This Memorial Day, thank God that you are an American. Remember our soldiers, who are the real heroes in our lives. Make them proud.
Listen to Trace Adkins' song "Arlington." If that doesn't make you tear up, nothing will.
Have a wonderful Memorial Day, everybody.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Quit Facebook Day
May 31st is Quit Facebook Day. Will you?
In response to Facebook’s constantly loosening privacy policy, many users – over 22,500 as of today – have pledged to give up Facebook forever. Many dismiss their concerns as mere paranoia, but the fact is that posting personal information on the Internet – especially when you can’t trust a company to keep it personal – is dangerous.
I do not have a Facebook. I never have, and I don’t expect that I ever will. I refuse to subject my identity to the whims of Facebook’s executives. And with the 31st approaching, it’s refreshing to see others taking a stand too.
Here are a few reasons I refuse to get a Facebook, and why you should join the thousands of others quitting this Monday.
Obviously, the privacy policies.
This link details how Facebook’s infamous regulations have changed over the years. Here’s what the privacy policy started out as:
Today Facebook reversed a few of the more controversial issues, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg apologized, sort of, for upsetting users. But it's a little late for that, buddy.
Information availability.
When you post something on Facebook, it’s out there for good. 100% stealable if someone has enough motivation to get it. Everything stays on their servers, even if you delete it.
Maybe you were smart and took care not to give Facebook any personal details when you signed up. But you’ll still be easy enough to track down:
Well... not really.
Creeper employees.
Facebook employees can – whether they’re technically allowed to or not – easily access people’s profiles, even if they’re set to private.
I won’t try to summarize it all here, but some things that go on behind closed doors are scary. Like, Big Brother scary. This article is an interview with a Facebook employee divulging a number of company (and personal) secrets. Please read it - it's a bit of an eyeopener.
And finally, if the above isn't enough to bother you, Facebook ≠ social life.
Someone I know constantly tries to pressure me into getting a Facebook, evidently thinking that it’s an absolute necessity in order to have any semblance of a social life. Now, granted, I’m not the most outgoing social butterfly to begin with: I enjoy and always have enjoyed being by myself, so maybe I’m not an expert in the area. But I don’t buy that.
Sitting in front of a computer not constitute a social life. Nor does commenting on someone’s status or photo imply a significant relationship. It’s also a bit lazy - do you really need a website to tell you what your friends are up to? Why don’t you just ask them yourselves? It would probably lead to much more meaningful conversations, and it wouldn’t be such a colossal waste of time. (Think about it – how long do you spend flipping through your friends’ pages without actually doing anything? I already spend too much time on the Internet. I don’t need another website trying to addict me.)
If I want to hang out with my friends, I’d much rather actually hang out than exchange comments online.
Think about what Facebook means for you personally. Do you really need one? Are you comfortable with what you’re putting out there for others to find? Is it worth the risks?
Visit www.quitfacebook.com. Sign the pledge to delete your Facebook and get back your privacy.
UPDATE: A good lesson from the JournoList scandal: nothing you put on the Internet is private.
In response to Facebook’s constantly loosening privacy policy, many users – over 22,500 as of today – have pledged to give up Facebook forever. Many dismiss their concerns as mere paranoia, but the fact is that posting personal information on the Internet – especially when you can’t trust a company to keep it personal – is dangerous.
I do not have a Facebook. I never have, and I don’t expect that I ever will. I refuse to subject my identity to the whims of Facebook’s executives. And with the 31st approaching, it’s refreshing to see others taking a stand too.
Here are a few reasons I refuse to get a Facebook, and why you should join the thousands of others quitting this Monday.
Obviously, the privacy policies.
This link details how Facebook’s infamous regulations have changed over the years. Here’s what the privacy policy started out as:
"No personal information that you submit to Thefacebook will be available to any user of the Web Site who does not belong to at least one of the groups specified by you in your privacy settings."Sounds legit. But here’s the latest development:
"When you connect with an application or website it will have access to General Information about you. The term General Information includes your and your friends’ names, profile pictures, gender, user IDs, connections, and any content shared using the Everyone privacy setting. ... The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to “everyone.” ... Because it takes two to connect, your privacy settings only control who can see the connection on your profile page. If you are uncomfortable with the connection being publicly available, you should consider removing (or not making) the connection.”Now that, to me, sounds a little sketchy. Basically, they've dumped all responsibility for the safety of your information back on you. Obviously you should be careful about what you post to begin with, but the fact that Facebook has been gradually loosening standards is unsettling. Users join the site with the belief that their information will be guarded, but since Facebook can change its privacy policy whenever it wants to, more and more information is becoming viewable to the public and to third parties. And that's unsettling, to say the least.
Today Facebook reversed a few of the more controversial issues, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg apologized, sort of, for upsetting users. But it's a little late for that, buddy.
Information availability.
When you post something on Facebook, it’s out there for good. 100% stealable if someone has enough motivation to get it. Everything stays on their servers, even if you delete it.
Maybe you were smart and took care not to give Facebook any personal details when you signed up. But you’ll still be easy enough to track down:
- Your friends will probably call you by your real name.
- Your friends will wish you happy birthday. (Some studies have concluded that all someone needs to extrapolate your Social Security number is your birthday and birthplace.)
- It’s easy enough to guess where you live from where most of your friends live.
- When you create an event, you’re revealing where you’ll be, when you’ll be there, and when your house will be nice and empty.
Well... not really.
Creeper employees.
Facebook employees can – whether they’re technically allowed to or not – easily access people’s profiles, even if they’re set to private.
I won’t try to summarize it all here, but some things that go on behind closed doors are scary. Like, Big Brother scary. This article is an interview with a Facebook employee divulging a number of company (and personal) secrets. Please read it - it's a bit of an eyeopener.
And finally, if the above isn't enough to bother you, Facebook ≠ social life.
Someone I know constantly tries to pressure me into getting a Facebook, evidently thinking that it’s an absolute necessity in order to have any semblance of a social life. Now, granted, I’m not the most outgoing social butterfly to begin with: I enjoy and always have enjoyed being by myself, so maybe I’m not an expert in the area. But I don’t buy that.
Sitting in front of a computer not constitute a social life. Nor does commenting on someone’s status or photo imply a significant relationship. It’s also a bit lazy - do you really need a website to tell you what your friends are up to? Why don’t you just ask them yourselves? It would probably lead to much more meaningful conversations, and it wouldn’t be such a colossal waste of time. (Think about it – how long do you spend flipping through your friends’ pages without actually doing anything? I already spend too much time on the Internet. I don’t need another website trying to addict me.)
If I want to hang out with my friends, I’d much rather actually hang out than exchange comments online.
Think about what Facebook means for you personally. Do you really need one? Are you comfortable with what you’re putting out there for others to find? Is it worth the risks?
Visit www.quitfacebook.com. Sign the pledge to delete your Facebook and get back your privacy.
UPDATE: A good lesson from the JournoList scandal: nothing you put on the Internet is private.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Arizona Followup
Hilarious, isn't it? But disturbing at the same time: Apparently our elected officials need cute little froggy puppets to remind them what their jobs are. Ouch.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Secure Our Borders!
In case anyone's been living under a rock for the past few weeks, the Arizona immigration bill has caused quite a stir. If you pay any attention to the lamestream news, it seems Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer and Sarah Palin (scroll down see her speak on the bill) are alone in supporting it. Suddenly everyone thinks that Arizona hates Mexicans.
But nobody's even read it. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, didn't bother reading it. Attorney General Eric Holder, whose job is to advise the President on legal matters like this one, admitted to not having read it. And judging by his recent comments, even our own President hasn't read it.
Erroneous news reports are being cited over and over until finally they have become, in the public's eye, the truth.
But this bill is not what people are saying it is. (And yes, I have read it myself.)
Here’s the gist: If you’re pulled over by the cops for a traffic violation or other offense, they can ask you to prove that you are in fact a citizen of these United States. Which pretty much makes sense anyway.
It’s exactly like the federal law. And there are no civil rights violations. You can’t get pulled over just for looking Hispanic on your way to get some ice cream, as President Obama oh-so-tactfully put it. In fact, it states rather explicitly that your immigration status may be checked if you are already suspected of committing a public offense. You cannot be pulled over because of your apparent ethnic origin.
If you don’t believe me, you can read the bill for yourself here. The entire thing's only 13 pages.
SB 1070 does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and Arizona is correct in implementing it.
If we can’t ask people from other countries to respect the law, how can we expect our own citizens to?
See Sarah Palin speak on the bill:
But nobody's even read it. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, didn't bother reading it. Attorney General Eric Holder, whose job is to advise the President on legal matters like this one, admitted to not having read it. And judging by his recent comments, even our own President hasn't read it.
Erroneous news reports are being cited over and over until finally they have become, in the public's eye, the truth.
But this bill is not what people are saying it is. (And yes, I have read it myself.)
Here’s the gist: If you’re pulled over by the cops for a traffic violation or other offense, they can ask you to prove that you are in fact a citizen of these United States. Which pretty much makes sense anyway.
It’s exactly like the federal law. And there are no civil rights violations. You can’t get pulled over just for looking Hispanic on your way to get some ice cream, as President Obama oh-so-tactfully put it. In fact, it states rather explicitly that your immigration status may be checked if you are already suspected of committing a public offense. You cannot be pulled over because of your apparent ethnic origin.
If you don’t believe me, you can read the bill for yourself here. The entire thing's only 13 pages.
SB 1070 does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and Arizona is correct in implementing it.
If we can’t ask people from other countries to respect the law, how can we expect our own citizens to?
See Sarah Palin speak on the bill:
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Viral Politics: Social Media's Role in Upcoming Elections
Many pundits believe that Barack Obama’s effective use of the Internet contributed to his victory. And over the past several months, a few high-profile Republican candidates have made the most of social networking and wormed their way into blue-state offices. Despite its relative youth, social networking has become nearly as influential and dominant in the American consciousness as traditional media outlets. Web users can become friends or fans on Facebook, follow on Twitter, subscribe on YouTube, and share their opinions on a person-to-person level. And that, for politics, is key.
A simple, low-cost form of advertising, social media has already begun to change the election process for two reasons. Politics is no longer local: What began as meetings in the town square has evolved into a massive, virtual platform for dialogue on critical issues. This allows not only virtual contact with potential constituents, but also out-of-state support. Even state, county, and city elections now draw attention from across the country. And politics isn’t just for “old fogies” either. Using social networks helps politicians appear more accessible to younger generations, especially teenagers and young adults, who are usually – and accurately – pegged as the demographic least likely to vote. Simple awareness of a name or a face could spark interest and a desire to vote.
Scott Brown knew how to work the Internet. His special election campaign exemplifies how social media can be used to a politician’s advantage. Since Brown entered the race as the underdog, his campaign relied heavily on advertising and launched a website; Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr accounts; an iPhone app; and a customized Ning network, Brown Brigade. He presented potential voters with frequent updates, pushing for word-of-mouth support. A study by Larry Kim, founder of WordStream Internet Marketing, reveals just how effectively Brown used social media to his advantage. As of January 14, Martha Coakley had acquired only about 9,000 Facebook fans while Brown had 41,050. Coakley had a mere 2,674 Twitter followers; Brown had over 7,000. Also notable is that Brown frequently replied to other users’ tweets, effectively creating a channel of communication with voters. Coakley had just over 24,000 YouTube upload views… and Brown had over 223,000. His online fundraising efforts were wildly successful, with 97 percent of over $15 million in donations coming from individuals and a significant portion from states other than Massachusetts. Alexa, a company that rates Internet usage, reported that Brown had a 10:1 advantage in overall web traffic.
Despite the heavy liberal history weighing him down, Scott Brown managed to stay afloat – and win – in Massachusetts. Politicians who put effort into using social media intelligently, in addition to usual campaign strategies, can achieve an unprecedented level of contact with constituents. Upcoming candidates would do well to take advantage of social media early in the process.
Politics has gone viral. And November is coming.
A simple, low-cost form of advertising, social media has already begun to change the election process for two reasons. Politics is no longer local: What began as meetings in the town square has evolved into a massive, virtual platform for dialogue on critical issues. This allows not only virtual contact with potential constituents, but also out-of-state support. Even state, county, and city elections now draw attention from across the country. And politics isn’t just for “old fogies” either. Using social networks helps politicians appear more accessible to younger generations, especially teenagers and young adults, who are usually – and accurately – pegged as the demographic least likely to vote. Simple awareness of a name or a face could spark interest and a desire to vote.
Scott Brown knew how to work the Internet. His special election campaign exemplifies how social media can be used to a politician’s advantage. Since Brown entered the race as the underdog, his campaign relied heavily on advertising and launched a website; Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr accounts; an iPhone app; and a customized Ning network, Brown Brigade. He presented potential voters with frequent updates, pushing for word-of-mouth support. A study by Larry Kim, founder of WordStream Internet Marketing, reveals just how effectively Brown used social media to his advantage. As of January 14, Martha Coakley had acquired only about 9,000 Facebook fans while Brown had 41,050. Coakley had a mere 2,674 Twitter followers; Brown had over 7,000. Also notable is that Brown frequently replied to other users’ tweets, effectively creating a channel of communication with voters. Coakley had just over 24,000 YouTube upload views… and Brown had over 223,000. His online fundraising efforts were wildly successful, with 97 percent of over $15 million in donations coming from individuals and a significant portion from states other than Massachusetts. Alexa, a company that rates Internet usage, reported that Brown had a 10:1 advantage in overall web traffic.
Despite the heavy liberal history weighing him down, Scott Brown managed to stay afloat – and win – in Massachusetts. Politicians who put effort into using social media intelligently, in addition to usual campaign strategies, can achieve an unprecedented level of contact with constituents. Upcoming candidates would do well to take advantage of social media early in the process.
Politics has gone viral. And November is coming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
