Source: Welcome to the Jungle!
About a week or so ago, Philidelphia rapper Meek Mill heard allegations that Toronto embassador Drake had a “ghostwriter” for his R.I.C.O. feature on Meeks recently released album.
- Drake and Nicki Minaj (Meeks girlfriend) were more than just Cash Money label mates?
- Drake sneaked dissed Meek on his own track and didn’t notice the lyrics until the album had already released? It’s been well documented how Drake loves him some Nicki
Lest stop and think about them for a second. Drake use to profess his love for nicki in his records, even suggesting getting married on his debuted album Thank Me Later. He says “I love Nicki Minaj I told her I’d admit it,I hope one day we get married just to say we fucking did it. And girl I’m fucking serious I’m with it if you with it.’Cause your verses turn me on and your pants are mighty fitted. (Miss me)”
Minaj breaks up with longtime boyfriend SB and jumps to Meek, deading the longtime love affair rumors with Drake.
The Twitter rants came about due to the fact that Drake didn’t show support by not tweeting Meeks album (Dreams Worth More Than Money) which topped billboards top 200 at #1 and he clearly felt some type of way. He decided to out him by exposing his ghostwriter to the world of hip-hop.
Drake is the hottest rapper in the game going on 2yrs now. First he drops 0 To 100/The Catch Up hike following that up with a surprise mixtap/album in February 2015 (If Youre Reading This It’s Too Late) “which took off like a rocket” shooting to #1 which in a domino affect, led to countless features, radio spins and more end$.
Once Meek started discrediting the Canadian MC’s skills as a writer, the pressure was on. Fans waited patiently for the 6god to respond. We all knew that Drake was to big for a response about the accusations “diss me, you’ll never hear a reply for it” (So far gone-Successful) Then Sunday came, and this happened!
Drake went back on his words and responded with a lite jab. The fans got hype. We could sense the beef was just starting to cook. We waited patiently for Meeks diss to be put on wax. We knew he was coming with bars. But he pumped faked and didn’t respond. 4 days go by and we get a response, finally! But it wasn’t from Meek it was from Drake.
While everybody was still asleep, Drake dropped the sound loud link for his 2nd diss towards Meek called “Back 2 Back.”
The track left fans with tons of questions:
- Who is the guy on the over?
- Why did he use it?
- What’s the meaning behind it?
The cover art is fro the 1993 World Series when RF Joe Carter with 2 outs, 2 strikes and 2 men on base hit one of the biggest home runs in MLB history, defeating the Philadelphia Phillies (their 2nd title in a row) in walk-off fashion. Drake being a student of the game, tells the world that Charged up and Back 2 Back should be celebrated like a repeat as well by basically ending Meek Mills career.
After feeling the heat from TV host, Radio personalities and hip-hop fans across the globe, Meek responded with this trash diss called “wanna know.” You can tell he was
- A dollar short.
- And a day late.
It wasn’t even 5mins and social was already clowning the track.
Drake had is annual ovo fest where did his best to end Meeks career. His hometown show was packed with disses ranging from the free Meek Mill tee he was wearing during rehearsals as well as becoming the first MC to use a slideshow full of memes to basically end their opponents career during a live concert.
Even Philadelphia megastar Will Smith was in attendance.
Drake you already won the battle. At this point he is turning into the beast Brock Lesnar. Should Drake move on or continue to shame Meeks career? Is Drake becoming the Bully of matter?
Wow when you search Net Neutrality or NN on reddit the subreddits that show up span from politics, conspiracy, technology, to thewaroncomast! It seems NN can spill over into any conversation topic.
My initial sentiment on the subject of NN is, “yeah keep the internet open to all, enough said.” Living in the US we hear reports that Google and Yahoo have to censor their search engines in countries where the freedom of press is not a right. Example of that being in China, where you can’t search for current events like Tiananmen Square. So with the possibility of a corporate take over of the internet set to happen in America. Naturally the web starts buzzing with negative comments towards companies like Comcast and then David Cross calls someone a corporate shill, and that’s when things get out of control.
Here’s David Cross if you don’t know who he is.
So why would there even be a debate about regulating something like the internet, we live in a free democratic society?
Well it may have to do with the cost of maintaining and or improving the infrastructure of the internet. Reading the very recent article by Maggie Reardon 13 things you need to know about NN. One of the recent commenters Deutoronomy, makes some lengthy points that sound reasonable. To sum up the points they go something like this. How do most improvements happen for public utilities that are privately owned? Through private investments or costs that are passed onto the consumer. Infrastructure upgrades for the internet will most likely happen the same way. Streaming services like Netflix, gobbles up one GB of data per hour for each standard definition video and up to 3 GB for HD.
If we want a blazing fast internet it looks unfortunately we’re going to have to pay for it. With so many applications, online services (Netflix, Hulu, AppleTV), smart home appliances (thermostats, refrigerators, washers) all connected to the internet. Someone is going to have to prioritize who gets what, and at what speed. If you’re expecting to continue piggybacking off your neighbors Wifi and use these services, your in for a surprise.
The chance to perverse the internet with tactics like throttling or directing you to advertisements will always be there. I think it comes down to two options, either we have an slowly expanding internet dictated by little investment and control. Or we have a blazing fast internet that will cost you more, but the service will be lightyears ahead.
With all your smart gadgets could you compromise with having internet that is free (not regulated by the private companies) but your bandwidth is slow and capped? Or would you consider paying extra for really fast speeds but with the possibility of seeing more advertisements?
Here’s some Futurama humor to get you started.
Source of Photo: TechFrag.com
Although it has appeared in the news as a topic of main concern, Net Neutrality still exists as an anomalous concept for some individuals. For those of you completely unaware of what exactly Net Neutrality is, SaveTheInternet.com defines it as “the Internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online.” This framework is what allows for open networks to exist across the internet, giving us the ability to freely search and access any pieces of information we so choose without the fear of being blocked or prohibited.
Current rule changes have been in discussion for quite some time now, with the possible results being disastrous for internet users. While the rules themselves are extensive in scope, one of the major points made rests in the ability for ISPs to offer new speeds of service and rates for charging. Marguerite Reardon’s article for Cnet.com entitled 13 Things You Need to Know About the FCC’s Net Neutrality Regulation outlines this issue as follows: “Broadband providers will still be able to offer new services and rates, which means they can add a faster tier of service, at a new price, without permission from the FCC.” In turn, this would allow the controlling ISPs to grant access to fast and reliable internet at a much higher cost, while creating a slower, cheaper alternative to accompany it.
As a result of this, it is possible that internet providers will slow down speeds in hopes of making a greater profit from specific websites. This form of “throttling” is clearly depicted during John Oliver’s rant on Net Neutrality during his June 1st, 2014 episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, in which he discusses Comcast and Netflix’s negotiations, during which Comcast throttled the connection speeds for Netflix and sent them plummeting until a resolve was made between the companies. Oliver equates this incident with that of a “mob shakedown,” making the big-money corporations the bullies with complete control over their business.
Source of Photo: The Washington Post
This control gives the major companies immense power over their product, limiting the freedom of those who have access to it. On top of this, it silences the voices of those reaching out for a specific cause, unable to communicate in a timely manner on important topics within the world. In Zeynep Tufecki’s post on the importance of Twitter on the situations of Ferguson, Missouri, titled What Happens to #Ferguson Affects Ferguson: Net Neutrality, Algorithmic Filtering, and Ferguson, she outlines the ways in which Twitter proved to be the most useful tool in communicating the shooting of Michael Brown in early August of 2014.
While the incident itself is categorized as world news by now, it did not begin as such. Tufecki acknowledges that the freedom and speed that Twitter gives its users allowed for first-hand accounts of the oppression as well as visual aids to support the evidence, the first coverage to be seen en mass from this series of events. Without the speed and freedom of speech that Net Neutrality gave the people of Ferguson, Missouri — not to mention the inability to block any information from being posted — the community outreach may never have reached others.
Source of Photos: The Latino Post
Net Neutrality gives us our voice across the internet. It not only protects us from the towering control of the indomitable ISPs, but also from violations to our constitutional freedom of speech. From your own experience with Net Neutrality, what other possible changes do you foresee coming as a result from a new ruling that allow greater control for the ISPs? What could this mean to the future of our own personal right to free speech and the internet’s unwritten rules concerning a freedom from governmental and corporate control? Do you consider the possible negatives of a diminished Net Neutrality to be egregious enough to merit community protest and change, or do you consider it a perpetuation and public showcasing of already-standing procedures (such as the Comcast-Netflix fiasco)?
A hacktivist is defined as a computer hacker whose activity is aimed at promoting a social or political cause. So a hacktivist is simply a hacker whose goal is to bring light to a social or political issue. When a hacktivist decides to act out and get attention brought to a certain subject, it shows that this person feels the need for this information to be out in the public. The problem with these actions is the hacktivist doesn’t look at the other side of it all and doesn’t look at who this could hurt. When a hacktivist decides to release information in which they had gather through hacking, no matter what right they feel they are doing by getting this information out there, this release of information can have bad implications.
In the article WikiLeaks and Hacktivist Culture, it talk about one of the most known cases of hacktivism which was formally named Project Chanology. I won’t go into all of the detail of Project Chanology, but there is information you can take from this that people need to see. When an attack from a hacktivist happens and attention is brought upon a group, the group in which the attention is brought upon, in this case the Church of Scientology, can act in a way in which other people will see negatively and ultimately hurt themselves by responding in the way they did, which is a direct harm for the intended target. The backlash from this is, what happens to all the people who believed in or supported what they felt was right. In this case, what happened to all the people who believed in Scientology? With the battle between the two catching the headlines on newspapers and television, people were beginning to see the darker sides of how people can act. Because of seeing these issues going on, people will gain their own opinions, and people who supported Scientology could be looked upon differently because of how the church was acting. So an innocent person can be hurt by the actions of a hacktivist, even when they weren’t the intended target. So when you look at hacktivism, the intended target is not the only one who gets harmed; innocent people who were in the way got hurt as well.
If you look at hacktivism in an ethical manner, you can see that there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed. The definition of ethics is moral principles that govern a person’s or group’s behavior. So if you combine hacktivism and ethics, it will result in a hack to make a statement in which the hacker or hacktivist will act due to how they feel about a certain topic. The tricky part with this is, you can decide how one person feels and how they will act, and because of this, you get radical statements and big statements throughout the world. A person will fully stand behind what they believe, and some people will stop at nothing to show how they feel. In the article The rights and wrongs of hacktivism, the author says “moral footing for peaceful lawbreaking must be an individual’s readiness to take the consequences.” That statement there says it completely, one person who acts upon ethical hacktivism must be will to take the consequences if their actions go too far.
There will still be time in which people go too far with their actions. At this point, we must be able to realize this and take a stand against ethical hacktivism. Do you think the movements and acts of a hacktivist are correct? Do you think anyone gets hurt by hacktivism, and if so, who? And finally, do you feel that we should make sure there is an ethical border in which hacktivism does not cross?
In 1990 the way the world communicated changed dramatically when the World Wide Web made its debut changing the way computers talk to each other. The result of that groundbreaking technology was that people could also communicate ideas, images, media, and information to each other with great speed and through long distances at the touch if a keyboard. The culture of the future had built its foundation on the culture of the past taking the Internet to places never imagined while using it for purposes to fit modern times. As a famous Starship Captain once said, “To boldly go where no man has gone before”(James T. Kirk). That place is now digital activism, and hacktivisim.
It has been approximately 47 years since the Civil Rights Act of 167 since the savage beatings bestowed upon protestors with water house, imprisonment, and even attacks by dogs. In today’s society activist have taken to a new form of protest born from Internet called Digital Activism and Hacktivism. Digital activism is a way to use the networking power of the Internet to protest. In the early days of the Internet this phenomenon would not have been possible. As technology grew and Web 2.0 transformed the Web, architects began to build new platforms for information sharing and displaying information. Activist saw this as an opportunity. While the tools were made in the idea of sharing pictures, such as pictures of cats mentioned in the web blog “The Cute Cat Theory of Digital Activism”, activist saw it as a way to network. “Activism is a stronger test – if activists are using your tools, it’s a pretty good indication that your tools are useful and usable”(Ethan Zuckerman). Activist could use these online tools to protest injustice by gathering support from others who would have not normally been available. In many ways this a familiar and yet new approach to activism. The Civil Rights movement used the medium of television to reach the world. This form of activism however does not require physical presence, or the possibility of physical injury to be involved. It is forward in thinking and progressive in style as the sits in’s protest of old now take place via the Web. It was through this new age of activism that Alaa Abdel was able to blog about his imprisonment form prison through his wife. Abdel was able to draw national attention through his wife’s blogs attracting the like of CNN and Al Jazeera. These same techniques have also been used here in the United States through Twitter platforms such #bringbackourgirls to bring awareness about the kidnapped girls in Nigeria.
Digital Activism has also taken another form in China with Human-Flesh search engines. This form of digital activism like mentioned above is based upon a network of people wired through the Internet. The difference is that the Human-Flesh search engine works as a vigilante style of justice looking to hunt those who have violated the moral code of the public and punish them. Much like the Hackers of Hacktivism. This group of talented individuals also see themselves as keepers of a moral code. That code being that information should not be horded and not to trust authority and promote decentralization. Hacktivism is the application of information technologies to political action. Their code may not apply to all people but for the select few that call themselves hackers, it is their creed. In the article WikiLeaks and the Hacktivist Culture, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is thought of to be great man amongst hackers but yet a threat to government. Hacktivist have found ways to expose secrets of corporations such as Sony to show the world what really transpires behind closed doors. Hacktivist have also exposed corrupt government officials and have criticized the Church of Scientology for its censorship. Do you agree with the exposing of secrets information to public or believe that some things should remain secret? How do you feel about the vigilante style Human Search-Engine? Does it cause more harm than good? And finally, do you think digital activism would have had worked for the Civil Rights Movement? Would there have been less violence and could Dr. King lead his troops from the safety of a computer screen?
Copyright laws are designed to encourage and protect the creative works of authors and artists by allowing creators the exclusive right to protect their works. The United States Constitution grants Congress the power to create and enforce copyright laws. The Copyright Clause in the Constitution reads as following: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. This encourages artists and authors to sell and protect their writings without fear of others copying or selling their goods as their own. Copyright laws have great benefits and were created in a time where most profits were drawn from the land instead of abstract ideas of art, music and writings.
The main concern or critique with these laws of protection is that they dissolve after 70 years after the authors death. Congress is allowed to lift this protection in the name of public good. The thinking is that art should not be trapped or concealed from progress and after time it should be explored and allow other to use or transform its expression. This “freeing” of ideas seems loaded with good intentions, however, this type of forfeiture does not exist in other facet of U.S. property or business law. Why should works of art be subject to this and nothing else?
Author Mark Helprin explores this conflict in his piece ‘A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn’t Copyright?’. Helprin explains that the homes we buy/build are allowed to be inherited by his next of kin or large companies my be divided among surviving children but copyrighted material is subject to different rules. If you were write the next great novel or a musical masterpiece, the control over that material would eventually expire.
Why should someone’s creative works expire when a business or wealth in other forms does not have an expiration date?
Today, these is much more creative material than when copyright laws were written. Some may argue that copyright laws are more important than ever. A solution to protect creative material that still has profitable or intellectual value may be to allow for copyright renewal. This would allow for some material to be “freed” while works that are deemed to be freed to the public for the greater good of public interest will have a copyright lifted. A renewal limit may also be a worthy compromise. What other solutions would allow the protection of the arts and also allow for ideas and arts to not be held captive my copyright laws?