Carter Jernigan and Behram F.T. Mistree found that sexual orientation of an individual is strongly correlated to the sexual orientation of the individual’s friends on Facebook. After analyzing 4,080 Facebook profiles from the MIT network, we determined that the percentage of a given user’s friends who self–identify as gay male is strongly correlated with the sexual orientation of that user, and we developed a logistic regression classifier with strong predictive power. Although we studied Facebook friendship ties, network data is pervasive in the broader context of computer–mediated communication, raising significant privacy issues for communication technologies to which there are no neat solutions.
so yeah - people freezing to death on the street and i’m up to things like presentations in multicultural class based on thought experiments of alien invasions.
we just went out to the store - it’s 18 degrees, snowing with some intensity, streets are slippery as hell - and there encountered the [redacted] county care team that goes around looking for homeless folks to make sure they do not literally freeze to death. i am very glad this volunteer team, with their SUV packed with donated blankets and parkas and hand warmers, exists, but feel sad as hell that we need them.
Never hope that anything good will ever happen, is what I’m trying to say here
yup - having hope just makes disappointment more painful.
If you don’t mind all this too much, you can make the historical argument: light fare has always supported serious stuff in journalism. You can’t have front page investigative reporting without the funny pages. But there’s difference between running some Dilbert cartoons and intermixing real, reported stories with fake soap operas cooked up by people who are bored on Twitter.
Or maybe there isn’t! Maybe we just need to become comfortable allocating trust in individual writers rather than across entire outlets, which I suspect is what a lot of readers are already doing.
The other facet of this is that, frankly, I have outrage fatigue. I could spend every week being mad about a new viral fiction I’ve been told and half-believed, or I can just accept that these stories are the modern equivalent of folklore. I can choose to treat these hoaxes as pieces of culture rather than pieces of reporting, as vessels by which we transmit values and fend off boredom."
This is mostly what I think but I am beginning to have my doubts. John Herrman’s right that a lot of the stuff you find on UpWorthy or other buzzy sites right now (“This Recently Married Man Just Realized Marriage Is Not For Him. You Have To Read What He Wrote.”) is just a new way of distributing the content you used to find in e-mail chain letters. But maybe the form of distribution matters. If the “Diane in 7A” hoax is a piece of culture, it’s a piece of corporate culture, produced by an entertainment industry professional (the hoaxer is a reality TV producer) and then distributed by BuzzFeed, a massive media company. When chain letters come to you through your relatives or co-workers, their intent is to amuse you and maybe strengthen your relationship. (Or annoy you, depending on your family.) When they come to you through a media company, the intent is to make money. Culture that serves a social function is judged by different standards than culture with a profit motive.
I don’t care if an e-mail story my Grandma sends me is true because she just wants to virtually hang out with me. You wouldn’t fact-check a story you got told at a bar. I care if a story a media company sells me is true because verifying information is one of their two jobs. We don’t need a media company to repackage tweets for us because this is the internet and we can all just read the stupid tweets ourselves. There’s no value added by distributing content on the internet because you’re just pointing to something everyone else can see. Like I said about horse_ebooks, on the internet, our reception of a piece of culture has a lot to do with how we perceive its intentionality. The intentionality of my Grandma forwarding me something fake is to say hi. The intentionality of media companies, I assume, is to tell me things that are true. I don’t need them to access culture online, because I can do that on my own; I need them to tell me what’s true. For a media company to be reporting a hoax as if it’s true feels like I got duped at the airport into hiring a tour guide who’s bringing me to sights I could see perfectly fine on my own—and then telling me inaccurate stories on top of it. I feel like an understanding has been violated.(via barthel)
pretty sure burning the roof of my mouth was one of the worst decisions i’ve made in recent memory. it feels weird and smooth and plasticy and also hurts when i eat anything.
team lie down on the floor
Those [other artists in the music industry] aren’t pros. Britney’s a pro. Her time is valuable: she has kids. And a lot of the time with an artist they’ll go into the studio, they’ll sit around, they’re watching TV, they order some food, they’re giggling and joking, they’re searching and listening to other people’s songs, they finally get to work then they take a break, they order some food, their friends come… And that happens for four or five months, sometimes eight months. Britney’s like: “I’m coming in from 2pm until 6pm.” She’ll arrive at 1.30, and from 2 to 6 she’ll be like BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM. BAM BAM BAM BAM. BAM BAM. I’ve never seen anything like that. Her work ethic is pretty admirable."
— will.i.am, repeating what by my reckoning literally every producer who has ever talked about working with godney has said about our queen :’) (x)
my brain is such a pile of vacation mush that i think i will go hang up a whole lot of laundry instead of writing a three page report that normally would only take me 45 minutes. pretty sure anything that didn’t get done before i took 5 consecutive days off i going to be thoroughly half-assed.