BewilderedSociety.com

fabulously cynical.

twitterverse

Who Says You Can't Buy Sex(.com)? http://digs.by/1eo0

Some peculiar sexting survey numbers are surfacing from Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project’s latest report [via Fast Company].

  • 15% of cell-owning teens (ages 12-17) says they’ve received sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images or videos of themselves to someone else via text messaging. That’s 1 in 6.
  • 4% of the same group say they’ve sent the same.

Either some whorish teens are up to no good (Tiger?!) or we’ve got some liars in the mix. *gasp* Lying teens on a survey of sexual habits? Blame Gossip Girl and Adam Lambert!

Statistics almost double when looking at the older audience:

  • 8% of 17-year-olds with cell phones have sent a sexually provocative image by text
  • 30% have received a nude or nearly nude image on their phone.

Pew’s study gives in-depth look at some key responses from the 800 teens surveyed in Denver. In their honesty and naivety some are notably amusing.

“Yes, I do. I only do it with my girlfriend b/c we have already been sexually active with each other,” wrote one older high school age boy. “It’s not really a big deal.”

Glad you two saved the exciting stuff for last.

This girl, meanwhile, gives us some insight as to high school popularity in 2009.

“If a guy wants to hookup with you, he’ll send a pictures of his private parts or a naked picture of him[self]. It happens about 10 times a month,” explained one older high school girl. “It’s mostly the guys I date or just a guy that…really wants to hook up with you. I’m not really that type of person [who sends sexts], but I have friends who have.”

A younger high school male gives us the equivalent of, “Well I don’t think she should dress like a slut but I’m not going to stop it …”

“Yes I have received some pics that include nudity. Girls will send them sometimes, not often. I don’t know why they think it’s a good idea but I’m not going to stop it. Sometimes a guy will get one and forward it to all his friends.”

Absent from this study are surveys of those actually using text messaging to sext. While less obscene on the surface, anyone who drinks under sexual pressure knows a horny160 characters can cause as much havoc as a 160 kilobyte picture. It makes neither more appropriate, but pictures are serving as as a scapegoat for a wider range of sexuality promiscuity that is no more familiar to this generation of teens than the early Millenials. The results demonstrate the confusing process of adolescence in a sex-driven society, and the continuing need for comprehensive education and guiding minds through it all.

Too bad there’s not an app for that.

Google’s YouTube blog presents our most watched and most queried terms for the year that was 2009.

Most Watched YouTube videos (Global):
1. Susan Boyle – Britain’s Got Talent (120+ million views)
2. David After Dentist (37+ million views)
3. JK Wedding Entrance Dance (33+ million views)
4. New Moon Movie Trailer (31+ million views)
5. Evian Roller Babies (27+ million views)

Here are this year’s top pop culture events, inadvertently presented by month as YouTube search terms.

Fastest Rising YouTube search terms by month (U.S.):
January: obama inauguration
February: on a boat
March: watchmen
April: susan boyle
May: pacquiao
June: michael jackson thriller
August: send it on
September: kanye west
October: paranormal activity
November: adam lambert
December: tiger woods

YouTube adds that [michael jackson] was this year’s fastest growing search term and [michael jackson thriller] became the fastest rising search on YouTube in 2009, too.

So don’t worry, Tiger, it’s still not all about you.

Big news night for CNN.com: Is it time for the Simpsons to go?
CNN.com Screen shot 12/14/09

Just for comparison, here’s the International version at the same time:

CNN.com International screen shot 12/14/09

This is rivaled tonight by the most popular stories module (U.S. edition) on an article on the Buffalo Continental crash, seen below:

CNN.com screen shot 12/14/09

In case you’re wondering, CNNi”s edition, below:

CNN.com International screen shot 12/14/09Way to go, America. (Sorry, Chris Brown?)

Facebook greeted its users with new settings this week effectively ending any and all stalking powers society collectively enjoyed. Well, assuming we users actually make the changes.

Book Founder Mark Zuckerberg opened up his profile to the public to support the new privacy settings, even if it was rumored accidental. Just because he did doesn’t mean you’re as obligated; though we’d really appreciate it if you could leave those holiday party photos unlocked for just a few more days … We’ve never seen that done with a bottle of Jack and a ferret, either.

We digress. Welcome to the (surprisingly serious) Bewildered Society guide to protecting your Facebook privacy and digital identity. We’re breaking down the new settings to give you a better understanding of what the hell you should do if you’re trying to hide those questionable college photos from your soon-to-be-boss.

It’s likely you’ve already encountered the following options screen from Facebook this week:

Facebook Privacy Settings Prompt

At the previously linked story above explains, there is some concern for Facebook’s “recommended” settings in the above screen. The argument: It’s asking you to share more than you ever did while making it seem like you’re locking more down. Best bet here? Leave everything as “Old Settings” and manually tour the new privacy settings area yourself. You can access that new area from the Facebook navigation area under the “Settings” drop-down menu.

The new Facebook privacy tools are divided into 5 categories:

  • Profile info
  • Contact info
  • Applications and external websites
  • Searches
  • Block list

Main_Menu

We’ll examine the first 4 in detail.  The 5th is pretty self-explanatory, add anyone you want to keep away from your Facebook life to the list and as far as they’re considered, you aren’t even on Facebook.

It is worth your time to go through all of your privacy options, section by section, line by line.  The last thing you want to find out a year from now is that you’ve been inadvertently sharing the pictorial evidence of your 21st birthday with the world.

Profile Information

Profle_Info_1

Decide who can view the basic information in your profile, such as your “about me”, your birthday, etc. You do this by clicking on the drop down menu on the right side of the screen.

Privacy_Settings_Change_2

Some interpretations of the above options:

  • “Everyone” will share that particular information with essentially everyone on the internet.  Think carefully before choosing this option.
  • “Friends and Networks” will share with everyone you’re friends with, AND everyone in all of your networks (your school, work, etc.) That’s still a wide web.
  • “Friends of Friends” will share with everyone you’re friends with AND all of their friends.
  • “Only Friends” shares with your peeps and your peeps alone.
  • The “Custom” option allows you to select specific friends and/or specific networks to share the data with, as well as the opportunity to block certain people from this particular information.

Privacy_Settings_Change_Custom

Another vital component of the Profile Information section are photo albums settings.  The setting for photos and videos of you tagged by others works the same as the rest of the items.  The settings for photo albums that you have uploaded yourself are more complicated:

Clicking “edit settings” for Photo Albums takes you to a page which lists all of your albums individually.  For each album you can select who can view the photos using the same “everyone”, “my networks and friends”, etc. scheme explained above.

Photo_Album_Settings

Again, you have the option of setting custom settings for each album.  The custom settings menu allows you to choose specifically who (if anyone) can view the photos either by individuals or entire networks.Photo_Album_Settings_Custom

Contact Information
This section works similarly to the Profile Information section, it lists individual contact information, and allows you select who can see each.  Again there is a “Custom” option that allows you to fine tune specifically who can or cannot view any particular information.

Contact_Info_Settings

Applications and Websites

This section allows you to determine which Facebook applications and external websites are allowed to access what information in your profile, and what information they are allowed to publish to your newsfeed.  However tedious, it is worthwhile to examine every application and website one by one to make sure the settings are what you really want.

The applications and websites settings section is divided into 4 sections.  Applications_Settings_1

“What You Share” will present you with a list of all the applications currently active with your profile, and you can go down that list and decide what each application can do.  This includes details like who can see that you have the application installed, whether it appears as a “tab” along the top of your profile, as well as what (if anything) it can publish to your newsfeed. An example of that window:

Applications_Settings_2

HERE’S A BIG ONE: “What Friends Can Share” lets you select what applications that your friends are using can access from your profile.  It is a long list of potential data, so think carefully. This may be the most underestimated tool in terms of importance.

Applications_Settings_What_Friends_Can_Share

Search Settings

The ability to kill your search-ability is not a brand new feature, but it’s something many users overlooked when it launched. As with the other privacy settings, this screen lets you choose who (everyone, friends, friends of friends, etc.) will be able to find you when they search your name or email address on Facebook. Additionally, you can decide whether you want your Facebook profile to appear in results when someone Googles your name.

Search_Settings

[Dave Studinski contributed to this post.]

Watch how you clip your thumbnails.

Behold a USATODAY.com article aboutJersey tourism types saying MTV’s show doesn’t properly depict its shore. Here’s a screen capture of the page, though the article is irrelevant here.

Notice anything a little .. risqué?

USAToday.com screen capture 12/10/09

Didn’t catch it? Let’s examine closer.

USAToday.com screen capture 12/10/09

The video depicts a 13-year-old girl who, in fact, licked a poll outside in Washington State, proceeding to get her tongue stuck to it.

I say the thumbnail crop and teaser text suggest a different story …

The openly gay (and beloved) Rachel Maddow took on the book author whose content is responsible for feeding Uganda’s proposed anti-gay bill. “Coming Out Straight” author Richard Cohen is a self-proclaimed therapist claiming love and an understanding of male bonding he never had both led him to turn straight. The book is a seeming brainwash of OMIGOD-GAYS-HAVE-AIDS-AND-WILL-KILL-US-ALL-style fear-mongering and fact twisting with the end-goal of claiming there’s straight light at the end of the homosexual rainbow.

Watch the full interview (just shy of 20 minutes:

)

While we’d like to claim her the winner of this debate, moments like below show Maddow clearly losing her temper while “Mr. Reformed” remains in an irritatingly stoic position. She’s attempting to make a point

Perhaps the flaw in the conversation, and its victor, is the angle in which the story was approached. It was a two-issue debate focusing both on homosexuality as a myth and supporting evidence for that myth being used to kill gays. While related, the two are each large enough battles to devote entire shows to, let alone a 20-minute combined segment.

Maddow’s weakness is this merging of arguments. She (should have) wanted to talk about Uganda, but she ended up confronting the bullshit claims out of clear personal resent. And rightfully so, but that’s what makes this segment fail. Watch as it’s spun: first as a promotion for his organization, then second as a disclaimer against the use of his material for the persecution of gays. Her argument is lost in a sea of, “We’ll I didn’t mean to …”

We’re left in awe of what a complete fuckup this guy is, not in awe of Maddow’s take-down of said fuckup. While negative, he still retains the focus.

As mythical as the detached observer principle of journalism became this decade, this is one example of why it needs to exist. Maddow’s personal attachment to the story, as that of an openly gay woman, causes her more harm then good. Talking points become personal and it interferes with the ability to take charge of the debate.

While some find him repulsive in his Murrow-esque behavior, Maddow’s time-slot neighbor, Keith Olbermann, would have handled this debate better. Anyone doubting his thoughts on the issue need only turn to his Prop 8 special commentary around this time last year. He made the argument personal to his viewers without having the direct personal interest himself. That’s something Maddow, and frankly much of her audience, can’t claim.

It’s not that Maddow failed. She’s didn’t. That’s impossible to do when you’re up against a man practicing psycho-babble. The shame is that she couldn’t leverage the insanity of his argument against gays to make him admit that – intended or not -  it’s ultimately leading to their genocide.