According to this story by Computerworld, the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 bans rental companies from releasing personal records of movie rentals unless a customer gives them permission to do so in writing. It may mean Facebook's privacy harangle with Beacon is solved by the opt-out they added. In fact, it likely means the opt-out they've already installed becomes legally necessary.
A blogger broke this story first. It seems Blockbuster has for sure violated the law via Beacon, but the question remains whether or not Facebook can also be held liable.
Given that Facebook is not a movie rental company - only the format via which the information was published - I'd guess the law doesn't apply to them. The law does not ban publishing movie rental information... it only bans rental places from releasing such information.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Facebook privacy debacle is repeat headline
I'd like to say the news that has been heavily splashed everywhere about Facebook's most recent privacy-invading application is... well... news.
But it's just a repeat headline for the social networking site to invade user privacy via a new feature and then to back peddle a little after public outcry.
The News Feed was an application introduced in 2006, a few days before the site was opened to the public. It was supposed to conveniently share your information in bite-sized headlines to your friends, such as "Lacey Waymire and Dan Brown are no longer friends" and "Lacey posted more pictures." (It's just an example: Dan and I are still friends.) Trouble was, the feed would record and broadcast every move a user made on Facebook, and there was no way to turn it off.
The backlash then was immediate. More than 500,000 signatures protesting its use were collected on petitions within the first three days after the news feed was introduced. Today, the news feed has changeable options that let each user control how much information, if any, they want to share with their friends... the option is the product of two days of "nonstop coding," according to the developers who had to develop an emergency response to such a huge backlash.
Still, apparently, Facebook didn't learn... and it backed itself into nearly the same corner as before.
Beacon, an application that worked with partner sites such as blockbuster.com to publish news about who was buying what product, was introduced last month. It was designed as a sort of automated word-of-mouth advertising form. One man bought a diamond ring - a Christmas gift for his wife. She saw the news feed on her Facebook and the surprise was ruined. Many others were alarmed to see their purchasing habits posted across their friend's pages.
What I can't understand is this. Given their previous trouble with meddlesome applications that invade privacy, why didn't Facebook build in an opt-out option to this new application? It seems that Facebook, after its '06 debacle with privacy regarding the news feed, should be bending over backwards to fix its reputation.
Unfortunately, the privacy policy clearly specifies Facebook can share information about customers with affiliated companies connected to the applications you install. And Facebook is reluctant to give over privacy control to its customers when there is so much money to be made from connecting consumer to advertiser.
I guess they've got to pay the bills somehow.
Money seems a bad reason to stop listening to customer concerns about privacy again.
They say the third time is the charm. How next will the site try to capitalize on connections to friends?
But it's just a repeat headline for the social networking site to invade user privacy via a new feature and then to back peddle a little after public outcry.
The News Feed was an application introduced in 2006, a few days before the site was opened to the public. It was supposed to conveniently share your information in bite-sized headlines to your friends, such as "Lacey Waymire and Dan Brown are no longer friends" and "Lacey posted more pictures." (It's just an example: Dan and I are still friends.) Trouble was, the feed would record and broadcast every move a user made on Facebook, and there was no way to turn it off.
The backlash then was immediate. More than 500,000 signatures protesting its use were collected on petitions within the first three days after the news feed was introduced. Today, the news feed has changeable options that let each user control how much information, if any, they want to share with their friends... the option is the product of two days of "nonstop coding," according to the developers who had to develop an emergency response to such a huge backlash.
Still, apparently, Facebook didn't learn... and it backed itself into nearly the same corner as before.
Beacon, an application that worked with partner sites such as blockbuster.com to publish news about who was buying what product, was introduced last month. It was designed as a sort of automated word-of-mouth advertising form. One man bought a diamond ring - a Christmas gift for his wife. She saw the news feed on her Facebook and the surprise was ruined. Many others were alarmed to see their purchasing habits posted across their friend's pages.
What I can't understand is this. Given their previous trouble with meddlesome applications that invade privacy, why didn't Facebook build in an opt-out option to this new application? It seems that Facebook, after its '06 debacle with privacy regarding the news feed, should be bending over backwards to fix its reputation.
Unfortunately, the privacy policy clearly specifies Facebook can share information about customers with affiliated companies connected to the applications you install. And Facebook is reluctant to give over privacy control to its customers when there is so much money to be made from connecting consumer to advertiser.
I guess they've got to pay the bills somehow.
Money seems a bad reason to stop listening to customer concerns about privacy again.
They say the third time is the charm. How next will the site try to capitalize on connections to friends?
Sunday, December 2, 2007
LiveJournal: Private space, not public forum for free speech
LiveJournal, a free blogging Web site started in 1999, has just been sold to a Russian media company known as SUP Fabrik.
A deal like this - for an unspecified amount, and to a foreign media company whose investor is rumored to be Putin-friendly in a country already known for its censorship - recalls to mind that free speech rights are not international. Nor are they guaranteed when an American private company controls the content delivery method.
In America, free speech is most protected in public places. The courts have said over the years that the maximum protection to the right to free speech is given in these public forums, such as sidewalks, parks, and streets. However, absolute free speech protection is not a right on private property - some storefronts, for example. Each state differs in its definition of which malls are public places and which are private.
The internet isn't really a place. And it can certainly be argued that LiveJournal is a private business; one that puts substantial resources into providing the service, the storage space, the servers, etc. that allow users to express their opinions.
But it can also be argued that the free blog site is absolutely a public forum for expression, where assembly and discussion take place daily. Perhaps it is a sort of virtual "central park," with sidewalks freely available to all, and an irreplaceable service to the people who use it every day.
LJ has a long Terms of Service document that says "LiveJournal will generally not place a limit on the type or appropriateness of user content within journals," then goes on to list many limits on that content. Under the ToS, an account can be suspended or deactivated for posting anything that is copyrighted, harmful, indecent, pornographic, unlawful, vulgar, hateful, threatening, advertising, invading of someone's privacy, and more.
LJ also has what it calls an "Abuse team," which investigates blogs that are reported as being inappropriate. It has chosen to take an active role in monitoring and removing content that violates its ToS.
In May this year, LJ stirred a controversy by suspending about 500 accounts that were mostly fan fiction that may have included words like "incest" or "rape." Later, LJ apologized for shutting down the accounts and reinstated about half of them. In August LJ clarified that harmful content was:
The problem may lie in the fact that it takes resources to run a Web site, and understandably, those should be protected. But it costs money to keep a street or park maintained and functioning as a public place. Taxes collectively pay for those. It could be that, to provide a public space free of private speech restrictions, America will need to allocate resources to that end.
However it's done, commercial interests should not be allowed to trample completely on free speech rights that are so intrinsically important to the Internet, and to the country. Suspension of 500 accounts by LJ (or by any other blogging Web site) is a small number, but is still a number of people whose free speech rights might be getting trampled. It's for those few that the First Amendment exists at all.
A deal like this - for an unspecified amount, and to a foreign media company whose investor is rumored to be Putin-friendly in a country already known for its censorship - recalls to mind that free speech rights are not international. Nor are they guaranteed when an American private company controls the content delivery method.
In America, free speech is most protected in public places. The courts have said over the years that the maximum protection to the right to free speech is given in these public forums, such as sidewalks, parks, and streets. However, absolute free speech protection is not a right on private property - some storefronts, for example. Each state differs in its definition of which malls are public places and which are private.
The internet isn't really a place. And it can certainly be argued that LiveJournal is a private business; one that puts substantial resources into providing the service, the storage space, the servers, etc. that allow users to express their opinions.
But it can also be argued that the free blog site is absolutely a public forum for expression, where assembly and discussion take place daily. Perhaps it is a sort of virtual "central park," with sidewalks freely available to all, and an irreplaceable service to the people who use it every day.
LJ has a long Terms of Service document that says "LiveJournal will generally not place a limit on the type or appropriateness of user content within journals," then goes on to list many limits on that content. Under the ToS, an account can be suspended or deactivated for posting anything that is copyrighted, harmful, indecent, pornographic, unlawful, vulgar, hateful, threatening, advertising, invading of someone's privacy, and more.
LJ also has what it calls an "Abuse team," which investigates blogs that are reported as being inappropriate. It has chosen to take an active role in monitoring and removing content that violates its ToS.
In May this year, LJ stirred a controversy by suspending about 500 accounts that were mostly fan fiction that may have included words like "incest" or "rape." Later, LJ apologized for shutting down the accounts and reinstated about half of them. In August LJ clarified that harmful content was:
Content that encourages or advocates hate crimes, the abuse of children in any form, or rape, even if the content itself is not illegal and may be protected by the First Amendment. This portion of the policy reflects the especially reprehensible nature of these activities; users who encourage or advocate these acts, regardless of their motivation, are simply not welcome on LiveJournal.Freedom of speech gives the unpopular speech an equal right to exist in public space. But if a large blogging company is deemed private space, what on the internet is actually deemed public? So many of the ways content is shared are owned by private companies - YouTube, MySpace, Blogger, Facebook... There are internet service providers who provide Web site hosting services. Could those sites be also considered private space? Can any site be considered public?
The problem may lie in the fact that it takes resources to run a Web site, and understandably, those should be protected. But it costs money to keep a street or park maintained and functioning as a public place. Taxes collectively pay for those. It could be that, to provide a public space free of private speech restrictions, America will need to allocate resources to that end.
However it's done, commercial interests should not be allowed to trample completely on free speech rights that are so intrinsically important to the Internet, and to the country. Suspension of 500 accounts by LJ (or by any other blogging Web site) is a small number, but is still a number of people whose free speech rights might be getting trampled. It's for those few that the First Amendment exists at all.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
When legality and morality don't match: cyber-bullying and internet shaming
Five days ago, a small town in Missouri passed legislation outlawing online harassment in response to the story of one teen who committed suicide after insulting MySpace bulletins were posted about her.
According to the Suburban Journals story, 13-year-old Megan Meier had struck up a friendship on MySpace with a 16-year-old boy who at first was a good friend to her, then suddenly ended the friendship a year ago, saying he had heard she was mean to her friends.
In truth, the boy's profile was fabricated by a small group of people, including the mother of one of Megan's former friends in a neighboring household. More than one person had the password to the fake profile.
After reading the online insults, Megan hanged herself in her closet. She died the next day.
Megan's mother Tina said she believes her daughter died thinking the boy and his opinions of her were real.
According to an AP story, the unanimous resolution adopted by Dardenne Prairie city officials makes it punishable by a fine of $500 and up to 90 days in jail to cause someone "substantial emotional distress" online, or for an adult to contact a minor in such a way as to cause a reasonable parent to fear for the child's well-being.
The law comes too late to allow Tina to press charges against those involved in creating the fake MySpace account. Police so far have neither closed the case nor made any charges. And although Tina monitored her daughter's use of MySpace very closely, she had no way to offer protection against the hurtful words slung at her daughter.
According to a column by Suburban Journals writer Steve Pokin, who initially broke this story, there has been an outpouring of support for the Meier family both online and in their hometown.
And, according to a report by USA Today, the blogosphere has reacted by humiliating the family of the mother who participated in this fabrication. Piecing together clues from the original story, bloggers posted the mother's identity, address, phone numbers, workplace, and a satellite image of her house on rottenneighbor.com and other Web sites.
Neighbors have put up signs decrying the actions. The family's advertising business is being boycotted. People have held protests in front of the house and have made fake 911 calls that bring the police inside the house, according to this LA Times report.
Megan's parents have (perhaps understandably, but still illegally) also done physical damage to the property of their neighbors.
This example of internet shaming is better than a mob lynching, but only just.
Cyberbullying and lying about one's identity may not be illegal, but we can likely agree that some part of this exchange was immoral, and therefore should have been illegal. Taking steps to pass legislation, as the city did in this case, would be one step in solving that problem. It creates one more functional network between the ideal of morality and the structure of legality.
It's doubtful the new misdemeanor the city created can really provide the correct legal framework for addressing the larger moral issue--but it is one positive legal step that a healing community needs to take. For the most part, it's a healthy reaction.
The same cannot be said for internet shaming.
Confronting someone based on information about their actions that may or may not be true has a valid place. But maliciousness is maliciousness, no matter how strongly people feel that the cruelty is deserved.
Consider how this may have started. Two girlfriends ended their friendship. It seems there were some bitter feelings. No matter who was right or who was wrong in that break-up, someone decided that emotional cruelty was a deserved punishment, and used the fake profile to that end.
Now, internet vigilantes have made that same decision. And their cruelty isn't solving the problem... it's continuing the cycle.
Tell your congressman to push for legislation that brings justice to those who harm others maliciously online. Do something real for Megan Meier. Don't participate in the same cruelty used by the perpetrators. Learn from mistakes--and build a bridge between legality and morality.
According to the Suburban Journals story, 13-year-old Megan Meier had struck up a friendship on MySpace with a 16-year-old boy who at first was a good friend to her, then suddenly ended the friendship a year ago, saying he had heard she was mean to her friends.
In truth, the boy's profile was fabricated by a small group of people, including the mother of one of Megan's former friends in a neighboring household. More than one person had the password to the fake profile.
After reading the online insults, Megan hanged herself in her closet. She died the next day.
Megan's mother Tina said she believes her daughter died thinking the boy and his opinions of her were real.
According to an AP story, the unanimous resolution adopted by Dardenne Prairie city officials makes it punishable by a fine of $500 and up to 90 days in jail to cause someone "substantial emotional distress" online, or for an adult to contact a minor in such a way as to cause a reasonable parent to fear for the child's well-being.
The law comes too late to allow Tina to press charges against those involved in creating the fake MySpace account. Police so far have neither closed the case nor made any charges. And although Tina monitored her daughter's use of MySpace very closely, she had no way to offer protection against the hurtful words slung at her daughter.
According to a column by Suburban Journals writer Steve Pokin, who initially broke this story, there has been an outpouring of support for the Meier family both online and in their hometown.
And, according to a report by USA Today, the blogosphere has reacted by humiliating the family of the mother who participated in this fabrication. Piecing together clues from the original story, bloggers posted the mother's identity, address, phone numbers, workplace, and a satellite image of her house on rottenneighbor.com and other Web sites.
Neighbors have put up signs decrying the actions. The family's advertising business is being boycotted. People have held protests in front of the house and have made fake 911 calls that bring the police inside the house, according to this LA Times report.
Megan's parents have (perhaps understandably, but still illegally) also done physical damage to the property of their neighbors.
This example of internet shaming is better than a mob lynching, but only just.
Cyberbullying and lying about one's identity may not be illegal, but we can likely agree that some part of this exchange was immoral, and therefore should have been illegal. Taking steps to pass legislation, as the city did in this case, would be one step in solving that problem. It creates one more functional network between the ideal of morality and the structure of legality.
It's doubtful the new misdemeanor the city created can really provide the correct legal framework for addressing the larger moral issue--but it is one positive legal step that a healing community needs to take. For the most part, it's a healthy reaction.
The same cannot be said for internet shaming.
Confronting someone based on information about their actions that may or may not be true has a valid place. But maliciousness is maliciousness, no matter how strongly people feel that the cruelty is deserved.
Consider how this may have started. Two girlfriends ended their friendship. It seems there were some bitter feelings. No matter who was right or who was wrong in that break-up, someone decided that emotional cruelty was a deserved punishment, and used the fake profile to that end.
Now, internet vigilantes have made that same decision. And their cruelty isn't solving the problem... it's continuing the cycle.
Tell your congressman to push for legislation that brings justice to those who harm others maliciously online. Do something real for Megan Meier. Don't participate in the same cruelty used by the perpetrators. Learn from mistakes--and build a bridge between legality and morality.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Review: Pushing Daisies is drama but comedy, modern but fantasy
Tim Burton's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" meets Jean-Pierre Jeunet's "The Fabulous Life of Amélie Poulin," and they get happy and land a TV series.
That's ABC's 8 p.m. Wednesday show "Pushing Daisies" in a nutshell.
Though set in a modern world, it feels like a fantasy, and the show would be dark if it wasn't so darn funny.
The main character, Ned (Lee Pace) discovers as a boy that he can touch the dead and bring them back to life. Unfortunately, if he touches them a second time, they will die again and this time cannot be brought back to life. His gift also comes with a price: to bring someone back to life, someone else in proximity must die.
If you're thinking that sounds similar to the life-giving-and-taking in Daniel Knauf's "Carnivále," don't. This show is about as dark or dusty as the kitchens of the robot women in "Stepford Wives"--that is to say, it is sparkling, polished, and shiny.
A private investigator ( Chi McBride) happens to discover Ned's extraordinary ability, and hatches a surly plan to collect reward money by investigating murders with Ned at his side. They interrogate the dead in a routine and hilarious manner before killing them again and collecting the reward money.
They run into trouble when Ned has to revive his childhood sweetheart (Anna Friel), who soon becomes a regular in their investigating team. Ned, who falls in love all over again, can't ever touch her or she will die, and they have to resort to amusing displays of affection (for example, kissing while wearing dry-cleaner bags).
Meanwhile Ned's neighbor Olive (Kristin Chenoweth) is jealously in love with Ned, and is forced to rely on Ned's dog for the companionship she longs for from Ned.
With episode names like "The Fun in Funeral," "Bitter Sweets," and "Corpsicle," the show promises to make light of the sadder side of life. A heavy feature are side characters who have severe social anxieties, from anorexia to social depression, that are casually solved in a narrated summation at the end of every episode.
The fact that what should be dark is made mostly hilarious adds to its charm and quirkiness. Fortunately for us, the humor does not overshadow important dramatic moments. The narrator (Jim Dale), who ties all the scenes together, does a soothing job of underlining their comedic or dramatic importance for us, similar to the narrator in "Amélie."
While quirky and charming, the narration sounds formulaic after only three episodes. "As Ned was (insert amusing verb with a short explanation of motives here), Olive was (insert wacky attempt to get attention from Ned here)..."
Every time Olive's desires for Ned seem to get too intense, a quick line from the narrator or an interruption of song places her role back firmly into the category of comedic. The line between serious and laughable is constantly danced on and chalked over, which makes the show feel like a dark, cartoony fantasy similar to "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."
The creator is Bryan Fuller of "Dead Like Me" and "Wonderfalls." It airs at 8 p.m. Wednesdays on ABC. Be ready to laugh at death and to fall in love with the characters.
That's ABC's 8 p.m. Wednesday show "Pushing Daisies" in a nutshell.
Though set in a modern world, it feels like a fantasy, and the show would be dark if it wasn't so darn funny.
The main character, Ned (Lee Pace) discovers as a boy that he can touch the dead and bring them back to life. Unfortunately, if he touches them a second time, they will die again and this time cannot be brought back to life. His gift also comes with a price: to bring someone back to life, someone else in proximity must die.If you're thinking that sounds similar to the life-giving-and-taking in Daniel Knauf's "Carnivále," don't. This show is about as dark or dusty as the kitchens of the robot women in "Stepford Wives"--that is to say, it is sparkling, polished, and shiny.
A private investigator ( Chi McBride) happens to discover Ned's extraordinary ability, and hatches a surly plan to collect reward money by investigating murders with Ned at his side. They interrogate the dead in a routine and hilarious manner before killing them again and collecting the reward money.
They run into trouble when Ned has to revive his childhood sweetheart (Anna Friel), who soon becomes a regular in their investigating team. Ned, who falls in love all over again, can't ever touch her or she will die, and they have to resort to amusing displays of affection (for example, kissing while wearing dry-cleaner bags).
Meanwhile Ned's neighbor Olive (Kristin Chenoweth) is jealously in love with Ned, and is forced to rely on Ned's dog for the companionship she longs for from Ned.
With episode names like "The Fun in Funeral," "Bitter Sweets," and "Corpsicle," the show promises to make light of the sadder side of life. A heavy feature are side characters who have severe social anxieties, from anorexia to social depression, that are casually solved in a narrated summation at the end of every episode.
The fact that what should be dark is made mostly hilarious adds to its charm and quirkiness. Fortunately for us, the humor does not overshadow important dramatic moments. The narrator (Jim Dale), who ties all the scenes together, does a soothing job of underlining their comedic or dramatic importance for us, similar to the narrator in "Amélie."
While quirky and charming, the narration sounds formulaic after only three episodes. "As Ned was (insert amusing verb with a short explanation of motives here), Olive was (insert wacky attempt to get attention from Ned here)..."
Every time Olive's desires for Ned seem to get too intense, a quick line from the narrator or an interruption of song places her role back firmly into the category of comedic. The line between serious and laughable is constantly danced on and chalked over, which makes the show feel like a dark, cartoony fantasy similar to "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."
The creator is Bryan Fuller of "Dead Like Me" and "Wonderfalls." It airs at 8 p.m. Wednesdays on ABC. Be ready to laugh at death and to fall in love with the characters.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Dot Com What? - Ten Years Behind
When I want to learn about a new technology, I ask my little sister... not my teacher.
General Education classes are a repeat of high school classes.
Every job I apply for requires at least a bachelor's degree.
It takes me six years to graduate because classes are either too full or canceled.
When "real-world" experts come into my classes to speak, they admit they don't know what the future of my field will be.
When I want to know about current trends, I turn to Web sites run by professionals my age who understand what's going on... not my teachers.
And you wonder why I'm facebooking through my classes?
School today is especially irrelevant. I've heard it said that universities are typically ten years behind the times. (Let's make an exception for the Silicon Valley schools, which clearly have been internet innovators, not laggards.)
That puts schools even with innovations in 1997. Back then, the dot com bubble had just begun to rise. The Nintendo 64 was released, and for the first time a computer beat a World Champion chess player. And the first version of the Java programming language was a year old.
Wait, really? Java is 10 years old? Computers haven't always been more capable calculators than humans? Computer graphics look way better now than in the days of the Nintendo 64... We have really come a long way in a short period of time!
The pace of technological innovation is astounding. We've all heard the mantra "six months to obsoletion." Who wouldn't be scared by that? There's a lot to learn for anyone. I remember when I could skate by on an English assignment simply by making a Web page that impressed the teacher, who had no idea how to do such things. That was back in the day, you know... before xml replaced html.
Innovations are made to make things better, faster, easier, and prettier. It's exciting and daunting to learn about.
And the experts have to struggle to stay on top of it. They always have to learn new things to simply function. Teachers don't have to learn new things to function... they can teach the same old same old... but if they want to remain experts, they have to learn new things.
In all my journalism classes, I have never once been taught the basics of how to get a good photograph, nor how to capture and edit audio, nor how to build a dynamic Web site or to write for a dynamic Web site. If I do any of that, it's because my friends help me. It's because they know how to do it and because they understand why it's important.
I might find teachers who agree that I should be capable of all those things, but I won't find many teachers who are actually rebuilding their course work to reflect that.
People my age are interested in the new lifestyle the internet affords us, because we're living that lifestyle. And hungry to learn about it. Frankly the best way to do that for me is to talk (or facebook) to my friends, and my little sister's friends - people who adapt quickly to new technology, who aren't afraid of it, and who can teach me what they've learned by trial and error.
It's preferable to learn in a school setting, where concepts can be explained formally, and (ideally) textbooks can feed the fundamentals of new concepts for the hungry brain to devour. Academia has perfected learning over the last two thousand years. But lately those learning institutions have failed to be relevant in an environment where learning and adapting is everything.
General Education classes are a repeat of high school classes.
Every job I apply for requires at least a bachelor's degree.
It takes me six years to graduate because classes are either too full or canceled.
When "real-world" experts come into my classes to speak, they admit they don't know what the future of my field will be.
When I want to know about current trends, I turn to Web sites run by professionals my age who understand what's going on... not my teachers.
And you wonder why I'm facebooking through my classes?
School today is especially irrelevant. I've heard it said that universities are typically ten years behind the times. (Let's make an exception for the Silicon Valley schools, which clearly have been internet innovators, not laggards.)
That puts schools even with innovations in 1997. Back then, the dot com bubble had just begun to rise. The Nintendo 64 was released, and for the first time a computer beat a World Champion chess player. And the first version of the Java programming language was a year old.
Wait, really? Java is 10 years old? Computers haven't always been more capable calculators than humans? Computer graphics look way better now than in the days of the Nintendo 64... We have really come a long way in a short period of time!
The pace of technological innovation is astounding. We've all heard the mantra "six months to obsoletion." Who wouldn't be scared by that? There's a lot to learn for anyone. I remember when I could skate by on an English assignment simply by making a Web page that impressed the teacher, who had no idea how to do such things. That was back in the day, you know... before xml replaced html.
Innovations are made to make things better, faster, easier, and prettier. It's exciting and daunting to learn about.
And the experts have to struggle to stay on top of it. They always have to learn new things to simply function. Teachers don't have to learn new things to function... they can teach the same old same old... but if they want to remain experts, they have to learn new things.
In all my journalism classes, I have never once been taught the basics of how to get a good photograph, nor how to capture and edit audio, nor how to build a dynamic Web site or to write for a dynamic Web site. If I do any of that, it's because my friends help me. It's because they know how to do it and because they understand why it's important.
I might find teachers who agree that I should be capable of all those things, but I won't find many teachers who are actually rebuilding their course work to reflect that.
People my age are interested in the new lifestyle the internet affords us, because we're living that lifestyle. And hungry to learn about it. Frankly the best way to do that for me is to talk (or facebook) to my friends, and my little sister's friends - people who adapt quickly to new technology, who aren't afraid of it, and who can teach me what they've learned by trial and error.
It's preferable to learn in a school setting, where concepts can be explained formally, and (ideally) textbooks can feed the fundamentals of new concepts for the hungry brain to devour. Academia has perfected learning over the last two thousand years. But lately those learning institutions have failed to be relevant in an environment where learning and adapting is everything.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
True Love: Intimate Setting, Good Drinks
Restaurant Review: True Love Coffeehouse
Food: * *
Service: * *
Atmosphere: * * *
Drink: * * *
I ordered: Tabouli Salad, Blood Orange Tea, Orange Steamer
The lights in the True Love Coffeehouse were odd colors and unobtrusive.
The colorful chalk menu, written in a very Bohemian way, artsy chaotic, and passionate, made me feel like I was not just ordering a drink but a lifestyle I could be proud of. Full-leaf teas! All organic! $2.75 a pot! Dark Lord Mocha! Cherry Hot Chocolate! The menu screamed "Why be normal? Love life! Down with Mundanity!"
The decor had a similar message: unusual art from (I can only assume) local artists festooned the bright walls, and bands and shops I've never heard of had flyers sitting out on the tables just inside the door.
Because the place is very small, people walking in and out of it will bump into each other as a necessity of passing. While waiting in line to order, it was hard to not feel like I was in the way.
There are movers and shakers in the world, and you can almost instantly tell when you look into someone's eyes for the first time if they are movers or shakers. The cashier had a wild, friendly, let's-shake-things-up attitude that made me feel like part of an art revolution just by ordering from him. I went in to True Love first without my classmates and ordered a steamer.
"What flavor?" he asked.
"Hmm," I said, "Surprise me." I was caught by the art bug surrounding me and thought I'd try my own miniature revolution. Why always order the same old vanilla steamer?
Steamers are milk-smooth cups of frothy warm comfort, and my preferred drink. They are steamed milk with a shot of flavor syrup. Upon hearing my request, the cashier looked me up and down. "Hmm," he pondered. "This is difficult. What if I chose the wrong one? What are you feeling right now?"
"Adventurous," I told him, hoping that would give him the freedom to chose any syrup flavor he liked.
He pondered again before nodding at me. "Got it," he said.
A few minutes later, I was handed a white cup. The froth on top was bubbling pleasantly. I took a sip and creamy orange exploded on my now-burnt tongue. Though I had expected a more vanilla flavor, the warm citrus did not derail my taste buds. In fact, they seemed to fairly dance with the new flavor.
"Like peach rings on ice," I said ineloquently. It tasted nothing like that, of course--I had my citrus fruits all wrong and the drink was definitely hot, not cold!--but I was living the moment, reaching for a bit of artful expression that wasn't really there. He smiled knowingly.... maybe as a way to say "be quiet and drink it."
I sat inside by myself that time, and let my mind wander. It was a cheery place to pass the time, though I found myself wishing I had someone to talk to. I stayed away from ordering the food.
When I went with the group, I had plenty of people to talk to and ordered food. The highlight of the group outing: Visiting with fellow students, and that's what True Love is about. It's a place to be with your friends. Small tables inside and out front lend themselves to an intimate setting. We had six people give or take come and go throughout the dinner, and because the group was so large, we were relegated to the back patio, unfortunately where the smoking was allowed. Aside from choking on fumes, we had a nice conversation.
The food was nothing a student couldn't have made at home. The tabouli salad, a small grain tossed in pesto with small pieces of tomato and cucumber, tasted distinctly vegan--palatable, healthy, earthy--but ultimately less filling than a box of air. The nachos Mike Althouse had been so anticipating looked a little like microwave-at-home nachos, except not as good, as Althouse told me he would have put a little more kick into his home plate. I had ordered a blood-orange tea, delighted because the weather was finally cold enough to justify a hot cup. The tea had a good, strong flavor that I liked. I would order it again if there weren't so many other promising teas on the menu to chose from next time.
Food: * *
Service: * *
Atmosphere: * * *
Drink: * * *
I ordered: Tabouli Salad, Blood Orange Tea, Orange Steamer
The lights in the True Love Coffeehouse were odd colors and unobtrusive.
The colorful chalk menu, written in a very Bohemian way, artsy chaotic, and passionate, made me feel like I was not just ordering a drink but a lifestyle I could be proud of. Full-leaf teas! All organic! $2.75 a pot! Dark Lord Mocha! Cherry Hot Chocolate! The menu screamed "Why be normal? Love life! Down with Mundanity!"
The decor had a similar message: unusual art from (I can only assume) local artists festooned the bright walls, and bands and shops I've never heard of had flyers sitting out on the tables just inside the door.
Because the place is very small, people walking in and out of it will bump into each other as a necessity of passing. While waiting in line to order, it was hard to not feel like I was in the way.
There are movers and shakers in the world, and you can almost instantly tell when you look into someone's eyes for the first time if they are movers or shakers. The cashier had a wild, friendly, let's-shake-things-up attitude that made me feel like part of an art revolution just by ordering from him. I went in to True Love first without my classmates and ordered a steamer.
"What flavor?" he asked.
"Hmm," I said, "Surprise me." I was caught by the art bug surrounding me and thought I'd try my own miniature revolution. Why always order the same old vanilla steamer?
Steamers are milk-smooth cups of frothy warm comfort, and my preferred drink. They are steamed milk with a shot of flavor syrup. Upon hearing my request, the cashier looked me up and down. "Hmm," he pondered. "This is difficult. What if I chose the wrong one? What are you feeling right now?"
"Adventurous," I told him, hoping that would give him the freedom to chose any syrup flavor he liked.
He pondered again before nodding at me. "Got it," he said.
A few minutes later, I was handed a white cup. The froth on top was bubbling pleasantly. I took a sip and creamy orange exploded on my now-burnt tongue. Though I had expected a more vanilla flavor, the warm citrus did not derail my taste buds. In fact, they seemed to fairly dance with the new flavor.
"Like peach rings on ice," I said ineloquently. It tasted nothing like that, of course--I had my citrus fruits all wrong and the drink was definitely hot, not cold!--but I was living the moment, reaching for a bit of artful expression that wasn't really there. He smiled knowingly.... maybe as a way to say "be quiet and drink it."
I sat inside by myself that time, and let my mind wander. It was a cheery place to pass the time, though I found myself wishing I had someone to talk to. I stayed away from ordering the food.
When I went with the group, I had plenty of people to talk to and ordered food. The highlight of the group outing: Visiting with fellow students, and that's what True Love is about. It's a place to be with your friends. Small tables inside and out front lend themselves to an intimate setting. We had six people give or take come and go throughout the dinner, and because the group was so large, we were relegated to the back patio, unfortunately where the smoking was allowed. Aside from choking on fumes, we had a nice conversation.
The food was nothing a student couldn't have made at home. The tabouli salad, a small grain tossed in pesto with small pieces of tomato and cucumber, tasted distinctly vegan--palatable, healthy, earthy--but ultimately less filling than a box of air. The nachos Mike Althouse had been so anticipating looked a little like microwave-at-home nachos, except not as good, as Althouse told me he would have put a little more kick into his home plate. I had ordered a blood-orange tea, delighted because the weather was finally cold enough to justify a hot cup. The tea had a good, strong flavor that I liked. I would order it again if there weren't so many other promising teas on the menu to chose from next time.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Hi Honey, I'm Online...
1 in 4 say internet can replace a spouse, says poll
I don't know what you personally expect from a spouse, but apparently "the internet" can perform all those functions for you, according to a recent poll that found 24 percent of Americans believe the internet "can serve as a substitute for a significant other for some period of time."
The poll was conducted by two firms: research company Zogby International and PR consultant 463 Communications. There were 9,743 adults polled online and the companies claims there's an error margin of plus or minus 1 percent.
Slashdot poster Sully_51 pointed out on a forum discussion that a poll conducted online probably can't truly reflect the attitudes of all Americans -- it only reflects the attitudes of those Americans who already use the internet.
Furthermore, we really need to know what percentage of these poll respondents are single to begin with. How many have never been married? Are they qualified in their life experience to compare a significant other to the internet?
When I think of the internet's functionality, I think of communication: e-mails, social networking sites, forums, discussion groups, etc. I think of information: news, blogs, videos, columns, easily-sorted research, etc. I think of art: self-expression in many forms, commercial and amateur. And, of course, we all think of porn online--even though here in America our top google searches have more to do with sports or history than porn.
When I think of a spouse's functionality within a relationship, I think of love: romantic dinners once in a while, emotional support, companionship, etc. I think of sex, and the physiological benefits as well as emotional benefits of that. I think of household affairs: chores, maintenance, cooking, cleaning, paying bills, etc. I think of stability: jobs, home, health.
Where do the two overlap? What can you find online from the above list? You can't get help with chores at all online. You can't really find sex online, though if porn or cyber-sex is all you want, I guess you don't need a significant other for that. You can find companionship online, sure, with other real people... but that is replacing one real person with another as opposed to replacing them with the internet. And is online companionship really anything like spousal companionship?
By my experience, "Internet friends" chat with each other, give each other advice, and have fun online together. But you only really see someone online when they want to be seen - when they feel like talking, and when they have chosen to spend time with you. You don't have to deal with each other after a hard day at work, or when you are grumpy because the dog ate your couch. You never have to fight about who will do the dishes.
Does that sound ideal to the internet-using population of America? Perhaps that eliminates some of the challenges of living with another person and allows a relationship to be more perfect. But won't it be less rewarding?
According to the poll, 78 percent of adults between the ages of 18 and 24 have social networking profiles, and that more than a fourth of all Americans have profiles. To quote the breakdown:
More Democrats have a social networking presence than Republicans (32% to 22% ). But few Americans say it plays a large role in their identity as a person. Only 14% say the Internet is an important part of what they consider to be their identity; 68% responded it’s just how they identity themselves online; it’s not really who they are.
That suggests the people polled already know their internet selves are different from their real selves. Right away we're starting out with a false base on which to build a meaningful relationship. If you fall in love with someone's online face, how can you know that's who they really are? How can you expect them to understand who you really are? How is that rewarding?
Relationships are not easy. Living with another human being has many challenges. Despite that, I suspect most of America knows the amorphous body of knowledge and lies called the internet cannot replace the companionship of a real human being.
Honey, I'm home!
I don't know what you personally expect from a spouse, but apparently "the internet" can perform all those functions for you, according to a recent poll that found 24 percent of Americans believe the internet "can serve as a substitute for a significant other for some period of time."
The poll was conducted by two firms: research company Zogby International and PR consultant 463 Communications. There were 9,743 adults polled online and the companies claims there's an error margin of plus or minus 1 percent.
Slashdot poster Sully_51 pointed out on a forum discussion that a poll conducted online probably can't truly reflect the attitudes of all Americans -- it only reflects the attitudes of those Americans who already use the internet.
Furthermore, we really need to know what percentage of these poll respondents are single to begin with. How many have never been married? Are they qualified in their life experience to compare a significant other to the internet?
When I think of the internet's functionality, I think of communication: e-mails, social networking sites, forums, discussion groups, etc. I think of information: news, blogs, videos, columns, easily-sorted research, etc. I think of art: self-expression in many forms, commercial and amateur. And, of course, we all think of porn online--even though here in America our top google searches have more to do with sports or history than porn.
When I think of a spouse's functionality within a relationship, I think of love: romantic dinners once in a while, emotional support, companionship, etc. I think of sex, and the physiological benefits as well as emotional benefits of that. I think of household affairs: chores, maintenance, cooking, cleaning, paying bills, etc. I think of stability: jobs, home, health.
Where do the two overlap? What can you find online from the above list? You can't get help with chores at all online. You can't really find sex online, though if porn or cyber-sex is all you want, I guess you don't need a significant other for that. You can find companionship online, sure, with other real people... but that is replacing one real person with another as opposed to replacing them with the internet. And is online companionship really anything like spousal companionship?
By my experience, "Internet friends" chat with each other, give each other advice, and have fun online together. But you only really see someone online when they want to be seen - when they feel like talking, and when they have chosen to spend time with you. You don't have to deal with each other after a hard day at work, or when you are grumpy because the dog ate your couch. You never have to fight about who will do the dishes.
Does that sound ideal to the internet-using population of America? Perhaps that eliminates some of the challenges of living with another person and allows a relationship to be more perfect. But won't it be less rewarding?
According to the poll, 78 percent of adults between the ages of 18 and 24 have social networking profiles, and that more than a fourth of all Americans have profiles. To quote the breakdown:
More Democrats have a social networking presence than Republicans (32% to 22% ). But few Americans say it plays a large role in their identity as a person. Only 14% say the Internet is an important part of what they consider to be their identity; 68% responded it’s just how they identity themselves online; it’s not really who they are.
That suggests the people polled already know their internet selves are different from their real selves. Right away we're starting out with a false base on which to build a meaningful relationship. If you fall in love with someone's online face, how can you know that's who they really are? How can you expect them to understand who you really are? How is that rewarding?
Relationships are not easy. Living with another human being has many challenges. Despite that, I suspect most of America knows the amorphous body of knowledge and lies called the internet cannot replace the companionship of a real human being.
Honey, I'm home!
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Fair Trade Trick-or-Treat: End Child Slavery
Want to know something truly spooky?
Child slavery does still exist, according to a 2001 report by the International Labor Organization. In African countries such as the Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, and Cameroon, child laborers are forced to help harvest the cacao pods that are later made into our favorite chocolate bars. Children may be sold by their parents into slavery, or tricked into working for a wage less than what was promised to them.
From a Global Exchange report:
Parents in these countries sell their children to traffickers believing that they will find honest work once they arrive in Ivory Coast and then send their earnings home. But as soon as they are separated from their families, the young boys are made to work for little or nothing. The children work long and hard -- they head into the fields at 6:00 in the morning and often do not finish until 6:30 at night.
Rural cacao farmers in West Africa are often very poor. Exploited by middlemen to sell their beans to chocolate processing corporations that do not buy at a fair price, the farmers are kept poor even if chocolate prices rise.
Everyone loves to be spooked at Halloween, but this is one sad story that doesn't need to be told.
Fair Trade Certified chocolate bars, fortunately, guarantee a fair, stable price goes directly to the bean harvesters through cooperatives dedicated to developing sustainable farming economics and put an end to abusive labor practices.
Fair Trade chocolate can be purchased at Trader Joe's, online at Global Exchange, or sometimes in the health food section of the supermarket.
This fall, Global Exchange offers a Fair Trade trick-or-treat package of fair-trade chocolate and awareness postcards for $15, guaranteed to be delivered by Oct. 31.
When shopping for chocolate, be sure to look for this Fair Trade Certified logo!
Child slavery does still exist, according to a 2001 report by the International Labor Organization. In African countries such as the Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, and Cameroon, child laborers are forced to help harvest the cacao pods that are later made into our favorite chocolate bars. Children may be sold by their parents into slavery, or tricked into working for a wage less than what was promised to them.
From a Global Exchange report:
Parents in these countries sell their children to traffickers believing that they will find honest work once they arrive in Ivory Coast and then send their earnings home. But as soon as they are separated from their families, the young boys are made to work for little or nothing. The children work long and hard -- they head into the fields at 6:00 in the morning and often do not finish until 6:30 at night.Rural cacao farmers in West Africa are often very poor. Exploited by middlemen to sell their beans to chocolate processing corporations that do not buy at a fair price, the farmers are kept poor even if chocolate prices rise.
Everyone loves to be spooked at Halloween, but this is one sad story that doesn't need to be told.
Fair Trade Certified chocolate bars, fortunately, guarantee a fair, stable price goes directly to the bean harvesters through cooperatives dedicated to developing sustainable farming economics and put an end to abusive labor practices.Fair Trade chocolate can be purchased at Trader Joe's, online at Global Exchange, or sometimes in the health food section of the supermarket.
This fall, Global Exchange offers a Fair Trade trick-or-treat package of fair-trade chocolate and awareness postcards for $15, guaranteed to be delivered by Oct. 31.
When shopping for chocolate, be sure to look for this Fair Trade Certified logo!
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Making worthy enemies
You lied to me.
You insult my intelligence on a regular basis.
You steal from me, and you kill my friends.
You and I are enemies, George W. Bush.
...Phew. It feels good to get that off my chest! Thanks to my new Facebook application, "Enemybook," I have announced to the world how our president "done me wrong."
"An antisocial utility that disconnects you to the so-called friends around you," is the slogan for this application. Its creator, 28-year-old Kevin Matulef, is the most common profile marked as an "enemy," followed by George W. Bush and the band Coldplay, according to a Boston Globe story. Republican Ann Coulter comes in fourth.
The application, which lets you friend the enemies of your enemies, was really designed as a backlash to the unreal numbers of people who "friend" each other on Facebook, but don't really know each other. It started as a joke in the MIT dorm rooms, Matulef said.
However it started, though, some people are taking it seriously. Embittered ex's are complaining about each other publicly with it. The creator of a similar application called Snubster told the Boston Globe two people involved in a lawsuit were snubbing each other... and eventually the snubs had to be removed.
Petty squabbles? My ex hooked up with my roommate so I hate her? Blech! Talk about a boring show! At least supervillians have an interesting relationship with their goodie-two-shoes counterparts. We can count on cinema or comic book enemies to exchange theatrical threats, to plot cunning, dastardly foils, and to circle each other, eyes narrowed and weapons drawn, respectful yet cautious, taking turns gaining the upper hand in a conflict based on a difference in morals. Much more sophisticated and enlightening for everyone involved than a pair of sour lovers craning their necks out of a whispering huddle of rumor-mongering facebook friends to occasionally glare at one another from across the room.
We can't all have supervillian enemies, but we can get creative. Dubya's been done before - he makes a good symbolic enemy. But why not create foe profiles for things like "pollen," "traffic," or even "illiteracy?"
A group such as Room to Read, a nonprofit group that funds libraries and book publishing in rural communities throughout Nepal, could make a whole PR debacle out of it by inviting folks to mark Illiteracy as their enemy. To follow up, people could donate to the cause... and create a whole new meaning to the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." They could build a network of "enemies" dedicated to foiling a particular social ill.
It would be a way to be positive with something negative. I like the idea of choosing my enemies. I really like the idea of having enemies that are worth my time. And I think there's something to the idea of personifying a social ill as a supervillian. It makes for a good relationship. Our exchanges would go something like this:
"You'll never catch me!" cries Illiteracy, as he cackles with wickedness and steals another child's future by denying it an education.
"Wrong again, Mr. Illiteracy. This time I know your weakness!" I shout as I bonk him on the head with a book. The book bounces off his newly-detached head and soars into the child's outstretched hands, who cheers for me. I high-five the sidekick researchers who discovered my nemesis's weakness.
Pretty cool, don't you think?
You insult my intelligence on a regular basis.
You steal from me, and you kill my friends.
You and I are enemies, George W. Bush.
...Phew. It feels good to get that off my chest! Thanks to my new Facebook application, "Enemybook," I have announced to the world how our president "done me wrong."
"An antisocial utility that disconnects you to the so-called friends around you," is the slogan for this application. Its creator, 28-year-old Kevin Matulef, is the most common profile marked as an "enemy," followed by George W. Bush and the band Coldplay, according to a Boston Globe story. Republican Ann Coulter comes in fourth.
The application, which lets you friend the enemies of your enemies, was really designed as a backlash to the unreal numbers of people who "friend" each other on Facebook, but don't really know each other. It started as a joke in the MIT dorm rooms, Matulef said.
However it started, though, some people are taking it seriously. Embittered ex's are complaining about each other publicly with it. The creator of a similar application called Snubster told the Boston Globe two people involved in a lawsuit were snubbing each other... and eventually the snubs had to be removed.Petty squabbles? My ex hooked up with my roommate so I hate her? Blech! Talk about a boring show! At least supervillians have an interesting relationship with their goodie-two-shoes counterparts. We can count on cinema or comic book enemies to exchange theatrical threats, to plot cunning, dastardly foils, and to circle each other, eyes narrowed and weapons drawn, respectful yet cautious, taking turns gaining the upper hand in a conflict based on a difference in morals. Much more sophisticated and enlightening for everyone involved than a pair of sour lovers craning their necks out of a whispering huddle of rumor-mongering facebook friends to occasionally glare at one another from across the room.
We can't all have supervillian enemies, but we can get creative. Dubya's been done before - he makes a good symbolic enemy. But why not create foe profiles for things like "pollen," "traffic," or even "illiteracy?"
A group such as Room to Read, a nonprofit group that funds libraries and book publishing in rural communities throughout Nepal, could make a whole PR debacle out of it by inviting folks to mark Illiteracy as their enemy. To follow up, people could donate to the cause... and create a whole new meaning to the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." They could build a network of "enemies" dedicated to foiling a particular social ill.
It would be a way to be positive with something negative. I like the idea of choosing my enemies. I really like the idea of having enemies that are worth my time. And I think there's something to the idea of personifying a social ill as a supervillian. It makes for a good relationship. Our exchanges would go something like this:
"You'll never catch me!" cries Illiteracy, as he cackles with wickedness and steals another child's future by denying it an education.
"Wrong again, Mr. Illiteracy. This time I know your weakness!" I shout as I bonk him on the head with a book. The book bounces off his newly-detached head and soars into the child's outstretched hands, who cheers for me. I high-five the sidekick researchers who discovered my nemesis's weakness.
Pretty cool, don't you think?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Shared context, social media - YouTube as a Verb, Ideal
This summer I was lucky enough to travel in Europe with my family for a wedding. The various cousins, step-cousins, aunts, uncles, and friends of the family conglomerated in Edinburgh pubs to meet each other, talk together, eat together, take photos, make memories, and share memories. We stayed in rural cabins with no access to technology, and I discovered as I got to know my cousins and began to share my interests with them, I distinctly mourned the lack of YouTube.
That's right. I did not miss American food or sensible American accents or even hot showers so much as I missed YouTube. I realized that sharing with my friends the queer snippets of Scrubs or a particularly poignant song or the time-wasting, mind-boggling antics of a dancing banana had become an important social activity for me... it is a way to relate to others, a way to share part of myself, and a way to collectively mock and learn about the society around me.
TechCrunch's Mark Hendrickson says YouTube has become the generic verb for video sharing. I think he's right. It's not about the brand name "YouTube," which started in 2005 and was bought by Google for $1.65 billion a year and a half later. People will often use competing video sharing sites--but it is the idea of broadcasting yourself. In fact, I'd go farther than using YouTube as a verb. I think it is an ideal - as if one could be a broadcaster with his or her own channel, with hand-picked, hand-produced content--commercials and revenue and censors be damned!
What more can be said about YouTube? Either you know and love the world of video sharing, or you don't own a computer.
My friend Erica Jolley-Meers, a media consultant for the California Newspapers Publishers Association, said YouTube can be considered an art medium, because there is content produced specifically for and only distributed via YouTube, such as the Lonelygirl15 weblog series.
Aside from the original content created by YouTube users, it also spreads existing content that carries with it that special internet joke flavor. (As great as Saturday Night Live is, I doubt "Dick in a Box" would have spread like wildfire via traditional TV broadcasts. The song has just the right flavor for the Internet attention span.) For more examples of the Internet joke flavor, you should watch the music video Internet People, and visit the Internet People Rundown if you don't recognize all those YouTube references.
I know only two people who have been on YouTube personally, and one of them is a dog. So the joy of YouTube can't really be, for me, about seeing people I know and love in video. It has to be about sharing my media.
I'm not sure why I am not content to simply view my amusing snippets online. Something drives me to share them with others, so that we can laugh together, be awed together, or waste time together. And I realized while in Scotland that I felt there were many YouTube videos relevant to our family's discussions. The conversations felt incomplete somehow--un-enhanced, maybe--without the shared context of a snippet of relevant, quirky media.
My friends and I keep a log of our favorite videos. The count is up to 40 links now. They run the gambit from just plain silly to highly educational and interesting. What about you? What are your favorite videos about? Would you care to share them? Come YouTube with me, and revel in the ideal of free media.
That's right. I did not miss American food or sensible American accents or even hot showers so much as I missed YouTube. I realized that sharing with my friends the queer snippets of Scrubs or a particularly poignant song or the time-wasting, mind-boggling antics of a dancing banana had become an important social activity for me... it is a way to relate to others, a way to share part of myself, and a way to collectively mock and learn about the society around me.
TechCrunch's Mark Hendrickson says YouTube has become the generic verb for video sharing. I think he's right. It's not about the brand name "YouTube," which started in 2005 and was bought by Google for $1.65 billion a year and a half later. People will often use competing video sharing sites--but it is the idea of broadcasting yourself. In fact, I'd go farther than using YouTube as a verb. I think it is an ideal - as if one could be a broadcaster with his or her own channel, with hand-picked, hand-produced content--commercials and revenue and censors be damned!
What more can be said about YouTube? Either you know and love the world of video sharing, or you don't own a computer.
My friend Erica Jolley-Meers, a media consultant for the California Newspapers Publishers Association, said YouTube can be considered an art medium, because there is content produced specifically for and only distributed via YouTube, such as the Lonelygirl15 weblog series.
Aside from the original content created by YouTube users, it also spreads existing content that carries with it that special internet joke flavor. (As great as Saturday Night Live is, I doubt "Dick in a Box" would have spread like wildfire via traditional TV broadcasts. The song has just the right flavor for the Internet attention span.) For more examples of the Internet joke flavor, you should watch the music video Internet People, and visit the Internet People Rundown if you don't recognize all those YouTube references.I know only two people who have been on YouTube personally, and one of them is a dog. So the joy of YouTube can't really be, for me, about seeing people I know and love in video. It has to be about sharing my media.
I'm not sure why I am not content to simply view my amusing snippets online. Something drives me to share them with others, so that we can laugh together, be awed together, or waste time together. And I realized while in Scotland that I felt there were many YouTube videos relevant to our family's discussions. The conversations felt incomplete somehow--un-enhanced, maybe--without the shared context of a snippet of relevant, quirky media.
My friends and I keep a log of our favorite videos. The count is up to 40 links now. They run the gambit from just plain silly to highly educational and interesting. What about you? What are your favorite videos about? Would you care to share them? Come YouTube with me, and revel in the ideal of free media.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
'Snarky before Snarky was cool': Joel Achenbach
Blogger Christopher Potter Stewart says columnist Joel Achenbach "was Snarky before Snarky was cool."
That’s about the best way sum up Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post.
Whether he is writing about the youth of old people ( Rise of the alpha geezer) or the changes facing journalism (
"I really need you to read this article, okay?"), Achenbach’s columns and blogs are snarky, flowing, and funny.
Achenbach graduated from Princeton University in 1982 with a bachelor's in political science.
At least by 1985, possibly earlier, he was reporting at the Miami Herald, and was there at least until 1989. He fought and lost against a court-ordered subpoena as a witness to an arrest while gathering news for the Miami Herald.
He has been a science column writer for “Who Knew?” at National Goegraphic, though he was writing about science long before that. He's also been a keynote speaker at the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, and has written a book, "Captured by Aliens: The Search for Life and Truth in a Very Large Universe."
His history, at least via Internet archives, is difficult to piece together. At some point he moved from the Herald to the Washington Post, where he is today. During his career there he has had several columns (Rough Draft, Why Things Are, and his blog, Achenblog) and written several books, including “It looks like a president only smaller: Trailing campaign 2000.”
The Achenblog began in 2005 and its readers—the Select Audience Of 15, as the regulars are called—garnered a lot of attention for commenting prolifically on the blog, sort of. Well, why don’t we let Achenbach explain it? This is an excerpt from his column “The Tail that Wags the Blog.”
The blog originated in January [2005] as a catch basin for mental detritus, for the kind of stuff not good enough for print, but too good to waste on casual conversation or, worse, mere thinking. But this spring I began allowing "comments," and the blog suddenly mutated. America, it turns out, is full of smart, clever, creative people who happen to have no interest in working and whose employers have unwisely given them Internet access. Thus every day, on my blog, these strangers show up, just to shoot the breeze, flirt, kvetch, veer off topic and, most of all, pay zero attention to what I have written.
Let's cut to the chase: The blog ignores me.
His blogs (“the kit”) regularly have 300 comments (kaboodles) or more, and from that community has sprung a large list of inside jokes and terms. Sometimes the conversation spans several blogs.
There is no way to do his words justice; you just have to read them for yourself. Even if you are not so interested in the subjects of his writing, you will become interested in his writing for the sake of it. It flows. It has a strong voice, and addictive doses of humor. His observations, no matter how wacky, carry with them a sense of casual relevance.
Relevance, you know, is the essence of snark.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Citizen journalism, social networking is "Big Brother" reversed
Technology often gets a bad wrap for its 1984-esque surveillance capabilities. "Big Brother"is The Man with cameras and satellites when he uses them to control his subjects. But what happens when the citizens use surveillance to hound the authorities? "Big brother" becomes a grassroots, for-the-people social networking effort... It becomes citizen journalism.
The opposite of "Big Brother" is embodied in the young, tech-savvy, politically-active citizens of Myanmar (formerly Burma), a country of about 48 million near China, where a military committee (a junta) rules by force.
In August, several hundred monks dressed in bright red began to protest when the government doubled fuel prices. When troops injured several of the monks, and no apology was made, outrage grew. Pro-democratic protesters joined with the monks. Last week, the number of protesters had grown to more than 100,000.
Though newspapers in Myanmar are either shut down or tightly controlled with propaganda, young computer-literate protesters have been capturing video and still photographs on their cell phones and spreading information about human rights violations despite their heavily-censored Internet access. Dedicated to working around censors, and dedicated to defying the military's propaganda, they have to be creative to get the truth out. Bloggers like this one have posted daily updates from their network of citizen journalists.
Or at least they were doing so until last Friday, when the government cut off the nation's Internet access. ISPs were shut down, cybercafes were closed, and even the government's Web site was down.
In 1988, the Burmese junta quelled protests by killing several thousand people. Human rights activists say they fear a repeat of such violence could happen while the flow of news is slowed to a trickle. Reporters Without Borders says on its Web site, "The repression, with its dozens of deaths and hundreds if not thousands of arrests, is gaining pace, but the flow of news and information is drying up. The international community must take action to prevent this news blackout."
It is scary to think of such a crucial voice silenced. Human rights activism is certainly the most important social networking on the Internet. What nobler cause could there be?
'Big Brother' to the rescue?
According to a report by New Science, satellite images that can focus down to 1 pixel per meter are being used to document the protests and the military actions. Because the monks wear bright red, they are easily spotted from the sky.
The hope is that if the military knows it is being watched by the international community, it will not repeat a massacre.
I find it hard to articulate my appreciation of the overwhelming dichotomy of the uses of surveillance. Americans value their privacy; they know their human rights are not violated so long as they have it. George Orwell understood in a fictional, symbolic way how important privacy is to humans.
The monks value their visibility. They march until their feet cannot carry them anymore; they know their human rights will be violated until they can change the hearts of the soldiers and turn all eyes to their cause. They understand in a religious, symbolic way how important being heard is to humans.
Inspired Americans can add to their visibility and increase the strength of the social network by joining the Facebook group, or by wearing red at the solidarity protests being organized all over the world, or by contacting their elected lawmaker and urging them to promote policies that encourage Myanmar aid.
And we should join the cause. We have it easy... We can connect to each other without fear of arrest, and stand up against oppression in places Myanmar's military cannot reach. Really, what better way do we have to stick it to The Man? What could be more American?
Not silence... not silence.
The opposite of "Big Brother" is embodied in the young, tech-savvy, politically-active citizens of Myanmar (formerly Burma), a country of about 48 million near China, where a military committee (a junta) rules by force.In August, several hundred monks dressed in bright red began to protest when the government doubled fuel prices. When troops injured several of the monks, and no apology was made, outrage grew. Pro-democratic protesters joined with the monks. Last week, the number of protesters had grown to more than 100,000.
Though newspapers in Myanmar are either shut down or tightly controlled with propaganda, young computer-literate protesters have been capturing video and still photographs on their cell phones and spreading information about human rights violations despite their heavily-censored Internet access. Dedicated to working around censors, and dedicated to defying the military's propaganda, they have to be creative to get the truth out. Bloggers like this one have posted daily updates from their network of citizen journalists.
Or at least they were doing so until last Friday, when the government cut off the nation's Internet access. ISPs were shut down, cybercafes were closed, and even the government's Web site was down.
In 1988, the Burmese junta quelled protests by killing several thousand people. Human rights activists say they fear a repeat of such violence could happen while the flow of news is slowed to a trickle. Reporters Without Borders says on its Web site, "The repression, with its dozens of deaths and hundreds if not thousands of arrests, is gaining pace, but the flow of news and information is drying up. The international community must take action to prevent this news blackout."It is scary to think of such a crucial voice silenced. Human rights activism is certainly the most important social networking on the Internet. What nobler cause could there be?
'Big Brother' to the rescue?
According to a report by New Science, satellite images that can focus down to 1 pixel per meter are being used to document the protests and the military actions. Because the monks wear bright red, they are easily spotted from the sky.
The hope is that if the military knows it is being watched by the international community, it will not repeat a massacre.I find it hard to articulate my appreciation of the overwhelming dichotomy of the uses of surveillance. Americans value their privacy; they know their human rights are not violated so long as they have it. George Orwell understood in a fictional, symbolic way how important privacy is to humans.
The monks value their visibility. They march until their feet cannot carry them anymore; they know their human rights will be violated until they can change the hearts of the soldiers and turn all eyes to their cause. They understand in a religious, symbolic way how important being heard is to humans.
Inspired Americans can add to their visibility and increase the strength of the social network by joining the Facebook group, or by wearing red at the solidarity protests being organized all over the world, or by contacting their elected lawmaker and urging them to promote policies that encourage Myanmar aid.
And we should join the cause. We have it easy... We can connect to each other without fear of arrest, and stand up against oppression in places Myanmar's military cannot reach. Really, what better way do we have to stick it to The Man? What could be more American?
Not silence... not silence.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Presidential Election Reform Act not enough to fix an outdated bias
The Presidential Election Reform Act, a ballot initiative that would weaken the winner-takes-all Electoral College voting system in California, does not go far enough to fix an outdated bias.
Currently, California winners of the presidential election take all 55 electoral votes. Under the new proposal, each of California's 53 districts would get to award 1 vote to their winning candidate, and the winner of the statewide majority would be awarded just two extra electoral votes.
Two other states have adopted this method of vote counting. It would mean a weaker Democratic party in California... but a more accurate reflection of this state's voters.
The winner-takes-all system effectively means that everyone who voted for a minority candidate in one state (who may have been a majority candidate in another) has their vote miscounted for the people they voted against. (Voting for the lesser of two evils means voting against candidates.) In an especially populous state such as California, the majority vote is made stronger because of California's size--but a powerful vote is still a miscounted vote if it's not going to the candidate you voted for.
To make things really fair, we'd need this ballot initiative passed nationwide, so that democrats voting in Republican states wouldn't have their votes miscounted. The Reform Act, while more fair to voters on a statewide level, gives an unfair nationwide advantage to the Republicans unless it is enacted in, say, Texas too.
Certainly, don't believe the Republicans in our state are a voiceless minority to be pitied, as portrayed on a recent airing of the Colbert Report. In fact, thanks to the 2/3 majority California needs to change the budget, constitution, pass taxes, or ... well... get anything done, the minority party ends up holding or withholding the crucial votes on major decisions in the state. The fact remains that the Electoral College gives all its power to the party, and no power to the individual.
The system was designed to keep ignorant masses from mucking up the elite game of politics. Today, however, people are literate. Education is one of our top values. The USA has learned before: the electoral system can betray the popular vote--and why should intelligent, issue-aware voters allow that to happen? Changing the system to awarding votes per district brings us one step closer to a reasonable system that is right for everyone.
Thanks to district gerrymandering, it's easy to predict what district votes for what party. Roughly 20 congressional districts of California's 53 vote Republican. Party numbers won't shift overnight, but envision a future where California becomes a contested state, where candidates are forced to take the state's support seriously in their bid for presidency, and not simply chalk it up as a "blue state." As things are now, we're basically ignored by candidates.
Let's push for an updated, more accurate system. Get rid of the electoral college. The Presidential Election Reform Act doesn't go far enough to rid us of the outdated bias against an entire populace. It is a small step that should be taken nationwide to preserve a democracy that can be all about empowering the individual.
Currently, California winners of the presidential election take all 55 electoral votes. Under the new proposal, each of California's 53 districts would get to award 1 vote to their winning candidate, and the winner of the statewide majority would be awarded just two extra electoral votes.
Two other states have adopted this method of vote counting. It would mean a weaker Democratic party in California... but a more accurate reflection of this state's voters.
The winner-takes-all system effectively means that everyone who voted for a minority candidate in one state (who may have been a majority candidate in another) has their vote miscounted for the people they voted against. (Voting for the lesser of two evils means voting against candidates.) In an especially populous state such as California, the majority vote is made stronger because of California's size--but a powerful vote is still a miscounted vote if it's not going to the candidate you voted for.
To make things really fair, we'd need this ballot initiative passed nationwide, so that democrats voting in Republican states wouldn't have their votes miscounted. The Reform Act, while more fair to voters on a statewide level, gives an unfair nationwide advantage to the Republicans unless it is enacted in, say, Texas too.
Certainly, don't believe the Republicans in our state are a voiceless minority to be pitied, as portrayed on a recent airing of the Colbert Report. In fact, thanks to the 2/3 majority California needs to change the budget, constitution, pass taxes, or ... well... get anything done, the minority party ends up holding or withholding the crucial votes on major decisions in the state. The fact remains that the Electoral College gives all its power to the party, and no power to the individual.
The system was designed to keep ignorant masses from mucking up the elite game of politics. Today, however, people are literate. Education is one of our top values. The USA has learned before: the electoral system can betray the popular vote--and why should intelligent, issue-aware voters allow that to happen? Changing the system to awarding votes per district brings us one step closer to a reasonable system that is right for everyone.
Thanks to district gerrymandering, it's easy to predict what district votes for what party. Roughly 20 congressional districts of California's 53 vote Republican. Party numbers won't shift overnight, but envision a future where California becomes a contested state, where candidates are forced to take the state's support seriously in their bid for presidency, and not simply chalk it up as a "blue state." As things are now, we're basically ignored by candidates.
Let's push for an updated, more accurate system. Get rid of the electoral college. The Presidential Election Reform Act doesn't go far enough to rid us of the outdated bias against an entire populace. It is a small step that should be taken nationwide to preserve a democracy that can be all about empowering the individual.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Move over, nerd--the socialite geek is here to stay
Move over, nerd. Tech isn't just for geeks anymore.
Thanks to an endless list of networking sites, forums, and online games, there is an undeniable rise in human communities forming online. Technology gives us more ways to connect to each other than ever before... and it's not just the technophiles who use them.
Classically, the game industry has published games for and by the solitary nerd. These games feature fictional violence and characters with little growth arc to them. These games "trivialize the importance of the emotional experience," warns Sheri Graner Ray, author of "Gender Inclusive Game Design: Expanding the Market."
In short, those games are made to appeal to a small stereotype of loner geeks.
But a growing number of games, animated shows, and comic books have proved the market can expand beyond that stereotype.
Take World of Warcraft for example. It is an online game played by more than 9 million people worldwide. It has continued to top sales charts since its release in 2004. And no--those 9 million aren't the socially-inept number-crunching hide-in-the-dark stereotype of a "gamer."
"Myself and all four kids and husband play here," said Olathedyami, a Warcraft player with grown children. "...(I) actually started playing because my husband was stationed at Ft. Irwin for almost two years."
She is part of a guild that prides itself on being family-friendly, meaning children and parents alike play together. Other guilds restrict their membership to be adult-only, and some are for seniors only.
It's not a surprise that people are able to play in and succeed in World of Warcraft. According to a speech given by Cliff Dennett, a corporate strategist, the skills you need to excel in the game are the same skills all leaders need in the corporate world.
"Gamers collaborate with many people they've never met, often in different time zones," he said, as quoted in an M-net news story. "You need to be a mediator and co-ordinate differing opinions and you need to allocate tasks according to skill levels. A good leader also links rewards and incentives to make members want to come back night after night.
Thanks to an endless list of networking sites, forums, and online games, there is an undeniable rise in human communities forming online. Technology gives us more ways to connect to each other than ever before... and it's not just the technophiles who use them.
Classically, the game industry has published games for and by the solitary nerd. These games feature fictional violence and characters with little growth arc to them. These games "trivialize the importance of the emotional experience," warns Sheri Graner Ray, author of "Gender Inclusive Game Design: Expanding the Market."
In short, those games are made to appeal to a small stereotype of loner geeks.
But a growing number of games, animated shows, and comic books have proved the market can expand beyond that stereotype.
Take World of Warcraft for example. It is an online game played by more than 9 million people worldwide. It has continued to top sales charts since its release in 2004. And no--those 9 million aren't the socially-inept number-crunching hide-in-the-dark stereotype of a "gamer."
"Myself and all four kids and husband play here," said Olathedyami, a Warcraft player with grown children. "...(I) actually started playing because my husband was stationed at Ft. Irwin for almost two years."
She is part of a guild that prides itself on being family-friendly, meaning children and parents alike play together. Other guilds restrict their membership to be adult-only, and some are for seniors only.
It's not a surprise that people are able to play in and succeed in World of Warcraft. According to a speech given by Cliff Dennett, a corporate strategist, the skills you need to excel in the game are the same skills all leaders need in the corporate world.
"Gamers collaborate with many people they've never met, often in different time zones," he said, as quoted in an M-net news story. "You need to be a mediator and co-ordinate differing opinions and you need to allocate tasks according to skill levels. A good leader also links rewards and incentives to make members want to come back night after night.
"These are critical leadership skills required in business."
Even gamers enjoy social activity, too? If that doesn't sound right, just ask Steven Poole, author of "Trigger Happy: Videogames and the Entertainment Revolution." He'll tell you that competition and co-operation is half the fun.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Happy birthday Dad, with love from airport security
My father will have the perfect birthday present, thanks to airport security.
My family traveled to Seattle this summer. Out of nostalgia and the sense of duty to be good tourists on my parent’s part, we visited the Space Needle. My mother, my father, my sister, and I paid $16 per person to go to the top, where we were suitably unimpressed by the view.
Things were more fun downstairs in the overpriced gift shop, where the “space needle” theme meant marketers had gotten creative to keep us interested in the structure. Anything long and skinny, from olive oil to lamps, was reborn into the Space Needle image. Space Noodle pasta, Space Needle golf tees, paperweights, figurines, pens, cooking utensils, hats, shirts, food…
My father was in his element. He has always loved to laugh at Outer Space and all things sci-fi. His eyes twinkle with good humor at the words “alien abduction.” He enjoys making fun of cheesy old movies like “Killers from Space!” And though he enjoys the comedy of wild theories that say Elvis is still alive in a mother ship somewhere, at his heart he is an artist who delights in possibilities outside the mundane. And what opens the door to more possibilities than the final frontier?
After impatiently and unsuccessfully trying to drag my parents from the store by force twice, my sister and I both realized this was the perfect place to find him a gift. He was looking at everything with that star-struck twinkle in his eyes that said his imagination had been awakened.
We were quite determined we should get Dad just the right thing. We watched as he and my mother wove through the pointless Needle knickknacks, spying out with mock 007 smoothness which souvenirs he dawdled at longest.
Finally we had a winner. It was a rocket-shaped pewter pen that sat weighty and sleek in its base. It came in a little black box, its individual parts nestled in Styrofoam. I hid it in my backpack where Dad wouldn’t see the gift.
I did not think about it again until we passed through security at the Seattle Tacoma airport.
In airports, X-ray machines are used to scan for organic explosives and dangerous devices. My bag did not come out of the machine for a while. The X-ray technician stared silently at his screen, the conveyor belt not moving. Finally he murmured lowly to his coworkers, “Look at this. Looks like it could make a rocket to me… Is that a rocket? Run it through again.”
I was pulled aside, and my bag was searched.
My sister cleverly realized what was causing the trouble. She went immediately to Dad, to try to distract him, so he wouldn’t see the gift they were pulling out of my bag. He ignored her. (I can’t say I blame him—if my daughter’s bags were being searched, my attention would be nowhere else.)
Airports are full of negative energy. People are exhausted, hungry, and haunted by the uncertainties of when, where, and how their basic needs will next be met. The long arm of governance reaches to stop terrorists, oppressing everyone in its quest for safety. Frazzled travelers lose their short tempers with airport staff who might—if they are not already jaded to the public or frazzled themselves—try to put a nice face on the bad news they have to inevitably give.
If I were that security technician, I’d have thrown the pen out just in case. Better safe than sorry, right? Besides, she had probably faced ten million irate customers that day. No need to do little old me any favors.
But, she did. She saw my father, she saw me shielding the pen from his view with my body just in case, and she saw my sister vainly trying to distract him. She may have sensed the way Dad’s eyes would light up opening that gift… she may have sensed the way his daughters rose to action to preserve the secret… She may have had some sort of Martian device in her soul that diverted the flow of negativity all around her.
Here's how it happened. New strings were vibrated at the cosmic level, an alternate universe opened up where possibilities are endless and people really are basically good--and airport security let me pass with my cargo.
Next Tuesday my sister and I will proudly present my father with his pen, and probably relate the story of its journey. The trip makes it that much more special.
Dad is going to love it. Thanks, airport security!
Your virtual self is more public than your real self
Thanks to the rise of social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, and thanks to Google’s content-searching methods, your virtual self is much more public than your real self. All it takes to be found in Cyberspace is a text search for your name. Employers can and do look up interviewees online, though some consider it to be unethical. Even blind dates aren't so blind any more, thanks to the net.
Social networking sites are growing in popularity. According to Business Week, last year 10 percent of all advertising impressions on the internet were being made on MySpace. Facebook has grown from its Stanford-students-only roots to rival MySpace for page hits. Barack Obama and John Edwards use Twitter to spread campaign news. Imeem is a music-sharing, video-sharing, and blogging site all wrapped into one.
All that traffic generates money, one way or another. MySpace and Facebook sell advertising. In order to contact someone directly on Match.com or LinkedIn, you must pay a monthly fee. That means these sites make money from offering direct access to people (you!). Some Facebook "widgets" - mini-games of sorts - make their money by collecting personal information about you. Before installing a widget on your page, you're always alerted to the fact and given a choice to opt out if you don't want to share your information with a company.
The default privacy settings on Facebook aren't great. Watch out! If you write on someone’s wall, think of it as a real wall in a public place – all his or her friends can see what you wrote. If the profile is public, anyone can see what you wrote.
The “news feed” application by default alerts your friends to all your Facebook activities. If you "friend" someone, join a new group, change your profile, take a quiz, or write on someone's wall, by the default settings, all your friends will know. It's easy to change that setting, thanks to the thousands of virtual protesters who told Facebook they wanted to be able to control what information about their own activities was shared with their friends.
Maintaining your privacy on these sites can be done, but it takes effort. You can’t control what information others post about you on the net, but you can control the information you post yourself.
After the Virginia Tech shootings last April, reporters used Facebook and MySpace to look up friends of the victims to find sources for their stories. In a Poynter article on journalists and Facebook, Dakarai Aarons wrote that students did not like that, and created their own Facebook groups in backlash. Other reporters have linked to a dead student's MySpace page, or reported about that page's content in trying to give a snapshot of the student's life.
The MySpace popularity contest can be a serious privacy concern. If 2,000 of your “friends” can see pictures of you drunk, or read your blog about how your friend slighted you last week, you cannot expect your privacy to be respected.
Everyone needs a good public face. LinkedIn is a professional networking site. Its relationships are built around office relationships—co-worker, manager, former manager, etc. LinkedIn’s popularity contest comes in the form of recommendations—if you enjoyed working with someone, you recommend them and maybe they’ll recommend you. It’s similar to posting quotes from references on a resume. This is how public profiles on social networking sites should be—an honest assertion of your strengths, not a rant.
Privacy is easy to maintain on any of these sites as long as you are aware of your public face. Be careful to examine all privacy settings. Know what to look for by looking at other people’s profiles. You can always change your settings later. Make sure your friends are really your friends, say nothing you wouldn’t be proud of, and if you're going to post a picture you don't want to see in your obituary, post it under a pseudonym.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)