Final - Anonymity and Racism

Anonymity is a scary aspect of the internet that a lot of people use for negative reasons.  I believe that allowing users of social networking websites to remain anonymous is only going to perpetuate racist acts and bullying in years, and generations, to come.  I think that allowing someone to remain anonymous gives them reassurance that whatever they say or do over social media will not be reprimanded in any way, and therefore gives them the confidence to post inflammatory content.  With that being said, the only way to put an end to this behaviour, even in part, is to oust bullies and racists to the general public, therefore taking away their confidence that they will never be exposed.  However, I think that there are certain acceptable ways of exposing the people behind misbehaviour on social media, especially seeing as many of the perpetrators seem to be youth.  Exposing people for their racist and inflammatory remarks is a beneficial way of combating the misuse of social media, but only if they are exposed for reasons of education and warnings to others as opposed to simply for entertainment purposes.

An example of a racist remark on Facebook using persistent identity.

One example of taking away people’s anonymity is in the case of the website Jezebel, as they revealed several teenagers who had posted racist tweets about Barack Obama.  Their way of exposing the teens was to contact the principals of the school (or other officials, depending on the case in question), to ask if the racist tweets went against the code of conduct of the schools. I believe that the idea behind doing this was that it would lead to punishment for the teens.  Most of the people contacted were pretty tight lipped about the offences, likely because they didn't want to reveal information about people who were still minors. 

Jezebel logo

I believe that this was a good way to combat the problem of anonymity allowing people to post inappropriate content on social media because it was constructive.  The idea (in my opinion) was to expose them in order to hopefully obtain some sort of education on the matter of racism as opposed to just exposing them for the sake of having the whole world know who they are.  I feel as though even though racism is a horrible concept that people have to deal with on a daily basis, it provides people with a sort of entertainment value.  Bad news tends to make the headlines, such as actors and actresses being admitted to rehab, murders, and other violent crimes.  For some reason, the public seems to enjoy reading about these instances, perhaps because we feel comfort that it is happening to someone else and not us.  I think that it is the same concept with the ousting of people who have posted racist content online.  The outside world would be entertained by the exposure of these people, and I think that ousting people for this reason is not constructive at all for society.  The constructive way to go about exposing these people would be to provide education and information to the public about the effects that racism can have.

From the show Big Brother; the public gets entertainment from racist comments.

The website Slate believes the opposite; that racist minors are probably not all that racist, but rather are impulsive and didn't think their posts through.  They believe that ousting these people will in fact make the kids angrier and possibly more likely to continue acting out.  They don’t believe that these teens will have attitude changes because people found out that they made a racist tweet.  Moreover, they believe that these websites should not have used minors’ personal information to track them down.  It is an interesting take on the idea, since dealing with the privacy of minors is such a big issue in today’s society.

Another interesting example of racist posts about Barack Obama on social media involved someone’s persistent identity on Facebook, and led to her losing her job at a Cold Stone Creamery.  The Fox40 website posted an article about a woman who was being investigated by the secret service about her racist Facebook post.  The interesting thing is that she was perfectly willing to come forward and talk about it to the media, saying that she didn't think that what she said was wrong.  Although she said that maybe Obama would get assassinated, she never said that anyone should do it, or that she was going to do it.  In her mind, that made the comment okay.  Fox40 posted another article the next day about the fact that this woman had lost her job over the post.  The article said that her comments did not reflect the views of the company, which I am assuming is the reason that they let her go.

Denise Helms, subject of the above incident.

I also think that this is a constructive way of dealing with the issue, because if people start to realize that they may lose their job for things that they post on social media, they may think twice about doing so.  Aside from losing a job, individuals could lose relationships, respect, and future job prospects, all of which could greatly impact a person's life.  Even though this case did get exposed to the media, I think that it may serve as a warning to others who have contemplated, or are contemplating, posting a racist or otherwise inappropriate remark on the internet.  

In combining these two cases, we can see that one can either be anonymous or not to be revealed to the public.  We can also see that the results of these exposures can be completely different; from the loss of a job to discipline through the school boards.  Either way, I think that the intentions of the people who were doing the exposing were good; to show people that it is not okay to use anonymity and social platforms to express racist views.  I think that what they are trying to show people is that individuals around the world are affected by these types of remarks.  Especially when using platforms like the World Wide Web, these views can become widespread and people can band together using anonymity to make others feel inferior and not worthy of respect.  What the world seems to be working towards now is fostering an environment of respect among individuals of different races because in the end, we are all humans.  So, if we do not do something about the fact that people are using anonymity in order to perpetuate negative views about each other, than the problem of racism in the world will likely never go away.  The amount of influence that the internet has on us at this point in history is striking, and can be used for either pro-social or anti-social reasons.  Anonymity seems to be convincing people that the anti-social reasons are what they should act upon, when in reality we could be using our persistent identities to promote pro-social behaviour instead.  In sum, collective action is necessary in order to combat the use of anonymity to promote racism and other negativity worldwide.

My Online Identity and the Dreaded Facebook Account.

I deactivated my Facebook about six months ago with the intention of getting it back at some point.  Now that I don't have it, I think back and laugh at myself about how much I relied on my online identity to define who I was in real life.

Facebook Photo

When I deleted my account, I had over 800 friends.  Why? I have no idea.  When I was in high school, I thought that having an enormous number of Facebook friends made me "cool" in some way.  Even though, when I would look at other people's Facebook pages and they had anywhere over 200 friends, I would immediately think "wow, that person must have no friends in real life".  And then I started to wonder - is that what people think about me?  But I only realized that after I deactivated my Facebook.  So, I suppose I thought I could increase my so called "popularity" in real life by increasing my online identity's "popularity".  I came to this realization when I noticed that, without Facebook, I didn't really talk to very many people.  I realized that my online identity on Facebook was not representative of my real self.  When I reactivate my Facebook, I have every intention of deleting those that I have on my friends list for no apparent reason.

Another issue that I have encountered with Facebook and my online identity has to do with the infamous "relationship status".  I had my first boyfriend when I was 15.  I couldn't wait to put it on Facebook and show the world what I had accomplished! Then we broke up shortly after and I couldn't wait to show the world (and my ex boyfriend) how fast I could get over him! So, I entered into a new relationship way too quickly just to have my status on Facebook read "in a relationship".  Seeing as the breakup had been incredibly bitter, there was no chance that I was going to let my relationship status go back to single this time.  I was going to show my ex who was the boss.  Then, I stayed in an unhappy relationship for three and a half years and just ended it 6 months ago.  Eventually, it wasn't the love of the relationship status that caused me to stay in the relationship anymore; it was the fear of what people would say or do over Facebook if they found out that we broke up.  My online identity had shown people for three and a half years that I was unavailable and happy as ever; and that would all change if I removed the relationship status.

So, the first thing that I did after I broke up with him was to take my relationship status off of Facebook and immediately deactivate my account to avoid the comments from others (pathetic, I know).  I couldn't bear the thought of having over 800 people realize that I was now single, and wonder what on earth had happened.  I realized that most of the people who I was connected with through my online Facebook identity were not really interested in me, but were interested in the drama.

So, that leads me to my current dilemma.  I recently entered into a new relationship, and am wanting my Facebook back.  Not because I want the put the relationship status back on, but because I feel like other people have probably gotten over the fact that we broke up.  However, I know that if I get my Facebook back, I will likely put my relationship status back up.  Again, my online identity will include me being in a relationship rather than me being single.  I realized that as soon as I entered a new relationship I was automatically okay with having my Facebook back, when during my single months I was completely against it.  I wonder if the only thing I feared was having my online identity change; because now that it will say "in a relationship" again, I am perfectly willing to get it back.

It is interesting to think about how an online identity can shape a person's life.  I spent three and a half years of my life in a relationship that I was unhappy in, all to preserve my online identity.  Some people may consider it sad that I allowed the internet to control my life (as do I), but I firmly believe that this will be the way of the future generations as well.

Rob Ford ... Enough Said.

We all know what's going on with the mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford.  It started in May with the release of a video that supposedly showed Ford smoking crack cocaine.  Ford outright denied that he had ever used crack cocaine and essentially claimed the video was bogus.  But, several months later, he admits that it was in fact true; he used crack cocaine.  But it doesn't stop there! He also admitted to purchasing illegal drugs during one of his terms as Mayor.  Now, there are allegations of him partying with prostitutes, referring to taxi drivers by racial slurs, and driving while intoxicated.  And we thought the cat was out of the bag after all of that ... we were wrong.

Rob Ford Cartoon

As of today, there is another allegation against Mayor Rob Ford. As a Calgary Metro news article explains, he supposedly had oral sex with a former staff member, and made lewd comments about doing so.  

The real controversy that exists is whether Mayor Rob Ford should step down from his position.  I've heard people say that they believe that what he does in his spare time should be completely separate from his job ... but is that even possible?  That's like asking us to ignore the fact that Chris Brown beat up Rihanna simply because he is a famous artist.

Many people believe that once you step into a position of authority and are in the public eye, you have basically signed a contract agreeing that whatever you do can and likely will, become public knowledge.  I personally think that the public should not have to ignore what the person who is supposed to be in charge of their city is doing.  If he is constantly impaired through drugs and/or alcohol, then are the decisions that he is making for the city really the best ones?

This leads to my next question: should mayor Ford step down?  The article explains that many people say yes, even those that are personally and professionally close to him.  Up until today's allegations, most people that were close to Ford were saying that he should be able to keep his job as mayor; but many now believe that he has crossed the line.  With so many allegations coming to the surface since the original release of the video showing Ford smoking crack, one can only speculate that more allegations will come to the surface; possibly being even more detrimental than the ones that have already arisen.  Perhaps he should just cut his losses, and step down before it gets even worse for him.

Also in the article, Ford mentions that the new allegations are disrespectful to his wife and his family.  So to not step down, in my opinion, would be selfish on his part.  Even if these allegations are not true, the bottom line is that they can and likely will negatively impact his family regardless of their validity or credibility.

It will be interesting to see what is next in store for the followers of the Rob Ford controversy...

Audiences

The blog that I chose to analyse the audience for is called “The Bloggess”.  The first thing that I noticed when I went on the page was that everything is pink.  The background is pink, the links are pink, the titles of the entries are pink, and the numbers of comments are pink.  My first thought was that this blog was aimed directly at women.  I felt as though my thoughts were confirmed when I looked at the advertisements along the right hand side of the page.  Among the advertisements were “This is Mommyhood”, “Mommy Shorts”, and “Pregnancy Calendar at Alpha Mom”.  Clearly, these advertisements are aimed at women.  The advertisements led me to believe that perhaps this blog is aimed at women who are in their 20’s or 30’s – getting ready to start a family, have a career, and just get life going.

I then decided to check out the comments on one of her recent posts.  Although the vast majority of people commenting on the blog were women (judging by their usernames), I was shocked to see how many men were reading and commenting on her posts!  The only reason I can see for this is that a lot of her posts are humourous, and talk about the things that happen in daily life – perhaps men are just looking for a good laugh!

 

She also has a link to the summary of her book called “Lets Pretend this Never Happened”, which is basically a memoir of her funny yet embarrassing childhood.  I think that a lot of people who read her blog have probably read her book (because her fan base seems to be fairly committed to her), and therefore relate to her based on events that have happened in her life.  It is a possibility that the events she has experienced are common to many of her readers, and therefore they feel as though they can understand where she is coming from.

The Bloggess' Book "Let's Pretend this Never Happened"

The readers of her blog definitely seem to feel as though they are forming a community with her – they comment on events in her life, wish her luck on future endeavors, and even offer her support in her times of struggle.  They comment as if they know her in the real world – which seems to be the type of environment that she has fostered through her funny, “let-it-all-hang-out” type of posts.  She also has a link to her store where readers can buy clothing, office supplies, and other products that would make her followers feel more related to her – which likely also fosters a sense of community.  The interesting thing is that when I clicked her store and went to “clothing”, the majority of clothing is for men!

On her “about me” page, she has a very limited amount of information.  I feel as though this is on purpose, so that her readers do not feel separated from her because she is “more famous than they are”.  She welcomes people to email her, to follow her on twitter, and to use other forms of social media to contact her. 

Image from The Bloggess' "About Me" Page

Even though males still comment on her posts, I believe that the blog is aimed mainly at women.  She seems to connect best with them through the stories that she tells (often about womanhood) and through her advertisements.  There are some entries that she posts that seem to be gender neutral (i.e. about her cat) but never anything directly aimed at males.   Overall, she seems to be able to connect better with females, without ignoring the fact that males are interested in her blog as well.

Plagiarism and Intellectual Property

The concept of what needs to be cited in academic work and what does not is becoming more and more cloudy due to the simple and effortless nature of the internet.  However, I believe that some people who plagiarize are using this idea as a justification for stealing other peoples' work.  In the past, I believe that plagiarism in writing could be seen as a more intentional act because you would have to put a substantial amount of energy into physically copying what somebody else had already written.  Now, plagiarism requires barely the flick of a wrist to accomplish; and people are taking advantage of its simplicity.

This article discusses a type of "new plagiarism" in higher educational levels that is as simple as pointing and clicking.  The site explains that in the past 14 years, there has been a great increase in the amount of "paper-mill" websites; that is, websites that produce and sell academic papers.  In 1999 there were 35 of these sites, and now there are more than 250.  The article says that each of these sites receive more than 2.6 million visits per month. Also listed are four more paper-mill sites that each have thousands of members.

In my opinion, these paper-mill sites can be compared to online shopping.  Just because you go onto the website, it does not necessarily mean you are going to purchase a paper.  However, the fact that the hit rates on these websites are so outrageously high shows that people are likely contemplating buying a paper, and therefore committing the act of plagiarism.  Whether they follow through on buying a paper from a particular site could be a product of many factors, including what other paper-mill sites have to offer and how much guilt they feel about the act of plagiarizing.  Either way, most people likely do not go to these sites because they are passionate about the idea of being honest in what they write.

This article identifies three types of cheaters; the "all-or-nothing" cheaters who will purchase entire papers online, the "sneaky" cheater, who cuts and pastes from various places on the web in an attempt to avoid being caught, and the "unintentional" cheater, who claims that they didn't know that they were plagiarizing. The article presents an attitude that is seemingly overwhelming the integrity of academic writing; if a pre-written answer cannot be found online, then perhaps it is just not worth writing about.

I think that all types of plagiarizers probably use the "unintentional" plagiarizing excuse as a justification for their actions.  The "all-or-nothing" plagiarizer could say that they didn't know it was wrong to buy a paper, and the "sneaky" plagiarizer could say that whatever is on Google should be common knowledge.  I do believe that there are some people who do not know exactly how to cite their sources.  After spending thirteen years in the public school system I am aware that education on plagiarism is insufficient for the university level of writing.  However, I feel as though the majority of people know that they have to give credit to their sources. There is a difference between blatant stealing of other people's work, and accidentally citing a source incorrectly in your paper.  In one case, there is absolutely no attempt to give credit where credit is due, and in the other case, stealing was probably not the intention of the writer.

In conclusion, I believe that the effortlessness of the internet is making plagiarism easier, however I do not believe that it is making plagiarism more acceptable.  I think that with the increase of plagiarism that is occurring due to the internet, there should be an increase in the amount of time educators dedicate to the importance of knowing how to cite online sources.  Without more education related to this matter, there will likely not be an end to the issue of "point and click" plagiarism.

Marshall McLuhan - "The Medium is the Message"

Marshall McLuhan was a Canadian author who wrote the book "Understanding Media: the Extensions of Man" which was published in 1964.  He also taught at several universities and colleges around the United States and Canada.  He was very influential in the university scene, earning many honourary degrees and awards throughout his life.  McLuhan also created a Centre for Culture and Technology at the University of Toronto to study the consequences and benefits of the media.  Before his death in 1980, he had become famous for his quotes, many of which are still well - known today. The quote that he is most famous for is "the medium is the message".

Marshall McLuhan's Photo

The phrase "the medium is the message" seems to mean that the content of the message is not as important as the effects that the medium has on society.  An example that this blogger uses to explain this phrase has to do with the television. The blogger explains that television has altered many aspects of social life; therefore what is reported through the television is a reflection of the changes that the television has caused.

The idea of "the media is the message" is linked to the another idea that  Marshall McLuhan had about technology; that it can be seen as an extension of the human body, moving out of the realm of what humans can do with their own minds and bodies in order to do something new and innovative.  As we find more efficient and productive ways of doing things, we "amputate" our old extension and replace it with the new one.  A perfect example of this theory is in the case of a computer.  Through the medium of the computer we have gained access to the message of the internet, which has changed our lives profoundly in terms of communication, efficiency, and access to knowledge.  Without the medium of the computer, the internet would be completely useless because we would have no way to access it.  Therefore, in this case the medium would deserve more attention than it gets, because the message would not exist without the medium.

I feel as though this idea is no longer relevant in today's society; not because of its content, but because of the amount that individuals in society take things for granted.  I was born into a society where the internet was commonplace and was the standard for obtaining information.  However, I feel that people don't realize that if you look further, there are other factors that caused the internet to exist.  I think that because people are born into a world where technology is taken for granted on a moment to moment basis, the argument of "the medium is the  message" loses its relevance.  The argument of people nowadays would most likely be something more along the lines of "the message validates the medium", because so much praise and attention is given to what was originally meant to be the message.  I would be guilty of this way of thinking too - I spent at least an hour reading various web pages to even be able to understand what "the medium is the message" means.

Computers are of course not the only example of this phenomenon.  Another good example would be a vehicle.  Vehicles were originally created to get people places faster.  Now, I find that people are so obsessed with getting places faster using their vehicles that they give little to no credit to the vehicle itself - the piece of technology that allowed for that efficiency to take place.

All in all, I think that there is definitely a shift in people's thinking.  I think that a large part of this shift can be attributed to the fact that our society seems to be driven by immediate gratification.  We access the internet within seconds to get the information we need.  We can't walk five minutes to the McDonalds, we need to drive to get our meals faster.  If we are so obsessed with efficiency and immediate gratification, why would we stop and take the time to think about the question: "where did this all come from, anyways?".

Introductory Blog Post

Hi everyone,

This is my introductory blog.  I haven't quite decided what I want to blog about so I this blog will just be about myself.  My name is Alyssa.    I have lived in Calgary all of my life, and have only ever traveled to Mexico, the United States, and various places around Canada.  I have two brothers, Jason who is 25 and Matthew who is 22.  I recently turned 20 years old; finally out of my teens!  I am a third year psychology major, and I hope to get a Master's degree when I am finished at MRU.  I have two dogs, both are Bichon Shitzu's.  One is named Rascal and he is 13 years old. The other is named Buddy and he is 7.  I have a part time job at Swimco and I work about 20 hours a week.  My favourite TV shows are the Young and the Restless and The Steve Wilkos Show, both of which I have been watching for many years.  I am also very interested in Big Brother, Survivor, the Celebrity Apprentice, the Real Housewives series', and various crime shows.  I really love watching sports on TV too; I love the Calgary Flames and I have season tickets to the Calgary Stampeders with my brothers and my dad.

That's basically all I have to say about myself; if you have any questions feel free to ask :).