sorry folks: u forgot tha say 'please'
voltaremos quando vos for mais inconveniente

old money, same assholes

Na continuação do último post: onde os ISPs tentam forçar a sua relevância.

Esta última semana atiraram-se de boleia ao calcanhar de Aquiles dos gigantes da web: o seu $$$. O caso faz-se pelo Google, mas sendo o advertising o sustento do FB e iguais, equiparem o exemplo que se segue e desenrola. Todos os brutus a Caesar de uma vez: media, ISPs, governos.

Media-buying firms are increasingly resentful of the power wielded by Google and Facebook Inc., claiming the two companies operate a global duopoly over online advertising. The controversy about ads appearing in inappropriate contexts may give these media buyers leverage in negotiations with the social media giants.
in " Google to Revamp Ad Policies After U.K., Big Brands Boycott" 17 mar 2017

E teremos de esperar para ver como a estória segue nos próximos tempos. Para muitos outros headlines no tópico e quanto lhes dói:

...e na parte que toca aos com-comps:

AT&T, Verizon and several other are suspending their marketing campaigns on Google's YouTube

By extending its ban to everything beyond Google's search results, AT&T is also effectively pulling its ads from more than two million other websites that depend on Google to deliver ads to their pages. In its statement, Verizon said it decided to pull ads from YouTube to protect its website while it investigates the "weak links" among its digital advertising partners.

Both AT&T and Verizon may have an ulterior motive to make YouTube look like an untrustworthy spot for marketers because both companies are trying to sell more digital ads in their own networks.
in "Google's YouTube losing major advertisers upset with videos" 22 mar 2017

Como em todas as guerras os civis são as principais vitimas: o resultado desta escaramuça será inevitavelmente um maior controlo sobre o utilizador final disfarçado de contingências necessárias. Adivinha-se o rationale, big brothers encavalitam-se para também eles marcarem terreno sobre um adversário que têm dificuldades em domar. Decalcado de exemplos testados em décadas passadas: um Estado a usar o seu $$$ para determinar a linha editorial de uma empresa, com a "vantagem" adicional de, em digital, agregar mais alguns dados sobre todos e mais alguns.

The UK's Cabinet Office now has a temporary restriction on YouTube advertising until it's reassured that those messages can be "delivered in a safe and appropriate way."

A spokesperson for the UK Cabinet office told Ars in an email that Google senior executives met with government officials today. Google was told that new guidelines need to be made to ensure "every penny of public money" used for advertising is used properly. "It is totally unacceptable that taxpayer-funded advertising has appeared next to inappropriate internet content–and that message was conveyed very clearly to Google," a UK government spokesperson wrote. "The Cabinet Office has told Google it expects to see a plan and a timetable for work to improve protection of government adverts to ensure this doesn't happen again." Google is already conducting a "thorough review of its ads policies and brand controls" and will make changes soon to allow companies more control over where their ads go.
in "UK government suspends YouTube ads after some appear on extremist videos" 17 mar 2017

E, no processo, por design, estas empresas reforçam o poder de determinar o que se diz e faz, como se diz e faz.

what content is allowed to thrive (make money) under the new ad guidelines and what content will be deemed unfavorable[?]
YouTube team will be closely monitoring the content that actually makes it to YouTube while reconsidering "community guidelines to determine what content is allowed on the platform—not just what content can be monetized."

The most interesting of these tools is a new default that excludes "potentially objectionable" content that advertisers may not want to be associated with. That means there will be content that advertisers won't even have the option to put their ads over by default.

For YouTube creators the more controversial creators may have to change their content depending on how YouTube changes its community guidelines in the future. Until these new tools and rules are in effect, we won't know how this move will affect YouTube creators specifically, but in general, we will likely start to hear about videos being demonetized more often than ever before. YouTube is not known for being very open about changes with its creators: since last year, many top creators expressed frustrations about old videos being demonetized for seemingly no reason, an apparent change in the YouTube algorithm, and glitches that caused mysterious and impactful drops in subscriber counts.
in "Amid boycott, Google changes ad policy to give advertisers more control" 21 mar 2017

Se, ie, dependeres deles. Queiras ou não, mais de meio mundo depende já.

Mas enquanto essa novela se desenrola, os ISPs conseguem esta semana uma vitória noutra frente. Onde, como em todas as ocasiões que os poderosos reforçam o seu o poder, os demais perdem. E quem está a mais nesta equação? Quem mais... Novamente, States related. Novamente, o que lá se passa depressa se estende a todos.

The Senate voted Thursday to make it easier for internet service providers to share sensitive information about their customers, a first step in overturning landmark privacy rules that consumer advocates view as crucial protections in the digital age - a crucial tool for transparency and a way to give consumers some control over their digital footprint.
in "Senate Republicans Vote To Gut Internet Privacy" 23 mar 2017

A lei a revogar:

The privacy rules prohibited internet providers like Comcast and Verizon from selling customer information, browsing history and location data, without first getting consent. The rules also compelled providers to tell customers about the data they collect, the purpose of that data collection, and to identify the types of third party companies that might be given access to that information.

But the telecom industry and Republicans in Congress fiercely opposed the new regulations. Critics argued that these rules unfairly target internet providers, restricting their ability to turn personal information into targeted advertising and other tailored services, even as giant web companies like Google and Facebook are free to collect and sell our information without those limitations.
in "Senate Republicans Vote To Gut Internet Privacy" 23 mar 2017

A nova lei proposta:

Your ISP is in a privileged position, where they can see everything
The legislation is the "antithesis" of putting consumers first, creates a massive gap in consumer protection law as broadband and cable companies now have no discernible privacy requirements.

Proponents of the privacy rules have argued that regulations on ISPs are necessary because broadband providers can monitor all of our unencrypted internet traffic, unlike online advertising companies whose tracking of customers can be blocked using free browser tools.
"We are one step closer to a world where ISPs can snoop on our traffic, sell our private information to the highest bidder, and pre-install spyware on our mobile phones"
in "Senate Republicans Vote To Gut Internet Privacy" 23 mar 2017

O de sempre entre vencedores e vencidos, se alguma vez leste um livro de História e tens esta estranha impressão que os governos governam-se.

"It is extremely disappointing that the Senate voted today to sacrifice the privacy rights of Americans in the interest of protecting the profits of major internet companies, including Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon," she said.
in "Senate Republicans Vote To Gut Internet Privacy" 23 mar 2017

Murder, she said: afinal, a concorrência entre monopólios parece apenas espremer ainda mais os seus clientes. Go figure.

new money, lotta-holes

Labels : ,