Hi,

Just trying to clear up a question... from the Study Guide the presentation is described as:"The presentation format is very strict, based loosely on the popular Pecha Kucha format, with some modifications." the definition of Pecha Kucha being 20 slides for 20 seconds each.

But in the assignment description it says:  "Presentation: Your presentation should be precisely 5 minutes long, comprising exactly ten slides of approximately 30 seconds’ duration each. It should summarize your findings clearly and concisely."

To me, I'm thinking both instructions are describing a different type of presentation and I tend to lean towards the instruction in the assignment decription since we've haven't strictly followed the study guide up to this point anyway.

What is everyone else in the group is doing?

-Paul

Paul,

I read "loosely based" to mean the format will be as described in the assignment - 5 mins long, 10 slides, 30 secs each.

Makes sense now that I read it that way.

Thanks for the help.

Hi Nadir,

I didn't see any either so also posted on my own! Very interesting topic on Internet vigilantism. It's hard to say whether people are in the right or wrong for publically voicing their thoughts against certain people. I see one danger that a mass of people can be easily influenced by what they see or read and to make assumptions and condemn the person before any proof can be made. The problem with judging just a picture, is that it is just that, there is no context or background. At least with our judicial system the person is considered innocent until proven guilty. But what is making me wonder is those actions online that are completely morally wrong, perhaps the internet shaming is a good thing? In some sense people are being controlled and punished by the mass for not right actions. I almost think that internet shaming is a much higher level of shaming then being prosecuted in a traditional means, as that information stays on the internet for a very long time. People can look you up and your past is very hard to erase. What are your thoughts Nadir?

Leah

I believe that online shaming is abhorrent to be honest. If a crime was committed by an individual, justice should be served through law enforcement and the judicial system. If a law was not broken and an individiual simply committed a social crime (a la double dipping), people should just let it go. People do stupid things in their lives. It is inevitable. I do not think it is right to punish someone so mercilessly for a moment of poor judgement. I mean, people have lost their livelihood over photographs or a tweet, which were likely taken completely out of context.

However, you raise a good point Leah. If an act is morally wrong, it is not necessarily illegal. Does society need to brandish pitchforks and take justice in their own hands? Yes, the dentist/hunter that hunted and killed Cecil the lion committed a deplorable act. I cannot deny that I was saddened that such a beautiful creature was taken from this planet for nothing more than sport. However, public shaming of the individual did not really achieve much in the long run. More could have been achieved through the combined effort of the shamers if they focussed on educating the public on the plight of endangered species (for instance).

That being said, Jon Ronson came away from his encounter better off for the online shaming that resulted from him posting his interview on YouTube. The interview is hilarious by the way and a must-see. It can be found in my second reference in my post above.

Leah,

This is so true about abandance of information and that with social networks you have access both to local, national and international information, as well as aware of what your friends reading, discussing or sharing with the rest.

It's almost a good thing in a way. The massive spread of information available. People are more aware of events across the world than ever before. But I think this can also be a bad thing as well, such as negative posts about people or negative videos and ignorant views can be spread faster than ever before.