Dear Congress (re: SOPA & PIPA)

For the past two years, you Congress, our legislative body has been embroiled in a myriad of conflicts. From immigration, taxation, education, health care, Barack Obama's birth certificate, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, bin Laden allllll the way down to Barry Bonds lying in court, you have ran the gamut of brutal contention. It seems like every issue on the table is a bitter dispute between the Democrats and Republicans. Are you going to play laissez faire or overregulate? Are you going to kick the can down the road, or simply handle your business now. Are you going to act on principle, logic, and virtue or act like politicians and reneg on your promises start your re-election bid the day after Election Day spend most of your time doing meaningless bidding? You've done nothing but the latter, Congress... Which is why your ever-so-consistent stance on the Internet-killing SOPA and PIPA bills is so confounding for me.

For all of the hoopla last year regarding the debt ceiling, Occupy Wall Street, class warfare and all of those ideologically-rooted political impasses, you would think that something so universal as the Internet wouldn't be privy to your spastic rulings, Congress. When did you all come to such a consensus? What happened to the deep-seeded resentments that keep you all on different ideological planets?

I think I know: lobbyists. If one looks at the supporters of SOPA and PIPA, it's a pretty high-profile list of offenders. The major networks, the RIAA, the MPAA and any organization associated with bringing owners (not producers) of content together, are all united in their big-wig support of SOPA and PIPA. That said, it's easy to see why. They're stuck in 2001, Congress!!! Remember that period when downloading music on Napster or Limewire or Bearshare was a Cardinal Sin? I do. I remember when the music companies shuffled their feet at getting into the online sector because they thought the craze wouldn't last. Fast forward 10 years, and it's happening again: media companies stuck in antiquated ways trying to quell the burning bastion of freedom that is the Internet. And you're aiding them, Congress.

You'd rather stifle than uplift. You'd rather be stringent about 'rules' than look at the meaning behind them, and their ramifications. You'd rather cut the cord than figure out how to make a better one. How lazy is that, Congress? Consider this. If you were to pass the two bills your Internet would:

- be 10x slower depending on what service you had and what sites you're visiting
- be dominated by Facebook, NBC, CBS, ABC, Facebook, FOX, Facebook, and Facebook
- have about tenfold LESS sites
- be unable to stream movies, videos, or music unless expressly consented to by the controlling media conglomerate

In short form, the Internet would be zapped back to 1995, Congress. A few big companies would run everything and the whole idea of 'free market economics' would be null. We might as well have AOL Version 1.0 floppy disks again. If you didn't have the money to fight a SOPA or PIPA claim, your site would be off the 'net before you even knew it!

Congress, by passing these bills, you are essentially giving yourselves free reign to dictate what shouldn't be dictated. You are killing Internet innovation at the root by making it a criminal offense to do anything that remotely infringes on any sort of intellectual property. No idea is original, Congress. Lest I get into the finer aspects of intellectual property, I would say that protecting someone's work is NOT wrong. For every word that I've written on this website to be lifted and purported as someone else's would be unforgivable. At the same time, you have no right to say where personal liberty ends and protecting against piracy begins, especially when you've balked at regulating things that matter, like say, big banks, the military-industrial complex, health insurance companies, or oil conglomerates?

It's as if you want the stop the conversation, Congress. That's not democracy. For all of the talk of corporate personhood and money in politics, this is a shining example. Why listen to the people, when you can line your pockets with money from companies who'd rather protect old ways than innovate new ones? That's what politics is about nowadays, isn't it? SOPA and PIPA are just pixels in the greater picture of your failures as of late. If this is too harsh, then good. Censor me. Stifle free speech and free movement of information, so the whole world can see what 'democracy' is all about. I guarantee you'll be doing more harm than any debt crisis, terrorist threat, or education bubble will.

BitCoins: The World's 1st Digital Currency

With the current world economic climate, it's becoming clear that the American dollar, among other currencies, is becoming weaker and weaker as our domestic and foreign policies continue to falter. As this happens, inflation rises, prices go up and income goes down, the world looks for a new way to acquire goods. In the beginning days, everyone provided for themselves, and bartered for everything else. If you didn't have it, someone else did, and you'd better have something that they wanted if you wanted it. Then came bullion or gold used as a medium for transaction, where the weight of the gold indicated its value. As the world began to run short of gold, they began using fractional value to create the paper money that we use today. Finally, as paper money grew thin, the credit market arose so that if you didn't have it now, you could pay it back later (debatable). Now that the credit market is beginning to fall apart due to speculation and over-borrowing, it seems as if online is the way to go, as is the case with most things nowadays.

Enter BitCoins: the world's first digital currency. The coins are generated through an algorithm that will only allow for 21 million by 2040. Additionally, bitcoins can’t be frozen (like a PayPal account), can’t be tracked, can’t be taxed and have extremely low costs as opposed to credit. The resulting feeling is that bitcoins will be a viable alternative to physical or credit-based money, given the world governments don't crack down on them, which is becoming more likely as of late. PayPal and the credit card companies have already halted their transfer, as they cannot (or do not want to) exchange currencies legally. Additionally, governments seem poised to take action against them because bitcoins completely eradicate the need to use gold or federally-based forms of currency. Also, at around $6.70 per bitcoin, the average person would never take that risk. Yet the idea is an enthralling one. It's taking the power away from the government and putting it in the hand of the user. Also, it can be used on the black market to buy anything from drugs to playing poker, so the government also has vested interest in taking them out. Overall, I can see this idea only taking shape if governments are willing to admit that their money is losing its worth. Maybe by that time, I'll have saved up enough bitcoins where I won't need dollars...

Dear Comcast (re: NBC merger)

Net neutrality, anyone?

They say you shouldn't shoot the messenger. Well, what happens when the messenger and the ones sending the message are one in the same? What happens when the same people making the news become the same people delivering it? What happens when the media outlets and the content providers merge Saiyan-style to destroy every other entity not named Disney? That is my beef today, Comcast. Now, we're not going to get into how much I hate your cable service and it's ridiculous hidden charges or mysterious 'shut-offs'. Today's not that day. I will, however, delve into your recent acquisition of NBC, and how utterly destructive it is not only for me (the end user) and media as a whole.

Comcast, by taking over NBC, you've become the first cable company to own a major broadcast network. Let that sink in... You OWN NBC. That means, anything that NBC puts out as its own, you own. You're held solely responsible, liable and accountable for the NBC imprint and everything that comes under it. By that token, everything coming from NBC has to have your oh-so-shadowy stamp of approval on it, which is scary to say the least.

You guys will be able to control who, what, where and when NBC broadcasts instead of them having their own jurisdiction. No longer will NBC be its own entity in terms of the content it puts out. Everything that you do, they will have to do, which includes broadcasting news and shows that you approve, advertising what you approve and partnering with firms that you approve. NBC essentially won't have its own identity. It may as well just become the Comcast network and end the speculation.

The only reason you guys bought NBC is because you see the way that online movie and television watching has picked up, and you want a piece of that pie (not that you have your own pie factory, or anything). It's really sickening from a consumer's standpoint. It's like watching the Walmart take over your town by taking down every other store that sells everything Walmart doesn't sell. You're buying out the market because you realize you might not be able to compete soon.

Cable companies like yourself are trying to become the online content providers, not by providing content, but by buying the people that do. While that's pretty good business, what part of the ethical or competitive game is that? What happened to innovation and new firms being allowed to supersede corporate money and might? Maybe I'm a purist, but by cornering the market, it only shows how cornered you guys are: that you stretched yourself thin on traditional cable and are trying to buy your way out. NBC probably won't be the last purchase, especially if the FCC continues to let you walk all over them. But hey, who am I kidding? It's not like I watch the Office or 30 Rock on TV, anyway. Shout out to Hulu, Netflix and all those illegal sites that shall not be named...

The Census: No One Man Should Have All That Power

PREAMBLE: For those of you who haven't been following the blog since last year, I had a section on it called 'The Census'. The premise behind it was that I would present an issue, then pose a question in a poll, where you, the readers would have the opportunity to vote on it for a week. Unfortunately, the voting got a little sparse, so I canned it... Until now. The Census is back, but now, rather than voting on it, I simply implore you, friends, to chime in in the comments section. One of the reasons I started Dear Whoever was to have an open forum for dialogue on what's going on in the world today. Some of that dialogue takes place through my letters, but I would love it if my readers got some time to voice their opinions. So here goes... This is the first round of the new, kinda improved, Census. Enjoy folks...



I guess the title is a little misleading, considering Justin Bieber is merely a teenager (didn't stop the Power Rangers, though). At the same time, he's not exempt from the rules that govern the social media frenzy that has everyone glued to their computers and phones now. And while we're on the topic of being glue to one's phone, please take a look below to see the kind of influence and power that we give to one man. Justin Bieber retaliated against a failed Twitter hack by tweeting that person's phone number to his 4.5 million fans (source). The fan, Detroit teen Kevin Kristopik, went on to receive over 26,000 texts ranging from laughter to outright hate. His cell phone bill is estimated to be upwards of $5000, given he doesn't have unlimited texting. Cell phone fees aside, is this the kind of society that we live in? Do the frivolities of celebrities enamor us that much that we kowtow to their every beck and call. Truthfully, what did any of those 26,000 text messages do for the people that weren't Justin Bieber. My guess is little to nothing. So I suppose the question is, how did we allow someone to gain that type of influence over people? The same thing happened to the 'chosen one,' a random Twitter user that Kanye West decided to follow. Steven Holmes had to delete his Twitter to get away from the promoters, social media hawks and random bystanders contacting him because of some supposed 'relationship' he had with Kanye. Is it just me or has social networking gotten a little too crazy?

That's what happens to your phone when you mess with Justin Bieber's Twitter...


So tell me people, where do you stand on the power of social media and how much influence we place in the hands of celebrities through that medium? Do we give stars too much pull in our lives? How is it that Justin Bieber can get thousands of fan(atics) to barrage a phone and Kanye can cause a person's social networking experience to crumble? Where do we draw the line between harmless online fun, and jeer-worthy groupthink? Please, please, please throw some comments below. I'd love to hear what you guys think!

Dear Kanye West

It takes a lot for someone to 'change the game'. By that, I mean someone operating in a way that goes against the grain of the time, and makes everyone else reconsider and reevaluate how they're going about their business. When someone changes the game, the status quo takes a hit. Not necessarily a hit that will rearrange everything, but just enough for the rest of the world to take notice. Over the past 4 years, blogs have begun a steady coup of the hip-hop game. Whether through internet labels preparing digital-only releases or the online mixtape phenomena, blogs now have a considerable amount of control over who's 'next' or who's time it is to shine. Chances are, if you've got a huge blog following, then you have pull in the hip-hop industry. That said, it's gotten to the point of over-saturation, where there are so many rappers on the scene, that no one knows who to listen to anymore! Go on any hip-hop blog today, and you'll find a different cast of characters than you did the previous day. That's not a bad thing; it's simply the state of the industry. It's hard for people to stand out. That is why your recent tour of... everywhere, is so mind-blowing, Kanye.

Over the past week, you've visited the offices of Twitter, Facebook, Rolling Stone, at each, speaking on not only the state of the music industry, but your own state. The way you presented yourself was damn near classic, Ye. You were professional, coming dressed in a simple black suit, black tie and donning the 'cool guy' sunglasses so we knew you weren't a corporate drone like the people in the audience. All of the speeches you gave were impeccable. I've yet to hear an artist admit that the places where most get their musical inspiration from are dark, morbid, depressed ones. That you want to bring your music out of joy and hope is a breath of fresh air for the industry. In fact, it's a rarity that you spope on it at all. Artists are notorious for keeping their personal lives chambered after they blow up (their first works may be raw and emotional), so to have you being open about the feelings that went into 'Good Ass Job' (apparently that might not be the album title anymore) is incredible.



A huge point in these visits was when you mentioned being a truth-teller in your music. I find that so groundbreaking. Everyone says that their album is the truth, but few artists actually purvey truth in their music, whether personal or public. 'Truth,' as most artists use it is a way to say you've lived something, not necessarily that you've learned from it or grown as a person (or artist) from it. Kanye, we can see such growth from you in these videos. Whereas last year, you had your mouth glued to a Henny bottle and your hands to Amber Rose's butt, now you seem to be as clear as day. Back to the music, though. The verses you spit at these places were too dope. 'Chain Heavy' had the makings of a track that would ruin the jewelry industry, 'Mama's Boyfriend' tells the story that every child with a single mother will vibe with, and the third one (no title, I suppose) has introspection written all over it. If those three songs are any indication of your album, this should be one of the greatest musical works in a WHILE. I guess when you write from a position of contentment, everything you put out there flows so much better. There's no need to gloss it over with auto-tune or unnecessary features. Labels and whoever else can't put the brakes on your work because you're doing it from such a good place that it automatically sounds good. People can feel the difference in your the beat, your words, your delivery and everything in between.

Kanye, if these sightings signal anything, they show that personal semantics, intimate theatrics, and simply going to the people are the way things should be done. The days when a person could showcase their talents from behind a keyboard are slowly dwindling (ironic that I'm writing this on a blog; sue me). It's not enough to shoot bloggers and tastemakers (I really hate that term, but that's a different blog post) press releases, leaks, random freestyle videos, and mixtapes. As a musician, you have to show why your work is the best, especially in hip-hop, where everyone claims they're the best. You're taking the game away from the computers (though you visited two social networking sites) and back to the (hypothetical) streets. It's very grass roots-esque, and different from anything we're seeing today. Your efforts seem duly poised to change the game Ye. Whether the album is a Good Ass Job (you see what I did there?) or something beyond that, we'll see in September...

Dear Youtube

via The New York Times:

Early this year, the most popular YouTube video of all time — a 2007 clip of a British toddler gleefully biting the finger of his older brother — was supplanted by a brash newcomer.

The upstart was Lady Gaga’s slithering, sci-fi-themed music video for her hit single “Bad Romance.”

The shift was symbolic: YouTube, a subsidiary of the search giant Google, is growing up. Once known primarily for skateboard-riding cats, dancing geeks and a variety of cute-baby high jinks, YouTube now features a smorgasbord of more professional video that is drawing ever larger and more engaged audiences.

“Our biggest challenge is making sure we don’t taste too many things,” Chad Hurley, YouTube’s low-profile and low-key co-founder and chief executive, said in a wide-ranging interview last week.

That cornucopia of content appears to be turning YouTube — considered by many to be a risky investment when it was bought for $1.65 billion at the end of 2006 — into one of Google’s smartest acquisitions. On Monday, YouTube will celebrate its fifth birthday by announcing it has passed two billion video views a day; YouTube said it reached the one billion mark in October.

It's funny growing up in the 'computing & internet era'. While I was born as computers were just starting to take their modern form, my generation is one that saw computers and most importantly, the internet grow into the phenomenon that it is today. We started out all on Macs pining for Oregon Trail day at school, saw video games go from pixels on a screen to almost lifelike graphics, and watched as the internet changed from a geeky collaborative tool to an integral part of modern everyday life. Unlike younger kids who always had computers in their lives, we experienced a truly analog world, at least in some sense. The ease of accessing information used to be nil to those without an understanding of computers, unlike today, which brings me to my point. Youtube, 5 years ago, it was LITERALLY impossible to find a good amount of videos online, professional or amateur. If I missed something on television, I either had to wait until it re-aired or came out on video, hear it from my friends, or just be in the dark about it. If I needed visual evidence of something, I was limited to pictures. Then in 2005, a great thing happened: YOU, Youtube.

Youtube, you single-handedly launched the era of the viral internet. Online TV and movies, video-blogging, and random, funny viral videos were born from your birth. Half of the content on this blog, and damn near every blog on the internet, features your embed code in some form. Think about it. Before you, there were no video-taped rants about anything. There wasn't such a thing as Web 2.0. The internet was what was given to us by the technologically advanced heads. Youtube, you made everyone their own videographer and content provider. Content is what we want it to be. Before you, there was no Google Video, no Twitvids, no nothing. I suppose this letter is a huge neck-off, but I can't deny the impact that you've had on the internet we know today.

At the same time, you made it so that no recorded event would ever be safe. Any gaffe, faux pas, or blunder that happens to be in front of a video camera is immediately placed at your whims, whether intentional or supposed. Along with the advent of this new method of reaching content, came a whole new batch of negatives and caveats. People now pay have to pay careful attention to what they post, much like Facebook (though, you're not as invasive or annoying). Whatever the case, no one misses the days before you. Your ease of use and breadth of content is ridiculous and something kids today will grow up with. No, I'm not jealous; just curious as to how that'll affect them. I suppose only time will tell. They (whoever they are) said computers would never catch on in the 80s; look what happened...

Apparently, this was the most watched video in Youtube history?? Go figure..

Dear Google

It's one things to adopt a new feature to add to another. It's a completely different thing to jack a concept completely and integrate it into your system. Google, you were always one of my favorite companies because you oozed innovation and bled creativity. Hell, I have Google EVERYTHING. This blog is through a subsidiary of Google. I can't stress how integral you guys have been to the growth of internet culture in the past decade. However, as of late it's become obvious that you have lost a step.

Google Wave was muddled and, to say the least, useless. I can't tell you any reason I would use it, nor do I know anyone who uses it. I suppose it was all hype that we all got on it and hounded each other for invites. Regardless, I can respect your attempt. Yet instead of trying to make Wave better or going back to the drawing board, you guys, in laymen's terms, swagger-jacked. Google Buzz is a Google-branded Twitter, with minor additions like pictures. Even so, what benefit do I gain from using Buzz? It's not like, you guys are bringing anything new to the table, or even (gasp) doing anything revolutionary. Google Buzz is a cheap imitation at best, and anyone with a Twitter knows it. It's even funnier that I can post a Buzz that can get posted to Twitter. At least you're trying. I guess losing China and their 1.4 billion hits is catching up. Too bad...

Dear Rupert Murdoch

If this picture doesn't sum it up, I don't know what does...

via Vanity Fair:

Rupert Murdoch is going to battle against the Internet, bent on making readers actually pay for online newspaper journalism–beginning with his London Sunday Times. History suggests he won’t back down; the experts suggest he’s crazy. Is he also ignoring his industry’s biggest problem?

We have a new tag on Dear Whoever. It's called 'the Man'. Everything I tag with this is talking about the prototypical rich white man behind every social, political, and economic injustice in today's world. Our first feature on 'the Man' concerns none other than you, Mr. Murdoch. You're the chairman and CEO of News Corporation, probably the biggest news conglomerate in the world. And now you're mad because people don't use any of your services anymore. FOX News has pretty much been exposed as a fraud and as ridiculously biased and the Daily News has less readers than a Tellytubbies blog. In fact, the only reason that you're not posted up at the soup kitchen is because Twentieth-Century Fox has been putting out blockbuster movies. And 75% of them are either remakes or superhero movies. But that's neither here nor there.

So you FINALLY realized that most people don't read physical newspapers anymore? It's about time. It's only been 30 years since newspapers went online (dead serious; check the source). You should feel a little stupid considering how much time and effort your company spends on research and development (we all know they spied on us on Myspace). Now you want to charge people to get onto ALL of your websites? You sound like the Internet Nazi. What good is ordering us to pay for your content, if we can get it pretty much anywhere elsewhere? So we won't have Myspace; no one worth their weight is still on that. Plus, any piece of news you have, I GUARANTEE the Times or the Economist has. Rupert, trust me, monetizing your stuff is the last thing you want to do. It'll ensure you that your service will not fly. You see what happened to music sales. The Record labels' pockets have been looking thinner since Napster got bagged. are If I know 'the Man' (and I do), then you don't want to be the next person to feel the recession...