Advertising; not only sells products, but LIES!

e3fc3400862f64c18e102ab498a2405aThis article shows the dishonesty of many of these companies. The lack of transparency in their objectives are clear as they are constantly attempting to trick the consumer into believing that their identities are genuine.

Advertisements

Racial Washing Anyone??

Grammy award winner and musical icon, Beyoncé Knowles is constantly being photo shopped by cosmetic brands for her skin to be made to appear lighter. This further contributes to the notion that lighter skin is more socially accepted and more attracted to audiences. This is also offensive to women of color and makes it difficult to support the beauty industry that excludes a variety of shades and lack diversity. Here at Honest Action we see no integrity in such actions.  Screen Shot 2017-04-15 at 11.26.16 PM

Real vs. Fake

Screen Shot 2017-04-15 at 11.26.31 PMFashion brands constantly feel pressure to present models as these unflawed perfect beings. This contributes to the lowering self of esteem of individuals that do not conform to the societal standards. At Honest Action we would suggest these industries place a disclaimer under their ads or in catalogs to inform their consumers that their marketing strategies are not misleading, but used to inspire audiences.

 

Can Social Media Really Monitor Itself??

 

In today’s society, social media plays a vital role in day to day life. Many people use it to share personal experiences, photographs, thoughts, and other private details about their lives. It gives people an opportunity to connect with other individuals around the world; individuals that they otherwise would not have met in regular life. Social media presents a great spectrum of opportunity for people, whether it be job opportunities or even free business promotion. But good as it may, social media can also pose a major problem.

Online media has limited restrictions, where individuals are free to post almost anything they want. This topic has always evoked mixed feelings, some agree with limited restrictions and some do not. One of the many that agree with these limited restrictions also advocate for even more freedom of speech. According to The New York Times, “The monitoring and restriction of even violent content can have dire consequences, despite being well-intentioned.” This means that they believe not having freedom of speech will result in negative consequences. Even though they believe this is the case, they still accept the government’s flawed regulation policy, stating that “it provides checks and balances between the site and its users”.But on the contrary, Honest Action believes that we should have more regulations on the amount of freedom individuals can have on social media.This is all due to numerous negative outcomes resulting from lack of restrictions being put into place on social networks. Outcomes such as cyberbullying, terrorists threats, livestreaming suicides, and people creating false identities on personal profiles. If you really think about it, if the current regulations put into place were that “effective”, would we be dealing with all of the issues we have now?

Other numerous sources have mentioned alternative ways for censorship without evoking the first amendment right. The Huffington Post mentions the idea of “self- censorship”, where individuals keep a mindful eye on their postings. But although this is a smart sounding idea, it still would not stop people from posting certain things. In a nutshell, people are going to do what they want, self-censorship can only help but so much. This is why we believe that more restrictions need to be put into place on the internet. It will greatly affect some of the violence and negative content you see on the internet today.

IMG_1792

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/03/should-facebook-do-more-to-monitor-violent-expressions/social-media-can-monitor-itself-and-protect-free-speechhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/layla-revis/social-media-censorship-f_b_7837398.html

 

 

 

Virtual Actions and their Real Consequences

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/should-murder-in-vr-be-illegal

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/45/10564.short

http://www.techaddiction.ca/pornography-addiction-statistics.html

http://mashable.com/2016/01/08/naughty-america-vr-porn-experience/#tMC00B8pfPq6

Virtual reality is the next great technological advancement. Consumers will soon be immersed in worlds of unbounded possibility. Consequently, with such potential comes extreme risk. Allowing consumers to indulge every fantasy they might have within virtual reality may be harmless in the real world but it could be extremely detrimental to the individual consumer.

There are conflicting reports about the true effects of violence in video games and other media translating to exacerbating violent tendencies in players and consumers. However, the psychologists Craig Anderson at Iowa State University and Wayne Warburton at Macquarie University in Sydney have found

“The repeated actions, interactivity, assuming the position of the aggressor, and the lack of negative consequences for violence, are all aspects of the gaming experience that amplify aggressive behavior.” This research focused on traditional video games. The total immersion virtual reality allows for will only strengthen the identification and bond between game player and in game actions.

There is research suggesting that humans are susceptible to deception about their own bodies. In one study a blindfolded participant stroked a rubber hand while being told they were stroking their own other hand when, in actuality, the researcher was stroking the subjects real hand. The subject reported, and magnetic imaging of the brain corroborated, that the subject believed they were touching themselves. This was dubbed the “rubber-hand illusion” by the researchers. Anecdotally, Raymond Wong, a writer for mashable.com, tested virtual reality pornography and felt at one point “a male porn star who was thrusting into ‘me’ was so up in my personal space, I swear I smelled his armpits. There wasn’t, of course, any smell.”

Virtual reality is also expected to be a harbinger for new and more advanced kinds of pornography. Naughty America is on the forefront of this new trend. As of January 2016, Naughty America had twelve virtual reality porn videos with plans to produce at least “one to two new VR porn videos every week”, according to Ian Paul, the chief information officer of Naughty America.

Porn addiction is currently not recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Despite no official recognition by the DSM, according to techaddiction.ca, “56% of divorce cases involved one person having an obsessive interest in pornographic websites.” Additionally, porn uses report severe clinical depression twice as frequently as non-porn users.

porn-addiction-stats

Advancing technology is inevitable. From the radio to the television to the Internet, entertainment in all its forms is constantly evolving. Virtual reality is the next evolutionary step. While this is a natural evolution, people must be wary of the effects it can have on individuals. We don’t yet know how the immersive nature of virtual reality will affect individuals. Due to this lack of information, potentially harmful activities such as violence and pornography should be restricted on virtual reality platforms. There will undoubtedly be consumer demand for these activities in the virtual reality platform and in a capitalist society, it is unrealistic that they will be totally nonexistent, so we at Honest Action posit that an age limit of 21 be imposed on these potentially harmful behavioral simulators.

GOOGLE Does Free Speech Right…

http://www.androidcentral.com/googles-next-step-against-fake-news-rolling-out-searchaaf8fe567bd7872cab6ac92708c5d381

This article in and of itself is a responsible restriction of free speech. By denoting what constitutes fake news, Google is prohibiting the propagation of incendiary language as news. No one is arguing that people shouldn’t be able to express their opinions and beliefs. The problem is packaging those ideas as news and as fact. By Google taking measures to inform consumers of their media that they’re reading something that doesn’t deserve the title of news, Google is standing up for the purity of what journalism and, by extension, what news means.