Is Facebook ‘Like’-able?

Joe Lipari, a well-known American comedian took to Facebook to share the frustrating experience he had at the Apple Store. Lipari, using Facebook as it was intended, responded to the prompt ‘What’s on your mind?’ and updated his status accordingly. Lipari posted an aggressive quote from the movie Fight Club targeted towards the Apple Store in an attempt to de-stress from his unsatisfying experience. Moments later an NYPD Swat team occupied his apartment, “their guns drawn” already starting to “tear the place apart”(Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). The authorities flagged the status and Lipari’s address was immediately retrieved prompting the instantaneous search of his apartment. Only after the fact did Lipari realize that this was in response to his aggressive Facebook status. This begs the question of personal privacy on the Internet.

The trust that we put on the Internet to protect our privacy should be diminishing as it is clear social media sites, most notably Facebook, do not have our best interest at heart. The continual breech of privacy is a sign that we are headed for a doom where there is no longer a notion of privacy. Users should not trust the Internet, and in an ideal situation not sign up for any form of social media for personal protection. While Facebook users believe the information they post is private, and only accessible according to their personal privacy settings, in reality it seems that no information put on the Internet is private at all.

While we brainlessly click through privacy settings and privacy policy agreements when we sign up for Facebook, users are missing the very important fine print. Trudy Howles, a professor of Computer Science at the Rochester Institute of Technology, cautions “privacy considerations become an issue as soon as any data are made public; one could argue that simply the collection and storage of the data presents some level of risk” (Data, Data Quality, and Ethical Use, 8). Upon the realization that personal data was being collected, I was strongly opposed as I had only intended for my information, pictures, and conversations to be shared with my friends. The mere motive to collect this data and store it implies a desire to use this information for an ulterior reason to why it was put online in the first place. The reason for data collection was one I was not even aware I was agreeing to until today, which makes me question if I would have even signed up for Facebook with this knowledge in the first place.

Derek S. Witte, a commercial litigator and eDiscovery lawyer, writes in Journal of Internet Law: Privacy Deleted, “once an individual posts information on Facebook, neither the courts, nor Facebook itself, can promise that the information will remain private and confidential” (19). My lack of trust with the Internet continues to diminish as more and more privacy violations surface through deeper research. For me, this is a worse case scenario as a Facebook user. Knowing the information is being harbored and not guaranteeing its security should be a red flag for any Facebook user. It seems to be a clear violation of privacy to use this information for reasons other than connecting with people, which is Facebook’s main goal.

 

In its current Privacy Policy, Facebook promises law enforcement that they will respond to requests seeking information on any given profile in its database. Facebook’s privacy policy details that they “[do] not actually require any particular criminal subpoena or warrant simply provided that ‘we review each request for records individually’” (Witte, 18). It seems hard to believe that Facebook could deny access to a strong government organization. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks notes, “US Intelligence is able to bring legal and political pressure to Facebook”(Assange, Russia Today). As I dig deeper into the whole of Internet privacy the consequences of posting any information online seem much grater than the benefits. Now information is at risk of being accessed by any law enforcement or government organization. I would persuade readers to absorb this information and truly caution how you use Facebook.

I, among other users, was under the assumption that Facebook privacy settings could be altered to take full control on our online privacy. I felt that each aspect of the profile could be adjusted to my comfort level, which is totally private to people I am not friends with. In 2009 Facebook changed their privacy settings, and changed the defaults of sharing, without notifying its users in advance. Facebook “turned what was once private information into totally public information” overnight (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). The default setting was changed so that ‘everyone’ could view and search a given users information. Zuckerberg explained, “The way we’ve designed the site is that it’s a community thing. So people want to share with just there friends but a lot of people also want to share with the community around them”. However, Danah Boyd, Senior Research Manager rightfully states “the problem with defaults is that you get comfortable with whatever the default is” and “as time passed, more and more information was being shared by default”(Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). This is the true danger of Facebook in the first place. Before the rise of this social media site no one had thought to share this kind of private information about ones self until it became popularized by the website. Our sense of the need for privacy is being washed away as it now becomes acceptable to publicize information so freely without understanding the consequences.

Do you want “Everyone” to be able to see your Facebook posts? Didn’t think so.

Trusting Facebook with your information brings consequences that allow Facebook to take control of not only personal information but also personal being. In 2012 Facebook conducted a study that altered the content in news feeds to see whether different content would affect the emotional state of a Facebook user. This study caused tremendous backlash as Facebook was “deliberately manipulating emotions”, causing, in some sense, psychological damage (Dredge, The Guardian). Facebook specifically and maliciously altered the emotions of users, a very intrusive exploit. Sentiments of this intrusive study are echoed by “Jim Sheridan, a member of the Commons media select committee” who worries about “the ability of Facebook to manipulate people’s thoughts [in] other areas” outside of emotional attitudes (Booth, The Guardian). The fact that Facebook can make that large of an impact on a user is very concerning. Not only is Facebook now able to use personal information but also now my emotions are dictated by my Facebook news feed. Regardless if Facebook had notified me of this study, this brings to light the power Facebook has. The site is able to change the way I am feeling thus commanding my day-to-day life which is now controlled by a social media website.

Julian Assange believes that “Facebook in particular is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented”, and he is right (Assange, Russia Today). Assange’s assumptions coincide with the US department of homeland security’s statement that “Facebook has replaced almost every other CIA information gathering program since it was launched in 2004” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). Christopher Startinsky, the Deputy Director of the CIA, claims that the widespread nature of Facebook “is truly a dream come true for the CIA… after years of secretly monitoring the public”; this information is voluntarily made accessible”(Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). Not only does this bring to light that even before Facebook the CIA was digging up details about civilians but that the CIA is actually delighted in the fact our information is so easily accessible. It brings them pleasure to see how naïve civilians set their privacy at their doorstep to be used freely.

This has created a great sense of inner anxiety within myself, the thought of being constantly watched, in a malicious sense, is a sense that is mimicked by the US supreme court as they “openly oppose the creation of an American “Big Brother” when “Big Brother” already exists in the guise of Google, Facebook and, now it seems, the NSA” (13). Even though the NSA claims they collect this data because it could be relevant to a terrorism investigation at some point in time” this preventative clause gives them one foot in the door (Witte, 13). With even preliminary access there is no telling what information they will dig deeper for, seen in the Joe Lipari case.

 

their database even after it has been deleted. An Austrian law student took advantage of a law that allow citizens to access any information a given company has on them, including Facebook (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). The student delved deeper into his own Facebook catalogue and found that “if you hit the remove button, it just means it’s flagged as deleted. So you hide it, actually, from yourself. But anyone, like Facebook or any Government Agency that wants to look at it later can still retrieve it and get it back” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). The data and information that I have put online lingers behind a screen that I cannot see waiting to be used to “prevent terrorism”. It waits for the opportunity to be used against you, otherwise why would government agencies feel the need to retain it?

I could argue that I do not care my personal life and personal information is being harbored, as I have nothing to hide. However, Zeynep Tufeki, Professor of Sociology at the University of Baltimore, responds to this question saying, “You have nothing to hide, until you do. And you are not necessarily going to know what you have to hide or not” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply).

What is needed is a call to action for advanced Facebook and Internet privacy awareness. The information that we voluntarily put on Facebook is etched in stone the moment it is published. Belief in cyber privacy is fostering a greater trust in the invisible sphere of the Internet, despite acts of privacy violation around us. The recent iCloud hacking, exposing countless nude photos of female celebrities, and Snapchat hacking are proof that web content is an open target. The notion that there is a shred of privacy online contradicts Facebook’s whole purpose, to share information with others. In our technologically dependent world the reality that our whole lives will be online is a viable future. The doom that lies ahead is a society reliant on a technology that harbors our information, manipulates our emotions and gives away all of this data, relinquishing any shreds of privacy we thought we had left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited:

 

Willis, Lauren. “Why Not Privacy by Default?” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 29, no. 1 (Spring 2014): 61–134.

 

Witte, Derek. “Privacy Deleted: Is It Too Late to Protect Our Privacy Online?” Journal of Internet Law 17, no. 7 (January 2014): 1–28.

 

Howles, Trudy. “Data, Data Quality, and Ethical Use.” Software Quality Professional 16, no. 2 (March 2014): 4–12.

 

Assange, Julian. Interviewed by Laura Emmet. “Facebook, Google, Yahoo Are Spying Tools” Russia Today, 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/assange-facebook-google-yahoo-spying-tools/.

 

Hoback, Cullen. Terms and Conditions May Apply. Documentary, 2013. http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70279201?trkid=13462100.

 

Dredge, Stuart. “How Does Facebook Decide What to Show in My News Feed?” The Guardian, June 30, 2014, sec. Technology. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-news-feed-filters-emotion-study.

 

Arthur, Charles. “Facebook Emotion Study Breached Ethical Guidelines, Researchers Say.” The Guardian, June 30, 2014, sec. Technology. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-emotion-study-breached-ethical-guidelines-researchers-say.

 

 

 

There is no greater motivation in this world quite like the promise of having a thicker wallet. Entertainment has arguably been at the forefront of this sentiment. Whether someone is a pop diva or an NFL running back, they all belong to something called the entertainment industry. The keyword there is “industry”. Although comparatively young in regards to sports and music, the video game industry has become wildly successful over the past decade. What started off as being nothing more than a specialized hobby has grown into a massive mainstream form of media. With triple-A video game releases even beating out Hollywood in terms of revenue there is clearly something they are doing right (Chatfield, 1). Despite all of these impressive sales figures, inevitably greed will come into play. What remains important though is that an industry learns from its errors. From creative business models to practically stealing from customers, the video game industry has strengthened modern business ethics even through their mistakes.

Perhaps it would be best to start off with the good. It is common knowledge by now that expanding your acquisitions in the form of small companies helps bring a new set of skills to your service, but it also gives those same small businesses a chance to grow. Steam supports working with a number of smaller developers in addition to the big ones. While the console wars rage on between Sony’s Playstation, Microsoft’s Xbox and Nintendo’s Wii U pitting their communities against each other, Steam remains practically unchallenged in the PC gaming market share. While Steam does rely on some exclusives such as Counterstrike and Dota 2 which boast hundreds of thousands of players daily, much of its success can be attributed to the large library of games that were made possible by its continued support of those struggling to break into the gaming industry by “greenlighting” (a form of approval) their products (“Steam” n.d.). Playstation, and more specifically, Xbox try to stay in the game by providing a number of other services such as Netflix and blue ray players in their machines to make up for the fact that neither are as outgoing in giving smaller developers a chance. The Wii U trails far behind all three platforms due to its lack of almost any third party developer support (Vargas, 2013). Not only does Steam essentially promote smaller businesses, it has proven to be profitable as well. Consoles may not necessarily be dead but PC elitism has grown over the past few years due to the number of titles, specifically indie games, Steam has accumulated over the years. Their inclusiveness may understandably win this war of platforms as they continue to take chances forging alliances with dozens of other developers in order to cater to the many different kinds of gamers.

“Steam.” Steam, n.d.http://store.steampowered.com/.

 

Speaking of PC gaming, World of Warcraft, although fallen in numbers, still remains the biggest MMORPG of all time. It once was able to claim a whopping 12 million players. How is all of this possible? It relied on subscriptions. Most video games at the time of its release were single products that had a one-time purchase and less reason to revisit the game once you were done. World of Warcraft’s formula offered more than just a product. It was also a service. Constant patches and add-ons convinced players that they were living in an ever-changing and ever-growing online world. This gave incentive to keep playing even for veterans. In a sense, the game never abandons the player and constantly tries to reward player loyalty. Off course server maintenance and constant reworks would cost money, but they made all of it back through the sheer amount of support from the community. Blizzard had successfully created an IP (intellectual property) that would last more than a decade and still go strong (“World of Warcraft” n.d.). With just one product, Blizzard capitalized on the idea of customer loyalty by both brining in new players and accommodating the old ones.

Trying to capitalize on Blizzard’s success, a number of other companies tried their stab at a big MMO release. Bioware’s The Old Republic appeared promising at first, but does not appear to have the longevity that World of Warcraft does. However, it still is far from being a failure by including an in-game store (“The Old Republic” n.d.). People are quick to nay-say micro-transactions, but it is all about the manner in which they are implemented. The reason why micro-transactions and in-game stores are criticized is because of their encouragement of a pay-to-win model. This essentially means that people are forced to pay to pass levels and not give the time or effort required to progress in the game. The Old Republic relies more on selling in-game items that offer no real gameplay rewards, but you can give your character a cool looking hat. There’s really nothing advantageous about a hat as it only serves cosmetic purposes. Small purchases like this keep the business afloat but does not go as shallow as to make players pay in order to proceed to the next level.

“The Old Republic.” The Old Republic, n.d.http://www.starwarstheoldrepublic.com/.

 

Wildstar, a new MMO on the scene, makes money from an even more far-fetched angle. Knowing that entering the MMO market is difficult, they came up with a formula that encourages its current subscribers to keep playing. They believe that there are essentially two different kinds of people that play their games. Person A is fine with paying subscriptions but does not have enough time to play in order to progress in the game. Person B has plenty of time but cannot keep playing because he/she is unable to keep up with the subscription fees. Wildstar allows person A and B to alleviate their problems. Person A can give some of the time purchased through his subscription to pay for some of person B’s hard-earned in-game currency/items. This is basically a trade between money and time. Person A gets the in-game items he/she needs to progress without having to dedicate their life to the game while person B gets the time needed to play longer (“Wildstar” n.d.). This understanding of the mindsets of different customers helps create better connections between the company and the consumer. Interestingly enough, this is not the first time a video game company has let players trade directly between each other.

Eve Online has more than just a simple trade system. It has an entire living economy in its virtual space that players control and utilize with real money. The market inside this virtual reality is so complex that it has actual inflation and deflation rates for the in-game items being traded. Players themselves set prices and can make auctions at their own will. Very little is monitored in this in-game economy except for any “illegal” trades. Plumer, a game journalist, describes the game as being its own “small country” even going into further detail about how players “speculate on commodities” while forming “trade coalitions and banks”. The amount of user power in this game is remarkable. There is virtually no middleman which gives a sense of trust between the developers and the players. At no point does the game developer itself step in to moderate trades. Instead of trying to control everything they give power to the people, and through this ideology they have secured the loyalty of their players ensuring that their IP will stay relevant in years to come.

Brad, Plumer. “The Economics of Video Games.” The Washington Post, September 28,                2012.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/28/the-economics-of-video-games/

Unfortunately not all video games are sunshine and rainbows in the way they handle their businesses. Let’s take a look at the most casual of games. Just about everyone with a smartphone has played or at least heard of a little something called Candy Crush saga. The entire game is just swiping candy in four directions trying to match colors. For anyone who has had a phone before the iphone era, this concept sounds a lot like bejeweled doesn’t it? The premise of the game has been around longer than most people believe coming in various different forms ranging from a Facebook equivalent to classic NES games. What makes this game a cash cow compared to the rest is the way they make money off of their game. Players cannot go 1 minute without a shameless plead for more of the user’s money. Smosh Honest Game Trailers puts it best saying that players “are given options like paying to unlock new levels, paying for power-ups, paying to make more moves, paying for more lives and paying for the ability to pay for more lives”. In response, King Digital is now more concerned with developing new mobile game apps rather than simply milking their already successful game. Their current product lineup is remarkably similar to Candy Crush Saga, but at the very least they are making money from new content rather than from relying on the old model. It may be improvement in small increments, but it is improvement nonetheless.

“Why Candy Crush Saga Is Taking over the World,” n.d.https://medium.com/mobile-games/why-candy-crush-saga-is-taking-over-the-world-f89203a90c13.

 

Corporate video game crimes do not end there. DLC, also known as downloadable content, has been greatly panned by fans and critics alike. These digital expansions have been accused of allowing the developers to market games with missing content to consumers and selling that same missing content as an “add-on”. I have to admit that this is a generalization and that some DLC expansions have earned the right to actually call themselves an expansion. The most blatant example of DLC abuse was with a game called Street Fight vs Tekken. This particular game actually came with the content on the disc but could only be accessed through a purchasable code (Gallaway, 2012). Understandably, outrage spread through the community prompting the developer to review their DLC practices in the future. Since then the company has released Ultra Street Fighter IV which expands the roster of characters for Street Fighter IV. People who did not have the original title can purchase the new one and those who had the first can upgrade their version at a reasonable price. Although they could have gotten away with refusing to put up an upgrade option forcing everyone to buy a new copy, they decided against it. This reflects a willingness to change business practice even at the cost of making a quick buck.

If selling a purchasable code was bad, selling an unfinished game to your customers is downright inexcusable. Steam, along with other publishers, have allowed players to partake in early beta tests to judge games that are still in development. The catch is that some beta tests actually require players to pay a fee (Orland, 2013). Gamers are not doing themselves a favor by paying to criticize unfinished games. Of course it is unreasonable to ask game companies to give early access to their projects for everyone before the final product is released. By then, players might lose interest and the company would go broke. Still, they need player feedback in order to improve before their big debut. More and more beta tests are beginning to tackle the problem in a different fashion. League of Legends and a number of other games in the same genre went through extensive periods of beta testing before being officially released. In order to keep the game from being at full access to the public, most beta tests now require sign-ups through their websites to limit the participants (“League of Legends” n.d.). This may sound exclusive but at least they do not cheat anyone out of their money. This flexibility in business practice demonstrates how experimentation can become a win-win for both consumers and producers.

Sadly, even one of the most popular series, Halo, cannot escape the lure of becominga corporate sellout. The embarrassing alliance Halo 4 made would forever be the laughing stock of gamers everywhere. Halo 4 was at the forefront of the Doritos and Mountain Dew campaign at the time of its release. By buying Doritos and Mountain Dew, gamers could level up faster with double XP. Even high profile game journalist Geoff Keighley was nothing more than a mere puppet promoting Doritos and Mountain Dew through Halo 4’s popularity (Vargas, 2012). Capitalizing on an IP’s popularity is not an unjust decision. Understandably partnerships need to be made in order to cover for the high production costs of triple-A titles. That is not the issue. The main problem gamers had were with the double XP. Having another company’s product directly affecting the game and its online community was a terrible decision made by Halo’s creators. No longer was Mountain Dew and Doritos promoting Halo. Halo was promoting them. Since then, 343, the company behind the Halo series, has ended its partnership with the snack and soda to work on their next projects. Both Halo 5 and The Master Chief Collection have only had promotion through gaming conventions and online trailers. Gamers made complaints. The company listened.

Phil, Owen. “No, Game Journalists Are Not Paid by Publishers for Review Scores,” July 28,           2013.http://www.gamefront.com/are-paid-by-game-publishers-for-review-scores-nope/. 

 

 

More pressing than the Doritos incident is gaming journalism itself. Corruption always finds a way to snare its tendrils into the innocent. There has been great speculation about whether publishers have any power over those that review their games. GMU, a video game awards ceremony came under fire in 2012 when it was revealed that the journalists invited to the ceremony were voted for and sponsored by video game publishers. Journalists were encouraged to tweet positive statements about certain games. In return, they would get a free PS3. Joe Vargas, a youtuber specializing in video game reviews, describes the process as “favors for positive coverage”. Promotion through shady deals have become an increasing problem in the video game industry. Perhaps the high-end professional reviewers have fallen from grace, but this bad press has helped pave way to the legitimacy of bloggers and youtubers willing to weigh in their own opinions on games. Youtube recently went on a spree taking down a number of video game related videos. Although people were quick to point fingers at the developers and publishers it was actually revealed to be the result of third party music companies making claims to music used in the intros of a number of videos. Gaming developers and publishers were actually quick to defend youtubers and amateur reviewers (“YouTube’s Response To Content ID Copyright Controversy,” n.d). Despite a need for better reviews to boost sales, game companies defended the rights of free speech even for those who had spoken negatively about their products. Seeing an opportunity to win back the public’s trust the gaming industry’s bold move has amended some of the disputes with gamers.

It may be wrong to praise all of the business practices of the video game industry over the past years, but the events that have transpired have nonetheless become important lessons in business ethics as a whole. Each success and each folly have become a stepping stone further shaping what it means to be a good business. There is no shame in an industry making poor decisions as long as it is motivated in improving itself. The tales of the video game industry will undoubtedly transform the corporate world into something that both consumers and businessmen can rally behind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Brad, Gallaway. “The Consumer’s Seven Laws of DLC,” April 8, 2010.http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/the-consumers-seven-laws-of-dlc.

 

Brad, Plumer. “The Economics of Video Games.” The Washington Post, September 28,       2012.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/28/the-economics-of-video-games/.

 

“Business Model.” Wildstar, n.d.http://www.wildstar-online.com/en/game/features/business-model/.

 

Candy Crush Saga (Honest Game Trailers), 2014.https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=candy+crush+criticism.

 

Kyle, Orland. “Valve Lets You Pay for the Beta with Steam ‘Early Access’ Program,” March 20,       2013.http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/valve-lets-you-pay-for-the-beta-with-steam-early-access-program/.

 

“League of Legends.” League of Legends, n.d.http://na.leagueoflegends.com/.

 

Phil, Owen. “No, Game Journalists Are Not Paid by Publishers for Review Scores,” July 28,           2013.http://www.gamefront.com/are-paid-by-game-publishers-for-review-scores-nope/. 

 

“Steam.” Steam, n.d.http://store.steampowered.com/.

 

 “The Old Republic.” The Old Republic, n.d.http://www.starwarstheoldrepublic.com/.

 

Tom, Chatfield. “Videogames Now Outperform Hollywood Movies.” The Guardian, September 26, 2009.http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2009/sep/27/videogames-hollywood.

 

Vargas, Joe. Top 10 Gaming Controversies of 2012!, 2013.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54s_jyjMUxY.

 

Vargas, Joe. “Top 10 Gaming Controversies of 2013!,” n.d.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voVpvKlntDM.

 

“Why Candy Crush Saga Is Taking over the World,” n.d.https://medium.com/mobile-games/why-candy-crush-saga-is-taking-over-the-world-f89203a90c13.

 

“World of Warcraft.” World of Warcraft, n.d.http://us.battle.net/wow/en/.

 

“YouTube’s Response To Content ID Copyright Controversy,” n.d.http://gamerant.com/youtube-content-id-copyright-controversy-response/.

Play  Song

October 23, 2001. Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, summoned a small group of media-related and music industry-minded individuals to the Apple Town Hall in Cupertino California to hear about the future of how people listen to digital music. Up until this date, people knew Apple for their Macintosh computer and iBook, both of which revolutionized the way people interacted with the digital world, but after this particular announcement Apple would be known worldwide for its innovations in music. I was six years old when Jobs announced “the 21^st century Walkman,” also known as the iPod. At the time I didn’t grasp the magnitude of the impact the iPod was about to have on the music world, and to go even further, society and the world at large, but I did grasp the concept that music, at the very least, played an integral role in everyone’s life to some extent. Jobs capitalized on just this concept as he rattled off all the restrictions and impracticalities of the then-current music-listening devices. With that said, Jobs introduced the iPod, a pocket-sized mp3 player with a sleek and intuitive interface as well as a 5-gigabyte mp3 storage capacity. With the introduction of the iPod into society, Apple had forever changed the way a majority of the population of the world would listen to music. Now, Kevin Kelly would assert, with the following statement being aligned with the views he expresses in his book What Technology Wants, that the progression of the mp3 player in the form of the iPod has had a greater positive impact on society rather than negative. Most people would probably agree with that statement as it’s been shown that the iPod has been used for many noble causes. For example, the iPod has been used as a quality-of-life enhancing tool, which is an extremely beneficial aspect of the iPod. Many people tend to overlook the more negative and darker attributes of the device, such as its toxicity to the environment and its effect on human social behavior, to even worse negative impacts such as its role in the heavy decline of the music industry. To me, the Apple iPod impact could be best summed up as being good, bad, and then just straight-up ugly. Thus, I would argue that the Apple iPod’s negative impacts out weigh that of its positive impacts because of the degree of severity of its adverse environmental, social, and worse yet, industry-killing effects.

Excerpt of Steve Jobs iPod Key Note Address Video

I don’t entirely disagree with the following statement by Kelly in regards to progress: “I think the balance settles out at higher than 50 percent positive, even if only slightly higher”(77). I agree that there are positive impacts associated with the progression of the mp3 player in the form of the iPod, but I don’t agree with Kelly’s assessment that progression in regards to that of technological devices has been more beneficial for society than it has been negative. With that said, I can’t lay down my counter to Kelly’s argument without exploring all aspects of the impact of the device both positively and negatively.

 

The good. When the schematics of the iPod were introduced to society, many individuals saw it as a tool that could be utilized for the benefit of human society, or to be  more specific, a quality-of-life enhancing tool. Heather Holmes would fall under this category of individuals. Holmes, a member of the Good Samaritan Society as well a therapy-teaching Professor at the University of Nebraska-Omaha, saw potential in the iPod’s customizable music playlist feature, specifically in that the feature could be used therapeutically. Through the implementation of personalized music programs, Holmes and her crew, “create an experience [through the usage of the iPod], and all of a sudden, someone in the group [that is a part of the program] will have a moment when they speak five or six words—like ‘I remember dancing at my wedding.” Keep in mind that the people who take part in these programs have severe cases of dementia and Alzheimer’s, both of which impair their ability to recollect memories greatly. I believe that in respect to the therapeutic field, that only the iPod as a mp3-playing device has the capability to “create a[] [memory triggering] experience” like the one Holmes describes. I sincerely believe that listening to music, especially music that I sincerely enjoy, has a therapeutic impact on my mental psyche, and the progression of the mp3 player in the form of the iPod caters to just that impact exactly.

 

The bad. People tend to skip over the underlying negative environmental facets of a device because they propose unsettling thoughts and scenarios. For instance, a majority of society tends to not realize or flat out ignore the fact that the energy used to power society’s music storage devices is derived from the burning of coal—an activity “that leads to air pollution, climate change, and other problems tucked neatly away behind an electronic screen”(Biello, “How Toxic Is Your iPod?”). David Biello alerts his listeners to the environmental problems associated with the original iPod in the following podcast.

Play Podcast

 

Although, as Biello puts it in his podcast, “Apple is more brown than green. But it’s getting greener” (Biello, “How Toxic is Your iPod?”), the fact that iPod is still overall “brown,” meaning bad for the environment, is cause for concern seeing as recently the consequences of the continual promotion of climate change through anthropological actions, such as the burning of coal, have a detrimental impact on the future of human society. Another phenomenon that can be attributed to the iPod is that it promotes a static human behavior, or to be more specific, promotes what Tom de Castella refers to as “headphone culture”. “Headphone culture” is best described as the generational movement of isolating oneself by listening to digital music via headphones linked to an mp3 player, in this case the iPod. The statements of psychologist Oliver James best sum up the psychological, antisocial impact the iPod causes. James argues that the iPod puts people in a “self-absorbed and atomized” state of mind, which causes people to prefer being alone in their own bubble (Castella, “Has the iPod made us Anti-Social”). I find this assessment of where the collective mental state that society is moving towards by Oliver James as being very similar to that of the future collective mental state of society E.M. Forster suggests in his book The Machine Stops. Forster describes in his book the future of human society’s preference of technological isolation in what Forster describes as “a small room, hexagonal in shape, like the cell of a bee”(1). Although the iPod doesn’t create an actual physical cell that blocks people from their human counterparts, the iPod does create an intangible social barrier that removes people from their human surroundings. Both the collective psychological and environmental impact the iPod has on society is overtly detrimental. It is hard to believe that this is also only the tip of this big, bad iceberg.

 

The ugly. What most music fans, and people in general, will point at, as the largest negative impact attributed to the progression of the mp3 player in the form of the iPod is its role in the rapid decline of the sale of physical records by music stores. NBC News author Rosa Golijan elaborates on the iPod’s role by stating, “Once you had an iPod, the iTunes Store had you. Who wanted to purchase an overpriced CD, go home, pop it into a computer, rip the tunes and then sync them to a gadget? The iPod allowed Apple to make its mobile computing revolution, with a little help from its red-hot media store.”(Golijan, “iTunes turns 10: How Apple Music Store Killed Old Music Industry”). The answer to Golijan’s rhetoric question is not many people as illustrated by the pie chart below.

 

As the data of the pie chart above suggests, the revenue stream of the U.S. music industry has experienced a gigantic shift in its landscape in just the last eight years. With this information in mind, it’s not hard to understand why “Tower Records, a hallowed music store chain with a 46-year history, shuttered its doors at the end of 2006”(Golijan, “iTunes turns 10: How Apple Music Store Killed Old Music Industry”). Some editorials such as The Nation went as far as to say that the day Tower Records “shuttered its doors” was “The Day the Music Died,” because all of the events that transpired that caused this collapse of a record giant can be traced back to Apple’s initial introduction of the iPod. If the mp3 player had never progressed into what is the iPod, record stores such as Tower Records may still be bustling with business today. I personally hold this to be true seeing as I would have never discarded my first CD player if the iPod had not captivated me with its dazzling and versatile features, and I think a lot of people would agree with me. Once the iPod had entered my life paired with iTunes, I lost the desire to purchase entire albums and ultimately saw buying albums as economically impractical because most of the time I didn’t enjoy every track on an album and thus moved in favor of just purchasing one or a couple of my favorite cuts off of an album. Thus, the iPod effectively conditioned my generation as a whole into purchasing music in a much different format than that of past generations, which were conditioned in the way to buy music by the record labels. Apple had flipped the music industry’s record selling model on its head, and not surprisingly, the industry declined because of the rapid increase of volatility in the market.

 

Now that I have touched on the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of the iPod in my analysis, I think it is hard for one to disagree with my argument that the Apple iPod’s negative impacts outweigh its positive ones because of its adverse environmental, social, and worse yet, industry-killing effects. The continued distress of the music industry and the increasing anti-social behavior of society to this day make me wonder if society would have been better off without the iPod. It’s a steep claim, but at the same time, taking in all the evidence I have presented, it is an understandable one. Maybe in the case of the progress of technology the positive-negative balance nature of it comes out to a slightly more positive impact on human society, but in the case of the iPod, I would argue that this is not the case. The progress of technological devices and instruments is a tricky thing, which we as humans have yet to perfect; we still make mistakes that set us back. Ultimately, we can learn from the progression of the iPod to weigh the impacts of certain creations more carefully in the future. If we don’t, we might witness the disillusionment of an industry like that of the record industry once again.

Works Cited:

Forster, E. M. The Machine Stops. London: Penguin, 2011. Print.

“Full Access to IPods Enhances Quality of Life at Good Samaritan Society-Millard.” Music and Memory. Web. 25 Oct. 2014. <http://musicandmemory.org/2013/04/23/full-access-to-ipods-enhances-quality-of-life-at-good-samaritan-society-millard/>.

“Has the IPod Made Us Anti-social?” BBC News. Web. 26 Oct. 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15066957>.

“How Toxic Is Your IPod?” Scientific American Global RSS. Web. 23 Oct. 2014. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/how-toxic-is-your-ipod-08-10-15/>.

Kelly, Kevin. What Technology Wants. New York: Viking, 2010. Print.

Miller, Jared T. “The IPod Turns 10: How It Shaped Music History | TIME.com.” Time. Time. Web. 24 Oct. 2014. <http://techland.time.com/2011/10/21/the-ipod-turns-10-how-it-shaped-music-history/>.

“ITunes Turns 10: How Apple Music Store Killed Old Music Industry – NBC News.” NBC News. Web. 26 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/itunes-turns-10-how-apple-music-store-killed-old-music-f6C9633923>.

 

 

In our current era of ubiquitous social media use, there is much debate about the potential uses of new media for purposeful information distribution and social justice rather than solely economic purposes. The boom of smartphones in the last 8 years or so has catalyzed the app industry with the Apple App Store boasting over a million apps and 60 billion downloads to date. Due to the potential for mass exposure, developers race to come up with the next successful mobile application and make it big. According to a study by 148Apps, games make up a bit over 20% of all mobile apps, clearly showing where the profit lies. It is difficult to combine activism with revenue yet more and more apps dedicated to making the world a better place continue to pop up.

The use of mobile apps began long ago in the prehistoric era of the 1990’s. Back then, apps were mostly used for simple tasks and were pre-programmed into the handsets. Tools like calculators, calendars and basic games, such as Snake, were labeled as mobile applications. In time, users began to demand more functionality, but mobile phone companies weren’t willing to open up the handsets’ code to outside developers. Up to this point, all app builds had been done in-house, with company coders, to minimize security risks. Lacking the financial motivation to fund these applications themselves, the companies sought a safe way to allow outside developers to build them. Their solution for these early phones was a dumbed down version of a web browser, since data rates were exorbitant and the hardware couldn’t handle regular HTTP pages. However, WML, as it was called, did not work for long. While the mobile phone companies raked in large profits from the data charges (less than what it would’ve been if they tried to run HTTP, but still very high), developers and consumers, on the other hand, got the short end of the stick. The primitive and simplified language limited the complexity of the online applications, rendered it impossible to adjust the viewing experience for different models of phones and made billing a struggle for the user, hence limiting developer revenue. Everything changed, though, around 2008 when mobile phone companies like Apple and Android (Google-owned) began releasing Software Development Kits (SDKs) to the public so that anyone could develop an application. These SDKs had the API frameworks that allowed developers to test their products and assure that they worked on different handsets. This jump-started the app industry because the range of options available with native apps, as opposed to web and in-browser apps, was humongous. The mobile phone companies reviewed the apps before releasing them and took a 30% or more commission from all revenue, so unregulated marketplaces sprung up in “jailbroken”, or unlocked, phones. The companies, however, mitigated this loss of clientele by voiding the warranties for any device which had been jailbroken, and the number of unlocked devices subsequently decreased substantially. 

Mobile applications provide a plethora of educational, informational and productivity tools, yet the majority are inaccessible without an Internet connection. A large part of media justice is ensuring Internet access to as many people in the world as possible. One app developer working to solve this problem is Open Garden, based in San Francisco. They offer a free platform for “mesh networking,” where users share their Internet connection with others nearby. This isn’t much different than the concept of mobile hotspots, but it circumvents the hefty fees that mobile carriers tend to charge for users to share their connection. Additionally, Open Garden users can activate Fire Chat, which allows them to connect with nearby users without the need for a connectivity infrastructure. Fire Chat also allows for the creation of a network between devices, a “free, secret web” of sorts that is very conducive to activism. In Taiwan, for example, protesters organizing about a trade agreement with China feared that the government would shut down the Internet and decided to set up a humongous (and hidden) Fire Chat. (cite) This tool is especially useful in countries where free speech is limited and consequences for speaking out can be lethal. To those under the radar of ‘big brother’, this is a blessing. A decentralization of Internet access is beneficial to many more than if the power distribution remains at status quo.

Boycotts are often ineffective; not enough people join the cause and after a while the fervor fades and many forget. Marketing and branding influence many of our spending habits and decisions, but they never tell the whole story. An app founded in Berkeley, California by UCB students and faculty is seeking to change the way consumers make their spending decisions on a day-to-day basis. GoodGuide is a website, and mobile app, that rates and scores consumer products from cars to shampoos. One can even scan the bar code of an item while grocery shopping to see more information about it. This intensifies corporate responsibility because the average, uninformed consumer can choose to support a company that aligns more closely with their desires about social and environmental impact. In fact, GoodGuide offers a system where one can select which corporate responsibilities they feel are most important, after which it provides suggestions as well as alternatives to less responsible products. Their 0 to 10 rating scale is intuitive, their platform sleek, simple and attractive and their research well founded. Another example of this sort of crowdsourcing social activism is the Human Rights Center app with a workplace equality guide. This guide, with a focus on LGBTQ rights, allows users to select products and view their producers’ standing on workplace equality, with detailed breakdowns on which policies are affecting the score.

The Internet has brought massive amounts of information to the individuals’ fingertips, but with this comes responsibility. The primary focus should be to guarantee Internet access to anyone who desires it across the globe; financial constraints should not be an issue. With this in hand, the dated establishment of technology as a social construct will fall, making way for a truly global community. With many free online resources to learn coding, individuals across the world will continue to express themselves through the creation of mobile applications that find innovative methods to tackle social issues.

Tumblr is a social network that is apart from other networks because it is driven by content and not by the social graph, harboring different communities of shared interests (Cheshire). Sufferers and victims of depression, eating disorders, anxiety and so forth can especially find blogs that expound and understand their problems helpful and supportive. It can have a therapeutic effect as such individuals can gain acceptance and avoid the alienation that they usually experience in the outside world.

Tumblr has played an incredibly positive role in my life. It’s posts of inspiration and self-acceptance really helped me during my battle with depression. They encouraged me to believe in the optimism of life and to see myself in a positively different way. However, lately I have been observing that there has been an increase in the number of depression-related posts that express tragic and suicidal messages that frankly serve to worsen depression if not actually causing it. There are also ‘pro-ana’ blogs that promote the eating disorder anorexia nervosa as a lifestyle choice, which I found truly horrifying, as I have suffered from anorexia nervosa because of my depression. Such blogs also help in causing depression and inculcate the belief that starving yourself is a beneficial choice. Hence girls who are not able to adopt these ideas can have low self-esteem, which may progress into depression. I chose the topic of depression because not only do I have personal experience dealing with it, but also because I am curious to know whether Tumblr that helped me in my recovery is actually at the root of the problem. It is my opinion that Tumblr actually creates a paradox – it certainly helps people gain acceptance and achieve freedom of self-expression, but it can also inflict and exacerbate psychological and emotional damage and cultivate a community of victims.

There has been a growing online cultivation of beautiful sadness related to depression on Tumblr: users can take a photo, manipulate it into black and white, pair it with a quote about misconstrued grief, and instantly be consoled with compassion and sympathy by other bloggers (Figure 1) (Bine). However, this has serious psychological ramifications. According to Dr. Mark Reinecke, a chief psychologist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, it is tempting for adolescents during their vulnerable years to seek out self-affirmation and recognition from others, this hope of being recognized as strong, beautiful and mysterious by Tumblr followers. But more often than not, it results in more teenagers believing they are depressed, self-pitying, and self-harming. It is very easy for such glorification of self-pity to occur on Tumblr (Bine). The aforementioned ‘reblogging’ mechanism makes it very easy to proliferate pictures and graphic gifs. The exhibition of suicide, depression, self-harm or self-loathing under the assumption that it is beautiful, romantic and deep has resulted in a flourishing community of people feeding off each other’s emotions (Bine).

 

FIGURE 1. EXAMPLES OF ‘BEAUTIFUL SADNESS’ POSTS ON TUMBLR

Therefore, searching the “depression” tag on Tumblr produces a disclaimer at the top of the page: “If you or someone you know is dealing with an eating disorder, self harm issues, or suicidal thoughts, please visit our Counseling & Prevention Resources page for a list of services that may be able to help” (Bine).

However, the word depression is slowly losing its meaning on Tumblr and in people’s minds. There is a critical lack of understanding as adolescents confuse normal, everyday challenges with clinical disorders such as depression. This over-diagnosis has become a social trend on Tumblr (Bine). This phenomena can acutely observed in teenage girls: between 2008 and 2010, 12 percent of teenage girls aged between 12 and 17 suffered from a major depressive episode, which is three times higher than the rate of teenage boys (4 percent), according to a report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in 2012 (Bine).

In my opinion, the increase in depressive episodes can be a direct cause of social media like Tumblr because of the content that tends to circulate. Certainly teenagers might delve into self-pitying and glorification of depression on Tumblr, but they are also subjected to images and posts that continually reiterate the same message that are not necessarily positive and uplifting. Examples of messages include “I want to be skinny”, “I want to die” and one pretty abysmal one: “Happiness is for beautiful people. Not me.” Such messages show that Tumblr does not always inspire or help others. It might just worsen the very problem it tries to solve through self-expression. Moreover, I disagree to some extent with Bine’s view that there has been an over-diagnosis of depression as teenagers have a misguided notion of what entails depression. These tragic and desolate messages are a strong indication that depression is a serious problem. I think classifying it as some misunderstood idea conceived by teenagers severely undermines the grave need to address the root cause of depression. Unfortunately, popular social media such as Tumblr might just be one of the plenitude of reasons that trigger depression in these adolescents.

Furthermore, emotional and psychological harm in the form of depression is also perpetuated by another overt mechanism of Tumblr: the “trigger warning.” These are tags attached to posts that may contain content that might be viscerally disturbing to some users (Bell). For example, if a post mentions depression, the writer will add a tag saying “trigger warning: depression.” Issues such as rape and self-harming also carry trigger warnings (Figure 2). Such warnings are justified, as survivors would not want reminders of their experiences. However, it is possible that such trigger warnings are possibly contributing to the creation of a community of victims (Bell). The existence of these warnings heightens the reader’s sense of danger and also pre-empts psychic pain and behave in a similar way as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder briefings. Studies have shown that debriefing people during disasters and terrorist attack on PTSD resulted in more people qualifying for the disorder and feel depressed and anxious (Bell). In other words, early interventions were actually hindering the brain’s natural recovery process. The trigger warnings in their attempt to protect the users are more likely to increase feelings of fear and victimization. Warning people of potential trauma is a self-fulfilling promise of trauma (Bell). Therefore, Tumblr’s attempt to create a utopian safe community is actually creating one of entitled victims.

 

Overall, Tumblr can be a platform where different kinds of people find their community and avoid the humiliation and alienation they may experience in the external world. It can psychologically and emotionally support them. But one must also be wary of Tumblr. The microblogging website might actually cause emotional harm as posts relating to depression keep circulating and trigger warnings inflict more pain on emotionally vulnerable people.

 

WORKS CITED

Bell, Lenor. “Trigger Warnings: Sex, Lies and Social Justice Utopia on Tumblr.” 6.1 (2013): n. pag. Print. (Im)Personal Desires: Pornography, Sexuality And Social Networks Of Desire.

Bine, Anne-Sophie. “Social Media Is Redefining ‘Depression.’” The Atlantic. N.p., 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.

Cheshire, Tom. “Tumbling on Success: How Tumblr’s David Karp Built a £500 Million Empire (Wired UK).” Wired UK. N.p., 2 Feb. 2012. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.

Everything is so lovely. So why do I feel so sad? Digital image. Blogger, 14 Apr. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. <http://huishan0420.blogspot.com/2013/04/im-lucky-because-im-surrounded-by.html>.

Stedeford, Sarah Louise. Amelia Zadro Smoke Break Outtake. Digital image. Sarah Louise Stedeford. Tumblr, 30 Sept. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. <http://sarahstedeford.tumblr.com/post/62718243127/amelia-zadro-smoke-break-outtake-by-sarah-louise>.

Trigger warning of alcohol. Digital image. AMERICAblog. AMERICAblog News, 3 Apr. 2014. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. <http://americablog.com/2014/04/trigger-warning-article-critical-trigger-warnings.html>.

Trigger warnings of homophobic slurs. Digital image. AMERICAblog. AMERICAblog News, 3 Apr. 2014. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. <http://americablog.com/2014/04/trigger-warning-article-critical-trigger-warnings.html>.