 | |
 |
Hot on the heels of the proposed national ISP-based filtering of the internet in this country, comes this latest attack on democracy.
| Outrage as South Australian Government and Opposition Unite to Gag Internet Election Debate |
We are becoming a complete joke to the rest of the world over these ridiculous political stances. When are our politicians going to wake up?
Only when we hit them where it counts – the ballot box.
Victoria’s largely still-born new transport ticketing system – Myki – has come in for a lot of flack in recent weeks, particularly regarding overcharging and broken down smartcard readers.
Well, at least some Melbourne commuters are keeping a sense of humour amongst the chaos. In a clear reference to the following episode of The Simpsons, one lark has managed to get a myki card registered in the name of “Santos L Halper” – the name presented on the credit card Bart receives in the episode.
| The Simpsons – The Canine Mutiny |
Clearly nobody working at myki is a fan of The Simpsons!
Well, it seems like Kevin Rudd has gone and planted his big old foot firmly into his mouth – once again.
| Abbott Defends Virginity Comments |
And I quote: “I don’t think my job as Prime Minister is to provide individual, personal, moral advice to the young people of Australia. That’s something for them themselves to sort out with their friends, with their families, with their mums with their dads.”
Hang on a minute. It’s not your job to provide moral advice, but it is okay to enforce your moralistic stance in regards to internet filtering? You say moral issues are something for families to work out on their own terms. Why is internet filtering any different? Internet filtering can take place at the “home” or “school” level if required – leaving it up to families to work out on their own terms.
It is not your job to provide moral guidance, just like you said Kevin.
With more than a few under-my-breath chuckles, I read with interest the following article posted in/on the Fairfax newspapers/sites this morning by noted Australian financial commentator, Michael Pascoe:
| Apple Bites Australia for Profit |
An interesting read, and on the surface, he makes some excellent points. The difference in pricing between the Australian and US iTunes stores is certainly an eyebrow raiser – but I do note that he makes no attempt to seek any explanation for the difference. Are the costs Apple is required to collect for the Australian publishers of the music – as opposed the the US publishers, which may be a completely different publisher – higher? Quite possibly.
Delving a little deeper, the true folly of the article is exposed – and most significantly, Pascoe misses the point on what exactly iTunes provides BEYOND the music itself. He highlights that the album “Art of Lounge” by Janet Seidel – (who?) – retails on the US iTunes store for $US7.99, and the Australian store for $AUD13.99. He even states that you can go to her concert and get a copy with your name on it for $AUD20.00.
How much does it cost to go to the concert? If it is more than $AUD14.99, his point falls flat. Lets have a look at how much this album costs in Australian stores:
| Art of Lounge V3 – Janet Seidel |
Yes, that’s right – $AUD34.99 – if you can be bothered getting off the “lounge” and getting in your car and driving down to your local Sanity store – costing you time AND even more money. If you choose to buy it from Sanity online, you’ll get it in “10-20 days”. I’m sure going to her concert is a fabulous experience, and is quite possibly worth the extra cost – but iTunes doesn’t have “concerts”. This is a completely different product. Apples and oranges.
Suddenly, iTunes shows it’s real value. Less than half the retail cost, and you can have it straight away – or at least as soon as your internet connection can get it to you. You haven’t wasted time, money, petrol, and effort going to pay the full price, and you don’t have to wait up to three weeks if you buy it online. Sounds like good value to me.
Pascoe’s article suddenly sounds more like an advert for Janet Seidel than anything else.
In a coordinated online protest, supported by Electronic Frontiers Australia, over the coming days we will see “The Great Australian Internet Blackout”.
| The Great Australian Internet Blackout |
My site has joined the protest – make sure yours does too!
In another episode of “Bizarre Entries in the Foxtel EPG”, I stumbled across this one this evening:
“Chooseday Night Football”? Now, take careful note that it is currently “TUESDAY”. I thought it might have been some kind of clever piece of nomenclature based around the day of the week, that might have been promoting some kind of “choose which game of football you want to watch tonight” interactive programming – but no – this was/is the only game available.
Surely they aren’t entering EPG information through speech recognition? Surely someone wasn’t stupid enough to type in “Chooseday” instead of “Tuesday”?
Surely.
In the ongoing online battle in regards to the proposed, anti-democratic “filtering” of the internet in this country, it is important that the powers that be – in this case Communications Minister Stephen Conroy and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd – listen to the important lessons that are bound come from the current stance taken by Google in China. In a nutshell, Google – the undisputed kings and queens of the internet – have stepped up to the Chinese government and challenged them in relation to the censorship of the internet in that country.
| Google Blog: A New Approach to China |
When Google first went into China, it was roundly criticised for bowing to the demands of the Chinese regime to ensure that the results the Google search engine returned complied with the censorship policies of the regime. If you choose to do business in any country, you have to abide by the laws appropriate to that business, in that country. Google choosing to do business in China was/is a tacit agreement to follow those censorship constraints. In that sense, Google did no wrong – they wanted to do business in China, so had to play the game Chinese-style. That was their call, and despite the criticism of bowing to Chinese demands for the sake of the business, Google have been very successful there.
However, a recent wave of hacking against the services of Google – (and other companies) – from inside China, and apparently for purposes that are likely to only have been in the interest of the Chinese government – Google has challenged China by “unfiltering” the results presented by Google’s search engine in China.
For the first time, people in China have seen pictures of the bloody Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 – an event the Chinese government refuses to acknowledge even occurred. In taking this stance, Google have stated that they will no longer accept the filtering restrictions placed upon them in China, or they will choose to no longer do business in China – costing many jobs, and creating another public relations disaster for the Chinese regime.
Let’s cast our minds back a couple of years to 2008, and the Beijing Olympics. Kevin Rudd – amongst other political leaders from around the world – roundly criticised the Chinese government for its filtering/censorship of the internet:
| Rudd to Raise Concerns Over Olympic Censorship |
It really pisses me off that “Kevin747” has the audacity to jump on the bandwagon at that time for some cheap political points, yet behind the scenes he and Senator Conroy were plotting to do the same in Australia. Certainly, Australia does not seem likely to filter to the extent that China does, but that remains to be seen. The process is too hidden, and too mysterious, and we are not allowed to see what is on/will be on the official blacklist in this country. Of the censorship policies of the Chinese government, Kevin said: “I’m quite concerned by them.”
It is interesting that the following article was published just a few days BEFORE the previous article highlighted above, in which Kevin Rudd was so critical of China:
| Conroy Welcomes ISP Filtering |
Smelling the hypocritical double-standard here yet? A few days later we saw this:
| Net Censorship to Cost Users |
I hope Messrs Rudd and Conroy are paying attention, because I can guarantee them that the world is watching us – very, very closely. Google (and other global companies) has a large presence in this country. Google are taking a massive stance against China. Will Australia be next?
This is definitely one of the stupidest pieces of journalistic “nuff nuffiness” I’ve ever seen. But what else would we expect from the Geelong Advertiser?
“Second Man Faces Murder Charge Over Norlane Harpoon Killing” screams the headline.
| Second Man Faces Murder Charge Over Norlane Harpoon Killing |
Murder charge? Harpoon killing? Hang on a second, the first line of the article says: “A SECOND man had been charged with attempting to murder his two neighbours in Norlane West after handing himself into police.”
Nobody died! Murder? Killing? That’s disgraceful, Geelong Advertiser!
Further proof that News Limited boss Rupert Murdoch simply does not understand the internet has emerged with the news that his “pay wall” – where readers have to pay to access online content provided by News Limited – is likely to commence soon within at least part of his Australian operations – namely The Australian newspaper.
| Digital Fees Likely as News Revamps |
News Limited has had their “pay wall” up around the Wall Street Journal for quite some time – and to a certain extent, that’s okay, as they have a very specific product that is not largely available anywhere else. However, taking this model to the “general news” market is extremely risky.
It is often said that the internet “routes itself around” such content access failures. How does this apply in this instance? Well, in a nutshell – people will go elsewhere. While the WSJ can somewhat justify this model, in a general news setting, the news that every other general news site is covering is exactly the same. They are reporting on the same things. The only reason people choose one site or one newspaper over another is largely a decision based on editorial style.
In the Melbourne market for example, the “working class” paper is the Herald Sun – the local News Limited paper – and the more conservatively positioned The Age – a John Fairfax paper – are the two main choices. If Rupert starts putting the “pay wall” up around the Herald Sun, he risks alienating its traditional group of readers, who will simply turn their attention to The Age.
The news in the Herald Sun and the news in The Age are largely the same. The internet users will route themselves around the “pay wall” and pop up on The Age website instead. Instead of having thousands of readers paying to access the Herald Sun as Rupert hopes, he’ll actually drive the readers (and therefore, advertisers) away. I thought he was smarter than that?
On a personal note – I tend to read both sites three or four times a day. If the Herald Sun is removed as an option for me – (I certainly won’t be paying for it) – and I am restricted to The Age, I will then get even more frustrated with the Fairfax philosophy of having sometimes two or three auto-running audio and/or video streams on a page. I find it disrespectful that they can force download intensive content on people who might only be using a dial-up connection.
Bandwidth in this country is scarce enough as it is to slam people’s connections with bandwidth intensive applications without asking, or providing an opt-out.
Got a giggle watching a news report this evening about the incoming president of Croatia, Ivo Josipović.
Some of us in Australia are a little over our Prime Minister, “Kevin747” Rudd being out of the country so much. Well, I’ve finally figured it out! He’s been running his campaign to become president of Croatia.
Could Kevin Rudd and Ivo Josipović actually be the same person? You be the judge!