DTC 355 project 3 proposal

My literacy narrative is going to be about how I communicate visually.

I want to begin with photos of my work from when I was little.
A quote from my mom will be playing but you don't actually have to watch her say it.
From there I will talk about how visuals changed from a hobby to a possible profession.
Next I'll talk about architecture and the two years I spent there.
Finally I will get to DTC and what kinds of visually oriented projects I have in the future.

I would like to convey humor but I think that will come as I'm writing/researching. Maybe from a few cut slides and exaggerated faces like the guy we watched last class.

Also, I want to music to play a large role because music also influences my art.
Hopefully I can convey a little humor or at least entertain with dramatic music and changes in tempo.
I want to use a combination of slides and video but I haven't quite decided what should be filmed.
Any ideas are welcome!

DTC 355 peer reviews

Sorry this is late. I totally spaced about the post until I went to finish the project just now and looked for the advice sheets.

The reviewers thought that I had a handle on the text. I had finished the intro and the first set of analysis and they were happy with the connections I made. I will try to re-emphasize the political nature of the works rather than just trying to explain the positive/negative effects of pot. I used a lot of the terminology from class but Josie mentioned that you can always use more!

A very useful piece of advice was to include a transitional statement or paragraph at the end of the intro calling the viewer to continue clicking the links on the side. This will help navigation for people who don't really know the project that well. Additionally, they mentioned that I could also look at what didn't work very well rhetorically which is something I hadn't thought about yet.

As far as aesthetics and functionality go, we agreed that a black outline on the titles was best and that the subtitle should also be black to separate it from the main text. Also, I need to add home links and links to the actual websites I'm analyzing.

DTC 356 Online Privacy

In the article "How Companies are Using Your Social Media Data" Leah Betancourt  begins by telling the audience that users have no idea that potentially every comment they have made online are being added to a large database. Most people's first reaction may be alarm but honestly, I think people should have figured that out by now. Almost every commerce side offers suggestions based on your purchases, favorites, and sometimes even what you viewed earlier that day! Everything we 'touch' in a digital  environment can be recorded and stored. We volunteer this information the second we click a link.

Problems occur when people forget this all important rule. In the study "Aliases, creeping and wall cleaning," Kate Raynes-Goldie includes the quote "Facebook makes things that should just have happened in passing totally permanent and public." This is the all important point that people need to understand. There really isn't online privacy. The article goes on to describe different methods people use to circumvent the view privacy setting that are put in place. A Facebook conversation can't be treated the same was as one with friends in person. You can't take back words once they make them online and phrases without context are especially dangerous.

Betancourt goes on to say that it doesn't seem all that scary. Why wouldn't these companies look at public information and try to profit from it. Seems natural enough to me. I don't mind if these companies use my facebook to give me ads designed for me specifically. I'm going to have to see ads regardless so they might as well be about things that interest me. The problem I have is when she starts to mention how facebook may affect your credit. She assures us our credit score is safe but specific offers can be determined by your friends on Facebook. This is where I would draw the line. Advertising is one thing but my friends should have nothing to do with any financial decisions in my life.

She says " Do you know if your Facebook friends have good credit histories? Likely not, but if you associate with people who are a good credit risk, than you’ll probably be a good credit risk, according to Sandberg. “The whole idea [is] like follows like.” Should I start unfriending people with bad credit scores so I'll look better? This may mark a shift between posting about yourself and posting what you want companies to think about you. This would defeat the purpose of most blogs and social networks that focus on expressing one's self. She reiterates is as tip #2 at the bottom of the page. Eliminate those you don't need. I guess one option would be to simply eliminate them from your social media connections. Maybe questionable friends should only be reached by phone or actually in person. Still this kinda bugs me. Your friends shouldn't be able to influence your job and certainly not financial offers. 

This is especially a concern because recently I read an article, (sorry I couldn't find a link,) that said that companies are wary of hiring people without Facebook because it may mean they are difficult to work with or they lack social skills. Raynes-Goldie also mentions "Moreover, the choice to use (or not use) sites like Facebook is often framed as one that is made freely and without consequence, when in reality there can be a high social cost to non–participation." So we have to use Social Media but companies will soon prevent us from socializing the way we want. I'm all for specific advertisments and song suggestions but eventually someone is going to take it too far....

DTC 355 sources for project 2

http://www.marijuanaharmsfamilies.com/

Author: SaveCalifornia.com

Title: Marijuana Harms Families

Summary: A multimodal website featuring text and video. This site show the perspective of the debate from the anti-marijuana side. This site targets families and focuses on how marijuana will damage our children. The visual choices they made will be analyzed to compare to the pro-marijuana websites.

Rights: existing asset. Fair use should cover it because I'm using it for educational analysis and it is based off factual evidence.

http://www.calmca.org/

Author:

Title: Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana

Summary: This site takes a more friendly approach to target its voters with warm colors. However, it does immediately bring children into the front of the debate like the other anti-pot website. They both use the same strategy to target the audience but go about it in different ways. I will try to determine which is more successful during analysis.

Rights: Original asset. Sponsored by the Fair Political Practices Commission.

http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2012/09/14/2012-historic-year-for-marijuana-reform-on-the-ballot/

Author: Firedoglake

Title: Just Say Now.com

Summary: Provides a lot of images from the very beginning. It seems obvious that they are trying to get your attention. They then approach the call to action links which encourage people to call voters, buy t-shirts, etc. It seems al lot like the campaign sites looked at in class and this connection will be expanded on during analysis.

Rights: the site itself seems to be an Original asset but the articles it features are all from separate publications. I think fair use covers these because only small portions will be sampled and for educational purposes.

http://normal.org

Author: Norml Foundation

Title: Norml- Working to refor marijuana laws

Summary: This site focuses on reports concerning the marijuana debate. The site offers statistics on the states that are considering these reforms. Again it is laid out like the potential governors' websites. While the other was all about action, this site separates by talking about specific laws and using more political jargon.

Rights: Existing asset. Fair use should cover the use based on the nature of my project and the website is based on factual information. I won't be taking their opinions, just their facts.

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/about

Author: Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol

Title: YES on 64- Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol.

Summary: Focuses directly on one amendment that is trying to be passed in Colorado. The site gives details about what the amendment will do and possible outcomes if it's passed. This site doesn't try to distract or attract its viewers. It provides clear information with color that isn't normally related to the weed debate. It offers simple links to events but the professional nature of the site makes their arguments much more believable than some other sites.

Rights: Existing asset. Fair use will cover my use because of the educational nature of my project and the factual nature of this website.

Part 3

I will use an MLA format for the sources because it is a widely recognized style that includes all important information.

DTC 356 Lessarry

When it came to making his Supreme Court argument, Lessig could have really used some help from Parry. Like the moot lawyer Don Ayer said "you have to make them see the harm..." (237). In his writing Lessig admits that ignoring this advice may be biggest reason he lost the case. The justice's simply weren't interested in his argument about the history of our copyright policy. If it was so bad why should we have to change it now? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Lessig wasn't able to convince them the system was broken. They needed specific reasons and Parry would have been the perfect man to give them. His presentation on knowledge cartels illustrated the damages that are being caused by extended copyright terms. He shows how little information is actually reaching the public domain due to the 'rights' that these big corporations have on material they didn't even create.

Parry should not have been the one to make this argument in court. Lessig's level head and professional diction would have gotten him farther than turning to the audience and yelling "Everyone Pirate Information!" Claims made in this manner and terms like 'pirate' will turn people away and make them disregard his argument. Lessig even mentioned that it was clear the Chief Justice thought they were "a bunch of anarchists" (239). If Parry was among them, this would have been confirmed.

Lessig was close. He had valid points but they were lost in the fray. Without illustrating the dangers, without making them care, the Justice's did very little to see the deeper connections within Lessig's argument. Parry is able to capture the audience's attention immediately but fails to recognize that people respond well when you tell them to break the law. The two of them together would have been the perfect amount of street and book smarts. They could have crafted an alarming argument, that grabs the attention of the court, illustrating how these extensions are going to ruin this country. Then they could have revealed the history that reinforces the unconstitutional nature of the law.

Hopefully someone will get another crack at copyright laws in a case like this one. Hopefully they will be able to show the harm copyright laws are inflicting on our society and offer a reasonable solution that will aid progress in the future.