Digital Detox

Class is over, but I couldn't resist posting this article that I found in the New York Times,

Learning to Let Go: First, Turn Off the Phone,

from last Friday. It is relevant to the class, and also to the idea of managed online use.

At this moment I yearn for a vacation from digital life. This class has brought to consciousness, through examination, all of the addictive and compulsive ways that I myself have been indoctrinated into the digital melee. I want the information and the ease of use, but I also find that it pushes things out of my life that I also want - like hikes in nature, meditation, reflective time, etc.

I hope that initiatives like this "Digital Detox" space catch on. We seem to be playing with our brains when we simply succumb to the manipulations of digital existence without reflection. Simply thinking I can resist the temptations of my devices while they are in easy proximity seems naive at this point. A "retreat" from devices seems more sensible in my case. Perhaps you won't hear from me for awhile...

Final Reflection

Final Reflection

            Blogging, for me, was a bit like the Internet itself. There was too much freedom and I had a hard time figuring out what I was going to do with each post. The guided prompts were a little easier for me, but I still couldn’t shake the feeling that there was no point beyond getting my points in class. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not downing bloggers at all. I think it’s amazing that any content producer can generate and produce media on a regular basis. I can never think of anything that I feel is important enough to put online and I suppose that’s why the concept of blogging is lost on me. Writing a blog for promotion, an institution or a cause, I can understand. My everyday thoughts, however, others might find pretty boring. Besides, I already put off enough of my writing; I would feel guilty spending my time blogging instead of working on my novel. But perhaps when I am far enough, I could find a blog group of writers to blog with about writing. Ahhh, technology.  

            This was my first semester in the MLS program. When first entering this class, I was a little concerned about how I was going to relate the material to my final project, especially because I wasn’t sure what it was yet. When I completed my Introductory Seminar, I had produced a Themed Plan of Study entitled Moral Decision Making Processes. I had constructed a plan to study the influences identity has on the morality we construct in order to make decisions. The information I gather, in disciplines like Religious Studies, Psychology and History, will influence a novel that will serve as my capstone project.

            In the future, I am interested to see how medical practitioners and psychology deal with technology’s interaction with identity. Technological advances in brain imaging provide evidence for chemical processes occurring while using the Internet. Proposals for Internet disorders, as discussed in our final class, as well as things like video game disorders have been gaining interest as years go on as well. Are these technological uses an evolution of human behavior? Use of the Internet has increased drastically over the last decade, so how can we tell when there is too much Internet use? I guess we’ll see what they come up with.

A Little Creative Writing

A couple semesters ago, in Writers as Readers, Suzanne Nielsen compiled sentences from each of the students' assignments in class and combined them to create a completely new story. I wanted to try this writing exercise with the previous blog posts I've written this semester. Here's what I came up with:

How much of this suburban isolation is because of geographic location and how much is self-inflicted isolation? The first problem I have revolves around just plain laziness. Perhaps it is naive to think that you can represent yourself truthfully without others taking advantage of it. The boundaries are constantly being tested and pushed. Sure, it will evolve, probably constantly, but there is no going back now. It's almost like an invasive species, popping up in every corner of the world. I think it looks a bit like me. Are the images portrayed in media partially responsible? These videos become viral and often end up on national television news channels. Sometimes I get lost in them. What will that mean for the future? Anyways, I'm just organizing out loud (or in text, whatever) and thought someone, somewhere, somehow might also find it useful.

Digital Literacy

Digital literacy and how populations are using the Internet is a viable avenue for researchers in the future. Neuroscience and brain imaging are technologies that are advancing in a way that will allow the differences in our brain structures to be seen. However, I do believe there is another aspect at play regarding Internet use. How we use the Internet is directly tied to what we know how to do with our technology. Program useability and popularity go hand in hand. There would be a lot fewer users on Facebook if we had to write our own code to post a status update. And I have to say, I am pessimistic about the results of any studies regarding identity and Internet use until digital literacy levels are taken into consideration. However, growing numbers of digital natives may change literacy in a positive manner, creating a more equal playing ground. What will that mean for the future? "Hot Cheetos and Takis" was, I thought, an inspiring video showing a new, young generation of content creators who were able to use current technology to produce something relevant to their daily lives. Hopefully, there is more of that in the future.

Jenna Marbles on App Addiction

For our final class I gave a short, but hopefully informational, presentation on the digital divide and Internet addiction. Jenna Marbles is a YouTube addiction of mine. If you haven't heard of her, she posts videos, usually humorous ones, every week. Sometimes I get lost in them. Jenna, in turn, has her own addiction as she explains in her video "Apps are Ruining my Life." She talks about how "The apps that I'm addicted to, half of them I can't even explain to you why they're so addicting...like they're just flat out fucking stupid." I have thought about this many times after wasting hours playing BubbleShoot or Slotomania. Why do I even care about leveling up? I have no clue, but I do. Marbles talks about how she finally broke down and bought Monopoly on her iPad: "I have never spend that much money on an app and the way that I justified it to myself, in my brain, like some drug addict making excuses for themselves: might as well pay ten dollars for the app so I can play on Monopoly cuz I don't have friends to play with me all the time." Alas, I have not actually spent real money on any apps but I do know the disappointment of having the free levels of a game run out just when it was starting to get good. At the end of the video, she leaves viewers with these thoughts: "and I think the solution is that I need to do my best to take responsibility for, ya know, limiting myself to app playing but it's not my fault because we, as human beings, have never had this much entertainment at our fingertips. It's very hard to be productive and we're all in this big, big boat called what the fuck is my life about?"

Affirmative Action: Still Fighting for Crumbs

 An article entitled: Jim Summerville, Tennessee State Senator, Proposes Ending Affirmative Action reads like this:

A Republican state senator in Tennessee is planning to introduce legislation to end the state's affirmative action program.

Summerville said that he believes the program has become a quota system and said that it is harming people who are qualified. He said that minorities can still be hired without affirmative action if they are qualified.

Summerville said:

“I’ll be called racist and I know that,” Summerville said. “I will not use the term affirmative action because it’s not really very precise anymore. It’s misused and overused and nobody knows exactly what it means, but what we do have are specific preferences in the law given to, for example, let’s say college education. Certain numbers of admissions are reserved to people of minority status. (It) shouldn’t be that way. They can earn it. They have earned it. They do earn it.”

 

I find it incredible that Whites can see racism where there isn’t any, but are completely blind to real world racism. With reports showing that Whites wealth is worth 20 times that of Blacks and 18 times more than Latino, I don’t see why ending Affirmative action would even be a topic of discussion.

Yes, Blacks can be hired on the own merit- and they do. Of course, we are more than capable of getting into school without help- but so are you, yet you dont. Blacks have earned everything they have- the same cannot be said for Whites. Whites have always had a "leg up" in their prosperity and stiil do, contrary to what many believe. 

The wealth gap happened because of government policies. Many were shut out of post war policies that enabled wealth growth such as; the benefits of FDR’s, New Deal, which almost completly left Blacks out of housing ownership, but greatly benefited  Whites. This is the reason, (as well as current racism), why Whites wealth status is so substantial to ours, yet, Whites have the nerve to try and end programs for minorities.

So, while Whites have reaped the benefits from government assistance, we have somehow come to the conclusion that Blacks are being privileged, because of the crumbs being thrown at us. According to the article, “A $95,000 question: Why Are Whites FiveTimes Richer than Blacks in the US? “, Blacks will never achieve the wealth of White if things continue as they are. NEVER!

So why would this be the time to eliminate Affirmative action?

Summerville mentions Affirmative action practices of schools, but one must wonder, did he consider the Affirmative action of Whites, whose children are grandfathered in to colleges because of their parent’s alumni-ship? Will this be eliminated also? Of course, not.

This racist talk comes not from ill informed, uneducated people. This proposal comes from leaders who are educated and have all the privilege and resources afforded them, to become informed. Clearly deciding to pick up a book and educate yourself on who is really receiving preferential treatment, was not important.

We need real leaders who are going to look out for the interest of all people and not just for themselves. How easy do Whites really need it?

Blacks are owed (yes I said owed), way more than Affirmative action can give. If we are ever going to close the gaps, in every sector pertaining to human life, Whites must put away this racist doctrine (yes, it is racist to try and eliminate programs that are trying to achieve equality) and begin to heal the whole country.

After all, when Blacks achieve financial success, it mostly benefits Whites.

 

 

 

my blogging experience

Thoughts on blogging-

Successful blogging is more like a speech than a traditional piece of written work.

You need to grab your audience's attention.  Why would someone read your post?  You only have a limited amount of space to share your message, as they have limited time, so get them interested quickly.  This can be done in a variety of ways, as long as it's done.

Know your audience.  Who are you talking to?  The message you send should be tailored to your target audience.  That makes it more impactful.  For example, this semester, our class was our audience.  We had the benefit of knowing we could connect from shared experiences.

Give them something that makes them want to act.  Motivate.  Educate.  Commiserate.  Build a community.  If you read a blog that shares recipes, I imagine that trying one or passing it on to another would be a useful thing.  If you read a blog that discusses the pros and cons of the new iPad, you are being educated.  The popularity of mommy blogs show that sharing experiences is useful.  

Successful bloggers use images(pictures and/or video), to relay arguments through emotional appeal and visual rhetoric.

A picture says a thousand words and along with your written post, you get to direct what those words are.  

Visual images should aid in your audiences understanding.  

They should facilitate in them remembering your message.  

They should identify you as the author.

Successful bloggers create an identity for themselves.  

Who you are and how you present yourself assists in engaging with your audience.  This can be achieved both visually as well as in your written words.  

Visually, you can create identity through the design of your blog page, avatars, or actual pictures of yourself.  Visual identification gives credibility to your message by giving you social capital.  You are what you present yourself to be.

Through your written words, you can develop a personality.  Your personality should come though in all of the media you use and enhance the content of your message.  Some blogs may be better written in a sarcastic voice, others would benefit from an upbeat sense of optimism, others somber contemplation. Find the best voice to connect with your audience

Successful bloggers collaborate.

Blogs exist within the blogosphere, a community of bloggers that collaborate with one another.  They share content, link to one another, comment on and recontextualize to make their own.  Blogs are powerful because they have these powers.  Otherwise, what would separate them from traditional printed works.  They are unique because the creator is at the same time the audience.  

Lastly.

 An interesting as well as educational way to assist in learning to find our voice as a blogger would be to create a blog that provides all of the above for us, rather than reacting to prompts.  Throughout the semester, the most successful blogs had these qualities.  Biker Chick's snarky words.  Cindy Wold's interest in owls and outdoor hiking.  Bradford's unique voice and qualified connection to online communities.  Each of us had a moment of authenticity.  I would look forward to hearing more of that. 

Thanks to all.

My passion-Ending Racism: Here I Go Again!

The reason White people subscribe to and use color-blind approaches is, it allows them to assume and even advance their position of privilege. Under this ideology Whites can oppose affirmative action (though most jobs-especially lucrative ones go to Whites), and still feel and sound moral. It’s a win-win situation for them-reaping the benefits, yet denying any fault or advantage. Unfortunately, it’s a loose-loose situation for people of color. By obscuring the fact that racial inequality even exist, Whites have comfortable wiped their hands of any state of affairs that connects them to racism.

JohnF. Dovidio and Samuel L. Geartner (2005), psychologist who have studied the psychology of racism for almost forty years, have labeled the new color-blind racism “aversive racism”. They state: “Like a virus that has mutated, racism has evolved into different forms that are not only more difficult to recognize, but also to combat.”

They go on to say:

Aversive racists may therefore regularly engage in discrimination while they maintain a non-prejudiced self-image. The term “aversive” in this form of racism thus refers to two aspects of this bias. It reflects the nature of the emotions associated with blacks, such as anxiety, that lead to avoidance and social awkwardness rather than to open antagonism. It also represents that, because of their conscious adherence to egalitarian principles, these whites would find any thought that they might be prejudiced to be aversive.

Today’s racists will not openly discriminate or show bias in ways that can be attributed to racism. Consciously, most White values are said to be egalitarian, but because of the nature of discomfort and negativity Whites inwardly possess towards Blacks, they will discriminate against Blacks, especially when it can be justified as something else- “We had to get rid of the program-funding, you know?” Aversive racism is said to be unintentional and unconscious. The danger of this, of course, is if it is hidden from even them, how will they ever recognize it to make changes. While people recognize that being prejudice is wrong, they do not recognize that they are prejudice. “To make things worse, the uncomfortable and discriminatory behavior associated with aversive racism is very obvious to Blacks, even while Whites either don’t recognize it or consider it hidden and deny it when confronted” (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2005).

Despite compelling evidence of racial inequalities, Dovidio and Geartners studies showed that between 40 and 60 percent of Whites who responded to a recent survey, viewed the average Black in the United States as faring about as well, or better, than the average White. Studies sadly show a truth that this is far from this reality.

Not only are Blacks fairing far worse than Whites, studies show that the gap is widening between Whites and Blacks, even wealthy Blacks. The Blair report, a twenty three year study which monitored more than 2,000 families from 1984, came back with startling findings (McGreal, 2010).

White families who had a median of around $22,000 dollars in 1984 increased their wealth to $100,000, but Black household went from a meager $2000 per family and only increased their wealth to $5000. While Whites are able to secure assets in the amount of $100,000, Blacks are left with barely enough to survive (McGreal, 2005). To put things into perspective, the median White family was 11 times richer than the median Black family in 1984 ($2,000 vs. $22,000). But by 2007, the White household had become 20 times richer than its Black counterpart ($5,000 vs. $100,000). The survey does not include housing equity, but if property were included, it would widen the wealth gap even further (Ford, 2010).

Though, tiring, I will continue to spread the message of racism, because to be silent, is to be part of the problem and the problem is so vast that there is no time for pause or rest....unfortunately.

Dovidio, John F., Gaertner, Samuel L. Color Blind or Just Plain Blind?: The Pernicious Nature of Contemporary Racism, 12(4) The NonProfit Quarterly (Winter 2005). <http://racism.orgFord, Glen “Massive Race Divide: Blacks Will Never Gain Wealth Equality With Whites Under the Current System”. Black Agenda Report,. http://www.alternet.org/story/146966/

McGreal, Chris. May 2010.  A $95,000 question: Why Are Whites Five Times Richer than Blacks in the US? Washington.guardian.co.uk. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/17/white-people-95000-richer-black

This Is Where 15 Weeks of Mindful Blogging Leaves Me

In terms of the blogging experience, I cannot say that I've learned much about the act itself. Being someone that has, in addition to this shared blog, another four that I keep up means that I've done a lot of it over the last few years.

What has come down is confirmation of certain suspicions that I've held for quite some time now, and I think that many of you will nod your head in agreement as I state them below.

Blogging is Performance.

Lo those many years ago, when I suffered through high school and worries that my life would be over by 21 if things did not line up perfectly after graduation and nothing would be worth living if I couldn't be with that raven-haired beauty what thought herself an ugly duckling, I sat through composition and literature classes that required students to keep a journal.

I sucked at it. Now that I have blogging to contrast with it, I know why I continue to suck at keeping the damned things. I have no audience to perform for, so I cannot muster the enthusiasm to keep it up regularly. I still managed to get it done, but I hated doing it and it didn't help that the teachers were nosy busy-bodies that tried to correct me in their written feedback. (This is what we call "Not Helping".)

Blogging, on the other hand, has an audience. Other people can, do, and will continue to read what you post online so long as it persists. That's why even dead blogs keep up readership, so long as the writer--showing a flare for the dramatic--captivates readers and has them scrolling down and hitting the "next" button or link. Crap writers, dull writers and novice writers are disadvantaged in this medium until they can fix their flaws and not only find their voice, but lose their fear of letting it sing loud and proud.

This is why the successful blogs have some form of theatrical quality to them; their writers know that this is like writing copy for some actor or presenter to read, so they make the words interesting in their own right somehow. Attitude, snark, sarcasm and other slants that otherwise would be unprofessional become commonplace for this reason- it keeps readers reading in the same way that attitude in live performance keeps viewers watching.

Next...

It's Harder To Comment Well Than To Blog Well

One of the most persistent warnings is "Don't read the comments!" In addition to the sheer quantity and variety of stupid that one often encounters when reading blogs (or YouTube comments, etc.) there are uncountable scores of crap comments that suck due to being unreadable. Spelling so bad that God couldn't comprehend the poster, grammar errors that destroy the intended meaning, walls of text--no paragraphs--that make the eyes bleed and destroy a reader's attention span, overuse of jargon when it's not called for, and other things that have me reaching for the bottle too often.

Good comments make blogs better for everyone, and I am guilty of failing this one as much as anyone else because writing a good comment takes effort akin to writing good blog posts themselves. It's not a matter of length, or sophistication, but rather an ear for rhythm and an eye for relevance. Keeping one's comment focused upon a post's topic is a sound foundation, as it a habit for directness and brevity, which is where the ability to link proves very useful; if your comment needs to be lengthy, it's far better to write that as a post of your own and link back to it when you write that comment. (This is, in part, what "Touchback" or "Linkback" tracking is for.)

And...

The Skills That Make You a Successful Author Make You a Successful Blogger

One of my friends is Scott Lynch. He is now a professional fantasy author, but he began as a blogger back when Livejournal was a thing and it was through blogging that he attracted the attention of the man who is now his editor and agent. (It is also how me met his current girlfriend, a peer, by the name of Elizabeth Bear.) Another writer I know, Patrick Rothfuss, is also quite the blogger and through his blogging (in part) he developed both the skills and the contacts that he needed to get his traditional publishing contract and publish his first two novels.

This pattern repeats itself in folks who are now writing non-fiction, of one sort or another, be it a gossip column (Perez Hilton) or something far more substantive (Leo Laporte's This Week In Tech). Deliberately blurring that line is Stephen Pressfield, a fiction and non-fiction author who turned to blogging when The War of Art hit huge and he decided to start blogging about those practical problems that creatives deal with daily in order to do something other than write about Afghanistan all the time. (Go on, see for yourself.)

I cannot avoid concluding, therefore, that improving my writing craft will improve my blogging. That's not all...

The Successful Blogger is an Old-School Triple Threat

By that, I mean "Writer", "Businessman" and "Showman". You need to appreciate that to become a well-read blogger you need to promote yourself without shame or hesitation, that you can't get away with being a shit writer, and that you can't get away with letting shit comments go on your posts. Think of yourself, when running a blog, as a host and readers as guests; your job as a good host is to keep the party running and ensure that guests enjoy themselves, and the readers need to be mindful of each other and respectful of the host's efforts and property. Falling down on either end can crash a blog right quick, so you need to swap hats on the fly to deal with difficulties that crop up.
Not that far from running a service-oriented business like a restaurant or a club, really.

So, I've got some thinking to do about my blogs. Change of hosts, change of layout, change of focus, all of that stuff. All I can say for certain is that they will never be journals.

Out the Window You Go-Mr. Computer!!

Every time I write a paper, I come to the point where I want to throw my computer out the window!
Not because the paper is hard to write, but because my computer and I always seem to have a miscommunication. Just because I press delete, doesn't mean I  want you to delete it right away! Cant a girl change their mind? Just because I walk away from the computer without pressing "save", does not mean you're not suppose to save it for me! Please stop being so sensitive and erasing things, just because I accidentally dragged my finger across the keyboard and when I get ready to print, I need the paper to look just like I wrote it, in English and in order!

Now, I'll never be ready to depart from my computer, because I remember the days of index cards and books at the library. But while the computer can make things oh, so easy, it can also leave me wanting to pull my hair out and throw it right out the window!

And this pretty much happens every time I write a paper! Ugh! So glad I'm done.

Owls Fan Club

I like owls. I like them because they are beautiful, rare (I know there are lots of them in the wild, but I don't typically see owls around the neighborhood where I live) and seemingly wise.

Just to illustrate the way that the internet and social media has eeked into every nook and cranny of my life, now I have joined a Facebook Owl Fan Club page. The photos are beautiful and I am learning more about different species of owl and where they can be found.

Most people I know have affection for some specific species of animal. For some it is dogs (I also love dogs), for some it cats (ditto) and for others it could be hamsters, parrots, squirrels or even butterflies. For any species, I bet there is a fan page.

Here are some great pictures of owls. Enjoy.

Cyborgology and Digital Dualism

I found this article on the Cyborgology blog, called "Sherry Turkle's Chronic Digital Dualism Problem" by David Banks.

In it he critiques Turkle's opinion piece, "The Flight From Conversation" in the New York Times Sunday Review.

While Turkle laments the loss of conversation from the social interactions of young people, Banks argues that the medium is not so much the cause of the loss as it is an as yet unmanaged augmentation to our social milieu. 

"This is where the distinction between digital dualism and augmented reality become essential. The digital dualist perspective says no: there is something in the technology that enables/causes antisocial behavior and we must overcome this false consciousness by actively refusing to use our devices. The augmented reality perspective demands that we look at root causes. That might lead us to the same ends: no texting at the dinner table, leave your smartphone at home at least once a week, but it also lets us consider other problems. Maybe your kids are on Facebook because you live in a suburb where you can’t meet another human without driving a car. It also forces us to think of the big picture- I will gladly live in a world where Cape Cod tourists are distracted by Facebook updates if it means disadvantaged groups have tools to reach out and organize across geographic boundaries. Let the rich be alone together, the rest of us will find something to talk about. "

 I think Banks has more in common with Turkle's position than he lets on. Digital Dualism is a label he has thrust upon her, and then makes a distinction that is not so much a distinction (to me) as another augmentation. As the cartoon above illustrates. We often attribute characteristics to others that we are unaware of in ourselves. The reality is that often we are very similar even to those we find most unlike us.

Three Days of Love

One of the things I love about the internet is when people organize something that capitalizes on the common good. One of those things that has come to my attention recently is the campaign "Three Days of Love."

This is a campaign to get people to commit to being kind and loving on December 20th, 21st and 22nd of this year. Since I am doing my research and thesis for my MLS program on love, this is the kind of thing I like to examine.

The quality or phenomenon of love is interesting because it is one of the most powerful forces in our lives, yet we neglect training and examination of it as such. We assume everyone knows about love automatically. But stop and think... what is love, really?

This campaign is going forward with the notion that love and kindness are linked. I believe that is good enough to generate a feeling of connection and to bring the idea of love into consciousness. One thing that I have learned is that talking about love seems to generate loving feelings - even though love itself is more than just a sentiment.

I also noticed that Barack Obama referred to love as one of the responsibilities we have as citizens in a free democracy. The quote took me by surprise, but encouraged me to keep studying love.

Evolution of Digital Culture

In Nicholas Carr's article, Is Google Making Us Stupid?, the claim is that the physiology of our brains is being changed by our online habits. One of the main effects that Carr discusses is the tendency to lose our ability to handle reading long chunks of text.

In fact, this phenomenon is getting more attention and confirmation in the years since that article was written. Carr's new book, The Shallows, goes even deeper into the history of neuroscience and the specific effects that have been observed in the internet-immersed brain.

This summer an article came out in Newsweek called "Is The Web Driving Us Mad?" by
Tony Dokoupil. That article went even further in pointing out the adverse emotional effects of habitual internet use. From the article:

Does the Internet make us crazy? Not the technology itself or the content, no. But a Newsweek review of findings from more than a dozen countries finds the answers pointing in a similar direction. Peter Whybrow, the director of the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, argues that “the computer is like electronic cocaine,” fueling cycles of mania followed by depressive stretches. The Internet “leads to behavior that people are conscious is not in their best interest and does leave them anxious and does make them act compulsively,” says Nicholas Carr, whose book The Shallows, about the Web’s effect on cognition, was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. It “fosters our obsessions, dependence, and stress reactions,” adds Larry Rosen, a California psychologist who has researched the Net’s effect for decades. It “encourages—and even promotes—insanity.”

 So, I think it is something we should be aware of as we become more and more dependent on our connection to the internet. I am hopeful that human beings can manage our new connected society in a way that enhances our experience of life, but this information about the effects of overuse are concerning.

Gatekeeping online

I wanted  to comment on last classes discussion about 'the cult of the amateur.'  Particularly to address the question of who are the gatekeepers and Toni's assertion that it may not be exclusively a 'who' that does the gatekeeping, but includes how the material is presented that draws its audience.

Gatekeeping appears to be shared by those of us that encounter online content.  We rank it through 'likes', curation, sharing, and so on.  However, I do think that part of what makes us rank content higher, can include how it's presented.

The following article speaks to this idea.  You Tube, which grew popularity largely based on the fact that anyone can post and share material is making an effort to polish up its presentation.

YouTube turns more TV like

We appear to be invested in many aspects of online culture, and not only interested in cute cat videos.

Privacy please!

Wow- talk about being accessible.  There is new technology being worked on that allows text message display on your contact lenses.  This was brought to my attention in a recent blog, Contact lenses can display your text messages.

 My reaction is eek!  Is there any time that I can claim as my own, just disconnect.  Is this type of accessibility just strange to me, similar as the accessibility of smart phones was when they hit the market, or is this something beyond that?

Perhaps this video can give you a glimpse of what we have to look forward to!

Most of us would understandably not bring our phone into the shower.  We can be out of touch with good excuse- maybe not for long!

An interesting response to this post pointed to the actual changes in the brain that this technology could develop.  Less and less we are differentiating ourselves from the technology we use.  It could now literally be an extension of ourselves.

Goodbye Santa

Organizing and protesting via social media is happening more and more often.  However, one voice may make a bigger difference than before due to the platform afforded by places like Facebook.  Take a look at this article.  I thought it was timely, and Santa may have deserved to get the boot.  But,  it really caused me to focus in on, how much power,  Facebook in this case, gives one voice.

Bad Santa Fired from mall gig after parents complain on Facebook

In this case one voice= one complaint.  However, the fact that it is seen by others on the mall's Facebook page probably had something to do with Santa's firing.

What are the kids doing?

As the topic of this video is something that the class has revisited throughout the semester, I thought it would be worth a look.

Contrary to our conclusion that kids are not thinking at all about the content they put online, at least some are, and include many of the considerations that we have discussed.  Perhaps they use a different set of criteria in order to determine what they post, but still consider the consequences all the same.

consequences on and off line

I came across an article online that asked the question, "is Virtual Life Better Than Reality"?  Initially I began to think about online identity.  Online identity appears to be fluid.  We can manage our image easier than in the real world.  We can be one way while interacting with 'friends' on Facebook, another on Twitter, and yet another on a blog.  All may contain  components of ourselves, and we are not constricted by physical appearance.

Then, I began thinking about what Brad said in class, that all of these interactions are connected.  So the social capital we create and use through genuine interactions seems to be more complex.  We do not compartmentalize our selves, but maintain a consistent version of self.

I then thought that social capital is not only important for our identity online, but offline as well.  Meaning that the social capital we create online is the same as that we create offline, and it moves between the two spheres.  As well as the consequences that result from our interactions.  If we post, say or respond to something on Facebook, it will most likely follow us into our other online spaces, as well as off.

Monkeys With Typewriters

OK, so for those of you who missed my read & lead, I found these two little videos apropos of the topic from Keen:

The above is short and funny. This next is a little more what this post is about:

Now, the video is talking about monkeys on typewriters from the perspective of proving if there is a god. However, that is not the point for this post. The point is about Keen's fear that democratization of the web will lead to, basically, a bunch of shit on the internet, produced by a bunch of idiots who only appreciate the crap from other morons, until there is nothing but fecal matter to be found online.

I admit: I am inclined to agree with him. To a point. However, the internet has also been a very useful tool, in my experience. And, he was writing in 2006. Have things necessarily panned out the way he predicted? It wouldn't seem so.

The video, in relation to Keen's theory, is a pretty good refutation OR acceptance. It could accept Keen's theory if you believe that there are a bunch of people (monkeys) on typewriters spewing a bunch of crap that makes its way to the internet, and nothing important (twaddle, though perhaps not downright incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo) is being said. Yep. I'll admit: there is a lot of inane crap to be found online.

However, it could also be a good way to refute Keen's idea. If infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters can NOT produce anything that even remotely resembles a sonnet, then there is no way for "monkeys" (read: idiots) to truly take over the internet. There are still intelligent people out there producing content. A sonnet still needs an intelligent author. There are still academicians and an educated minority in our society. And it appears that more people than Keen would have supposed are savvy enough to distinguish shit from Shineola.

The nature of gatekeepers has simply seemed to change. There are still the authorities. An article posted by the Mayo Clinic will be taken more seriously than JoeSchmoe's posting about his arthritis. All this being said...I still see Keen's point. It's pretty sad that you can just as easily (if not more so) find information about the latest Justin Bieber gossip as you can the latest update on Iraq...and not everyone has--or wants--critical thinking skills. That's what scares me half to death...

Telephone Game

I can honestly say this course has forced me to like at myself in a different light.  No one will say I am shy about expressing my feelings or opinions. If "shame" was apart of our genetic coding, I admit that I am missing that gene. As a  preacher's kid, I speak my words with convention. Yet, when social media is in place... silence fills the digital space.  When it seems that others exaggerate themselves online or remove any barriers to whom they identify themselves to be offline I exhibit the opposite behavior.  

In Las Vegas, visitors carry themselves in wild, crazed ways, encouraged by the lively Vegas atmosphere, compared to their demeanor in their home town around family, friends, and/or co-workers. However, for myself in Vegas,  I become a nun while my hometown identity is a Vegas showgirl. 

As I think about it, I enjoy hearing people talk about my strange, adventurous antics like folklore. Posting things online conjure up thoughts of all my actions, moments, thoughts being filed for future review or research like the many books in a library. 

The beautiful essence of the childhood game "telephone" was the funny interpretations  of simple statements being shared to each person in the telephone line. At the end an elaborate story emerged being more entertaining then the original statement.  Posting everything online erases the art of storytelling, engaging in the excitement brought by the storyteller.  

It is hard to edit a story once its been printed in a book.

Knowledge = Power

An acknowledgment of knowledge = power in context to our discussion of a panopticon place was revealed by a very unlikely source.

I was cleaning the house the other day while the living room television was tuned to Investigation Discovery.  The typical story was of some criminal who for a long time eluded capture.  He was being interviewed afterward from prison and revealed that each time he planned to commit a crime, he checked the weather channel to make sure that heavy fog was predicted.  Among a laundry list of precautions he took, one was to make him as invisible to detection as possible.  He stated his assumption that he would be in view of a camera, and possibly watched from helicopters above.

While he was aware of the possibility of detection, it did not deter him, but only made him react in ways that countered the deterrence.  So, the power shifted to him from being aware he may be perceived, and took precautions not to be.

Other criminal organizations are reacting similarly.  Mexican cartels have kidnapped and enslaved engineers in order for them to build radio networks.  These networks were developed to aid in communications among the organization without being detected by the police.

It appears that criminals are convinced technology has all eyes on them.  However, instead of discipline, the criminals are reacting with strategies to outsmart the technologies set to deter them.

Dude, where's my car?

A confession.  So, about three years ago I was at a local bar and had one too many drinks.  Being the responsible gal I am, I do not drink and drive.  However, when a sober friend of mind offered to drive my car home for me, I appreciatively agreed.  Two key facts- one, I left earlier than my friend, (we did not ride together).  Two, my generous friend did not realize when he offered his services that I had a manual shift. Therefore,  after a short distance he gave up and safely parked my car in a commercial parking lot.

Fast-forward to the next morning.  I woke up and in a clear state of mind asked my boyfriend to bring me to my car.  First, I had to call my friend from the previous night to find out where he had left my vehicle.  Oh, but where is my phone?  I must have left it in my car.  Bummer, I do not have a way to reach my friend.  Another bummer, where is my car?  As I cannot reach my friend, I do not know where my car was parked.  I know the general route he must have taken, but he could have pulled over at any point during the fifteen minutes it took to get to my house.  Aimlessly driving, my last option.

So, I put some thought into solving this problem.  My phone was most likely in my car.  I happen to have the Sprint family locator on my phone.  I went online and Sprint could give me the exact location where I had left my phone.  After I figured out where my phone was, I google mapped that location and viewed recent satellite images.  I happily saw my car parked in a parking lot about five minutes from the bar.  My boyfriend drove me to that location and as i got into my car I was grateful for once to have left my phone behind.  

The technology involved made this unique situation much more easy to resolve.  However, it does make you think about the capacity to see without being seen that this technology allows us.  While I was very happy to be able to find my car, it is frightening to think that anyone else could access this information.  It was only necessary for me to access my Sprint account to get this image of my location.   This real life experience has left me feeling the potential power created by the effects of the panopticon available from this technology.

Your Authoritarianism is Showing Mr. Keen

I have no sympathy for Andrew Keen and his disdain for the cultural changes that came with the rise of "Web 2.0" and the destruction of all of the gatekeepers and other less-than-necessary intermediaries that long ago turned cancerous when they ceased to be useful elements of a community and became self-important seekers of domination and control.

The very "cult of the amateur" Keen attack and derides is the historical norm for all human cultures, "primitive" and "civilized" alike. What Keen fails to acknowledge is that even the so-called "experts" far too often are just making it up as they go, either because they are at the edge of their competency and have to make it up because there is no better way to employ what they can of their expertise or (far more common) they are actually incompetent and are masking that fact with bluster as they fake it until they make it.

The vast majority of artists, of all media, are amateurs. Very few ever got paid at all, and most of those that did literally or figuratively sang for their supper. The so-called "great writers", by and large, were amateurs and those that could be called "professional" were actually the same hacks that Keen disdains so much; Keen avoids acknowledging (for example) that much of what Shakespeare got paid to write he wrote on commission, and wrote for a popular audience no less crass and vulgar in sensibilities (and considerably more violent) than today. Friedrich Schiller was an amateur, no less skilled than Shakespeare or Goethe, and wrote when not practicing medicine. Beethoven had patrons, as did many of the great Renaissance artists; otherwise, no art would come, as they could not get paid as today's creatives do.

Keen also fails to acknowledge the then-burgeoning business in legitimate downloads for music, which would explode into all forms of media that one can read, watch or listen to on computers and mobile devices. This spread into the rise of Print On Demand (for the physical-only holdouts like myself) outlets such as Lulu and Smashwords, and as for the user-generated stuff like YouTube one need only look at FPSRussia to see how it can be a comfortable and pleasant way to make a living. (That man's income is easily mid-to-high five figures just from what YouTube shares with him in advertising income; he also sells his own swag and makes commercial appearances now, and he's not the biggest success story.)

Far from being the herald of the fall of Civilization, Keen's "cult of the amateur" is in reality the unfettering of a marketplace wherein all that want to participate may do so on their terms. This horror show that Keen calls "anarchy" is nothing of the sort; it is, in reality, the Adult Swim of life wherein busybody authoritarians have no sway anymore because their Big Daddy tendencies--noticing Keen's assumption of minor-like incompetency to make one's own decisions that authoritarians typically make; it's a running theme throughout his writing here--turn people off. He can't compete in a truly free market, and he resents it; this is his "sour grapes" reaction, and I take it as such.

The amateurs I follow have, over time, increased their competency and capacity for greater quality until they reach professional-grade work on a hobbyist's budget. From the other direction, professionals see what can be done on the cheap and have come in to show the amateurs how its done--witness Felicia Day's "The Guild", now on the Geek & Sundry channel at YouTube, or Chris Hardwick's "Nerdist" podcast--and the results are an increasing tide of quality as an increasing spread of amateurs take notice and raise their game accordingly.

The days of gatekeeper-corralled professionalist culture creation is done. We're now returning to a state where people develop their own talents when, where, and how they see fit; all things like YouTube and Lulu do is spread the possible audience from the hometown and surrounding county to the globe. As for the industrial culture giants, they too can and will adapt; Keen published this book in 2007, and one year later the first Iron Man movie--no doubt a "proper professional product"--hit screens and won over the world, ushering in the Marvel Movie Universe and marking Disney's big return to live-action blockbuster cinema. That trend continues to gain ground, as we see with Warner Brothers attempting to do the same thing with the D.C. Comics properties that they own starting with Man of Steel.

Keen should realize that (a) he's wrong, and (b) he's lost this fight forever now. Go home, Andy. We don't need your authoritarian approach to culture, and we don't want it.

INTERNET

Is the Internet the utopia people say it is, or is it a bleak look at reality that showcases the ugliness of reality? Can I, as a Black person, roam the web freely with

No fear of prejudice or retribution? Will this new world accept me for who I am or try and change me, stereotype me, accuse me of once again being

The reason you cannot succeed? Will it showcase the injustices that are perpetrated daily? Will it shed a light on the things that are so obvious to me? Will it

Even out the score and make for us an even playing field? Sadly, I have realized that it won’t. Because what comes from the internet is truth-truth of who we

Really are- and it’s a stinging truth. A slap you in your face truth, a not talk behind you back- but to your face truth. A constant reminder that the need to hate has

Not subsided and the quest for equality is far from over. The internet shows us we have a ways to go-quite a ways to go before America can and will open its eyes.

Even a Black President could not bring us to the promise land, as his presidency has prompted racist chants to ring freely and often through the net. I am hopeful that

Time is on our side and the infamous “one day” will arrive and I can surf the net free of hate, free of prejudice, with only the judgment of my character at stake.

Don't Hate the (Social) Media. Become the (Social) Media!

The social media technology, as with Internet technologies in general, is a double-edged tool. It is certainly true, because it is known, that governments and corporations use social media to surveil populations. The motivations vary, but the means are the same. However, the population can also surveil corporations and governments using this same technology if they possess the skill and tools to do so. It is this factor that makes the difference.

This is not theory. In addition to earlier examples, the most recent examples of how this technology's power can be used against trusts public (government) and private (corporations) alike that get out of line--Iran, Egypt, Libya, and now Syria; Wal Mart will soon find out how it feels--demonstrates that the former dogma of the State being the sole legitimate exerciser of force is starting to decay.

In each of the above cases, dissidents against those respective states used networking technology--especially social media--to organize amongst themselves as well as to monitor the State. The governments in question then attempted to regain control by disconnecting the country from the Internet; Syria just did this yesterday, allegedly. However, in each case--including the Syria one--corporations such as Google and plenty of individuals intervened and established backup infrastructure that restored function to most of the blacked-out population. (This, in addition to people congregating into places such as Tahrir Square in Egypt; it's easy to spread the word when you're in one place.)

We are already in a place where opting out is socially detrimental to individuals; soon we shall cross the threshold where opting out is economically detrimental due to ongoing changes in the economy--global and local--that make opting out not-viable to pursue, and not long thereafter it will cease to be politically detrimental.

Social opt-outs get cut out of peer lives, as organization of social gatherings increasingly takes place on social media exclusively; if you're not a user, you don't get the invites and soon you are off others' radar entirely- out of sight, so out of mind. Employers use social media to make personnel decisions, starting from hiring and going on from there; if you can't be found, then you can't be trusted, so you don't get the job or promotion. As with employment, so will be the case for other organizations when seeking positions of trust within them. People do this because it is efficient shorthand, and efficiency is prized by all of the global first world.

This leads to the economic consequences. The mail order business of 20 years ago is the online retailer of today, and online commerce of all sorts has so seized control of the minds of economists, businessmen and politicians that a technological momentum is now in place. This force pushes for greater online dominance of the marketplace, and with it comes the dominance of social media--specifically, its personalization algorithms--to advertise, to collect feedback, and to maximize profit. Opt-outs will be left behind, and as more retail storefronts either vanish or become nothing more than showrooms where you can make online purchases after handling a sample item, this means that opt-outs will get shut out.

This also means that money will become increasingly digital, nothing more than bits in a file executed according to a program's parameters. Checks are already well on their way out, and cash is already under pressure to likewise disappear, leaving only digital banking; expect this trend to continue, with government and corporate support, with the consequence being that having your accounts frozen also freezes you out of the ability to buy or sell altogether- and, as with being searched, getting frozen is determined by someone else for reasons that can be quite different from the ones stated. (The State is explicitly allowed to lie to suspects.)

If you cannot effectively engage in social affairs, or participate in commerce, then your ability to deal in politics is nothing more than an empty claim with no power to support it. Real power is always the basis of political power, as those with neither social nor commercial substance--the poor and downtrodden--know too well. (Politics, remember, is warfare without the killing and dying.)

The governments of the world see this as the emerging reality; that's why there's so much effort made to fetter the Internet--SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, Great Firewall, etc.--at the national and international level; they know that the technology is now emerging to make national governments, and international bodies, obsolete. That's why crude attempts, such as those aforementioned, to disconnect from the Internet get made. That's why corporations with obsolete business models--MPAA, RIAA--push so hard for controls on network technologies. That's why there's going to be some heinous cyber-attack, blamed on Anonymous, done as a False-Flag operation by one or more of these governments in the near future; they want to do an Internet 9/11 to scare people into closing the only frontier left to us and turn online life into another free-range prison. There is nowhere to run or hide; opting out just means you get put on the train later. The only effective option is to get in, get mastery, and use the tools to defend yourself and keep your freedom.

Opting out, therefore, is not a viable option. The consequences, though they seem light and infrequent now, shall only increase in frequency and severity as days go by and our network technologies become deeply entrenched into the global structure of power and control that is our world's reality. Instead, the viable option is to engage and master both the theories behind the tools and the tools themselves.

To quote Ambassador Kosh (of Babylon 5): "The avalanche has begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."

Panopticism Privacy

Some thoughts about privacy and Panopticism:

In the assertions by Jeremy Bentham related to the panopticon, he relies on an "unseen" authority that the observed never knows is or isn't watching, AND the ability all others being observed to observe each other. I don't know that we are at the point of being observed in our homes, but if we are, the observers remain secret (in the tower, so to speak) and it is not the case that everyone sees everyone else (yet) which is an important feature of Bentham's idea - at least as it applies to prisoners.

Often we are told that surveillance constrains us, or that we are forced to be compliant with some sort of accepted norm because we can be seen. This assertion presupposes that there is a behavior inherent in our unique character that we keep secret from others, either because we believe it would be harshly judged or because we believe there is something wrong with it.

From a UK report on "The Surveillance Society"

"Surveillance is two-sided, and its benefits must be acknowledged. Yet at the same time risks and dangers are always present in large-scale systems and of course power does corrupt or at least skews the vision of those who wield it. "

Most of us who are critical of this kind of surveillance would like to be free to behave as we wish in private without being afraid of someone using our behavior against us some time in the future. The theory goes, that these behaviors become constrained because we don't want anyone (either authorities or our neighbors) to know about them.

But could there be a different consequence of a community mutually seeing and being seen in this way? Could mutual seeing lead to acceptance of each other and ourselves for our common and all too human divergences from imagined or implanted ideals?

This is a possible consequence not often discussed, and I find it interesting.

Is Neo-Amish-ism Even Possible?

After mulling over our readings for this week, one line kept coming back to me: "It's not just how we use the technology that concerns us. We're also concerned about what kind of people we become when we use it" (185). Yup.

It appears as though the current powers that be are trying to use technology to uphold the status quo. They "become a threat to liberty as well as dignity when they give one person or group power to constrain the behavior of others (188). Well, in some ways, is this not already happening? We have put so much of our lives online and are giving power to corporation to profile us (ads, etc.). Freedom of Information is being restricted--web publications can be censored by government (see my Mermaid post...). The control of knowledge/power is being manipulated in new ways because of technology. And, we accept regulations etc, as part of normal thinking & behavior (189).

I am less worried with people treating others as machines than I am simply people not knowing how to interact with other people, period. I despise when people continually text others while I am having a conversation with them. And some of these people think it's no big deal--just multi-tasking, or new social protocols. Bullshit. It's rude, plain and simple. If "our artifacts [are] in the information age, but our biology is still prehistoric" (192), then we have a problem. Evolution takes time. Our biology simply can't catch up that quick--and neither, then, will our mental/social skills.

And, those who don't have access then end up farther divided from "the rest of the world" unless we continue the old acts of colonization in new ways.

Though I am not particularly a proponent of colonization, could that not be what humanity needs to make its next evolutionary leap (that is, OLPC on some level)? If we continue to act as separate beings based on place and culture, we will never move forward. Culture changes as it gains more knowledge; to keep knowledge in "Western" hands is to keep power in Western hands. But to "force" it on others is to colonize. What kind of people do they become when using it? What kind of people do we become by "making" them use it?

Basically, we are in the middle of a pretty profound paradigm shift. Sadly, that means, eventually, some people are going to get left behind, and some cultures may "die." And yet, this happens to other species all the time. Humans are a species, and are not immune to the laws of evolution. To preserve ourselves--and our cultures--there needs to be some level of adaptation. Though, I am certainly scared of the direction this could take, and worry for the future of those who choose to not partake of technology. I feel like that could open them up to what I will call "techgenocide."

Smart Mobs: Revolutions or Bust

 
Always being connected does make us vulnerable to additional surveilance and renders us less powerful, though if we "use what we now know about cooperation to drive power/ knowledge to a higher level of democracy (190)" , we as a whole can strengthened democracy and perhap lessen the effects of surveilance or at least curb what is to come.

This is a crucial time in our history with concern to technology. The decision being made in government prompted by: cable companies, telephone companies, the movie industry and Internet inventors will effect us and our liberties for a long time to come. These corporations are moving to control who can build future technology on the Internet and what kinds of  technology they can create.  Hollywood movie studios, (through the guise of protecting intellectual property), are pushing legislation for "protection devices", that will give corporations the right to shut down any phone or computers that is said to be viewing material they deem copy written.

Americans have "voluntarily traded privacy for convenience (186)" and will soon trade their liberties for access if restrictions are imposed and we are turned from "users into passive consumers (202)". But for those who are watching the watchers, they will help decide whether smart mobs grow or dissappear.

Rheingold suggest that cooperation is an inate human trait and that us working together is almost ineveitable (212). "When certain technologies emerge", say Rheingold, "(it) can trigger human societies to reorganize at a higher level of cooperation (213)".

 
Smart mob activity, collective action, increased knowledge and social dynamics could possibly improve the way billions of people live. "Mobile communications, peer computing, location awarness, social accounting systems and pervasive computing (190)" have the potential to encourage cooperation far more than previous technologies.

Rheingold.(2002). Always-On Panopticon… or Cooperation Amplifier.Smart Mobs.

Does Education Really Lead to Critical Thinking?

Many of us in class have eluded to the fact that education brings about critical thinking skills and the ability to shuffle through the BS and get to the truth. We have suggested that if you are getting an education; you will have more information, more tools to decipher and analyze information, more ways to evaluate information, and more open and aware thinking-which leads to less prejudice.

This video sadly dismisses these theories- as education seems to play very little in the thought process of the making of this video. Coming from a Duluth University campus, this video shows nothing but bad taste, bad judgment and some may say- bad up bringing and education, not to mention bad moral character.

Instead of a "like" icon, we could use a "slap" icon for this video!

The video contains profanity, (which shouldn't be any different from class:), the "N" word and host of mean, racist language.To view the video click the link instead of the video prompt-as YouTube has removed it from their site.

http://bossip.com/684561/minnesota-university-students-wear-blackface-and-spit-out-racial-slurs-video/