Patrick Askins is one angry customer who is making use of online media to ensure his complaint is heard.
 
When BT presented Mr Askins with an additional bill for calls amounting to £90, he tried the traditional method of making countless phone calls to the company - we’ve all been there!

The prospect of making a seemingly endless series of calls, fruitlessly explaining the same problem over and over again, usually to different people because you rarely get to speak to the same person twice, just doesn’t seem worth the hassle to many of us.

After six months of getting nowhere, Mr Askins gave up and paid the disputed £90, but in a parting shot, he posted a video recording his troubles on YouTube.

Within two weeks, the matter was settled and Mr Askins received a refund, although, for the record, BT says that they were in the process of arranging a refund before the video was posted on YouTube.

It’s an interesting example of the consumer’s voice being boosted by the power of the internet. Previously, consumer revolutions have been facilitated by the internet where large numbers of complaints are involved - the bank charges dispute being a prime example - but now it seems that even individual complaints have a better chance of being “heard” if they are voiced online.

Following a growing demand that YouTube takes a stand against the violence and cyberbullying the site is so regularly used for, it has launched the first online anti-bullying channel.

The channel, called Beatbullying YouTube, has been launched today to coincide with the start of Anti-Bullying Week and is being run jointly with charity Beatbullying.

As well as helping young people to access information and advice about how to avoid being bullied, it will also encourage young people to upload their own videos as part of a wider campaign to tackle the problem.

Sarah Dyer, Director of Beatbullying said: "The Beatbullying YouTube Channel will revolutionise how young people access information on how to avoid being bullied and importantly on how to avoid being a bully. It is frighteningly easy for a young person who would never consider being a bully in real life, to do something online which they think is funny or humorous but in fact is a terrible act of bullying."

Over recent months, YouTube has faced increasing criticism over the content of some of the videos posted on the site, which has ranged from happy slapping to gloating about killings.

Of course, the essence of video-sharing sites like YouTube means that controlling violent material is inherently difficult. Once a complaint has been made, the offending video is usually taken down, but often by then it has been extensively viewed. Whilst the site has been criticised for its perceived lack of action, in fact, it can only ever be reactive: the sheer number of users means it is simply not practical to have content monitored prior to being posted.

Helping to create the world’s biggest anti-bullying drive is an attempt by YouTube to take back the initiative, and to get some good PR in doing so.

Like dealing with the irritating junk mail on the doormat each day, MySpace users now face the prospect of an increase of virtual junk mail, while Facebook users can look forward to becoming virtual billboards as well: both sites have announced moves that will allow advertisers into the heart of social networking.

MySpace, which previously allowed advertisers to pitch their products to users according to just 10 categories first introduced earlier this year, has upgraded its system to offer ‘hyper-targeted’ ads, with specific user interests now available to advertisers in hundreds of sub-categories.

It has said that it will only use data which its users have already made public, and for those users who made such information public without thinking they’d face a deluge of adverts as a result there will be an opt-out facility. I’m sure they’ll be pleased to hear that.

Facebook will also be selling profile information to advertisers (amazingly, with no opt-out available) but, perhaps predictably, it is taking things further with a system called Social Ads - surely a contradiction in terms! - based on a ‘word of mouth’ approach. Users can alert their friends when they buy or download by sending them a message complete with an advert. Companies can now create branded profiles for users to become fans of and appear in their friends’ newsfeeds. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief exec, said: “Nothing influences a person more than a recommendation from a trusted friend.” Alternatively, this could be a fast way to lose friends!

More than 60 advertisers have signed up so far, including Microsoft, Coca-Cola and Sony. As traditional methods of mass advertising are becoming less efficient, advertisers are increasingly turning their attention to the opportunities available online, but I wonder how far they’ll be able to go with this one. Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace are sitting on a potential goldmine of information, but it remains to be seen whether the users will put up with this latest intrusion into their privacy. With no opt-out available to Facebook users, it could find itself facing yet another backlash over privacy controls.

With Google’s tenth birthday approaching, it seems a good time to consider not just where it has come from, but perhaps more importantly, where it is going.

The brainchild of a couple of Stanford University computer-science graduate students, Google has grown to become the most popular internet service in the world. Its keyword online advertising system - matching ads with search queries - has generated billions, and yet according to Marissa Mayer, Google’s Vice President of Search Product and User Experience, we’ve seen nothing yet. Ms Mayer said in a recent interview that Google has achieved only 2% of what it can do, and it is her belief that “the world of search will get much, much bigger.”

Google’s vision for this bigger world of search has caused some consternation, however, since Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, first outlined the company’s ambition to ‘personalise’ its service: “We are very early in the total information we have. We cannot even answer the most basic question about you because we don’t know enough about you. The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask questions such as ‘What shall I do tomorrow?’ and ‘What job shall I take?’”

Many might prefer that Google remains unable to answer ‘even the most basic questions’ about them. Google’s vision has been labelled an Orwellian one in some quarters, and human rights group Privacy International has condemned the plans as being hostile to privacy. Searching using iGoogle allows Google to monitor search and web-surfing history in order to personalise results.

Google argues that although personalisation might sound scary, it is in fact supposed to be a help to its users. The idea seems to be that the more Google knows about its individual users, the better it can tailor search results to their specific needs, and even start making personal recommendations.

iGoogle has only recently been launched in Europe, but already it accounts for one in five searches in America and has become Google’s fastest-growing new product there. It is a trend that is likely to be repeated across this side of the Atlantic. Whatever the human rights organisations and the politicians think, it seems that users themselves are not so troubled by this invasion of their online privacy, considering it to be a fair price to pay for an easier life. Google’s vision of its future is likely to be prophetic.