Debat: Should the Internet be censored or regulated?

In the words of Philip Defranco, “In December, the world’s governments are going to get together to talk about the future of the Internet. Some of those governments want to censor the Internet and regulate the web in general.”

Why should the Internet be censored or regulated?

1.       I personally believe that the Internet should not be censored because every day it is changing how our world works and it has become the focus of so many lives; to censor or regulate the Internet would be denying every human a chance to participate in a future with technology. And where would we be without technology? We certainly wouldn’t be here. On the other hand, I chose to be a “devil’s advocate”, so for this assignment I’m going to go with: I believe the Internet should be moderated because although the good may outweigh the bad, the bad is bad enough to be a concern.

a.       People can look up how to build bombs, steal, get away with murder [Casey Anthony who looked up how to], hack into people’s bank accounts [Anonymous in 2011 to give to charity], freely bully each other and children [link], and some might argue that the Internet promotes child pornography [Page 9].

Why shouldn’t the Internet be censored or regulated?

I do not believe government needs to watch over our every move. The internet lets us have free speech, we have the freedom to find any internet site we want and we have to pay for internet, so it doesn’t make sense to me that it should be limited.

Which opinion is more common amongst the general public?

1.       My “devil’s advocate” opinion is probably not shared by the majority of people because I think people simply want full Internet freedom, regardless of the fact that not everybody thinks the same and thus, not everyone is subjectively well-minded.

2.       My opinion is shared by most students. They tend to believe the same thing I do, which is people have a right to roam the internet without constant surveillance. Do we really want to live in a society where everything is controlled by the government? The answer is: of course not! We like our internet the way it is.

What personal opinions influence your beliefs on this topic?

1.       To put it simply, although I do want Internet freedom, I do not want people to be able to look up build bombs in order to threaten governments or civilians, to look up how to suffocate full-proof, especially not children, nor do I want children or people to bully children [if I see someone bullying a child I view myself as the type of person to get involved and tell them to knock it off, but how can anybody do that when children are not being monitored and nor is the Internet?]. No matter how people view me, I don’t want my bank account hacked so someone can donate to charity when I can barely afford to make it on my own. Finally, there is nothing anyone can say to me which can justify child pornography specifically. It’s not right and some can argue that pornography can lead to someone taking it further, and once again, there is nothing anyone can say which will justify that to me.

2.       I have found the internet to be very useful. There has been multiple times where I have needed quick information about a topic, and the internet provided me with the information. I enjoy going on Facebook, and checking on Twitter, I know I am not doing any harm to anybody, so what should I get rid of it?

3.       People have the right to freedom of speech and the blocking of the internet sites that the government wants is affecting our way to have freedom of speech.

Sources used?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/25/fool-proof-suffocation-methods_n_2188034.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hacking-group-anonymous-vows-hit/story?id=15234349

http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/child-bullying.html

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e04062000.pdf

http://torguard.net/blog/governement-plans -to-monitor-internet-usage-will-users-be-affected-source-government-plans-to-monitor-internet-usage-will-users-be-affected/

http://bostonreview.net/BR33.2/zittrain.php

http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2011/10/protect-the-internet.html

Common ground?

From a devil’s advocate’s perspective, perhaps if the Internet was moderately regulated or maybe even open-regulated, by the people of the world, for the people of the world, then they could determine by a majority vote what would be appropriate to be on the Internet.

We have both agreed that it is really easy to learn how to build a bomb or even break into someone’s house, so is this case we do think the internet should be monitored, but only if it is something which is endangering other human beings.

How can people who disagree on this topic maintain their own opinions while respecting each other?

1.       People would have to justify how having such unfortunate things on the Internet is worth the destruction.

Trends and Fads in Recent Times

Fads:
“Like a boss”: A phrase which is commonly used (1) to explain achieving a feat in an unconventional manner, (2) to make events sound more exciting than what they are, (3) to describe something which was amazing, or (4) to project one’s self as having authority. An example of each would include: (1)

In the photo, a man changes a light bulb located on a partially vaulted ceiling by, instead of using a ladder or a stepping stool, standing on the top of French doors, one foot on each door and barefoot too! (2) Commonly, I will use the phrase “Like a boss” when playing video games with friends. A common personal example would be: “I beat two rounds of Fyregames [a Minecraft (PC game) version of The Hunger Games] with good armor and weapons, like a boss.” (3)

 In the photo the dog is a boss because she saved all of her puppies and herself from a house fire, all by herself. [There is also a video and an article describing this event.] (4) Lyrics from the song “Like a Boss” by The Lonely Island demonstrate the fourth identity of “Like a boss” with, “Talk to corporate (like a boss)/Approve memos (like a boss)/Lead a workshop (like a boss)/Remember birthdays (like a boss)”. “Like a boss” is a fad because it is slang and slang changes over time and across cultures.

“YOLO”: An acronym for the phrase, “You only live once,” which originated from the rapper Drake in his song, “The Motto” -- “You only live once, that’s the motto...YOLO, and we ’bout it every day, every day, every day.” For young individuals, the acronym is commonly used as an excuse to participate in unwise and irresponsible actions and events because according to them, why shouldn’t they take part in these events or actions if they only live once? The idea of something being irresponsible or dangerous is disregarded. From my description, it is easy to tell I’m not fond of the acronym; however, as it is with many things in life, I am not the only individual against the acronym. Here’s a comic stripe demonstrating the use of the word and a negative response to the acronym.

 Similar to “like a boss,” “YOLO” is a fad because it is slang and slang changes over time and across cultures.

Snuggies: A snuggie is a product which “incorporates oversized sleeves that allow the wearer to use his or her hands without completely unwrapping the blanket. The blanket can be worn around the house as a robe, although there is no closure device included in the design.”

In the commercial, a Snuggie is described as a blanket with sleeves; however, in all actuality, it is more like a backwards coat or a robe.  A snuggie is a fad because not all blankets last forever, nor do clothing styles. While there certainly is potential for snuggies to become a trend by the producers having sold over 25 million products two years ago, the chances of this occurring are very unlikely.

The cinnamon challenge: In a previous post, I referenced one of my friends on Facebook posting a video of someone puking. It turns out the individual had tried the cinnamon challenge, where an individual takes one tablespoon of cinnamon and try to swallow it without any water, and most people record their attempts. Here is a link to a list of YouTube videos of the cinnamon challenge. Personally, I don’t understand the fascination of watching other people preform a dangerous challenge which generally results in the individual becoming sick, nor do I understand the fascination of trying to harm oneself for fun. I believe the cinnamon challenge is a fad because it is very much like the five saltine cracker challenge (unless they’re brought back by YouTube), or similar dares which fade over time.

Angry Birds: Angry Birds is a puzzle video game developed by Rovio Entertainment. It “features hours of gameplay, challenging physics-based castle demolition, and lots of replay value. Use logic, skill, and brute force to crush the enemy.” [link]

Angry Birds, or rather, the collection of Angry Bird products is current because when I speak to people with iPads, they’re most commonly going to tell me they have an Angry Birds’ game, I’ve been told before by individuals who enjoy animation movies, specifically Rio, that after the movie came out they became very interested in Angry Birds, and this fad goes so far as YouTube celebrities, such as Philip Defranco having six Angry Bird plushies on the couch which is featured in almost every “Philip Defranco Show” video.

The Collection of Angry Bird products is a fad because at this point in time, the fascination seems to be dwindling down slowly; however, from about 2010 until now, there was a period where I couldn’t go a single week without hearing about Angry Birds.

Trends: Social [Over] Sharing: Let me refer back to a previous blog post when I say, ‘many users [of social media websites] feel the need to inform all of their friends or followers, and essentially the world, of what they are doing or experiencing at any given moment.’ Social oversharing has become popular and an example of this would include this post of “Zombies aren’t real,” or a post of something being sick or a post of someone posting an album of pictures to Facebook. Oversharing is an acceptable trend in our society because social media ‘both readers and posters gain something from every post – posters satisfy the “reward” center in their brain and readers satisfy their curiosity without breaking any societal code.’

Tweeting to be on TV: Using Twitter or tweeting has its own problems, such as oversharing (because it is a social media website); however, when combining Twitter with current television, there becomes a whole new idea of posting tweets or tweeting just to be on TV. Here’s the idea: you are watching a reality show, then all of a sudden at the bottom or top of the page or perhaps just a commercial, there’s an advertisement of “Send us a tweet telling us what you think using this hash tag and maybe we’ll display it on air,” and of course there are people who mainly tweet just to be seen on TV, or rather, to experience their “five minutes of fame.” This idea of tweeting to be on TV not only possibly provides one’s “five minutes of fame”, but it also increases publicity for the shows being tweeted about and the channel broadcasting the tweets and shows. Here’s a link to Bravo TV’s “Tweet Tracker” where they track any and all tweets which use certain hash tags. Tweeting to be on TV is a trend because both the tweeters and the receivers of the tweets gain something, and when two parties gain in a transaction, it is unlikely for this transaction to discontinue.

The Cloud: Using According to The Cloud website, it “is a public access WiFi provider with thousands of hotspots and millions of registered users, it provides simple, fast and reliable broadband for people your of home. The Cloud means, “You’re paying for what you use, when you use it, when you need it… and it changes how businesses, enterprises and consumers access their data.” [Link] The Cloud way of computing is a trend because in our society, it is one of the must have features of every product or service, it is more cost effective compared to moving bytes around, there’s almost an unlimited storage and backing up and restoring any device is incredibly easy, which, in our times, is very necessary.

(Here's the message the appears when I exit out of steam, "Finishing Steam Cloud sync...")

Piracy: The justification behind piracy of music, movies or videos, games, software and ebooks is quite simple and like many things in our society, it comes down to money. The price of buying, viewing or listening to a product is getting out of hand; at least, that’s what some would say. For instance, I’ll name a popular product of each category and list the price: Music: the album “Night Visions” by Imagine Dragons - $7.99 on iTunes. Movie: “Men in Black III” by Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. and Hemisphere - Culver Picture Partners I, LLC - $14.99 on iTunes. Game: “Assassins Creed 3” by Ubisoft - $49.99 on Steam for the standard PC version or $59.96 at Walmart.com for the Xbox 360. Software: “Microsoft Office Word 2010” - $139.99 at Staples.com for a Windows operating system for one user. Ebook: “Twilight” Book 1 – $8.99 on Amazon.com. If an individual were to buy each of these items, the total amount would be at least $221.00. According to a pirate, Sebastian Anthony on Extreme Tech, he pirates because when he buys something, he wants to own it himself. He doesn’t want a publisher or broadcaster to dictate how, why or when he can use something that he owns [Link].

 

To explain, if someone were to buy the album and the movie I listed above on iTunes, they would technically be forced to borrow those items indefinitely or only be allowed to play a movie on iTunes on a computer – because of this piracy is an increasing trend around the world.

Becoming one’s own broadcaster: “Broadcast media” is the medium which broadcasts one idea broadly, reaching a large amount of people. The digital age has provided humans the ability to broadcast media, their own content, on a massive level, and in our society, this has become dependent on everyone being a broadcaster, producer and consumer. To explain it simply: I subscribe to users on YouTube who post videos about something I find interesting, such as Philip Defranco posting news-related videos, and sometimes I will share these videos or maybe I’ll create a video response where others may subscribe to my own channel and share as they please. In this way, Defranco is a producer and broadcaster and I am a consumer until I create a video response; where then I will become my own producer and broadcaster. As becoming one’s own broadcaster has become pretty much a world-wide hobby, this results in the idea being a trend.

Unpopular Culture … Or is it?

An example of a status on Facebook.

A popular idea of social media is that some of its aspects contribute to the apparent negative impacts popular culture has on American society. For instance, a key example of a negative impact social media has on society is specifically with Facebook or Twitter; many users feel the need to inform all of their friends or followers, and essentially the world, on what they are doing or experiencing at any given moment.

Example of a status and comments on Facebook.

Let me analyze this from a mostly unbiased point of view using Facebook as an example. To begin, Facebook is a social media website which allows individuals, groups or companies to connect with each other through the websites features of updating statuses, uploading pictures, updating personal interests otherwise known as ‘favorites’, commenting on each other’s profiles and statuses, sending private and instant messages to each other and playing online flash games with each other . According to the video on Facebook’s front page, the website is meant to allow people to connect with each other and share anything in order to build a place where humans belong; essentially, Facebook is meant to remind humans with Internet access that they are not alone and they belong in this great, big world.

Before Facebook rose to popularity, humans connected very often through the use of email, sending text messages via cellular devices, speaking face-to-face, over the phone or via web cameras (for the most part – I do realize there are other forms of communication which have been or currently is implemented). The point of bring up other communication forms is to point out the fact that because the use of Facebook is incredibly widespread amongst the majority of age-ranges and amongst people around the world, numerous individuals appear to prefer communicating on Facebook more so than any other form available. Due to this apparent preference, many humans have incorporated using Facebook into many aspects of their lives. For instance, if I wanted to incorporate Facebook into my life to the best of my ability, I would most certainly wish to connect with other people by sharing what happens in my life on Facebook as it happens instead waiting until the next time I see them in order to transfer this information. An example of this would be if I got a new dog and I wanted to use Facebook to share this fact, I would (1) post a status updating my friends that I got a new dog, (2) upload pictures about this dog, and (3) send private/instant messages to some of my closer friends gushing about my dog and perhaps asking them how I should go about raising the animal. From an outside perspective, I could seem very enthusiastic about getting a dog or, to the friends who simply do not care; I could seem annoying because from their perspective, why should they care if I get a dog if it’s very unlikely to affect them? This here rests the problem with updates on Facebook because my example happens a lot with a lot of people about a lot of topics, with an outside appearance of being for the “sharing/connecting with friends” feature, but I wonder if there’s an underlying reason as to why this happens.

 

Let me reaffirm the idea that there is perhaps oversharing, which is a problem. I just logged onto Facebook and I’m going to check my newfeed, this is what I see:

#1 Person 1: “Just gonna work on it all. That what everyone wants, right? v(^~)”

#2 Person 2: A picture of person 2 at a party.
#3 Person 3: An album of pictures of a friend at a party.
#4 Person 4: “Lesson learned. Any excuse for not taking notes in a college math class is a bad one... Take notes”
#5 Person 4: “Went rock climbing. That was fun, haven't done it in a while.”
#6 Person 4: A video of someone puking.
#7 Person 5: A picture of their daughter.
#8 Person 5: “Lol....guess who didnt set their clocks back.....yep me...oh well up bright and early for church :)”
#9 Person 6: “Had the most awesome day with this chick.”
#10 Person 7: “Today is my daughter’s b-day.”
#11 Person 8: “I had a terrible Halloween.”
#12 Person 9: “Doesn't it just bug the hell you of u when u text some and they don't text back. Or is it just me?”
#13 Person 10: “Hey guess what...................................................Baby Hippo!!!”

I am absolutely serious when I state that everything within the quotation marks is letter-for-letter.

Regardless of how close I am to any one of the 10 people, this is what I feel about the posts: #1 is very vague. I didn’t go to the parties #2 and #3 attended so I’m not too interested in those posts. #4: I thought it was common sense to take notes in college, especially in any math course which most people find difficult to follow. #5: Okay. #6: Disgusting. #7: I don’t know her. #8: How am I supposed to respond to this…? Too bad for them, I guess. #9: I don’t know the girl, but good for them, I guess. #10: Good for her. #11: That’s too bad. #12: Perhaps the person was busy…? #13: Okay. From my point of view, I do not see why I should be interested in these types of posts and so, I would assume at least some other individuals feel the same. It makes me wonder, why do people post these types of posts? What do the readers gain? What do the posters gain? Why is this trend acceptable in current society?

I have come to the conclusion that Facebook users post these personal, vague and seemingly unimportant (to other people) posts in order to satisfy the “reward” part of their brain. I believe the theme of posting these types of posts initially appears as an impolite and underhanded way to confirm one’s importance level in society and essentially gain attention. The individuals who post vague, seemingly unimportant posts have tied their worth to everyone but themselves - to them, completeness comes from other people knowing them better, not from knowing themselves better. This idea is similar to the times when individuals always wrote in journals, except Facebook has become the journal and for the most part, these journal entries are read and viewed by many others (depending on the privacy settings). In the end, readers satisfy the “nosy” part of their psyche by gaining insight into many other’s lives without necessarily communicating with those individuals. This trend is acceptable in current society because both readers and posters gain something from every post – posters satisfy the “reward” center in their brain and readers satisfy their curiosity without breaking any societal code.
 

Movie Poster Comparison Presentation

I remember once when I was a little bit younger, watching a 1995 film titled, “The Little Princess” which is an adaption of a 1939 film of a the same title. (If interested, you can watch the full length version of the 1939 film on Youtube for free and the full length version of the 1995 film on Netflix, if you have a paying account.)

 

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the movie posters. The poster on the left is the 1939 version, while the poster on the right is the 1995 version.

The posters are visually different, of course, but both incorporate similar qualities. To begin, the poster on the left mainly advertises Technicolor, the actress, Shirley Temple, and two of other main actors/actresses, Richard Greene and Anita Louise. The photograph of the poster is that of two of the main actresses in dark clothing with bright lighting and a dominant, purple background. Overall, the poster is broken up into three sections, with each section being placed in its own rectangular box - the advertisement of Technicolor at the top, the photograph of the main characters in the middle and the title and similar credits at the bottom. The printed fonts used are prominent and perhaps attention-grabbing due to the multi-colored text emphasizing the main title, main actress, and application of Technicolor. The 1939 poster gives an impression of the main character perhaps in trouble, which may reflect on the film and could entice viewers.

The poster on the right appears smooth and more visually attractive than the 1939 poster. It is arranged with advertisement of the film producer making a claim of America having a “second chance to discover a one of a kind masterpiece” at the top, listed quotes from various companies claiming the film is a work of genius along the right side, the title at the lower middle, movie credits at the bottom in a muted tone and the photograph making up the entire background pulling the whole poster together to form a concise presentation. Types of fonts are used effectively with capitalization of all letters of the producer’s “masterpiece” claim attracting attention at the top, the listed quotes to the right of the poster are in cursive exuding fanciful importance, and the final important section of font, the title, incorporating capitalized, cursive first letter of each word, allowing the title to be legible, but still appear visually attractive. The photograph of the 1995 poster is simply that of the main actress, her eyes and mouth wide, and it appears as though she is peaking from behind some obscure object. Overall, the impression of the 1995 film poster is curious and magical mainly due to the expression on the child actress’ face and the implemented cursive/italicization of specific sections of words.

Between the two posters, several aspects have been changed. In the first poster there is a photograph of an adult woman and female child, while in the second poster only a female child can be seen. In comparison, the lack of an adult woman in the 1995 poster might indicate a change in plot or in character importance. Moreover, in the 1939 poster the advertisement of the use of Technicolor and the name of the main actress, Shirley Temple, reflects on film market of the 1930s-40s. It could be concluded that importance is placed on an actress’ name because the potential audience may recognize her first or the use of Technicolor might have been also been an attractive feature to a potential audience.  However, in the 1995 poster version, emphasis is placed on how well the audience will appreciate the opinions of supposed well-known companies commenting about the movie, rather than the use of technology to create the movie or the names of the actors/actresses. In regards to the plot, both film posters present very little to indicate what the film might be about; however, the 1939 poster demonstrates that at least an adult woman might be important, while as the 1995 poster indicates no such thing.

Un-Letter to the Editor

Editorial: “Barack Obama for Reelection”

The argument within the editorial is that Barack Obama should be reelected and there is no competition because (1) “Mr. Obama has achieved the most sweeping health care reforms since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965”, (2) “Mr. Obama prevented another Great Depression” by pushing through more tax-write offs, (3) “Mr. Obama and his administration have been resolute in attacking Al Qaeda’s leadership, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. He has ended the war in Iraq”, (4) “Mr. Obama, who appointed the impressive Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, understands how severely damaging conservative activism has been in areas like campaign spending”, (5) “Mr. Obama, however, has reversed Bush administration policies that chipped away at minorities’ voting rights and has fought laws, like the ones in Arizona, that seek to turn undocumented immigrants into a class of criminals”, (6) and by Romney supposed opposing all of the good that Obama supports in junction with “the issues”, Obama is obviously the better choice and will continue to lead our country to greatness.

Perhaps Mr. Obama should be reelected for presidency or perhaps not. The reelection isn’t in question on this blog, what is in question is the argument made by the editorial.

Let me try to get my facts in order in response to this article.

(1)    Mr. Obama’s “sweeping health care reform(s)” commonly referred to as “Obamacare” and legally referred to as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)” was signed into law March 23 2010, most of its major provisions (the ones which could be described as the backbone of the reform) will be in place January 2014 and the rest of the provisions will be in place as soon as 2020. The issue with this argument is that it is currently November 2012, only some of the provisions are in place. Due to the reelection being in only a matter of days and the rest of the provisions not going into place until at least 2014, I don’t see how the “sweeping health care reforms” should be listed as an achievement just yet.

(2)    If more tax write-offs are being pushed through, of course the economy is going to not be nearly as bad as the Great Depression; however, more tax write-offs do nothing to address the poor economy, major debt and furthermore, the United States of America still doesn’t have enough money in the National Treasury to back up all of the dollar bills floating around in the economy

(3)    “On October 21, 2011, President Obama announced that all U.S. troops and trainers would leave Iraq by the end of the year, bringing the U.S. mission in Iraq to an end. On December 15, 2011, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially declared the Iraq War over, at a flag lowering ceremony in Baghdad. The last U.S. troops left Iraqi territory on December 18, 2011 at 4:27 UT.” As many individuals will question, if the war has ended in Iraq why are more troops still being sent over, an entire year later?

(4)    Understanding “how severely damaging conservative activism has been in areas like campaign spending” is an entirely separate entity in comparison to action. Why is it that the knowledge of someone President Obama has appointed is an arguable fact that President Obama is obviously the better option? Most individuals understand the difference between good and bad, but of these people, many of them still do bad things, no matter their understanding – this is always a possibility – so wouldn’t it be better to bring into question what good the appointed official has done, rather than what they know?

(5)    While researching, I actually found evidence which supports this argument. “President Obama strongly supports the DREAM Act, which would allow undocumented young people to earn a path to citizenship through military service or the pursuit of a higher education. He has joined Latino leaders and immigrant advocates in a "full court press" to fight for its passage because he understands that it “makes no sense to expel talented young people from our country as Americans.”” [link]

(6)    It is always nice to claim one thing or another, but where is the evidence to back up this claim?

This editorial is decently presented, however, many of the claims lack viable evidence as support. The editorial in question is three pages long on the New York Times website, which means I have left some information out of my opinionated response, but a lot (not all) of the information appears to be “fluff” to me.

Now, please don’t get me wrong. I am not suggesting that President Obama has not performed the actions listed in the article, nor am I suggesting that President Obama is a bad leader, President, or what have you. Honestly, I did not choose this article to question the President, but I did choose it to question the methods the author chose to convince readers that President Obama should be reelected.