- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Facebook's New Privacy Policy (Version from September 7): What Has Changed?
by Christian Fuchs 17 Sep '11

17 Sep '11

What is Facebooks New Privacy Policy All About? More Complexity, More Intransparent Data Storage, Continued Internet Prosumer Commodification, Ideological Pseudo-Participation, and a Reaction to the Privacy Complaints Filed by Europe versus Facebook. http://fuchs.uti.at/699/ On September 7th, 2011, Facebook changed its privacy policy, replacing the policy that was updated on December 22, 2010. The policys length increased from 35 709 characters to 40 085 characters (from approximately 11 single-spaced A4 pages to 12), which shows that the complexity of the regulations increased. Facebook continues to collect data about user behaviour from other websites. New policy: Sometimes we get data from our advertising partners, customers and other third parties that helps us (or them) deliver ads, understand online activity, and generally make Facebook better. For example, an advertiser may tell us how you responded to an ad on Facebook or on another site in order to measure the effectiveness of and improve the quality of those ads. Old policy: Information from other websites. We may institute programs with advertising partners and other websites in which they share information with us: We may ask advertisers to tell us how our users responded to the ads we showed them (and for comparison purposes, how other users who didnt see the ads acted on their site). This data sharing, commonly known as conversion tracking, helps us measure our advertising effectiveness and improve the quality of the advertisements you see. We may receive information about whether or not youve seen or interacted with certain ads on other sites in order to measure the effectiveness of those ads. The content of this regulation has not much changed, but Facebook now claims that it collects information about users from other websites in order to make Facebook better. It is intransparent to the single user, which data from which websites Facebook stores about him/her. If a lack of data storage transparency makes Facebook better is a question of interpretation. The question is if it makes Facebook a privacy-respecting platform or not. The regulations about the storage of location data have been expanded, which reflects the increasing importance of mobile Internet use and therefore of mobile targeted advertising for Facebook: New policy: We may put together your current city with GPS and other location information we have about you to, for example, tell you and your friends about people or events nearby, or offer deals to you that you might be interested in. We may also put together data about you to serve you ads that might be more relevant to you. When we get your GPS location, we put it together with other location information we have about you (like your current city). But we only keep it until it is no longer useful to provide you services. Old policy: When you access Facebook from a computer, mobile phone, or other device, we may collect information from that device about your browser type, location, and IP address, as well as the pages you visit. Another new quality of Facebooks privacy policy is the instant personalization feature. Facebook shares certain user data with other platforms, with which it has entered business partnerships. The first time a user goes to the partner website, the platform should inform him/her that it uses Facebook information about the user. In Facebooks privacy settings, one can turn off instant personalization for all of Facebooks partner sites. This is, however, a opt-out solution, which shows that Facebook wants to share the information it collects about users with partner sites so that they can also use the data for targeted advertising. This circumstance is typical for the networked character of Internet commerce and shows how strongly advertising culture shapes social media and the World Wide Web (WWW). If a user at some point of time decides to deactivate instant personalization, but used a Facebook partner site that employ instant personalization before, the data that the partner site uses is not automatically deleted: If you turn off an instant personalization site after you have been using it or visited it a few times (or after you have given it specific permission to access your data), it will not automatically delete your data. But the site is contractually required to delete your data if you ask it to. This means that the user has to explicitly write to Facebooks partner sites to delete personal data. Furthermore, it is not transparent to a single user, which data exactly Facebook partners store about him or her. Facebooks instant personalization feature increases the non-transparency of data storage. The description of how targeted advertising works on Facebook has changed, but not the content of the description. Facebook still makes use of all user data, user communication data, user browsing behaviour, and even data collected from other websites in order to sell these data as commodity to advertising clients that serve targeted ads to users. Facebook thereby makes profit, the users create value, are not paid for this work and their data becomes a commodity. I have termed this process Internet prosumer commodification (see the articles here, here and here). Facebooks advertising settings have remained unchanged. There is no opt-in advertising and targeted advertising is always activated. The only opt-out options concern social adverts and the use of names and pictures in third-party advertisements. Regulations about targeted advertising in the new privacy policy: We do not share any of your information with advertisers (unless, of course, you give us permission).When an advertiser creates an ad on Facebook, they are given the opportunity to choose their audience by location, demographics, likes, keywords, and any other information we receive or can tell about you and other users. For example, an advertiser can choose to target 18 to 35 year-old women who live in the United States and like basketball. Try this tool yourself to see one of the ways advertisers target ads and what information they see at: https://www.facebook.com/ads/create/ If the advertiser chooses to run the ad (also known as placing the order), we serve the ad to people who meet the criteria the advertiser selected, but we do not tell the advertiser who any of those people are. So, for example, if a person clicks on the ad, the advertiser might infer that the person is an 18-to-35-year-old woman who lives in the US and likes basketball. But we would not tell the advertiser who that person is. After the ad runs, we provide advertisers with reports on how their ads performed. For example we give advertisers reports telling them how many users saw or clicked on their ads. But these reports are anonymous. We do not tell advertisers who saw or clicked on their ads. Advertisers sometimes place cookies on your computer in order to make their ads more effective. Learn more at: http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp Sometimes we allow advertisers to target a category of user, like a moviegoer or a sci-fi fan. We do this by bundling characteristics that we believe are related to the category. For example, if a person likes the Star Trek Page and mentions Star Wars when they check into a movie theater, we may conclude that this person is likely to be a sci-fi fan. Regulations about targeted advertising in the old privacy policy: Advertisements. Sometimes the advertisers who present ads on Facebook use technological methods to measure the effectiveness of their ads and to personalize advertising content. You may opt-out of the placement of cookies by many of these advertisers here. You may also use your browser cookie settings to limit or prevent the placement of cookies by advertising networks. Facebook does not share personally identifiable information with advertisers unless we get your permission. [...] We dont share your information with advertisers without your consent. (An example of consent would be if you asked us to provide your shipping address to an advertiser to receive a free sample.) We allow advertisers to choose the characteristics of users who will see their advertisements and we may use any of the non-personally identifiable attributes we have collected (including information you may have decided not to show to other users, such as your birth year or other sensitive personal information or preferences) to select the appropriate audience for those advertisements. For example, we might use your interest in soccer to show you ads for soccer equipment, but we do not tell the soccer equipment company who you are. You can see the criteria advertisers may select by visiting our advertising page. Even though we do not share your information with advertisers without your consent, when you click on or otherwise interact with an advertisement there is a possibility that the advertiser may place a cookie in your browser and note that it meets the criteria they selected. The policy regulation concerning deletion of an account has been changed. The major change is that Facebook now says that all information of an account will be deleted at latest 90 days after the user deleted the account, whereas the regulation in the old policy was somehow unclear, saying on the one hand that data is deleted, but on the other hand that Facebook we may retain certain information to prevent identity theft and other misconduct even if deletion has been requested. New policy: When you delete an account, it is permanently deleted from Facebook. It typically takes about one month to delete an account, but some information may remain in backup copies and logs for up to 90 days. You should only delete your account if you are sure you never want to reactivate it. You can delete your account at: https://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account Old policy: When you delete an account, it is permanently deleted from Facebook. [...] Additionally, we may retain certain information to prevent identity theft and other misconduct even if deletion has been requested. [...] Limitations on removal. Even after you remove information from your profile or delete your account, copies of that information may remain viewable elsewhere to the extent it has been shared with others, it was otherwise distributed pursuant to your privacy settings, or it was copied or stored by other users. However, your name will no longer be associated with that information on Facebook. (For example, if you post something to another users profile and then you delete your account, that post may remain, but be attributed to an Anonymous Facebook User.) Additionally, we may retain certain information to prevent identity theft and other misconduct even if deletion has been requested. If you have given third party applications or websites access to your information, they may retain your information to the extent permitted under their terms of service or privacy policies. But they will no longer be able to access the information through our Platform after you disconnect from them. Backup copies. Removed and deleted information may persist in backup copies for up to 90 days, but will not be available to others. On August 18, 2011, members of the initiative Europe vs. Facebook that was founded by Austrian law students filed a complaint against Facebook to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner. Facebook Europe is legally registered in Ireland. The initiative members made 16 complaint points and asked the Commissioner to check Facebook violates European data protection laws in these 16 privacy areas. One point of complaint is that Facebook engages in excessive processing of data. One of the complainers demanded from Facebook to send him the data it stores about him. Although he had deleted his account, he received a print out with 1 200 pages of personal data stored about him by Facebook. This topic is addressed in the complaint under point 15: After using facebook.com for 3 years, Facebook Ireland gathered more than 1.200 pages of personal information about me (in fact Facebook Ireland might hold a much bigger amount of data, see Complaint 10), even though I have deleted just about everything I could (e.g. all my posts, all messages, and many friends). The Irish Data Protection Act says that data (iii) shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they were collected or are further processed, and (iv) shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes (DPA §2 (1) (c) (iii) (iv)). The EU Data Protection Directive regulates that Member States shall provide that personal data must be: [](c) adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed (Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament, §6 (1) (c)). Another complaint is that Facebook does not use opt-in options and thereby may breach the regulation that users have to give consensus to the processing of their personal data. This regulation is specifically important among other topics also for targeted advertising, which is organized without opt-in on Facebook. 2A. (1) Personal data shall not be processed by a data controller unless section 2 of this Act (as amended by the Act of 2003) is complied with by the data controller and at least one of the following conditions is met: (a) the data subject has given his or her consent to the processing or (Irish Data Protection Act, §2A (1) (a)). Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if: (a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent (Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament, §7 (a)). Facebooks change of the data deletion regulations from rather ambiguous and unclear formulations to a clearer version may reflect the circumstance that a complaint against its privacy practices has been filed. This might be a direct reaction to the complaints filed by Europe versus Facebook, which were however filed on August, 18th, 2011, whereas Facebook changed its policy on September 7th. Therefore the old privacy policy is subject of the complaints. Furthermore it looks like many of the privacy areas addressed by the complaints have not been cleared out by the new privacy policy. Europe versus Facebook is not only a highly important initiative, it also shows that companies are unlikely to voluntarily protect users privacy, but to be only willing to do so if they feel the threat of the states law enforcement capacities. The profit motive is so inherent to companies that they always tend to put profit interests above users privacy concerns. The only two alternatives are to make use of the law for enforcing privacy protection and to support the creation of alternative non-profit platforms. Facebook has changed the content sharing options, it is now relatively easily possible to define with whom one wants to share content and to share it only with customized users. This change is also reflected in the privacy policy (in the section titled Control over your profile). It is likely that it has been taken because Google in June 2011 introduced its own social networking site Google+, which poses competition to Facebook and is based on the friend circles concept that allows customization of content. Other new regulations include a section about tagging (Tags), the possibility for other websites to provide a login into their sites by enabling users to log in with their Facebook accounts (section Logging in to another site using Facebook), social plugins (section About social plugins), sponsored stories (section Sponsored stories), and featured content (section Featured content). A new regulation is that Facebook says that it allows users to vote privacy changes under certain circumstances: Unless we make a change for legal or administrative reasons, or to correct an inaccurate statement, we will give you seven (7) days to provide us with comments on the change. If we receive more than 7000 comments concerning a particular change, we will put the change up for a vote. The vote will be binding on us if more than 30% of all active registered users as of the date of the notice vote. This regulation is extremely unclear. One can interpret every imaginable privacy policy change as legal change, administrative change or change of an inaccurate statement. It is therefore arbitrary and unclear, on which changes Facebook users are able to vote or not. Furthermore no link for comments is provided. It is also unlikely that 30% of all registered users will ever engage in a vote because privacy policy matters are a complex issue. It looks like Facebook wants to respond to the criticism that users have no decision-rights about the privacy of their personal data, but at the same time wants to immunize itself against loosing control of decision making power. We can summarize the changes of the Facebook privacy policy that took effect on September 7th, 2011: * The change of Facebooks privacy policies has come shortly after members of the initiative Europe versus Facebook filed privacy violation complaints against Facebook to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner. * The length and complexity of Facebooks privacy policy has increased. * Facebook has introduced new features like instant personalization that have increased the non-transparency of data storage. It is not clear for a user, which data Facebook stores about her/him, with whom Facebook shares user data, and which data exactly Facebook partners store. * Facebook continues to receive data about users from other websites. * Facebook continues to commodify user data by using targeted advertising. It does not use opt-in for advertising, targeted ads are automatically and always activated. Internet prosumer commodification continues to be Facebooks capital accumulation model. * Facebook has implemented a user participation mechanism in privacy decision-making that is formulated in an extremely shallow way so that this regulation seems to be an ideological pseudo-participation strategy.

1 0

New journal announcement: Case Studies in Strategic Communication
by Brabham, Daren C 16 Sep '11

16 Sep '11

(Apologies for cross-posting) Manuscripts are now being accepted for the first volume of Case Studies in Strategic Communication, a new online, peer-reviewed journal. We welcome submissions from scholars, practitioners, and students! db +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Case Studies in Strategic Communication (CSSC) is dedicated to the study of strategic communication through the case study form. Case studies illustrate the strategies, tactics, and execution of communication campaigns through in-depth coverage of a single situation. CSSC is a peer-reviewed online publication housed at the School of Journalism & Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Case studies have long been central to the study of strategic communication, but these cases have been scattered across textbooks and websites, are quickly outdated, are not fully representative of the many facets of strategic communication, and lack a common format useful for teachers and scholars. Through the ongoing publication of strategic communication case studies online, CSSC aims to develop a living resource of diverse case materials for teachers, scholars, and practitioners. As technological convergence and industry trends demand the integration of several branches of strategic communication in everyday practice, it is necessary to consider the approach to strategic communication holistically. Thus, CSSC welcomes case studies dealing with any of the following disciplines: public relations, marketing, advertising, integrated marketing communication, social media campaigns, crisis communication, special events planning, development and fundraising, internal or employee communication, investor relations, community relations, media relations, online community management, publicity, and more. There is no limit to topical coverage, and CSSC hopes to develop a resource that touches on as many industries, tactics, geographic regions, and diverse populations as possible. CSSC seeks case studies concerning all sectors, too: private companies (large and small), publicly traded corporations, non-profit organizations (large and small), political campaigns, government agencies (local and national), and educational institutions. In addition to success stories, CSSC also seeks case studies that explore failures, shortcomings, missed opportunities, and crises. Stories of failure are not often told in case study collections, but they sometimes yield the best lessons. CSSC publishes long case studies (3,000-8,000 words) covering full campaigns or programs, as well as short case studies (1,000-2,500 words) tightly focused on a single strategy, tactic, research method, or evaluation method used in real strategic communication programs. Visit www.csscjournal.org<http://www.csscjournal.org/> to learn more about the journal. Contact the editor, Daren Brabham, with any questions: daren.brabham(a)unc.edu. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --- Daren C. Brabham, Ph.D. Assistant Professor School of Journalism & Mass Communication University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Carroll Hall, CB 3365 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 (919) 962-0676 (office) (801) 633-4796 (cell) daren.brabham(a)unc.edu www.darenbrabham.com

1 0

Arab spring & social media evidence
by nativebuddha 16 Sep '11

16 Sep '11

Does anyone have evidence (or links to studies) that show the impact, or lack thereof, of social media on the Arab spring? This cause-effect model still circulates in the mediasphere, but what is the evidence show? Thanks. -Robert

9 12

Rumour Mongering through New Media: Nigerial trailing the blaze
by Wale Oni 16 Sep '11

16 Sep '11

The uniqueness of how Nigerians use the new media (appropriation) further yields itself to study when nationwide rumour broke out that answering calls from certain mobile phone numbers (09141-1) - obviously the date of the rumour, is deadly. Unprecedented calls and texting were made across new media space while the conventional media and news agencies (the transnational: AP, etc.) lend credence to the uniqueness of the urban legend. If you have witnessed such hyping in your commuities (local or national), kindly assist by commenting and providing useful information - Date, Situation, etc. The trend beagn in Nigeria in 2003, when mobile phones subscribers rumoured total switch off of their sets in protest for hike in call tariffs. The political/electioneering periods equally yielded data on such urban legends in (south west) Nigeria. My study focuses on new media appropriation and cultural influences (including demo-psychological) in south-west Nigeria. I'll like to request the most appropriate theoretical underpinnings, kindly assist. Thanks people. *'Wale Oni* *Communication Studies Dept.,* *College of Humanities & Culture, Osun State University* *IKIRE CAMPUS,* *221104 Nigeria* +234 8160831501, +234 8056673899 color=#0000ff>* Alt. Email: walegzy(a)email.com > color=#0000ff>*

1 0

Digital Crossroads: Media, Migration and Diaspora in a Transnational Perspective - Conference CFP
by Leurs, K.H.A. (Koen) 16 Sep '11

16 Sep '11

*Apologies for cross-posting* CALL FOR PAPERS: Digital Crossroads: Media, Migration and Diaspora in a Transnational Perspective Conference website: http://www.digitalcrossroads.nl<http://www.digitalcrossroads.nl/>. Deadline for abstract submission and panel proposals: January 10, 2012 Conference chair: Sandra Ponzanesi Conference coordinator: Fadi Hirzalla Because of the disjunctive and unstable interplay of commerce, media, national policies, and consumer fantasies, ethnicity, once a genie contained in the bottle of some sort of locality (however large), has now become a global force, forever slipping in and through the cracks between states and borders - Appadurai 1996, p. 41, Modernity at Large Keynote speakers: Shakuntala Banaji London School of Economics and Political Science, UK Kirsten Drotner University of Southern Denmark, Denmark Radhika Gajjala Bowling Green State University, USA Eva Lam University of Northwestern, USA Lisa Nakamura University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA Liesbet van Zoonen Loughborough University, UK and Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands The rapid development of digital technologies has radically transformed ways of keeping in touch with home cultures and diasporic networks. Moreover, the notion of migration has undergone significant shifts, coming to signify imaginaries on the move which are not necessarily linked to geographical displacement. The aim of this conference is to address the relationship between migration and digital technologies across national contexts and ethnic belonging. Migrancy embeds many of the local and global paradoxes that also pertain to digital media with their compression of space and time. However, the link between the two fields is still under-theorized and in need of more situated and comparative analysis. Drawing from approaches from the humanities and social sciences (media theory, communication studies, learning sciences, gender studies, cultural studies, postcolonial theory, migration and transnational studies, among others), the primary aim of this conference is to explore how the study of digitalization and migration challenges existing notions of diaspora, identity, nation, family, learning, literacy, social networks, youth, body, gender and ethnicity, asking for new approaches and a rethinking of traditional social and cultural categories. The conference will consider the following questions, among others: How has the development of new digital technologies changed the experience of migration? Conversely, how has the reality of migration impacted on the use, development and distribution of new media technologies? How does the use of media differ among different migrant generations? How does media literacy impact on issues of integration and socialization in a hosting country? What are the differences in media access, diffusion and use among different migrant communities across the world? How are race, gender, age, class, ethnicity and other markers of identity recodified online? How are transnational relationships and resources arrayed in networks? How do ideas and practices move across these networks? How is the notion of home or community, which is no longer locatable with a "here" and "there" reconceptualised through digital diasporas? How do these developments impact on the spaces for learning and education, which are no longer limited to place-based classrooms and curricula? How can learning processes and networks be conceptualised when these networks expand larger geographical distances, and multiple communities are crossed? What resources of identity do migrants draw on and how are these resources hybridized in practice, and related to their learning and socialization processes? In short, how are digital crossroads created, distributed and experienced in the context of migration, diaspora and transnationalism? The conference will explore three inter-related strands of the relationships between media and migration: Identity and diaspora (Strand 1) - identity and performativity - gender, race, ethnicity, religion and online communities - digital borders, digital diasporas - imagined communities, transnationalism and mobility - digital divides (generational, access, skills, user-generated content) - cultural industry, participatory culture and social media Migrant networks (Strand 2) - mediated spatialities - relations between online and offline worlds - affinity networks and intimacy - media literacy and migration - comparative perspectives on digital media practices Learning in a globalized world (Strand 3) - informal learning in the digital space - network approaches to learning - immigrant learning - globalization and learning - learning & identity - socialization in transnational families Please send 300-word abstracts for papers or 500-word panel proposals for 3 to 4 presentations by 10 January 2012. Submission should be made online via http://www.digitalcrossroads.nl<http://www.digitalcrossroads.nl/>. See further submission instructions on the website. Notification of acceptance will be given by 20 February, 2012. For more information or questions please send an e-mail to info(a)digitalcrossroads.nl<mailto:info@digitalcrossroads.nl>. The conference comes at the end of a five-year High Potential project, entitled "Wired Up: Digital media as innovative socialization practices for migrant youth", carried out by the Faculty of Humanities (project leader Dr. Sandra Ponzanesi) and the Faculty of Social Sciences (project leader Prof. Dr. Mariette de Haan) at Utrecht University in collaboration with Vanderbilt University, USA (Dr. Kevin Leander, Peabody College for Education). The project was funded by the Executive Board of Utrecht University to stimulate interdisciplinary research. See http://www.uu.nl/wiredup. Organization Dr. Sandra Ponzanesi: conference chair Dr. Fadi Hirzalla: conference coordinator Prof. Dr. Mariette de Haan: scientific committee Dr. Kevin Leander: scientific committee Dr. Fleur Prinsen: conference committee Dr. Lisa Schwartz: conference committe Koen Leurs, MA: conference committee Asli Ünlosoy, MSC: conference committee

1 0

Egypt: The First Internet Revolt?
by Barry Wellman 16 Sep '11

16 Sep '11

is a short paper that I wrote with JoLynn Zhuo and Justine Yu. Peace Magazine, July 2011 (27, 3): 6-10 We try to put the internet revolt in perspective. The ? mark is the key part of the title. Barry Wellman _______________________________________________________________________ S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology, FRSC NetLab Director Department of Sociology 725 Spadina Avenue, Room 388 University of Toronto Toronto Canada M5S 2J4 twitter:barrywellman http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman fax:+1-416-978-3963 Updating history: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php _______________________________________________________________________

1 0

Social media and Drug Cartel reactions
by nativebuddha 16 Sep '11

16 Sep '11

> > Here's a different fallout from the use of social media in Mexico (copied > from nettime): > > http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/09/14/mexico.violence/<http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/09/14/mexico.violence/Bodies> Bodies <http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/09/14/mexico.violence/Bodies> hanging from bridge in Mexico are warning to social media users By Mariano Castillo, CNN Posters declare a young man and woman were killed for posting denouncements of drug cartel activities. (CNN) -- Social media users who denounce drug cartel activities along the Mexican border received a brutal warning this week: two mangled bodies hanging like cuts of meat from a pedestrian bridge. A woman was hogtied and disemboweled, her intestines protruding from three deep cuts on her abdomen. Attackers left her topless, dangling by her feet and hands from a bridge in the border city of Nuevo Laredo. A bloodied man next to her was hanging by his hands, his right shoulder severed so deeply the bone was visible. Signs left near the bodies declared the pair, both apparently in their early 20s, were killed for posting denouncements of drug cartel activities on a social network. "This is going to happen to all of those posting funny things on the Internet," one sign said. "You better (expletive) pay attention. I'm about to get you." The gruesome scene sent a chilling message at a time when online posts have become some of the loudest voices reporting violence in Mexico. In some parts of the country, threats from cartels have silenced traditional media. Sometimes even local authorities fear speaking out. Bloggers who specialize in sharing news about trafficking have been threatened in the past, but this could be the first time users of such social networks have been targeted. Investigator Ricardo Mancillas Castillo said he had not encountered a threat against Internet users in his four years based in Nuevo Laredo. But the signs of torture -- the cuts, the disembowelment -- were along the lines of what officials are used to seeing in drug-related violence. Mexico hangings a warning? In the case of the two victims on the bridge, their ears and fingers were mutilated, said Mancillas, who works for the public prosecutor's office. There are no witnesses, and it is a nearly impossible task to identify the perpetrators, he said. Thirty-six hours had passed since the bodies were found Tuesday morning, but no one had come to claim them and they remained unidentified, Mancillas said. It will be nearly impossible to determine if the two victims actually posted anything about cartels on the Internet, as people don't usually use their real names online, he said. The placards threatened those who report violent incidents through social media networks. It listed two blogs by name, Al Rojo Vivo and Blog del Narco. They were signed "Z," a possible reference for the Zetas cartel, which operates in the area. Blog del Narco is a website that deals exclusively with news related to drug violence in Mexico. Its creator remains anonymous. On the Al Rojo Vivo forum, where citizens can make anonymous tips, one person wrote: "Don't be afraid to denounce. It's very difficult for them to find out who denounced. They only want to scare society." One Twitter user echoed that sense of defiance in light of the threats. "Enough! If we shut up today, we will have lost the ground that we have gained. This is the time to show what we are made of," the owner of the @QuestoyQuelotro Twitter account wrote. In a statement sent to CNN, Blog del Narco said its site is not dedicated to denouncing crime, as are other sites. "In addition, we are not in favor or against any criminal group, we only inform as things happen," the statement said. More than 34,600 people have died in drug-related violence since Mexican President Felipe Calderon announced a crackdown on cartels in December 2006, according to government statistics. Other reports have listed a higher toll. The latest Mexican government tally was released in January. CNN's Rafael Romo and journalist Raul Llamas contributed to this report.

1 0

Professor Stuart Moulthrop Public Lecture, Melbourne Oct 10
by belinda＠senet.com.au 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

Professor Stuart Moulthrop Public Lecture   Make a Better Door: Or, How Does Digital Humanism Humanize?     An interesting image for 2011. A player/character in the most recent Portal game is literally locked out of her workplace and replaced by a pair of robots. From this resonant image of the human-computer interface a discussion will emerge to do with broader understandings of the digital humanities, media scholarship, and electronic literature. The focus for this approach will be the question famously posed by Richard Lanham's: "how do the humanities humanize?"   Professor Darren Tofts (Swinburne University of Technology) will moderate a conversation with Professor Moulthrop following his presentation.     Date: Monday 10th October, 2011 Time: 6.30-8.30 pm. Venue: Village Roadshow Theatrette State Library of Victoria 179 La Trobe Street Melbourne (Conference Centre, Entry 3)   Cost: FREE     Stuart Moulthrop is Professor of English at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is an electronic literature pioneer, both as a theoretician and as a writer, and has published many of articles on the topic of games, network literature and digital media theory. From 1995-99 he was co-editor of the online journal Postmodern Culture and he is a founding board member of the Electronic Literature Organization (ELO). His hypertext Victory Garden (1992) was featured on the front page of the New York Times Book Review in a (now famous) review by American literary critic Robert Coover. Moulthrop is also the author of the hypertext fiction works Reagan Library (1999), and Hegirascope (1995), amongst many others. His recent work engages with digital games and its interface with media theory, electronic writing and scandal. His current work in progress is "Sc4nda1 in New Media," an Arcade Essay that converges philosophical meditation with an actual video game. It can be accessed at http://pantherfile.uwm.edu/moulthro/index.htm.   Professor Moulthrop is a Visiting Research Fellow in the Faculty of Life & Social Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, in association with the School of Media and Communication, RMIT. Please repost wherever you think people might be interested!

1 0

book of potential interest
by Jennifer S. Earl 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

I wanted to email about Digitally Enabled Social Change, which is a book by myself and Katrina Kimport that came out with MIT Press earlier this year-- I thought I had already sent a note to the listserv, but I don't think I did after all. So, here's the Amazon permalink: <http://amzn.com/0262015102> Although the hardback came out in March, the kindle edition just came out, so I thought I would take the opportunity to email folks about it. The book is blurbed by Doug McAdam, Andrew Chadwick, Lance Bennett, and Mary Grey on the hardback dust cover. The focus of the book is online activism. If you are interested in the topic area, I hope you will check it out. Cheers, Jenn ********************************* Jennifer Earl Professor of Sociology SS&MS 3129 University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9430 P: (805) 893-7471 F: (805) 893-3324 http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/earl/ *********************************

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Arab spring & social media evidence
by Jay Hauben 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

Hi Robert and others, The article "Netizens in Egypt and the Republic of Tahrir Square" at http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2011/03/16/netizens_egypt_tahrir_square/ provides some of the 5 year history of online debate and activism among Egyptian netizens which set a basis for common demands from diverse sectors of Egyptian society. For example, the common problem of political prisoners gave religious activists and left wing activists the chance online to search for other commonalities. The notes at the bottom of this article by Ronda Hauben contain references to scholarly work. Hope this helps Take care. Jay > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:52:38 -0400 > From: nativebuddha <nativebuddha(a)gmail.com> > To: "air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org" <air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org> > Subject: [Air-L] Arab spring & social media evidence > Message-ID: > <CAF-xTaa=TL-GhJTezwVyJf150Omp4-Z8p3r9yWybh2V4PBwsqw(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Does anyone have evidence (or links to studies) that show the impact, or > lack thereof, of social media on the Arab spring? This cause-effect model > still circulates in the mediasphere, but what is the evidence show? > > Thanks. > > -Robert > >

1 0