347 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2021
    1. A legal finding of fair use takes into account the following factors: The purpose of the use, The amount of the work to be used, The effect of the use on the market for or value of the original work, and The nature of the copyrighted work. There is no official definitive answer for whether a use can be considered fair, as every case must be judged on its own merits, but there are some types of use generally allowed under fair use, including criticism and commentary, parody, journalism, education, and research.

      Intent has such a huge impact on legality. If it's something you found funny and you just want to share it with your friends, that's fine (as long as you aren't causing harm to the subject of the meme if they are a real person). If you're a big company and using the meme to advertise your product, be prepared for a lawsuit.

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

      Sometimes the context and use of the meme can be humiliating for the subject of the meme who never asked for this type of attention in the first place, like the Star Wars kid mentioned earlier who had to learn to "deal with his fame". Also like the anonymous woman in the "plane Bae" story though she wasn't in a meme necessarily, she still gained unwanted attention through the sharing of her story.

    3. generally allowed under fair use, including criticism and commentary, parody, journalism, education, and research.

      Would memes be protected under fair use because they could be considered parody, commentary, or criticism? It's unclear to me whether or not profit determines if work can be copied, or if it's the amount of attention it receives.

    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.

      I thought this was interesting because I didn't know that memes could be acknowledged as a form of communication and that would then put them under the limits placed on speech. It also raises the question of, if memes can be considered communication, then do things like live streaming and twitter threads count as communication, and are they subject to privacy and the limits of speech?

    1. I scrolled through the tweets with a smile, letting myself get caught up in what felt like a made-for-TV drama. Then I realized that was precisely how I was treating these very real people.

      You know when social media has gone too far when people start to blur the lines between fiction and reality, like explained here. We forget that these are real people with real emotions, not actors in a movie following a script.

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

      This is really frustrating and disgusting. Though it may not be appropriate, it's one thing to make an innuendo to your boyfriend or group of friends, it's another to make assumptions about strangers and put them on blast. Just another reminder to think before you speak.

    3. As with so much else that is mediated by the internet, the medium’s dissociative effects prevent us from centering the humanity of the people involved.

      In today's digital world, I agree with what the author said " what had been private is now uncontrollably crowdsourced." people who view and talk about this incident would make it even more prevalent. Thus, without knowing it, we all became accomplices in this matter.

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

      I was kind of mad about this comment. And I sadly realized that it was true. When sexual implication comes to the public, people tend to give men more tolerance than women. Whatever they did, it's a responsibility that both of them should face together. It's hilarious that the public blames women and praises men's charms.

    5. 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 thought this was interesting because it's a really good summary of a lot of the issues with social media today. Even beyond how companies track people's usage and sell data, people are very comfortable on the internet because it's not a face to face interaction and that leads to oversteps like this that would never happen in real life. People become performers almost on social media, so instead of thinking of social media as a thing that affects real people, they see it as a stage and so they act accordingly and leads to situations like these.

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

      Interesting ! I never knew where the term doxxing came from neverthelessi found this very interesting.

    2. 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 can't believe people who would do that without others' permission. We all have the right to chose not to expose our confidential, private information to the public. I think "doxxing" behavior should be considered illegal, and people who are doing "doxxing" should get a penalty for that.

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

      it's interesting to found that hackers create their own slang term. I never heard of this slang before, but I think it sounds really cool

    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.

      I agree with this idea. If you expose them to the stigma as political extremists. They would think have nothing to lose which reinforces their extremist behavior.

    1. We’re talking about moderate effect size, on par with other treatments, not better.

      It should be noted that in a separate study it was shown that mediation had higher effects on decreasing depression than things like exercise or aroma therapy, but did not rank higher than antidepressants.

    1. With aging, the brain cortical thickness (gray matter, which contains neurons) decreases, whereas meditation experience is associated with an increase in gray matter in the brain.

      damaged or reduced gray matter is linked to Alzheimer's, so could mediation prevent that?

  2. Sep 2021
    1. “The FBI has testified the bureau allocates its resources almost exactly backwards than the problem would suggest,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said. “Devoting 80 percent of field agents to stopping international terrorism including Islamic extremism and only 20 percent to stopping domestic terrorism including far right and white supremacist extremism.”

      I was very surprised by this statement , I feel the FBI should provide the same amount of funding for internal extremism as for international problems.

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

      After the day that Trump won the presidential election, the hate crime was increased a lot. As is said in this article, "white supremacists were responsible for 78 percent of extremist murders." The FBI has to pay attention to this. It's getting more severe because of the carelessness from the police department.

    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 how the author compares checking sources to checking things in your car.

    2. me steps. In this case Bloomberg News is not the top result, but you scroll down and click the Bloomberg News link, and check the URL and find it is different. If you’re lazy (which I am) you might click that link to get to the rea

      I'm impressed by how to check if you are real site. I've never noticed how to do it before reading this article. I found this very useful, and I think it will help me in the future.

  3. Jul 2021
    1. Seemingly innocent cases, like that of “Plane Bae,” are small warning signs on the road to our even more networked future. We are all watching each other, mining each other’s lives for “content” that we give for free to large corporations who then monetize it.

      If everyone is watching everyone else, can there be any real privacy while in public?

    2. Respondents to the original thread, in thrall to the “love story” and eager to thwart Blair’s half-hearted attempts at anonymizing the pair, soon found and shared the woman’s Instagram. Holden embraced the choice that had been made for him; his companion clearly hasn’t.

      And that's the danger. People are willing to trample on your privacy rights because they believe they have a right to continue this "story."

    3. ABC News implied that Holden said “there’s still hope” for the relationship, though this framing is at odds with what Holden actually said, which seemed to be a more generic statement about hopefulness. That narrative frame is a reminder of the story everyone here is being coerced into. They must get together.

      This is reminiscent of rumors spinning out of control. How people make statements which can be misleading and someone else takes it a step further, but this is on a national level. Narrative and framing matters far more than we expect.

    4. 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.

      This is not just an example of people "replicating the coercive power of the state" but also acting as agents of it. Their fame came from "below" and "above".

    5. Now imagine doing it in front of millions of people and the international media. 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. Instead, all you have is that same vulnerability before a vast crowd that feels entitled to the most intimate parts of your life.

      This is one of the negative things about social media. There are some people who start to feel entitled to aspects of people's lives that they are following. I can't imagine living like that.

    6. There’s another unfortunate dimension to this whole saga that mimics the coercive effect of public marriage proposals: everyone innocently cheers on the romance because it tells a good story, but it places the woman in the invidious position of being the “bad guy” if she says no. Holden has since made romantic overtures in the press, telling Today, “She’s a very, very, very lovely girl.

      I've never liked the idea of public proposals for this reason specifically. I, like many others, don't like to be put on the spot and if the person says no it makes the whole situation so much worse. Holden also seems horrible to me. He seems like he is enjoying the spotlight way to much at the expense of the woman.

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

      This is an important idea because technology has truly changed the way we see the world and interact and there is a lot of cons going into that.

    8. 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 a very real look at the realities of having your information being shared online without your consent.

    9. 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.

      This goes to show that you cannot stop people from finding information about you online. The internet has no privacy.

    10. Creating threads of content based on the lives of average people, particularly with photos, has the potential to summon panoptic interest in the form of millions of eyes whose gaze weighs terribly on a person who is unused to a life of celebrity, as the vast majority of social media users are

      With today's media it is possible to take photos of someone or a video out of context which makes them look bad.

    11. We should be thinking more seriously about the ethics of live-tweeting: when is it appropriate? When it is, what should and shouldn’t you do?

      Perhaps we need to take social media and what we post more seriously. When we put any information into the internet world, we never really have the power to control what happens to it from there.

    12. As with so much else that is mediated by the internet, the medium’s dissociative effects prevent us from centering the humanity of the people involved.

      The effects of social media are that we can almost perceive people as objects rather than human beings with feelings and real lives. Unfortunately, this can result in a lot of hurt for those victims of social media abuses.

    13. Multiple news outlets, including ones as far away as Australia, picked up the tale of Holden and his seatmate as their “human interest” story of the day.

      Something I find interesting here is that while the media outlets themselves should take some blame for sensationalizing a story without the woman's consent, this type of story is extremely popular with readers. We as media consumers need to be more aware of the ethical implications of the content we click on/consume.

    14. We should be thinking more seriously about the ethics of live-tweeting: when is it appropriate? When it is, what should and shouldn’t you do?

      This is exactly the point. We should be thinking more about our behaviors on the web and social media before we take action. Something that may seem benign can be exactly the opposite.

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

      This is clearly fair use though. It's a parody, which is one of the usually protected fair uses.

    2. Richard Dawkins is credited as having coined the term in The Selfish Gene (1976). Memes are the units that transmit ideas, behaviors, styles and usage within a culture through a variety of media, like nursery rhymes passed down from parent to child.

      Dawkins may have coined the term, but it's current iteration, as described by Godwin, has completely eclipsed and overtaken it's old definition in public consciousness, very fitting for a meme.

    3. 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.

      A meme is a very broad meaning for a phenomenon in social media

    4. 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

      If your content is online for anyone to see, do the meme creators really deserved to be sued?

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

      I think memes are also a potential breach of privacy. If a video is taken of you without consent and it goes viral, there is no going back. You will see that video like no tomorrow. It's life changing.

    6. 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 people always forget that memes are still someone's work and sadly people end up getting sued because they just throw around the image like it's nothing.

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

      Giving thought to the subject of the meme can possibly help us to pause instead of immediately reposting. The lives of those involved can be forever changed by a small act of reposting.

    8. In 2016, the parents of another unwilling subject sued the image’s creator, a news organization for publishing the image in a story about it, and a dancer on the show “Dancing With the Stars,” who the suit contended contributed to the image’s spread and the subject’s emotional distress by reposting the image with negative comments on social media.

      Negative comments can certainly contribute to feelings of emotional distress. This can be an unfortunate result of posting anything on social media platforms.

    9. 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 is so sad, especially when it comes to a child. It's virtually impossible to keep your child's image off the web these days, even if you don't have social media yourself.

    10. there are some types of use generally allowed under fair use, including criticism and commentary, parody, journalism, education, and research.

      I have to say I love that parody is included in this list as it's probably the least noble usage, but the right to parody of those in power so important for our freedoms and democracy.

  4. May 2021
    1. Meme creators and posters have been sued for using people’s images without permission, especially those who were not already public figures.

      this is interesting to know

    2. 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

      sometimes it is important to be creative with actual situations that are happening around the world and give a message for the better understanding of the people.

    3. They catch on and spread via social media because they’re funny or they hit a nerve.

      It is impressive how quickly something can get viral and shared with so many people around the world.

  5. Apr 2021
    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.

      The way she looks at the audience to give the information is so powerful. The FBI took a big step to recognize what has been denied for years

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

      Its interesting to know that by putting wikipedia at the end, information can be verified

  6. Nov 2020
    1. Online vigilantism has been around since the early days of the internet. So has “doxxing” — originally a slang term among hackers for obtaining and posting private documents about an individual, usually a rival or enemy. To hackers, who prized their anonymity, it was considered a cruel attack.

      This statement was interesting to me as although I knew what the word doxxing was I never knew what the word actually meant.

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

      this is a really good point on anonymity of the internet. Someone may be very racist, but they live in the bay area and that could really close doors to say something like that, but on the internet they can always find a new identity to create and talk about their racist beliefs. You aren't really changing their ways.

    3. “You’re a Nazi and you’re fired, it’s your fault,” she sang. “You were spotted in a mob, now you lost your freaking job. You’re a Nazi and you’re fired, it’s your fault.”

      Yo this song slaps for real. Nazi's are a great example of a group so wholly dispised in America. Demonized to the point that it's difficult to recognize it in real life. You know it's the point of "Would you kill Hitler?" Which is a logical fallacy and the world has gotten more complicated in terms of doxxing with the rise of the internet.

    1. 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

      I found this statement to be interesting because I do agree with what was said and feel as if this is overlooked by many

    2. 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.

      Memes are a part of culture and cannot be copyrighted as a result.

    3. Image-based memes are easy to create and easy to spread, though whether they will go viral is never a given. If you create or post one, remember to pay attention to the source of the image. Your best bet is to start with an image or clip that is already labeled for reuse or is in the public domain,

      What you should do when trying to create a meme

    4. 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.

      Copyright law is not clear on how it uses a fair consideration. It could be difficult to indicate whether someone violates it or not. People second-guess their selves every day on whether they violate it.

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

      People do this to make short funny cracked up jokes about something that is referenced from something they have did or they are going to do. Making it a meme, that someone else that can relate to it.

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

      I get people using other sources to make memes but half of the memes on the internet are copyright, I mean it is law to not copyright but that what most of these memes are.

    1. imagine doing it without the benefit of a true celebrity’s phalanx of staff and bodyguards or the lucre such a status normally confers. Instead, all you have is that same vulnerability before a vast crowd that feels entitled to the most intimate parts of your life. How difficult would it be to conduct that relationship on your own terms?

      Celebrities should have a relationship on their own terms. It should not come from fans or from coworkers that want to people together. Celebrities should have their intimate life in close doors.

    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.

      Look at her face, its kinda the face like oh you guys are finally noticing this. I think it's really good that they are noticing these things and working to stop it. It's really good that people are still talking about this because if they dont I feel that some may start to forget.

    1. The FBI has testified the bureau allocates its resources almost exactly backwards than the problem would suggest,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said. “Devoting 80 percent of field agents to stopping international terrorism including Islamic extremism and only 20 percent to stopping domestic terrorism including far right and white supremacist extremism

      This seems to be accurate, after using the Google search method from Mike Caulfield’s blogpost, many sources say the same thing.

    2. 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

      This is interesting to me as it makes it more clear to me about how much involvement the white supremacist actual had and the impact that they made on the situation.

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

      This is interesting because it gives a good analysis of how checking sources is important

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

      This is interesting to me as I would always tend to think that just cause someone had a blue check mark there information would be more trust worthy.

    3. Maybe you agree with this article. I don’t, but maybe you do. And that’s okay. But do you want to share from this particular site to your friends and family and co-workers? Let’s take a look!

      It's very important to no that people don't always agree with you. But it is your opinion if you like something or not. If you like an article and want to share it and see if your family and your friends like it it's important to know how to share the article.

    4. 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.

      Sources can still be biased and say false things regardless of their credibility as that person on twitter. People can still just have opinions or read things wrong

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

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

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

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

    3. I scrolled through the tweets with a smile, letting myself get caught up in what felt like a made-for-TV drama. Then I realized that was precisely how I was treating these very real people. My stomach turned as I considered how I’d feel if every twitch of my arm, half of my conversation, and even my bathroom usage were all narrated, without my knowledge, for a swelling audience of several hundred thousand people online.

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

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

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

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

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

    6. At a certain level of virality, you cannot stop motivated people on the internet from piercing your veils. In the case of that woman from Blair’s flight, her legions of “fans” are digging day and night to find more information, to meet the female lead of this summer’s hottest rom-com. They want to know what happens next. They want to make her finish the story. Go on a date; now kiss; now get engaged; tell us what it was like. We need to know more. More. More. Until she has nothing left to give, and the next thread about some other person plucked from obscurity comes along.

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

    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.

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

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

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

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

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

    2. The purpose of the use, The amount of the work to be used, The effect of the use on the market for or value of the original work, and The nature of the copyrighted work.

      important information concerning what exactly is covered under copyright law

    3. the amount of the work used in the meme probably supports the meme creators if the image was a still of another work, usually making up a small percentage of the original, but not if the original work was a photograph in which the whole of the work was being used.

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

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

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

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

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

    6. Your best bet is to start with an image or clip that is already labeled for reuse or is in the public domain, meaning out of copyright protection altogether. Google Images search tools provides such a filter, or try the Creative Commons search for work licensed for reuse via Creative Commons licenses. When you see a meme going around, give a thought to the subject of that meme image, whose life may forever be changed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    10. Image-based memes are easy to create and easy to spread, though whether they will go viral is never a given. If you create or post one, remember to pay attention to the source of the image. Your best bet is to start with an image or clip that is already labeled for reuse or is in the public domain, meaning out of copyright protection altogether. Google Images search tools provides such a filter, or try the Creative Commons search for work licensed for reuse via Creative Commons licenses. When you see a meme going around, give a thought to the subject of that meme image, whose life may forever be changed.

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

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

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

    12. Image-based memes are easy to create and easy to spread, though whether they will go viral is never a given. If you create or post one, remember to pay attention to the source of the image. Your best bet is to start with an image or clip that is already labeled for reuse or is in the public domain, meaning out of copyright protection altogether. Google Images search tools provides such a filter, or try the Creative Commons search for work licensed for reuse via Creative Commons licenses. When you see a meme going around, give a thought to the subject of that meme image, whose life may forever be changed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. But Tony McAleer, a former white supremacist leader who now runs Life After Hate, a rehabilitation program for neo-Nazis, called doxxing a “ passive aggressive violence.” He said publicizing the names and workplaces of neo-Nazis may offer some level of solace to people outraged by them, but it makes his job more difficult.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    6. professor from Arkansas who was wrongly accused of participating in the neo-Nazi march. And some worry that the stigma of being outed as a political extremist can only reinforce that behavior in people who could still be talked out of it.

      This sounds like a very harmful way for people to be wrongly accused. When it happens on the internet, it never really goes away.

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

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

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

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

  8. Sep 2020
    1. The FBI said it has stopped using the "Black Identity Extremist" tag and acknowledged that white supremacist violence is the biggest terrorist threat this country faces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Inferring authority from twitter "blue check"

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

      This is something everyone should do, especially in our climate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Need to check the blue checkmark carefully before using the information

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

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

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

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

    1. People who conspire with international terrorists—even if they aren’t materially involved in an act of violence—are charged with “acts of terrorism transcending international boundaries.”

      I feel like this is similar for all crimes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    6. But someone who sends pipe bombs to Democrats; plows through a crowd of anti-racism protesters in Charlottesville, Va.; or shoots up a church in Charleston, S.C., will not face domestic terrorism charges.

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

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

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

    8. “The FBI has testified the bureau allocates its resources almost exactly backwards than the problem would suggest,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said. “Devoting 80 percent of field agents to stopping international terrorism including Islamic extremism and only 20 percent to stopping domestic terrorism including far right and white supremacist extremism.”

      I find these a little surprising. I think these two issues should be either equal or reversed than where they are now.

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

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

  9. Jul 2020
    1. “For us, it slows things down. We try to integrate people back to humanity,” Mr. McAleer said. “If isolation and shame is the driver for people joining these types of groups, doxxing certainly isn’t the answer.”

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

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

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

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

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

    4. Now the online hunt to reveal extremists has raised concerns about unintended consequences, or even collateral damage. A few individuals have been misidentified in recent weeks, including a professor from Arkansas who was wrongly accused of participating in the neo-Nazi march. And some worry that the stigma of being outed as a political extremist can only reinforce that behavior in people who could still be talked out of it.

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

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

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

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

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

    7. But Tony McAleer, a former white supremacist leader who now runs Life After Hate, a rehabilitation program for neo-Nazis, called doxxing a “ passive aggressive violence.” He said publicizing the names and workplaces of neo-Nazis may offer some level of solace to people outraged by them, but it makes his job more difficult.“For us, it slows things down. We try to integrate people back to humanity,” Mr. McAleer said. “If isolation and shame is the driver for people joining these types of groups, doxxing certainly isn’t the answer.”In short, once someone is labeled a Nazi on the internet, that person stays a Nazi on the internet.

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

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

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

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

      My first time hearing the term "doxxing"

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

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

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

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

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

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

    13. Now the online hunt to reveal extremists has raised concerns about unintended consequences, or even collateral damage. A few individuals have been misidentified in recent weeks, including a professor from Arkansas who was wrongly accused of participating in the neo-Nazi march. And some worry that the stigma of being outed as a political extremist can only reinforce that behavior in people who could still be talked out of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    4. The story’s charm disguises the invasion of privacy at its heart: the way technology is both eroding our personal boundaries and coercing us in deleterious ways. To some, the story from that flight to Dallas already has a happy ending. The mystery man revealed himself on Twitter as former soccer player Euan Holden and gave Blair permission to share his Instagram and reveal his name. He has eagerly taken a liking to his newfound social media fandom and embraced the moniker of “Plane Bae,” even appearing on NBC’s Today to bask in the attention. Surely, this is the ultimate consent and the final proof that people like me are just being buzzkills about a fundamentally innocent story. But look closer. What about the mystery woman? She’s clearly been far more reticent, declining an interview for the Today segment and asking that her full name not be revealed. It’s hard to avoid the impression that she’s being dragged into the public eye nonetheless.

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

    5. In the case of that woman from Blair’s flight, her legions of “fans” are digging day and night to find more information, to meet the female lead of this summer’s hottest rom-com. They want to know what happens next. They want to make her finish the story. Go on a date; now kiss; now get engaged; tell us what it was like. We need to know more. More. More.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Image-based memes are easy to create and easy to spread, though whether they will go viral is never a given. If you create or post one, remember to pay attention to the source of the image. Your best bet is to start with an image or clip that is already labeled for reuse or is in the public domain, meaning out of copyright protection altogether. Google Images search tools provides such a filter,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. mage-based memes are easy to create and easy to spread, though whether they will go viral is never a given. If you create or post one, remember to pay attention to the source of the image. Your best bet is to start with an image or clip that is already labeled for reuse or is in the public domain, meaning out of copyright protection altogether. Google Images search tools provides such a filter, or try the Creative Commons search for work licensed for reuse via Creative Commons licenses.

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

    1. there’s no domestic terrorism charge.”To be clear, there is a law that defines domestic terrorism but not one that charges people who commit acts of terrorism in America. People who conspire with international terrorists—even if they aren’t materially involved in an act of violence—are charged with “

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

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

      Unbelievable!

    3. But someone who sends pipe bombs to Democrats; plows through a crowd of anti-racism protesters in Charlottesville, Va.; or shoots up a church in Charleston, S.C., will not face domestic terrorism charges.

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

    4. On Tuesday, June 4, the House Oversight subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties held the second session in a series of hearings titled: “Confronting White Supremacy.” Among those testifying before the subcommittee was Michael C. McGarrity, the director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. McGarrity explained that right-wing extremists like the Tree of Life Synagogue shooter in Pittsburgh were charged with hate crimes instead of domestic terrorism simply because “there’s no domestic terrorism charge.”To be clear, there is a law that defines domestic terrorism but not one that charges people who commit acts of terrorism in America. People who conspire with international terrorists—even if they aren’t materially involved in an act of violence—are charged with “acts of terrorism transcending international boundaries.” But someone who sends pipe bombs to Democrats; plows through a crowd of anti-racism protesters in Charlottesville, Va.; or shoots up a church in Charleston, S.C., will not face domestic terrorism charges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    5. More people than you would think believe that the blue checkmark = trustworthy. But all the blue checkmark really does is say that the person is who they say they are, that they are the person of that name and not an imposter. Your two-second “mirror and head-check” here is going to be to always, always hover, and see what they are verified for.

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

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

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

  11. Dec 2019
    1. . If you create or post one, remember to pay attention to the source of the image. Your best bet is to start with an image or clip that is already labeled for reuse or is in the public domain, meaning out of copyright protection altogether. Google Images search tools provides such a filter, or try the Creative Commons search for work licensed for reuse via Creative Commons licenses. When you see a meme going around, give a thought to the subject of that meme image, whose life may forever be

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

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

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

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

      This is a good way to prevent infringement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    10. informal forms of power

      Informal > unregulated > unaccountable > potentially dangerous and abusive

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

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

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

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

    13. charm disguises the invasion of privacy

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

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

      Concise and clear statement to which I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    7. aggressive

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

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

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

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