Some time ago, Natalie put out a call for idea for a new art series called Improper Use of Slugs. I’m happy to say that one of my suggestions was accepted, and you can check out the results on her site.
The suggestion? Thumbtacks.
‘Oral sex’ definition prompts dictionary ban in US schools | Books | guardian.co.uk
Dictionaries have been removed from classrooms in southern California schools after a parent complained about a child reading the definition for “oral sex”.Merriam Webster’s 10th edition, which has been used for the past few years in fourth and fifth grade classrooms (for children aged nine to 10) in Menifee Union school district, has been pulled from shelves over fears that the “sexually graphic” entry is “just not age appropriate”, according to the area’s local paper.
The dictionary’s online definition of the term is “oral stimulation of the genitals”. “It’s hard to sit and read the dictionary, but we’ll be looking to find other things of a graphic nature,” district spokeswoman Betti Cadmus told the paper.
This, from my pal SuperJesus:
Marshall Kirkpatrick of ReadWriteWeb is calling bullshit on Facebook-founder Mark Zuckerberg’s recent comments about privacy. Zuckerburg says:
A lot of companies would be trapped by the conventions and their legacies of what they’ve built, doing a privacy change – doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the kind of thing that a lot of companies would do. But we viewed that as a really important thing, to always keep a beginner’s mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it.
Kirkpatrick’s response is spot on:
This is a radical change from the way that Zuckerberg pounded on the importance of user privacy for years. That your information would only be visible to the people you accept as friends was fundamental to the DNA of the social network that hundreds of millions of people have joined over these past few years. Privacy control, he told me less than 2 years ago, is “the vector around which Facebook operates.”
I don’t buy Zuckerberg’s argument that Facebook is now only reflecting the changes that society is undergoing. I think Facebook itself is a major agent of social change and by acting otherwise Zuckerberg is being arrogant and condescending.
Why is Facebook changing their tune? Money, baby. Money. At first, it might have been helping people stay in contact. Now, however, with 350 million people giving their personal information to the system, Facebook stands to gain…if they can convince everyone who uses their service that they do not need privacy anymore. Kirkpatrick continues:
First the company kept user data siloed inside its site alone, saying that a high degree of user privacy would make users comfortable enough to share more information with a smaller number of trusted people.
Now that it has 350 million people signed up and connected to their friends and family in a way they never have been before – now Facebook decides that the initial, privacy-centric, contract with users is out of date. That users actually want to share openly, with the world at large, and incidentally (as Facebook’s Director of Public Policy Barry Schnitt told us in December) that it’s time for increased pageviews and advertising revenue, too….
…Facebook allows everyday people to share the minutia of their daily lives with trusted friends and family, to easily distribute photos and videos – if you use it regularly you know how it has made a very real impact on families and social groups that used to communicate very infrequently. Accessible social networking technology changes communication between people in a way similar to if not as intensely as the introduction of the telephone and the printing press. It changes the fabric of peoples’ lives together. 350 million people signed up for Facebook under the belief their information could be shared just between trusted friends. Now the company says that’s old news, that people are changing. I don’t believe it.
I think Facebook is just saying that because that’s what it wants to be true.
Just because a service is free to you does not mean you have to give it everything you are. They are trying to make millions off of your personal information. Better, they didn’t have to pay you one red cent for it.
Is that right? Is that fair and honest? Is that in your best interest?
The news has moved quickly in some circles, but for those who have not yet heard: Natalie Morris, wife of Podiobooks.com founder1 and author Tee Morris, passed away.
In order to help Tee and his daughter through this diffcult period, Pip Ballantine has set up a fund where anyone who wishes to can chip in. Please consider doing so, if you have the means.
To Tee: We’re here for you, pal. You need anything at all, you let us know.
The Secret Lair