Quantcast
Channel: DailyDot twitter Feed
Viewing all 2522 articles
Browse latest View live

FIFA launches Twitter copyright crackdown on eve of World Cup

$
0
0

The 2014 World Cup isn’t just a series of soccer games, it’s a serious business.

The official governing body for the World Cup, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), has issued 58 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) violations against more than 100 Twitter users for featuring the official tournament logo as their avatar.

The organization started issuing DMCA notices on March 13, 2012 according to Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, a legal watchdog site managed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Each one is almost identical, claiming that the Twitter user infringed on FIFA by using its logo “without authorisation.”

The notices are filed by an anonymous “account executive” from the London-based NetResult Solutions, a company that protects intellectual property.

While FIFA certainly has the right to protect its logo, the DMCA notices are a clear change in protocol from the 2010 games.

That year, FIFA did not file one DMCA against Twitter users for copyright infringement, according to the Clearinghouse. Furthermore, a search for Twitter accounts related to the 2010 World Cup, which helped Twitter make sports history and was called the “most popular web event ever,” turns up at least a dozen accounts using FIFA’s official logo as their avatar.

Photo by Crystian Cruz/Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0)


Twitter and Billboard's new real-time charts document how music fans share on Twitter

$
0
0

You'll now be able to see more than just trending hashtags on Twitter. You can track the most popular songs and artists as they ascend and descend the charts in real time.

Billboard and Twitter just debuted the new Billboard + Twitter Real-Time Chart, an interactive list that shows which songs have been shared on Twitter in a 24-hour span. The trending 140 chart documents the 140 most popular songs of the day (several Lady Gaga songs have been vacillating wildly today), and the emerging artists chart tracks the most popular songs by newer artists.

These charts are produced by tracking links shared on Twitter via streaming sites like Spotify or YouTube, or more general terms like “song” or “listen.” At its core, the project functions as a musical trend-tracker, but it also documents how people share and interact on Twitter.

 

 

Back in March, Bob Moczydlowsky, head of Twitter music, explained the partnership in a blog  post:

“Music is one of the most talked about topics on Twitter. It’s where influencers, artists and fans discover and discuss new music in the moment. Every day, new songs and new artists get people tweeting in real-time, creating a social soundtrack of ongoing music conversation on Twitter.”

On Tuesday, Austin Mahone performed at a launch event in New York City, and songs from his new album, The Secret, immediately inundated the real-time chart, as his millions of fans (Mahomies, as they’re called) shared links to his songs or the album on Twitter.

In the wake of Twitter Music’s death, this looks to be the platform’s way of rebounding and highlighting the digital gulf between what’s on the Billboard Hot 100 and what fans and artist are talking about on Twitter. It could change what the #nowplaying tag actually means.

The charts will be rolling out over the summer.

Photo via Jason H. Smith/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

Has the 'golden age of television' left women out?

$
0
0

BY CHRIS OSTERNDORF

The Internet had a minor meltdown last week when Nerdist broke the story that Jessica Chastain would be starring in the next season of HBO's much-buzzed-about freshman hit, True Detective. It turned out that they may have jumped the gun a bit, however, as the word from Chastain’s reps and HBO that is that she isn’t “officially” attached to the project at all.

Of course, people have continued to speculate about whether all parties are merely waiting to announce anything until the details are finalized. It’s fitting that a show that has inspired so many rampant conspiracy theories should be shrouded in mystery even behind the scenes, and if Chastain and company are playing chicken, it would certainly explain the caginess of everyone involved.

But even if Chastain doesn’t end up having anything to do with the second season, a move in her direction is a good sign.

True Detective is by far the most buzzed-about new show of the year. Although it’s generated both positive and negative reactions, no other show that’s come out in 2014 has come close to inspiring the same kind attention right out of the gate. Even before there was any official word on the second season, #TrueDetectiveSeason2 took Twitter by storm.

Amid plenty of critical acclaim, the main criticisms of True Detective stemmed from the show’s female characters. To its detractors, they were underwritten, used purely for background material, and just too few in general. Casting Jessica Chastain would be a great call not only because she’s obviously a great actress, but also because it would ensure a larger, more important female presence in the show’s second season.

True Detective creator Nic Pizzolatto has already stated that the next season of the show will involve “hard women, bad men and the secret occult history of the United States transportation system.” If you’re thinking this sounds like some kind of strange joke, your response is completely understandable. It could, perhaps, be that Pizzolatto is just speaking in the same kind of cryptic philosophy that his protagonist Rust Cohle talks in.

But occult transportation aside, the idea of adding some “hard women” to True Detective, season 2 isn’t a bad one. Pizzolatto has already proven he can write “bad men,” but his ability to craft hard women, much less any kind of woman, is a different story. And if Pizzolatto wants to show he’s more than just a one-trick pony, then creating strong female characters will be an essential part of True Detective’s future.

This is also a chance for Pizzolatto to lead this supposed “golden age” of television in an important new direction. It’s no secret that so far, the major shows of this period have all been very male-centric. Most of them have also featured darker, less traditional protagonists. But after a decade of this, many viewers are unsurprisingly experiencing a certain amount of anti-hero fatigue, or rather male anti-hero fatigue, to be specific. The desire to see women get the same kind of complex leading roles has become palpable.

And that desire may soon be fulfilled. Many of the most-hyped new shows arriving next season will be structured around strong women, including How to Get Away with Murder, State of Affairs,Madam Secretary, and The Mysteries of Laura.

The only problem is that these shows will all be on network television, while most of the truly compelling characters to come out of television’s recent creative revolution have been on cable.

For True Detective, this could mean two things. First, that network television might actually surpass cable when it comes to creating complicated female characters, and also that it doesn’t have to if Pizzolatto and his cable peers decides to lead the charge in writing the kind of memorable parts for women that in the last decade have mostly gone to men.

But creating iconic female heroines isn’t just about networks; it’s about genres. With women increasingly taking center stage on TV overall, True Detective also has an excellent opportunity to lead the way in its own genre: the serialized crime series.

Sure, there have been a handful of crime shows in the last few years that featured complicated female leads. Broadchurch, Top of the Lake, The Fall, The Bridge, The Killing, Those Who Kill, and Prime Suspect come to mind.

But the one thing all those shows have in common, besides putting women at the forefront? None of them are American. Yes, most of them have been remade (or are currently being remade) to varying degrees of success, but that doesn’t change the fact that most beloved and distinguished crime series up till this point in history, especially in the U.S., have revolved around men.

Some of this is probably due to the fact that culturally, we still largely view law enforcement as a man’s job. But while women remain as unfortunately underrepresented in law enforcement as they are in many other professions, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they don’t make good police officers.

On top of this, if television is going to persist in depicting violence against women (as the first season of True Detective did, along with many shows that came before it), doesn’t it make sense to involve some actual women in that depiction? Everyone who’s been paying attention understands by now; it’s a violent world for women. But that’s why only letting men dominate these stories isn’t good enough anymore. The traditional depiction of heroic men protecting beaten-down women is too simple.

A large percentage of violent crime in this country is directed toward women; there’s no getting around it. But to convey stories about this sad truth honestly and effectively, women can’t just be used as props in them.

Although most would probably think of it as a fairly traditional piece of network television, it’s worth taking a moment to consider something like Law & Order: SVU. Say what you will about the way the show portrays sexual violence or about the merits of serialized dramas versus procedurals in general, but it’s unlikely SVU would be going into its 16th season without Mariska Hargitay leading it, talking to the various victims week after week. Empathy is a huge part of being a good cop, and women traditionally have more of it than men.

For television to continue to be as innovative as we want it to be, the next part of the equation will also involve including more female showrunners, to write a new crop of memorable leading women (or men) themselves.

But that doesn’t mean male showrunners shouldn’t aim to diversify their efforts, too. If Pizzolatto really wants to write compelling female characters, he won’t just write “hard women”—as a female character isn’t compelling simply because they have the same characteristics as a man. The best female characters are compelling because they can be feminine and “hard” simultaneously; they draw us in because, like any great characters, they are nuanced, and aren’t stereotypically one thing at any time.

This is the kind of character Chastain is more than capable of playing. Let’s just hope that Pizzolatto is capable of writing her.

Chris Osterndorf is a graduate of DePaul University's Digital Cinema program. He is a contributor at HeaveMedia.com, where he regularly writes about TV and pop culture.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Everyone hates learning new things and it's ruining the Internet

$
0
0

Most people won’t remember this, but Facebook had a huge redesign planned for its News Feed last year. It was swiftly reduced to the smaller update everyone received back in March. Also getting a new look is Twitter, which went through with its redesign this month; it will be rolled out to every user today, May 28.

As has been pointed out by many, the new Twitter profiles closely resemble Facebook. This is not by chance; this is by design. With many claiming that Twitter is entering its twilight as a service, it had to make a drastic change. But is it so drastic if it looks so much like its most able competitor? Really, why such a Facebook-esque redesign?

We have ourselves to thank for that.

There’s a reason Google+, Facebook, and Twitter look nearly identical, and it’s not because they enjoy imitating each other. We’ve reached the point—thanks to our notoriously short attention spans and digital services that are “good enough”—where Internet users refuse to learn anything new. Facebook tried to reinvent its News Feed, and as it goes with any changes Facebook tries to implement, there was a backlash from users. And Twitter’s own growth has been hampered by a learning curve; as cofounder and former CEO Ev Williams put it back in 2010: “Twitter is too hard to use.”

Is it though? Truly, it takes maybe an hour to understand the majority of the service, but even that is too arduous for most Internet users these days. The biggest evolution in news distribution since cable TV has been impeded not by a lack of interest, but by an unwillingness to spend a few minutes learning something new.

Twitter is one of the most useful and important tools ever created by Silicon Valley. It’s been used to topple governments (and politicians), to shed light on unnoticed atrocities, and has quickly replaced Reddit as the front page of the Internet. But most people don’t know that. Most people aren’t aware of the impact Twitter has had on our society. Most people are too enamored with doodling on disappearing photos to realize that spending a few minutes of their time to familiarize themselves with something new could broaden their outlook on the world.

That is why all successful social networks look the same, and why those that attempt to reinvent themselves or stand out, like the new Myspace, have little to no chance of succeeding. It’s why Apple rolls out new features on the iPhone at an annoyingly slow pace.

We have forced technology companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Apple to effectively halt many innovative ideas they would like to implement in their products. These ideas, which may take a few moments of our time to learn, have been stemmed for fear of denunciation—not of the actual product, but of the concept that the company would have the gall to expect its users to learn something new.

We’ve reached a point where new features our favorite platforms roll out are just watered-down versions of what could have been; massively simplified from the innovative ideas they started as—the lame descendent of an initial concept that could have been revolutionary.

We either don’t have time to learn new things (though, we actually do), or we’ve just become indifferent to anything that takes more than five minutes of our time to understand. In fact, you won’t even finish this piece, in all likelihood. But you will share it, so thank you for that. I would write about how we could change the status quo and better ourselves by spending more time learning about new topics and rebuilding our desire to acquire knowledge, but if you have read this far, I’m preaching to the choir. To those who have lasted this long, thank you for not letting yourselves turn into the human edition of Snapchat.

So today when you log in to Twitter and see your new profile, if the “newness” is just all too much for you (and it shouldn't be, it looks just like Facebook) and your head is swimming with all of the differences, your eyes straining to comprehend what it is you see before you… just take one moment. Step back, just a tiny bit, look a little harder, and give it all a second to sink in. There you go. Was that so bad?

Photo via Schlüsselbein2007/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

Duke porn star Belle Knox blasts Twitter for censoring her tweets in Pakistan

$
0
0

Earlier this month, Pakistani bureaucrat Abdul Batin of the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) successfully convinced Twitter to remove “blasphemous” and “unethical” content from the site in Pakistan, including images of the Prophet Muhammed, political speech, and the NSFW photos on three adult performers’ accounts.

The removal of the “blasphemous” content in Pakistan prompted outrage among Internet freedom activists, with Electronic Frontiers Foundation global policy analyst Eva Galperin writing that Twitter was betraying "its own fundamental values” by failing to uphold its commitment to free speech. Now, so-called Duke porn star Belle Knox, whose account was one of those censored in Pakistan, is joining the fray in condemning the PTA and Twitter for suppressing digital freedom of expression.

“I believe Mr. Batin has a problem with me because for whatever reason, I am his poster child: a woman with her own agency and free expression, some icon of perceived cultural degeneration that he feels he can censor to feel better about himself,” Knox recently wrote in an email to Forbes. “If he thinks I am a soft target, he’s going to be surprised.”

It’s unclear why Batin targeted Knox’s account specifically; after all, it’s doubtful that Knox, who made headlines earlier this year for a series of xoJane essays she wrote about her experience being slut-shamed and harassed on campus, has much of a following in the predominantly Muslim country, which has made a series of concerted efforts to block access to online porn. But then again:

Knox herself acknowledges that the removal of the photos on her account pales in comparison to the widespread censorship of political thought and speech throughout the country: “My own curtailment of free expression in Pakistan seems very small on the greater world stage, where political groups based in sovereign countries are being silenced,” she writes.

But like many of the free speech activists who spoke out against Twitter ceding to the PTA’s demands to restrict content on the Internet, Knox believes that the censorship of her account sets a dangerous precedent, possibly curtailing the growth of future social media activism on the platform.

“Twitter likes to state that it is an instrument for positive social change but whenever it serves to enable oppression any good it does is erased a thousand fold,” she writes. “The precedent that this action sets is troubling: If Pakistan can censor people on Twitter for offensive content, presumably it could do so for revolutionary content among the people of Pakistan as a method of social control.”

H/T Forbes | Photo via Belle Knox/Twitter (NSFW)

Conservatives are now bashing Maya Angelou on Twitter

$
0
0

Conservatives are having a rough week. First they were up in arms about how the #YesAllWomen hashtag identified and challenged institutional misogyny; now they’ve been forced to contend with the death of a respected female writer of color.

The most excoriating right-wing response to Maya Angelou’s passing came from occasional Fox commentator Debbie Schlussel, who took the poet’s message of tolerance for Islam (delivered on the anniversary of 9/11), support of Palestine’s right to exist, inklings of communist sympathies, and unfortunate decision to speak at Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man March in 1995 as proof of her racist, fundamentally anti-American character. Naturally, Schlussel was trying to get a rise out of “Black Twitter” and, playing the victim, retweeted furious replies to her blog post, which noted that she’d never actually read Angelou’s work and expressed the fervid wish that the author “rot in hell.”    

A quick search of “#tcot + Angelou” revealed that Schlussel was hardly alone in her deranged loathing for the beloved author. The so-called "top conservatives on Twitter" had a virtually inexhaustible list of gripes as to her influence on the sociopolitical landscape.

In a bizarre wrinkle, other conservatives chose to highlight Angelou’s anecdote about firing a gun at a home intruder (as well as her criticism of President Obama’s education policies) in the hopes of undercutting her image as a liberal voice. The result? An amusing schism between Second Amendment enthusiasts and the rest of the Tea Party peanut gallery.

But appalling as some of these reactions to Angelou’s death are, they’re not exactly novel; due to her closeness with Obama, she had long suffered this sort of tangential abuse.

Angelou’s own last tweet, as it happens, might be the perfect advice for her detractors:

Too bad God won’t get a word in edgewise till that font of sputtering rage dries up.

Photo by York College ISLGP/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

A data miner's guide to crafting the perfect tweet

$
0
0

You’re already laughing to yourself as you type in the tweet. It’s a diamond. You know it. The wording is on point, your hashtag use is sparing but impactful. Now, you just have to sit back and wait for the favs to roll in.

Then: crickets. A digital dustball rolls past an abandoned shack. You wonder if you’ve sixth-sensed yourself, and you have, in fact, been dead all along. How else to explain the total lack of engagement from your piece de tweetsistance?

Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what makes a tweet popular. That’s where Chenhao Tan comes in. Tan led a team at Cornell University in data-mining Twitter to discover what makes tweets popular. The team analyzed the tweets of 236,000 users looking for pairs, or tweets with similar topics. They found 1.8 million pairs. They then winnowed the tweets down by concentrating on pairs from users with more than 5,000 followers, sent within 12 hours of each other.

What they found revealed that wording does matter: Even when tweets were on the same topic, one would often do much better than another.

The research team put together a quiz to see whether ordinary people can identify a popular tweet against a less-popular tweet. They can, it turns out, with 61 percent accuracy. The team also developed an algorithm that can guess which tweet will be more popular than another, which has 66 percent accuracy.  

The popular tweets were often more clearly worded, and used language that appealed to the user’s community of followers. They also sometimes directly requested a retweet or fav, asking their followers to share their tweets explicitly (which seems awful, please don’t do that). Twitter users who had developed a sort of consistent authorial voice on the service did better; people picked tweets that had language similarities to their previous tweets.

If you’re uncertain how to word the perfect tweet, the team lets people input two different versions of the same tweet to test against its algorithm, so you can always use that to try and pick the best phrasing. Here's a screenshot of what that process looks like: 

The findings are pretty damn vague, which is frustrating. but there are a few things you can glean from them to put into practice. First, if you’re agonizing over the wording of your tweet, go with whatever sounds the most natural coming from you. We aren’t all @dril. Second, if you really want something to get retweeted, asking your followers to share does work. (Use that sparingly or risk annoying everyone.) Third, make sure what you’re tweeting makes sense. That seems super-obvious, but even seasoned Twitter users sometimes send out what could’ve been a hit and then realize they forgot a word and now it doesn’t really make sense. So, basically, proofread your tweets.

You can test which of your tweets is best against the team's algorithm here.

H/T Medium | Illustration by Jason Reed 

No one can tell the difference between PETA parody and actual PETA

$
0
0

Is PETA beyond parody?

In many ways, the animal rights organization seems more like a group of well-organized trolls than anything else. Its campaigns regularly stir up enough controversy that many Twitter users are finding it impossible to tell the difference between a parody account named @PETA_UK (“People for the Eating of Tasty Animals”) and the real thing.

One recent campaign parody is related to PETA’s suggestion that dairy products are linked to the onset of autism in young children. Just to be clear, the following poster is from PETA’s actual website, not the @PETA_UK account.

The poster is a play on the “Got Milk?” slogan, and has already been labeled as scaremongering, with many people coming forward to debunk PETA’s theory.

@PETA_UK started posting fake tweets from this campaign, picking fights with naysayers in a parody of PETA’s famously controversial attitude. Since then, the account has started tweeting about Australian artist and entertainer Rolf Harris, who is on trial for allegedly assaulting several underage girls.

Needless to say, this tweet inspired a great deal of outrage who thought the real PETA was suggesting animal rights campaigners deserved special treatment.

Being fooled by parody accounts is nothing new, although @PETA_UK’s Twitter bio does make it extremely obvious that it isn’t the genuine article. It’s also not very good satire, since it basically relies on enraging people on hot-button topics so they react without bothering to check if the account is real.

Still, @PETA_UK does succeed in one way: by highlighting PETA’s increasingly terrible public image. After years of shock-value protests and purposefully offensive advertizing campaigns, PETA has reached the point where it is virtually indistinguishable from an internet troll.

Photo via evarinaldiphotography/Flickr


Washington Redskins' #RedskinsPride campaign backfires horribly

$
0
0

The Washington Redskins’ social media team just made a big mistake. On Thursday afternoon, the @Redskins account asked Twitter users to tell a senator what they think of the team’s controversial name using the hashtag #RedskinsPride.

It backfired horribly—just like when the NYPD asked Twitter to share stories about pleasant run-ins with cops, and people responded with photos of police brutality.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been working in Washington to get the Redskins to change its name. Even President Obama has spoken out against the derogatory term. The fans who love the team but hate what it stands for have been vocal on social media—which is why #RedskinsPride had exactly the reaction you would expect.

Illustration by Jason Reed

How to properly use Twitter's pinned tweets

$
0
0

In the past we needed 5,000 fully characterized tweets to get to the bottom of someone on Twitter and really understand them. Now Twitter has changed it to one large “pinned” tweet to go on top of everyone’s profile. It’s supposed to signify who you are, like a verbal cover picture: easy to spot, memorable.

When the first tweet on someone’s timeline is from five months ago and the second from five seconds ago, you bet there’s been pinning going on. Alas, it’s highly embarrassing when your pinned tweet doesn’t get at least five favs.

Sadly, Twitter is full of humble, grim, and mostly self-deprecating pinned tweets. Users are often surprised to see them when they refresh their page, but they can’t be bothered to change them either. Twitter’s mobile apps still don’t feature pinned identities. 

Unfortunately, there is no way to embed pinned tweets with the pin intact; they look like any other embedded tweet. I had to screengrab the most naughty ones from Twitter’s selected many. A lot of them turned out to be related to Twitter employees or those who received the PR email begging them to use the new function. None of the Twitter founders (Jack, Evan, Biz, and Noah) have pinned any tweets themselves.

Mine:

Former Twitter employee Taylor Singletary (not a stockholder):

How to Be Black author Baratunde Thurston:

The Patanoiac, an hermetronic idea engine making elixirs from symbols:

Legendary pinner Mark McBride, from South Bay:


 

Lastly, I'll leave you with some inspirational words about pinning:

To pin your hopes upon the future is to consign those hopes to a hypothesis, which is to say, a nothingness. Here and now is what we must contend with. —Angela Carter

Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle. —Vladimir Putin

When it comes to pinning blame, pin the tail on the donkeys. —Mitt Romney

Photo via Barbara Müller-Walter/Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0)

Read Hannibal's thoughts on animals in this spot-on Twitter parody

$
0
0

The dialogue in NBC’s Hannibal has always been a little... odd. It’s difficult to imagine any real person speaking in the florid metaphors of Hannibal Lecter’s conversational style, although that’s really just one of his many charms.

With the show’s second season recently ending in a maelstrom of bloodshed, we have a long wait before we get to hear Hannibal and Will Graham pick their way through another subtext-laden conversation. In the meantime, one surprisingly accurate Twitter account has decided to pick up the slack: @ZooHannibal.

The concept is simple, but perfectly executed. What would Hannibal Lecter say during a trip to the zoo? The result is hilariously true to the character’s style, mixing highbrow cultural references with punchlines about death and animal nature.

Whoever @ZooHannibal is, they’re on a role. The account only started up a week ago, and it already has more than 10,000 followers—including Hannibal showrunner Bryan Fuller.

Photo via nbchannibal/Tumblr

Get your GIF game together, Twitter

$
0
0

People love GIFs. People love tweeting GIFs. Unfortunately, Twitter does not make it easy: GIFs show up as links, not images, unlike on Tumblr, where they animate automatically. (There are a few complicated workarounds.)

Twitter displays Giphy's GIF offerings within user profile feeds, but on the main feed, they appear as links. GIFs from other sites are not supported at all, however. It's an incoherent policy.

Yesterday, Twitter users got excited because it looked like the microblogging service was finally officially supporting the looping image format. Users started posting them, reveling in their ability to convey emotion through Spongebob reaction shots.

And as quickly as they came, they were gone. At first, people thought it was just an error from enthusiastic users uploading too many GIFs at once.

But then they never came back. All we are left with are mostly screenshots… and questions.

Based on the above tweet from Amber Gordon, a Tumblr employee, it looks like Twitter was changing GIFs to MP4s during the uploading process, which gives insight into the company’s plan to support GIFs.

Wall Street Journal social media editor Elana Zak told a curious user that Twitter was allowing GIF uploads under 5 MB (which is really large for a GIF), but also noted that it looked like the feature was having an error.

It may have been a test available to a select group of users that received more attention than Twitter predicted, which is why they pulled support so quickly. Daily Dot asked Twitter what was going on but have yet to hear back. We’ve attempted to upload GIFs smaller than 3 MB, but internal service errors keep cropping up.

This was likely a test for a new feature—but I’d like to know why it was so short. Perhaps Twitter was spooked by how fast news was spreading. Whatever the reason for the pullback, Twitter should support GIFs. Sure, they’re slow loading and can be overwhelming to look at all in a row (like on a feed), but give the people what they want. People have found countless ways to create GIF avatars, usually coming up with new loopholes than the service could close them

Illustration via Fernando Alfonso III 

The subtle art of the fake retweet

$
0
0

Twitter is a great way to spread information. Of course, it’s also a great way to spread misinformation. Twitter does not, in other words, have a fact-checker. Yeah, you can sue someone for libel based on something they say on Twitter, as Courtney Love knows well. But as Courtney Love’s enemies have discovered, it’s harder to actually win that fight.

One of the most simple and effective ways to post very-not-true things is to cloak them in the legitimizing power of the fake retweet. A fake retweet, for ye naifs who are unfamiliar with the term, is when a Twitter user pretends to retweet another Twitter user, but either changes or makes up wholesale an original tweet. Sometimes people do it to make something they want to say seem more authoritative, by throwing the reputation of someone more famous behind it. 

A fake RT dispute occurred just today between writer Emily Gould and one of her Twitter fans.

Since Emily Gould (follower count: 12,300) has more Twitter cachet than this fella (follower count: 41), he used a fake retweet to give what he wanted to say more authority (or, maybe, he just wants her to notice him).  

Another prominent fake retweet victim: rapper-turned-actor Bow Wow. In Bow Wow's case, the trick wasn't used because he's authoritative. It was used to mess with him. And it worked. In 2011, Bow Wow threatened to quit Twitter when another user divvied out a fake retweet pretending that Bow Wow had called himself the best rapper-turned-actor.

People started criticizing Bow Wow for bragging, listing other rappers who acted. As you might expect, Bow Wow was annoyed that he was getting so much heat for something he didn’t even say.

Most high-profile fake retweets are used as pranks against companies. For example, in 2012, people started posting tweets with fake retweets from Applebee’s about 9/11. The fake retweets made the restaurant chain look simultaneously brazen and oblivious.

Applebee’s tried to clarify that the tweets were fake, but the brand damage was done.

Twitter hasn’t clarified its official stance on fake RTs, though the decision to offer an retweet button may have been partially influenced by a desire to get rid of fake retweets. Though the company may not like fake retweets, it doesn’t seem like there’s much they can do to crack down. Business Insider called them a security problem back in 2009, when TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington got the fake retweet treatment.

Fake retweets are a scourge to the people who see tweets that make them look like they said something they didn’t. And yeah, they definitely ding Twitter’s credibility since it’s so easy to fake a retweet. But they’re an example of creativity… and when they’re used to troll brands, it’s hard not to laugh.

Illustration via Fernando Alfonso III 

Yes, Twitter has a new font, and more change might be coming

$
0
0

Change is scary, but don’t tell that to Twitter. The microblogging network has barrelled ahead with major digital renovations this year, most notably when it rolled out a Facebook-style profile. Aside from its big facelift, Twitter continually tests new features on groups of users; you never quite know what Twitter you’re going to get when you open the app or website.

This week, Twitter is tweaking and experimenting even more than usual. Users are reporting a new Twitter font, moving from Helvetica Nue to Gotham Narrow Ssm. I know, right?!

Some users aren’t happy, since everyone knows the Internet hates change.

But the font has won a few new fans:

And the detractors have won enemies:

In addition to changing its font, some users are reporting that Twitter continues to test removing the @ reply. My esteemed colleague saw this test on his phone. Instead of the @ reply, there’s simply text that indicates a conversation is going on.  


 

And Twitter’s weird foray into hosting GIFs and then not hosting GIFs makes me suspect the team has more in store planned for everyone’s favorite looping video format.

In conclusion: Twitter might look a little different and your notifications might seem wonky and who knows if any of this is sticking around! Happy Friday!

Illustration via Jason Lee

British supermarket sells World Cup outfit that looks suspiciously like a KKK hood

$
0
0

For only £3 you too can look like a member of the Ku Klux Klan! ASDA, a budget British supermarket owned by the Wal-Mart group has launched a wearable flag with a hood to celebrate the England soccer team. The only problem? Well, just take a look at the picture below.

Somehow this slight issue was not spotted during the product’s testing or conception, and it took users on social media to point out to the chain that it could very well cause offence. The item’s page on the ASDA website only wanted fans to “Support England in the world cup with this unique wearing flag!”

A supermarket spokesman told the Independent that the shop had already produced a Brazilian version of the klantastic flag for the World Cup which begins in Brazil later this month.

“We know there's chatter on Twitter about our wearable World Cup flags, but it's simply a flag with a hood - nothing more, nothing less.

"We opted for a hood on our wearable England and Brazilian flags as you never know what the British weather will bring.”

Users on Twitter, however, felt differently.

Typically British, the spokesman concluded by saying, "We want customers to get behind the team without getting wet.”

Photo via Flickr/Georgio


Should 'real' writers stay off Twitter?

$
0
0

BY NATHAN PENSKY

As we all know, the Internet has shifted the polarity of the media world. Newspapers all over the country continue to close down, and many respected journalists and writers have flocked in droves to the very online publications that put them out of jobs. 

And yet a cultural tension still persists between online writing and “real” writing in print. Bloggers and online journalists have been thought at various times to lack the legitimacy of “real” journalists who write for print publications. And by the same token, many writers who established their reputations in print seem not to always understand Internet culture (cough Jonathan Franzen cough). This disparity surfaces often and, sometimes, in unexpected ways.

A writer who seems to have taken up permanent residence in the gulf between “real” and online writing is Joyce Carol Oates. Gawker recently published an article titled “An Open Letter to Joyce Carol Oates: Delete Your Twitter.” In the article, writer Michelle Dean references a casually racist tweet from Oates’s Twitter feed.

Screengrab via Gawker

Like the title of the article suggests, Dean concludes that Oates should shut down her Twitter and focus on books. The Internet is too complex an animal for Oates to understand, and she should stick to the relatively simple rules of “real” writing. Dean makes one very good point about writers and their Twitter accounts. Addressing Oates directly—it is an “open letter” after all—she says:

Expertise in one form of writing does not necessarily mean mastery of them all. When it comes to writing long books, formulated in multiple pages and paragraphs, every sentence read in context with the one preceding it, you are pretty good at that, better than most of us can ever hope to be. But when you offer disconnected, abbreviated, context-free thoughts… you are not so good.

Stephen King, another “real” writer who came late to the Internet, got in hot water when he opined on his Twitter about the Woody Allen controversy, referring to Dylan Farrow’s New York Times missive as “bitchery.” King quickly issued an apology, saying he “was still learning” about Twitter. But his mistake begs the question: What could such a prolific writer of prose have to learn from a social network? 

It’s interesting that both Oates and King are famous for being prolific. One wonders whether the immediacy of Twitter both attracted their attention and “taught” them to apply a filter where they usually have none.

The disparity between “real” writing and the sort that happens on the Internet is perhaps nowhere more apparent than in the recent movement of “trigger warnings” from the Internet to college literature classes.

Trigger warnings were initially used to warn members of online forums that the subject of discussion could “trigger” strong emotional response from victims of trauma. People suffering from PTSD can re-experience trauma long after the traumatic event is over, sometimes cued by certain words. So in threads where sensitive topics were discussed, the warning “TRIGGER ALERT” would be printed in large letters at the top of the thread to warn off those who might be adversely affected.

But as trigger warnings made their way to the Internet at large, their initial usefulness became somewhat watered down. Internet writers began to include trigger warnings in all manner of articles, and some, notably Susannah Breslin, began to question their legitimacy. Then a resolution was passed at UC Santa Barbara to attach such warnings to the syllabi in classes where works of literature, such as Beloved and even The Great Gatsby, are taught. The measure sparked a strong backlash from the online community. 

The breathless, hand-wringing cry of “Is nothing sacred?” that has sounded across the digital landscape since the Internet first started eating the world finally has an answer. Journalism? Not sacred. Mom-and-pop retail stores? Nope. Personal privacy? Hell no. Works of great literature? HOW DARE YOU.

Some of the tension between Internet writing and so-called “real” writing can be attributed to how different media yield different kinds of authorial identity. Most informed readers of “real” books understand that words in the text are not necessarily those of the writer but of a constructed persona. Even the work of someone like Joan Didion, who ostensibly writes from a personal point of view, isn’t meant to be read as coming from the same Joan Didion who likes her coffee a certain way and lives at such and such an address. The narrator of Slouching Toward Bethlehem is not Joan Didion but “Joan Didion,” a character that the writer created.

But for whatever reason, people understand Twitter feeds to represent a much truer authorial self. Twitter accounts aren’t authors’ personas but naked identities. Thus Joyce Carol Oates’s racist tweets come across less like how Oates herself probably understands them, as a complicated stylization of her own opinion filtered through the formal strictures of 140 characters, and more like a tape recording of Donald Sterling.

The Internet community generally polices its content in a much more direct way than the literary community does, if for no other reason than the barriers to publishing are much less involved. When you can publish something at the push of a button, keeping the community free of racism and overt expressions of privilege requires a heavy hand. Meanwhile, the cult of print authorship highlights the individual’s perspective more than that of the online community at large, and allows itself much more leeway in constructing nuanced discussions of race and hierarchies of legitimacy.

So do writers who have become used to getting the benefit of the doubt in print hurt themselves by opening up online? Does the Internet provide too easy a mouthpiece to their otherwise more considered writerly voices? The old adage “write drunk, edit sober” doesn’t seem to leave much room for Twitter, where the least of your ideas are instantly broadcast to the masses.

Maybe Dean’s article about whether or not Joyce Carol Oates should close her Twitter doesn’t go far enough. Maybe all “real” writers should stay offline. 

Or maybe, like Stephen King, writers who have established themselves in the real world should have to take a short tutorial on what works online and what doesn’t. (I’m imagining a webinar taught by George Takei for some reason.)

Twitter should be a great place for writers. It’s the most word-centric of the social networks, putting a premium on economy of language. And where YouTube and Wikipedia usually lead to time-sucking K-holes, in my experience, Twitter visits tend to stay short. Popping off a few easy Twitter jokes can even get the creative juices flowing.

And yet it’s extremely uncommon to see an author’s Twitter demonstrably add to his or her “real” body of work. In fact, there are exactly two writers of note that I can think of at the moment that acknowledge the formal strictures of Twitter while still maintaining a unity of voice with their other “real” work: @Mat_Johnson and @JoyceCarolOates.

Photo via Spokane Focus/Flickr (CC BY 2.0) | remix by Jason Reed

Is this the most highbrow d**k joke in television history?

$
0
0

Rarely does the season finale of a sitcom hinge on advanced mathematics, but when it comes to Mike Judge’s Silicon Valley, one should never underestimate the geek pedigree.

In last night’s episode, right as things seemed bleakest for the hapless employees of startup Pied Piper, inspiration struck in the form of a lengthy digression about dicks.

The team, resigned to a public embarrassment in the finals of TechCrunch’s Disrupt conference because a Google-like company reverse-engineered their algorithm, idly wonders how long it would take one of them give the entire audience handjobs.

Dinesh, played with superb understatement by Kumail Nanjiani, produces a formula: “800 dudes multiplied by mean jerk time divided by four dicks at a time,” or [T = (800 x mJT) / 4].


 

As you can see, the calculations spiral out of control from there, eventually involving variables such as “dick-to-floor” height (D2F) and “time to orgasm” (T2O), not to mention the nagging problem of girth differential. But in the end, it all checks out: 

Nerds, naturally, were overjoyed.

But there was more to this gag than deep technical knowledge and a sly comment about the real Silicon Valley’s male-dominated, circle-jerk corporate culture: the masturbatory chat is what gives Richard (the wonderfully uncomfortable Thomas Middleditch) the epiphany of working from the “middle out” for optimal “tip-to-tip” efficiency in his compression algorithm. 

As a result, Pied Piper wows the Disrupt crowd with an off-the-charts “Weissman score.”


 

Where most creatives would have happily invented such a concept from whole cloth, Silicon Valley’s producers commissioned the genuine article from Stanford professor Tsachy Weissman and graduate student Vinith Misra—for authenticity's sake. 

Does popular entertainment get any dorkier than that? Your move, Big Bang Theory.

Photo via HBO GO

Justin Bieber apologizes after footage of racist joke emerges online

$
0
0

Amid conflicting reports about when exactly damning footage of Justin Bieber making a racist joke first surfaced, the pop star has apologized profusely for the prank, saying he was just "a kid" when it happened.

A day after British newspaper the Sun posted a video of Bieber telling the joke, Bieber has declared in an extensive apology posted to Twitter that he "made a reckless and immature mistake." 

But it may not have been all that immature. If TMZ's timeline is accurate, they received the footage four years ago, and claimed it was taken when Bieber was 15. Bieber himself claims the footage was taken five years ago, which backs up TMZ's claim. But a report from the Sun, echoed by People, claims that Bieber actually made the joke just three years ago, when he was 17 and the cameras were rolling for the documentary movie Never Say Never

In the video, Bieber looks directly at the camera, then sets up an obviously racist joke. Over his friends' objections ("Don't say it, don't say it") he then goes on to spill the punchline: "Why are black people afraid of chainsaws?" "Run n––, n––, n––, n––, n––."

"That's just straight ignorant," one of his friends replies.

TMZ claimed it waited until now to leak the video both because Bieber was underage at the time and because he had immediately apologized to his friends for the joke. On Twitter, Bieber's apology seemed heartfelt:

As a kid, I didn’t understand the power of certain words and how they can hurt. I thought it was ok to repeat hurtful words and jokes, but didn’t realize at the time that it wasn’t funny and that in fact my actions were continuing the ignorance. Thanks to friends and family I learned from my mistakes and grew up and apologized for those wrongs. Now that these mistakes from the past have become public I need to apologize again to all those I have offended. I’m very sorry. I take my friendships with people of all cultures very seriously and I apologize for offending or hurting anyone with my childish and inexcusable mistake. I was a kid then and I am a man now who knows my responsibility to the world and not to make that mistake again. Ignorance has no place in our society and I hope the sharing of my faults can prevent others from making the same mistake in the future. I thought long and hard about what i wanted to say but telling the truth it always what’s right. Five years ago I made a reckless and immature mistake and I’m grateful to those close to me who helped me learn those lessons as a young man. Once again…. I’m sorry.

But it's hard to reconcile his claims of being too young and ignorant to know better with the contrasting reports of his age. 15 is already old enough to understand how powerful a slur Bieber was wielding: at 17, it seems largely inexcusable. Compounded with the Bieb's well-known relationships with veteran black performers including former mentor Usher, whose influence Bieber recently dismissed, it's hard to know how making a racist joke on camera could have seemed like a good idea to him at any time post-stardom. 

It's also hard to take Bieber's assertion that he learned from his mistakes at face value given how many petty crimes the no-longer-teen heartthrob has been racking up lately.

Still, Bieber's fans rushed to forgive him:

The Sun claimed that Bieber originally tried to buy the footage in order to suppress it from being released. Here's a thought, Bieb: next time, just save yourself all these years of trouble and don't be racist to begin with.

Photo via Instagram

What to expect from Oliver Stone's film on Edward Snowden

$
0
0

The older Oliver Stone gets, the closer his political films follow on the heels of the true events that inspired them. Now he’s set to tackle a thrilling story of geopolitical intrigue and government secrecy that, by all indications, is far from over: Edward Snowden’s. 

His source material on the National Security Agency whistleblower is Luke Harding’s The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World's Most Wanted Man, an account praised for its “acute” insights and “often-cinematic” drama by critics in the New York Times and Washington Post

Anyone familiar with Stone’s biopics, however, knows he like to take some artistic license with his facts—or at least wildly speculate about what Donald Rumsfeld might call the “known unknowns.” So what wacky choices can we expect from the hit-or-miss auteur?  

Well, for starters, we’re sure he’s in Snowden’s corner, not Obama’s. Duh:

Next, as usual, is the question of casting:

But can he make the complicated spy saga entertaining?

At the end of the day, most observers are more concerned about how Stone might twist the tale to his own ends—and misinform the public in the process.

Stone’s film, moreover, may face competition from Sony Pictures, which just last month snapped up the rights to Glenn Greenwald’s book on the same subject, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, producers of the James Bond franchise, will helm that project.

One things for sure, though—both movies ought to be better than The Fifth Estate.

Photo by Gage Skidmore/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Are you a social networking power user?

$
0
0

Stop for a moment and think about your online footprint. How many social networks do you maintain a presence on? Facebook? Twitter? Instagram? Tumblr? PinterestLinkedIn? Whisper? Secret? Myspace? More than that?

A study conducted by 140 Proof and IPG Media Lab looked at just how many social networking profiles American Internet users maintain, and the results show an fragmented digital landscape where people’s online identities are increasingly spread out across a dizzying number of sites.

The study consisted of an online survey of 500 adult U.S. Internet users ages 18 to 59 who are active on social media, as well as a number of qualitative one-on-one interviews with a handful of individual participants. Research suggests that just over half of adult Internet users in the U.S. maintain presences on two or more social networking sites—that’s over 107 million people.

This number is up from a similar study conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project late last year, which found that 42 percent of adult American Internet users maintained multiple social networking profiles.

The SVP study found that 28 percent of online adults said they use only a single network and 20 percent reported they don’t use any social networks.

Strikingly, the study found that there are 57 million people, a full 23 percent of American Internet users, who are active on seven more more social networks.

Number of social networks used by multi-platform users

Graphic via 140 Proof/IPG Media Lab

The likely reason behind this trend of people spreading themselves so thin on social media is a shift by the social networking companies themselves away from the creation of single, all-encompassing experiences and toward specialized, single-purpose sites.

‟With the emergence of new platforms like Snapchat and Pinterest, it is reasonable to expect that new social networks with specific use cases will continue to be introduced, leading to increased use of multiple platforms,” the researchers wrote.

Even Facebook—a company that seems to be on a quest to own everything that could conceivably be used for social networking—is in the process of breaking up its mobile social networking experience into an interconnected archipelago of specialized applications. For example, the company has created Paper for news feeds, Messenger for messaging, and Camera for taking pictures (RIP). Granted, most of these features are technically part of its flagship, eponymous application. However, the company’s moves toward decentralization reveal an understanding that its users aren’t really clamoring for a single, standalone social networking app that encompasses their entire online existence.

Some of this inclination is surely a result of single-use applications often having better user interfaces to accomplish a small number of relatively limited tasks, but there’s also an element of letting people fence off certain areas of their own online identities into certain networks.

Percentage of platform users engaging with each topic area

Graphic via 140 Proof/IPG Media Lab

‟The nature of different platforms makes each suited for connecting with different types of people, engaging with different types of content, and pursuing different interests,” the study’s authors explained. ‟People using multiple platforms engage in social hygiene, which means that they are conscious of their activities on each and make intentional decisions to expose different aspects of their identity on different social networks.”

Photo via James Cridland/Flickr

Viewing all 2522 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images