In preparation for the last two weeks of class, all students are required to post a link to an article or project that focuses on some aspect of social media that they would like to present to the class for debate.
The article or project can address or use any of the technologies we have spoken about (twitter, facebook, YouTube, etc) but needs to foreground an issue that is up for debate (such as privacy, intellectual property, etc).
Please paste the link to the article as a comment and include a statement of why you posted this article and what you think the key issues are for debate. You will be responsible for presenting the article and issues in class.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-grant-contest-20110524,0,4485302.story
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses how social media is being used in a charity contest held by JPMorgan Chase bank. It is using Facebook to host the Chase Community Giving Contest, where people can vote on which charity/organization they want to win. The winners will then be awarded money to support their cause. Celebrities have been engaging in this contest by using Twitter, another social media outlet, to encourage their fans to vote for the Shakespeare Center: an organization providing summer jobs to teens to promote L.A. schools' teaching of Shakespeare's work.
For debate, do you think that in this context, social media is effective and the best source for promoting the charity contest? As stated in the article, is using an online popular vote through social media not the "gold standard for charitable grant-making?" Do you think that the use of Twitter by celebrities was also important in promoting participation and awareness?
http://technorati.com/technology/article/minors-using-facebook-a-controversy-of/
ReplyDeleteThe article discusses the controversy in letting younger children- under the age of 13- use facebook. Interesting debate, I personally do not think that young kids should be exposed to facebook or any other social networking
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Champion-cuts-Mendenhall-loose-after-Twitter-controversy.html
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the release of NFL player Rashard Mendenhall from his sponsorship of the company Champion after his tweet regarding the death of Osama Bin Laden. Mendenhall used his twitter account to post his feelings regarding the death of Osama, in addition to expressing his strong sense of patriotism for his country. This issue is controversial because he was dropped from his sponsorship based on his use of the 1st Amendment to express free speech. Many athletes use their respective twitter accounts to give their fans more information on what they do and what their opinions are. Mendenhall was simply exercising free speech, and all though he is viewed as a role model for young kids, Champion does not have the right to release him based on a truthful (yet inappropriate) remark on his personal twitter account.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/technology/personaltech/13basics.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is criticizing how facebook revised its privacy policy, requiring the users to manually making certain personal information, pictures, and posts private. So people who is not new to facebook when they don't know where all the privacy settings are will not be able to set their information private. I agree that the revision to privacy policy is not in the best interested of the individuals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/technology/13facebook.html?_r=2&emc=eta1
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the relationship Facebook has with free speak and civility. Facebook is a place where anyone can make a page about just about anything, and some of these are considered offensive to others due to a variety of reasons relating to religion, gender, race, etc. Throughout article it mentions that Facebook does not delete these pages that may come off as offensive as they consider it free speech - anyone should be able to make a group or page about what they would like.
A quote by Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University stood out to me in the article:
“Facebook has more power in determining who can speak and who can be heard around the globe than any Supreme Court justice, any king or any president"
For debate: Do you think Facebook has this power mentioned by Rosen? Do you think limits should be set as to what one may create pages and groups about? What limits do you set? How could this be regulated, especially on Facebook where there are millions of uses, groups, pages, etc? Regulation of anything on the internet seems very hard due to the immense number of users.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/13/twitter-and-facebook-publication-banned-injunction
ReplyDeleteThis article describes how the courts have for the first time banned specific information from being published on Twitter or Facebook. Many judges are worried about individuals posting classified information regarding court cases and releasing them to the public through social media sites. This has sparked a huge possibility for conflict because of the courts choice to prevent the freedom of speech. Since Twitter and Facebook are private companies, they could claim that the judicial system is interfering with their ability to function as a company and their rights. So, should the courts be allowed to ban specific information from being posted on social media sites? If so, to what extent can they monitor these companies? Or, should individuals have the ability to publish whatever they want regardless of what information it reveals?
"U.S. Policy to Address Internet Freedom"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/world/15clinton.html
"U.S. funding tech firms that help Mideast dissidents evade government censors"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/09/AR2011030905157.html
Shortly after the protests in Northern Africa, where social media played a pivotal role in organizing and publicizing demonstrations against autocratic governments, the U.S. government announced its commitment to protecting Internet Freedom and Internet Security around the world.
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton announced in February that the Obama administration intended to work with European counties to help foreign publics circumvent cyberspace barriers maintained by oppressive governments.
With respect to regulating Internet freedom Clinton stated:
"To maintain an Internet that delivers the greatest possible benefits to the world, we need to have a serious conversation about the principles that will guide us. What rules exist - and should not exist - and why; what behaviors should be encouraged and discouraged, and how."
The Washington Post article discusses how the U.S. government has been funding technology companies abroad that provide circumvention services--allowing those in autocratic governments to evade Internet tracking on social media sites.
For Debate:
The power of social media, particularly its role in recent revolutions, has entered the discourse of foreign policy and diplomacy.
Noting that both Twitter and other social media sites like Facebook are still relatively new technologies, what considerations about social media should the U.S. government keep in mind when making foreign policy decisions about Internet freedom and security? How far can the U.S. go, or should we go, to help foreign publics use social media to dissent?
http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/01/30/6345792-facebook-id-theft-targets-friends
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the threat of identity theft as it pertains to Facebook. It describes the story of Bryan Rutberg, whose account was hijacked by a group of criminals who began to post statuses and send messages saying that he had been robbed at gunpoint, thus needing financial assistance. He also gained access to his email and contacted his friends that way. One of his friends actually believed these cries for help, sending $600 to the criminals using an online service. Bryan and his family unsuccessfully attempted to contact Facebook, and eventually disabled the account through a mutual friend.
Identity theft is a common issue in the social community, and as Facebook expands and includes more and more personal information, to what lengths should Facebook and its users go to ensure security? What steps should be taken to prevent this?
http://psychcentral.com/blogs/privacy.htm
ReplyDeleteI used this link because the launching of multiple different kinds of blog sites has led to a collection of all kinds of people's different thoughts that are archived for long periods of time. Even when a few years pass, this information is recorded somewhere and it's a growing concern for those who are trying to get jobs or forget the past to be wary of the effects of their previous writing pieces and how it can affect their lives in the future. I think the key issue for debate is whether the information presented in these "personal blogs" are eligible for use against a person. Are these blogs the personal properties of its creator? Or are these posts public property that can and eventually will be used against someone?
http://www.timesonline.com/news/police_courts/article_0f102de4-4043-11e0-a96f-00127992bc8b.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is a news story reporting on a facebook page that was taken down because it was entitled "Beaver County Hoez" and contained sexually explicit material regarding girls who were under 18. This brings up the issue of child pornography, although the creator of the page claimed that each of the girls on the page was supposed to be at least 18. Furthermore, the derogatory comments from users encouraged officials to remove the site. The creator again argued that those comments were the responsibility of other users, not the page itself. Overall, the issue is how can facebook regulate sexually offensive pictures and discussions—especially regarding kids who claim to be over 18 and are therefore justified in participating.
http://neuronarrative.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/four-authors-respond-to-the-social-networking-controversy/
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be very interesting because it contains the perspectives on social networking of four different authors and neuroscientist and Oxford professor by the name of Susan Greenfield. Greenfield warned the British House of Lords about the perils of social networking. Some consequences of social networking she described are: "loneliness, short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathize and a shaky sense of identity". The four authors had very insightful statements and beliefs about social networking; some agreed and some disagreed with Greenfield. Would you fully agree with Greenfield's points? If not, what are some of the things you disagreed with? Is social networking more of a blessing or a burden?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/technology/23twitter.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
ReplyDeleteThis article is about a famous British soccer player who was reportedly having an affair with a reality TV star. His name was released nd he subsequently file a super-injunction (a harsh British legal measure in which the media is forbidden from releasing his name). However, his name was released to Twitter and many newspapers and online sources have identified the player. At the heart of this issue is our privacy; how private are we in this world? While this player certainly has a good point in filing his super-injunction, I think it is too weak. He has every right to privacy, but being a celebrity entails certain sacrifices and privacy is one of them. Users who revealed his name should be (and are) furious because it is their right to speak freely on the Internet. However, I do believe in some free speech limitations. Most notably, in the case of national security. For me, national security trumps all and I believe the government has every right to suspend civil liberties (to an extent) if there is a national security crisis. I am not advocating Marshal Law, but we cannot let every nut case with a Twitter account go around giving away potentially harmful or valuable information. Thus, the in this case of the soccer player, his name should be released; he put himself in this position and he must deal with the consequences. In the coming years, this privacy issue will only get bigger and more prominent, so we must figure out a solution now before it is too late.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/22/social-networking-cyber-scepticism-twitter?CMP=twt_gu
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the how social network affect communication in our life. It is common for many people to communicate online through facebook, twitter, and instant messenger. Sometimes, people feel more comfortable to communicate through social technologies rather than the face to face conversation. The article criticizes the technology is threatening to dominate our lives and make us less human. According to Turckle, "Under the illusion of allowing us to communicate better, it is actually isolating us from real human interactions in a cyber-reality that is a poor imitation of the real world." The technologies isolate people from the society because they think it is part of their social life. The social technologies can help people to keep in touch who are separated by long distances. I support social technology because it is convenient for contacting my friends and family. Do you think social technology is a better way to communicate?
http://www.fastcompany.com/articles/2008/10/social-networking-security.html
ReplyDeleteI chose this article because it deals with security surrounding social networks. Just recently Face Book had been hacked and it goes to show that with all the members involved with these social networks it takes one person to cause an issue for the sites. This article addresses security issues and how social networking sites work to prevent these types of things from happening. I think privacy is most important for these sites.
http://news.cnet.com/NBC-strikes-deal-with-YouTube/2100-1025_3-6088617.html
ReplyDeleteI chose this article because it concerns both the conflicts between traditional, broadcast media and social media, and how those are being reconciled. NBC used to fight youtube over rights to video clips, but has now decided to form a partnership with the social media giant. This deal, to me, represents how powerful social media has grown in the past decade or so, as seen by the the fact that established media sees it necessary to partner up with social media.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_murder_reflects_drama.php
ReplyDeleteI chose this article because I remembered a documentary on facebook's success on TV. The documentary also exposed the downsides of this social network and how it could be dangerous for all kinds of groups of society. I thought it was interesting to realize how social medias have affected the way we emotionally connect with people and how intense could be people's involvement with the informations they see on their computer screens.
The article also adresses concerns about privacy. It is true that the murder they refer too is a very extreme case but a lot of less dramatic incidents happen because of a lack of privacy. Many times people lost their jobs because of a picture they posted or because of a simple status update. Such situations encourages debates such as in who's favour should justice take its decision.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/alexis_ohanian_how_to_make_a_splash_in_social_media.html
ReplyDeleteThis video is a short presentation by Alexis Ohanian, a founder of Reddit (user generated news links, voted promote stories to the front page) at a TED convention that shortly goes over the story behind of "Mr. Splashy Pants" the humpback whale. His ending point is that if you want a project to be succesful on the internet you have to be prepared to lose control of it. That once it is posted or uploaded or tweeted etc. it takes on a life of its own within the internet community.
This loss of control however can spiral to either extreme (something we love or something we hate) and the unforgiving nature of the internet shows through at these times (ex: alexandra wallace) My question is, should there be some kind of way to permanently delete information from the internet (i know this is not possible at the time, but hypothetically speaking). And if it were possible what kind of implications would come from the power of being able to retract something that had already been posted?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-podclass24nov24,0,5117576.story
ReplyDeleteAlthough this article is quite old and not completely about the possibilities that podcasts may encompass, it speaks about the resources that are now available to people who are able to download such resources off Apple's iTunes Store. While reading this article, this paragraph stood out to me, "By making hundreds of lectures from elite academic institutions available online for free, Apple is reinvigorating the minds of people who have been estranged from the world of ideas."
People are no longer, or at least minimally, restricted of what they are able to learn. The limits are endless with the knowledge that people can learn with these audio podcasts. The convenience of being able to effortlessly download these different lectures and then bring it anywhere you go to listen to, makes it even easier to have the time to learn about anything you want to.
Are podcasts not being taken advantage of? It seems as though they are not being used of their full potential. Radios were once a revolutionary invention, that the success could be duplicated and multiplied with the innovation that are podcasts.