GWST 2600 Lecture : click the like button

60 views1 pages

burgundyyellowjacket721

14 Feb 2012

School

York University

Department

Gender and Women's Studies

Course

GWST 2600

Professor

Allyson Mitchell

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Tutorial/lecture september 27, 2011 click the like button? . Many are targeted/bullied through cyberspace: one irony is that the it gets better campaign is primarily conveyed through technology (youtube, facebook, twitter), deleuze says that in societies that control one is never finished with anything . He surmised that the subject is constantly surveyed by the state power (school, prison, banking etc are all deeply connected): capitalism has shifted. Thus, deleuze argues that we no longer make raw materials anymore. What we do is offer services to people (we sell sales to people and our personalities). Queer citizens and the life of the nation: jasbir puar argues that since september 11, the queer subject is being aligned to nationalism. We have seen a rise in queer patriotism (queers can fight in wars). Puar says there was a rise of homonationalism .

Related Questions

Ethics Case: Facebook's 'Unfriendly' Privacy Policies (adapted from Spinello, R. (2017). Cyberethics: Morality and law in cyberspace. Jones & Bartlett Learning)

Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, couldn't quite believe all the attention he was getting. Facebook was on the verge of its initial public offering (IPO), and it seemed that the media couldn't get enough of this Cinderella story. Zuckerberg had created a primitive version of the Facebook application in his Harvard dorm room. Thanks to its immediate popularity, he commercialized this product and founded Facebook, a pioneer in social networking. There were 1.4 billion active users on Facebook and the company's revenue exceeded $12 billion. As Zuckerberg traveled around the country to promote the IPO, the press followed him everywhere. The Facebook IPO took place on May 18, 2012, making many of its brash and talented managers instant millionaires by the end of 2014.

Most people at the social network company welcomed the publicity and attention surrounding the IPO. But over the years Facebook has attracted negative publicity and unwelcome attention for its controversial privacy policies. Facebook has had to deal with several embarrassing missteps as it struggles to reconcile user privacy with an open network. The company's policies have been the object of scrutiny by the FTC, which has investigated a number of privacy-related complaints. In a recent ruling, the FTC persuaded both Google and Facebook to consent to a biennial audit of their privacy policies and practices for the next 20 years. What were Facebook's most contentious privacy policies, and why are key regulators still threatening to block the social media company from carrying out its strategy of boosting advertising revenue by leveraging its user information? The following is a brief historical overview.

Facebook first caught the attention of privacy advocates in 2007 when it implemented a technology known as the 'News Feed'. This feature was designed to display in real-time changes a person makes to her user profile on the home pages of all of her online friends. To the surprise of the company, users balked at this innovation and Facebook had to abandon this default feature. In that same year, Facebook also joined a commercial venture known as the Beacon program so that every member would be notified immediately as soon as one of their friends made an online purchase. Beacon also seemed to clearly violate users' privacy expectations. As resistance mounted, Facebook abruptly ended the program.

In December 2009, Facebook once again shocked many of its users by suddenly changing its privacy settings. A person's 'friends' could no longer be kept concealed from the public or from each other. As a result, information that was once private such as one's profile picture, name, gender, address, professional networks, and so forth, became publicly available by default. According to Rebecca MacKinnon, these changes were motivated by the company's need to monetize this 'free' service and were consistent with Zuckerberg's strong personal conviction that people everywhere should be open about their lives and actions. Facebook's decision to make previously confidential information publicly available was reversed thanks to public protest, and users now have the capability to control access to most of their personal information.

In 2010 the company took public its instant personalization scheme, which allows partner websites to access Facebook information as soon as a Facebook user visits the site. This all happens by default before the user gives consent to the sharing of his or her information. In that same year, the company introduced social plug-ins, including a social widget known as the 'Like' button, that appeared on other websites (like Amazon.com); if a user likes an item she sees, she clicks on this button and the item appears in a list of things she likes in her profile. This plug-in architecture, a further evolution of cookie technology functions as follows. When a user logs into a social networking site like Facebook, the site sends a cookie to the user's browser, which is disabled only when the user logs out of his her Facebook account. As the user visits various websites, the Like architecture will report back to Facebook whether the user has clicked on the Like button (even if the user doesn't click on this button, Facebook knows that you've been to this site and looked at this item). This social widget provides a history of a user's web-browsing habits that can be linked to personally identifiable information. The social plug-in architecture has the potential to be an especially powerful mechanism for behavioral advertising, though Facebook claims that (at least for the present) it anonymizes this tracking data after a period of 90 days.

Online photos on Facebook pages have also been a bone of contention. When users post a photo on their Facebook page, they can tag it with the names of the individuals in that photo. They can also establish links to the profiles of those individuals, assuming that they too have a Facebook page. Those who come to realize that they have been tagged can serve the link to their profile but can't do anything about the actual photo.

It remains to be seen whether Facebook can successfully fend off regulators in Europe and the United States and live up to the expectations of its investors, who expect the company to be able to exploit the commercial value of the information it collects. To this end, Zuckerberg has repeatedly sought to diminish privacy expectations and encourage Facebook users to share their information in the spirit of openness and greater connectivity.

Questions:

What is the problem that is described in the case?

What are the known facts (from the case or references provided)?

Who are the key people (stakeholders) involved?

What is the timeline of events?

What are the alternative courses of action that can be implemented to solve the problem?

Which of Facebook's past or present privacy policies do you find to be the most troubling? Which ones are not a 'big deal' in your estimation?

Should social media sites like Facebook be subject to more regulations to ensure the preservation of privacy rights?

How much do you think companies like Facebook really know about their users? How much of that knowledge can be a potential revenue source? What is the economic value of such user data?

ceruleanfish510

This is not plagiarism

Item 6

Original Source Material

Student Version

The philosophical position known as constructivism viewsknowledge as a human construction. The various perspectives withinconstructivism are based on the premise that knowledge is not partof an objective, external reality that is separate from theindividual. Instead, human knowledge, whether the bodies of contentin public disciplines (such as mathematics or sociology) orknowledge of the individual learner, is a human construction.

References:
Gredler, M. E. (2001). Learning and instruction: Theory intopractice (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Does knowledge exist outside of, or separate from, theindividual who knows? Constructivists hold that human knowledge,whether the bodies of content in public disciplines (such asmathematics or sociology) or knowledge of the individual learner,is a human construction (Gredler, 2001).

References:
Gredler, M. E. (2001). Learning and instruction: Theory intopractice (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Which of the following is true for the Student Versionabove?

Word-for-Word plagiarism

Paraphrasing plagiarism

This is not plagiarism

Item 7

Original Source Material

Student Version (written in 2002)

The technological tools available today for creatingcomputer-based learning materials are incredibly more powerful thanthose introduced just a few years ago. We can make our own movieswith camcorders in our homes; we can publish our own books. Soonteachers and students will be able to use computer-video technologyto produce their own learning materials. All it takes is time,know-how, and some funds.

References:
Frick, T. (1991). Restructuring education throughtechnology. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa EducationalFoundation.

Frick (1991) suggested that teachers and students would becapable of using computer-video technology to make learningresources. Furthermore, Frick's observation regarding tools forcreating learning materials that leverage computers that are a lotmore powerful than technology used just a few years back remainstrue over a decade later.

References:
Frick, T. (1991). Restructuring education throughtechnology. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa EducationalFoundation.

Which of the following is true for the Student Versionabove?

Word-for-Word plagiarism

Paraphrasing plagiarism

This is not plagiarism

Item 8

Original Source Material

Student Version

No matter how kindly voters treat the panderer in the votingbooth, the public overwhelmingly believes that candidates will sayone thing to get elected and then ignore their pledges once inoffice. This lack of sincerity, to the extent that happens, reducespublic confidence in government. Candidates should say what theybelieve. At the same time, the public should demand that candidatesspeak frankly and truthfully about issues of concern, and it mustunderstand that once a person is elected and looks at the fact inmuch greater detail, changes in attitude do and should occur.

References:
Simon, P. (2003). Our culture of pandering.Carbondale, IL:Southern Illinois University Press.

The relationship between voters and candidates is a complicatedone. For example, the vast majority of the public is convinced thatcandidates will promise anything to be elected and then pay noattention to their promises once elected (Simon, 2003). Such astate of affairs sets low expectations for those running foroffice.

Which of the following is true for the Student Versionabove?

Word-for-Word plagiarism

Paraphrasing plagiarism

This is not plagiarism

Item 9

In the case below, the original source material is given alongwith a sample of student work. Determine the type of plagiarism byclicking the appropriate radio button.

Original Source Material

Student Version

Overall findings revealed that the technology skills ofpreservice teachers participating in this study were relativelylow, while providing a basis upon which to identify prerequisiteskills and instructional objectives for teaching technology skillsand integration practices. In planning experiences fortechnology-rich teacher education programs, curriculum designerscould consider some skills as prerequisite, such as wordprocessing, basic computer operation skills, e-mail, and skillsassociated with the World Wide Web.

Reference 1
Brush, T., Glazewski, K. D., & Hew, K. F. (2008). Developmentof an instrument to measure preservice teachers' technology skills,technology beliefs, and technology barriers. Computers in theSchools, 25(1), 112-125.

Original Source Material 2
With regard to factors that contribute to the teachersâ readiness,computer proficiency took priority. Basically, if teacher computerproficiency increases, the teachersâ feeling to be more ready tointegrate technology into instruction alsoincreases.

Reference 2
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affectingtechnology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model.Educational Technology Research and Development,58(2), 137-154.

Low computer proficiency may negatively affect the use oftechnology in schools (Inan & Lowther, 2010) To addresspotentially low technology skills among preservice teachers,teacher educators could consider some skills as prerequisite, suchas word processing, basic computer operation skills, e-mail, andskills associated with the World Wide Web. However, this approachwould require instructional options for students who lack suchskills.

Which of the following is true for the Student Versionabove?

Word-for-Word plagiarism

Paraphrasing plagiarism

This is not plagiarism

Item 10

Original Source Material

Student Version

Educational processes and systems are complex, and any attemptto measure them, especially at this level of aggregation, can onlylead to broad and general discussions. However, we contend thatthis discussion is necessary. Further, attempting to measure globalprocesses in education may provide another puzzle piece totheoreticians as well as national and local policy-makers, who areworking at understanding and, in the latter case, steeringeducational systems.

References:
Rutkowski, L., & Rutkowski, D. (2009). Trends in TIMSSresponses over time: Evidence of global forces in education?Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(2), 137-152.

In attempting to study and direct the future of complexeducational systems, theoreticians and policy-makers may findaggregated measures of global processes in education useful despitelimitations that may be associated with these measures (Rutkowski& Rutkowski, 2009).

References:
Rutkowski, L., & Rutkowski, D. (2009). Trends in TIMSSresponses over time: Evidence of global forces in education?Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(2), 137-152.

Which of the following is true for the Student Versionabove?

Word-for-Word plagiarism

Paraphrasing plagiarism

This is not plagiarism

pucehamster827

proof read please

Society is changing constantly and families has different point of view of how to live their life or raise their kids. I think what we know so far as a family will change in the near future. Furthermore for my own personal experience I have seen great thing from the changes that have come over the past years to now and it was acceptable by the society however, People and society in general like good changes. My grandma at age of 13 yrs. old had kids and spouse and they used to stay home raising their kids and taking care the house, while spouse were working to bring food to their tablet and older kids in the household used to work to support their parent home too Versus now in 2016 that family are disintegrating, kids are isolating themselves from their family due to the technology and you see more divorce. I could imagine how family will be 100 year from now. I have seen that woman wants to be more independently and having kids is not their priority anymore because I feel that it wonât be no family 50 to 100 year from now. It will be a law that marriage couple are going to have 1 year marriage contract. I can say that many values come from our parents and most are very worthwhile and I pass those values to my kids and I would like to retain them, but Family values are different from culture to culture and tradition and there will be change by the time, based on these I could say that it wonât be moral and immoral activities 50 year from now. We are goings lose moral value and ethic and I will see population decrease causing higher dead and less birth because government will soon controlling family life by limit how many kids a marriage couple could have. Since technology offer a good and effectively way to keep in touch with family around the world, but I also think technology will also affect family in the household. However, technology is taking control when the one on one communication is falling apart. The social media preventing family from communicating and less interaction with family and the society wonât have too much talking. I probably happy to say that the only positive thing that I will see 50 to 100 year from now will be major diseases like Heart attack , diabetes and cancer will largely preventing by the time with new scientist and good technologies. As a family we need to know and stay focus of who we are, in what we personally think values stand for because our action wonât always stay of our deepest belief. There is gab between our life values, action and behavior and if we retain those values chances are that even though 50 year from now wonât matter how great the external rewards.

erinhornet739

GWST 2600 Lecture : click the like button

Document Summary

Get access

Related Questions