AllThingsD » site

Welcome to the AllThingsD Redesign!

Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg — Sun, 22 May 2011 21:10:34 +0000

No, you’re not on the wrong site.

Yes, this is AllThingsD.

A whole new redesign of AllThingsD, that is.

The new look is the third since we launched the site in April of 2007 and–trust us–we think you’ll like it a lot better.

There are a lot of reasons for a redo of any site.

In this case, there are many–from wanting to keep it fresh to figuring out a better way to feature the incredible journalism of our many new reporters who have come on board in the last six months to trying to give the reader a more visual experience and much improved navigation.

That’s a good thing, since the site has been bursting at the seams for a while now, as we have steadily and dramatically increased the number of stories we post every day.

So naturally, we’re pretty excited to launch a redesign today that enables us to better display the depth and breadth of our coverage and to showcase the talent behind it.

And, after months of kibitzing with our longtime and most excellent designers at Mule Design in San Francisco, we think we have done that and more.

Some major deets:

BOOMTOWN IS DEAD, LONG LIVE ALLTHINGSD:

As you will see, in the new set-up, all blog posts belong to AllThingsD and no longer operate under a variety of column names.

We thought long and hard about this change, which entailed moving all the content from the various blogs under the single AllThingsD.com moniker.

This will make everything look more cohesive from a branding standpoint. We’re AllThingsD now, and not the blogging nation states of BoomTown, Digital Daily, MediaMemo, Mobilized, NetworkEffect, eMoney and NewEnterprise.

While we liked all those pretty names, it’s become clear that it’s gotten a little confusing to readers that we are one single news organization.

Thus, as hard as it is for me personally–I have been writing under the BoomTown name since before there was a Google–out they go.

CONTEXT IS KING:

One big focus: More contextually relevant opportunities to view our content!

Real people translation: All of our content is now categorized under the list of topics that runs across the top of the site, which are News, Reviews, Mobile, Media, Social, Enterprise and Commerce.

These lead to dynamically-generated category pages. Since our coverage is rarely confined to just one of those, any given post or column will probably appear under more than one category.

Of course, there are rabid Peter Kafka fans, as well as those who cannot live without a daily dose of Ina Fried. Luckily, you can still view posts by writer by using the convenient “view by writer” link at the far right of the navigation bar.

And if that’s not enough context for you, the content on display can be further filtered by the most popular tags of the previous 30 days by clicking on “Trending Tags” on any category page or “Kara (or any other writer) by Topic” on any writer’s page.

BIG AND BEAUTIFUL:

As you can see, All Things D now has a wider layout and a better ability to display videos, photos and embedded documents.

The new wider layout is better suited to big, bold graphics and videos. All of our videos will now be streaming to you at 640×360, and while we’re not giving up on LOLcats any time soon, they will be coming to you at a much higher resolution, and they will occasionally be augmented by professional photojournalism from Getty Images and other services.

But fear not: AllThingsD‘s epic Photoshops–such as the recent Skype-tastic image of Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer above–will continue unabated.

LOOK AT THE PRETTY BOXES:

On the new AllThingsD site, we’re no longer confined to bringing you our content in a chronologically reversed river of posts.

Of course, that’s still available if you scroll down to “Today’s Posts,” and you can even filter that view by clicking on any of the writers to the left.

Our new featured content box at the top of the homepage gives us the latitude to highlight the most important stories as well, and to give them the prominence, longevity and visual impact they warrant.

We’re sure you have a lot more questions and it will take some getting used to the new look. So, the whole staff at All Things D is here for you with any questions, comments and, of course, complaints.

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE…:

On a final note: The strong commitment of AllThingsD and the D: All Things Digital conferences to accurate, fair, ethical and pertinent coverage of tech and media news will always be the same. No matter how many fancy new doodads come to the Web, our belief that readers want the kind of high-quality journalism we offer will never ever change.

But we hope you like how we have decided to package that going forward. Once again, please give us feedback about what you like and what you don’t.

Yours in redesign,

Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg
Co-Executive Editors, All Things D

SB Nation Sacks AOL in Raid of Former Engadget Team for Competing New Tech Site, As AOL Zeroes in on New EiC

Kara Swisher — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 02:34:40 +0000

Jim Bankoff, the fomer AOL exec responsible for buying Engadget for the Internet portal, has grabbed eight staffers who had recently left the huge tech site amid tensions, in order to start a new gadget property.

The site–which is still unnamed and will be run by outgoing Engadget Editor-in-Chief Josh Topolsky–will debut sometime in the fall. It is the first content expansion at the Washington, D.C. sports news site SB Nation, which is helmed by Bankoff.

“The technology we built is applicable beyond sports,” said Bankoff, in an interview with BoomTown tonight. “It was an opportunity to apply our model…into another content category where there was an overlap in demographics.”

That would be fanboys and, well, boys-who-will-be-boys.

UPDATE: In related news, sources said that AOL has zeroed in on Tim Stevens, Engadget’s automotive editor to replace the outgoing Topolsky. The New York-based company had already named Darren Murph as its new managing editor.

Now Stevens will be competing with Topolsky, as well as managing editor Nilay Patel, who will also lead the Engadget tech-exodus (techxodus?). The others include former Engadget staffers Paul Miller, Joanna Stern, Ross Miller, Chris Ziegler, Justin Glow and Dan Chilton.

Stern and Ziegler are still on Engadget’s editors site as current employees.

All of the above had left Engadget in a series of departures of late, all due to increasing unhappiness with AOL’s management and content strategy.

Paul Miller and Ross Miller, who are not related, both stated publicly that they did not like the editorial direction AOL was going in, especially a controversial content strategy document titled “The AOL Way.”

In his blog post, Topolsky threw another smackadoo at AOL, noting “SB Nation believes in real, independent journalism and the potential for new media to serve as an answer and antidote to big publishing houses and SEO spam–a point we couldn’t be more aligned on.”

New AOL content head Arianna Huffington has shifted toward a more journalistic path, but the talent bleed began before AOL’s $315 million purchase of the Huffington Post.

In a blog post, which is embedded below, Topolsky said the new SB Nation gadget site will be similar in pace and topic, but it will be broader than Engadget.

The move is an interesting one for SB Nation, which completed a $10.5 million Series C round, led by Khosla Ventures, in the fall.

It had already raised about $13 million in total venture funding from Accel Partners, Allen & Company and Comcast Interactive Capital, as well as from angel investors such as Ted Leonsis and others in Silicon Valley.

In related news, also restarting tomorrow will be a popular gadget podcast that Topolsky, Patel and Paul Miller had done for Engadget.

The New York Times’ David Carr mentioned the new site in the middle of a column earlier tonight.

Here is Topolsky’s blog post on the move, titled “This Is My Next Project”:

As you may have already heard (or read), there’s some activity going on in the world of Joshua Topolsky. Earlier this evening, David Carr published a piece in the New York Times about a new project that I’m embarking on…and I want to just say a few things about it.

Firstly: yes, this is happening. I’ve decided to join the team at SB Nation to build something brand new in the tech space. Now I know it might seem odd to some that I would be partnering with a sports publisher to build a technology news site, but that’s only half the story. This isn’t just about sports, or tech, or lone silos. What we will build together at SB Nation is a new media company–buoyed by the absolutely incredible work SB Nation has already done in publishing–and part of that new media company will be the as-yet-unnamed gadget and technology site that I’ll be working over the next few months to create. When we launch (hopefully in the fall), I will be editor-in-chief of a property that I hope will inform, entertain, and engage fans of technology in whole new ways.

I should say that I wouldn’t want to build something like this alone, and thankfully, I won’t have to. I’ll be joined by some very good friends at this new venture–people like Nilay Patel, for instance.

Of course, the natural question I’m sure a lot of people have is: why SB Nation? The easy answer is that the people at SB Nation share my vision of what publishing looks like in the year 2011. They think that the technology used to create and distribute news on the web (and mobile) is as important as the people who are responsible for the content itself. And that’s not just pillow talk–SB Nation is actively evolving its tools and processes to meet the growing and changing needs of its vast editorial teams and their audience communities. They’re building for the web as it is now. From the perspective of a journalist who also happens to be a huge nerd, that’s a match made in heaven. SBN isn’t just another media company pushing news out–it’s a testbed and lab for some of the newest and most interesting publishing tools I’ve ever seen. In short, I was blown away when I saw what kind of technology they’re using to get news on their front page and engage audiences, and even more blown away when I started talking to them about what could come next.

But beyond the technology (and possibly more important than the technology), there’s another factor here that’s driving my decision. It’s that SB Nation believes in real, independent journalism and the potential for new media to serve as an answer and antidote to big publishing houses and SEO spam–a point we couldn’t be more aligned on. This is a group of people that not only think independent media works, but are reaping the rewards of new publishing done right. As the fastest growing online sports publisher, they’re seen as a source for credible and honest journalism, which is why industry stalwarts like Rob Neyer have recently joined their ranks (ranks which include hundreds of talented sports experts). This isn’t tabloid page grabbing or content farming–it’s news and insight by and for a passionate and informed group of people. And that’s exactly where I want to be.

So, what happens next? We get to work.

In the coming months I’m going to be laser focused on one thing: building the best tech site in the world–and I would love to hear what you guys think the next phase in technology and gadget news should look like. Ping me with ideas, gripes, or even better–come and work here! SB Nation is looking for new developers as we speak, and as we ramp up to launch, we’ll be bringing on lots of talent to work both on the front page and behind the scenes.

I couldn’t be more excited and enthusiastic about what we can build right now, and I can’t wait to share what we’re going to make with the rest of the world. The months ahead are going to be filled with lots of early mornings and sleepless nights, intense debates, triumphs, and trials–and I can’t wait.

Will Secretary of State Clinton's "Internet Freedom Agenda" Finally Get Traction?

Kara Swisher — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:09:55 +0000

Yesterday, in a major policy speech in Washington, D.C., Secretary of State Hillary Clinton jumped on the Internet bandwagon again, unveiling a $25 million government investment for entrepreneurs to allow dissidents to thwart “thugs, hackers and censors.”

Since that’s about the amount a third-string social photo-sharing site gets while walking down University Avenue in Palo Alto, Calif., from venture capitalists with bags of money to spend, let me just say the money is, well, underwhelming.

Luckily, Clinton’s speech–the latest chapter of the Obama administration’s “Internet Freedom Agenda”–was much better.

In fact, it was a sobering look at the situation, replete with all its conflicts and compromises, including some related to the State Department of late (hello, WikiLeaks!).

While more of a gimmick, Clinton outlined what she called a “venture capital-style approach” to stopping governments from closing down digital communications platforms.

In Egypt, that has included the whole dang Internet after times got tough and protesters tweeted too much.

Even still, said Clinton, such efforts–however effective now–were ultimately useless.

“Those who clamp down on Internet freedom may be able to hold back the full expression of their people’s yearnings for a while, but not forever,” she said.

Still, even though Facebook and Twitter have been lauded as critical tools in the reform protests in the Mideast, those Luddite strongmen did manage to put up a very good fight in shutting them down.

But Clinton advocated pressing on. Along with the seed funding for firewall-piercing and evading technologies, she also announced the creation of a new coordinator for cyber issues and the fact that the State Department had just begun to tweet in Arabic and Farsi and would soon be doing so in Chinese, Hindi and Russian.

All very nice steps, but the overall arrival of the long-promised global “strategy for cyberspace,” which has gotten bogged down in politics, is still to come.

In fact, a GOP-fueled criticism of the State Department was also released yesterday, designed to muck up Clinton’s speech, about how another $30 million in digital investments was being spent or, more precisely, being spent badly.

Clinton answered critics:

“Some have criticized us for not pouring funding into a single technology–but there is no silver bullet in the struggle against Internet repression. There’s no ‘app’ for that.”

Well, actually, since there is an app that turns your Apple iPhone into a hand massager, there certainly should be.

Speaking of that, Clinton was deft at dealing with the obvious delta between pressing for Internet freedom, even as U.S. government lawyers were whacking away at WikiLeaks–and, by association, Twitter itself.

Clinton noted the release of a mass of classified State Department documents “began with an act of theft,” arguing that this was the real issue.

She went on to further argue:

“I said that the WikiLeaks incident began with a theft, just as if it had been executed by smuggling papers in a briefcase. The fact that WikiLeaks used the Internet is not the reason we criticized its actions. WikiLeaks does not challenge our commitment to Internet freedom.”

Actually, the issue is that the Internet, once it really gets going, doesn’t really want to be controlled by anyone.

Kind of like humanity.

Or as Clinton so correctly noted about the various protests taking place abroad:

“In each case, people protested because of deep frustrations with the political and economic conditions of their lives. They stood and marched and chanted and the authorities tracked and blocked and arrested them. The Internet did not do any of those things; people did.”

In any case, judge for yourself: Here’s the video of the speech at George Washington University from the State Department’s Web site, as well as the full text below:

Thank you all very much and good afternoon. It is a pleasure, once again, to be back on the campus of the George Washington University, a place that I have spent quite a bit of time in all different settings over the last now nearly 20 years. I’d like especially to thank President Knapp and Provost Lerman, because this is a great opportunity for me to address such a significant issue, and one which deserves the attention of citizens, governments, and I know is drawing that attention. And perhaps today in my remarks, we can begin a much more vigorous debate that will respond to the needs that we have been watching in real time on our television sets.

A few minutes after midnight on January 28th, the Internet went dark across Egypt. During the previous four days, hundreds of thousands of Egyptians had marched to demand a new government. And the world, on TVs, laptops, cell phones, and smart phones, had followed every single step. Pictures and videos from Egypt flooded the web. On Facebook and Twitter, journalists posted on-the-spot reports. Protestors coordinated their next moves. And citizens of all stripes shared their hopes and fears about this pivotal moment in the history of their country.

Millions worldwide answered in real time, “You are not alone and we are with you.” Then the government pulled the plug. Cell phone service was cut off, TV satellite signals were jammed, and Internet access was blocked for nearly the entire population. The government did not want the people to communicate with each other and it did not want the press to communicate with the public. It certainly did not want the world to watch.

The events in Egypt recalled another protest movement 18 months earlier in Iran, when thousands marched after disputed elections. Their protestors also used websites to organize. A video taken by cell phone showed a young woman named Neda killed by a member of the paramilitary forces, and within hours, that video was being watched by people everywhere.

The Iranian authorities used technology as well. The Revolutionary Guard stalked members of the Green Movement by tracking their online profiles. And like Egypt, for a time, the government shut down the internet and mobile networks altogether. After the authorities raided homes, attacked university dorms, made mass arrests, tortured and fired shots into crowds, the protests ended.

In Egypt, however, the story ended differently. The protests continued despite the internet shutdown. People organized marches through flyers and word of mouth and used dial-up modems and fax machines to communicate with the world. After five days, the government relented and Egypt came back online. The authorities then sought to use the Internet to control the protests by ordering mobile companies to send out pro-government text messages, and by arresting bloggers and those who organized the protests online. But 18 days after the protests began, the government failed and the president resigned.

What happened in Egypt and what happened in Iran, which this week is once again using violence against protestors seeking basic freedoms, was about a great deal more than the internet. In each case, people protested because of deep frustrations with the political and economic conditions of their lives. They stood and marched and chanted and the authorities tracked and blocked and arrested them. The Internet did not do any of those things; people did. In both of these countries, the ways that citizens and the authorities used the Internet reflected the power of connection technologies on the one hand as an accelerant of political, social, and economic change, and on the other hand as a means to stifle or extinguish that change.

There is a debate currently underway in some circles about whether the Internet is a force for liberation or repression. But I think that debate is largely beside the point. Egypt isn’t inspiring people because they communicated using Twitter. It is inspiring because people came together and persisted in demanding a better future. Iran isn’t awful because the authorities used Facebook to shadow and capture members of the opposition. Iran is awful because it is a government that routinely violates the rights of its people.

So it is our values that cause these actions to inspire or outrage us, our sense of human dignity, the rights that flow from it, and the principles that ground it. And it is these values that ought to drive us to think about the road ahead. Two billion people are now online, nearly a third of humankind. We hail from every corner of the world, live under every form of government, and subscribe to every system of beliefs. And increasingly, we are turning to the Internet to conduct important aspects of our lives.

The Internet has become the public space of the 21st century–the world’s town square, classroom, marketplace, coffeehouse, and nightclub. We all shape and are shaped by what happens there, all 2 billion of us and counting. And that presents a challenge. To maintain an Internet that delivers the greatest possible benefits to the world, we need to have a serious conversation about the principles that will guide us, what rules exist and should not exist and why, what behaviors should be encouraged or discouraged and how.

The goal is not to tell people how to use the Internet any more than we ought to tell people how to use any public square, whether it’s Tahrir Square or Times Square. The value of these spaces derives from the variety of activities people can pursue in them, from holding a rally to selling their vegetables, to having a private conversation. These spaces provide an open platform, and so does the Internet. It does not serve any particular agenda, and it never should. But if people around the world are going come together every day online and have a safe and productive experience, we need a shared vision to guide us.

One year ago, I offered a starting point for that vision by calling for a global commitment to Internet freedom, to protect human rights online as we do offline. The rights of individuals to express their views freely, petition their leaders, worship according to their beliefs–these rights are universal, whether they are exercised in a public square or on an individual blog. The freedoms to assemble and associate also apply in cyberspace. In our time, people are as likely to come together to pursue common interests online as in a church or a labor hall.

Together, the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association online comprise what I’ve called the freedom to connect. The United States supports this freedom for people everywhere, and we have called on other nations to do the same. Because we want people to have the chance to exercise this freedom. We also support expanding the number of people who have access to the Internet. And because the Internet must work evenly and reliably for it to have value, we support the multi-stakeholder system that governs the internet today, which has consistently kept it up and running through all manner of interruptions across networks, borders, and regions.

In the year since my speech, people worldwide have continued to use the Internet to solve shared problems and expose public corruption, from the people in Russia who tracked wildfires online and organized a volunteer firefighting squad, to the children in Syria who used Facebook to reveal abuse by their teachers, to the Internet campaign in China that helps parents find their missing children.

At the same time, the Internet continues to be restrained in a myriad of ways. In China, the government censors content and redirects search requests to error pages. In Burma, independent news sites have been taken down with distributed denial of service attacks. In Cuba, the government is trying to create a national intranet, while not allowing their citizens to access the global internet. In Vietnam, bloggers who criticize the government are arrested and abused. In Iran, the authorities block opposition and media websites, target social media, and steal identifying information about their own people in order to hunt them down.

These actions reflect a landscape that is complex and combustible, and sure to become more so in the coming years as billions of more people connect to the Internet. The choices we make today will determine what the Internet looks like in the future. Businesses have to choose whether and how to enter markets where internet freedom is limited. People have to choose how to act online, what information to share and with whom, which ideas to voice and how to voice them. Governments have to choose to live up to their commitments to protect free expression, assembly, and association.

For the United States, the choice is clear. On the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness. Now, we recognize that an open Internet comes with challenges. It calls for ground rules to protect against wrongdoing and harm. And Internet freedom raises tensions, like all freedoms do. But we believe the benefits far exceed the costs.

And today, I’d like to discuss several of the challenges we must confront as we seek to protect and defend a free and open Internet. Now, I’m the first to say that neither I nor the United States Government has all the answers. We’re not sure we have all the questions. But we are committed to asking the questions, to helping lead a conversation, and to defending not just universal principles but the interests of our people and our partners.

The first challenge is achieving both liberty and security. Liberty and security are often presented as equal and opposite; the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. In fact, I believe they make it each other possible. Without security, liberty is fragile. Without liberty, security is oppressive. The challenge is finding the proper measure: enough security to enable our freedoms, but not so much or so little as to endanger them.

Finding this proper measure for the Internet is critical because the qualities that make the internet a force for unprecedented progress–its openness, its leveling effect, its reach and speed–also enable wrongdoing on an unprecedented scale. Terrorists and extremist groups use the Internet to recruit members, and plot and carry out attacks. Human traffickers use the Internet to find and lure new victims into modern-day slavery. Child pornographers use the Internet to exploit children. Hackers break into financial institutions, cell phone networks, and personal email accounts.

So we need successful strategies for combating these threats and more without constricting the openness that is the Internet’s greatest attribute. The United States is aggressively tracking and deterring criminals and terrorists online. We are investing in our nation’s cyber-security, both to prevent cyber-incidents and to lessen their impact. We are cooperating with other countries to fight transnational crime in cyberspace. The United States Government invests in helping other nations build their own law enforcement capacity. We have also ratified the Budapest Cybercrime Convention, which sets out the steps countries must take to ensure that the internet is not misused by criminals and terrorists while still protecting the liberties of our own citizens.

In our vigorous effort to prevent attacks or apprehend criminals, we retain a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. The United States is determined to stop terrorism and criminal activity online and offline, and in both spheres we are committed to pursuing these goals in accordance with our laws and values.

Now, others have taken a different approach. Security is often invoked as a justification for harsh crackdowns on freedom. Now, this tactic is not new to the digital age, but it has new resonance as the internet has given governments new capacities for tracking and punishing human rights advocates and political dissidents. Governments that arrest bloggers, pry into the peaceful activities of their citizens, and limit their access to the Internet may claim to be seeking security. In fact, they may even mean it as they define it. But they are taking the wrong path. Those who clamp down on Internet freedom may be able to hold back the full expression of their people’s yearnings for a while, but not forever.

The second challenge is protecting both transparency and confidentiality. The Internet’s strong culture of transparency derives from its power to make information of all kinds available instantly. But in addition to being a public space, the Internet is also a channel for private communications. And for that to continue, there must be protection for confidential communication online. Think of all the ways in which people and organizations rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. Businesses hold confidential conversations when they’re developing new products to stay ahead of their competitors. Journalists keep the details of some sources confidential to protect them from exposure or retribution. And governments also rely on confidential communication online as well as offline. The existence of connection technologies may make it harder to maintain confidentiality, but it does not alter the need for it.

Now, I know that government confidentiality has been a topic of debate during the past few months because of WikiLeaks, but it’s been a false debate in many ways. Fundamentally, the WikiLeaks incident began with an act of theft. Government documents were stolen, just the same as if they had been smuggled out in a briefcase. Some have suggested that this theft was justified because governments have a responsibility to conduct all of our work out in the open in the full view of our citizens. I respectfully disagree. The United States could neither provide for our citizens’ security nor promote the cause of human rights and democracy around the world if we had to make public every step of our efforts. Confidential communication gives our government the opportunity to do work that could not be done otherwise.

Consider our work with former Soviet states to secure loose nuclear material. By keeping the details confidential, we make it less likely that terrorists or criminals will find the nuclear material and steal it for their own purposes. Or consider the content of the documents that WikiLeaks made public. Without commenting on the authenticity of any particular documents, we can observe that many of the cables released by WikiLeaks relate to human rights work carried on around the world. Our diplomats closely collaborate with activists, journalists, and citizens to challenge the misdeeds of oppressive governments. It is dangerous work. By publishing diplomatic cables, WikiLeaks exposed people to even greater risk.

For operations like these, confidentiality is essential, especially in the Internet age when dangerous information can be sent around the world with the click of a keystroke. But of course, governments also have a duty to be transparent. We govern with the consent of the people, and that consent must be informed to be meaningful. So we must be judicious about when we close off our work to the public, and we must review our standards frequently to make sure they are rigorous. In the United States, we have laws designed to ensure that the government makes its work open to the people, and the Obama Administration has also launched an unprecedented initiative to put government data online, to encourage citizen participation, and to generally increase the openness of government.

The U.S. Government’s ability to protect America, to secure the liberties of our people, and to support the rights and freedoms of others around the world depends on maintaining a balance between what’s public and what should and must remain out of the public domain. The scale should and will always be tipped in favor of openness, but tipping the scale over completely serves no one’s interests. Let me be clear. I said that the WikiLeaks incident began with a theft, just as if it had been executed by smuggling papers in a briefcase. The fact that WikiLeaks used the Internet is not the reason we criticized its actions. WikiLeaks does not challenge our commitment to Internet freedom.

And one final word on this matter: There were reports in the days following these leaks that the United States Government intervened to coerce private companies to deny service to WikiLeaks. That is not the case. Now, some politicians and pundits publicly called for companies to disassociate from WikiLeaks, while others criticized them for doing so. Public officials are part of our country’s public debates, but there is a line between expressing views and coercing conduct. Business decisions that private companies may have taken to enforce their own values or policies regarding WikiLeaks were not at the direction of the Obama Administration.

A third challenge is protecting free expression while fostering tolerance and civility. I don’t need to tell this audience that the Internet is home to every kind of speech–false, offensive, incendiary, innovative, truthful, and beautiful.

The multitude of opinions and ideas that crowd the Internet is both a result of its openness and a reflection of our human diversity. Online, everyone has a voice. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the freedom of expression for all. But what we say has consequences. Hateful or defamatory words can inflame hostilities, deepen divisions, and provoke violence. On the Internet, this power is heightened. Intolerant speech is often amplified and impossible to retract. Of course, the Internet also provides a unique space for people to bridge their differences and build trust and understanding.

Some take the view that, to encourage tolerance, some hateful ideas must be silenced by governments. We believe that efforts to curb the content of speech rarely succeed and often become an excuse to violate freedom of expression. Instead, as it has historically been proven time and time again, the better answer to offensive speech is more speech. People can and should speak out against intolerance and hatred. By exposing ideas to debate, those with merit tend to be strengthened, while weak and false ideas tend to fade away; perhaps not instantly, but eventually.

Now, this approach does not immediately discredit every hateful idea or convince every bigot to reverse his thinking. But we have determined as a society that it is far more effective than any other alternative approach. Deleting writing, blocking content, arresting speakers–these actions suppress words, but they do not touch the underlying ideas. They simply drive people with those ideas to the fringes, where their convictions can deepen, unchallenged.

Last summer, Hannah Rosenthal, the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, made a trip to Dachau and Auschwitz with a delegation of American imams and Muslim leaders. Many of them had previously denied the Holocaust, and none of them had ever denounced Holocaust denial. But by visiting the concentration camps, they displayed a willingness to consider a different view. And the trip had a real impact. They prayed together, and they signed messages of peace, and many of those messages in the visitors books were written in Arabic. At the end of the trip, they read a statement that they wrote and signed together condemning without reservation Holocaust denial and all other forms of anti-Semitism.

The marketplace of ideas worked. Now, these leaders had not been arrested for their previous stance or ordered to remain silent. Their mosques were not shut down. The state did not compel them with force. Others appealed to them with facts. And their speech was dealt with through the speech of others.

The United States does restrict certain kinds of speech in accordance with the rule of law and our international obligations. We have rules about libel and slander, defamation, and speech that incites imminent violence. But we enforce these rules transparently, and citizens have the right to appeal how they are applied. And we don’t restrict speech even if the majority of people find it offensive. History, after all, is full of examples of ideas that were banned for reasons that we now see as wrong. People were punished for denying the divine right of kings, or suggesting that people should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, or religion. These restrictions might have reflected the dominant view at the time, and variations on these restrictions are still in force in places around the world.

But when it comes to online speech, the United States has chosen not to depart from our time-tested principles. We urge our people to speak with civility, to recognize the power and reach that their words can have online. We’ve seen in our own country tragic examples of how online bullying can have terrible consequences. Those of us in government should lead by example, in the tone we set and the ideas we champion. But leadership also means empowering people to make their own choices, rather than intervening and taking those choices away. We protect free speech with the force of law, and we appeal to the force of reason to win out over hate.

Now, these three large principles are not always easy to advance at once. They raise tensions, and they pose challenges. But we do not have to choose among them. Liberty and security, transparency and confidentiality, freedom of expression and tolerance–these all make up the foundation of a free, open, and secure society as well as a free, open, and secure internet where universal human rights are respected, and which provides a space for greater progress and prosperity over the long run.

Now, some countries are trying a different approach, abridging rights online and working to erect permanent walls between different activities–economic exchanges, political discussions, religious expressions, and social interactions. They want to keep what they like and suppress what they don’t. But this is no easy task. Search engines connect businesses to new customers, and they also attract users because they deliver and organize news and information. Social networking sites aren’t only places where friends share photos; they also share political views and build support for social causes or reach out to professional contacts to collaborate on new business opportunities.

Walls that divide the Internet, that block political content, or ban broad categories of expression, or allow certain forms of peaceful assembly but prohibit others, or intimidate people from expressing their ideas are far easier to erect than to maintain. Not just because people using human ingenuity find ways around them and through them but because there isn’t an economic Internet and a social Internet and a political Internet; there’s just the Internet. And maintaining barriers that attempt to change this reality entails a variety of costs–moral, political, and economic. Countries may be able to absorb these costs for a time, but we believe they are unsustainable in the long run. There are opportunity costs for trying to be open for business but closed for free expression–costs to a nation’s education system, its political stability, its social mobility, and its economic potential.

When countries curtail Internet freedom, they place limits on their economic future. Their young people don’t have full access to the conversations and debates happening in the world or exposure to the kind of free inquiry that spurs people to question old ways of doing and invent new ones. And barring criticism of officials makes governments more susceptible to corruption, which create economic distortions with long-term effects. Freedom of thought and the level playing field made possible by the rule of law are part of what fuels innovation economies.

So it;s not surprising that the European-American Business Council, a group of more than 70 companies, made a strong public support statement last week for Internet freedom. If you invest in countries with aggressive censorship and surveillance policies, your website could be shut down without warning, your servers hacked by the government, your designs stolen, or your staff threatened with arrest or expulsion for failing to comply with a politically motivated order. The risks to your bottom line and to your integrity will at some point outweigh the potential rewards, especially if there are market opportunities elsewhere.

Now, some have pointed to a few countries, particularly China, that appears to stand out as an exception, a place where Internet censorship is high and economic growth is strong. Clearly, many businesses are willing to endure restrictive internet policies to gain access to those markets, and in the short term, even perhaps in the medium term, those governments may succeed in maintaining a segmented internet. But those restrictions will have long-term costs that threaten one day to become a noose that restrains growth and development.

There are political costs as well. Consider Tunisia, where online economic activity was an important part of the country’s ties with Europe while online censorship was on par with China and Iran, the effort to divide the economic internet from the “everything else” Internet in Tunisia could not be sustained. People, especially young people, found ways to use connection technologies to organize and share grievances, which, as we know, helped fuel a movement that led to revolutionary change. In Syria, too, the government is trying to negotiate a non-negotiable contradiction. Just last week, it lifted a ban on Facebook and YouTube for the first time in three years, and yesterday they convicted a teenage girl of espionage and sentenced her to five years in prison for the political opinions she expressed on her blog.

This, too, is unsustainable. The demand for access to platforms of expression cannot be satisfied when using them lands you in prison. We believe that governments who have erected barriers to Internet freedom, whether they’re technical filters or censorship regimes or attacks on those who exercise their rights to expression and assembly online, will eventually find themselves boxed in. They will face a dictator’s dilemma and will have to choose between letting the walls fall or paying the price to keep them standing, which means both doubling down on a losing hand by resorting to greater oppression and enduring the escalating opportunity cost of missing out on the ideas that have been blocked and people who have been disappeared.

I urge countries everywhere instead to join us in the bet we have made, a bet that an open internet will lead to stronger, more prosperous countries. At its core, it’s an extension of the bet that the United States has been making for more than 200 years, that open societies give rise to the most lasting progress, that the rule of law is the firmest foundation for justice and peace, and that innovation thrives where ideas of all kinds are aired and explored. This is not a bet on computers or mobile phones. It’s a bet on people. We’re confident that together with those partners in government and people around the world who are making the same bet by hewing to universal rights that underpin open societies, we’ll preserve the internet as an open space for all. And that will pay long-term gains for our shared progress and prosperity. The United States will continue to promote an Internet where people’s rights are protected and that it is open to innovation, interoperable all over the world, secure enough to hold people’s trust, and reliable enough to support their work.

In the past year, we have welcomed the emergence of a global coalition of countries, businesses, civil society groups, and digital activists seeking to advance these goals. We have found strong partners in several governments worldwide, and we’ve been encouraged by the work of the Global Network Initiative, which brings together companies, academics, and NGOs to work together to solve the challenges we are facing, like how to handle government requests for censorship or how to decide whether to sell technologies that could be used to violate rights or how to handle privacy issues in the context of cloud computing. We need strong corporate partners that have made principled, meaningful commitments to internet freedom as we work together to advance this common cause.

We realize that in order to be meaningful, online freedoms must carry over into real-world activism. That’s why we are working through our Civil Society 2.0 initiative to connect NGOs and advocates with technology and training that will magnify their impact. We are also committed to continuing our conversation with people everywhere around the world. Last week, you may have heard, we launched Twitter feeds in Arabic and Farsi, adding to the ones we already have in French and Spanish. We’ll start similar ones in Chinese, Russian, and Hindi. This is enabling us to have real-time, two-way conversations with people wherever there is a connection that governments do not block.

Our commitment to internet freedom is a commitment to the rights of people, and we are matching that with our actions. Monitoring and responding to threats to internet freedom has become part of the daily work of our diplomats and development experts. They are working to advance internet freedom on the ground at our embassies and missions around the world. The United States continues to help people in oppressive internet environments get around filters, stay one step ahead of the censors, the hackers, and the thugs who beat them up or imprison them for what they say online.

While the rights we seek to protect and support are clear, the various ways that these rights are violated are increasingly complex. I know some have criticized us for not pouring funding into a single technology, but we believe there is no silver bullet in the struggle against internet repression. There’s no app for that. Start working, those of you out there. And accordingly, we are taking a comprehensive and innovative approach, one that matches our diplomacy with technology, secure distribution networks for tools, and direct support for those on the front lines.

In the last three years, we have awarded more than $20 million in competitive grants through an open process, including interagency evaluation by technical and policy experts to support a burgeoning group of technologists and activists working at the cutting edge of the fight against internet repression. This year, we will award more than $25 million in additional funding. We are taking a venture capital-style approach, supporting a portfolio of technologies, tools, and training, and adapting as more users shift to mobile devices. We have our ear to the ground, talking to digital activists about where they need help, and our diversified approach means we’re able to adapt the range of threats that they face. We support multiple tools, so if repressive governments figure out how to target one, others are available. And we invest in the cutting edge because we know that repressive governments are constantly innovating their methods of oppression and we intend to stay ahead of them.

Likewise, we are leading the push to strengthen cyber security and online innovation, building capacity in developing countries, championing open and interoperable standards and enhancing international cooperation to respond to cyber threats. Deputy Secretary of Defense Lynn gave a speech on this issue just yesterday. All these efforts build on a decade of work to sustain an Internet that is open, secure, and reliable. And in the coming year, the Administration will complete an international strategy for cyberspace, charting the course to continue this work into the future.

This is a foreign policy priority for us, one that will only increase in importance in the coming years. That’s why I’ve created the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, to enhance our work on cyber security and other issues and facilitate cooperation across the State Department and with other government agencies. I’ve named Christopher Painter, formerly senior director for cyber security at the National Security Council and a leader in the field for 20 years, to head this new office.

The dramatic increase in internet users during the past 10 years has been remarkable to witness. But that was just the opening act. In the next 20 years, nearly 5 billion people will join the network. It is those users who will decide the future.

So we are playing for the long game. Unlike much of what happens online, progress on this front will be measured in years, not seconds. The course we chart today will determine whether those who follow us will get the chance to experience the freedom, security, and prosperity of an open Internet.

As we look ahead, let us remember that Internet freedom isn’t about any one particular activity online. It’s about ensuring that the Internet remains a space where activities of all kinds can take place, from grand, ground-breaking, historic campaigns to the small, ordinary acts that people engage in every day.

We want to keep the Iternet open for the protestor using social media to organize a march in Egypt; the college student emailing her family photos of her semester abroad; the lawyer in Vietnam blogging to expose corruption; the teenager in the United States who is bullied and finds words of support online; for the small business owner in Kenya using mobile banking to manage her profits; the philosopher in China reading academic journals for her dissertation; the scientist in Brazil sharing data in real time with colleagues overseas; and the billions and billions of interactions with the Internet every single day as people communicate with loved ones, follow the news, do their jobs, and participate in the debates shaping their world.

Internet freedom is about defending the space in which all these things occur so that it remains not just for the students here today, but your successors and all who come after you. This is one of the grand challenges of our time. We are engaged in a vigorous effort against those who we have always stood against, who wish to stifle and repress, to come forward with their version of reality and to accept none other. We enlist your help on behalf of this struggle. It’s a struggle for human rights, it’s a struggle for human freedom, and it’s a struggle for human dignity.

Thank you all very much.

Twitter Kicks Off Its Super Bowl Site, Using Visa's Money

Peter Kafka — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:25:42 +0000

Twitter + big TV events are a natural combination, and one that Twitter has been playing up as it sells itself to advertisers. So this one makes perfect sense: An official site for Super Bowl tweets, underwritten by Visa.

I’ve taken a quick tour and can report that it’s more or less what you would expect: A filtered stream of tweets about next week’s Packers-Steelers game. Quite astutely, the biggest emphasis on the opening page is on tweets from NFL players themselves, who have embraced the platform even as the league has struggled to make sense of it.

And there are also some cool graphics that show off trending Super Bowl topics, sorted by time, geography, etc. I’m a little surprised to see Steelers talk so widespread throughout the country, but I guess that’s just my Midwestern bias poking through. (Seriously. Everyone’s rooting for Aaron Rodgers, right?)

Twitter did something similar last summer for the World Cup, but that effort didn’t seem to have been thought through very well, and very quickly became overwhelmed with spam and random chatter. I have a hunch Twitter has worked some of that out this time.

Also worth noting is that in the past, this kind of site might have had a hard time attracting much attention, but now Twitter’s ad platform can give it a real shot in the arm: A link to the site is today’s “Promoted Trend.”

Do You Check Facebook or Email First Each Day?

Liz Gannes — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:00:12 +0000

When you first roll out of bed and hop onto your laptop (or perhaps you grab your iPad or phone before you roll out of bed), what site or service do you load up first?

Is it Facebook? Twitter? Personal email? Work email? A news site or aggregator? A corporate collaboration tool or chat room?

It’s a minor detail perhaps, but something I love asking people. Your bleary-eyed self may speak the truth about the utility you find in these sites and the loyalty they command.

(Personally, I’m not always a creature of habit; I mix it up. My All Things D email and our internal Socialcast stream are high up on the list. Facebook and Twitter usually come a little later in the morning scramble.)

There’s a user poll going around on Facebook at the moment that a couple of people from disparate parts of my life have taken, so it’s been popping up in my newsfeed. The poll asks, “Which do you check first each day: Facebook, or your Email?”

So far, with 518 responses, email is pulling 54.1 percent of the vote. This is in a survey of presumably very active Facebook users who would take the time to fill out the poll (which is part of the beta Facebook Questions product). What about you?

P.S. Quora has a question on the matter as well, with fewer but more diverse and detailed responses.

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my ethics statement.

Backstage at the Onion's New TV Show

Peter Kafka — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:05:56 +0000

One day, maybe not that far off, we won’t distinguish between video we watch on the Web and the stuff we see on TV. But for now, TV is still the big leagues–the place you go if you want the biggest stage, and the most money.

Which might explain why the Onion has not one but two shows on TV right now, both based on the great stuff the satirists are already doing on their Web video site.

There’s SportsDome on Comedy Central, a beat-for-beat replication of ESPN’s SportsCenter. And starting tonight on IFC, there’s the Onion News Network, an uncanny amalgamation of News Corp.’s Fox News, Time Warner’s CNN, Comcast’s MSNBC et al.

Here’s a representative sample:

Snowy Conditions Proving Hazardous For Nation’s Idiots

I think it’s pretty great, but I’m a 100 percent biased observer, since I’ve been friends with some of the Onion crew for forever–think pre-Netscape. If you want a less objective take on the new show, you can check out this glowing New York Times review, or this measured one from Time.

Last week, I stopped by a promo for the show–a real/fake press conference starring the fake newsreaders, in character, moderated by Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, who appeared as himself–and then sat down for a chat with Carol Kolb, a longtime Onion writer (and a pal–see above).

We talked in a makeshift green room set up at the very serious Paley Center for Media, and midway through, our conversation gets interrupted by the show’s cast. But that just makes it more real, right? If your coworkers aren’t cool with a few f-bombs, then this isn’t safe for work:

[ See post to watch video ]

The Atlantic Pretties Up With Photos

Peter Kafka — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:02:46 +0000

The rise of the Atlantic’s Web site is a good story, but that tale doesn’t have much to do with pictures, only words.

That’s supposed to change next month, when the site adds a new “In Focus” photo blog, curated by Alan Taylor. The assumption is that Taylor will be doing something very similar to the work he has been doing at the Boston Globe’s site, where his “Big Picture” site has been averaging eight million page views a month.

It’s fairly easy to describe what Taylor does: He grabs brilliant images–culled from Getty, Reuters and the Associated Press, as well as from a personal network of photographers–and assembles them on a no-frills site. But it’s impossible to describe the photos’ impact, so best to take a minute and see the work he’s been doing at Boston.com.

Back? Okay. Now, head over to check out a few of Gawker Media’s beta sites, which showcase the blog network’s upcoming emphasis on big, pretty pictures.

Again, hard to really appreciate how good this stuff can look on a lot of browser windows, but if you’ve got a big enough display–or more interestingly, if you’re looking at this stuff on a TV screen on your wall, or your iPad screen on your lap–you’ll get the full effect. Which is: This stuff doesn’t really look much like the Web–it looks like TV.

And that’s sort of the point.

SkypeOut: Service Is Down for Millions

Ina Fried — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:23:35 +0000

Skype users were sent scrambling for one of the few remaining pay phones on Wednesday as the Internet telephone service experienced a widespread outage.

A page deep in the company’s support site confirms the issue, but appears to significantly understate the problem.

“We are aware that some people are encountering difficulties signing in to Skype,” reads the company’s response on a FAQ page for those having connection issues. “Rest assured, we are working hard to fix this. In the meantime, we apologise for any inconvenience this may be causing you.”

Maybe the company was just trying to reinforce its warning that Skype is not a replacement for the telephone in an emergency:

Needless to say, this isn’t the kind of conversation the company was seeking to spark as it tries to build momentum for a pending stock offering.

Update, 10:45 am PT: A Skype representative said in an email that the company is examining the cause and extent of the outage and again apologized to users for the inconvenience. Skype said to follow its Twitter account (@skype) for updates.

Careful Where You Click! Google Flags Hacked Sites.

Peter Kafka — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 21:54:37 +0000

Gawkergate got you feeling itchy about the sites you visit? Perhaps Google can help: The search engine is now telling searchers when it thinks a site may be hacked. Or in Google’s words, it tells you, “This site may be compromised.”

Here’s a sample, from Google’s blog post announcing the change (via SearchEngineLand). Click on the image to enlarge:

Google has already been flagging sites it thinks are distributing malware, so this is just an incremental step. And Google apparently thinks a “compromised” site is less dangerous than one it thinks “may harm your computer”: If you click on the link for the latter, Google will send you to an “are you really sure you want to go there?” message, but Google won’t actually slow you down if you want to head to a hacked site.

[Image credit: Picture Perfect Pose]

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-hacked-site-notifications-in-search.html

China's Baidu Launches Its Own Version of Groupon

Beth Callaghan — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 19:15:14 +0000

While Google was making headlines this week for reportedly trying to acquire Groupon, Baidu–its biggest Chinese rival–was busy launching its own version of the group buying site. Youa Tuangou, which means “group buy” in Chinese, went live yesterday on Baidu’s Youa e-commerce platform. Any merchant listed on the company’s Baidu Shenbian consumer review site can create discounted offerings to be promoted on the new service. Groupon, meanwhile, has acquired three Web sites in Asia, but none of them operate in mainland China.

Myspace Modernizes Mobile Site and App

Liz Gannes — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:13:48 +0000

Remember when there was a whole phone–in fact a whole carrier–oriented around the booming social network Myspace? It was just a few years ago that the Helio MVNO came out, but it’s since been bought by Virgin and discontinued. These days, Myspace has had more basic and sparsely updated mobile offerings, but even so, the company says “a third of Myspace’s Gen Y users [are] interacting with the site on mobile devices every day.” Today Myspace announced it’s modernizing its mobile offerings.

A new Myspace mobile site at http://m.myspace.com launches today, formatted for iOS, Android, Palm and “select Nokia and BlackBerry devices.” It channels Myspace’s recent focus as an entertainment destination, with features emphasizing music and celebrity news and access to video content, but no music streaming.

An overdue iPhone app update is also set to arrive “in the coming weeks,” Myspace said. The company’s existing iPhone app hadn’t been updated since January 2010, and doesn’t include push notifications, instant messaging or status updating, according to vocal user complaints in the iPhone app reviews section. The new app will indeed include all those features, said a Myspace spokesperson.

Target Buys Black Friday From Twitter–But Wal-Mart Gets Justin Bieber

Peter Kafka — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 21:52:02 +0000

You don’t have to go near a big-box store or an e-commerce site today to watch a Black Friday brawl. Just head to Twitter.

Once you’re there, you’ll see that “Black Friday” is the day’s Promoted Trend. And if you click on the term, you’ll see that Target has purchased the phrase for the day. Which means that anyone who clicks through will see this ad/Tweet:

And then lots of other Twitter chatter about Target.

Don’t know what Target paid for the privilege, but it seems like a reasonably good way to deploy marketing money.

Except! Scan down the list of the day’s other top trends–the phrases that Twitter doesn’t sell, but are based on whatever Twitterers are Tweeting about–and you’ll see that Wal-Mart makes the list, too. How’d that happen?

Twitter PR tells me that “Walmart=organic.” Which is pretty funny to type, but not exactly true.

Because I’m pretty sure the reason that Wal-Mart is a trending topic today is that Justin Bieber, who has more than six million followers on Twitter, Tweeted about it:

So that’s not the same as “Wal-Mart” simply bubbling up because lots of Twitter users are talking about it without prompting.

There’s almost certainly a commercial relationship between Bieber (or, more likely, Universal Music Group, his label) and Wal-Mart. And that’s why Bieber (or, more likely, someone he pays to type out Tweets) is Tweeting about Wal-Mart instead of Target or Best Buy or… what other stores still sell music these days?

But since Twitter itself isn’t making money off the transaction, the Twitter folks can count it as “organic.”

Question for another time: If Justin Bieber–or his label, or Wal-Mart–is going to use Twitter to advertise goods and services, why doesn’t Twitter make money from that?

Viral Video: "When Yelp Came Knocking at My Door"

Kara Swisher — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:19:24 +0000

Here is a cute music video that Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman pointed me to, which is a result of its most recent hackathon.

Set all around San Francisco and also Yelp’s HQ downtown, it’s not its official theme song for the online reviews site. But it should be, as it has a nice indie feel, kind of a geek version of the Moldy Peaches.

Enjoy:

Gravity Wants to Instantly Personalize Any Content Site

Liz Gannes — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:45:44 +0000

Today Gravity is unveiling its plans to be an information filtering service. The idea is to combine social and semantic understanding of users to identify content they are likely to be interested in.

The Santa Monica, Calif.-based company is demoing this idea as a personalized newspaper app called The Orbit (to be released soon). The Orbit takes a user’s Twitter account and computes the topics a person is interested in and the network she is connected to. For any one Web page, Gravity might look at how recent it is, how popular it is, how relevant it is to a person’s interest and how many of that person’s friends have shared it.

Eventually, said Gravity CEO Amit Kapur, the company wants to offer personalization services to publisher sites. So when I go to the New York Times with Gravity enabled, for example, I would be able to get a view of the site’s content that’s weighted to what I am likely to be interested in.

I think that’s an awesome idea (though I do appreciate the roles of editorial curation and serendipity in bringing me my news). This is similar to what Facebook is trying to do with its controversial Instant Personalization product, where a user logged in to Facebook arrives at a new site that already knows who his friends are.

The problem is, what Gravity is setting out to do–both the natural-language processing and computational side, and the nitty-gritty of integrating into other peoples’ Web sites–is really freaking hard. And, no offense guys, but the Gravity team’s big experience to date was working at Myspace–not exactly a pinnacle of technical achievement.

When the company briefed me on what it was doing, it prepared a poster-size personal interest graph based on analysis of my Twitter account (that’s it at the top of the post; click to enlarge). Well shucks, guys–it seems to be just a bunch of words and topics I’ve mentioned in Tweets over the last few years, connected by lines. Doesn’t really convince me that you understand that much about me and what I want to read.

Still, Gravity has quite a bit going for it: A good idea, and $10 million from top investors at Redpoint Ventures and August Capital, plus advising by machine learning and computational linguistics professors at Stanford and UC Berkeley.

AngelPad, an Incubator for Entrepreneurs With Credentials

Liz Gannes — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:12:20 +0000

AngelPad, the new incubator created by former Googlers, held its first end-of-session Demo Day last night at its office on a dead-end alley in San Francisco’s SOMA district. It was a familiar format for those who have been to Y Combinator and TechStars Demo Days, and indeed just about every one of the hundred or so investors in the room is a frequent presence at those events.

Thomas Korte

AngelPad is captained by the amiable and energetic former Google product evangelist Thomas Korte, who brought in many of the eight participating start-ups from his personal connections. They included somewhat typical tech start-up fare: A couple of Web curation tools (Curated.by and Snip.ly), a get-together planning app (RollCall) and a simpler interface for selling your stuff online (EggCartel). There was also a user-generated outdoors site (AllTrails) and an app that tracks the energy consumption of computers and other devices (Hug Energy).

Probably the most notable difference between AngelPad and other incubators is the level of high-profile experience most of its founders already have. At least half seemed to have worked on product and engineering at Google, and others come from established companies like Microsoft, Yelp, Playdom and RockYou.

(Also, is it just me, or does the name AngelPad scream for a reality show that would be sort of like “Real World” mashed with “Top Chef” about Silicon Valley start-ups?)

After the demos, I asked MoPub founder Jim Payne, who managed product for Google Maps Premier and AdMob metrics, what he and his co-founders thought the AngelPad differentiator is. He said, “As compared to Y Combinator?” I said, “First of all, as compared to doing this outside an incubator.”

Payne replied that he “wouldn’t and couldn’t” have started his company without an incubator, and that taking that route would be forcibly sitting yourself and your start-up “out in the weeds.”

MoPub is a mobile ad server, and will soon announce its first round of funding, said Payne. He and other AngelPad participants said they liked the small size of the program and the more free-form curriculum as compared to more established incubators.

Sean Plaice of Hug Energy at AngelPad's first Demo Day

Bill Tai of Charles River Ventures, who had been chatting with Payne when I walked up, bid him goodbye with the admonition to let Tai get in on the MoPub round. Tai told me that he thought MoPub and Adku were the most interesting of the AngelPad eight. Adku wants to help e-commerce sites optimize what products they are featuring using real-time data mining about what’s relevant to a visitor’s location and demographic.

Tai said he agreed that founders in the first AngelPad class do have more experience, particularly at large companies. But he added that’s not necessarily always an asset. “At Y Combinator there may be a higher probability of a breakout idea,” Tai said, “because less-experienced people don’t have context.”

Drinking Site Groggle Drops Name After Fight With Google

Jennifer Valentino-DeVries — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:00:19 +0000

It sounds like a great name for a site that helps people find the best prices on alcohol in their area–Groggle. But you know who didn’t think it was such a great name? Google.

The search giant objected over the similarity of the Groggle name to Google’s own when the founders of the Australian drinking site applied for a trademark application as they prepared to launch their service in April, the Sydney Morning Herald reported. After a six-month legal battle, Groggle’s co-founders said that they had settled with Google last month, and they changed the name of their site to Drinkle.

The Groggle–or Drinkle–team announced on Facebook and Twitter that they were “forging ahead” after the trademark fight delayed their launch. They added that they were going to “celebrate by drinking Australia’s most [expensive] bottle of beer”–Crown Ambassador 2010 Reserve, which is made by Australia’s Foster’s and has a list price of $90. (The lager got a good review on Twitter from one of the site’s co-founders, who said it had “deep golden colour and rich complex flavours.”)

Read the rest of this post on the original site

The Ad Tech Boom, Explained

Peter Kafka — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:30:37 +0000

The advertising technology boom is premised on the notion that there is a lot of money to be made figuring out more efficient ways to link marketers, publishers and consumers together.

Or, alternately, it’s premised on the idea that Google is going to spend more of its billions on ad technology start-ups. Same thing, sorta.

Either way, banker Terry Kawaja, whose Luma Partners makes money navigating the ad tech landscape, does a nice job of parodying it here.

This is definitely inside baseball: If you don’t know what AdExchanger* is or don’t know who Mike Walrath** is, this may not do much for you.

Then again, if you’re familiar with any other overhyped industry jammed full of money and buzzwords, you can probably follow along just fine. (Couple of f-bombs here, so figure out on your own if this is work-safe or not):

*It’s a really good ad tech trade site.
**An ad tech pioneer who founded Right Media and sold it to Yahoo in 2007.

[Image credit: AMagill]

Amazon Unveils Windowshop for the iPad

Beth Callaghan — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:53:50 +0000

Placing faith in the acquisitiveness of the Apple faithful, Amazon launched a new app today specifically for the iPad, called Amazon Windowshop. It’s billed as a “complete rewrite” of the Amazon site, and offers all of the same products as the Web version. It also offers one-click shopping support, though maybe that handle should be reconsidered for the touchscreen. The app is available for free at the iTunes App Store.

Wonderwall Goes Latino

Kara Swisher — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 07:46:34 +0000

Hola Sofia Vergara!

In an interesting brand extension, the popular celebrity and entertainment site Wonderwall has launched a version aimed at the U.S. Hispanic market called Wonderwall Latino.

The main Wonderwall site, which is a partnership between Hollywood production company BermanBraun and Microsoft’s MSN portal that launched in early 2009, now has 11.3 million unique users and 337 million page views a month.

That site is getting a design overhaul, with new features including voting buttons, a dedicated video page and a buzz stream with breaking news and tweets, as well as apps for the Apple iPhone and IPod Touch.

According to an MSN blog on the Wonderwall extension, “BermanBraun will spearhead the design, programming, and operations of the digital brand. MSN will provide unique content and lead the advertising efforts in partnership with Microsoft and BermanBraun.”

BermanBraun also recently debuted a political site called BLTWY with MSNBC.com.

How to Waste Even More Time on YouTube

Peter Kafka — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:35:20 +0000

You really don’t need a guide to time-wasting on YouTube. That’s sort of the point of Google’s ( GOOG) could-be-profitable video site, right?

But still. There are more-efficient ways to go about it.

Like this excellent flowchart from Karen Kavett, a junior at the Rhode Island School of Design. Pretty self-explanatory, though worth noting that Kavett is, by her own admission, really into Harry Potter and “wizard rock.” (Click image to enlarge, or head here for a slightly larger version.)

Pretty great. How else would I have learned about the joys of FlippyCat?

(Hat tip: DVICE)

A Media Non-Move: ESPN.com Star Bill Simmons Stays Put

Peter Kafka — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:19:25 +0000

Here’s a variation on the “old media star bails for new media outlet” story–a new media big shot staying put at the place that made him famous.

ESPN.com is hanging on to star columnist Bill Simmons, whose contract was set to expire this year. Disney’s sports site has yet to announce the deal, but sources tell me it was finalized more than a month ago–but not as far back as May 15, when Deadspin reported that a deal was essentially done.

How’s that for precision?

In that same vein, you can hear Simmons acknowledge the new deal, tacitly, in his pal Adam Carolla’s podcast today. During the show, taped yesterday, Carolla tells Simmons that “I know you signed a new contract with ESPN,” and then the two go on to talk about future podcast plans, including the potential for video podcasts (this kicks in around the 17:30 mark, if you’ve got the time).

Simmons more or less grew up on the Web, and while Disney’s (DIS) sports unit gives him an opportunity to do things off the Internet, he’s best known for his Sports Guy columns and podcasts on ESPN’s very big site.

Deadspin says Simmons is now working on a “top secret” project for ESPN; rival sports gossip blog The Big Lead says he’ll be building a new standalone site under the ESPN.com umbrella.

No word on length of the new deal, or its value, though I’m hoping it’s for a boatload of money.

That’s what Simmons’s colleague Rick Reilly got when he came aboard from Time Warner’s (TWX) Sports Illustrated back in 2007–a 5-year, $17 million deal, I’m told–and even though Reilly’s deal was done before the economy tanked, it’d be nice to think a Web wonder can command the same kind of cash in 2010.

Even something in the same ballpark would be nice. Right?

ESPN declined to comment; I’m waiting to hear back from Simmons.

[Image credit: Steven Barry via ESPN Books]

Hulu Still Beating the IPO Drum

Peter Kafka — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:33:32 +0000

Could Hulu really go public? Absolutely! That’s the line Hulu has been putting out for months now, and Reuters has an update: The news service says the video site is contemplating raising up to $300 million, at a $2 billion valuation, via a 2011 IPO.

If that’s the case, we could see a prospectus filed by the end of 2010, with the help of Morgan Stanley.

Except! It may not happen at all, Reuters acknowledges: An IPO “is one of several options under consideration” and “their options include attracting other media companies to contribute new programming or raising more money from existing partners.”

So maybe, maybe not.

Here’s what we do know:

Hulu needs more money to help secure more content so it can keep competing against Netflix (NFLX), Google (GOOG) and Apple (AAPL), among others.
At some point, Hulu needs to be able to offer liquidity to its early employees.
Convincing public investors that Hulu’s three broadcast owners — Disney’s (DIS) ABC, News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox and GE’s (GE) NBC (soon to be Comcast’s NBC)–is theoretically possible. Because they have an obvious incentive to make it work. But all three companies continue to send signals that indicate they have mixed feelings about the JV. Which will make an IPO awfully tricky.

Big money + conflict makes for good drama, no? If they put it on the air, I’d watch.

Meanwhile, here’s a clip from “The Office,” which I haven’t been able to see this season but plan to watch on Hulu sooner than later. Not coincidentally, this kind of catch-up viewing is the service’s strong suit:

Naked Brett Favre Won't Make Money for Nick Denton

Peter Kafka — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:27:02 +0000

Gawker Media’s Deadspin sports site says it will publish nude photos of Brett Favre today, along with some voicemails it says the quarterback left for a woman who is not his wife.

Which means that corner of Deadspin is going to be very, very popular today.

As well as unprofitable, says Gawker Media owner Nick Denton.

“These things are always money-losers,” Denton says via IM, before referring me to Gawker Media marketing director Erin Pettigrew for more.

But while I wait for her to get back to me, I can make some educated guesses to explain why lots of traffic won’t mean lots of money for Denton today.

It’s hard to serve ads into traffic spikes. Or at least that’s what Denton always says about his most popular posts, like the iPhone 4 prototype that Gizmodo showed off to Apple’s dismay, or a sorta-sex tape featuring “McSteamy” from “Grey’s Anatomy,” etc.
In this case, Gawker is very likely to serve up the Favre post without any advertising, anyway. When I interviewed Denton onstage at an Advertising Week event last week, I asked him specifically about how advertisers feel about “athlete dong” photos, which his readers love. His answer, in short, was that advertisers are understandably squeamish about this stuff, and can opt out of posts that contain it in advance. Have to assume this is one of those cases.

Requisite to-be-sure: Denton runs a for-profit business, and he won’t run athlete dong photos or anything else unless he can make money doing it.

So while those individual pageviews that the post generates won’t make him money, those visitors may well end up visiting other, dong-free posts on Gawker sites today, which will have ads.

And of course, the post will give Gawker and Deadspin that much more publicity, as mainstream media outlets that would never stoop to running athlete dong photos find time to talk about the site that did. (Cough.)

UPDATE: Sure enough, both the Favre post and the rest of Deadspin are currently ad-free. Via e-mail, Erin Pettigrew explains why that’s so:

In the case of major ad/edit adjacency issues such as this, we have a cadre of tech tools to handle the display conflict. Usually the decision is made to prevent ads from showing next to NSFW or similarly questionable content and then the tech solution is put into place to effect that immediately after. The tech tools range from removing ads on a per-post basis to scanning post content for particular topics against which we can negatively target ads.

If the adjacency affects takeovers and sponsorships where ad inventory cannot be otherwise rerouted, we communicate the scenario upfront to the client and involve them in the decision-making. The same tech solutions then apply.

It’s the classic airplane ad next to an airliner crash scenario for which publishers need to develop contingencies. For this particular scoop, the decision was indeed to clean the Favre post pages of ads.

I saw your note about spikes — you are correct that we aren’t able to instantly match ad demand to the surge of inventory supply caused by traffic spikes. This is because our inventory is 100% directly sold versus hawked by real time auction marketplaces. More pageviews does not directly equal more dollars! Also, note that our ad bookings close weeks to months before creative hits the websites. So, unless a spike is ‘scheduled,’ it can’t really be sold.

Squarespace. $38.5 Million in VC Bucks. More Social Networking For All. (Stop Me If You've Heard This One.)

Kara Swisher — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:15:48 +0000

Another day, another giant venture funding.

Today it is $38.5 million to Squarespace–which lets you make blogs, Web sites, mobile apps, social networking widgets and other such oversharing digital tools–from Index Ventures and Accel Partners.

Squarespace is from New York. Index is in London. Accel is in Silicon Valley. It’s very global!

BoomTown will admit it–these big fundings are starting to bleed into each other.

And here I thought VCs were running out of scratch!

Nope.

Thus, the inevitable press release about the start-up, which competes with WordPress and Six Apart:

Index and Accel back Squarespace–Industry leading web publishing platform

NEW YORK, NY–July 14th, 2010–Squarespace, an industry leading web publishing platform, today announced that it closed a $38.5M minority growth investment led by Index Ventures and Accel Partners. This is the first outside capital that Squarespace has raised since its founding in 2003.

As part of this transaction, joining Squarespace’s newly formed board will be Dominique Vidal, of Index Ventures’ growth team, Andrew Braccia, from Accel’s investment team, and Jonathan Klein, Founder and CEO of Getty Images. Founder Anthony Casalena will remain the company’s largest shareholder.

Squarespace was founded by Anthony Casalena with the goal of redefining publishing on the Web. Today, Squarespace’s SaaS platform powers tens of thousands of websites worldwide. Businesses, bloggers, web developers and artists use Squarespace to quickly and easily create and maintain professional, high quality websites. Squarespace’s product is differentiated by its intense focus on design, integration and scalability. Notable customers include Marc Ecko, Porter Novelli, Bob Woodruff, Kevin Pollak, and Don Imus.

“Squarespace has created a powerful product used by web developers, bloggers, and consumers around the world to build beautiful, functional and flexible websites,” said Dom Vidal, partner, Index Ventures. “We believe in the team, the technology, and the market potential, and are excited to be a part of such a fast growing business.”

The size of the round will enable Squarespace to significantly expand operations as they seek to solve the problem of content management at its core, and allow its new partners to contribute to and participate in Squarespace’s continued success.

“Squarespace has been a profitable business since its first year of operation. This investment will not change that, but it will allow us to be much more aggressive in our quest to both create an incredible product and bring that product to market,” said Anthony Casalena, Squarespace’s founder.

With the Squarespace web publishing platform, you can:

• Quickly publish and manage a highly functional web site, including a blog and portfolio.
• Host on an expandable grid infrastructure that can manage sites of any size across the globe.
• Access hand designed templates and customizable photo galleries.
• Aggregate data from across various social networks completely within the Squarespace environment, without needing 3rd party scripts.
• Use the iPhone app to check your site, post to your blog, manage blog posts, and see site traffic, while on the go.
• Easily import images, posts, and links from existing blogging platforms.
• Track visitors and usage patterns of a site with powerful analytics tools.

“There are a lot of tools on the market that allow people to set up simple blogs for free. At Squarespace, we offer something different–a high quality, professional, reliable platform, designed from the ground up by us to work in a very streamlined way,” said Casalena. “The addition of Index, Accel and Jonathan Klein to the Squarespace team will help us achieve further growth and cement our position as a clear leader in this space.”

Squarespace packages are sold on www.squarespace.com and start at $8 per month.

Why ABC's iPad App Is Free, but ABC Shows on Hulu's App-to-Be Won't Be

Peter Kafka — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:00:29 +0000

One of the benefits of the upcoming Hulu subscription service: The ability of users to watch shows from NBC, Fox and ABC on the iPad. But iPad users can already watch ABC shows on the iPad via the network’s free app. What gives?

That’s the question a lot of people in the media industry have asked since the Disney (DIS) unit launched its app in April. The usual response, after a shrug–perhaps Disney CEO Bob Iger wanted to do something nice for Apple’s (AAPL) Steve Jobs, who happens to be the biggest single owner of Disney shares.

And that may well be the case. But I’ve since heard a slightly more detailed justification for the free app. Bear with me:

The shows offered by the ABC app are the same ones ABC offers up for free on its Web site. Which means, because of the terms of ABC’s deal with Hulu, that those same shows are available for free on Hulu.

But the Hulu subscription service will feature ABC shows that aren’t available anywhere online for free. So you’ll see different shows on ABC’s free app than on Hulu’s paid offering. Which means they aren’t really competitive at all.

Got it?

Admittedly, that logic will track, if you’re paying attention. And if you follow the TV and movie industry’s use of “windows” and the disruptive threat digital media pose to Hollywood, it won’t sound completely foreign.

And perhaps the first several million iPad buyers will be savvier than most TV watchers. But for most people, it’s going to remain a head-scratcher: Why do I get to watch some episodes of “Lost” for free on this app, but it costs $10 a month to watch other episodes of the same show on that app?

And if anyone asks you that question, feel free to mention this post. It’s free, after all.