Here’s today’s viral videos.

View more daily video round-ups here.

Reaching your goals with Google Analytics:

Eric Schmidt and Loic Le Meur at LeWeb:

WebProNews discusses the year’s top memes with Know Your Meme:

Google’s Atmosphere 2011:

Google Mobile ads – ebookers case study EMEA:

The new Twitter (yes, another new Twitter):

Insert stupid PageRank joke here:

Google’s new news reader app:

“High tech lynch mob” (featuring Google’s Louis Gray):

Working at Google Krakow:

View more daily video round-ups here.

Xbox Live fall dashboard video walkthrough:

Eric Schmidt talks to James Cameron:

Flying robots build stuff:

Social Media ROI Hypocrisy:

Google shared this one on the LatLong blog:

Cello Wars:

Nick Kroll on Conan:

Typography Faux Pas:

Dogs doing the Nutcracker (via StumbleUpon):

Ferrari graveyard:

Should Google stand strong in their opposition of SOPA/PIPA or is their position too defiant? Let us know what you think in the comments.

While this may be an exercise in repetition, apparently some are missing the point about the opposition. This is not a response asking to perserve the rights to download illegal files. Instead, the way in which SOPA/PIPA goes about protecting intellectual property is at question. Or, in the words of the opposing consortium:

We support the bills’ stated goals — providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign “rogue” websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement or counterfeiting…. We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation, as well as to our Nation’s cybersecurity. We cannot support these bills as written…

It’s important that this message doesn’t get misconstrued or misunderstood. This, again, isn’t about the acquisition of “free” files, it’s about the way in which PIPA/SOPA goes about its enforcement.

This point was further clarified by Google Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt, who, while speaking at the University of Minnesota, clarified Google’s position while offering an alternative approach to what the government is trying to enact. Essentially, Schmidt, and Google’s, position is that the bills would be ineffective, scattering the illegal file enablers to other sites where their activities would continue. Killing a site out of the Ukraine, for instance, one that’s offering Blu-Ray rips and other illegal content, wouldn’t stop the individuals who populated the site with the illegal files, it would just remove one of their supply chains.

Creating a new site to further host these illegal files would be a very small hurdle for pirates, which should help demonstrate the ineffectiveness of SOPA/PIPA.

Furthermore, Google is still resolute in its position that SOPA/PIPA, or at least the methods the bills suggest for policing the Internet, threatens the safety of the web, something Schmidt reiterated during his University of Minnesota speaking engagement. Schmidt also offered an alternative approach to the slash-and-burn tactics of these online piracy acts:

“There are a whole bunch of issues involved with breaking the Internet and the way it works. The correct solution, which we’ve repeatedly said, is to follow the money,” Schmidt said. “Making it more explicitly illegal to make money from that type of content is what we recommend.”

While Schmidt’s example is a simplified, Google’s position is spelled out clearly in the Protect Innovation letter:

We support the bills’ stated goals — providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign “rogue” websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement or counterfeiting. Unfortunately, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of web sites. We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation, as well as to our Nation’s cybersecurity. We cannot support these bills as written and ask that you consider more targeted ways to combat foreign “rogue” websites dedicated to copyright infringement and trademark counterfeiting, while preserving the innovation and dynamism that has made the Internet such an important driver of economic growth and job creation.

The idea of going after the people who are providing access to the very files the entertainment industry is so desperate to protect for further monetization purposes is a concept that doesn’t get discussed enough. Granted, Schmidt would be better served by expanding on Google’s idea for pursuing the people who fuel piracy content, but his and Google’s stance concerning the legislation in question is one of common sense.

Perhaps that’s why you don’t see such an angle in either of the online censorship bills.

Should the IP protection acts do more about pursuing the money involved in illegal file-sharing or is that another subject for another time? Share your comments here.

He’s only got one photo on it so far, but it is awesome. And just in case there’s any question, the account is verified.

Not all Googlers list other social profiles on their Google Profiles, but Schmidt has connected his Twitter account, though he hasn’t tweeted since April (outside of a retweet of an @IvankaTrump tweet).

So far, Schmidt has only posted two public updates on Google+. One consists of links to content where he expresses his thoughts about Steve Jobs. “We will miss him,” he says.

The other is a link to a NYT article called “The Depression: If Only Things Were That Good“.

“This column is particularly insightful about our economic condition and the need for investment in infrastructure and the need for more entrepreneurship,” Schmidt says.

There’s no telling how many non-public posts Schmidt has made. Maybe one day he’ll slip up like a certain other Googler did this week and publicly share something that was meant for internal eyes only.

Google+ does like to suggest public first.

So far, 9,402 people have Schmidt in their Circles.

For more daily video round-ups, go here.

MacRumors points to a pair of iPhone 4S hands on (and Siri) demos from YouTube:

The ad for this phone is apparently in danger of being banned in the UK for being too scary:

Eric Schmidt speaks at the Kenexa World Conference:

Stephen Wolfram talks about the background and vision of Mathematica:

John Carpenter’s The Thing: The Musical:

Sneak peek of Photoshop image debarring from Adobe MAX:

The chart, which comes courtesy of The Understatement, is concise and awfully revealing. Not only that, but it begs another question, if Google’s leaders aren’t using it, why on earth would normal folks want to switch over? You’ll notice Randi Zuckerberg, even though she’s moved on from her brother’s creation, still uses Facebook. A great deal, in fact.

So why don’t the majority of Google’s management team not use Google+? Obviously, unless you’re hearing it from the horse’s mouth, speculation reigns. But after you look at the chart in question, it does make one wonder:

2. “The board/top management shouldn’t be expected to use Google+”
Yes, they should – maybe not every member extensively, but not even a single post by a single non-executive member of the board? Can you imagine Fred Wilson not publicly using the major new product of one of his companies?

3. “Steve Jobs was really active on Ping?”
Ok, fair enough. But a music social network isn’t even remotely fundamental to Apple’s future whereas clearly Google thinks Google+ is central to its future.

With that in mind, would Google+’s future be brighter if Schmidt, Page and Brin posted more? I’m not so sure that’s accurate either. That being said, seeing a higher level of interest from the group that dominates search would probably only help their social networking venture.

To date, there have been a few fake Google+ accounts that have been suspended due to the pseudonyms confusion, although, Google+’s diligence has also resulted in friendly fire casualties, although, these mistakes have been corrected. Just ask Captain Kirk. Now, it seems, Google is a lot more friendly with celebrities, especially once they’ve been verified.

Accounts for favorite movie characters have also been removed–right Emperor Palpatine and Lord Vader?–but it seems as if Google has relaxed its stance on the true identity thing, at least in regards to these Darth Vader accounts, here and here. Warning, the second one is NSFW, due to the images being posted.

As for this particular Darth Vader account, I have to wonder, thanks to the Batman Bin Suparman guy, if that’s not his actual name.

Anyway, these accounts demonstrate that Google’s vigilance doesn’t exactly match Schmidt’s true identity convictions. Be that as it may, Google wants us to use our true identities, and as The Joy of Tech showed us, their stance may prove problematic for some of the more super people in this world:

Click for larger image

One has to wonder, however, what these particular “Supermen” did to keep their Google+ account? Did they manage to escape Krypton’s explosion with better documentation? Or is Google’s “you must use your true identity in Google+” edict not as enforceable as their rhetoric leads us to believe?

At its heart, however, Google+ is about identity. That’s straight from former CEO and current Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt.

NPR reporter Andy Carvin posted on Google+ about a Q&A he participated in with Schmidt:

He replied by saying that G+ was build primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they’re going to build future products that leverage that information.

He also said the internet would be better if we knew you were a real person rather than a dog or a fake person. Some people are just evil and we should be able to ID them and rank them downward.

Schmidt’s words and the philosophy is quite interesting considering a Public Policy Blog post from the company back in February. In that, Google Director of Privacy, Product and Engineering, Alma Whitten wrote, “Attribution can be very important, but pseudonyms and anonymity are also an established part of many cultures — for good reason. When it comes to Google services, we support three types of use: unidentified, pseudonymous and identified. And each mode has its own particular user benefits.”

“Equally as important as giving users the freedom to be who they want to be is ensuring they know exactly what mode they’re in when using Google’s services,” Whitten said.

The post discussed an update to Google’s top navigation bar indicating what account they were signed into. Still, Google did say, “While some of our products will be better suited to just one or two of those modes, depending on what they’re designed to do, we believe all three modes have a home at Google.”

CNN has shared a video interview with Schmidt talking about identity and how the company should have gone social sooner:

The focus on identity makes a great deal of sense, as social networks have essentially become who we are on the web – see Facebook log-in an sites all over the web. It makes even more sense when you consider Google’s grand plans in payments with the inevitable integration of Google+ and Google Wallet.

The FairSearch Coalition, the organization made up mainly of travel sites (including Microsoft’s Bing), gave WebProNews the following statement:

“The members of FairSearch.org are encouraged by reports that the FTC is preparing to launch a broad antitrust investigation into Google’s business practices. Google engages in anti-competitive behavior across many vertical categories of search that harms consumers by restricting the ability of other companies to compete to put the best products and services in front of Internet users, who should be allowed to pick winners and losers online, not Google. The result of Google’s anti-competitive practices is to curb innovation and investment in new technologies by other companies. These anti-competitive practices include scraping and using other companies’ content without their permission, deceptive display of search results, manipulation of search results to favor Google’s products, and the acquisition of competitive threats to Google’s dominance. Google’s practices are deserving of full-scale investigations by U.S. antitrust authorities, and are already the subject of reviews by the European Commission, and the Texas Attorney General.”

Bloomberg put out a report indicating that Google may get subpoenaed by the Senat Antitrust Subcommittee, as it seeks testimony from either CEO Larry Page or former CEO and current Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt about the company’s business operations. According to the report, which quotes letters and emails from the subcommittee and Google, Google only wants to provide its Chief Legal Officer David Drummond, who it has deemed “the executive who can best answer their questions”. Drummond also serves as SVP of corporate development at Google.

They don’t want Drummond, however. They want Page or Schmidt. It’s interesting that the company is allegedly resisting offering one of these two.

From Drummond’s official bio:

David Drummond joined Google in 2002, initially as vice president of corporate development. Today as senior vice president and chief legal officer, he leads Google’s global teams for legal, government relations, corporate development (M&A and investment projects) and new business development (strategic partnerships and licensing opportunities).

David was first introduced to Google in 1998 as a partner in the corporate transactions group at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, one of the nation’s leading law firms representing technology businesses. He served as Google’s first outside counsel and worked with Larry Page and Sergey Brin to incorporate the company and secure its initial rounds of financing. During his tenure at Wilson Sonsini, David worked with a wide variety of technology companies to help them manage complex transactions such as mergers, acquisitions and initial public offerings.

Either way, it would appear that the company is really in for some major scrutiny, between this and the FTC ordeal, which Bloomberg has said may take years to complete. The company is also undergoing regulatory scrutiny from the Department of Justice with relation to its proposed acquisition of AdMeld, an ad optimization company.

The DoJ had no problem approving the company’s acquisition of ITA Software, however, which was the catalyst to the formation of the FairSearch Coalition to begin with, though the organization continues to pursue continued obstacles for Google’s search dominance, and the DoJ didn’t let that ITA deal go by without some stipulations.

Spongecell announced this morning that it has completed a new round of financing led by Schmidt and Jim Pallotta, Chairman and Managing Director of Raptor Group. Pittsburgh Steelers Board member Brian Rooney and Silverhaze Partners also participated in the round, the amount of which was not disclosed.

So what exactly is Spongecell all about? Its technology turns standard banner ads into dynamic flash ads with rich media-like functionality. The company says the ads engage audiences longer, while using no more real estate than standard banners – keeping users on the publisher’s page.

Spongecell also says that “nearly every major brand” in industries like CPG, auto, financial services, entertainment, and politics are using its platform. Volvo, for example, is running an ongoing campaign for dealers using Spongecell ads that change dynamically from market to market, throughout 13 markets.

So far, the company says, there’s a 10x lift in the number of times people find dealer locations in its embedded mapping technology, compared to how many people clicked through a flash banner and then looked up their dealer location on Volvo’s site.

“Spongecell’s growth has been extraordinary, gaining more than 200 major brands in 2010 alone. Founding CEO Ben Kartzman and his team are at the forefront of API-enabled technology that is pushing the boundaries of the next generation of display advertising,” said Pallotta. “We look forward to a bright future for Spongecell.”

“Since the introduction of Spongecell’s dynamic advertising technology in late 2008, we have been very fortunate to have been able to grow the business rapidly from profits rather than additional capital investment” says Mr. Kartzman. “The new funds will be used to accelerate sales growth and further bolster the product development team. Clearly, we are very excited to have the advice and counsel of Eric Schmidt, Jim Pallotta, and Brian Rooney.”

It says a lot that Schmidt is backing the company, given Google’s success in display advertising (one of the high points CEO Larry Page pointed to in a call with Google shareholders the other day).

On a related note, Eric Schmidt has also reportedly invested in BackPlane, which was founded by Lady Gaga’s business manager.