I would have preferred to not write a blog about Facebook this week, since I know the topic has been brought up so much already this semester. I wonder how different this class was before social networking! :) But this article popped up on Yahoo today and it was way too good to pass up.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Prompt-punishment-for-Pittsburgh-pierogi-who-pil?urn=mlb,249782
So the pierogi guy who makes $25 a game/4 times a month running in the mascot race goes on facebook and says this about the Pittsburgh Pirates, who write those checks,"(His message was) aimed at team president Frank Coonelly, general manager Neal Huntington and manager John Russell. It read: 'Coonelly extended the contracts of Russell and Huntington through the 2011 season. That means a 19-straight losing streak. Way to go Pirates.””
As a fan he has every right to write that message. As an employee he does not have that right in my opinion. It is one thing to talk bad about your boss, because we all have done it, it is another thing to post it on your facebook profile. It would be interesting to know if employees have to sign a confidentiality clause or agree to not make disparaging remarks against the team. Not sure if the page was set to private and a “friend” ratted him out, or his was open to the public. So needless to say he lost his job over it.
I am sure these cases happen every single day and you just wonder why? I know I often vent frustration through status updates, but I would never write anything derogatory about my boss or another employee. Best case scenario: people read your message and move on. Then was it really worth posting online? Worst case scenario: the wrong people read the comment and you end up losing your job. Then it really wasn’t woth posting it. Privacy settings are there to protect users, but there comes a time when common sense about your posting practices should overshadow even the highest of privacy settings.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Blog 4: Access for all? Not in North Carolina.
I am always envious of those living in large towns where internet providers are limitless, which helps keep the bill down. Living in a town with EXACTLY ONE option for high speed internet and phone service I am always excited when I read about new national broadband initiatives. Well the opposite was the case this week. North Carolina State Senate passing a new broadband bill that places a 14-month moratorium on cities and towns that want to build their own high-speed broadband networks. It is so frustrating to see state representatives fighting to basically keep equal access unavailable to many of its constituents.
http://www.mountainx.com/blogwire/2010/senate_passes_broadband_bill_a_killer_for_cities
As we discuss access to technology being available to everyone this week during class, it is a shame that it probably never will be that way. When your internet connection is limited, so is your ability to communicate with the rest of the world. While I may be able to upload a PDF file in a relatively fast manner for a class assignment, many people do not have that option. Can you imagine downloading songs or apps for your new iPad if you live in rural North Carolina? It would probably be so much frustration you wouldn’t even care to buy one. I can’t imagine technology companies who require their products to have high speed connections are happy with these rulings. Sure satellite internet access is usually available in most areas, but usually at extremely high costs, which makes it unavailable for most rural communities. Before we made an offer on our current house a few months ago, I had to find out if high speed was available. I made this call before I called about any other utilities and their prices, so I know it becomes one of the top priorities in many families’ day to day lives.
So why would you the North Carolina Senate pass this bill (it has not been passed in the House yet)? If I had to guess I would say it is the doing of the telecommunications companies. The telecom companies want to keep competitors out of the area, so they grease the hands of the senators to ensure ideas of broadband expansion go nowhere. There are so many hoops to jump through that it would be an almost useless fight for smaller cities and towns to even try to get such measures approved.
The biggest shame in it for me is the realization that while we can talk about expanding our horizons and making technology available to everyone, big business still controls our country and probably always will. So much for “equal and unlimited access.”
Christine
http://www.mountainx.com/blogwire/2010/senate_passes_broadband_bill_a_killer_for_cities
As we discuss access to technology being available to everyone this week during class, it is a shame that it probably never will be that way. When your internet connection is limited, so is your ability to communicate with the rest of the world. While I may be able to upload a PDF file in a relatively fast manner for a class assignment, many people do not have that option. Can you imagine downloading songs or apps for your new iPad if you live in rural North Carolina? It would probably be so much frustration you wouldn’t even care to buy one. I can’t imagine technology companies who require their products to have high speed connections are happy with these rulings. Sure satellite internet access is usually available in most areas, but usually at extremely high costs, which makes it unavailable for most rural communities. Before we made an offer on our current house a few months ago, I had to find out if high speed was available. I made this call before I called about any other utilities and their prices, so I know it becomes one of the top priorities in many families’ day to day lives.
So why would you the North Carolina Senate pass this bill (it has not been passed in the House yet)? If I had to guess I would say it is the doing of the telecommunications companies. The telecom companies want to keep competitors out of the area, so they grease the hands of the senators to ensure ideas of broadband expansion go nowhere. There are so many hoops to jump through that it would be an almost useless fight for smaller cities and towns to even try to get such measures approved.
The biggest shame in it for me is the realization that while we can talk about expanding our horizons and making technology available to everyone, big business still controls our country and probably always will. So much for “equal and unlimited access.”
Christine
Monday, June 7, 2010
Blog 3: When Walmart Comes To Town
Whew…Blogger must have not been liking me this weekend…but now I am at work and it seems to be letting me post…so here it goes!
Take a moment and read this article. Then, really think about what you just read.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280414218878150.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_business
I know we all are supposed to hate Walmart because of their business practices and everything else. (My reasoning right now is because my Walmart decided not to honor internet coupons, but let’s not get me started on that!) All that being said, I still do a majority of my shopping each month for groceries and household supplies at Walmart, because frankly I like the convenience and I like keeping more of my money than I would at other stores. But I often think about the local businesses that are negatively affected each time a new Walmart Supercenter is opened.
Well the town of Mundelein, Illinois did their best to keep Walmart out. Even though all of the protests and petitions were held by concerned citizens, it was really major corporations that are Walmart’s competitors in the area funding all of the lawsuits. I think the residents truly were concerned about the negative effects of a Walmart, but the fired was really fueled by Saint Consulting doing the dirty work for the companies they represented. All that ended up happening out of this was three years of legality play, lost revenue for the city, citizens having the wool pulled over their eyes, and the Walmart still was built.
Many of our discussions this week centered around Facebook and I wonder if it has the same type of situation. Facebook is there, but you don’t have to join if you don’t like it or are opposed to their stands on issues such a privacy rights. But everyone should have the right to join if they so wish. I know plenty of people who NEVER go to Walmart and that is their choice, but does that mean the rest of the community needs to go without? I don’t hardly think so. Walmart wasn’t breaking any laws by wanting to build, it’s not like it was a giant coal plant setting up shop in the middle of town. Maybe I am being unsympathetic to those citizens who complain, but I just feel as long as companies are able to produce the right permits, who am I to stop them from coming to town?
Thanks,
Christine
Take a moment and read this article. Then, really think about what you just read.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280414218878150.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_business
I know we all are supposed to hate Walmart because of their business practices and everything else. (My reasoning right now is because my Walmart decided not to honor internet coupons, but let’s not get me started on that!) All that being said, I still do a majority of my shopping each month for groceries and household supplies at Walmart, because frankly I like the convenience and I like keeping more of my money than I would at other stores. But I often think about the local businesses that are negatively affected each time a new Walmart Supercenter is opened.
Well the town of Mundelein, Illinois did their best to keep Walmart out. Even though all of the protests and petitions were held by concerned citizens, it was really major corporations that are Walmart’s competitors in the area funding all of the lawsuits. I think the residents truly were concerned about the negative effects of a Walmart, but the fired was really fueled by Saint Consulting doing the dirty work for the companies they represented. All that ended up happening out of this was three years of legality play, lost revenue for the city, citizens having the wool pulled over their eyes, and the Walmart still was built.
Many of our discussions this week centered around Facebook and I wonder if it has the same type of situation. Facebook is there, but you don’t have to join if you don’t like it or are opposed to their stands on issues such a privacy rights. But everyone should have the right to join if they so wish. I know plenty of people who NEVER go to Walmart and that is their choice, but does that mean the rest of the community needs to go without? I don’t hardly think so. Walmart wasn’t breaking any laws by wanting to build, it’s not like it was a giant coal plant setting up shop in the middle of town. Maybe I am being unsympathetic to those citizens who complain, but I just feel as long as companies are able to produce the right permits, who am I to stop them from coming to town?
Thanks,
Christine
Monday, May 31, 2010
Post 2 Mobile Access
We were gone this past weekend so when I get home I always like to catch up on the newspapers. I still hadn’t found my “it” article for this week’s blog, so I was hoping to find inspiration. Well low and behold here it is.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/05/27/2010-05-27_child_porn_social_networking_site_busted_by_feds_once_had_1000_members.html
It seems like every time I try to defend intellectual freedom and social networking, something else happens whether it be privacy issues or serious illegal activity such as the case here. Basically, if you have not heard yet, an investigation has been ongoing into a social networking site that was used to share fantasies, pictures, and advice for adults looking to have sexual relationships with children. The site is said to have had over 1000 members and was run by a sexual offender in prison in England. Sadly, only 35 members have been convicted of crimes so far. The big news this week was that the site was officially shut down.
So after reading this article I was literally sick to my stomach and wondered what could be done to help protect children in my community from such crimes. Intellectual freedom is wonderful, but as long as that freedom is not based on illegal activities. It is so scary to think what parents could be missing while their child surfs the internet. It is so easy to end up in the wrong place.
My thoughts today go to portable internet devices such as phones and iPods. While parents can limit what their children see online at home with available filters and search histories, how can you be assured your child is staying safe if you can’t even keep up with all of their technological habits? Maybe you told them to get off the computer, but who’s to say as soon as they go to their bedroom they haven’t jumped on the wifi with their iPod and are surfing all night long? We have quite a few kids who come to the library and are on the internet on their phone or more often their iPod touch. While our internet has filters, the local coffee shop may not offer the same protection.
It has made me think that maybe it is time to offer internet safety courses at the library, and have those classes focus on mobile web applications rather than the desktop or laptop. Accessing information is changing and we all need to do our best to continue to protect our patrons/families from harm.
Christine
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/05/27/2010-05-27_child_porn_social_networking_site_busted_by_feds_once_had_1000_members.html
It seems like every time I try to defend intellectual freedom and social networking, something else happens whether it be privacy issues or serious illegal activity such as the case here. Basically, if you have not heard yet, an investigation has been ongoing into a social networking site that was used to share fantasies, pictures, and advice for adults looking to have sexual relationships with children. The site is said to have had over 1000 members and was run by a sexual offender in prison in England. Sadly, only 35 members have been convicted of crimes so far. The big news this week was that the site was officially shut down.
So after reading this article I was literally sick to my stomach and wondered what could be done to help protect children in my community from such crimes. Intellectual freedom is wonderful, but as long as that freedom is not based on illegal activities. It is so scary to think what parents could be missing while their child surfs the internet. It is so easy to end up in the wrong place.
My thoughts today go to portable internet devices such as phones and iPods. While parents can limit what their children see online at home with available filters and search histories, how can you be assured your child is staying safe if you can’t even keep up with all of their technological habits? Maybe you told them to get off the computer, but who’s to say as soon as they go to their bedroom they haven’t jumped on the wifi with their iPod and are surfing all night long? We have quite a few kids who come to the library and are on the internet on their phone or more often their iPod touch. While our internet has filters, the local coffee shop may not offer the same protection.
It has made me think that maybe it is time to offer internet safety courses at the library, and have those classes focus on mobile web applications rather than the desktop or laptop. Accessing information is changing and we all need to do our best to continue to protect our patrons/families from harm.
Christine
Sunday, May 23, 2010
When the person becomes bigger than the issue...
When I think about the basic truths of intellectual freedom, one of this biggest aspects to me is the ability to express your concerns but also be aware of other’s around you. Much is the case with internet filtering, banned books and the freedom to read. So I started thinking about stories I had read this week about others making themselves bigger than the cause they are fighting for. This all came to my mind when reading about PABBIS from our class material this week. PABBIS seems to make themselves bigger than the cause they are fighting, which in my mind, takes credibility away from their efforts.
This past week, Vanessa Bryant, wife of Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant and part Hispanic, was seen sitting right behind the team’s bench during a playoff game wearing a shirt that read “Do I look illegal?” to protest the new Arizona immigration law requiring proper identification for all residents. It was a big story because Kobe’s coach Phil Jackson refused to comment when asked about what he thought about the new law while the team is playing the Phoenix Suns in the playoffs. I thought it was an odd time to be protesting while her husband is busy playing for the Lakers, who pay him quite well, and Mrs. Bryant is busy making a political statement right in the middle of the game. Was it more about attention to the issue or attention for herself?
While I am in no way objecting to her right to protest, I do wonder about the stage she chose. You can read a brief piece about it here.
The part that really struck me was the fact that just a few months ago Mrs. Bryant was sued in a legal battle, which is still ongoing, with a Hispanic maid the family employed due to Mrs. Bryant’s mistreatment of her.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/26/local/me-kobe-housekeeper26
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/26/local/me-kobe-housekeeper26
So my thought is, much like with PABBIS, how as librarians do we handle patrons who are more interested in making a name for themselves by questioning a book or a library practice, rather than the true objection to the material? What happens when the protest goes over your head as the librarian to say the newspaper as a letter to the editor where it becomes publicized before you even have a chance to respond? It is in cases like these I am very thankful that ALA has set forth guidelines to help aid librarians and library boards when it comes to making difficult decisions on materials and other objected issues.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
