337 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2020
    1. Complete recovery is possible for many people with depersonalization/derealization disorder, especially if the symptoms result from stresses that can be dealt with during treatment. Other people do not respond well to treatment, and the disorder becomes chronic. In some people, depersonalization/derealization disorder disappears on its own. Symptoms, even those that persist or recur, may cause only minor problems if people can keep their mind busy and focus on other thoughts or activities, rather than think about their sense of self. However, some people become disabled because they feel so disconnected from their self and their surroundings or because they also have anxiety or depression.
    1. The problem, of course, was that she was telling a story about two people who had no idea they’d been cast as leads in a riveting story for thousands of strangers.

      This is a problem, because they most likely did not give consent and they want to keep their lives to themselves.

    2. Multiple news outlets, including ones as far away as Australia, picked up the tale of Holden and his seatmate as their “human interest” story of the day. But if that consent had been withheld, social media denizens would have extended the drama anyway, invading the lives of two people who were singled out for celebrity on a whim. As with so much else that is mediated by the internet, the medium’s dissociative effects prevent us from centering the humanity of the people involved.

      The story has reached global fame yet no clear consent was presented and many misconceptions surfaced due to lack of communication and research. This could all have been resolved and avoided easily if people just thought about the whole situation more.

    3. I scrolled through the tweets with a smile, 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. 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.

      The reaction is interesting in how similar it might've been for me as a first reader for the twitter thread.

    4. Surveillance disciplines our behavior, as any minority who’s passed through a security checkpoint in America can tell you in detail. It creates certain behaviors by design, most notably compliance, the willingness to do anything to avoid being hurt.

      I find this quote to be really interesting. The power of small hand held cameras and the feeling of surveillance. The fact that you know you are being watched changes your behavior and hw]ow you react to things. Best example is TSA.

    5. 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 really put into perspective what just a couple steps back from the story can do. Taking into consideration others and their privacy and thinking about how you would feel if you were in that situation is huge.

    6. In some cases, our use of cellphone cameras has the potential to liberate us when directed at the state, subjecting the powerful and privileged to forms of accountability that they’re not used to. That’s been made plain by the significant role of cellphone video in the movement against police brutality. The brutality isn’t new, but the widespread availability of high-definition pocket video cameras is. It’s also led to significant pushback against ordinary people who try to marshal the power of the state against ethnic minorities. Think of the sagas of Barbecue Becky and Permit Patty, who tried to call the police on innocent black citizens (including an eight-year-old girl) and were publicly shamed for their cruelty.

      With new and growing technology, laws need to be made to protect citizens. There are two sides to the coin, those who are innocent in their behaviors and those who are not, but it should not be left up to doxxers to determine which behaviors are right or wrong.

    7. 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. Until she has nothing left to give, and the next thread about some other person plucked from obscurity comes along.

      I wonder what causes people to behave this way. I understand they're fans of a certain somebody but the extent they bring themselves to at times is absurd.

    8. 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.

      Online people are very curious and greedy for information about someone's personal life because they can judge and make fun of others without facing any punishment since their identity is anonymous

    9. 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.

      The women is placed in a position as "bad guy" if later she rejects to continue the relationship with the guy because people on social media following her story have the hope that the couple will finally get married and if the result is not what they want, they will attack her.

    1. the role of the internet is directly responsible for the meme’s alteration from the original to the point that “[m]utating memes, because of their unique characteristics, are more like ideas,” thus unprotected under copyright

      When I look at memes, I would find many of the same photo but the texts have been altered to be directed towards a specific audience.

    2. 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.

      important information concerning what exactly is covered under copyright law

    3. 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.

      i think that this is an important consideration. if you take the art that someone made and captioned it, couldnt that be considered as infringing upon their copyright? if you draw a meme yourself do you hold the copyright to that image, especially if you use another image as your reference or base image.

    4. 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.

      It is helpful to keep in mind the four bulleted factors that are given.

    5. 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.

      It is interesting to see examples of simple actions that can have dire consequences with the law.

    6. 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 changed.

      It is super easy to forget that the images one uses are not theirs. And I'm glad they give an option that benefits everyone.

    7. Lantagne and Patel agree on the inability of copyright law to fully address the subject of memes, given their cultural importance as what Lantagne calls “pure engines of expression with their own symbolic vocabulary” while also relying, in Patel’s words, on “massive unauthorized copying” to attain such importance.

      I believe as long as they are using a meme for commentary , parody, or criticism then it is fine. But if someone is doing it to gain money then it becomes a copyright issue.

    8. 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.

      The fair use doctrine is a tricky one and interesting to look at how to take a copyrighted work create a new work can be done without permission but that also falls under certain guidelines and searched case by case. It's really hard to have a blanket rule that solves everything.

    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.

      I find this comparison interesting. The transmission of ideas from a person to person and the transition of stories from person to person. Both relaying information to one another in a multitude of ways.

    10. Image-based memes are easy to create and easy to spread, though whether they will go viral is never a given. 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 changed.

      Google is a website that I usually use to check for image copyright. First time knowing about Creative Commons and definitely will try this out

    11. 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.

      The copyright law is not clear on how is a use is consider fair, it will be difficult to indicate whether someone violates it or not

    12. Image-based memes are easy to create and easy to spread, though whether they will go viral is never a given. 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 changed.

      They are so easy to create that I think people forget that the images they use are not their own and the result can really change someones life. For good or bad.

    13. 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 companies who use meme's for advertising need to make sure they get permission to use others works before beong able to make a profit off of it.

    14. Similarly, the DMCA was used to quash parodies of the German World War II movie “Downfall.” In 2010, the movie’s production company, Constantin Films, started pulling these parodies from YouTube, to which meme creators had little recourse. However, Constantin Films did not sue anyone, so it is unknown whether the parodies might have been considered fair use.

      I've actually seen those Downfall memes. They're usually just that one scene where Hitler is yelling at his officers and they would replace the subtitles would something ridiculous like “Hitler is upset over the finale of Game of Thrones”. Those memes are really funny and I'm glad they haven't been taken down.

    15. Know Your Meme is a crowdsourced database of popular memes, owned by a company that created many early memes.

      Wow, I never knew a website called Know Your Meme actually exist. I may want to check that out once in a while.

    1. 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.” He said publicizing the names and workplaces of neo-Nazis may offer some level of solace to people outraged by them, but it makes his job more difficult.

      I think that it's a conflicting kind of interest. If you dox white supremacist and make them afraid to voice their opinions, wouldn't that protect the people they are targeting? I don't think that every white supremacist can be rehabilitated, even though we should try to do so. There are two conflicting needs: the need to keep those who would do violence to vulnerable members of our communities accountable and the need to rehabilitate those who hold harmful viewpoints. I think that is essential to balance the two of them before doxxing anyone.

    2. 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 information is available online, that doesnt mean you have the right to use it to target someone. On one hand, sometimes that information can be to protect people. If you find out that someone you know online is planning to shoot up a school, doxxing that person to protect those they may harm at the school should be permissible. On the other hand, doxxing someone you don't know could lead to misidentification and negative consequences for the person who has been misidentified.

    3. “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.”

      The idea shouldn't be to push these people farther into these groups or the outskirts of society. It should be about righting wrongs and reintegration into society.

    4. 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.” He said publicizing the names and workplaces of neo-Nazis may offer some level of solace to people outraged by them, but it makes his job more difficult.“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.

      I almost feel like internet vigilantes are perpetuating violence and self harm. Interesting to think about doxxing as passive aggressive violence.

    5. 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.

      Even though they might reveal their face in public I feel employers, family members might overlook these type of events. It's in the best interest we're all aware of who is participating in hateful movements.

    6. “For a long time it was only a certain quarter of people on the internet who would be willing to do this,” Ms. Coleman said. “It was very much hinged on certain geek cultures, but there was an extraordinary quality to the Charlottesville protest. It was such a strong public display I think it just opened the gates.”

      It sounds like it has gotten more common place and natural to do this to people and when it becomes more normal to do things like this, many more people want to join and be a part of what is happening because it seems like a natural thing to do.

    7. professor from Arkansas who was wrongly accused of participating in the neo-Nazi march. 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 sounds like a very harmful way for people to be wrongly accused. When it happens on the internet, it never really goes away.

    8. “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 personally agree with Mr. McAleer’s opinion on doxxing Nazis. I don't think doxxing Nazis actually makes them change their ways, instead, it isolates them from society and only makes their terrible opinion about the world stronger for themselves.

    9. 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.

      That's some very useful information. I've always wanted to know how the word Doxxing came to be and this article answered that question for me.

  2. Sep 2020
    1. 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.

      When using the "Always Check" Approach, this headline generated many relevant Google searches, with multiple other media outlets covering this. Hence, The Root appears to be credible. I'm very surprised that it took a long time for the FBI to make this decision.

    2. U.S. residents are 128 times more likely to be killed by everyday gun violence than by (international) terrorism; black people specifically are 500 times more likely to die this way (Xu, Murphy, Kochanek, & Bastian, 2016).

      This reply confounds me because of the difference in statistics in relation to the original "128 times more likely...". It leads me to believe that more investigation is needed to verify whether this reply is credible or not.

    1. 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.

      This is a great point. Unfortunately, the blue checkmark is misleading. Many people associate the blue checkmark as being a credible figure.

    2. Maybe you think you do this, or you can really “recognize” what’s fake by looking at it.

      I always struggle in believing in new information that comes from the internet because they can be untrustworthy.

    3. 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 this quite interesting because of the analogies that are given. Many people find it hard or make it seem hard to investigate what is presented on the internet when in all honesty, the process will get easier to the point that it is considered a mirror check, something we humans do constantly.

    4. all the blue checkmark really does is say that the person is who they say they are

      Inferring authority from twitter "blue check"

    5. 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.

      This is something everyone should do, especially in our climate

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

      Important point - even if information comes from a source you consider to be reliable, it's important to validate.

    7. In this case, the URL does match. What does this look like if the site is fake? Here’s an example. A while back a site at bloomberg.ma impersonated the Bloomberg News site. Let’s see what that would look like:

      This is something quick and simple to do to check if the website you are on is the correct one. I had no idea or even thought of something so useful like this. Simply checking to see if the URL matches can save you from a whole lot of trouble down the road.

    8. Đó không phải là anh ta. Hoặc nếu có, cơ hội là rất nhỏ, không đáng để dành thêm thời gian cho nó. Tìm nguồn khác.

      It is surprised that Billie Joe did not write that article even though his name is claimed as the article's author name. Without checking with Wikipedia, people will believe in this misinformation

    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.

      Habits are difficult to change unless people are aware of how fake news can be harmful and learn how to detect the misinformation

    10. Strip off everything after the domain name, type wikipedia and press enter

      Always check wikipedia for the domain name to see if it is the real site

    11. Because no matter what you think of the article, funneling friends and family to a site that has published such sentences as “When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears” is not ethical — or likely to put you in the best light.

      Better to confirm your information before sharing it on social media which can affect other people

    12. Your two-second “mirror and head-check” here is going to be to always, always hover, and see what they are verified for.

      Need to check the blue checkmark carefully before using the information

    13. 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 think it is a good idea to fact check sources before they are shared to see if they are real sites. I like this quote because it only takes a short time to check then to share something fake.

    14. 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.

      This is very useful information for me. I have never used Twitter before, so this example will be really helpful for finding correct information on Twitter for this class.

    1. 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.”

      I feel like this is similar for all crimes.

    2. Not only did McGarrity concede that people labeled as “black identity extremists” had nothing in common except their skin color, but Rep. Ayanna Pressley’s (D-Mass.) question about the FBI’s “black Identity extremist” designation prompted a startling revelation from McGarrity.

      It's interesting to see the inclusion of Pressley's inquiry interest in response to the FBI designation.

    3. Among those testifying before the subcommittee was Michael C. McGarrity, the director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division.

      I can't find this person's name on the page linked in the list of witnesses, it takes a deeper dive to confirm this quote. The linked page goes to the wrong portion of the hearing and should be https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/confronting-white-supremacy-part-ii-adequacy-of-the-federal-response

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

      Surprising truth.

    5. 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.

      I find this very surprising. The idea that they know what is happening and have a definition but no repercussions or disciplinary actions to follow the act is weird in it own right. It is something that needs change and a solution, and we have to take the steps necessary to address things like domestic terrorism.

    6. “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.”

      This is extremely striking bc one would think that the US government would be more concerned with threats from within its borders instead of outside of them.

    7. 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 interesting that these crimes are very serious offenses in domestic terrorism, but the law does not charges the people who commit acts of terrorisms in America.

    8. And in spite of the ADL’s report that white supremacists were responsible for 78 percent of extremist murders in 2018, the FBI still dedicates most of its time, money and manpower to investigating and stopping international terrorism.

      This is surprising to me that most of the extremist murders are white supremacists. However, the statistics come from ADL's report which is an international Jewish non-governmental organization site so the information could be biased.

    9. “The FBI has testified the bureau allocates its resources almost exactly backwards than the problem would suggest,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said. “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 find these a little surprising. I think these two issues should be either equal or reversed than where they are now.

    10. 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.

      Wow, I never knew that. I really do think that America needs to have a clear definition of committed acts of terrorism in America from regular Americans. Because a lot of those terrible acts that are mentioned at the end of the paragraph don't really sound like Hate Crimes, rather they sound more like international terrorism to me

    1. To everyone taking to the streets tonight to protest against police violence and racial injustice: We're with you. Know your rights.

      A great example of a special experience authority. Relevant to my topic.

    2. On this day in 1958, after violent resistance to integrating Little Rock Central High School, white residents voted to close public schools rather than integrate. To overcome racial inequality, we must confront our history. Share this #racialinjustice

      Relevance for my topic

  3. Jul 2020
    1. “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.”

      There's probably a commentary here about incel groups too but I just cant think of it.

    2. Now the online hunt to reveal extremists has raised concerns about unintended consequences, or even collateral damage. A 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 in particular reminds me of the Boston Bombing, and how reddit users took it among themselves to find out who did it and instead doxxed the wrong person, who eventually ended up killing himself I believe since the false accusation. Everyone think in these scenarios they're doing it for the cause, and that they're in the right, until someone uninvolved gets accused and ruins their lives. I do think it's tricky though because I do think for like, the people going to Nazi rallies and promoting hateful and toxic content need to recognize there are probably consequences for creating hostility, but where is that line drawn?

    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,

      I know it says that it's been happening for a while, but doxxing has been a huge part of toxic internet culture for the last 12+ years. Definitely longer than the march in Charlottesville, anyways.

    4. Now the online hunt to reveal extremists has raised concerns about unintended consequences, or even collateral damage. A few individuals have been misidentified in recent weeks, including a professor from Arkansas who was wrongly accused of participating in the neo-Nazi march. 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.

      Doxxing can misidentify people wrongly. For example, the Arkansas professor was misidentified and accused of participating in a neo-Nazi march. This is very harmful for the peace loving people. Once someone is labelled in a certain negative way on the internet it is hard for the suffering person to reclaim their lost reputation and peace.

    5. “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.”

      Doxxing is called passive aggressive violence. Mr. Tony McAleer who runs Life After Hate states that doxxing can provide some level of comfort for people who are outraged by people like neo-Nazis. But doxxing makes the job of people like Mr. McAleer who tries to integrate people like neo-Nazis to humanity. People should understand the consequences of labeling someone as an extremist on the internet because once someone is labeled as an extremist it stays as it is on the internet and it reaches millions of people. I think people should be mindful and they need to think about their reputation before joining any extremist groups because their activities can be exposed on the internet and it makes a negative impact on them.

    6. 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 saw a play about game gate, really well done and really illustrated the personal impacts of being "doxx"'d. Reflecting back on that story, doxx'ing seems like it might be a poor way to actually influence someone's thinking or behavior.

    7. 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.” He said publicizing the names and workplaces of neo-Nazis may offer some level of solace to people outraged by them, but it makes his job more difficult.“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.

      Tony McAleer makes a strong point. Once something is posted on the internet, it is difficult to undo it, impacting both the near and far future of a person's life. I honestly don't know a lot about doxxing, but if someone (such as a white supremacist leader like McAleer) is rehablitiated and reintergrated into humanity, then they shouldn't be judged for the mistakes of the past, not when they are trying to be their better selves.

    8. In short, once someone is labeled a Nazi on the internet, that person stays a Nazi on the internet.

      This reminds me of the power of social media. It's like once you got tagged or defined into a group, it's close to the point where you can never go back. E.g. Once you are labeled as Nazi, you are Nazi for the rest of your life.

    9. 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.

      My first time hearing the term "doxxing"

    10. 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.

      It is sad to see this kind of behavior. Glad to see equality in the gaming community is starting to appear.

    11. 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 can be very dangerous and potentially ruin someones life. When information is displayed online, it must be checked and then triple checked to ensure the information being presented is truthful and accurate.

    12. 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.

      Another problem with doxxing worth considering is that people may have an emotional response to a picture without contextualizing it. They might respond strongly and repost the picture or video, but their indignation might be premature and unjustified.

    13. Now the online hunt to reveal extremists has raised concerns about unintended consequences, or even collateral damage. A few individuals have been misidentified in recent weeks, including a professor from Arkansas who was wrongly accused of participating in the neo-Nazi march. 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.

      Nellie Bowles, a journalist covering technology for the New York Times in the San Francisco Bay Area, examines how doxxing, even with the best intentions in mind, can become problematic and have unintended ethical ramifications. One of the problems arising from “doxxing” is a probability of error and misidentification. Another serious potential ethical problem is labeling people for the rest of their lives without any hope for redemption.

    1. he problem, of course, was that she was telling a story about two people who had no idea they’d been cast as leads in a riveting story for thousands of strangers.

      This kind of reminds me about the movie Jim Carey did called "The Truman Show" and it's disturbing to know that it's still happening, years later, as if we didn't learn anything from it

    2. 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 think that's the horrifyingly interesting thing about using the internet like this, is that it makes it really easy to forget that these are real people that are being documents without permission for the sake of "the feels", as if them living their lives in a way that is appealing to others is permissible to record them.

    3. There are also sobering lessons here about the limits and ethics of “sousveillance,” the use of our handheld devices to record from “below.” (This is in contrast to surveillance from on-high, a la CCTV or drones.) In some cases, our use of cellphone cameras has the potential to liberate us when directed at the state, subjecting the powerful and privileged to forms of accountability that they’re not used to. That’s been made plain by the significant role of cellphone video in the movement against police brutality. The brutality isn’t new, but the widespread availability of high-definition pocket video cameras is. It’s also led to significant pushback against ordinary people who try to marshal the power of the state against ethnic minorities. Think of the sagas of Barbecue Becky and Permit Patty, who tried to call the police on innocent black citizens (including an eight-year-old girl) and were publicly shamed for their cruelty.

      I found this story very interesting as it talks about how the cellphone cameras have the potential to liberate the people when there is a need. For example, police brutality is very much talked about around the world. As people have good quality cameras in their cell phone nowadays they can take videos and show those as a proof when they are in a problematic situation with the police.

    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. To some, the story from that flight to Dallas already has a happy ending. The mystery man revealed himself on Twitter as former soccer player Euan Holden and gave Blair permission to share his Instagram and reveal his name. He has eagerly taken a liking to his newfound social media fandom and embraced the moniker of “Plane Bae,” even appearing on NBC’s Today to bask in the attention. Surely, this is the ultimate consent and the final proof that people like me are just being buzzkills about a fundamentally innocent story. 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.

      I found this article interesting and it points about how vulnerable the people are when they are used as content by others in social media platforms like Twitter. In this story, Actress Rosey Blair tweeted about two strangers that she met in the airplane. The man "Plane Bae" associated with this incident revealed himself on Twitter and participated in NBC's today to bask in the attention. But the woman associated with this incident did not want to reveal herself in the public. So, I believe people should be very sensitive when they post about strangers in social media because that will have a very big impact on their life and some people want to keep their anonymity and they may not want to be content in social media. So, respecting others' privacy is very important and people should be mindful of others feelings and freedom.

    5. 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.

      In many ways that is one of the most unfortunate things about the "commercialization of the internet", social media, reality television, etc. it's the whole idea of pleasure versus enjoyment. When we aren't working for anything and just passively letting it come to us, we discard it as soon as it's "used up"

    6. Seemingly innocent cases, like that of “Plane Bae,” are small warning signs on the road to our even more networked future. 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.

      That's the really tragic part is that people are selling other people's lives so they can get "internet famous" for just a moment. Not for doing anything meaningful with their lives, simply by harvesting private moments of other people.

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

      Another unavoidable consequence of viral stories on the web: slut-shaming and other endless misogyny.

    8. 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.

      It reminds me of watching a video of public marriage proposal on Facebook. Most comments I noticed was talking bad about the lady because she said no to the guy. But first, I wonder why do these strangers think they can make a decision for this lady or anyone they don't even know already?

    9. 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.

      I can't agree more with this! This explains why some people would set their account in private.

    1. M: This article focuses on what parents can do to be better "sports parents"

      O: I thought this was a really great article, if you look at the 6 things that are "wrong", it points to some of the concepts that keep coming up again and again as I look through comments/posts about mental toughness.

      • be accountable/responsible
      • focus on putting in the work, that's the important part
      • don't blame others.
      • there is a time and a place appropriate for all conversations.

      Q: "Losing hurts and it should hurt. The pain eventually subsides, but if we remove the failure, setbacks, and allowing them ownership of their mistakes than we actually cheapen the joy of winning. How can we truly appreciate winning and improvement if we have never lost?"

    1. M: mm

      O: definition

      Q: "steady persistence in a course of action, a purpose, a state, etc., especially in spite of difficulties, obstacles, or discouragement."

    1. M: Definition for grit

      O: Considering definitions of synonyms.

      Q: "firmness of character; indomitable spirit; pluck:"

    1. M: Synonyms for toughness: grit, resolve, perserverance, persistence.

      O: Understanding what synyonyms might be used is useful for getting a firm grounding on the language around the topic.

      Q: in this case the quotes are the other words.

    1. Webpage run by CSU Monterey Bay about their Restoration and Education Program.

    1. Image-based memes are easy to create and easy to spread, though whether they will go viral is never a given. 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,

      At my last job at the gym, we would create informational posters to display throughout the building with images used from Google. The filter we would apply was the for reuse and would allow us to use images without experiencing copyright issues.

    2. 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.

      It seems as if the whole policy on fair use is vague and each scenario needs to be looked at specifically, as each situation could be different from another.

    1. findings demonstrate that livestock grazing is compatible with or supports grassland bird conservation in Mediterranean-type grasslands, including areas with high levels of exotic annual grass invasion, in part because grazing supports the persistence of native plants and heterogeneity in vegetation structure. However, conservation of low-lying grasslands with high native species presence, and active management to increase the abundance of native plant species are also likely to be important for sustaining grassland birds long-term.

      Provides information on the conditions provided for birds by cattle grazing on grasslands.

    1. California's Central Valley is critically significant to agricultural production in the United States (USDA [ 41] ) and serves as a model system for our study. This system is the focus of ongoing conservation efforts including flooding fields for waterfowl and wading birds (e.g., Elphick [ 12] ), installing owl and bat boxes on farms (Long et al. [ 23] ), and planting hedgerows for wildlife (e.g., Heath et al. in review). Although many private, state, and federal organizations provide technical and financial support for conservation strategies within the Central Valley, farmer participation and interest in these programs remains modest (Lovell & Sullivan [ 24] ; Garbach & Long [ 15] ).We investigated farmer participation in conservation efforts by directly assessing farmer opinions about wildlife on crop lands based on four main hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that, compared to conventional farmers, organic farmers would view birds and bats as more beneficial given limited alternative pest control methods (H1). Second, because women are more likely than men to express an interest in learning about and interacting with wildlife (Miller and McGee [ 28] ), we hypothesized that female farmers would view all wildlife as more beneficial to crops and livestock than do male farmers (H2). Third, we hypothesized that compared to other farmers, fruit or seed crop farmers would perceive birds as more harmful because they can damage crops (Gebhardt et al. [ 16] ), (H3). Finally, we hypothesized that perceptions of wildlife would be associated with behaviors intended to attract or deter wildlife

      Identifies conservation methods available to landowners and farmers, mentions financial support, but does not specify, and hypothesizes potential participants.

  4. Jun 2020
    1. But as we surveil each other in profoundly coercive ways, we also risk — as is often the case with informal forms of power — replicating the coercive power of the state itself. Surveillance disciplines our behavior, as any minority who’s passed through a security checkpoint in America can tell you in detail. It creates certain behaviors by design, most notably compliance, the willingness to do anything to avoid being hurt.

      By exercising the informal power of sousveillance and public harassment, there is a danger of creating a disciplinary regime regulated by a mob mentality.

    2. 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.

      The author implies that Rosey Blair’s behaviour is not a single case of a misjudged behaviour but rather a symptom of the paradox of our society. On one hand, we are supposed to respect other people’s privacy. On the other hand, the very structure of existing social media platforms encourages their users to exploit any opportunity to increase the number of their followers or/and increase their visibility.

    3. In some cases, our use of cellphone cameras has the potential to liberate us when directed at the state, subjecting the powerful and privileged to forms of accountability that they’re not used to. That’s been made plain by the significant role of cellphone video in the movement against police brutality.

      This is very different from publicly speculating about strangers getting up to use the bathroom on an airplane, insinuating a sexual encounter for entertainment. Who in their right mind would want that to happen to them. Do unto others people.

    4. Last night on a flight home, my boyfriend and I asked a woman to switch seats with me so we could sit together. We made a joke that maybe her new seat partner would be the love of her life and well, now I present you with this thread.

      I have not read or seen the entire thread, I have only read about it, but there is so much wrong here it is difficult to know where to start. It is such a huge invasion for entertainment and self promotion. Perhaps if no pictures were involved it would have been less intrusive, but its value as entertainment would have been significantly diminished.

    1. mage-based memes are easy to create and easy to spread, though whether they will go viral is never a given. 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.

      Using images that are labeled for reuse or are already in the public domain is sound etiquette. While it is impossible to control how others perceive images, the original creator should have some say in how it is used.

    1. there’s no domestic terrorism charge.”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 “

      I was shocked by this. As a nation we've been burdened with domestic terrorism for far too long to not have laws in place that address this problem directly.

    2. According to the Daily Beast, the Trump administration even disbanded a unit in the Department of Homeland Security dedicated to domestic terrorism and right-wing extremists, upsetting many intelligence and law enforcement officials.

      Unbelievable!

    3. 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.

      This statement did not seem probable to me so I search for "domestic terrorism in the US" on the web. I was surprised to find out that it was true, and that this topic has been debating ever since The Patriot Act was signed. Wikipedia provided a link to the NPR article about it.

    4. On Tuesday, June 4, the House Oversight subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties held the second session in a series of hearings titled: “Confronting White Supremacy.” Among those testifying before the subcommittee was Michael C. McGarrity, the director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. 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.”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.

      This could use some clarification. While we have a law that defines domestic terrorism, we don't actually have a federal law that can be used to prosecute people for domestic terrorism? Congress wants answers from the FBI and the FBI counters with Congress needs to pass legislation. It is long pass time to get this right.

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

      That jumped out at me, I often check things that I am suspicious of, but I don't check everything. Good reminder to check everything.

    2. There are some hard problems with misinformation on the web. But for the average user, a lot of what goes wrong comes down to failure to follow simple and quick processes of verification and contextualization. Not after you start thinking, but before you do.

      This is very true! To prevent more misinformation on the web, we should always check.

    3. 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

      I found the three-second rule check similar to changing lanes using the mirror-and-head-check very useful and interesting. As the blog states it is very important to check all the articles for the facts before we share something on the social media or with friends, family and colleagues. As it is a habit for drivers to check the rearview mirror, people should start making the fact check as a habit before they share something online which will help in controlling and reducing the fake news and it also helps to maintain their online reputation with their family and friends.

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

      This seems to be so obvious: check your sources before reading to avoid confirmation bias, yet I never do that. I usually check the source only when I don't agree with the article or the content does not seem trustworthy.

    5. 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. Your two-second “mirror and head-check” here is going to be to always, always hover, and see what they are verified for.

      Important information on validating a source to see if the information provided can be trustworthy.

    6. 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.

      I have never heard of a way to check the legitimacy of a website before, and I am glad that it is possible. I will definitely try to remember these steps for future searches.

    1. we found that shorebird and duck densities were similar between wetlands and flooded croplands, suggesting that flooding cropland can provide surrogate wetland habitat for these species during migration.

      Flooded croplands can provide resources for birds along the pacific flyway.

  5. Dec 2019
    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.

    4. 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.

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

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

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

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    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).

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

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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. 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).

    6. 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

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. informal forms of power

      Informal > unregulated > unaccountable > potentially dangerous and abusive

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. charm disguises the invasion of privacy

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

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

      Concise and clear statement to which I agree.

    15. 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.

    16. 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?

    17. 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.

    18. 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. "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

    2. 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

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

    4. 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. 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...

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

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

    6. 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".

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    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).

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. “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".

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

  6. 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."

  7. 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.