Likes lets you see what restaurants, bars and musicians your friends "like" on Facebook

Based on the theory that you’re likely to like what your friends like, Willow Tree Apps has created Likes. It’s an iPhone and Android app that scans your Facebook friends’ “likes” of restaurants and bars as well as movies, TV shows and other things we spend time and money on and shows what your friends like. If it’s an establishment, it lists the ones nearest to you first, making it an excellent way to find a nearby eatery or drinking spot.

You can decide whether to just look at what your friends like to to look at an extended network that also includes friends of friends.  The free app is available for iPhone and Android.

I tried it in the San Francisco bay area and found that my friends have pretty good taste. The restaurants most popular with my friends are among my favorites as well.

The app requires you to log-in through Facebook and works best if you have more than just a few friends.

Join us for an evening of lively discussion, as some of the Bay Area’s most respected radio-veterans give us their perspective on where the industry is today, and where it’s headed tomorrow.

The event is free and open to the public.

Panel Moderator: Jim Colgan – former WNYC producer and Head of Media at Mobile Commons

Panelists: 

Larry Magid - Tech-analyst for CBS radio and KCBS San Francisco, CBS news, and tech-writer for The San Jose Mercury and CNET.com

Nikki Silva – of the Peabody award-winning duo The Kitchen Sisters

Glynn Washington – Creator and host of PRX and NPR’s Snap Judgment

Ian Hill - KQED’s Online Community Engagement Specialist

Schedule:

6:45: Arrive for refreshments, networking

7:00: Panel discussion begins

8:15: Q+A, open discussion

9:00: End of program. Networking and ping-pong

Where

SoundCloud office

510 Treat Avenue, San Francisco, CA (map)

This post appeared in the San Jose Mercury News on January 29, 2012

by Larry Magid

Many people are celebrating the “people’s victory” that derailed, at least temporarily, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate.

These controversial bills would require websites to refrain from linking to any sites “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property.” The bills would also prevent companies from placing ads on the sites, and would block payment companies like Visa, MasterCard and PayPal from transmitting funds to the sites. The bills could even give the U.S. attorney general power to seek a court order to block the domain name server (DNS) records, effectively cutting off access to the entire site.

Derailing the bills was indeed a big victory, but was it “people power” or a new form of corporate lobbying? The ability of Google and the nonprofit Wikipedia Foundation to drive people to sign online petitions is indeed impressive. But it’s also a little scary.

In this case, I think they were on the right side. But while I applaud the intention behind the anti-SOPA campaign, I worry a little about the precedent it set.

A number of advocacy groups — including Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Center for Democracy &Technology — had been working to stop the bills for months. But it wasn’t until Google and Wikipedia famously joined the fight that SOPA and PIPA became household words and millions of people were activated to express their opposition.

When people went to Wikipedia on Jan. 18, they weren’t able to get to whatever article they were looking for, but they did see a big banner that included links to help visitors reach their members of Congress. Google didn’t go dark in protest to the bills, but it did black out its logo and — more importantly — placed a link to an online petition against them which, so far, has garnered more than 7 million signers.

Google, which is a $185 billion company, has an enormous reach that dwarfs that of any of the world’s major media companies. Google.com is the most trafficked site on the Web, with more than 12 billion search queries in December, according to comScore. Wikipedia is the world’s sixth-most popular site, according to Alexa. Google occupies three spots on Alexa’s top 10 list. Google.com is No. 1, YouTube is No. 3 and Blogspot.com is No. 7.

Tech companies flexed their muscles Jan. 18 and we found out that they’re a lot more buff than many had thought. We all know about the power, money and influence flowing out of Hollywood, but even though traditional media companies influence a great many people, they don’t have the same ability as tech companies to offer links to places where citizens can take immediate action.

I am starting to worry about the concentration of media power into the hands of a relatively small number of very high-traffic Web companies. It’s similar to the concern people have raised for decades about the power of the news media. But instead of fearing the power of TV networks and newspapers, we now need to be concerned about the power of online media companies, including Google, Facebook, Yahoo, China’s Baidu, Wikipedia, Twitter and Amazon.

For the most part, these sites stay out of politics. Google’s search algorithms are ideologically neutral and Amazon is happy to sell stuff to people, regardless of their ideological bent. Wikipedia’s editors had a big debate over whether to go dark Jan. 18 because some felt that it impinged on their neutrality. What the foundation finally decided was to take a stand on SOPA and PIPA, arguing that these bills “would put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites.”

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales tweeted, “The encyclopedia will always be neutral. The community need not be, not when the encyclopedia is threatened.”

One reason to worry about the power of online companies is because — like Hollywood — they too have lobbyists in Washington and plenty of reason to flex their own political muscles. One difference between Hollywood and Silicon Valley — for now at least — is that Silicon Valley is on the defensive while Hollywood is often on the offensive. Hollywood is seeking strong government laws to protect its assets while much of Silicon Valley’s lobbying is focused on getting the government off its collective back.

In 2012, there will be plenty of legislative and regulatory actions that will affect the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter, as well as Amazon, which is fighting a losing battle to keep states from collecting sales tax from its online customers. Of course, these companies have a right to try to protect their interests, but let’s hope that they don’t abuse their online presence to enlist support with a level of reach that’s gargantuan compared to that of most people, organizations or even companies.

So, while I join the celebration over the apparent demise of PIPA and SOPA and appreciate the help the movement got from big tech companies, I also worry about giving these companies too much power and influence.

Disclosure: Larry Magid is co-director of ConnectSafely.org, a non-profit Internet safety organization that receives financial support from Google, Facebook and other Internet companies.

Will Magid

OK I’m biased, but my son Will Magid is an awesome musician and he’s about to come out with an album from the new Will Magid Trio. He’s also on the verge of a major concert, Will Magid’s World Wide Dance Party at Cafe Du Nord in San Francisco this Saturday night, starting at 8:30 PM.

Take a listen to the KPFA segment and check out his website for more music.

The sound you hear in this video is that of a Nokia phone but, undaunted, Kmit just mimicked the ring tone as if it were part of his performance.

This post appeared in the San Jose Mercury News on January 23, 2012

by Larry Magid

Streaming Web video and audio have been around for years, but 2012 seems to be shaping up as a pivotal year for Internet media.

Last week Forbes.com reported that AOL’s Huffington Post Media Group plans to launch its own cable-style live TV channel to compete with the likes of CNN. Reportedly, it will feature live reports from the blog’s 320-person editorial staff and will even broadcast editorial meetings to give viewers a glimpse of the news-gathering process. That strikes me as one way to get reporters and editors to behave during meetings. I blog for the Huffington Post, but have no inside knowledge about this reported plan.

Global reach

One major international TV network is using live streaming partially to get around the fact that it’s not carried on most U.S. cable and satellite systems. Al Jazeera English (where I occasionally serve as an on-air tech analyst) live streams its 24/7 programming from its website and makes its feed available to Roku, which provides streaming video to TV sets. Al Jazeera is available on cable and satellite systems around the world but has very few such outlets in the U.S. The Qatar-based broadcaster is using its website to encourage its viewers to “Demand Al Jazeera in the USA,” with links to a form where they can request their cable company to pick up the signal.

Reuters, which competes with AP as a leading wire service for news organizations, has launched its own TV channel. As far as I can tell, Reuters TV doesn’t have live programming but it does offer recorded programs hosted by its many reporters. Videos are hosted on YouTube but also available from the Video link at the top of Reuters.com.

Of course, there is nothing new about news organization hosting video. All of the major TV networks and many newspapers, including the Mercury News, offer at least some video on their sites. Print reporters who traditionally worked in text, not pictures and sound, often find themselves in front of a camera instead of a keyboard. Not all print journalists are good on TV but some, like my colleague David Pogue of the New York Times, are excellent.

One of the best uses of Web video is live webcast events. An increasing number of conferences live blog their sessions, often for free. I suppose this could cut back on paid attendance but it also increases the visibility of the speakers, which is one of the reasons people agree to speak for free at conferences.

I go to a lot of press conferences but sometimes I’m not able to attend. But if the company webcasts it, I can watch from the comfort of my home, hotel room or Wi-Fi equipped coffee shop. In some ways I prefer watching press conferences on the Web because I can more easily write about them and get my blog post up quickly. From home, I know I’ll have a good Internet connection, which is not always the case at events.

YouTube, which mainly has user-generated content, has professional content as well. The Google owned site just announced that it’s launching an online “film festival” that will feature short films submitted by aspiring film makers. Although there are no age restrictions, they are encouraging young filmmakers and producers to enter. Ten finalists will be flown to the Venice Film Festival to screen their films.

In October, YouTube launched an expansion of its original content video library, “including channels created by well-known personalities and content producers from the TV, film, music, news, and sports fields,” according to a YouTube blog post.

Radio

While the Internet has long disrupted TV and DVD rentals, it is just starting to have an impact on radio. Many people listen to radio in their cars and, until a couple of years ago, it wasn’t practical to stream Internet radio to a moving vehicle. That’s changing thanks to smartphones.

Last week I drove round-trip to the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and listened to Pandora Internet radio during much of my drive. When I wasn’t listening to music or comedy routines on Pandora, I was listening to broadcast stations from around the country via the Radio.com app, or streaming live network feeds and on demand features via the CBS Radio News app which is available for Apple and Android phones and tablets. For the record, I serve as CBS News’ technology analyst.

I have a Pioneer AVIC-Z130BT Audio and Navigation System in my car that connects directly to an iPhone and lets me select recorded music as well as Pandora and Aha radio programs directly from the Pioneer unit. Most newer cars have connectors that allow you to play the audio from a smartphone through the car’s speakers.

To my delight, I rarely lost the data signal, even in remote areas along the way. I happen to have an unlimited data plan on my Sprint iPhone plan, but if you don’t have such a plan, make sure you’re not going over your allotment or this “free” radio could wind up costing you money.

At its F8 developer’s conference in September, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that users would be able to display data from apps on their Facebook Timeline. Partners immediately launched a handful of apps, including one that tells your friends what you’re reading on the Washington Post, but for the most part users were left to wonder what else would be forthcoming.

The wait is over. At a small press event in San Francisco (the first Facebook presser I’ve attended that didn’t feature Zuckerberg), the company unveiled the 60 new apps that are now integrated with the Timeline.

The idea is to display your activity with the apps directly on the new Facebook Timeline for your friends to see. Some of these apps are primarily on Facebook but others interact with mobile apps from the same publisher.  For example, if someone downloads Foodspotting to their smart phone and takes a picture or rates a meal they’re having at a restaurant, that picture and rating can immediately appear on their Facebook Timeline.  Likewise, if you’re using Gogobot to plan a trip, all the details of that adventure can be shared on Facebook with anyone you choose. You can ask questions such as “what should I do on Maui,” and your friends can clue you in.

Rotten Tomatoes allows you to share your thoughts on movies you’ve watched and learn about what your friends are watching. You can post movies you want to see which can trigger a conversation or maybe even help you find someone to go see it with.

Other companies with new apps include Foodly, Ticketmaster and Pinterest.

All this is possible thanks to Facebook “open graph,” which is a set of application interface tools (APIs) that allows developers to create apps that share user activities back to Facebook.

In a blog post about the new apps, Facebook’s Carl Sjogreen said “There will be apps for all types of interests, as more apps will launch over time. Whether you love snowboarding, gardening, hiking, or knitting, or something else, there will be an app for you.”

Users are required to authorize the application and determine who they want to share with. Even after you start sharing you have access to controls that let you limit the audience further.

Facebook users can add apps by clicking here.

Visitors to Google.com see a blacked out logo and a link to an online petition

Knowing that Wikipedia would go dark for 24 hours in protest to SOPA and PIPA, I took the precaution of printing it out last night. Just kidding. Wikipedia is huge. I wanted to say just how big it is, but when I went to Google to look up “size of Wikipedia,” most of the relevant results directed me to articles on Wikipedia which, of course, is dark for the day.

Google didn’t go dark but it did black out its logo and has a link to “Tell Congress: Please don’t censor the web!” with a link to an online petition.

What are SOPA and PIPA and why are people upset?

This is all because of two pieces of legislation: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and its Senate companion bill, the Protect IP Act (PIPA).  The purpose of these bills is to make it harder for sites — especially those located outside the United States — to sell or distribute pirated copyrighted material such as movies and music as well as physical goods such as counterfeit purses and watches. Even most of SOPA and PIPA’s strongest opponents applaud the intentions of the legislation while deploring what it might actually accomplish.

Although its sponsors have said that they would amend the bill, as currently written, SOPA would enable the U.S. Attorney General to seek a court order to require “a service provider (to) take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site.” Until this weekend, one of the ways to do that would have been to cut the DNS (domain name server) records that point to the site, but that provision is likely to be removed after the Obama administration weighed in on the issue over the weekend, saying “Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.” The administration also echoed concerns raised by a number of security experts, including some anti-malware companies that the bill could disrupt the underlying architecture of the Internet.

The White House statement coincided with sponsors agreeing to remove the DNS blocking provisions. Still, the bill could require search engines like Google to delete any links to the sites.

These are not partisan bills. SOPA and PIPA have proponents and opponents on both sides of the aisle.

The bill would require sites to refrain from linking to any sites “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property.” It would also prevent companies from placing on the sites and block payment companies like Visa, Mastercard and Paypal from transmitting funds to the site. For more, see this blog post on Reddit.

The problem with this is that the entire site would be affected, not just that portion that is promoting the distribution of illegal material. It would be a bit like requiring the manager of a flea market to shut down the entire market because some of the merchants were selling counterfeit goods.

The bill would also cut off funding by prohibiting payment services from cooperating with infringing sites.

Opponents say it would create an “internet blacklist.”

As CBSNews.com said in its analysis, there are existing laws, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) that require operators to remove specific infringing content. SOPA and PIPA would go after the entire sites.

Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley

These bills have pitted the entertainment industry against the technology industry. “Hollywood” has a legitimate interest in protecting its intellectual property. Not only are profits at stake but so are jobs. Thousands of Americans make their living by dreaming up content and selling it to the world and piracy does in fact take money out of their pockets.  Silicon Valley has invested billions in creating companies that freely distribute information. While Google and every other Silicon Valley company must respect copyrights, they thrive on helping people find what they want. If, suddenly, every web site that had links to other sites had to worry that they could be in violation of the law by linking to a “banned” site, it could put undo pressure on these companies. There is also worry that SOPA and PIPA could be abused and lead to censorship for purposes other than intellectual property protection.

Are the protests having any effect?

Shutting down Wikipedia for a day or blacking out the Google logo won’t stop these bills in their tracks, but they have raised an enormous amount of awareness about the issue. As a result, it is likely that these bills will continue to be amended and, though they may pass in some fashion, they are likely to be quite different than they were when first proposed.