industryterm:internet giant

  • #pewdiepie leaves #youtube to Stream Exclusively on #blockchain
    https://hackernoon.com/pewdiepie-leaves-youtube-to-stream-exclusively-on-blockchain-352cc707dda

    The no 1 most subscribed youtuber, Pewdiepie, announces that he will exclusively stream on #dlive, a video streaming site running on blockchain. On April 9th, both he and Dlive announced via youtube and twitter that the partnership will commence with the first stream set for April 14th.Youtube is starting to realise they aren’t the only person in the room anymore. For many years they have had the monopoly on the video sharing industry online. In November 2006, youtube became a subsidiary of google further consolidating the stronghold of the internet giants. We have seen time and time again, anyone who becomes successful and could be seen as a competitor is either shut down or bought out by groups like google and amazon. No longer will this occur with such a crippling effect.With the (...)

    #blockchain-adoption

  • Google Is Conducting a Secret “Performance Review” of Its Censored China Search Project
    https://theintercept.com/2019/03/27/google-dragonfly-china-review

    Google executives are carrying out a secret internal assessment of work on a censored search engine for China, The Intercept has learned. A small group of top managers at the internet giant are conducting a “performance review” of the controversial effort to build the search platform, known as Dragonfly, which was designed to blacklist information about human rights, democracy, religion, and peaceful protest. Performance reviews at Google are undertaken annually to evaluate employees’ (...)

    #Google #GoogleSearch #Dragonfly #censure #web #surveillance #Amnesty

  • #Google erases #Kurdistan from maps in compliance with Turkish gov.
    http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/e6a0b65e-84fa-447b-9ed4-5df8390961d3

    ERBIL (Kurdistan 24) – Google incorporation removed a map outlining the geographical extent of the Greater Kurdistan after the Turkish state asked it to do so, a simple inquiry on the Internet giant’s search engine from Wednesday on can show.

    “Unavailable. This map is no longer available due to a violation of our Terms of Service and/or policies,” a note on the page that the map was previously on read. Google did not provide further details on how the Kurdistan map violated its rules.

    The map in question, available for years, used to be on Google’s My Maps service, a feature of Google Maps that enables users to create custom maps for personal use or sharing through search.

    Because the map was created and shared publicly by a user through their personal account, it remains unknown if their rights have been violated or if they will appeal.

    A Turkish lawmaker from the ultra-nationalist, opposition IYI (Good) Party revealed last week that he put a written question to the Minister of Transport and Infrastructure, Cahit Turan, as to whether the Turkish government acted to make Google remove the Kurdistan map.

    Turan answered in affirmative, saying authorities were in touch with Google.

    The MP, Yavuz Agiralioglu, charged the map with “being at the service of terrorist organizations” in his question to the minister, referring to Kurdish armed groups fighting for different degrees of autonomy and recognition of cultural rights in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, modern nation-states Kurdistan was divided between a century ago.

    He also claimed the map violated the Turkish borders, although it showed modern borders superimposed by a non-standard red line that defined Kurdistan as “a geo-cultural region wherein the Kurdish people have historically formed a prominent majority population.”

    “The most dangerous Turk is the one looking at the map. We laid the Earth flat under our feet and only walked. We took our civilization, our justice, and our mercy to the countries we went. Let those who fancy dividing our country with fake maps look at our historical record,” the nationalist MP tweeted, in a veiled reference to the fate of the Armenian people which faced a genocide before the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

    Currently, the search “Kurdistan” on Google brings up results for the Kurdistan Region and its constitutionally-defined borders within Iraq and the Kurdistan Province in Western Iran.

    The use of the word “Kurdistan” is criminalized in Turkey, even at the parliament’s floors where lawmakers can be fined to pay up to several thousand Liras and be dismissed from at least two legislative sessions.

    Maps drawn by ancient Greeks, Islamic historians, Ottomans, and Westerners showing Kurdistan with alternative names such as “Corduene” or “Karduchi” have existed since antiquity.

    The use of the name “Kurdistan” was banned by the administration of Turkey’s founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in the immediate aftermath of the crushed Sheikh Said uprising for Kurdish statehood in 1925.

    Editing by Karzan Sulaivany

    #Turquie

  • Google abandons Berlin base after two years of resistance
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/24/google-abandons-berlin-base-after-two-years-of-resistance

    Kreuzberg residents were concerned about tech giant’s unethical practices and gentrification driving up rents Campaigners in a bohemian district of Berlin are celebrating after the internet giant Google abandoned strongly opposed plans to open a large campus there. The US firm had planned to set up an incubator for startup companies in Kreuzberg, one of the older districts in the west of the capital. But the company’s German spokesman Ralf Bremer announced on Wednesday that the 3,000 m2 (...)

    #Google #urbanisme

    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ab1315e4c8c8649142148bb27ac5460624361164/0_120_5472_3283/master/5472.jpg

  • How Google Protected Andy Rubin, the ‘Father of Android’
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html

    The internet giant paid Mr. Rubin $90 million and praised him, while keeping silent about a misconduct claim. Google gave Andy Rubin, the creator of Android mobile software, a hero’s farewell when he left the company in October 2014. “I want to wish Andy all the best with what’s next,” Larry Page, Google’s chief executive then, said in a public statement. “With Android he created something truly remarkable — with a billion-plus happy users.” What Google did not make public was that an employee (...)

    #Google #Android #harcèlement #viol

  • Former Google Scientist Tells Senate to Act Over Company’s “Unethical and Unaccountable” China Censorship Plan
    https://theintercept.com/2018/09/26/former-google-scientist-tells-senate-to-act-over-companys-unethical-an

    A scientist who quit Google over its plan to build a censored search engine in China has told U.S. senators that some company employees may have “actively subverted” an internal privacy review of the system. Jack Poulson resigned from Google in August after The Intercept reported that a group of the internet giant’s staffers was secretly working on a search engine for China that would remove content about subjects such as human rights, democracy, peaceful protest, and religion. “I view our (...)

    #Google #algorithme #Dragonfly #censure #filtrage #web #surveillance

  • Google, Seeking a Return to China, Is Said to Be Building a Censored Search Engine
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/technology/china-google-censored-search-engine.html

    Google withdrew from China eight years ago to protest the country’s censorship and online hacking. Now, the internet giant is working on a censored search engine for China that will filter websites and search terms that are blacklisted by the Chinese government, according to two people with knowledge of the plans. Google has teams of engineers working on a search app that restricts content banned by Beijing, said the people, who asked for anonymity because they were not permitted to speak (...)

    #Google #Facebook #GoogleSearch #algorithme #Dragonfly #censure #StateControl #web (...)

    ##surveillance

  • The Rise and Fall of #Soft_Power – Foreign Policy
    https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/20/the-rise-and-fall-of-soft-power

    In his recent book, Has the West Lost It?, Kishore Mahbubani, a Singaporean academic and former diplomat, calls all this Western hubris. Indeed, hubris may be the only appropriate word for what transpired. Confidence in the potency and legitimacy of soft power was so great that tremendous hard power was deployed in its name. The Iraq War was the most prominent example. And the intervention in Libya, with European support, was the most recent. In both cases, the United States and Europe were left worse off.

    Third, the hubris of soft power led to the illusion that soft power could somehow exist on its own . [...] The idea that soft power could perhaps be effective on its own perhaps underpinned the fatally mistaken belief that Iraq would automatically become a liberal democracy after Saddam Hussein was toppled.

    The European project, perhaps even more so, was built on a false understanding of soft power. For many decades, Europe was essentially a free rider in the soft power game; the United States guaranteed its security, and its economic well-being was reliant on the U.S.-led global economic order. With the United States now less interested in providing either—and focusing more on hard power—Europe is facing real challenges.

    [...]

    When the West was confident of its soft power, it cherished the belief that the more open a society, the better. But now, calls for censorship of parts of internet are heard routinely in the media and in legislative chambers. Internet giants are under tremendous political and social pressure to self-censor their content. And many, including Facebook, YouTube, and Apple, are doing so. And so, one of the bedrocks of liberalism’s soft power—free speech—has fallen from favor.

    Now, hard power is everywhere. The United States is no doubt the biggest player in this game: Fire and fury to North Korea, trade wars on everyone, gutting the WTO, and using domestic laws to punish foreign companies for doing business with a third country. The list goes on. For its part, Europe looks like a deer in headlights. As some, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, call for standing firm against Trump, others, including French President Emmanuel Macron, are looking for peace.

    And, of course, there is Russia. By adroitly using its limited but still considerable hard power, Russia achieved the most significant territorial gain by force since the end of World War II, taking Crimea from Ukraine. Meanwhile, Moscow’s forceful actions in Syria changed the course of the civil war there to its favor.

    [...]

    There is little doubt, in other words, that the era of soft power has given way to an era of hard power—and that is dangerous. For centuries, hard power politics resulted in immeasurable human suffering. Just in the 20th century alone, hard power drove two world wars and a long Cold War that threatened to annihilate mankind.

    It is possible to aspire to something better this time. And this is where China may come in.

    [...]

  • Google Staff Tell Bosses China Censorship is “Moral and Ethical” Crisis
    https://theintercept.com/2018/08/16/google-china-crisis-staff-dragonfly

    Google employees are demanding answers from the company’s leadership amid growing internal protests over plans to launch a censored search engine in China. Staff inside the internet giant’s offices have agreed that the censorship project raises “urgent moral and ethical issues” and have circulated a letter saying so, calling on bosses to disclose more about the company’s work in China, which they say is shrouded in too much secrecy, according to three sources with knowledge of the matter. The (...)

    #Google #Dragonfly #censure #surveillance #web

  • #Google_Maps Says ‘the East Cut’ Is a Real Place. Locals Aren’t So Sure.

    For decades, the district south of downtown and alongside #San_Francisco Bay here was known as either #Rincon_Hill, #South_Beach or #South_of_Market. This spring, it was suddenly rebranded on Google Maps to a name few had heard: the #East_Cut.

    The peculiar moniker immediately spread digitally, from hotel sites to dating apps to Uber, which all use Google’s map data. The name soon spilled over into the physical world, too. Real-estate listings beckoned prospective tenants to the East Cut. And news organizations referred to the vicinity by that term.

    “It’s degrading to the reputation of our area,” said Tad Bogdan, who has lived in the neighborhood for 14 years. In a survey of 271 neighbors that he organized recently, he said, 90 percent disliked the name.

    The swift rebranding of the roughly 170-year-old district is just one example of how Google Maps has now become the primary arbiter of place names. With decisions made by a few Google cartographers, the identity of a city, town or neighborhood can be reshaped, illustrating the outsize influence that Silicon Valley increasingly has in the real world.

    The #Detroit neighborhood now regularly called #Fishkorn (pronounced FISH-korn), but previously known as #Fiskhorn (pronounced FISK-horn)? That was because of Google Maps. #Midtown_South_Central in #Manhattan? That was also given life by Google Maps.

    Yet how Google arrives at its names in maps is often mysterious. The company declined to detail how some place names came about, though some appear to have resulted from mistakes by researchers, rebrandings by real estate agents — or just outright fiction.

    In #Los_Angeles, Jeffrey Schneider, a longtime architect in the #Silver_Lake_area, said he recently began calling the hill he lived on #Silver_Lake_Heights in ads for his rental apartment downstairs, partly as a joke. Last year, Silver Lake Heights also appeared on Google Maps.

    “Now for every real-estate listing in this neighborhood, they refer to it,” he said. “You see a name like that on a map and you believe it.”

    Before the internet era, neighborhood names developed via word of mouth, newspaper articles and physical maps that were released periodically. But Google Maps, which debuted in 2005, is updated continuously and delivered to more than one billion people on their devices. Google also feeds map data to thousands of websites and apps, magnifying its influence.

    In May, more than 63 percent of people who accessed a map on a smartphone or tablet used Google Maps, versus 19.4 percent for the Chinese internet giant Alibaba’s maps and 5.5 percent for Apple Maps, according to comScore, which tracks web traffic.

    Google said it created its maps from third-party data, public sources, satellites and, often most important, users. People can submit changes, which are reviewed by Google employees. A Google spokeswoman declined further comment.

    Yet some submissions are ruled upon by people with little local knowledge of a place, such as contractors in India, said one former Google Maps employee, who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly. Other users with a history of accurate changes said their updates to maps take effect instantly.

    Many of Google’s decisions have far-reaching consequences, with the maps driving increased traffic to quiet neighborhoods and once almost provoking an international incident in 2010 after it misrepresented the boundary between Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

    The service has also disseminated place names that are just plain puzzling. In #New_York, #Vinegar_Hill_Heights, #Midtown_South_Central (now #NoMad), #BoCoCa (for the area between Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens), and #Rambo (Right Around the Manhattan Bridge Overpass) have appeared on and off in Google Maps.

    Matthew Hyland, co-owner of New York’s Emily and Emmy Squared pizzerias, who polices Google Maps in his spare time, said he considered those all made-up names, some of which he deleted from the map. Other obscure neighborhood names gain traction because of Google’s endorsement, he said. Someone once told him they lived in Stuyvesant Heights, “and then I looked at Google Maps and it was there. And I was like, ‘What? No. Come on,’” he said.

    In Detroit, some residents have been baffled by Google’s map of their city, which is blanketed with neighborhood monikers like NW Goldberg, Fishkorn and the Eye. Those names have been on Google Maps since at least 2012.

    Timothy Boscarino, a Detroit city planner, traced Google’s use of those names to a map posted online around 2002 by a few locals. Google almost identically copied that map’s neighborhoods and boundaries, he said — down to its typos. One result was that Google transposed the k and h for the district known as Fiskhorn, making it Fishkorn.

    A former Detroit city planner, Arthur Mullen, said he created the 2002 map as a side project and was surprised his typos were now distributed widely. He said he used old books and his local knowledge to make the map, approximating boundaries at times and inserting names with tenuous connections to neighborhoods, hoping to draw feedback.

    “I shouldn’t be making a mistake and 20 years later people are having to live with it,” Mr. Mullen said.

    He admitted some of his names were questionable, such as the Eye, a 60-block patch next to a cemetery on Detroit’s outskirts. He said he thought he spotted the name in a document, but was unsure which one. “Do I have my research materials from doing this 18 years ago? No,” he said.

    Now, local real-estate listings, food-delivery sites and locksmith ads use Fishkorn and the Eye. Erik Belcarz, an optometrist from nearby Novi, Mich., named his new publishing start-up Fishkorn this year after seeing the name on Google Maps.

    “It rolls off the tongue,” he said.

    Detroit officials recently canvassed the community to make an official map of neighborhoods. That exercise fixed some errors, like Fiskhorn (though Fishkorn remains on Google Maps). But for many districts where residents were unsure of the history, authorities relied largely on Google. The Eye and others are now part of that official map.

    In San Francisco, the East Cut name originated from a neighborhood nonprofit group that residents voted to create in 2015 to clean and secure the area. The nonprofit paid $68,000 to a “brand experience design company” to rebrand the district.

    Andrew Robinson, executive director of the nonprofit, now called the East Cut Community Benefit District (and previously the Greater Rincon Hill Community Benefit District), said the group’s board rejected names like Grand Narrows and Central Hub. Instead they chose the East Cut, partly because it referenced an 1869 construction project to cut through nearby Rincon Hill. The nonprofit then paid for streetlight banners and outfitted street cleaners with East Cut apparel.

    But it wasn’t until Google Maps adopted the name this spring that it got attention — and mockery.

    “The East Cut sounds like a 17 dollar sandwich,” Menotti Minutillo, an Uber engineer who works on the neighborhood’s border, said on Twitter in May.

    Mr. Robinson said his team asked Google to add the East Cut to its maps. A Google spokeswoman said employees manually inserted the name after verifying it through public sources. The company’s San Francisco offices are in the neighborhood (as is The New York Times bureau), and one of the East Cut nonprofit’s board members is a Google employee.

    Google Maps has also validated other little-known San Francisco neighborhoods. Balboa Hollow, a roughly 50-block district north of Golden Gate Park, trumpets on its website that it is a distinct neighborhood. Its proof? Google Maps.

    “Don’t believe us?” its website asks. “Well, we’re on the internet; so we must be real.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/technology/google-maps-neighborhood-names.html
    #toponymie

  • Morgan Stanley: Google should give out free smart speakers to beat Amazon
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/28/morgan-stanley-google-should-give-out-free-smart-speakers-to-beat-ama.html

    Quand c’est gratuit, c’est toi le produit... once again.

    One top Wall Street firm believes Google’s parent company, Alphabet, needs take dramatic measures to compete with the success of the Amazon Echo.

    Morgan Stanley told its clients that the internet giant should defend its retail ad sales turf by giving away its Home Mini devices, and it wouldn’t cost that much.

    “We argue Alphabet needs more devices/smart speakers in people’s homes. The growth of voice shopping combined with Amazon’s expected install base advantage could threaten long term growth in Alphabet’s high-monetizing retail search category,” analyst Brian Nowak said in a note Thursday. “Like the mobile transition when Alphabet gave Android to OEMs and began paying Apple to power Safari search, we believe Alphabet should give away a Google Home Mini to every US (arguably global) household.”

    Nowak estimates Amazon will have 62 percent share of the U.S. smart speaker market at year-end 2018 versus 33 percent for Alphabet. The analyst projects more than 70 percent of U.S. households will own a smart speaker with voice commerce capabilities by 2022. He says it will “only” cost Alphabet $3.3 billion, which is a “small price to pay” given the opportunity.

    “We see voice shopping likely leading to faster eCommerce adoption…so in our view, the only question is whether/how much Alphabet will participate in voice commerce monetization,” he said. “More aggressive investment in a Google Home Mini giveaway could also drive the sum of parts [valuation] narrative.”

    Nowak also predicts Alphabet will miss the second-quarter earnings per share Wall Street consensus estimate by 1 percent due to currency effects and investment spending.

    He reiterated his overweight rating on the company’s shares and raised his price target to $1,250 from $1,200 because of Alphabet’s long-term opportunity to increase its profits.

    #Google #Commerce_électronique #Enceintes_connectées

  • A Peace Movement Blooms at Google | Alternet
    https://www.alternet.org/peace-movement-blooms-google

    Three-thousand Google employees have signed a letter protesting the internet giant’s contract with the Defense Department to develop artificial intelligence in order to analyze imagery collected by drones.

    The employees are calling on Google CEO Sundar Pichai to cancel the project immediately and to “enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology.”

    Google is collaborating with the Pentagton’s Project Maven, which was established in April 2017 “to deploy computer algorithms to war zones by year’s end, “according to one Defense Department press release. The focus of the project is “38 classes of objects that represent the kinds of things the department needs to detect, especially in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.”
    Report Advertisement

    The protest is a signal moment in the global campaign against lethal autonomous weapons, otherwise known as killer robots. The increasingly plausible of specter of warfare in which machines automatically target and kill people without human control has given rise to an international movement to ban such weapons. The Google antiwar letter shows the movement has arrived in Silicon Valley.

    Since 2014, the nations that have signed the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) have convened biannual conferences of experts to study the issue. Academics, policymakers and activists have found widespread agreement on the importance of controlling autonomous weapons, yet failed to reach consensus on how to do it.

    #Google #Guerre #Warfare #Techno_manifestation

  • EU competition chief holds threat of breaking up Google
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/03/25/eu-competition-chief-keeps-threat-breaking-google-table

    The European Union harbours “grave suspicions” about the dominance of Google and has not ruled out breaking it up, the bloc’s competition commissioner has warned. Margrethe Vestager told The Telegraph that the threat to split the internet giant up into smaller companies must be kept open. In June last year, the Danish commissioner hit Google with a record £2.1 billion fine – which the firm is appealing against – for giving its own comparison shopping service an illegal advantage in search (...)

    #Google #GoogleSearch #algorithme #domination

  • Facebook faces the tragedy of the commons
    https://www.ft.com/content/ec74ce54-d3e1-11e7-8c9a-d9c0a5c8d5c9
    http://prod-upp-image-read.ft.com/f1542870-d52b-11e7-ae3e-563c04c5339a

    It is hard to keep up with the stream of scandals, big and small, involving social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. From unwittingly aiding Russian efforts to subvert elections to finding themselves exploited by extremists and pornographers, they are constantly in trouble.

    The latest is YouTube failing to stop videos of children being commented on by paedophiles, while letting advertisements appear alongside them. Only months after Alphabet’s video platform faced an advertiser boycott over extremist videos and had to apologise humbly, companies such as Diageo and Mars are again removing ads.

    Each scandal produces fresh calls for networks to be treated like publishers of news, who are responsible for everything that appears under their names. Each one forces them further to tighten their “community standards” and hire more content checkers. By next year, Facebook intends to employ 20,000 people in “community operations”, its censorship division.

    Tempting as it is for publications that have lost much of their digital advertising to internet giants to believe they should be treated as exact equivalents, it is flawed: Facebook is not just a newspaper with 2.1bn readers. But being a platform does not absolve them of responsibility. The opposite, in fact — it makes their burden heavier.

    Here lies the threat to social networks. They set themselves up as commons, offering open access to hundreds of millions to publish “user-generated content” and share photos with others. That in turn produced a network effect: people needed to use Facebook or others to communicate.

    But they attract bad actors as well — people and organisations who exploit free resources for money or perverted motives. These are polluters of the digital commons and with them come over-grazers: people guilty of lesser sins such as shouting loudly to gain attention or attacking others.

    As Hardin noted, this is inevitable. The digital commons fosters great communal benefits that go beyond being a publisher in the traditional sense. The fact that YouTube is open and free allows all kinds of creativity to flourish in ways that are not enabled by the entertainment industry. The tragedy is that it also empowers pornographers and propagandists for terror.

    #Médias_sociaux #Facebook #Fake_news #Communs #Tragédie_des_communs

  • The Internet Is Dying. Repealing Net Neutrality Hastens That Death. - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/technology/internet-dying-repeal-net-neutrality.html

    Because net neutrality shelters start-ups — which can’t easily pay for fast-line access — from internet giants that can pay, the rules are just about the last bulwark against the complete corporate takeover of much of online life. When the rules go, the internet will still work, but it will look like and feel like something else altogether — a network in which business development deals, rather than innovation, determine what you experience, a network that feels much more like cable TV than the technological Wild West that gave you Napster and Netflix.

    If this sounds alarmist, consider that the state of digital competition is already pretty sorry. As I’ve argued regularly, much of the tech industry is at risk of getting swallowed by giants. Today’s internet is lousy with gatekeepers, tollbooths and monopolists.

    The five most valuable American companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — control much of the online infrastructure, from app stores to operating systems to cloud storage to nearly all of the online ad business. A handful of broadband companies — AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon, many of which are also aiming to become content companies, because why not — provide virtually all the internet connections to American homes and smartphones.

    Together these giants have carved the internet into a historically profitable system of fiefs. They have turned a network whose very promise was endless innovation into one stuck in mud, where every start-up is at the tender mercy of some of the largest corporations on the planet.

    This was not the way the internet was supposed to go. At its deepest technical level, the internet was designed to avoid the central points of control that now command it. The technical scheme arose from an even deeper philosophy. The designers of the internet understood that communications networks gain new powers through their end nodes — that is, through the new devices and services that plug into the network, rather than the computers that manage traffic on the network. This is known as the “end-to-end” principle of network design, and it basically explains why the internet led to so many more innovations than the centralized networks that came before it, such as the old telephone network.

    But if flexibility was the early internet’s promise, it was soon imperiled. In 2003, Tim Wu, a law professor now at Columbia Law School (he’s also a contributor to The New York Times), saw signs of impending corporate control over the growing internet. Broadband companies that were investing great sums to roll out faster and faster internet service to Americans were becoming wary of running an anything-goes network.

    To Mr. Wu, the broadband monopolies looked like a threat to the end-to-end idea that had powered the internet. In a legal journal, he outlined an idea for regulation to preserve the internet’s equal-opportunity design — and hence was born “net neutrality.”

    Though it has been through a barrage of legal challenges and resurrections, some form of net neutrality has been the governing regime on the internet since 2005. The new F.C.C. order would undo the idea completely; companies would be allowed to block or demand payment for certain traffic as they liked, as long as they disclosed the arrangements.

    But look, you might say: Despite the hand-wringing, the internet has kept on trucking. Start-ups are still getting funded and going public. Crazy new things still sometimes get invented and defy all expectations; Bitcoin, which is as Wild West as they come, just hit $10,000 on some exchanges.

    Well, O.K. But a vibrant network doesn’t die all at once. It takes time and neglect; it grows weaker by the day, but imperceptibly, so that one day we are living in a digital world controlled by giants and we come to regard the whole thing as normal.

    It’s not normal. It wasn’t always this way. The internet doesn’t have to be a corporate playground. That’s just the path we’ve chosen.

    #Neutralité_internet #Vectorialisme

  • The Geopolitical Economy of the Global Internet Infrastructure on JSTOR
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jinfopoli.7.2017.0228

    Article très intéressant qui repositionne les Etats dans la gestion de l’infrastructure globale de l’internet. En fait, une infrastructure globale pour le déploiement du capital (une autre approche de la géopolitique, issue de David Harvey).

    According to many observers, economic globalization and the liberalization of telecoms/internet policy have remade the world in the image of the United States. The dominant roles of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google have also led to charges of US internet imperialism. This article, however, argues that while these internet giants dominate some of the most popular internet services, the ownership and control of core elements of the internet infrastructure—submarine cables, internet exchange points, autonomous system numbers, datacenters, and so on—are tilting increasingly toward the EU and BRICS (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries and the rest of the world, complicating views of hegemonic US control of the internet and what Susan Strange calls the knowledge structure.

    This article takes a different tack. It argues that while US-based internet giants do dominate some of the middle and top layers of the internet—for example, operating systems (iOS, Windows, Android), search engines (Google), social networks (Facebook), online retailing (Amazon), over-the-top TV (Netflix), browsers (Google Chrome, Apple Safari, Microsoft Explorer), and domain names (ICANN)—they do not rule the hardware, or material infrastructure, upon which the internet and daily life, business, governments, society, and war increasingly depend. In fact, as the article shows, ownership and control of many core elements of the global internet infrastructure—for example, fiber optic submarine cables, content delivery networks (CDNs), autonomous system numbers (ASN), and internet exchange points (IXPs)—are tilting toward the rest of the world, especially Europe and the BRICS (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). This reflects the fact that the United States’ standing in the world is slipping while an ever more multipolar world is arising.

    International internet backbone providers, internet content companies, and CDNs interconnect with local ISPs and at one or more of the nearly 2000 IXPs around the world. The largest IXPs are in New York, London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Seattle, Chicago, Moscow, Sao Paulo, Tokyo, and Hong Kong. They are core elements of the internet that switch traffic between all the various networks that comprise the internet system, and help to establish accessible, affordable, fast, and secure internet service.

    In developed markets, internet companies such as Google, Baidu, Facebook, Netflix, Youku, and Yandex use IXPs to interconnect with local ISPs such as Deutsche Telecoms in Germany, BT or Virgin Media in Britain, or Comcast in the United States to gain last-mile access to their customers—and vice versa, back up the chain. Indeed, 99 percent of internet traffic handled by peering arrangements among such parties occurs without any money changing hands or a formal contract.50 Where IXPs do not exist or are rare, as in Africa, or run poorly, as in India, the cost of bandwidth is far more expensive. This is a key factor that helps to explain why internet service is so expensive in areas of the world that can least afford it. It is also why the OECD and EU encourage developing countries to make IXPs a cornerstone of economic development and telecoms policy work.

    The network of networks that make up the internet constitute a sprawling, general purpose platform upon which financial markets, business, and trade, as well as diplomacy, spying, national security, and war depend. The world’s largest electronic payments system operator, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications’ (SWIFT) secure messaging network carries over 25 million messages a day involving payments that are believed to be worth over $7 trillion USD.59 Likewise, the world’s biggest foreign currency settlement system, the CLS Bank, executes upward of a million trades a day worth between $1.5 and $2.5 trillion over the global cable systems—although that is down by half from its high point in 2008.60 As Stephen Malphrus, former chief of staff to the US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, observed, when “communications networks go down, the financial services sector does not grind to a halt, rather it snaps to a halt.”61

    Governments and militaries also account for a significant portion of internet traffic. Indeed, 90 to 95 percent of US government traffic, including sensitive diplomatic and military orders, travels over privately owned cables to reach officials in the field.62 “A major portion of DoD data traveling on undersea cables is unmanned aerial vehicle video,” notes a study done for the Department of Homeland Security by MIT scholar Michael Sechrist.63 Indeed, the Department of Defense’s entire Global Information Grid shares space in these cables with the general public internet.64

    The 3.6 billion people as of early 2016 who use the internet to communicate, share music, ideas and knowledge, browse, upload videos, tweet, blog, organize social events and political protests, watch pornography, read sacred texts, and sell stuff are having the greatest influence on the current phase of internet infrastructure development. Video currently makes up an estimated two-thirds of all internet traffic, and is expected to grow to 80 percent in the next five years,69 with US firms leading the way. Netflix single-handedly accounts for a third of all internet traffic. YouTube is the second largest source of internet traffic on fixed and mobile networks alike the world over. Altogether, the big five internet giants account for roughly half of all “prime-time” internet traffic, a phrasing that deliberately reflects the fact that internet usage swells and peaks at the same time as the classic prime-time television period, that is, 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.

    Importance des investissements des compagnies de l’internet dans les projets de câbles.

    Several things stand out from this analysis. First, in less than a decade, Google has carved out a very large place for itself through its ownership role in four of the six projects (the SJC, Faster, Unity, and Pacific Cable Light initiatives), while Facebook has stakes in two of them (APG and PLCN) and Microsoft in the PLCN project. This is a relatively new trend and one that should be watched in the years ahead.

    A preliminary view based on the publicly available information is that the US internet companies are important but subordinate players in consortia dominated by state-owned national carriers and a few relatively new competitors. Keen to wrest control of core elements of the internet infrastructure that they perceive to have been excessively dominated by United States interests in the past, Asian governments and private investors have joined forces to change things in their favor. In terms of the geopolitical economy of the internet, there is both a shift toward the Asia-Pacific region and an increased role for national governments.

    Return of the State as Regulator of Concentrated Markets

    In addition to the expanded role of the state as market builder, regulator, and information infrastructure policy maker, many regulators have also rediscovered the reality of significant market concentration in the telecom-internet and media industries. Indeed, the US government has rejected several high-profile telecoms mergers in recent years, such as AT&T’s proposal to take over T-Mobile in 2011, T-Mobile’s bid for Sprint in 2014, and Comcast’s attempt to acquire Time Warner Cable last year. Even the approval of Comcast’s blockbuster takeover of NBC Universal in 2011, and Charter Communications acquisition of Time Warner Cable last year, respectively, came with important strings attached and ongoing conduct regulation designed to constrain the companies’ ability to abuse their dominant market power.87 The FCC’s landmark 2016 ruling to reclassify broadband internet access as a common carrier further indicated that US regulators have been alert to the realities of market concentration and telecoms-internet access providers’ capacity to abuse that power, and the need to maintain a vigilant eye to ensure that their practices do not swamp people’s rights to freely express themselves, maintain control over the collection, retention, use, and disclosure of their personal information, and to access a diverse range of services over the internet.88 The 28 members of the European Union, along with Norway, India, and Chile, have adopted similar “common carriage/network neutrality/open network”89 rules to offset the reality that concentration in core elements of these industries is “astonishingly high”90 on the basis of commonly used indicators (e.g., concentration ratios and the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index).

    These developments indicate a new phase in internet governance and control. In the first phase, circa the 1990s, technical experts and organizations such as the Internet Engineers Task Force played a large role, while the state sat relatively passively on the sidelines. In the second phase, circa the early to mid-2000s, commercial forces surged to the fore, while internet governance revolved around the ICANN and the multi-stakeholder model. Finally, the revelations of mass internet surveillance by many states and ongoing disputes over the multi-stakeholder, “internet freedom” agenda on the one side, versus the national sovereignty, multilateral model where the ITU and UN system would play a larger role in internet governance all indicate that significant moves are afoot where the relationship between states and markets is now in a heightened state of flux.

    Such claims, however, are overdrawn. They rely too heavily on the same old “realist,” “struggle for control” model where conflict between nation-states has loomed large and business interests and communication technologies served mainly as “weapons of politics” and the handmaidens of national interests from the telegraph in the nineteenth century to the internet today. Yet, nation-states and private business interests, then and now, not only compete with one another but also cooperate extensively to cultivate a common global space of economic accumulation. Communication technologies and business interests, moreover, often act independent of the nation-state and via “private structures of cooperation,” that is, cartels and consortia, as the history and contemporary state of the undersea cable networks illustrate. In fact, the internet infrastructure of the twenty-first century, much like that of the industrial information infrastructure of the past 150 years, is still primarily financed, owned, and operated by many multinational consortia, although more than a few submarine communications cables are now owned by a relatively new roster of competitive players, such as Tata, Level 3, Global Cloud Xchange, and so forth. They have arisen mostly in the last 20 years and from new quarters, such as India in the case of Tata, for example.

    #Economie_numérique #Géopolitique #Câbles_sous_marins

  • Trump signs ’no privacy for non-Americans’ order – what does that mean for rest of us ?
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/26/trump_blows_up_transatlantic_privacy_shield

    Europe’s Privacy Shield shaken by US prez US President Donald Trump may have undermined a critical data sharing agreement between the United States and Europe that internet giants rely on to do business overseas. In an executive order focused on illegal immigrants that was signed by the president this week, one section specifically noted that privacy protections would not be extended past US citizens or permanent residents in (...)

    #Privacy_Shield #données

  • Publicis Just Inked a Huge Data Deal With Mobile Powerhouse Tencent, Owner of WeChat | Adweek
    http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/publicis-just-inked-huge-data-deal-mobile-powerhouse-tencent-owner-wechat-17
    C’est la convergence des informations sur des millions d’hommes et de femmes entre les mains d’une entreprise de filtrage de communication individuelle avec le savoir de manipulation d’un publicitaire, le tout sous supervison par les états d’Eurasia et d’Estasia. Le cauchemar d’Orwell devient réalité.

    Conclusion :

    By comparison, big-data-based marketing appears to be more central to the Publicis deal.

    Per a press release from Tencent, “Through its connected strategy, Tencent will offer Publicis Groupe access to its vast and rich online behavioral data, benefiting clients through improved programmatic offerings, cross-screen planning capabilities and conversion performance.”

    L’alliance straégique

    Adweek reported earlier this week that Tencent was about ready to open up the data spigot with ad agencies. Today, the Chinese mobile-marketing powerhouse made a big move on that front, inking a global deal with Publicis Groupe.

    Tencent owns the hugely popular messaging app WeChat (760 million monthly users) and digital platform QQ (860 million users). Roughly 75 to 80 percent of Tencent platforms’ usage is via mobile devices.

    Désormais « la France » va avoir droit à sa part du gateau chinois.

    Publicis appears to become the first holding company to gain seemingly considerable access to that treasure trove of potential marketing intelligence, and its Publicis Media, Publicis Communications and Publicis. Sapient divisions will all be involved.

    At the same time, Friday was the second consecutive day that Tencent revealed an agreement with a holding company. The internet giant and WPP yesterday said they would create a China Social Marketing Lab, which “will leverage Tencent’s strengths in the local online space and WPP’s global marketing expertise.”

    Il est connu que la Chine a du mal à produire des cerveaux assez flexibles pour tirer le maximum de profit de ses ressources. Les cerveaux européens constituent alors une monnaie d’échange contre le droit d’accès au marché chinois pour Publicis.

    The Shenzhen, China-based company and Publicis will also collaborate on a startup incubation facility called Drugstore, which will focus on data, ad tech, virtual reality and augmented reality. Additionally, the two companies will co-create digital content designed to serve key clients. The two-party agreement was unveiled at Viva Technology Paris.

    C’est la fin de l’année scolaire et on espère récolter un maximum de matière grise jeune à la sortie des écoles.

    Viva Technology Paris
    http://www.vivatechnologyparis.com
    Les lemmings accourent.

    Vivez le meilleur de la tech mondiale / Plus de 250 innovations
    à découvrir en avant-première / Une journée d’animations / Ateliers d’Art Numérique / Ateliers Coding / Atelier Immersion dans une oeuvre de maître / Merci Alfred : « Les Rois du Storytelling » / Pitchs Startups avec Webhelp / Job-Dating / Rencontrez 5000 startups & grandes entreprises

    Envie de rejoindre une startup ou un grand groupe ? Découvrez les métiers de demain et boostez votre carrière avec les sessions de job-dating et mentoring de Talent Connect, le job board développé exclusivement par ManpowerGroup pour VivaTechnology Paris

    #économie #technologie #politique #startups

  • Google under scrutiny over lobbying influence on Congress and White House
    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/18/google-political-donations-congress

    Concerns grow after disclosure Google enlisted US politicians to pressure EU brought attention to tech giant’s close relationship with Washington politicians Google has made political donations to 162 members of the US Congress in the latest election cycle, figures show, as concerns grow over the internet giant’s lobbying influence in Washington. On Thursday the Guardian revealed that Google enlisted American politicians whose election campaigns it had funded to pressure the European Union (...) #Google #lobbying

  • Russian data law fuels web surveillance fears | World news | The Guardian
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/01/russia-internet-privacy-laws-control-web

    A new law has been implemented in Russia that in theory demands companies store data about Russian citizens on Russian territory, throwing thousands of firms with online operations into a legal grey area.

    The law, which came into operation on Tuesday, is part of an attempt to wrest control of the internet, which president Vladimir Putin has called a “CIA project”. The Russian authorities are keen to ensure greater access for domestic security services to online data, and lessen the potential for foreign states, especially the US, to have the same access.

    The law has created disquiet among internet giants such as Facebook, Twitter and Google, which would have to move data on Russian users to servers inside Russia and notify the Russian internet watchdog, Roskomnadzor, about their location.

    As is often the case with Russian legislation, the exact scope of the law is unclear. It could be left largely unimplemented, but always available as a tool to use when required.
    […]
    Transnational internet giants are not the main object of attention for this law. It’s more about the banking sphere, air travel, hotels, mobile operators, e-commerce. This is what is important,” Roskomnadzor’s spokesman, Vadim Ampelonsky, told Kommersant-FM radio. However, while insisting there were no plans to bring Facebook and other major companies to book in the short-term, he implicitly left open the possibility it could happen later.

    We are not saying that if they don’t move their data to Russia, we’ll close them down, and in 2015 we definitely won’t say that. The plan for checks for 2015 has already been drawn up, and Facebook, Twitter and Google are not part of it,” he said.

    The law is not meant to be taken literally,” said Andrei Soldatov, an investigative journalist and co-author of The Red Web, an upcoming book about the internet in Russia. “The idea is to have a pretext to force these big global companies to talk to the Kremlin. It could also force them to open offices here, which would make them more amenable to pressure from authorities.

  • la blague du #DNT continue…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/27/opinion/the-slow-death-of-do-not-track.html
    The Slow Death of ‘Do Not Track’ - NYTimes

    an industry working group is expected to propose detailed rules governing how the privacy switch should work. The group includes experts but is dominated by Internet giants like Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google and Yahoo. It is poised to recommend a carve-out that would effectively free them from honoring “Do Not Track” requests.

    If regulators go along, the rules would allow the largest Internet giants to continue scooping up data about users on their own sites and on other sites that include their plug-ins, such as Facebook’s “Like” button or an embedded YouTube video. This giant loophole would make “Do Not Track” meaningless.

    The outcome could be worse than doing nothing at all.

    #publicité

  • Google admits that advertisers wasted their money on more than half of internet ads
    http://qz.com/307204/google-admits-that-advertisers-wasted-their-money-on-more-than-half-of-internet-

    Online advertising is a fickle thing. It accounts for 20% of the ad industry’s total spending, and over 90% of revenue for the internet giants #Google and #Facebook. That said, no one seems to have any idea whether it actually works.

    That uncertainty reached a new high this week, as Google announced that 56.1% of ads served on the internet are never even “in view”—defined as being on screen for one second or more. That’s a huge number of “impressions” that cost money for advertisers, but are as pointless as a television playing to an empty room.

    #publicité