Posted on

Google’s 2018 Economic Impact Report Shows Company Helped 36,000 New Jersey Advertisers Grow During 2018

see-how-your-google-results-measure-up-with-google-grader-video--6b8bbb4b41

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Google today rolled out its 2018 Economic Impact Report, showing that 36,000 New Jersey businesses and nonprofits used the company’s search and advertising tools last year to generate $7,750,000,000 in economic activity. Google’s search and advertising tools help organizations connect with the people and communities they serve, increase their online presence and thereby create more revenue and jobs in the local economy.

Continue reading Google’s 2018 Economic Impact Report Shows Company Helped 36,000 New Jersey Advertisers Grow During 2018
Posted on

Google Secret Microphone Discovered Nest Secure Alarm System

hal-9000-1920x1200

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Google is being accused of spying on consumers without their consent . In early February, Google announced that its home security and alarm system Nest Secure would be getting an update. Users, the company said, could now enable its virtual-assistant technology, Google Assistant.

Continue reading Google Secret Microphone Discovered Nest Secure Alarm System
Posted on

Reader says “The internet livin is toxic “

Apps-for-Controlling-Sexting-on-Users-Phone-e1334914846233

Not TRUE. I was told that if someone, say a child, puts in Google the word “breast,” say the child is wanting to find out about his mother’s breast cancer, he will get porno links. Those he may investigate, not knowing what they are. Many other words LEAD to porn. As I said, the best way to avoid the negative effects of internet, is to do what Bill Gates does with his school children: no internet. DUH. By the time a kid is a senior in high school he/she can pick up the internet then , very quickly. But gee whiz, guys, how did Einstein and company invent all our modern miracles without the Internet. How did Jonas Salk discover the vaccine that eliminated polio without the internet. . I bet the internet weakens or does eye damage too. Yes there are some advantages, but more negatives by far. Going to library to look something up in a book or Encyclopedia was far better way of learning. I would hazard a bet that you Remembered the material better too. Why. Because for one your body had to move. Muscle to brain connection. And you didn’t read a lot of other stuff afterward. Your brain wasn’t over whelmed. You opened the encyclopedia, wrote it down, and then went on to something else in life, and your brain remembered it. The internet leads to over consumption, buying crap you don’t need , depleting the environment. I mean , hey, your sittin on your fat ass, surfin, then you get bored and sluggish and then BUY stuff on Amazon etc. And then you open the crap packages. And then you get bored and then the cycle continues. Walkin to the library, openin the encyclopedia with your hands and arms. Readin letters that are comfortable for your eyes, writing down , walkin home, and then maybe playin a ball game or sompin. Now that is healthy livin. The internet livin is toxic.

Posted on

No Neutral Ground: The Problem of Net Neutrality

Optical-Fibers01_Web(2)

December 14,2017

by Brian Dellinger

On November 21, the Federal Communications Commission announced plans to revisit its Obama-era internet regulations. It seems likely that the resulting vote will repeal the policies often referred to as net neutrality. The name is, perhaps, misleading; to support net neutrality is to support placing the internet more fully under government supervision. The related political debate often divides traditional allies with arguments for free expression pitted against defenses of small government.

To understand net neutrality, one must see its position in technical history. Traditionally, internet service providers (ISPs), such as Comcast and Verizon, have guaranteed their customers a certain quantity of bandwidth – that is, a certain amount of data per unit of time. It was assumed that even a voracious user would rarely use his maximum bandwidth, and services were priced under this assumption. ISPs also de facto allowed customers to access whatever websites they wished; while there was no legal protection for this behavior, technical complexities made discrimination by website infeasible. The result was a largely open web: anyone with a blog could potentially reach millions.
In the early 2000s, the situation changed. Technological innovations enabled providers to determine which site a user visited and so potentially to restrict access. In principle, an ISP could now sell “packages” of websites, in a fashion resembling cable television: “basic internet” for news and Facebook, say, or “premium internet” for those who wanted more. These years also saw the rising popularity of streaming video services like Netflix and YouTube. Users now binge-watched videos, consuming their maximum available bandwidth for hours at a stretch. Such trends increased costs for the ISPs, leading them to investigate new responses: restricted access to high-usage sites, artificially slow downloads, and so on.

Net neutrality stands in opposition to these changes. Broadly, under net neutrality, the government requires ISPs to treat all web traffic in the same way: no limiting access, no reducing speed. Since 2005, the FCC has several times established net neutrality regulations; inevitably, the courts struck down such rules on the grounds that the FCC lacked the authority to regulate ISPs. In response, in 2015 the FCC redefined broadband internet as a telecommunications service, placing it under FCC jurisdiction, and promptly passed net neutrality rules. With the political shift of the 2016 elections, new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai began rolling back these regulations – hence the upcoming vote.
Both sides of the debate have merit. Concerns that ISPs might slow targeted websites are not idle speculation; Comcast did precisely thatto Netflix in 2014. Indeed, Comcast and others have done little to engender public trust in their behavior. Comcast had pledged for years not to “prioritize Internet traffic or create paid fast lanes.” That pledge disappeared from its website less than a day after Pai announced policy changes.

It is also true that the meritocratic nature of the internet – its enabling of anyone to win a following through quality work – has been one of its most notable virtues. A world of “basic internet,” in which new entrants might be simply unreachable, would reduce its value as a platform for new ideas.

Despite these fair concerns, arguments against the FCC rollback seem insufficient. It is difficult to deny that price incentives have drastically shifted over the last decade; if streaming video is generating much of the ISPs’ expenses, it makes intuitive sense that providers might demand Netflix share those costs, or might price service by total consumption rather than maximum bandwidth. Nor are the corporations supporting net neutrality any more trustworthy than the ISPs. Setting Netflix aside, supporters such as Google and Facebook seek to block ISPs from trading in users’ private information – a trade on which these companies themselves depend. For them, net neutrality eliminates the competition.

Other objections rely too heavily on speculation. While a “fast lane” internet would be a marked shift, the brief history of the web is one of constant change. Indeed, the rise of mobile browsing, which often limits the user to app-specific websites and now constitutes a majority of all web usage, may produce a greater alteration than that net neutrality would prevent.

Further, the internet is historically the result of market activity rather than top-down regulations. If one approves of its remarkable evolution to this point, it seems peculiar to assert that this is the moment to freeze it through government action. Given how few accurately predicted that evolution, it seems hubristic to assert how it will change next. Perhaps, as the ISPs argue, the increased revenue from a non-neutral internet would enable the expansion of broadband networks, ending regional monopolies of service providers. Such a change might ultimately produce a faster, more accessible internet – or it might not, but the experiment seems worth the risk.

Finally, whatever one’s feelings on net neutrality, the 2015 rules should be seen for what they are: a staggering expansion of bureaucratic power, by decree of the bureaucracy itself. The result is an ugly patchwork of overlapping authority between the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission, with ISPs disfavored over similar services. This reclassification can never be a stable solution; it will always be vulnerable to precisely the kind of unilateral repeal currently occurring. If the public supports net neutrality, then let it be defended through the proper channel: by laws, and not bureaucratic fiat.

Dr. Brian Dellinger is an assistant professor of computer science at Grove City College. His research interests are artificial intelligence and models of consciousness.

Posted on

Silicon Valley CEOs didn’t hide their distaste for Donald Trump. Now comes the reckoning

hal-2001

Evan Halper and David PiersonContact Reporters

Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurs made little effort over the last year to conceal their distaste for Donald Trump, a candidate whose social media savvy belied what they saw as a staggering disregard for the innovation economy and the tech culture that has fostered it.

Now comes the reckoning.

Some of the nation’s top tech CEOs will find out how much of a grudge Trump holds when they ride the elevator up to his office in Trump Tower on Wednesday.

Tech titans including Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook, Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook, Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX and Larry Page of Alphabet, the corporate parent of Google, have been summoned by Trump as firms scramble to adjust to a reality for which they had not prepared — a potentially hostile president-elect indebted to almost no one in Silicon Valley, save for an idiosyncratic fellow billionaire they don’t particularly like.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-silicon-valley-20161213-story.html

Posted on

Social media groups join forces to counter online terror content

big-brother-poster

Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter develop technology to identify extremism

Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter on Monday announced they had joined forces in an attempt to curb explicit terrorist imagery online.

The move follows criticism from Brussels that big US social media groups have made insufficient effort to clamp down on hate speech.

In a statement, the technology groups said they were building new technology that would identify extremist content, including terrorist recruitment videos and images of executions, via a digital fingerprint known as a “hash”, which would then be compiled into a shared global database. Once created, the hash would be attached like a watermark to content, which would then be easy to identify and take down.

https://www.ft.com/content/ff15c750-bafd-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080

Posted on

Google, Facebook Push Censorship and Control of News Feed ?

google-dr-evil-and-mini-me_theridgewoodblog

Google, Facebook move to restrict ads on fake news sites

Only Liberal Media Approved News 

By Julia Love and Kristina Cooke | SAN FRANCISCO

Alphabet Inc’s Google (GOOGL.O) and Facebook Inc (FB.O) on Monday announced measures aimed at halting the spread of “fake news” on the internet by targeting how some purveyors of phony content make money: advertising.

Google said it is working on a policy change to prevent websites that misrepresent content from using its AdSense advertising network, while Facebook updated its advertising policies to spell out that its ban on deceptive and misleading content applies to fake news.

The shifts comes as Google, Facebook and Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) face a backlash over the role they played in the U.S. presidential election by allowing the spread of false and often malicious information that might have swayed voters toward Republican candidate Donald Trump.

The issue has provoked a fierce debate within Facebook especially, with Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg insisting twice in recent days that the site had no role in influencing the election.

Facebook’s steps are limited to its ad policies, and do not target fake news sites shared by users on their news feeds.

“We do not integrate or display ads in apps or sites containing content that is illegal, misleading or deceptive, which includes fake news,” Facebook said in a statement, adding that it will continue to vet publishers to ensure compliance.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-advertising-idUSKBN1392MM

Posted on

Assange vows Google, US election leaks as WikiLeaks turns 10

Wikileaks_founder_Julian_Assange_theridgewoodblog

The whistleblowing site was founded in 2006 by Julian Assange, who today said he “feels sorry” for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Controversial website WikiLeaks began spilling secrets 10 years ago, and there’s more to come.

In coming weeks, the site is set to publish documents related to Google, the US presidential election and more, according to controversial founder Julian Assange.

A video showing the top 10 leaks on the site today opened a press conference marking the 10th anniversary of the whistleblower site, in which time it has published 10 million documents. Assange promised new information every week for the next 10 weeks, related to Google, military operations, arms trading and mass surveillance. He also promised all documents related to the US presidential election would be published before the vote on November 8.

https://www.cnet.com/news/assange-10-years-of-wikileaks-berlin/

Posted on

Tech Companies Apple, Twitter, Google, and Instagram Collude to Defeat Trump

07trump-master675 (1)

There is no such thing as Pro-Trump free speech as Clinton corporate allies serve up a carefully curated view of the campaign

By Liz Crokin • 08/12/16 8:30am

My dad always told me that conservative candidates have to work twice as hard as their liberal opponents to win elections because they’re fighting two opponents: the Democratic Party and the media.

The usual suspects from left-leaning major media outlets like The New York Times, MSNBC, CNN and even entertainment networks are doing everything in their power to ensure a Clinton victory. Look no further than to Wolf Blitzermincing around and drinking wine at the Democratic convention, celebrating Hillary’s nomination. But the propaganda skewing this election runs much deeper than just the media: our iPhones, iPads, social media networks, Google and even video games are all in the tank for Hillary Clinton—and it’s chilling.

I began looking into how strong the bias and censorship runs in these forums after I did an interview on the pro-Trump podcast, MAGA. The show’s host, Mark Hammond, was disappointed Apple wouldn’t run his show without an “explicit” warning. Hammond’s podcast didn’t contain content that would be deemed explicit under Apple’s policy, and most other shows in the News & Politics category aren’t labeled as such.

http://observer.com/2016/08/tech-companies-apple-twitter-google-and-instagram-collude-to-defeat-trump/

Posted on

Google My Activity shows everything that company knows about its users – and there’s a lot

google-dr-evil-and-mini-me_theridgewoodblog

The new site collects every website you’ve been on, everything you’ve searched and many of the things you’ve done with your phone

Andrew Griffin

Google has launched a new site that shows absolutely everything it knows about its users. And there’s an awful lot of it.

The new My Activity page collects all of the data that Google has generated by watching its customers as they move around the web. And depending on your settings that could include a comprehensive list of the websites you’ve visited and the things you’ve done with your phone.

Google has long allowed its users to see the kinds of information that is being generated as people use the company’s products,including letting people listen in on automated recordings that it has made of its users. But the new page collects them together in a more accessible – and potentially more terrifying – way than ever before.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-my-activity-shows-everything-that-company-knows-about-its-users-and-there-s-a-lot-a7109256.html