Posted by Greg Sandoval

Protests break out in some nation around the globe and one of the first things a media-shy government does–just after sending in riot police–is pull the plug on YouTube.

The latest example is China’s handling of protests in Tibet. The Chinese government has blocked access to YouTube in that country after scores of clips showing violence between police and protesters were posted to the site, according to hundreds of reports found on Google News.

Scores of other media outlets have been blocked or partially blacked out in China, including broadcasts of CNN, the BBC World, and Google News. But it’s YouTube that gets all the ink.

In an example of YouTube’s influence, blocking access to the video-sharing site is now a sort of scarlet letter for governments. The site, which allows individuals to communicate with mass audiences, has become a symbol of free speech to many, and governments that forbid it are immediately branded around the world as repressive.

This kind of image can’t be welcomed by China as it prepares to host this summer’s Olympic Games in Beijing.

In its report on China’s YouTube ban, The New York Times asks whether the Internet and its ability to enable individuals to communicate with large audiences can stand up to a “ruthless government.”

The Web publication for British newspaper The Times wrote Monday: “YouTube has been blocked in the past, and the so-called Great Firewall of China prevents discussion of and searches for many sensitive topics, such as the Tiananmen Square protests.”

The ban was reported in newspapers in a host of other countries including Russia, Turkey, Canada, and Ireland.

China is obviously no fan of user-generated content. In January, the Chinese government tried to impose a rule whereby only state-run companies could post videos to the Web. The measure was quickly altered after people began raising questions about freedom of speech.

The country’s authorities routinely block sites such as Wikipedia, the BBC, and even live TV transmissions to hinder publication of stories on the Dalai Lama, Falun Gong, or even stories critical of leaders or governments that China is trying to build better relationships with. Last May, while reporter Michael Kanellos watched a CNN story on Myannmar from a hotel in Beijing, the screen went blank. CNN only returned when a the news station was broadcasting a different story.

The Great Firewall of China isn’t perfect, and it will alternate between blocking particular sites and allowing particular sites, but it does make it more difficult for Chinese citizens to get full information or news stories, according to some analysts.

The Firewall also seems to allow Westerners to view objectionable material in China, while blocking it for Chinese readers. Conceivably, this could be a technique to blunt criticism from the West.

On an Internet connection from a room in a Western-owned hotel, censorship was fairly light, Kanellos reported. Hundreds of images of the Tiananmen Massacre of 1989 popped up on Google Images, particularly images of “Tank Man.” News stories, or at least headlines, on controversial subjects came up as well. In an Internet cafe, far fewer images of “Tank Man” appeared, but they could still be found. A few videos of the riots also were available on second-tier video sites like Veoh Networks.

But those results came when the search is conducted in English. Searching for Tiananmen Square on Google’s Chinese Image site with Chinese characters revealed no pictures of the riots in 14 pages of images. The only one–on 14 pages of results–that relates to the 1989 riots was a picture of the Goddess of Liberty. On Baidu, the more popular Chinese Web search site, not even that came up.

In the latest controversy, the Chinese government may have been spooked by what happened in Myanmar last year. Clips of troops clashing with protesters were widely videotaped and posted to YouTube before the site was blacked out in Myanmar. By then it was too late. World condemnation of the crackdown was only spurred on by the YouTube ban.

Perhaps the poster child for bans gone wrong is Pakistan. The government there was angered over videos it found disrespectful to Islam and demanded YouTube be blocked. An ISP in Pakistan goofed and erroneously shut down access to YouTube around the world. The government lifted the ban soon after.

The other important issue in all this is how Google will respond to China’s ban. A representative said that the company is “looking into the matter,” and trying to “ensure that the service is restored as soon as possible.”

But what happens if China wants Google to begin self censoring videos or wants to know the names of the people who posted the clips of the Tibet violence?

Yahoo can be used as a model of what can go wrong when negotiating with the Chinese government. The portal handed over information about a journalist who was later sentenced to an eight-year prison sentence for posting comments critical of the government online. Yahoo’s action has been widely condemned ever since.

Read Full Article

For more info please visit us at: SEO services & Software Outsourcing Company

by Jim Dalrymple

When Apple introduced the iPhone, CEO Steve Jobs claimed the ability to surf the “real Internet” as one of its strongest features. However, one technology missing from the iPhone since day one is Flash. Although many users want Flash support, analysts don’t see the missing feature as harming Apple’s position.

“There is no question the iPhone delivers a compelling Web experience and there are good reasons to want Flash in there, but Flash Lite [Adobe’s scaled-down version for mobile devices] wouldn’t give you the Web experience you’re looking for,” said Avi Greengart, Research Director for market research firm Current Analysis.

Apparently Jobs agrees. During the annual shareholders meeting earlier this month he said the iPhone “needs something much better than the current Flash player that Adobe makes for cellphones. The Flash Player option that fits the bill is made for devices like laptops that are larger than the iPhone; as a consequence, it performs too slowly on the iPhone.”

In fact, Greengart points out that Flash Lite will work with some Web sites that use basic Flash, but it won’t work with YouTube or any other site that extensively uses the technology. Flash Lite will not load content that is made with the most recent incarnation of Flash, version 9, either.

Companies such as Vodafone and Nokia have used Flash Lite to build interfaces for their handsets, which the technology is well suited for.

However, not everyone agrees with Apple’s position of eschewing the technology altogether. Microsoft, just this morning, announced that it would support Flash Lite in addition to its Silverlight multimedia framework in its Windows Mobile operating system.

Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, Sony Ericsson, and LG are all shipping Flash-enabled devices, but it doesn’t appear Apple will join them anytime soon. But Adobe isn’t giving up — the company is looking to the recently released Software Development Kit (SDK) as a way of delivering the technology.

“We’d love to see Flash come to the iPhone,” said Anup Murarka, director of technical marketing for mobile and devices at Adobe. “Hopefully when we have the opportunity to review the SDK, and if it’s a vehicle to deliver a solution, we would look forward to working with Apple.”

In the meantime, Apple isn’t likely to be losing any customers because it doesn’t have Flash Lite implemented on the iPhone. According to Greengart, most consumers look at the touchscreen and don’t dig down into included technologies.

However, as long as Apple continues to bill the iPhone as having the “real Internet” people are likely to complain about the lack of Flash support.

Read Full Article

For more info please visit us at: SEO services & Software Outsourcing Company

By Marisa Peacock

What is more relevant — the words “Web 2.0” or the Web technologies that are considered a part of Web 2.0? Most people who don’t work in the IT/Web industries couldn’t tell you the difference between a wiki and blog, yet these and other tools help them manage their content or conduct their online searches with great ease.

So does it matter that the general public doesn’t know meaning behind the buzz words?

While it’s always important for users to use the technology provided to them, I argue that it’s more important for them to understand the significance of the technology.

Often clients ask me to incorporate a blog into their site. After inquiring about how often they intend to update the content, for whom the content is meant, and who’ll be supplying it, it sometimes becomes clear that a blog isn’t the right the tool after all.

Perhaps they’d be better off building a news module into their CMS or uploading documents into a gallery. Whatever the option, it’s apparent that clients throw buzz words around without understanding what it all means. They seem to think it’s our job alone to figure out what’s best for them. Though that’s what we’re hired for, it’s also helpful if the client can articulate their needs and wants, beyond the usual “make it look pretty” or “do what our competitor does”.

Recently, Web 2.0 has been scrutinized. Has it let users become too intrusive? Has it compromised the quality and accuracy of content? Is it nothing more than marketing hype?

Or does it represent a substantial change in the way users and businesses approach Web technology? ComputerWorld seems to think that at the very least, it has “created an ongoing need for particular types of skills”.

And yet, the greater need seems to be for the masses to see beyond the words that get tossed around, like government acronyms. After awhile, everything sounds the same and the wrong words get used and misunderstandings arise.

As designers, information architects, IT professionals and beyond, we have an obligation not only to keep our skills up to speed with the latest and greatest Web technologies, we have a duty to inform our clients about the technologies being implemented, so that our geekspeak doesn’t become just marketing hype and buzz words specific to our industry.

Read Full Article

For more info please visit us at: SEO services & Software Outsourcing Company

Web 2.0 can be summarised as interaction, while web 3.0 is about recommendation and personalisation. But how will the onset of a more personalised web impact business? David Bain reviews web 3.0 as a marketing medium.

(live-PR.com) - According to Jemima Kiss, while web 2.0 can be summarised as interaction, web 3.0 is about recommendation and personalisation. But how will the onset of a more personalised web impact business?

David Bain, founder of Internet marketing strategy specialists Purple Internet Marketing thinks he knows the answer.

“Services like Google Gadgets and Facebook Applications are already allowing users to enjoy a highly personalised web experience. There are already nearly 40,000 Google Gadgets and 15,000 Facebook Applications.

“What these tools allow people to do is add additional functionality and relevance to their personalised Google home page or Facebook profile.

“Whatever your preferences, you’re bound to find at least one widget that improves the quality of your online experience.”

This is where business can take advantage of web 3.0. By offering their own Google Gadget or Facebook Application, businesses can target potential consumers long before any purchase decision has been made. This is what Bain refers to as MyPage Marketing.

“MyPage Marketing occurs when users decide to place a widget on their personalised web page which benefits them – but also exposes them to subtle advertising from the widget developer.

Read Full Article

For more info please visit us at: SEO services & Software Outsourcing Company