Do the words Facebook and Privacy even fit together in the same sentence? Can one actually say that thanks to their ability to decide who sees what and who can do what with a persons Facebook profile using the Facebook privacy settings its safe to say that Facebook gives us full control ?

Several concerns have emerged regarding the use of Facebook as a means of surveillance and data mining. Catherine Rampell, author of “What Facebook Knows that You Dont” states that “Two MIT students were able to download over 70,000 Facebook profiles from four schools (MIT, New York University, the University of Oklahoma, and Harvard University) using an automated shell script, as part of a research project on Facebook privacy published on December 14, 2005″. Rampell goes on to state that the possibility of data mining remains open, as “evidenced in May 2008, when the BBC technology program “Click” demonstrated that personal details of Facebook users and their friends could be stolen by submitting malicious applications”(The Washington Post: p. A15. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202630.html. Retrieved on 2009-03-26).

The Facebook Privacy Policy states: “We may use information about you that we collect from other sources, including but not limited to newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, Facebook Platform developers and other users of Facebook, to supplement your profile.^” (Facebook. 2007-08-12. http://www.facebook.com/policy.php. Retrieved on 2009-03-26). Eric Roper points out that yet another clause that received criticism concerned Facebook’s right to sell a user’s data to private companies, states: “We may share your information with third parties, including responsible companies with which we have a relationship. ⁽GW Hatchet. http://www.gwhatchet.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=65d53002-d568-4511-ade8-0d40866e6406. Retrieved on 2009-03-26). Chris Peterson, author of “Whos Reading your Facebook” explains that this concern was addressed by Facebook spokesman Chris Hughes who said, “Simply put, we have never provided our users’ information to third party companies, nor do we intend to. (The Virginia Informer. Retrieved 2009-03-26).

Anita Ramasastry, author of “On facebook Forever?” states that concerns have also been raised regarding the difficulty of deleting user accounts. “Previously”, she writes, “Facebook only allowed users to “deactivate” their accounts so that their profile was no longer visible. However, any information the user had entered into the website and on their profile remained on the website’s servers”. Anita continued on in explaining that “this outraged many users who wished to remove their accounts permanently, citing reasons such as the inability to erase “embarrassing or overly-personal online profiles from their student days as they entered the job market, for fear employers would locate the profiles”. She finishes by explaining that Facebook changed its account deletion policies on February 29, 2008, allowing users to contact the website to request that their accounts be permanently deleted (FindLaw. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20080229.html. Retrieved on 2009-03-26).

But still, is it safe to say we are in full control, and we are the masters of Facebook?

CB

Twitter is everywhere, its on the news, on TV on Facebook advertised everywhere you look. Everywhere they know we will be looking, its their. This blog is even an advertisement! because as I speak about it, you are becoming more curious as to what Twitter really is.. The only difference is that I’m not getting a big fat cheque for writing this..

Murray White, author of “IM: not coming soon” states that “in March 2009 Garry Trudeau’s Doonesbury strip began to satirize Twitter, with the strip characters ironically highlighting the triviality of “tweets” and Roland defending the need to keep up with the constant-update trend or else lose relevance. Super News!, similarly, satirized Twitter as an addiction to ‘constant self-affirmation’”(witter status blog. http://status.twitter.com/post/53978711/im-not-coming-soon. Retrieved on 2009-03-26).

“Twitter Frenzy”, states that during a March 2, 2009 episode of the The Daily Show, the host Jon Stewart negatively portrayed members of Congress who chose to “twitter” during President Obama’s address to Congress (on February 24, 2009) rather than pay attention to the content of the speech. The Daily Show’s Samantha Bee “satirized media coverage of the service saying ‘there’s no surprise young people love it – according to reports of young people by middle aged people’. Jon Stewart described the service as a gimmick” (Comedy Central. 2009-03-26. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219519&title=twitter-frenzy. Retrieved on 2009-03-26).

Another episode of the Daily Show on February 26, 2009, during which host of NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams (a guest on the Daily Show and a journalist) derided “tweets” as only having “subject matter which refers to the condition of the author in any given instant. Williams implied that he would never use Twitter because nothing he did at any given moment was interesting enough to publish in Twitter format” (Comedy Central. 2009-02-26. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219509&title=Brian-Williams. Retrieved on 2009-03-26).

Andy Carvin, author of “Welcome to the Twitterverse” writes that on February 28, 2009, NPR’s Weekend Edition featured a segment in which producer Andy Carvin tried to teach veteran news analyst Daniel Schorr how to use Twitter.

Carvin continues by writing “what we are losing is editing,” Schorr complained. “I grew up and nothing could be communicated to the outside world that didn’t go through an editor to make sure you had your facts right, spelling right and so on. Now, every person is his or her own publisher and/or her own editor or her own reporter… The discipline that should go with being able to communicate is gone.”

In response, Carvin gave two recent examples of breaking news stories that played out on Twitter: the attacks in Mumbai and the riots in Greece. According to Carvin, Twitter and Facebook users wanted witnessed accounts rather than mere hearsay. “A system of checks and balances kicks into high gear with people who are just innately very skeptical — wanting to get to the heart of a matter,” said Carvin. “And sometimes stories actually get debunked that way” (Welcome to the Twitterverse. Retrieved on 2009-03-26).

CB

According to Josh Kenzer author of “5 Question Interview with Twiter Developer Alex Payne” wrote explains that Twitter is a”social networking and micro-blogging service that enables its users to send and read other users’ updates known as tweets“. He then went on to say that “tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 bytes in length. Updates are displayed on the user’s profile page and delivered to other users who have signed up to receive them” (Radical Behavior. http://www.radicalbehavior.com/5-question-interview-with-twitter-developer-alex-payne/. Retrieved on 2009-03-26).

Ricardo Niederberger Cabral, author of “Language Most Spoken on Twitter” wrote that “senders can restrict delivery to those in their circle of friends (delivery to everyone being the default). Users can send and receive updates via the Twitter website, SMS, RSS (receive only), or through applications such as Tweetie, Twitterific, Twitterfon, TweetDeck and Feedalizr. The service is free to use over the web, but using SMS may incur phone services provider fees” (isnotworking.com. http://blog.isnotworking.com/2008/09/language-most-spoken-on-twitter.html. Retrieved on 2009-03-26).

According to “Opportunity Knocks” from the original twitter Blog, it states that as of March 2009, Twitter has received “extensive visibility and popularity worldwide. Twitter is often described as the ‘SMS of Internet’ in that the site provides the back-end functionality (via its APIs) to other desktop and web-based applications to send and receive short text messages often obscuring the actual website itself. This extensibility of the service has earned it more popularity than it would have gained if users had to visit the site to use the service” (Retrieved 2009-03-26).

“Twitter was founded by Jack Dorsey, Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams. The public introduction began in March 2006 inside San Francisco podcasting company Odeo” says Mark Glaser, author of “Twitter Founders Thrive on Micro-Blogging Complaints” He then went on to explain that “Odeo was co-founded by Noah Glass and blogger Evan Williams. In October 2006, the company was bought out by management, and Williams, Stone, and other Odeo employees started another company named Obvious Corp. to operate Odeo and Twitter, another startup Williams had been testing in the offices for about a year”. In the present time, “Twitter had been initially used internally by Odeo’s employees and became a product of Obvious at this time” (Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2007/05/twitter-founders-thrive-on-micro-blogging-constraints137.html. Retrieved on 2009-03-26).

Who knows what in store for Twitter, these idea are being snatched from the air and brought into our presence, we’ll see what ideas our future holds.

CB

Did some quick research about communication around the world keeping in mind how media and advertising is effected thus. Its very interesting to note these large or not so large differences from the Western world, helping us keep our eyes open and our minds aware of the different parts of the world when communicating with them through media and understanding how media effects and triggers those outside our Western bubble.

Quick facts about Communication Stuff!

Yay Communication:

Language (keep this in mind when communicating to the world)

• 10 000 languages in the world
• India has over 18 languages
• Belgium
  • French, Flemish
• Translate effectively to communicate effectively
• Ask before speaking English (your native tongue) if you don’t know the mother tongue of the country
• Professional translation may be effective
• Avoid humor and slang
• Language barrier; doesn’t usually translate

Physical Communication (good to keep in mind when communicating personally)

• Personal space:
  • West – arms length
  • Arab and Latin cultures – much closer together
• Touching
  • Latin America – hugs
  • Asians – only handshake on initial meeting
• Eye Contact
  • Western countries – critical; evaluate sincerity, trust
  • Asia, India, Japan – depends on who you’re talking to; disrespectful for jr. level employee to look directly at sr. level employee
• Hand Gestures
  • Thumbs up: positive in Western Cultures, inappropriate/obscene in other cultures
• Ask and observe locals for which postures, voice levels, crossing legs, etc are appropriate

Style(good to know which approach to use inorder to send your message out to its fullest and thus recieve a good response)

• Formality
  • US/Australia: informal
  • Other parts of the world: very formal
• Japanese has three levels of politeness (superior, wife, servant)
• Address
  • Most cultures prefer family name as opposed to first name
• American’s uncomfortable with silence
• Silence
• Emotions vary among people
• Pacing

Talk about different things

• Saudi Arabia – no personal questions
• Brazil – ask about family, etc
• People moved about different kinds of information
  • German: facts, figures, etc

Indirect Communication

• Rephrasing
• Changing settings
• Go through third parties
• Adjust your style and go about things diplomatically

• Seek information through third parties, try a change of setting, be more diplomatic, avoid forcing direct answers, ask the same thing in a variety of different ways to get a full, true answer

Styles of Communication

• Context vs. Content
  • Same word, different message
  • NA, N. Europe – emphasis on words and what is said
  • Latin America, Asia – how things are said (what they say is often not exactly what they mean)
    • Body language, eye contact, who is there, who is present, how they hold their body all affects how they respond

Non-Verbal Communication

• Body language
• Facial expressions
• Sounds noises
• Eye contact
• Look at context of everything that’s being said

References:

Atil, Esin (1975), Art of the Arab World (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution).
Bartle, Richard A. (2003), Designing Virtual Worlds (Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing).
Corballis, Michael C. (2002), From Hand to Mouth: the Origins of Language (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press).
Huxley, Aldous (1932), Brave New World(New York: HarperCollins, 1998).
Willey, Malcolm M. and Stuart A. Rice (1933), Communication Agencies and Social Life (NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.).

CB

Wikipedia explains that the film “chronicles the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg. The film contains excerpts from speeches given by various Nazi leaders at the Congress, including portions of speeches by Adolf Hitler, interspersed with footage of massed party members. Hitler commissioned the film and served as an unofficial executive producer; his name appears in the opening titles. The overriding theme of the film is the return of Germany as a great power, with Hitler as the True German Leader who will bring glory to the nation” (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will).

It protrayed the soldiers were having a good time. This was a form of advertising for their time to get troops to join the army. The soldiers in this film were shown smiling and laughing while working – having fun, which evedently is a good thing, protraying that Hitler is great!

This film represents signified power (“It is our will that this state shall endure for a thousand years” – Hitler), and unity (“The Party is Hitler – and Hitler is Germany just as Germany is Hitler!” – Hess).

Advertising Power 

In the book “Leni Riefenstahl: Documentary Film-Maker Or Propagandist?”, Ellen Cheshire wrote how “Germany had not seen images of military power and strength since the end of World War I, and the huge formations of men would remind the audience that Germany was becoming a great power once again. Though the men carried shovels, they handled them as if they were rifles. The Eagles and Swastikas could be seen as a reference to the Roman Legions of antiquity” (Documentary Film-Maker Or Propagandist, 3). Lenin Imports write, “the large mass of well-drilled party members could be seen in a more ominous light, as a warning to dissidents thinking of challenging the regime. Hitler’s arrival in an airplane should also be viewed in this context” (Leni Riefenstahl Triumph of the Will, 22). In the book “An Evil Faith” which is a detailed comparison between Sieg des Glaubens and Triumph of the Will, Kenneth Poferl wrote, “Flying in an airplane was a luxury known only to a select few in the 1930s, but Hitler had made himself widely associated with the practice, having been the first politician to campaign via air travel” (An Evil Faith, 41). Carl Rollyson, author of “Leni Riefenstahl on Trial” in The New York Sun wrote “victory reinforced this image and defined him as the top man in the movement, by showing him as the only one to arrive in a plane and receive an individual welcome from the crowd. Hitler’s speech to the SA also contained an implied threat: if he could have Röhm – the commander of the hundreds of thousands of troops on the screen – shot, it was only logical to assume that Hitler could get away with having anyone executed” (Leni Riefenstahl on Trial, The New York Sun). 

Advertising Unity 

Kenneth Poferl went on to write “Triumph has many scenes that blur the distinction between the Nazi Party, the German state, and the German people. Germans in peasant farmers’ costumes and other traditional clothing greet Hitler in some scenes. The torchlight processions, though now associated by many with the Nazis, would remind the viewer of the medieval Karneval celebration. The old flag of Imperial Germany is also shown several times flying alongside the Swastika, and there is a ceremony where Hitler pays his respects to soldiers who died in World War I (as well as President Paul von Hindenburg who had died a month before the convention). There is also a scene where the Labor Servicemen individually call out which town or area in Germany they are from, reminding the viewers that the Nazi Party had expanded from its stronghold in Bavaria to become a pan-Germanic movement” (An Evil Faith, 49).

CB

Wikipedia explains that “a majority of widely accessible information on the Internet consists of inter-linked hypertext documents and other resources of the World Wide Web (WWW). Computer users typically manage sent and received information with web browsers; other software for users’ interface with computer networks includes specialized programs for electronic mail, online chat, file transfer and file sharing” (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet).

Kraut R, author of the article “Internet paradox. A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?” wrote that “the terms Internet and World Wide Web are often used in every-day speech without much distinction. However, the Internet and the World Wide Web are not one and the same. The Internet is a global data communications system. It is a hardware and software infrastructure that provides connectivity between computers. In contrast, the Web is one of the services communicated via the Internet. It is a collection of interconnected documents and other resources, linked by hyperlinks and URLs” (2).

“Optical burst switching (OBS) – a new paradigm for an Optical Internet” is a journal to support bursty traffic on the Internet (and especially WWW) efficiently. With regards to the growth of the Internet, Authors Chunming Qiao and  Myungsik Yoo, wrote that “Internet successfully accommodated the majority of previously existing public computer networks (although some networks, such as FidoNet, have remained separate). During the 1990s, it was estimated that the Internet grew by 100% per year, with a brief period of explosive growth in 1996 and 1997. This growth is often attributed to the lack of central administration, which allows organic growth of the network, as well as the non-proprietary open nature of the Internet protocols, which encourages vendor interoperability and prevents any one company from exerting too much control over the network”. Its amazing to see how fast it has increased and how it still is on the rise, its a never ending story.

In a study found in the “History of Nova Scotia”, it states that “new findings in the field of communications during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s were quickly adopted by universities across North America. Examples of early university Internet communities are Cleveland FreeNet, Blacksburg Electronic Village and NSTN in Nova Scotia. Students took up the opportunity of free communications and saw this new phenomenon as a tool of liberation. Personal computers and the Internet would free them from corporations and governments (Nelson, Jennings, Stallman). Graduate students played a huge part in the creation of ARPANET. In the 1960s, the network working group, which did most of the design for ARPANET’s protocols, was composed mainly of graduate students” (History of Nova Scotia, http://www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625/nshist47.html).

CB

Mark Dery, author of “Culture Jamming: Hacking, Slashing, and Sniping in the Empire of Signs” wrote that culture jamming is a form of turning away from all common beliefs and outlooks – including that of social movements – and by that definition, culture jamming is “generally not treated as a movement”(33). He then went on to say that culture jamming is “not defined by any specific political position or message, nor even by any specific cultural position or message. The common thread is mainly an urge to poke fun at the homogeneous nature of popular culture, often by means of guerrilla communication” (communication unsanctioned or opposed by government or other powers-that-be) (67).

DSL explained in class this week how after 911 (within days) there were culture jams making fun of the event. However, the mockeries being made of the horrific event was not seen on TV yet all over the internet he explained. Emails were sent out with jokes, sites were posted, blogs were written – all thanks to the total freedom of speech the internet has given us. “The internet is a form of media with total freedom of speech,” thus endowing a person the right to say whatever they feel like saying. On the other side, TV is limited.

Author of “Optative Theatre: A Critical Theory for Challenging Oppression and Spectacle” Donovan King from the University of Calgary clarifies culture jamming in his own words and writes that “culture jamming could be defined as an art movement, although this too may be insufficient to cover the full spectrum of activities identified as culture jamming. Culture jamming has been characterized as a form of public activism which is generally in opposition to commercialism, and the vectors of corporate image. However, this also is too narrow a definition to cover all culture jamming activities” (5). This then makes is clear that people took a shot at 911 since some culture jams main targets are those in power who are higher than us. The perhaps fall of the USA was something that some enjoyed seeing the dominant culture go through.

 The Kyoto Journal: Culture Jammer’s Guide to Enlightenment lists some aims of culture jammers.

A couple of these aims include:

• - “To have a good laugh (and to encourage others to do likewise) at the expense of prevailing social currents – many purveyors of which, in the opinion of many culture jammers, take themselves too seriously.
• - To reawaken a sense of wonder and fascination about one’s surrounding environment, inspired by the frequent intentional ambiguity of a specific culture jamming technique, which stimulates personal interpretation and independent thinking.
• - To demonstrate contrasts between iconic images, practices or attitudes and the realities or perceived negative side of the item object of the jamming (often the target is a trapping of monolithic power structures such as corporations, government or religions). This is often done symbolically, with the “detournement” of pop iconography”.

DSL also explained that we live in a society where media wants to “control our expression”, and thus culture jamming can most possibly be a way to relieve this feeling of control!

CB

In the late 1910′s and 1920′s (immediately following the Russian Revolution in 1917), soviet film makers relied on the theory that the visual media of film could be an important “means of building a new revolutionary consciousness for among illeterate  and working class Russians” (Media and the Russian Public, EP. Mickiewicz, 5), which allowed to broaden their horizons (Rethinking the Russian Revolution, E. Acton).

Back then they did not have a multi-cultural society and therefore mass media is what eventually allowed the information of that time to spread. Julian Haynes Steward, author of “Theory of Culture Change” argues that the means of the spread back in the day was through film, however in class DSL stated that film as a means of media was one thing, but now a days, once the internet entered, the results were: “appropriative culture activity – private turning public — mass violation of copy right laws” (DSL).  Are we going down hill?

“Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled” (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism). As such, capitalism is also changing and “managing our minds” (DSL).  All in all we are moving into a visual world (“and imitate corporate style” – DSL), learning about the cultures around us, and adapting accordingly.

CB

It is amazing how media has evolved significantly with the times. Compared to now, life back in the days was much much slower. Author of First the Culture Revolution, now the Media Revolution J. Lent agrees that one could argue that the socialization of people is greatly affected by mass communication since through medias revolution, we can see how research is being ascended to people quicker.

What goes along with receiving that kind of fast paced information?

- It is disposable, it changes just as quickly as it comes (ie: one year coffee is good for you, the next year it bad for you. Even Barbie is changing, or at least, some cultures now want her to as DSL explained).  Researcher John Friske believes that the two primary mass media forms (radio and TV) change the dynamics of the flow of communication (Collaborative Modelling and Stimulation, 54). If one sits back to think, its hard to imagine that before our time, people who were illiterate did not have access to the information media feeds their society. People who did not have the means to go to university, or buy books, could not get medias information (Mass Media and American Politics, 44).

However the insemination of mass media aloud people who were not able to get educated to get information! They now knew about the world.

Back to what I was saying at the beginning..
If everything is always changing, what should we believe? In class this week, DSL said that discourse of power will become difficult to detect who is speaking and saying what behind media due to an era of “distance”. This is a crazy truth, we literally dont know who is saying what anymore. Information comes at us so quick we dont know what to believe! And we do not even know how to know who to believe. We’re fish lost at sea!

CB

As the term goes, “Sexting” is basically the act of texting sexualy expicit content using ones mobile device. DSL informed us that since texting has been around, ones privacy has grown as well. Due to this greater increase of “personal space” or “privacy”, a person is able to send sexually explicit content freely without having to worry about getting caught.

Before “sexting”, there was the personal use of a persons own car. Teens (and the like) were able to get together and go somewhere private and do what they wish, as DSL explained.

Although “sexting” can be seen as a controlled action, and can take place consensually between two people, it can also “occur against the wishes of a person who is the subject of the content” says RM Kowalski, author of Cyber Bullying. She continues on to say that “a number of instances have been reported where the recipients of sexting have shared the content of the messages with others, with less intimate intentions, such as to impress their friends or embarrass their sender” (Cyber Bullying, 6). The Encyclopedia of Risks and Threats states that celebrities such as Miley Cyrus, Vanessa Hudgens, and Adrienne Bailon have been victims of such abuses of sexting” (Encyclopedia of Risks and Threats, MySecureCyberspace. Retrieved on 2009-02-28).

Its an issue that should not be taken lightly, not only can it be linked to a cause of making the younger generation grow quicker, but it can also be dangerous and anyone can be a victim. The Sex and Tech Survey which can be found online states that a 2008 survey by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and CosmoGirl.com ^“suggested a trend of sexting and other seductive online content being readily shared between teens. One in five teen girls surveyed (22 percent)—and 11 percent of teen girls ages 13-16 years old—say they have electronically sent, or posted online, nude or semi-nude images of themselves. One-third (33 percent) of teen boys and one-quarter (25 percent) of teen girls say they were shown private nude or semi-nude images”. These are scary numbers to deal with, and unfortunatly are facts.

According to the survey, sexually suggestive messages (text, email, and instant messaging) were even more common than images, with “39 percent of teens having sent or posted such messages, and half of teens (50 percent) having received them” (Sex and Tech Survey). Our society is ever changing, and the more it changes the quicker the genrations grow.

CB