Warning: New "Video Girl Barbie" Causes Controversy

A recent toy designed by Mattel is causing adults to panic over whether or not it is safe for their children to use and what could happen if the toy ended up in the wrong hands. As mentioned in the article "Barbie Video Girl Sparks Controversy" The Barbie comes equiped with a small recording device, which is located in the toy's necklace. information collected by the device can later be uploaded and viewed on the internet. Mattel says that the toy is appropriate for children ages six and older.

Parents are petrified that these toys could be given to their children by petophiles looking for an easy way to lure in little girls and then take inappropriate pictures and videos of them in a very easy and discrete way. Many people have decided to boycott the product and hope that it will soon be pulled off of the market. I am curious to see what you all think...

Personally, I think the toy is crossing a line. There is really no reason why a child needs to have a toy with a built in camera, just like children six years of age should not have their own camera phones. Because technology has become to advanced, we really need to be careful how much access we are giving to children. Technology can be great but we all know that it can be mis-used. I just think this particular product is not completely age appropriate.

Rather than having a vide-recording device, I would suggest something like a simple voice-recording device. Because the Barbie is so small and can be taken from place to place easily by a child, unlike a game used on a tv, the risk that the product could be mis-used is even greater.

"Digital Death" celebrities die on social media for AIDS awareness

Because social media is so huge and it is the new way to get the message out, to make yourself more famous, and to promote things, it has been made into a huge charity benefit. There is a fundraiser going on which involves celebrities taking themselves off of social media, "dying" and will be brought back to life only with donations. This shows that this social media obsession can turn into something worth while.

Here is something i found on the internet about it...

"Digital Death for Charity is an effort spearheaded by Alicia Key's charity called "Keep A Child Alive". When paerticipating in the Digital Death for Charity, various celebrities stage their death or disappearance from prominent social networking sites including Facebook & Twitter.

Kim Kardashian, Justin Timberlake, Lady Gaga and dozens of other celebrities have commited to the cause which benefits "Keep A Child Alive". Alicia Keys told us more about the effort:

It's really important and super-cool to use mediums that we naturally are on.

It's so important to shock you to the point of waking up. It's not that people don't care or it's not that people don't want to do something, it's that they never thought of it quite like that. This is such a direct and instantly emotional way and little sarcastic, you know, of a way to get people to pay attention.

The Digital Death for Charity will continue until the celebrities involved can raise $1 million for World AIDS Day."

Read more: http://www.thirdage.com/news/digital-death-charity-details-hollywoods-heroes_12-1-2010#ixzz17NmRHrrA

Drinking and Driving

Drinking and driving is a common topic many people have a clear stance on. I am 100% against drinking and driving because I think it's reckless and irresponsible. The decision to designate a sober driver could avoid a terrible accident. All those commercials that use emotional persuasion such as tobacco commercials, public service announcements on child abuse, animal abuse and etc, do not affect me as much as the drunk driving videos and commercials.

In this NPR article, they focus on a drunk driving accident victim Jacqueline Saburido, and talk about how effective the campaign has been to stop drunk driving. Jacqueline was a pretty 20-year-old, when she was hit by a drunk driver and pinned in a burning car. She was burned over 60% of her body and now is advocate to stop drunk driving.

According to the National Highway Traffic Administration,

1. Auto accidents are the number one killer of teenagers in the United States, and adding drinking to the equation only makes the statistic higher.

2. Motor vehicle crashes remain the number one cause of death among youth ages 15-20. There were 7,460 youth motor vehicle.

3. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of 15- to 20-year-old drivers who were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2005 had been drinking.

On http://fullapologies.com/, people apologize to their friends who were killed or hurt in drunk driving related accidents. After hearing the testimonies of these people I am more conscious to make sure to be smart and not sorry. Especially on college campuses, more people need to do the right thing and stay off the road if they're intoxicated!

Open Source Software

Today some folks wondered what Open Source Software involved so I thought I would link the example I mentioned in class. Check out CASH Music. CASH Music is a non profit that creates tools (software!) that enhances the connections between artists and their audiences.

From the site: "The goal is to help artists find sustainability and to encourage innovation in the music industry. We're doing this by building world class open source software designed specifically for the new music industry: tools handling promotion, distribution, commerce — creating the connection between artist and audience." 

Texting while driving app

Apparently there's a new application for the iphone that deactivates the texting on your phone while over a certain speed limit. Here's the link to the video: RIGHT HERE.
While inarguably this app is a pretty good idea, it raises some very pressing questions about the role of technology in our lives. What if this app had the power to send a message to the police every time it sensed you interacting with your phone? What if the same company were to release a phone that sent out messages to police when it sensed you were going over the speed limit? The technology is definitely at that level. So what's holding them back?

Also, do you think it would be a good idea to mandate the downloading of this app if you have a smart phone? It would certainly save lives taken from texting while driving, but only by limiting our personal freedoms. Perhaps it should come preinstalled on smart phones. What do you think?

facebook privacy.

In class, we discussed the article 'Price of Facebook Privacy? Start Clicking" that went in-depth about how many steps a user truly has to go through to make their facebook private. Well, I was on facebooks 'help' page investigating these evident 45,000 words in frequently asked questions on just security and while I didn't read all 45,000 words- I found something else of interest. You cannot personally delete a facebook account. In the terms of use, that is so long no one I know has ever actually read, it states that you are okay with the fact that you cannot delete your facebook and that facebook is entitled to keep all your information. When users 'deactivate' an account, facebook permanently stores all your information so that A. if you ever decide to reactivate your account you will have everything just as it was left, and B. so they can continue to use the information you provided them with. In order to full delete an account you must submit a request to facebook as to why you would like to delete your account.

In another class of mine, the TA also supplied us with some interesting information about iPhone and BlackBerry Apps. If you opt to sync your facebook to your contacts list, facebook supplies you with another terms of use that states by syncing your contact list they are free to take information from it. In other words, if I have a friend whose name matches to one in my contacts list facebook can take their number, email, employment, etc. I personally, selected the setting where facebook is only allowed to sync to contacts who have provided their numbers already on facebook. In other words, facebook can only match with information, the numbers they already have, they cannot take from my list.

Facebook and relationships

In reflecting on the class this semester, I realized that it is amazing how social networking now dictates how, in many respects, our online community controls our lives.

We have discussed it at length this semester - how virtual communities impact the way we work & interact with others, brand ourselves, individual daily actions, etc.

Though one of biggest forces, at least in my opinion, social networks have on us is its impact on relationship. These days, it seems as though Facebook is the relationship gate keeper, with tag photos, wall posts, relationship status, poking.

I found an interesting article - "Five ways Facebook destroys relationships." How many people find themselves in these situations listed in the article? I know that I have on a number of occasions...time to keep score ;)

Hide ya kids, hide ya wife.

Most of you may be familiar with the newscast which focused on a home invasion and attempted rape in a poorer area of Alabama. In the newscast, the victim's brother, Antoine, was interviewed. The interview showed Antoine upset and very passionate on the situation. From there, the interview was remixed with auto-tune and it soon became #1 on Apple itunes charts. Although I laughed at the video at first, I wasn't aware it was a real newscast. I understand the purpose of the original newscast was not to make fun of the situation but the video has resulted in heavy criticism and world wide stardom for Antoine.

Many people feel poorer African American communities are being mocked by the video and not reflected in a good light. I agree, and feel that Antoine should not have been interviewed a second time by the same news station that covered the story when it first broke. I thought the news station seemed desperate to earn ratings and profit off the unfortunate matter at hand.

Here is 2nd interview with Antoine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r12S2tJAdeM

Although the news station had no power over someone remixing the newscast, by interviewing Antoine to follow up on the story is not what they would've done for any other story. The news station only thought it was necessary to exploit Antoine and his sister and make profit. It is reported Antoine bought a new house from the profit he received from itunes. It's amazing how he was able to buy a house from something like this.

The comments and discussion I found here, http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/hide-your-kids-hide-your-wife-report-racist-or-funny/question-1135981/ prompted me to think more deeply on the issue. I thought the media did a good job reporting on the story the first time, but then turned it into more about ratings and money by over doing it. The second interview was repetitive and not needed and only prompted more buzz on a story that shouldn't have made Antoine famous.

My Online Identity, Or Lack Thereof

The assignment we did in class on Friday really got me thinking about how we portray ourselves in the different forms of life. I had trouble defining my online identity, but I ultimately concluded that the fact that I am the only person I know without a Facebook page says a lot about me. I really value real-life relationships so I guess I've always resisted any electronic fabrication of this concept. That is not at all to say that I am "above" social networking in any way, in fact, I often find myself wishing I wasn't the exception and I could be in the loop on Monday morning when the details of the weekend emerge across everyone's page. But it is very representative of my approach to friendships that the only ones I have are "IRL."

This then prompted me to think of all the ways in which we create identities for ourselves, even beyond the internet. In high school we were probably all categorized based on the activities we did, people we hung out with, etc. But sometimes these categories are a complete misrepresentation of who we actually are. For example, my brother's best friend in high school was the starting quarter back on our conference-champion football team, record breaking swim team member, and track phenomenon. Despite this athletic "cool-guy" image, he got straight As, perfect SAT scores, and just graduated from MIT last spring. If you left your judgments to the way he is portrayed within the walls of our high school, you would be sadly mistaken when you tried to define him.

The same goes for celebrities. I am inclined to believe that John Mayer is the most wonderful human being on earth because of the adorable words he sings in songs like Daughters, Stop This Train, The Heart of Life, etc. I have defined him in my own head as an amazing guy that I could totally hang out with and talk about life over lunch, but I am almost definitely wrong. No matter how adorable he may seem, he's probably an arrogant jerk who wouldn't give me the time of day if he ever met me. Which is a shame.

But my point is, it's hard to be consistent across the board. Not everything we do will always be true to our core character. People always do things that shock people, and it's very difficult to categorize someone in one solid way. The trick is to blend all these ways of expression into one ultimate image of self.

My 10 Year Old Self

In a previous post, Anjelica mentioned something that really stuck with me. She noted the fact that she doesn't do things on her Facebook she is ashamed of or embarrassed by, she is mostly just concerned about outdated things that are still in existence somewhere in cyberspace. These past actions, posts, photos, etc. can be taken the wrong way when they are removed from their original context. So even if something isn't necessarily "bad," it could still be a cause for concern for your current online image.

This got me thinking about the kids that have Facebook and are practically still in elementary school. I don't know about you guys, but when I was that age, I was weird. I'm very grateful that there is no electronic documentation of myself at age 10 and I never have to relive those weird years until my mom drags out old boxes of pictures and memories of crazy haircuts.

So the fact that Facebook never actually deletes anything poses a real problem for these current young users that they will unfortunately not realize until they can look back on those years and cringe. Sadly for them, it is not as easy as putting the boxes back in the closet, because the things they post will eternally exist somewhere on the world wide web. This is a unique thought because most of us do not have this problem since Facebook didn't come around until we were pretty much starting college.

Similarly though, many people in our generation are posting things that they very well might regret 5 years from now when they are removed from their original context. It's a perpetual problem, but I guess it's the risk we take when we sign on to something like a social network site.

Do public figures own their image?

In a recent New York Times article the author discusses image rights for public figures, and the limits of free speech in creative works like videogames. Electronic Arts is a popular name in the videogame industry, but recently they have been the target of an image rights lawsuit regarding their NCAA football and basketball games. As the NCAA amateurism rules don't allow college athletes to endorse products, Electronic Arts still produces the games with players who resemble real life counterparts, they simply do not use their names. One such player, Sam Keller, a former quarterback for Arizona state, is filing a class action lawsuit, claiming that Electronic Arts illegally profited using the images of college players within the game. He argues that the company did not effectively transform the images enough for it to qualify as free speech, or as a creative work. Electronic Arts claims the videogame as a whole, does qualify as a creative work. What are your thoughts on this? do you think that this situation is the same as using peoples images when publicized on facebook? Do you think that this is an acceptable reason for companies to make sports games which resemble the teams they're based on? How would you feel if characters in videogames no longer resembled their real life counterparts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/sports/16videogame.html?_r=1&ref=technology

The power of the Dove brand

When you think of Dove, doesn't everyone think of soap?? I've noticed the different advertising approach Dove has taken, and after further investigation Dove does not only promote soap and hygiene, but it's become a campaign based on real life women, and issues surrounding body image and etc.

We've talked about how the use of real people in advertisements creates a sense of identification with the product. Dove does a good job by not using models but incorporating regular looking people to get the message out. The company has created campaigns for self esteem and has contributed financially to promote a healthy self image.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6JvK0W60I&feature=related

The first video is sponsored by Dove but does not at all talk about the product. The advertisement makes it easier for consumers to relate to the product by showing the effects of media on young girls. I think people are able to identify with how women are portrayed in the media by the images they use throughout the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U&feature=related

The second video concentrates on the distorted and false truths of beauty in magazines, television, and etc. Many of the comments I read in response to the video agreed on the negative image the media displays. Dove's use of video and real life people has been an effective way to advertise their brand. Even without reminding the audience they sell soap and other products, their emphasis on inner beauty through their advertisements via youtube, and videos has left buyers with a memorable impression.

The end of net neutrality?

Seriously. I couldnt' believe it. But Net neutrality may be coming to an end. Here's a link to an article on msnbc.com: HERE. It appears that internet providing corporations will start limiting the amount of time, and/or activity of their customers on the web. As these massive companies start tightening their grips on the internet, the freedom it was designed to create is in jeopardy. Sure right now it seems like just a little bit of regulation so the companies aren't getting robbed. But eventually The internet will be nothing more than commercicals. It's a terrifying prospect. The one haven we have left to publicly voice our opinion no matter what is about to be bought up and sold. It's disgusting.

Facebook, take it easy!

Ugh. If there is one thing that annoys me, it's the constant transformation of Facebook. I swear that every time I start to get used to a new setup, the social network comes out with a new one. The ever changing appearance is inevitable. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if Facebook would go back to its original state: simple, cute, and easy to navigate. None of this extra mumbo jumbo or unnecessary profile/home options.

Here is an article that highlights some of the changes undergoing Facebook currently:
http://mashable.com/2010/12/05/new-facebook-profiles-now-available/

My Facebook has not transferred over to this new setup, but it will soon. I ponder what the creators' goals are in this process. Wasn't Facebook created as a social network site in which one could communicate and keep in touch with friends? Now, it seems as though it is just to test how good one is with the internet and navigating. How pretty one can make their profile and what interesting stuff they have to say about themselves.

Word of advice, Facebook: keep it simple. And if you are going to change the entirety of Facebook's layout, do it less frequently. You are beginning to annoy some of your users.

Ipod watch project

In class, we've been reading a lot about consumer feedback and contests to create new products. As I was looking through the New York Times, I found an article highlighting the Apple ipod Nano. The product created was a wrist-watch using the ipod nano, and the company called Minimal, who thought of the idea, asked for $25 pledges from people who were interested in buying the ipod nano watch kit. After 2 days, the amount of orders for the watch called "LunaTik," exceeded their expectations.

In the article, one of co-founders of the project believed the watch was becoming popular because of "the design company making the watch was offering a narrative into the process of how the product has been made.” The company was not only communicating with their buyers, but making it a priority to work with their buyers.

I believe the more involved you are with a product the more you will want to buy it. I think because Apple is already an established name it is only helping this online project to become more successful. The ipod nano is also very stylish and making it into a watch is practical. When the ipod nano first came out, Steve Jobs was quoted saying, "One of the members of our board of directors is going to use it as a watch." It's interesting to see another company carry out the idea before the CEO of Apple.

The watch has already received $540,000 in funding and this was all because of the popularity from the internet.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/an-ipod-watch-project-explodes-online/?ref=technology

Companies Using Twitter

http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2009/03/4-ways-companies-use-twitter-for-business.php

This article talks about how companies may or may not use twitter as a new means of promoting their company. It covers the four ways companies use twitter for business and explains how more and more companies are starting to use twitter. The four different approaches the companies may take on twitter are, direct, indirect, internal and inbound signaling. Since twitter is a very public area to post anything, companies must be very careful in what they post, and how they post their information.

This article suggests strategies companies should use or not to use twitter. The research vice president of Gartner says, "As Twitter is a public forum, employees should understand the limits of what is acceptable and desirable,". It is very easy for companies to start twitter and gain attention as much as it is for them to fail and gain negative image. It is very important for a company to maintain their reputation and good image.

As we have discussed in class about the usage of Twitter from various companies, I feel it is a good idea for the company to be more accessible and understood to their customers. Should all companies start using Twitter to reach to a wider range of audience?

Is Technology Creating Generation Stupid?

In Philadelphia magazine this month there is an article on technology and how it could be creating a more stupid generation of children. They highlight facebook, twitter, google, ipods, cell phones and some other technologies and explain how children are becoming lazy and stupid by using these outlets.

They believe that instead of using these sites and accessories to their benefit they are abusing them and not using other outlets and sources when trying to find information and gain knowledge.

Although I am a part of the generation they are talking about in the article, I kind of agree with them in that it is making kids lazier and they are abusing the access they have to information. Kids are not using the information to there advantage they are using it more so for pleasure. Kids no longer speak face to face or even have phone calls. They communicate mostly threw online outlets or text messages.

In addition, not only do they communicate online but that has become the place where they gather. Instead of going to the mall or to the park kids will go online from their home computer and never have to leave the house to gather with friends.

I do think that the technology advances are a good thing and they can help us out I just think they need to be used in the proper manner and need not be abused. If they are used properly technology is the best thing we have going for us. It is only when it is abused and misused that it becomes a danger.

"Whipahol"

There's been a lot of buzz with the popular caffeine and alcohol mixed drink, Four Loko, and now there's something called "Whipahol." Whipped cream infused with alcohol. As college students, we are constantly exposed to alcohol and lately I feel that the media is emphasizing the dangers of these drinks more than necessary. Before the drink Four Loko there were other drinks similar like, Joose. Why now is the media reporting so heavily on the topic?

Pennsylvania has very strict alcohol laws compared to other states and I'm glad we have laws in place, but the media's coverage on the drink is going too far. I think the media has been reporting too heavily on Four Loko and trying to find new college trends to stir up unnecessary concern. Any type of alcohol is dangerous when consumed irresponsibly and these drinks should not be focused on in the news. Check out the video on "Whipahol." http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/watch-this/They_Call_It__Whipahol__Philadelphia-111095284.html

Online identity

In class on friday we were asked to write an essay on what we though was out online identity. After thinking about it for a minute I realized that my online identity is really no different than my offline identity. I think I portray myself the same way on and offline. However, I know this is not true for everyone else.

There are a ton of young teenagers out there who find the need to portray themselves in a different way online than they do offline. I think this gets to be complicated because it can be a misconception as to who the person really is and what they are really like.

I think these kids need t be told that there are other things to use as an outlet than an alter online identity. I think these alter identities not only and be misleading but they could also lead to trouble.

Therefore, kids need to be aware of what they are doing online and need to be care with how they are portraying themselves. They need to not get carried away to the point of forming somewhat of a new identity for themselves.

In a Social Media Society, how do we protect/prevent kids from Cyber-Bullying?

In an eye-opening NYTimes.com article, author Jan Hoffman discusses the perils that parents face regarding their children's social networking activity.

In one case, someone's child was entering high school and did not have a Facebook. Throughout his first few months at high school, he realized that an unknown peer had created a Facebook in his name and cyber-bullied many people. The first move for most parents would be to alert the school. Unfortunately, many of the situations are not in the school's power and need to be handled outside of their walls.

In a middle school in North Jersey, an expert asked 7th graders if they had been cyber-bullied. "Of 150 students, 68 raised their hands." When asked how many parents know how to help you, "three or four hands went up." Given the area the school is in, many of the students have easy access to computers which allow them all to participate in social networking sites.

Now that bullying has taken the form of a new media, where is the legislation to help these situations get resolved?

Once again, we are forced with using old laws to solve new problems, so in my opinion, depending on the severity, I would take it to the police and see what I can legally do. The bottom line though is that it all depends on the parents. You need to teach your child what cyber-bullying is and what they need to do when it happens. That being said, there will always be people that will continue the tradition of bullying for whatever reason.

Dismantling Wikileaks: One partnership at a time.

As I am sure you all know, Wikileaks has been in the news spotlight for awhile now. Many questions are coming up regarding internet governance and responsibility.

Recently, Twitter has been under fire for their "association" with Wikileaks. Other companies such as Amazon.com and EveryDNS.net that have been criticized for their partnership with Wikileaks.com have acted upon the social criticism by severing their ties.

The newest addition to this list is Paypal.com. This is one of the most important because Paypal was Wikileaks means of receiving donations. Now that the cash flow is not easily coming into Wikileaks, and the government is trying to stop their distribution methods by cutting off Twitter, we may soon see the site either change its ways of distribution or maybe even stop altogether.

Do you agree with what Wikileaks is doing? If you were in charge of a company, would you want to be associated with them?

iPhone v. Blackberry

Huge article in the LA Times this weekend.

iPhone and Blackberry are now officially in the same ball park.

It was just yesterday that iPhone was kicked off three years ago - the little engine that could. In 2007, when it was kicked off, Blackberrys were king of smartphone land while RAZRs were the new trad. Three years later, now the Blackberry is playing catch up.

For the first time, iPhone outsold Blackberry in a fiscal quarter (3rd quarter of 2010) by over 2 million.

This is largely in part by the fact that iPhones cater to both consumers AND business professionals. Anyone can design an app for anything. The phone design is playful, yet sophisticated and elegant.

So is the iPhone catering to a niche market of business/high end consumer? Neglecting the other remainder?

In all honesty, it seems as though many college students are hooked onto their Blackberrys. The prices have come down, RIM revamped their design. iPhone seems like it is in another league at this point.

Technology and Cards

I found it interesting how people do not have the need to physically write anymore like we used to before. This also connects to the idea of writing people cards and messages. As a kid, I remember writing cards and letters on special occasions like Christmas and Birthdays. Now days, people do not even write short messages of how they feel, but instead buys a card that already has messages stated in them. I feel that this has to do with the improvement of technology around us, where we no longer have the need to write.

When you go to the store and look in the card section, you see a lot of different kinds of cards from weddings, birthdays, to anniversaries. Inside each card has a message of the appropriate occasion. By one getting the card for someone, they no longer have to think of what to write themselves because someone else has done that for them. I find it ironic how you give someone a card to be authentic, and you are giving someone words that are not your own.

This commerical from Hallmark somewhat tells the message, even an awkward guy that can't say anything nice without being rude can still make someone smile by reading off someone else's words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5CIY7nOVvU

Do you think that technology has changed our perspectives and skills in socializing and interacting with other people?

You WROTE what?

Today in class we were all assigned to write up our online identity assignments. To my surprise, performing this task was difficult for me. Yes, I write to take notes and put down assignments in my planner, but other than that I type most of the time. I honestly don't remember the last time I wrote that much with a pen and paper. It was so bad my hand started to cramp up. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one in the class that had difficulty. I feel that today was a great example of how technology has changed us.

Growing up, I was taught to write. At home we had a typewriter. By the time I made it to Kindergarten, the classroom had both typewriters and computers. From first grade on, I've been using computers. The big difference is that back then I would write my papers out as a rough draft, and then type them up on the computer. Now since almost every household has access to a computer, in addition to me having my own laptop, I never actually write my papers. I type them. The only ink that ever touches the paper is from a cartridge, not a pen.

Of course this is changed in other areas too. People rarely actually write letters. If they snail mail letters they are usually typed, and in other cases people just send an email, which is typed. People are more likely to blog like I am right now instead of keeping a physical journal or diary.

In school I was taught to write in cursive because supposedly by the time I got to college that would be the standard, but the standard now is for typed submissions, not even just for essays but for assignments as well. In some cases the work handed in isn't even physical, we're simply asked to upload our files to "Safe Assign" or "Turn it in."

It blows my mind to see how much technology has changed since we've been here. I'm 21 and I feel that the changes have been drastic. I couldn't imagine physically writing out 5 page assignments like our final paper for this course.

Maybe it's just me.

Wikileaks!

In my Media and Society class, we have been following the Wikileaks story- which I believe is a great example of a few things we've discussed. First is, the fact the internet isn't governed; its hard to apply laws. Especially in this case as the owner of the site is not American, yet America is involved a great deal... who has digital jurisdiction here? Also, we have discussed in the past with the idea of user-generated content and citizen journalism is the sense of responsibility users must take, as well as the risks associated with user-generated content. For those of you who are unaware of what Wikileaks is - it is created by Julian Assange who now faces a variety of challenges after his most brazen disclosure yet: posting 391,832 secret Pentagon documents on the Iraq war. Twelve weeks earlier, he had posted some 77,000 documents on the Afghan conflict. However, as i am typing this and I attempted to go on the site, my browser is telling me that the domain cannot be found. Various news articles report it may have  been shut down, at least in the US.


Some article I found of interest. 


This article goes more in depth on parts of the founders life- including the fact that he faces rape and molestation charges; in other words he's not the wholesome person he evidently claimed to be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?_r=1


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B24WT20101203

Clearasil Promotion Campaign

I thought the Clearasil campaign we looked at today was surprising in many ways.

They took a very personal complication for people and turned it social. More importantly, the participants made it social. Campains like these prove that there is strength in numbers.

I was also impressed with the amount of ways they integrated the marketing within the social network site. There was something for anyone to participate in. Most companies only go as far as a Facebook group and leave it up to the users. They created very intuitive programs that connected the user to the brand on a personal level.

I believe this is the future of online advertising. Clicks on a banner ad bringing a user to the home site seems a lot less significant an impression than consumer participation in promotions like these. Should all brands invest in marketing like this?

coke village

I like the article we read on the Coke village in Isreal. I thought it looked like a lot of fun, and a good way to promote Coke through Facebook. One thing we didn't know was how the teens got to go there. I did some research and found out they do have to pay to be there. I found this on a website called The Inspiration Room. "To register for a three-day vacation in the Coca-Cola village, Israeli teens were asked to sign up on the Coca-Cola village Facebook page, gather a group of 8 friends and 10x8 Coca-Cola caps and pay a nominal fee of 199 shekels per each of the kids." 199 Shekels is about $54.80 in American dollars. So yes they have to sign up and pay to be there, but that is a very reasonable price to pay for a three day vacation weekend to an awesome resort with so many fun activities. I would totally go there if I was a student in Isreal.


Here is the website I found it on.
http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2010/coca-cola-village-like-facebook/

An Interesting Case

I just stumbled across this msnbc article: X Box Modder Could Spend three years in Prison. Apparently a man got prosecuted for charging people to modify their X Boxes to enable them to play pirated games. Do you believe that's grounds for three years in prison?
I don't. Microsoft has no right to prosecute people for changing their systems once it's been bought. Once an item's been bought the consumer should be able to do whatever they want with it. He wasn't pirating games. He wasn't stealing anything from the company. Clearly Microsoft has overstepped their boundaries.
I don't neccesarily believe that what the modder did was kosher, but I am very much against corporations dictating how we use their products. That's really at the root of the issue. Agree? Disagree? Let's get some discussion.

Older Job Candidates: Can Not Participating Hurt Them?

I stumbled upon an article from the Financial Times that discusses how older people are suffering from their lack of participation in select social media sites. As the internet continues to grow, certain sites become relevant in the job application process. Professional networking sites like LinkedIn.com allow users to "connect" with many academics and business professionals for networking purposes.

The situation that was raised in the article is, "for example, you’re looking to hire a VP of recruiting and they only have four connections on LinkedIn, would you want to hire them?" (Financial Times, December 1, 2010) My answer along with the author is probably not. The lack of online connections could translate in the real world.

All of this makes me think, in our lifetime, is the quantity of connections more important or the quality? Before this, I would easily say quality but it's become more salient that quality alone just does not do. The ones that will rise to the top will have many high quality connections, that translate online to offline.

Zappos.com

While discussing Zappos.com in class today, it became apparent to me how important customer service and relations is to a business. For companies today, they have to maintain their image among their consumers or else their at risk for consumer backlash.

WIth social networking sites and many places for customer reviews, the consumer holds the power once again in the forever power struggle between business and consumer. With mediums such as Facebook and Twitter, it is easy to report a bad experience with a company and therefore hurt them where it hurts... word-of-mouth.

With Web 2.0, spreading bad experiences has never been so easy. It should be every brand's mission to maintain an attentive customer service base to support their company. More pleasurable experiences for the consumer=more profits for the company.

"Privacy"

In class i found that lots of people felt that in order to protect your "privacy" on Facebook, they set an enormous amount of security settings that restricted specific people from seeing specific things on their profile. I had a great deal of difficulty trying to understand the reasoning behind doing such a thing. This is an issue for me for a numerous amount of reasons.
The first reason would be that I feel that the whole point of a social network is to be open to the public and to share as much as possible to attract as many people as possible. I figure that if your going to go through such great lengths to hide things then maybe they should not be put up on Facebook. For people who want to be completely invisible to people who they do not know on Facebook, why be apart of the network at all.
My next big misunderstanding with the point of people who want to hide themselves and their information on social network sites is because I don't know why people misinterpret what it means to be apart of a social network. Only being visible to friends that you already know and have in the physical world is pointless. There are many opportunities to communicate with the people you already know on other platforms such as telephone, texts, and gatherings. A social networks purpose is to unite people from many different platform in life, allow them to get to know each other through conversation, and ultimately use each other for special purposes.
I believe that people have misused the social network sites for entertainment purposes and this is the reason why so many people find a need to hide information. These sites are not to be public displays of what is going on in your everyday life, tell others where you are at the current moment, or to post pictures that show you in your most intimate states. it is strictly for networking, hence the name social network.
People need to reevaluate what their intentions are when joining sites. If your intentions are to be fun, playful, and to share intimate things with only the people you know then maybe Facebook is not the site to join.

My Reflection on Gaming Article

In a recent article in the New York Times, Motion Sensitive, the author proposes that the new remote-less games are evolving to become more like art.  I argue his point because I feel that art and video games are not experienced in the same way.  They don't evoke the same thought process or use the cognitive skills.  

The author is claiming that when using your body you become more fully engaged in the game, emotionally, physically and intellectually.  While I agree that removing the remote controller from the process and engaging the sense kinetic sense of movement, the player becomes more involved in the game and the experience they are having.  By making the actions of a virtual player imitate the actions of a player the game becomes more realistic, more active and thus a more complete experience.  

I don't think that it makes the game or the person more creative.  The experience of art is engaging because it is a humans form of expression and art includes creation, presentation, being perceived by someone else, and evoking something in the viewer.  The experience with games is that it takes a person out of reality, and them into a virtual reality.  What is lacking in the video game that is present in theater is that there is a human connection with an actor or musician on stage that can not be replicated virtually.  By making the persons actions control the virtual reality we are taking a step out in between being social and engaged in the real world, verses being engaged in a virtual world of a video game or game culture.

It is frightening to me to think that humans are afraid of creativity and that they need to be told what to do in the creative act through parameters of rules to the game and objectives to achieve.  This seems counterintuitive to being a creative person engaging in a creative experience. This is why I would disagree with the statement in this article that "as games become more real, the experience of them is bringing people closer to art." I recommend you check out the article and let me know what your opinion is on this matter. 

Cyber Monday

Today before class cyber monday was brought up and some people were not aware of what it was. For those of you who don't know what it is, it is a basically like black friday but for the internet. I read an article on yahoo this past weekend that explained the details of the event and why it came to be. Just like black friday, most sites offer extreme mark downs on most of their products and some coupons. The reason I am linking it to class is because some of the sites are offering their coupons and promotional codes via twitter, facebook and other social media sites. The only way to receive the best prices are through these sites. Therefore, a traditional shopping event such as black friday is now turning into an online event with extra discount perks via social media.

Is facebook the new boob-tube?

Does everyone remember getting up on Saturday mornings, only to be glued to the "boob tube" for hours on end? It drove some of our parents to the books, asking themselves how they failed at being stimulating mothers and fathers who were proud parents of active kids. Now, I see my sister race to her computer upon waking, to check up on what her friends are up to for the day. The hum of the computers in my house along with the little facebook chat "pops" have drowned out the cereal commercials.

In a recent article from the huffington post, the author explores exactly how damaging Facebook is to children and adolescents. According to some other studies that have been conducted, many Facebook users are seen as narcissistic. Obviously, this isn't what any parent wants associated with their own children. The article presents ways to build a connection with children that doesn't involve them accepting mom's friend request.

I found it interesting that social media is beginning to have a strong effect on people at such a young age. With TV, parents have somewhat control because it communicates in a linear way--there is no interaction between cartoon and child; the parent only needed to shut off the TV. Now, Facebook is what defines the social life of young people--it is a social determinant and another stress to add to the many that puberty brings.

The article encourages parents to seek out their child's' passions and hobbies through active participation in their lives. They must give recognition that Facebook is an important part of their kids' lives, but it mustn't rule the day. The article states that although Facebook isn't something that can be "shut off" and parents must accept the fact that it is a major influence on lives, it is a reflection on many age-old childhood insecurities. The main issue is that Facebook is like "catnip" to attention-starved kids. This can lead to dangerous situations with online predators and forming an online identity that is seemingly more important than a real-life identity which is especially essential in younger aged people.

Will videoconferencing replace the telephone?

http://www.macworld.com/article/155988/2010/11/videoconferecing.html?lsrc=rss_main

Here is an interesting article on that I found on video calling this weekend from Macworld.

We all know that there is a great deal of hype surrounding the video calling phenomena these days. With the newest mobile devices supporting video calling technology, it seems like video calling is bigger than ever. Apple's FaceTime technology, Sprint's mobile video calling, Skype...however, is it truly effective?

What I mean by this, is it at a state where it's second nature?

For example, when you want to call someone, you just dial their number in that moment and try to reach them. But when you want to video call someone, is it second nature? Do you just try and reach them to video conference? From my own experience, I usually plan a video call ahead of time. It's not really second nature - the technology is pseudo limited.

This is what the article talks about. That while FaceTime is very cool, and probably the easiest video calling protocol to date, it has its technological limits (only on 3G) and the concept of video calling is still very new to the general public. It has yet to reach the point of being universal accessible (like a standard phone call).

Thoughts? How long until video calling will be standard practice by all? Will it? What needs to happen in order for it to become more universal and second nature?

Online Activity: Censored

Our class today really had me thinking that in today's world, anything you do or say, especially online can be used against you. Like we mentioned in class today almost everything you post on facebook can be retrienved/viewed. The part that really upset me about this is the fact that even if you delete something on facebook, it still stays in the system for a long period of time. When it comes to applying for jobs, I feel like this could really pose as an issue. To my understanding employeers could be be viewing information that was posted to a profile years prior and use that as a basis to decided whether or not someone will be hired for a job, which I really think is unfair, especailly since things can be so easily miscontrued online.

Privacy Talk

I know we've kind of said all there is to be said about this topic, but I figured I should use the blog to try to formulate my own opinion on the online/facebook/privacy craziness.

The way I see it, I have no idea why on earth anyone could possibly even try to think they deserve or are entitled to privacy on the world wide web. Nothing about the name implies privacy to me and I will forever go back to my logic- if you want complete privacy, buy a diary. Why would you ever use the world's most vast and complex network of connections and shared information to do things that you expected to be private?

I can't possibly understand the "our privacy should be regulated by the government" argument. I'm pretty sure, as mentioned in class, that the government has way bigger issues to be dealing with. We, as users of this Internet, have our own personal responsibility to monitor ourselves. No one demanded that we sign up for facebook and then post pictures of ourselves getting drunk with our friends. So if you choose to do that, be ready for the consequences that may (or may not) ensue.

For some, the problem here is that it really and truly is a personal priority that friend A, B, and C see these pictures of their crazy weekend. If that's the case, why don't you print out the picture and show them in person? This is not at all a burden for our expression of ourselves. If there are people in this world solely relying on social networking sites to express who they are, I'm nervous.

My point isn't some narrowminded claim that all facebook users are idiots for putting up questionable pictures and deserve to see repercussions for doing so. Moreso, I'm trying to say that if there are repercussions or if your "privacy" is disregarded, maybe you should find another outlet for expression. There are plenty of other ways to go about this that aren't rooted in a public medium.

I think a lot of people in class had the same sort of ideas because I remember a few people saying that they are strict with what they do and don't post because they understand that the Internet is not (and was never intended to be) a completely private place. But does anyone disagree? Of course this is just my opinion and is no more valid than anyone else's!

Facebook Information Download?

All the talk about privacy and Facebook made me examine my own personal settings. One day after class I went through the tedious process of going through and customizing my privacy settings. A lot of things that I allowed "friends of friends" was changed to "friends only." Also, I deleted people that I didn't really know personally.

I felt a lot better afterwards but while in the process I discovered something new. Facebook gave me the opportunity to download all of my information posted on the site. I didn't think twice and requested to download my information. In a couple hours I received an email from Facebook with a zip drive of all my info posted on the site, dating back to 2007 when I was a senior in high school. I took a stroll down memory lane when looked at my old statuses and wall posts. I was glad I was able to see what I posted because over the years you tend to forget a lot along the lines of Facebook.

What startled me was that Facebook has access to all this information that they are quite possibly showing to other people. This wasn't news to me, but actually downloading the file to my computer put in perspective how accessible my information really is.

Another thing, I know people that get their accounts hacked often or have other people that know their login information. A major setback of this download feature is that someone can hack into your account, type in your password and download YOUR information. That's scary to me, but since Facebook isn't as private as we may have thought it was, we should keep a better eye on our accounts.

Here's a video that shows you how to access this feature.

Privacy

In class we read an article titled, "Price of Facebook Privacy? Start Clicking". This article is about the complex privacy settings on Facebook. Recently Facebook has revised its privacy policy, which makes users have to opt out if they want to keep information private. I haven't done anything like this, but I heard it is very extensive and you have to click a bunch of things to get your privacy to where you want it to be. "Facebook users who hope to make their personal information private should be prepared to spend a lot of time pressing a lot of buttons", said the author Nick Bilton. I want to know why they made it so complicated to be private? Do they want to you to be exposed to the third party websites that they are now showing personal data to? Isn't it more dangerous to not be private? I know it is a social site, but you don't have to be social with the entire world. I know I just want to be social with the people I am friends with, not random people I have never met before. Or maybe it's a good thing they make it complicated, so people can opt out certain things and be very specific with to whom they want to be social with. I think there is pros and cons to either side. It could be good to be thorough, or it could be annoying and a waste of time. I guess I haven't really made up my mind yet what I think about it...

TEDxPhilly

We've seen a number of great TED talks this semester. Well, today is TEDxPhilly. Check out the program. Watch the live stream.

TEDxPhilly Program Schedule

8:00AM to 9:30AM: Registration; Music by Carlos Santiago 9:30AM to 11AM: Session One — Systems & Society 11:00AM to 11:30AM: Break; Music by Dallas Vietty's Musette Project11:30AM to 12:50AM: Session Two — Culture & Meaning 1:00PM to 2:30PM: Lunch; Music from Gina Ferrera, Cheap Dinosaurs and Electricity for Progress 2:30PM to 3:45PM: Session Three — Incredible Machines 3:45PM to 4:15PM: Break; Music by Philadelphia Youth Orchestra 4:15PM to 5:30PM: Session Four — Between the Ears 6:00PM to 8:30PM: Reception @ University of the Arts; DJ set by Pink Skull

The Ethics of Content Theft in a Digital World

Thought this piece was particularly relevant to our most recent class discussion:

"Digital media is a non-rival good; to take it for free is not theft but evasion of cost, and evasion of cost is a fundamental tenet of economic behaviour (with the possible exception of those with more money than sense); economic behaviour is not rational but emotional, and basing your response to a change in the underpinnings of an industry’s economy on the hope that you can stop human beings behaving in the ways they always have done is to doom yourself to failure. Successful businesses work out ways to monetise desire, but business models do not last forever; if they did, there wouldn’t be an internet (or cars, or electricity, or, or, or). QED."

New FB

So I was checking my AOL email...(I know lame who does that anymore) and I saw a news article about changes being made to Facebook. They seem to change their settings and ways of communicating a lot to keep users interested. Most of the time we all get annoyed and just adapt. I think that they don't want to be the next myspace, and I hope they don't become it. Their new form of communication will bring everything from chat, messages, and text to one folder for convenience. No more messages sent by friends without your knowledge after you sign off. No more leaving a conversation and missing important information because you left your computer. Everything will be sent to your phone or your "email" so that all of your conversations can be contained in one area. This system seems really involved but cool. I would love to have all of my conversations in one place to reference what I had said in other forms of media. Check out the link and the video on the page.

Privacy

The class discussion about privacy really got me thinking about how much we really share about ourselves online. Last night I received an email from my dad saying hmmmmm with a picture of me making a weird face with one of my friends. It was one of my profile pictures from facebook, but I thought that I had taken it down. Some how my dad gained access to this picture. If he became friends with anyone that I was friends with, he could see more of my profile and this goes for anyone online. Our social network sites aren't as secure as we think. Over the summer, I worked in my mom's HR department as basically the all around secretary. She talked to me about all of the people that she hires and how they check their facebooks and run searches on all of their potential employees. I felt weird about this because I have a facebook, but it does make sense. These profiles are online, anyone can see them. A company doesn't want to hire someone that will blacken their name, they want a good upstanding citizen to work for their company. The information posted online can be accessed by anyone. Facebook has it's privacy controls, but who's to say that the company that is interviewing you won't try to do what my dad did and befriend someone to gain a mutual connection to be able to see more of your profile. The thing that I guess I want to say is, if you post something online, expect to see it elsewhere. Pictures and information that people have access to can be saved and posted on different sites. We have to be extremely conscious of our activity. It may be a breech on our "creativity", but for our reputations, it is imperative that we watch ourselves.

New Girl Talk!

New Girl Talk album, All Day, available to down for free. Some notable info:

All Day is intended to be listened to as a whole.
It is broken up into individual tracks only for easier navigation.
This album is a free download.
Girl Talk thanks all artists sampled. A full list will be posted in the future.

All Day by Girl Talk is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license. The CC license does not interfere with the rights you have under the fair use doctrine, which gives you permission to make certain uses of the work even for commercial purposes. Also, the CC license does not grant rights to non-transformative use of the source material Girl Talk used to make the album.

Facebook in the work place

With in the past week CNN ran a story about whether or not Facebook can get you fired or not. They say ranting about your boos and the workplace through your social media sites such as Facebook, twitter, or myspace can end up getting you the boot.

They gave seven tips on how to prevent from getting fired due to your social media outbursts. They were: Think before you post, be picky about who you friend, do it on your own time and computer, watch what you post at home, keep the dialogue positive, figure out privacy settings, and learn your employee rights.

Although I do think these tips are helpful and do not think people should be airing all of their dirty laundry through there social media, it worries me that companies have the right to fire you over a personal website. I am not one for sharing all my dirty details over the internet but I do think I deserve the right to have privacy outside of the work place. I do not think employers should have the right to fire you over something that is not a work related site. They should be able to have access to it but only with the persons consent and they should not have the right to fire someone over the contents of their site.

After all it is personal and should not have any link to work and the work atmosphere.

So Limewire's dead. What's next?

Recently Limewire was ordered to shut down it's file-sharing service. Has anyone been affected by the RIAA's victory? I personally wasn't affected by it, but I'm curious to know how this will affect illegal download as a whole. From what I understand is that people have started buying some music but I feel that it will have no longevity. Some people may be waiting for the next big thing, but it may be here already. I've personally been going from program to program since 7th grade ( I was 11, not im 21). That's ten years of living as a criminal (LOL). I think once people find a new method of getting music for free, those who have started to do the right thing and legally download their music will eventually revert back to the pirate life. I don't intend on putting ideas in people's heads but there are sooooo many options OTHER than Limewire or peer-to-peer sharing programs that can get you music for free. RIAA has a long road to travel if they think they are stopping our generation.

What experts are saying...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Infringement vs. Inspiration (& some Jay-Z)

I wouldn't call it infringement. It's inspiration. I definitely think that the future builds on the past and successfully -- especially with music. Yes, Jay-z is the best rapper alive, and a lot of his greatest songs sample "the past." Pablo Picasso said, "Good artists borrow, great artists steal." It's true. Even related to design, which I do, I get inspired by other people's work and I might imitate one's idea and make it my own. I get inspired. But, back to music. Jay is my favorite rapper--my favorite artist and he has a song with Cold Play, called Most Kingz, and it is one of my favorite songs. In a video on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoeAgIQFKhU&feature=related), as a promotion for his book Decoded, Jay breaks down that the song was "Inspired by Basquiat," a painting that says "Most Kingz get their heads cut off" and so the song is based on this inspiration. Jay - Z says, "Yes, I'm inspired by life and all sorts of things. You could say something right now and it would inspire me to write a song or something to happen. Most Kingz just happened to be inspired by a Basquiat drawing. ... It's powerful. Just the statement in itself lends itself for a song ..."

Does Jay-z owe this painting money? Is it infringement? or just inspiration!?

Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPdD4pubSpo&feature=related (It's Great.)

DJ Earworm vs Girl Talk

 Here is an article about DJ Earworm...http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-25/entertainment/dj.earworm_1_mashup-songs-copyright-law?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

Why is it that Girl Talk is under so much copyright infringement where another mash up artist DJ Earworm isn't? DJ Earworm is a mashup artist where he has made remixes of the music that has hit the top billboards of the year. He has successfully made billboard mash ups for three consecutive years using music created by other artists. I personally love his mash ups and I think he is very talented in doing what he does. In the article, he says how "Mashup artists are usually able to skirt copyright laws under the 'fair use' doctrine of copyright law". Yet, Girl Talk is being accused to stealing music. There is a high demand of DJ Earworm in events and he is legally approved. Girl Talk at the same time is in high demand from the music lovers, doing something very similar to of DJ Earworm. So why should he stop supplying what there is so much demand for?

Here is the 2009 mash up from DJ Earworm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNzrwh2Z2hQ

Marcel Duchamp: The original remix master

I feel like much of the recent conflict involving copyright issues in the music industry is a little bit outdated. It seems that these very discussions have already taken place in the visual art world almost a hundred years ago. Marcel Duchamp was an avant garde artist in the early 1900s, closely related to the Dadaist movement. In 1917 he submitted his piece, Fountain, to a gallery that swore to accept every piece submitted. It was impossible to get rejected from this art gallery. But Duchamp's Fountain got rejected on the grounds that it couldn't be considered art. It was just a urinal turned 90 degrees and signed. And yet today it is recognized as one of the most influential works in art history.
To Duchamp, it was the idea behind a piece that made it art. And by taking a random object and simply altering the idea behind it, he created an entirely new artistic work. Certainly the original designers of that urinal could try to sue for millions of dollars. But they would NEVER win!
All artists rip ideas off from one another. That's the nature of art. So how is Girl Talk different from Duchamp (besides being far less cool, in my opinion)?

Read more about Duchamp on Wikipedia. He's a cool guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp