“Freedom on the web can only be maintained, if we are able to enforce some basic rules,” he said. “If we don’t succeed in this, the result won’t be freedom, but ruthlessness.”
facebook has the ability to set the ground rules for the future in terms of interference and fake information
There is a page that is baiting the Green party,” the representative wrote. “It appears to be all covered by the freedom of speech, but the person named in the contact information is non-existent.”
These pages can have great influence on people who may think these are trustworthy verified sites
as a starting point for its enhanced monitoring of election ads.
I am not sure if these should be the starting point since Russian hackers sent out hundreds of ads associated to the 2016 election which should be a model of how not to react
One that did show up appeared intended to inflame anti-immigrant sentiment.
A lot of these ads end up creating lot of animosity and anger is said country which feeds into divisiveness
Its website and Facebook page were deleted, leaving behind only the nine Greenwatch ads that were captured by ProPublica’s Political Ad Collector, a tool that enables Facebook users to collect political ads that target them.
Social media platforms have been notorious at neglecting to proactively react to false attack ads in a timely manner or beef up security to make sure these cyber attacks don't happen again
On Sept. 15, nine days before the elections in Germany, the Green party complained to Facebook about a popular series of attack ads deriding its stances on gender-neutral bathrooms, electric cars and other topics. The party accused the advertiser, Greenwatch, of providing false contact information on its Facebook page and blog, which would violate a German Media Authority regulation requiring accurate contact information.
This reminds me of Russian intervention in the 2016 presidential elections
Sesame Credit already offers tips to help individuals improve their ranking, including warning about the downsides of friending someone who has a low score.
This makes the score system more illegitimate if people can cheat the system
Higher scores have already become a status symbol, with almost 100,000 people bragging about their scores on Weibo (the Chinese equivalent of Twitter) within months of launch.
If anything it will cause more people to 'look' like they live a lavish life style or buy certain items to just seem above other and get a higher score.
But here's the real kicker: a person's own score will also be affected by what their online friends say and do, beyond their own contact with them. If someone they are connected to online posts a negative comment, their own score will also be dragged down.
I wonder how much social change this will create or perhaps it will make people just sensor what they post on social media so that these devices cant pick up on these issues.
Under this system, something as innocuous as a person's shopping habits become a measure of character. Alibaba admits it judges people by the types of products they buy.
This system doesn't connect to the human just digital behaviors which is a terrible representation of a quality citizen
But by 2020 it will be mandatory. The behaviour of every single citizen and legal person (which includes every company or other entity)in China will be rated and ranked, whether they like it or not.
The fact that it's not volunteer is disturbing, when it comes to ones digital identity and security there needs to be choice on how much is made available to other entities.
That would create your Citizen Score and it would tell everyone whether or not you were trustworthy.
We can't possibility leave it to a database to 'score' us. Also there aren't always a connection between our behaviors online and behaviors in the real world. There are large gaps in these calculations
“We’ve begun to raise daughters more like sons... but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters.”
In society men and women are completely different 'makers' and we value there productivity very differently
To characterize what I do as "making" is to mistake the methods—courses, workshops, editorials—for the effects. Or, worse, if you say that I "make" other people, you are diminishing their agency and role in sense-making, as if their learning is something I do to them.
I really like how what she makes isn't a for profit idea but rather making a difference in the education of our next generation, it's just as valuable if not more but not nearly as prestigious in society
As Kate Losse has noted, coders get high salary, prestige, and stock options. The people who do community management—on which the success of many tech companies is based—get none of those.
The people that truly profit off of a creation are the creators not the people who have to sell it or bring it into society
and that only creating new things was a worthwhile endeavor.
We have this idea that whenever we invent or create something it has to be new, and if its not original then its not worth putting your time into
Almost all the artifacts that we value as a society were made by or at the order of men. But behind every one is an invisible infrastructure of labor—primarily caregiving, in its various aspects—that is mostly performed by women
I never really thought about the gender implications of a maker and how many women never got to be on the front line of a new creation just the behind the scene
“People who make things are simply different [read: better] than those who don’t.”
Maker could sound more pretentious, yet we all make things just not always tangible
hese skills aren’t a pyramid you climb, and creation is not a destination.
Many people feel the pressure to create something new instead of understanding and thinking about how we can best utilize the internet to reach our goal.
To have them look at their information environments not as vehicles of just self-expression, but as ways to transcend their own prejudices.
Students should be encouraged to not only look at one's portfolio as means to promote themselves but to transcend there thinking down other topics/ideas
or have had their posts go viral. We talk about building identity, portfolios, public persona, getting noticed.
The idea to ave content that will reach the most people has become very lucrative vs posting true content without the sole reason to be 'popular' on the internet
That you might think about things for the purpose of being a better human, without an aim to produce anything at all.
College's do indeed push students to be doers more than thinkers which makes us have the idea that somehow we should be producing thinks more than critical thinking
Students can visit the Digital Knowledge Center to learn about how they can migrate their content off of Domain of One’s Own.
Just because you graduate doesn't mean that all your content is lost which is really cool
Students can receive one domain and are encouraged to build off of their domain by using subdomains and/or directories.
It's interesting because we may only receive one domain but we can also have sub domains so really you can have multiple blogs and portfolio which is helpful when you have multiple classes and ideas to use it for.
. The DKC is available to work with students.
Really helps students access tools/people that can help them
Domains are meant to be more permanent, a piece of the web that’s carved out for a person or long-term project
This shows how it is truly tailored to be creative and property of the user.
A Domain of One’s Own is a project at the University of Mary Washington (UMW) that provides users with a domain name (URL) and allows them to tie that URL to University-provided Web hosting. The system is maintained by the University of Mary Washington’s Division of Teaching and Learning Technologies (DTLT)
This is much easier to understand and user friendly. Not nearly as wordy
The Terms are the final, complete and exclusive agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and merges all prior discussions between the parties with respect to such subject matter.
I feel like a lot that was said in these terms and agreements the average person would't understand which is why many people skip the reading and just press okay. At least I felt as though some of the terms didn't make sense and used technical words I'm not used to.
, Instructure shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to remove any of Your Content for any reason (or no reason),
This is because none of what we put up on this site is 'ours'.
(“Course Fees”
So is part of our tuition money used for canvas?
Your Content and User Content), although Instructure reserves the right in its sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or remove any Content that (1) violates any law or regulation, (2) violates these Terms, including the User Code of Conduct set forth in Section 5.4 hereof, and/or (3) otherwise creates liability for Instructure.
They have sole property of our content and have the right to take i down if it doesn't align with there rights and regulations
PLEASE REGULARLY CHECK THE WEBSITE TO VIEW THE THEN-CURRENT TERMS.
It is really up to everyone to keep up with changing terms but no one regularly checks it
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS, YOU MAY NOT ACCESS OR USE THIS WEBSITE OR THE SERVICES.
It's interesting because we as students don't get to choose if we 'accept' or not because we have to use canvas no matter what
In doing so, the gallery sacrificed an opportunity to engage with my work or to contextualize its artist’s work in a larger field, missing precisely the values and practices an art gallery should perform in the face of digitally-produced and disseminated work like my own
I agree that the gallery made a huge mistake they could have exploited the other guy and made an example of him and instead make business with her.
Unable to even acknowledge any of the obvious similarities between our work, the gallerist closed with a curiously sincere request: “I would be grateful if you would confirm that, in view of the above, you have no complaint with regard to the exhibition and exploitation of Jason’s work.”
This is kind of surprising yet kind of predictable. It's a he said she said situation. Intellectual property cant be measured and it's 'fair game' unless you have concrete evidence that the other person wasn't free to take your idea.
a lazy description that makes me uncomfortable as both a film scholar and a movie lover.
It doesn't dig deeper and is superficial
Rather, it means that processes underlying the work should be made available to others, so that others may likewise experiment, expand, and engage with my practice
The ways in which an artist made there work should in a seance be available for public knowledge on the bases of adding new methods and distinguishing your thought processes from someone else's. The fact that Shulman won't share is suspicious.
if Shulman’s work was created in “a different way” than mine, then it would not violate copyright, and if it did not violate copyright, then the gallerist could see no reason not to continue the exhibition.
Art can be interpreted in many different ways which makes it difficult to accuse someone of forging your work
The rhetorical move here was helpfully explained to me by a lawyer, who also explained that it would be a very expensive case without any real financial reward, and that the gallery likely knew that and would just do whatever they wanted to anyway
Since there isn't any monetary gain in this case she's sort of forced to just allow others to take her credit
Filmmakers praised the work. “My” work appeared all over social media and, maddeningly, on a growing number of websites that I admired.
Because the other people who were using her work got so much postie attention this makes it an even more unfortunate situation which should be confronted as this could make her look as though she's copying the people who are actually copying her.
These images were unmistakably similar to the distinctive work I had been producing for years, and it was not long before friends started writing to let me know.
It's tough because you cant keep everyone accountable for plagiarism and many people can profit from your hard labor as a result
I’ve argued that in these spaces, no matter how we choose to perform our identity, we end up branding ourselves.
I think the use of 'brand' is quite appropriate. Many times our data within social media is in a sense branding our identities and trying to create content that explores the 'Me' factor
My networks and relationships – and therefore my identities – exist within the enmeshed and multi-faceted realities of contemporary human interaction.
Our interactions now a days happen a lot over the internet instead of in person, and networking has a lot to do with it.
Status and scale in social networks are frequently treated as overtly measurable attributes
I can say that at times people seem to have this notion that the success their social platforms have equals some sort of measurable attribute outside of the internet.
as the set of data constituted by a person’s interactions online, and that specific user’s psychological relationship to his or her data trail.
I don't even think about my own 'digital identity' but when you think about it I am at least subconsciously having a significant relationship with my 'data' as it is what marks my interacts online
It puts them in a much better position to control their work, their data, their identity online.
Many of the platforms we use have a template that we put our ideas in and conform to in a sense, so having ones own web domain truly allows someone to personalize it to their own liking and own control
Too often, students’ work in these systems gets deleted over the summer months as schools aren’t in the business of permanently storing student work
This will certainly allow students to mark and monitor there educational achievements and ideas they would like to carry with them throughout life.
But none of them had a presence online they were in control of before this.”
We have given up so much control on how we allow our own thoughts and selves to be shown on the internet that having your own web domain allows you to take some of it back
These portfolios can contain text, images, video and audio recordings, giving students opportunities to express themselves in a variety of ways beyond the traditional pen-and-paper test or essay.
To be tech savvy or able to use multiple mediums is in high demand for post graduate jobs, and being familiar with these different forms of media will prepare students
in terms of their public profiles, professional portfolios, and digital identities
I like the idea of tailoring a domain for different uses whether it be professional or more social media related along with who is able to see it and how much of it
they are the subjects of their learning, not the objects of education technology softw
UMW is giving students the ability to be inventors of their own domains which allows students to have a more personal relationship to their work
shape their own cognition, learning, expression, and reflection in a digital age, in a digital medium. Students would frame, curate, share, and direct their own ‘engagement streams’ throughout the learning environment
So much of the time we are watching/reading others works, thus having our own will allow us to expression and analyze our own interest
that it is important to have one’s own space in order to develop one’s ideas and one’s craft. It’s important that learners have control over their work — their content and their data.
It will allow students to become creative in a central place that they can share with others and customize the way they want their work shown
fail to give students themselves a voice, let alone some assistance in deciding what to share online.
For there to be a consensus on regulations or ways to make the internet safer it's in the interest of the legislators to make sure that students, the group that it would be effecting, should have a say and be a part of the discussion
some 170 bills proposed so far this year that would regulate it
That seems like a large amount bills being proposed and yet many of the bills don't end being passed or regulate internet/sites/access