Mediaboss Marketing

Unfold a 1944 map of San Diego County by the Automobile Club of Southern California and look for Lindbergh Field, the port, Point Lomas Naval Training Center or Marine Corps Depot. You wont find them. Nor can you locate Fort Rosecrans, Camp Kearny, Navy Hospital and the Ship Repair Base, Camp Pendleton, or the 29 other military installations in the region nicknamed Defense City No. 1 during World War II.

Now, unfold a second 1944 map of San Diego County by the Auto Club. It has the same cover and legend box as the first, but every airfield, military base and pier is clearly marked and indexed.

Youve stumbled across a little-known relic of World War II on the American home front. In an era when Google Earth and GPS offer instant mapping worldwide, the idea of map censorship in the United States comes off as ludicrous. Yet, 72 years ago, following the December 7, 1941, Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, map masking as the practice was called became official wartime doctrine for road maps and others issued in the U.S. for non-military use.

Under a voluntary code distributed by the Office of Censorship in early 1942, map-makers along with journalists and other purveyors of information were asked to remove details that would disclose locations of ammunition dumps or other restricted Army or Navy areas along with the locations of forts and other fortifications. The code was self-policing: media were to ask themselves, Is this information that I would like to have if I were the enemy? and act accordingly, says historian Michael Sweeney, whose book Secrets of Victory examines the bureau.

For the Auto Club, which worked closely with West Coast defense authorities to craft maps for the military, its cartographers were often able to print two sets of maps: fully detailed renderings of the state, counties, and cities for the armed forces; and censored editions for civilians thus the contrasting 1944 San Diego County versions.

For other map-makers, especially those producing consumer maps for gasoline brands to distribute, masking proved inconsistent, quirky, and even darkly humorous.

Most U.S. oil company road maps were drawn by H.M. Gousha of Chicago/San Jose, by Rand McNally of Chicago, or by General Drafting of New York. These often colorful maps had exploded in popularity during the 1930s with the growth in motoring. Americas December 1941 entry into the war, however, generated wartime paper shortages, gasoline rationing, and a crimped market for tourism. The companies nevertheless issued 1942 maps for most states and cities, as they had already begun production, but not until 1946 did updated maps again appear broadly. (Maps from 1942 were occasionally reprinted during later war years.)

So, while the Auto Club could derive ongoing civilian issues from its military versions, the major map companies had to choose what to eliminate on each of their prewar issues within a one-time span of a few months. Depending on the cartographer, their wartime maps of the same area differed as to which, if any, airfields, ports, dams, oil fields, military bases, and related facilities disappeared. Even among maps drawn by the same company, the level of masking varied based on the gas-brand label.

Follow this link:
Censorship can be a quirky business.

An image from LinkedIn's Chinese-language Web site.

After complaints and clear examples of bowing to Chinese censorship diktats, LinkedIn says it may have acted too hastily in friending Chinas government.

LinkedIn executives said Tuesday that they are reconsidering their policies, after seven months of censoring content from China deemed too sensitive.

"We do want to get this right, and we are strongly considering changing our policy so that content from our Chinese members that is not allowed in China will still be viewed globally, Hani Durzy, a spokesman for the Mountain View, Calif.-based company, told Bloomberg.

The professional social networking site is just the latest to wrestle with the moral quandaries that come with doing business in China amid the government's paranoia about the Internet. Facebook, Twitter and Google are largely blocked here.

LinkedIn, however, thought it could make it work. In February, the company launched its Chinese-language Web site and set up operations in China. In return, it promised to follow Chinese government rules and started self-censoring content.

But spokesman Durzy insisted back then that the company would do so only when legally required.

Then, in June, came the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. The anniversary, a perennial headache for Web users in China, is marked by a clampdown on search terms, Internet speeds and intense government scrutiny.

LinkedIn users reported posts about Tiananmen being blocked even in Hong Kong, which lies outsides Chinas censorship firewall. LinkedIn said at the time that it was an accident.And it said that although such content was self-censored in China, it would remain accessible elsewhere in the world.

But some users said that wasnt true.

Here is the original post:
WorldViews: LinkedIn thinking twice about its adoption of Chinas aggressive censorship

LinkedIn Corp. (LNKD: Quote) is reviewing its censorship policy in China so that content from its Chinese members that is not allowed in the Communist nation can be viewed globally, Bloomberg reported Tuesday.

LinkedIn, the world's largest online professional social networking company, had expanded into China this year and adopted policies in line with that country's censorship rules. However, the company is now said to be strongly considering changing its censorship policy, according to the Bloomberg report.

The company is said to be informing people when content deemed inappropriate by the Chinese government is blocked. If a LinkedIn user in China shares a post that is in conflict with the Chinese government's rules, the content is blocked not only in China, but around the world, Bloomberg reported.

However, LinkedIn is said to be worried that the practice may end up preventing Chinese users who want to spread their messages outside their country. LinkedIn rolled out its Chinese website in February this year after earlier having only an English-language site there for more than a decade.

Other social-media companies too have struggled in China. Facebook Inc. (FB) remains banned in China, but was reportedly considering opening of a sales office to work with local advertisers there.

Facebook may open an office in the world's second-largest economy within a year to cater to the growing customer base there.

China is one among the relatively untapped markets for Facebook, whose social-networking service was banned by the Chinese government in 2009. The company uses an office in Hong Kong, and sells ads to Chinese customers who want to reach global audiences.

LNKD closed Tuesday's trading at $225.00, down $0.75 or 0.33 percent on a volume of 1.60 million shares. However, in after-hours, the stock gained $0.10 or 0.04 percent to $225.10.

by RTT Staff Writer

For comments and feedback: editorial@rttnews.com

Visit link:
Bloomberg: LinkedIn Reviewing Censorship Policy In China

Xtian Censorship

By: nami 2000

More here:
Xtian Censorship - Video

A week ago I wrote about my feelings of ennui towards the iPhone 6, asserting that there was just nothing to get excited about. Some people agreed, but many didn't -- it was to be expected really. What was particularly interesting was not just the discussion that started here in the comments on BetaNews but also that the article spread further afield. It was picked up by Macworld whose resident columnist The Macalope, er, disagreed with what I had to say. You'll notice that I've provided a link to the Macworld article which, despite quoting 46 percent of my post, The Macalope failed to do initially.

If you take the time to read the Macworld article you'd be forgiven for thinking that I was hurt at having my work pulled apart. Not a bit of it. No, I'm not concerned about being criticized. I've been writing for approaching 15 years now, and I know I'm going to piss people off from time to time. That's not to say that this is necessarily my intention -- in addition to news, I like to share my opinion and there will, of course, be some collateral damage that follows. Despite The Macalope's suggestions to the contrary, this was not designed to be a "link-baity" piece. Like Joe Wilcox, I've written about the importance of writing for the reader rather than writing for Google, and this is an ideology I firmly subscribe to.

But I'll return to this.

My concern with the article from Macworld was not the criticism it levelled at me, nor the vitriol that emerged in the comments -- I'll happily take all that on the chin. What irritated me was the sheer quantity of my work that was quoted. In all, nearly half of my original article was used by The Macalope in his rigorous dissection of my thoughts. It was nice to have been noticed -- even though it wasn't in the best of circumstances -- but it was more than a little irritating to find that Macworld was benefitting from my work without having linked back to my post.

The Macalope justified this by suggesting that my article was nothing more than link-bait and he therefore refused to bite. The point is, it wasn't a link-bait article. At least no more than any other articles on any website are. Anyone who writes anything which is subsequently posted online wants it to be read -- after all whats the point of writing it otherwise? As such headlines and titles have to be devised to both attract the eye and convey a sense of what the article is about. It's how people decide if they want to read it or not.

I would have been completely in the dark about the Macworld post had someone not tracked me down via Twitter to ask me about it. Alerted to the existence of the article (by someone who didn't appreciate my reference to "those sucking on Apples teat"), and the lack of proper citation, I was a little upset. As I said, I was not in the slightest concerned that The Macalope or the readers of the column hated what I had written, or that I was being ridiculed; as an online writer, it's something I open myself up to. But it did seem, well, rude, not to have the decency to link back to the source that served as the inspiration for an article. So I tweeted:

Replies from other Twitter users informed me that this is just what I should expect from The Macalope. If he deemed an article to be link-bait, he would not link back. I commented on the article and added a link of my own. This was quickly censored, leading me to complain further on Twitter -- with slightly choice language:

This got me thinking about fair usage. When reviewing or critiquing another piece of work, it is acceptable to quote a certain percentage of it without having to ask for permission. The percentages and numbers of words differ depending on whether you're talking about a book, a paper or an article, but 46 percent of anything is too much. Interestingly, The Macalope agreed:

A proposal was made. Would I prefer that references to my article be trimmed back, or would I like a link to be added?

A friend of mine had previously suggested issuing a DMCA takedown notice, but this seemed excessive to me. You may have noticed from my previous writing that I am opposed to censorship --the idea of censoring someone is abhorrent to me. I dont want to stop The Macalope, or anyone else, from disagreeing with me, from criticizing me, from belittling my work. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Go here to read the rest:
I'm anti-censorship! I won't try to silence those who criticize me