Author: gbuck2

After reading this week’s material I realized there is a plethora of ways you can have your identity stolen, your data sold, and that there is various precautions to help prevent it all. Having learned about Metadata from the ProPublica I feel less confident then I did going into this assignment. The article explains that metadata is necessary to make website servers or cellphone towers work but within that metadata is sensitive information about you or your whereabouts. So really, there is no way around metadata being obtained by companies unless you begin using SSL which basically means you use websites that only begin with “https” rather than “http”. Realistically, when I use the internet it is mostly for school purposes and if I find an article that has useful information and happens to begin with “http”, then I am using it. It is not worth it to me to take the extra time to only use “https” URL’s.

The second article that I decided to focus on was one by FCC. In this article was listed steps to protect your computer and cellphone from being hacked remotely through bluetooth and wifi connections. This one caught my attention in particular because the first warning sign on wifi usage was if an establishment has more than one wifi option, check to see which one is correct because the other is likely an imposter. However, I know that even at my work we have three different wifi’s customers can see but only one works. Therefor I have begun to question why the other two options were left there each time we got a new wifi IP. I haven’t tried it personally but maybe customers are connecting to one of the old ones on the right day at the right time and a hacker could be remotely accessing their information through it. This makes me want to shut my wifi off forever or rather only use my laptop in public spaces with my VPN turned on.

The last article I analyzed was one by The New York Times on “10 Tips to Avoid Leaving Tracks Around the Internet”. In this reading I learned that many of the social media sites and even search engines store cookies on our computers to then track us later by. I also learned how on Facebook I can limit what ads are targeted to me to prevent my data from being taken advantage of. This seems like a simple and easy way to improve some of my personal online security, but it doesn’t end there. The article goes on to say you should avoid using Google, Gmail, Google Maps, etc. all because they track you. If that is too difficult of a task, which for me it is, you can try to instead “jam google”. This means searching for random things occasionally to confuse the algorithms that help targeted sales or ads to you. The last and single most helpful thing The New York Times offered me was an ad blocker called Ghostery. This plug in is free, it blocks tracking, and it lists the websites trying to track you for you to see. This idea actually excited me to be able to see what servers are trying to track me and I plan to us it to my full advantage.

In a way, I already do take precaution with my online information. I use a PVN that I pay for yearly and I only use wifi networks I trust. I could however take more precaution by changing my privacy settings on my social medias and begin using an ad blocker to gain a better understanding of the severity of online tracking. Truthfully I think it all sounds scarier than it is but maybe that’s what we are led to believe.

After reviewing how the law affects the media I have quite a few concerns. Mainly because my partner is a content creator. It would seem that copyright and censorship go hand in hand at times and the law has quite a lot of influence over what can and cannot be posted without limitations. Laws involving media set precedents for us as a whole to avoid mass chaos but I think some of the laws are too restricting and overstep.

Copyright can either be really useful or really inconvenient for creators. It’s nice in the way that it holds the rights to individuals or groups. For example, with copyright there are a lot of regulations when using someone else’s work. It can also be very limiting for content creators or users. In an article from Communia, “Many creators are also users of copyrighted materials and the other way around.” So, creators can also be users of copyrighted materials and vice versa which makes for confusion within the YouTube community. Communia also stated “Digital technologies greatly facilitate both the creative re-use of existing works and the distribution of the resulting new works.” With that being said, user generated content has now been created as a newer category within Youtube in order to prevent further expensive copyright concerns that are restricting content creators.

Rather than facing jail or penalties for violating copyright, some people have instead found that UGC is the way to handle this. Some even just use the content anyway and then try to dispute the copyright strike issued to them. However, if you try to dispute it and the company claims the copyrighted material, your video could get deleted per their request as stated on Youtube Help. With the deletion of your video, you will also receive a copyright strike and once you’ve reached 3 of those, your channel is terminated. I find this absolutely ridiculous. So, is it worth repealing? Is the system broken? I’d say yes, because the companies can claim almost anything with a vague explanation. TNW explained that, “YouTube uses an entirely automated system to scan for copyright claims” and “If a video triggers the system, monetization on your entire channel will be disabled – so that’s potential revenue lost over a false claim.” In my mind, Youtube has found a way to scare their creators into not even attempting to use any material that could potentially be copyrighted, in fear of losing their livelihood.

I truly do not believe that there is much I can do to modify how I use media that would make a difference in the matters at hand. I can’t change the laws or regulations and I need to use media for school and to stay connected to friends and family online. It would seem that people may think creators are in control over their content when really, they are not. I myself do not create media for money, so it affects me less than others. I do plan to remain informed on the matter though and if in the future there is a petition I can sign or a peaceful protest I can attend, I will be involved.

I often see my uncle who lives a somewhat secluded life in Tucson posting about incorrect information on rights and regulations being changed on various social media sites. The most recent one was about Facebook. Oddly enough I had just seen some friends of mine posting this exact same typed up memo but they just interchanged the name on it to Instagram. However, the post said something to the effect of Facebook changing their “rules” where they can begin using your photos in court cases of litigation against you. It also read that in order to prevent this from happening you would have to copy and paste that post onto your own page. I have seen various hoaxes posted by him before, but I knew this time because I have done previous research about this posting on Instagram, that this was absolutely false.

I kept in mind that I have learned in this course not to attack or make anyone feel judged when approaching them about their spreading of hoaxes or misinformation. I also wanted to take into consideration that he is of opposite religious and political standing from myself and to be sure I kept the conversation very factual and on topic.

So, I went ahead and did some research on the hoax and found a post by Above the Law and CNN to first show him. I began by explaining that this hoax he posted about actually dates back to 2012 and is quite commonly shared around about every few years because it seems like it could be legitimate. I let him know that it was as well on Instagram and has been covered by various news outlets, one being CNN. He seemed to take all of this information well and told me as well that he will Google it next time to be safe.

I also showed him an article from Snopes I found that states even if you were to make a posting about you declaring your rights on your page, you already signed the terms and conditions anyhow. So that in the future if he were to see posts similar to this one, he would know that sharing it makes no difference.

It was actually quite rewarding to see his reaction that he hadn’t thought this deep into the matter, but that what I had said made complete sense. He thanked me at the end of our civil conversation and even made a post bragging about his “college educated niece teaching him to not be a dummy.”

When working on my Wikipedia assignment, I came across the Deer Valley Unified School District page. All of my schooling from K-12 was done through the DVUSD. I have since done a lot of volunteer work and I am personal friends with a few of the principles within this district. I believe that my knowledge makes me qualified to improve upon this page and my personal experience helped guide the process.

Before assigning myself to a topic, I went through all of the Wikipedia training modules. I thought that they helped me generally understand the do’s and do not’s of the website. However, when it came to the simulations that allowed me to practice the information, I got lost. I felt the single pop up descriptions within the simulations were vague and sort of left me confused and on my own after they went away. So, I did what any millennial would do and I started using other schooling pages as a reference for what I could add to mine.

When looking for other articles to help spark some ideas on what I could add to the DVUSD page, I realized that most of Arizona’s school district pages were bare. They either lacked information or had very random information that I didn’t feel belonged. I decided that California, being the big wonderfully populated, democratic, and workers union state that it is, probably had more to offer on their school district sites. With this I was in luck! I found a bunch of amazing pages and got some great ideas.

When deciding what I was going to add to the DVUSD page, I decided that it needed something major, something you saw right when you went to the page to make it look more attended to. I thought to myself, what do most other pages in general have that this one doesn’t? But then it hit me, an information box was just what it needed. Let’s be honest, I am no professional HTML coder (although I have taken one singular coding class) so I went ahead and copied an information box from the Travis Unified School District in California. Of course, I deleted all of the information from the TUSD page and filled in what I could find from the DVUSD website. From what I could see, the page I chose to edit was a ghost town. The last person in the Talk section was from 2010. I went ahead and created my information box in my Sandbox then posted to the Talk page just to be safe. No one ended up responding to my fabulous suggestion; therefore, I went to my article and published the changes with hopes that someone would notice it and lend me some feedback.

No one ended up responding to me in the Talk section but I did have someone slightly correct my URL I posted as a reference on the page and fill in two sections I did not within my information box.

With that being said, I would consider my experience on Wikipedia to have been extremely positive. At first, I was nervous that I wouldn’t be able to make a large enough impact on the page but instead not only did no one object to my ideas but actually they added to them! I do not plan on continuing my civil duty as a Wiki editor but I will never forget my pleasant experience in the vitally important domain.

During my time in MCO 425 I have been taught many useful tools on how to prevent the spreading of misinformation. However, in order to prevent misinformation, we must first open our minds to the opinions or perspective of others. With Reddit threads like ChangeMyView that we discussed from reading a Wired article, we can do just that. With this tactic, we learn how to understand the minds of others and how they may react when certain things are said to them. For example, if you talk to 50 people on different threads online and begin to see the various ways in which people respond to the opposition of your opinion, then you can begin to carefully learn how to approach corrective conversations.

Once you have learned how to phrase your approach to correcting someone’s spread of misinformation, you should then delve into the topic at hand that they are sharing. Doing research on the topic is extremely vital in correcting someone, you must first be absolutely sure it is either incorrect, fake, or just misleading because it is by a biased author. According to Dallas News, when trying to confirm that it is fake here are some red flags they recommend keeping an eye out for when you are checking a source for false information.

Avoid:
1. Websites ending in “lo”, “.com.co”, or odd domains.
2. Lack of authors or anonymous authors.
3. Improper grammar or poor web design.
4. When the writing infuriates you, there is bias present.
5. Lack of sources within the writing or on the same topic to be found elsewhere.

With all of this in mind, it is time to make an official approach to your friends and family members. One of the most important things I learned from MCO 425 from our lectures is that attacking someone’s knowledge or opinion solves nothing. If you immediately talk down to someone in any way, you have already lost opening their mind or eyes to the misinformation they have spread. It is key to take into consideration any information you know about them already like their religion or political preferences, when discussing that the information they posted was fake, misleading, or just not correct. Being sensitive in this situation will make it easier for you to open up a conversation and present them with any facts you have discovered in regard to their post. If it is incorrect, referencing to multiple sources will aid your discussion. If it is misleading, consider picking specific sentences that contain bias to use as an example when discussing with them. Lastly if it is fake, it can be helpful to search for sources and articles that debunk the misinformation and explain why the false news was created.

Confronting a family member or friend about their spreading of misinformation is never easy. There is no one way to do it, this is simply just my approach with the tools I have been given. With the hopes that the conversation goes well, I would then simply inform them of the learned tools I use in order to prevent the vicious circle of misinformation online from continuing.

During my time researching Starbucks and the Environment, I discovered some great news and magazine articles, videos, and twitter posts. We are so lucky in our day and age to have the electronic resources we do at our fingertips. Through my analyzation of this topic using Google about how my topic is seen and critiqued in the media, I have compiled an annotated list of which I believe to be the best sources.

1. A YouTube video by CBC titled, “Starbucks to eliminate plastic straws by 2020”. I first chose this video for a couple of reasons. The first being because of the number of sources used in this short two-minute video, including an article written by CBC on the same topic with even more sources cited there. The second reason I chose this reliable video was the recognition they gave Starbucks for banning straws but also because of the statistic the reporter provided that straws “only make up about .03 percent of the total plastic waste”.

2. A news article from CNN titled, “Forget plastic straws.Starbucks has a cup problem” by Danielle Weiner-Bronner. I actually used this article in my last blog because of how deep it dives into my topic. This article truly has a voice but an unbiased one at that. Weiner-Bronner discussed the scientific aspects that the company faces but also discussed the travesty our earth is facing due to Starbucks’ manufacturing making it the perfect combination.

3. Not just one Twitter post, but two. To be honest, I was nervous to use these but I decided one of the most realistic places that people find out about news on a topic is on social media. Usually we hear about subjects of importance by beginning with a viral post by some large influencer that brought it to our attention. On that note, I chose two posts on my topic by verified users with thousands of followers that they are able to make an impact on with personal but relatable tweets.

4. A Magazine article titled, “Starbucks falls short on Environmental Commitment” by Davis Harper. This was yet another article with numerous sources by an author who only had a slight bias. I chose this piece because without it, I would never truly understand the other side of the argument, that Starbucks isn’t always environmentally friendly in some eyes. In order for me to be unbiased, I need to understand everyone’s side.

5. Last but certainly not least, a Youtube video by Sustana Fiber titled, “Cup to Cup: Closing the Loop – A Starbucks and Sustana Partnership”. I loved this video as much as the first because much like the other video, it also came with a linked article written as well by Sustana on this topic. The video itself breaks down the scientific method of breaking down paper waste and it also cited sources and discussed the machinery being looked into for Starbucks cups specifically. They admitted the large number of cups in landfills and addressed a possible solution for the company.

This week’s assignment was slightly more difficult to achieve because I think there is so many different variations on the best sources that we are exposed to today. My topic had many older articles rather than newer so it was also slightly harder to work with but I still think it’s important nonetheless.

Although Starbucks and the environment are not always a heavily discussed topic within the media, I was able to find a major article by CNN written by Danielle Wiener-Bronner titled, “Forget plastic straws. Starbucks has a cup problem”. Immediately, I began to check the sources used in the article. Some included the New York Times, McDonald’s Commercials, Starbucks Company Reports, and other CNN articles that also cited reliable sources like the Seattle Government Reports.

Now that I knew the article referred to reliable sources, I felt that this made the information more trustworthy. If there had been fewer cited sources or had the sources they used from other CNN articles not been directly linked to where they found their information, any influence the article would have had would become obsolete. The method they used for citing their sources was through linking the information directly in the article making it extremely easy to navigate. The links led directly to videos, reports, and articles that led to even more reports.

Wiener-Bronner fairly explained both sides of the situation from a consumer’s perspective and the company’s perspective. She discussed the next GEN cup challenge where $10 million is being offered to whoever can come up with an alternative material for cups produced at Starbucks in order to reduce waste. They also explored the scientific background as to why it is such a struggle to produce an alternative material for the cups. It was explained that as of right now the non-recyclable cups have a plastic lining that breaks down to micro plastics that can harm marine life and humans as well. The article included comparisons to other companies like McDonald’s and Disney which are facing similar concerns. It felt that every angle was covered on the topic at hand, making it a powerful read.

They presented all of the information known at this time as to how Starbucks is reducing their carbon footprint in an informative and organized way. However, it would have been nice to only include the statistical truths, as there was a heavy usage of transparent bias. Some examples include, “Sometimes, all it takes is one spark to light a fire” and ”Sudden turn against plastic straws over the last couple years had humble beginnings”. The author also included a song based off of Jingle Bells performed by children about a cup monster which was created in order to advocate against single cup usage. I feel that just because articles include insinuations or bias this does not mean that they are completely incorrect or unreliable. Regardless, they are influential. I don’t have a statistical source to cite but in my experience, people typically are more moved by reading something that has a voice within the writing. This type of information would never go viral if there wasn’t some personality behind it to make it known. Without a big personality to help bring the information to the forefront, then there would be no awareness brought to the subject and the masses wouldn’t be able to contribute to the subject either.

After all, the entire Starbucks movement against straws started with a YouTube video posted by a nine-year-old boy on statistics of straws being used by companies.

My topic is Starbucks and the Environment so I began by searching those key words to see what the world wide web would bring me. The first relevant news article I found was titled, Corporate Social Responsibility: How Starbucks is making an impact by Kate Vandeveld. When first reading the article, I thought immediately that it was an opinion-based article rather than factual news. With phrases like “as long as they make customers feel good, they’re a big asset to the company” when referencing to non-reusable paper cups. They also said, “it’s made sweeping commitments, and walked them back, and reset them”. It’s clear that the writer has some personal views on Starbucks’s non-environmentally friendly cup topic.

I find this unfortunate considering the rest of the article was very fact-based. For instance, there was some unbiased facts like “Since 2006, its paper cups have included 10% recycled material” and “Starbucks had even held three Cup Summits between 2009 and 2011, tapping experts from MIT and elsewhere to help them design a fully recyclable cup”. Had there been more of these factual points rather than comments insinuating their stance, I would not have tuned out so quickly.

I think it’s justified to play the middleman and stick to just facts for both sides of the concern at hand when discussing such issues.

My next find was another news article from USA Today titled “Starbucks brews a greener plan for 10,000 environmentally friendly stores”. I truly appreciated this piece by Mike Snider considering it was completely unbiased and very professional. There were absolutely no hints at Mike’s opinion on the matter at hand, making it to be what I consider a news piece.

I appreciated that the author remained neutral of all the information while providing facts from both sides of whether or not Starbucks is considering the environment in their decisions. For example, when he wrote, “Starbucks expects to save $50 million in utility costs over the next 10 years as the plan evolves”. Another example would be when he wrote, “An accredited auditing program will be developed so that all 15,000 company-owned stores in the U.S. and Canada can be audited”.

I trusted this article much more since it contained only black and white facts from all angles rather than facts with insinuations attached.

I decided then to find some analysis or opinion pieces on Starbucks pertaining to the Environment. I came across an article from the Sierra Club Magazine titled “Starbucks Falls Short on Environmental Commitments” by Davis Harper. As I read, I could hear the frustration in the authors words. It was a combination of news and opinion which I favored the most of all the pieces I read. It was apparent that the author cares about the environment so strongly and although Starbucks contributes strongly to much of the pollution, they are trying to reconcile some of their previous decisions.

Davis Harper used facts like, “Starbucks recently promised to double its current usage of reusable cups by 2022, which requires but a jump from 1.4 to 2.8 percent of all its cups”. Harper also included, “As a company with the influence and reach to effect real progress through its environmental commitments, Starbucks arguably has a responsibility to develop and maintain the most sustainable practices it can afford”. Then as well he countered that point with a different perspective, “Still, at least part of the burden falls on consumers to keep the corporation honest”.

I felt this article had everything I was looking for when seeking a reliable source of information on my topic.

The last opinion or analysis piece I found and read was on Elite Daily by Lizzy Rosenberg titled “What Is The “Starbucks Greener Stores” Framework? It Is Very Eco-Friendly”. To be completely honest this was the dullest article I read. I mean it was practically written by a spokesperson for Starbucks. The entire piece discussed exactly what is written in Starbuck’s environmental reports on their website with no strong added voice in the writing at all.

I believe this was an opinion piece with sentences like, “I don’t know about you, but I am totally looking forward to ordering a PSL in one of Starbucks’s Greener Stores in the future” and most of the article consisted of goals. For example, “To help achieve this end of conserving energy, the Greener Stores will operate on solar and wind power.” It seemed like Elite Daily was tipped off just a bit since they only favored Starbucks’s side on being environmentally friendly, with no contrary facts to balance out the article.

Needless to say, I won’t be returning to any pieces written by Lizzy Rosenberg for advice.

As a manager at Starbucks, I see the large quantities of plastic we go through a day. Whether that be the various gallons of milk or the thousands of cups and lids, our stores are full of plastic. However, Starbucks is pioneering towards more sustainable solutions. I see many customers using re-usable cups we sell, in which there is a ten-cent discount used as incentive. On social media like Twitter, the craze over the limited-edition Starbucks cups is often criticized or made fun of.

Regardless of the steps the company takes to reduce and reuse, social media often trashes the Starbucks name. Whether it be because the prices are high or that the Starbucks plastic had been found in the oceans, they just can’t seem to catch any recognition for their pro-activeness thus far. When a company like this one is in such high demand for consumption, it’s bound to be hated by a large portion of the population.

Some sources I turn to for information on Starbucks steps to becoming a greener company is on USA Today, The Motley Fool, but most importantly straight from the horse’s mouth. I often read the section on Starbucks.com about their global reports for each year. They have breakdown reports of their steps to becoming greener ranging all the way back to 2013. The reports are often quite lengthy and go into great detail on their goals and shortcomings for that year as well.

I often see that it is easier to jump on a hate train for Starbucks than to acknowledge that they have opened 1,000 L.E.E.D (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) stores making them the world’s largest green retailer (Starbucks, 2018). With all the sources at hand on this topic, I am excited to see what is to come for this year and how the media will react.