Random Words

Based reading the Washington Post article of Dorm Gossip Turns Limy on the Internet by Marc Fisher, I am totally against the idea of websites like JuicyCampus.com where students can anonymously post about their fellow classmates. But what the things that are mostly said, are not very polite. However, in my opinion, the worst part is people get to call out others by name, yet the posters remain unidentified. This website encourages people to abandon the rules of social etiquette and the right of privacy of an individual and reduce people to committing rude and unmoral acts without any consequence. What I dislike in an individual's character is their inability to take responsibility for their own words and actions. Where are the consequences for the people who call others "sluts" or make "racial epithets"? Shouldn't they be informed that they are degrading other people and injuring reputations not to mention feelings when they post words that are far from the truth?

Of course, most of what is published is far from the truth. That's the Internet, anyone can say anything without any evidence and any idiot can go read it and believe it to be true. That's the just the way it is. Yet, not telling the truth is very damaging, and spreading lies on these kinds of websites is immature, much like the days of middle school. These people are in COLLEGE and should understand that it is very important to maintain a good image in society. Such as the case of of the University of Virginia senior who worries that having her name on the website could jeopardize the job she just landed with a government agency. People should understand that once you say something on the Internet, it's out there, and the entire world can find it, and you can't take that back. In this case, it's other people possibly ruining your career for you. Now doesn't that sound unfair?

If I were a victim of false statements on a site like JuicyCampus.com, I would be very upset, angry, and willing to take action. It's never nice to insult someone, and the anger comes from frustation that people can be weak and rude. I am a strong believer in if you have something mean to say, say it to their face, or don't say it at all. This website ENCOURAGES weakness, so much for the brave people of America. Also, I would be worried that people would judge me from reading stupid comments on a website, and judge me without even meeting me. Thus, I would never say something to or about someone that I would not say to their face. I would not want to hurt someone else that way. However, I have no problem with saying things about people using emails or instant messaging because it does go back to me. Though I do admit, there is a weakness related to that too.

I agree with The Coming Ad Revolution that as more ads are thrown our way, as teens we will become more and more immune to them. I also think that young people subconciously embrace target advertising. It would make shopping for goods and services much easier if companies were able to make a smarter guess on what a specific user was looking for. People should learn to appreciate the small wonders of technology where by simply going to a web page can bring ads that would interest that person. This makes it possible to create our own world cartered to specific individual needs.

Yes, it is smart of advertisements companies to use popular teen sites such as Myspace or Facebook, where millions of teens around the world log in to every single day. Also, I have no problem with the Facebook site collecting data about me and other users. First of all, it is simply business, these people are attempting to better their product and services by collecting data to sell to other companies. If people expect businesses and companies to come up with new stuff that they'll like, these companies have to get information some how. Secondly, people are WILLINGLY giving their information on these websites. The point of these websites is to draw attention to our individuality and show the whole world who we are and how we feel at one moment. If people don't understand how to be careful when they uses these sites or don't have the self restraint to make right ethical choices, then that is their personal problem. However, if Facebook turned around and sold information to creepy pedophiles, then we have a HUGE problem.

I usually don't look to my friend's entries in Facebook as a source of advice about what to buy. I usually get more inspiration from magazines and celebrities. But my buying choices are also dependent on other factors such as how it personally looks on me, the cost, and the real need of the product. Yes, I do think that future online social networks will be used more aggressively by advertisers, but this will lead to more numbness to ads by consumers. All in all, the way people spend money and buy products will relatively stay in the similar patterns that are established.

Overall, I think advertising affects my life, but definetely not to the extent of impacting my decisions as an individual. However, there are those few occasions where a good movie ad, or a good ad for a clothing line, or an ad for a restaurant has inspired me to do certain things. Like the movie ads for the Death Note movies, they way there were edited and the bits they chose to show, gave me an adrenaline rush and a sudden need to go to a movie theatre in Japan. An ad that makes me want to travel halfway around the world and learn a new language seems pretty good to me. Other instances include looking at product ads for clothes and accessories in magazines such as Seventeen and Marie Claire inspire me to add certain things to my wardrobe. I, however, unlike some teens, do consider cost and the acutal need to buy such item. Yet, my individuality is created out of ads. Movies I like, clothes I like, store that I shop at, the type of foods I go for, the brands I know...it all leads back to, in my own opinion, effective advertising.

Yes, companies may spend billions upon billions of dollars on ads attempting to influence the public to buy their products. However, I don't know anyone my age who is throughly driven by advertising. But, I cannot deny that people's choices, however subconcious, are made because of advertising. For people can only make choices, based on what they know and experience. Thus, as many of my friends are bombarded by advertisments everywhere they go, including school, choices will be made on those advertisments. It's like how a lot of political candidates get by, on name recognition. I think I am just as influeced by advertisment just like everyone else I know.

No, I don't consider myself materialistic, because I don't need material things to be happy. Yes, I do admit to shopping to feel better, but overall my priorities for happiness are with good happy moments. Such as being with friends and family, or feeling achievement from hard work. However, good advertising and seeing friends own certain does increase my desire sometimes to own things. But, I'm pretty good at making compromises with myself and understanding that some things I can just live without or wait until a sale comes around. With a great amount of self-control, resisting the urges that come from advertising is possible.

I have several conflicting opinions on what should be and most definetely should not be used in advertisments. First of all, let's adress the Lipitor advertisments that feature Dr. Robert Jarvik as their "celebirty endorser". On behalf of the producers, they can use whoever and do whatever they want in order to market their product. That's how you play the economy. That's business; period. Here, in this example, the public must take responsiblity of making sure they don't just request a certain prescription from their doctor just because a) they saw an ad on television, 2) some famous guy (who's not even a licensed doctor) uses it and is promoting, and 3) the Pfizer company is telling you to buy it. Now, THAT is stupid. All that I see being done here is a company straightfowardly marketing a product in attempting to make a profit, which they have every right to do. Helping people become healthier is just a bonus. It is up to one's doctor to help their patient make the best decision possible for their health, whether is involves Lipitor or not.





However, in the case of the Abercrombie and Fitch ads, there should be a couple producers out there taking some responsibility...or at least get a few punches in the head for morality and smart decision making. To display obscene photographs, aka half naked young men and a mostly naked woman, in a public mall is very irresponsible. Yes, sex may sell, but it must be for the right consumers. Stores like Abercrombie and Fitch attract customers who are young in age and should not be exposed to this type of advertisment yet. What is annoying is that people complain how the new generation is more promiscuous and lack proper etiquette, well then how are they supposed to follow good example when there are none? Advertisment anywhere has the power to make people get an idea of a twisted reality. People, usually don't strip down in random meadows without the influences of alcohol at least, so what kind of "real" concept is this? Furthermore, shouldn't Abercrombie and Fitch be attempting to sell clothes?!?!!??! How are they doing this, when their ads show people half naked? They are setting social standards, not marketing goods and this is completely unacceptable.

Media is a basic tool, but a very powerful one. An example of its power can be seen in a Virginia student's decision to post a message left on his cell phone by a Fairfax County public school administor's wife. Senior Devaj "Dave" S. Kori, left a message at Dean Tistadt's personal home number after a snowfall asking why schools had not closed. Later, Dean Tistadt's wife left a message on his cell phone in which she uttered, "snotty-nosed little brats" and said " Get over it, kid, and go to school!" Kori then took Tistadt's message and posted an adutio link on a Facebook page and the message was posted on Youtube. What is important to understand here, is that the interent is a interesting, yet powerful way for teenagers and young adults, who know how to work this technology, to express their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech. Personally, I feel there is nothing wrong with expressing personal opinions or other issues that should get media by starting a page on the internet.

Mrs. Tistadt's naivity comes from a geration gap on technology. What the world has to understand that, anything that is said or written, can no longer be private. Once it is on the internet, anyone, anywhere can have access to it. This is a new standard and expectation that people must get used to.

It is promising and inspring that common media can be used to get a story started on the interet on websites such as Facebook and Youtube, and become major national stories in papers such as The Wasthington Post and discussed on television on shows such as Good Morning America. This way, practically everyone can make a difference by merely knowing how to hit the Internet Explorer button.