What is the real difference between parody sites and other forms of entertainment like movies and tv? Besides the billions of dollars and photogenic spokes people, I mean. Compared to major media outlets, these parody websites reach very few people.
Hollywood has completely absolved itself from any moral resposibility of the effects of what it churns out. Although I do not agree with this, if we accept this, why do we not extend this to websites? There is no real difference.
Further, if we argue that well balanced (educationally and mentally) adults know better, that they can judge accurately for themselves what is real and what is merely entertainment, why does this ability disappear when a website is concerned?
These websites also parody movie cliches. If you are offended, attack the source, Hollywood. Or does attacking the big dog scare the media? (Yes, I know we all know the answer to that.) The right to free speach does not absolve anybody of ethical responsibility.
Do we claim that Dawin Awards websites promote suicidal stupidity? (And if so, is it not really for the best of the gene pool?)
Does HCI not grossly parody itself by distorting facts and putting outright lies out to further it's own ends? By endorsing through its actions the belief that any action in furtherence of one's goals is right, they are making a mockery of their cause. How can one be right without doing right? The willingness to do anything for the "good" tends to be twisted to totalitarianism.
Would HCI prefer websites similar to truth.com (might not be right, just remember from commerials. Instead of attacking the tobacco industry, they can attack gun control. We can show all the rape and murder victims whose lives could have been saved if they CCWed. We can also show the people whose lives were saved, and the millions of unreported incidents where CCW prevented violent crime. This site would not be parody, they would be the truth.
In conclusion, they can bite me.
