Category: Uncategorized

This article was developed in order to get the attention of individuals who are interested in the hashtag, #CancelColbert, which Suey Park developed. Park had a strong opinion on the racist slurs, regarding Asians, which Colbert referred to in his show. This led her to develop the hashtag, so that this topic could gain attention.

The article explains that Park received many negative responses regarding her opinions and the hashtag, because it simply shows her not being able to take a joke. It focuses on bringing light to the fact that people were hating on Park for no reason. The article also talks about how journalists who were involved in saying bad things about Park did it more for the power. Most of them believe that someone like Park doesn’t deserve to gain the attention on her opinions as much as she did, especially since she is a colored women. The author of the article, Julia Wong, believes that most journalists had the mindset of;  why does a nobody like Park get attention?

Wong also believes that the hate towards Park is unnecessary, since Park is just portraying her opinion. She hopes to reach journalists and other individuals who have posted negative comments, to let them know that they’re in the wrong. I believe that Wong is right, in the fact that people should be entitled to their opinions without having death threats thrown their way. It’s okay to disagree with someones opinions, but it’s not okay to threaten them and hate on them for the wrong reasons.

I have seen people say negative things towards others for no reason whatsoever. I don’t think it’s okay to do so, and feel that the people that hate on others don’t do it for the right reasons. They are most likely insecure in their own ways. I appreciate the fact that Wong posted her opinion on the hate towards Park and didn’t worry about what others would say to her. My question regards whether or not the people who post negative comments towards Park have any reasons other than the fact that they feel she can’t take a joke.

Following Michael Brown’s shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, Twitter exploded with tweets on #Ferguson to raise awareness of the incident and to have people comment on it.  In addition, #BlackLivesMatter was created before in response to Trayvon Martin’s death.  #BlackLivesMatter was a call to action to recognize and change how black people are unfairly treated in society, and the hashtag gained support after Michael Brown’s shooting.

While the hashtags were initially used to raise awareness about the shooting incidents and call for social change, I’ve noticed that numerous people have been using those hashtags to push their own, often opposing ideas.  Since then, both hashtag feeds have unintentionally evolved into ideological battlegrounds.  If I had to define an audience for #Ferguson, the audience would be anyone who has at least a mild stance in the Ferguson debate.  It seems as if everyone on Twitter is trying to convince the other side of one “correct” idea.  I was looking under all tweets related to Ferguson, and it was quite overwhelming.

Reading Twitter is quite different from reading anything else.  Each tweet only communicates a single, simple idea.  Many people still call for change and recognition of black treatment.  Many others say that police officers and white people are left out of the debate unfairly.  And still some people are accusing others of using Ferguson for their political motives, and they don’t actually care about social change.  While these tweets often present real-life evidence, I’ve found that most of them either exist in a vacuum, or they seem to ignore the other sides of the debate entirely.  Because tweets are so short, they don’t look effective for complex arguments.  Yet, by looking at so many tweets, I can tell that most of them are trying to argue one idea to the other side.  The other purpose, undertaken by a few people, is simply to raise awareness of new events.  The current story is that four journalists were arrested in Ferguson, and now they are suing the police for unwarranted arrest.

If there’s one thing I appreciated by looking at the #Ferguson and #BlackLivesMatter, it’s that tweeters(?) often tag similar events that also warrant attention.  Besides the journalist story, people on #BlackLivesMatter have tagged #itsmymall, about a recent protest at the Mall of America and how the mall had responded to it.  I also saw #FreePalestine, where there is also anti-black racism worth paying attention to.

These hashtags don’t connect to me personally, but I’ve seen it all before.  I recognize that Twitter is great for raising awareness about an issue, but too often the debate degenerates into attacking the other side, regardless of good or bad reasons.  Some people seek compromise, but most commenters can’t accept that the other side could possibly be correct.

My question is that when a local incident like Ferguson happens, why don’t most people look at the trends of the country as a whole?  Or if they do, is there often a lot of disagreement as to what those trends are and what they affect?

The Ferguson hashtag tweets are a collection of tweets which contain the phrase “#Ferguson”.  This hashtag began trending after the death of unarmed black child Michael Brown at the hands of an armed, white police officer.  Riots broke out as people stormed to Ferguson, Missouri as people wanted to bring attention to the issue of police brutality; specifically brutality of white police officers on black citizens.  When the riots broke out police responded by bringing in very serious support to the point that the issue of police militarization began to be discussed.  The police force had brought tanks, assault rifles, tear gas, and a number of other military grade weaponry.  While the riots were going on reporters flocked to the area and many were arrested trying to capture news of the incident.  During this whole ordeal the hashtag #ferguson took off and became the number one trending topic on twitter nationwide.  People were able to keep up to date by the thousands of people in the city that were live tweeting events as they occurred.  These were mixed in with people that felt the need to give their opinions on the events as they had unfolded.

There appeared to be a pretty even split as to those that agreed with the police officers in regards to self preservation and trying to quell the violence and rioting and those that believed that the officer had acted too far in taking the life of an unarmed black boy.  This stemmed another disagreement which was how blacks vs whites are portrayed by the media.  Some stations made Mike Brown appear to be a thug and a criminal mainly noting the fact that he had just robbed a convenience store prior to being killed by the police officer.  Yet still other stations posted the image of Mike Browns high school graduation photo and mainly noted how he was shot six times when he was dead after the first shot.  This lead to the creation of another hashtag; #IfTheyGunnedMeDown.  Under this hashtag people of all races posted a picture of themselves looking successful and professional (usually a graduation picture) next to a picture of them posing in an unprofessional manner such as drinking, smoking, holding up their middle finger, or at a party.  The purpose of this was to emphasize that when whites are killed or even kill others they generally had positive pictures shown and are described as “mentally disturbed” while black people that are killed are made out to look like thugs.

The #Ferguson hashtag was meant to gather all of the tweets about Ferguson in the same place making it easier for people in a different area to follow the events as they unfolded.  In addition to this it allowed people to easily spread their opinion on each event in real time.  Without Twitter this event would not have gained the same media attention and amount of outrage.  People have never been able to react and interact as immediately and effectively as they did during the events at Ferguson.

I appreciated the ease at which everybody’s opinion could be viewed.  Also the fact that it allowed for the information to be immediately spread and viewed by everybody changed the way that the events unfolded.  I can directly relate to this because I actively use Twitter so when people started using #Ferguson I interacted directly as it happened.  The question that I am left with after going through these hashtags and links is: why is violence and hatred so prevalent in our society?

This article seems to be written by twitter users for twitter users.  Being just a preface followed by what is effectively a screenshot of a twitter conversation, anyone who dislikes reading twitter posts will end up ignoring most of the article.  The discussion being on twitter also provided a specific perspective from the respondents.  Being a Q&A session more than an article, the article lacked a definite thesis but the respondents’ general opinion was towards the idea that hashtag activism encourages awareness which can be beneficial to its cause.  The objective of this piece was to create a more exact representation of what twitter activists think about their efforts and what they think those efforts can achieve.

I enjoyed the method of asking questions about twitter on twitter, polling the people trying to create change on what they think they are accomplishing.  The deliberate inclusion of twitter activist Stacia Brown was a simple way to ensure that activists’ opinions were heard.  Some of the hashtags mentioned in the article I remember being popular, the #Kony2012 and #BringBackOurGirls being subjects, if not hashtags I remember.  Many of the participants say that those that don’t see the tangible effects of hashtag activism don’t understand the idea, but then those people fail to elaborate on what the idea is.  Considering the conversation is on twitter, I can understand their brevity, but what is their interpretation of the idea of hashtag activism?

This piece addressed an audience of organizations who have adopted the term Black Lives Matter and transformed it into something different. Garza is frustrated at the people who have taken a movement for a specific race and made it about other races, with no respect to the creation of the movement. Audience is all races across the country but Garza only talks about the importance of the Black race in this context of the recent events of Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, and Michael Brown. This piece was published in a feminist news site. Garza also mentions the how Black queer women are especially underrepresented and basically invisible. This also points the audience toward the female gender. Garza does not intend for this article to be just for women, but the actual audience is probably more females.

The main idea for this article is to discuss the movement of Black Lives Matter. Garza argues that in this context of racism and oppression of the black race, only Black lives matter. She gets frustrated at the spinoffs of #BlackLivesMatter that brings to light other races. Although all races are important, Black lives have been oppressed, assaulted, manipulated, and abused. This project is to bring those to light and to change that.  All women, male, children, queer, trans whoa are Blacks have been abused and we need to do something about it. Once Black people gain complete freedom, liberation for all we ensue.

The goal for this article was to stop the evolution of #BlackLivesMatter into something other than the original project to stop the white supremacy over Black lives that plagues the nation. Garza wanted her audience to understand that the movement that she started is a call to action for the Black race because of the oppression and misrepresentation of Black lives. Even in this project, Garza saw the hetero-patriarchal effect on events and organizations who wanted to take on the #BlackLivesMatter movement. This article is supposed to stir up the audience in advocating for the injustices to stop and to reach freedom for the Black race.

I did not especially agree with this article because of the complete dismissal of other races. Bascially, Garza says that only Black lives matter at the moment. Which at an extent, it is true. With the recent events that point toward the mistreatment of Black people, there is a need for a movement. However, her frustration of organizations and other movements that followed her example of the #BlackLivesMatter is frustrating to me. #BlackLivesMatter trended for many days and became a large part of social media, so why not use this trend to bring equality to other issues. Garza is very one sided and in a way “selfish” saying that Black equality has to come first then other freedom can follow. Maybe what we need in this country is to start small and gain equality in a smaller movement and then move into a large goal of eliminating anti-Black racism. Although, I appreciated Garza’s argument of finding freedom for all gender, nationality, sexuality and disability. Typically, the argument brought up is just about the how Black males are viewed as violent and inferior. However, Garza pulled in sexuality, gender and disability into the equation of mistreatment and inferiority in the Black community. I don’t have much experience with this movement, but I do remember a hashtag that was brought up that caused controversy. The #AllLivesMatter started up after #BlackLivesMatter started to trend. I see how the new hashtag belittles the importance and effect that the Black Lives Matter movement. However, we can’t forget about other races that are facing similar oppression and abuse. Why does the equality of Black lives come before all other races, nationalities under oppression?

This article was directed toward the general public. Most people have no idea about the use of hashtags in twitter activism. The audience in this text is for those in United States to acknowledge the use of Twitter. People don’t realize how much effect that Twitter has in daily life, trends, and popularity of a topic. The author, Zeynep Tufekci, writes in this article how Twitter uses the popularity of hashtag to create a trending national topic. This is to educate the general public about the effect algorithmic filtering, lack of net neutrality and the internet in general. This article was written on a blogging platform that gives writers a free space to write story. This blogging platform, Medium, was founded by Twitter co-founders with the purpose of creating better content for social justice. This is very easily searchable on Google and other search engines. Anyone can find this articles/blogs on Medium. This article was published on August 14, 2014 a few days after the shooting of Michael Brown. Many people around the nation wanted to know about what was happening around Ferguson. I’m sure that this article popped on many searches to people around the nation during the time of the riots and protests in Ferguson.

The algorithm filtering that causes trends on social media is partially what made the Ferguson national news. The repetitive use of #Ferguson on Twitter put the Ferguson as a national trending news. The use of hashtags of Ferguson is what put Ferguson as a trend, but the same filtering algorithm that made Ferguson trend on Twitter causes a lack of net neutrality. Some things that only trend locally will stay local and not allow for the voiceless to be heard. They will get “filtered” out. Facebook has a filtering algorithm. Tufekci said that the night that Ferguson started trending Facebook feed were pretty quiet. However in the morning, posts were discovered written last night about Ferguson. Facebook’s algorithm had filtered those post out. As the more people engaged in the topic, more posts began to show up. Overall, Tufekci’s main idea in this article is how filter algorithms can effect social media positively and negatively. These algorithms now play a large role in our lives now.

The goal of this article is to educate the public about the net neutrality and algorithmic filtering and its effect on Ferguson. This article starts out with a small introduction to net neutrality. Tufekci introduces it as “a human rights issue; a free speech issue; and an issue of the voiceless being heard”. The author partially wants those who read this article to understand and advocate for net neutrality. However, Tufekci moves along quickly to algorithmic filtering and its effect on Ferguson. Though it did not directly change the actions surrounding Ferguson, it put the spotlight on the policing and race. Ferguson became a nationwide topic for weeks, but Tufekci wants the audience to analyze and understand why that is. She wants the audience to challenge and question the use of algorithmic filtering. Though she sees the positive effects that filters can have, she knows that it does not give everybody equality, where social media can control our thoughts.

I really enjoyed this article because I am especially interested in the events in Ferguson. I had never though that Twitter could be a cause of the blowup of #Ferguson. One social media where all races align in support each other. I appreciated how Tufekci mentioned both positive and negative effects of filtering algorithms. It really does puzzle me about how racial profiling and racism still occurs. It is rooted in our culture from the history of our country, but we seems to be stuck in the past. Though I never had to go through any racial hate, I see how it affects my friends in job applications, college applications and so on. They have to struggle and prove themselves more than others. Why does race have to be an issue? What would happen if no one had a designated race?

The article “The Laborers Who Keep Dick Pics and Beheadings Out of Your Facebook Feed” was written by Adrian Chen and published on wired.com in October of 2014.  This piece was written with the intended audience of any person that uses the internet on a regular basis with the intended purpose of making them think about the amount of effort that is put into filtering what they see on social media sites on a daily basis.  A lot of the work that is completed by these people goes entirely unnoticed as not only are the results difficult to visualize, but it is also generally completed in another country entirely.

The main idea of this text is that the labor that is done by large tech companies is not necessarily completed in the well publicized great conditions of the headquarters of these companies in silicon valley, but rather for very poor pay with tremendous adverse side effects.  Much of this filtering labor is completed in the Philippines as they have a culture that is very similar to the culture of the US due to the fact that they used to be a colony of the US.  These laborers are very poorly compensated and work under terrible conditions.  However, sometimes this filtering process takes place on American soil in the nice offices that people generally hear about.  There are still terrible side effects.  The psychological effects of looking at such dark imagery for such extended periods of time are not exactly known and vary from person to person, but can be similar to PTSD in there severity.

Something that I enjoyed from this article was how they included information about the terrible physical conditions of workers in other countries as well as information about the terrible mental conditions of workers in the US that have desirable physical conditions.  The reason that I enjoyed this was because it made me think of my own experience using social media.  Around two years ago I noticed a severe increase in the amount of gore and pornography that appeared on my Facebook feed whether it was due to somebody being hacked and accidentally sharing said videos or others actually sharing them.  Then after a few months there was almost a complete disappearance of these severe videos.  After reading this article it made sense to me as I began to realize and appreciate the effort that had gone into completing such a tremendous task.  In the past I had simply assumed either people had stopped posting them or a computer was going through posts and automatically tagging and deleting sensitive posts.

One question that I am left with after reading this article is how can we find a way to filter this dark imagery without subjecting the human mind to what basically qualifies as mental torture?

This news article, published in The Guardian in 2013, was written by Aditya Chakrabortty. She writes about the incident concerning Tian Yu, a Foxconn employee, throwing herself out of her factory dormitory in southern China. For about a month, Yu has worked on parts for Apple iPhones and iPads. These products end up in British and American homes. The audience that this article is trying to reach is anyone in Britain or America that owns an iPhone or an iPad. Chakrabortty wants to show us Apple users how the product is really made and how the people that make the product are treated. That year (2010), 18 other workers younger than 25, attempted suicide. Reporters tried to find out what was going on in Apple’s supply chain. They found out how bad the conditions were, but nothing was ever done to really make a change. Foxconn workers rarely spoke out. Yu was interviewed and it showed us how these companies rely on “a human battery farming system” that employs young, poor migrants from China. They crowd them into terrible working conditions, force them to work long hours and kick out the ones who can’t keep up. Yu jumped out of the window when her bosses didn’t pay her months labor wages.

This article highlights how badly workers are treated by Foxconn just to make the products that us Americans and Britain use. It also shows us how not much is being done to change this. Apple CEO Tim Cook called on Foxconn to improve their working conditions, but no records show him providing monetary assistance. Yu received a “humanitarian payment” but just like her father said, they were basically buying and selling a thing to make the situation go away. We need to be aware that the products we are using everyday are made by innocent and mistreated people that are so young in age, and no one is actively doing anything about it.

The goal of this article is to raise American and British awareness of the Foxconn mistreatment of its workers. Since Apple is such a huge company, this article applies to millions of people. It definitely tries to pull at the emotions of its audience because we are holding these products everyday that were made by depressed and hopeless workers. Imagine holding your iPad that was made by someone who committed suicide after Foxconn pushed them towards desperation. It’s definitely not a good feeling to have, which is why this article is trying to get people to realize that Apple needs to change how Foxconn is treating their workers, and we need to initiate that change.

I thought that this piece was very eye opening. I never knew how badly the conditions were and how many young workers committed suicide because of it. Tian Yu opening up about her experience was definitely shocking to read and the fact that Apple has not been actively trying to change things shows me that all they care about is pumping out as many products as possible each day. I appreciated how Chakrabortty incorporated a real story about Yu into the article. It made it more emotional and really hit home how the products your holding may be amazing, but the way they are made is not. This connects to my own experience because I have an iPhone and an iPad and just thinking about who made my product back in China is scary. There needs to be something done about this because no worker should have to go through what these young Chinese migrants are going through. A question I would like to ask would be, how would we go about making this change, especially when Apple refuses to answer questions regarding this? It’s a tough situation and I think in order to make a change happen, we need as many people involved as possible, which this article is getting at.

This video was posted about four years ago in December of 2010, when fifteen Foxconn workers in the first five months of 2010 committed suicide.  This drew international attention about the terrible working conditions at Foxconn’s facilities, and the video shows a group of students investigating Foxconn.  This video was likely created to further inform the public about the company’s inner workings, and it is especially relevant to those who buy products from Apple, Microsoft, HP, Sony, and the many other companies that manufacture there.

The main message of “Deconstructing Foxconn” is that Foxconn has committed deplorable and illegal acts toward its employees, and a group of students is looking into Foxconn’s management, salaries, and employees’ lives.

The purpose of this video is mainly to expose Foxconn’s inner workings and amoral practices, but from the way the video is made, it is also meant to have viewers sympathize with the workers.  This may move some people into taking action to hold Foxconn responsible and improve working conditions.  At the very least this video raises awareness about the company.

Something I appreciated about “Deconstructing Foxconn” was its video clips of people, presumably workers, in China carrying on seemingly normal lives.  This serves to humanize the workers, and it reminds viewers that they are human beings with real needs and dreams.  The music in the background seems to represent the thoughts in the back of their minds throughout the day.  It’s actually communicates quite a bit.

The first time I heard about Foxconn was on the gaming website Screwattack.com where someone made a post detailing the then-recent suicides at Foxconn.  I remember being taken aback because I hadn’t known that Foxconn manufactured electronics for Apple and other companies.  As I read on in the post, I felt terrible because I liked the electronics, and I was contributing to these corrupt business practices.  I knew that demand for those products was too great, though, and I felt I couldn’t possibly change anything then.  It was upsetting news, and while the name “Foxconn” always stuck around in my head, the incident kind of faded away online.

I’ve done some searching online, and I can’t seem to find anything on their employee treatment past 2012.  Have they ameliorated their issues, or have people just stopped looking forward to them.  Also, Foxconn was apparently one of the better places to work at in China; has anything been done about other, worse-off facilities?

Aditya Chakrabortty begins by analyzing Foxconn right away. Chakrabortty mentions right away how Foxconn is Apple’s number 1 supplier. Although Foxconn also supplies to Samsung, Sony, and Dell, the emphasis is put on the production of iPhones, iPads, and other Apple gadgets. This direct emphasis on Apple productions shows that Chakrabortty intends the article for Americans and Britons. A large portion of Americans and Britons have at least one apple product if not more, such as iPhones, iPad, and laptops. This article was published in the guardian which is a prominent Briton magazine that also circulates in the United States.

Chakrabortty wanted to illustrate the conditions of the workers in Foxconn that lead to multiple suicides and Tian Yu’s attempted suicide. The cluster of suicides together in 2010 lead to an investigation of Foxconn by reporters. Interviews of the workers revealed the bad conditions in Foxconn’s Longhua facility.

Through this article, Chakrabortty wanted to inform the readers about the horrible conditions that bring many Americans and Britons their Apple products. At the end of the article, Chakrabortty mentions how Apple could not “discuss” matters with him, giving him the run around to other offices. Even though Apple’s CEO Tim Cook said he would strive to make Foxconn improve working conditions. However, no money recorded was provided to improve conditions in Foxconn. In addition, Tian Yu received a “humanitarian payment” to help her go home, like Foxconn was “buying and selling a thing.” Chakrabortty wants to inform his audience about what they are buying and the process of how it is made. Things we have every day come at a large price to others. In a way, Chakrabortty is holding us responsible for this tragedy of Tian Yu. Although, the author does not challenge us to change these conditions, but he leaves the opportunity open.

I enjoyed how Chakrabortty analyzed the Foxconn and held the readers slightly responsible through the Apple products we own. This was a very tragic experience to Tian Yu which probably happened to hundreds and thousands of other people too. This is something we as consumers never think about or want to think about. This article forces us to confront this directly through its title, “The woman who nearly died making your iPad.” I felt partly responsible for the suicide attempts because of America’s great demand for Apple products. I currently have an iPhone and use it frequently. In college, we see many students around with iPhones and mac books.

A question I have is how much of a difference will there have to be in administration or law that caused for Foxconn to happen in China as opposed to United States. Why are there no enforcements that stop the bad conditions for happening? How does this differ in the United States?