Month: October 2012

Edward Wyatt and Nick Wingfield reporting on changes to the Microsoft privacy policy:

> Almost no one noticed, however, even though Microsoft’s policy changes are much the same as those that Google made to its privacy rules this year.

Man, poor Google, they always get the short end of the stick.

> The difference in the two events illustrates the confusion surrounding Internet consumer privacy.

I mean I just wish consumers would be consistent over what they got pissed about, right? Poor Google.

> Microsoft has promised, however, that it will not use the personal information and content it collects to sell targeted advertising. It will not, for example, scan a consumer’s e-mails to generate ads that might interest the user. Google does that, and expanding its ability to draw on that content was part of the reason Google changed its privacy policy this year.

Oh, so there is a difference, and a legitimate reason why consumers are pissed about one change but not the other? So really, what we have illustrated here is not confusion by the public over consumer privacy, but confusion by the writers?

Because either the writers were confused, or they just needed to put some words on a page so they tried to make a poor Google controversy.

> But it is easy to see how Microsoft customers might be confused, because the different divisions of Microsoft that draft and oversee its user agreements and privacy policies did not anticipate that the changes in the services agreement would raise privacy questions.

Ugh, still? Even though you just laid it out pretty clearly for people with this officially statement:

> “However,” he added, “one thing we don’t do is use the content of our customers’ private communications and documents to create targeted advertising. If that ever changes, we’ll be the first to let our customers know.”

That’s a pretty clear and unwavering statement from Microsoft.

In the end though, poor Google and thank goodness the gray-haired-needs-to-retire-lady reported in this.

Kontra on advertising models:

>Why? Because shouting creates page views and clicks, and…well, there’s nothing more to say: shouting sells.

And:

>Nobody *likes* advertising, and yet we seem to be stuck with its corrupting effects on public discourse online.

Lastly:

>Advertising online has been corruptive of user privacy and editorial integrity.

As I have mentioned before, I hate advertise — so too have I mentioned that I subscribe to over 500 RSS feeds. That’s a lot of feeds, a lot of shouting, and a lot of advertising. These past two weeks I have been very busy and I have grown incredibly annoyed with all of the noise on the web — all of which is simply shouting for the sake of getting attention, page views, and ultimately money. It’s actually pretty sad if you think about it.

If I look at the hot view in Fever° for the past week, the hottest story was a bunch of bullshit speculation about a 13″ retina MacBook Pro. Yay. I didn’t read a single one.

Here’s the thing though, it’s not just advertising that causes the problem, it’s also lack of advertising. That is if people run a blog with no advertising, they shout loudly to get heard, to get page views, and eventually to get advertising. They aren’t alone, I am just as guilty from time to time.

The benefit that I have are that the people paying for this site give me some leeway when I pen something stupid, tell me about it, and I can change. When I was on the advertising model and I penned something stupid they just went elsewhere. I’m not sure which *is* better, but I know what *I* like better.

Claire Cain Miller quoting Larry Page, Google’s CEO:
>“Virtually everything that we want to do, I think, is somewhat at odds with locking down all of your information for uses you haven’t contemplated yet,” Mr. Page said. “That’s something I worry about.”

Is it just me or does the above make zero sense? I want to break it down a bit:

>Virtually everything that we want to do,

“Most things Google wants to do…”

>I think

“I’m pretty sure…”

>is somewhat at odds with locking down all of your information

“is not possible if Google locks down all of your information”

>for uses you haven’t contemplated yet

“because you can’t see the future”

>That’s something I worry about.

“I worry about you not seeing the future”?

So, here’s what I read Page as having said:

>Most things Google wants to do, I’m pretty sure, is not possible if Google locks down all of your information and that’s because you can’t see the future. And I worry about you not seeing the future.

My head still hurts. Honestly I think Page failed to say: “Users don’t know our future plans, and those plans are not possible without more sharing of user information.”

But he can’t say it that clearly, because that’d piss off privacy advocates even more.

Tina Brown and Baba Shetty outlining the Newsweek transition to all digital:
>Exiting print is an extremely difficult moment for all of us who love the romance of print and the unique weekly camaraderie of those hectic hours before the close on Friday night. But as we head for the 80th anniversary of Newsweek next year we must sustain the journalism that gives the magazine its purpose—and embrace the all-digital future.

They are doing it with a single global edition focusing on original content backed by a subscriber model. Needless to say, I love this move and kudos to the Newsweek team for recognizing that such a move is needed. Let’s just hope Adobe isn’t their digital partner for this, and that they pour the resources into having a software development team that rivals the money they poured into the print editions. (They could also buy something like Mag+ that powers the excellent The Next Web Magazine.)