WebProNews

Tag: petitions

  • Uber Petition Grows After Hong Kong Raid

    Uber Petition Grows After Hong Kong Raid

    Just a couple of days after police raided Uber’s Hong Kong offices, a petition to “Keep Hong Kong Moving” has already amassed nearly 40,000 signatures.

    “As you may have heard, police visited Uber’s offices in Hong Kong this week and took two interns into custody. Seven Uber driver-partners were pulled over as well. We’re glad to report they have all been released and are safe at home. A huge thanks to the thousands of you who have emailed us, posted on social media, and otherwise voiced your support. Your UberLove has been tremendous!” says Uber.

    On August 11th, Hong Kong police arrested a handful of Uber drivers for “illegal use of vehicles for hire,” according to Reuters.

    According to officials, undercover cops used the Uber app to call five cars, and once they reached their destinations they arrested the drivers.

    Police also searched Uber’s local offices and seized documents and computers.

    Honk Kong, like many cities around the world, has seen protests from local taxi drivers who claim that Uber operates outside the law, failing to obtain permits and proper licensing.

    In some places, those protests have turned violent. In Honk Kong, angry taxi drivers recently smashed a red taxi in a symbolic gesture.

    “We’re committed to providing Hongkongers with the safe, reliable, and quality transportation options they deserve. We welcome the opportunity to work with the HK government to modernize regulations in order to accommodate technologies that help make Hong Kong a more livable city,” says Uber.

    “Around the world, Uber is working with governments to achieve a common goal that creates safe, reliable, and efficient transportation options supported by reasonable, consumer-friendly regulations. We look forward to meeting with the Transport and Housing Bureau, other government bodies, and legislators to discuss how we can work together to encourage innovation and create a better Hong Kong for residents, tourists, and business travelers.”

  • The White House Just Responded to the Pardon Edward Snowden Petition – Two Years Later

    It only took two years, but the White House has finally gotten around to providing a response to a petition asking for the pardon of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

    Official answer: nope.

    “As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, ‘We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require.’ Instead of constructively addressing these issues, Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it,” says Lisa Monaco, President Obama’s Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

    “If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly – accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers – not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he’s running away from the consequences of his actions.”

    The original petition, on the White House’ We The People site, was published on June 9th, 2013. Here’s what it says:

    Edward Snowden is a national hero and should be immediately issued a a full, free, and absolute pardon for any crimes he has committed or may have committed related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance programs.

    The petition has garnered nearly 168,000 signatures, although it’s been closed for a while.

    “We will do our best to respond to petitions that cross the signature threshold in a timely fashion, however, depending on the topic and the overall volume of petitions from We the People, responses may be delayed,” the White House says on the site.

    This usually means 60 days from when said petition hits the signature threshold – which is 100,000 in 30 days.

    But as we’ve seen for many years, the White House isn’t that punctual.

    It did take the administration only three months to respond to the deport Justin Bieber petition, however.

  • ‘Mike Brown Law’ Petition to Make All Cops Wear Cameras Tops White House Threshold

    A petition to require all state, county, and local police officers to wear body cameras has blown past the signature threshold on The White House’s We The People online petition site in just a week. This prompts The White House, at least in theory, to craft a response.

    Petition creator J.C. from Hephzibah, Georgia (petitioners on the We The People site are anonymous) proposes a “Mike Brown Law,” referencing the unarmed teenager that was shot and killed by Ferguson, Missouri police nearly two weeks ago, prompting this mess. Images and videos of a heavily militarized police force roaming the streets of Ferguson have permeated the national dialogue over the past 10 days.

    The petition asks the Obama administration to…

    Create a bill, sign into law, and set aside funds to require all state,county, and local police, to wear a camera. Due to the latest accounts of deadly encounters with police, We the People, petition for the Mike Brown Law. Create a bill, sign into law, and set aside funds to require all state,county, and local police, to wear a camera. The law shall be made in an effort to not only detour police misconduct (i.e. brutality, profiling, abuse of power), but to ensure that all police are following procedure, and to remove all question, from normally questionable police encounters. As well, as help to hold all parties within a police investigation, accountable for their actions.

    The petition currently boasts over 135,000 signatures out of the 100,000 required to generate an official response.

    In other petition news, a Change.org petition with a more specific goal – to force Ferguson and St. Louis County police to wear body cameras – is nearing its 50,000 -signature threshold.

    The City of Ferguson has promised to “raise funds to secure dash and vest cams for our patrol cars.”

    Forcing police to wear vest cams isn’t an entirely new idea. A select number of police forces around the country have begun to equip all officers with cameras – most notably the force in Rialto, California.

    Those cameras have been recording for about a year – with drastic results. Apparently, incidents of ‘use of force’ by police dropped 60 percent, and the number of complaints against officers fell 88 percent.

    People behave differently when they know they’re being watched. And this is relevant for both the police and the citizen population. Proponents of officer cams argue that not only will the cameras help to ‘police the police’, if you will, but will also help to protect the police from things like false claims of brutality.

    The shooting of Mike Brown and the subsequent craziness in Ferguson, MO, have put police tactics at the forefront of the American conversation. It’s clear by the quick support of these petitions that people are concerned about police action and police accountability going forward. The White House is not required by law or anything to respond to petitions that succeed, but they say they “plan to respond to each petition that crosses the signature threshold.”

    As we know, they’re often a little slower than some would like when it comes to crafting those responses.

    Image via Thinkstock

  • Facebook Says It’s ‘Not Always Listening’ as Petition Against New Feature Nears 600,000 Signatures

    A lot of people, both Facebook users and otherwise, don’t really trust Facebook. So, when Facebook announced a new feature that can passively listen to users’ background activity in order to easily identify songs, TV shows, and movies for status-sharing purposes, it wasn’t surprising when it struck people as a bit creepy.

    Or as one petition put it, a “massive threat to our privacy.”

    Yes, May’s announcement (the actual feature goes live soon) ushered in a swift and ferocious response from those concerned about privacy. According to Facebook, users will always be in control of when the app is listening, and if/when they share what it hears with everyone else. Of course, the constant distrust of the company’s motivations led some users to focus on the nefarious ways Facebook could use that kind of technology.

    Would they listen to our conversations? Would they store all of that data? Would they sell it to the highest bidder?

    A petition was started, asking Facebook to respect user privacy and put the kibosh on plans to release the passive listening app feature. When we reported on the petition about a week ago, it had garnered a little over 200,000 signatures.

    As of today, it’s coming up on 600,000.

    “Facebook says the feature will be used for harmless things, like identifying the song or TV show playing in the background, but it actually has the ability to listen to everything — including your private conservations — and store it indefinitely,” says the petition. “Not only is this move just downright creepy, it’s also a massive threat to our privacy. This isn’t the first time Facebook has been criticized for breaching our right to privacy, and it’s hoping this feature will fly under the radar. No such luck for Facebook. If we act now, we can stop Facebook in its tracks before it has a chance to release the feature.”

    Facebook has now spoken out about users’ concerns, looking to quash the so-called “myths” that have taken root online.

    “The microphone doesn’t turn itself on, it will ask for permission. It’s not always listening…so it’s very limited in what it is sampling,” Facebook Security Infrastructure head Gregg Stefancik told CNET. “I wouldn’t want this in my pocket either if it was recording everything going on around me.”

    He went on to explain exactly what’s happening when Facebook “matches” an audio clip it hears with one in its database.

    “If there’s a match, we return what the match is to the user [and] give them the option of posting the match. The user is in complete control and the audio fingerprint that we’ve received is disposed of immediately. The raw audio never leaves the phone and the data about the match is only stored if you choose to post it,” he said.

    He did clarify that if Facebook matches a sound with a song or TV show and you chooses not to share it, Facebook will keep a tally of that match in order to “keep a chart of the most watched and listened to song and shows” – but it won’t be tied to your personal profile.

    Satisfied? If you signed that petition, I’m guessing the answer is no.

    Image via YouTube

  • Hundreds of Thousands Petition Facebook to Abandon Creepy Passive Listening Feature

    Given the fact that a large amount of people–users and non-users alike–have a severe distrust of Facebook and their intentions, it’s not that surprising that hundreds of thousands of people have already signed a petition asking that the largest social network in the world please kindly refrain from listening to users’ conversations.

    Ok, that might be a little misleading.

    What people want is for Facebook to cancel their plans to release a new app feature that passively listens to users’ background activity in order to identify songs, TV shows, movies, and more to help with easier status sharing. Or, you know, possibly eavesdrop on your most intimate conversations, store that data, and sell it to the highest bidder.

    What we have here is a classic case of I don’t believe a goddamned word you say, as Facebook is pretty clear about what the new features does, and maybe more importantly, what it doesn’t do.

    First, let’s look at what Facebook says it does:

    When writing a status update – if you choose to turn the feature on – you’ll have the option to use your phone’s microphone to identify what song is playing or what show or movie is on TV.

    That means if you want to share that you’re listening to your favorite Beyoncé track or watching the season premiere of Game of Thrones, you can do it quickly and easily, without typing.

    As for what it doesn’t do, Facebook says that not only is no sound stored, but it can’t even understand background noise like conversations–only movies, music, and TV shows. It’s kind of like Shazam, but with more sharing.

    It seems the creators of a fast-moving petition on the site Sum Of Us take issue with that last part.

    “Facebook says the feature will be used for harmless things, like identifying the song or TV show playing in the background, but it actually has the ability to listen to everything — including your private conservations — and store it indefinitely,” says the petition. “Not only is this move just downright creepy, it’s also a massive threat to our privacy. This isn’t the first time Facebook has been criticized for breaching our right to privacy, and it’s hoping this feature will fly under the radar. No such luck for Facebook. If we act now, we can stop Facebook in its tracks before it has a chance to release the feature.”

    The petition continues…

    “Facebook says it’ll be responsible with this feature, but we know we can’t trust it. After all, just a few months ago Facebook came under fire for receiving millions of dollars for working with the National Security Agency’s PRISM, a wide-scale and highly controversial public electronic data surveillance program — something its CEO Mark Zuckerberg initially denied…”

    Still denies, actually.

    The petition currently has about 235,000 signatures out of a necessary 250,000. At the rate it’s moving, it should hit its threshold by the end of the day, thanks to social media and a nice, warm reddit hug.

    The feature is set to land on both iOS and Android in the next few weeks.

    Image via YouTube

  • Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales Calls Bullsh*t on Alt-Medicine Petitioners

    If you look up “Emotional Freedom Techniques” on Wikipedia, you’ll see that it is “is generally characterized as pseudoscience and has not garnered significant support in clinical psychology.”

    If you look up “Thought Field Therapy on Wikipedia, you’ll find that “there is no scientific evidence that [it] is effective, and the American Psychological Association has stated that it ‘lacks a scientific basis.’”

    One alternative medicine group is upset with Wikipedia and its founder Jimmy Wales over what they call “inhibition to open discussion,” and has petitioned the online, crowd-sourced encyclopedia to change its policies. The only thing is that Jimmy Wales has absolutely no time for “lunatic charlatans.”

    The petition from the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology, on the popular change.org, asks Jimmy Wales to “create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing.”

    “Wikipedia is widely used and trusted. Unfortunately, much of the information related to holistic approaches to healing is biased, misleading, out-of-date, or just plain wrong. For five years, repeated efforts to correct this misinformation have been blocked and the Wikipedia organization has not addressed these issues,” says the petition.

    The group outlines a handful of examples of practices which are current receiving the wrong end of the Wikipedia stick–things like Energy Medicine, Energy Psychology, Emotional Freedom Techniques, Thought Field Therapy, and Tapas Acupressure Technique.

    Here’s the beef:

    Energy Psychology, Energy Medicine, acupuncture, and other forms of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM), are currently skewed to a negative, unscientific view of these approaches despite numerous rigorous studies in recent years demonstrating their effectiveness. These pages are controlled by a few self-appointed “skeptics” who serve as de facto censors for Wikipedia. They clothe their objections in the language of the narrowest possible understanding of science in order to inhibit open discussion of innovation in health care. As gatekeepers for the status quo, they refuse discourse with leading edge research scientists and clinicians or, for that matter, anyone with a different point of view. Fair-minded referees should be given the responsibility of monitoring these important areas.

    Jimmy Wales, never shy to speak his mind, has responded in truly incredible fashion. In essence, his response is put up or shut up.

    “No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful,” said Wales in a response to the petition.

    “Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of ‘true scientific discourse’. It isn’t.”

    Well, there you go. Science or GTFO, says Jimmy Wales.

    As of now, the petition has yet to reach its 10,000 signature goal. It’s about 3/4 the way there.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Laura Prepon Petitioned Not To Leave Netflix’s ‘Orange Is The New Black’

    Laura Prepon is most likely leaving Netflix’s Orange is the New Black. While she is one of the most popular cast members, reports came out last month that she is returning only for a limited number of episodes in the upcoming second season.

    Prepon has been mostly silent on the matter, and Netflix has kind of dismissed the rumors, but has indicated that everything is still developing.

    Either way, fans really don’t want to see her go, and someone has gone so far as to start a Change.org petition. It doesn’t have many signatures so far, and will probably not make any difference whatsoever, but it exists. It says:

    YOU ARE THE ROCK. YOU ARE THE GLUE. YOU ARE THE TIE THAT BINDS.

    PLEASE DON’T LEAVE LEAVE ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK. NOT NOW.. NOT LIKE THIS.

    STAY ON FOR US. YOUR BELOVED FANS.

    It gets into some more NSFW language, which you can click over to see if you like.

    We’re not sure if the petition comes from a member of the official “PreponsArmy,” but clearly the actress has some vocal fans.

    Other cast members seem to be a loss about Prepon’s situation, but others have been promoted to series regulars, so the screen time void shouldn’t be hard to fill.

    Orange is the New Black: Season 2 is currently in production, and is due out in 2014.

    Image: Change.org

  • 168,000+ Angry Tumblr Users Sign Petition to Thwart Yahoo Deal

    This petition has absolutely no chance of changing Marissa Mayer and David Karp’s minds, but it does show that there is a significant chunk of Tumblr users who are less-than-thrilled with the popular blogging platform’s impending move to Yahoo.

    As you’ve probably heard, Yahoo has announced plans to acquire Tumblr for $1.1 billion. And currently, a petition on ipetitions.com to thwart the deal has garnered over 168,000 signatures.

    Of course, there are a multitude of gripes that Tumblr users have with the Yahoo purchase. Maybe they think Yahoo is too uncool, and will ruin the awesome Tumblr experience. Maybe they look at Flickr, and foresee Yahoo running Tumblr into the ground. Maybe they’re worried that Yahoo is going to rid Tumblr of all of its porn in an attempt to make it more family friendly. Maybe they’re pissed about the new ads, which are most definitely on their way to Tumblr.

    Whatever the reason, plenty of Tumblr users are pissed. Just take a look at the posts on Tumblr with a #yahoo tag. Tumblr users are gif-ing their anger.

    “Stop Yahoo! from buying Tumblr!! If this happens, the entire interface will be changed, and millions of users will delete their accounts – me being one of them. Please, please, please sign this to stop this!!” says the petition creator.

    Only time will tell if Yahoo does indeed make Tumblr “better, and faster,” as they say they will. Both Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer and Tumblr CEO David Karp say that Yahoo is going to take a hands-off approach with Tumblr. It’s going to run independently with Karp retained as CEO. Mayer says that Yahoo promises “not to screw it up.”

    And about the porn thing? Mayer’s not coming for it, don’t worry.

    This petiition isn’t the only sign that many Tumblr users are thinking of abandoning ship. WordPress founder Matt Mullenweg reported a spike in Tumblr defections to his blogging service – 72,000 in the short time following the announcement.

  • Tebow Fans’ Plea Hits White House Petition Site

    The White House’s online petition website has been used to promote both serious and silly ideas since its debut. Petitions to build a death star or make an R. Kelly song the national anthem don’t seriously deserve the president’s time, but others, such as the anti-CISPA petition, reflect the policy views of many Americans.

    Now, NFL fans have used the website to petition the President of the United States to get Tim Tebow a job.

    According to an Orlando Sentinel report, Jacksonville Jaguars fans want Tebow to be their quarterback badly enough to bother President Obama with their cause. A petition was filed on the website to encourage the president to “call Jacksonville Jaguars GM David Caldwell and tell him to stop ignoring Jaguars fans and sign Tim Tebow.” The petition, which claimed Tebow’s presence would increase Jaguar ticket sales, has since been taken down.

    Tebow was released from his job with the New York Jets in April. Since that time, Tebow, now a free agent, hasn’t garnered intrest from any other NFL teams, including the Miami Dolphins.

    Tebow gained notoriety with the Denver Broncos in 2011 before being traded to the Jets in 2012. He has also gained a fan following for his outspoken Christian religious beliefs.

  • Petition to Force Congress to Wear NASCAR-Style Suits with Corporate Logos Gains Steam

    Ever since the White House changed the rules on their We The People petition site, forcing petitions to reach the 100,000-signature threshold before warranting an official response, “successful” petitions have been a lot more scarce. Only a handful of petitions have crossed the barrier, the most recent being two important tech petitions – this one asking the White House to legalize cellphone unlocking and this one attacking CISPA.

    Today another one nears that 100,000-signature mark, and it’s a little bit funnier than the aforementioned petitions – but no less important, really.

    With nearly 80,000 signatures and over three weeks to grab the remaining 20,000 over 20,000 signatures and three weeks to grab the remaining 75,000+, it looks like the petition titled “Require Congressmen & Senators to wear logos of their financial backers on their clothing, much like NASCAR drivers do” may receive an official response from the Obama administration.

    Here’s what the petition’s creator, J.S. of St. Louis, Missouri, has to say:

    Since most politicians’ campaigns are largely funded by wealthy companies and individuals, it would give voters a better sense of who the candidate they are voting for is actually representing if the company’s logo, or individual’s name, was prominently displayed upon the candidate’s clothing at all public appearances and campaign events. Once elected, the candidate would be required to continue to wear those “sponsor’s” names during all official duties and visits to constituents. The size of a logo or name would vary with the size of a donation. For example, a $1 million dollar contribution would warrant a patch of about 4″ by 8″ on the chest, while a free meal from a lobbyist would be represented by a quarter-sized button. Individual donations under $1000 are exempt.

    Sure, we’ve been hearing this joke for years – the ol’ sponsorship suit for Senators. But who out there (other than the Congresspeople and their contributors) would say that this isn’t a great idea.

    Completely unrealistic or not, I hope the petition succeeds just so I can see an official response.

    [BoingBoing, photo via mtsofan, Flickr]

  • David Hasselhoff Wants to Save the Berlin Wall

    It’s a well-known fact that David Hasselhoff is big in Germany. Now, “The Hoff” is seeking to preserve a piece of German history.

    The actor is protesting the removal of a section of the Berlin Wall. The section is one of the last pieces of the wall to remain standing, after it was dismantled from 1989 to 1991.

    Hasselhoff is now backing a Change.org petition to prevent the “East Side Gallery” from being taken down. According to the petition, a developer is seeking to move the wall to make way for a “luxury housing development.”

    Hasselhoff echoes the text of the petition on his blog, saying that the wall is now part of German history and should be preserved as a symbol of freedom. From the blog post:

    In 1989 on New Year’s Eve I sang on the top of Berlin Wall, you all know that, it’s no secret. I sang for freedom and for all people who were going through a terrible things living “behind the curtain” or behind the Wall if you prefer. Now they are trying to tear down the wall to put up an apartment complex.

    The Berlin Wall is not just a symbol and part of German history, it’s a symbol for every single person who lived in fear for their lives and in horrible conditions that we, who were lucky to live in countries that represent democracy in its full meaning, couldn’t even imagine and the fall of the Wall represents a new beginning and a hope for all of them.

    Hasselhoff did indeed sing on the Berlin Wall shortly after the wall’s gates were opened for East Germans. The blurry footage of the event seen below features Hasselhoff singing and wearing a light-up leather jacket, with Brandenburg Gate in the background.

  • White House Invites Developers To We The People 2.0 Hackathon

    To its credit, the Obama administration has been far more tech savvy than any before it. One of its defining moments in this area was the building of the We The People Web site and making the software behind it open source. Now the White House is ready to move on to the next step, but wants input from developers along the way.

    The White House announced today that Petitions 1.0, the code that the We the People site runs on, is finished. Now the team will be working on Petitions 2.0. Here’s the details from the White House blog:

    In software development, when you go from one version number to another it means that something big is going on. We’re taking a new approach to how the application works, one that starts with the assumption that it should be as open, transparent, and flexible as possible.

    As a result, Petitions 2.0 is based on an application programming interface, or API, that we will release to the public in the coming months. The first set of methods, Read API, will be released in March, 2013 and will allow anyone to retrieve data on petitions, signatures, and responses. Later, we’ll release a second set of methods, Write API, that will allow other websites and apps to collect and submit signatures without directly sending users to WhiteHouse.gov. With this API in place we’ll be able to decouple the presentation and data layers of the application and build a new, streamlined signature process. This also means that developers who reuse our code will be able to choose which database the application relies on. Between that and our continued work on a white label theme, Petitions 2.0 will be easier for others to contribute to and reuse.

    Before any of this is made public, however, the White House staff will be inviting a small number of developers to the White House Open Data Day Hackathon. Those invited will receive access to the new API methods before the event so they can mess around with it for a bit. At the event itself, developers will show off what they have done, and submit examples to be included with the public SDK.

    Are you interested in building the next open platform of citizen/government relations? If so, you can apply to join the hackathon here. If you are selected, you’ll be notified no later than February 8.

  • Piers Morgan is Safe as White House Asks Gun Activist Petitioners to Remember the 1st Amendment

    The White House’s “We The People” online petition site has seen some ridiculous petitions gain steam over the past couple of months. First, there was the rash of secession petitions that popped up following President Obama’s reelection. Then, we saw a petition to build a functioning Death Star succeed the signature threshold. Someone even asked the White House to consider a law banning the practice of insulting religion.

    Funny? Of course. But it’s clear that none of these petitions were really created in good faith. You can’t secede. You can’t have a law outlawing people from making fun of your God. Get real, people.

    Recently, another crazy petition amassed quite a few backers. It asked the White House to “Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment.” Morgan, host of his own CNN show, has been vocal in his criticism of American gun laws (or lack thereof).

    “British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens,” read the petition.

    It has received over 109,000 signatures as of the writing of this article.

    Now, the White House has published an official response to the petition, written by Press Secretary Jay Carney. His message is pretty clear: 2nd Amendment activists need to reread the 1st amendment.

    “Let’s not let arguments over the Constitution’s Second Amendment violate the spirit of its First. President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. However, the Constitution not only guarantees an individual right to bear arms, but also enshrines the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press — fundamental principles that are essential to our democracy. Americans may disagree on matters of public policy and express those disagreements vigorously, but no one should be punished by the government simply because he or she expressed a view on the Second Amendment — or any other matter of public concern,” writes Carney.

    So it appears that the Federal Government will not be taking any steps to remove Piers Morgan from the country.

    Alex Jones, radio host and founder of InfoWars, recently appeared on the Piers Morgan show to “discuss” guns and the petition, which he backed. You can catch up on that sideshow below:

  • Randy Blythe, Lamb Of God Fans Take To Twitter To Petition White House To Aid Singer’s Freedom

    As recently reported, Randy Blythe, vocalist for the metal band Lamb of God, was arrested and charged with manslaughter, after an incident at a show, where an audience member was injured, and later died from those injuries.

    Blythe was detained in Prague, for the incident, which happened back in 2010.

    The band has released its first official statement regarding the incident:

    “First of all, thanks to everyone who has reached out in support of Randy and each of us in this terrible situation. It’s noted and very much appreciated. We have been keeping our heads down and not speaking out due to the fluid nature of the situation and the constantly changing information that even we receive daily. Within an hour things can do endless 180’s. It’s maddening to try and make heads or tails. We’re taking the time to speak to you as it has been a significant period of time since this situation began and while nothing is immediately clear to any of us, we are not trying to keep anyone in the dark.

    “We have reached out and are making use of the resources we have acquired to help our brother who is still detained in Czech jail. In the two years since, we were never notified of anything related to this incident. Randy is our brother and we assure you, we are all staying very positive for him, working endlessly behind the scenes to provide any and all assistance possible. The best we can do is to stay positive and continue to support our friend that we know is innocent.

    “We know that justice will prevail and we will continue to do our part to support our friend.”

    Earlier this week, The Gauntlet posted a video of the alleged incident, reporting:

    By now, everyone has heard that Randy Blythe was detained at a Czech airport last Wednesday. Police wanted to question him in regards to a fan that died 29 days after a Lamb of God concert in which he allegedly was injured at the hands of Blythe. Fans who witnessed the concert have stated that the death blow came “when Daniel tried to jump on stage, Randy kicked him off. He fell backwards and hit his head.”

    The problem is, Randy never kicked anyone. The Gauntlet has obtained footage of all three times the fan was onstage and we are going to present it for you below and explain what is happening.

    Here’s the clip:

    Members from the rock and metal communities are showing their support for Blythe on Twitter. Here’s a sampling:

    A fan has started an online petition to the White House to help free Blythe (h/t: MetalSucks). The petition says:

    WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

    Help Free D. Randall Blythe From Prage, Czech Republic. Where he is falsely accused of commiting Manslaughter.

    This petition is so it can be brought to the attention of the white house that one of our citizens is in need of help. His name is D. Randall Blythe. He was doing what he loves to do bring his music along with the rest of the band LAMB OF GOD. During one of the dates he was taken into custody in Prague and was extorted for money after posting bail he was not released which is a direct violation of his civil rights. This petition will show that the people of the united states will not stand for this outrage and hope you and the us state department will do something about this travesty.

    So far, it only has 688 signatures out of the goal of 25,000 by August 3.

    Fans and friends are taking to Twitter, however, to promote the petition. It will be interesting to see how many signatures it’s able to capture.

  • Dejected iGoogle Users Create Petitions to Save the Doomed Product

    Dejected iGoogle Users Create Petitions to Save the Doomed Product

    Since Google announced that it’s going to be closing down its personalized homepage product, iGoogle, not everybody has been welcoming of that news. In fact, some are downright angry and upset. Since Google slipped the announcement through Tuesday afternoon, Search Engine Roundtable’s Barry Schwartz points out that the Google Search Forum section for iGoogle Personal Homepage topics has been inundated with posts protesting Google’s decision to end iGoogle. The original announcement from Googler Conrad alone has 1025 posts and 6040 views. In all, it looks like there have been around 300 posts created about iGoogle’s demise.

    As it goes, people apparently really liked having a control panel for all of the Google products they use. Who knew? Here’s what some of them are saying:

  • I am flabbergasted by Google’s decision to drop iGoogle I have used it daily as my homepage since it’s initial launch and have no clue what I might use as a similar alternative.
  • Conrad, please do NOT kill iGoogle. I use it as my browser home page for my office desktop, home laptop, GNex and Android tablet. It perfectly aggregates my feeds and information from my favorite sites – and it how I learned about iGoogle being killed off.
  • I am switching to Netvibes and washing my hands with Google. Time after time they cancel or change services I use and I’m tired of it.
  • What was the point of “supporting iGoogle over the years”, when the “support” of tens of millions of users simply ends up with the plug being pulled?
  • Nice, get rid of the ONE thing I use daily… Good thinking, Google, I love it. What a bunch of dummies.
  • I’ve tolerated a lot of google changes. And not all have been bad. Overall, I think I’ve been pretty accepting of change, but this goes way too far.
  • really bad move google. i will never have a smart phone, so your blithe expectation of me to use apps to replace igoogle is misplaced at best.
  • Incredibly bad move. Have used iGoogle for yeras. Will now try to find an alternative to all google products as soon as I can….
  • Dude, this sucks! iGoogle is my home page on every computer I own and synchronizes everything between work and home.
  • Truly insane. You can’t tell me the meager resources used to keep what is basically a glorified newsreader up and running would seriously impinge upon Google’s other projects. I’ve defended Google for many years, but no longer. It’s a very poor practice to junk a product without an alternative waiting in the wings. Shame on you for basically abandoning users like me.
  • Sad news. I wish they would’ve discontinued Google+ instead.
  • Uh the whole RATIONALE behind retiring iGoogle is ‘eroding’ support. Really, Really, More like you just wanting to push the app store out there.

    • There’s about a thousand other posts just like these, plus all of the other threads that users have created to hawk up their disapproval of Google’s decision. Honestly, I haven’t seen a public display of rejection like this since Cleveland reacted to Lebron James’ decision to skip town and head to Miami.

    What’s more, eight petitions have been created on change.org in hopes of convincing Google to not shut down iGoogle. The most popular one has already reached 949 signatures of its incredibly ambitious goal of 5,000,000. That’s a whopper of a goal to collect, but maybe not that unrealistic given that iGoogle won’t even close down for another 17 months. Who knows, maybe enough disgruntled iGoogle users will band together and at least come close to reaching that goal if not achieve it altogether.

    Even if iGoogle users do manage to rally enough supporters to say, “Hey Google, don’t send iGoogle to sleep amongst Crystal Pepsi and slap bracelets in the Land of Rejected Fun,” since when has Google actually listened to public opinion when it comes to decisions about its products? Google stonewalled everybody about its new privacy policy earlier this year and that public outcry was much, much louder than the iGoogle protest.

    Then again, is iGoogle really dragging Google down? Hardly. What harm could be done by allowing the faithful iGooglers to keep this product? If the iGoogle users want their MTV, Google, you should probably go ahead and let them have it.

  • The Avengers Apparently Waged A War On Adopted Kids

    The Avengers Apparently Waged A War On Adopted Kids

    Has everyone had the chance to see The Avengers yet? I sure hope so – it’s pure escapism at its finest. Critics and fans agree that it’s a must-see for the summer, so I won’t take any more time participating in the crowded online circlejerk.

    We all know that the film shattered box office records in its opening weekend, and its second weekend in theaters wasn’t that bad either. If the ending scenes didn’t give enough of a hint that a sequel is in the works, Disney has already confirmed it. Tony Stark is awesome, Scarlett Johansson tight suit, HULK SMASH – ok all of this is awesome. But there’s a small chink in Captain America’s shield, if you will, and it comes from a group of adoption advocates upset with a particular joke from the film.

    I’m sure you remember what joke I’m referring to. I mean, you must have been so overwhelmigly offended that you’ve spent the last few days steaming about it. Ok, just in case you let a harmless joke go by and lose itself in the perpetual intensity of the film as a whole, I’ll remind you [possible spoilers, but not really].

    During one of the rare but brilliant comic interludes in the action, Black Widow makes a point to say that the film’s villain, Loki, had “killed 80 people in two days.” Avenger Thor (and Loki’s brother) quickly replies that “he’s adopted.” You know, to separate himself from the bad actions of his brother in a lighthearted, harmless way…oh wait controversy.

    An official petition on change.org has been created by Jamie Burke, longtime About.com “Deafness guide.” That petition demands that Marvel apologize to the adoption community for the joke. Here are some snippets from the petition:

    Marvel Comics – with one line that you carelessly failed to edit out of the script for the Avengers movie, you have insulted adopted children, adult adoptees, and adoptive parents!

    Sooo..according to your scriptwriter, the fact he was adopted is the reason he is a bad guy!

    Being adopted is NOT something to use for the butt of jokes! Marvel, immediately cease using adoption as the butt of jokes AND issue a public apology to the adoption community!

    Furthermore, you have to consider how children think. A child doesn’t know the history of Thor and Loki. Plus, a child does not understand context the same way adults do. A child who is adopted only hears those lines above. So the child thinks to themselves, “I’m adopted. The bad guy was adopted too. Does that mean I am bad too?” One parent actually posted a comment along these lines on a certain forum, stating that their adopted child had actually made a very similar statement after seeing the movie. This statement is now posted under petition updates.

    The petition also directs you to some bloggers who are incensed about the joke as well. One blogger writes:

    Thor’s flippant “He’s adopted” comment could easily be better. Most likely a better line would have been “He’s my brother, though he was adopted and his background was from those who are worse than us.” Shows his love, but also his distaste for Loki’s actions. Probably would have taken all of a minute to deliver that line. For those who have or haven’t seen the Thor movie, that’s still a good and neutral line.

    When describing their reaction to the scene, another blogger writes:

    I missed the next 15 minutes of the movie because I was seething. Joking about adoption isn’t funny. Joking about being adopted isn’t funny. Making fun of a late discovery adoptee is especially not funny.

    There’s also a thread on the Disney forums if you’re interested.

    One parent says that his daughter didn’t get the joke. Here’s her line of thinking, according to him:

    Are people laughing because they think adopted kids are bad? Am I bad?

    I’ve prepared myself for the accusations of insensitivity, so here goes:

    Really, guys? Really?

    So, in writing The Avengers, Joss Whedon took the time to make a sweeping statement: Being adopted means you’re a bad guy. You’re sure that this insignificant line couldn’t have simply been Thor trying to differentiate himself from the appallingly terrible decisions of his brother.

    Or, you know, a joke.

    I’ll save everyone the broad, sweeping generalizations like “we’re all giant crybabies,” because some things really are offensive and it’s true that some people can be insensitive to certain groups – even if they aren’t actively trying.

    But all this kind of shallow demand does is lessen the impact of the truly insensitive stuff that people say everyday. If people keep crying wolf when it comes to taking offense, it will just continue to dilute our collective response when someone is genuinely hurt by something in our media or pop culture.

    Apparently, some in the adoption community tend to agree:

    “As an adoptee (now an adult) I would like to add my voice to this and say that you do not speak for me. You do not represent me, and I find this kind of evocation of nameless children for your own petty and bitter purposes to be vile exploitation,” writes Shannon Cuttle on the petition page. “I find this humorless attitude, which serves no purpose but to calm the egos of insecure people who have no concept of context, greatly offensive.”

    This isn’t the first time in recent memory that an adoption joke has caused controversy. Last year, a North Carolina dad publicly criticized the game Portal 2 for a few choice in-game quips. So this isn’t an isolated event. Hell, who am I kidding. People are going to get offended about anything and everything. But this outrage is so magnificently misguided that it stands out. I mean, it makes going full retard seem like a prosecutable hate crime.

    Maybe I just fail to see the harm where there is some. If you found this joke offensive and truly believe that the filmmakers owe the adoption community an apology, please sound off below.

  • Google Penguin Update: Petition Calls For Google To Kill It

    Last week, Google gave frustrated webmasters a place to complain if they felt they were unjustly hit by the Penguin update. While I’m sure Google has received plenty of feedback through that, some are gravitating towards a petition to get Google to kill the Penguin update.

    For those of you who haven’t been following, Google announced the Penguin update (formerly known as the “Webspam update”) on April 24th, to target sites violating Google’s quality guidelines.

    Here’s what the petition says:

    Penguin killedPlease kill your Penguin update!l

    With the recent Google Penguin update, it has become nearly impossible for small content based websites to stay competitive with large publishers like eHow, WikiHow, Yahoo Answers and Amazon.

    Countless webmasters have seen their livelihoods vanish with this update. Sergey Brin recently came out against “Walled Gardens” of the likes of Facebook. However, the Penguin update has created a similar garden that only admits multimillion dollar publishing platforms.

    I’ll sign off with the words of someone who has lost everything in this update:

    “I got stuffed by it. I have a 7 year old website with SEO work done on it several years ago. No real SEO done in the past 3 years. So I have been penalised for SEO work done 3 years ago is all I can think.

    My website “was” top of its niche, with several hundred multi million pound clients. In the past day we have had a 90% drop in traffic and all but a bare few keywords left with rankings. Over 250 rankings we did have that we monitor each day have gone. These were top 3 rankings, now not even in the top 200.

    We have never done any bad SEO, we need to compete, but we have never done black hat. Saying that, what we did do was borderline, but then so does everyone else so we were left with little choice.

    Overnight my business which supports my 5 children, 3 employees, pays for my mortgage and debts etc has been wiped out.

    Thanks Google. At a time where almost every country in the world is suffering, way to go with applying a little more hardship to people whom have just tried to play the game as does everyone.

    The petition, which seeks 500 signatures, has 289 so far. There are also plenty of comments from webmasters leaving their reasons for signing.

    We saw plenty of stories about people losing their businesses and having to get rid of employees when Google launched the Panda update, and it appears that the Penguin update is having a similar effect.

    It’s still the early days for Penguin. My guess is that we’ll continue to see more adjustments on Google’s part. It’s hard to gauge how well Google’s update did from the outside looking in, in terms of getting rid of webspam and not penalizing the innocent. We have seen some examples where Google results were quite questionable, though Google quickly made adjustments. Of course, examples are always out there waiting to be pointed out, independent from the Penguin update.

    Comic image courtesy: DC Comics: Batman Annual #15 (via alternity)

  • Google’s SOPA / PIPA Blackout Petition Generates 4.5 Million Signatures [UPDATE: 7 Million]

    UPDATE: The figure is now well over 7 million, according to a Google+ post.

    Thank you to the more than 7 million of you in the U.S. that took the time yesterday to petition Congress to stop #SOPA and #PIPA, two bills that would censor the web and impose burdensome regulations on American businesses. Please keep +1ing, tweeting and sharing the petition with your friends.

    ORIGINAL ARTICLE: One subjective metric one can use to judge the success of yesterday’s internet-wide SOPA Blackouts is buzz. And using that unit of measure, it appears to have succeeded. On Wednesday, it was nearly impossible to escape SOPA discussion. Whether it was on Twitter, Facebook, or Google+, the legislation dominated the national conversation. And it was incredibly difficult to go the entire day without stumbling on a site with some sort of SOPA / PIPA protest. Porn wasn’t even safe from SOPA protests.

    An objective metric we can use to judge the impact of yesterday’s protests comes in the form of petition signatures. Of course, various petitions exist all across the web, hosted by various organizations. Signatures on those petitions already total hundreds of thousands. But the big figure comes from Google, who announced that 4.5 million people signed the online petition linked from their homepage on Wednesday.

    As you probably saw, Google participated in the protests yesterday by placing a giant black censor bar over their logo on the homepage. Users who clicked on the logo (or the link below the search box) were taken to a landing page that said “End Piracy, Not Liberty.” Along with informational resources on the two bills, users could also sign a petition to tell Congress not to censor the web.

    And apparently, a lot of people took the time to do that. Actually, 4.5 million signatures is an obscene figure to report from just one day.

    It probably helped that Google emphasized sharing with the petition. Once you signed it, Google asked that you shared it via Google+, Facebook and Twitter. Maybe I just have socially conscious friends, but I saw dozens of shares of the Google survey on all three channels yesterday.

    Although Google has ended their “blackout” and the Google logo is visible once again, you can still sign the petition if you haven’t already done so.

  • SOPA Petition Gains Steam, Some Are Less Than Enthusiastic About Its Prospects

    SOPA Petition Gains Steam, Some Are Less Than Enthusiastic About Its Prospects

    We’ve recently told you about the backlash coming from all angles concerning the Stop Online Piracy Act (PROTECT-IP/E-PARASITE Act), a bill currently being debated in the halls of Congress that many feel would create the “Great Firewall of America.” The bill has been a topic of discussion and derision for free internet advocates on the web for some time now, and it was just this week that some big names on the internet like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo and AOL threw their support against the legislation.

    We reported earlier this month on the new petition site started by the White House called “We The People.” It’s a service where users can submit petitions on pretty much any topic, and if it receives enough signatures, the White House will issue an official response.

    Back then, we told you about a We The People petition called “Stop the E-PARASITE Act” that had garnered over 7,000 signatures. And as of right now, it has over 38,000 and is growing rapidly. The petition was submitted on October 31st.

    Here’s what it argues, quite succinctly and effectively I might add:

    This Bill would allow essentially allow A Great Firewall of America and would be a shameful desecration of free speech and any sort of reasonable copyright law. The new Law would allow copyright holders to force websites which have any copyrighted material to be blocked by ISP companies around the country, without requiring that the websites be given time to take the offending material down. It would also put pressure on ISP companies to monitor their users like never before, a gross invasion of privacy. This bill is a direct assault on a free internet and a shameful attempt by copyright lobbyists to destroy net neutrality. Essentially it’s a censorship law that would end the internet as we know it in America.

    The creator of the petition is a redditor, and he took to the site to talk about his petition, where he says thanks for all the support.

    The problem is that not everyone has faith that the We The People initiative is all that helpful. Internet users in the past have expressed frustration over some of the responses from the White House, especially concerning a particular petition on the legalization of marijuana.

    For instance, here’s the top voted comment on the reddit post about the petition:

    I read that if a petition gets enough signatures, the president will personally print it out and wipe his ass with it.

    Another example of the lack of faith in this new petition system comes in the form of an actual petition on the site called “We demand a vapid, condescending, meaningless, politically safe response to this petition.” It’s gathered nearly 12,000 signatures already.

    Since these petitions are ignored apart from an occasional patronizing and inane political statement amounting to nothing more than a condescending pat on the head, we the signers would enjoy having the illusion of success. Since no other outcome to this process seems possible, we demand that the White House immediately assign a junior staffer to compose a tame and vapid response to this petition, and never attempt to take any meaningful action on this or any other issue. We would also like a cookie.

    Each petition currently has to reach the threshold of 25,000 signatures in a month, so it looks like the White House is going to have to give a response to the Stop SOPA petition. Let’s just hope it’s not that vapid, condescending, politically safe response that many have come to expect.

  • Petition Seeks to Keep Google From Blocking Referral Data

    Earlier this month, Google announced that it would begin encrypting search queries with SSL as the default experience at Google.com for users who search while logged into their accounts.

    Sites visited from Google’s organic listings will be able to tell that the traffic is coming from Google, but they won’t be able to receive info about each individual query. They will, however, receive an aggregated list of the top 1,000 search queries that drove traffic to the site for each of the past 30 days in Webmaster Tools.

    “This information helps webmasters keep more accurate statistics about their user traffic,” said Google product manager Evelyn Kao. “If you choose to click on an ad appearing on our search results page, your browser will continue to send the relevant query over the network to enable advertisers to measure the effectiveness of their campaigns and to improve the ads and offers they present to you.”

    “When a signed in user visits your site from an organic Google search, all web analytics services, including Google Analytics, will continue to recognize the visit as Google ‘organic’ search, but will no longer report the query terms that the user searched on to reach your site,” said Amy Chang on the Google Analytics blog. “Keep in mind that the change will affect only a minority of your traffic. You will continue to see aggregate query data with no change, including visits from users who aren’t signed in and visits from Google ‘cpc’.”

    “We are still measuring all SEO traffic. You will still be able to see your conversion rates, segmentations, and more,” she added. “To help you better identify the signed in user organic search visits, we created the token ‘not provided)’ within Organic Search Traffic Keyword reporting. You will continue to see referrals without any change; only the queries for signed in user visits will be affected. Note that ‘cpc’ paid search data is not affected.”

    Since all of this was announced there has been a fair amount of backlash from the webmaster/SEO community. There’s a petition at KeywordTransparency.com (via Danny Sullivan) for Google not to take away referral data.

    The about section attached to the petition says: “This petition has been created to show Google the level of dissatisfaction over their recent changes to keyword referral information, and will be presented to the search quality and analytics teams at Google. The argument that this has been done for privacy reasons sadly holds little weight, and the move essentially turns the clock back in terms of data transparency. The argument that this only affects <10% of users is also concerning as this is likely to increase over time, even up to a point where it affects the majority of users being referred from search." It is certainly true that Google is doing a lot to get people signing up for Google accounts (obviously Google+).

    The actual letter that you’re signing when you sign the petition says:

    Dear Google,

    As publishers of content on the internet, we feel that the removal of keyword referrer information from the natural search results damages our ability to deliver good quality content to our users.

    By removing this data Google is not only hurting legitimate websites, but potentially pushing lower quality sites further into black hat data collection methods (ie spyware) in order to compensate for this data loss.

    We believe that the security argument is fatally undermined by the inconsistency in allowing keyword data to still be sent unsecured via your advertisers.

    There are ways of securely sending keyword referral information to websites without compromising privacy, and without negatively affecting webmasters’ ability to create good quality websites, and we ask that you seriously consider alternatives to the current implementation that would support this.

    Yours,
    [insert name here]

    And look at the list. Matt Cutts is even on it multiple times (guessing not really Matt Cutts).

    Do you agree with what this petition is saying? Let us know what you think in the comments.

  • Should Social Media Censor Offensive Content?

    At what point does content on social media sites become too offensive? Does the social network have an obligation to protect its users from extreme topics of conversation? Or should a social network never pull controversial content, as it is tantamount to limiting free speech?

    These are some questions that went through my mind while browsing through all the tweets and various opinion pieces concerning a specific Twitter trending topic that appeared over the weekend. That trend became incredibly controversial almost immediately after it landed on the top trends list.

    The hashtag #reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend sparked a flurry of protest, many calling for @twitter to do something about the offensive trend. Most asked Twitter to remove it from the trends lists altogether.

    Is there any content on Twitter or Facebook that you think deserves to be removed? Let us know in the comments.

    The tweets containing the hashtag ranged from jokes like “…because she won’t make you a sandwich” and “because she killed your kid and got away with it” to rebukes such as “NEVER any reason” and “this is the most disgusting #TT I’ve ever seen.”

    Of course, all of the people tweeting about the hashtag being horrible helped to keep it on the trending topic list, but anyways…

    @MrAlanCooper
    Alan Cooper    So #reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend is a trending topic. Almost as lame as those demanding to censor it. #moraldilemma 13 hours ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto

    By Sunday night, the controversial hashtag was no longer on the list of trending topics either worldwide or for the United States. As of Monday morning, the hashtag wasn’t on the trending topic lists for any of the specific cities either. New tweets containing the hashtag were no longer coming in at a fast clip either – maybe a couple a minute at most.

    Did Twitter remove the hashtag at the behest of the group of outraged users? Or did the topic just run its course and die out in popularity?

    Here’s the graph of 24 hour activity surrounding the hashtag, provided by Trendistic. it seems to suggest that the chatter surrounding the hashtag died down pretty quickly.

    But Monday afternoon, Twitter users who found the hashtag offensive continued to employ strategies to combat the trend. One way was through an online petition that counted retweets as signatures. Hosted on act.ly, here’s what the retweet looked like.

    @kristinprim
    Kristin Prim    Petition @twitter 2 remove #Reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend as a trend. Domestic Violence is not a joke. http://act.ly/41k RT to sign 12 hours ago via act.ly · powered by @socialditto

    According to the site, it got somewhere around 2,500 retweets.

    Some just asked @twitter directly to delete the trend from the list. Others attempted to counteract the trend by starting new hashtags like #violenceisnotfunny and #140reasonsdvisnotajoke.

    But a sizable minority lamented people’s inability to take a joke.

    Look people, “Reasons to beat your girlfriend” isn’t a clever hashtag. It didn’t produce very funny tweets. #DescribeYourPenisWithAMovieTitle – now there’s a winner. But #reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend is far from the most offensive thing I’ve seen on Twitter.

    Twitter is a wonderful resource for lightning-fast, real time communication. Its openness and free flow of information make it great. Does Twitter want to get into the usual business of censoring trending topics?

    Reports of Twitter-trend censorship aren’t new. Back in 2010, people comlained that Twitter removed #WikiLeaks trends out of the topic list. Apparently, #WikiLeaks was still seeing a flood of tweets rolling it but some users noticed that it had mysteriously vanished from the list of trends. Twitter later denied that they had pulled the trend.

    Other hashtags like #NoGod have also received attention after users claimed that Twitter had removed them from trends.

    If you want to get technical about this, #reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend doesn’t break any official Twitter regulations. On their about trending topics help page, Twitter lists the abuses that could result in punishment –

  • Adding one or more topic/hashtag to an unrelated Tweet in an attempt to gain attention in search.
  • Repeatedly Tweeting the same topic/hashtag without adding value to the conversation in an attempt to get the topic trending/trending higher.
  • Tweeting about each trending topic in turn in order to drive traffic to your profile, especially when mixed with advertising.
  • Listing the trending topics in combination with a request to be followed.
  • Tweeting about a trending topic and posting a misleading link to something unrelated.

    • Nothing about offensive trends here. And on the official Twitter Rules page, the only content guideline that pertains is “You may not publish or post direct, specific threats of violence against others.” The hashtag in question is definitely not a specific threat. The Twitter content rules say nothing about offensive trends.

    So it could be a judgment call for Twitter. Should they intervene in a situation like this?

    As long as Twitter exists, offensive trends will as well. Last month the controversy was #RapistSongs and now we have #reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend. Next month there could be something even more offensive.

    Things like rape and domestic violence are terrible whenever they happen to whomever they happen to – but a joke is a joke. Twitter can’t make a habit of removing trending topics just because they ruffle some feathers. If that’s what people are talking about the most, then it should show up on the list. Offensive speech is protected speech when it comes to the law, and Twitter should follow that recommendation. Can you imagine the backlash if Twitter began to censor topics regularly?

    What about Facebook? They don’t have a “trending topics” list but that hasn’t stopped them from inviting controversy over offensive content.

    Just last week the debate emerged surrounding Holocaust denier groups on the on the social network. Should Facebook remove those groups? Should all speech be free, even that kind that is absolutely despicable to most of us?

    Another huge controversy hit Facebook when Jewish activists demanded that they take down a page entitled “Third Palestinian Intifada.” That page called for a specific date to begin an uprising against Israel. Comments and videos also called for the killing of Jews. Facebook eventually pulled the page, but was later sued for not taking it down fast enough.

    Here, the lines become even blurrier. Is free speech still free speech when it advocates actual, specific violence? The law would say no. A person can’t advocate that harm be done to another, specific person. To what extent should social networks police this type of content?

    And what about when the offensive content isn’t simply words anymore, but videos? YouTube has a policy against aggressively shocking content, but that policy was tested when they pulled an animal cruelty video uploaded by the activist group Mercy For Animals.

    The video, which shows the horrible treatment of cows at a slaughterhouse, was later reinstated by YouTube after people protested the removal. This begs the question: What do social networks do about offensive content when it is also informative or documentary in nature?

    The two issues when it comes to social media and censorship are whether offensive content is protected free speech and even if it is, should social networks model their policies on our constitutional definition of free speech?

    Even if a horrible Twitter trend or a unsettling Facebook page counts as free speech, does the social network have the obligation to let it stand? Or should they make the decision to remove it based on enough public outcry?

    I think the removal of controversial content by social media sites starts us down a slippery slope. What do you think? Let us know in the comments.