“Don’t make an App for that” – by “Nathan B”

November 17, 2010 ~ bradevanrosen ~ Leave a comment

If there’s one term it seems that tech writers can’t get enough of, it’s Web 2.0. It has spawned design conferences, a host of new applications, and even Time Magazine’s Person of the Year. The idea behind this buzzword is that while once the average user went online and found a plethora of content produced by others which they could access, this new incarnation of the internet would be democratized. Instead of its content being dictated by only a few individuals who knew how to code and could afford hosting, now any user who wanted to could produce websites, blogs and videos and share them with the world via the internet. This supposedly marked a great shift in how people communicated and would help realize the web’s true potential.

At the same time, there has been a significant change not only in the way that online content is produced, but how it is accessed. Where internet users were once chained to personal computers (which were themselves bound by the limitations of wired access and WiFi), they can now go online via mobile devices, whether they be through smartphones like the iPhone or the Droid, or tablets like the iPad (because, let’s be honest, no one is actually going to buy the Samsung Galaxy).

If all of this is true, then the question needs to be asked: why is Apple (one of the largest and most influential makers of mobile devices) standing in the way of electronic populism?

Apple has long been known for its draconian policies on any number of subjects, and they’ve made it abundantly clear that content on their mobile devices will be no exception. The App Store has produced nearly $200 million in profits for Apple (though it only accounts for about 1% of gross profits), but more importantly, the broad range of applications available through the App Store has fueled sales of the iPhone, driving up its market share.

This diversity of applications has emerged in spite of Apple’s promulgation that it will remove any Apps which, for example, have metadata that mentions the name of any other computer platform, misspells the name of any Apple product or even simply has icons which are too similar to those used by Apple (not to mention the fact that, lest this be easy for developers, having an interface which is too complicated is also grounds for removal). In short: if you want to put your application on the iPhone, you had better follow Apple’s rules, no matter how ridiculous (also, don’t think you can get away with talking about how absurd you think some of the regulations are, either).

So, what does all of this have to do with Web 2.0? Simply put, the fundamental idea behind Web 2.0 is that users get to dictate the content they find online with relatively little interference from the electronic “elite.” Apple’s actions, however, drive the newest online frontier in the opposite direction. Instead of creating an electronic forum where ideas and innovation flourish free from censorship, Steve Jobs would impose a world where the unwashed masses are kept away from “undesirable” content in the name of Apple “trying to do the right thing for its users,” instead of those users deciding what is right for themselves.

While more open platforms like Google’s Android have been gaining steam in recent years, users of iPhones and iPads are left with little recourse against the arbitrary governance of their closed platforms, except, perhaps, someone playing them a sad, sad song on the world’s tiniest open-source violin.

All-in-one or Nothing at All? – by “Ker M”

November 17, 2010 ~ bradevanrosen ~ Leave a comment

The desire for increased compatibility, portability, and adaptability in technology–particularly, internet technology–has been the driving force behind innovation in the past few decades. From the room-sized giant proto-computers of the 70’s to the netbooks and iPads of the new millennium, technology has become faster, smaller, and more capable. My Blackberry serves as my phone, calendar, instant messenger, and internet and e-mail client when I’m on-the-go; and it conveniently fits in my pocket.

To pull from the Electronica duo, Daft Punk, the motivating factor behind this “harder, better, faster, stronger” mentality is the seemingly indisputable claim that all-in-one technology is ideal. But is this really true? Sure, the advent of these all-in-one technologies can make life a little easier in some senses, but how is it affecting true technological development?

All-in-one devices have fueled the fire behind technological appliancization. Companies that create these machines restrict how they can be used and what can be used on them for user safety and product stability. The idea is that restrictions on what one can and cannot do are necessary to prevent a user from putting a program on the device that will harm it. Since it is an all-in-one device, that would mean losing everything: phone contacts, important documents, etc. This appliancization, though increasing user safety, has seemed to make the technology stagnate in terms of development. Sure, the devices are a little faster and can hold a bit more memory than they could in the past, but true innovation has been stifled because of the big company roadblocks that prohibit developers from contributing to the technological wealth of knowledge.

Perhaps this can most easily be seen in the public rhetoric used to promote these devices. The discourse revolves around the same few features: internet speed, number of applications available, and screen resolution. None of these showcase the innovativeness of the design or functionality. Why? Because, in general, there isn’t any. Just look at these articles about the Playbook and the Tab. These articles discuss the new players in competition with Apple’s iPad, focusing on those aspects of the devices which are not actually different from those available on the Apple machine. It becomes more clear that the companies creating these all-in-one devices are not actually concerned with technological development (in the way early computer pioneers were), but rather with market competition. The strategy questions change from “how can we make our consumers lives better?” to “how can we narrowly outdo our competitors for a small bump in revenue this market period?”.

This type of technological development leaves everyone unsatisfied. The ability for devices to do more and more is great until something goes wrong. Restrictions on individual developers stifle creativity, while company goals shift from the user to the market. In the end, all-in-one appliances leave us with nothing at all.

The Many Months to Google Voice – by “Erich B”

November 17, 2010 ~ bradevanrosen ~ Leave a comment

Seventeen months after Google submitted its Voice application to Apple’s app store it was finally approved for download. If it takes over a year to have Apple approve an app from one of the world’s largest companies, with prodding from the FCC, I can’t imagine how long it could take to have an app of my own approved that Apple didn’t like. Without working for Apple it is hard to say why the app wasn’t approved until now, In Apple’s written response to the FCC, they give some reasons (at the time) why they had not approved the Google Voice app. What seems strange to me today, now that the application has been approved, is that I can’t imagine Google has substantially changed anything in the time since they first submitted the app.

In the first section of Apple’s response to the FCC they claim that “Apple’s innovation has also fostered competition as other companies … seek to develop their own mobile platforms…” However, one of the reasons Apple gives for why the Google Voice application was not approved yet was because it “appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience,” I guess what Apple is really trying to say is that as long as their own innovations push other companies to improve it is okay, but if other companies try to improve on their own products that won’t be allowed. While I don’t have an iPhone or the Google Voice application, if I did have an iPhone and then installed the Google Voice application and suddenly I hated the way my phone now worked, to me at least I would get rid of the Voice app.

The entire meaning of innovation is to renew something and to build upon something that already exists. If the public, or users of Apple’s iPhone to be precise feel that the Voice application is a worthwhile improvement that builds upon their phone, more than likely it will push Apple towards the next step. AOL and CompuServe are perfect examples why a closed box doesn’t last, it becomes outdated and stagnant.

As a counter example to extremely long road to publication for the iPhone version of Google Voice take LimeWire Pirate Edition. In late October the recording industry was able to finally obtain an injunction against LimeWire that basically forced it to stop operating and for it to attempt to stop everything related to LimeWire that it could. But because of the openness of the internet and of the platforms that LimeWire runs on, in less than a month a group of programmers was able to build upon the existing code and modify it to be able to run as a new version and without the ability for LimeWire LLC to shut it down. I’m sure that no one who downloads and uses this new version of LimeWire is doing so only to share public domain material, but most likely to share copyrighted material. Regardless of the legality of the uses the stark contrast is a perfect example to the differences between a platform that is very locked down and one that is completely open and fosters innovation. So many of the technologies that are used widely on the internet today, P2P for example, were developed for purposes that weren’t legal but today have many valuable and legal uses.

Google Voice now on iPhone: A Bit Worrisome – by “Kirby Z”

November 17, 2010 ~ bradevanrosen ~ Leave a comment

After our recent discussion of privacy on the web, I am a bit troubled by the possible implications of Apple’s acceptance of the Google Voice app. The reason why I am worried is that this app that seems so wonderful and alluring to users but actually means people will be filtering all of their info through Google at a potentially high cost, and it just made an enormous jump in its user-base.

With this application, one can send and receive texts for free, make free domestic calls and receive large discounts on international calls thanks to some clever rerouting of call placement. One can also have their voicemails transcribed so they can be read like regular text messages or emails, it is simple to integrate one’s address book, and one can set up personalized greetings for each caller. On the surface, these all appear to be very useful, beneficial additions to one’s iPhone, but if we look a bit deeper they could bring someone a lot of grief.

For example, one is able to send and receive free texts because they are through Google. We have already talked about the possible embarrassing scenarios that could arise from having Google remember your search history and personal information, so it should be easy to guess what could happen if Google were able to read and track everything you say to someone over SMS. Also, a far worse problem could be if some devious hacker were able to tap into Google Voice and abuse it by reading and releasing someone’s texts. I might be a bit on the paranoid side, but the thought of a Google Voice version of FireSheep almost gives me the shudders. If this were to happen, we probably would not all look as guilty as Tiger Woods, but I for one have had some private conversations that I would really prefer were not made public.

Also, the feature that allows for free domestic calls and cheaper international calls could be turned against you if a hacker were to weasel into Google Voice. It is one thing to overshare on sites such as Facebook or Twitter, but it is an entirely different beast if a hacker could always tell where you were just because you called a friend using Google Voice. It would bring a whole new dimension to the problem that the “PleaseRobMe” website tried to address, and would be particularly invasive seeing as how Google Voice integrates your contacts and address book, thus exposing your friends and family.

Some more worrying aspects of this ‘innovation’ have to do with security from the government. In the Zittrain reading, it was said that the FBI has apparently used OnStar as a “mobile bug” to listen in on people’s conversations in OnStar-equipped vehicles. Who is to say that the FBI or the government would not similarly ask Google for access to someone’s Google Voice account to spy on him or her? Moreover, what if the government decided to do a network wide search for any type of contraband, similar to the search Michael Adler described in the Zittrain reading? Just a thought.

Basically, I am a bit afraid that Apple’s recent adoption of the Google Voice app could mean its users would become what’s really ‘tethered’ in that the app could be used as an innovative tool to abuse privacy in a way that regular use of Google or any other Internet site could not compete with, seeing as it accesses something far more personal: our phones.

There’s an App for THAT? – by “Stephanie R”

November 17, 2010 ~ bradevanrosen ~ Leave a comment

Android Market, retrieved from android.com

Watch out there, folks. Though to some the open App Marketplace may seem like the best thing ever, to others it’s a lawsuit waiting to happen (or at least it allows for a significant level of creepiness). For example, the SMS Secret Replicator Andriod App, created by DLP Mobile, forwards all text messages from the cell phone on which the app is installed to another phone of the downloader’s choosing. If that’s not creepy enough, once the app is installed, it leaves no trace of its existence on the phone, so there is no way of knowing it is present on the device.

One aspect that clearly differentiates the Android Market from the Apple App Store is the idea of an open market to which any developer is welcome and encouraged to upload a custom-made application. However, in late October of this year, Google initially approved the SMS Secret Replicator app, and then removed the application from the Andriod market just 18 hours later claiming it “violate[d] the Android Market Content Policy.”

Being a Palm Pre user myself, I am not extremely familiar with the unlimited world of mobile applications. However, while I have explored the facilities of an iPhone on multiple occasions, my knowledge of Android phones is quite limited, so I decided to speak to a close friend about her Droid experience.

Though my friend initially desired an iPhone, her current wireless carrier was Verizon, so she settled on an Android device as her first smartphone. After her first month as an Android owner, she loves her “sleek and user friendly” phone with great apps and she doesn’t “feel like [she’s] missing out on anything the iPhone has to offer.” Though she was unaware of the ability of any developer “to easily publish and distribute their applications directly to users of Andriod-compatible phones” after paying a $25 registration fee (as stated on the log in screen of the Android Market), she likes that it allows for more selection and choice, but does not think that anyone should have access to personal information such as “your location, biographical information and other private information” through certain applications.

Upon hearing of the SMS Secret Replicator for the first time, her reaction was, “Umm…does that exist? Cause that is really creepy. …I don’t think an app like that should exist.”

SMS Secret Replicator Application, retrieved from hothardware.com

Exactly, this Application should not exist, and thanks to two specific aspects of the Android Market Developer Distribution Agreement, it has been suspended. Section 4.3 begins “You agree that if you use the Market to distribute Products, you will protect the privacy and legal rights of users….If your Product stores personal or sensitive information provided by users, it must do so securely and only for as long as it is needed.” While personal or sensitive information usually refers to items more like passwords or medical information, I believe it is safe to say that individuals tend to send personal or sensitive information in text messages when they are under the impression that they are aware of exactly who will be receiving that information.

Section 7.2 Addresses Google Takedowns – “While Google does not intend, and does not undertake, to monitor the Products or their content, if Google is notified by you or otherwise becomes aware and determines in its sole discretion that a Product or any portion thereof or your Brand Features…(e) may create liability for Google or Authorized Carriers…(g) violates the terms of this Agreement or the Market Content Policy for Developers…Goodle may remove the Product from the Market or reclassify the Product at its sole discretion. Google reserves the right to suspend and/or bar any Developer from the Market at its sole discretion.” Essentially, the SMS Secret Replicator Application had the potential to create liability for Google and violated the privacy of users, which, in turn, is a violation of the terms of the Agreement.

Though this specific application has been banned, the thought that if I buy an Android phone, someone can potentially pick up my phone if I leave it unattended and quickly download an application that will forward all of my text messages to their phone is terrifying. So don’t leave your Android on a table by your “friend” while you run to the restroom. With an ever-expanding app market, the next thing you know, every photo you take with your cell phone camera will wind up on your mom’s computer screen in the middle of the family kitchen.

—

It appears that within the past few weeks the two previously mentioned app purchasing locations (the Android Market and the Apple App Store) are moving closer to one another in terms of rules and regulations. While Google has advertised its Android Market as a place where anyone can contribute their original idea for an app, it has had to start cracking down on developers who have taken this liberty one step too far. On the flip side, previously known for it’s rather strict censorship rules when it came to allowing developers to use certain development tools when creating an app for an Apple device, Apple received a great deal of ridicule for rejecting apps on ridiculous platforms. The company has recently decided to relax its restrictions on the use of these development tools, giving developers more flexibility, and to publish the App Store Review Guidelines to improve transparency. Unfortunately, many issues with these guidelines have been recognized – especially by developers.

As part of this new, relaxed Apple restrictions, as of today, the Google Voice app has been approved for the iPhone. This is a pretty big deal because between when Google submitted the application to Apple over 16 months ago and today, the FCC had to step in to ask whether Apple and AT&T were trying to prevent Google’s services from competing with their already built-in features (including making voice calls from the cellular device, sending text messages, checking voicemail, etc.). Shall we jump back in class a few months to the topic of Net Neutrality?

As of today, the Google Voice app can be downloaded for free on the iPhone. The Google Voice mobile app has already been available on Android phones and Blackberry phones for a few months.

Google Voice for iPhone, retrieved from blogsdna.com

Are Journalists Really People? – by “Courtney P”

November 15, 2010 ~ bradevanrosen ~ Leave a comment

Within the profession of journalism, there is an idea that objectivity is the highest good, the nirvana of journalism. Magically, journalists are supposed to squelch their personal opinions and political leanings in order to provide the public with an objective account of stories that are important within the public sphere. By providing an objective account, ideally, the public is able to form responsible, informed opinions. The media views this mission of informing the public as central to the function of democracy.

It may be, but this ideal of objectivity hasn’t always existed. In his book “The Creation of the Media,” Paul Starr explains how American media has transformed since the country’s founding. American newspapers began as propaganda machines for political parties and then evolved into classified advertisements and community announcements. Information was provided, but it wasn’t necessarily for the sake of informing voters on topical issues.

In the 20^th century, American media came to encompass radio and television. And corporations like General Electric came to own media companies. And then the Internet happened…

Objectivity may be the goal for journalism, but the medium has changed in such a way that makes that goal difficult to attain. The Internet allows anyone to publish any news at any time. Newspapers and other media companies have lost their monopoly on information. In the ocean of information that is the Internet, the information that floats to the top is often the kind that has a slant and is presented in a colorful voice. When people are searching for news on the Internet, they often want to find it presented in the lens of their political ideology and in an entertaining way.

With the Internet shaking up the typical journalism business model, journalists are uneasy about their future within traditional news organizations. Journalists’ solution for this changing media landscape? Becoming a brand on their own.

Journalists now have Twitter accounts and personal blogs. They have Facebook pages and YouTube channels. Journalists seem to be drawing a line between their personal work and interests and those of the newspaper, cable channel, or magazine for which they work. In the day of Glenn Beck and Jon Stewart, the loudest and most unique voices are the ones that are the most profitable. It becomes less about the company that you work for, because the Internet allows journalists to become their own publisher.

With this blurring line between the journalists’ personal and professional life, can we still reasonably expect objectivity? Is the public really expecting objective journalism? Is objectivity necessary for the public discourse, or is it just a marketing gimmick to preserve the authority of traditional news organizations? Can MSNBC really punish Keith Olbermann for donating to democratic candidates?

I think the public would be a lot more accepting of the idea that Olbermann the person and Olbermann the journalist are one in the same, and he holds ideas X, Y, and Z. The revered example of a Walter Kronkite figure is no longer attainable. And honestly, I think the public would be bored by a Kronkite in 2010.

Google Grants Try to Save the Dying Art of Journalism? – by “Casey B”

November 15, 2010 ~ bradevanrosen ~ Leave a comment

With the rise of online media and the decline of traditional print journalism, Google has often been attributed the lion’s share of the blame. The online giant aggregates content from across the web and places it at the reader’s fingertips, all while reaping the rewards of advertising revenue. The print media have been decrying this practice for years, and it seems that Google has finally heard their cries.

Well, sort of…

In an official blog post on October 26, 2010, Google announced it would be giving $5 million in grants to non-profit organizations in an attempt to encourage journalistic experimentation and innovation. The US foundation receiving $2 million of the grant money is the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Google specifically indicates that $1 million will be going toward the Knight News Challenge, a contest that awards funding based on proposals for “innovative ideas that develop platforms, tools and services to inform and transform community news, conversations and information distribution and visualization.”

However, it is interesting that Google chooses to cite the Knight-funded project DocumentCloud, “which aims to bring more investigative-reporting source material online so anyone can find and read it.” Even though Google is ostensibly trying to bolster the journalistic community, they still have a clear interest in freely accessible news available “so anyone can find and read it” – the very thing bemoaned by the journalism industry.

Looking at some of the 2010 Knights News Challenge winners, however, there seems to be some hope that the Google grant may one day achieve its intended goal.

PRX StoryMarket, a Boston, MA project by the Public Radio Exchange, is an intriguing plan that would allow anyone to propose and help fund stories reported on by the local public radio station. When enough funds are raised, the station will hire a journalist to cover the story. This model would provide the kind of interactivity that blog writers and readers value while still maintaining a professional journalism organization.

Another promising project is the WindyCitizen’s Real Time Ads, a Chicago, IL project by journalist Brad Flora. Real Time Ads is software intended to “help online startups become sustainable” by creating ads that will engage visitors by virtue of their constantly-changing content. This project seems to be geared toward helping the news organizations themselves form a model for ad revenue instead of relying on the old model of subscriptions.

While only time will tell if the Knight News Challenge projects will produce lasting models for modern media, it is certainly promising, if surprising, to see a giant like Google attempting to mitigate the havoc it has wrought upon traditional journalism.

New Journalism, Old Standards, and Polarized Media – by “Lucas W”

November 14, 2010 ~ bradevanrosen ~ Leave a comment

This past summer, conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart thought he had a big scoop on his site, BigGovernment.com. What he had instead was a media firestorm in the making.

The story began when Breitbart posted a video in which Shirley Sherrod, a black, Obama-appointed executive in the Georgia state USDA office, was giving a speech at a local NAACP dinner:

“You know, the first time I was faced with helping a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn’t know, while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him. I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland. And here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do.”

Almost immediately, news reports began popping up, in both “new media” sites online and on traditional news outlets, speaking about this reverse-racist Obama nominee. Drudge Report, Fox News, and conservative blogs ran the story with particular fervor. Secretary of Agriculture Vilsak essentially demanded that she resign, which she did within hours of the story leaking.

The one hiccup in all of this: the accusations were false. The speech was slyly edited to make it appear as if she was giving a different message than she was. In fact, the story was about how she overcame certain implicit racial tendencies. In the forty minutes of the speech that wasn’t distributed until days after the resignation, Ms. Sherrod stated:

“Working with him made me see that it’s really about those who have versus those who haven’t. They could be black, they could be white, they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to help poor people – those who don’t have access the way others have.”

Whether the video was edited/misconstrued by Brietbart or his undisclosed source—he insists that it is the latter—this episode shows one of the dangers of “new journalism.” While there are undoubtedly many of new journalists who hold themselves to traditional standards of integrity, there are no institutions to really enforce them. Sure, institutions of old media don’t always enforce these standards either (conservatives would point to the Dan Rather affair during the 2000’s; liberals, anything owned by Rupert Murdoch), but at least there is some structure that tries (or pretends) to hold reporters responsible. The only structural thing suppressing new journalists from leading with their biases or making sure they double check sources is the threat of readers leaving if they put out stories that aren’t up to par. Sounds great, right? Free market! But an increasing number of media consumers today are focused less on true quality of the reporting, but on the ideological slant of the content. Just ask the execs at Fox News and MSNBC. It is this polarized media environment that will ensure that people will continue to get their “news” from people like Breitbart.

If you want more information, check these out:

Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_of_Shirley_Sherrod

Brietbart’s original story: http://www.webcitation.org/5rbhsjhzR

Fox News’ coverage: http://www.webcitation.org/5rQUyfera

The full video of the speech: http://www.naacp.org/blog/entry/watch-the-shirley-sherrod-video-in-full/

Timeline of the affair: http://mediamatters.org/research/201007220004

Fact-checking or Fact-making? – by “JeeYoung K”

November 14, 2010 ~ bradevanrosen ~ Leave a comment

“The news is a form of collective thinking.” I am quoting Hong Eun-taek, the editor-in-chief of the biggest citizen-journalism site, Oh My News. I agree that there are many benefits to collective thinking. Every reader can be a writer, covering all sorts of stories that conventional media would not and could not cover. Every reader is a copy editor, checking facts and spelling errors. However, sometime I wonder if collective thinking can lead us to erroneous thinking.

Tablo (taken from http://www.soompi.com/news/the_end_of_the_tablo_controversy/page/3)

Tablo formed a band called Epikhigh and came out with their first album in 2003 in Korea. Even from debut, Tablo received much attention, not only because his music became very popular, but also because he had a BA and a MA from Stanford. Why would a musician’s academic credentials matter? I don’t know, but I guess it matters in a country where almost every year we hear the tragic news of high school seniors committing suicide over college admissions. However, his Stanford degree soon became the bane of his life.

Sometime this summer a few netizens raised doubts about Tablo’s academic credentials. Led by an internet café called Ta-jin-yo, meaning “We demand the Truth from Tablo”, the doubts spread like a wild-fire on the net. The story made the front page news on national newspapers and Tablo had to post his transcript and other legal documents to prove that he did graduate from Stanford. His friends from Stanford created a facebook page and posted their pictures from college. MBC, one of the three biggest TV stations in the nation even ran a two-part documentary with interviews with Stanford administrators and professors supporting Tablo’s claim. However, the Ta-jin-yo only grew in membership and according to Wikipedia members increase to as many as 190,000 in a few days. The controversy only stopped on October 9^th, when the police confirmed the authenticity of Tablo’s documents and filed an arrest warrant of “whatbecomes,” the manager of Ta-jin-yo. The whole nation was watching this story unfold. (Yes, even the president has been quoted expressing his sympathies to Tablo.)

Tablo’s transcript. The name on the transcript is his legal name. (taken from http://my.opera.com/add830330/blog/mysterious-and-weird-korean-alleged-genius-tablo)

I might be stretching the word a little bit if I were to call the members of Ta-jin-yo citizen journalists. But, the story does illustrate that the line between fact-checking and fact-making are thin. In theory, the wisdom of the crowd should create a self-correcting mechanism but sometimes it simply perpetuates self-fulfilling lies.

– by “Adam F”

November 10, 2010 ~ bradevanrosen ~ Leave a comment

One of the strangest paradoxes of social networking is that, in my experience, the people who have nothing to hide are most often the ones who are scared of people finding their dirty laundry.

Okay, okay. I’m talking about myself. But I’m talking about other people too! I got rid of my Facebook for a lot of reasons but the main one is that I don’t want people snooping around in my business and I don’t want my embarrassing moments saved forever on the internet.

The kids who actually have dirty laundry are all over the internet. Most of that crowd from high school, the girls who took pictures of themselves in their underwear and the “rasta” boys smoking weed all plastered their faces and their problems all over the internet. Granted, I’m now at an age where none of that would be a problem (except maybe the weed part), but my dislike for Facebook started when it was. This actually became a problem in my high school because the Peer Leaders, many of whom smoked and drank, had friended the teacher who ran the program. When Mr. K, the advisor and enforcer, looked through their pictures, he found a lot of problems. This led to a lot of angry and hurt students who just didn’t realize that taking shots on camera would be a problem (after they signed a contract saying they wouldn’t drink).

Most of the kids who elected to stay off Facebook were the ones who wouldn’t have had these kinds of problems anyway.

So it’s established. I don’t have a Facebook. I’m a little bit scared of social networking and I like being contrary. Great. No Facebook (had one once). No Myspace. No Twitter. I had a Xanga and posted twice. I have a Linkedin (which is slowly becoming my surrogate Facebook). I have a CollegeOnly which I logged into exactly once and probably never will again. No Tumblr. No Foursquare. Etc.

That said, I have been known to use Google Latitude, which is maybe the scariest of all.

Scarier, even, than Tim Curry's "Clown Phase" in the 90s

My phone, which is pretty new, keeps track of where I am at all times. AT ALL TIMES. It’s pretty cool though because if I eventually make a friend who also uses it (unlikely), we can keep track of each other. Instead of texting that girl that I’m crushing on (my limerent object if you will), I can just instantly check where she is. Awesome and not at all creepy.

Definitely not as creepy as Tim Curry hiding in a gutter

Programs like Google Latitude are at once terrifying but also exciting (and useful, I imagine). In all honesty, I can’t imagine a use for it. If I’m on my phone anyway, why couldn’t I just call my friend to find out where (s)he is? Maybe it would be good if I get trapped under a tree or something and someone has the foresight to think, “Hmm, where is Adam right now? Probably somewhere zany.” And then he or she stared at my location for long enough to realize I was in a forest and not moving. This situation is starting to sound more and more ridiculous.

More ridiculous than intellectual rights

I do love the idea of being able to find other people, but I don’t love the idea of being found. This is why I have the passwords to my friends’ Facebooks but I don’t have my own. I like to have all the knowledge without having to make a contribution. I like to invade privacy (when that privacy is up for grabs).

Maybe everyone should go off of Facebook. Everyone would be safer (certainly) and happier (maybe, but actually, probably not noticeable so). After all, for the one attractive picture posted of me on Facebook (when I had one), there were maybe 12 absolutely hideous ones posted as well. It is as if people have an uncontrollable urge to post terrible photos.

Had a facebook, I would have posted this.

Then again, how would I find out about dorm parties, house parties, and Toad’s parties? Good question. Maybe there is a safer way. Too bad I don’t have any ideas for what it is because then I’d probably be very wealthy very soon.