Homework students and general trivia buffs the world over were greeted with a blacked-out Wikipedia screen this week; the protest by the online encyclopaedia was a reaction to the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) bills currently going through the United States Congress. 

Opponents to the bill were trying to raise awareness that if it passed, the Internet as we know it would be drastically curtailed. Of these, Wikipedia was by far the highest-profile website to protest and its action gained press coverage the world over. The reason is of course that Wikipedia is one of the most-visited websites on the Internet; no matter what the topic you are searching for (no doubt using Google, probably the most-visited site) a Wikipedia page relating to that topic will very likely appear high in the search results. 

That ranking comes from the authority Wikipedia has gained over the decade or so that it has grown, it is the first point of call for most of us when looking up a given subject. Wikipedia argues that the SOPA bill, although intended to combat online piracy such as illegal file-sharing (a battle that has raged almost since the Internet became generally available), would have consequences that are further-reaching than merely stopping the ability to access copyrighted content illegally.

One of the original proposals was to compel Internet service providers (ISPs) to block their own users from accessing sites that were deemed to be in breach of copyright; this was revised after it was pointed out that the very structure of the Web would be compromised if that happened (effectively, all the Web is, is a lot of computers connected together). However the bill still would require ISPs, as well as advertisers and sites such as PayPal to cease trading with anyone who is alleged to have breached copyright. In addition, search engines would be compelled to remove from their search results any sites that are accused of copyright infringement.

That would seriously impact on Google as well as other search engines; Google has attained its present dominant position because it was so much more effective at giving relevant results than any other search engine, when it first came on the scene in the late 1990s. Google would have to alter radically its own algorithms and if that includes inserting artificial means to filter out what authorities deem is unsuitable, the trust factor of Google’s search results is forever lost. 

Wikipedia claims that its own integrity would be compromised also; the ethos of the site is that it is both accessible and editable by anyone. The site’s integrity is maintained by a team of administrators whose job it is to ensure that entries are factual and neutral. This team works on a voluntary basis and were the SOPA bill in place now, the site would either have to hand its adminstration over to a team authorised by the United States government, or be blocked altogether. Once again, trust would be sacrificed. 

The protest by the online encyclopaedia was effective in so far as it made everybody aware that the Web as we know it is under threat, and lawmakers in the United States are now making noises about backtracking on some of the proposals. Ironically, the blackout itself was actually quite simple to circumvent (one way was to use cached pages from Google), which, if nothing else, illustrates the drawback of rushing through laws without sufficient understanding of the technology. Content can be and is cached on many more servers than those which are shut down by authorities, so the logical conclusion would be that access to the Internet itself would ultimately be restricted only to those ‘authorised’ to use it by the powers that be. 

For those of us who use the Internet for marketing, this is something we must all be aware of. Internet marketers themselves are more interested in getting the word out there about whatever business niche they are promoting, but if the tools to make that possible are placed out of reach by a draconian bill which has consequences far beyond its stated purpose, the way for people to take back control of their own lives is in danger of being taken away from us.

For that reason, it is the responsibility of all of us to oppose this bill – although they are backtracking, the danger remains that measures will come into effect while attention is diverted elsewhere, when it is not so newsworthy.  

If you use Google, YouTube, Facebook or any other social media site to promote your business, this affects you. 

A link is provided here for those who wish to register their disapproval.

Do we 

Of course you would. This script is provided by one of the leading lights in the network marketing industry, Todd Falcone. All he is asking for is an email address and he will send you the download, which you can use right away. For explosive growth, results and ultimately more money, just follow the link provided and help yourself to the free download from The Fearless Networker himself – Todd Falcone.

Click For Access To Todd Falcone’s Little Black Book

 

 

In late 2009 at the Wealth Masters M2 conference I saw a lady called Gwen Olsen speak about the dangers of prescription drugs; she was particularly well-qualified to talk since she was once a salesperson for the pharmaceutical industry.  She got out of the industry after becoming concerned at the practices of the industry and, closer to home, she lost a family member to prescription drugs.  With that in mind, the news that the EU are to crack down on herbal remedies is alarming. I am not a fervent believer in alternative medicine myself, but this looks to me like a protectionist ploy aimed at making sure only those ‘remedies’ provided by the large companies (the same ones Gwen Olsen warns about in her book) get to the public at large.

Something she said that day still sticks with me: your body is capable of healing itself – provided it’s looked after well.  I’d like to think this law has been passed for the good of the ordinary people, but I fear it’s more to do with eliminating a growing culture of alternative medicine. If people realise they do not need prescription pills for every ailment, the large pharmaceutical companies have a problem. When only their voice is being heard by decision-makers, it is the rest of us who have the problem.  As I say, I’m not a massive advocate of alternative therapies, but I am concerned when all forms of medicine are being controlled by the same corporations.

If this is something that concerns you too, I recommend taking a look at Gwen Olsen’s website and getting a former insider’s perspective on this industry.

This is a hitherto unforeseen implication of revealing too much information about yourself on Facebook or indeed any social networking site. While it would be a little flippant to advise people to think carefully before posting those party photos online for all to see, it is entirely possible that it would work the other way – your insurer might actually offer incentives online if you are seen to be adopting a more healthy lifestyle, for instance. If you are using your privacy settings so that such information is not so easily accessible, you could then actually be costing yourself money. Essentially it’s a balancing act: demonstrate publicly that you are a responsible citizen and benefit from your insurer’s discounts, or exercise your right to keep your life private, and miss out on their offers. The question is, are you prepared to sacrifice your privacy for a short-term gain? 

Could Your Facebook Profile Lead To Higher Insurance Premiums? (Daily Mail)

There is another side to this story which has broader implications than mere social media: the insurance firms are looking at partnering with the supermarket loyalty card schemes and banks – once they know your standing orders and whether you’re buying pasta or pork pies, they will use that data and set your premiums accordingly. Something to bear in mind the next time you use your Clubcard. 

If the use of social media profiles by your insurer (or indeed, your employer) is something which concerns you, it is important to familiarise yourself with the privacy settings on your Facebook profile. Most are set by default to be visible – restrict these to your friends only. I will be producing a short guide to the privacy settings on Facebook in the near future.