227 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. . If you create or post one, remember to pay attention to the source of the image. Your best bet is to start with an image or clip that is already labeled for reuse or is in the public domain, meaning out of copyright protection altogether. Google Images search tools provides such a filter, or try the Creative Commons search for work licensed for reuse via Creative Commons licenses. When you see a meme going around, give a thought to the subject of that meme image, whose life may forever be

      Not something I ever gave much thought to before, but will definitely keep in mind after reading.

    2. This poor kid. Consent is a must have its not right to do this to anyone. The poor kid was humiliated.

    3. This is crazy. I m not really into looking at memes but I have seen them all over. I never thought of them as invasions of privacy but it makes sense.

    1. But look closer. What about the mystery woman? She’s clearly been far more reticent, declining an interview for the Today segment and asking that her full name not be revealed. It’s hard to avoid the impression that she’s being dragged into the public eye nonetheless.

      Makes me super uncomfortable to think what she might be going through. Even with her attempts to step away from all the attention, being "dragged" into it is the perfect way to put it.

    2. This is sickening. Poor girl.. what is wrong with our society. The men get praised for things as such and women most of the time gets shamed. I feel bad for her.

    3. I would be annoyed if this happened to me. My love life is my own and a story that should be shared by me if online. This is a violation of privacy even if no harm was intended what if they didn't want the attention.

    4. The story’s charm disguises the invasion of privacy at its heart: the way technology is both eroding our personal boundaries and coercing us in deleterious ways.

      Cross realizes that the author of the Twitter feed, #PlaneBae, while appearing to act in "good faith" is actually unwittingly acting in "bad faith" outside of the code of information ethics. This realization displays the second element of REP in Ribble's blog post, "Digital citizenship is more important than ever: "Access: Not everyone has the same opportunities with technology, whether the issue is physical, socio-economic or location." (Ribble, 2016). Since #PlaneBae did not have physical access to social media or perhaps the socio-economic means "to buy plane Wi-Fi and share the conversations of strangers with other strangers on the Internet." this put her in a disadvantageous position of information privilege. (Friedman & Sow, 2018).

    5. Then I realized that was precisely how I was treating these very real people. My stomach turned as I considered how I’d feel if every twitch of my arm, half of my conversation, and even my bathroom usage were all narrated, without my knowledge, for a swelling audience of several hundred thousand people online

      Cross's comment aptly highlight's Aminatou's admonition in "Call Your Girlfriend," to "take a beat" (Friedman & Sow, 2018) and reflect on whether this Twitter feed adheres to the first element of REP in Ribble's blog post, "Digital citizenship is more important than ever: "Etiquette. Students need to understand how their technology use affects others." (Ribble, 2016).

    1. "To be clear, there is a law that defines domestic terrorism but not one that charges people who commit acts of terrorism in America. People who conspire with international terrorists—even if they aren’t materially involved in an act of violence—are charged with “acts of terrorism transcending international boundaries.” But someone who sends pipe bombs to Democrats; plows through a crowd of anti-racism protesters in Charlottesville, Va.; or shoots up a church in Charleston, S.C., will not face domestic terrorism charges."

    2. Go up to the “omnibar” Strip off everything after the domain name, type wikipedia and press enter This generates a Google search for that URL with the Wikipedia page at the top Click that link, then check in the sidebar that the URL matches. Forty-nine out of fifty times it will. The fiftieth time you may have some work to do. #weblit #LS121FA

    1. The subcommittee noted that there was a 17 percent increase in reported hate crimes in 2017 from the previous year and a 31 percent increase since 2014

      Whether this is an accurate statistic or not, it feels like hate crimes are widely talked about and get a lot of media coverage. However, it feels like article such as this one, that goes one step further in exploring hate crimes, get much less attention

    1. Go up to the “omnibar” Strip off everything after the domain name, type wikipedia and press enter This generates a Google search for that URL with the Wikipedia page at the top Click that link, then check in the sidebar that the URL matches. Forty-nine out of fifty times it will. The fiftieth time you may have some work to do.

      interesting...I will admit that its something I hadn't thought before because usually investigating sources seems like "too much work", but this could take less than two minutes

    2. This is nice, I did not know you were able to right click a text and Google could look up the information for you. That is nice. I will have to check it out...

    1. Now the online hunt to reveal extremists has raised concerns about unintended consequences, or even collateral damage.

      This comment exemplifies the important theme within participatory culture that is addressed in the Module 5 lecture about information ethics: "We’re in this space where in theory, we are all benefiting from each other's participation but there can be unintended consequences from that participation." (Moss, 2019).

    2. Online vigilantism has been around since the early days of the internet. So has “doxxing” — originally a slang term among hackers for obtaining and posting private documents about an individual, usually a rival or enemy. To hackers, who prized their anonymity, it was considered a cruel attack.

      Bowles's explanation and definition of doxxing as a form of online vigilante justice recalls Jenkins statement in “Defining Participatory Culture" that, “Over time, the term “resistance” came to refer to symbolic gestures that questioned or challenged the values of the status quo.” (Jenkins, 15).

  2. Dec 2019
    1. In short, once someone is labeled a Nazi on the internet, that person stays a Nazi on the internet.

      This is the beginning of cyber violence. Once defined as someone, You will start to be attacked.

    2. So has “doxxing” — originally a slang term among hackers for obtaining and posting private documents about an individual, usually a rival or enemy. To hackers, who prized their anonymity, it was considered a cruel attack.

      I never heard about dooxing. This sentence gives me the definition.

    3. she believed, was an effective way to make people think twice about being so bold with their racism.Editors’ PicksReal Estate Thought It Was Invincible in New York. It Wasn’t.Here’s What’s Happening in the American Teenage BedroomBeloved Berlin Currywurst Stand Delivers a Bite of HistoryAdvertisementContinue reading the main story“Some of what is happening now will make these white supremacists realize why their grandparents wore hoods,” Ms. Wilson said. “At least then there was shame.”

      I disagree with this thought, because I think that if someone stands for something, it is better for them to say it than to hide it. If it's something harmful to others, then this transparency would allow others to be prepared and careful, or the authorities to control it, if necessary.

    4. are you really doxxing a person if he or she is marching on a public street, face revealed and apparently proud? It is not as though they are hiding their identities.

      I agree with this idea. If doxxing in this case means making the name of people who openly go out in public supporting a cause available, then I think it isn't wrong.

      When protesters take the streets, they want to be heard and seen, which consequently makes them identifiable. Nowadays that also includes being recorded and the spread of those media records.

    5. aggressive

      I agree with this man. In this case, doxxing seems to me like a negatively-intentioned response to a negative action.

      I think everyone is responsible for their actions and must be held accountable for them; whether it is being a neo-Nazi, uncovering one or shaming one.

    6. “There was this idea that you were veiled and then uncovered.”

      I find it interesting that being veiled is an idea instead of a fact. Also, I think this sentences exposes the vulnerability of being "veiled".

    7. A few individuals have been misidentified

      This is a big problem when we rely so much on technology. We should trust technology (eg, facial recognition), but always verify before making claims that could harm others.

    8. Doxxing was on the minds of a number of protesters on the streets of San Francisco on Saturday.

      It has been a nightmare for these protesters to experience the threat of a group of hackers.

    9. So has “doxxing” — originally a slang term among hackers for obtaining and posting private documents about an individual, usually a rival or enemy. To hackers, who prized their anonymity, it was considered a cruel attack.

      I never knew "doxxing" meant as retrieving personal files of an individual by hackers. I found this surprising that it's an ongoing problem on the internet.

    1. Your best bet is to start with an image or clip that is already labeled for reuse or is in the public domain, meaning out of copyright protection altogether.

      This is a good way to prevent infringement.

    2. Why memes are used again, and what is memes.

    3. Wow, I had no idea it was such a problem. and I can't believe a kids parents sued some kids over a video.

    4. I had no idea that film makers have the right to file a law suit over creators of meme

    5. Meme creators and posters have been sued for using people’s images without permission, especially those who were not already public figures.

      The importance of consent, especially on the Internet and in memes, cannot be overstated. #PlaneBae is one example, and I have read countless other stories by the people whose images are featured in memes, with varying responses. Some think it's funny and enjoy the exposure, while others (like #PlaneBae) have experienced serious harassment and dangerous levels of unwanted attention. One aspect that hasn't been touched on in our reading so far is the consent of children whose images are used in memes- such as Success Kid or Disaster Girl. What's complicated for adults to navigate may be equally or more complicated for children.

    6. However, within copyright law exists the doctrine of fair use, which allows for use of a copyrighted work in the creation of new work without permission, as long as the use fits within certain parameters. A legal finding of fair use takes into account the following factors: The purpose of the use, The amount of the work to be used, The effect of the use on the market for or value of the original work, and The nature of the copyrighted work.

      How can a meme have copyrights when it is shared all over the web and there is no control to who shares it? If it were something that was published in a magazine, then I would understand about copyrights.

    7. Merriam-Webster defines “meme” (pronounced “meem”) as “an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture,” originating in the same root as “imitation.” Richard Dawkins is credited as having coined the term in The Selfish Gene (1976).

      I did not know that the definition was this old. I thought it was something that was more recent.

    8. Sometimes the meme creator is also the image creator, but often, when involving movie stills or images of celebrities, the image’s copyright is owned by someone else.

      I learned about lots of "memes" on social media platforms, like on twitter where other users would bring a response of their "meme" image and refer it to someone else's tweets.

    9. Memes are the units that transmit ideas, behaviors, styles and usage within a culture through a variety of media, like nursery rhymes passed down from parent to child.

      Wow... I never knew that kind of idea about "memes." I thought they could refer to something else within one meaning of its term. Also, I think "memes" existed thru social medias for which I seen some of those on different platforms.

    10. Merriam-Webster defines “meme” (pronounced “meem”) as “an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture,” originating in the same root as “imitation.” Richard Dawkins is credited as having coined the term in The Selfish Gene (1976). Memes are the units that transmit ideas, behaviors, styles and usage within a culture through a variety of media, like nursery rhymes passed down from parent to child. Says Dawkins,

      Whoa- I had no idea that the definition of meme dates so far back. I thought that the term meme and its meaning were more recent products of the Internet, and I didn't know that the term meme has a broader meaning outside of what we commonly refer to as memes today.

    1. That's crazy, just one day being a regular person and next day your being flooded with people asking questions because your a viral star

    2. receiving some harassing comments, at least one of which was related to Blair’s speculation

      Speculation, that's all it is. And this speculated piece of information has greatly impacted a real person's life. Speculations, if made public, should be clearly stated as such, not as facts. Once the information (true or false) is out there, people have received it and it can't be taken back. Sharing one's speculations with the world doesn't seem like a responsible thing to do.

    3. the medium’s dissociative effects prevent us from centering the humanity of the people involved

      I think the internet doesn't do it to us, we decide to be involved and behave the way we do.

    4. invasiveness of celebrity and how it can eat away at every boundary you ever took for granted.

      With the internet and now-available communication technologies, I think many privacy-related boundaries that we considered existed and took for granted are now gone or have changed. Unfortunately it is no longer a personal decision to become publicized, now anyone can publicize others, unfortunately, without their consent. This lack of consent is what makes it invasive.

    5. informal forms of power

      Informal > unregulated > unaccountable > potentially dangerous and abusive

    6. Respondents to the original thread, in thrall to the “love story” and eager to thwart Blair’s half-hearted attempts at anonymizing the pair, soon found and shared the woman’s Instagram.

      I think this situation shows that it isn't only the original publisher of this story, Rosey Blair, responsible for this invasion of privacy/anonymity, but also all those who put an effort into finding out who the woman (involuntarily) involved was and publishing her personal information, specially after she had denied consent to do so.

    7. letting myself get caught up in what felt like a made-for-TV drama. Then I realized that was precisely how I was treating these very real people.

      I applaud the author for being honest about at first getting caught by it, and mentioning it here because it can make us all increase our awareness of how easy it is to unintentionally get involved in things we are against of.

    8. charm disguises the invasion of privacy

      Important statement that reminds everyone how important it is to be careful and aware.

    9. Thrusting random people into viral fame can be a messed-up thing to do

      Concise and clear statement to which I agree.

    10. We should be thinking more seriously about the ethics of live-tweeting: when is it appropriate? When it is, what should and shouldn’t you do? In Blair’s case, she seemed to think that lightly obscuring the faces of the two people she surveilled was enough to be ethical. (One face, that of a small child looking over her seat two rows ahead, was not obscured at all.)

      In the CYG podcast, "Internet Outrage: Part One," Aminatou Sow suggests that a good rule of thumb is to wait until a situation is over to tweet about it. For example, in this case, the woman could have waited until she was off of the plane and back home to tweet about what happened on the plane. I think that's a pretty good rule, although I think it's best to just avoid posting about strangers at all. When in doubt, don't post it.

    11. We are all watching each other, mining each other’s lives for “content” that we give for free to large corporations who then monetize it. “Plane Bae” didn’t just benefit Twitter, a company badly in need of good PR, but also T-Mobile, whose savvy CEO swooped in to offer Blair a reimbursement on the Wi-Fi she purchased to write her thread.

      This is a part of the story that I hadn't heard before. I remember when the whole #PlaneBae story happened, and the subsequent backlash, but I don't remember there being corporations involved. This is interesting in the context of what we've been reading about consent (and sort of about copyright)- the woman posting the Twitter thread, and the man involved in the "plane couple" both stood to gain financially from the situation, at the cost of the other woman's privacy and consent. If the image of the other woman was used for corporate purposes/financial gain, could she sue the companies for using her image without consent?

    12. What had been private is now uncontrollably crowdsourced. Your consent becomes a trifling detail in a story about you that suddenly belongs to everyone else. It doesn’t matter otherwise.

      Knowing that anyone could be writing things about your life and the things your doing is sometimes to be scary.

    13. Then I realized that was precisely how I was treating these very real people. My stomach turned as I considered how I’d feel if every twitch of my arm, half of my conversation, and even my bathroom usage were all narrated, without my knowledge, for a swelling audience of several hundred thousand people online.

      I would feel upset if I seen someone do this to me. I would feel violated having hundreds or thousands of people reading about me.

    1. I knew that BLM was never a threat and its crazy to see that the FBI once had said so. But I didn't know white supremacists were the highest threat, don't get me wrong, they are defiantly horrible people and are a threat, just didn't know they were the highest

    2. This is crazy. Any act such as the one he committed should be considered and act of terrorism.

    3. Investigation admitted that prejudiced assumptions against the Black Lives Matter movement, Muslim Americans and black identity extremists was all a lie. Intelligence officials sat in front of lawmakers and openly admitted that white supremacists and right-wing violence are the biggest domestic terror threat but also admitted that federal agencies aren’t really doing anything about it.

      This was an interesting statement. I feel that all should be treated as equals. Its all about how the movements are demonstrated. All types of groups if not organized or peaceful can be considered a threat. What is seen as threats when it comes to movements shouldn't be based on race, gender, and so fourth it should souly be based on how it is ran and how everyone acts.

    1. This is very interesting as I didn't know websites could be impersonated. Especially big name websites, you would think they have ways to prevent that.

    2. This make sense it is good to make technology users more aware of what they are getting into instead of going in blind getting incredible sources of information.

    3. I see how the car scenario relates to the internet. Double checking makes for a better outcome in both scenarios.

    4. Thats crazy to me. Ive alwaysa thought that the check mark was ligit but now I understand that I cant trust everything even if "verified".

    5. Again, same process. Now does this mean that you are 100% sure that it’s not Billie Joe that wrote that article? No — there’s a slight slight chance that maybe somehow the lead singer of Green Day wrote a —

      I try to get my sister to understand that you cant believe everything that is online such as this. Alot of times articles or social media on such topic are just trying to get attention.

    6. seem like there is a lot of stuff to learn here, but you’ll notice that it comes down to the same strategies repeated in different contexts. This repetition is a feature, not a bug.

      This is a very true point. I thought of reputation as a bug when I was in middle school. But now I find that it helps me stay organized and refreshed.

  3. Nov 2019
    1. A legal finding of fair use takes into account the following factors: The purpose of the use, The amount of the work to be used, The effect of the use on the market for or value of the original work, and The nature of the copyrighted work. There is no official definitive answer for whether a use can be considered fair, as every case must be judged on its own merits, but there are some types of use generally allowed under fair use, including criticism and commentary, parody, journalism, education, and research.

      This quote is straight forward resource to use in order to figure out if a meme is generally following basic legal protocol. Although, it is also important to look at each individually and consider various circumstances that may rise regarding it specifically.

    2. Merriam-Webster defines “meme” (pronounced “meem”) as “an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture,” originating in the same root as “imitation.” Richard Dawkins is credited as having coined the term in The Selfish Gene (1976)

      I never actually knew what the definition of a "meme" was until I read this article. I just had it explained to me by my friends, and sort of guessed what is was based on seeing them via my social media posts.

    3. Merriam-Webster defines “meme” (pronounced “meem”) as “an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture,” originating in the same root as “imitation.”

      This shows how memes are difficult to translate in fair use, because they are an imitation.

    4. When you see a meme going around, give a thought to the subject of that meme image, whose life may forever be changed.  

      This is important to think about considering there are a lot of blurred lines when it comes to fair use laws. It's important to use your best judgement, and consider how it will affect others.

    1. There’s another unfortunate dimension to this whole saga that mimics the coercive effect of public marriage proposals: everyone innocently cheers on the romance because it tells a good story, but it places the woman in the invidious position of being the “bad guy” if she says no.

      This is an interesting comparison using marriage proposals. It is unfortunate that she is considered the "bad guy" because she doesn't want to be involved. In reality it should ultimately be her choice.

    2. What had been private is now uncontrollably crowdsourced. Your consent becomes a trifling detail in a story about you that suddenly belongs to everyone else. It doesn’t matter otherwise.

      This is a powerful quote. It shows how powerful the consequences are when you share information online. It can greatly affect someone else.

    1. To be clear, there is a law that defines domestic terrorism but not one that charges people who commit acts of terrorism in America. People who conspire with international terrorists—even if they aren’t materially involved in an act of violence—are charged with “acts of terrorism transcending international boundaries.”

      Although I have previously heard this fact on television news programs, I was surprised to read about it in such detail in the link sourced in the story, as I have never read the United States Code of Laws. In reviewing it in detail and putting in the context of this blog post, it is my opinion that this particular code needs to be revised to allow more severe charges to be filed in future cases.

    2. Investigation admitted that prejudiced assumptions against the Black Lives Matter movement, Muslim Americans and black identity extremists was all a lie. Intelligence officials sat in front of lawmakers and openly admitted that white supremacists and right-wing violence are the biggest domestic terror threat but also admitted that federal agencies aren’t really doing anything about it.

      I have not heard of them using the word terror ever to describe this.If this is all true its quite upsetting.

    3. there is a law that defines domestic terrorism but not one that charges people who commit acts of terrorism in America.

      This is a very interesting fact and legal loophole... I wonder why does it still exist if those in power are aware of it? Whose interests is it serving/protecting?

    4. “Devoting 80 percent of field agents to stopping international terrorism including Islamic extremism and only 20 percent to stopping domestic terrorism including far right and white supremacist extremism.”

      I found this statistic surprising. The article by the Daily Beast, cited in the preceding paragraph, goes into more detail about this aspect of the FBI and the changes made in the Department of Homeland Security. I would be interested in researching how the changes that have been implemented have played out in terms of preventing domestic terrorism. The head of the Intelligence and Analysis Office of the DHS claims that the Office has increased its engagement in preventing domestic terrorism and become more effective than before, but other DHS sources cited in the article disagree.

    5. McGarrity explained that right-wing extremists like the Tree of Life Synagogue shooter in Pittsburgh were charged with hate crimes instead of domestic terrorism simply because “there’s no domestic terrorism charge.”AdvertisementTo be clear, there is a law that defines domestic terrorism but not one that charges people who commit acts of terrorism in America. People who conspire with international terrorists—even if they aren’t materially involved in an act of violence—are charged with “acts of terrorism transcending international boundaries.” But someone who sends pipe bombs to Democrats; plows through a crowd of anti-racism protesters in Charlottesville, Va.; or shoots up a church in Charleston, S.C., will not face domestic terrorism charges.

      It is mind boggling to me that there is a charge for people in America who commit a domestic act of terrorism. They are committing crimes that are just as bad if not worse at times as the international crimes that are committed are.

    1. But I end up coming back to this simple stuff because I can’t shake the feeling that digital literacy needs to start with the mirror and head-checks before it gets to automotive repair or controlled skids. Because it is these simple behaviors, applied as habits and enforced as norms, that have the power to change the web as we know it, to break our cycle of reaction and recognition, and ultimately to get even our deeper investigations off to a better start.

      I find it interesting that despite having coined the phrase “abstinence-only web education” in 2009 to describe scholars’ response to solely rely on library materials rather than the Internet to avoid misinformation --- and despite having worked with Ward Cunningham, the American programmer who developed the first wiki in 1994 – Caulfield instead chose to develop a grassroots response that challenged the abstinence-only web education mainstream belief by creating the Digital Polarization Initiative to improve web literacy skills for college age undergraduates, i.e. the next generation of scholars and members of mainstream culture who could then be well versed fact checking online information before disseminating it across the web.

    2. Well, it’d probably look like the Mad Max-like smoking heap of collisions, car fires, and carnage that is our modern web.

      This sentence is a bit too pessimistic, making me feel that the worldseems to be nothing.

    3. If you’re a human being reading this on the internet and if you’re not a time traveler from some future, better world, there is less than a one in a hundred chance you do the sort of checks we’re showing regularly. And if you do do this regularly — and not just for the stuff that feels fishy — then my guesstimate is you’re about two to three standard devs out from the mean.

      It just puts things into perspective about what we do in the world.

    4. More people than you would think believe that the blue checkmark = trustworthy. But all the blue checkmark really does is say that the person is who they say they are, that they are the person of that name and not an imposter.

      I never knew that the checkmark meant it was the person who they say they are. How do they verify that it is actally that person though.

    5. all the blue checkmark really does is say that the person is who they say they are, that they are the person of that name and not an imposter.

      Evidence is what makes information reliable, not a source. Even the top experts are human and can make mistakes or present information from a particular perspective, without being neutral or impartial; but evidence presents undeniable facts.

    6. It’s not enough to check the stuff that is suspicious: if you apply your investigations selectively, you’ve already lost the battle.

      This made me reflection on biases. If our research methodology is biased from the very beginning, then everything that comes after will also be biased.

    7. One of the things I’ve been trying to convince people for the past year and a half is that the only viable literacy solution to web misinformation involves always checking any information in your stream that you find interesting, emotion-producing, or shareable. It’s not enough to check the stuff that is suspicious: if you apply your investigations selectively, you’ve already lost the battle.

      This is a good reminder. I think it's easy to just assume that sources are reliable and then, as a result, accidentally use a bad source. I think it's especially helpful that Caulfield uses the phrase "emotion-producing" here, because that's probably a very frequent reason that people use bad sources- emotions can cloud people's judgment and distract people from checking the source before sharing something.

    8. One of the things I’ve been trying to convince people for the past year and a half is that the only viable literacy solution to web misinformation involves always checking any information in your stream that you find interesting, emotion-producing, or shareable.

      I believe this is very common to other students when it comes down to searching for reliable sources on the open web. Especially when a student finds sources to add on his/her essay during the process of research, so it's important to carefully check your sources if already verified before copying and pasting the link.

    9. Because it is these simple behaviors, applied as habits and enforced as norms, that have the power to change the web as we know it, to break our cycle of reaction and recognition, and ultimately to get even our deeper investigations off to a better start.

      I like that process of checking information on the internet can and should really become a habit. I want to be able to develop this habit. I feel that through this habit, I will also have a better and deeper understanding of the information that not everyone will have.

    10. Because it is these simple behaviors, applied as habits and enforced as norms, that have the power to change the web as we know it, to break our cycle of reaction and recognition, and ultimately to get even our deeper investigations off to a better start.

      This is an incredibly interesting article. Caulfield does a great job explaining why the "Always check" approach to online literacy is important to avoid misinformation on the web. Instating how these small checks can change the web, and can help provide literal information.

    11. When you get to Google don’t stop, click the “News” tab to get a more curated feed

      This is such a simple and quick trick to help verify news is real...make sure other news companies are talking about it too!

    1. President Trump said in a Monday morning tweet that he would consider testifying—in writing—for the inquiry as to whether he abused his power when he witheld military aid to Ukraine unless they launched an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

      At the beginning, the news said that it was necessary to impeach the president. I think it should be fake. Now, even the president himself is ready to respond?

    1. Reed supporters pleaded for a much deeper investigation into the murder—and possible corruption—asking Governor Greg Abbott to spare his life.

      Recently, Kim Kardashian visits Reed to work on his case at prison in Texas and it's really not worth setting an execution date for Reed to be punished which he is innocent. In fact, every one of his supports and especially Kim Kardashian working on the case to stop the execution of Reed which I absolutely believe this needs to be taken down that will end the governor's decision. Therefore, I suggest Governor Abbott to prevent Reed's execution date that will eventually become removed in the system.

    1. Over the course of the reorganization, the branch of I&A focused on domestic terrorism got eighty-sixed and its analysts were reassigned to new positions. The change happened last year, and has not been previously reported.

      When exactly did this change happen? Why was it not previously reported? Did the I&A chief, David Glawe, give any reasoning as to why they reassigned analysts? There isn't any information in this article that can answer these questions. This inspires me to research more on this specific article and topic. As I read further into the article there is an update that Glawe acknowledged the assumptions about the I&A and deemed them to be "patently false and the exact opposite of what we have done."

  4. Oct 2019
    1. Marla Wilson, 35, of San Francisco, said she was appalled when she saw white supremacists marching so brazenly in Charlottesville. Doxxing, she believed, was an effective way to make people think twice about being so bold with their racism.

      This is inaccurate thinking, and is frankly horrifying. Should it be up to the everyman to enforce ethics/morality? If this were true, we would be living in Orwellian times, where "citizens" live in fear of the whims/dictates of the current regime. And there would be no checking to make sure the accusations were true. People would be convicted before being tried. Super scary stuff. No thank you.

    2. But Tony McAleer, a former white supremacist leader who now runs Life After Hate, a rehabilitation program for neo-Nazis, called doxxing a “ passive aggressive violence.”

      The danger with "doxxing" is that it is anonymous. It is not face-to-face confrontation. With doxxing you can simply point your finger at a person and defame them, even without having to prove anything was true. And you can ruin a person...just look at Matt Lauer or Bill Cosby. Now I'm not saying they were or weren't guilty, but the public definitely decided that they were OUT. Doxxing is dangerous because it is irreversible, and so completely life-changing.

    3. But doxxing has emerged from subculture websites like 4Chan and Reddit to become something of a mainstream phenomenon since a white supremacist march on Charlottesville,

      That one of the major negative aspects of online website where people can do anything they want or say something against anyone which also fuels the courage to others to do the same thing online.

    4. “For us, it slows things down. We try to integrate people back to humanity,” Mr. McAleer said. “If isolation and shame is the driver for people joining these types of groups, doxxing certainly isn’t the answer.”In short, once someone is labeled a Nazi on the internet, that person stays a Nazi on the internet.

      Agree with the statement said by Mr.McAleer we should try to integrate humanity in people instead of isulting people for their actions the. Let the government do their work. And by labeling a person a Nazi doesnt mean he is actually a Nazi he may be a better person than you.

    5. So has “doxxing” — originally a slang term among hackers for obtaining and posting private documents about an individual, usually a rival or enemy.

      I had not idea that this was even a thing. I'll have to keep this quote in mind

    6. Doxxing, she believed, was an effective way to make people think twice about being so bold with their racism.Editors’ PicksThe Phones Are Alive, With the Sounds of Katie CouricA British Person Explains the WAG WarsHating Comic Sans Is Not a PersonalityAdvertisement

      It can also go the other. Like Doxxing someone that doesnt want to be. Like #PlaneBae. It might be effective for someone that doesnt like a group, but its not good for the otherside.

    7. The ethics — and even the definition — of doxxing is murky. It is the dissemination of often publicly available information. And, some at the protest asked, are you really doxxing a person if he or she is marching on a public street, face revealed and apparently proud? It is not as though they are hiding their identities.

      I think that just because they were out there without hoods, but that doesn't mean that all there information should be out there.

    8. The next year, doxxing became a tool by in the “GamerGate” controversy, an online dispute purportedly about ethics in video game journalism that became a foundational moment for some of today’s fringe far right. Mostly male video-game players began to publish personal information — including home address and phone numbers — for women in their community, typically journalists and game designers who they said were unfairly politicizing gaming culture.

      I am rather concerned that people have no privacy anymore. I like these examples of people policing other people.

    9. The ethics — and even the definition — of doxxing is murky. It is the dissemination of often publicly available information. And, some at the protest asked, are you really doxxing a person if he or she is marching on a public street, face revealed and apparently proud? It is not as though they are hiding their identities

      I didn't even know that this Doxxing thing exist, but I think that is very bad they are using private and confidential information to hurt other people.

    10. few individuals have been misidentified in recent weeks, including a professor from Arkansas who was wrongly accused of participating in the neo-Nazi march.

      Unfortunately, this type of behavior can work both ways. The Nazi's essentially doxxed the Jewish people living in Germany many years ago. Today groups on the left and right use this tactic to call people out to be fired, death threats, etc. I have mixed feeling on this. Hate groups are essentially terrorist groups, but in many parts of the world - and unfortunately here - human rights activists are also considered terrorists. Doxxing is at best a band aid solution to larger societal problems. You can chase those problems under the rug or under hoods, but they are still there, yet I do see some sense to the argument of calling people out for their actions.

      Unfortunately, doxxing's potential for misuse and abuse is massive. With social/credit scores, facial recognition, and AI - one better hope those in charge, or their computers, think highly of you.

      M. Lewis

    11. “Originally it was little black-hat hacker crews who were at war with each other — they would take docs, like documents, from a competing group and then claim they had ‘dox’ on them,”

      Black hat hackers were/are considered the "bad" side of hacking, yet the "Robin Hood" heros by others.

      Essentially it is intelligence - public, private, or a combination. Often this information is in an gathered in unethical manner.

      Ultimately, the intention and the end result of doxxing really determines the result. I don't know if the true result of actions that result in someone loosing their job or receiving death threats really helps anyone. If a Nazi sympathizer looses their job do they become more desperate and radicalized? I doubt they suddenly become enlightened and start treating others with respect from being doxxed. If a environmentalist receives death threats are they going to fundamentally change they way they think or feel about the worlds ecological systems? Are either of these results positive? I'd argue that they are not. An eye for an eye and everyone is blind.

      M. Lewis

    12. few individuals have been misidentified in recent weeks, including a professor from Arkansas who was wrongly accused of participating in the neo-Nazi march.

      This is terrifying and shows just how dangerous the internet and doxxing can be. Imagine if you were misidentified and then your whole reputation is ruined? How does one repair that? You are no longer safe. Doxxing is always wrong.

    13. “For us, it slows things down. We try to integrate people back to humanity,” Mr. McAleer said. “If isolation and shame is the driver for people joining these types of groups, doxxing certainly isn’t the answer.”In short, once someone is labeled a Nazi on the internet, that person stays a Nazi on the internet.

      This is true in more ways than one. They stay that way on the internet because most everything cannot be deleted. And they stay this way in real-life because this is how everyone will view them for the rest of their lives, so why would they change? Doxxing is not the solution to hate. It just creates more.

    14. And some worry that the stigma of being outed as a political extremist can only reinforce that behavior in people who could still be talked out of it.

      This is unfortunate and I think doxxing can get dangerous when you label people simply because they have opposing views as you. For example people on the right might get labeled as Nazis from far leftist just because they have different political views. This is dangerous and can get people hurt.

    15. But the two young men pictured were not the bombers. At one point, Reddit sleuths even set their sights on a student from Brown University, about 60 miles away in Providence, R.I., who was missing. He had nothing to do with the bombing; he had committed suicide.

      This is the danger of doxxing people who are misrepresented by people who have misinformation. It's important to not rush to conclusions because you can end up hurting people.

    16. But the two young men pictured were not the bombers. At one point, Reddit sleuths even set their sights on a student from Brown University, about 60 miles away in Providence, R.I., who was missing. He had nothing to do with the bombing; he had committed suicide.

      I found this very troubling to read. While I have always thought of doxxing as inappropriate given the legitimate awful affects it can have on someone, it only makes it worse when you realize it can also affect completely innocent people that were wrongly targeted.

    17. “For us, it slows things down. We try to integrate people back to humanity,” Mr. McAleer said. “If isolation and shame is the driver for people joining these types of groups, doxxing certainly isn’t the answer.”

      I agree with this part of the article. Often times, what makes someone stop having extremist or hateful views is not publicly berating and shaming them. In fact, doxxing can have the opposite affect of only causing someone to double down on what they already believe out of spite.

    18. So has “doxxing” — originally a slang term among hackers for obtaining and posting private documents about an individual, usually a rival or enemy.

      I never knew there was a term for this so it's cool to now know the name of it. I think "stalking" has become really normalized on the internet now which is concerning when you think about it, but I know I have done it before.

    19. she had posted that morning a picture of a man she thought was a white-pride agitator.

      This is really disturbing because what if he was just a regular guy? He might get fired, loose family, loose friends, etc. all over one person who "thought" he looked like a racist? That's beyond simple thinking, it's dangerous thinking.

    20. Now the online hunt to reveal extremists has raised concerns about unintended consequences, or even collateral damage. A few individuals have been misidentified

      This really is something that worries me. Innocent people can be hurt because of some people wanting to play vigilante. And even if they were guilty of whatever, would publicly shaming do anything other them reinforcing their convictions? I think their are a lot of better ways to handle this.

    21. “There was this idea that you were veiled and then uncovered.”

      This is a really great way of explaining how it feels to be "doxxed." Most individuals who do shady things on the internet are hiding under layers of cloaks- and to be publicized, revealed, and have your private information leaked, is to truly feel exposed and scared.

    22. “Some of what is happening now will make these white supremacists realize why their grandparents wore hoods,” Ms. Wilson said. “At least then there was shame.”

      White supremacists still wear "hoods" of anonymity on the internet. That's why subculture sites and imageboards like 4chan or 8chan swarm with extremist views. Such sites boast an open board of anonymity and minimum censorship, and hiding behind a username = hiding under a hood. However, even when IP addresses can be traced and everyone and their mother has half of an an online presence, doxxing extremists is an incredibly difficult task.

    1. Suzuki interpreted the episodes of spiritual awakening depicted in Zen public cases as proof of humankind’s ability to suddenly break through the boundaries of common, everyday, logical thought to achieve a nondualistic, pure experience in which distinctions such as self/other and right/wrong disappear. He characterized this experience as an expression of the irrational intuition that underlies all religions and all acts of artistic creation, regardless of culture or historical period, and that achieved its highest expression in the secular arts of Japan. Suzuki, therefore, interpreted Zen not as a form of Buddhism but as a Japanese cultural value with universal relevance.

      Suzuki provides interesting insight. This demonstrates that Japan had their own unique take on the entire concept of Zen.

    2. When the Ming dynasty (1368–1661) in China began to collapse, many Chinese Zen monks sought refuge in Japan.

      This provides a sound reasoning for the spread to Japan.

    3. Although Zen Buddhism in China is traditionally dated to the 5th century, it actually first came to prominence in the early 8th century, when Wuhou (625–705), who seized power from the ruling Tang dynasty (618–907) to become empress of the short-lived Zhou dynasty (690–705), patronized Zen teachers as her court priests. After Empress Wuhou died and the Tang dynasty was restored to power, rival sects of Zen appeared whose members claimed to be more legitimate and more orthodox than the Zen teachers who had been associated with the discredited empress. These sectarian rivalries continued until the Song dynasty, when a more inclusive form of Zen became associated with almost all of the official state-sponsored Buddhist monasteries. As the official form of Chinese Buddhism, the Song dynasty version of Zen subsequently spread to Korea, Japan, and Vietnam.

      The exact time that Zen was introduced into China is not exact. It appears to have formed over a series of years and involved many different people. This is in contrast with the common myth that Bodhidharma introduced it a one specific moment in time.

    4. Zen, Chinese Chan, Korean Sŏn, also spelled Seon, Vietnamese Thien, important school of East Asian Buddhism that constitutes the mainstream monastic form of Mahayana Buddhism in China, Korea, and Vietnam and accounts for approximately 20 percent of the Buddhist temples in Japan.

      China, Japan, Vietnam, and Korea are areas where zen was traditionally found.

    1. NOW, WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? Well, the consensus, I believe, among most Zen teachers and students who have looked at the topic is ... even if the lineage is not literal, it is the something beyond words that matters. It is our practice here and now that is most vital. It stands for something beyond time, so it is not so important that these people really existed or not. It is rather like Moses may have not been a historical personage ... but, still, in our hearts we can feel "Let My People Go!".

      This makes a great point. With so much confusion and contradictory information, one has to assume dharma transmission exceeded and circumvented the narrow pathways outlined in various lineages.As everyone has Buddha nature, everyone can be a pathway.

    1. More Copy link to Tweet Embed Tweet The FBI said it has stopped using the "Black Identity Extremist" tag and acknowledged that white supremacist violence is the biggest terrorist threat this country faces.

      AMEN!! About time somebody mentions this!

    2. The FBI said it has stopped using the "Black Identity Extremist" tag and acknowledged that white supremacist violence is the biggest terrorist threat this country faces. https://trib.al/OepGw2S

      I love the way she looks because it's like she saying..."wow what took you sooooo long." The Root uses data report from California State University, San Bernardino. The 137-page research helps support the allegations that White Supremacy has been a threat to national security for many years.

      https://www.theroot.com/the-fbi-admits-black-lives-matter-was-never-a-threat-i-1835417043?utm_medium=socialflow&utm_source=theroot_twitter

      https://antisemitism.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/CSHE-2019-Report-to-the-Nation-FINAL-7.29.19-11-PM.pdf

    1. "A Three-second check every time you switch lanes" - I feel like this is common sense. Isn't this what they tell everyone in the drivers exam?

    2. I wish I'd known these "tricks" a long time ago, but am grateful to be able to add them to my strategizing now. It's interesting to think that, if they were applied by everyone, we could, collectively, change the web!

    3. When a story is truly breaking, this is what it looks like. Our technique here is simple. Select some relevant text. Right-click or Cmd-click to search Google When you get to Google don’t stop, click the “News” tab to get a more curated feed Read and scan. Investigate more as necessary.

      I like this technique because it helps to investigate the source of the statement. I also love it because I really find Google website to extensive on the "hits" of articles and facts .

    4. But for the love of God, let’s start with the head check.

      Funny but true. As tiring as it is to, seeming be redundant, it is necessary to make the intention to check your sources!

    5. They have to be habitual, automatic. T

      Part about growing with an amenity is that you compromise the value of knowing what life is like without it. Habitual actions are hard to identify when we are learning to break old ones without awareness of the need.

    6. the only viable literacy solution to web misinformation involves always checking any information in your stream that you find interesting, emotion-producing, or shareable.

      This is a phrase that, many of us who grew up with the world wide web, consider common sense. It is very easy to get duped on the internet by misinformation, so it is always important to verify your source.

    7. the only viable literacy solution to web misinformation involves always checking any information in your stream that you find interesting, emotion-producing, or shareable.

      This is always a very important but difficult concept to understand and apply. I think that by becoming more familiar how to protect yourself and your ability to find information, you can maximize your experience using social media platforms.

    8. Your two-second “mirror and head-check” here is going to be to always, always hover, and see what they are verified for. In this case the verification means something: this person works for CNBC.com, a legitimate news site, and she covers a relevant beat here (the White House):

      This was useful since I know nothing about twitter. Since we are using twitter as a resource, this was helpful in my ability to filter through resources.

    9. It’s not enough to check the stuff that is suspicious: if you apply your investigations selectively, you’ve already lost the battle.

      I think this is really good advice to follow. I'll admit I don't question the information I'm reading as much if it's something I agree with or doesn't sound completely made up. It's important to check everything, regardless of if you agree with it, where it's coming from, and what the message is.

    1. Of course, the sexual implication is something he’d be praised for, while the woman is attacked.

      The woman's anonymity is not respected, in fact she almost gets dragged for not wanting the whole affair to be publicized. However, the man in the story is celebrated- his social media followings increased, he gets brand recognition and essentially comes out of this absolutely unscathed. His cheeky comment and its sexual implications are something for him to be proud of, while the woman literally left the internet to escape from the situation. This dynamic seems to occur often.

    2. “It felt like, honestly, being in a movie, and [my boyfriend and I] were the two best friends.”

      Seriously? Asking her to move, then ease dropping on everything they said and did. That's what she thinks a best friend is? SMH

    3. Blair’s speculation about what happened when the pair simultaneously got up to use the restroom (and Holden’s cheeky comment that “a gentleman never tells” when asked about it).

      When he says a gentlemen never tells, he basically told everyone that they did have sex, or he led everyone on to believe that they did.

    4. That narrative frame is a reminder of the story everyone here is being coerced into. They must get together.

      It's another interesting aspect of these two people having their personal experiences suddenly be broadcast to everyone else, not only does the internet feel like these experiences belong to them, but they also feel the need to force them together and feel like they deserve this to be the outcome.

    5. Your consent becomes a trifling detail in a story about you that suddenly belongs to everyone else.

      I think if people were to take a step back and consider this statement and how scary it is to have your personal experiences suddenly feel like they belong to other people, we would think twice before doing things like live tweeting what others around us are doing.

    6. That narrative frame is a reminder of the story everyone here is being coerced into. They must get together.

      It is an unfortunate situation as it seems that the the relationship is almost being pressured to be successful. However, we don't even know if that is what she wants and it puts her in a situation where she looks like the bad one if it isn't what she wants. I have no idea what I would do in this situation.

    7. The story’s charm disguises the invasion of privacy at its heart: the way technology is both eroding our personal boundaries and coercing us in deleterious ways.

      This is something I found interesting because I never thought of the people on the receiving end of these threads and how it can be invasive to their privacy. It really makes me think when I look at social media now exactly who I am affecting by sharing a certain post.

    8. This is interesting. We, the general citizenry, with our security cameras and webcams, have, indeed, replicated the coercion of the state.

    9. This is the problem with ex post facto consent being used to justify these sorts of invasions. What if it’s not given? The world floods into your life anyway.

      In many schools these days, the rule goes like this: Consent is implied unless there's a form already filed that specifically removes consent. So, if I take a photograph of a child, I can post it without consent if that child's parents don't have a pre-filed form that reads something along the lines of "Please do not take photos of my child on this campus." The problem is... most parents are unaware of this default consent.

    10. In Blair’s case, she seemed to think that lightly obscuring the faces of the two people she surveilled was enough to be ethical. (One face, that of a small child looking over her seat two rows ahead, was not obscured at all.)

      I think people should be educated on how to properly use the internet and protect people's privacy. Blair did not think of how this would affect those involved.

    11. Then I realized that was precisely how I was treating these very real people. My stomach turned as I considered how I’d feel if every twitch of my arm, half of my conversation, and even my bathroom usage were all narrated, without my knowledge, for a swelling audience of several hundred thousand people online.

      This is exactly how I felt when reading the Twitter thread. This shows you that something is wrong with the post, and that it was a complete violation of their privacy.

    12. Yet the identities of both were inevitably pursued and eventually discovered. At a certain level of virality, you cannot stop motivated people on the internet from piercing your veils. In the case of that woman from Blair’s flight, her legions of “fans” are digging day and night to find more information, to meet the female lead of this summer’s hottest rom-com. They want to know what happens next. They want to make her finish the story. Go on a date; now kiss; now get engaged; tell us what it was like. We need to know more. More. More.

      Everyone always wants more. The information is never enough and everyone wants more. Its really not fair for her to be put out there.

    13. And imagine doing it without the benefit of a true celebrity’s phalanx of staff and bodyguards or the lucre such a status normally confers.

      They weren't famous and she gave them fame. She did it with asking all parties involved.

    14. iAt first, it seemed like a charming reprieve from Twitter’s perpetual parade of horribles: a cute, deftly narrated romance story that blossomed on a transcontinental flight. It all started here.

      What we think is cute doesn't necessarily mean that someone else does or that they even want the attention.

    15. But look closer. What about the mystery woman? She’s clearly been far more reticent, declining an interview for the Today segment and asking that her full name not be revealed. It’s hard to avoid the impression that she’s being dragged into the public eye nonetheless.

      This is the problem with the sharing of stories and/ or memes without permission of all involved. People have a way of "needing to know" the whole story and prying for information. Not everyone is eager for 10 minute fame or wants to be in the public eye. In this case this women is dragged into the publics eye without wanting to be in the spot light.

    16. What had been private is now uncontrollably crowdsourced. Your consent becomes a trifling detail in a story about you that suddenly belongs to everyone else. It doesn’t matter otherwise.

      This was her personal encounter and she should have had the right to not have it shared with the world. What a violation of privacy this whole situation is.

    17. This is the problem with ex post facto consent being used to justify these sorts of invasions. What if it’s not given? The world floods into your life anyway. What had been private is now uncontrollably crowdsourced. Your consent becomes a trifling detail in a story about you that suddenly belongs to everyone else. It doesn’t matter otherwise.

      Ex post facto consent is forced consent. It is consent simply to save face, or, in the case of Euan Holden, the opportunity to profit from it. And no one should be able to "crowdsource" my life for their own entertainment. My life is my own. It should always be my choice not to belong to everyone else. This is an invasion of personal privacy that is absolutely unacceptable. Certainly people will talk about me behind my back, but they should not be allowed to publicly post such conversations! We need act promptly to enact stronger laws that would protect people from such gross invasion.

    18. This is the Faustian alchemy of social media: we are all given the opportunity to become celebrities in an instant, sometimes for nonsensical reasons, with or without our input. But we gain virtually none of the benefits of that fame, none of the glamor or the institutional support to help deal with the invasiveness of celebrity and how it can eat away at every boundary you ever took for granted.

      Not everyone wants to be famous, in fact we've all seen people implode from fast and furious fame. I can name several writers (JD Salinger, Harper Lee) who retreated from society, choosing instead to save themselves via hermitage. Just because we do something remarkable (or even unremarkable in this day and age) does not mean we are willing to sell our soul. The reference to Faust here is clear...some of us want to know the repercussions of our decisions before making them. Some of us don't want that deal with the devil.

    1. “Some of what is happening now will make these white supremacists realize why their grandparents wore hoods,” Ms. Wilson said. “At least then there was shame.”

      White supremacists still wear "hoods" of anonymity on the internet. That's why subculture sites and imageboards like 4chan or 8chan swarm with extremist views. Such sites boast an open board of anonymity and minimum censorship, and hiding behind a username = hiding under a hood. However, even when IP addresses can be traced and everyone and their mother has half of an an online presence, doxxing extremists is an incredibly difficult task.

    2. “There was this idea that you were veiled and then uncovered.”

      This is a really great way of explaining how it feels to be "doxxed." Most individuals who do shady things on the internet are hiding under layers of cloaks- and to be publicized, revealed, and have your private information leaked, is to truly feel exposed and scared.

    3. Now the online hunt to reveal extremists has raised concerns about unintended consequences, or even collateral damage. A few individuals have been misidentified

      This really is something that worries me. Innocent people can be hurt because of some people wanting to play vigilante. And even if they were guilty of whatever, would publicly shaming do anything other them reinforcing their convictions? I think their are a lot of better ways to handle this.

    4. she had posted that morning a picture of a man she thought was a white-pride agitator.

      This is really disturbing because what if he was just a regular guy? He might get fired, loose family, loose friends, etc. all over one person who "thought" he looked like a racist? That's beyond simple thinking, it's dangerous thinking.

    5. So has “doxxing” — originally a slang term among hackers for obtaining and posting private documents about an individual, usually a rival or enemy.

      I never knew there was a term for this so it's cool to now know the name of it. I think "stalking" has become really normalized on the internet now which is concerning when you think about it, but I know I have done it before.

    6. “For us, it slows things down. We try to integrate people back to humanity,” Mr. McAleer said. “If isolation and shame is the driver for people joining these types of groups, doxxing certainly isn’t the answer.”

      I agree with this part of the article. Often times, what makes someone stop having extremist or hateful views is not publicly berating and shaming them. In fact, doxxing can have the opposite affect of only causing someone to double down on what they already believe out of spite.

    7. But the two young men pictured were not the bombers. At one point, Reddit sleuths even set their sights on a student from Brown University, about 60 miles away in Providence, R.I., who was missing. He had nothing to do with the bombing; he had committed suicide.

      I found this very troubling to read. While I have always thought of doxxing as inappropriate given the legitimate awful affects it can have on someone, it only makes it worse when you realize it can also affect completely innocent people that were wrongly targeted.

    8. But the two young men pictured were not the bombers. At one point, Reddit sleuths even set their sights on a student from Brown University, about 60 miles away in Providence, R.I., who was missing. He had nothing to do with the bombing; he had committed suicide.

      This is the danger of doxxing people who are misrepresented by people who have misinformation. It's important to not rush to conclusions because you can end up hurting people.

    9. And some worry that the stigma of being outed as a political extremist can only reinforce that behavior in people who could still be talked out of it.

      This is unfortunate and I think doxxing can get dangerous when you label people simply because they have opposing views as you. For example people on the right might get labeled as Nazis from far leftist just because they have different political views. This is dangerous and can get people hurt.

    10. “For us, it slows things down. We try to integrate people back to humanity,” Mr. McAleer said. “If isolation and shame is the driver for people joining these types of groups, doxxing certainly isn’t the answer.”In short, once someone is labeled a Nazi on the internet, that person stays a Nazi on the internet.

      This is true in more ways than one. They stay that way on the internet because most everything cannot be deleted. And they stay this way in real-life because this is how everyone will view them for the rest of their lives, so why would they change? Doxxing is not the solution to hate. It just creates more.

    11. few individuals have been misidentified in recent weeks, including a professor from Arkansas who was wrongly accused of participating in the neo-Nazi march.

      This is terrifying and shows just how dangerous the internet and doxxing can be. Imagine if you were misidentified and then your whole reputation is ruined? How does one repair that? You are no longer safe. Doxxing is always wrong.

    12. “Originally it was little black-hat hacker crews who were at war with each other — they would take docs, like documents, from a competing group and then claim they had ‘dox’ on them,”

      Black hat hackers were/are considered the "bad" side of hacking, yet the "Robin Hood" heros by others.

      Essentially it is intelligence - public, private, or a combination. Often this information is in an gathered in unethical manner.

      Ultimately, the intention and the end result of doxxing really determines the result. I don't know if the true result of actions that result in someone loosing their job or receiving death threats really helps anyone. If a Nazi sympathizer looses their job do they become more desperate and radicalized? I doubt they suddenly become enlightened and start treating others with respect from being doxxed. If a environmentalist receives death threats are they going to fundamentally change they way they think or feel about the worlds ecological systems? Are either of these results positive? I'd argue that they are not. An eye for an eye and everyone is blind.

      M. Lewis

    13. few individuals have been misidentified in recent weeks, including a professor from Arkansas who was wrongly accused of participating in the neo-Nazi march.

      Unfortunately, this type of behavior can work both ways. The Nazi's essentially doxxed the Jewish people living in Germany many years ago. Today groups on the left and right use this tactic to call people out to be fired, death threats, etc. I have mixed feeling on this. Hate groups are essentially terrorist groups, but in many parts of the world - and unfortunately here - human rights activists are also considered terrorists. Doxxing is at best a band aid solution to larger societal problems. You can chase those problems under the rug or under hoods, but they are still there, yet I do see some sense to the argument of calling people out for their actions.

      Unfortunately, doxxing's potential for misuse and abuse is massive. With social/credit scores, facial recognition, and AI - one better hope those in charge, or their computers, think highly of you.

      M. Lewis

    14. The ethics — and even the definition — of doxxing is murky. It is the dissemination of often publicly available information. And, some at the protest asked, are you really doxxing a person if he or she is marching on a public street, face revealed and apparently proud? It is not as though they are hiding their identities

      I didn't even know that this Doxxing thing exist, but I think that is very bad they are using private and confidential information to hurt other people.

    15. The next year, doxxing became a tool by in the “GamerGate” controversy, an online dispute purportedly about ethics in video game journalism that became a foundational moment for some of today’s fringe far right. Mostly male video-game players began to publish personal information — including home address and phone numbers — for women in their community, typically journalists and game designers who they said were unfairly politicizing gaming culture.

      I am rather concerned that people have no privacy anymore. I like these examples of people policing other people.

    16. The ethics — and even the definition — of doxxing is murky. It is the dissemination of often publicly available information. And, some at the protest asked, are you really doxxing a person if he or she is marching on a public street, face revealed and apparently proud? It is not as though they are hiding their identities.

      I think that just because they were out there without hoods, but that doesn't mean that all there information should be out there.

    17. Doxxing, she believed, was an effective way to make people think twice about being so bold with their racism.Editors’ PicksThe Phones Are Alive, With the Sounds of Katie CouricA British Person Explains the WAG WarsHating Comic Sans Is Not a PersonalityAdvertisement

      It can also go the other. Like Doxxing someone that doesnt want to be. Like #PlaneBae. It might be effective for someone that doesnt like a group, but its not good for the otherside.

    18. So has “doxxing” — originally a slang term among hackers for obtaining and posting private documents about an individual, usually a rival or enemy.

      I had not idea that this was even a thing. I'll have to keep this quote in mind

    19. “For us, it slows things down. We try to integrate people back to humanity,” Mr. McAleer said. “If isolation and shame is the driver for people joining these types of groups, doxxing certainly isn’t the answer.”In short, once someone is labeled a Nazi on the internet, that person stays a Nazi on the internet.

      Agree with the statement said by Mr.McAleer we should try to integrate humanity in people instead of isulting people for their actions the. Let the government do their work. And by labeling a person a Nazi doesnt mean he is actually a Nazi he may be a better person than you.

    20. But doxxing has emerged from subculture websites like 4Chan and Reddit to become something of a mainstream phenomenon since a white supremacist march on Charlottesville,

      That one of the major negative aspects of online website where people can do anything they want or say something against anyone which also fuels the courage to others to do the same thing online.

    21. But Tony McAleer, a former white supremacist leader who now runs Life After Hate, a rehabilitation program for neo-Nazis, called doxxing a “ passive aggressive violence.”

      The danger with "doxxing" is that it is anonymous. It is not face-to-face confrontation. With doxxing you can simply point your finger at a person and defame them, even without having to prove anything was true. And you can ruin a person...just look at Matt Lauer or Bill Cosby. Now I'm not saying they were or weren't guilty, but the public definitely decided that they were OUT. Doxxing is dangerous because it is irreversible, and so completely life-changing.

    22. Marla Wilson, 35, of San Francisco, said she was appalled when she saw white supremacists marching so brazenly in Charlottesville. Doxxing, she believed, was an effective way to make people think twice about being so bold with their racism.

      This is inaccurate thinking, and is frankly horrifying. Should it be up to the everyman to enforce ethics/morality? If this were true, we would be living in Orwellian times, where "citizens" live in fear of the whims/dictates of the current regime. And there would be no checking to make sure the accusations were true. People would be convicted before being tried. Super scary stuff. No thank you.

    1. Lantagne notes that if memes are considered a form of communication, they are also subject to the limits placed on speech including the rights of others to privacy.

      This is really interesting because I do consider memes a form of communication but I wouldn't have thought that would entitle them to the same protections of privacy. I'm not saying I don't agree, I just wouldn't have thought of that.

    2. Richard Dawkins is credited as having coined the term in The Selfish Gene (1976).

      This actually really surprises me as I didn't think that memes were around until like five years ago.

    3. . If you create or post one, remember to pay attention to the source of the image.

      I found this idea in the article to be very helpful to people who are interested in posting memes. While there are no clear rules on how to properly give credit to a meme, usually giving credit or giving a source to the image or meme you used will be appreciated not only by the original creator, but also by the people who are more aware of information ethics online.

    4. The original content creator, meme creator, and subject of the image/meme may all have conflicting ideas about the value of the meme, which can often lead to legal disputes. Know Your Meme must sometimes take down posts due to cease-and-desist letters from copyright holders due to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

      Often times, I just see memes as simple jokes on the internet. However, this reminded me of how there is often debate if someone can "own" a meme, how much of an original image needs to be altered for people to consider you own it, as well as if the person who made or took the original photo that a meme is based off of, do they have the right to take it down if they see it on a site. I'm often shocked when I hear stories about getting into legal trouble over a meme, at the same time I'm not sure how to determine who or what owns a meme.

    5. There is no official definitive answer for whether a use can be considered fair, as every case must be judged on its own merits, but there are some types of use generally allowed under fair use, including criticism and commentary, parody, journalism, education, and research.

      I think the copyright laws regarding memes are fairly subjective. I feel as though the wide prevalence of internet memes makes copyright laws hard to enforce because they are so widely distributed.

    6. “[j]ust as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation.”

      I think it's interesting how you can make the connection between gene leaping between people and how memes leap the same from brain to brain

    7. The growth of the internet led to a new usage of the word (the meme of “meme”!) by Mike Godwin in Wired (1994), as an image or video that spreads via social media and other means “virally,” a term Dawkins also used to describe how memes replicate. Know Your Meme is a crowdsourced database of popular memes, owned by a company that created many early memes. Meme histories are tracked from first appearance, providing a reference of viral memes.

      I need to confess to not even knowing the word meme until now. I'd heard it several times, but never got curious enough to find out what it was. It's got a very conceptual definition!

    8. When it comes to memes, an important issue is the amount used of the original work. In First World Problems: A Fair Use Analysis of Internet Memes (2013), Ronak Patel says the amount of the work used in the meme probably supports the meme creators if the image was a still of another work, usually making up a small percentage of the original, but not if the original work was a photograph in which the whole of the work was being used.

      Hmmm... so I wonder... even if the original work was a photograph, could one alter it? (Let's say... "cartoonize" the original photograph in Photoshop?) And then do whatever they wished with it?

    9. Know Your Meme must sometimes take down posts due to cease-and-desist letters from copyright holders due to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

      Some cease and desist letters are sent for reasons that are questionable, mistaken, or false. With our current system, this can place an unfair burden on content creators as they are unable to defend themselves against well funded claimants.

      M. Lewis

    10. However, within copyright law exists the doctrine of fair use, which allows for use of a copyrighted work in the creation of new work without permission, as long as the use fits within certain parameters.

      This is very important for 1st Amendment rights. Without this protection people would be greatly restricted when they try to legally criticize, parody, or comment on current events and media. For example, a news story or politician could be parodied by listing facts to point out their lack of honesty.

      M. Lewis

    11. When memes or the subjects of a meme are used for commercial purposes without permission, the meme creator may sue, as the effect of the commercial use on the market value of the original meme usually prevents a finding of fair use. In 2013, the owners of the cats featured in the “Nyan Cat” and “Keyboard Cat” memes won a lawsuit against Warner Bros. and 5th Cell Media for respectively distributing and producing a video game using images of their cats.

      I think that is fair from the creator to sue if someone use a meme for commercial purposes, because it could lost all the credibility.

    12. Meme creators and posters have been sued for using people’s images without permission, especially those who were not already public figures. In 2003, the parents of the unwilling star of the “Star Wars Kid” video sued their son’s classmates for posting the video online. Though the suit was settled, the video did not disappear, and the Star Wars Kid learned to deal with his fame.

      This sort of plays into privacy thing with PlaneBae. Where there is a grey area when posting pictures. I think we need to be more consciences of what we post and who it is of.

    13. However, within copyright law exists the doctrine of fair use, which allows for use of a copyrighted work in the creation of new work without permission, as long as the use fits within certain parameters. A legal finding of fair use takes into account the following factors: The purpose of the use, The amount of the work to be used, The effect of the use on the market for or value of the original work, and The nature of the copyrighted work.

      So, I guess there's a gray area when it comes to memes. I guess there is no money involved in this? Or maybe there is?

    14. In using images taken from creative works or private life, memes show how copyright law intersects with issues of internet use and privacy.

      It never even thought that there might be copyright laws associated with Memes. I thing its because there so readily available that I just don't even think about it.

    15. In 2003, the parents of the unwilling star of the “Star Wars Kid” video sued their son’s classmates for posting the video online. Though the suit was settled, the video did not disappear, and the Star Wars Kid learned to deal with his fame.

      An example of, if t is posted on the web it is fair game! Even thought the suit was settled the meme posted was all over the web and impossible to eliminate. As I have seen before, memes have a way of giving some people a form of "fame."

    16. American copyright law gives creators the exclusive rights of reproduction, modification, distribution, performance, and display. The viral spread of a meme infringes on theses protections as the original image is modified and then displayed, distributed and reproduced when posted and reposted.

      Interesting to see there is a law to give creators more privilege to a meme they create. Funny thought how a viral spread of the image "infringes" these rights. Isn't the point of a meme to be spread virally?

    17. However, within copyright law exists the doctrine of fair use, which allows for use of a copyrighted work in the creation of new work without permission, as long as the use fits within certain parameters. A legal finding of fair use takes into account the following factors: The purpose of the use, The amount of the work to be used, The effect of the use on the market for or value of the original work, and The nature of the copyrighted work. There is no official definitive answer for whether a use can be considered fair, as every case must be judged on its own merits

      According to what we see on social media sites these memes have no sharing of copyrights, they are shared shared like open information on the web. No one has control over it, even the person whos meme is shared can't do anything to stop.

    18. [j]ust as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation.”

      someone has said it right, these memes are shared on more faster than the Gene pool leaping from body to body.

    1. Its interesting that limited so much. There was a lot of work that came out during this time that would made me question that. But I guess it kind of makes sense, because the woodblock prints really are not a true repersentation to what was really happening.

    2. I really like how he captures the detail. It was not easy to make wooodblock prints. I also like the differnt styles of the each artist

    1. “Don’t take these paintings at face value,” Allen says. “It’s easy to say, ‘Oh, yes, it’s a picture of a beautiful woman, wearing beautiful clothing.’ But it’s not a photograph. It’s some artist’s rendition, made to promote this particular world, which was driven by economics. The profiteers urged the production of more paintings, which continued to feed the frenzy for the Yoshiwara.

      Some of the woodblocks take me out of the space that I am in. It gives me a false sense.

    2. After the Great Edo Fire of 1657, a new, larger Yoshiwara, both walled off and surrounded by a moat, was rebuilt two miles outside of the city. To get to Yoshiwara after 1657, a patron had to travel by foot, by boat, or if he were extremely wealthy, be carried by others on a posh palanquin. This trek could only serve to heighten his anticipation. While it was considered improper for samurais, who made up a large part of Edo’s population, to solicit prostitutes, they viewed the floating world as means of escaping the humdrum of their highly regulated lives. They, too, made the journey to Yoshiwara, hiding their faces with big straw sedge hats. The new Edo middle class developed

      This is interesting. They completely contained the prostitution to one area of Edo or Tokyo. I would have loved to see the mote the built. It was the red light district.

    3. We’re left with the client-commissioned pretty-girl scroll paintings by masters like Hishikawa Moronobu and Katsukawa Shunshō, as well as woodblock prints and guidebooks by commercial artists meant to lure repeat visitors through the red-light district gates.

      This is a lot of where woodblock prints come from. I think that while explicit needs to be included. Ones like Hokusai where made for the public, but no all of them where.

    4. Above all, image reigned in Yoshiwara. As Takeuchi explains in the “Seduction” catalog, “Photographs of the physical Yoshiwara in the late nineteenth century make it look small, shabby, and sordid. The crowded narrow streets were probably muddy in the rainy season and dusty when the weather was dry. The water in the moat must have attracted mosquitoes.” But the paintings, woodblock prints, and guidebooks in “Seduction” depicted the pleasure quarter as “a kind of escapist theme park where a client could be ‘lord for a day,’ a ‘master of the revels.’ It was a theatrical stage set where clients could, for a short time, become leading actors. It was home to coteries of poets, intellectuals, wits, actors, other urban celebrities, and the occasional daimyo. It celebrated luxury and excess in a society where moderation was extolled, and luxury and excess could be punished severely.”

      The woodblock prints are definatly an escape. Even when I look some of them they are whimsical, but that not how it would have really been. Its important to remember what some of these prints depicted.

    5. were made by men for men, the patrons of the Yoshiwara pleasure district outside of Edo, which is now known as Tokyo. Every little detail of Yoshiwara—from the décor and fashion, to the delicacies served at teahouses, to the talents of courtesans, both sexual and intellectual—was engineered to sate a warlord’s every whim.

      So they set out to capture the not only the art and style of that time, but also for the patrons that commissioned them.

    1. Edo art objects included polychromatic wood No masks of women who have become demons because they have been betrayed by love; cheukei fans used by No actors playing women roles; ceremonial samurai swords made of rayskin, lacquer, copper, gold, enamel, leather and steel; reptile-like samurai armor made from iron, leather, lacquer, silk and gold; leather saddles and stirrups embellished with gold and lacquer; and uchiakake ("outer garments" worn by samurai-class women), embroidered with blossoms, clouds and birds.

      Polychromatic. I should look up that see if anything survived

    2. Many Edo period painters were samurai. Paul Richard wrote in the Washington Post: “Slicing through a torso with a curving steel blade and putting ink to silk with a liquid-loaded brush, both of these were stroke arts. Both required the same swiftness, the same lack of indecision. For the master of the brush and the master of the blade...the flawless stroke expressed a Japanese ideal---the beauty-governed union of sure, unhurried speed and centuries-old tradition, utter self-assurance and Zen purity of mind."

      I just want to annotate something for myself, because I think this is interesting

    1. This article presents an innovative approach that was developed to compare two impressions of the iconic print ‘Clear day with a southern breeze’, commonly known as ‘Red Fuji’, by Hokusai (1760–1849). The first impres-sion pictures Mount Fuji as a red mountain (Fig. 1a) and belongs to the British Museum (London).

      This would be what the article is about.

    1. It would be interesting to do more research to find out how they found these colors. They were closed country during this time. So, unless they got it before or the Dutch told them how to make pigments. This finding is very interesting

    2. I like this chart because it breaks down how they colored what.

    3. We know that China use to color pots with Indigo. Which says they has developed colors. But then that other colors were developed later.

    4. So, really they changed it when they made "red Fuji" Much like other woodblock prints of this time they did a first run, and then refined it. Which is interesting.

    5. This is interesting. Ill have to remember this. How it was made.

    6. I like how they compare and constrast the differences. I just think about how we kind of do that too.

    1. Devoting 80 percent of field agents to stopping international terrorism including Islamic extremism and only 20 percent to stopping domestic terrorism including far right and white supremacist extremism.”

      Why are we so focused on international issues, especially since we don't have international jurisdiction? It seems silly to me that a nation that prides itself on "the people" focuses all of its resources on things that are not going to improve "the people."

    2. To be clear, there is a law that defines domestic terrorism but not one that charges people who commit acts of terrorism in America.

      This is informative and encourages me to research more information on the topic.

    3. Intelligence officials sat in front of lawmakers and openly admitted that white supremacists and right-wing violence are the biggest domestic terror threat but also admitted that federal agencies aren’t really doing anything about it.

      This is insane to be made aware of. If this is 100% the case, I think we are finally on the verge of creating the opportunity for change. Online platforms have allowed for unheard dialogue to be heard, and this is quite fascinating.

    4. black identity extremists

      I was really surprised that the FBI would be keeping tabs on activists and call them "black identity extremists." This was something I would expect from the gov't in the 1960's during the Black Panthers, but not today.

  5. Sep 2019
    1. “Devoting 80 percent of field agents to stopping international terrorism including Islamic extremism and only 20 percent to stopping domestic terrorism including far right and white supremacist extremism.”

      i found this pretty interesting on how the percentages are split up. i thought there would have been more equal numbers but i was wrong but i would need more evidence or i would need to look into this.

    2. defines domestic terrorism but not one that charges people who commit acts of terrorism in America.

      I didn't know that this was true and know knowing this it is awful and it just goes to show how "serious " they take these things and how big chunk of the US population are fighting for their lives on a daily base and this is now just coming up as recognized problem.

    1. What do I mean by that? Let’s use an analogy: which technique do you think would prevent more car accidents? A three-second check every time you switch lanes A twenty-second check executed every time you think a car might be there

      I like this analogy a lot because it brings in a real scenario and to me i learn a lot more that way rather a made up example.