Slacktivism: just how bad is it?

Last week, UNICEF posted a video on their YouTube channel that addresses one of the themes that has come up during our blog discussion: slacktivism.

As others have discussed, the Internet fosters a culture that addresses problems through minimal effort. This phenomenon includes:

...signing Internet petitions, joining a community organization without contributing to the organization's efforts, copying and pasting of social network statuses or messages or altering one's personal data or avatar on social network services. (Wikipedia)

The UNICEF video is designed to address slacktivism through a short, emotionally-loaded narrative from 10-year-old Rahim in a nameless third-world country. Their message is, "Likes don't save lives. Money does." In other words, if you care enough about an issue to like it on Facebook, you should at least donate money to it.

Ironically, this video will be liked, upvoted, and shared through social media. It does nothing but raise awareness and spread a message. Is this video a hypocritical form of slacktivism? Instead of spending their money on producing videos, should they focus their efforts solely on helping children?

I don't think so.

It's extremely important to raise awareness about issues. Even doing the bare minimum by spreading the word helps raise awareness by a little bit. Even if a person doesn't physically contribute, they may spark the interest of someone who will donate their money and time.

Let's face it: we're all occupied with our own lives. Many of us simply don't have time to go out and solve our world's problems. If that makes you feel guilty, then find a cause to donate time and/or money to. There are plenty of people who have devoted their lives to causes we're interested in. It's their job—help them do it. Yes, you'll still be on your butt in front of a computer screen, but you're still doing something.

Ultimately, the problem lies in public's perception of contribution and a general lack of critical thinking. This results in many users believing in a Facebook fairy who donates money based on how many likes a post has.

I think the first step in solving such a problem lies in education (*cough* Postman *cough*). There are far too many digitally illiterate users who spend hours on Facebook everyday. Fixing the problem is a different story—one that I'm not equipped to answer at this point in time.

So what do you think about slacktivism? Do you think it's all bad? Are there good forms of slacktivism? How does it affect public discourse online?

High-Speed Internet? No Thanks...

If I asked you if you wanted to have either $10 or $100, what would you say?

My good friend Time Warner told me that you would rather have $10 because you don't need any more than that, is that right?

...no?

Well that's strange, I wonder why they would say that. By the way, can I have that $10 back? I need to pay Time Warner for their crappy Internet services.

It turns out that Time Warner has a habit of overestimating people's modesty—especially that of their customers.

A month ago, Time Warner Cable chief technology officer Irene Esteves suggested that their customers don't want faster Internet speeds, and they especially don't want gigabit speeds offered by Google Fiber. She believes that only businesses will need that sort of bandwidth—a service that Time Warner already offers to such customers.

According to Esteves, "We’re in the business of delivering what consumers want, and to stay a little ahead of what we think they will want... We just don’t see the need of delivering that to consumers."

Rather than being faced with a lack of customer demand, experts believe that Time Warner is simply trying to maximize its profits. Time Warner and similar companies are making a 97% profit for their existing services(check out MIT's Technology Review for more detail).

Until Google Fiber becomes available to the public, we're stuck facing service carriers who offer nearly identical services and prices. Based on Time Warner's attitude, it doesn't matter what we want because they apparently know better.

What do you think? Does Time Warner have it right? Is our Internet speed fast enough based on how much we're being charged for it? Or is Time Warner full of it? You better respond before Time Warner answers for you!

In the meantime, check out the following ad from an honest cable company.

Yo Ho, Yo Ho! A Pirate's Life for [those who abide by copyright laws]

On Friday, a spokesperson from The Pirate Bay (TPB) has stated that they will be suing a website for copyright infringement—a website owned by Finnish anti-piracy group Copyright Information and Anti-Piracy Centre (CIAPC).

You read that correctly.

CIAPC copied TPB's website design and created a nearly identical webpage; only the main logo and title are different.
(image via Torrent Freak)
The site doesn't link users to torrents, rather it offers sources where users could obtain their search items legally. Despite the anti-piracy message CIAPC's website attempts to send, the organization copied TPB's CSS files without permission nor attribution. Furthermore, TPB's usage policy prohibits use of the site's material without permission.

In other words, CIAPC plagiarized design code from TPB.

As a result, TPB is taking legal action. In an interview with Torrent Freak, a TPB spokesman stated:

We are outraged by this behavior. People must understand what is right and wrong. Stealing material like this on the internet is a threat to economies worldwide. We feel that we must make a statement and therefore we will sue them for copyright infringement.

This statement was made tongue-in-cheek. These self-proclaimed pirates don't really believe that stealing design code "is a threat to economies worldwide." They're called The Pirate Bay, for goodness' sake. However, I do think TPB will sue to make a point.

Let's face it, there's a lot of piracy that occurs in the murky waters of TPB. The website normally wouldn't care if someone decides to steal their site design. However, if a well-known anti-piracy group is pirating material, then what exactly does this group stand for? TPB's spokesperson said,"If not even IFPI and their friends can respect copyright, perhaps it’s time to move on."

What do you think? What kind of message is TPB is trying to send? Is it okay for CIAPC to steal from a website that fosters piracy? Is TPB simply looking for some publicity?

Arr, a storm be brewin', me hearties.

Google: Put a Ring on It

Google has just declared war.

Their opponent isn't Facebook, Microsoft, or Apple. They're not fighting a person or organization. They're not engaging in a litigious battle. Rather, their beef with a practice older than the Internet itself.

Google has made a stand against passwords.

2012 marked a rough year for Internet security. Popular sites such as Gmail, Yahoo, LinkedIn, and many others have experienced password breaches of thousands of user accounts.

Too many people are falling victim to online scams and phishing attempts. Too many people create overly simple passwords. Too many people reuse the same password for multiple accounts.

As a result, hackers are able to harvest user accounts like beets on a beet farm.



Google no longer believes that passwords are effective to keep users safe. One solution they offer is 2-step Verification for their accounts. Users who opt into this protection will receive verification codes on their phone via text message if they log into an unfamiliar computer.

This type of security is like locking an already locked door with a deadbolt. It won't protect you from highly skilled hackers, but it can protect you from phishers, keyloggers, and anybody who cracks your password. If you have a Google account, I would highly suggest activating this feature.

Eventually, Google wants users to unlock their accounts with a key. Literally.

Google's security team discusses a new form of web authentication involving a physical key in an upcoming volume of engineering journal IEEE Security & Privacy Magazine. This key will actually be a ring for users to wear on their finger. It will function as a transmitter to automatically send your login credentials to the computer when you touch the keyboard.

And we shall call it our precious...



While technological advances are exciting, we should still think critically about this revelation. Are passwords really a security measure of the past? What are the implications of a carrying piece of ID that can be scanned without our consent? What if we lose our ring? Is this a step away from Internet anonymity?

I've always been careful with my passwords and I've never dealt with a compromised account. Another security measure just adds an extra step between me and my account. Is more security worth my convenience?

I like Google, but I'm not sure if I want to put a ring on it yet.