The Great Firewall of China

China is a country of high interest to me. I've traveled there twice and have been studying the language continuously for almost 8 years now. You probably don't need me to tell you that China's internet censorship is strict, as by now that's a well known fact. International information sharing websites have been trying to storm the Great Firewall of China for years, with varying degrees of success. It comes as no surprise that the Chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, is highly critical of China's censorship laws.

He claims: "China's the only government that's engaged in active, dynamic censorship. They're not shy about it"

He's right, they're not shy about it. But if you lived in China, should you care? Baidu is home-grown and controls roughly two-thirds of the Chinese search engine market. The government actively inconveniences itself to ensure Google remains relatively suppressed - all automated searches are from Baidu and has allegedly blocked Gmail in the past to prevent further access to the site. Naturally, the American head of the leading information search engine in the world, will push for looser internet  censorship, but the question remains - WHY?

We can see the benefit from Google's point of view: increased market share which allows more to be charged for advertising, but what is the benefit for China? What's in it for them? They already have Baidu instead of Google, Sina Weibo instead of Twitter and RenRen instead of Facebook. These social media platforms are effective in ensuring the need for external networks remains diluted, but is this a good thing?

Firstly, one thing must be noted. China is currently wrestling with a paradox no other country truly experiences. It is an economic powerhouse, driving forwards whilst other nations stutter and stagger. But socially it is still developing. And that's putting it lightly. Accusations of human rights infringements and unjust individual freedom restrictions can be bandied about fairly. That argument can certainly be made. But for a country striving to dominate the world's marketplace, having such a controlled internet system is completely counter-productive. Internet in China is painfully slow and many webpages just don't even load, all because of the Firewall.

China has progressed economically at such a rapid rate but they run the risk of grinding to a halt if they don't allow at least a small increase in the flow of information. Other countries, in particular it's nearest competitor India, can increase innovative practices and R+D projects because of freer information flows. How does China expect to gauge global trends, new ideas and understand how people are living on a global scale if the have the most rigid internet restrictions in the world?

The World Wide Web, that envisaged and created by Tim Berners-Lee, was made for connections. Whilst the China Wide Web features  inter-country connections, it isn't enough to compete in a world where globalisation is spreading faster than anyone can control it. It's an inevitability  primarily brought on by internet-based developments. The Chinese can continue to fight for control, or give in to the era of Web 2.0, and experience the economic benefits it is truly capable of achieving.

Should Chinese citizens care? The answer is a resounding 'yes', not just from a social viewpoint, but an economic viewpoint as well. The ability to compete on a global level is diminished when a nation is afraid of what the internet will reveal and naturally their economic struggles will inevitably trickle down to an individual level. China wants to open itself up to trade and further economic development, but is this possible when they have the most restrictive web system in the world? The answer remains to be seen. I'd love to hear from my Chinese followers on this issue and gauge their thoughts on what's currently happen and what might happen.

www.impossible.com - the future of social networks

Impossible is nothing. So says Adidas. Lily Cole, a professional model, has also adopted this viewpoint in the creation of a new website which is so much more than just that. www.impossible.com is a perfect example of a gift-buying economy in action. Goods and services are free. They are provided by people willing to offer them for free, in the hope that the favour will be reciprocated. The intention is a redistribution of 'wealth' throughout a community and a reminder of the ties and connections that can bind us together. The project has gained the support of Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, yet it's still in it's infancy. Cole and Wales talk about the project briefly in the video below. The 20 minute version is naturally more comprehensive and I'd recommend having a look at that too.

When opening impossible.com, you're presented with two options. It's frighteningly simple.

From there, you either offer your service, or request a service. For the record, I asked for someone to teach me first aid and I offered to look after children. Whilst this project is upheld by traditional ideals, it's made possible through the explosion in technology and social media. Open source software projects have been a part of engineering and science for years, but this is one of the first times we've seen a gift economy operating on a socioeconomic level, at least through social media. 

This project could soar and change the way we do business, or it could just as easily flop under the weight off to many requests and not enough offers. My wish to be taught first aid was only the 6010th wish recorded. Considering it's a global project, it illustrates that this is still in early stages of development.

Interestingly, when I offered to look after children, that was recorded as the 6011th wish, so they must group offers and requests together. 

I find impossible.com to be a bold attempt at rearranging the global marketplace from one of a barter economy to that of a gift economy. As Cole puts it: "Kindness is the currency." The simplicity of the website is truly appealing and the fact it can be linked in with 21st century social media platforms enhances its appeal. But what does it mean for the local plumber down the road, who know faces competition from someone willing to do his job for free? How many people would actually offer to fix a car, teach a language or cook a dinner for free? At the very least, this project serves to test our generosity and the viability of a gift buying economy. What is impossible for mankind? 

We're about to find out.

When marketing gets in the way of human achievement

In a bit over 24 hours from now, a skydiver will attempt to break the speed of sound with his own body as he ascends to 120,000 feet from Earth and then jumps out of a purpose built space capsule. Many of you
will think that this is awesome (which it is) and many of you will also think this has been done before (which it sort of has). In 1960, Joe Kittinger jumped from 102,800 feet, using inferior equipment and technology in comparison to what's available today. The amazing video of his jump can be seen below.




Now, many of you, particularly my lecturer, will be wondering what this has to do with digital marketing. Well, the differences between Kittinger's jump and the one being made by Felix Baumgartner tomorrow extend beyond that of height and equipment. Baumgartner's jump is being sponsored by Red Bull and will be shown live on YouTube. The live stream will also be broadcast on redbullstratos.com, Red Bull’s YouTube Channel and the mission’s Facebook page, as well as privileged partner sites. One begins to wonder whether this project was conjured up by the ever-inventive Red Bull marketing team to sit nicely alongside their staple of action sports stars and 'Gives You Wings' taglines, or whether this is actually being pushed by Baumgartner himself as he tries to push the limits of human capacity.

Is this real news or just a publicity stunt? No doubt it will explode over social media and probably feature in many mainstream news services as well. I understand partners like YouTube and Red Bull have to come on to provide funds and support, but the link between the partners seems such a tightly woven marketing concoction in that it features technology, flight and a global audience, the gloss seams to have worn off. There was something so innocent and organic about Kittinger's attempt that seems to be lacking in this instance. Even during the test run, the producers deliberately leave out Baumgartner's jump so the big moment (read: maximum publicity) is preserved for tomorrow.

 Maybe I'm too skeptical, too much of a human achievement purist (if there is such a thing). Clearly, Red Bull wasn't invented then, and sponsorship was probably hard to come by, but I feel the hold Red Bull seems to have over the action sports market takes away the shine from this event. Just a little. Is this a marketing driven stunt? Or the next frontier in human achievement?