Will Hackers’ War Against Scientology Cult Succeed?

There are few modern cults that generate more controversy and ridicule than Scientology.

YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image

In fact, anonymous hackers have released a new video declaring war on the cult.

Whether you support the right of Scientology to exist as a religion or believe is should be crushed as a dangerous cult, the unique issue posed is the ability of dissenters to use the Internet to literally seek the destruction of a multibillion-dollar enterprise. New media is going beyond the power that traditional journalists have had to disseminate information in a way to achieve desired objectives. Perhaps more significantly, it is being done without hiding behind fictitious “objective reporting” claims. The goal — destruction of Scientology — is clearly stated.

For an excellent recap on the current activities of Scientology, check out Dave Lakhani’s analysis:

Tom Cruise, Scientology, L Ron Hubbard, Mass Influence and Andrew Morton

In fact, Lakhani’s analysis, written before the hackers released their video, raises an interesting possibility. If publicizing persecution is a way to attract members to a cult, this hacker video indirectly promotes Scientology. Could it be that Scientologists released it as a manipulative Internet marketing tool? Stay tuned.

Share
Filed Under: Internet Marketing, Marketing Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Should Google Buy The New York Times?

If there is an argument to be made that the Sulzbergers should sell the New York Times, you’ll find it aptly summed up in John Ellis’ article that proposes that Google should buy the newspaper. I agree with Ellis that the Sulzbergers should cash out before the moron running it puts it into Chapter 11 through his sheer incompetence. Ellis dances around this issue — but the point is that Pinch Sulzberger isn’t fit to run the night shift at a convenience store. Yet another example of where a Lucky Sperm Club member gets trounced by the free market.

But let’s look at the underlying idea of Google buying the Times. Does it make sense?

From an ideological standpoint, Google’s founders and the Sulzbergers are part of the Moveon.org/Michael Moore wing of the Democrat Party. On that basis, it would make sense for Google to rescue a fellow traveler.

Yet Google is publicly traded and one must assume that its shareholders would actually want something of value to come from an acquisition. The question then arises: What does the NY Times offer that Google doesn’t already have?

Distribution? Ha. A marquee name? Not these days. A profit? Just kidding.

If Google does purchase the Times, it will be the flip side of the AOL Time Warner merger fiasco. In this instance, Google is the real deal while the Times is a dead horse that just hasn’t been buried yet because Pinch is too busy beating it.

Some falsely accuse capitalist Rupert Murdoch of making acquisitions based upon political ideology. I’d contend that he buys where he sees profitability. If the NY Times had offered the same revenue potential as the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch would have pursued it instead. Murdoch made the calculated decision that the Journal was a far better deal and he will use it to destroy what’s left of the Times.

As for the Sulzbergers, they should be on the phone begging Google to buy their albatross. Won’t happen. And that’s a win for Google’s shareholders.

Are there dead tree media plays to be made by Internet ventures like Google and Yahoo? Of course. However, those opportunities are scarcer than online media opportunities. Better to buy Matt Drudge’s Drudge Report or The Onion’s satire than a dying newspaper.

Share
Filed Under: Marketing Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Comcast ISP File Sharing Traffic Discrimination – Should the Government Interfere?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is investigating charges that Comcast has discriminated against file-sharing traffic on the Internet by restricting the Internet Service Provider’s subscribers sharing of files using peer-to-peer (P2P) and BitTorrent.

The issue really should not be about the ability of an ISP to discriminate between users. I’m actually a proponent of multi-tiered pricing structures controlled by the marketplace instead of regulated by the government. What is at stake is deceptive trade practices, i.e. charging Internet subscribers for services that are not provided because usage is limited behind-the-scenes without full disclosure.

If your cell phone company offered unlimited nights and weekends for a flat monthly rate but secretly impaired your rights to make such calls, you’d be justifiably ticked off because of the misrepresentations that induced you to use that particular company for the unlimited calls. Similarly, an ISP does not have the right to make material misrepresentations as to the nature of the services it provides to its Internet subscribers.

If Comcast is found to have engaged in such practices, unfortunately, the fines and penalties will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher fees in the future. The better route from the beginning would have been to have instituted a multi-tiered system where fees for usage are determined by the bandwidth used with full disclosure of the terms and conditions of the tiered structure.

Is that asking too much? What do you think?

Share
Filed Under: Federal Communications Commission Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts

Free! Get Internet legal and marketing updates plus 3 chapters of the #1 Internet legal protection book for business website owners. Over 40 pages packed with strategies you can use to protect yourself without a lawyer.

Free! Get Internet legal and marketing updates plus 3 chapters of the #1 Internet legal protection book for business website owners. Over 40 pages packed with strategies you can use to protect yourself without a lawyer.