The General Intellect

After watching Josh Harris’s documentary in class I learned how his childhood days(exposure to the television) affect his later years of life. Harris was forced to watch television to keep his mind of mischievous acts.This resulted in his, what I feel, obsession with Gilligan’s Island.Since he focused on numerous characters on television,he developed into these characters, as mentioned.Do you think an individual can become addicted to the web/or any form of social media in a short period of time, or does it occur over years.

The documentary puts great emphasis on the mother/son relationship Harris endured.I am a big believer in the importance of having a strong, supportive parent or guidance in ones life for success to be possible.However, he seemed very distant from his family especially his mother.As his family members stated,she had the least bit of time during his years of development.This resulted in his relationship with the television.I mention this because I felt Harris had no remorse to his mother’s death, in later years.The fact that he sent her a video with his last words before she passed was memorable.It was in a way an exchanged gift.

Today’s a big day for Facebook. President Obama will be doing some kind of town hall function at the Facebook headquarters as he seeks to reach into the pockets of the rich through more taxes. That in itself should be fun to watch since he is in the land of billionaires but what is getting more attention is a quote from a Wall Street Journal article from Facebook lobbyist Adam Conner as the social media giant looks to expand in areas where free speech is not the norm (China folks, it’s China).

Conner’s curious statement was

“Maybe we will block content in some countries, but not others,” Adam Conner, a Facebook lobbyist, told the Journal. “We are occasionally held in uncomfortable positions because now we’re allowing too much, maybe, free speech in countries that haven’t experienced it before,” he said.

(UPDATE: No new news but I wondered if anyone else finds it more than a little ironic that Facebook’s lobbyist’s name is Con-ner. Get it?)

Hold on there big fella! Isn’t Facebook the defender of the free world having been the linchpin of the revolt in Egypt? Isn’t Facebook all about information for everyone all the time? Isn’t Facebook for the people, by the people etc etc?

Apparently not when so much money is on the line in a huge market like China. Where Google said it wouldn’t comply with China’s censorship policies and effectively left the market, Facebook is playing softball with free speech, at least according to their lobbyist in the nation’s capital.

The Journal spoke with some power brokers about what Facebook faces if it decides to play intermediary for what’s free speech and what isn’t in other parts of the world.

Facebook’s plans may not sit well with congressional leaders already incensed with the company for sidestepping congressional inquiries on its China plans. Last spring, Sen. Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee’s panel on human rights, rebuked Facebook for refusing to appear at a Capitol Hill hearing on “global Internet freedom.”

The company hasn’t joined the Global Network Initiative, a group that includes information-technology companies like Google and Microsoft and human-rights groups that have agreed to common principles of conduct in nations such as China, which restrict speech and expression.

What’s interesting is that while the press has played up Facebook’s role in the fight for freedom around the world the company itself has stayed relatively mum on the subject.

Neither Facebook nor its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, have said much publicly about Facebook’s role as a tool for pro-democracy activists in Tunisia or Egypt. In Tunisia, where Facebook took technical steps to counter government efforts to steal users’ Facebook passwords, the company said its efforts were driven by a safety and security breach—not politics.

So now with China looming on the horizon as a possible market to conquer (likely through a partnership in the country) it seems awful convenient that Facebook throws open its headquarters doors to the leader of the free world for some campaign work (oh, let’s be real, that’s what it is). By cuddling up to the Whitehouse does Facebook expect that Washington will turn a blind eye to activities it pursues in other parts of the world that are all about the benjamins and less about the freedoms?

If this quote is any indication it looks like a risky play to say the least.

“Blocking content in some countries—but not others—would deeply damage Facebook’s brand and raise troubling questions about its commitment to human rights and Internet freedom,” said Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate’s human- rights panel.

So while all of this political yow-yowing and posturing is business as usual for the Beltway set what about you? If it were discovered that Facebook was engaging in content censorship so they could do business in countries that represent big dollars but have horrible human rights records, would you be upset with Facebook?

If your answer is no let us know why and if it’s yes let us know why as well. Would you be upset enough to stop using the service? Would how Facebook maneuvers politically around the world impact how you use the service in the future?

I get that these are not marketing questions per se but the lines have blurred so much in the world because of the amount of information that is available to people today. As marketers what would happen if there was a huge investment of time, money and energy into Facebook marketing campaigns only to see end users walk away from the service in protest? Or is the idea that people would actually take a stand against Facebook and give up their online ‘friends’ as an act of protest just pollyannish because in reality no body cares enough to actually do anything about it?

So many questions. Do you have any answers?

According to the article Facebook is looking for business in China, where free speech is not the norm as in the United States. A Facebook lobbyist person said to the Wall Street Journal, maybe Facebook will block some content in certain countries among them in China. However, it is questioned that what is free speech in one country and what is it in another one. Many argue that, blocking some information will damage Facebook’s prestige and would be against human rights. Others question that wether it is right to censor the information in order to have a billion dollar business.

The author at the and of the article asks some questions, that I will like to answer:

I wouldn’t be upset if I found out Facebook were censoring the information on its sites. I would still use Facebook without any bad feelings. I grew up in a country where free speech was not allowed, or at least people couldn’t say whatever and wherever they wanted to. I think everybody should be careful what put up on the net. There are information that should not be shared on Facebook. There are different channels for that. I think Facebook should be a page to entertain ourselves, meet friends, have fun. It is not the place to talk about politics or business.

After reading the numerous entries by Raymond Williams, I better understood the meaning of words, which I believed had one meaning.However, the origin of these words were quite interesting.From my understanding, the excerpt gives historical information on the origin of the word “originality.”As we spoke about originality I made a connection between popular songs and its origin as well as the quality of it.According to dictionary.reference.com, Music “is an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony,etc.So if I dare, it is relevant to Williams definition analysis.

As the article states in C18, “An original”  is “the sense of something singular or rare but also in a sense related to a new theory of act….’no performance can be valuable which is not an Original.” I also feel Young’s definition can relate to this finding.

As we are all familiar with the late Michael Jackson, I used his song Human Nature.This song was written by Josh Bettis &Steve Porcaro and released in July 1992. As we may all know this is the “original” version to this song and may have more meaning to later recordings of the same melody.Later recorded in 1993, Sisters with Voices recorded Right Here (Human Nature Remix feat Michael Jackson). As the transition was made from Michael’s original you can hear the difference.However, the similarity still exist throughout the song.Young states, an “Original grows but is not made”;this is very true after listening to both songs.

Lastly, TMZ’s favorite celebrity of recent days, Chris Brown recorded She Aint You on his latest album title, F.A.M.E.The message of the song differs from the two records mentioned.This 2011 hit focuses on a bad romance he encountered and how its affecting him.I mention this because the quality of the song has changed, drastically.For example in the first two songs, actual voices were used with echo like sound effects.However, in this day and age auto-tune is very important in pop culture.Brown uses auto-tune throughout the track.This also shows us as technology we adapt to it.In the media we use/say everything that would sell to the desperate eye.

Originality has its representation in each song.However, one feeds off the other.It is all cycle as William explains in the text.Original originates from an origin.

Often times in class discussions the concern of music, media in general is brought up and how it influences individuals.At times when we are bombarded with new tunes, and we find a way to compare it to older songs.We have a keen understanding of these songs but do we consider it original( in the sense of something we never heard before) or do we think its just a remake of the older version of the song?As a society who replicates almost everything have the right to call a new piece of music “original?”