anythings.org

According to market researchers at Sony Ericsson, women spend more on electronics every year than they do on shoes. I’m glad some technology companies are finally getting the point that simply making something pink or slapping a flower on something crappy (like a Motorola Razr) does not automatically mean that women will buy it. I care more about the specs on my next laptop than I do about buying a year’s worth of shoes, but I’m a slightly skewed sample.

It is worth noting that they did compare electronics purchases to shoe purchases, which means we still have a long way to go until women can shake the Imelda Marcos stereotype.

Via Switched.

Lori Drew, a 49 year-old woman (and mother), has finally been indicted in the Megan Meier suicide case. According to the LA Times, she faces “three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress on the girl and one count of conspiracy.” As many of you remember, the authorities in Missouri could not find a statute under which to indict Lori Drew, but now, thankfully, the case has been handed over to federal prosecutors.

I am not a believer in policing internet activity, but I am a believer in preventing harassment, especially the kind that causes severe emotional distress. Lori Drew is a 49 year-old woman who had absolutely no business harassing a young girl on the internet, regardless of her motivation. I’m glad to see that she’s been indicted, and I hope this case becomes an example for future internet harassment cases.

When cases like the Meier suicide don’t get prosecuted, even when we know the identity of the assailant, it sends a message to victims of internet (and in-person) harassment that their pleas for help won’t get any attention when they come forward.

From:

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Virginia is the first state to mandate that public schools offer Internet safety classes for all grade levels — and it’s one of many measures being taken nationally to protect young Web users.

Virginia’s requirement initially stemmed from concerns about sex offenders preying on children online and a general increase in Internet-based crime. It took effect this school year.

In a recent presentation at a suburban Richmond high school, Virginia assistant attorney general Gene Fishel flashed an online social-networking profile a 15-year-old who says she enjoys being around boys and wants to meet new people. The real profile user turned out to be a 31-year-old man convicted of sexually abusing 11 children he met online and sentenced to a 45-year prison term.

A 2006 study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children showed that about 13 percent of Internet users ages 10 to 17 received unwanted sexual solicitations.

All I have to say is GOOD, and maybe FINALLY. With so many kids using sites like MySpace, I’m sure that percentage of internet users 10-17 who have received unwanted sexual solicitations has gone up.

Is it just me, or does this make you feel old? Do you remember back in the day when you would go into the Yahoo! Chat rooms and someone would send you a message asking what you’re wearing or if you were in the mood to get frisky? I know chat rooms aren’t the thing anymore - and good thing, too, because they were kind of creepy - but places like MySpace are just as bad, if not worse. Innocent unaware teens are posting pictures of themselves with their friends at the beach, school, or wherever else, and someone is using those pictures and the information in their profiles to stalk them.

I personally do not have a MySpace - anymore. I used to have one a few years back before I transferred to UC Davis and got onto Facebook, but once I got onto Facebook and enjoyed the privilege of privacy, I never turned back. Eventually, I deleted my MySpace, and I wasn’t surprised when I logged in and found several messages from men I did not know that were extremely explicit. Sure, I reported them to MySpace, but we all know how well that works.

All in all, I think every state should mandate internet safety lessons for children in public school ages 13 and up. While I would discourage the lessons from making them paranoid, knowing basic safety tips and how to keep your real identity and location a secret are just as valuable as the ability to be able to read or write.

Facebook crossed a line with its new advertising program, and, apparently, I’m not the only person who thinks so. Other people are getting pretty angry and are starting to write about the frustration they are feeling because Facebook is owned by money grubbing whores.

Even with the changes they made as a result to the outcry, there is still no clear and easy way to opt out.

Facebook just unveiled their latest advertising program. This plan utilizes information from user’s profiles to display ads appropriate to their interests when they browse through their friend’s pages:

Additionally, Facebook has unveiled targeted advertisements that will allow marketers to target by any information inside Facebook profiles, from relationship status to favorite television shows.

This makes sense. Gmail utilizes a tool that skims through your inbox and displays appropriate in-line advertisements. Users are accustomed to this type of privacy invasion.

One thing about the new advertising program that irritates me is Facebook is essentially encouraging advertising companies to provide users with the tools to sell their product for them. Without paying any additional advertising fees:

Called Facebook Ads, the new program is threefold: advertisers can create branded pages, run targeted advertisements, and have access to intelligence and analytics pertaining to the site’s more than 50 million users. […] Through the branded pages program, advertisers can design custom pages with information, content, and custom applications–”any application that was written for users on the Facebook Platform,” Zuckerberg explained. Facebook users can sign up as “fans” of that brand, install branded applications, and other activities that will all show up in their profiles’ “mini feeds” and on the “news feeds” that are broadcast to their friends lists.

So as soon as this program rolls out, I’ll be seeing “Jessica loves Hershey’s! She added the ‘Give me Kisses!’ application to her profile.” and the like scattered throughout my News Feed. Which, by the way, you cannot customize. While you can adjust your News Feed settings to show you “more” or “less” of your friends pictures, relationships status changes, and other options, you cannot opt out of forced announcements such as advertisements and applications. There’s motivation behind this: corporate-branded applications are one of the new components of Facebook’s advertising scheme.
It is one thing to provide companies with access to user information in order to reach a more applicable audience, but it’s another to open the Facebook coding to companies with a desire to create applications in which their only motivation is to make a profit. Facebook is basically allowing advertisers to recruit mindless college students to advertise their products for them. Who needs employees, commercials, and expensive marketing schemes when you have Facebook? The idea of Facebook applications alone irritates me, but applications whose only purpose is advertising and profiting from that exposure? Irritated doesn’t even begin to cover it.

I wonder what social networking site researcher danah boyd has to say about this one…

By now, I’m sure you’ve all heard of the writer’s strike. Personally, I stand with the writers. The internet is not too new. The television and film industry has an opportunity to do something huge with these contracts, something that the major record labels never did. The major labels reacted to the internet with fear by utilizing DRM technology and basically saying they don’t trust their customers. The record industry committed suicide. The television and film industries, however, in their [hopefully] upcoming deals with writers will realize the internet’s potential and harness the power of unlimited opportunities.

Everywhere I turn, there are websites (even CNN) asking readers to submit their thoughts on how the writer’s strike will impact them. These websites are asking their readers “how will you survive without TV? What will you do instead of watching TV?” Is this really a question we need to be asking?

In a culture of burgeoning waistlines and increasing cholesterol levels, do we really need to encourage the masses to sit on their butts and watch TV? I’m sure Blockbuster, Netflix and other video rental centers are going to see a huge increase in movie rentals when everyone’s favorite programs start going into reruns. Maybe - just maybe - instead of relying on the various forms of entertainment provided by the Idiot Box, you should consider something a little less sedentary. Walk the dog, you probably have one. Play with your kids, clean your house, wash the car. Get your house ready for the winter. Or, if you’re into knowledge, read a book. While it may not get you off the couch, it’ll get your brain working a way that television just doesn’t.

Beyond that, there’s the actual sides of the debate that are more important than the fact that people are going to have to live “without TV” for an undetermined amount of time. The big wigs are saying that the internet is “too new” and it’s future is undetermined, therefore, it’s impossible to negotiate media used on the internet into new contracts. I laughed when I heard this. Yes, the future of the internet may be undetermined… but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t negotiate for what exists now, and leave room in the contracts for vague options. It really is about money: not for the writers, but for the big corporations, and just how much they can keep from the writers.

Apparently, men don’t think Sarah Jessica Parker is attractive. This probably because she’s over 25 and has wrinkles, but I digress. The readers in an online poll at Maxim voted her as unsexy. The best part? She doesn’t give a shit. One more reason to love SJP:

Sarah Jessica Parker is nonplussed at her most most recent accolade: being named the Unsexiest Woman Alive by an online magazine poll in America. “What they don’t know is that one day I’ll wake up fat,” the Sex and the City star says. “But I’ll still be happy, just like I am now. I believe in the old ’sticks and stones’ philosophy, so frankly their words don’t come close to hurting.”

My question is why did Maxim feel the need to single out SJP and call her unsexy? Why did they think it was ok for them to do that? Men’s magazines never seen to get it right when it comes to women… not like that’s a big shocker.
Source, source.