Sorry – only the homepage of the blog is available as of now. I’m working to get everything back up, but the site should be a lot faster and all the WordPress features (like being able to display photo galleries!) should work after I complete the move to new servers.
Update 8/16: Access to the posts restored, but I’m still working on making older links work and have more logical URL names.
Eric Schmidt today vs. Eric Schmit of 2006 – who’s going to win?
Seems like Schmidt has a short memory, as demonstrated in Gawker’s almost perfect write up. This morning, the NYT, WSJ, and a whole host of other news sources have basically confirmed that Google and the perennial rival to net neutrality, Verizon, were coming to an agreement in the issue. While Google flatly denied the claims on Twitter, it looks like their later statements they sent to media outlets only denied that the talks were about protecting YouTube. You’re right Google, the talks seemed to be about a lot more.
But fighting net neutrality wasn’t Schmidt’s policy earlier. In 2006, he issued a pretty broad and direct statement on Google’s desire to protect net neutrality.
For everyone who says this is just a private business deal and not an area for the FCC, they’re fundamentally missing the point. This is about innovation online. This is about keeping a space that has been a public resource and maintaining it as one, not allowing two corporations decide how we use public goods, especially without the consent of the governments and electorates that paid for that public good. YouTube couldn’t have developed if they had to allocate 80% of their profit to pay for preferential bandwidth fees over competition, and neither would nearly any of the web’s other start-ups that blossomed into major web properties. This is about protecting a free market.
Opponents of net neutrality, which potentially include Google now, may be pleased with the cool applications you can use on the Internet right now. But I’m not pleased staying here forever. Through competition, we can still innovate, further enhance peoples lives, further connect the world and increase understanding across cultures.
One secondary effect of a decision like Google potentially made: just look to the effects of social media – a product of innovation on web – on promoting democracy and human rights in Iran or China. Preventing innovation is also a decision to turn our back on opportunities to enhance the lives of oppressed people today. We can’t stand for that.
This post was originally published at The Harvard Crimson as part of its summer postcards series.
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina—The schools are canceled this morning, parts of subway stations shackled closed. Every store from the large supermarket to the one-man kiosk is locked and dark, and not a single car has passed down this once-busy avenida in minutes.
If it weren’t for the roar of the crowd, the showers from confetti cannons, and the requisite “Goooooooal!” over the load speakers in the plaza a block away, Buenos Aires would appear a fancy ghost town, not a bustling metropolis. The World Cup, or Copa Mundial, has emptied the city—the whole nation watches unified in anticipation.
Late to the game, I pry into the back of a crowd of nearly 15,000 gathered in Plaza San Martín to try and see at least part of the JumboTron. Attendees standing on the grass may be packed shoulder-to-shoulder—and some even closer—but I manage to move through the swarm of people now absorbed by the silence of apprehension. Looking down to check the time, I notice that the outside of my hand is chalked in light blue and white, rubbed off from the face paint of the boy to my side as I struggled through the crowd.
Game after game, this served as my Mundial ritual. I stood amid a nation gripped and united. Impassioned discussions of Manager Diego Maradona’s offensive-heavy strategy and star forward Lionel Messi’s inability to make a single goal replaced aimless small talk while waiting for the subway. Meetings at work were cancelled or postponed upon learning that the nation was to advance to the next game. Flags covered balconies across the city and street vendors temporarily gave up on selling pirated DVDs or jewelry to instead peddle Messi jerseys, vuvuzelas, and blue and white mohawk wigs.
Despite these anecdotal observations of national spirit, I struggle as an American to comprehend the scale at which Argentines energize and bond around the Mundial. Only 45 percent of TVs in the US were tuned into this year’s most watched television event, the Super Bowl; over 70 percent of Argentine TVs tuned into the last Argentina Mundial match against Germany while hundreds of thousands (if not millions) watched the game in cafés and in public plazas, like me, where many cities setup giant screens.
But in the time it took the referee in the quarterfinals game to blow the final whistle and declare Germany the winner with a score of 0-4, the captivation and unity of a nation evaporated.
The crowd thinned as the score ticked up to 0-3 with just 16 minutes left. Soon after, the flags came down, the blue and white scarves suddenly turned unfashionable, and the small talk—accompanied by silence—returned to the subway platforms. The restaurants and bars were filled like any Saturday the night following the game, but the camaraderie from a shared Mundial between Argentines, regardless of class, political party, retirement status, or any other possible grouping, never seemed to return in full.
Facebook has fallen into yet another disagreement with privacy advocates, or as Facebook would probably frame them, anti-openness advocates. This isn’t new news for a company that has, in the past, tested consumers’ willingness to play along with rapid reductions in online privacy. However, with social media forming a greater and greater part to our communication equation, and with Facebook further cementing itself as an effective sole broker to user data in the social media arena, United States Senators are starting to ask questions, according to The New York Times. This is a positive step, and regulation of social networks’ online privacy policies needs to be established.
Delayed Development, No Political Communication: Harvard in Allston
Bill Purcell, the current director of Harvard’s Institute of Politics and former mayor of Nashville, is set to resign and take on greater responsibilities in advising Harvard University on its Allston development plans and on its role as Co-Chair of the Allston Work Team, The Crimson reported last week. Despite a few vocal Allston community members’ suspicions of about nearly anything Harvard does – some of which is justified, some of which is not – this appointment marks a positive change and hopefully, a recognition that the University’s political strategy requires fundamental changes.
read more…
Obama and Democrats in Congress have a new proposal: require groups making public statement to show their face with their messages, reported the New York Times. For a country plagued with people using the veil of anonymity to mask unnecessary baseness, this can only be a positive change and a hopeful sign of a push for changes in public, political discourse.
read more…
SWINE FLU! QUARANTINES! LIVE BLOGS! The latest news on the action (or inaction, depending on how you see it) of a Harvard-administered H1N1 quarantine are all here after the jump.
read more…