Facebook: An Unintended Haven for Bullies

The preceding was a funny video admonishing Facebook users against poor social media etiquette.   I have often wondered at the sometimes shocking displays of...well meanness that have taken place on social networks.  Social media, while posessessing the potential to foster human connection on a scale yet to be seen has the particularly nasty side effect of enabling some of the worst behavior imaginable. Social networks have given bullies a whole new venue to exact their torture.  What is it about the screen/keyboard/avatar combination that so often divorces us from our best selves?

I believe it has something to do with a lack of true accountability.  Not that status updates are anonymous, as we all know they're not. Not even close.  They are, however, quite different than person to person interactions.  Hence it is remarkably easy to talk nastily about a person when that person isn't physically present.   It's a similar dynamic to trolling or comment flaming.  Furthermore, I believe it emboldens the bully the larger their audience.  Everyone knows how traditional bullying works.  Cyber-bullying works essentially the same way except with a larger audience and even less accountability.  There is however, evidence, which again makes me wonder at the growing incidence of cyber-bullying.  If a public stream of harsh commentary is not evidence against a cyber bully then I don't know what is.  At least the playground bully has plausible deniability (I'm sure I spelled that wrong.) working in their favor.

Anyway, these are a few of the things that ran through my mind while reading this week's assignments, particularly Emily Rutherford's blog, "Thoughts on Facebook and Identity."  I guess since I had also just read a post on my friend's blog about a Facebook mean girl, and the death of kindness in general, and I was struck by the differences in the way social networks could be used and the reality of the way in which they too often are. I believe more thoughtful self reflection ala Rutherford may be in order. It is a "social" network after all.  Shouldn't the rules of civilized "society" apply?

Happy 5th Birthday, Twitter!

Following the theme of our readings for this week it bears mentioning that the seminal communications juggernaut better known as Twitter turned five today.  That's right Twitter is no longer a toddler and can be officially said to be out of it's infancy as now  it is literally old enough to enter kindergarten. But twitter is most unlike any other 5 year old I've ever met.

How so? Well, how many kindergartners do you know who have 140 million playmates? Or 4 billion dollar piggy banks?  Our readings have us studying the myriad ways that twitter is used as a communication tool. It seems that for as many twitter users that exist there are equally as many ways in which to use the tool. From the inane to the germane  - chances are there is a twitter hashtag for any given subject (or non-subject) and an invested group of followers driving trending.  I believe it is this universality that makes twitter so appealing and in the future will drive it's very sustainability.

What I find most fascinating about Twitter, however,  is an enigma, disguised as a conundrum - and that is the superficiality inherent in it's universality.  I believe this is what Sample was alluding to when he declared that Twitter is useless for making connections.  While I don't agree that connecting via Twitter is impossible -. scores of journalists and communications professionals would argue that's just not the case - I do believe that connections born on Twitter most often only go skin deep.  Twitter is a phenomenal communications tool which certainly possesses the potential to be a real conduit of human connection. However, even given all the many ways that we use the tool today, how many people can actually say that they have real relationships with their followers/followees? Or for that matter how many can say that they actually have "conversations" within the confines of the platform rather than broadcasting their own one way self interested or self serving blurbs? I mean what's with all of the brands who have been following me lately? I don't really think they're actually interested in what I have to say more than they're interested in selling me - and anyone who follows me - whatever it is that they sell.

What Sample deems a futility of connection carter calls an asymmetry.

User connections are made asymmetrically, so that we can begin the process of learning about others even without reciprocal engagement. The trending topics function semiotically as a signal to users that some issue, person or event is generating major interest in one of Twitter’s many communities. They’re also an implicit invitation for users to weigh in on the issues du jour. “Twitter is like the ticker tapes you see in Times Square,” says Halley Suitt, chief editor of Communispace. “It’s entertainment and it’s a voyeuristic medium.”

I believe Carter's definition is more accurate.  However I don't believe anyone would claim voyeurism breeds real life connections. Execept perhaps stalkers, that is.  Of course, it would be impossible to have actual reciprocal relationships with thousands of people simultaneously in real life, or really in any setting other than one like Twitter.  Hence Twitter's greatest strength is also it's inherent flaw. Hence the enigma...and the conundrum.

Anyway, these thoughts are probably beyond the grasp of a 5 year old. Even one as unique and gifted as Twitter. So Happy Birthday, little fella! Don't spend all your birthday money (that $4 billion valuation) in one place!

The Birth of a Net

This week's assigned materials have us examining the origin of contemporary computing and the birth of the internet that we use today.  In one of our readings, "20 Things I learned About Browsers and the Web" the following line jumped out at me: "The movement of many of our daily tasks online enables us to live more fully in the real world." Really? I'm not so sure about that.

No doubt the web enabled world that we live in today certainly possesses the potential to allow us all more time to partake in "real world" activities, but how many of us actually use that time to do so? Speaking personally I know that the additional time I gain from banking online is usually spent...well...online.  Hours, minutes or seconds that I don't have to spend standing in lines is generally devoted to online activities, Facebook chatting, leisure surfing, shopping, reading and re-reading beloved literary classics or just catching up on missed episodes of my favorite shows. Non leisure activities like research and homework are  completed exclusively using the resources of  the web.  In fact I had been a grad student for an entire semester before I ever physically stepped foot in the university library. That doesn't mean, however, that I hadn't been making exhaustive use of the library's resources. Quite the contrary, in fact. Now I bet you thought I was a slacker! The point that I am getting at is that while the resources of the internet allow users more time to participate in activities of the "real world" increasingly that world exists on the internet.

The embedded videos above are part of a funny series of ads for the new Windows phone. Supposedly it's interface is so well designed that users can access the apps they need lightning fast and then get back to the business of the real world just as quickly.  In the ads apparent Android and iPhone users are so immersed in their smart phones that they wander into the middle of their kid's soccer game without even noticing or accidentally drop their phone into a urinal because they couldn't put it down long enough to take a restroom break.  These ads are meant to be over the top, and indeed they are quite funny.  However they're also eerily close the the reality that we live in today.  Now let's be honest, how many times have you found yourself live tweeting with someone sitting in the very same room with you, or Facebook chatting with your friend instead of phone chatting - or actually visiting? Recently I read a tweet from a concert goer who was viewing the concert, that she was actually at, up close on the screen of her smart phone. So what, exactly, is the 2011 definition of the "real world?" That's hard to say, however if that definition doesn't include cloud computing, online communication, smart phones and social media then it is already obsolete.  

Doctor, I Think I Fractured My Attention Span!

It took me over four hours to complete the Linda Stone video. That's right four hours. Now you may be asking yourself how it is that it took an otherwise intelligent person more than four hours to complete a video that is exactly twenty-one minutes and fifty-two seconds long? Well, I'm kinda guilty of Stone's thesis. I think I have Continuous Partial Attention.  Although when one says it like that it sort of sounds like a diagnosis of a life threatening illness. What I mean to say is that it took me four hours to complete a twenty-two minute video because I paused it a gazillion times. Well maybe not an actual gazillion but several times anyway. Several times.

Now one may be wondering why it might be necessary to pause a twenty-two minute video more than once? An excellent question indeed. Well while watching the video I find myself surfing the web for interesting blog post ideas, monitoring CNN for nationwide election results, jotting notes for said blog posts, tweeting interesting and funny anecdotes from my day, checking my email for client inquiries, and generally fretting about my final class project. That's rather a lot to do, huh? I think Stone is certainly on to something in her analysis of the contemporary definition of multi-tasking as compared with the traditional definition.  All of the tasks that I described above require cognition. None of them are automated. Hence at some point it becomes necessary to pause one or two just to have the necessary brain capacity to focus, still partially, on the others. Hence four hours after I started the video I finally finished it.

I've seen several studies recently that conclude that those who hyper multi-task actually decrease their efficiency at completing the tasks they undertake successfully.  This NPR article details a French study that concluded that the human brain is ultimately set up to do no more than two tasks at a time. That's right, our frontal lobes max out at two. When the participants in the study were given a third task to complete researchers found that their accuracy suffered greatly over their initial performance when only two tasks had been assigned. So what does this mean for time starved, harried, multi-taskers like me. Well if I had time to write by hand it would be on the wall - slow down and focus.  As Stone so eloquently illustrates in her examination of our social evolution from a data economy to a wisdom economy society has sort of come full circle.  The information overload which currently faces today's workers and individuals begs for at least a partial return to simpler times.  Value added today means time added, as in how will this particular good or service make my life easier and give me more time?  Ok so maybe instead of hitting pause on the DVR I should force myself to hit the power button. Lesson learned. In fact I will no longer allow myself to hit any pause buttons anywhere any more for any reason. Hmm, I think that one may be a little harder. I'll keep working on it, anyway. Well, that's all for now, I must rush off as I have a million other things I need to get...

Just kidding! I am actually done with this particular post.

Who Moved My Congress?

This week's readings examine both sides of the cyber utopia debate.  In "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism" author Jaron Lanier laments the advent of what he calls "the hive mind." The hive mind by Lanier's definition is nothing more than old and unsuccessful ideas of collectivism re-packaged for the digital age.  Lanier views the trend of online content aggregation and meta aggregation as the death of critical thinking, informative journalism and public discourse. I think he may be on to something.

Particularly insightful in Lanier's article was his observation of collectivism in pop culture.  I do think it highly ironic that in some 10 seasons of broadcast American Idol has failed to produce one...well American idol. I suppose some would disagree and cite the popularity of Kelly Clarkson. But I doubt Miss Clarkson will sell out Madison Square Garden anytime soon and I certainly wouldn't call her contributions to the musical lexicon monumental, however catchy they may be.  Lanier is right, artists like John Lennon, Duke Ellington, Jimi Hendrix, Joni Mitchell, Grandmaster Flash and Bob Dylan would never win a competition like AI because they are all innovators and the very mainstreamy-ness of AI places zero value on innovation. In attempting to develop an "everyman's artist" complete with a built in fan base (i.e. the people who vote for the contentestents) the producers of have produced a package that no one actually wants to buy. Witness the hive mind at work and it's particular failing. The hive mind isn't neccessarily the brightest one.

On the other side of the argument we have Pierre Levy and his work "Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace."  Mr Levy fairly swoons with admiration for the possibilities afforded mankind by collective political activity in cyberspace. In the utopia that he envisions direct democracy becomes a distinct reality with literally every man, woman and child having the ability to represent themselves politically by voting online. Gone are the antiquated ideas of representative democracy and political parties. Congress is no longer even neccessary in in Levy's vision. (I can think of 534 individuals in Washington who might take particular issue with Levy's vision.)  Directly opposite Lanier, Levy seems particularly taken with the notion of collectivity and its implications for personal freedom. So who is right?

While both gentlemen have valid points I think I'll have to give this one to Mr. Lanier.  If only because I think the design of Levy's Intelligent Cities is rather utopian in scope.  Admitttedly I am only about half way through the reading at this point so I apologize if my critique is a little premature. (However I reserve the right to revise my views in the near future.) Levy envisions a political system in which everyone participates with equal zeal and all involved make intelligent, informed choices. Sounds pretty wonderful, right?  However, where Mr. Levy fails is that he doesn't allow for the personal apathy, ignrance, shortsightedness and biases that Lanier is all to aware of.  "...an individual best achieves optimal stupidity on those rare occasions when one is both given substantial powers and insulated from the results of his or her actions." (Lanier 9) Can we say Bush administration? How about the Birther Movement? I do realize how cynical my analysis sounds and that is the particular failing of Levy's collective intelligence.  His analysis is flawed in that it relies on an electorate that is completely informed and personally invested in political outcomes.  I think he may be asking a little too much in an age of severly fragmented attention spans.

The Emerging Media Ecosystem

Check out this headline: "Meet the First Plant That Requires Facebook Fans to Survive."  Yes, it's about a plant - actual vegetation - that requires social media interaction to thrive. I saw this story on Mashable today and it started me thinking about all the ways in which electronic media really drive everyday life. It begs the question, "Can there be a such thing as too much progress?"

Now before you go labeling me a spineless technophobe - I'm really not, by the way. I would marry my Android phone if I wasn't afraid of how weird the wedding photos might look - consider for a moment the preceding two thousand years of human history. Somehow, remarkably, for most of existance we mere mortals have managed to live, and even reproduce, without the miracle that is Facebook.  I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dad "liked" my mom the old fashioned way. In the days of yore people actually watered plants, and plants actually managed to grow and feed the population. I'm not arguing against technological progress, I just wonder if progress always well...progresses.

Think for a moment about the cotton gin. A technological wonder to some, the ruling slave owners, the absolute devil to others, the slaves who were now consigned to more centuries of servitude. Had Eli Whitney bothered to ask them I'm sure their answer would have been a resounding "Screw progress!"

A friend of mine recently told me the story of his little sister who was put on "Internet punishment" for getting a bad grade. As far as I know the boundaries of her grounding did not preclude actual human interaction. Yet in all the weeks of her miserable confinement it never occurred to her to pick up the phone or better yet invite her friends over. The kid literally did not know how to live without social media. This is the way in which I believe technological progress has actually crippled human progress.  And I say this as someone who makes her living (in theory anyway) advising business owners how to promote themselves via social media. 

In reading the blog of one of my classmates, Little Miss Cales - Caleigh I am struck by the fact that she predicts a veritable "Lord of the Flies" type Armageddon should the nation's electronic resources fall victim to attack. I think she is 100% right. Sadly. Somehow we genius humans have technologically advanced ourselves right out of our collective humanity. Remarkable. Can't call, text, tweet, or facebook your neighbor? Try knocking on their door.