Not Signed-In
Which clippings match 'Huffington Post' keyword pg.1 of 1
22 JUNE 2017

Face-replacement video cut-up prominent in UK General Election

"Young music fans seem energised by the Labour leader, unlike any other politician in recent times... Grime star Stormzy has endorsed Corbyn (he particularly liked his anti-Apartheid activism in the eighties), as have other grime scene mainstays like Novelist, AJ Tracey and Boy Better Know collective co-founder JME (brother of Skepta), who even had a photocall with the Labour leader the other week. You can’t buy these sorts of endorsements: #grime4corbyn is very much a grass roots movement, it hasn’t come from a youth wing of Labour or been manufactured by party apparatchiks in any way. ...

At the Brighton gig at seafront venue The Arch, there’s a friendly, positive vibe as various performers take their turns on the mic and decks. A stall in the corner sells #grime4corbyn t-shirts and prints, while in the smoking area outside some gritty artwork featuring assorted grime MCs is peppered with images of MC Jezza himself. “May try say she better than me/Tell my man shut up,” reads one, perhaps alluding to the video that some wag produced that transposes Corbyn’s face onto Stormzy’s ‘Shut Up’ promo. “Punishing pensioners and taking school meals away from our children,” Corbyn — throwing shapes in a red tracksuit — begins in the online skit, before his ‘posse’ add ‘SHUT UP’. The video has understandably gone viral."

(Carl Loben, 06 June 2017, Huffington Post)

1
2

TAGS

2017general election • grime (musical sub-genre) • grime4corbyn • Huffington PostJeremy CorbynLabour Party • pensioner • red tracksuit • Red Wedge • school meals • Shut Up (Stormzy) • Stormzy (musician) • throwing shapes • UK general election • UK Labour Party • viral videoyoung people

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
06 DECEMBER 2014

Profanity Pop by José Rodolfo Loaiza Ontiveros

"These wonderfully warped depictions of Disney classics is brought to you by artist José Rodolfo Loaiza Ontiveros. His upcoming exhibition, 'Profanity Pop,' is described as a 'celebration of creative freedom in our time' –– creative freedom apparently translating to Snow White taking sexy selfies. There's something surprisingly unnerving about watching your childhood BFFs making out, doing drugs and taking pregnancy tests, no matter how much you thought you'd moved on from your Disney roots."

(Priscilla Frank, 01 August 2014, The Huffington Post)

1

2

3

TAGS

2014adult imageryart exhibition • Best Friends Forever (BFF) • botox • Botulinum toxin • candid shotcelebrity culture • contemporary situations • critical reinterpretation • crotch shot • culture jammingexhibitionismfairy tale charactersfan artHuffington Posticonic charactersillustration • imagined scenarios • irreverence • Jose Rodolfo Loaiza Ontiveros • La Luz de Jesus Gallery • Mexican artistmodern situationsnaughtypaparazziparodypop artpopular culturePrince Charming • Profanity Pop (2014) • reimaginingsselfie • sexy selfies • shipping (fandom)Snow Whitespectacular society • tabloid photo • tabloidisation • taco shot • unwholesomenessvanityWalt Disney • warped depictions

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
25 AUGUST 2013

28 Female Thinkers You Should Know, Even If Wired Magazine Doesn't

"When Wired magazine set about compiling their recently released '101 Signals' list of the 'best reporters, writers and thinkers on the Internet –– the people who understand what's happening,' they included many valuable sources of insight and analysis. Yet as many readers noticed, the list is pretty glaringly incomplete. How? It includes very few women. ...

In response to Wired's omissions, we asked HuffPost staffers specializing in each of the featured topic areas to nominate women who should have made the list." They missed: Lauren Goode, Jenna Wortham, Joanna Stern, Jillian York, Jennifer Granick, Michelle Richardson, Julia Angwin, Jessica Silver–Greenberg, Heidi Moore, Mina Kimes, Bess Levin, Sherry Turkle, Alice Park, Maryn McKenna, Ginny Barbour, Brene Brown, Emily Nussbaum, Heather Havrilesky, Alyssa Rosenberg, Ayesha Siddiqi, Linda Holmes, Latoya Peterson, Maria Popova, Maura Johnston, Carolina Miranda, Debbie Millman, Tina Roth Eisenberg, Jaime Derringer.

(20 August 2013, The Huffington Post)

View all Folksonomy posts relating to 'Notable Women' by going here: http://folksonomy.co/?concept=4281

1

TAGS

101 Signals • Alice Park • Alyssa Rosenberg • Ayesha Siddiqi • Bess Levin • Brene Brown • Carolina Miranda • Debbie Millman • Emily Nussbaum • Ginny Barbour • Heather Havrilesky • Heidi Moore • Huffington Post • Jaime Derringer • Jenna Wortham • Jennifer Granick • Jessica Silver-Greenberg • Jillian York • Joanna Stern • Julia Angwin • Latoya Peterson • Lauren Goode • Linda Holmes • Maria Popova • Maryn McKenna • Maura Johnston • Michelle Richardson • Mina Kimes • Sherry Turkle • Tina Roth Eisenberg • Wired (magazine) • women writers and thinkers on the Internet

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
31 MAY 2011

Eli Pariser: beware online 'filter bubbles'

"Mark Zuckerberg, a journalist was asking him a question about the news feed. And the journalist was asking him, 'Why is this so important?' And Zuckerberg said, 'A squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa.' And I want to talk about what a Web based on that idea of relevance might look like.

So when I was growing up in a really rural area in Maine, the Internet meant something very different to me. It meant a connection to the world. It meant something that would connect us all together. And I was sure that it was going to be great for democracy and for our society. But there's this shift in how information is flowing online, and it's invisible. And if we don't pay attention to it, it could be a real problem. So I first noticed this in a place I spend a lot of time –– my Facebook page. I'm progressive, politically –– big surprise –– but I've always gone out of my way to meet conservatives. I like hearing what they're thinking about; I like seeing what they link to; I like learning a thing or two. And so I was surprised when I noticed one day that the conservatives had disappeared from my Facebook feed. And what it turned out was going on was that Facebook was looking at which links I clicked on, and it was noticing that, actually, I was clicking more on my liberal friends' links than on my conservative friends' links. And without consulting me about it, it had edited them out. They disappeared.

So Facebook isn't the only place that's doing this kind of invisible, algorithmic editing of the Web. Google's doing it too. If I search for something, and you search for something, even right now at the very same time, we may get very different search results. Even if you're logged out, one engineer told me, there are 57 signals that Google looks at –– everything from what kind of computer you're on to what kind of browser you're using to where you're located –– that it uses to personally tailor your query results. Think about it for a second: there is no standard Google anymore. And you know, the funny thing about this is that it's hard to see. You can't see how different your search results are from anyone else's.

But a couple of weeks ago, I asked a bunch of friends to Google 'Egypt' and to send me screen shots of what they got. So here's my friend Scott's screen shot. And here's my friend Daniel's screen shot. When you put them side–by–side, you don't even have to read the links to see how different these two pages are. But when you do read the links, it's really quite remarkable. Daniel didn't get anything about the protests in Egypt at all in his first page of Google results. Scott's results were full of them. And this was the big story of the day at that time. That's how different these results are becoming.

So it's not just Google and Facebook either. This is something that's sweeping the Web. There are a whole host of companies that are doing this kind of personalization. Yahoo News, the biggest news site on the Internet, is now personalized –– different people get different things. Huffington Post, the Washington Post, the New York Times –– all flirting with personalization in various ways. And this moves us very quickly toward a world in which the Internet is showing us what it thinks we want to see, but not necessarily what we need to see. As Eric Schmidt said, 'It will be very hard for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been tailored for them.'

So I do think this is a problem. And I think, if you take all of these filters together, you take all these algorithms, you get what I call a filter bubble. And your filter bubble is your own personal unique universe of information that you live in online. And what's in your filter bubble depends on who you are, and it depends on what you do. But the thing is that you don't decide what gets in. And more importantly, you don't actually see what gets edited out. So one of the problems with the filter bubble was discovered by some researchers at Netflix. And they were looking at the Netflix queues, and they noticed something kind of funny that a lot of us probably have noticed, which is there are some movies that just sort of zip right up and out to our houses. They enter the queue, they just zip right out. So 'Iron Man' zips right out, and 'Waiting for Superman' can wait for a really long time.

What they discovered was that in our Netflix queues there's this epic struggle going on between our future aspirational selves and our more impulsive present selves. You know we all want to be someone who has watched 'Rashomon,' but right now we want to watch 'Ace Ventura' for the fourth time. (Laughter) So the best editing gives us a bit of both. It gives us a little bit of Justin Bieber and a little bit of Afghanistan. It gives us some information vegetables, it gives us some information dessert. And the challenge with these kinds of algorithmic filters, these personalized filters, is that, because they're mainly looking at what you click on first, it can throw off that balance. And instead of a balanced information diet, you can end up surrounded by information junk food.

What this suggests is actually that we may have the story about the Internet wrong. In a broadcast society –– this is how the founding mythology goes –– in a broadcast society, there were these gatekeepers, the editors, and they controlled the flows of information. And along came the Internet and it swept them out of the way, and it allowed all of us to connect together, and it was awesome. But that's not actually what's happening right now. What we're seeing is more of a passing of the torch from human gatekeepers to algorithmic ones. And the thing is that the algorithms don't yet have the kind of embedded ethics that the editors did. So if algorithms are going to curate the world for us, if they're going to decide what we get to see and what we don't get to see, then we need to make sure that they're not just keyed to relevance. We need to make sure that they also show us things that are uncomfortable or challenging or important –– this is what TED does –– other points of view.

And the thing is we've actually been here before as a society. In 1915, it's not like newspapers were sweating a lot about their civic responsibilities. Then people noticed that they were doing something really important. That, in fact, you couldn't have a functioning democracy if citizens didn't get a good flow of information. That the newspapers were critical, because they were acting as the filter, and then journalistic ethics developed. It wasn't perfect, but it got us through the last century. And so now, we're kind of back in 1915 on the Web. And we need the new gatekeepers to encode that kind of responsibility into the code that they're writing.

I know that there are a lot of people here from Facebook and from Google –– Larry and Sergey –– people who have helped build the Web as it is, and I'm grateful for that. But we really need you to make sure that these algorithms have encoded in them a sense of the public life, a sense of civic responsibility. We need you to make sure that they're transparent enough that we can see what the rules are that determine what gets through our filters. And we need you to give us some control, so that we can decide what gets through and what doesn't. Because I think we really need the Internet to be that thing that we all dreamed of it being. We need it to connect us all together. We need it to introduce us to new ideas and new people and different perspectives. And it's not going to do that if it leaves us all isolated in a Web of one."

(Eli Pariser, TED.com)

Fig.1 recorded at TED2011, March 2011, in Long Beach, CA. duration: 9:05

1

TAGS

57 signals • algorithmic editing • algorithmic filters • algorithmic gatekeepers • authorised voiceauthorship • balanced information diet • broadcast society • challenging consensus • civic responsibilities • civic responsibility • content editors • curate the world for us • demassificationdemocracydifferent perspectivesecho chamberEgyptEli Pariser • embedded ethics • Eric SchmidtFacebookfilterfilter bubbles • gatekeeper • Google IncHuffington Post • human gatekeepers • information dessert • information flows • information junk food • insular • insular communitiesinsulationisolated in a Web of one • journalistic ethics • Mark ZuckerbergNetflixnew ideas • new people • New York Timesno single standard • personal unique universe of information • personalisation • personalised filters • query results tailoring • relevancesearchsilotailoredTED Talksthe self • uncomfortable • Washington Post • Yahoo News

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
20 JUNE 2009

New Media vs Old Media: Iranian Protests

"On Saturday June 13th, as protests began to flare on streets across Iran, 10.5m American TV–viewers naturally turned to CNN [...] Unfortunately, instead of protests many of them saw CNN's veteran, Larry King, interviewing burly motorcycle–builders. [...] [Yet,] thanks to the internet, dedicated news–watchers knew what they were missing. Twitter and YouTube carried a stream of reports, pictures and film from Iran's streets. The internet also facilitated media criticism. [...] A typical post: 'Iran went to hell. Media went to bed.'

[...] By June 16th Americans were getting decent reports, and even Mr King was paying attention to the story. [...] Meanwhile the much–ballyhooed Twitter swiftly degraded into pointlessness. [...] Even at its best the site gave a partial, one–sided view of events. Both Twitter and YouTube are hobbled as sources of news by their clumsy search engines.

Much more impressive were the desk–bound bloggers. Nico Pitney of the Huffington Post, Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic and Robert Mackey of the New York Times waded into a morass of information and pulled out the most useful bits. Their websites turned into a mish–mash of tweets, psephological studies, videos and links to newspaper and television reports. It was not pretty, and some of it turned out to be inaccurate. But it was by far the most comprehensive coverage available in English. The winner of the Iranian protests was neither old media nor new media, but a hybrid of the two."
(The Economist, 18th June 2008)

TAGS

blogbloggingcitizen journalismCNNFacebookHuffington PostIran • Larry King • mediamedia criticismnew medianewsold mediapro-sumerprosumerprotestTwitterYouTube

CONTRIBUTOR

Adina Huma
Sign-In

Sign-In to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.