Session Blog Reviews

Posts Tagged ‘people’

The online world is interesting for all of us when it comes to defining who we are. While it’s easy to call yourself a blogger what does that actually mean from a legal standpoint? How is a blogger truly defined when it comes to the legal side of the coin? A case in New Jersey has brought attention to the rights and protections provided to someone but whether it is about a blogger is something that seems to be up for debate. MediaPost’s report is titled “Jersey Court Rules Blogger Not Protected By Shield Law, Must Divulge Source ”. A pretty astounding headline but after reading the report I am not convinced this ruling is about bloggers at all. An appellate court in New Jersey has ruled that a woman who slammed the software company Too Much Media on a message board isn’t a “journalist” for purposes of the state’s shield law. The controversial ruling means that the post’s author, life coach Shellee Hale of Washington state, can be ordered to divulge her sources for her online remarks about Too Much Media, which is suing Hale for defamation. New Jersey’s reporter shield law broadly allows journalists to protect the identity of their confidential sources. But the appellate court ruled that not all writers are entitled to claim the benefits of that law “lest anyone with a webpage or who posts materials on the Internet would qualify.” Now, this whole case is around a message board “post” on a site called Oprano which calls itself the “Wall Street Journal for the online adult entertainment industry”. Oh yea, the plot thickens, doesn’t it? The credibility of all involved is starting to really come to light. Nevertheless, how any court defines a journalist can be important to any online “reporter” or “blogger” because if brought to the courts legal precedence will often help determine which way a case will go. So the NJ court has basically decided that this message board rant that eventually created a charge of defamation (that’s rich considering the industry, huh?) suit is not protected under the state’s Shield Law. These laws are designed to allow reporters etc to protect sources. The ruling was upheld in an appellate court as well. The bottom line is this A trial judge rejected Hale’s argument and an appellate court upheld that ruling this week. The appellate court said that Hale’s posts to the message board were more akin to a letter to the editor than a work of journalism. “Although any attempt at defining ‘news’ would ultimately prove illusory, some delimiting standards must pertain lest anyone with a webpage or who posts materials on the Internet would qualify,” the court stated. The judges then went on to outline specific reasons why Hale didn’t qualify as a journalist: “Defendant has produced no credentials or proof of affiliation with any recognized news entity, nor has she demonstrated adherence to any standard of professional responsibility regulating institutional journalism, such as editing, fact-checking or disclosure of conflicts of interest.” Too Much Media’s lawyer, Joel Kreizman, says that the court correctly decided that Hale wasn’t acting as a journalist when she made the posts. “A journalist would issue a report,” he says. “These posts were on a message board as opposed to any kind of blog.” Well, now the blogging world may want to be concerned if there is a need for credentials and standards to have some protection under the law. Those aren’t exactly commonplace in the world of blogging. If they are please update me. Hale’s lawyers, of course, don’t think this ended the way it should But Hale’s lawyer, Jeffrey Pollock, criticized the decision. He says that New Jersey doesn’t require that journalists have credentials or work for established news outlets to qualify for the shield law. Instead, he says, the only criteria is whether people gathered information for the purpose of publication. “If she doesn’t qualify, who the hell does?” he asks. “How do you decide who’s in and who’s out?” Interesting question really. As a blogger, how covered or how exposed you are in any legal case will be more a subjective matter than objective depending plenty of variables. Where you live, where a case is filed and more. As a result, what do you think are the protections afforded someone who has a blog rather than just posts to a forum? Should there be journalistic “rights” for bloggers? If so, how far should they go? Any thoughts?

More here:
NJ Court Says Determines Whether Woman Is A Journalist or Not

Last week we brought to your attention the fact that Facebook was starting to spend some time in Washington, DC talking to folks in the intelligence community as well as the FTC . Well, now after US Senator Charles “Chuck” Schumer’s action we can understand why Facebook would like to develop some friendships in high places. The local ABC New York City affiliate ran this piece on the senator’s request . It’s interesting to see how the people who pay attention to local news are being “informed” about the online world especially when it comes to something they can get paranoid about like privacy. Schumer and most politicians want to play on the public’s fears so they can look like they are busy. What better place to make the public squirm than the idea that their private information is being spread across the Internet with no concern for wants and desires for that data. While it may not even be completely true it sure makes for good TV. As with most actions of this type it is likely that the senator’s staff brought this to his attention and told him that it was a “hot” topic and he should get some press. While he is there for the “good of the people” he is there for publicity so those people will keep him in office. In other words, I wonder just how concerned this senator truly is or is he just trying to get out in front of this and give the appearance of being on top of the “latest and greatest’ concerns of his constituency. Don’t you love how the system works? Anyway, Facebook obviously feels that if a US senator is going to call a press conference to announce his request for the FTC to examine Facebook’s privacy policies then they should have a say of their own. Here is Facebook’s response to the ABC report. “We were surprised by Senator Schumer’s comments and look forward to sitting down with him and his staff to clarify. Facebook’s highest priority is to keep and build the trust of the more than 400 million people who visit our service every month. To do so, we’ve developed the most powerful tools of any major Internet company to give people control over what information they want to share, when they want to share it and with whom. Last week, we announced several new products and features designed to enhance personalization and promote social activity across the Web. None of these changes removed or reduced people’s control over their information and several offered even greater controls. For example, we announced a new tool to give users much greater ability to restrict the information they share with applications and third party websites. We introduced new ways for websites to let Facebook offer personalization without the need for any user information to be shared with the site itself. We also announced a small pilot program with three well-known and respected partners – Microsoft, Pandora and Yelp – to provide additional personalization on their sites, based on information that is already publicly available. These partners were carefully chosen, reviewed, and are contractually required to respect users’ privacy preferences. Additionally, they are required to provide an easy and prominent method for users to opt out directly from their website and delete user data if users choose do opt out. Facebook and its partner sites have also added new and easy controls to help users manage their experiences when they visit these sites. We think these programs will make surfing the web a smoother and more engaging experience for people who use Facebook while honoring the trust we’ve been given.” Facebook wants to be the first to truly tie the social web together in a more cohesive fashion but it appears that this goal will not reached without clearing a few hurdles that are likely to be set Washington. What’s your take on Washington’s interest in Facebook?

Read more:
US Senator Wants FTC to Look Into Facebook Privacy Practices

Do you have 10 minutes to spare? Would you like to help the SEO industry understand exactly where we’re at in 2010? Oh, and would you like to win an iPad and other cool prizes? You would, huh? Then read on Pilgrim! SEOmoz is once again taking on the task of surveying the SEO industry and they need your help. All you need do is complete the very simple, 10-minute, online survey and you’ll do your part to help us all! In particular, the survey will address: Who are the people in the SEO community? How do they learn about SEO and sharpen their skills? How are companies embracing search marketing? Which tools and tactics do people in the industry use to support their SEO and social media efforts? Your country industry needs you! Take the survey today . PS. Yes, the results will be made public once the survey closes.

See the original post:
Take the SEOmoz 2010 SEO Industry Survey

The online space is split up into two pretty distinct groups and the sizes of these two groups are far from equal. On the one side are the people who use Google every day and for many reasons. Many times these people can get upset because their reliance on Google can cause a major hiccup ( go see what Chris Brogan has to say today about this ) For the most part, they have come to depend on Google to help run many aspects of their business and personal lives and are happier for it. I fall into that category for sure. The other side is the smaller group in size but has some major clout. They are consumer advocacy groups and their major supporters: Google competitors and those who have perceived they are being scorned by the search giant. This group held a press conference yesterday which highlighted the call by the group Consumer Watchdog for the Department of Justice to takes seriously the cries of antitrust activities by Google. Computerworld reports Consumer Watchdog, along with a mobile entrepreneur and two lawyers representing Google rivals, all called on the DOJ to initiate an antitrust investigation focusing on a number of issues, including Google’s marriage of search results to advertising and its book search service. “The time has clearly come for Justice to launch a major, broad antitrust investigation against Google, and we think all remedies should be on the table, including, we think, the possible breakup of the Internet giant,” said John Simpson, a consumer advocate with Consumer Watchdog. The 25-year-old organization focuses on a number of consumer issues, including health care, insurance and energy, but the group’s move into tech issues in recent years has largely focused on criticisms of Google. Consumer Watchdog sent a letter to the DOJ Wednesday asking that the agency investigate Google for antitrust violations. “For most Americans — indeed, for most people in the world — Google is the gateway to the Internet,” the letter said. “How it tweaks its proprietary search algorithms can ensure a business’ success or doom it to failure.” Now, will a claim like this have any real legs? Since I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV AND I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night I can confidently say that I don’t know. I can say this though. This kind of “chatter” in the marketplace keeps it in the backs of peoples’ minds and starts to cast a different light on the target which in this case is Google. Just ask Microsoft how it feels to be painted as the company that blocked competition and free trade. That label taints everything they do and it likely limits their efforts into other areas like search. How? Mainly because the ABM (Anyone But Microsoft) sentiment is powerful. Of course, the main edge that Google has over someone like a Microsoft is that people are mostly happy with their products and services. Microsoft? Well, not so much. So how does Google see these calls to action by advocacy groups and smaller rivals (in this case myTriggers.com and TradeComet.com)? With the usual Google panache by saying Adam Kovacevich, senior manager for global communications and public affairs at Google, discounted the criticisms, saying Consumer Watchdog has been “relentlessly negative” about Google. The group recently questioned the reasons why Google stopped censoring search results in China and criticized Google’s privacy Dashboard as inadequate, Kovacevich said. “We totally understand that with size and success comes scrutiny,” he added. “Although given their track record, even if we broke Google in half tomorrow, Consumer Watchdog would probably insist that we split halves into quarters.” I suspect this type of request for Google to be “taken apart” won’t go away. Whenever I see reports like this I usually dismiss them but I do wonder if there is any merit to the claims. Heck, I don’t know everything that goes on in the online world. Maybe Google is doing back alley roughing up of competitors. Honestly, I doubt it very much. I think the real “problem” is that Google created the perfect tool for the perfect time just as a complete shift in the way that everyone does everything was happening. As a result, their dominance comes almost by default because the wave they caught was unlike one ever seen in history. Timing is everything they say. Doesn’t mean they are bullet proof though. So what say you today about Google’s “unfair advantage”? Real or perceived? Worthy of Department of Justice attention or not? Do you care either way as long as your Google services work and you do what you need to do?

Go here to read the rest:
Consumer Watchdog Barks “Break Up Google!”

It’s no secret that third-party apps and clients are popular for Twitter users. And it looks like they’re in for some major competition from Google . No the search giant isn’t building its own Twitter client—it’s just bringing you all the functionality you’d expect from one. Last October, Google announced a real-time search deal with Twitter . Or, really, the stuck a few Twitter results into semi-relevant search results. They’ve added a scrolling update display, but research suggests real-time search isn’t useful to searchers . Just two days ago, Google announced Twitter replay to take a historical view of tweets. And within hours of that announcement, they added a Follow Finder to . . . well, help you find people to follow. Google Follow Finder looks at the people you’re following and uses public social graph information to find other users who follow those same accounts, then recommend other people those users are following. They also find people with similar follower lists. Google built Follow Finder on Twitter’s @anywhere framework , announced last month. All right, we can all admit Google’s probably not going to be challenging any third party apps for daily usability any time soon. Their offerings remain an auxiliary anomaly. The replay feature aligns well with their search mission, but the Follow Finder is another foray deeper into social media, which could indicate that their focus on Twitter may be more than just employees’ 20% time. What do you think? What will Google’s next Twitter feature be? Will they ever have enough features to compete with full-fledged third-party apps, or will their offerings always bee use-specific?

Read more from the original source:
Google Wants to be Your Twitter App