links vom 15.01.2012

felix schwenzel

  plus.goog­le.com: Tim O'­Reil­ly - Be­fo­re Sol­ving a Pro­blem, Make Sure You'­ve Got the Right Pro­blem   #

tim o'­reil­ly fragt im weis­sen haus nach, wo denn die be­wei­se sei­en, dass raub­ko­pierei hohe wirt­schaft­li­che schä­den ver­ur­sa­che (via jeff jar­vis). tim o'­reil­ly:

In the en­ti­re dis­cus­sion, I've seen no dis­cus­sion of cre­di­ble evi­dence of this eco­no­mic harm. The­re's no ques­ti­on in my mind that pi­ra­cy exists, that peo­p­le around the world are en­joy­ing crea­ti­ve con­tent wi­t­hout pay­ing for it, and even that some cri­mi­nals are pro­fiting by re­dis­tri­bu­ting it. But is the­re ac­tu­al eco­no­mic harm?

In my ex­pe­ri­ence at O'­Reil­ly, the los­ses due to pi­ra­cy are far out­weig­hed by the be­ne­fits of the free flow of in­for­ma­ti­on, which makes the world ri­cher, and de­ve­lo­ps new mar­kets for le­gi­ti­ma­te con­tent. Most of the peo­p­le who are down­loa­ding un­aut­ho­ri­zed co­pies of O'­Reil­ly books would never have paid us for them any­way; me­an­while, hundreds of thou­sands of others are buy­ing con­tent from us, many of them in count­ries that we were never able to do busi­ness with when our pro­ducts were not available in di­gi­tal form.

mitt­ler­wei­le hat jeff jar­vis sei­nem goog­le+-bei­trag ei­nen blog­ar­ti­kel hin­ter­her­ge­scho­ben, in dem er die dis­kus­si­on um SOPA auf eine grund­sätz­li­che ebe­ne füh­ren will: die fra­ge, ob es wich­ti­ger ist freie mei­nungs­äus­se­rung zu schüt­zen oder eine oh­ne­hin ster­ben­de in­dus­trie.

et­was an­ders und fast eu­pho­risch liest sich die re­ak­ti­on des weis­sen hau­ses bei mike mas­nik von tech­dirt:

Make no mista­ke about this: this is the White House as­king for a hard re­set of SOPA/PIPA and say­ing start again from scratch. This is an as­toun­ding turn of events, and a much stron­ger state­ment from the White House than an­yo­ne ho­nest­ly ex­pec­ted. This is al­most en­ti­re­ly be­cau­se of the out­cry that came out of the in­ter­net over the last few months. Wi­t­hout that, it is un­li­kely that the White House ever would have come out with such a strong po­si­ti­on that ques­ti­ons the key pro­vi­si­ons of the­se bills.

das ist qua­si der ame­ri­ka­ni­sche zen­sur­su­la-mo­ment. sieht aus als sei SOPA dank der pro­tes­te im netz vor­erst vom tisch.

  ste­ven­le­vy.com: Is too much Plus a mi­nus for Goog­le?   #

ziem­lich fun­dier­te be­trach­tun­gen zu den än­de­run­gen und hin­ter­grün­den der plussi­fi­zie­rung von goog­le von ste­ven levy (un­ter an­de­rem au­tor des goog­le-buchs „in the plex“):

But the­re is a risk to pro­cee­ding on this path. The com­pa­ny has spent its en­ti­re cor­po­ra­te life pro­tec­ting the in­te­gri­ty of its search pro­duct. When wri­ting In the Plex, I lear­ned that the se­cret be­hind Goo­g­le's so­me­what bland de­sign was that if Goog­le loo­ked like it was de­si­gned by a ma­chi­ne, users would im­pli­cit­ly un­der­stand that Goog­le search its­elf was un­pol­lu­ted by strong opi­ni­ons. Goog­le me­ti­cu­lous­ly po­si­tio­ned its flag­ship pro­duct as a neu­tral judge of what was re­le­vant to the user.

Search, in short, should ap­pear to be like Cae­sar's wife, abo­ve re­proach. When using its al­go­rith­mic wi­zar­dry to deep­ly in­te­gra­te so­cial in­for­ma­ti­on into its search ex­pe­ri­ence, it be­hoo­ves Goog­le to avo­id even a whiff of bias. With SPYW, though, the odor is un­mist­aka­ble. No mat­ter how you cut it, the search en­gi­ne now in­crea­ses the va­lue of par­ti­ci­pa­ting in Goog­le+. It may be Goog­le’s right to do this. But it also may turn off a lot of users. And it also pro­vi­des ammo for Goog­le’s de­trac­tors, in­clu­ding tho­se in Wa­shing­ton.