Arts, Business, Google, Government, Research, Science, Society, Technology

How different internet giants dominate countries across the globe…

WORLDWIDE ANALYSIS OF SEARCH ENGINE USE

China’s Baidu is popular in Korea, ahead of its own search engine Naver.

Google has become so much a part of everyday life many people now use the brand name as a verb for searching, but a new map highlights exactly how far and wide the site spreads across the globe.

The map, created by researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute, used data from millions of people’s browsing history worldwide and shows Google as the most popular site, in 62 countries.

Facebook was the second most visited site globally, in 50 countries, while the third place site – China’s Baidu search engine, was popular in just two countries.

The map, pictured, was created by researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute. It used data from millions of people's browsing history worldwide and shows Google as the most popular site, in 62 countries, shown in red. Facebook, shown in blue, was the second most visited site globally, in 50 countries

The map, pictured, was created by researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute. It used data from millions of people’s browsing history worldwide and shows Google as the most popular site, in 62 countries, shown in red. Facebook, shown in blue, was the second most visited site globally, in 50 countries

To work out the number of visitors, Dr Mark Graham and Stefano De Sabbata from the institute combined the number of estimated average daily unique visitors, with the estimated number of page views for that site from users in a particular country, for a particular month.

The data shown in the map covers the period of July and August this year and uses information collected by website analytics firm Alexa.

Each colour represents that most visited website in that country and each three individual blocks represent around one million users.

The countries are unusual sizes as the map effectively exaggerates countries that almost exclusively use one type of search engine.

Google is shown in red, Facebook is blue. Yahoo is shown in purple and has a stronghold over Japan, while China’s favourite site is the search engine Baidu.

Baidu is also popular in Korea, ahead of the country’s own search engine Naver.

The majority of most-visited sites were search engines, but Facebook was also popular.

Although Facebook was predominantly popular in the west, it was also the most visited site in Nepal and Mongolia.

The Al-Watan Voice newspaper was the most visited website in the Palestinian Territories, the email service Mail.ru is the most visited site in Kazakhstan, the social network VK was the most visited in Belarus, and the search engine Yandex was the most popular site in Russia.

The researchers said: ‘The supremacy of Google and Facebook over any other site on the Web is clearly apparent. We also see an interesting geographical continuity of these two ’empires’.

Google is shown in red, Facebook is blue. Yahoo is shown in purple and has a stronghold over Japan, while China's favourite site is the search engine Baidu, shown in green. Baidu is also popular in Korea, ahead of the country's own search engine Naver

Google is shown in red, Facebook is blue. Yahoo is shown in purple and has a stronghold over Japan, while China’s favourite site is the search engine Baidu, shown in green. Baidu is also popular in Korea, ahead of the country’s own search engine Naver

‘The situation is more complex in Asia, as local competitors have been able to resist the two large American empires.

‘At the same time, we see a puzzling fact that Baidu is also listed as the most visited website in South Korea – ahead of the popular search engine Naver.

‘We speculate that the raw data that we are using here are skewed. However, we may also be seeing the Baidu empire in the process of expanding beyond its traditional home territory.’

Areas in sub-saharan Africa aren’t covered by Alexa, yet Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, and South Africa are within the sphere of Google’s empire. Whereas Ghana, Senegal, and Sudan prefer Facebook.

On this map the countries bathed in blue are used to depict the global spread of Facebook, as of September 2013. The map shows a rising popularity in Africa, South America, and India - as also highlighted in the Oxford Institute map

On this map the countries bathed in blue are used to depict the global spread of Facebook, as of September 2013. The map shows a rising popularity in Africa, South America, and India – as also highlighted in the Oxford Institute map

Among the 50 countries where Facebook was listed as the most visited website, 36 of them had Google as the second most visited, with the remaining 14 countries listing YouTube, the Google-owned video site.

The countries where Google is the most visited website account for half of the entire internet population – over one billion people.

A large proportion of the population in China and South Korea use the internet, giving Baidu second place overall in terms of visitors.

The 50 Facebook countries account for about 280 million users, placing the social network in third.

‘We are likely still in the very beginning of the Age of Internet Empires,’ the researchers conclude.

‘But, it may well be that the territories carved out now will have important implications for which companies end up controlling how we communicate and access information for many years to come.’

Standard
Britain, Economic, Environment, Government, Politics, Society, United Nations, United States

Climate change and the need for a global price on carbon…

CLIMATE CHANGE

The recent findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are alarmingly clear. The environment is incontestably warming – evidenced through the fact that each of the past three decades has been successfully warmer than any since 1850 – and it is now beyond reasonable doubt that human activities are the cause.

The IPCC report, the fifth of its kind, whilst not containing much that is absolutely new, does offer a higher degree of certainty than the previous report delivered in 2007. It is now as sure that human beings are causing climate change (a probability of 95 per cent) as of cigarettes causing cancer. This is not the judgement of politicians or those campaigners with vested interests, but the consensus of thousands of scientists from all over the world. With scientists having considered all the available evidence, one can only hope that it will banish the scepticism of the ignorant.

The effects of the alterations in the Earth’s environment are already being felt, and not just in extreme weather patterns. The polar ice sheets are thinning, sea levels are rising and the oceans are increasingly acidic. But of concern is what is still to come. The likelihood that rising temperatures will stay below the 2°C threshold, above which changes become catastrophic, looks far less achievable.  Quantifying this is not difficult if we consider that we have already burned through 54 per cent of the ‘carbon budget’ calculated to equate to a spike of 2°C.

Without radical action, the inference implied is that the outlook is bleak. Yet, the politics of long-term, counter-factual disaster-avoidance are no easier now than they were in the past. Last week, The International Development Secretary made all the right noises, commenting that Britain must play its part, only to be countered by the Chancellor who judges the green agenda an unaffordable luxury in times of public austerity. Ed Miliband, talks of a good game, too, with his pledge of carbon-free electricity by 2030. However, his promise to freeze energy bills raises serious questions about where the investment will come from and has already spooked potential investors.

In America, John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State, responded to the IPCC in stirring terms… ‘This is yet another wake-up call: those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire.’ But while Mr Kerry went on to affirm that the U.S. is ‘deeply committed to leading on climate change’ Congress is in the midst of yet another budget fight, upon which Republicans are demanding that any new borrowing is conditional on the weakening of carbon-emission regulations.

The sceptics are certainly right when they say that the cost of mitigating climate change is high. But it is also unavoidable, and the longer we delay the greater the bill will be – both in terms of money and human lives. We must then, throw, all we have at the problem, from the incremental (such as better insulation for our houses) to the fundamental (re-thinking how industry and transport, for example, uses energy). And then there is the thorny diplomatic issues over who should pay – the rich countries that did the historical polluting, or emerging economies from the developing world that are now industrialising in double-quick time.

Ultimately, though, the solution lies with the market. Europe’s ground-breaking carbon trading scheme has floundered, and with its price being meaninglessly low it could be easy to write it off. In America, President Obama’s hopes for national cap-and-trade were dashed by the Senate, leaving only a smattering of regional initiatives. The Australian Prime Minister wants to repeal his predecessor’s ‘carbon tax’. Despite the teething problems, however, a global price on carbon is vital and must be a priority. With China and South Korea now putting together their own schemes, there is at least some progress being made in dealing with the climate change threat.

Standard
Banking, Britain, Economic, European Union, Financial Markets, Government, Society, United States

What the banking crash five years ago has taught us…

BANKING FIVE YEARS ON

THE last five years have been the most nerve jangling and traumatic in the modern history of the British economy and for the City of London.

It is only now, on the 5th anniversary of the collapse of the 158-year-old investment firm Lehman Brothers – and after intensive ministrations from the Bank of England – that the UK economy has started to splutter back to life.

However, the banking sector, which should be a bedrock of the economy, remains vulnerable and susceptible to external shocks, and to scandals of its own making.

The Central Bank administered strong economic measures, namely in the form of a staggering £375 billion of extra cash into the UK financial system.

It has held the official bank rate at a historic low level of 0.5 per cent for more than four years and it is currently heavily subsidising the cost of buying homes as well as supporting smaller enterprises through its Funding for Lending scheme.

Finally, it appears to be working, and forecasters are quickly revising their predictions upwards as every part of the economy – from the dominant services sector, to manufacturing and construction – has begun to take off.

In the Chancellor’s March Budget, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predicted that gross domestic product would expand by a miserly 0.6 per cent this year.

The Paris-based OECD has doubled its forecast to 1.8 per cent and some City forecasters say the economy is expanding by as much as 3 per cent.

House prices are moving up firmly in many areas and not just in overcrowded and overcooked London and the South-East.

The jobless rate is currently 7.7 per cent and falling more rapidly than many critics could have imagined.

But it would be wrong to get carried away. UK output is still 2.8 per cent below where it was before calamity struck in 2008. In contrast, the German economy has expanded by 2 per cent and the United States by 5 per cent.

Despite the new born optimism of many British forecasters, it is safe to say that the whole edifice of the UK upturn is built on worryingly fragile foundations.

No doubt, the most important lesson of the terrifying events five years ago is how important a functioning banking system is to the creation of wealth.

..

ACCORDING to the former Chancellor, Alistair Darling, Britain was ‘on the brink of what could have been a complete and utter calamity’.

Cash machines at the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group came within two hours of running dry. The economy’s restoration to full health cannot possibly happen until these two banking High Street giants have been restored to the private sector.

Yet, half-a-decade on from the near collapse of these two banks, the struggle over how to re-privatise them is nowhere near being resolved.

Consider RBS. Stephen Hester, the man brought in on a salary of £1.2 million by Gordon Brown to turn the bank around, resigned after a fractious relationship with Chancellor George Osborne. At the behest of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking, merchant bankers NM Rothschild is investigating how to split off RBS’s flawed investment-banking arm from the retail operation that serves the public and small firms.

Until it reports, the important job of extending credit to new and growing businesses has been put on hold and the process of returning the Government’s 80 per cent in the bank to the public has been suspended.

Lloyds, though, does look in far better shape. Under an EU ruling, it has separated out 632 High Street branches and relaunched them under the revised TSB banner.

But its return has been less than smooth.

In the aftermath of the financial crash, the bank emerged as one of the biggest providers of Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) policies in which customers were mis-sold expensive insurance schemes to cover debt repayments. It was required to spend £4.3 billion in compensation, part of an industry wide bill of some £14 billion.

PPI is just one of the egregious scandals to emerge since the financial crisis. In June of 2012 Barclays Bank agreed to pay a fine of £290 million for rigging the LIBOR interest rate that helps to set the cost of corporate loans, mortgages and other commercial transactions.

..

BRITAIN’S highest paid banker, Bob Diamond – who earned more than £100 million in his years at Barclays – was forced to resign.

Even the most respected and safest names in British banking have found themselves in the dock.

The mighty HSBC admitted it had been involved in money laundering activities for Mexican drug cartels and Middle East terror groups.

London-based Standard Chartered was forced to own up to billions of pounds of sanctions-busting transactions with Iran.

And to top it all, the world’s largest and most blue-blooded bank of all, JP Morgan lost $6 billion in 2012 at its London branch after engaging in high risk trading in credit default swaps.

There are now signs, at least, that regulators in the U.S. and Britain have forced a clean-up of our banking system by imposing heavy fines and penalties and by forcing the errant institutions to accumulate fresh capital.

But looming over the City is the spectre of the eurozone, which is caught in a ‘doom loop’ – a self-perpetuating cycle that relentlessly racks up both national debts and those of banks.

The recovery, then, at best is being built on the most fragile of foundations.

Even if our banks manage to overcome the already formidable problems, the medicine itself already used poses its own future dangers in the shape of surging inflation and higher interest rates that could eventually be as frightening as the events of five years ago.

Standard