The Deceased on Facebook

Well folks, said to say that this will be the final blog of this semester and probably the last blog from Dangerous Digital Communications. Yes, I know you are devastated. My loyal fans have read my blog through the good times and the bad times. But, we aren't quite done yet. This week's topic: the deceased on Facebook.

I know that in Titus's blog he had wrote about the memorial privacy setting on Facebook. Having unfortunately some Facebook friends over the years pass away, I thought that this was a good tool for their pages. It is kind of sad to see the picture of your deceased friend in the corner of your home page with a block of text that says "reconnect with him/ her."

I was asked myself after the first person I had die on facebook, "What the heck is going to happen if facebook doesn't die in 50 years and it is just filled with dead people?" Well, as a couple years passed I lost a few more friends on facebook and noticed a trend. People would start making groups on facebook in honor of their lost friend. They would use this group to discuss memories of the deceased or even to communicate with them in a way. I would say this is a good tool to mourn over a lost loved one.

However, lately these groups have been run differently (at least with my facebook friends). The last friend I had pass away had a group made for her hours after her death. It was made by the classmates of her little sister. I don't know about you, but I think that this could have been made by a person closer to the deceased. I saw another group where the creator spelled the dead person's name wrong.

What do you think will happen? Do you think that Facebook will last long enough that we can look at a whole generation of people's memorial sites? What do you think of these groups? Are people making memorial groups just to say they made a group with a bunch of people?

I KNEW IT!!

Hate to say I told you so......No, not whatever Tiger Woods is in the news for. I haven't gotten around to caring about another sport star's personal problems yet.

I don't know when it was, but, a couple of months ago in the class discussion board (I think.) I remember saying that there would be a time where people would update their relationship status to "married" on Facebook during the wedding right at the alter. I thought that it would be a new tradition like the couple lighting the candle. Well, I was surprised when I was browsing through Reddit (which is turning out to be a great source for blog topics) and saw a link to a video. In this home video, you see a couple getting married. Right after the rings are exchanged the groom pulls out his cell phone and his new wife's cell phone. They start typing away and the minister announces that they are updating their Facebook statuses.

Now, this was just done for some laughs as the youtube video's description says "This was just done to be funny - we really don't Facebook THAT often :)." Apparently no one knew about this plan except the groom and the minister. What I find funny about this is that people will now do funny things at their weddings just to be Youtube stars. "What, Zack? Who does things at their wedding to get on Youtube?" Well, there's the wedding party that had the extravagant wedding entrance, numerous versions of the evolution of dance, and the people that did the Thriller.

I am more surprised at the people that will do things during the actual wedding. I think it is kind of tacky to do things during the wedding. I think that is a time where things should be serious. However, I am all for the choreographed dance numbers videotaped at the reception. What do you think? Do you think that updating Facebook statuses will become part of the ceremony in more weddings? What do you think of doing things at your wedding to make youtube videos?

Uganda's Anti-Gay Bill

I was browsing reddit.com today looking for anything interesting to blog about when something caught my eye. It was a link to an article about Uganda's anti-gay bill. Having a good friend and former roommate from Uganda I tend to click on anything about Uganda. In the past he has talked about plenty of politics of Uganda, the corrupt government, and blah blah blah. I am not interested in politics at all, but, since I had never heard of an anti-gay bill I was interested.

It turns out that there was a law proposed in Uganda that would impose life imprisonment on all homosexuals in the country. The law is on it's way through Uganda's parliament and is actually being supported by it's top leaders. Besides putting all gay people in jail, they would also imprison anyone who knows the existence of a gay or lesbian and fails to report them to the police within 24 hours. It also requires the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality" which is a sex act between gays or lesbians in which one person has the HIV virus.

As of now it is only a bill, but, the reason controversy is growing is because Uganda's president Museveni is the chairman of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Trinidad which opens on Friday. If the issue is raised up on the summit it could divide Commonwealth leaders. "How the heck could that happen, Zack? This is the 21st century." Good question and right you are, this is the 21st century and countries like the USA, Canada, and Britain for the most part have liberal views on the subject. But, many African and Carribean countries are still socially conservative and still have laws on their books that criminalize homosexuality.

As you can imagine, human rights groups are going nuts over this bill. The person who proposed the bill described homosexuality as a "creeping evil." What do you think about all of this? Can you believe this? What do you think it would be like if it passed? How would they enforce it? Does this sound a little Hitler-ish to you?

"No Russian"

Last week Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 came out. My roommates being big gamers jumped right on it. The first day it was released they had it and started playing the game. Since they only usually play multiplayer they did not notice something very interesting.

It happened one afternoon when I was in my room. One of my roommates came into the room and told my other roommate that there was this level in the campaign mode that he needed to see. I was interested so I went to see it. What I saw was pretty disturbing.

In the level titled 'No Russian' (warning: link is really gorey) you are undercover as a Russian terrorist. You need to keep Russian terrorist Makarov's trust. The level starts off in an elevator with Makarov, you, and two other guys holding guns. Then, the door opens up. The next scene brings up images of Columbine. You are in an airport terminal in Russia watching people in line, then, it happens. Your 'partners' raise their guns and unload. The innocent people in line get mowed down: men, women, and children. If you shoot at your 'partners' they realize you are a spy and kill you. The least you can do is stand back and watch them kill all these people or you can join in and help the Russians kill with no consequences. Not only that, but, when you continue playing the SWAT team buses start coming and they have automatic weapons. If you want to win you need to kill dozens of SWAT team members.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking, "Oh, he is one of those violence in video games freaks." Trust me when I say I'm not. I have killed my share of people in the Grand Theft Auto series. But, somehow, this is different. In the GTA series you are a gangmember or a criminal. Does that make shooting people right? No, but you are expecting it. You shoot people, take their money, and their bodies dissappear. In the COD MW2 you are expecting to be a soldier, a hero. What also makes it shocking is how great the graphics are. In this level, when the Russians mow down the people, their bodies seem to pile up. The injured crawl away in pools of blood. People are screaming and bleeding in corners. I think this level crossed the line in video games.

You can imagine that this level has raised some controversy. In Russia, by the advice of local counsel, the 'No Russian' scene has been pulled. It has also been talked about on Fox News.

Besides this level it really is a great game from what I have played. The graphics are amazing and the gameplay is exciting. It has broke gaming records and entertainment records and will continue to sell out.

Although it is an exciting game it brings up the question, "What will be the next big controversy in video games?" Will games keep crossing the line? What are your thoughts?

Everyone's Got a Little Captain in 'Em...............and a fine

There was an interesting touchdown celebration in the Dallas vs. Philadelphia game on Sunday Night Football. After his 11 yard touchdown reception, Eagles tight end Brent Celek ran to the back of the endzone, centered himself in front of the TV cameras, and did a pretty recognizable motion.

To anyone who has watched TV in the past five years they would recognize that motion as the Captain Morgan pose from Captain Morgan commercials.

One would most likely think that Celek was just trying to be funny (or a raging alcoholic). But, as it turns out, this was a marketing plan by Captain Morgan rum. They were ready to launch a campaign where they would donate $10,000 to the Gridiron Greats Assistance Fund every time that the Captain Morgan pose was seen on screen. The Gridiron Greats Assistance Fund is a not-for-profit organization which raises funds for retired football players. (Wait, wait, wait. They are raising money for retired football players? A simple google search told me that the lowest paid players get paid $225,000. My parents are teachers....the NFL players will survive.) This donation would have been bumped up to $25,000 in playoff games and $100,000 in the Superbowl.

After the game the NFL put an end to the Captain Morgan pose. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said to Yahoo! Sports that "A company can't pay a player to somehow promote their product on the field." I guess because they are NFL players, a donation to something they might be a part of someday could be considered 'paying them.' Celek spoke through an Eagle's spokesman and denied knowledge of the Captain Morgan campaign, however, an account executive handling the promotion said that he was indeed involved. (whoops!)

NFL players have gotten in trouble for advertising products in the past. Celek got off easy. In 2007, Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher got fined $100,000 just for wearing a Vitamin Water hat to media day before SuperBowl XLI. Celek probably got off with a warning because the profits were going to a charity for NFL alumni.

I don't know what to think of this type of 'guerilla marketing.' I think it would be sort of neat if they let every on-field promotion go. However, I think that might make the players a little self centered, but, what if every on-field promotion had to go to a charity. I mean, if every player did a certain celebration to benefit a charity( a real charity, perhaps, instead of the rich people assistance fund) I think that would be just fine. If these companies want to dish out all of this money to a good cause what would be the problem? What do you think of this type of marketing?

Could This Be The End??

I won't quite agree with his band's title of their song "This is the End," but, I am a little frightened. I read a Tweet today from the drummer of Relient K, Ethan Luck, who had posted a link with the text "Well, that's just great..." Being as I only go on Twitter to kill time because I have run out of resources to creep on Facebook, I naturally clicked the link. What I found was slightly horrifying.

"What was it" you ask? Did I get a link telling me about the end of the world? Did God's gift to football (according to the media) Brett Favre get into an accident? Is U2 coming out with another album?!! No. Worse.

The link brought me to an article from boingboing.net. Apparently, the internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a SECRET copyright treaty who Obama's administration has kept under wraps for 'national security' reasons has been leaked.

What does this all mean? Well, basically, it spoke of four things:

1) ISPs will have to constantly police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that sites like Flickr, YouTube, and Blogger will be impossible to run because there is no way they could afford to hire enough lawyers to determine whether every piece of content put online is infringing on copyright. (Oh no, Zack. This means we can't read your super awesome blog.)

2) ISPs will have to cut off internet access to those accused of copyright infringement without access to a trial or counsel or they could be held accountable. This means that basically your whole household could be cut off from the internet if your little 13 year-old sister decided to illegally uploaded some copyrighted material of the Jonas Brothers to YouTube. What happens if both of the parents work online and don't forget about use of internet banking and whatnot.

3) The whole world must adopt US-style "notice and takedown" rules. This means that anything that someone flags of breaking copyright rules will be taken down without evidence or trial. As you can imagine, people could take advantage of this as easy censorship. (I am already thinking about all the terrible band's music videos I would consider flagging.)

4) Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM. The example from boingboing that they used was "e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival presentation; because you own copyrighted work that is locked up in DRM."

Now, not having too much information on the subject I wouldn't say this is law yet. I would assume this is merely what they are thinking of. Personally, I think these rules would put too much responsibility on ISPs. I also think that some of these copyright rules are dumb. It is the internet, stuff is going to get stolen. What do you think? Does the idea of them cracking down on these rules make you shiver in your computer chair or would you have no problem with them?

-Thou Shall Not Tweet-

"Don't tweet" seems to be the message that all high-profile sports players are seeming to get from incidents with other players tweeting.

Just yesterday, I heard about running back Larry Johnson of the Kansas City Chiefs getting in trouble for using 'gay slurs' on Twitter. Apparently, while replying to a tweet from a follower he used the F-word that rhymes with "bag." This was after questioning head coach Todd Haley's experience on Twitter. Jarrett Barrios, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, called on the Chiefs to take disciplinary action against the running back and seize the chance to educate on the dangers of homophobia in sports. Johnson has not been suspended but banned from all team activities indefinitely until the matter is resolved. He has apologized.

This isn't the first sports player to get heat from tweeting. The entire Texas Tech football team was banned from tweeting by their coach when linebacker Marlon Williams tweeted about their coach being late for a meeting the day after a big loss to #12 Houston. Team captain Brandon Carter (you need to see his picture) also got in trouble for breaking team rules and tweeting near the end of September about how he thought their season was going bad.

The Miami Heat have a similar rule about Twitter. They are banned from using Twitter at the arena, practice, or gametime.

Another player who got in trouble for using Twitter was New York Jet's receiver David Clowney. He sat out a game for tweeting about his playing time, or lack thereof. It wasn't even an overly negative Tweet. It said, "1 play in the 1st Half, 4 plays in the 2nd half ... A bit disappointed about my playing time but very happy and satisfied about the win."

Personally, I know these people are in the public eye, but, aren't they still people? Why are they getting in trouble for tweeting what they are feeling? I think that there should be some freedom of speech allowed. I realize that what you tweet about reflects on your organization, but, it is on a social network. Everyone may not agree with what they tweet,but, it is not like they are saying this in an interview or on the team's website. Personally, I say give them some freedom of speech if I have to listen to everything that "common people" have to say.

What do you think? Do you think these rules make sense? How do you feel about what they said? Do they deserve freedom of speech?