On Being Told How To Use A Product You've "Bought"

I don't own a smartphone. But I know more or less how they work, and the way in which they work (at least in a fundamental sense for the latter point). I don't think it's any secret that the various telecoms run their businesses in some pretty shady ways, and I think they feel like they have to. Like most other large scale, global conglomerates, they've failed to innovate when they needed to the most.

One of the ways people use their smartphones is as a mobile hotspot. This is called tethering, which basically uses your phone's data plan as a means to connect to the internet on another device, such as a laptop or a tablet. The name comes from "tethering" your laptop or tablet to your smartphone.

Verizon and AT&T are essentially a duopoly; sure there's T-Mobile, but AT&T wants to buy T-Mobile (which is another post entirely). But when a company sells you a product and a service and then forces you to use it in only the way they intend (which can change at any time, taking away a necessary or beloved feature) because they realize they can make additional profits from said feature.

Tethering is one such example. There are apps that allow you to tether on Apple iPhones and Android phones. AT&T and Verizon don't allow these applications to run. In the past, Apple even took apps out of the app store because they'd take away potential profit (Think: Shype).

To me this seems bizarre. AT&T and Verizon are offering a service to a customer. In this case, they are selling us phone service. This is not new; they've been selling us phone service for a very long time. What bothers me is that this is an unprecedented smack in the face to customers.

Imagine back when you had a landline if the phone company blocked you from using your modem to connect to the internet because you didn't use them as your portal or ISP. Or, imagine having to use their modem to even connect.

Or imagine they tried to disable the use of modems to connect to the internet entirely, demanding you use their DSL (or cable) internet instead.

This is basically the same thing. Back then, this kind of crap wouldn't be tolerated. Sometimes, regulation is a good thing.

Except of course when regulations are written by the corporations we're supposed to be protected from by regulations. (Think: Making a mixed CD, or backing up a movie you purchased licensed).

Looking Back: I Am/Was A Snarky Bastard (Old School Papers)

I just discovered a couple of old papers I wrote in college. It's actually kind of fun reading them. It's like looking back and seeing a slice of what I was thinking about at a particular time (even if I was forced to consider thinking it).

And, wow, was I sarcastic. I mean, in high school me and two friends did decide to each come up with five words to make the others use in a paper in Political Science class, after all. (I remember olfactory being one of the words Tim Mierzejewski picked. I also remember I won, because I used all ten of their words.)

Here are some excerpts:

Another fault in Kilbourne’s argument is in declaring that this woman was beaten and given a black eye.  In modern society, where appearance plays an enormous role in how people perceive others, makeup creates an alter ego that can constantly be changed—usually to make a person look prettier, though not always—not a repercussion of a man’s anger and frustration.

This is from a paper I wrote in response to a woman who wrote about how advertisements exploit women and children. I was clearly not amused. And kind of a smart ass. Oh, and I'm pretty certain part of why I was so annoyed in my paper, is because the class was all girls, the professor was a woman, and this was written by a feminist. Someone had to give a differing opinion. That someone was, apparently, me. This is how I began my paper:

Jean Kilbourne is a vehement feminist; that must be said.  Despite her instinctive drive to defend women from the cruelty of everyday life, she poses a clouded argument in “Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt:”

That has a bit of a bit to it, if I may say so. In a way, I think  it is kind of ballsy. Later, I wrote:

Jean Kilbourne contends that advertising is, by her definition, pornographic.  Although advertisers exploit women in their advertisements, Kilbourne’s ardently feministic viewpoint undermines her argument because she presents a one-sidedly biased argument that fails to recognize that women and children are not the only victims of advertising

The point I was making in my paper at the time is that while women may be exploited in advertising (and children, too), advertising as a currency is exploitative. Men are not exempt from this exploitation, and when people choose to be models, they volunteer for said exploitation. Is it actually exploitation if you volunteer? That was my argument. And that the author is a crazy feminist.

Kilbourne then focuses her attention on Victoria’s Secret, a company that constantly undergoes scrutiny for their televised fashion shows by writing that Victoria’s Secret lingerie “will make women irresistible” (42a).  To defend her claim, Kilbourne references a court case in which a woman accused a man of rape but the jury acquitted him.  I am not a criminal justice expert, but I’m sure that the jury’s decision was not based upon the fact that the woman wore Victoria’s Secret underwear.

=)

Ironically, Kilbourne contradicts herself later on in her article when addressing an advertisement in which a woman objectifies a man by saying that he has “nice buns” and that these advertisements are “often funny” (43b).

After this, I mention that a man doing the same to a woman in public could be sued for sexual harassment.

Unfortunately, society functions in this manner; men must always be conscious of the fact that women hold much more power than their delicate forms present—Kilbourne, however, seems to ignore this fact...

And my favorite part:

Clearly, Kilbourne makes many assumptions that cannot be validated; in fact, many are wrong and tendentious.  To defend her claim, Kilbourne writes about the kinds of toys that boys “play with” such as action figures with oversized breasts.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t girls the ones who play with dolls with enormous breasts?  In fact, Barbie now has a whole slew of friends with oversized breasts matching hers.  When I was little, I played with GI-Joe’s, little green army men, wrestling men (and not those silicone-injected female “wrestlers” that wrestle in matches to see who can undress the other first), and a multitude of other masculine, non big-breasted, toys.

Score points for "tendentious," that is one awesome word. And, yes, I totally wrote that whole thing in a paper. Because I am awesome.

I think this is a pretty strong point:

Kilbourne utilizes an eclectic array of advertisements, however, one can’t be sure exactly how old some of these advertisements are and since culture incessantly evolves, an advertisement only a few years old may actually be culturally archaic

Next up is a paper I wrote about violence in video games. I was the only person in my class who thought violence in the media didn't contribute to violence in people. Some of my arguments, in hindsight, weren't the greatest, but my basic thesis and opinions hold. Violent people don't evolve from violent media and entertainment. They are, at their core, disturbed people who, for whatever reasons, take out their aggression on others and don't get help. I use an example from a game developed by the Army and Navy and their statements saying they don't train our military with video games, et cetera. Here are some part I found enjoyable:

But does playing Super Mario make me want to go to Italy?  Perhaps the programmers have found some way to implant subliminal messages into video games, which would explain my sudden urge to become a plumber and to outfit myself in ridiculously bright red overalls while doing so.  Maybe I should start talking like him, too: “It’s a me, Mario!”

 Yup, in a paper. A research paper, if I'm not mistaken. Oh, and for bonus nerd points, I quoted Final Fantasy VII in my paper. Yes, I was (and am) really that big of a nerd.

The mere thought of this is ludicrous because simulating violence neither desensitizes children to violence, not manifests them into a cold-hearted killer.

I think I am wrong there, I think the constant violence surrounding us in the news, video games, television, movies, play, etc does desensitize kids. But, I'm not certain what effect that has on society as a whole, and I believe it still is dependent upon the individual. I've spent my entire life playing violent games, watching violent shows and movies, and I have not once hit anybody or gotten into a fight (despite people trying several times, I might add.) For the record, I don't think I'm desensitized, because I am intelligent, and I can see what violence does to people, to towns. I see how it can tear a community apart and create rifts that turn into wars. Violence begets violence; the real kind, though, not the fantastical kind.

A little fear will control the minds of the common people.  Fear is what I consider the most powerful asset to the government and other people of authority.  Socrates said it best: Question Authority

That's the quote from Final Fantasy VII. The Socrates quote is care of my western civilization teacher, Mr. Steponaitis. I don't remember being so anti-government at the time, but it's kind of true. Fear drives everything. Fear drives the news (on the left and the right, Fox is just far more prominent than any liberal publications). Fear drives politics. We've built many of our beliefs upon this debilitating fear, too. I don't like it.

The sad truth is that the video game industry is being wrongfully pursued, and persecuted by lawmakers; video games do not cause violent behavior—unless of course teenagers run amuck swinging video game controllers at random people—but that would never happen, just as I will never transform into an Italian plumber in red overalls.

A couple really awesome visuals in there, if I do say so myself. Also, look at me bringing the red overalls reference back!

Imagine you are located in unfamiliar, hostile territory; also, you are surrounded by terrorists and have but a small group of allies at your side.  Every polygonal piece of scenery brims with the utmost detail and you are overcome with a feeling of euphoria as you tremble with fear because, for just a moment, you believe you are actually on the front lines in the Middle East.  The name of the game is America’s Army, not as gruesome as Saving Private Ryan, but war is not exactly pretty either.

I approve!

In addition, we routinely made trips to the arcade, where I was able to witness who plays games; astoundingly, children are not the only ones that play games (imagine that).

I sound like kind of an ass with the parentheses there, but sarcasm does means "to tear the flesh."

Oh! And remember that Political Science paper I mentioned earlier? I'm pretty sure another word Tim had on his list for us to use was "Parenthesis" as on, just one parenthesis, not two parentheses. I honestly don't remember how I used that in my paper. I think I used a lot of methaphors.

As I have written, I am a gamer, and have been all my life, so this is a very personal subject to me.  I am not a violent person whatsoever.  When I play a game and win, I do not revel in the thought that I slaughtered hundreds (if not more) of creatures; I revel in the fact that I have won—or if I lost, to have, at the very least, put up a good fight.  In this fashion, gaming is more about the hunt than the result.  Winning the game is all well and nice, but the more cunning one is, the more fun gaming becomes.  If this depiction of millions of triangles can cause such a stir, why then are books not banned?  In my opinion, someone who has to visualize the grotesqueness is in much worse of a state than when the maimed bodies are already presented for you.  What about movies?  Should movies not undergo the same rigorous scrutiny?

I think this sums up my feelings on the subject fairly well.

Studies have shown that Video games cannot be linked to violence, and that keeping children from the human nature of violence and aggression will stump the evolutionary growth of our posterity.  Video games may give people a natural high, or temporarily upset people if they lose, but people get upset when they lose their house keys, that does not mean on Monday when they go to work that they are going to take it out on about a dozen coworkers in the form of a sawed-off shotgun.  What does the game industry have to prove to Joseph Liebermen and the countless other conservative, anti gaming lawmakers?  Is there some sort of middle ground where all can be at peace?  Honestly, I would say the chances are about the same as me developing an Italian accent, grabbing a plunger and strapping on those overalls.

That's how I ended my paper. Yes, with a Mario reference, the way all papers ought to end.

There are a great many papers I wrote that I wish I could go back and read. I'm really glad I was able to find these two to look back on and share some excerpts here. I hope you enjoyed it at least a little.

On Censorship, Specifically Why It's Unnecessary

Recently, the northeast got pounded with snow. From what I understand, most of the country now has gotten at least some snow.

Which leads me to this:



I don't understand. I really, truly don't.

Seriously, I try to understand why some of the most innocuous things offend people the way they do, but I just don't get it. So a couple of kids made a penis snowman.

At the beginning, there is a kid who seems absolutely terrified of having saw it. I feel bad for him, honestly, I do. But I think his parents put him up to it. What does he do every time he needs to pee or take a bath? Does he wallow in his tears, feeling offended that he has to look at a penis? I mean, it's just a penis.

Parents were offended, the town was offended, but it's a penis. Every boy has one. Every mother has seen some. You know what, I'm willing to bet every single person in that town has willingly seen a penis.

Then there is the mother who says her two-year-old doesn't even know what it is. Only, she says it like it's a travesty that her child may now know what it is. I bet her kid doesn't know what mayonnaise is either. Or Wolves. Or Velociraptors. Velociraptors would cause much more harm than a penis.

If you think about it, this town should be celebrating the penises, not crucifying and, more importantly, censoring them.

Why is a penis "obscene" but a foot isn't? There is absolutely nothing in our culture that maintains any sense of purity with that body part. Nor a woman's. I understand there are cultures in other parts of the world where showing a foot is basically a full-on seduction. But here? No. In America, nothing is sacred. And that is kind of the beauty of the USA.

Only, we're not really all that free. America is built on freedom, and any time we fight someone we are told it's for our freedom. But it's bullshit. Because you can't say bullshit on television. You can't create art and put it in your yard if someone else deems it offensive.

Well, actually you can. That, too, is the beauty of America. We actually are free to do whatever we want, with one minor caveat, however: we pay the consequence. Make a penis sculpture? Go to jail. Say "fuck" on television (Cable, I might add), pay an exorbitant fine.

But wait, how exactly is this freedom? This is no different that castrating all the statues in the Vatican city-state. This is no different from any other country in the world. No one can stop you from doing anything, and if you do it, you face the consequences. Spit gum on the streets in Singapore? pay a fine. Steal in Iran? Lose your hands. and so on.

Yes, we have more freedoms than some countries, notably the press, although that point can be seriously argued, especially as of late. But in regards to censorship, we are seriously lacking. And we are seriously lacking because art is disappearing. We pour trillions of dollars into financial firms, billions into sports, and practically nothing (relatively) into art and education. Want an example? Republicans trying to take away funding for the CPB which funds NPR and PBS.

I never took art in school. Well, I did the normal elementary school garbage like cutting and pasting. But once I was in middle school, art was relegated to two two-week sessions. Hardly what I'd consider supportive of the arts. Physical education, too, was equally punished (but that's a whole different blog).

In high school, we were free to make our own choices (except freshman year) which was refreshing, and something I definitely approve of. I don't wish I was forced to take X number of classes in art, though, I do wish I'd taken art. I wish before high school I'd been subjected to art-- to a lot of different subjects to be better prepared for high school and college.

My three biggest interests, photography, art, and baking/cooking were completely inaccessible in school. To say I was initiated to art in school would be laughable. two weeks cannot even be considered an introduction or a survey of a course. Especially in middle school. Cooking is obviously never done in school, at least not any I've been to. And photography was most definitely never offered as a course either. I wish they had been.

So why must we censor everything? Does hiding curse words from children really do them any good? Does the word fuck instantly transform a good kid into a deviant? Does seeing genitals on television, or in art create sexual deviants? No. I'm guessing it's the opposite.

Maybe I am wrong, but what is the difference? Imagine you are a blank slate, like a child. Imagine you don't know what lettuce is. Or what a hand is. Or a breast, yes, a breast is a good example. Now imagine flashcards. On one flashcard is a photo of lettuce and on another is a breast. Is one naughty? Is one bad? Is one of those photos going to do something terrible to your psyche? No, because you don't know the difference.

Imagine, now, flashcards of breasts. One card has male breasts, and one has female breasts. Is one naughtier than the other? Is one more vulgar? Why? What if you are a blank slate? Is it because they are covered up? I don't go shirtless outside, does that make my breasts more vulgar than a guy who live in South Beach? Is a roly poly, hairy man shirtless more vulgar than my shirtless breasts? What about a woman who's had a double mastectomy and doesn't have breasts anymore? Is that no longer obscene? I mean, no longer will she have milk-giving breasts, or anything resembling what a woman's breasts are typically. No, they're much more akin to a man's. But no, that's probably not right either. That's probably more obscene in reality. What parent would show their child a woman's breasts post operation? No only would the child be subjected to breasts, but these are no ordinary breasts. They're different. They'd have scars.

Genitals are utilitarian, just like hands and feet. No more, no less. Hands are used to open doors, cabinets, build things, et cetera. Our feet take us from point A to point B. Genitals expel waste and create life. They are surrounded by our pelvic bones, which support our entire upper body. Butts expel waste, too, and there's nothing obscene about them; they're pretty tame and usually get a laugh.

So maybe instead of condemning penile sculpture, we should be embracing them. They do, after all, create life. What has a snowman ever done for you? Besides, find me a kid who's never drawn a penis and giggled. It's fun because we're told its taboo, for no other reason than it's taboo. That's like saying your morals come from morals, with no other rationale. "Why is murder bad?" "Because it's immoral!"

I'd like to ask those people (and the FCC) why they find these so offensive, and so obscene. I wonder if the woman in the video was disgusted when she was having the sex that gave her her two year old child. Maybe that is the real triumph, and she wants to protect her child from making the same mistake she did: seeing a penis. Pray that baby isn't a boy, though.

And why is it okay to show a naked baby but not an adult?