WebProNews

Tag: Controversy

  • Grand Theft Auto Maker Trying to Kill BBC Movie About the Game’s Tumultuous Inception

    Grand Theft Auto Maker Trying to Kill BBC Movie About the Game’s Tumultuous Inception

    When the BBC announced that it was developing a feature-length film based on the making of the popular gaming franchise Grand Theft Auto, most assumed that it was at least OK’ed by the game’s creators – if not blessed by. Apparently, that’s not the case.

    Rockstar Games’ parent company Take-Two Interactive has filed a lawsuit against the BBC, saying its goal is to “ensure that our trademarks are not misused in the BBC’s pursuit of an unofficial depiction of purported events.”

    Here’s Rockstar’s full statement (via IGN):

    Take-Two Interactive has filed suit against the BBC for trademark infringement based on their movie currently titled ‘Game Changer’ as it relates to Rockstar Games’ Grand Theft Auto video game series.

    While holders of the trademarks referenced in the film title and its promotion, Rockstar Games has had no involvement with this project. Our goal is to ensure that our trademarks are not misused in the BBC’s pursuit of an unofficial depiction of purported events related to Rockstar Games. We have attempted multiple times to resolve this matter with the BBC without any meaningful resolution. It is our obligation to protect our intellectual property and unfortunately in this case litigation was necessary.

    The BBC first announced the project as part of its ‘Make It Digital’ initiative, which aims to “inspire a new generation to get creative with coding, programming and digital technology.”

    Here’s the film’s, which we now know to be titled Game Changer, official synopsis:

    Conceived for an adult audience, this special 90-minute drama tells the story of the controversy surrounding the computer game Grand Theft Auto – arguably the greatest British coding success story since Bletchley Park. Its triumph was down to a bunch of British gaming geniuses who had known each other since their school days, and at the heart of it all was GTA’s creative mastermind, Sam Houser. In autumn 2013 its latest iteration – GTA:V – earned $1bn in its first three days, becoming the fastest selling entertainment product in history.

    But the violent gameplay coupled with its outstanding commercial success leads to fierce opposition: from parents worried about children immersing themselves in such a violent world; from politicians, alarmed at the values they say it encourages; and above all from moral campaigners, who fight passionately to ban it. At the vanguard of this crusade is the formidable campaigning lawyer Jack Thompson, a man determined to do whatever he can to stop the relentless rise of Grand Theft Auto.

    Daniel Radcliffe is signed on to play Sam Houser, while the role of Jack Thompson has gone to Bill Paxton.

  • Adam Sandler Movies Are Ridiculous, Confirms Netflix

    Adam Sandler Movies Are Ridiculous, Confirms Netflix

    According to Netflix, nobody should be surprised when an Adam Sandler movies turns out to be a bit ridiculous.

    According to reports, nearly a dozen Native American actors walked off the set of Sandler’s new movie, The Ridiculous Six, in protest of some less-than-sensitive cultural jokes and stereotypes present in the script. According to the Indian Country Today Media Network, “the examples of disrespect included Native women’s names such as Beaver’s Breath and No Bra, an actress portraying an Apache woman squatting and urinating while smoking a peace pipe, and feathers inappropriately positioned on a teepee.”

    The Ridiculous Six, a supposed parody of The Magnificent Seven, is the first of four original films Adam Sandler will make for Netflix. The two parties struck a deal back in October of 2014.

    In an statement, Netflix basically said that the whole point of the movie is to be ridiculous – I mean, it says so in the title.

    “The movie has ridiculous in the title for a reason: because it is ridiculous,” said a spokesperson in a statement. “It is a broad satire of Western movies and the stereotypes they popularized, featuring a diverse cast that is not only part of – but in on – the joke.”

    The film boasts an impressive cast – Blake Shelton, Whitney Cummings, Steve Buscemi, Rob Schneider, Dan Aykroyd, Will Forte, Nick Swardson, Terry Crews, Jon Lovitz, Taylor Lautner, Nick Nolte, Luke Wilson, Steve Zahn, Danny Trejo, Chris Parnell, Lavell Crawford, and Vanilla Ice.

    Filming was unimpeded by the walk-off, according to reports.

    “When these fine people came to me with an offer to make four movies for them, I immediately said yes for one reason and one reason only…. Netflix rhymes with Wet Chicks,”” said Sandler when the four-picture deal was announced.

    Image via Angela George, Wikimedia Commons

  • ESPN’s Britt McHenry Should Be Fired, Says Twitter

    ESPN’s Britt McHenry Should Be Fired, Says Twitter

    According to a growing number of Twitter users, ESPN reporter Britt McHenry deserves a steeper punishment than a brief suspensions.

    The hastag #FireBrittMcHenry has surged in popularity, as people continue to scold the reporter for her actions, as well as ESPN for their decision to suspend her for one week.

    If you missed the Britt McHenry story, here’s a refresher.

    Earlier this week, a surveillance video caught the reporter and former Stetson University soccer player berating a towing company employee after her car was towed in Washington DC. McHenry insulted the employees’ weight, appearance, and level of education. The video went viral, garnered hundreds of thousands of views.

    “That’s why I have a degree and you don’t,” said McHenry at one point. “Maybe if I was missing some teeth, they would hire me here, huh?”

    Watch the video below:

    She later apologized for her actions, saying,

    “In an intense and stressful moment, I allowed my emotions to get the best of me and said some insulting and regrettable things. As frustrated as I was, I should always choose to be respectful and take the high road. I am so sorry for my actions and will learn from this mistake.”

    ESPN suspended her for one week.

    It appears it is the opinion of a good number of folks out there that this is not good enough.

    McHenry has not made a statement beyond her Twitter apology. The New York Post suggests that ESPN should reinstate McHenry until it has the full story. What do you think?

    Image via Britt McHenry, Twitter

  • Michael Bublé Really Pissed People Off with Instagram Post

    Canadian singer Michael Bublé is the latest target of the internet’s ire after he posted a photo on Instagram showing a woman’s backside hanging out of her shorts.

    “There was something about this photo lu took ,that seemed worthy of instagram. #myhumps #babygotback #hungryshorts #onlyinmiami #picoftheday #beautifulbum,” said Bublé in Instagram.

    Twitter and Instagram have been quick to label the pic “creepy”, “misogynistic”, and “disgusting”.

    Of course, Bublé has defenders:

    Bublé has yet to address the controversy. What do you think? Body shaming? Or the internet outrage machine getting worked up over nothing?

  • SeaWorld’s Twitter Q&A Goes About How You’d Expect

    SeaWorld’s Twitter Q&A Goes About How You’d Expect

    SeaWorld is not the most popular company in America.

    Activists have been raising concerns about SeaWorld’s treatment of its animals, especially its Orca whales, for some time. But a 2013 documentary called Blackfish really started a firestorm of controversy around the theme park. That documentary focuses on Tilikum, an orca residing at SeaWorld, Orlando, and condemned the treatment of orcas in captivity. The film centers around the death of Dawn Brancheau, a SeaWorld trainer, who was killed by the 6-ton whale in 2010. Tilikum has been involved in the deaths of two trainers and one SeaWorld guest.

    Acts canceled, attendance dropped.

    The point is – there are a lot of people who hate SeaWorld and SeaWorld knows this. That’s why this is such a head-scratcher:

    Ah yes, the ol’ request for a Twitter Q&A. This should go well.

    And finally,

    Seriously? What the hell did SeaWorld think would happen?

    Image via PETA, Twitter

  • Woman Who Cut Out Baby After Luring Mother on Craigslist Won’t Face Murder Charges

    A decision not to file murder charges against a woman accused of cutting a seven-month-old fetus from its mother’s womb is setting off debates over so-called “fetal homicide laws.”

    Earlier this month we told you the horrifying story of a woman who lured a pregnant woman to her home with a Craigslist ad for used baby clothing. When she arrived, she was beaten and stabbed. It ended with 34-year-old Dynel Lane cutting 26-year-old Michelle Wilkins’ unborn baby from her womb and leaving her there to die. Wilkins didn’t die, however. After spending some time in critical condition she was just recently released from the hospital.

    According to police, Lane had been telling her family that she was pregnant for some time. When her husband came home he found Lane covered in blood. The baby was in the upstairs bathtub. She told him she had a miscarriage, which is also what she told doctors when she took the baby to the hospital. It didn’t survive.

    According to District Attorney Stan Garnett, the decision on what charges to file is a tough one, but murder is not an option due to the state of Colorado’s fetal homicide laws. In Colorado, a baby must show signs of life outside the womb to be considered a victim in a homicide.

    From The Denver Post:

    “Under Colorado law, essentially, there is no way murder charges can be brought if it’s not established that the fetus lived as a child outside the body of the mother,” he said.

    David Beller, a Denver defense attorney, says the charges present a complex legal challenge and deciding which ones to file is “incredibly complicated.”

    “In my experience, doctors (can) tell pretty readily whether or not the baby actually took a breath and if the lungs expanded,” he said. “I think the legal questions are going to turn to her conduct after the fact.”

    Beller said that “multiple issues” were likely at play in deciding what charges to file. He added that while there is a great deal of legal precedent in fetal death cases, there isn’t much that equates to last week’s case.

    There are 37 states that label the killing of a fetus as homicide in some cases. Twenty nine of those offer full coverage to the unborn through all periods of pre-natal development. Eight offer partial coverage – depending on the stage of development. Colorado is not one of those states.

    What Colorado does have on the books are laws that make the intentional killing of a pregnant woman an aggravating factor, as well as those that “specify that a court shall sentence a defendant convicted of committing specified offenses against a pregnant woman, if the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was pregnant, to a term of at least the midpoint, but not more than twice the maximum, of the presumptive range for the punishment of the offense” and “establishing that a court shall sentence a defendant convicted of assault in the third degree to a term of imprisonment of at least six months, but not longer than the maximum sentence authorized for the offense, if the victim of the assault was a pregnant woman and the defendant knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.”

    For pro-choicers, fetal homicide laws represent a slippery slope to curtailing abortion rights.

    For the pro-lifers, this tragic case is an example of the need for such laws and many blame the other side for interfering in their passage.

    This is already political, but it’s probably best to think about the human consequences first. A woman is lucky to be alive and now has to deal with one of the most traumatic experiences one can imagine for the rest of her life.

  • Flickr Apologizes For Selling User Photos

    A few weeks ago, Yahoo’s Flickr angered some photographers by selling their work for profit, which it would not share with them. The complaints started, and eventually it became a news story, which gained national attention courtesy of The Wall Street Journal. Now, the company is saying it’s sorry, and is changing its plans.

    Did you follow this story when it first started? Do you think Yahoo/Flickr was within its rights to do what it was doing? Do you think angry photographers have overreacted, or did Yahoo cross the line? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    The company launched Flickr Wall Art, enabling users to turn their personal photostreams as well as over 50 million “freely-licensed Creative Commons images and order hand-selected collections from Flickr’s licensed artists” into prints. Well, some who had photos available under Creative Commons didn’t expect their content to be used in this way.

    Yahoo appears to have been within the confines of the law, but still, users felt like they were being taken advantage of. Here are some of the comments we received from readers:

    Another desperate ploy to make money…

    It’s bull … This is exploitation at its finest. Now now Yahoo, trying to gain market share with a stunt like this – I foresee a big drop is flickr photo sharing site … Pinterest should really ride this wave…

    Typical short-sighted big business. How much richer would your photo library be if people had incentive to store their photos there? They could even advertise for the themes they wanted and get thousands if not millions of entries.But if consumers don’t walk, or sue, then they will march on . . . I see an emerging business coming out of this debacle.

    As one pointed out, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer has made comments in the past that didn’t sit too well with photographers. She was once quoted as saying, “There’s no such thing as Flickr Pro, because today, with cameras as pervasive as they are, there is no such thing, really, as a professional photographer.”

    Either way, Flickr has now apologized, and announced that it’s no longer offering these Creative Commons photos through the service. Flickr VP Bernardo Hernandez writes:

    We’re sorry we let some of you down.

    About a month ago, we introduced Flickr Wall Art to allow our members to order printed photos on wood or canvas. Over the past few weeks, we’ve received a lot of feedback from the community and beyond — while some expressed their excitement about the new photography marketplace and the value it would bring, many felt that including Creative Commons-licensed work in this service wasn’t within the spirit of the Commons and our sharing community.

    We hear and understand your concerns, and we always want to ensure that we’re acting within the spirit with which the community has contributed. Given the varied reactions, as a first step, we’ve decided to remove the pool of Creative Commons-licensed images from Flickr Wall Art, effective immediately. We’ll also be refunding all sales of Creative Commons-licensed images made to date through this service.

    Flickr says it will be working closely with Creative Commons on programs that “align better” with its community values.

    Meanwhile, Flickr will continue to make its Wall Art service available, utilizing personal photostreams and licensed artists from the Flickr Marketplace.

    Was this right move from Yahoo? Do you think photographers were rightly upset about what the company did? Share your thoughts.

    Image via Flickr

  • Sephora Doesn’t Trust Its Asian Customers? Allegedly Deactivated Accounts According To Race

    As beauty supply giant Sephora could be about to learn the hard way, what seems like a simple and logical solution is actually grounds for a MAJOR lawsuit.

    Trouble began brewing Friday morning when Sephora made the following announcement on its Facebook page:

    The reality is that in taking steps to restore website functionality, some of our loyal North American and international clients got temporarily blocked. We understand how frustrating it is and are deeply sorry for the disruption to your shopping experience.

    However, in some instances we have, indeed, de-activated accounts due to reselling — a pervasive issue throughout the industry and the world. As part of our ongoing commitment to protecting our clients and our brands, we have identified certain entities who take advantage of promotional opportunities to purchase products in large volume on our website and re-sell them through other channels.

    After careful consideration, we have deactivated these accounts in order to optimize product availability for the majority of our clients.

    Everything seems in order…until you scroll to the comments section.

    Allegedly, the entirety of accounts deactivated by the retailer belong to Asian customers. As in ANYONE with a surname that would give the impression that they from Asia; if your first name is “Westernized”, you are supposedly in the clear.

    An incriminating screencap was posted that seems to verify that the majority of people who were locked out of their account were in fact East Asian:

    There seems to be a steady flow of notably Asian customers to the Sephora Facebook to beg to have their accounts back following an alleged blatant act of discrimination.

    And that’s simply not good.

    It would be one thing if there were a number of visibly non-Asian individuals on the page complaining about the mix-up.

    However, the appearance that Sephora locked out individuals based on their ethnic identity alone practically screams racism to the heavens.

    What’s perhaps MORE puzzling is why Sephora would risk its reputation rather than simply limit the amount of items that can be purchased at any given time?

    If it’s impossible to buy in bulk, shenanigans are will likely NOT ensue.

    It’s a solution that Sephora could very well be kicking itself over in the future. Especially if the accusations are eventually validated and the company finds itself facing one heck of a class action lawsuit.

    Do you think Sephora knowingly targeted Asian customers? If so, was the move a racist one?

  • Lena Dunham: When ‘Edgy’ Goes Over The Edge

    Lena Dunham is not the victim of a far-right smear campaign. Nor are she and her sister being attacked by a heteronormative culture policing the sexual self-expression of young female children.

    In actuality, The 28-year-old’s troubles have been brought on by something far less spectacular, but not altogether surprising.

    Dunham is a shining example of what happens when “edgy” writing goes over the edge.

    Lena Dunham is learning the hard way that you CAN’T just write whatever you want for shock value and expect people to not be shocked.

    The problem is that Dunham is now getting more attention for her notoriously off-colored commentary than she as an entitled white feminist is used to handling.

    Rather than take responsibility for her chosen mode of self-expression, Lena Dunham has retreated back into her entitlement bubble where everyone else is to blame for not getting it.

    Oh Lena, Lena, Lena…

    Did she really think including an anecdote in her book about exploring her then infant sister’s genitals wouldn’t raise eyebrows?

    Even if the uncomfortable passage about exploring Grace’s infant body were to be let go, there were other sections that were also disturbing to readers:

    ….Three pieces of candy if I could kiss [Grace] on the lips for five seconds … anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.

    She also spoke in her book of being a preteen and masturbating next to Grace. Had she never brought up the words “sexual predator”, the reader would likely have taken it as a hilariously embarrassing story. Possibly one that he or she could relate to!

    However, when you use emotionally evocative words like “sexual predator” to paint a picture, the action taints everything and anything—An inevitable turn of events when talking about individuals that are among the most disturbing and terrifying people on Earth.

    Child molestation and child sexual predators are always serious topics of discussion. They must be treated with the utmost sensitivity and care.

    It must also be said that the victims if these heinous acts deserve better than being used in such a blase manner by Dunham in her writing.

    A more sensitive and emotionally intelligent writer would know this, and have handily avoided this problem.

    Will this scandal signal the end of Lena Dunham’s fame? It’s too early to say.

    But one can only hope that Lena Dunham will at least halfway consider in the future exactly what she writes about and then more carefully consider her reach.

  • Boston Herald: Obama Cartoon Was Honest Mistake, Not Racist

    Twitter has been aflutter over a cartoon that recently appeared in the Boston Herald, and the newspaper, as well as the cartoonist behind the controversial ‘funny’, have made apologies.

    The cartoon, meant to poke fun at the recent Secret Service breach which saw an armed intruder make it wa(aaaaa)y too far into the White House, depicted said intruder sitting in Obama’s bathtub while the President brushes his teeth.

    “Have you tried the new Watermelon flavored toothpaste?” asks the man.

    The cartoon went viral (and not in the good way) soon after publication, as people pointed out that it played off a particularly prevalent racial stereotype involving African Americans and watermelon.

    The cartoonist in question, Jerry Holbert, recently went on the record – apologizing to any and all who were offended.

    “I want to apologize to anyone I offended who was hurt by the cartoon,” Holbert told Boston Herald Radio. “It was certainly, absolutely, not my intention … I was completely naive or innocent to any racial connotations. I wasn’t thinking along those lines at all.”

    What was he thinking? Apparently, the idea to go with ‘watermelon’ as opposed to any other flavoring was sparked by his kids’ watermelon-flavored toothpaste.

    The newspaper echoed Holbert’s insistence that the cartoon was in no way meant to offend.

    “As Jerry Holbert discussed on Boston Herald Radio this morning, his cartoon satirizing the U.S. Secret Service breach at the White House has offended some people and to them we apologize. His choice of imagery was absolutely not meant to be hurtful. We stand by Jerry, who is a veteran cartoonist with the utmost integrity.”

    Though the original version appeared in the Herald, an alternate version with “raspberry” instead of watermelon was drafted for syndication.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Etsy Bans ‘Redskins’ Items From Its Marketplace

    Etsy Bans ‘Redskins’ Items From Its Marketplace

    Even if you don’t follow football, it’s unlikely that you’ve not heard about the controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins and its name and mascot. It’s been controversial for years, but the argument has picked up major steam in recent months.

    E-commerce marketplace Etsy just announced that it is no longer permitting sellers to list items with the name Redskins – a move that will no doubt stir up its own share of controversy.

    Do you think Etsy is doing the right thing here? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    The company points to two major catalysts that led to its decision. The first is this ad from the National Congress of American Indians:

    “Native Americans call themselves many things,” it says. “The one thing they don’t…” Then it concludes with the image of a Washington Redskins football helmet and a football. It also includes the web address ChangeTheMascot.org.

    The ad has been around since January, and is described on YouTube as the “#BigGame commercial the NFL would never air.” It has over three million views. Here’s what the campaigns Twitter account has been saying:


    The campaign ran a radio ad in the Houston area as the Redskins went to town to play the Texans in week one.

    The Change the Washington Mascot Campaign labels itself a “civil rights and human rights effort,” and notes that, “Native American leaders and organizations, sports icons, school boards, city councils, state legislators, media organizations, civil rights groups, religious leaders, Members of Congress and the President of the United States have all said it is time for the Washington team to stop using a dictionary defined racial slur as its name.”

    The Oxford Dictionary labels the word “a term of disparagement.”

    Merriam-Webster cites it as “usually offensive.”

    Google’s dictionary feature labels it “dated offensive,” and shows an interesting graph showing its frequency of use over time, with it peaking in the late 1800s.

    The campaign shares a “fact sheet,” which includes points like: The U.S. Government Labels the R-Word A Racial Slur; The United Nations Says the Name is a Hurtful Reminder of Mistreatment; Social science research says the term has severe consequences; among others.

    The second item Etsy points to is a decision by the US Patent and Trademark Office to cancel the team’s trademarks.

    “Following this decision, an increasing number of public figures, politicians, schools, news publications, and private companies have spoken out in protest of the name and mascot,” says Bonnie Broeren, who manages Etsy’s policy team. “Like the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, we at Etsy find the opinion of the minority group itself to carry most weight in determining whether the mascot is disparaging. In no uncertain terms, Native American groups have consistently advocated and litigated that the term ‘redskin(s)’ is disparaging and damaging to Native Americans. Therefore, it will no longer be permitted in our marketplace.”

    “We understand that fans wish to support their favorite football team, and we do not believe that fans who are attached to the mascot have any racist feeling or intent,” she adds. “We also understand that some fans view the name and mascot as an homage to Native Americans, and we do not doubt their noble intent, but the fact remains that Native Americans themselves find the term unacceptable.”

    Etsy will continue to permit users to sell items that use the team’s colors and location, but not with the name or logo. The policy goes into effect immediately.

    The company is contacting sellers who are affected by the policy change, and there’s a Help Center article with additional info here.

    “Today we seek to balance two principles that are critically important to us: freedom of speech and protection from discrimination. Freedom of speech and expression is important to us because we are a community of artists, artisans, and curators of all backgrounds, aesthetics, and viewpoints. If you search our site, you will see a wide variety of items testifying to our diversity and our seemingly limitless creativity,” says Broeren. “This freedom, however, is not without limits. In the past, we have taken actions to protect our community and to preserve our integrity as both a creative and an ethical space. We want Etsy to be safe, welcoming, and respectful for everyone, including artists, women, and minorities. For this reason, it has long been against our policies to allow content on our site that demeans people based upon race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation.”

    In the past, Etsy has apologized for enabling sellers to list t-shirts promoting rape and updated its policy on prohibited animal products to include restrictions for fur, pelts, ivory, teeth, bones, and taxidermy.

    Etsy is already taking some flack for continuing to offer various items.

    Etsy also currently offers an “Al Jolsen Vintage Promotional photo 8 x 10 Picture Blackface Persona“:

    The Washington Post is pointing to a poll from ESPN’s Outside The Lines finding that 71% of Americans surveyed think the Redskins should keep their name, though as ESPN notes, those who think it should be changed rose nine percentage points within the last year. ESPN’s NFL Nation also polled 286 NFL players, and found that 58% say the name should not be changed, while 42% say it should.

    “The polling conducted for “Outside the Lines” showed no difference in attitude between men and women, or whites and non-whites,” Bob Ley wrote on ESPN’s website.

    It will be interesting to see if any of Etsy’s rivals follow its policy approach or take advantage of gaining new sellers who leave the service.

    As of the time of this writing, there are still a number of items listed on Etsy, which use the name and/or logo.

    Presumably stuff like this would still be acceptable under Etsy’s new policy:

    Do you believe Etsy made the right move with the policy change? Share your opinion here.

    Images: Etsy, Google

  • Chelsea Handler Receives Backlash For Hitler Parody

    Chelsea Handler is no stranger to controversy. However, it seems like her latest parody on her late night talk show Chelsea Lately, may have crossed the line, and she is now being called “tasteless, offensive and hurtful.”

    During an episode that aired on Monday, July 14, Chelsea did a Hitler parody on the show with her friend Chuy dressed up like the Nazi dictator. When Chuy first took to the stage, Handler asked him why he was dressed as Hitler to which he responded by saying, “because Germany won the World Cup.” “I’m a Jew, but I’m still glad Germany won. It’s nice for them to have something gold that they didn’t pry out of my grandfather’s mouth,” Chuy later added.

    “This Hitler parody in itself was tasteless, but Chelsea Handler’s references to it throughout the program and her connecting it with Germany’s World Cup victory took the joke way overboard,” Abraham H. Foxman, the National Director for the Anti-Defamation League, said in a statement on Wednesday, July 16.

    “While we try to give comedians leeway and do not believe that Nazi jokes should be completely off-limits, this was an instance of taking a Hitler parody to the extreme,” Foxman added. “It was tasteless, offensive and hurtful both to Holocaust survivors and their families, and to members of the German team and all Germans.”

    At the end of the skit Chuy said, “I am dressed as Hitler as a joke but I want everyone to know that I was a terrible man. I love Jews. Good night.”

    Although the parody was intended to put a funny spin on Germany winning the World Cup, many are outraged that she would stoop so low. And it’s not only Handler that is making jokes about Germany’s win; their win has ignited a slew of Hitler and Nazi comments on social media.

    ADL explained in a letter to E! Entertainment that Handler’s comments, “only play into this trivialization of what happened during the Holocaust. This trend only seems to be getting worse as time passes and as Holocaust survivors and memory of what really happened during World War II dwindles.”

    “These tweets falsely and irresponsibly identify current, democratic Germany with the horrific past of the country, which the present German government and people have denounced and rejected,” Foxman stated. “Germany has done so much to atone for its past, and to have this happen now is terribly hurtful.”

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Facebook Emotion Experiment Prompts Senator’s Letter To FTC

    Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) has written a letter to the Federal Trade Commission regarding Facebook’s controversial emotion experiment, seeking to have the commission examine the ordeal.

    “I come from the technology world, and I understand that social media companies are looking for ways to extract value from the information willingly provided by their huge customer base,” said Warner. “I don’t know if Facebook’s manipulation of users’ news feeds was appropriate or not. But I think many consumers were surprised to learn they had given permission by agreeing to Facebook’s terms of service. And I think the industry could benefit from a conversation about what are the appropriate rules of the road going forward.”

    Actually, as others have pointed out, Facebook didn’t even have the language in question in its terms of service at the time of the experiment. It was added later.

    The language may have changed, but Facebook told Forbes thist:

    “When someone signs up for Facebook, we’ve always asked permission to use their information to provide and enhance the services we offer. To suggest we conducted any corporate research without permission is complete fiction. Companies that want to improve their services use the information their customers provide, whether or not their privacy policy uses the word ‘research’ or not.”

    Here’s Warner’s letter (via AllFacebook):

    Warner Letter to FTC 7 9 14 by Mark Warner

    Facebook’s experiment has also drawn interest from the Information Commissioner’s Office in the UK, who is investigating the company.

    Various Facebook executives have defended the study, while acknowledging that they could have better communicated about it.

    Image via Senate.gov

  • Facebook Global Policy Head Defends Controversial Experiment

    Another Facebooker has spoken publicly about the controversial emotion experiment the company conducted without user consent in 2012.

    The company’s global policy management head, Monkia Bickert, spoke at the Aspen Ideas Festival, and had this to say when asked about it and potential legislation:

    The tension between legislation and innovation…It is, in this specific incident that you’re referring to, although I’m not really the best expert in…probably our public statements are the best source for information there, I believe that was a week’s worth of research back in 2012, and most of the research that is done on Facebook…if you walk around on campus, and you listen to the engineers talking, it’s all about how do we make this product better? How do we better suit the needs of the population using this product, and how do we show them more of what they want to see and less of what they don’t want to see? And that’s innovation. That’s the reason that when you look at Facebook or YouTube, you’re always seeing new features, and that’s the reason that if you’ve got that one annoying friend from high school, who always posts photos of her toddler every single day, that’s the reason you don’t see all of those photos in your News Feed.

    She went on to say say that it’s concerning to see legislation that could stifle creativity and innovation, and that Facebook needs to make sure it’s transparent about what it’s doing to make sure we don’t see such legislation.

    Similarly, COO Sheryl Sandberg said this week that the company poorly communicated what it was doing with the research.

    Via AllFacebook

  • Regulators Probe Facebook’s Emotion Experiment

    An experiment Facebook conducted with some of its users two years ago has been getting a lot of negative attention in recent days after a paper about it was published. The company basically took about 700,000 users, and tested the effects of showing them more positive or more negative posts in their News Feeds. The goal was to see how it affected users’ emotions (or at least the emotions conveyed in their own posts).

    Facebook has language in its terms of service, which indicate that it can use info for its own internal research, but it has come to light that this language was actually added after the test was conducted. Some people are outraged, and are calling Facebook’s practices unethical.

    Consumer Watchdog has publicly attacked the company (though this is pretty standard), and now regulators are taking a look at the situation.

    The Financial Times reports (registration required) that the Information Commissioner’s Office in the UK is now investigating the company, and that it said it’s too early to tell what part of the law the company may have broken (if any). According to the report, the ICO has the power to force a company to change its policies and levy fines of up to £500,000.

    Additionally, as Bloomberg reports, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner’s office has been in contact with the company, which is important to note as Facebook’s European headquarters are located in Ireland. That report includes a statement from a Facebook UK spokesperson:

    “It’s clear that people were upset by this study and we take responsibility for it. We want to do better in the future and are improving our process based on this feedback. The study was done with appropriate protections for people’s information and we are happy to answer any questions regulators may have.”

    Facebook’s Adam Kramer, who co-authored the study, previously offered an explanation in a Facebook post. COO Sheryl Sandberg also reportedly said that the company did a poor job of communicating about it.

    Image via YouTube

  • Actually, Facebook Changed Its Terms To Cover That Experiment After It Was Over

    The plot thickens.

    As you may know, it has come to light that Facebook ran an experiment with nearly 700,000 users in 2012, showing how it could manipulate emotions by showing users more positive or negative content in their News Feeds.

    As some have pointed out, Facebook’s terms say it can use users’ info “for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research, and service improvement,” with research being the keyword in this case. Only one problem: that wasn’t actually in the terms when Facebook carried out the experiment.

    Forbes points out that Facebook made changes to its data use policy four months after the experiment, and yes, that bit about research was one of those changes.

    So if you were already upset about Facebook’s little test, there’s some more fuel for the fire. For some reason, images of Mark Zuckerberg sweating bullets while being grilled about privacy on stage at the D8 conference are coming to mind.

    Facebook now has Consumer Watchdog on its back over the whole thing. The organization put out a press release calling Facebook’s research “unethical”.

    “There is a longstanding rule that research involving human subjects requires informed consent. The researchers clearly didn’t get it,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director, “Sleazy, unethical behavior is nothing new for Facebook, so I’m not really surprised they would do this. The academic researchers involved with the project and the National Academy of Sciences, which published the results, should be ashamed.”

    “Facebook’s TOS — like those of most Internet companies — are cleverly crafted by high-priced lawyers so as to be virtually indecipherable to the average user, but allow Facebook to do essentially whatever it wants commercially,” said Simpson. “It protects Facebook and its sleazy business practices, but it in no way provides the level of informed consent that is expected and required when doing research with human subjects.”

    Obviously that was before it came to light that the part about research wasn’t even in the ToS when the experiment was carried out.

    “Facebook has no ethics,” said Simpson. “They do what they want and what is expedient until their fingers are caught in the cookie jar. Like the rest of the tech giants, they then apologize, wait a bit and then try something new that’s likely to be even more outrageous and intrusive. Silicon Valley calls this innovation. I call it a compete disrespect for societal norms and customs.”

    Yes, the current outrage will no doubt die down within the week, and Facebook will carry on being Facebook. And Facebook users will carry on using Facebook.

    Image via YouTube

  • Did Facebook Cross The Line This Time?

    Facebook went and freaked a bunch of people out again. They were about due, weren’t they? This time, the freak-out comes from an academic study of all things, looking at how Facebook can manipulate users’ emotions based on the posts they choose to show in the News Feed.

    Some people feel Facebook has crossed a line here, while others essentially consider it par for the course on the Internet of today (not to mention on Facebook itself).

    Are you comfortable knowing that Facebook can potentially alter your mood by showing you certain types of posts? Did Facebook cross the line? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    The study is called “Experimental Evidence Of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion Through Social Networks”. The abstract explains:

    Emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness. Emotional contagion is well established in laboratory experiments, with people transferring positive and negative emotions to others. Data from a large real-world social network, collected over a 20-y period suggests that longer-lasting moods (e.g., depression, happiness) can be transferred through networks…although the results are controversial. In an experiment with people who use Facebook, we test whether emotional contagion occurs outside of in-person interaction between individuals by reducing the amount of emotional content in the News Feed. When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred. These results indicate that emotions expressed by others on Facebook influence our own emotions, constituting experimental evidence for massive-scale contagion via social networks. This work also suggests that, in contrast to prevailing assumptions, in-person interaction and nonverbal cues are not strictly necessary for emotional contagion, and that the observation of others’ positive experiences constitutes a positive experience for people.

    “We show, via a massive (N = 689,003) experiment on Facebook, that emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness.,” the researchers say in the “significance” section. “We provide experimental evidence that emotional contagion occurs without direct interaction between people (exposure to a friend expressing an emotion is sufficient), and in the complete absence of nonverbal cues.”

    You can dig in here.

    Naturally, people are a little uncomfortable with Facebook taking these liberties.

    It’s important to keep this in perspective though. They did this with a reported 0.04% of users over a single week two years ago. That might not make you feel any less dirty, but chances are if you weren’t included, and even if you were, it was a long time ago, and likely of little significance to you now other than a general creepy feeling. Of course, you never know when they’re running any kind of experiment, so things like this could really happen at any time without notice.

    Facebook’s Adam Kramer, who co-authored the study, took to Facebook to respond to the outrage:

    The reason we did this research is because we care about the emotional impact of Facebook and the people that use our product. We felt that it was important to investigate the common worry that seeing friends post positive content leads to people feeling negative or left out. At the same time, we were concerned that exposure to friends’ negativity might lead people to avoid visiting Facebook. We didn’t clearly state our motivations in the paper.

    Regarding methodology, our research sought to investigate the above claim by very minimally deprioritizing a small percentage of content in News Feed (based on whether there was an emotional word in the post) for a group of people (about 0.04% of users, or 1 in 2500) for a short period (one week, in early 2012). Nobody’s posts were “hidden,” they just didn’t show up on some loads of Feed. Those posts were always visible on friends’ timelines, and could have shown up on subsequent News Feed loads. And we found the exact opposite to what was then the conventional wisdom: Seeing a certain kind of emotion (positive) encourages it rather than suppresses is.

    And at the end of the day, the actual impact on people in the experiment was the minimal amount to statistically detect it — the result was that people produced an average of one fewer emotional word, per thousand words, over the following week.

    The goal of all of our research at Facebook is to learn how to provide a better service. Having written and designed this experiment myself, I can tell you that our goal was never to upset anyone. I can understand why some people have concerns about it, and my coauthors and I are very sorry for the way the paper described the research and any anxiety it caused. In hindsight, the research benefits of the paper may not have justified all of this anxiety.

    While we’ve always considered what research we do carefully, we (not just me, several other researchers at Facebook) have been working on improving our internal review practices. The experiment in question was run in early 2012, and we have come a long way since then. Those review practices will also incorporate what we’ve learned from the reaction to this paper.

    Feel better about it now?

    As others have pointed out, Facebook’s terms of service pretty much allow it to do this type of stuff as it pleases. Unfortunately, it has come to light that Facebook made changes to its terms to cover the experiment four months after it actually conducted.

    Sam Biddle at Valleywag writes, “The most valuable lesson for the company might be that it can keep creeping us out and violating its customers, over and over again, and none of us will ever delete our accounts. I’d love to read that study.”

    Let’s just hope nobody involved in in the experiment killed themselves. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time we’ve heard of suicides related to Facebook.

    At least it’s probably in Facebook’s interest to keep you happy rather than depressed. If you read too much depressing stuff on Facebook, you might decide you don’t want to use it so much. And that would of course mean that you won’t click on ads.

    Facebook continues to tweak its algorithm based on your behavior. While the study was conducted in 2012, just last week, the company announced changes to how it shows videos to users. Facebook knows how much video you’re watching, and will show you more if you watch more and vice versa.

    In reality, as an internet user, you’re subject to all kinds of tests from the various services you use, not to mention advertisers, at any point in time. It’s the trade-off we make in exchange for the sites and apps we use every day.

    Is using Facebook worth letting them decide what content they want to show you at any given moment? Let us know what you think.

  • Uber ‘Honors’ Pride Week with On-Demand Weddings

    On-demand car company, ride-sharing purveyors, or disruptors of the taxi game – whatever you want to call them, Uber is known for creative marketing stunts. Last year, the company offered to deliver kittens for people to play with. Then, during Christmas, they delivered Christmas trees.

    Now, in honor of San Francisco’s LGBT Pride week, Uber is offering to marry you – on-demand.

    Here’s what an Uberwedding will look like:

    When your UberWEDDING arrives, we’ll get started right away. You’ll first work with our on-site notary to obtain your marriage license. Once the license is official, the violinist will begin to play and the ceremony will commence!

    You’ll walk down an aisle surrounded by flowers from Bloom That and candles from bella j. After you both say “I Do,” we’ll celebrate with dessert from SusieCakes, cheers with champagne from Iron Horse and you’ll receive a gift bag from L.

    If you’re in the area and wish to have a sudden wedding, just open the Uber app and drop a pin where you’d like the wedding to take place. Uber will even provide you with vows, if you’re in too much of a hurry to write your own.

    “From arrival to “I do” will take 45 – 60 min,” says Uber.

    Uber is offering these quickie weddings to people of all sexual orientations, but the emphasis is definitely on the LGBT community, it being Pride week and all.

    So, uh, people aren’t happy about this.

    “We’re thankful to be based in San Francisco, a city that recognizes love doesn’t have to look any certain way. In honor of Pride week, we’re celebrating the inclusive idea that love is love with something that lasts a lifetime,” says Uber.

    Look, maybe this was a sincere attempt at having a little fun over the weekend, and maybe Uber is very supportive of the LGBT community (I’m sure they truly are) – but they had to have seen this coming.

    Maybe just stick with the kitten delivery in the future, ok guys?

    Image via Uber, Twitter

  • Google, Once Again, Offends with D-Day Doodle

    In another one for the Google hates America, freedom, and our veterans files, the search engine is once again on the defensive after pissing off some people on D-Day with a Google Doodle.

    For a brief period this morning, on the 70th anniversary of the Allied invasion of Normandy in Operation Overlord during World War II, Google displayed a Doodle that in no way honored or even referenced the famous battle.

    Instead, Google displayed a Doodle honoring mid-19th century Japanese Go player Honinbo Shusaku.

    Of course, this happened:

    …and this:

    …and plenty more like it.

    As you probably guessed, this was simply a mistake on Google’s part. The doodle, which was only meant to be shown for Google’s Japanese and Hong Kong users, was displayed (for a brief moment) on Google.com, Google.co.uk, and Google.fr.

    “Unfortunately a technical error crept in and for a short period this morning an international doodle also appeared. We’re sorry for the mistake, and we’re proud to honor those who took part in D-Day,” said a Google spokesperson.

    Google’s no stranger to Doodle controversies – especially ones concerning D-Day. Back in 2012, Google was criticized for running a Doodle marking the anniversary of the very first drive-in movie theater on June 6th, instead of featuring a D-Day-themed piece of search art.

    According to Fox News, Google hates America because it didn’t run a Flag Day Doodle at one point.

    Here’s the thing – what Google has done for D-Day is much better than a Doodle could ever be. Right under the search box on its homepage, Google asks users to remember D-Day by exploring letter, photos, and maps of the Normandy landings. Google links us to an interactive “Google Cultural Institute” exhibit, which has nearly 500 of the aforementioned items available for everyone’s perusal.

    Next year, maybe Google will make the “L” an American flag or something, just to appease Twitter.

    Images via YouTube, Wikimedia Commons

  • Bride Drags Baby Down Aisle As Part Of Train

    According to tradition, a blushing bride needs “something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue.”

    One bride took “new” to a rather controversial extreme.

    Shona Carter-Brooks was ecstatic to be marrying the love of her life, Johnathon Brooks. The two tied the knot in a Tennessee church back in May.

    She even walked down the aisle in a gorgeous Vera Wang wedding dress.

    For many brides-to-be, this would have been enough.

    However, it seemed Carter-Brooks really wanted her newborn child, Aubrey, to be part of this special occasion.

    Rather than carry the infant down the aisle in her arms, she took a far less conventional approach.

    Carter-Brooks had little Aubrey sewn into her wedding dress. In images, you can clearly see the adorable little baby in the train.

    This means the baby girl was quite literally dragged down the aisle.

    Some guests were impressed by the gesture.

    “Congrats on the beautiful wedding sweetie,” wrote Val Bradford. “That was something new that I haven’t seen and [it] was too cute.”

    Others were more than a little horrified at the sight.

    With images of the wedding popping up all over the social media of people who were in attendance, it was really only a matter of time before the images went viral.

    There is, not too surprisingly, quite a bit of of public outcry over the decision. What if the bride had tripped? What if the baby was somehow injured? It didn’t strike certain observers as a safe or sensible way to help the infant feel “included” in the day’s special events.

    The indignant bride hit-back at critics.

    Said Carter-Brooks:

    Media…I see how it works regardless the situation or purpose people gone having something negative to say! […] Our 1 month old was awake and well secured on my train.

    Her defense doesn’t make the decision seem any less tacky to some, however it seems the bride, groom, and baby are happy. Even if the internet remains doubtful of the logic behind her choice.

    Are people overreacting or was this a terrible idea? Share your thoughts below!

    Image via YouTube

  • North Korea’s State Owned News: “Obama is a monkey”

    Propaganda is usually more eloquent, combined with images of gallantry and false promises through meaningless slogans; a rhetoric that allows for no free thought or discussion – ‘you’re either with us or against us.’

    North Korea spares no elegance when it tries to make a point, whether it’s a myriad of empty threats, execution by flamethrower, or bombardments from its state-run media front; Pyongyang’s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), currently threw out some bigoted comments describing President Barack Obama as a “wicked black monkey.”

    “Divine punishment to the world’s one and only delinquent Obama”, published in Korean on May 2nd, came just in time with Obama’s state visit to South Korea. The article is composed of essays penned by four different people, despite the style being indistinguishable. If it wasn’t labeled a government publication, it’d pass as satire:

    “You can also tell this by his appearance and behavior, and while it may be because he is a crossbreed, one cannot help thinking the more one sees him that he has escaped from a monkey’s body,” it stated.

    The written diatribe lists Obama as a monkey four times, as well as calling him a “clown”, “dirty fellow” and somebody who “does not even have the basic appearance of a human being”; it geared towards the United States as “paper tiger” – its strength as a nation being largely a “myth.”

    “It would be better for him to live with other monkeys at a wild animal park in Africa … and licking bread crumbs thrown by onlookers,” wrote steel worker Kang Hyok at Chollima Steel Complex, author of one of the four essays.

    Another author, a military officer named Han Jin-Sung, wrote with more madness:

    “These Yankees have no idea who they are dealing with, and we will teach them the true taste of fire and war. Our nuclear strikes of justice and our powerful baptism by fire will decimate America, that devil’s den, without a trace — that is our resolution.”

    The articles have drawn criticism from the White House’s National Security Council, which said they were “particularly ugly and disrespectful.”

    State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on Thursday that the North Korean dispatch was “offensive and ridiculous and absurd.”

    “I don’t know how many words I can use up here to describe the rhetoric … It’s disgusting,” Harf told reporters at the Foreign Press Center in Washington.

    Yoo Ho-yeol, a professor of North Korea studies at Korea University in South Korea said that North Korea is trying to garner attention by publicizing such controversy, and that the government will distance themselves from it, attributing the remarks to their citizens who ultimately penned the piece.

    “If it was to publish such a report in the voice of the authorities it would entrap them, whereas reporting the story under some ordinary citizen’s name will give them leeway,” said Yoo.

    The published pieces are particularly a response towards President Obama’s recent visit to South Korea, where he and South Korean President Park Geun-hye held a summit in Seoul last month. During his visit, Obama said at a joint news conference with Park that he’s considering further sanctions against North Korea, and that the U.S. will not hesitate to engage in military action to defend its allies.

    Politics explode.

    Images via Wikimedia Commons (1), (2)