Twitter Boycott Planned To Protest Twitter's Censorship Plan

In think fairly short article from The Huffington Post author Bianca Bosker describes the unrest of twitterers to a new policy held by the company that would be able to censor tweets on a country to country basis.

Twitter went crazy on Saturday because of this, with people from all over the world using the social network against itself. Twitter seems to be a safe haven for free speech (or so we thought), igniting the Arab Spring and collecting people to "occupy" many cities around the world. 

I guess this falls back into the SOPA and PIPA argument but what is interesting here is that the company is actually deciding to do this. What is the difference between a state making companies censor their content and a company taking independent action to censor their content? If more companies were to do this would SOPA and PIPA lose their impact anyway? Will you still use Twitter even though this censorship is happening?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/twitter-boycott-planned-t_n_1236573.html?ref=mostpopular

Morality Pill

When faced with the option, would you jeopardize your safety to help a complete stranger in need? Researchers like Stanley Milgram, Philip Zimbardo, John Darley, and C. Daniel Batson have researched humans potential, or pre-disposition, for good and evil. Say that there are biochemical differences in the brains of those who help others and those who don't, could this notion pave the way for a "Morality pill"?- a drug that makes one more likely to assist others. What might a society do with this pill? Could they make it mandatory in certain circumstances?

I chose this article because I find it very thought provoking. The issue of forced behavior or thought patterns is very controversial. The concept of this pill is revolutionary, so there are no pre-determined guidelines as to when and why to implement it. Sending a man to jail is one thing, but changing his brain to act in a way he doesn't wish is a whole different issue.

The opening paragraph about the girl in the street was very graphic and instantly captured my attention. I thought it was a good example of the potential for evil in humans. I would have liked a specific example of a human committing a selfless act to save another to create a sharp contrast of human behavior. I think the author's writing style was very simple and not particularly captivating, but the questions he asks are what made the story interesting for me.

Here is the link to the story:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/are-we-ready-for-a-morality-pill/?ref=opinion

Suspected 'honor killings' shock Canada

As we look at more and more blogs, the prevalence of written articles and visual media combined is clear. However, as I searched CNN, this headline, "Suspected 'honor killings' shock Canada" of a video caught my attention. Though the killings occurred in 2009, the Shafia family is now going on trial over the matter of their massacred family.

The story is chilling in that the evidence heavily supports a father, brother, and mother killing their sisters/daughters and Shafia's second wife in an act of 'honor' to their homeland when the daughters sought to leave the abusive family and westernize themselves to fit in.

Should this video have an accompanying article along with it? Is this a story that should be shown to US citizens considering the rift and anger citizens feel toward immigrants, especially those from the Middle East? Does the reporting make it seem like a crazy foreign soap opera, or are the facts spelled out in an informative manner?

This article by the GlobalPost offers a few more details and a written alternative to the story in case you care to read, compare, and contrast.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/canada/111220/canada-honor-killings-trial

Both sides of SOPA/PIPA

This is an aritcle about the legislation that became mainstream last week after Wikipedia decided to close its doors in protest. The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act are both on their last legs and will be crushed after public out cry. Any politician who supports such legislation now has to fear not being reelected.

What I liked most about the article is that it goes beyond the public out cry and takes a look in the business of the legislation. It shows how both sides, the Hollywood entertainment industry and the Silicone Valley tech companies have a lot to gain and lose depending on the fate of the legislation. The article points out that Google spent nearly $6 million in lobbying last year. Media companies have spent a lot of money to get the legislation on the floor. I also like how the article keeps a fair balance, despite the public's clear outcry over the bills.

Do you think the article is fair? What do you think about the entertainment industry that remains this legislation is not "cool?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/in-antipiracy-debate-media-worlds-and-generations-clash.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=technology

Facebook Live

Social networking has partnered with companies and found a new way to get users to interact with products.

Lucas Kavner, writer for The Huffington Post, explains in this article how Facebook now allows people to rent the latest movies right off their site. Users can live blog, comment, and reblog straight from the film as they're watching it.The gap between the experiences people have and the records posted about them has been slowly closing with the introduction of Facebook and Twitter, but the "social cinema" that's beginning takes everything to a new level.

" Indeed, since film companies now have millions of fans at their fingertips as a result of their films' Facebook pages, this is a chance for studios to interact with them directly -- find out what they're liking, talking about and willing to buy as a result of their films' product placements."

Companies are doing everything they can to promote themselves in the newest method available. As mentioned in the article even plays as classic as Shakespeare are connecting to social media through live postings during the play and Twitter accounts for characters.

How do you think the performances for both the movies and plays are affected by this new link to social networking?

Do you think projects like this are the cause or the result of the public being so fast paced and "ADD" like we discussed in class? What exactly does this story say about our society?

Where do you think the news media is headed with the way social networking seems to be headed as described in the article?

Here's the link for the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/facebook-live-streaming-films_n_1214398.html?ref=culture

Do Drones Undermine Democracy?

As I browsed through various websites seeking a topic for this post, I found myself coming back to an editorial published in the New York Times by Peter Singer’s editorial on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Singer cites the spike of both military and CIA UAV usage as a potential threat to democracy because UAV missions are carried out even though congress has not declared war.

I found the subject of Singer’s piece to be intriguing, the rising popularity and usage of UAVs will drastically change the way future wars will be fought. Singer is wise to consider the effects that will hold, but I don’t feel his argument is sound.

First off, the word “drone” is incorrect. A drone is an unmanned aircraft that flies a preprogrammed, unchangeable flight path but the UAVs (which Singer seems to be referring to) are unmanned aircrafts flown by pilots following a mission, but not a preprogrammed path. Singer is very loose with his terminology; associating the term "robot" with UAVs insinuates that the aircraft has a mind of its own (much like Arnold in The Terminator).

Just the opposite is true, there is much more human element in the UAV process than any other weapon. My father flies a UAV for the Air Force and will soon be deploying to Afghanistan to operate the take-off and landing of the aircraft. He often addresses the video feed in his cockpit, saying that the feed is often watched and supervised by dozens of other people. He often says, “ We fly this thing like the White House Situation Room is watching, because they just might be.”

Even though Singer may have been off base on some of his conclusions, he did bring to light some interesting facts that will affect the way America addresses political conflict. There is not one major, manned combat aircraft in development today. The idea of Maverick carrying out his gutsy fly by is fading; many say the last Air Force pilot has already been born. Politicians prefer UAVs because there will never be a cargo planeload of body bags arriving at Dover AFB, Delaware that they will have to explain away to their constituency.

The advantages of UAVs are simply two-fold: a pilot or aircrew are not at risk, and the mission can be carried out in a much more inexpensive manner than one operated by a manned aircraft.

Singer said himself congress has not officially declared war since the 1940s and it’s not like covert military missions are a new occurrence. Does Singer present a relevant argument, or does he come close to abusing a news peg? Singer does a good job at being a watchdog-- his mind is with the citizens. Why?

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/do-drones-undermine-democracy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1

Toy Cars Take Over The Los Angeles County Museum of Art

Chris Burden’s has struck again at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art; but this time, with a new sense of art style.

In the 1970’s Burden’s began with a more drastic style of art. In the article, they mention that he was shot in the arm for an art piece. Now, he has been drawn to a more objective form of art. After four years, Burden is now opening up his new art piece: Metropolis II

The writer, Alex Schmidt, explains the sculpture:

The piece is a 10-foot-tall model of a city. Basically, it fills up a room. There are colored buildings here and there, and dozens of aluminum tracks sloping over, under and around them at different levels. An operator steps under some tracks, into the middle of the sculpture, and flips a few switches.

It’s not your ordinary piece of artwork. Artists have been known in the past decade to stretch the boundaries of what exactly art is. Truthfully, in my opinion, it looks like an adult version of a hot wheels racetrack.

In addition to the article is a short documentary on his new artwork.

The article is well written and gives you a good image of who the artist is. The quotes that are used bring the story to life. The explanation of the sound that the cars and the machine makes, make you feel as if you are there listening to them. I also enjoyed the quote about how all the cars are not attached to tracks and so an actual car wreck is possible.

In the end, my main question was, is newsworthy? If it is newsworthy, what makes it worthy?

Also, do you feel that this is focused on a specific audience? If you weren’t interested in art, would you click on this article and read it?

Even though the documentary is nearly six minutes, did you feel it was worth watching? Was this beneficial to the rest of the article?

Here is a link the to article:

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/15/145141033/speedy-toy-cars-blur-the-boundaries-of-sculpture