Search results for facebook

Thankfully, the FDA has something called a “jelly bean rule” that prohibits companies from labeling sugary products as “healthy.”   The Center for Society in the Public Interest won a motion to dismiss a suit in federal court against VitaminWater, owned by Coke.  Coke argued that by including the sugar content in each bottle (33 grams if you’re interested), it was ensuring that consumers wouldn’t be deceived.  But any of us that has reached for a drink of this sort knows that we’re not perfect information seekers.  This is a classic case of satisficing – or seeking the “good enough” outcome rather than the “optimal” outcome.  For satisficing to be effective, we need to trust the veracity of the choice.  So if Coke labels a product as “healthy,” we probably should have some guaranteee that a vetting process has taken place so that ingestion of the product isn’t actualy the opposite of healthy.   That’s where the jelly bean rule comes in.

Government is good 🙂

via Utne Reader.

There are a few creative types on ThickCulture so I’m hoping they chime in on this one. I just saw this on Facebook {via Jennifer Lovegrove via Zoe Whittall} this rekindled my thinking about screenplays. The video explains the Bechdel Test or the Mo Movie Measure to assess female presence in films. The test is not part of a feminist manifesto or a normative stance on what makes a “good” or “correct” film, but poses the question that much of filmmaking caters to men or male-centric narratives. Here’s a list of films and how they fare on bechdeltest.com. I think I know why this is the case. It’s about formula and pigeonholing. So, if we take the parameters of the test::

1. Are there 2 or more women who have names?
2. Do they talk to each other?
3. Do they talk about something other than men?

one realizes that few films would pass this test, but those that do would often get stereotyped in the calculus of Hollywood decision-making that relies on formula and appealing to certain demographics in an attempt to mitigate risk. Too much female presence on screen is often deemed unchartered territory when it ventures outside of the established realm of the “chick flick”. This has gotten me thinking about my screenplays and a TV treatment I’m developing and how, with good writing, there could be much more of a female presence that doesn’t take anything away from the story. Interestingly, my TV treatment has much more of a female presence, but it mirrors a real world context and I’m more cognizant of gender in my writing of late. In any case, I find writing in more female presence, in a smart way I might add, to be an interesting creative challenge that can help freshen the story. I’m not sure I would say the same thing in 2002 when I started writing screenplays, as I think writing stories and dialogue for women back then would be much more difficult. Eight years ago, I think I’d think it’s a great idea but beyond me. Nevertheless, I think pushing the envelope here has the potential for writers to craft better stories.

While I don’t believe that only women can write screenplays that pass the Bechdel test, I think it’s illuminating how relatively few female writers there are. According to a Writers’ Guild of America 2009 report, the number of female screenwriters has languished under 20% for the past few years::

Song:: No Doubt-‘Just a Girl’

Twitterversion:: [blog + video] The Bechdel Test/Mo Movie Measure examines female presence in film. Thoughts on the Hollywood & the creative process. @Prof_K

Yes Magazine asks whether it is time for a tech sabbath? I wonder how much my consumption of Internet content (particularly blogs, email, facebook and twitter) are affecting my attention span.  I don’t want to go all Nick Carr on everyone, but I’m pretty sure the Internet is doing something to my ability to engage with complex ideas for sustained periods of time.  This is the main reason I’ve backed away from this blog.

Rather than run from it, I’ve decided to embrace it (except for my new-found Sunday Tech Sabbath)!

No matter how you slice it, Roman Polanski is a divisive figure. I blogged about his detainment by the Swiss police last fall {that post details the case}, when the Los Angeles District Attorney was angling for extradition. I should add that like I said in my earlier blog, I’m not a Polanski apologist and my concerns have to do with civil liberties. The story stirred up quite a bit of emotions with the anti-Polanski camp calling him a child rapist, the victim wanting the whole affair to go away, and his Hollywood supporters making pleas to sway public opinion. Today, the Swiss Justice Ministry refused to extradite Polanski, citing that the LA prosecution failed to provide enough evidence, among other factors. There is no expectation that U.S. authorities will appeal and he’s a free man.

First, I think it should be addressed why the Polanski affair angers so many people. It’s a reminder of an ugly chauvinistic past and the seeming existence of a two-tiered justice system that a CBC article summed it up quite well last fall::

“…For generations, women have suffered unfairly in rape cases, particularly at the hands of the courts. The onus of guilt was often shifted to the woman under the phrases ‘she should have known better’ or, even worse, ‘ she asked for it.’

These ugly phrases and the often lack of support from the police and courts caused untold numbers of women to suffer in silence rather than seek justice in a public forum.

Fortunately, things are changing, but not far enough nor fair enough. Polanski’s efforts to avoid prison —coupled with all the prominent people who are rushing to support him — are a reminder to many women of the unfairness of both public sentiment and the legal system.”

In my previous blog on Polanski, I called into question issues of due process and prosecutorial misconduct. On a Facebook wall, my arguments were reduced to saying that I was equating his crime with possible misconduct::

“[Kenneth Kambara] is trying to equate purported legal misconduct with admitted statutory rape. I think the latter is proven–by admission–and the former possible but unproven. And the efforts to prove it cannot be attempted from Europe.

Polanski wanted to return to the US, that’s why his lawyers were pushing this issue. If extradition is achieved, he will get his wish. He has nobody to blame but himself.”

I must admit I found this to be a curious statement, as in my mind it highlights how the public wants justice and may not have the patience for due process. The above statement refuses to acknowledge that flaws in procedure matter, regardless of the crime and how reprehensible it might be. Nevertheless, being a stickler for due process can upset the sensibilities of fairness when someone who seems dead-to-right guilty gets away with punishment by faulty due process. Yet, without upholding due process, what kind of legal system would there be?

In 1986, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Rose Elizabeth Bird {appointed by Jerry Brown}, and several other “liberal” justices were not confirmed in the general election. One of the major issues was the death penalty and how she overturned cases. The reason? Due process. Bird argued in several capital cases that there were flaws in procedural due process and to try again without the flaw. This holds police and the judicial system to a high standard of conduct, in order to limit the incarceration or death of the wrongly accused. I think this can be frustrating to those thinking that this is a travesty of justice, but it goes back to what type of legal system do the people want.

The Swiss Justice Ministry claimed that they didn’t consider Polanski’s crime, but the LA court’s procedures. The ministry requested documents from the meeting where Polanski’s lawyers met with the original 1977 judge, Laurence Ritterband. The U.S. Justice Department refused, citing confidentiality. Arguably, those documents may have proven embarrassing to the California court and harmed the case. The Swiss threw out the extradition request, which only occurs 5% of the time, citing a lack of support for the request and the fact that it came years after U.S. authorities knew Polanski had a residence in Gstaad since 2006, but failed to act until 2009.

I think FoxNews Entertainment hit the nail on the head on how the State of California managed to look like the bad guy in a child rape case::

“…And [Robert] Reuland [a New York City-based criminal defense attorney] says that while California is probably embarrassed by Switzerland’s decision, this could also be the end of their efforts to pursue Polanski, which is probably costing millions and millions of dollars.

‘At some point, California prosecutors have to decide whether they want to keep at something that is taking so much effort and cost. His public nature plays a big role in why they have pursued it for so long now. But after a certain point, California starts looking like the bad guy in a severely botched case,’ he said.

It’s pretty hard to look like the bad guy in a child rape case, but somehow California managed to do it.”

Song:: Echo & the Bunnymen-‘Do It Clean’

Twitterversion:: [blog] Why the Polanski affair is such a hot topic & the intersection of fairness & due process. #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Crossposted on rhizomicon

Notes from north of 49ºN

Last month, the Toronto Star ran an article on the use of social media in Toronto’s mayoral race. This fall’s election will be the first since the proliferation of social media and the wake of Obama’s campaign 2.0. A CTVGlobemedia poll released this week shows that the race is tightening up, as heir apparent George Smitherman {15.9%} was leapfrogged by Rob Ford {17.8} with a 3.1% margin of error and 37.9% undecided.

Now, most of the candidates have embraced social media with various “chiclets”::

for sites like Twitter and YouTube. The “downside” of social media is that it can be hard or impossible to control. This clip of a documentary where Rob Ford gets on the case of a reporter for calling him a “fat f*ck” was making the rounds on YouTube::

Well, first off, this dispels the irksome myth that all Canadians are mild-mannered and polite. How does this video play in the court of public opinion? It’s hard to say. Some might be turned off by Ford’s confrontational style, but it might be “on code” with his feisty approach and accountability stance. Smitherman is no shrinking violet, so it may be interesting if Smitherman and Ford go after each other and voters can see it on YouTube.

I think Twitter offers an interesting mode for engagement. Provincially, here in the Toronto Centre riding, Liberal MPP Glen Murray does a great job of using Twitter to have conversations with constituents. The mayoral candidates should look to Twitter to both engage voters and mobilize supporters, as well as crowdsource ideas to help round-out platforms. A breakdown of the candidates’ Twitter presence follows, in their order in the CTVGlobemedia poll with following/followers/Tweets::

1. Rob Ford {17.8%} 151/663/256
2. George Smitherman {15.9%} 1,540/1,609/119
3. Joe Pantalone {10.1%} 508/591/245
4. Rocco Rossi {9.1%} 1,019/1,432/732
5. Sarah Thomson {5.8%} 1,017/1,082/1,066
6. Giorgio Mammoliti {2.5%} 618/474/ 274

I think it’s important for candidates to follow their followers in order to get the most out of Twitter and the conversations it can foster. Rossi and Thomson are Tweeting frequently and it would be interesting for their campaigns to gauge and analyze how Twitter affects metrics for the various functional areas of the campaign, e.g., volunteering, fundraising, attendance at events, etc.

Song:: XTC-‘Mayor of Simpleton’

Twitterversion:: [blog] Can #Twitter be a gamechanger in #Toronto mayoral race, offering conversations & engagement? #ThickCulture #VoteTO @Prof_K

José has a great post on privacy, Privacy Schmivacy, which highlighted how algorithms can infer information about you rendering privacy settings in a certain context obsolete. The implication is the public-private divide and as José aptly puts it::

“This poses a paradox…if people freely give this information to a web site in exchange for the pleasures of friendship/connection, then are we obliged to regulate how the information is used by others? Isn’t a central element of connection the fact that you’re ‘putting yourself out there’ in public. Being public poses risks. Can we have the pleasures of the public with the protections of the private?”

I’ve been following developments on the semantic web, Web 3.0, which is all over the personal information and data about us that’s out there and can be used, as in Facebook profiles, and computers talking to computers to anticipate our needs. Ideally, it’s a benign Skynet from the Terminator movies.

While there have been discussions of a privacy ontology, this one from way back in 2002, the sticky wicket is that most users don’t understand the ramifications of using sites as we move towards the semantic web. For example, last July, Facebook’s algorithms were tweaked to be able to scour your contacts in your address book. You can opt out of this, but what about all the address books that you’re in? I’ve noticed that one’s Facebook friends list could construct one’s social graph for quite some time now, so I’m not surprised that social networks and profiling of users under lockdown can be done so readily and relatively accurately. That said, I think that users need to be more aware of the risks of engaging social media and not be lulled into a false sense of privacy. In terms of policy, I think more can and should be done to {a} limit what information is accessible and {b} companies and organizations need to be more up-front about what information is accessible and to whom, along with the ramifications of this. I firmly believe there is a knowledge gap between what users know and the reality of privacy on the web.

Should there be more regulation or more strict privacy policies by companies and organizations? I think that’s an interesting question. The stakes are the benefits of interacting with your identity, but the risks are the use of that information constructing that very identity. My initial reaction is no, but with a twist. I think there needs to be more information presented to users in lay language on the implications of using social media as the contextual web becomes more ubiquitous.

A more interesting issue, to me, isn’t the privacy issue, but how the semantic web can alter the social world and policy, which encompasses privacy and the nature of data in everyday life. One area in particular is what I see as an intrusion of the economic sphere on the personal through the use of data::

• Should your employer be privy to your credit rating or driving record?
• Should they be allowed to use public information about you {from databases or on social networking sites} as a condition of employment?
• Where does one’s role as a employee end and a private citizen begin? In other words, is speech less-than-free if you want to keep your job?

You can pose similar questions regarding the intersections of the personal and the political, the social, etc., with the main point being that these intersections are altering our everyday lives.

The semantic web is the churlish love child of Foucault’s surveillance and Derrida’s deconstruction.

Twitterversion:: Will the semantic web destroy privacy, given current policies & trends? How will it affect everyday life? #ThickCulture

Song:: Camera Obscura, ‘I Don’t Do Crowds’

Erik Hayden at Miller McCune links to a study done Alan Mislove of Northeastern University and his colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems
that reveals how easy it is to create a profile of you from your Facebook contacts. Using alogrithmic magic, the team was able to create profiles for thousands of students at Rice from their profiles and the profiles of those they had “friended.”

the algorithm accurately predicted the correct dormitory, graduation year and area of study for the many of the students. In fact, among these undergraduates, researchers found that “with as little as 20 percent of the users providing attributes we can often infer the attributes for the remaining users with over 80 percent accuracy.

Hayden sees this as a problem:

Not to seem alarmist (“privacy” on the Web has always been overrated), but if these researchers could develop a limited algorithm that can infer rudimentary attributes off locked profiles, the possibilities seem endless for others to harness advanced software that could render current privacy controls completely useless.

This poses a paradox…if people freely give this information to a web site in exchange for the pleasures of friendship/connection, then are we obliged to regulate how the information is used by others? Isn’t a central element of connection the fact that you’re “putting yourself out there” in public. Being public poses risks. Can we have the pleasures of the public with the protections of the private?

The NYT’s Bits blog introduces us to unvarnished, a site where you can “review” another person anonymously.

Here is how it works. For now, you must be invited by an existing user, and to formally register, you must first write a review of that person. Any member can review any other member, and if someone does not have a profile on the site, you can create one for them without their permission.

The person being reviewed has very little control over what is written; they cannot delete a review, but can offer a written response, or perhaps ask their friends to contribute more positive portrayals.

Facebook has a similar application called Honesty Box that allows you to leave anonymous assessments of those with a facebook page. I guess this application brings the scathing critque “straight to you”!

My initial impression is that no good can come of this. It does raise the question how we perceive our digital obligations onlines. Ilana Gershon gave a great talk at the MaCarthur Foundation’s 2010  Digital Media and Learning conference I attended last month in San Diego.  Her talk was called “Keepin’ It Real: Facebook’s Honesty Box & African-American Verbal Artistry.” The gist of the talk was that there were key differences in how White and Black students viewed “honesty box.” While White students Many white students saw the app as an unwelcomed opportunity to “say mean things” while African American students preferred to know if people out there had negative assessments about them.

While I haven’t read the paper, it brings up an interesting puzzle for me.  Should I confront negative assessments of me on the part of anonymous others.  For example, before this post, I had no idea if I am on Rate my Professor.com.  I didn’t want to know.  But since I was writing this post, I went on anyway and got this:

a really stand up prof! used the book a little but the majority of the work was online. he is funny and can ignite class discussions that make going to class a joy. go to this class and feel free to voice your opinions. marichal is one of the best teachers at cal lutheran.

Whew! So far so good. But then I also got this.

he never followed the syllabus so it was insanely confusing! He made it sound like we were going to cover all kinds of relevant current events, but we stayed on one topic for almost 6 weeks. By the add/drop dealine, there were NO grades in the gradebook. We were let out of class late everyday.

Ouch! But here’s the thing…is the anonymity liberating students to be authentic and thus confront me with at the very least a valuable perspective on my strengths and shortcomings or is the anonymity a unwelcomed invitation to “be mean.” If the web affords us these venues to give unsolicited and unattributable assessments of others, then how should we be in these venues? Do we give them over to spiteful nastiness? Do we try to steer them towards “authentic” critique?

Notes from North of 49ºN

This morning, the city of Toronto awoke to a mayoral candidate sex scandal that is likely to have zero effect on the outcome, given the strength of the frontrunner, George Smitherman. The Toronto Star had an article on how a woman came forward with text messages of a sexual nature and allegations that she had an affair with mayoral candidate Adam Giambrone, the Toronto Transit Commission chairman and City Councillor. Giambrone has a long-time girlfriend, Sarah McQuarrie. The article was full of lurid details, reminding me why I think of the Star as a bastion of hack journalism and often poorly-written articles. In the article, Adam called it a lapse in judgement and apologized to those close to him for the embarrassment his actions will cause them.

What I find interesting is not just how this story plays into the routine morality play of political sex scandals, but also how the press frames them. The above photo was in an article posted within the last 90 minutes on the Star, reporting that Giambrone is staying in the mayoral race. I found it interesting that the photo had images of “the couple” in clean-cut political mode, contrasted with “the other woman,” complete with low-cut blouse.  Here’s the photo from the story that ran this morning, echoing more of the same::

The Toronto Star might think I’m full of it {along with others}, but I think these photos are meant to reinforce, with a visual rhetoric, a specific normative political narrative with the intent of selling papers and fueling pageviews. WJT Mitchell wrote about “what do pictures want?” a few years back. These images attempt to simultaneously evoke an emotional response from us along with a judgment, as well as reinforce a narrative of our politicians.

The Torontoist had a good point by saying that this story is telling of our political culture.  They also question the correlation between one’s private life and the ability to be a good public servant. I have no idea what the truth is in this story, but I have three points to make::

1. If politicians are to be held to a high moral standard, why not all persons in positions of power? If a boss has an affair, should that be unequivocal grounds for termination?
2. Doesn’t this scrutiny of politician’s private lives, given how technology is eroding privacy, set a precedent for all of our lives to be potentially in the public sphere?
3. Doesn’t this scrutiny incentivize more bad behaviours, as in the case of John Edwards who not only had an affair, but went to great lengths to cover it up.

Does this preclude a mainstream politician who is a “player” or polyamorous? I think it does. And the Star will ensure we get out collective fill of any lurid details or allegations of “deviance” to express our collective outrage, just like in Victorian times, when “smut” was published as a cautionary warning—and make fistfuls of cash.

Update {10 February 2010, 8:39a EST}::

Giambrone admitted to more affairs and politicians are going on record expressing shock, dismay, and calling for his withdrawal from the mayoral race. It looks like the Toronto Star wasn’t the only one interested in sexy pictures. There was just differences on the definition of sexy. Here’s an excerpt from today’s Globe & Mail::

“At first, Ms. Lucas seemed eager for more exposure. She sent several photos of herself to a local gossip website yesterday morning because she disliked the portraits that appeared in the Star, according to David Robert, manager of drinktheglitter.com. “She wanted sexy pictures of her to be out there,” he said. “She’s like, ‘They’re going to get out anyways.’ “ But she shrank from attention as interest in the scandal swelled. Ms. Lucas swiftly deleted her Facebook and Twitter pages. Mr. Robert said she also disconnected her phone number and shut herself inside her house in East York to escape the media swarm.

“I think this is crazy for her,” he said. “But, my god, I mean, [yesterday] morning she sent Canada’s highest-rated gossip site 10 pictures of herself.”

Twitterversion:: Blog: Trending topic #Giambrone dustup in #Toronto. Star reciting familiar verbal/visual tropes to make $$. #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Song:: The Wedding Present-“Unfaithful”

Notes from North of 49ºN

The above video from YouTube does a decent job of explaining what the big issue in Canada is at the moment, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s proroguing of Parliament. Proroguing? It may seem like a Sarah Palinism, as in “pro-rogue”, but it’s a suspension of Parliament without dissolving it. Harper, a Conservative, prorogued Parliament last year when the other parties were threatening to form a coalition of New Democrats, Liberals, and the Bloc Québécois. This time around, Harper was being asked tough questions by Parliamentary committees about what his government knew about the torture of Afghan detainees after they were turned over to Canadian Forces. On 30 December, the Governor General, upon Harper’s request, prorogued Parliament until 3 March 2010, killing all bills and suspending all committees. The official reason given was the economy, but nobody bought it.

There were two major results::

1. A grassroots effort using social media mobilized sizeable protests across Canada
2. The Conservatives have lost ground in the public opinion polls and are in a statistical dead heat with the Liberals

On Facebook, a group for Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament has amassed 219,600 members {28 January} and last Saturday nationwide protests were organized. Here in Toronto, a sizeable crowd assembled downtown::

The prorogation of Parliament is viewed by many as anti-democratic {See Rick Mercer’s opinion piece in the Globe & Mail}, although Harper has supporters of his decision. For the time being, anti-Conservative momentum has picked up the pace and support for the Liberals has increased—at the expense of the NDP, Greens, and Bloc.

It’s over a month until Parliament reconvenes. It will be interesting to see if the anti-Conservative sentiments will weather the Winter Olympics in Vancouver and any possible coherent response by Harper. Upon Parliament reconvening, I’m not sure if an election will be triggered. A weakened Harper that’s ready to deal may do more long-term damage to the Conservatives. I’ll be blogging on Rhizomicon within a few days on my detailed analysis of the EKOS poll data, which should make the Liberals a bit cautious about another {expensive} election in the near future.

Twitterversion:: Harper’s proroguing triggered Facebook mobilized protests.EKOS poll:: Grits surging @ expense of Tories,Greens,NDP,& Bloc. @Prof_K