Larry Johnson: A Football in the Mouth

Larry Johnson is used to having it all.

He was a star running back at his hometown school, Penn State, where he rushed for over 2,000 yards his senior year. He won the both the Maxwell and Walter Camp awards recognizing him as the best player in the nation.

Drafted by the Kansas City Chiefs, he became an All-Pro running back despite clashing with his head coach who told him to "lose the diapers." As of this season, Larry Johnson is the highest paid running back in the NFL.

Yet today, Larry Johnson faces an uncertain future, all over a couple of Tweets.

Larry Johnson and the Chiefs are struggling in 2009, with a 1-5 record and Johnson failing to live up to the 45 million dollar contract the Chiefs gave him in 2007. Once again, Johnson has clashed with his coach, only this time, instead of keeping in-house, he decided to make his feelings known to the world, on his Twitter account.

“my father got more creditentials than most of these pro coaches. … google my father!!!!!!!

My father played for the coach from “rememeber the titans”. Our coach played golf. My father played for redskins briefley. Our coach. Nuthn”

And as if that weren't enough, Johnson had to start insulting fans who replied to his tweets, including using gay slurs. Telling someone they had a "fag pic" and that they were a "Christopher Street boy," a reference to the gay pride event in New York held on Christopher St.

Obviously there is the concept of invisible audiences, that you never know who is viewing your profile. Larry Johnson did not keep this in mind when he made these statements. But there is a larger concept in play here, especially in the world of sports.

It used to be that conflicts between other players or players and coaches were handled in-house. Now, there is no way for a team to control what their players say. It can quickly turn into a PR nightmare for any team, as it did for the Chiefs in this case.

Now Johnson has been suspended pending an appeal, losing $600,000 a game. There's no way he can come back to the Chiefs at this point. He turns 30 next month, and despite his talent, running backs do fade away relatively quickly. He's in danger of an early end to his career and the loss of potentially millions of dollars, and it all happened in 140 characters or less.

On Moral Panic and DOPA

The article "The Moral Panic over Social Networking Sites" discusses legislation aimed at protecting kids online from child predators.

Three years ago, shortly before the hotly contested 2006 midterm elections in which Democrats won back control of Congress for the first time since 1994, a law was passed in the House of Representatives that would mandate that facilities receiving federal aid block minors from accessing commercial social-networking sites and chat rooms. This law, the Deleting Online Predators Act, passed by a wide margin, 410-15 in July, yet stalled in the Senate and was never signed into law.

Critics of the bill argued that it affected places like libraries and schools, and as a result, economically disadvantaged kids would not be able to access social networking sites like MySpace. Others argued that the bill simply would not work, and that the problem of online predators is simply exaggerated.

Of course, the bill did not stall because of the opponents. The bill stalled when Flordia Republican congressman Mark Foley was revealed to have sent inappropriate emails to male House pages. Coincidentally, this congressman was the chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, and had pushed for anti-sex offender laws over his 12 year tenure in the House.

Combined with the accusation that members in leadership positions, such as House Speaker Dennis Hastert knew about the e-mails before the went public, the Republican Party found itself in a position in which they had to somehow change the subject from Mark Foley to something else. Ergo, the bill stalled.

Still, the bill represented what many would call a moral panic as demonstrated below.

1. Concern-Online predators and social networking is something that has been on the minds of millions of people for years. Stories of young people being lured on the internet have been told many times. The popularization of the TV show "Dateline: To Catch a Predator" in which many of the perpetrators lure their fake prey online, may have also contributed to this concern. It's an issue that is on the minds of every parent, many of whom also vote.

2. Hostility-An us vs. them mentality had broken out at that time. This is one of the reasons why the bill passed with such a wide margin. In an election year, nobody wants to look soft on child predators.

3. Consensus-Self-explanatory. The consensus is of the 405 members of the House that voted for this bill.

4. Disproportionality-In the article, Danah Boyd cites a statistic in which out of the 300,000 child abductions that occur every year, only 12 are by strangers. Critics in the article argue that there are already filters in such places as libraries and schools, and that this would simply stifle online expression and prevent economically disadvantaged kids from accessing these sites. These claims do have some merit in my opinion. At the same time, if I were a member of Congress, I would have voted for this bill, for reasons I will explain below.

5. Volatility-This bill packs volatility. The consequences for any semi-vulnerable member who voted against this piece of legislation would be disastorous. Imagine their opponents, the DCCC, the NRCC, and other special interest organizations running ads accusing the congressperson of protecting child predators. It would be enough to make the Willie Horton ad look tame.

For the record, I would have voted for this bill. When I was in high school during the time when SNS was exploding in popularity, we were not allowed to access these sites during schooltime. I firmly believe that a school should be able to regulate access to certain sites if it undermines the academic mission of the school. Going online to MySpace during school hours would, in my opinion, do just that.

I do believe that the opponents of the bill have a point. Still, there's nothing wrong with being a little overreaction when it comes to children safety.

- Here are the names of the 15 representatives that voted against this legislation in 2006. All of them were liberal incumbents in safe Democratic districts.

John Coyners (D-MI)
Raul GrIjalva (D-AZ)
Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
Mike Honda (D-CA)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Donald Payne (D-NJ)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Bobby Scott (D-VA)
Jose Serrano (D-NY)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
Diane Watson (D-CA)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

The Fruits of My(Space) Labor

In Trebor Scholz' article, "What the MySpace generation should know about working for free," the argument is made that what we do on SNS sites like MySpace, messaging, meeting people, writing blogs, etc. is all part of "immaterial labor" that has taken over the internet. 

From the perspective of Wanda, the filling out of surveys on MySpace may well count as labor. On the other hand, she’ll get something out of spending time on MySpace as well. No doubt! People feel the pleasure of creation, they gain friendships, share their life experience, archive their memories, they are getting jobs, find dates and contribute to the greater good.

 

Now, when most people hear the word "labor", they think working in the field or working a real job. Of course, we don't make money from using SNS. Instead, as stated in class today, we get something else. 

As Scholz says, SNS becomes the product itself. Companies such as MySpace are sold to big media conglomerates, such as News Corp, which is flat out amazing. Even after the dot.com economic bubble that inflated and burst, people like Rupert Murdoch are willing to roll the dice again on what some may argue to be another world wide fad. The question is, why?

The fact that one person lives of another’s labor is natural to them. Just consider the social context that allows a company to emerge that is build on the idea of advertisements created by the people who watch them. You create and give away for free (or for a sum that is not equivalent to the value that you generate), the advertisement that is aimed at yourself. Such companies do in fact exist and they are thriving.

It's an awfully big risk to take for these companies. For all we know SNS may be as good as dead in five years. In any case, this entire system of people laboring to make these companies viable in a bidding market adds up to one simple model for Scholz:

The labor of the very very many creates massive wealth for the very few 

 

Do I have a problem with this? Absolutely not. It's capitalism, and nobody is getting ripped off here. There are other things besides money that one can get in return for their labor on these SNS sites. For me, it's the pleasure of being a part of a revolutionary time in our culture. A time where through websites like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, we can express ourselves in ways never before seen or heard of. 

That's the value I get out of my labor, the ability to tell my kids and grandkids that I was a part of this technological revolution. The personalized ads aren't bad either though...

Why Parents Have a Point on Teen Privacy

I think everyone in this class has heard it from their parents. "Don't do this, don't do that. Make sure you do this, etc." I think we've all heard this speech from our parents in regards to SNS.

I didn't realize this until I got older, but parents really fear for their kids' safety. Not just fear as in scared, but trembling in fear. The worst case scenerio is in the back of their minds at all times.

I can remember when me and my friend were eight years old. We lived on the same block, and one day, we decided to take a walk downtown to the park, alone. Our parents called the cops, and the next thing I remember, a police officer in a squad car was blaring his siren at me. My parents were angered, but they were also relieved at the same time.

So it should come to no suprise that when I signed up for MySpace, my parents found out and they gave me a little talk. They thought I gave out too much information on the internet (in hindsight, I didn't, but the standards for amount of information are different from my parents and myself). They did not want some pervert stalking my profile and contacting me. I told them it was ridiclious and to start treating me as an adult.

Now, as I read the article "MySpace Bug Leaks 'Private' Teen Photos to Voyers," it's not so ridiclious anymore.

"If kids are doing what they think they need to do, and are still having their photos picked up by slimebags on the internet ... then these are serious issues," said Parry Aftab, executive director of WiredSafety.org, a children's-online-safety group. "It's a matter of trust and it's a matter of safety." (WiredSafety is not connected to Wired News or Wired magazine.)

Representatives for MySpace did not return Wired News phone calls Thursday.

The flaw exposes MySpace users who set their profiles to "private" -- the default setting for users under 16 -- even though MySpace's account settings page tells users, "Only the people you select will be able to view your full profile and photos."

Clicking on the photo link on a private profile gives unauthorized users this message: "This profile is set to private. This user must add you as a friend to see his/her profile." But anyone -- even those without a MySpace account -- can plug the target's public account number, called a "Friend ID," into a specially constructed URL that grants access to those photos.

Now I can see why parents are so worked up on the dangers of SNS. Part of it is fear that their children were not listening when the parents gave them the talk about the dangers of online social networking. The other part of it is the fact that the parents simply do not trust the technology. For example, my mom never uses her debit card online to buy things, for fear that her bank account will be hacked into. I think that fear has translated into fear that my profile will be hacked into.

New Media 2009 vs. Rock and Roll 1969

This week I had the pleasure of reading a great article by Emily Nussbaum entitled "Say Anything" that appeared in The New Yorker. I'd like to take this space and highlight one part of article I found interesting and very informative.

Nussbaum highlights the generational divide that has emerged within the past ten years or so between those who grew up with New Media in their lives, and those that did not.

It’s been a long time since there was a true generation gap, perhaps 50 years—you have to go back to the early years of rock and roll, when old people still talked about “jungle rhythms.” Everything associated with that music and its greasy, shaggy culture felt baffling and divisive, from the crude slang to the dirty thoughts it was rumored to trigger in little girls. That musical divide has all but disappeared. But in the past ten years, a new set of values has sneaked in to take its place, erecting another barrier between young and old. And as it did in the fifties, the older generation has responded with a disgusted, dismissive squawk.

A lot of people don't realize this, but older people back in the 50s and 60s hated rock and roll. It goes back to when Elvis was a twenty-something year old sensation, but it continued throughout the sixties, when Woodstock rocked upstate New York. The kids that listened to the music did not surrender when their musical tastes were rebuked by their parents. Instead, they rebelled, and kept on rocking. That's the reason why Paul McCartney can open up the Mets new ballpark and sell it out, and why Pete Townshend of the Who can still smash his guitar on stage.

Now, I can't help but to think of it as ironic that these same rebellious people that went to Woodstock at 17 with a case of beer against their parent's wishes are now cracking down on their children being on Facebook and MySpace. Why would these same people that forty years ago rejected their parent's attempts to limit their freedom of expression do the same to their own kids? Professor Clay Shirky of New York University has an opinion on this.

“Whenever young people are allowed to indulge in something old people are not allowed to, it makes us bitter. What did we have? The mall and the parking lot of the 7-Eleven? It sucked to grow up when we did! And we’re mad about it now.” People are always eager to believe that their behavior is a matter of morality, not chronology, Shirky argues. “You didn’t behave like that because nobody gave you the option.”

Now, I don't completely disagree with this assessment. After all, if Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace are for the young, then why would older adults be joining these sites? They want to feel young again, and they are somewhat jealous, even if they don't show it, of the younger generation for having this much freedom of expression.

At the same time, that's not the motive of the older generation for rejecting new media as a form of expression for the younger generation. There's another consideration to be had, parenting. We may not know it yet, but our parents have had to put up with a lot.

Their number one priority in parenting is protecting their son or daughter, which is made harder tenfold when the son or daughter has a computer. More often than not, parents have no idea how to begin to tackle the problem of their children posting too much information on the internet. They're not familiar with new media, so they have no idea about how it works. That's enough to make any good parent nervous.

The best parents can do is talk to their kids, and often that's not enough. As the article notes, they have an invisible audience, their skin is tougher, and, often enough, they archive their adolescence, which, at the ends, provides in some cases for a nice future shock.

The fact is that many of these same kids that wore their hair long, that went to rock concerts, and experimented in risky behavior when they were young have grown into conservative parents, which, I believe, is why they resent the phenomenon of New Media. Yes, they may want what we have now, but they're also concerned about us making mistakes they made in their youth, mistakes that are available for the entire world to see with the click of a mouse.