The end is here!?!

Twitter Champion of the World

   

I have to start off by saying that this is going to be the most difficult blog I have had to write, I have no idea how I am going to stretch this to meet my 500 word minimum. As a class we were asked to do a Twitter challenge, to see how many followers we could get. Well I have to be totally honest, I had absolutely zero interest in doing this. I have never used Twitter in my life, prior to this class, and I have to be honest, after this class is over I will be deleting my Twitter account.
   
     For the person who receives the most followers on Twitter, they will be awarded an AWESOME point. I have no idea what an AWESOME point is but I figured since a am a rather AWESOME mamba-jamba I would play along and see how it goes. Aside from sheer confusion when I first started Tweeting stuff, not really understanding how this site really benefits people on a personal level. 
     I didn't do much of anything to get followers, I watched a short tutorial about the easiest ways to obtain followers without having to pay a site to get you followers. This tutorial instructed me to start liking and following random crap that was trending, and also to retweet all kinds of stuff that I was interested in, so that is exactly what I did. I started following stuff that interested me such as; #bassfishing, #coyotehunters, #donaldtrumpsupporters, #denverbroncos, #pokerplayers. I then went through each of the major sites I followed and started following all of there followers, I sure hope what I just said makes sense to you. So here I am randomly clicking follow over and over for each site that had many followers, I was also retweeting random crap that I thought people may like. During all the time I was doing this I was questioning why anybody would take this stuff seriously, I grew more and more confused as I was plugging along.

     As far as things I would do to obtain more followers in the future, the answer is quite simple... I wouldn't! I have no intention on ever Tweeting again, unless I have another class in the future that requires it. To me, having many followers is just like having a gazillion Facebook friends. I don't know these people, they truly aren't my friends, so why the hell do I need so many? This whole social media thing makes truly no sense to me. The other day I was sitting at Starbucks and I over heard these two younger people talking about all the friends they had on Facebook and how popular they were, and all I could think is how sad. It is truly a sad day when people consider having a ton of friends on a social media site that they have never met, and consider themselves popular.
    To summarize my "success," I started off with 3 followers and now have 221. I was originally following 3 people and I am now following 1,495.  Anyway I am done for now #twittersux #dazedandconfused #thunderdanout

Twitter...Who really gives a S#!T

    WOW! What can I say about John Ronson’s video on TedTalk, aside from it was absolutely disgusting to watch. Social media shaming is absolutely disgusting, people in general believe they are doing a good deed by shaming someone who has something that others find immoral. The problem is that those who are doing the shaming are worse than those who are being shamed.

The story of Justine Sacco is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Justine made what seemed to be a rather fucked up joke that ended up being taken so far out of context that Twitter followers essentially ruined this woman’s life by shaming her on Twitter. Whether the joke she told via Twitter was funny or not, racist or not, did she truly deserve to be shamed the way she was, and have her life flipped upside down? 

People began shaming this woman without ever hearing her side of the story. Nobody took the time to find out why she said what she did via Twitter. “Good natured people” just began the public annihilation of this woman as soon as they read the Twitter feed that she had posted. It is hard for me to fathom how cruel people can be to others. Hell even if Justine was a flat out racist and you didn’t like what you read, how hard would it have been to just move on, look past it, or even message her and try to help her see the light. Why must people go to such an extreme, and rip people to shreds? Is this what is considered to be social media justice? It seems to be that Justine is doing life without parole in cyber land.   

This brings me to my typical Danny rant that I tend to insert into all of my blogs, however this rant will most likely be longer than most of the ones prior too. I hate Twitter, I find this form of social media to be absolutely pathetic. I have never used this site prior to this English class, and I damn well guarantee that the day this class ends, my Twitter account will be deleted. To this point, the only thing that I have even remotely like about Twitter is that I can get some updates from sites that I like, such as; Nascar, different hunting and fishing sites, and from people who actually like my president Donald Trump. Aside from that, scrolling through all the bullshit to find even one tweet that would interest me, quite frankly is not worth my time. Not to mention, the majority of the tweets that do interest me are posted on Facebook anyway.

I know that my blog may fall just a bit short of the 500 words that are required, but to be perfectly honest, I am too pissed off to write anymore.

REFERENCES:
Ronson, J. (2015, June ). When online shaming goes too far. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_what_happens_when_online_shaming_spirals_out_of_control?language=en#t-793032 

Make the News Great Again

     Has the real news gone straight down the toilet? Many people, including myself believe that it has. Facebook has had a significant impact on the way people get world news information. According to the Pew Research Center, 44% of Americans get their news from Facebook. With nearly half of all Americans using Facebook to get world news, this seems rather alarming to me. With the way Facebook can tailor the types of feeds that you receive based on your profile, are we truly receiving "real news?" Or are we only seeing the news in the way we want to see the news?
     I am gonna use myself as an example to further explain my thoughts of Facebook news. I am an avid hunter, card carrying member of the NRA, and gun enthusiast. So the majority of the news-feeds that I tend to see on Facebook are how people with concealed carry licenses stopped a robbery, helped a woman escape from a mugger, were able to defend their family from a home invasion.

 I also receive many new articles about people like Hillary Clinton and Obama who , according to my news feeds, are trying to take all firearms from Americans. Is this real? To be honest, I do not know.
     Facebook and other social media sources have been mentioned as having a huge affect on our last Presidential election, I am not 100% sure that it did. With so much slander, and bullshit being spewed allover Facebook about Trump and Clinton, I feel that it negated an advantage for either candidate. I believe that Facebook is filled with fake news; with 1.4 billion users, Facebook provides the perfect target audience for faux journalists to spread their work. I remember opening my Facebook page one morning about 2 years ago, and was instantly saddened by an article at the top of my news feed. It was an elaborate article about the passing of famed actress (one of my favorites) Betty White.

This story, for the most part, ruined my day. I am a huge fan of Betty White and reading that she had passed away deeply saddened me. I kind of moped around the house for awhile, then decided to watch the show Golden Girls for the next few hours, just thinking about all the laughs Betty White provided in my life. The next day I decide to look at Facebook again and read a ton of posts that the news article of Betty White was fake. I could not believe that someone would go through so much trouble of writing a bullshit article like that. I was relieved that Betty was still alive, and then instantly pissed off that this article was ever written and placed on Facebook. That moment is when I realized how much garbage and "fake news" was really out there. It made me completely suspect of every news article on Facebook that I have ever read.

     To sum this blog up, I am not going to say that Facebook news is the devil, however, I am gonna say be very leery about what you read. Always look at the source that your news is coming from. I think it is a crap shoot these days between what is real and what is total BS. and God Bless Betty White! :)

I am TrUtH

         “The more we read and watch online, the harder it becomes to tell the difference between what’s real and what’s fake. It’s as if we know more but understand less (Lynch, 2017).” This quote is pretty close to spot on to the way I feel about today’s technology at the tip of your fingers. So many people rely on the internet for news feeds. This is where most people today get information about what is going on the world. The problem with that is, WHAT IS TRUTH!?! If most internet companies tailor their search engines and newsfeeds to the individual’s needs, and likes, then how in the hell will you get the “real news” about what is going on in the world. If you are only seeing things that meet your likes and dislikes, how will you ever know the real? You must always remember that there are two sides to every story.

     A prime example of this, are those out there who are anti-guns, these people will only view how firearms are, and how a world without civilians owning firearms will be a great, and peaceful world.

      Most anti firearm people, or as I call them “do-gooders,” believe that the truth is that guns kill people. Therefore, only law enforcement officials should be allowed to carry firearms. Most searches that the do-gooders will look at online are sites that will reconfirm their personal views on firearms. Majority of the newsfeeds that will pop up on whatever the favorite social network may be, will only show them articles and “fake news” to also reconfirm their own personal views and beliefs, since most internet sites tailor their newsfeeds to people’s personal biases. On the other side of the coin you have people like me, who is a card carrying and proud member of the NRA. In return, the same thing applies to me and people who share my beliefs. All of the newsfeeds that I receive through social media reflect my views and personal biases. Just like the anti’s believe that guns kill people, and those who carry firearms (aside from law enforcement officials) are criminals. I feel that guns kill people just like my pencil got me a damn F on my exam. It is not guns that kill people, it is people that kill people. Now that I had to throw my own personal little rant into this blog, let’s see if we can get back on track…

    The more accessible the internet has become to the majority of us, the more garbage gets thrown in along with it. What is real? What is the truth? If you only get news that tailors you own personal views, and “fake news” about the things you do not believe in, the stronger your stance will become against those with opposing views. With so many trolls out there uploading garbage on to the internet, i.e. fake celebrity death newsfeeds, they are able to manipulate people and misinform many of us.

What is TRUTH? What is REAL? What is FACT? What is FICTION?

    Have a nice day, and remember the sky isn’t blue…

The Good, the Bad, and the Googly

     The moral bias that runs online search engines is a constant, and as long as humans have a say, as to what is or is not allowed to remain on the search engines. There will always be a moral bias. The perfect example is what Andreas Ekstrom mentioned in his TedTalk speech. Why was a photo of Michelle Obama, whose face morphed into a monkey removed from the search engines? Is it because she is a high profile and respected individual? Was it because it was a purely racist photo? And who decides what stays and what should be removed from search engines?

     Here is a prime example of moral bias. When the morphed photo of Michelle Obama hit the search engines, it was deemed to be racist and morally wrong to leave such a photo to be viewed by the general public. However, this photoshopped picture of Donald Trump hanging out with the KKK is perfectly acceptable to leave on search engines. Is it because Trump has been ridiculed from day one when he announced he would be running for the Presidency of the United States. This is where moral bias really takes place. The fact that President Trump is the butt of many jokes, and is continuously ridiculed seems to make this photo acceptable to remain on search engines. Now, would this be the case if those who moderate and write the code for these search engines were pro Trump? I would venture to guess that these photos of Trump would be removed, just as the photos of Michelle Obama were removed.

     This is now the average photo of Obama that is allowed to on search engines. So once again, who decides what is and what is not morally acceptable?

     Moral bias will always be prevalent as long as people have an opinion, and a moral statute to which they hold themselves. I do not feel that it was wrong to remove the morphed picture of Obama, however, I do not feel that it is right to leave such photos like the example given of President Trump. Why shouldn’t there be equality for what can be found on search bars? All though equality should exist, I do not believe that it ever will. Since people who control and moderate search bars have their own bias towards some and not others, equality will always be on the back burner.

     I just wonder what would happen if someone loads a picture of me and morphs my head into a taco, if it would be removed from the search engines? Such a photo could definitely be considered racist since I am Hispanic. Or would it just remain since I am a nobody from Las Cruces, New Mexico and not a high powered well respected individual like Michelle Obama.         Just food for thought, I hope you enjoyed my blog on The Good, The Bad and The Googly.

     

Time well wasted

Former Design Ethicist at Google Tristan Harris, gives a very informative speech on Ted Talk about the way tech companies manipulate tricks to capture the attention of their consumers. As tech companies such as; Google, Facebook, and Snapchat create new apps and programming, they must also continue trying to find innovative ways to keep the consumers attention. It is apparently not enough to simply market their new app or program by advertising it alone. These tech companies try to find ways to manipulate their customers into spending as much time as possible using their cyber product. YouTube, for example, in their efforts of keeping people logged in longer to their site, came up with the idea of auto playing the next video that was in line after the video you chose to watch ended. This was a rather smart marketing ploy to keep people watching more videos and staying logged in to YouTube even longer than was initially intended. Low and behold, after YouTube started the auto play, other sites such as Facebook followed suit. The aforementioned trick of keeping people logged on to apps or sites, is just one of many ways tech companies try to manipulate the consumer. Manipulating the consumer is also used by the majority of games people play on their smartphones or PC’s. These gaming apps keep people logging in several times throughout the day by giving timed bonuses. Meaning, if you are playing a slot machine app, for example, every few hours you can collect bonus chips if you open the app. Snapchat also developed a way to manipulate their users by creating Snap streak. Snap streak is a record of how many days in a row you can have a Snapchat conversation with the same person. So, now, many users of Snapchat will send meaningless and empty messages to one another, just to keep their streak going in this “semi-contest.” The reason I call it a semi-contest, is because there are no prizes, prestige, or Snapchat awards that you will receive. This was a marketing ploy targeted mainly at teenagers, to keep them logging in daily and using Snapchat. Even if that means sending a completely meaningless message of a wall, the ground, the sky, etc. just to keep their streak going. I believe these tech companies are doing nothing more than hurting their consumers by manipulating the time people spend on their sites. I am going to use myself as an example of this. With all these new and amazing apps that seem to pop up every day, I find myself spending more and more time online or on my phone utilizing these apps. I HAVE to collect my bonuses on the slot machine app that I use. I HAVE to keep in touch on Facebook or I feel like I might miss something important. Even as I am writing this blog, I have collected bonuses on my game twice, and peeked at Facebook once. It seems that my attention gets pulled elsewhere, even when I am trying to focus on something that should take precedence, such as my homework. The amount of time spent on these apps could very well be spent doing something considerably more productive. On the bright side, I know longer watch porn; So, that has freed up a nice chunk of time that I can spend doing something more valuable… Who am I kidding? The time I freed up will probably be spent playing games on my phone. 😊

Universities make millions while students starve

 Should collegiate athletes get paid while pursuing their education?

This topic has been up for discussion for several years, there has been arguments both sides in which some agree that collegiate athletes should get paid and some argue they should not.

Statistics show “more than 460,00 NCAA student-athletes- more than ever before compete in 24 sports every year.”

According to New Mexico State University’s statistic athletic page the total amount of revenue related to sports is approximately $24,074,291/yearly. Collegiate athletes bring in an obscene amount of the school's income in which they do not receive any of the proceeds due to NCAA rules and regulations. These student athletes can not receive financial support, benefits, and or gifts from agents or anybody associated with collegiate athletic programs according NCAA rules and regulations.

Student athletes have a rigorous work program they deal with on a daily basis, this includes, 3-5 hours of daily practice, (about 18+ hours a week) traveling to and from away games, having to maintain a 2.5 GPA to remain eligible to play.  With this amount of workload that these student athletes face shouldn’t they be paid?

Although the NCAA claims college athletes are just students, the NCAA's own tournament schedules require college athletes to miss classes for nationally televised games that bring in revenue. Only in this year according to the University of Alabama they reported $143.3 Million in athletic revenues which is more than all 30 NHL teams and 25 of the 30 NBA teams. Many of the revenues collected from college athletics do not go directly back into the classroom. Instead, a substantial share of college sports' revenues stay in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches.

Universities profit from these athletes in every way imaginable. If it were not for majority of the  athletes bringing people to the seats, universities would lose a substantial amount of income. Universities also market these athletes; from star football quarterbacks to all star volleyball players. They make money on jersey sales and memorabilia which represent these athletes. The only “perks” that these student receive are scholarships, and athletic wear. As nice as that may be, athletic wear doesn’t fill their stomachs or put gas in their vehicles

Collegiate athletes having to maintain the required GPA, and the amount of stress they carry day to day having to train for sports and continue their studies at the same time is understandable at why some may agree that collegiate athletes should be paid to play sports while pursuing their education.

With college athletes having so much on their plates to handle I see no reason for them not to paid a little bit of money for them to be able to survive off of. I don't think they should get a lot of money some at least. I know a few college athletes right now on full ride scholarships that do struggle to pay there bills.

Google Rocks!

Question 1.    Google set itself apart from other search engines, such as Yahoo, Alta Vista, and WebCrawler, by their persistence in innovation. Google made great  acquisitions, such as YouTube, to further strengthen their business. Google also purchased companies, such as Picasa (which they have retired), but used Picasa to build off of and produce their improved version, called Google Photos. Google has become so successful by continuing to expand and innovate.  Google has pushed beyond being a great search engine to becoming the world's most valuable company, surpassing Apple.

Question 2. The corporate culture of Google differs from other companies primarily on how they treat their employees. Google instituted a TGIF policy, which involves meetings that they hold on Friday afternoons, where all employees can find out what has transpired within the company throughout the week. This keeps all employees up-to-date with what is going on, and no employee is left in the dark regardless of their position in the company. This policy is not something that is used with most companies. Another major difference between Google and other companies is their work atmosphere. Google believes in keeping the work place fun and relaxing for all employees. They have such features as scooters, slides, nap rooms, and massages, to name a few. I do believe this has helped them to become more successful because happy employees are productive employees.

History of social media. Will it ever end?

      The history of social media is definitely a complex one. From the dot com rise and fall in the early 2000s, to doing virtually everything online these days. The dot com era was fast and furious, everyday in the early 2000s their was a new great idea that sprouted up, and just as quickly went away. The dot com crash came from an abundance of websites trying to peddle very similar items and ideas. When a market gets flooded with similar businesses it is just a matter of time before you start to see them dwindle. However, their are some sites that came from web 2.0 who have had great successes and continue to grow.
     Sites such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter have seen some of the most success in the social media realm. These sites, reinvented themselves after the dot com crash by really giving the general public what they wanted in a social media setting. I, myself am guilty of persecuting social media such as Facebook, but then turn right around and log in to see whats new. Social media is so much more than just seeing what a buddy or family member is up to these days. It can help grow new business, and even give an existing business new life by being more accessible to the general public through online searches. I do not see an end in site any time soon when it comes to social media. This is no longer just a fad, but a way of life. Majority of people today would be lost without a smartphone, tablet, or pc. In a pole conducted by Maxim Magazine in October 2016, an overwhelming 73% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 35 get world news from such social media sites such as Facebook. Where would the world be if social media came to a sudden hault and was not longer available? People may actually have to look at each other and talk to one another again, heck some may even have to pick up the phone and call the people they are wanting to communicate with... What was I thinking, text messaging would still exist :)