The F Word :O

I mean "fat," not the swear word...even though they are both equally negative!!

This article concerns how the social media and the internet propels body-shaming.

"We've always cared about appearance, particularly for women, but technology has made the focus stronger than ever. It's never been this intense, this relentless."

The author starts with a rhetorical question asking if we are enjoying the skin we are in, and sadly not everyone in our society can say "yes" -- gaining the interest of the audience. The article organizes quotes of other celebrities, directors, etc. to show how fat-shaming and internet are related.

In a world where selfie is now a word, it is not uncommon for people to take numerous photos of themselves before choosing the best one to post. The author believes it is all for that "key social currency of 'likes' and 'favorites.'"

There is, of course, the consequences to be always self-conscious, and that is what the media has done to the people. One of the consequences being eating disorders too. ;(

Then technology, *ehem* photoshop, worsens the problem.

The author quotes a director who believes it is going to be hard to love your physical body  because of social media and technology, and I completely agree.

When we encounter so many articles and texts in the media that "fat-shames" celebrities to even non-celebs, how can we not be self-conscious.  The anonymity that internet provides us gives the people the courage to say things that they wouldn't have been able to directly as well. On top of that, we see many photoshopped pictures that are advertised as "beautiful."

 "Fat-shaming is a thing; it's a really big thing, no pun intended"

Another problem is that average sized women are being shamed for their bodies too...Amy Schumer was "fat-shamed" by a critic. BUT SHE REPRESENTS THE AVERAGE SIZE OF NORTH AMERICA:O We are fat-shaming average women, what?!?!?!?

YES!

I mean, there are obviously advantages to losing excess weight for health, but nobody needs to hear that they are fat. The article says that shaming on the appearance is not caring about the health of the person.

You will never know the person's personal story, maybe they had just lost 100lbs too! Moreover, the shaming is promoting that only thin is and can be beautiful, which is completely wrong. The shamer needs to be locked up in the box of shame up at the top of this post -.-

Let's all learn to be smart  😒😒😒 No shaming! And ALWAYS remember to love yourself <3 


Completely irrelevant to this posting -->

"If you primarily use Facebook to share interesting news articles with colleagues, exchange messages with new acquaintances, and play Candy Crush Saga, chances are the green-eyed monster won’t ask to friend you." 

I read this while I was looking for texts, and it remind me of you, Ms Davies! xD Safe from green-eyed monster! 

London Riots: The Two Distinct Sides Of Social Networking

Blog Entry: How the London riots showed us two sides of social networking
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/08/the-two-sides-of-social-networking-on-display-in-the-london-riots/

According to the blog entry about the role of social media on civil subjects, Peter Bright and many other politicians suggested that Twitter and BlackBerry Messenger, in particular, had a role to play in the violent riots that occurred in London in 2011.

The article also states that social networking mediums were responsible of publicizing the major events of the London riots in a chronological order. In social media, these updates were proceeded by thousands and thousands of people, and each post consisted of images and thorough descriptions.

HOWEVER, problems and issues might arise when one is not taking their 'morals' into consideration. For example, a few were apparently foolish enough to upload pictures of themselves posing proudly in front of their rioting accomplishments.

Do you think it is morally correct to take out your phone and take a snapshot of a burnt vehicle, when everyone else is worried about the survival of the passenger?

Do you think you would feel no guilt doing this in front of an officer when there is a huge FIRE flaming behind him?!

I don't know about you, but I would feel guilty taking a picture of those riot scenes, and I would feel even more guilty taking a picture of an officer in that situation! Bright described Twitter as being a tool of collective action.

IT IS TRUE; twitter did unite people of London together. But is this always a good thing? Mmmm....I'm not so positive on that one..

In London, police officers and government officials were blaming Twitter and other social networking websites at the peak period of protests and riots in the year of 2011. This is because countless organizers of protests used Twitter to formalize and promote their actions by using a simple #hashtag of some sort.

Some journalists say that Twitter and other social media like Facebook and Instagram created UNNECESSARY HYPE over this riot in London. I totally agree with this statement, because young people might misinterpret and view this entire occasion as a COOL THING TO DO and simply just as a TREND TO FOLLOW.

Although rioters continued tweeting, people slowly began to use BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) instead of iPhone messages or even Facebook messages. According to Bright, "the rioters appear to have been setting their BBM statuses to tell their friends that they were out looting, and messaging each other to decide the best places to attack."

The police officers also blame BBM for the London riots, because BBM is famous for providing a closed system for its users; BBM is entirely private. BBM messages were useful when deciding where and when to meet up for the riot. However, because BBM is entirely private, the police officers had less control over surveillance..

I strongly believe that TWITTER and BBM created these overly-reacted situations. I know for myself and understand that social networking is an integral part of our lives! But we should always remember that online activism (AKA slacktivism) is usually a RISK-TAKER. ONLINE relationships built within a community or a subject can greatly affect the NON-ONLINE society...

To sum everything up, Peter Bright made sure to mention and emphasize one fact: "Social networks are just a tool. Like any tool, some will us them for ill ends, but many others will put them to positive uses."

Our mode of communication is a tool; let us not misuse it!

This post is no longer available due to inappropriate content.

Everyone knows what censorship is. It is everywhere and in my personal opinion, censorship is something that we need in our lives. However, far too often, censorship goes too far.

#FreeTheNipple

All jokes aside, too much censorship is a serious issue in China, as shown in this political cartoon.

China is a prime example of censorship gone too far. Internet is supposed to be something that we can use to express ourselves and information right at our fingertips. However, a basic human right such as freedom of speech, is not something that the citizens of China get to experience.

An example would be the phrase 黄鸭, which basically means "yellow duck." Seems harmless but this phrase is one of the many words that are censored in China.

Why? It's because the phrase yellow duck is related to this image.

How cute!

Although it looks like a humorous image at first glance, many people will know what are the origins of this picture.

This photo is from the Tiananmen Square protests, which resulted in the death of many innocent civilians. The Chinese government does not want their citizens to know of what happened on June 4 of 1989. It goes so far that even on the anniversary of this date, words such as today, and that day, to try to come around censors. This, of course, failed.

Creative methods were used, such as looking up the nonsense phrase 占占点, which resembled tanks crushing protesters but even this was blocked. The China firewall is a non-penetrable wall that the citizens of China are trapped behind.

Even the name Kang Shifu, a brand of instant noodles, was blocked. Was it an instant noodle epidemic? Fortunately no.
Unfortunately, China was back at it again with the excessive censorship. Kang Shifu was a nickname for a China official who had to undergo an investigation due to corruption.

Although the citizens of China do have internet access, the wool is still being pulled over their eyes. The Chinese officials prevent these citizens from being able to see what they really need to see, and this is something that needs to stop.

2016 report: Production levels steadily decreasing

We all are procrastinators, some more than others.

I could use another picture but I think I'll do that tomorrow.

We are easily captivated by the seductive calls of Netflix, the alluring appeal of the movies, and the sweet caresses of the Internet. The Internet beckons us to an unexplored world waiting to be discovered, and this leads us to being even more easily distracted than before.

Oh Internet, y u do dis.

According to this article, 52% of 2500 people said that they would lose an hour or more of productive work due to getting lost in the world of social media. And this is from just social media alone. This doesn't include the time lost looking at cute hedgehog pictures on google images, nor does it include the time that you spend playing any games online.

When you somehow start here...

...and end up here.













Is procrastination due to the Internet such a big deal? The answer is yes. The very fact that this article exists shows how little self control we have. Rather than reading that book for English class, you much rather read that article about how poop can be turned into water. (link here for those interested) We are constantly checking our social media even though we are well aware that nothing of interest is going to be posted from the last time that we checked Facebook, which was ten minutes ago.

I am also a victim. Although it makes me feel bad to admit it, I am one of those people who lose three hours of productive work each day. And sadly, this is on a good day.

When you know that you should be doing chemistry homework but don't want to and end up settling for a compromise. 

 Why does the Internet end up becoming a black hole of productivity? According to an interesting blog that I read while procrastinating shows what goes on in the mind of a procrastinator.

This is the brain of a normal human being who is a helpful member of society.

This is the brain of people like me.

See the difference? Yes, that instant gratification monkey is the bane of my existence. However, although it is not easy, you can overcome your inner instant gratification monkey. The first step is making a plan. The next step is the hardest-actually staring the task. Once you start the task, and begin to actually get into the "zone", what was once a daunting wall you would have to climb over, is now something that you find yourself actually enjoying. 

The answer to defeating procrastination lies in two words: self control.  

A New Born Baby Takes Full Control Of The Internet

TV Commercial Ad: MTS 3G PLUS - Born For The Internet Baby
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvrnG2Gn-pg

You think YOU know everything about the Internet?!?!?

See what this baby can do!!!

This kid is clearly ahead of the spectrum!! He is widely known as the MTS Internet Baby. MTS has launched an advertisement film a few years ago to underline the superiority of tis 3G Plus data network.

This is one of the most hilarious video that went viral all over Youtube for advertising an Internet provider. A newborn baby grabs a nurse's phone to take a selfie seconds after being born.

Like WHAAAAAAAAAATT?!?!??!?!

Anyways, lets discuss this advertisement video from the very~~~ beginning. Shall we?

The film stars a 'Born for the Internet' baby exploiting the Internet straight from birth. In a labour room, a woman is being coaxed by the doctor to PUSH, while the father and nurses watch her with worry. All of a sudden, the baby arrives!!!

Now this is the time where the Internet and social media comes into play. The baby then grabs his father's tablet, which was distinctly branded MTS, and it quickly GOOGLES "how to cut the umbilical cord," and cuts it himself!

Don't be shocked just yet!! Afterwards, the baby goes on to take a "selfie" with one of the nurses and he posts the photo online...mhmmm...

Right after the little selfie time, the baby falls off the bed! But despite everyone's anxiousness, the baby crawls to a laptop on the floor and logs into an MTS account. After creating accounts on multiple social networking sites, the baby even goes on to broadcast a live video!!!!!!!! If I just gave birth to that child, I would be lying dead on the bed due to SHOCK!!!!

This baby takes up another notch and he uses the GPS system to navigate himself out of the hospital. The shocked receptionist is viewing a video of the baby on YOUTUBE as the protagonist makes his exist. Then finally, the video comes to a conclusion with the writing: "Born for the Internet. MTS 3GPlus Network."

If we analyzed this video advertisement a little more in depth, the film might be symbolizing the fact that today's kids seem so comfortable with technology, devices and the Internet even as babies.

Even when I was a baby, there were no such thing as iPads or tablets to keep me entertained. Seventeen years ago, toys and dolls, and TV shows were basically all the things we had to entertain ourselves! But in the modern world, electronic devices are prone to all children and even BABIES!!! 😱😱😱

When I see babies in strollers handle tablets, mobiles and laptops, I have always joked that they look like they were BORN WITH IT.

I believe that this advertisement video is trying to come across the same idea but in a humorous and marketing way. They added humour by using a lot of computer graphics to bring the baby 'to life', and they tried to market their product -- MTS 3GPlus Network -- by incorporating small advertisements here and there within the video advertisement.

Although this advertisement is not distinctly talking about social media and the use of Internet, this advertisement clearly states the REALITY of our use of Internet in the modern society. Such video is stating that the age in which children are exposed to the Internet and social networking is getting younger and younger every single day.

Young people are using the technology, however, if it is used in the wrong form, such technology can lose its meaningful power. In the MTS advertisement, the baby didn't even give a glance to the mother, who suffered and gave birth to him. Instead, he took a selfie with the nurse, and he socialized with people other than his family members.

!!!! THIS IS REALITY PEOPLE !!!!

The advertising campaign managers went to the EXTREMES and expressed the protagonist as New Born Babies. This symbolizes how people are too obsessed with their phones, laptops, and tablets. Young people naturally look up to older people, and guess what ➜ WE ARE TEACHING THEM THE WRONG IDEA.

People are losing face-to-face communications, and the age in which people are completely exposed to the social networking sites are getting lower! We are losing time spent with our family members, while often times increasing time spent with strangers or online friends.

At the end of the day, what do you think would be more important?

Social Media Killing Communities?

http://www.lesarchivistes.net/did-social-media-kill-communities-the-usguys-case-study-and-the-criticism-of-the-facebook-like/

Social media is killing communites? Here is some information to support or not support this statement.

From the start, hastags were used for organising information. And so, it started to organise communites online and spiltting them up. Now, we can understand where all the gender, racial and cultural difference problems come from.

Why hashtags why...



The article by Neil, I crossed online, describes how hastags on twitter can be mixed up in definition and can separate different genders, cultures and races. The statement of social media is killing communities is both right and wrong. Social media is killing old mixed communites and creating new separate communites. Today there are way more communites than there were a few hundred years ago. The article was written in such a way that it is taken in as an appraisal of the #usguys. Which some people do not like, as seen in the comments:








You may say that this comment is correct (I think it is), but in a neutral sense, it is both right and wrong. If you understand me, thats great, if not let me try to explain in an easier way.

 If you look at a tube from your perspective, you'll see one hole, right? This could be the yes side. But a tube in general always has two sides, a yes and a no.

Ik that isn't the best way to explain it but I think it works and hopefully you understand

This article also looked at facebook and its option of liking posts, pages and people. It explains how a person liking something may seem like he benefitted from it or really likes it. But it may be that he didnt benefit from it or doesnt like it. Maybe he/she liked it to just recognize it.

I belive this author was trying to get attention of social media users and let them know to not get sucked into the community separation occuring on the internet. The criticism on facebook was used to support his statement that social media is killing communities.

What do you think? Is social media killing communities? Would you say that separating communites is killing them?

Children being rough links to social media

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138791/Texting-tweeting-social-networking-damaging-childrens-ability-communicate-says-Pratchett.html

With social media reducing the english vocabulary it decreases our capability of getting our feeling and thoughts accross and causes us to be rough.

In the newpaper by the dailymail in the UK, the reporter/author James Titcomb, lolol (insert laughing emoji), discussed about the statements made by Sir Terry on how social media and texting makes children rough. 

It is said that the way people talk on social media and texting causes children to be rough. If you look at how you talk on the internet, it is usually has a very limited vocabulary. And so Sir Terry says that without enough vocabulary, the proper emotions aren't expressed and roughness is a side effect. 

Mr. Titcomb wrote this paper to inform. With the newpaper being informative it was very short and casual, which is unusual. Short and sweet to the point. Which I feel is like the best way to inform people. Long papers and people zone out.






As the newpaper says, we need to start looking at the issue of social media and texting creating roughness by teaching kids how to appropriately use the internet.

Roast Fest

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-chris-vs-chris-is-social-media-ruining-society/article12495697/

DZAM. Let the roast fest begin

Those two guys, err, one guy on both sides argued two main things about social. How social media boosts the society and how social media kills society.

Before getting into it, take a moment decide on what you want to believe based on the video.

3,                                   2,                                        1,                                        done?

Alrighty so, social media kills society, well it depends on what you believe is social media. I mean in the video, the more modern man was using a phone and was on twitter, facebook and texting people, where as the other more old fasioned man was recieving telegrams and phone calls. All of those are medias and all us to be social. 

But in this video, the modern man was explaining how social medias, such as facebook, twitter, instagram,.etc allow us to get immediate feedback, is a form of interaction and can allow us to connect with powerful people you otherwise couldnt. This is all correct but to a certain extent because the more old fasioned man argued that the feedback is frivolous. 

Even though modern man said social media is human interaction, old fasioned man said 140 characters isnt enough to be human interactions. I understand what he's saying but today we can have wayyyyyy more that 140 words. Its the future right now, woahhh. 

You know the video was pretty funny, dont you think?

I mean the way they talked, dressed up and acted all were comedic. But, they did manage to get important information accross about how social media is either helping society or killing it.

Btw, the intro was so counter acting to what the old fasioned man was saying but it all just made it more comedic.

So man, these guys got these vital points for the two arguements, but why?

Well it is so that we, the viewers can decide for ourselves. They cant tell us what to do (well social media kinda does tell us what to do but for this we'll say it cant), so they give us choices and we choose. 

What do you choose? Do you think social media is helping or killing society? 

WANTED-likes, willing to trade dignity

Almost everyone uses Facebook.

Most of us enjoy having what we post being liked.  

However, there are those certain select individuals who live for likes, with that magical thumbs up having the same importance as oxygen.

For every like, a dollar will be donated to the Narcissist Society to help find a cure for your huge ego. 

Using a simple layout that gets straight to the point this infograph shows just how far mankind has fallen. Four sections, each colour coded, show how disappointing humans really are and how we can help ourselves. 58% say that they rather get that perfect shot for their timeline rather to sit back and enjoy the moment. And guess how many people say that they have risked their own safety to get a few more pathetic likes on Facebook. A whole whopping 14%. That number should be 0%.

People, why??

People are now getting so desperate for likes on Facebook that they are willing to give up so many other things that are way more important. They end up having long term unhappiness for a few moments of joy when they see that their new pic has reached the 500 likes point. Machines are slowly controlling us and we aren't aware of it. 

Pretty much.

The fact that something like this infograph even exists shows that humanity has some serious issues. We could be worrying about so much more important things, but instead people choose to stress over how their Facebook post doesn't have enough likes. 

#firstworldproblems

Why would you want to sacrifice so many things just for Facebook likes? When you make a stupid post to fish for likes, you not only lose what you had to miss out on to achieve that 10/10 post,  you also lose other people's respect. For example, one thing that irks me is people have hundreds of selfies in their photos, and then later post something like "OMG I'M SO UGLY." If you think you're so ugly, why do you have a album titled "me" with over 100 pictures of your so called ugly face. 

We shouldn't need to rely on what are simply digital cookies to determine our self worth. Even though having more likes can raise our mood, it is a shallow short lived happiness. If you want to feel good about yourself, try going out to do something in the real world that you can actually be proud. Don't just neglect other things going on in your life to break your old record of 150 likes on that one profile picture. That's just sad. 

Does the Number of Followers on Social Media Determine Who You Are?

BBC Article: How Social Media Is Transforming The Fashion Industry
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35483480

WHY are people so sensitive to the number of followers they have on Instagram or Twitter? 

WHY are people so sensitive to the number of "friends" they have on Facebook?

Is it because they want popularity? 

Is it because they want attention?

Since WHEN did social media become such big part of our society? 

And WHY did it become so important and vital in the first place?

Try answering these questions and see what comes up to your mind..Were YOU ever the victim of the Internet? In the modern world, popularity is often times determined by how active one is on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram, or even worse, ALL THREE!!!!!!

While researching about how teenagers are often times stressed out about how they lack Facebook friends or Instagram followers, I came across this ☆CLEVER☆ quote:

"The number of followers you have doesn't make you better than anyone else. 

Hitler had millions and Jesus had 12."

- Unknown Author -

Even though I am able to agree 100% with the quotation above, many skillful and powerful individuals and companies around the globe do not think that this is true; they use the social media followers to their advantage, which is to make $$$!!

Active users of social media almost always use IMAGES! Photographs attract people's eyes, and you know what all photographers say ➜ "A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words"!! And when talking about photographs, FASHION can't be missed!

Ever since advertisement was used by companies, clothing sponsorship to celebrities were one of the most effective ways to popularize their brands. As we moved into the 21st century, social media became the new TREND. And today, TRENDY brands favour TRENDY techniques to advertise their products; through social media.

This BBC article by Katie Hope states that recently, one of the most high-level clothing brands, Burberry, notified its fans that Brooklyn Beckham would be photographing Burberry's fragrance advertisement campaign. Despite all the insults Burberry got after this announcement, the main reason behind this act was Brooklyn Beckham's 5.9 million Instagram followers.

Brooklyn Beckham is a son of David and Victoria Beckham. Although very young (16 years old), he has nearly 6 million followers on Instagram. In the eyes of Burberry's marketing team, this great number of followers meant more power and more attention.

However, in the eyes of professional photographers, the decision to hire inexperienced 16-year-old teenager mocks their skills and past training... I agree...and I wonder whether Burberry had any respect for their previous Burberry photographers..

As stated in the article, these professional photographers reacted to this announcement by saying things like "insulting to every artist out there"; "completely disrespectful to the artist community"; and "so tired of these celebrities buying their kids into everything..."

I understand that the great number of followers of Brooklyn Beckham was tempting and I know that it might to powerful today more than ever, however, this only proves to the rest of the world that THE NUMBER OF SOCIAL MEDIA FOLLOWERS IS WHAT MATTERS THE MOST! But this is not true!!!

These are the exact words of Katie Hope:

"...this is the new reality: the choice of Brooklyn as photographer was less about how well-connected famous people can get their kids into competitive profession than a reflection of just how much social media has shaken up the fashion industry.

It's now the number of followers on Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook and Twitter, rather than your experience necessarily, that can secure you a top job."

Often times, REALITY is not JUSTIFIABLE. Do I believe that social media should determine where we stand? Of course, not. Such medium COULD be used in the right form, but if it isn't, then definitely NOT.

Social Media has taken us to a place that we all should never have reached. Nowadays, the Internet determines where we stand in the society, the Internet determines how much money we earn, and the Internet determines WHO WE ARE!!

I am not saying that Brooklyn Beckham is not capable of shooting a successful advertisement campaign, because according to Christopher Bailey, the CEO of Burberry, "Brooklyn has a really great eye for image." But what I am saying is, while teachers and parents are teaching their children that social media is not the answer for their lives, the WORLD is teaching them the exact opposite: GET MORE FOLLOWERS, WE WILL HIRE YOU.

Not to a surprise, Brooklyn's campaign was successful. This way of advertising worked for Burberry. While Brooklyn was working on this campaign in February and March, over 15 million reactions were evident both on Brooklyn's Instagram and Snapchat...URGGGGGG (......SIGH...)

Although we cannot change how our society functions, we CAN change our viewpoint and how we define the RIGHT ads from WRONG ads. We should always understand and keep in mind of the fact that social media is in fact powerful. But should it define popularity and one's income?

I DO NOT BELIEVE SO.