Monday 01 January 2024

Main Character Syndrome In Social Media

The desire for attention has led to the emergence of a new form of maladaptive behaviors among self-professed influencers on social media in recent years. Colloquially dubbed main character syndrome, it describes the distorted behaviors of influencers who fantasize themselves as the protagonists of their own life stories that are being played out publicly in front of an imagined audience. They act as if they are the star of their own shows and people in their lives exist solely as supportive cast of their performances. They romanticize (manufactured) struggles of their lives so to seek validation from others for their (faked) triumphs. While these influencers may also exhibit traits of narcissism, their behaviors are largely performative only to benefit the specific narratives they want to shape. Recently, a number of social media influencers with this syndrome are being called out for acting out in public while ignoring basic cultural and social norms. Their actions are often racist, misogynistic, or culturally insensitive and are deliberately made to provoke individuals whom the influencers regard as the antagonists in their twisted narratives. They ignore criticisms of their wrongdoings but are blinded by false approvals from their fans who are motivated to cheer them to continue their self-absorbed behaviors. A few of these influencers have even been arrested for public nuisance and harassment because of their actions. For these individuals, the toxic main character archetype they have adopted has grown beyond the social media persona which they initially imitate to become a part of their self-identity which they now use to reinforce their fictional lives.

By Philip Jong • At 02:01 AM • Under Column • Under Tech • Under World
Public Post • CommentsTrackbacksPermalink

Saturday 01 July 2023

Is Generative Art The End Of Human Artistic Creativity?

Artistic creativity has long been a defining trait of the human species. Since the advent of civilization, the creation of art has been a measure of human spirit and imagination through which human intellect is expressed. In a painting, for example, a painter’s creativity is conveyed solely through a deliberate application of pigments on a canvas by the painter. With recent advancements in artificial intelligence, however, a new form of generative art has challenged the conventional paradigm of artistic expression when a computer algorithm can now be used in part or in whole to create the artwork. Artificial neural networks employing different models of machine learning, such as those used in DALL-E, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion, are being trained to develop complex algorithms with which an artist can use to direct with ease the creation of a generative image. Because the resultant artwork no longer uniquely represents the artist’s vision since it can be perfectly replicated or regenerated, critics are calling into question the originality of generative art in how it degrades the essence of artistic creation. On the other hand, proponents argue that generative algorithm is merely another tool akin to a paintbrush which an artist can use to paint on a digital canvas. While generative art will unlikely herald the end of human artistic creativity, the utility of its practice needs to be weighed carefully to ensure that it will not stifle or trivialize artistic endeavors that have historically defined human culture.

By Philip Jong • At 01:01 AM • Under Column • Under Tech • Under World
Public Post • CommentsTrackbacksPermalink

Wednesday 01 January 2020

Dangers Of Cancel Culture

Increasing reliance on social media to resolve interpersonal discourse has led to the rise of cancel culture. In its most basic display, individuals of high social stature are being called out in public for a seemingly questionable act or opinion made in their past and are subsequently boycotted by the general populace until they are shamed into contrition for the transgression they have allegedly committed. It is an escalation of the current call-out culture, solely aimed to bring its targets into permanent disrepute. While such act might be rooted in social justice that has rightly exposed the immoral behaviors of certain public figures, its frequent misuse has also served to amplify the already toxic and mob mentality of the growing net (or internet) generation. Further, critics question both the fairness and the effectiveness of this new form of cultural boycott, arguing that it is often disproportionate, petty, impossible to defend, and easy to manipulate. Celebrities who received such backlash have rarely suffered any long-lasting consequences. Worst yet, some instigators seek to leverage the resultant drama to boast their own notoriety, thus delegitimizing any effort by genuine victims to call for public justice. As it exists now, the cancel culture cannot be seen as a form of social activism—to promote positive changes through moral behavior modeling and to resolve civil discourse through mutual tolerance and respect.

By Philip Jong • At 02:01 AM • Under Column • Under Tech • Under World
Public Post • CommentsTrackbacksPermalink

Monday 01 July 2019

Public Discourse On The Internet

The democratization of communication by the internet has given rise to a sea of opinions that invariably conflict with each other. Unfortunately, the virtual community is often too ill equipped to deal with the resultant public discourse in a civil and constructive manner. Rather, the internet has been transformed into an echo chamber in which the extremes of views are magnified until they become the dominant voices of the masses. Worst yet, social norms cultivated through millennia of civilized human interactions are quick to be discarded in the online world and are being replaced by a culture of perpetual interpersonal drama wherein ad hominem attacks against dissenters are both permitted and normalized. The collapse of social civility is most evident in social media, such that outrage and anger are now the driving currency of the medium to grab attention from the feuding public to be further exploited. Moreover, mainstream social networks are guilty of providing a platform to malicious outsiders (usually under the cover of anonymity) who seek to inflame the spectacle for their own gains. The collective lack of social restraint makes it difficult for the community to self-regulate and resolve any public discourse online. Until decorum is established, the increasing toxicity of the current internet culture will soon unravel all that remains of civility in the real world.

By Philip Jong • At 01:01 AM • Under Column • Under Tech • Under World
Public Post • CommentsTrackbacksPermalink

Sunday 01 July 2018

General Data Protection Regulation: A New Era In Personal Data Privacy

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has ushered in a new era in personal data privacy in Europe. Implemented in May 2018, it provides comprehensive protection for consumers against organizations that seek to collect personally identifiable information and gives consumers explicit control on how the collected data are being stored and used by these organizations. Importantly, consumers now have the right at any time to revoke consent for their data to be accessed and to even request permanent erasure (with few exceptions) of their data with these organizations. Unlike previous privacy frameworks, the new regulation is binding and enforceable with severe financial sanctions against individuals and organizations that fail to comply. Moreover, privacy proponents have argued that the downstream effects of GDPR will likely reach worldwide, including Canada where I live, since many organizations that are outside of Europe but conduct businesses there will unlikely be tolerant of any criticism for allowing a double standard concerning data privacy to perpetuate. As a privacy advocate, I welcome strong regulations that protect the public from businesses that misuse personal data of their customers, intentionally or unintentionally, especially those that are collected without explicit consent through social media. Ultimately, however, I believe that consumers must take increasing responsibility of their digital footprint so to ensure that their own sensitive personal data are never unduly exposed or compromised.

By Philip Jong • At 01:01 AM • Under Column • Under Tech • Under World
Public Post • CommentsTrackbacksPermalink

Saturday 01 July 2017

The Dark Side Of Data Encryption

Our increasing reliance on digital information has made the use of data encryption a necessity to protect our privacy and ownership of our personal data. Encryption ensures that only authorized personnel who possess the decryption key can fully access our data. Moreover, it allows our financial and medical information to be kept safe by third parties such as banks and hospitals and free from being abused by malicious threat actors. While the security benefits of data encryption are undeniable, recent cyberattacks by nefarious attackers using malwares to encrypt user data without permission also highlight the dangers from misuse of such practice. In May 2017, the WannaCry ransomware attack crippled computer systems worldwide by spreading through a previously unknown exploit in the target computers’ operating system that was leaked by hackers. The ransomware encrypted user data and then demanded a ransom payment in exchange for data recovery. The cyberattack received unprecedented media attention because of the significant service disruptions and economic losses resulted from its impact on hospitals, manufacturing plants, transport companies, financial institutions, government agencies, and elsewhere affected by the attack. Although the cyberattack was mitigated soon after its initial outbreak, the fallout had since led to a call by both governments and academics for an urgent need to establish the ethics on the responsible use of data encryption. This way, we can feel assured that our private data will be protected from intruders who seek to destroy the footprints of our digital life.

By Philip Jong • At 01:01 AM • Under Column • Under Tech • Under World
Public Post • CommentsTrackbacksPermalink

Sunday 01 January 2017

I, Robot: Revisited

Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, introduced in Runaround first published in 1942 and later republished in I, Robot in 1950, describes a set of “moral” directives by which a robot must obey when interacting with humans and each other. Though these laws were entirely fictional constructs, they had nonetheless become the underpinning for the framework in modern science (in the fields of robotics and artificial intelligence) in dictating how robots should behave when they functioned autonomously. Yet, it is now known that Asimov’s laws have significant shortcomings and fail frequently to provide fundamental safeguards against unpredictable behaviors in robots that may put human lives in jeopardy. Importantly, these laws ignore that robots are merely tools, at least in its present form, so that humans, not robots, are ultimately the responsible agents who must be held accountable for any wrongdoings committed by them. Indeed, in 2013, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Arts and Humanities Research Council working group of the British Research Council declared a set of 5 rules dictating how robots should be used in society and 7 principles guiding how robotics research should be ethically conducted. An important conclusion drawn from this declaration is the recognition that robots must not be used for exploitation by evoking emotional responses in humans wherein robots are disguised to have human-like features. This restriction precludes the use of robots solely to entertain humans, when such entertainment involves physical or even mental abuse of either robots or humans (a common narrative theme explored in science fiction). With rapid advances in artificial intelligence, however, it is a near certainty that machine ethics guiding the autonomous behaviors of artificial moral agents will collide with human ethics which currently posit human concerns to be the overriding determinant of robot behaviors.

By Philip Jong • At 02:01 AM • Under Column • Under Tech • Under World
Public Post • CommentsTrackbacksPermalink

Thursday 01 January 2015

The Rise Of Cyber Vandalism

Vandalism was first coined by the Bishop of Bios, Henri Grégoire, to describe the deliberate act of destroying paintings, books, and other properties of cultural values during the French Revolution. It was named after the Vandals who looted the city they invaded during the Sack of Rome in 455 AD. In modern times, vandalism refers to the willful destruction of either private or public physical property without permission. The advent of the information age, however, has spawned a new type of vandalism—cyber vandalism. Most frequently, these cyber vandals exploit the openness of the internet to perpetuate acts of online sabotage, spreading messages of propaganda or stealing private data or personal information for nefarious use. In recent years, these acts of cyber vandalism have extended beyond attacks against governments or nation states for political gains to corporations with an intent to embarrass, defame, or humiliate these companies for their business practices. Regardless of the motives of these cyber vandals, there is simply no justification for their crimes and the damages they are causing—economic or otherwise. Importantly, when these crimes directly threaten the online security and safety of a nation’s citizens, this new form of vandalism may become the next frontier of warfare that will need to be fought in the digital world.

By Philip Jong • At 01:01 AM • Under Column • Under Tech • Under World
Public Post • CommentsTrackbacksPermalink

Tuesday 01 July 2014

Right To Be Forgotten (Or Not)

In May 2014, the European Court of Justice upheld the right of an individual to stop unwanted personal information from being circulated on the internet by a search engine. Most often, such information is of an embarrassing or sometimes criminal nature which, if wildly disseminated, may stigmatize the involved individual for life. Proponents of this right to be “forgotten” consider it a paramount element of international human right, while opponents denounce the same right as a challenge to the fundamental right to freedom of expression and as a form of global censorship. Importantly, this right is distinct from the right to privacy, with which it is frequently conflated, since it deals with information that is already publicly known but may be difficult to access otherwise. When the information concerns criminal history, the right must also be balanced against public safety. Yet, even if this right is upheld, any singular governmental effort to reinforce the right may be of limited success, as such information—once released—is likely accessible by means outside of a government’s control. Most ironically, individuals who are launching legal efforts wanting to have their own past forgotten by the internet are themselves inadvertently aiding its dissemination (the so-called Streisand effect)—placing themselves squarely in the center of public attention at where they least want to be.

By Philip Jong • At 01:01 AM • Under Column • Under Tech • Under World
Public Post • CommentsTrackbacksPermalink

Monday 01 July 2013

Mob Mentality Of The Net Generation

The ease by which crowds can congregate online anonymously has given rise to a new kind of negative mob mentality of the net (or internet) generation. Under the false guise of freedom of speech, these mobs feed on each others’ blinded anger and misplaced self-entitlement to viciously demean, chastise, and humiliate some individual for an alleged act of wrongdoing. These attacks have little regards for the whole truth, and their punishments are disproportionate to the severity of the supposed crime. Politicians and celebrities, in particular, make for easy targets for a mob who sees fit to practice its brand of social justice in order to bring them down from their ivory towers and perched pedestals. Social psychologists have theorized that the loss of personal identity in a crowd (deindividuation theory) frees an individual from social restraints and weakens the personal control of impulsive behaviors that are otherwise antisocial. This deindividuation then allows the participant to blindly follow the collective consciousness of the crowd (emergent norm theory) imprinted by self-imposed leaders whose disruptive behaviors are seen as the norm when they go unchallenged. American psychologist Philip Zimbardo’s famed Stanford prison experiment is prima facie of the permissive power of deindividuation in dictating negative crowd behaviors. Alas, regardless of whichever theory is correct in explaining mob mentality, it does little to curb the online behavior of the perpetrators or help the victims of mob attacks in the cyberspace.

By Philip Jong • At 01:01 AM • Under Column • Under Tech • Under World
Public Post • CommentsTrackbacksPermalink

Page 1 2 3 > Last »