They're All Coming Out Of The Network

Preface: I'm currently juggling a few different drafts I've left alone for far too long, but this is still based on all currently available information regarding the implementation of new privacy policies in the wake of Facebook's recent troubles. It is being released on the fourth of July as it relates to freedoms and liberties. 

On the Cambridge Analytica scandal, a quote from John Stossel comes to mind, "I want to say, 'give me a break' but I don't know who to say it to." People were placing a lot of blame on Mark Zuckerberg while also feeling for him when he had to explain Social Media basics to legislators. It's virtually the entire situation in a nutshell, getting mad at someone over something everyone openly resolved to take for granted. Facebook costs you literally nothing to use, as do most social media services, the unspoken contract being that you're there on their terms, renting space for the cost of some number crunching and putting up with a few ads that are minimal compared to what you'd get on network television or print media. In 2018, playing dumb over this exchange is beyond naive. 

Speaking of naive, what I'm about to say probably qualifies as such and maybe will put my stance on this issue in perspective. For starters and in regards to campaign interference, I can't think of a time when I ever changed my vote based on an advertisement. If you're inclined to that approach to electing our leaders, you may as well not vote at all. Furthermore, I don't know what most people's advertising experience on Facebook or elsewhere is like, but if gathering my information means that all the banner ads I see on sites are for products and services I already partake in (Amazon, B&H, RedBubble...), then I call that a victory. I only wish ads on television were as relevant to me. I stopped watching television because I was sick of 3-5 minute commercial breaks every 10-15 minutes, and mostly for crap I wasn't the least bit interested in. To be fair, it irks me a little when I see the same movie trailer about a dozen times in a typical night of watching YouTube, but four years of film school have given me the critical mind needed to spot all the little tricks and tropes that make some trailers effective and others misleading or downright bad. I make a game of it, is my point. I may not seek it out, but should it rear its head and roar like a mighty beast, I hold aloft my magic sword and say, "BY THE POWER OF THE GRAY MATTER IN MY SKULL, BRING IT ON!" 

Speaking of wielding weapons, let me be clear that none of this in any way exonerates Cambridge Analytica for what they've done. Regardless of what users did or didn't know they were opting into, this is a breach of trust and privacy. They took more information than they were allowed to and misrepresented their own intentions to Facebook. The double-edged sword of having heaps of information about you out there in the ethereal web of clouds is you're not alone, and you're nowhere near as special as you think you are. It's like that "What Happens in Vegas" campaign; it's true that if you're just some desk jockeying yahoo from the mundane midwest, you can briefly lead a double life while cruising The Strip and, barring any serious criminal activity, no one's going to call you on it. Then again, if you're already famous, the city that needs sunglasses at night has no shortage of spotlights to shine up your skirt as you get out of your car. This data breach tried to make everyone famous. 

The silver lining to this shitstorm is that nothing is being left unsaid when it comes to what sites ask of you when you partake in their services, putting the terms of use on more equal footing. People are now more inclined to look into what they're signing up for and the sites now can't simply toss out a wall of legalese and hope nobody digs any deeper than that. It's also caused a very interesting phenomenon in my email's inbox. Sites and social media services I signed up for years ago and virtually forgot about are now reaching out to me to tell me they're going to play nice with my data. It's probably sending them some mixed signals for me to close my account and/or unsubscribe from their mailing lists, like I broke up with someone but didn't say as much until years later when everyone stopped caring and I was already walking down the aisle for the third time. 
"Oh, hey! Yeah, I remember you. Bye now. I'll send for my stuff later." 

Well, here's that, then...

My Political Views
I am a right social libertarian
Right: 3.96, Libertarian: 7.19

Political Spectrum Quiz

A Christian Atheist and a Communist Republican walk into a bar...

Recently, Leland Yee told the San Francisco Chronicle that gamers had absolutely no credibility in any and all discussions regarding the regulation of the sale of videogames. This is akin to saying women have no say in healthcare discussions regarding birth control. As controversial as that statement may be, something a little more absurd came up in the comments to this particular article on Kotaku, from a user by the name of MassIdiocy:

For those who haven't read the gist of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association check it out at oyez.com. To be entirely honest, I sort of agree with Leland Yee and here's why: There's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about banning video games. Allow me to explain.
The 1st Amendment protects people's right to free speech for purposes of political dissent. It doesn't protect "smut" or violent media. For those commentors out their that believe SCotUS is infallible I'd suggest looking at some of their old decisions: What the Court thinks is "Unconsitutional" has been wildly different depending on who was presiding. If we accept that the Court is always right we have to accept decisions like Dredd Scott and Plessy as legitimate in their time, right?
I'm a gamer and ardent libertarian but the decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association doesn't make any sense (I think Thomas' dissent has it right). If we want to say that California has the right to pass legislation legalizing marijuana, it should also have the right to pass legislation to band (sic) the sale of games to minors.
I know that young, digitally-minded types get up-in-arms over content restriction but it is our duty as citizens to also understand the founding principles of our Constitution and apply them consistent with their intent. When Leland Yee says, "gamers have no credibility in this argument" I can't help but wonder if this is what he's talking about.

I may be a political moron, but I have a fairly good idea as to what being a libertarian entails. In broad terms, the party shares a number of core beliefs with the political philosophy of objectivism. I consider myself an objectivist in many ways, namely in my support of artists' rights, including the notion that they be allowed to take as many creative risks as possible, regardless of social norms or arbitrary authorities, allowing the lasseiz faire school of capitalism to leave matters with the power of the consumers and their dollar votes. To that end, the very idea of a game being banned or even restricted outside of a voluntary self-regulating system such as the ESRB, is all but the very definition of unconstitutional.

Mass idiocy is working under the premise that the first amendment ONLY protects political speech. This premise is sound if one has no idea how to interpret conjunctions in a sentence. The first amendment is a list of items, separated by semicolons (to distinguish from the commas in the items in the sequence), wherein each item can stand alone in the absence of others.

Freedom of Religion.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of the Press.
Freedom to Peaceably Assemble.
Freedom to Petition the Government.

These are not all the same thing, though they are linked by all having to do with self-expression in a verbal context. To his credit, though, he does bring up a point in one of his replies that the amendments of the constitution neither exist in nor were created in a vacuum. Interpretation of laws often has a lot to do with the political climate and public opinion. Once upon a time, it was the opinion of the people, and by extent those they'd voted into power, that the sale of alcohol should be prohibited. I think we all know how well that ended up. The point is though that laws are generally designed to be vague and open to interpretation, that they might adapt more easily to changing times. The right of people to own guns was meant to empower people to form militias against invading foreign armies back in the early days of the United States, but now can mean protection from any threat to one's home or person, nationality of the assailant notwithstanding.
Similarly, the founding fathers had no concept of the internet, but that doesn't mean the web is an exception anymore than television, radio, motion pictures, or any other form of mass communication that didn't exist in 1792.
This is all old hat and Government 101. The debate about what the government can or cannot do can go on for hours because of several factors. At the end of the day, the biggest issue most people, myself included, are taking with MassIdiocy is that he's saying the government has the right to ban videogames by way of legislation and regulation, all under the banner of him being a libertarian. Libertarians believe people should self-regulate on all but a few matters instead of relying on muscle from the government to protect them. Restricting free trade of items sold to consumers by private enterprises by way of majority votes and court rulings is a complete contradiction to that philosophy, simple as that.

"I'll Smack You Like A Little Girl!"

Gender politics have been in the news lately, from a little boy dressing as Scooby-Doo's Daphne to a Swedish preschool that refers to their students as hens to little Sasha Laxton to a kid standing up to his own father in a GameStop on his little brother's behalf, there's no shortage of challenges to heteronormative biases that most of us would otherwise have thought went the way of witch burnings and segregation.

As someone who grew up with the knowledge that Samus Aran was a woman (before Other M turned her into Bella Swan in power armor), Lady Jaye could crack wise about being a human sacrifice (and kick a few heads in while strung up), Zelda didn't need Link half as bad as she might have insisted, Marion Ravenwood could drink any man under the table, and Karana could manage island life all on her own despite her people's traditions, I like to think I've a fairly liberal view of gender roles, and frankly find the idea of a little boy dressing up as Daphne as funny as it is cute.

I bring all this up because today I overheard something while eating at my local Steak 'n' Shake with my roommate, before going to see Phantom Menace in 3D. Across from our booth, a little boy of maybe five or six was... well, doing what little kids do in public places, running around yelling like he was on fire and grinning ear to ear as only little kids can do when they're testing their parents' limits. When said limit was finally tested to the point of breaking, the boy's mother (emphasis: MOTHER) looked him dead in the eye and said that if he didn't knock it off:

"I'll smack you like a little girl!"

In light of those aforementioned stories and female archetypes from my childhood, I'd like to say to that mother:

"YOU'RE... NOT... HELPING!"

Special Acknowledgement: Thanks to Desi, a very talented artist, for posting about the Sasha Laxton story, and Vanessa Hahn, one of the strongest women I know, for mentioning the Gamestop story.