184 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. They have the right to sue! This can cause harm to individuals whom are on the image. Specially if there are negative comments done on the image...

    2. In my opinion, I don't think memes are ever copyrighted. Most are just created and shared. Knowing how the internet works, anyone can do it and will do it at their own risk of course.

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

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

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

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

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

      AMEN!! About time somebody mentions this!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  2. Oct 2019
    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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      M. Lewis

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

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

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

      M. Lewis

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

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

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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

    14. “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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      M. Lewis

    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.

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

      M. Lewis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Polychromatic. I should look up that see if anything survived

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

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

    1. When it comes to any form of resistance or fight for equality, America will always paint black people as terrorists.

      I try to not debate issues I'm not familiar with. But I'm familiar enough with the historical painting of blacks in their fights for equality to know that they're not always painted as terrorists. (I'm fairly certain that most blacks I know would agree with me here.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    5. black identity extremists

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

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

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

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

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

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

    4. They have to be habitual, automatic. T

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      This is interesting, I was not aware that there was a law defining it and yet not a law that charges people for it. Something I will probably want to look up later.

    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. 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's interesting how domestic terrorism is defined but not charged as a crime. Instead acts of domestic terrorism are charged as criminal acts such as first degree murder. Those charged with terrorist acts on the international level are taking the crime into accounts of national security and attacking the national American identity.

    5. I believe that we, the people of the US, are, collectively, becoming less racist; but one would need to step back to view a wide timeline to see it. Extremism and hate crimes are an inevitability in a country so seriously divided. (divided by its current leader, whether it was his intent or not)

    6. civil rights protests and the Black Power movement that FBI officials called “the greatest threat to internal security of the country.”

      I dont think this statement is correct nor valid, and is an opinion of people in power

    7. 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.

      Even though I need to fact check this, I do believe this. There have been a lot of hate crimes in the past two years.

    8. 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.

      Its interesting that we focus so much on whats going on internationally, but can even stop whats going on in our own back yard. We have always been very focused on whats going on in other countries, but very rarely here.

    9. civil rights protests and the Black Power movement that FBI officials called “the greatest threat to internal security of the country.”

      In my opinion I don't believe it is fair to call the black power movement the GREATEST threat to internal security of the country. I believe this comment may be inflated a bit.

    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.

      The American government is ferociously working on to put a stop to international terrorism whereas the local terrorism in their own country is increasing day by day #whitesupremacy#local terrorism #respectblackpeople.

    11. When it comes to any form of resistance or fight for equality, America will always paint black people as terrorists. L

      This is true. We have this problem, that when something bad happens, we always see black people as the ones who are guilty. I watched the movie, "THE HATE U GIVE" which is based off the book by Angie Thomas that is about a girl, whose childhood best friend gets murdered by a white police officer for no reason and when he dies everyone is calling him a thug, gang member or a drug dealer just because he's black. We need to change this. We need a change.

    12. 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 is interesting that these types of acts don't qualify as domestic terrorism.

    13. 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. 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 needs to change. We need to turn our focus to the needs of our yet underrepresented citizens. We have neglected domestic matters for far too long, and the mass shootings and hate crimes are a direct result of not paying attention to the depravity and horror of the hate that is among us.

    14. 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. On Tuesday, June 4, the House Oversight subcomm

      Fantastic! It is about time.

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

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

    2. I found it interesting that he would/ could even question something so well know. It just goes to show how vital it is to really check your sources and whether or no they are legit.

    3. 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 this stood out to me because often times, all it takes for misinformation to spread and become viral is for people to simply not check their sources. Even if all it is is a quick Google search. I think that we should be more aware of the importance of checking what we are reading on the internet instead of always completely believing it. Not only for us, but to help stop the spread of misleading or outright wrong information.

    4. I thought this was a really useful method. It's short and effective and I can definitely see myself utilizing this method in the future. I know how easy it is to fall victim to a belief that someone with a blue check is to be trusted so I'm happy to now have a tool to combat that with.

    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. In

      I think this is a useful message because there a numerous fake accounts on twitter and other social media sites and furthermore just because they have a blue check mark doesn't mean they are a reliable source of information.

    6. 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 believe this is a very useful and honestly basic idea that I'm surprised not everyone implements in their day-to-day life. Caulfield provides a very accessible way for users to easily double-check their information sources. Thorough implementation of such techniques to improve web literacy will definitely change information on the internet and media as we know it. However, we also have to hold media (and even legitimate sites) responsible for delivering a more unbiased and closer-to-truth interpretation of news and information.

    7. You can absolutely do this every time before you share. And given it is so easy, it’s irresponsible not to.

      I think the author is right. If you really want to share viable and credible information, it is our duty to investigate further. If misinformation spreads then it would be our fault.

    8. always, always hover, and see what they are verified for.

      I didn't know you could hover. I really don't use twitter that much, but now that I know I am going check all those little blue check marks. Expect for the ones I truly know are real. I am learning so much from this article.

    9. 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 kind of can't believe that someone did do any fact checking at the Washington Post. It seems like its happening more and more, where sources that supposed to be reputable let something they shouldn't slip past.

    10. 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 seen this method. I really want to use it on everything I see now. I will be more conscious of using it more.

    11. 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.

      Sometimes I wish people would fact check, before posting it to Facebook. I am not saying I always check but if it is an interest topic I am defiantly checking.

    12. Maybe you think you do this, or you can really “recognize” what’s fake by looking at it. I am here to tell you that statistically it’s far more likely you’re fooling yourself.

      A reminder not to fool yourself in beliveing something just from looking at it. Always do some research!

    13. 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 — Nah, you know what? It’s not him. Or if it is, the chances are so infinitesimal it’s not worth spending any more time on it. Find another source.

      I AM SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT THE INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET CAN BE MANIPULATED EASILY AND WRONG INFORMATION CAN BE PRESENTED TO US. AND WE WILL BELIEVE ON IT UNTIL WE GET TO KNOW THE REAL TRUTH.

    14. 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.

      I agree that is very important that you have to check your sources. Yo don't know for sure if these sources are correct or nor. This information from Mike Caulfield is very useful for me, now that I am using different tools.

    15. Mike Caulfield's methods of fact and source-checking are golden. They could avoid a lot of angry dialogue and calling out I see daily on many of my social media sites. People are just too ready to "gut react" today, which leads to a lot of nasty exchanges online between friends and strangers alike. And, as a society, we are too ready to believe what we see. This behavior is unthinking and dangerous, and keeps us simple-minded. "Thoughts about the relationship between critical thinking and cynicism." I love this guy!

    1. Nipsey was beloved in his community because he worked to revitalize the neighborhood by opening businesses, creating jobs and opportunities:

      Nipsey was an important cultural icon who not only was a great artist but also a giving member of his community. He will be missed.

  4. Jul 2019
    1. 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.

      That's just awful. Can't get passed how sharing someones image or a video without their knowledge can lead to cyberbullying and over all is a huge invasion of privacy that we should all be entitled to.

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

      Memes are made by using creative works, or from people's private lives. Memes spread fast over the internet causing havoc and interfering with people's privacy.

    3. Image-based memes involve, primarily, an image created by somebody. 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. American copyright law gives creators the exclusive rights of reproduction, modification, distribution, performance, and display. The viral spread of a meme infringes on theses protections as the original image is modified and then displayed, distributed and reproduced when posted and reposted.

      I believe that doctrine of "fair use" allows for use of copyrighted work, however when a meme goes viral, there isn't a way to stop distribution and reposts. This is like a wildfire that cannot be stopped.

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

      It's interesting that memes going virally replicated is a form of digital communication as the article states. Could memes be a form of participatory culture? If so, then a percentage of memes are used purposely to promote a celebrity or make non-public person a celebrity; and they are also used inadvertently to the detriment of someone, to the point of damaging someone's life or reputation.

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

      I agree. However, does memes database have a written netiquette rules in place?

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

      The article on the dark side of "Plane Bae" illustrates the reality of this statement.

    7. Meme histories are tracked from first appearance, providing a reference of viral memes.

      I would love to study the spread of some of my favorite memes to learn when they originated and hypothesize about how they reached my screen. Fascinating!

    8. 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.

      This quote can tell that it is necessary to protect the copyright of the memes creators, which can create the healthy and sustainable development in this field.

    9. 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 think this speaks of the freedom of speech in that someone can use an image to make a meme if they are being creative, but not doing it for monetary gain.

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

      very interesting way to think about it, i never thought of it like that.

    11. she identifies use ranging from “static,” a relatively straightforward reproduction of an image, to “mutating,” in which 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.

      this very true. the meaning of a meme depends on how someone interprets it; the message they are trying to convey, I never really thought about how memes can be apart of culture and jump from person to person giving memes new meanings.

    12. Meme creators and posters have been sued for using people’s images without permission, especially those who were not already public figures. In 2003, the parents of the unwilling star of the “Star Wars Kid” video sued their son’s classmates for posting the video online.

      I have often wondered about this type of scenario, where a photograph of someone becomes a meme - but it gets out of control before they have the permission of the person in the photo. Unfortunately, there will probably always be the meme floating out there somewhere, even if you win your lawsuit.

    13. 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. American copyright law gives creators the exclusive rights of reproduction, modification, distribution, performance, and display. The viral spread of a meme infringes on theses protections as the original image is modified and then displayed, distributed and reproduced when posted and reposted. However, within copyright law exists the doctrine of fair use, which allows for use of a copyrighted work in the creation of new work without permission, as long as the use fits within certain parameters. A legal finding of fair use takes into account the following factors: The purpose of the use, The amount of the work to be used, The effect of the use on the market for or value of the original work, and The nature of the copyrighted work. There is no official definitive answer for whether a use can be considered fair, as every case must be judged on its own merits, but there are some types of use generally allowed under fair use, including criticism and commentary, parody, journalism, education, and research.

      These are important parameters regarding fair use. Using memes by a corporation for commercial use seems to be the most blatant breech of this type, as also communicated in the lecture.

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

      This still violates people’s rights of privacy. The memes can also be closely related to the law in terms of privacy. This article provides readers with more information about how to protect the user’s privacy based on the open and widely used internet.

    15. 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.

      Even if not creating or posting a meme, this is very good info to know for checking sources for using images. I'll be paying much closer attention.

    16. The viral spread of a meme infringes on theses protections as the original image is modified and then displayed, distributed and reproduced when posted and reposted.

      I've gotten a full education about memes this module as I'd never thought anything about them, and didn't know that people alter them. It is then very interesting to consider the ethics.

    1. 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.

      It's so true, we keep our eyes and ears open towards strangers hoping to find something entertaining enough to put on the internet. I've never taken a photo of a stranger or recorded a stranger.. because first of all, I've never felt there was a real reason to. Secondly, I wouldn't want a stranger doing that to me. We all do weird, goofy, embarrassing things.. no one wants that unknowingly posted for others entertainment.

    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.

      I agree that technology is affecting our personal boundaries, and forcing people to be public when they would rather stay private.

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

      I agree that ex post facto consent is allowing for a invasion of privacy that puts your private life into the public eye.

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

      It's interesting that the tweeter, the memes and other sites are seen/used as net-soap-operas. However, one could use them wisely and turn around the negative intricate. But for this to happen, we need to educate people not only how to look for information but also how to use them wisely following some basic netiquette rules in the fast paced digital world.

    5. 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.

      It's sad that people allow the companies to manipulate their own lives as content for the monetary benefits of the companies.

    6. 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.)

      new vocab word! and an important concept to consider in conversations about ethics and civil life.

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

      Ugh, this is very uncool (though predictable).

    8. At a certain level of virality, you cannot stop motivated people on the internet from piercing your veils.

      According to this sentence, it shows that the internet is still a dangerous place for all people. People still should be cautious to protect their privacy.

    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.

      This tells that the technology is threatening people’s personal boundaries and privacy. The author has introduced the disadvantages of this phenomenon in many aspects. The author has provided a lot of ideas about how people understand the dark side of the social media.

    10. 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.

      Crowdsourced disempowerment? Is there an implicit "yes"?

    11. 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.

      How true! I wonder how numbed we are to invasions of our privacy.

    1. she believed, was an effective way to make people think twice about being so bold with their racism.

      This does sound like a form of public shaming, to prevent an undesired behavior, but it could go so wrong. Like the prof from earlier in the article, but when there is no law citizens tend to take it into their own hands.

    2. 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.

      By actively participating in the march a person marching can be assumed to believe in what the marchers are promoting; a danger would be to dox a bystander who may be observing, or protesting the march.

    3. “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.”

      I think this to be true. For a while doxxing as they say wasn't something really heard of besides in the online game world. That quickly has changed and now we see doxxing going on in many forms. An example was in the last election when Wikileaks leaked out documents on certain candidates.

    4. 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.

      doxxing seems to be an act of black mailing done online by people who wish to be anonymous towards those they feel are there enemies however when it's done in person, its questionable if considered to be doxxing.

    5. “People went berserk,” Ms. Coleman said. “That, to me, was this interesting turning point where it showed the general public would be willing to jump into the fray.”Charlottesville has made doxxing even more commonplace.“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.”

      This level of engagement is clearly different from the beginning nature of doxxing revealing the identity of other hackers. The notion of the general public "jumping in the fray" creates a feeling of chaos and disregard of any private rights. If everyone does not respect privacy, I am afraid going out in any public setting is now opening up yourself to any and all forms of privacy-breaches.

    6. In short, once someone is labeled a Nazi on the internet, that person stays a Nazi on the internet.Internet vigilantism has a checkered history.

      One of the concerning aspects of Internet vigilantism is the nature of the internet being both ephemeral (due to the overwhelming amount of new, incoming information) and eternal (due to the nature of reaction and spread of information) simultaneously

    7. This level of engagement is clearly different from the beginning nature of doxxing revealing the identity of other hackers. The notion of the general public "jumping in the fray" creates a feeling of chaos and disregard of any private rights. If everyone does not respect privacy, I am afraid going out in any public setting is now opening up yourself to any and all forms of privacy-breaches.

    8. One of the concerning aspects of Internet vigilantism is the nature of the internet being both ephemeral (due to the overwhelming amount of new, incoming information) and eternal (due to the nature of reaction and spread of information) simultaneously

    9. “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.”

      Interesting logic. If these current protesters aren't bothered by their identities being known then clearly other things are at play and approaches other than vigilantism seem would be more constructive.

    10. 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.”

      I would agree that this kind of activity is passive aggressive and is different than revealing someone's previously chosen hidden identity.

  5. Jun 2019
    1. lways, always hover, and see what they are verified for.

      whoa, quick and easy trick! I'll definitely use it.

    2. Now imagine a world where checking your mirrors before switching lanes was rare, three standard-deviations-out behavior. What would the roads look like?

      what would the roads of the modern web look like if folks did regularly do this, on Facebook for instance?

    3. You can absolutely do this every time before you share. And given it is so easy, it’s irresponsible not to.

      They are advocating a behavior change that should restrict passing on erroneous information. I would like to make an analogy here but think it may be inappropriate in this context.

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

      Even if it isnt suspicious you should check it either way. You cant just fact check those that you believe may be false but rather all.

    5. 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 agree that always checking information, which you find shareable or emotion-producing will help you in your online research.

    6. (Here’s a short rant of mine from 2009

      I checked this website he shared. Future plan in my future classes: re-teach students about the web education when they write their research paper.

    7. Scan the stories. If you want to be hypervigilant, scan for sources you recognize, and consider sharing one of the stories featuring original reporting instead of the tweet.

      You know a lot, don't doubt your knowledge, you know a lot of good and valid sources, use your brain. Check the receipts!

    8. 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.

      After reading the article, I realized that it is extremely simple to check some of the things online that we are consuming, especially when we spend so much time on our devices. I haven't really checked what I was looking at or reading, except for school work, and I think that Caulfield has provided some easy ways for us to do so.

    9. 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.

      Every tip is helpful, easy and doable. His article opened my eyes to all sorts of things I didn't know or was aware of.

    10. 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've seen too many facebook posts, and instagram stories with emotion provoking images and some false fact (usually heavy topics, including Roe) Then people go on to like that post or share it themselves.. so that completely false fact that shocks or disgusts people goes on to live another day. Have to check

    11. Your methods of checking have to be really quick. They have to be habitual, automatic. They can’t be cognitively expensive.

      I learned a lot from Mike Caulfield's blog on authenticating URLs. I love that he stresses to be quick- I tend to waste a lot of time and get easily off topic while searching the web

    12. 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, as I am new to Twitter and appreciate this valuable tool to check the validity of the posts.

    13. 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.

      Nice trick. I'll have to remember to try that. Kind of reminds of how I do a search on Yahoo to see how my internet security software rates a site's 'trustworthiness', thereby avoiding site's that might infect my computer.

    14. 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.

      First off i want to say what a great article, i really enjoyed reading it. I chose this quote because it pretty much sums up the article. It also explains a lot of what is already going on the media and ways we can improve. It's so true. If a lot more people would stop to look up if the information they heard or read about were true, then there would be so much less fake news. It's important to not be so quick to believe everything that is online.

    15. 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 quote is right that people should always check before we start to use the information. In my opinion, I think people should form good habits to check, because it is good safeguard to use the right information, and people should stop to spread and stop to use the wrong information.

    1. 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.
    2. To be clear, there is a law that defines domestic terrorism but not one that charges people who commit acts of terrorism in America.

      There aren't any words for this! Utterly absurd and wrong. The terror that people in this country experience from hate crimes isn't different from international terrorism. It's criminal to be allowed.

    3. When it comes to any form of resistance or fight for equality, America will always paint black people as terrorists.

      Its quite sad to say that people believe or may even agree to this.

    4. 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. 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 sad, I feel like the hate crime increased so much more in the past 4years. Now that is influenced more by the president I think that it'll be harder to bring these numbers down. We should all be seen the same.

    5. were charged with hate crimes instead of domestic terrorism simply because “there’s no domestic terrorism charge.”

      I think that this was interesting because with the amount of time and effort that media and news outlets put into reporting and showing different shootings and acts of domestic terrorism, shouldn't there be some kind of punishment for that? It has happened enough that it is a social issue - we made it a social issue - and there is a definition for "domestic terrorism" in accordance with the law. Or, as it points out further down in the article, have a specific devision to investigate domestic terrorism threats.

    6. But when it comes to white people’s stance on black protest, as the great poet and philosopher Montero Lamar Hill once said: “Can’t nobody tell me nothing.”

      This is an article that has some good points.. the interview, the statistics, with sadly some biased thrown in. Shouldn't be an us against them mentality on either side.

    7. But when it comes to white people’s stance on black protest, as the great poet and philosopher Montero Lamar Hill once said: “Can’t nobody tell me nothing.”

      In my opinion, I think everyone has the same equal right in the world. However, according to the history, there are so many events present the white threat to the black. People should stop being that way, and we are supposed to stick together.

    1. n a separate statement to Al Jazeera’s “The Stream” on Wednesday, Renee Bach said “these allegations that over 1,000 children died is absolute lies and allegations. I can’t rule out the fact that children died, like they do die at any health facility, but it’s still not true to say I killed them.”

      Was unable to find any other information on the news when I tried to right click and find news item on google I found this article interesting because there really is no proof as they say and they comment on its allegations. there was not much on what authorities plan to do to this person mainly because they show no proof.

    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.

      I am not surprised when the article stated, that white supremacist violence is the biggest terrorist threat that this country faces.

    2. black people specifically are 500 times more likely to die this way (Xu, Murphy, Kochanek, & Bastian, 2016).

      When someone mentions statistic data with work cited source in the parenthesis, it makes the info credible. I checked the source using Caulfield's method and found the article but couldn't find the number "500". I need to dig deeper.

    1. The Anti-Defamation League released its annual report, “Murder and Extremism in the United States 2018,” on Wednesday, which tracked murders perpetrated by all types of domestic extremists over the past year. According to their research, right-wing extremists killed more Americans in 2018 than they have in any year since 1995. The 50 extremist-related murders also made last year the fourth-deadliest year since 1970.The murders were overwhelmingly linked to white Americans. Only three deaths (or 6 percent of the extremist-related murders in 2018) were perpetrated by a black person.

      This is a shocking and very sad statistic. This article will change the way I read current event news regarding terrorism. Note: I checked the validity of these sources (The Root and ADL) using Caufield's Wikipedia technique and both checked out.

    1. According to the official, a significant issue that the bureau faces is that the federal criminal code has made it more challenging to bring charges against domestic terror suspects than in cases involving international terrorism or foreign terrorist organizations.

      i think that if a group individuals are going to be punished for doing something wrong such as acts of violence, those groups should all be punished the same way, no matter what the race is or where they come from.

    1. First there’s the Twitter bio and the headshot. The headshot is an original photo — a reverse image search here doesn’t turn up Maisy, but it doesn’t turn up anyone else — it’s less likely to be a stolen photo.

      This is interesting.

    1. This belief system, which I have come to think of as “educationism,” is grounded in a familiar story about cause and effect: Once upon a time, America created a public-education system that was the envy of the modern world. No nation produced more or better-educated high-school and college graduates, and thus the great American middle class was built.

      Look for additional uses of educationism.

  6. Jan 2019
    1. Knowing how to read, write, and participate in the digital world has become the 4th basic foundational skill next to the three Rs—reading, writing, and arithmetic—in a rapidly evolving, networked world.

      Technology is our future and our students should be fluent in the digital world

    2. reach and meet the growing number of diverse audiences using the web

      Important to focus on diverse audiences globally.