over the fibre networks of the future, and how Net Neutrality would effectively shut down the Internet.

At “Don’t Regulate the Internet“, you will find a video describing how the US Congress wants to fundamentally change the Internet by regulating it to death, allowing multi-billion dollar corporations to pay nothing for the Internet while consumers are lumped with the bill. “Who would you want to have running the Internet?”, it asks. “Government or Network Administrators”. Cue animation of a huge pile of legislation collapsing on an overworked sysadmin.

Finally, at “Handsoff.org“, you will find a “community blog” and all sorts of cynical screeds quoting irrelevant statistics about broadband penetration and comparisons to countries whose legislative environment is irrelevant to the bills at hand.

The facts are as follows:
- These sites have been created and funded by the telecommunications industry. The doors were first blown off this sedan by The Daily Kos, and The Register then did a steaming dump on the front seat.
- Net Neutrality is not about changing the Internet. It’s about preserving the status-quo in a commercial environment in which the telecommunications industry would love to charge more to people who can afford it, without passing the savings on to consumers. The fact is, cable companies HATE to see people streaming whatever video they like over their nice fat broadband pipes, and they want to tax anyone who profits from that.

Network technology has given consumers choice. Telecommunications companies want to take that choice away, just as broadband penetration is really hitting its stride. In much the same way as the RIAA and MPAA try to get P2P outlawed, the telcos want to preserve the “old ways” from which they profited so heavily. Sorry guys - you’re a utility now.

Amazing photo set from North Korea, created by a Russian web designer who visited there. Exciting detail: Electrified barbed wire along the beaches so citizens can’t swim away.

One thing is for sure: It sucks to be North Korean.

My new job involves quite a bit of work with natural language tools which try to group, summarise or classify text fragments. I am aware that sometimes these tools produce odd results, because in the end they’re not really intelligent - they’re driven by statistics.

Still, it made me laugh when I had a quick play with Google Sets, a tool which tries to predict additional entries for a set based on a few entries that the user supplies. I decided I would go easy on it the first time, so I gave it the following innocuous set: “hat”, “handbag”, “wallet”, “keys”.

What could possibly go wrong?

Predicted Items
Wallet
Keys
Handbag
Hat
US History book
coke can empty
smokes
tits hairy
cell
shades
balls
History notebook
cell phone
lipgloss watermelon

“tits hairy”?

“lipgloss watermelon“??

Today, Australian journalist Richard Carleton died while reporting on the Beaconsfield Mine disaster, which claimed the life of one miner while two others are still trapped almost a kilometer underground. A transcript of ABC Radio’s reporting of the story is available online, and contains what may be the silliest line in a serious piece of journalism that I’ve ever read.

And while the wait continues for the people of Beaconsfield, the death of veteran journalist Richard Carleton has added to the grief-stricken atmosphere in the town.

Already the death of miner Larry Knight has devastated many locals. Now journalists, many of whom witnessed Mr Carleton’s collapse, are sharing their difficulties with the people of Beaconsfield.

Tim Jeanes reports from the town.

PAT VEEVERS (phonetic): Here we are. I hope you enjoy that, that’s beautiful cabbage rolls.

(wipes a tear from one eye)