Tag Archives: social networking

Just Because I Signed Your Petition to Save Cute Little Bunnies Doesn’t Mean I Support Your Political Agenda Against Something Else

News, Social Networking, , , , , , , ,
After all, it's all for the bunnies

The other day, I signed an online petition to advocate authorizing the government to forgive student loans. As someone in serious debt to the government for financial aid loans (I think I may actually owe enough to buy two brand new aircraft carriers for the US Navy), I felt this was a GREAT cause. However, since then, this organization has been sending me messages, letting me know that through them “we” can now stop global warming, the “murder” of some guy on death row for killing a police officer, evil Republicans who are trying to destroy America by getting more Republican elected, and something involving a plan to use Katy Perry to somehow turn Madonna into a virgin again. I might have been off my medication when I read that last one, but it was still pretty confusing.

The point is: I don’t care about any of your other campaigns or issues. Just because I was behind that one issue doesn’t somehow make me a social advocate of all of your crazy, crackpot schemes to do whatever it is you think you’re going to do by somehow pretending to do it in my name. At what point does advocating for one issue somehow turn you into a blanket advocator of all other issues some group of crazy people actually believe in?

That’s the problem right there. An organization should be overwhelmly happy that it received attention one of its issues. But if it thinks it’s going to somehow build a comraderie with people who agreed with them once because THEY believe in something else, they’re going to lose any future support completely. It reminds me of when I signed up to receive information about Obama when he was first running for office. Somehow, because of that action, I receive all sorts of CRAP from his political action people who are convinced that my one-time interest in what he might have to say somehow equated to “drinking the Koolaid”. I don’t just blame Obama’s people for this. I also ran into the same thing when trying to find out what a particular Republican had to say, mainly cause I thought signing up for her information might actually get me some hot pictures of her, too. Oh boy, was that a mistake. Not that I would ever vote for her, but now that I receive her daily crazies, I’m scared to vote at all just because now I fear that she might be somewhere in the vicinity of the voting booth.

Look, I understand that grass roots campaigns are hard to build, but if you’re going to focus on one issue, focus on one issue and build your interest group that way. The second you go off on some crackpot scheme idea that is NOT the one that got people to sign up for your manifesto the first time, you’re going to destroy any support you ever hoped to have in the first place.

I say this, even though I know no one ever listens anyway. They just keep sending their crap to you, convinced that because you listened to them once, you’re now their friend for life. I had a girlfriend like that once. Took me six months to break up with her because she refused to believe that I was actually trying to break up with her. Then it took me a year and half to convince her to stop calling me. Now, I fear seeing anyone who even looks remotely like her, convinced it’s the evil ex, out to do whatever it is evil exes do. I was going to join a group that consisted of people who have lived through evil exes before, but then I realized once I signed up for their newsletter, they’d start sending me stuff about saving bunnies from the destruction of the ozone layer. And everyone knows how much I care about the bunnies.

I just have only so many issues I can focus on at one time.

Problem #77 with Adopting Google+

Business, News, Social Networking, Technology, , , , , , , ,

I’ve been experimenting with Google+ since it emerged, and as much hype as I read from the major news sites, I just haven’t bought into the propaganda they keep spewing out. I keep reading how Google+ is going to replace Facebook, but no matter how much I look into the service, it fails on almost every level. Let me explain:

1. No one is on it.

Oh, I know how they keep claiming a gazillon people are on it and all that, but I’ll let you in on a little secret (if you haven’t used Google+). No one you know is using it. And that’s the problem right there. Sure, it’s great that Felicia Day (creator of the web episodic show The Guild), Wil Wheaton (the guy who played the kid on Star Trek the Next Generation and has been pulling cameos on other shows like Big Bang Theory and The Guild ever since), and Taylor Swift (the singer) are all on it, but what it’s really turned out to be is a glorified Twitter account where you get to actually see postings of these people, instead of blurts of words from their Twitter feed. But again, so few “normal” people are using it, which means if you want to use it to follow some celebrity with a one-sided conversation (where they never hear from you), then it’s fine. But what makes it different from watching some celebrity gossip show? Nothing, really.

2. The Interface Lacks Substance

Everytime I use Google+, I’m convinced I’m missing something because I go on it and then wonder why I wasted the time. It’s like there’s a whole other big room that’s part of it, but I just haven’t figured out the secret handshake to get into that other room. I suspect that other room doesn’t exist, but even if it does, what good is a service if you can’t access it? That’s my problem with Google+. It has nothing going on for it that keeps me interested. I’m a news junkie, which means I want to see things going on. Right now, my Google+ feed is filled with nonstop cute cat pictures from the celebrities that somehow think this is interesting and relevant. I’m not kidding. The only other type of posting seems to be from April Summers who shows naked pictures of herself in Playboy, which can be cool, but not really newsworthy. Every other person I follow seems to practically repeat the same information but a little bit different each time. The people I’d like to follow and know more about don’t actually have an account, or they have an account and don’t use it (like Taylor Swift).

3. It’s Owned by Google

Google is a great search engine, but honestly it doesn’t really innovate in anything. It does a really good job of seeing what other people do and then streamlines it. But there’s rarely any innovation or brilliant thought behind it. Or when there is, it’s designed by engineers who still haven’t figured out how to communicate with the masses, so they set up really complicated environments and expect the people to figure out how to maneuver through them (“I’m looking at you, Google Adwords!”). And there’s always the fear that Google, in their infinite wisdom, will just cancel your account because you disagreed with something they had to say, or do, cutting off four or five services you might be using that had nothing to do with the reason you got shut off in the first place, and like Facebook, they won’t speak to you in order to fix the situation because you’re irrelevant to them, as you’ve always been.

America Needs a Social Messiah

Business, Economics, Education, News, Politics, Social Networking, Technology, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Most people feel it but don’t really know how to put it into words. Something’s wrong with our country, everyone seems to know it, but no one really knows what to do about it. Our politicians keep claiming they have it all figured out, but they’re floundering, unsure of what to do and constantly going back on everything they say because they’re as confused as the masses. Something’s wrong, and we’re at a stage where something needs to happen to fix what’s wrong.

Having said that, I have to point out that one of two things is going to happen (aside from nothing happening and this state of morass continuing for more years before a solution finally occurs). Either someone is going to come along and rally everyone together to lead them off the end of a cliff, or someone, or some thing, is going to arrive and lead us to a better place. We’re at that stage where we need something, and unfortunately everything already in place is totally incapable of doing the trick.

This is part of why Obama became president. He came after a crappy period in US history, when we had a president and and administration that led the country down a road into near despair and depravity. He came along and promised a new sense of America that would put the country back on track, kind of like a political messiah who would lead us to the proverbial promised land. Instead, he gave us a lot of what we already had, and basically became Bush Light, leaving us in a state where we’re still waiting for someone to come along and pick up the slack he was supposed to actually use to make things better.

It’s not just a bad economy that’s causing the frustration. It’s a sense that no one knows what to do with the most powerful country on the planet. We have no rudder, steering us to some place better because we honestly don’t know where a better place might exist. Technologically, we’ve created the computer and hand held devices that make life simpler, although they tend to make things even more complicated (adding to our work day instead of cutting it down). Intellectually, we kind of have a lot of science and medicine already figured out, although we still can’t provide health care for everyone, our medicine is created by companies that make only the drugs that are profitable and lobby to make sure things don’t get better for the masses, and we pay our businessmen far more than our engineers and scientists, which means we’ll always have more people making money than making better products. Our political landscape hasn’t changed since the 1800s, as we still rely on diplomacy that requires tit for tat game theoretical models which reward last year’s actions and beg next year’s compliance (even the Roman Empire planned five years ahead, rather than this “what have you done for me lately” policy we seem to have fallen into).

In other words, we don’t seem to have a direction, or even a clue as to how to get ourselves pointed in any direction. People are so focused on the now that they could care less about the future, and anyone who things progressively is seen as foolish and foolhardy, which means we are like ten year olds planning for lifetimes of mediocrity.

This is the time when someone can come along and change things. This could be a great thing, especially if we find an enlightened thinker, but unfortunately we’re so 18th century in our thinking that we all seem to believe we need an enlightened “leader” rather than an enlightened “thinker.” Think about that for a moment. When it comes down to it, we’re going to end up going to the polls, or erecting an homage to a power base, rather than follow the enlightened ideas of someone who has the right ideas. We’re so Hobbesian in our ideals (needing a leader to lead us) that we have forgotten that the US was created in Lockeian ideals (where we control the leader), and really should have been leading to Rousseauian ideals (where the group identity has more power than the individualistic desires that we have today…where some corporate entity can dominate the masses because it has economic power that speaks louder than ideas and voices).

Part of my fear is that most of the west is filled with people who are only capable of the lowest levels of Maslowian achievements (basic needs) rather than higher level analysis (using logic to figure out ways to fulfill needs rather than immediate gratification). This means that when someone comes along and tells us what we want to hear, we’ll comply and expect great results, and when that person proves to be no better than your average Detroit politician (i.e., corrupt), we’ll back that person even when things turn into Ponzi schemes and false hopes and promises. When people are incapable of thinking logically through higher level concepts, they’re constantly doomed to being cheated and exploited by their leaders (kind of where we are today).

The ideas of Rousseau are probably interesting to point out here because the ideas he espoused were those of an enlightened society that realizes its needs are met through its communicative knowledge, but as long as we want things fulfilled within easily constructed plans, we’re always going to be doomed to Hobbesian outcomes (the leader telling us to do what to do so he can get the payoff instead of us). The solution, unfortunately, involves more and more people talking to each other about how to make things better, but as long as media is one-way communication (them to us), we’re never going to get there. Social networking is designed to be two-way, but as I look at the recent approaches of Facebook and Google+, all I see are attempts to create celebrities with bullhorns, rather than a process to open communication between both sides. Which means we’re moving further and further away from where we need to be.

At the end of a diatribe like this, I’m sure the logical question will come: “Do we need to know this for the test?” And when I say no, thinking stops and texting starts.

So I give up again.

What Causes the Media to Focus on a Particular Story?

Bizarre, News, Politics, Social Networking, , , , , , , , ,

ABC News International ran an interesting story the other day about Mikhail Gorbachev. It covered the last years of Gorbachev’s control of the Soviet Union right before it collapsed. Today, Reuter’s ran yet another interesting analysis of the August Coup that precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union. Both stories came out of nowhere and pretty much had nothing to do with any particular story that was going on at the time. So, my question is: Why are mainstream news entities running these stories that seem to have no current relevance, yet both seem to be very intent on covering details that happened at around the same time, almost as if they’re complementing each other to tell us a much larger story of some kind of relevance.

Normally, I wouldn’t notice this, but I happened to have done a lot of research on the August Coup for my master’s thesis a few years ago, and it’s currently the setting of my most recent novel, 72 Hours in August. So when this sort of story drops, and it has a lot of relevance to what I’m writing, I find it very significant. However, before this, there was almost no information on the subject, which made for some very difficult research at the time. Now, it’s almost as if I could have just typed Google and would have everything I needed a few years ago. It sometimes doesn’t make any sense.

So I wonder at what agenda news medias have when they run these sorts of stories. Is there something going on with Gorbachev right now that causes senior members of the media establishment to want us to focus on the information? Is Russia about to become highly relevant again on the international stage in a way that it isn’t already? Does some analogy of coups have the possibility of transcending current events in a way that someone feels we need to have this seed planted before new events take place? In other words, is some huge coup coming around the corner, involving social media (in which Yeltsin’s response to the August Coup pretty much reinvented social media responses to huge events) so that we need to be reminded of how significant resistance is because we’re about to experience it again? Or is this such a slow news cycle that media personnel are resurrecting old stories for no reason, that have no connection to anything, just because there’s nothing else going on?

I tend to go with the conspiracy side of the house. I believe things are linked for reasons, even if it’s not that obvious why. I’m not saying there’s some diabolical mustache-twirler in a hidden office hidden underground who is manipulating things (although I’m not saying there’s not one either), but some things seem a little too random to be completely random, if that makes any sense.

Anyway, I’m wondering if we’ll start to see the third prong of the story framing, because one thing still seems to be missing, and I have a feeling it’s coming around the corner. Unfortunately, my guess as to what it will be is probably as good as yours. Or worse, considering I usually suspect Elmo is involved, but that’s a whole other issue….

Why Google Plus Won’t Beat Facebook

Business, Social Networking, , , , ,

I recently signed up for Google Plus. It took finding someone who get me into the beta, or whatever it is they’re calling the early period of Google Plus, but because everyone was talking about how great it was, I had to see for myself. Right off, I can tell you that I’m extremely underwelmed by the experience. The majority of the problem for me is that there’s no one I know already on it, so joining it is kind of useless. Plus, working with Google is a nightmare of proprortions when it comes to user friendly material. Not once, with any product, has Google ever really gotten it right. I’m surprised that I’m still having to make this comment.

One thing that Google fails at is simplicity. Oh, it claims it’s simple, but almost always whenever you want to do something that’s not right out of the original set up, you’re pretty much screwed. I discovered this with Gmail, Google Voice, Google Adsense and practically every other product Google has ever put out. You see, Google wants to integrate all of its products together, but it seems that their process was designed by Kafka, who believes that the more levels of hell that you have to go through to accomplish something the better off you should be. I discovered that with Google Ads. Tried to set up a simple ad, much like I had done with Facebook for one of my books. To this day, I don’t know what I kept doing wrong, but I could never get it to work. However, a few weeks after complete failure, Google charged me $5.00 for “launching” the service that could never be launched. It took me an hour more of dealing with page after page of confusing menus before I figured out how to stop Google from continuing to charge me for something I never could figure out how to use.

Google Plus is a lot like that. I can’t figure out how to add anyone that’s actually on Google Plus. Sure, I figured out how to add a few people I know, but they’re not on Google Plus, so they’re just imaginary names in my “circles”. How to find anyone else, well, Google doesn’t explain that. It just has these annoying little pages that I keep going back and forth on, unable to get any further or to find any way to make the service useful in any way, shape or form. With Facebook, I remember finding a friend the first time out, and in minutes, I actually had a connection. I’ve been on Google Plus for a few weeks now, and much like my real life, I’m still my only friend. My news feed is empty and has never shown me a piece of information. Talk about a social networking program revealing the truth. I’m not sure I want that much truth.

The other thing about Google is that it loves to link all of its products together, so that no matter what you do, if you are involved in one of their enterprises, you’re linked to everything else you do with them. So, if you end up doing one thing wrong, like using a business instead of your name, you might end up getting arbitrarily deleted or locked out of your email account. I’ve seen Google cancel people on a whim before, and giving them more reasons to do so is really not a great idea. At least with Facebook, if they cancel my account, only my account gets lost. I can still receive my email and everything else I do online.

The biggest problem Google Plus has right now is that its owners want it to be the “cool” place to go, so they’re going after the movie stars and celebrities and pretty much saying screw you to the rest of the crowd. But all social networks are actually made popular by the rest of the crowd, and rarely by the celebrities. Sure, the celebrities make it cool after it gets big, but that’s an after the fact thing, and companies like Google just don’t get that. They’re trying to get to the “already famous” stage of celebrity without doing the work that actually gets you famous. Sure, they’re Google, which means they’re big, but let’s be honest. All Google has ever really done great is create a search engine tool. Their email is okay, but it’s not ground breaking, and I’ve discovered myself rarely using it these days (choosing a Yahoo account instead, or my own dedicated one that is tied to no one but me). So, if Google wants to make it big with Plus, it has to do something to make itself famous first.

And my experience with the service has been less than stellar. That, in my opinion, is why I don’t see them being the Facebook killer they so want to be.

Companies That Don’t Understand Social Networking

Business, Social Networking, , , , , , ,

We’ve all heard the story of a major company that totally blew its social networking strategy by doing something really stupid, like tweeting something inappropriate, thinking it would drive business but ended up driving it away instead. But there’s something even worse, at least in my opinion, and that’s a company that wants to engage in social networking but doesn’t understand what engaging in it means. An example is a company that advertises that it has all sorts of hip connections on social networking sites, but then turns around and blocks all of those sites from everyone of its employees. This wouldn’t be so bad if the company didn’t keep sending out notices to employees about how they are now on Facebook, starting up on Google Plus, and then asking employees to participate as well. And when that employee attempts to do so, they get a blocked message, indicating that the job considers that site to be an illegal site for viewing at work.

One of my favorite sorts of erroneous activities involves the housing complex where I live. They put up a bunch of signs around the complex, saying: “Add and Follow us on Facebook for current news and activities!” Four months ago, I attempted to add them on Facebook; they haven’t accepted. Yet, each day I see their signs on the bulletin board at home, just begging me to add them to my Facebook profile.

These are companies that don’t get the whole social networking thing. If you want to engage in social networking, you have to actually engage in social networking. You don’t just get a presence and then expect the masses to come flocking to you, but then decide you don’t want to spend the energy actually working with the environment. The work thing is a no brainer because you’re never going to have a real social networking presence as long as the majority of your staff can’t promote it. If the only Facebook presence you have is a Human Resources person who gets paid to have to maintain the connection, you’ve failed in all things social networking. Basically, it’s a plea to join their network but then a follow up statement to say that your employees aren’t allowed to communicate with the masses you just asked to join. Sure, it keeps people from doing something to embarrass you, but what these companies don’t understand is that social networking is about people, not about people interacting with a company’s icon. That’s why Google is destroying any business presence with Google Plus; at least they understand what a social network should be about. Although, I admit, I suspect they’ll backtrack on that once they realize that Facebook will take advantage of their absence.

Personally, my belief is that any company that avoids letting its employees engage in social networking is doomed to be considered old hat. Any company, like my housing complex, that considers social networking one-way only (we speak, you listen), then they’re doomed to fail as well.

Unfortunately, social networking is one of those animals that takes many years for people to truly understand. And as I’m pointing out, sometimes they never do.

What is the appeal of Beautifulpeople.com?

Business, Economics, News, Relationships, Social Networking, Technology, , , , , , , ,

In case you don’t know about Beautifulpeople.com, this is a site that is designed to be a singles site for “beautiful” people. The gimmick is that the members of the site rate other members, and if you’re not hot enough, you get thrown off it. I heard about this some years ago, when it was first going live, and then I thought nothing more of it. I mean, I’m not a physically attractive person, at least not under their “perfect” terms, so I figured it was a site for more narcisistic (or people who can spell the word) people than I am. Then I found out today that Beautifulpeople.com “claimed” a virus allowed 30,000 ugly people to get through onto the site, so they got rid of them. PC Magazine probably called it right in that this claim was really more of a publicity stunt than an actual occurrence. After all, no one knew that this virus was in place, so why would 30,000 suddenly show up and want to join a site that was so exclusive that they never would have gotten in before. I seriously doubt 30,000 people normally try to sign up daily and get rejected naturally without the virus.

But who cares about the virus? What I find more significant is that the site exists regardless. I can’t even imagine ever wanting to join a site that requires you to have to look hot in order to become a member. What’s funny about that is the shitload of studies that indicate that women are attracted to men for reasons other than the reasons men are attracted to women, and NOT A SINGLE REASON ever listed has anything to do with looks. In other words, women tend to be attracted to men because of intelligence, things they do, things they say, and other things that don’t get included in pictures. It’s why people kept saying that taking pictures of your private parts and sending them to women is NEVER an attractive thing to do, yet so many guys would love to be the recipient of women taking naked pictures of themselves and sending them forward. By the way, I’m not one of these guys, so this isn’t an attempt to get women to send me naked pictures of themselves (I’m more like women; I want to know what’s inside their minds, not under their clothes).

Is this a thing that younger people are now thinking is important, this whole look hot thing? I mean, I understand the desire to see someone who is attractive, and every television show seems to be about how guys are looking for “hot” women, but what is the selling point of a web site dating service that wants only hot people? Wouldn’t they be able to find partners for themselves without having to go through a site in the first place? If not, wouldn’t a vain site like that just provide them with the opportunities to meet really vain people who you wouldn’t want to spend fifteen minutes with in public (or in private) anyway?

I just don’t seem to understand it. Maybe that’s why I wouldn’t be welcome at their site.

But I suspect they’re not doing well, which would explain the really insidious attempt to get attention by creating an allegedly false stupid story about a virus that most likely didn’t happen. I mean, beautiful people don’t get viruses, right?

What is the Future of Government in a Twitter/Facebook World?

Economics, Politics, Social Networking, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

We keep hearing stories of how governments are being toppled by people armed with Twitter and Facebook accounts. While these accounts keep forgetting to point out that you need more than Twitter or Facebook to topple an oppressive government, what we should take from these examples (like Egypt, Tunisia, currently Libya and possibly a future Iran) is that revolutionary movements have been assisted by these social networking technologies. And that’s no small deal.

What doesn’t get addressed is something I find even scarier, but seems to be completely off the radar (or gps) of everyone involving this issue. What these technologies definitely do is provide immediate access to higher up entities than have ever been experienced before. What do I mean? In the olden days, a king communicated with his people by throwing up broadsheets that people would read by wandering out into the village square where they were posted. If they were lucky, a town crier would yell out the messages to people as well, which mainly assisted a population that was generally illiterate. As education has emerged and moved from the upper class to the middle class and now finally to all of the classes, people are capable of reading their own messages, so that town cryer is no longer necessary. And because technology has emerged alongside this development, people are now able to receive instanteous communication from higher-ups. This was the paradigm that brought us up and through the 19th and 20th centuries

But Facebook and Twitter also do something else that 19th and 20th century technology did not allow. Instead of just reading messages from leaders, we now have the innate ability to communicate BACK to our leaders. Add email to the mix, and our ability to actually speak to a previously untouchable leader has completely evolved into something kings and queens never imagined (and certainly never wanted). Today, we are moving from a receptive community to a community that is able to push rather than just receive.

What are the implications of this? Well, for one, it means that our need to rely on government is quickly diminishing. In the old days, we had government developed for us because basically we weren’t smart enough to maintain affairs on our own. That’s not the case today. In an enlightened society, or one that may soon be one, the need for government is minimized, which means that those people who have gained access to the halls of power are now seen as oppressive entities rather than those who serve the public good. Right now, we have a debate going on between Congress and the President of the United States as to whether or not government is even necessary (they’re thinking of shutting it down because they can’t pay their bills). What no one is addressing is the reason why this is happening. Those who advocate big government are pretty much behind the idea of needing government to take care of every need and desire, and I’d argue they’re not wrong in that a lot of people DO need government, but there is another segment of society that is slowly divorcing itself from the constraints of government, and unknown to a lot of average people, a whole bunch of them were actually elected to national office. We call them the “Tea Party”, and even though progressives use them as the butts of their jokes. a real movement is taking place right now in this country that should be seen as very dangerous to the natural order. If you want to understand why a lot of Republicans believe that government should be shut down, perhaps people should actually listen to the Tea Party instead of just making up jokes about them and figure no one takes them seriously.

Personally, I think the message that is being put out by the Tea Party is premature, in that I don’t believe the country has moved to that level of sophistication yet. Yes, believe it or not, I actually see their arguments as highly sophisticated; unfortunately, the ones receiving the majority of attention are the most unsophisticated ones imaginable, which is ironic just on that level alone. Only about 70 of them are in power right now, and that’s nowhere near enough of them to make the impact they want to make, so all they’re capable of doing right now is disrupting government, rather than shutting it down.

But what should be seen is the longer term implications from ideas that they do espouse. Our Twitter and Facebook technologies have actually developed movements that coincide with this attitude of the people believing themselves to be superior to government. Granted, another irony is present as well, as most of the Tea Party thinkers are usually way behind the learning curve when it comes to emerging technology, but that’s really for criticism and derision more than an argument. What we should be focused on is that that these types of movements (the usage of technology in its ability to supplant government rather than supplement it) tend to grow, not go away.

My more important question is the one that fronts this entire essay: What is the future of government in a Twitter/Facebook world? In other words, if we finally reach a point where people feel they are on the same level as government, rather than recipients of messages from government only, do we present a new paradigm for the future? Essentially, does this equal status present a situation where people can finally rise above government, believing themselves to be superior, and thus, believe government should be eliminated, or at least changed drastically to reflect the submission of government to the people, as was originally intended by the Founding Fathers? Or do we end up becoming the enemy of government, which will hold onto its last grip of power until finally removed by those who have deemed it no longer worthy?

Personally, I don’t think anyone is thinking this way yet. That’s okay. Rome wasn’t built in a day. Although it was destroyed in one.

The Whackjobs Are Making the Rest of Us Crazy People Look Bad

Music, Religion, Social Networking, Writing, , , , , , , , , , ,
The Shania in all Her Wonderfulness

Most people who know me also know that I am a big fan of Shania Twain and her music. At one point, in my numerous writings and articles, I wrote a joke story about how I created a religion completely around Shania Twain, calling in Shaniaism. Since then, I’ve often joked about how I’m obsessed with Shania Twain and she won’t return any of my calls, even though I’ve maintained a collection of all of her restraining orders out on me. For the record, I’ve never contacted Shania Twain ever, nor would I ever, but it was today that I actually found out Ms. Twain actually has a stalker who has been trying to get close to her, sending her flowers and even showing up at engagements trying to get close to her. It kind of makes joking about such things not as funny, and obviously I’ll probably have to stop this line of humor, even though I have great respect for the Goddess Shania and all things that her religion entails. Oh, sorry. Kind of went off the deep end there again.

The point of this post is to address the fact that it’s getting to the point where people are starting to have to actually be very scared of each other. In the era of Twitter, Facebook and blogs, celebrities are now very much out in the public, trying to maintain their celebrity status while appearing to be very accessible to that same public as well. This has introduced a huge problem that I don’t think was ever intended, but we now have a public out there that thinks it’s actually worthy of interacting with those of celebrity, even to the point of misunderstanding the personal nature of celebrity contact with actual beliefs that an invitation has been offered, when obviously none has ever been suggested or imagined.

We should have probably realized this was the direction where we were leading back when some nutcase killed John Lennon for no other reason than he was obsessed with the musician. Over the years there have been people overly obsessed with famous people, who have gone and done some really ridiculous things, all in the name of believing that somehow they are living a part of that celebrity’s life, convinced that if that star or starlett just got a chance to know them, everything would work out smashingly. That’s always been a part of the joke of my Shaniaism, which in case you haven’t figured out was more a criticism of organized religions than an actual worship of the Great Shania Herself. Years ago, I thought of actually sending a copy of my published article (it was originally a newspaper article) to Shania Twain herself but then decided against it, realizing that if I was a star and some unknown person sent me something that indicated that person saw me as some kind of deity, I might not understand it’s a joke or analogy, and it might freak her the hell out. So I never sent it to her, figuring that she probably had enough on her mind as it was without having to worry that some professor across the country was going to show up on her doorstop hoping to worship her in person. Unfortunately, she’s already got an alleged nutcase that’s doing that already (and he’s supposedly some well-to-do person himself, which brings me to realize that these antics aren’t limited to crazed loners who live in their parents’ basement).

So, I guess my point that I want to make is that we really need to be cognizant of the fact that there are these people out there who have a limited grasp on reality. And because our communication mechanisms these days are designed more about bringing the celebrity closer to the audience, we have to realize that some of these audience members are probably going to think that the star is actually talking directly to him or her. You see this sort of thing in strip joints a lot, which should probably have scholars studying them nonstop, if it wasn’t for the fact that I suspect scholars would gladly do so but then actually not do any academic work while visiting strip joints on university dimes. But the point I was going to make is that quite often audience members will actually think that these women working in these places are dancing specifically for them, thinking that they actually have a chance at hitting it off with the attractive woman who is really there for the sole purpose of earning a living. This often leads to a lot of antisocial behavior, and quite often it leads to a lot of misunderstandings as well. But it is so easy to see how this same type of behavior is exactly the same kind of behavior that is taking place between celebrities and their audiences. It doesn’t matter if the celebrity is in front of them, on television, on the Internet or even in a magazine. The dangerous fact is that a lot of these audience members see themselves as the direct recipient in the funnel of communication, not realizing that the funnel broadcasts to numerous audience members instead of just the one person who sees himself/herself as the sole recipient.

Unfortunately, I don’t really know the solution to this problem as I believe the problem is only going to get worse as we develop more and more technologies that put us closer and closer to our celebrities. Perhaps the interaction will eventually create a back and forth conversation between an avatar that is disassociated from the original celebrity (thus being more of an android-like participant), but that still leaves the audience member believing that he or she is sharing an intimate encounter with the celebrity. We see this similar action with music quite often, when a musician plays a tune, and the listener feels that he or she has shared an experience with the musician, even though the experience may have been a recording or an encounter where the two entities are not even in the same location. Because the recipient has experienced an emotion with the deliverer of the message, there is a sense in that recipient that both shared the encounter, leaving a potentially awkward future encounter should the two ever meet in person, as the deliverer of the message never experienced the initial feedback to understand how a shared experience could have taken place.

So, I’ll break with that, figuring that the future will probably fill in a lot of the detail that I do not yet have to share. Perhaps the Goddess Shania might bring me the answers in my sleep. After all, she is all great and holy and all that. Isn’t that how those things are supposed to happen?

Is Craigslist Really the Enemy They Claim It Is?

Politics, Religion, Social Networking, , , , , , ,

Craigslist recently announced that it is going to be suppressing its listings for sex ads. Instead of the adult listing, it now shows up as “censored” on their site. Public interest groups are now high-fiving themselves because they seem to have won some sort of Quixotic victory that they believe has somehow made things better. Others, of course, still say that it’s not enough and want pretty much the universe when it comes to compliance. I thought it would be interesting to examine this and see what’s really going on.

First off, let’s look at the original problem. Craig Newmark started Craigslist back in 1995 in San Francisco. The idea was to give people a one stop marketplace where they could take care of their every need. You could find an apartment, get a job, sell that old TV you could never get rid of, and yes, even hook up with a potential partner, if that should be your current desire. Not surprisingly, that latter option has opened up all sorts of controversial issues with the online distributor of trade.

In 2002, according to Wikipedia, because of complaints, Craigslist started adding warnings to some of their personal ad areas, such as “men seeking men”, “casual encounters”, “rants and raves”, and “erotic services”. Already, these areas were causing problems with the mainstream segments of the population.

From this point forward, Craigslist has been on the attentions of quite a few public interst groups, and not surprisingly, law enforcement officials.

Up until this time, erotic services were pretty much an entity you had to search through some pretty creative methods, often involving a lot of bait and switch circumstances that one had to navigate solely on the hope that the next time would be better than the last time. Massage parlours were often a place men would go to seek prostitution, and after a lot of false leads and deception, it was not unusual for a man to pay hundreds of dollars to receive absolutely no desired experiences. Some got lucky, but most didn’t, and it was quite often a very discouraging experience.

The Internet was supposed to change all of that. At one’s fingertips was now immediate access to all sorts of information. Craigslist jumped into the game, and people were now following want ads for what they were seeking, and in conjunction with a lot of other erotic services on the Internet, people were actually finding what they were seeking. It was not unusual to see someone’s want ad on Craigslist, then check out the profile on one of the other erotic feedback sites, and then decide whether or not to book a session with that person. Very hard to find erotic services were now being much easier to find because they could now be found on Craigslist. Many people may not realize it, but there are a lot of people out there looking for some very specific types of encounters, and having everything in one place made it much easier for these people to connect.

Well, this didn’t bode well for the industy when there were people who would do everything possible to make sure that such people could never make any such connection. But this probably wouldn’t have been that much of a problem if another entity did not show up, which made things even worse. I’m talking about the scammer.

People may not realize it, but the entity of the scammer has pretty much destroyed every good thing that has ever come across on the Internet. Porn didn’t hurt the Internet, as the fuddy duddies would like you think it did (it actually served to fuel the Internet in its infancy, which is somewhat ironic if you think about it). Scammers did. Most of your email is now pretty much worthless because scammers found out they could profit off of naive people. You are required to buy special software to protect your computer because scammers discovered they could infect your computer just by hosting evil programs on sites where you wouldn’t expect them to be. Ebay used to be a great place to buy things; scammers and thieves put a wrench in the trust factor of that entity. So it is not that much of a surprise that scammers showed up and pretty much destroyed Craigslist.

Some of the biggest crimes that have rallied people against Craigslist have been people who have been cheating other people on the Internet. Call them scammers. Call them thieves. Call them the mob. Or whatever, but it’s this group of people who have caused all of the problems that have made Craigslist the cesspool that it can often be.

Because face it. Women being prostitutes has never caused all that much of a problem, unless you’re Tiger Woods. But people forcing women into prostitution has. Child predators looking for children for sex causes problems. Again, those same people are the ones that make this sort of thing available. These people are criminals who care little for the activity but everything for exploitation and making a quick buck. Unfortunately, they serve to diminish an activity that others might be providing in a more positive way, and unfortunately, there’s often very little way to separate the two.

There are a lot of honest people who are into the sex business who aren’t trying to steal from other people or to hurt other people. They easily get pushed aside whenever the bad class of people show up, and unfortunately that bad class shows up way too quickly and way too often.

All of the issues that have caused public interest against Craigslist have come from these bad elements of our societies. No one rallies around a leader seeking to stop prostitution. But everyone rallies around anyone seeking to stop child exploitation and people who wish to develop nonconsensual slavery circumstances.

This is the problem that Craigslist has fallen into because the owners of that site really didn’t care who was posting on the site. They were more interested in developing a site that brought in money. I can’t see that I blame them, but because of this, they have become the victim of their own success. With great success comes great responsibility, to steal and destroy a great line from Spiderman, and unfortunately Craigslist hasn’t really come up to the plate for the responsibility thing. It played a lot of shell games in hopes of getting people to think it was on the right side of morality, but when it came down to it, it was really only thinking of itself. When the public finally started to become a hammer to be used against them, they censored themselves and then tried to act all First Amendmentish and posted “censored” where they censored themselves.

The fact is: They could have dealt with this a lot easier by actually policing their ads in the beginning to see how much exploitation was going on. Instead, they dropped the ball and lost the whole game. But for lack of stupid analogies, I’ll take this one step further and say that they haven’t lost the whole season yet. They can still do something about cleaning up their site without destroying what they set out to do in the first place.

There are a lot of sex workers who do rely on Craigslist, and unfortunately because of this action, they are forced to start using more exploitive sites out there that are much worse, and that’s sad. Craigslist could step back up to the plate and decide where it wants to be in this debate. It can kowtow to the Bible thumpers and give in completely, like it’s doing right now, or it can bite back and work hand in hand with the communities that have grown up with them, making sure that the evil ones are ostracized, but the ones who are there for the right reasons still have a forum in which to do what they do best.

Unfortunately, it looks like Craigslist may take the easier road because it is filled with fewer obstacles. In the end, it may be a road that leads nowhere.