Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Additions to Filter Bubble
I tend to agree with the Wallstreet Journal article that these gadgets are powerful and can if we let them limit human choice. I also really like his solution which is that we need to be careful about which type of products we endorse, so we don't limit choice. I don't believe technology is bad. that's why I haven't deleted my facebook or stopped using google, but we need to figure out a way to maintain privacy, because while I don't have anything to hide, I don't really want people/companies in my business. While I don't believe the filter bubble poses a threat to the millennial generation, I'm scared what having these tools can do to the generation below us. My 10 year old niece has a tablet and using google regularly. She's 10, she has no idea what she's getting into, and no idea that google filters and personalizes. That is how we can kill creativity. Smart gadgets would feed into that. Social media while it promotes the flow of ideas it makes them into a fad. Everyone was all about Kony in 2012, but now no one even knows what happened to those kids. The internet is causing a cycle of ideas and social media makes them popular and viral, so that everyone is experiencing them. This is awesome, but at the same time it means that they have no lasting impression on anyone. Further than that it will be on the millennial generation to explain to their kids that filtering happening and teach them how to seek out new ideas that will have a lasting impression, even if the internet is impeding them. My 10 year old niece has absolutely no idea how to climb a tree. This baffles me, because by the time I was 10 if it was climbable I knew how to climb it with just one look. She is steps behind where I was. It could just be because she isn't as athletic and while her dad is he isn't often home to teach her, and my sister is not athletic at all. I think that it goes deeper than that. It's that philosophy that she seems to have that, because it is hard means she can't and she isn't willing to try. If this translates into things like research abilities or creativity or any of those things she is absolutely screwed. I have always been a stubborn person, so maybe it was just me, but when I was little you couldn't tell me anything. If I didn't discover it on my own then the information held no value for me (even if my mother ended up being right) what held value for me was that I had tried absolutely everything I could think of and it still didn't work, so therefore it must not be possible. My niece doesn't have that. If something is too difficult then she won't do it. She gives into peer pressure easily. She is type of kid that will be seriously affected by the wrong type of smart gadgets. That is what scares me. I have no idea how much or how little my sister knows or suspects about the internet and how many tabs it keeps on everyone. I have no idea if she believes it's all sugar and spice and everything nice, and that is where Caroline gets it from, or if maybe Caroline is still a tad too young to have this conversation with. If I knew how to make the government and ad companies stop collecting data on me then I would. If I could avoid using a bank I would, because I hate the fact that you can be traced via where you have used your card or where the money you took out went to. Nobody seemed to complain when that happened. Collecting metadata is today's bank transactions. If I could around all these these things that make it easy for people to know who I am and what I'm doing I would. Unfortunately we live in a world where that kind of convenience is something most people need in order to make their lives function on a day to day basis. Learning to carry cash in Europe was difficult for me (well not really difficult just new). I'm so accustomed to these things just working out and worrying about it later. I know eventually I will have to worry about it, but I don't have the time right then, so I pay the price for the convenience. Until this world returns to actually valuing morals and ethics I don't see what choice we have. I have always believed in that statement that if you work hard everything will work out. I'm still waiting to see if someday all my hard work will pay off. I trust it because I don't have a choice. That is much the same situation with Facebook, Google, and the government.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Filter Bubble
"A marketplace has emerged where public humiliation is a commodity and shame is the industry. How is the money made? Clicks. The more shame, the more clicks. The more clicks, the more advertising dollars." - Monica Lewinsky
I'm about 70 pages into the filter bubble when I checked my Facebook feed to find an article from the New York Times about Monica Lewinsky finally coming back onto the radar and how she is doing it. This led me to watching a Ted Talk that she gave earlier this year. Thus far mostly the Filter Bubble has been talking about how the age of personalization came about. It all had to do with the effectiveness of advertising, because that's how websites make money is by selling ad space. If the ads can become customized to every user and double or triple effective, because Facebook/Google/Acxiom knows who you are and what you like that is good for business. The connection that Monica asserted and this principle was striking to me. Monica not only talked about how this had come about, but the effect on society, and both were extremely saddening. She asserted that her scandal was one of the first scandals that the internet played a huge role in, because of the pure amount of hatred that came at her just over the internet alone. She was slut shamed and harassed on every frontier, including this new one, considering it was the late 90's. Today there are terms to describe what happened to her, cyber-bullying and harassment are the the most well known. Gossip and public humiliation of that nature generates millions of clicks, which is good for advertisers. In this sense public humiliation and anything that can spark it has become a commodity, because guaranteed public humiliation like what happened to Monica Lewinsky, the nude leads from the actresses, or what happens to most celebrities is good for advertising revenue. It has become part of a business model. This has evolved a society that is very callous and in certain ways cruel, because nobody cares enough to stop it. This idea of the number of clicks is now driving not only what we see and read and consume, but how we act in regard to our fellow humans. That is too much power for something like a machine to hold. It's a crazy amount. It now isn't only influencing what we see and learn about, but it's influences our values one click at a time.
Pt.2
"There is no certainty. There is only adventure"
Serendipity is part of the creative process as a designer I rely heavily on this act and sometimes I chase it with all my might. Eli Pariser argues that the filter bubble eliminates serendipity and therefore eliminates creativity or significantly limits it. I disagree with this statement. Yes, the filter bubble, anything meant to filter anything else is going to disrupt the natural flow and exchange of idea and it could have a narrowing effect. However, I have always been aware of the fact that this bubble is in place, because when I go to do visual research on a style or period I get the same 20-40 images on Google. I can scroll all the way down and they are still the same, so I can only pull so much research from it, but that being said it's more helpful than getting non-relevant research. When I get research that isn't helpful I generally go back to what I typed into the search engine and change it. Sometimes it doesn't make a difference what I need research on is just too obscure or there just isn't enough of it on Google to be of help and those times are the times where I want to bang my head against the wall, instead of the times where it filters all my results nicely and presents me with somewhere between 15-20 usable images. Most creative people are aware that you can't only use Google to do research and we do research (in the hope of finding something that inspires us) in many different ways. Most of us use the services of Pintrest to get a whole new bank of images, one of my person favorites is Stumbleupon because you can get anything from a video to a helpful, detailed article on your subject, I own several textbooks detailing the different architecture periods so I have books to reference to. Creative people have evolved just like the internet has. Some of us even go to the place that we are designing to acquire primary research. Some of us talk about things with other creative people, so that the exchange of ideas happen. These methods help serendipity happen as well as promote different types of thinking and help us break out of our bubble. Breaking out of a bubble is what creative people are good at naturally, so you should give them some credit. Even today creative people are likely to be the people that study abroad, leave their homes for a while to move around, or participate in cultural festivals where they have no idea what they are doing. They are willing to take chances and look extremely ridiculous (and stupid) in the hope that they will learn something new. There have been plenty of times where I have felt both of these things, but I have walked away learning much about a group of people. When I seek out people for friendships I tend to look for people that will be okay with this side of me. They don't have to join me, they just have to let me be me, and then listen to me talk about it later. Most of the people I find though are very open people, who are capable of examining a problem from the many different sides, probably because I consider myself to be that way. That being said that doesn't mean that we don't hold different opinions and that I don't have to encounter them. Serendipity isn't just tied to the internet, it can also happen everyday and Eli Pariser is underestimating that just like he is underestimating the power of creativity and the people who consider themselves creatives.
Pt. 3
"There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways you yourself have altered."
- Nelson Mandela
Alright, this book makes excellent points about the possible effects of technology like hindering creativity, the increasing lack of interaction of people, the decreasing of people meeting organically, and the fact that the world has become technology focused. However Eli Pariser, only ever examines these subject from one or 2 different views. His lack of creativity in examining these issues, ultimately bores me, because of the repetitive nature the information is presented in. He presents a real world example of the assertion he is about to make, he makes it, then he rambles on and on about the possible negative effects often in a very long-winded, roundabout fashion. His lack of creativity in viewing these problems ironically, illustrates the very principle he entitled his book about. He never acknowledges that being human is singular, and that while, yes, we can be influenced and possibly controlled that people ultimately make their own decisions, and no amount of manipulating will change that. Yes, some people will be very susceptible to it. However, there will be a part of the population (probably what is left of the creative types who he alleges are becoming a dying breed) that isn't susceptible to it, and will forever make decisions independent of manipulation. He continually underestimates the human race as a whole. At that point there of course will be a counter movement that rebels against technology. This is history: art history, world history, almost all history that has to do with humans follows these rules. There is an order or a way of doing something; it goes to far and in comes the rebellion against it. In particular, I can say theatre history is structured this way and wouldn't shock me if most history is. The rebellion eventually becomes culturally accepted and experimented with, and eventually becomes part of society. There will be a rebellion against technology we just aren't there yet. For him to believe that technology defies the rules that history has proven true is arrogant. Further more, the issues he presents are mostly examined in the sense that they are problems with very few acknowledgment of the benefits or the fact that humanity is evolving just like technology. He takes those facts into account very little. Actually his lack of creativity in handling and presenting these problems makes this book extremely hard to read of me. I much prefer Hacked to The Filter Bubble. As a person who seeks to solve problems from multiple angles his lack of even acknowledgment of them frequently grinds on my nerves and makes him come across as preachy, undercuts his authority, and makes me feel like I'm being forced to go to church while reading this book. All this being said he does make some very relevant points, he just really present them better and have more views represented except his own.
I'm about 70 pages into the filter bubble when I checked my Facebook feed to find an article from the New York Times about Monica Lewinsky finally coming back onto the radar and how she is doing it. This led me to watching a Ted Talk that she gave earlier this year. Thus far mostly the Filter Bubble has been talking about how the age of personalization came about. It all had to do with the effectiveness of advertising, because that's how websites make money is by selling ad space. If the ads can become customized to every user and double or triple effective, because Facebook/Google/Acxiom knows who you are and what you like that is good for business. The connection that Monica asserted and this principle was striking to me. Monica not only talked about how this had come about, but the effect on society, and both were extremely saddening. She asserted that her scandal was one of the first scandals that the internet played a huge role in, because of the pure amount of hatred that came at her just over the internet alone. She was slut shamed and harassed on every frontier, including this new one, considering it was the late 90's. Today there are terms to describe what happened to her, cyber-bullying and harassment are the the most well known. Gossip and public humiliation of that nature generates millions of clicks, which is good for advertisers. In this sense public humiliation and anything that can spark it has become a commodity, because guaranteed public humiliation like what happened to Monica Lewinsky, the nude leads from the actresses, or what happens to most celebrities is good for advertising revenue. It has become part of a business model. This has evolved a society that is very callous and in certain ways cruel, because nobody cares enough to stop it. This idea of the number of clicks is now driving not only what we see and read and consume, but how we act in regard to our fellow humans. That is too much power for something like a machine to hold. It's a crazy amount. It now isn't only influencing what we see and learn about, but it's influences our values one click at a time.
Pt.2
"There is no certainty. There is only adventure"
Serendipity is part of the creative process as a designer I rely heavily on this act and sometimes I chase it with all my might. Eli Pariser argues that the filter bubble eliminates serendipity and therefore eliminates creativity or significantly limits it. I disagree with this statement. Yes, the filter bubble, anything meant to filter anything else is going to disrupt the natural flow and exchange of idea and it could have a narrowing effect. However, I have always been aware of the fact that this bubble is in place, because when I go to do visual research on a style or period I get the same 20-40 images on Google. I can scroll all the way down and they are still the same, so I can only pull so much research from it, but that being said it's more helpful than getting non-relevant research. When I get research that isn't helpful I generally go back to what I typed into the search engine and change it. Sometimes it doesn't make a difference what I need research on is just too obscure or there just isn't enough of it on Google to be of help and those times are the times where I want to bang my head against the wall, instead of the times where it filters all my results nicely and presents me with somewhere between 15-20 usable images. Most creative people are aware that you can't only use Google to do research and we do research (in the hope of finding something that inspires us) in many different ways. Most of us use the services of Pintrest to get a whole new bank of images, one of my person favorites is Stumbleupon because you can get anything from a video to a helpful, detailed article on your subject, I own several textbooks detailing the different architecture periods so I have books to reference to. Creative people have evolved just like the internet has. Some of us even go to the place that we are designing to acquire primary research. Some of us talk about things with other creative people, so that the exchange of ideas happen. These methods help serendipity happen as well as promote different types of thinking and help us break out of our bubble. Breaking out of a bubble is what creative people are good at naturally, so you should give them some credit. Even today creative people are likely to be the people that study abroad, leave their homes for a while to move around, or participate in cultural festivals where they have no idea what they are doing. They are willing to take chances and look extremely ridiculous (and stupid) in the hope that they will learn something new. There have been plenty of times where I have felt both of these things, but I have walked away learning much about a group of people. When I seek out people for friendships I tend to look for people that will be okay with this side of me. They don't have to join me, they just have to let me be me, and then listen to me talk about it later. Most of the people I find though are very open people, who are capable of examining a problem from the many different sides, probably because I consider myself to be that way. That being said that doesn't mean that we don't hold different opinions and that I don't have to encounter them. Serendipity isn't just tied to the internet, it can also happen everyday and Eli Pariser is underestimating that just like he is underestimating the power of creativity and the people who consider themselves creatives.
Pt. 3
"There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways you yourself have altered."
- Nelson Mandela
Alright, this book makes excellent points about the possible effects of technology like hindering creativity, the increasing lack of interaction of people, the decreasing of people meeting organically, and the fact that the world has become technology focused. However Eli Pariser, only ever examines these subject from one or 2 different views. His lack of creativity in examining these issues, ultimately bores me, because of the repetitive nature the information is presented in. He presents a real world example of the assertion he is about to make, he makes it, then he rambles on and on about the possible negative effects often in a very long-winded, roundabout fashion. His lack of creativity in viewing these problems ironically, illustrates the very principle he entitled his book about. He never acknowledges that being human is singular, and that while, yes, we can be influenced and possibly controlled that people ultimately make their own decisions, and no amount of manipulating will change that. Yes, some people will be very susceptible to it. However, there will be a part of the population (probably what is left of the creative types who he alleges are becoming a dying breed) that isn't susceptible to it, and will forever make decisions independent of manipulation. He continually underestimates the human race as a whole. At that point there of course will be a counter movement that rebels against technology. This is history: art history, world history, almost all history that has to do with humans follows these rules. There is an order or a way of doing something; it goes to far and in comes the rebellion against it. In particular, I can say theatre history is structured this way and wouldn't shock me if most history is. The rebellion eventually becomes culturally accepted and experimented with, and eventually becomes part of society. There will be a rebellion against technology we just aren't there yet. For him to believe that technology defies the rules that history has proven true is arrogant. Further more, the issues he presents are mostly examined in the sense that they are problems with very few acknowledgment of the benefits or the fact that humanity is evolving just like technology. He takes those facts into account very little. Actually his lack of creativity in handling and presenting these problems makes this book extremely hard to read of me. I much prefer Hacked to The Filter Bubble. As a person who seeks to solve problems from multiple angles his lack of even acknowledgment of them frequently grinds on my nerves and makes him come across as preachy, undercuts his authority, and makes me feel like I'm being forced to go to church while reading this book. All this being said he does make some very relevant points, he just really present them better and have more views represented except his own.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Non-State Actors
With mainly the exception of ISIS, I'm not sure how much power non-state powers actually hold. While yes, they can do small things like make life harder by slowing down a server or maybe blacking out a city block, because of an implanted computer virus I'm not sure what they can accomplish on a grand scale. I'm not sure what ISIS can do currently on a grand international scale. The thing that is terrifying about ISIS is that it is promoting it's belief in a way that is likely to grow it's followers, so that eventually it could do something on a more global grand scale. I would say that as a whole what it scary about organizations like ISIS and the anonymous message is the factor of unknowns. It is unknown how big or small their organization is, the skills that the members have, or their possible list of priorities and where you fit in them. The lack of knowledge is what makes them dangerous. Most of these organizations don't seem to understand that the less they are on anyone's radar the more likely they are to actually get anything done, so to me the ones that make threats and are known about via social media or any other form really aren't the ones I'm scared of. Knowledge is power. The most I know about something or someone the better I can prepare for their attack or beat it. The ones that are scary are the ones hiding in their secrecy and waiting to strike in such a way that gives nothing away. This is also what makes it difficult to write about them from a media standpoint. This is probably one of the many reasons why new sites gets facts wrong, and inherent lack of information. Then when something like The Onion or The Daily Show does a segment on it, because there is a lack of knowledge in the first place it's easy to get wayyyyyy off course to the point where you convince people (like conspiracy theorists) that it's true who then convince more people and it's an awful cycle. This creates an insane amount of information discourse, because the The Onion or Daily Show isn't going to print a retraction or tell anybody that the original article was wrong.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Social Media and ISIS
From reading the research into ISIS I find them extremely smart. Everything they are doing allows them to connect with the younger generation, who are more capable of being swayed. In addition the post they put out and their command of social media gives them the appearance of a functioning entity with a government that is acting in the best interests of people. Particularly the magazine to me was striking. The branding and presentation of it gives the image that it was put together by professional people, who are well informed about what they are talking about. Between all of this they have established an image of credibility that is believable. If I were uninformed on the subject and I started looking at the materials they are circulating I would believe them. I always assumed that organizations like this didn't really go anywhere, because they didn't understand how to market or communicate with people who held different opinions and had different experiences than themselves. This proves that these types of organizations have evolved with the modern age and now demonstrate an understanding of how to convert not only people, but mass amounts of people to their opinions.
It's a harrowing statement. It scares me.
It's a harrowing statement. It scares me.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Hack Attack
Hack Attack: Part 1 Complete
"You don't get to be the editor of the Mirror without being a fairly despicable human being"
- Piers Morgan
What really strikes me is how much this book reminds me of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series. The only different is that was fiction and this isn't. That is terrifying. I have no idea how News Corp got away with it for so long considering that this started in the 1990's. Why didn't anyone (like former employees) come forward about it? This is a clear violation of privacy, while no there wasn't a law about it, it's not hard go "Do I want people to know that this is how I get my info?" if the answer is no then you probably shouldn't be doing it. As for the lone law about how assessing messages before they have been heard by the recipient is illegal, but after that it's fine. When did this legislation get passed and how many people were aware of it, because I'm pretty sure that if people knew that was the law they wouldn't be okay with it. Also how is hacking into a voice mail box even after those messages have been listened to is okay? You are still using private info that was either guessed, stolen, or you had to lie about to obtain. How is that considered okay? Furthermore, what was the police force doing? We trust you to actually do an inquiry and you only interview 1 person? How is that an inquiry? It sounds like you want us to have a coup and put in place people who would (hopefully) do their job. In terms of what this does to democracy....... I don't really know. I know that it makes me want to advocate for anarchy. At least then nobody is guaranteeing my safety except me. At least then the responsibility rests with me to make sure I'm safe and not anybody else.
Hack Attack: Part 2 Complete
"There is only one thing in this world, and this is to keep acquiring money and more money, power and more power. All the rest is meaningless"
- Napoleon Bonaparte
Favorite part thus far is when Rusbridger say "I feel like I'm in a Steig Larson novel" I AM NOT ALONE!!!! Okay, now that's out of the way. I was very unimpressed in the actions of the police until Sue Akers. She finally seems to be handling the situation. I wish I knew more about how they were investigating bent cops in the Yard. Personally, if this was my government I would want a corporate restructuring to ensure that the front men were honest. Really this to me is grave problem, and while at least it's being handled to a degree (finally!) if I were the people I would screaming for more. I'm glad that this scandal effectively shut News International down, because quite frankly karma's a bitch. When you loose your moral compass while holding a position of power you deserve to be brought down in the most humiliating way possible, because you violated the trust of your people. While New International isn't in politics the power that the editors wielded is shocking. Have some decency and have some class. Most people would call my roots white trash and I'm not going to school to be anything special, just a designer. I have more class than you, and I will never hold a position with that much power. If you are supposed to have power over me, then I shouldn't be able to argue you in circles. The News International people were only powerful, because few stood up to them. They also failed to identify New Internationals weaknesses. I'm sure that if they had ever told those people that I'm going to a competitor/the police about your cocaine use, they probably would have backed off. Or if they had threatened to start dismantling the connections and power that they had build up, they would have backed off. I will never understand people that just lay down and willingly take a beating when you don't have to. I'm pretty sure my Texan is showing. This book bears many similarities to The Dragon Tattoo Series. Unfortunately, that series is made up, which is why it can be hailed as a great novel. It is extremely terrifying just how close the 2 actually are. I guarantee that this will never be hailed as great, because it's real.
Hack Attack: Part 3 Complete
"No tyrant need fear till men begin to feel confident in each other"
- Aristotle
I think what should have happened did happen. The Murdoches' and most of the scum that worked for them got what they deserved. Karma's a bitch. Now we just need to set up safeguards so that it doesn't happen again. I would be curious to see what type of laws this actually spawned and just how many bent cops they flushed out of Scottland Yard.
"You don't get to be the editor of the Mirror without being a fairly despicable human being"
- Piers Morgan
What really strikes me is how much this book reminds me of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series. The only different is that was fiction and this isn't. That is terrifying. I have no idea how News Corp got away with it for so long considering that this started in the 1990's. Why didn't anyone (like former employees) come forward about it? This is a clear violation of privacy, while no there wasn't a law about it, it's not hard go "Do I want people to know that this is how I get my info?" if the answer is no then you probably shouldn't be doing it. As for the lone law about how assessing messages before they have been heard by the recipient is illegal, but after that it's fine. When did this legislation get passed and how many people were aware of it, because I'm pretty sure that if people knew that was the law they wouldn't be okay with it. Also how is hacking into a voice mail box even after those messages have been listened to is okay? You are still using private info that was either guessed, stolen, or you had to lie about to obtain. How is that considered okay? Furthermore, what was the police force doing? We trust you to actually do an inquiry and you only interview 1 person? How is that an inquiry? It sounds like you want us to have a coup and put in place people who would (hopefully) do their job. In terms of what this does to democracy....... I don't really know. I know that it makes me want to advocate for anarchy. At least then nobody is guaranteeing my safety except me. At least then the responsibility rests with me to make sure I'm safe and not anybody else.
Hack Attack: Part 2 Complete
"There is only one thing in this world, and this is to keep acquiring money and more money, power and more power. All the rest is meaningless"
- Napoleon Bonaparte
Favorite part thus far is when Rusbridger say "I feel like I'm in a Steig Larson novel" I AM NOT ALONE!!!! Okay, now that's out of the way. I was very unimpressed in the actions of the police until Sue Akers. She finally seems to be handling the situation. I wish I knew more about how they were investigating bent cops in the Yard. Personally, if this was my government I would want a corporate restructuring to ensure that the front men were honest. Really this to me is grave problem, and while at least it's being handled to a degree (finally!) if I were the people I would screaming for more. I'm glad that this scandal effectively shut News International down, because quite frankly karma's a bitch. When you loose your moral compass while holding a position of power you deserve to be brought down in the most humiliating way possible, because you violated the trust of your people. While New International isn't in politics the power that the editors wielded is shocking. Have some decency and have some class. Most people would call my roots white trash and I'm not going to school to be anything special, just a designer. I have more class than you, and I will never hold a position with that much power. If you are supposed to have power over me, then I shouldn't be able to argue you in circles. The News International people were only powerful, because few stood up to them. They also failed to identify New Internationals weaknesses. I'm sure that if they had ever told those people that I'm going to a competitor/the police about your cocaine use, they probably would have backed off. Or if they had threatened to start dismantling the connections and power that they had build up, they would have backed off. I will never understand people that just lay down and willingly take a beating when you don't have to. I'm pretty sure my Texan is showing. This book bears many similarities to The Dragon Tattoo Series. Unfortunately, that series is made up, which is why it can be hailed as a great novel. It is extremely terrifying just how close the 2 actually are. I guarantee that this will never be hailed as great, because it's real.
Hack Attack: Part 3 Complete
"No tyrant need fear till men begin to feel confident in each other"
- Aristotle
I think what should have happened did happen. The Murdoches' and most of the scum that worked for them got what they deserved. Karma's a bitch. Now we just need to set up safeguards so that it doesn't happen again. I would be curious to see what type of laws this actually spawned and just how many bent cops they flushed out of Scottland Yard.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
History of New pt. 2
I find the stipulations that make a crime story successful hilarious, and yet completely relevant, because even today they still prove true. The book mentioned the O.J. Simpson case as an example, which is largely accepted as one of the longest running and most followed stories in history. The rules seem ridiculous on the surface, because they reinforce a time that most people would like to think we have moved on from. Even in the first rule having a women or child in the story already makes it more successful, because it's playing to traditional gender stereotypes that are associated with another time. A more current example of this rule would be the hacker that realized nude photos of female celebrities, and how much media coverage it got. Not that I did much research into whether male celebrity photos were leaked, but there was little to no coverage on their invasion of privacy if there was. Have a female or child as the victim makes the story more sensation. I am relieved that we have moved on from journalists giving a morality lesson while they are reporting. At least that, for the most part is behind us, as long as you look at credible sources, which I can now say with sincerity. Clearly this type of news even today is geared toward readers with not as much education, and looks at achieving it's financial means through circulation and a high volume of readers. While even back then the actual written by the king articles (Time magazine for the modern age) appeal to people of a higher education class with more financial means who can pay a hefty subscription fee and don't need the content filtered for them in order for them to understand it.
Monday, February 2, 2015
Obama Posts
I felt like that he did avoid the hard the hard questions to a point. Multiple times he whipped figures out of his pocket or talked about things he had done rather than talk about the things that still needed to be done. This does make me mad. He never did talk about what accepted immigration reform looked like to him and what it would involve. This is avoiding the question. Yes, 50 years of an embargo has happened and Cuba hasn't changed, but why now are we doing something different? Has America changed? He answered this to a point, with we can afford to take risks where Cuba is concerned. That's not a very well justified answer. In particular I felt that his answer to how to unite this country and take care of the justice department was very lacking. He needed specific things that needed to be done rather than saying I'll take care of it, because this is like this situation I already took care of. They are not the same thing. This is affecting the entire judicial system from judges to prosecutors to police. There needs to be reform everywhere. The solution is not more training. It's not that simple or cut and dry, and to say so is to trivialize the issue. I think Obama was very smart, because he had to really work to not answer a question with a reporter, but he didn't have to work at all to not really answer a question with a blogger. On top of that, he reached a part of the people who usually don't get involved. It was genius, and upsetting.
Censorship in China
As long as people are will devote their time and energy ways around censorship can be found. I'm sure a hacker could figure out what words are blocked by keyword blocking by running a series of tests. Encrypting is always an option. Setting up a firewall that on a website that could potentially block the filters or one that solely runs off of verbal referral and a code are options. People have been working to get around this type of thing for years. As long as they have a little ingenuity it's not totally possible to stop things like Occupy Hong Kong from happening. As long as there are people in China who don't agree with what their government is doing and is willing to fight for it, things like this won't stop happening. In order to eliminate the possibility of these things happening you have to eliminate a certain character trait in people. Yes, their censorship is largely successful, because their goal is to minimize these events, and there are few events like this.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
IpI
I thought it was incredibly interesting. What struck me was how intelligent government censorship has gotten. I'm not sure I would have ever come up with limiting access to paper like South America, or arguing that world is becoming too globalized and cultures are starting is disappear so we need to insulate ours. It's so simple, but so effective. I was legitimately surprised at how intelligent their methods are. I know that I'm not the authority on media or any kind of one. I was raised to be skeptical of the media and what it tells you, so I've spent my life not reading it. Well, between being raised that way and then being a staunch believer in the fact that if America is so free then I shouldn't have to work to find credible media sources, they should just be available, I never really gave media a chance. This attitude means that the censorship the U.S. employs works in my case, because I rarely read news. In fact, that is why I am taking this class. I've always expected my government to be keeping things from me, and never really questioned further. What we have been discussing in class and what she was saying about places where the media really isn't free makes me wonder if this is the reality for most people or if some people don't even think to question their government. Is that really what no freedom of speech looks like? People blindly following? No questions? Or is no freedom of press the country where questions are asked and answered, but not published because of the risks? Whose to say? The last thing that struck me was how people believe the American people are free. I find America to be a ghost of it's former self. Yes, in the constitution it says we have freedom of speech. Yes, sometimes it is enforced. Sometimes it's not. The American people used to care about fighting for things, now most people are so involved with their own lives to fight or even care about things. The American dream has changed drastically from what it once was. Like Citizen 4 said most American people weren't surprised to learn about what the NSA was doing, yet we did nothing. Is that free? Or have we become so used to being "free" that we limit ourselves? What does that say about us as a people, when some are still fighting to have their right documented? These were the questions I was left with.
History of News
I feel like today we struggle with a lot of the same things we used to struggle with, they have just evolved. The printing press had extreme affects on the government and it's ability to censor the material. In ways it made it easier, because everything was done of one machine. In other ways the risks were higher, because the audience drastically increased. The modern version of the printing press is the internet. Easier to censor, multiple (sometimes untraceable) ways to do it, but the audience increased drastically. The government and journalists are still at war over what they can and can't print. The only difference is that sometimes it's not even your government your fighting with. Our globalized society means that the audience for journalists has never been higher, and there hasn't ever (some would argue) been more of a reason to censor. Now if you say something it's likely to be heard around the world, rather than in your own country. More people than you are liable to be held accountable for it. Most journalists keep their audiences in mind when writing which is why they still ponder Theophraste Renaudot's quote. Is it their job to question the government? Responsible journalists evaluate the backlash of their articles, because it is possible for them to put their country in a compromising position internationally. Wars are still run off of major propaganda, just like in for France and the U.S. Civil Wars. All I remember about why we went to war with Iraq in the first place was because of their weapons of mass destruction that they were going to use on us. That was what I heard in the media. I never heard anyone say it might be a bad idea, until it turned out that there were none. This type of media only perpetuates the war just like in the U.S. Civil War. I think we haven't really solved the problems we were struggling with so long ago. The problems changed and adapted, but we never seemed to solve any of them.
Monday, January 19, 2015
U.S. Censorship
What strikes me the most about news in the U.S. versus new from BBC is that BBC seems to be promoting unbiased information, unless you are looking for an opinion article. Most news sources in the U.S. are supporting one political party or other and almost all articles contain a detailed description of what we should be doing, because of x...y...z. This is my biggest problem about the news I read in America, rather than bringing me the information and letting me make up my own mind about it, they tell me what to think and why. I have a strong distrust of news, because I have no way of knowing, without major research and a gut feeling, which sources are owned and therefore controlled by the government or a political party in the US. Articles in the US are all about headlines, because people are always moving or working to get somewhere, so we don't read news unless the headline interests us. Generally these headlines openly support one way of thinking which already puts me off reading them and causes me to be suspicious. The way the news is handled in America is very indicative of Americans. We have are opinions, our country was founded on us having a differing opinion, but when it comes to news I want to read about the news and not the editors opinion of the news.
Fergusion, MO is a great example of this. There is so much press about what is happening, how, why, and the moralities of it. I live in Webster Groves, a 20 minuet drive from it. I know when a news article has an agenda, because I see it. I see how those people are hurting and I see why they are upset, however this problem won't be solved until both sides of the fence will quiet down and start listening. The media isn't helping solve the problem, they are fueling it. All the press about the police taking such and such actions, because of ____ just fuels the rage in the people. Which leads to more protests and civil unrest.
The massive amounts of opinions being told is a way of obscuring the truth. It is a form of stealthy censorship.
Fergusion, MO is a great example of this. There is so much press about what is happening, how, why, and the moralities of it. I live in Webster Groves, a 20 minuet drive from it. I know when a news article has an agenda, because I see it. I see how those people are hurting and I see why they are upset, however this problem won't be solved until both sides of the fence will quiet down and start listening. The media isn't helping solve the problem, they are fueling it. All the press about the police taking such and such actions, because of ____ just fuels the rage in the people. Which leads to more protests and civil unrest.
The massive amounts of opinions being told is a way of obscuring the truth. It is a form of stealthy censorship.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Freedom of Speech and the Ever so Blurry Line
Where does freedom of speech begin and end? Can people say deliberately hateful things? Should it be legal?
Given that I was raised in Texas in the U.S. I was brought up to take my personal freedoms very seriously. When I ask myself these questions I hear an overwhelming yes. People can say hateful things, because at the end of the day they have a right to say what they like. You in turn, can choose not to listen. As long as they aren't forcing you to listen to whatever it is they say; they should be able to say whatever they want and however they want. You can choose not to listen. I would hope that soon our society will evolve into one where hate speech laws, because irrelevant, but in the meantime they isn't a single part of me that can condone a limit on freedom of speech. If you are going to use your freedom of speech right in a way that will hurt and offend people you should be aware of what you are provoking. While whatever happens isn't your fault and you probably don't deserve it, you still provoked it. Being respectful and tolerant in this world will get you farther than things like talent and money. People should aim to express their opinions while exemplifying both traits. Until we live in a world that does that we won't know a world without violence.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)