Penny Can

The Lobby => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Mac on March 06, 2012, 09:54:55 am

Title: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on March 06, 2012, 09:54:55 am
I guess Penny Can is a type of social network. Right?

Anyway, I've had nothing personal to do with Facebook or twitter. I think the idea at a 10,000 ft level it OK, but its matured into detailing every aspect of your life and thoughts and well, that's just f ucked up.

With that I hear way to many horror stories. Maybe the good stories are just ho-hum and no one talks about that. But as a cultural thing I believe it's going into area's no one thought of possible or wanted to think possible

Stories like the one below just confirm my ass needs to stay out of that arena.

Govt. agencies, colleges demand applicants' Facebook passwords

By Bob Sullivan

If you think privacy settings on your Facebook and Twitter accounts guarantee future employers or schools can't see your private posts, guess again.

Employers and colleges find the treasure-trove of personal information hiding behind password-protected accounts and privacy walls just too tempting, and some are demanding full access from job applicants and student athletes.

In Maryland, job seekers applying to the state's Department of Corrections have been asked during interviews to log into their accounts and let an interviewer watch while the potential employee clicks through wall posts, friends, photos and anything else that might be found behind the privacy wall.
Previously, applicants were asked to surrender their user name and password, but a complaint from the ACLU stopped that practice last year. While submitting to a Facebook review is voluntary, virtually all applicants agree to it out of a desire to score well in the interview, according Maryland ACLU legislative director Melissa Coretz Goemann.

Student-athletes in colleges around the country also are finding out they can no longer maintain privacy in Facebook communications because schools are requiring them to "friend" a coach or compliance officer, giving that person access to their “friends-only” posts. Schools are also turning to social media monitoring companies with names like UDilligence and Varsity Monitor for software packages that automate the task. The programs offer a "reputation scoreboard" to coaches and send "threat level" warnings about individual athletes to compliance officers.

A recent revision in the handbook at the University of North Carolina is typical:

"Each team must identify at least one coach or administrator who is responsible for having access to and regularly monitoring the content of team members’ social networking sites and postings,” it reads. "The athletics department also reserves the right to have other staff members monitor athletes’ posts."

All this scrutiny is too much for Bradley Shear, a Washington D.C.-lawyer who says both schools and employers are violating the First Amendment with demands for access to otherwise private social media content.

"I can't believe some people think it's OK to do this,” he said. “Maybe it's OK if you live in a totalitarian regime, but we still have a Constitution to protect us. It's not a far leap from reading people's Facebook posts to reading their email. ... As a society, where are we going to draw the line?"

Aside from the free speech concerns, Shear also thinks colleges take on unnecessary liability when they aggressively monitor student posts.

"What if the University of Virginia had been monitoring accounts in the Yeardley Love case and missed signals that something was going to happen?” he said, referring to a notorious campus murder. “What about the liability the school might have?"

Shear has gotten the attention of Maryland state legislators, who have proposed two separate bills aimed at banning social media access by schools and potential employers. The ACLU is aggressively supporting the bills.

"This is an invasion of privacy. People have so much personal information on their pages now. A person can treat it almost like a diary," said Goemann, the Maryland ACLU legislative director. "And (interviewers and schools) are also invading other people's privacy. They get access to that individual’s posts and all their friends. There is a lot of private information there."

Maryland's Department of Corrections policy first came to light last year, when corrections officer Robert Collins complained to the ACLU that he was forced to surrender his Facebook user name and password during an interview. The state agency suspended the policy for 45 days, and eventually settled on the “shoulder-surfing” substitute.

"My fellow officers and I should not have to allow the government to view our personal Facebook posts  and those of our friends just to keep our jobs," Collins said to the ACLU at the time.

Agency spokesman Rick Binetti confirmed the new policy, but wouldn't comment on it or the proposed law which may ban it.

It's easy to see why an agency that hires prison guards would want to sneak a peek at potential employees’ private online lives. Goemann said that prisons are trying to avoid hiring guards with potential gang ties -- the agency told the ACLU it had reviewed 2,689 applicants via social media, and denied employment to seven because of items found on their pages.

"All seven of these individuals' social media applications contained pictures of them showing verified gang signs (signs commonly known to law enforcement which are utilized by gangs)," the Department of Corrections told the ACLU  in response to questions it asked about the program. It stressed the voluntary nature of social media inspection, noting that five of the 80 employees hired in the last three hiring cycles didn't provide access.

For student athletes, though, the access isn't voluntary. No access, no sports.

"They're saying to students if you want to play, you have to friend a coach. That's very troubling," said Shear, the D.C. lawyer.  "A good analogy for this, in the offline world, would it be acceptable for schools to require athletes to bug their off-campus apartments? Does a school have a right to know who all your friends are?"

There have been many high-profile embarrassing moments born of the toxic combination of student-athletes and Twitter. North Carolina defensive lineman Marvin Austin tweeted about expensive purchases on his account two years ago, then became subject of an NCAA investigation about improper conduct with a player agent. The incident led, in part, to the school's aforementioned aggressive social media policy.

So it’s not surprising that many schools want to keep a careful eye on what students are posting online.

But avoiding an uncomfortable moment is not a good enough reason to squash free speech, Spear says. Plenty of settled case law in the U.S. sides with students' rights to express themselves publicly, he said, including numerous cases involving student newspapers.  Public displays of protest are also protected: A landmark 1969 Supreme Court decisions known as Tinker vs. the Des Moines School District said school officials couldn't prevent students from wearing armbands protesting the Vietnam War as long as they weren't inciting violence.

Colleges have legitimate concerns about the things students post on social media accounts, but they should "deal with that issue the way they deal with everything else. They should educate," Shear said.

"Schools are in the business of educating, not spying," he added. "We don't hire private investigators to follow students wherever they go. If students say stupid things online, they should educate them ... not engage in prior restraint."

Goemann also noted that the rush to social media monitoring raises an often overlooked legal concern: It's against Facebook's Terms of Service.

"You will not share your password ... let anyone else access your account or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account," the site says in its policies.

Frederic Wolens, a Facebook spokesman, wouldn't comment on the Maryland legislative proposals, but he said many of these school and employer policies appear to violate the site's terms.

"Under our terms, only the holder of the email address and password is considered the Facebook account owner. We also prohibit anyone from soliciting the login information or accessing an account belonging to someone else," he said in a statement to Wolens said Facebook has yet to take a position on collegiate social media monitoring.

Social media monitoring on colleges, while spreading quickly among athletic departments, seems to be limited to athletes at the moment. There's nothing stopping schools from applying the same policies to other students, however.  And Shear says he's heard from college applicants that interviewers have requested Facebook or Twitter login information during in-person screenings.

The practice seems less common among employers, but scattered incidents are gaining attention from state lawmakers. The blog last year showed what it said was an image of an application for a clerical job with a North Carolina police department that included the following question:

"Do you have any web page accounts such as Facebook, Myspace, etc.?  If so, list your username and password."

And the state of Illinois has followed Maryland's lead and is considering similar legislation to ban social media password demands by employers.

But Shear says a patchwork of state laws isn't good enough when the stakes are this high.

"We need a federal law dealing with this," he said. "After 9/11, we have a culture where some people think it's OK for the government to be this involved in our lives, that it's OK to turn everything over to the government. But it's not. We still have privacy rights in this country, and we still have a Constitution."
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on March 06, 2012, 10:02:36 am
To all my future employer's out there reading Penny Can.


Now give me my raise I asked for. (
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on March 06, 2012, 10:18:31 am
Yea, the bite me comment will turn some heads compared to some of the other stuff you've said  ;D
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on March 06, 2012, 10:21:17 am
I'm trying to keep it clean. I may need a job. (
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on March 06, 2012, 10:29:23 am
on the flipside of the comment I made above about personal social networking, this report just came out...

For job hunters, social networking options abound

By Eve Tahmincioglu

Figuring out which social networking site is the best for your job search is like trying to decipher a riddle with a constantly changing answer.

When Google+ was introduced, many expected the site to rival Facebook and LinkedIn when it came to its job-hunting potential. But recent data show that the social networking site hasn’t lived up to all the hype. Google+ users only spend mere minutes on the site each month, compared to almost eight hours a month on Facebook, comScore reported last week.

And now, an increasing number of people are using Pinterest, the latest social-networking darling; and some are even posting graphic-intensive resumes in an effort to impress employers. The number of unique visitors to the site jumped 56 percent since December, according to comScore, to nearly 12 million.

All this social media ballyhoo has many wondering which site will help them land the job of their dreams.

Once upon a time, career experts pointed to LinkedIn as the only site workers had to be on, but now that’s changing. “More playful sites such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Quora, and even Pinterest are turning out to be valuable tools for job-hunters, too,” wrote George Anders, author of “The Rare Find: Spotting Exceptional Talent Before Everyone Else," in a Harvard Business Review post last week.

If the alphabet soup of social media choices has you wanting to shun them all, think again. Employers are increasingly using social media to connect with applicants. The most recent data show 56 percent of the organizations currently use social networking websites when recruiting for potential jobs, according to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), which surveyed nearly 550 HR professionals via email last year. That’s up from 34 percent in 2008, the last time the survey was conducted. 

Where recruiters are going to find you out in cyber space, however, is a moving target.

Among the employers SHRM polled there are three top choices:

    95 percent use LinkedIn.
    58 percent use Facebook.
    42 percent use Twitter.

But a survey put out last month by The Creative Group, an interactive advertising company, of advertising and marketing executives found that if they had to pick one social networking, 56 percent would choose Facebook, followed by LinkedIn and Google+.

Facebook is beginning to give career stalwart LinkedIn some competition by offering more recruiting tools for hiring managers and job seekers, including apps such as BranchOut and BeKnown.

Both options are luring more recruiters to Facebook as a result, said Curtis Midkiff, SHRM’s director of social strategy and engagement. “It’s catching on but not competing quite yet,” he noted.

In the end, he stressed, your social networking choice should be tied to the type of job you’re looking for. LinkedIn, he said, is the “suit-and-tie network,” and people looking for professional jobs in traditional industries are probably making a good call to be on there.

For positions in healthcare or manufacturing, and generally more blue-collar jobs, Facebook is gaining interest from recruiters as a way to find applicants. The site is also gaining popularity with employers looking to fill seasonal jobs, such as UPS looking for holiday drivers, Midkiff explained.

UPS’s Jobs Facebook page often includes posts about job openings, and the page now has more than 36,000 likes. A post from earlier this year stated: “UPS is hiring Sales professionals!” The post included 70 comments and a company official even answered questions of Facebook users interested in a sales job; a big difference from the black hole so many job seekers face when they apply these days.

Hiring managers may also be looking to sites beyond LinkedIn if they want to connect with younger workers.

E. Chandlee Bryan, a career coach and co-author of "The Twitter Job Search Guide," sees sites such as Pinterest and Google+ filling a niche for specific professionals. Pinterest, she said, is useful for people looking for jobs in the design and interior decorating fields, while Google+ seems skewed toward tech jobs.

The best rule of thumb is to check out where the companies you want to work for have the most presence and base your social media focus on those sites. Do they have a careers page on Facebook, or networking groups on LinkedIn or Google+? But don’t jump from networking site to networking site just because one job you want is posted there, Midkiff advised.

Don't just follow the latest media madness. You need a thought-out plan on what site works for your career aspirations.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on March 06, 2012, 10:38:18 am
All I can say to that, if employers want to dig around and look for stuff on potential employees, they better damn well make sure that they too don't have any incriminating evidence themselves. So, to all you Employers out there, you best delete your "I'm So Sexy", "Big Boss Man Fetishes", "You're Hired....I'm  H  o r n y" accounts because if don't give me the job, I will make sure everyone knows about your sordid lifestyle.

I can type 180 words a minute.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on October 04, 2012, 09:46:00 am
Didn't know if to post here or WTF or Fail... It's all three.

But wow... just wow.

KitchenAid apologizes for dead grandma Obama debate Tweet

KitchenAid is famous for its mixers, but the brand learned the hard way about the perils of mixing personal political views with official company messaging on social media.

On Thursday morning, parent company Whirlpool was in damage-control mode after an offensive message was sent from the company’s official Twitter account during last night’s presidential debate.

“Obamas gma even knew it was going 2 b bad! 'She died 3 days b4 he became president',”   (  the Tweet read, a response to a reference President Barack Obama made about his grandmother’s passing. It was quickly deleted, but not before a flurry of screenshots and retweets thwarted the attempt at erasure.

KitchenAid’s senior director of marketing Cynthia Soledad followed up with a series of Tweets apologizing for the “irresponsible tweet that is in no way a representation of the brand's opinion.”

“It was carelessly sent in error by a member of our Twitter team who, needless to say, won't be tweeting for us anymore,” she wrote. “That said, I take full responsibility for my team. Thank you for hearing me out.”


The follow up discussion is pretty amusing (

Still not understanding the point of Twitter... Just seems pretty shallow and lame to me.

I heard a funny yesterday... Instagram is for those who don't like to read.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on October 04, 2012, 09:49:57 am
Related Topic....kinda....

Y doo peeps gtta right like diss in 2days climate?

I only approve of writing like that if you are in chat with another person that you know and want to keep the coversation flowing and not have to spell everything out. But when you post to a social network like Twitter, I think it should be mandatory that you spell correctly since the world will be reading it.

Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on October 04, 2012, 10:02:50 am
(  Gahhhhhhhhhh  (

That lazy ass texting drives me nuts.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on October 04, 2012, 10:05:23 am
(  Gahhhhhhhhhh  (

That lazy ass texting drives me nuts.

Dat lzy ass txting drives mi nutz.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on October 04, 2012, 10:48:48 am

Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on October 04, 2012, 10:50:25 am

Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on October 04, 2012, 10:51:26 am
Touch yourself


Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on October 04, 2012, 10:55:14 am
Shuddup! You speak French.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on October 04, 2012, 03:15:37 pm
Wee Wee
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on October 04, 2012, 03:48:16 pm
Stop talking to your dick.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on October 04, 2012, 06:03:19 pm
Why? I always talk to the dick.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on October 04, 2012, 06:04:12 pm
Why? I always talk to the dick.

Leave your Boss outta this.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on December 20, 2012, 10:55:25 am
The Year With Katie Couric: Social Media

Pretty good rundown for this year.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on December 20, 2012, 04:18:06 pm
I kinda wonder what this review will look like in a year or two or 5?

Will facebook, twitter or the others be around... or something different?
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on December 20, 2012, 04:19:16 pm
Will facebook, twitter or the others be around...

Nope. It will be onto the next fad. Remember, people thought that MySpace would be around for years. Where are they now? Sure, FB and Twitter will have it's share of users, but the numbers will dwindle as people migrate to the next "hot" social site.
What offends me is that the new media has not and will not do any stories about the fact that Penny Can will outlast them all!!!
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on December 20, 2012, 04:22:54 pm
Yeaaaaa, duh

I just wonder if the pendulum will swing the other way. People getting private about their business.  :-\
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on December 20, 2012, 05:09:23 pm
Yeaaaaa, duh

I just wonder if the pendulum will swing the other way. People getting private about their business.  :-\

And monkey's will fly out of your butt.....
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on December 21, 2012, 04:11:47 am
No, huh?
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on March 04, 2013, 09:58:55 am
Facebook is getting a lot of negative press of late. Teens getting bored and finding other places. Users getting annoyed at each other.

Don't know if it's due to media current focus or this is actually happening and we could see Facebook a distant memory very soon.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on March 04, 2013, 10:01:46 am
Facebook is getting a lot of negative press of late. Teens getting bored and finding other places. Users getting annoyed at each other.

Don't know if it's due to media current focus or this is actually happening and we could see Facebook a distant memory very soon.

Its been coming a long time. Up till 2 weeks ago, I used it primarily to track other artist, sports, etc...I never post anything, so I get nothing from the social aspect of it nor do I care. So why up till 2 weeks ago? The page during "loading" would crash. No biggie. It wasn't vital for me anyway.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on March 04, 2013, 10:04:00 am
FYI, Penny Can should be the destination of all humanity. But then again, that would be way too much work trying to keep everything in order. Anonymity ftw!!
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on March 07, 2013, 01:28:31 pm
Will Facebook's Facelift Win Back Users?

I hope not.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on March 20, 2013, 09:20:30 am
Even more cases where Facebook and Twitter bring out the idiots

2 teens arrested for threatening Steubenville victim

Just days after two teenage boys from Steubenville, Ohio, were convicted of ****, two teen girls were arrested and charged with threatening the victim over Twitter. NBC’s Ron Allen reports.

>>> there is new fallout tied to the **** convictions of two high school football players in ohio. two teenage girls are accused of posting online threats against the young victim. nbc's ron allen is in steubenville for us. ron, good morning to you.

>> reporter: good morning, savannah. during the trial we learned that while the victim certainly has a lot of sympathy and support in this community, friends have turned against her, others have blamed her for bringing a lot of unwanted attention to this community, negative attention. now we know she's also faced a death threat . two teenaged girls being escorted into court, their faces off camera because they're just 16 and 15. the two accused of sending threatening twitter messages to a **** victim whose case up-ended this small ohio community.

>> the state's position is that the sergeant at arms be remanded to the custody of the juvenile detention facility.

>> reporter: audible sobs could be heard from the defendants when the judge agreed. investigators say just hours after a jhung found two high school football players guilty of raping a 16-year-old girl following alcohol-fueled parties, the teens posted intimidating tweets. "you ripped my family apart. you made my cousin cry, so when i see you, expletive, it's again to be a home side. i'll celebrate by beating the explodive out of the victim's name. this isn't the first time the victim has been threatened in social media . next month a grand jury meets to decide if other teens, parents and community leaders were involved in tampering with or covering up evidence.

>> what's even more shocking and appalling is the crimes of sexual assault are occurring every friday night, every saturday night across this country.

>> reporter: with these threatening tweets plus the text messages and pictures posted that documented the assault, experts say the case is a cautionary tale about teens and what they post on social media .

>> it can be really innocuous stuff or this really serious stuff that we're seeing with the steubenville case. we aren't stopping to think if everybody sees this, what happens?

>> reporter: prosecutors asked for the two teens to be held without bond to protect the **** victim they allegedly threatened. the judge agreed. their lawyers have not entered a plea as of yet. if found guilty they could be held in juvenile detention until they're 21 years old.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on March 20, 2013, 09:48:14 am
Facebook Isn't Cool Anymore - What Do Kids Use Now?

Ya know, with each new social networking fad that pops up, the shelf life is getting shorter and shorter. I'm actually amazed at how long MySpace lasted as the defacto "cool" site. It's still around, but does anyone really use it anymore? Exactly.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on March 20, 2013, 02:17:16 pm
Oh hell no...

.... now let's see how long Instagram lasts....

Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on July 03, 2013, 10:01:44 am
Ad Campaign Uses Powerful Photographs to Explain that Facebook Likes Don’t Help


When they were tasked with putting together a powerful advertising campaign for Crisis Relief Singapore, ad agency Publicis Singapore mixed heart-wrenching photos with a hard-to-swallow tagline to create something quite moving.

The campaign is based around the tag line: “Liking Isn’t Helping,” and it uses press photos of flood, earthquake and war victims surrounded by hands coming from outside the frame giving them a “thumbs up,” symbolizing the Facebook “like.”


The thumbs ups have been Photoshopped in, but the message is clear. Since the C.R.S. is run by volunteers, they want people to understand that clicking like or share on Facebook, while it might help spread the word, doesn’t actually make a difference to a crisis victim.


To drive the point home even further, the ad copy at the bottom right reads “Be a Volunteer. Change a Life.” To learn more about C.R.S. and how you can help their cause, head over to the organization’s website by clicking here (
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on July 03, 2013, 11:10:52 am
If that isn't a scathing indictment to all those on Facebook, then I don't know what is. FYI, I agree 100% with this Ad Campaign.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on July 30, 2013, 09:25:21 am
Another casualty of Social Network. Seriously, there is such a huge gap with generations on what is considered acceptable of socializing. Don't feel bad for this woman at all.

Alabama TV reporter fired over blog post
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on August 07, 2013, 09:25:33 am
New documentary examines the global impact of Twitter

Video (
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on August 07, 2013, 09:27:12 am
7 years since the creation of Twitter? I think I have a total of 7 tweets in the same time frame. And I was probably drunk when I did the tweeting.  ;D
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on August 07, 2013, 09:30:38 am
New documentary examines the global impact of Twitter

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Posted the video to see if the Todaycode was valid. Seems like it's working now. It never worked before. I don't think it did. Anyway....
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on August 07, 2013, 09:53:01 am
Yaaaa, it works now. I'll try to remember that.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on August 09, 2013, 09:00:14 am
This is not simple as it sounds and it immediately takes a tangent direction  with regards to tipping, ignoring the whole tweet war altogether. And in the whole context of the article, yes the tweet war is stupid (take note of you folks who tweet), and the tipping issue becomes central. I still have faith in people.  Read the comments section too.

Food Truck Justice: Heated Tweet to Financial Firm Gets Worker Fired

New Yorker Brendan O’Connor lost his job last week.

Normally, this would not make for a particularly newsworthy story, but O’Connor’s tale is different, in part because it all started with a tweet of his, shown below.

Brendan O'Connor @OConnorB_

Shout out to the good people of Glass, Lewis & Co. for placing a $170 order and not leaving a tip. @glasslewis

Thing is, the @GlassLewis in question above is the San Francisco-based shareholder advisory firm of Glass Lewis & Co., which didn’t take too kindly to the public tip-shaming. The company called O’Connor’s boss at Milk Truck, a food truck business specializing in grilled cheese sandwiches, to complain about the accusatory tweet. Two days later, O’Connor’s brief career in food service was over. Milk Truck publicly apologized and the episode was put to rest.

Milk Truck @milktrucknyc

@glasslewis rgrding yest. tweet by an employee--it was flat out wrong. we do NOT in any way support or condone this behavior-our apologies.

 Glass Lewis & Co. @GlassLewis

@milktrucknyc We appreciate it, and look forward to doing business with you again!

Except that it wasn’t.

Turns out, O’Connor moonlights as a reporter for the New York City culture blog The Awl, and he wrote a lengthy article on the firing, including lurid details about Glass Lewis’s tip-snubbing employees, that ran it on Tuesday. It read, in part:

    "This group placed a huge order: three of this sandwich, four of another, three of the one that takes forever on the grill, two of the one that takes forever to assemble. Five or six milkshakes. The order came to just under $170.

    "I was making sandwiches, another worker took the order and a third made the milkshakes and watched the grills. A line grew while we worked, and we had to tell other customers that their lunch orders would take longer than usual. They paid; I asked my co-worker who was dealing with the money how much of a tip they’d left. They had left actually no tip at all. (They had paid with a card so we checked the cash tips to see if there’d been a bump. There hadn’t.)

    "I asked some of the group as they were picking up their orders if they had intended to not tip. They hemmed and hawed and walked away."

The reaction was swift and impassioned. Readers swarmed social media to berate Milk Truck and Glass Lewis over the incident with expletive-riddled rants, in an effort that at times seemed to suggest Americans had found a new reason to distrust the financial services industry. O'Connor quickly became a folk hero among service workers.

and onto the comments (
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on August 09, 2013, 09:07:15 am
Tipping Is For The Birds

This is just one of the reasons why I don't eat in restaurants. I take the whole tipping thing out of the equation and won't have to worry about being tip-shamed. Whenever tipping is mentioned in conversation, I can't help but name drop Reservoir Dogs.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on August 09, 2013, 09:28:17 am
Classic... now. Coincidentally The Dave Glover Show was going over 'tipping' recently. Many different points of view of when, who, why, etc.

Me, I tip straight 20% for good food and service. If need be, the food or service sucks, then I rethink it.

I never tip fast food. Honestly, what is the difference between McDonalds and Starbucks. Nada
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on August 14, 2013, 09:26:52 am
When You Die, Does Your Facebook Go, Too?
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on August 15, 2013, 09:50:24 am
Even more proof, social networking, is providing bad habits and life lessons. This is bad.

Boys also harmed by teen 'hookup' culture, experts say

A 15-year-old girl sits in high school English class when a text message pops up on her cellphone. It's from a boy sitting across the room. He hardly knows her, but he likes her. Here's how he chooses to get that message across:

Him: "So, are you good at hooking up?"

Her: "Um idk. I don't really think about that."

Him: "Well, I want my d--k in your mouth? Will you at least be my girlfriend."

It's the kind of scenario that's playing out among teens across America, illustrating an increasing confusion among boys about how to behave, experts say. In the casual-sex "hookup" culture, courtship happens by text and tweet. Boys send X-rated propositions to girls in class. Crude photos, even **** photos, play a role once reserved for the handwritten note saying, "Hey, I like you."

According to new research, boys who engage in this kind of sexualized behavior say they have no intention to be hostile or demeaning — precisely the opposite. While they admit they are pushing limits, they also think they are simply courting. They describe it as "goofing around, flirting," said Catherine Steiner-Adair, a clinical psychologist and school consultant who interviewed 1,000 students nationwide for her new book, "The Big Disconnect: Protecting Childhood and Family Relationships in the Digital Age."

How the hookup culture affects young people has long been debated and lamented, in books and blogs, among parents and teachers. A general consensus is that it harms girls, although some have argued that it empowers them. The effect on boys, however, is less often part of the discussion.

Conventional wisdom tends to oversimplify the situation to something along the lines of: Boys get to have sex, which is really all they want. They are seen as predators, and girls, their prey.

Reality is far more complex than this, in ways that can affect young men socially and emotionally well into adulthood, according to Steiner-Adair. It's "insufficient, superficial and polarizing when boys simply get cast as aggressors and girls as victims," she said. In her view, girls can certainly suffer negative consequences from the hookup culture. Her point is: Boys can, too. "It's such a bad part of our culture to think that boys aren't also harmed," she says. "We are neglecting the emotional lives of boys."

In interviews and focus groups, Steiner-Adair talked with boys and girls ages 4 to 18 at suburban public and private schools, with consent from parents and schools, about their relationships and influences. Kids from the fourth grade and up shared their private texts and Facebook posts, unveiling the dating landscape. In one case, a boy sent a naked snapshot of himself to his girlfriend, with a suggestive caption. The girl, who had never seen her boyfriend naked, was shocked, and said she felt the relationship had suddenly lost its innocence. "I was so mad about that," she said. The girl's reaction, in turn, surprised the boy. He really liked her. His behavior, said Steiner-Adair, was "aggressive in a way that boys don't understand."

Steiner-Adair also saw the string of texts between the 15-year-old girl in English class and her suitor. The girl described the conversation as "a stupid, disgusting exchange," adding that it was "typical for the boys at our school." Still, the girl became intrigued when the boy revealed in a subsequent note that he liked her. The girl wondered if she should tell him how his initial approach had offended her. Then she started to cry, questioning whether it was worth the effort.

Teenagers have never been known for their social grace. But this generation is navigating adolescence with a new digital tool kit — Facebook, Twitter — that has the unintended side effect of subtracting important social cues, according to Steiner-Adair. Nuance and body language are lost in translation.

She also noted the influence of online ****. Students across the country asked Steiner-Adair about graphic images they had seen. One boy said, "I don't get it — why would a woman get turned on by being choked?" A girl asked her if it was normal to have anal sex.

Another boy showed her pornographic notes that two of his friends had secretly sent to a girl from his own Facebook page, including, "Your challenge is to go for weeks without d--ks in all four of your holes." When the boy found out about the prank, he wasn't upset, but amused. "This is just my friends being idiots, basically," he said. "They were just trying to be funny." Steiner-Adair asked why the exchange had turned so nasty and the boy said, "It didn't turn nasty. That's the norm for our generation."

To be sure, some boys have always been crude. The new extremes, said Steiner-Adair, can be damaging. Boys don't benefit, she said, from learning to be demeaning toward girls or to treat them as sexual objects. She said boys often expressed a desire for a deeper connection with girls, but felt confused about how to make it happen. They are "yearning for intimacy that goes beyond biology," she said. "They just don't know how to achieve it."

Andrew Smiler, a developmental psychologist, agrees. He examined some 600 studies on masculinity, sex and relationships for his book "Challenging Casanova," concluding that most young men are more motivated by love than sex. Pop culture helps spur the disconnect between what young men want and how they often act, he argues, citing as an example the show "Two and a Half Men." "The jerk gets all the laugh lines," he said. "The nice guy always looks like a sap."

That theory is debated. Steven Rhoads, a professor who teaches a class on sex differences at the University of Virginia, said he analyzed decades worth of research on sexuality and biology for his book "Taking Sex Differences Seriously" to conclude that men and women are "hardwired" differently. Hookups have deeper psychological costs for women, he said, noting that anecdotes from his students back up the research: Female students often tell him they are hurt by casual sex in a way that male students are not. The boys don't know it, he said, because the girls don't want to tell them.

For boys and girls alike, crucial lessons in how to relate to each other are getting lost in the blizzard of tweets and texts, experts say. The cues kids would pick up from a live conversation — facial expressions, gestures — are absent from the arm's-length communications that are now a fixture of growing up. The fast-paced technology also "deletes the pause" between impulse and action, said Steiner-Adair, who calls texting the "worst possible training ground" for developing mature relationships. Dan Slater, the author of "Love in the Time of Algorithms," agrees. "You can manage an entire relationship with text messages," he said, but that keeps some of the "messy relationship stuff" at bay. "That's the stuff that helps people grow up," he added.

The key to developing solid relationships lies partly in early education, said Steiner-Adair. To that end, some schools are launching classes focused on social and emotional issues, with teachers talking about gender, language, social media and healthy relationships.

Also critical, according to Steiner-Adair, is family time spent away from screens. In her research, teens often said their parents were embroiled in work or personal interests and simply not available. Some parents said they were intimidated by their children's complaints and exploits, and didn't want to seem ignorant or helpless. The heart of the matter for families, she said, is good old-fashioned talking — the kind you do face to face.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on September 05, 2013, 09:36:43 am
I knew the pendulum would start swinging the other way. I wonder if it will fully swing to opposite side and people get off the grid?

Half of Americans online worry about privacy, says study

Lynn Boyden, a college professor in Los Angeles who teaches website design, says she has developed two identities online: a public one for her professional life and a private one that only a few close friends can access. She tries to block advertising trackers when she can and limits what personal data might wind up on public sites.

It's an approach that she says works, although it takes time and attention.

"It's a sliding scale," said Boyden of what information she chooses to share. "Some things are and should be private."

Americans might be sharing more personal information online than ever through social networking sites and email. But they also want to better control who can see it, according to a study released Thursday by the Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project.

The study reported that privacy concerns among Americans are on the rise, with 50 percent of Internet users saying they are worried about the information available about them online, up from 33 percent in 2009. Meanwhile, 86 percent of people surveyed have tried at least one technique to hide their activity online or avoid being tracked, such as clearing cookies or their browser history or using encryption.

More... (
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Neumatic on September 05, 2013, 08:54:34 pm
I keep thinking there's gonna be an analog internet type thing breaking out in the near future, almost steampunky.  The sneakernet is gonna be HUGE, I'm already thinking it might not be a bad idea to have one computer that's never connected to the internet.  It's a shame we're being driven to this but what are you gonna do?  We're living in a cyberpunk novel now.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on November 03, 2013, 08:41:35 am
Things You Do Online That'd Be Creepy In Real Life
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on November 04, 2013, 11:42:46 am
It seems Pandora’s Box is open. I personally don’t see how we can go back. At times I do believe there are events that swing to an extreme end, and people react wildly and the pendulum swings back. The advent of smartphones is the new culture. I do agree there are definite benefits, but I think the collateral damage to the culture is only the beginning. Yes, I’m talking about decorum and a little old fashioned neighborly respect.

Yes, I don’t know any of these people, but it just irritates the hell outta me that little 2 X 4 screen is the most important thing in that person’s life. That they evolved into their life revolving around that social interaction and they believe that is their friend.

2 weekends ago, on a long weekend vacation, we met up with some of my step daughter’s friends. The conversation came around to these smartphones. It was interesting in the sense, one girl absolutely lived and died by her phone. She could not imagine a minute without it, and in fact addressed it many times during our brief afternoon drink. I found it extremely rude that she decided the phone had higher priority over a pleasant conversation. After attending her phone twice in the middle of the conversations, I quit addressing her.  She probably didn’t even notice. My step daughter’s friend, though young was completely on the other end of the spectrum. No longer owns a smartphone and is making efforts to have real friendships, relationships, discussions and more. My Step Daughter lives by her phone too. Not to such the degree of a fully dependent individual, but enough that it has changed her culturally.

I just think this cultural shift will produce some very unhealthy actions… and years down the road, those folks with the strange relationships with their phone, maybe asking… What happened?

I’m fortunate enough to have lived the old way of life and see the new way of life come in. Since I did not see a real need for those ‘advantages’,  I’ve never embraced it. I know I will have to on some occasions, to at least to be able to talk to certain folks, but IMO, I’m OK, living without all that ‘socializing’.

I like the article below. It’s well written and pretty much addresses many different perspectives of the smartphone phenomenon.

The host collects phones at the door of the dinner party. At a law firm, partners maintain a no-device policy at meetings. Each day, a fleet of vans assembles outside New York’s high schools, offering, for a small price, to store students’ contraband during the day. In situations where politeness and concentration are expected, backlash is mounting against our smartphones.

In public, of course, it’s a free country. It’s hard to think of a place beyond the sublime darkness of the movie theater where phone use is shunned, let alone regulated. (Even the cinematic exception is up for debate.) At restaurants, phones occupy that choice tablecloth real estate once reserved for a pack of cigarettes. In truly public space — on sidewalks, in parks, on buses and on trains — we move face down, our phones cradled like amulets.

No observer can fail to notice how deeply this development has changed urban life. A deft user can digitally enhance her experience of the city. She can study a map; discover an out-of-the-way restaurant; identify the trees that line the block and the architect who designed the building at the corner. She can photograph that building, share it with friends, and in doing so contribute her observations to a digital community. On her way to the bus (knowing just when it will arrive) she can report the existence of a pothole and check a local news blog.
It would be unfair to say this person isn’t engaged in the city; on the contrary, she may be more finely attuned to neighborhood history and happenings than her companions. But her awareness is secondhand: She misses the quirks and cues of the sidewalk ballet, fails to make eye contact, and limits her perception to a claustrophobic one-fifth of normal. Engrossed in the virtual, she really isn’t here with the rest of us.
Consider the case of a recent murder on a San Francisco train. On Sept. 23, in a crowded car, a man pulls a pistol from his jacket. In Vivian Ho’s words: “He raises the gun, pointing it across the aisle, before tucking it back against his side. He draws it out several more times, once using the hand holding the gun to wipe his nose. Dozens of passengers stand and sit just feet away — but none reacts. Their eyes, focused on smartphones and tablets, don’t lift until the gunman fires a bullet into the back of a San Francisco State student getting off the train.”
The incident is a powerful example of the sea change that public space has suffered in the age of hand-held computing. There are thousands of similar stories, less tragic, more common, that together sound the alarm for a new understanding of public space – one that accounts for the pervasiveness of glowing rectangles.

The glut of information technology separating us from our surroundings extends well beyond our pocket computers. “Never has distraction had such capacity to become total,” writes the urban theorist Malcolm McCullough in “Ambient Commons: Attention in the Age of Embodied Information.” “Enclosed in cars, often in headphones, seldom in places where encounters are left to chance, often opting out of face-to-face meetings, and ever pursuing and being pursued by designed experiences, post-modern post urban city dwellers don’t become dulled into retreat from public life; they grow up that way. The challenge is to reconnect.”

McCullough sees ambient information, from advertisements to the music in shops to Taxi TV, as an assault on our attention. But he’s no Luddite, and he’s not oblivious to the powerful ideas that spring from the shared ground of technology and urbanism, like Citizen Science, SeeClickFix or “Smart Cities.” What he’s calling for, in Ambient Commons, is “information environmentalism,” the idea that the proliferation of embedded information deserves attention and study, from planners, architects, politicians and especially from you and me.

Personal technology may be only a small part of McCullough’s interpretation of “peak distraction,” but for most people, the computer, tablet and phone are a focal point. What permanent connectivity does to our minds is the subject of great debate. What it does to public space is less often acknowledged. Essentially, smartphone users in public operate under the illusion that they are in private. They exist, in the words of two Israeli researchers, in “portable, private, personal territories.” Their memories of visited places are much worse than those of control subjects.

Our current strategy is to wire everything, everywhere — Wi-Fi in parks and subway tunnels; chargers in the squares bubbling with free electrical current like Roman drinking fountains. McCullough believes this freedom is irreversible. “To restrict information would be unacceptable,” he writes. “The communications rights of individuals and communities must be inalienable, insuppressible, and not for sale.” The tasks of filtering and decorum, he believes, fall to us as individuals.

Not everyone is so sure. Evgeny Morozov, reviewing McCullough’s book in the New Yorker, approvingly cites the Dutch writer Christoph Lindner’s argument for “slow spots” in cities. Morozov points out that the candy bar Kit Kat (“give me a break!”) has set up benches with Wi-Fi blockers in Amsterdam. Would we like to see such a thing occur on a larger scale, in a museum, park or in a neighborhood?
Of the three interwoven motivations for such regulations — danger, civility and health — the first has been the most effective. Just as 41 states rapidly banned texting while driving, there are rumblings of “texting while walking” bans in reaction to pedestrian fatalities. Last year, Fort Lee, N.J., made international news when it began issuing jaywalking tickets to errant, phone-in-hand pedestrians who had veered into traffic. Distracted walking bans have been proposed (with little success, so far) in Arkansas, Illinois, Utah, New York and Nevada. New York City paints “LOOK!” in its crosswalks.

In Japan, more than a dozen people fall off railway platforms while looking at their phones each year. Some pundits there have called for bans on texting while walking modeled after successful “smoking while walking” campaigns. Train station announcements remind commuters to look where they’re going, and even mobile phone companies have begun to educate users about the dangers of looking at a phone while walking.
But for all the talk of danger, it’s clear that the more frequent problem with “distracted walking” is that it’s annoying – and one of several uncivil side effects of smartphone growth. Thus we have the “phone stack” game, where participants compete not to use their phones, and the Guardian columnist who has pledged to almost bump into smartphone walkers, to teach ‘em a lesson. Blind people in Japan say they are being jostled like never before; a man in a Seattle restaurant took a break from his three companions to watch “Homeland” on his iPad. Some restaurants, bars and coffee shops have banned smartphones and computers for their corrosive social effects.

Anti-technology zoning for cognitive health – to protect us from our own worst instincts – is a more complex challenge. Ought urban parks, designed as restorative environments for a different age, be adapted to insulate visitors from the Internet as from noise, traffic and commerce?  The fact that you can address the connectivity problem yourself – just turn it off – doesn’t preclude the possibility of an enforced solution. Airlines turn off the cabin lights despite the existence of blinders; earplugs don’t reduce the popularity of Amtrak’s Quiet Car. William Powers’ idea for digitally free “Walden Zones,” for example, has caught on in libraries – though because work, relaxation and distraction look so similar, the rules are hard to design. (A ready counter-argument: We are all so addicted to our media that withdrawal could be more stressful than blissful, buzzing distraction.)

Broadly speaking, any such regulations would require agreement that public computing has negative externalities — that your hand-held device is my problem.

McCullough is eager to situate these concerns in history, and refers to movements against invasive advertising, light pollution and smog. Morozov is particularly interested in the history and success of the anti-noise campaigners who reshaped the sound of the city.
But while it is obvious that light, noise and smoke corrupt darkness, silence and clean air, the consequences of smartphone use are far more opaque. What, exactly, does the man texting at the bar disrupt? Is the situation different if he is watching a violent movie or playing a visually arresting game? What does it mean to fellow patrons if his face is bathed in the steady glow of an e-book?
In the past, it has taken decades to pinpoint the external costs of other people’s activities. Though smoking was often considered a bother in the 19th century, it wasn’t until the 1920s that the aggravated parties coined the expression “secondhand smoke.” (All this far before any awareness of its health risks.)

It seems clear that there is such a thing as secondhand glow. It impedes our movement on busy sidewalks, breaks our concentration in movie theaters and libraries, and makes our public places as dull and private as phone booths. The question is what to do about it.

Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on November 04, 2013, 08:54:02 pm
I've dealt with a few people lately that were glued to their gadget instead of engaging in conversation. I didn't even wait as long as you did before just bailing. Didn't care or bother to even say I was leaving. All the people that I see when I'm walking around look like idiots being glued to something that is so trivial. If people wanna live like that, then so be it. It's just not for me. Rotary 4 Life!!
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on November 05, 2013, 03:45:18 am
I've had to give my wife **** for doing this. She hates this technology, but on occasion at dinner, she's pulled this crap.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on December 27, 2013, 09:54:24 am
An interesting and well written perspective about a part of the social network workings...

Justine Sacco’s aftermath: The cost of Twitter outrage

PR executive Justine Sacco wrote an offensive tweet before boarding a flight from London to Cape Town, South Africa. “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” she said. Between the time Sacco tweeted and when she landed in South Africa twelve hours later, the hashtag #HasJustineLandedYet trended worldwide. A great many of the tweets including the hashtag were downright hilarious. Even Donald Trump, a paragon of ignorance, chastised Sacco on Twitter, saying, “Justine, what the hell are you doing, are you crazy? Not nice or fair! I will support @AidforAfrica. Justine is FIRED!”

Internet sleuths figured out which flight Sacco was on and when she would land. Her work and cell phone numbers were uncovered. Her entire online footprint was revealed. She had made inappropriate tweets before. She had Instagram and Facebook accounts. These have all been deleted but nothing on the Internet really disappears. The digital echoes of her mistakes will endure. Sacco’s former employer, InterActiveCorp, immediately distanced themselves, condemned her words and she was fired. During her flight, Sacco gained thousands of Twitter followers, an audience raptly waiting, somewhat gleefully, to see what would happen next. Justine Sacco unwittingly scripted a gripping, real-life soap opera and she wasn’t even there to watch it unfold.

Here was instant comeuppance for someone who said something terrible. Here was comeuppance for a white person generalizing shallowly about Africa, the continent, as if it were one large country with only one story to tell. Here was a woman reveling in her whiteness and assuming that her whiteness was some kind of shield against a disease that does not discriminate. I was amused by the spectacle. I followed along even though something in my stomach twisted as the hours passed. It was a bit surreal, knowing this drama was playing out while Sacco was at 38,000 feet.

At the same time, I was horrified. It all felt a bit frenzied and out of control, as interest in the story mounted and the death threats and gendered insults began. The online outrage and Sacco’s comeuppance seemed disproportionate. The amount of joy some people expressed as they engaged with the #HasJustineLandedYet hashtag gave me pause.

Somewhere along the line, we forgot that this drama concerned an actual human being. Justine Sacco did not express empathy for her fellow human beings with her insensitive tweet. It is something, though, that the Internet responded in kind, with an equal lack of empathy. We expressed some of the very attitude we claimed to condemn.

To be clear, Sacco’s tweet was racist, ignorant and unacceptable. Her cavalier disregard for the global impact of AIDS was offensive. In that regard, it was heartening to see that someone purchased the domain and redirected it to Aid for Africa so that some good might come out of such a crass and careless remark. Justine Sacco’s actions should not have gone without consequences. In her case, though, the consequences were severe and swift. She made a cheap joke and paid a steep price. She has since apologized, though it is hard to take the apology seriously because we have become so accustomed to this cycle of public misstep, castigation, apology. Nothing really changes.

We can excoriate Justine Sacco but we need to interrogate white privilege and the relative comfort Sacco felt in demonstrating such poor judgment. It seemingly did not cross her mind that it would be inappropriate to make that joke in such a public forum. We also need interrogate the corporate culture where an attitude like Sacco’s was clearly not a deterrent to her success. As Anil Dash noted on Twitter, “That @Justine Sacco is offensive is obvious. The bigger problem is that her mindset is no barrier to corporate success.”

At the same time, we are only outraged about Justine Sacco because we happened to hear about her tweet. She was, before this debacle, someone with only two hundred Twitter followers. She made her comments in public, but her public was quite limited. If someone hadn’t tipped off Gawker, if thousands of people hadn’t shared Sacco’s tweet, if Buzzfeed hadn’t latched onto the story, making it go ever more viral, we would have never known about Sacco’s racism and ignorance. This does not excuse her words, but is Justine Sacco different from any of us? We like to think the best of ourselves. We like to believe we always say and do the right things. We like to believe our humor is always politic. We like to believe we harbor no prejudices. At least, that’s the impression we give when we are so quick to condemn those whose weaknesses and failures are subjected to the harsh light of the Internet.

The world is full of unanswered injustice and more often than not we choke on it. When you consider everything we have to fight, it makes sense that so many people rally around something like the hashtag #HasJustineLandedYet. In this one small way, we are, for a moment, less impotent.

In many ways, 2013, particularly online, was a year of reckoning. More than ever, people were held accountable for their words and actions. Outrage was spoken, not swallowed.

After the Boston Marathon bombings, people shared grief and outrage on social media. From all around the world they stood with the people of Boston, often using the hashtag #BostonStrong. Some became amateur detectives, sifting through the images and other information law enforcement officials released to the public, as if they, too, could play a role in bringing the responsible culprits to justice.

In June, Texas senator Wendy Davis rose to national prominence during a 13-hour filibuster protesting SB5, a bill further restricting abortion laws in Texas. People from all around the United States watched the live video feed provided by the Texas Tribune. The hashtag #standwithwendy allowed people to voice their support for Davis’s efforts and their disdain, and to a lesser extent, their support for legislative attempts to curtail reproductive freedom. The legislation ultimately passed but a vigorous protest was heard and will be remembered.

Paula Deen’s racism was revealed in the contents of a deposition. Before long, most of Deen’s business relationships had shattered, including those with Food Network, WalMart, Target, Walgreens, JCPenny, Sears, QVC, Smithfield Foods and others. Black Twitter responded with the #paulasbestdishes hashtag, using humor as a means of coping with the painful reality that Paula Deen is but one of many people who harbor racial prejudices. Deen’s comeuppance seemed more appropriate than Sacco’s because she was a far more prominent and powerful figure.

Hanna Rosin declared the patriarchy dead, which gave rise to the #RIPPatriarchy hashtag, used by feminists to mock the incorrect notion that somehow all was right in the world for women. The GOP made an ill-advised attempt at honoring Rosa Parks, implying that her efforts had ended racism, which led to the #whenracismended hashtag. Russell Simmons’s All Def Digital released the “Harriet Tubman Sex Tape,” and was quickly forced to take down the video and offer an apology. People were not going to stand silently by as the legacy of Harriet Tubman was diminished so recklessly.

Mikki Kendall started the hashtag #solidarityisforwhitewomen to challenge the exclusion of feminists of color from mainstream feminism. Jamilah Lemieux started the hashtag #blackpowerisforblackmen soon after, to challenge sexism within the black community. After Renisha McBride was murdered in Detroit, dream hampton brought much-needed national attention to the tragedy with the #RenishaMcBride hashtag. People began sharing their stories and demanding justice. Theodore Wafer, the homeowner who shot and killed McBride, will now face trial. For once, perhaps, there will be actual justice for the death of a young black woman.

As R. Kelly released his latest album, some people refused to forget that R. Kelly is an unabashed ****. During an online Q & A, R. Kelly tried to use the hashtag #AskRKelly and quickly lost control of it as people used the hashtag to mock and rightly shame R. Kelly for his crimes. Mikki Kendall and Jamie Nesbitt Golden created the hashtag #fasttailedgirls to address the sexual violations black girls face and the fact that all too often, the responsibility for these violations is placed on the backs of black girls and not the perpetrators. Writer and activist Suey Park created the hashtag #notyourAsiansidekick to, in her words, create “a space for [Asian-American, Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian women] to use our voices, build community, and be heard.”

A common thread between the most powerful hashtags this year is that many were created by women and/or people of color, people whose voices are all too often marginalized in the forums where they most need to be heard. These hashtags not only inspired necessary conversations, they were the catalyst for all manner of activism.

Social media is something of a double-edged sword. At its best, social media offers unprecedented opportunities for marginalized people to speak and bring much needed attention to the issues they face. At its worst, social media also offers everyone an unprecedented opportunity to share in collective outrage without reflection. In the heat of the moment, it encourages us to forego empathy.

It is, perhaps, fitting that 2013 has come to an end with the story of Justine Sacco. I confess I do harbor a certain amount of empathy for her and honestly, this empathy makes me uncomfortable. I don’t want to feel sorry for Sacco. I don’t even know if I feel sorry for her, exactly. Instead, I recognize that I’m human and the older I get, the more I realize how fallible I am, how fallible we all are. I recognize that Justine Sacco is human. She should have known better and done better, but most of us can look at poor choices we’ve made, critical moments when we did not do better.

As I watched the online response to Justine Sacco’s tweet, I thought of Shirley Jackson’s short story, “The Lottery,” first published in 1948 but quite prescient. In a village there is a ritual that has gone largely unquestioned for generations. There is a box and in the box are slips of paper. Each year, the heads of each family draw slips of paper. One will be marked and then the members of that person’s family draw slips again. Whoever selects the slip with a black mark is the sacrifice. Everyone takes up stones and sets upon the unlucky victim. Every citizen is complicit in the murder of someone who, just moments before he or she was chosen, was a friend, a neighbor, a loved one.

Justine Sacco was not sacrificed. Her life will go on. We will likely never know if she learned anything from this unfortunate affair. In truth, I don’t worry so much about her. Instead, I worry for those of us who were complicit in her spectacularly rapid fall from grace. I worry about how comfortable we were holding the stones of outrage in the palms of our hands and the price we paid for that comfort.

Roxane Gay's writing has appeared in Best American Short Stories 2012, Oxford American, the Rumpus, the Wall Street Journal and many other publications
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on December 27, 2013, 01:58:49 pm
You want to know why there was overall "joy" in what was sure to happen when she landed? It has to do with EVERYONE getting away with EVERYTHING in this day and age. No one is held accountable for what they say or do. It seems like every time you turn on the TV, another Celebrity or Wall-street Guy or Banks and even the President is getting away with something. This was the moment that there was no way out. No sidestepping. No bribing. No nothing.....was going to get Justine off and would have to deal with the ramification of what she tweeted.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on December 27, 2013, 07:41:10 pm
Yep... That is certainly a major component
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on March 03, 2014, 09:12:52 am
I'm thinking the only way this has impact on the big mouth girl, is she won't be going on vacation. Otherwise won't phase her at all

Girl costs father $80,000 with 'SUCK IT' Facebook post

The former head of a private preparatory school in Miami, Florida is out an $80,000 discrimination settlement after his daughter boasted about it on Facebook.

Patrick Snay, 69 -- the former head of Guillver Preparatory School -- filed an age discrimination complaint when his 2010-11 contract wasn't renewed.

In November 2011, the school and Snay came to an agreement in which Snay would be paid $10,000 in back pay, and an $80,000 settlement. Gulliver Schools also agreed to cut Snay's attorneys a check for $60,000.

But before the ink could dry on the deal, Snay's daughter took to Facebook, boasting, "Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT."

Snay's daughter blasted the message to her 1,200 Facebook followers, which included many current and former Gulliver students. Word of the post spread like wildfire back to school officials.

Within a few days, Gulliver Schools sent a letter to Snay's attorneys stating that Snay had broken a confidentiality agreement and that he would not be receiving the $80,000 settlement.

The agreement stated that neither Snay nor his wife could speak about the settlement to anyone except for his attorneys and other professional advisers.

Snay filed a motion to enforce the settlement and won in a Circuit Court ruling. The school appealed.

A hearing was held to determine if his daughter's knowledge of the settlement and her Facebook post had violated the confidentiality agreement.

"What happened is that after settlement, my wife and I went in the parking lot, and we had to make some decisions on what we were going to tell my daughter. Because it's very important to understand that she was an intricate part of what was happening.

"She was retaliated against at Gulliver. So she knew we were going to some sort of mediation. She was very concerned about it. Because of what happened at Gulliver, she had quite a few psychological scars which forced me to put her into therapy.

"So there was a period of time that there was an unresolved enclosure for my wife and me. It was very important with her. We understood the confidentiality. So we knew what the restrictions were, yet we needed to tell her something," Snay explained in court documents.

Last week, the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida agreed that Snay had, in fact, violated confidentiality and reversed the Circuit Court ruling.

It wrote: "Snay violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do. His daughter then did precisely what the confidentiality agreement was designed to prevent, advertising to the Gulliver community that Snay had been successful in his age discrimination and retaliation case against the school.

"Based on the clear and unambiguous language of the parties' agreement and Snay's testimony confirming his breach of its terms, we reverse the order entered below granting the Snays' motion to enforce the agreement."
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on April 15, 2014, 08:38:34 am
Sh*t! What the hell is wrong with kids these days? I was an asshat when I was younger, but I wasn't dumb like the majority of kids are today. Yeah, call me old.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on April 15, 2014, 11:32:22 am
You're old
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on April 15, 2014, 12:16:56 pm
Get off my f*cking lawn Mac! You're stinking up the joint!
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on April 15, 2014, 01:15:12 pm
Ok OK old man... don't have a cow
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on April 23, 2014, 10:13:07 am
I've dealt with a few people lately that were glued to their gadget instead of engaging in conversation.

My Students Don't Know How to Have a Conversation
"Students’ reliance on screens for communication is detracting—and distracting—from their engagement in real-time talk."

Recently I stood in front of my class, observing an all-too-familiar scene. Most of my students were covertly—or so they thought—pecking away at their smartphones under their desks, checking their Facebook feeds and texts.

As I called their attention, students’ heads slowly lifted, their eyes reluctantly glancing forward. I then cheerfully explained that their next project would practice a skill they all desperately needed: holding a conversation.

Several students looked perplexed. Others fidgeted in their seats, waiting for me to stop watching the class so they could return to their phones. Finally, one student raised his hand. “How is this going to work?” he asked.

My junior English class had spent time researching different education issues. We had held whole-class discussions surrounding school reform issues and also practiced one-on-one discussions. Next, they would create podcasts in small groups, demonstrating their ability to communicate about the topics—the project represented a culminating assessment of their ability to speak about the issues in real time.

Even with plenty of practice, the task proved daunting to students. I watched trial runs of their podcasts frequently fall silent. Unless the student facilitator asked a question, most kids were unable to converse effectively. Instead of chiming in or following up on comments, they conducted rigid interviews. They shuffled papers and looked down at their hands. Some even reached for their phones—an automatic impulse and the last thing they should be doing.

As I watched my class struggle, I came to realize that conversational competence might be the single-most overlooked skill we fail to teach students. Kids spend hours each day engaging with ideas and one another through screens—but rarely do they have an opportunity to truly hone their interpersonal communication skills. Admittedly, teenage awkwardness and nerves play a role in difficult conversations. But students’ reliance on screens for communication is detracting—and distracting—from their engagement in real-time talk.

It might sound like a funny question, but we need to ask ourselves: Is there any 21st-century skill more important than being able to sustain confident, coherent conversation?
What if we focused on sharpening students’ ability to move back and forth between the digital and real world?

When students apply for colleges and jobs, they won’t conduct interviews through their smart phones. When they negotiate pay raises and discuss projects with employers, they should exude a thoughtful presence and demonstrate the ability to think on their feet (or at least without Google). When they face significant life decisions, they must be able to think things through and converse with their partners. If the majority of their conversations are based on fragments pin-balled back and forth through a screen, how will they develop the ability to truly communicate in person?

It’s no surprise to any teacher or parent that teenagers rely heavily on cell phones for communication. According to the Pew Research Center, one in three teens sends over 100 text messages a day. More than half of teens use texting to communicate daily with friends, versus only 33 percent who regularly talk face to face. Cell phone use is rampant at most schools (mine included), despite attempts to restrict or even integrate it into the curriculum.

But in our zealous rush to meet 21st-century demands—emailing assignments, customizing projects for tablets and laptops, and allowing students to BYOD (Bring Your Own Device)—we aren’t asking students to think and communicate in real time. Online discussion boards and Twitter are useful tools for exchanging ideas. But they often encourage a “read, reflect, forget about it” response that doesn’t truly engage students in extended critical thinking or conversation. All too often I’ve seen students simply post one (required) response to the prompt and then let the discussion go dead. 

Sherry Turkle, a psychologist, MIT professor, and the author of Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less From Ourselves, has dedicated her career to researching people’s relationships with technology. Much of her writing has shaped my skepticism for tech-overload and its impact on conversation. In a New York Times column, Turkle wrote, “Face-to-face conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience. When we communicate on our digital devices, we learn different habits … we start to expect faster answers. To get these, we ask one another simpler questions. We dumb down our communications, even on the most important matters.”
Related Story

Schools Should Be Teaching Kids How to Use the Internet Well

Could it be that the push for screen use in schools is watering down the questions and thinking we require of students? For me, using classroom discussion boards has increased participation and given a voice to many students normally reluctant to speak in class. On the other hand, I wonder if my frequent reliance on digital participation is too easy on students. As Turkle writes, “We are tempted to think that our little ‘sips’ of online connection add up to a big gulp of real conversation. But they don’t.”

Instead, what if we focused on sharpening students’ ability to move back and forth between the digital and real world? An ironic benefit of technology is that we can leverage digital devices to capture and teach the art of conversation. All smart phones are recording devices; why not use those to record and assess students’ conversation skills? I’ve noticed that students take critical conversations, debates, and discussions more seriously when recorded. We can use technology to encourage students to strike a balance between digital literacies and interpersonal conversation.

The next time you interact with a teenager, try to have a conversation with him or her about a challenging topic. Ask him to explain his views. Push her to go further in her answers. Hopefully, you won’t get the response Turkle did when interviewing a 16-year-old boy about how technology has impacted his communication: “Someday, someday, but certainly not now, I’d like to learn how to have a conversation.”
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on June 16, 2014, 09:12:18 am
This is more about law, but is firmly rooted in Social Networks...

Supreme Court to hear case on Facebook threats

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a classic free speech conundrum for the 21st century: When do threatening comments made on social media sites such as Facebook cross the line into criminal activity?

Two lower federal courts ruled that Anthony Elonis crossed that line in 2010 when he mused on his Facebook page about killing his wife and others, including an FBI agent who was investigating his actions.

"Did you know that it's illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife?" he wrote in one of many posts. "It's illegal. It's indirect criminal contempt. It's one of the only sentences that I'm not allowed to say."

The lengthy diatribe copied nearly word-for-word a satirical sketch by The Whitest Kids U' Know comedy troupe, concluding with Elonis' own summation: "Art is about pushing limits. I'm willing to go to jail for my constitutional rights. Are you?"

In seeking the high court's review of his conviction, Elonis' attorneys contend he never intended actual violence. What the justices have to decide is whether that matters, as long as a "reasonable person" would feel threatened.

The court's precedent for such cases is now 11 years old. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Virginia v. Black that a state law equating cross-burning with intimidation went too far, reasoning that not all cross-burning was meant as a threat. Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone black jurist, dissented.

Since then, lower state and federal courts have split on what constitutes a threat — the perpetrator's subjective intent to threaten, or anyone else's objective interpretation. Most but not all courts have agreed it's the latter standard, used to convict Elonis.

The Supreme Court has refused to get involved in such disputes. Last year, for instance, it denied a petition from a man convicted of threatening on YouTube to kill the judge in his child custody case.

The new case dates back to 2010, when Elonis' wife left him after a seven-year marriage and took their two children. Apparently despondent at age 27, he lost his job at an Allentown, Pa., amusement park and began a series of dark postings, often in the form of rap lyrics. In his Facebook profile, he said the rants were therapeutic and disclaimed any "true threat."

Elonis' wife wasn't amused. She obtained a "protection from abuse" order against him, which only led to more rants directed at more people. He was arrested that December and eventually given a 44-month sentence plus three years' supervised release. He finished his prison term in February.

The federal law that tripped up Elonis states: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." Many states have similar statutes.

Elonis' attorneys say the "reasonable person" standard should not be used because members of a broad social media audience who don't know the author might misinterpret his words or guess incorrectly at his intentions.

"The issue is growing in importance as communication online by e-mail and social media has become commonplace," Elonis' petition for Supreme Court review says. "Modern media allow personal reflections intended for a small audience (or no audience) to be viewed widely by people who are unfamiliar with the context in which the statements were made and thus who may interpret the statements much differently than the speakers intended."

The Justice Department, which wants the appeals court's ruling to stand, notes that the federal law is aimed at preventing not only real violence but the fear and disruption induced by perceived threats.

The current Supreme Court has been a strong defender of free speech rights, going so far as to permit distasteful protests at military funerals and online videos depicting animal torture.

But it also has drawn lines, ruling this term against the free speech rights of a previously convicted military protester and opponents of then President George W. Bush who were moved from their protest site by the Secret Service.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on July 07, 2014, 01:43:48 pm
Look Up

Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on July 19, 2014, 06:31:28 pm
What Would Happen If You Quit Facebook For 99 Days?

Pretty good discussion.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on July 20, 2014, 05:44:23 am
While Facebook is foreign to me, I think I understand the 'addiction'.

Though I understand it, I don't get it (like a smoker). I don't get what the need is.

Like the girl said, she still has relationships with those important to her.

Who are the rest of these 'friends'?
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on July 20, 2014, 06:47:33 am
I roll my eyes when people brag about having X amount of friends on Facebook. None of that matters. It's a facade. When they go on and on about hundreds....thousands of friends, it means nothing. That same person in real life probably only has 5-6 friends.....if that.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on July 20, 2014, 02:42:11 pm
I roll my eyes when people take pictures of just basic crap like the food they eat or where they are staying.

Do these 'friends' really care?
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on July 28, 2014, 09:18:28 am
This is why you shouldn't take people's Facebook lives seriously

Everyone on Facebook looks like they're having a great time. Fun adventures, deep romances, amazing jobs. It's enough to make you feel inadequate, but it's also a lie. Nobody is really as happy as their Facebook wall claims, as this piercing short from HigtonBrothers confirms.

So the next time you're driven to jealousy by a Facebook friend's humblebragging about his or her awesome life, don't forget: They're probably embellishing it for social media, even if it's unconsciously.

Ultimately, Facebook is a narcissistic playground where the best, the funniest, the most charming aspects of our lives are publicized and the shitty stuff, the boring stuff, the beige that is most of our daily grind almost never gets posted. All those walls are edited at some level and that makes them, at best, a deformed mirror image of real life or, at worst, nothing more than a fictional movie of how we want people to see us.

The solution? Just go live your life, focus on your present reality, and ignore the circus of social media. Trust me, you'll be a lot happier.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on July 28, 2014, 07:24:08 pm
Oh, I never believe what anyone is posting on their FB page. I know a handful of people from my old job as well as from High School and a few chicks I've dated over the years. I know them well. I know what they doing in real life and what kind of issues they have and yet everything they post contradicts what I know for a fact. So yeah, I don't trust FB one and neither should you.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on August 03, 2014, 07:09:34 am
Why We Unfriend (

Interesting read. Had Facebook or Myspace been around back in my High School days, I probably would have been befriending EVERYONE as well!
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on August 03, 2014, 02:09:29 pm
Facebook's Messenger App May Be Creepier Than Your Stalker Ex and Here’s Why (

What the F*ck! Yeah, this should also be posted in that thread as well. But since this is a Facebook App, I'm putting it here. Seriously, what.....the....fuuuuuuuuuck!
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on August 04, 2014, 06:02:48 am
That was spot on and I'm not a fan of poetry.  :P
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on August 04, 2014, 06:04:38 am
I'm not sure where to put this. It's not a Boeing thing.

Ban on In-Flight Calls Likely

DOT to Proceed With a Formal Proposal; Airlines Say They Should Decide
The Wall Street Journal    08/04/2014
Author: Doug Cameron
(Copyright (c) 2014, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.) (

The U.S. government is getting closer to its final word on whether to allow cellphone calls on airplanes. And that word appears to be "no."

Airlines, meanwhile, are pressing for the final decision to be left to them.

The Department of Transportation plans to pursue the next step in what could lead to a formal ban on in-flight calls, Kathryn Thomson, said in a speech last week at the International Aviation Club in Washington, according to people present.

A spokeswoman confirmed that the DOT is developing "a notice of proposed rulemaking" for publication in December that would lay out its objections to passengers making and receiving calls. It would open the issue for further comments by industry and travelers until February before making a final ruling, according to a regulatory filing.

Regulators are focused on the disruptive effects of voice calls rather than texting or other data use, having last year loosened restrictions that now allow airline passengers to use electronic devices for these purposes from gate to gate.

In December, the Federal Communications Commission proposed overturning technical rules barring in-flight cellphone use that have been in place for more than two decades. Those rules were designed to prevent interference with ground-based cellular networks, but the FCC said it believed that is no longer a concern. The FCC has yet to issue a formal rule change, but any Transportation Department rule barring voice calls would take precedence.

More... (
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on August 04, 2014, 06:26:53 am
I don't fly, but if I did, I would certainly feel safer knowing that Cell Phones were forbidden and not allowed mid flight.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on August 04, 2014, 09:08:22 am
If you did fly, you would find right away, that talking on the phone will instantaneously cause problems
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on August 04, 2014, 11:27:35 am
I'm gonna ask my question here ( so that it can relate to thread topic in some capacity.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on October 12, 2014, 08:47:06 am
I just joined Pinterest and I don't know what I'm doing.  :-\

What I mean, I started looking deeper into drums and steampunk subjects and ran across a few related to Pinterest. So I joined to look at the stuff a little closer.

I just don't know how it works. Is there a Pinterest for dummies?
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on October 16, 2014, 07:12:42 am
I signed up for an account a few months back but haven't done anything beyond entering my name. At the moment, all I have is Nointerest in using it.  ;D
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on October 16, 2014, 08:31:21 am
Ah, I see what you did there.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on October 16, 2014, 08:54:34 am
Seriously, I did open an account a while back but I haven't done anything with it. Not sure I ever will.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on October 16, 2014, 09:20:10 am
There was something there to definitely spark my interest. What I saw was a ton of pictures organized in a way to easily see vs. a google search which is to broad.

I'll probably explore it more this fall and winter. I just don't know beyond 'looking'... what to do.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on January 02, 2015, 10:10:11 am
Too funny

Megatron Speaks the Truth about Social sites
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on January 08, 2015, 09:37:58 am
and I thought Selfies were world class lows.... but No!

Then again, if I had been the one to patent this, I'm all about the success.



ust when it seems the phone-loving public couldn’t get more self-absorbed than the selfie stick,  which helps a person take a photo of himself,  say hello to the BelfieStick.

What’s a belfie?

If you’ve ever seen a photograph of Kim Kardashian taking a photo of her own backside, you know what a belfie is.

Apparently, even those of us without the attributes or marketing savvy to make a buck on buttocks are both obsessed — and frustrated — with the picture-taking process.

Many belfies are taken in the bathroom, because of the challenge of contorting one’s self to be able to hold the camera, frame and focus the shot, and snap the photo over your shoulder.

Problem solved with the BelfieStick.

While the selfie stick is generally a straight pole, which holds the camera phone, the BelfieStick is bendable and allows the would-be photo star to angle the extend arm and camera mount to facilitates an as-casual-as-possible photo of a person posing with their own derriere.

According to Business Insider, the BelfieStick was created by

“We’ve noticed a huge spike in users taking butt selfies in recent months,”’s chief technology officer Kevin Deegan tells Business Insider. “So the natural next step was for us to develop a device to assist our users in taking one.”

Demand seems to be outpacing supply — the BelfieStick website says they are currently out of stock.

However, the site is taking pre-orders for the $79.99 stick.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on January 08, 2015, 10:48:53 am
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on January 12, 2015, 09:32:13 am
I'll put this here, since IMO, this is a social thing... though it's a personal thing?

Like smoking, I just can't wrap my head around this phenomena. I just don't give a flip about my phone.

It's official: iPhone withdrawal anxiety exists and it will make you bad at work


Do you feel anxious and tetchy when you’re separated from your phone? Do you feel like a part of you is missing? You are not alone, a new study shows.

Researchers found that iPhone users who are unable to answer their phone experience a faster heart rate, increased blood pressure, higher levels of anxiety and unpleasantness and even a lower sense of self, all of which decreases their ability to perform thinking tasks.

For the experiment, 40 iPhone users were asked to complete two five-minute word search puzzles, one with their phone next to them and one with their phone in a cubby hole four feet away. During the third minute of the task where the user and the phone were separated, the researchers called the participants’ phones and let them ring for 20 seconds.

The study, which was published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, discovered that the participants identified fewer words in the puzzle when they were pining for their phone, and they reported stronger feelings of anxiety and unpleasantness, which was corroborated by physiological evidence of increased blood pressure and heart rate.

The researchers -- the University of Missouri’s Russell B.Clayton, the University of Oklahoma’s Glenn Leshner and Indiana University's Anthony Almond -- pointed to the increasing physical and emotional attachments that humans have with their mobile phones.

Psychiatrists have even coined a new term for this discomfort disorder: Nomophobia, a portmanteau of “no mobile phone” and phobia, which is believed to affect two-thirds of people in the UK and as many as 77pc of 18 to 24 year olds, according to a 2012 report.

The researchers cited a previous study by James Harkin, who proposed that mobile phones have become embedded in modern people’s sense of self because they “‘function as comfort objects, antidotes to the hostile terrain of wider society,’ and have become entities so intimately a part of us that they are capable of representing ‘an extension of our physical selves – an umbilical cord, anchoring the information society's digital infrastructure to our very bodies.’”

When that umbilical cord is cut, even momentarily, the level of psychological and physiological distress is strong enough to kill a person’s concentration and inhibit their ability to work.

It might be worth keeping this on file for the next time your boss tells you off for being on your phone at work.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on January 12, 2015, 02:25:57 pm
I think it's just as real as anything else one becomes attached to. When it's taken away, their is a natural tendency for withdrawal. Case in point, I'll use two personal examples: My Cell Phone and my Computer. In the case of my Cell Phone, even though I was never obsessive about it like most people are, when I finally cut the cord and cancelled my contract and went cold turkey, I still went through an adjustment period of it being gone and this coming from someone that really didn't give a f*ck about even having one to begin with. So, those that live and die by their phones today, I can see how it can be a problem when suddenly face to face without one.

As for my Computer, I definitely fall into the category of "obsessive" because I do so much with it, be it work related, entertainment and checking in on what Mac, Neumatic and the rest of Penny Can are doing.  A couple of times when my PC went belly up and I had to take it in for repairs, ranging from 1-2 weeks turn around time, I went through major withdrawals. I didn't know what to do with myself. Even TV couldn't fix the problem. I was cut off from the "outside world", even though it actually sent me.....outside. Ack! I don't miss my phone. Not one bit. Glad to be done with it. But I couldn't function without my PC. I'd go stir crazy if I knew I'd be without it for an extended period of time.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on January 18, 2015, 11:47:24 am
Why people use Facebook to avoid facing real life


Doug Hindson's short Dis\connect gives a powerful answer to an important question:Why do we keep sharing our edited lives and avidly connecting to others through Facebook, Twitter, or Whatsapp all the time? His answer is simple, one that I'm sure you have all thought about before.

Deep down we are afraid of the moments when we are alone, he says, because this is when our deepest regrets and worries come flooding in. These are the moments when our own existential angst becomes solid, heavy, painfully sharp: "I wonder what I would be doing if weren't doing this," he asks, "would I be the person I have always feared I'd become... or would I be the person I'd always dreamed I'd be?"

We escape that time alone through constant connection and exhibition out of fear of facing the ultimate truths about ourselves.

The worst thing is that this defense mechanism has also become an escape for moments in which we are physically with others. We sink our noses in our phones at parties and dinners out of fear of establishing deeper connections, of talking too much, of getting involved, of failing, of causing the wrong impression.

It's a sad world in which we live in, my friends, but don't worry, because you are not the first to feel his way. The hardest questions of all—"who am I? What do I want to be? Am I spending my limited time on Earth being who I really want to be?"—have occupied the human mind since the beginning of recorded human history and probably before. The only difference between us and the men and women of previous generations—or the men and women in other less developed countries—is that some of us have too much free time and they didn't.

Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on February 10, 2015, 10:21:47 am
Interesting stuff... we've kinda of addressed some of the 'over-sharing' opinions here.

What the offensive tweets of Jeb Bush’s new aide say about growing up in the oversharing age

No sooner had 31-year-old Ethan Czahor been hired by Jeb Bush than certain old, unsavory tidbits vanished from his Twitter feed. In January 2010, when he was 25, the Bush PAC’s new technology lead had tweeted some tasteless commentary about gay men at his gym. A couple months earlier, Czahor had made several off-color jokes about “sluts,” sex and drunk-driving.

It’s not exactly the kind of behavior you want to see from the guy who’s supposed to save your party’s digital image — which is perhaps why news of Czahor’s deleted tweets has rocketed around the Internet like some gate-suffixed scandal. But who are we kidding, honestly? This is the new normal, in politics and every other field: Everyone of Czahor’s generation and younger will come with some kind of digital dirt, some ancient tweet to be deleted or beer-pong portrait to untag. As Czahor tweeted yesterday:

Well … yeah, okay.

At 31, Czahor is on the cusp of a generation that lived its teenage and young-adult years almost entirely online, where their antics were often public, regrettable and permanently archived. Myspace launched just as Czahor was turning 20, and Facebook went national in late 2006, when he was 24. Czahor was still in college in eastern Pennsylvania when he started his now-infamous Twitter account; at that point, only three years after the site’s founding, most users hadn’t figured out what Twitter was even for.

Incoming Obama administration director of speechwriting Jon Favreau (L) and a friend pose with a cardboard cutout of incoming Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a party. (Obtained by The Washington Post)

That doesn’t necessarily excuse Czahor’s tweets, which — to be clear — were appalling. But 20-something kids right out of school aren’t necessarily pondering the long-term impact of their posts. There was the case of 27-year-old Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau, who was tagged in a Facebook party pic groping a cut-out of Hilary Clinton in 2008. (Favreau had to contact Clinton with an apology.) There was the John McCain aide who resigned after a controversial anti-Obama clip was found on his private Twitter feed.

Even Benjamin Cole, the congressional adviser who resigned over racist Facebook posts uncovered last week, seems not to have understood the concept of the digital footprint: As early as 2010, and as late as this year, Cole had posted gross and unfathomable screeds to his Facebook page.

Cole is 38; Czahor is 31 — both of them, at least, came to social media as adults. We can’t exactly say the same thing of today’s 13- and 14- and 15-year-olds, all bae-ing their hearts out under their real, Google-able names. According to data from the Pew Research Center, modern teens are posting more information publicly, not less — though there are signs that many understand the longevity, and the consequences, of their digital footprint. In 2012, more than half of teens said they decided not to post something because it could eventually make them look bad.


Of course, that still leaves something like 15 million kids posting whatever they want, whenever they want, since smartphones allow them more or less constant Internet access. By the time they grow up and run for public office, opposition research will be a defunct industry: You don’t need to dig through property records and newspaper clippings when you can just pull a CTRL+F on somebody’s tweets.

Then again, if oversharing’s the new normal, maybe we’ll grow accustomed to youthful Internet indiscretions like these. As a society, we’ve already adapted to a thousand other impositions of the digital age — the phone out at dinner, the constant availability, the rise (and fall) of the “thank you” e-mail — that bending the rules for a few tweets doesn’t seem like such a stretch.

I’m reminded of an acquaintance who’s long dreamed of running for political office and maintains an active Instagram of simpering, duck-faced party pics. By the time she runs, in 10 years or 20, will those photos air in attack ads? Or will voters be into it?

There’s a third option too, of course: Maybe, by 2030 or so, we’ll all be deeply beholden to digital reputation-scrubbing services. That industry’s booming already: Companies like Go Fish Digital will scrub your Facebook of lewd photos, comb through your old tweets, and otherwise make sure your Google results look squeaky-clean.

It almost makes you wonder why Czahor didn’t contact one of those firms before he became the Bush PAC’s CTO. For a digital messiah, the guy seems … kind of slow.

Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on March 19, 2015, 11:46:59 am
Vince Neil Is Suing Woman Who Used to Run His Facebook Account (

I could post this in a nu,ber of threads. Hell, I even wrestled with the idea of creating a new thread titled 'Stupid of the Day". But since the contents and context is about Social Media, it will reside here. As for Vince, he has to be dumb to think that turning over his Facebook page to someone else would not end well. Of course she is going to trade on his fame and namesake. Duh.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on March 19, 2015, 03:09:22 pm
Wouldn't this reveal, at least in someways, celebrity social connections have the real possibility of being fake and disingenuous? What's real anymore?

As I think back, it started for me when music artists performed live to tape. That was the start.

Today folks don't care if they are seeing or hearing the real thing. If you perceive it as real... Well then it's real.

So sad. I don't care about Vince and his 'troubles'
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on May 12, 2015, 10:47:23 am
Periscope App


Have you guys heard about this? Am I just now hearing about it. In all honesty... I don't care either. But some of the young guys on the Dave Glover Show I listen to are just going nuts over this app. Honestly, it sounds incredibly stupid. Then again, I think Facebook and Twitter are majorly stupid. But I'm sure there are good uses it for it.

But these guys are so excited about the most mundane things.

Essentially you broadcast live video to others as it's happening. So Max was getting all giggly about how he was broadcasting to some folks about his recent viewing of Avengers. He gave an after movie question and answer with about 250 people. Some in Asia. That actually sounded like it might have merit. But then they got all excited about watching Tom Green drive home from a party. And other C list celebrity's go grocery shopping or just walking down the street talking about life.


I seriously don't understand this. Im sure age has a lot to do with it. But my gawd, what excites people today is mind boggeling.

Dave's show then drifted into using Periscope at the recent big Maryweather fight. Yep, tons of folks broadcasting live from their TV, the $100 ticket fight... for free. I just wonder what kind of doors this is going to open up... or close.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on June 17, 2015, 09:37:45 am
Funny stuff here....

First Textual Experience with Aziz Ansari
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on February 25, 2016, 11:28:03 am
ISIS threatens Facebook and Twitter CEOs (

Does anyone see the irony in this? They condemn America and all that it comes with, yet they rely heavily on using our tech. This threat is only going to spur Zuckerburg to be even more determined to shut them down.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on February 26, 2016, 02:55:11 pm
IMO, many religions and religious people don't see the irony in their beliefs.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on March 09, 2016, 09:29:13 am
Holy crap... I know there are negative aspects to social networking community, but I have never heard of this until now. W-wh-why... this app? WTF. Has this what's it's come too? Judging people, which we all do, but now make it public. You have nothing better do you piece of crap.

Peeple - Controversial people-rating app Peeple goes live, has a plan to profit from users’ negative reviews (

Peeple, the controversial people-rating application that lets its users rate and review anyone, is not a hoax or vaporware, as many suspected following the media backlash surrounding the unveiling of the company’s intentions last fall. The Washington Post even called the app “terrifying,” given that the app didn’t plan to allow users to opt out of being reviewed — a feature that remains in the version that launched this week.

more... (
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on March 09, 2016, 11:15:22 am
I heard about it. I have no desire to even check it out personally and if I find out if any of my friends using this, I will banish them. No lie. I don't need people like this in my life and will not condone them judging people as if it were a sport.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on May 31, 2016, 09:38:55 am
I put this here because it's more about the root cause of social networks moreso than Adele. Sorry, no video

Watch Adele Scold a Fan at Concert: 'This Isn’t a DVD. This is a Real Show'

Society’s biggest threat isn’t capitalism, but in fact the concert terrorists who hold up phones—or worse, IPADs!—throughout an entire show to capture photos and video for Instagram, Snapchat and the like, thus ruining the live experience of being at a show.

Instead of taking like a couple snapshots or an occasional quick video and then putting the phone away, some of these fans spend the entire concert viewing the show through their tiny machine instead of their eyeballs. Adele complained about this phenomenon during a concert on Sunday in Italy, during which one woman appeared to be shooting a feature film.

“I want to tell that lady as well, can you stop filming me with a video camera because I’m really here in real life,” said Adele. “You can enjoy it in real life, rather than through your camera.” She went on: “Can you take your tripod down. This isn’t a DVD. This is a real show. I’d really like you to enjoy my show because there’s lots of people outside that couldn’t come in.”

Here, now that you’re done reading a post about the video, watch this video of the crowd applauding Adele for scolding the woman for taking the video.

Gawd, I hate when this happens. Watch the freakin show... that's why you are there. Why would I watch a crappy video of someone else's experience of attending said event? People trying to define themselves by posting anything and everything to make them appear to have some validity. Mind boggling.

Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on May 31, 2016, 09:52:00 am
Adele Asks Fan to Stop Recording Her During Live Show

Saw it this morning.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on May 31, 2016, 10:43:34 am

But ya see the irony in THAT video?

I wish more people would do this. Tell people to stop recording sh*t.  You don't have to photograph every freakin second of your life. Your living in a world other than your own.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Chiprocks1 on June 01, 2016, 10:22:24 am
Adele joins singers scolding fans who record concerts

A discussion on the previous incident as well as ones that came before that.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on June 01, 2016, 12:23:58 pm
More along the lines of Social Networking...

One of my new favorite artists speaks out...

Elle King responded to a hater of her Boston Calling set with a lengthy Instagram post

The final Boston Calling at City Hall Plaza was an eventful one, featuring everything from Prince covers to New England Patriots sightings. Not every artist received unanimous praise at the festival, though. Many attendees were critical of Robyn’s remix-only set, and one Sunday performer felt some backlash from one member of the crowd via Instagram.

Elle King, the Grammy-nominated singer famous for such hits as “Ex’s & Oh’s” and “America’s Sweetheart,” responded to an Instagram user who had commented on a photo of King, posted by a different user, on stage with a drink in her hand. The commenter had written, “[King] was wasted, and sounded terrible because of it. One of the only low points of an otherwise killer day.”

I have to be honest. I have some followers who know me from Ex's&Oh's and I also have some fans who have seen me go from empty bars to theaters. I am BLESSED beyond belief that I get to call this self expression of mine a career. Someone took this photo and a comment said "she was drunk and was the worst part of the day". Do I drink? Yes. Hell yes. Was I wasted? No. I've always felt different from other people and felt such a disconnect with the social media aspect of what comes along with being a somewhat known musician. For a long time I saw Instagram and Twitter as a way for me to connect with my fans and interact with them. And listen, I'm not crying boo fuckin hoo over the mean **** people may write about me, because brother I'll tell you what, I been called a HELL of a lot worse to my face. But it's very sad and disheartening that our generation have become so comfortably judgmental. I am who I am. I will continue to be who I am, flaws and all. What I'm truly trying to express to anyone who cares is that I have worked really, really hard to get where I am, and I've done it without changing myself to fit anyone's mold. Be it physically, musically, or mentally. I began writing this out of frustration, but as I finish, I'm reminded that there IS goodness in this world. There IS beauty and kindness and LOVE. I've **** up so many times in my life and I'm going to **** up time and time again. But I can and will always try harder, I can and will always get better, and I can and will always remain true to who I am. To my loving fans who accept me, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. If I can do this, so can you. Make room for goodness in your life and CHOOSE to live in light and love. Cool

In response, King’s reposted the photo and a wrote out a lengthy caption in which she confronted her haters and thanked her loyal fans.

“I’ll tell you what, I been called a HELL of a lot worse to my face,” King wrote. “But it’s very sad and disheartening that our generation have become so comfortably judgmental.”

The original commenter was quick to apologize, and King’s post has already garnered more than 5,000 likes.


Good for her. This culture of tweets, instagram, blah, blah, blah and say what the hell you want to the world is throwing respect out the window. Man I'm glad people are speaking up and calling out people.

on a side note, I am seeing more people being downright brazen about texting and driving. These folks scare me. Now they are just holding the phone in front of them over the steering wheel. They don't care.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on June 01, 2016, 12:33:59 pm
Thanks for the report. Maybe this will pick up steam.

I knew about the Eagles thing and the audience knew as well. It works out well once everybody knows the rules.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on November 16, 2016, 09:39:12 am
Well, this 'Mannequin' thing initially seemed like a silly thing... and it is, I do see creative processe's going here.

I found this one particularly fun.
Title: Re: Social Networks
Post by: Mac on March 26, 2017, 05:20:10 am
Ok, it's funny video stuff, but I see they are at least self aware and making fun of themselves.