Wait, did you know there was such a thing as an international Data Privacy Day? Well there is, and today, January 28, 2010 is apparently the third annual one. Marshall Kirkpatrick of ReadWriteWeb as posted on nytimes.com published an article entitled “Privacy, Facebook and the Future of the Internet” and in it he discusses the various changes Facebook’s privacy settings recently underwent, and in it raises the question of whether the future of the internet in regards to protecting its users’ privacy is in jeopardy.

Kirkpatrick first analyzed Facebook’s original privacy settings and said that “Facebook's obsession with privacy slowed down the work of people who wanted to build cool new features or find important social patterns on top of all the connections we users make between people, places and things on the site” (Kirkpatrick, 2010). Facebook seemed to have a firm grasp on protecting its users and some three hundred and fifty million agreed with them, feeling reassured by the fact that they could manage their settings so that if they wished, only close friends could view their online profile. In December, however, Facebook revamped these settings. “Public was the new default and some fields on a user's profile were suddenly and irrevocably made visible to the web at large. Your photo, your list of friends and your interests as expressed through fan page subscriptions could no longer be set to private” (Kirkpatrick, 2010).

So will things continue downhill from there, he wonders? Will the privacy of millions of internet users, social networkers and otherwise, be more and more compromised as more information is made available?

Oh, Facebook. Facebook in itself has become a norm of our culture. Not having a Facebook could be synonymous with ‘living under a rock’. Either that or you’re probably ‘super old’ and don’t know how to work a computer, or you have no friends. I believe that social networking sites as forms of mass media can be a good thing and used for valid purposes, however looking at the article I’ve summarized above, the public could be in for some trouble if the privacy of users continues to decline. Have you seen how much we (this is an all-inclusive ‘we’) post on our Facebooks? Anybody has the potential of knowing everything about you and how to find you. If you have a Facebook and haven’t taken the time to read about the new privacy settings, I’d suggest you do so.

Going back to the beginning of the previous paragraph’s opening statements, the normalization of social networking sites amazes me. Yes, I have a Facebook, and had a MySpace back in its glory days too. But why do we all have one? Is it really to keep in touch with long distance relatives and long lost friends? Personally, I’d like to think so. Or is its purpose for you to post a million pictures of you and your awesome friends and sexy beach bodies? Or maybe to post ten status updates a day saying how you just bought a new iPod, have the BEST boyfriend/girlfriend ever, got totally wasted at the coolest party last night, or are going shopping, again? Hm. To me, it seems like sites like Facebook have become a no-holds-barred bragging grounds (always among other important things, of course, such as harvesting your crops on Farmville or being a cyber bully to some person you just hate). That appears to be the ideology of these types of sites. You can show off. I have had a few separate conversations with people who’ve said how they wish they could just delete their Facebook accounts so they don’t have to deal with all the extra drama surrounding it, or the need to log on several times a day to keep up with everything and everyone. However, they keep their profiles, feeling an obligation to their friends, or not wanting to deal with the complaints of the people from their friend list should they delete.

So, what’s the relevance here? Who cares? No one’s going to stop posting those zillions of pictures or statuses, and who’s really going to go read that boring privacy policy revision? According to Marshall Kirkpatrick at least, it might be a good thing to do so. Get over yourself and break a norm, it seriously could save your life one day; should other companies and sites begin following in Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg’s footsteps and revise their own policies, it may come to be that these people can access any info about you they want. Facebook, Amazon, Google… Read the article for more details and the author’s view on what could happen and if you’re skeptic on what he has to offer, remember, you never know. We’ve accomplished a lot that we never thought would happen on Earth… just saying.

It’s not too late… go celebrate Privacy Data Day before online privacy is no more.

Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2010/01/28/28readwriteweb-privacy-facebook-and-the-future-of-the-inter-5731.html

(Here’s some irony: I’ll probably paste the link to this on my Facebook so others can read it and view our blogs. But I am going to check out my current privacy settings for sure.)

-Sheila.

Valentine's Day is hated by many people, mostly married men and single women. The argument used, time and time again, is "it's a commercial holiday." What people mean when they say this is, it's a farce cooked up by The National Retail Federation to make more money from men buying their girlfriends nice gifts.

In an article from the New York Times, Stuart Elliot says, "the billions spent for the holiday in 2009 represented a decline of 13.5 percent from the $17 billion spent in 2008, according to the federation." No, this isn't because more people hate Valentine's Day. It's because the economy is in poor condition.

Obviously, retail marketers are going to now take advantage of what the article calls, "frugal valentines." 6,000 people follow Macy's on Twitter. Those who post a love note on their twitter, with "#sweetesttweets" is given the chance to win diamond jewelry. The food-chain, White Castle, is only serving couples who made romantic reservations for this year's Valentine's Day.

Because of the change in the economy, the world of commercialism is being turned upside-down. Rather than Valentine's Day being a day where people buy each other gifts to signify their love, they are entering free contests and eating by candlelight at fast-food chains. It seems that these vendors are no longer counting on the name of the day to bring in the dollars.

Martine Reardon, executive vice president for marketing at Macy’s said, concerning her ad- plans, "The goal is to entertain consumers and offset concerns about the economy." The media are never an accurate reflection of social, political, and now, economic reality. There is always an agenda, whether it is to change things or keep them the same. Marketers want things to stay the same, they want people to want their products.

So is Valentine's Day just a farce, fed to us through media? By the look of things this year, it would seem that way. Our ideas of love are shaped by the media, especially on this holiday-- because the NRF loves our money the way women love their diamond rings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/business/media/28adco.html?ref=business#

Gina

Imagine the typical Super Bowl Sunday- friends hanging out, cheering raucously for their respective teams, devouring hot wings and Doritos and perhaps throwing back a few too many beers. Other than a few angry remarks about a referee's questionable call or an angry jibe at a friend for rooting for the "wrong" team, watching perhaps the most popular sporting event of the year is a typically laid back and friendly event.
Now, imagine this- among the usual lighthearted Snickers and Bud Lite advertisements is a seemingly out of place commercial advocating pro-life.
In an article published on NPR, Sam Sanders brings to light a pro-life commercial sponsored by Focus on the Family that is said to be airing during this year's Super Bowl. The ad will feature Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother, telling the story of how she was encouraged to consider abortion when she fell ill during her pregnancy. Although until now CBS has stood by its decision not to feature "advocacy" commercials, Sanders speculates that they have reconsidered due to the poor economy and many companies not wanting to shell out the considerable sum (around three million dollars) needed to advertise their products during the game. The article states that this will not be an overly political commercial; it will, instead, "celebrate life" and generate little debate and controversy.
This article does a fine job representing both stances on this issue. On one hand, it tells us that the commercial will be very family-friendly and will lack controversy and political overtones. However, Sanders also argues that Super Bowl Sunday may not be the time or the place to broadcast a commercial addressing such a highly debated topic. People are looking for entertaining and virtually meaningless commercials that make them laugh featuring products they already know and love. They are not going to be in the state of mind to be presented with an issue on which any person in the room or at their party could have opposing views.
Who knew the Super Bowl commercials that we have come to know and love, both laugh and roll our eyes at could be heading in such a heavy direction? How will this affect the mood on February 7th? The fact of the matter is every one of the millions of viewers that tune into the game could be influenced by this small but powerful ad. Even though some may choose to ignore it, others will simply appreciate or be annoyed by it, it is bound to stir up debate or at least a conversation in many houses across the nation.

Click here to view the article.

Emily