Agency, Oppression, Facebook?

Just recently I read a rather disturbing article about Facebook’s new terms of use. Facebook, with members now numbering over 175 million, used to have a pretty straight forward user agreement. If you close your account on their network, any rights they claim to the original content you upload would expire. Not anymore.

Straight from the Facebook’s new terms of use:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

And the key lines at the end of the passage:

You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.
The following sections will survive any termination of your use of the Facebook Service: Prohibited Conduct, User Content, Your Privacy Practices, Gift Credits, Ownership; Proprietary Rights, Licenses, Submissions, User Disputes; Complaints, Indemnity, General Disclaimers, Limitation on Liability, Termination and Changes to the Facebook Service, Arbitration, Governing Law; Venue and Jurisdiction and Other.

So to paraphrase; if you upload anything on Facebook, it’s theirs. So if you plan on uploading pictures you will want to remove, 5, 10, 100 years later, forget it.

Now, apparently, it not quite as extreme as it may sound. At least, I hope so. Apparently all of this is subject to your user settings, so if you set that only your friends could view your pictures, they can’t really do anything with any images they archive.

Nevertheless, the announcement of the discovery of this new change has prompted a large outcry of facebook users. While drafting an official response, a Facebook representative released this statement to quell the swarm of complaints.

We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload. The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site. That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend). Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user's privacy settings. So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info "in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof." Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail. For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.

So is Facebook’s new terms of use a sign of a powerful company turning into a oppressive regime? Or was its intention in fact to clear up any possible confusion such as in the situation that the representative describes? In either case, the outcry of users was certainly a situation of agency being exercised, forcing Facebook to scramble and release a response.

Romanticism, Relapse, and the Real Slim Shady.

Recently, I encountered a very unique and fascinating example of Romanticism in an article from The Independent concerning rap star Eminem. Although generally a subject of great controversy and criticism, Eminem is gloried in this article, titled Eminem: The Fall and Rise of a Superstar. While I found this article to be incredibly interesting and informative, it made many claims that I found rather questionable. In its lead-in statement, the article states:
“In 2006, after the murder of his closest friend, hip-hop's most talented star became its most notorious recluse. As he returns with a new album, Guy Adams travels to Detroit to find the truth behind the tales of breakdown, paranoia and tortured genius.”
While Eminem is unarguably one of the most famous rappers of all time, the claim that he is “hip-hop’s most talented star” could certainly be argued. More provocative is the claim of “tortured genius,” a label that might one would apply to Beethoven and the like… but rapper Eminem?

The article goes on to illustrate Eminem’s rise to fame, as well as his unique and strong appeal, and consequential success. One topic it lingers on is Eminem’s Detroit heritage, a city the article I would argue fairly accurately describes as “ground zero of America's economic meltdown.” However, the article goes on to make the claim that Eminem was thus “the ‘other’ America, a gritty world of industrial decline and social decay rooted in his home town.” This Romantic view is not only held by the author of this article; as one paragraph states:

In one headline-grabbing endorsement, confirming him as the favourite cultural influence of the chattering classes, a white-haired Seamus Heaney declared him, in all seriousness, the savior of modern poetry. ‘There is this guy Eminem,’ said the Nobel laureate. ‘He has created a sense of what is possible. He has sent a voltage around a generation. He has done this not just through his subversive attitude, but also his verbal energy.’

Wow. I don’t think I need to do much more than highlight a few key phrases from that. “Favourite cultural influence.” “Saviour of modern poetry.” “Created a sense of what is possible.” “Sent a voltage around a generation.” Clearly these claims are expanding Eminem’s fame and talent to represent something far greater. If you question my doubts about Eminem’s status as “saviour of modern poetry,” just do a quick google search for “Eminem lyrics.” I would recommend reading “Kim” or “Cleaning Out My Closet.” No, I won’t include the lyrics here.

Another instance of Romanticism I found in this article was the inclusion of a particular passage to trying to paint Marshall Mathers III’s real character.

’I have one story that sums Em up,’ ventures a friend. ‘After his second album he was in the jewellery store. He really liked a watch, but was worried that he'd not be able to afford it, so called his manager, Paul Rosenberg, to check he had enough cash. The watch turned out to be $15,000. At the time, Em was one of the hottest artists on the planet. He was worth millions. So Paul told him not to be silly, and just buy the watch.
‘But Em was like, 'I don't want to run out of money, I want my daughter to be able to go to college.' That's really tells the kind of guy he is. I think fame surprised him.’

Again, I am not questioning Eminem’s love for his daughter or that he really does care that much, only the manner in which this passage is included and how many readers might take this passage. Keep in mind he’s also the lyricist behind a number of wildly offensive rap songs degrading women and homosexuals and vividly portraying violence before you start seeing him as just a humble little sweetheart.

Overall, while I really enjoyed reading this article and I highly recommend you read it, I believe the Romantic nature in which Eminem was portrayed took away from the writing. Because Eminem is such a popular subject of criticism, it is understandable how counter-arguments such as this would try to go the other extreme. However, as with many other such things, in order to properly combat fierce criticism, I believe it is important to portray a subject in a fair light, presenting both sides of the argument and not focusing on one or the other. Thus, as the article eagerly anticipates, the arrival of Eminem’s new album, Relapse, to be due shortly, should not be judged before it has been released. Sure Eminem hasn’t released an album in a really long time, and sure he’s been hard at work in the studio during his three-year hiatus from the public eye, but I wouldn’t, like so many fans and critics, claim that this will be a masterpiece before it happens. But, hopefully, it won’t be much more than a month before we find out, for real, if the Slim Shady’s back, back again…

Obama to the Muslim World

This past Monday (January 26th), President Obama presented a humble and promising message to the Muslim world in his first official interview since taking office. In his interview with the Al-Arabiya Network, Obama managed to balance a message of humility and friendship with a firm grounding in American policy and principle. Some remarks that I found notable:

"I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy."

(In regards to what Obama told George Mitchell, his personal envoy to the Middle-east)
"What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues — and we don't always know all the factors that are involved," Obama said. "What we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs."

“I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.”

I also found it very interesting that Obama strongly praised Saudi King Abdullah for his Middle-east Peace Plan he recently proposed.
“Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.”

All of these quotes I found to be examples of agency, but a new form of agency, one that is quite the opposite of the tradition form of American agency. In recent history, American agency has usually been presented with brute force and strong ultimatums. A prime example of this older form of agency is the invasion of Iraq, where the United States invaded Iraq before there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction, with only a little support from other nations; in effect the United States acted as if they were a world police force. In comparison to this proud and rash form of agency, one that often required the oppression of others, it would appear that Obama is not exercising agency at all, but rather, letting the Middle-east exercise agency over their own affairs. However, I believe he is in fact exercising great agency, and doing so in a way that does not oppress others. By telling his personal envoy to the Middle-east to “start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating”, I believe Obama is not only showing the right way for the “leader of the free world” to lead, but trying to understand issues so that the United States will be beneficial in their intervention. By complementing the Mid-east peace proposal put forth by King Abdullah, even if he does not entirely agree with it, Obama is also showing agency, similar as to how a coach might encourage his players. Overall, I believe this new form of agency is an excellent change. After all, in today’s world, complex issues cannot be resolved by the actions of one nation alone, as powerful as it may be. Obama’s use of agency to encourage and include the support of other nations is the form of agency that is necessary to institute global change and progress.