A few days before Mother’s Day, Twitter released a great dose of self-deprecating humor with its ad urging users to get off Twitter and call their mothers. The video depicts a man typing a tweet to his mom wishing her a happy “Mom’s Day, LOL,” while the narrator screams at him to close the app and actually dial her number.

It was very refreshing to see that social networks understand and take full responsibility for changing our society and making us addicted to tweeting, updating, posting, tagging and hashtagging. Among many solutions to getting out of the filter bubble, Eli Pariser mentions that corporations themselves have the power to change algorithms and loosen the limits on personalization. While this seems like a great idea, I was skeptical about its effectiveness: attracting more users would generate higher revenues after all. This ad proves me wrong; Twitter understands its ability to “zombify” our society to constantly use the network and also has equal power to “un-zombify” us. I’m not sure if ads like these would produce long term results, but its existence alone put a smile on my face.

When I read the small write-up under the video though, my smile kind of disappeared. When you search #MothersDay on Twitter, you wil apparently stumble upon a video from Google+ prompting users to take advantage of the service to send electronic “Happy LOL Mom’s Day” type of messages to their mothers. So now it’s just confusing….which ad do we trust!? Are electronic messages silly and impersonal or are they the new “Hallmark Cards”!?

Watch the Twitter video: http://mashable.com/2013/05/10/twitter-mothers-day/

I found this interesting article that, judging from the title alone, was supposed to be about the new Android interface called Facebook Home. However, I ended up learning about all the intricate connections all these mobile providers and social network launchers have among each other in order to gain popularity and increase revenues. So Facebook Home is just another way for Facebook to target Android users by giving them an option to access Facebook and interact through it easier and faster. This is all a part of Zuckerberg’s effort to prevent Google+ from becoming the number one social network for Android, as it was noticeably gaining popularity.

Taking a step back: Facebook works closely with Google to integrate the “Like” feature into almost every webpage, Google would need to include Facebook as an app if it ever chose to release a phone and Android needs to work with both to satisfy user demands and preferences. Then there is Apple: the main competitor for both Google and Facebook. Apple doesn’t really need a social network because it includes apps for almost every other social network in the world. So in reality, this competition over specific users of specific social networks on specific phones just seems silly to me. I do believe that social network providers need to constantly evolve and release updates to keep their current customers interested and keep up strong reputations, but learning about all the connections between these competitors was neat.

Read the full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-network/media-network-blog/2013/may/08/facebook-home-mobile-social-network

I heard most girls say that the downside to Google Glass is the appearance. At first glance, it is an awkwardly shaped piece of eyewear that could be called anything but practical. To be honest, the overly futuristic look doesn’t appeal to me either. However, I do believe that the second Google Glass gains presence in the fashion or entertainment industries, it is going to turn into a trend and soon evolve into a normal part of our everyday outfits. Finding this article, I discovered that these futuristic glasses have already been seen on the runway at the Diane Von Furstenberg’s last show. So now it is only a matter of time before they hit the editorials and soon become an in-demand fashion accessory.

To veer away from the fashion side of Google Glass, this article talks a lot about wearable technology: body scan fittings, color-changing fabrics and a “hashtag generated scent”. Now this isn’t the cool transformer fashions previously presented by Hussein Chalayan; I find these fashionable innovations personally alarming. The article mentions, and I do agree, the issue of privacy connected to all the wearable tech. I don’t know if some people may find it cool, but I don’t want to wear a dress that is going to change colors to reflect my mood for the world to see and I don’t want to wear perfume that is going to be directly related to the hashtag I attached to my tweet this morning. I’m not sure how to feel about all this modernization: it may sound cool in theory, but practically I don’t see myself being a part of the movement. Of course, I did mention human nature to follow trends and if these innovations hit the market and start being promoted by celebrities, we are all going to accept, understand and buy. However, at the moment I don’t see high fashion here; I see extreme, almost unacceptable levels of eccentricity. What do you see?

Read the full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-network/media-network-blog/2013/apr/03/wearable-technology-machine-to-machine

Are online advertisements a part of the “dark market?” And would companies go to any lengths to reach their online target audience? An article titled “U.S. Army, Target, others advertising on pirate sites” explores the efforts of putting ads on illegal websites, while the advertisers themselves continue to be the most trusted and respected firms and organizations in the world.

In this information age, online advertisements are one of the most effective ways to reach the right viewers. Connecting interests to displayed ads, pop-ups and sponsored search results are nothing new to us: we can guess what the company is trying to tell us and we are no longer questioning these occurrences, perceiving them to be normal part of the internet. Seeing an ad for a shoe company you often make purchases from or an offer for a magazine subscription you would be interested in doesn’t alarm us: we trust the firms being advertised. This article talks about the issue that comes up when this trust is no longer there.

Ads from reliable organizations such as the National Guard, Windows 8, Allstate, AT&T, Chevrolet, Neiman Marcus, Wal-Mart and consistently show up on illegal piracy websites. With lots of finger pointing going on, the culprit for this incidence wasn’t found. Maybe the Ad Council, responsible for ad distribution is to blame; maybe the firms themselves, attempting to make extra profit from reaching new customers on these websites. One thing is for certain, when you hear the Head of the Transparency Project aimed to eliminate ads on piracy sites exclaim that you don’t know “where the ads are coming from, where they’re going and how they’re accounted for,” you no longer even consider clicking on them.

Full Article: http://www.csoonline.com/article/730916/u.s.-army-target-others-advertising-on-pirate-sites

You start typing one letter and within seconds, Google already comes up with a list of words or phrases it thinks you’re searching for. Some find it helpful or annoying, some amusing as the phrases might be completely bizarre and irrelevant to what you want. Beverly Stayart, a genealogy scholar from Wisconsin, found that once she typed her name Bev Stayart, Google automatically suggested “bev stayart levitra”. The search for the latter led to numerous ads of treatments for male erectile dysfunction. Stayart brought a lawsuit against Google in violating privacy and using her name to generate sales. The suit was dismissed.

In conclusion, the judge announced that this particular connection between her name and the product is purely incidental, it is NOT against the law “for Google to use someone’s name for the purpose of communicating information.” One doesn’t know what to think: whether it is too much for a woman to sue the search engine for an unintentional connection, or for Google to have full rights to use your name to connect to information it is probably going to undoubtedly assume relates to who you are.

Another fun fact making this lawsuit invalid is that Google doesn’t receive any value from connecting the woman’s name to a sponsored link. Sure, it may be a complete coincidence that the treatment products come up as a result, but Google still receives a percentage of profit from every time someone clicks on a sponsored source. There is still a connection between generating earnings and using someone’s name. This story just makes me wonder, is there no longer a way to protect your privacy from search engines, who are allowed to manipulate your name into any profiting scheme as long as it seems accidental? On the other hand, this particular woman may have just been unlucky with her name AND in court, as she previously attempted to sue Yahoo! and Various, Inc. for the same reasons. Both lawsuits unsuccessful.

Full story: http://gazettextra.com/news/2013/mar/08/elkhorn-woman-loses-internet-privacy-lawsuit-again/