Internet City: How the Web Is Changing

By David Ryan Polgar

Times_Square-FLKR, by Wally Argus. Creative Commons, Flickr

The Internet is a giant city and we are its digital citizens.

As such, it is constantly changing in its levels of vibrancy, participation, and safety. And just like any city across the globe, we argue about ways to maintain its strengths and improve upon its weaknesses.

This week a hot topic has been the release of YouTube Kids, a child-friendly version of YouTube. While seemingly separate from the larger narrative of how the Internet is changing, YouTube Kids may prove to be a watershed moment in the evolution of the web. The Internet, like a city, may be becoming a safer place where certain content gets placed behind proverbial doors, inaccessible to citizens based on age.

“For parents, YouTube has always been a double-edged sword. A lot of kid-friendly content already exists on the platform, but there was no effective way to manage kids’ viewing habits (without standing over their shoulder, that is). More risqué content was always a single tap away. YouTube Kids addresses those concerns by providing an app where all content has been screened and deemed appropriate for children.” –Pete Pachel, YouTube Kids is the preschooler version of YouTube, ads and all, Mashable

The citizens have demanded cleaner streets. The risqué content is still on the Internet at large, but it is not as easily accessible. This is the same way we treat any city. You can walk around in the buff in your house, but don’t try stripping down on the sidewalk. An individual’s rights and behavior is weighed against the concerns for society. We argue about balance, and try to create the best place we can.

I like to think of the Internet as New York City.

New York has become dramatically safer and cleaner over the last 30 years. So dramatic, in fact, that its transformation has befuddled social scientists. Central Park, once a place known for muggings and assaults, is now filled with families and bikers. 42nd Street, once a seedy strip of adult theaters, is now a line of happy tourists from Bryant Park to Times Square and beyond.

The Internet, like New York City, can dramatically change for the better.

So what areas does our city need to clean up? For 2015, I’d say trolls and terrorists. It has been disconcerting to read that ISIS may be utilizing Twitter, an American company, as a recruitment tool to draw Westerners into Syria (and other places).

Stop and think about that for a minute: terrorists are hanging out in the same location that we’re trading news, viral videos, and snarky comments about the Kardashians. [The terrorists then communicate via the dark web.] That’s absurd. I want terrorists off the proverbial streets, unable to potentially mingle with the masses. Not in my backyard.

How could this possibly happen? Under the Communications Decency Act of 1996, companies like Twitter are not held responsible for unlawful content transmitted through their service. That’s how Craigslist was able to become a known platform for prostitution without being successfully sued. And that’s why Google, owner of YouTube, isn’t liable every time ISIS uploads propaganda videos with disturbing images.

Online companies have long claimed that it isn’t feasible to police their content. Instead, content is typically posted and then taken down after complaints. The creation of YouTube Kids seems to be a step by Google/YouTube to take more responsibility for the content uploaded to their site, and to the users who view them. Instead of just throwing up their hands and hiding behind the law, they are taking a proactive step.

That’s a very positive development. Likewise, a demand may build for Twitter to take a more active role in policing their streets.

As far as trolls go, we seem to be feeling out what the best solution is. Like the “squeegee-men” of New York’s past (people who would wipe your car window and then demand payment), trolls are a nuisance that can hurt your overall experience. We expect a certain modicum of civility in our Internet City, and trolls fall below our agreed-upon standard of behavior. It’s time for action.

Let’s make our City beautiful.

Digital Citizenship: It takes an iVillage To Raise an Online Child

Tags

David Ryan Polgar, digital citizen, digital citizenship, Tech Use

by david ryan Polgar

Nearly everyone is using the Internet today, but are we using it correctly?

A digital citizen is someone who not only regularly uses the net but does so in an effective and responsible manner. Similar to how a responsible citizen is adequately informed, conscious of those around them, and actively participates in their community; a digital citizen is equally as engaged.

The times they are a changin’.

We are not only citizens of the town, state, and country we live in, but also digital citizens in the online world. As such, how we interact with the community at large is an increasingly-important part of our lives. And just like a Civics class you may have taken in high school, every student in the near future will be taking a Cyber Civics class.

What makes you a good citizen of your town, state, and country? Think about your active participation (i.e. voting), your knowledge base (i.e. following the news), and your behavior (i.e. following the agreed-upon laws). The increasing richness of our online world is making it essential that those entering the world are armed with skills, guiding principles, and support. This should be baptism by fire.

It takes an iVillage to raise an online child.

Diana Graber, a pioneer in digital citizenship and co-founder of CyberWise.org, has stated that “the most important new media skills are social and behavioral skills.”

Here are three quick tips to be a better digital citizen:

1. App wizardry is not digital literary

We often wrongly assume that someone who is a heavy tech user is a savvy tech user. Someone who is cyber savvy has a deep and diverse amount of understanding about the tech they are using. This includes:

a. Having a diverse range of tech skills: You should be able to send a tweet and an email, and know the difference in those mediums.

b. Understanding the concept of credibility: There is a difference between Joe’s blog and the New York Times. While the content may seemingly derive from the same place (i.e. a Google search), they do not carry the same level of trustworthiness and weight.

2. Communication is a two-way street

Social networks and comment sections can easily be overwhelmed by a bunch of people talking but nobody listening. A digital citizen is one who actively listens, welcomes a diverse range of opinions, and is respectful in how they respond.

Communication is a two-way street where the speaker is tuned in and aware of their audience, and mindful about how their words will be construed.

3. Accessibility does not equal permission

The online world often seems like a bazaar filled with free pictures, music, and movies. Your accessibility to download the picture, song, or latest Hollywood blockbuster is not the same as having permission to download it. For example, if we saw an unattended necklace lying on the table, we wouldn’t assume that we could freely take it.

The same concept of ethical behavior should take place online; just because you can take something doesn’t mean that it is ethical to do so.

Want more content on Digital Citizenship? Check out the resources at CyberWise on this topic.

*The photo is under a Creative Commons license; “iPhone work” by Tinkerbrad; Flickr.

Five Types of Facebook Likes

Tags

Facebook, Generation Like, Social Media

 

[Illustration by Damian Yerrick; Creative Commons license]

By David Ryan Polgar

Everyone wants to be liked on Facebook. Similar to Sally Field’s famous speech at the Oscars (“You like me!”), the very concept of being liked can offer a sense of affirmation. It feels good to see that people care about your life or your commentary.

This, however, has led to the maddening pursuit of creating popular content. In an act of reverse-engineering, we are altering our conversation to fit the rapidly changing ways of the audience and medium. It is generally accepted that a social media audience will not read anything of great length, so posters have learned to become overly concise—often to the point to being trite.

In a world flooded with so many possible links to click, posters have learned to offer somewhat misleading titles in order to grab attention. For example, instead of posting “Check out my video from speech class about global warming” it would be changed to “This Shocking Video Will Change. Your. Life.” It’s called click-bait, and it happens because distracted users bite. (There is now even a parody site of click-bait articles, called Clickhole.)

Right now we put a great deal of focus on the number of likes that a post gets. We sometimes wrongly assume that there is a direct correlation between quality content and its popularity quantified through its number of likes.

The truth is more nuanced.

Why we like content is often influenced by the behavior of our friends, our relationship to the poster, the image we are trying to project online, and more. It would be nice to think that we aren’t influenced by the behavior of others, and that content becomes popular based solely on its merit, but our behavior clearly shows otherwise.

Here are FIVE types of Facebook Likes:

1. Genuine Like:

When you authentically connect with a post or picture, you may genuinely want to express your gratitude or approval. Similar to giving a thumbs up to a person holding a street sign you agreed with, you are giving you social media like without any ulterior motive.

2. Sympathy Like:

Although Facebook is setup to be egalitarian, some people seem to get a whole lot more likes than others. Occasionally you may see a currently un-liked post hanging in your feed that seems awfully lonely and sad. Nobody likes to be ignored, and an un-liked post seems like the wallflower hanging out by the punch at a high school prom. You invite it to dance by liking it.

3. Reciprocity Like (social media backscratching):

Despite Facebook’s egalitarian vibe, there is a constant shuffling of the social order. Likes can be a backscratching tool where one clicks the thumbs up based on an unsaid backscratching understanding, instead of a genuine appreciation of the post.

4. Bandwagon Like:

Facebook and other forms of social media prominently list how many likes something. Despite are assumptions that we are not influenced by the actions of others, science has clearly proven otherwise. A heavily liked post or photo is more apt to be liked in the future based solely on the initial popularity. Its display of being liked colors how we see it. This is why some companies pay for fake likes—popularity often leads to more popularity through the bandwagon effect.

5. Kiss-Up Like:

We’re all equal on Facebook; some of us are just more equal than others. Facebook allows us to rub digital shoulders with people we may admire or are trying to impress. Sending a Kiss-Up Like allows us to position, however briefly, our name in their social media orbit.

Video discussion of the FIVE types of Facebook Likes

Zack Morris on Tech Etiquette

Tags

Mindfulness, Smartphones, Tech Etiquette, Tech Use, Zack Morris

We all know his brick-phone, but we may have forgotten his guidance to put down our phones and connect.

By David Ryan Polgar

Everything I needed to know in life, I learned from my years at Bayside. I learned about integrity from Principal Belding. I learned about the dangers of drugs from Jessie Spano. And everyone’s favorite nerd, Screech, taught me the dangers of acting like Dustin Diamond as an adult.

It was Zack Morris, though, that taught me about tech etiquette. Alongside being the big man on campus and getting into all types of high school high jinks, he was able to offer some sage advice about being present in the moment.

While he is well known for his brick-sized cell phone, we may have forgotten his commentary about proper phone use. Long before popular YouTube videos like I Forgot My Phone and Look Up examined how we are often glued to our devices instead of connecting with those around us, Zack Morris tackled the issue.

Check out the episode Rent-a-Pop (Season 3, ep 7, 20 minutes in; available on Netflix), which features Zack’s rascal of a dad, Derek. Derek Morris is obsessed with his phone, so much so that he is oblivious to Zack’s life and has become an absentee father. When Zack needs his father’s permission to go on a ski trip, Zack decides it would be easier to hire an actor to play his father. When his real father, Derek, catches wind of the duplicity, the ski trip is off.

This leads to a face-off between father and son, where Zack Morris lays the smack down on his dad’s poor tech etiquette.

Derek: “The ski trip is off. Why couldn’t you just be straight with me? Why couldn’t you just tell me you were having trouble in school?

Zack: “Dad, I tried to tell you. You’re not that easy to talk to.”

Derek: “You used to tell me everything. What happened to us?”

PHONE RINGS

Zack: “That’s what happened to us.” [Derek talks on phone]

“See, that’s the problem. You’re always on that stupid phone.”

Derek: “It’s just business. It’s important.”

Zack: “Is it more important than your family?”

[PHONE RINGS / Derek is on the phone talking. Zack walks to the corner of the room and covertly makes a call to his dad. His dad, not available to his son but always for a call, picks up the phone.]

Derek: “Derek Morris.”

Zack: “Dad.”

Derek: “Zack?”

Zack: “Is this the only way I can get through to you now?”

[Conversation; dawns on Derek that he’s been kind of a prick.]

Derek: “Son….son, when was the last time we sat down and had a long talk?”

Zack and his dad have a conversation about baseball. The phone rings again. Derek, trying now to be a better father, tells the person on the phone that he is taking his son fishing.

I have no idea if Derek kept his promise to take Zack fishing after the canned applause died down and the episode ended. But one thing is clear: if you are looking to connect, put down your damn phone and talk to the person next to you. Take it from Zack Morris.

“See, that’s the problem. You’re always on that stupid phone.” -Zack Morris

Living Life Deeply: An Interview With William Powers

Tags

David Ryan Polgar, Hamlet's Blackberry, Mindfulness, Tech balance, William Powers

By David Ryan Polgar

If I had a Bitcoin for every time I saw the word Luddite in 2014—well, I’d be a momentary millionaire. Even though the topic of healthy tech consumption has gained a lot of attention in recent years, it is still common to classify people as either a gadget-obsessed early-adopting tech fundamentalist or a tech-bashing Thoreau-worshipping Luddite. The general public, of course, is more complex.

“We tend to think in binary terms,” says William Powers. “There seems to be the sense that you have to be in one bucket. Most people are not in either bucket.”

Powers is the author of Hamlet’s Blackberry: A Practical Philosophy for Building a Good Life in the Digital Age. Since being released in 2010, the book has served as the foundational source and inspirational well for countless other books and articles on the subject. Numerous colleges and universities have selected it as a Common Read, and Powers has established himself as a leading voice for the burgeoning movement.

Consider all the various viral videos concerning tech balance in the last year: I Forgot My Phone, Look Up, and, most recently, a song about unplugging featuring Bert from Sesame Street. The tailwinds have clearly picked up since Hamlet’s Blackberry first hit the shelves.

“The response has changed since 2010,” states Powers. “At first it was dumbfounded—it was so against the tide.” According to the author, “There has been an awakening. People are realizing that there is a smarter way.”

Society, it seems, may have reached a breaking point with digital technology. “We reached the point where we were working for the machine,” says Powers.

The problem, as you can imagine, is not really the technology but how we are using it. An underlying theme of Hamlet’s Blackberry is the need to accept responsibility for the life we live, as opposed to merely scapegoating the screens. If we feel that we are working for the machine, as Powers mentions, we should question WHY we’re entrapped. Have we accepted our busyness as the new normal? Can we change the trajectory we’re on?

Now and then it occurs to us that we could do better, reconfigure our commitments and schedules so they’re not so crazy and we can breathe. But no sooner do we have this thought then we dismiss it as futile. The mad rush is the real world, we tell ourselves. We’re resigned to it in the same grim way that people in repressive societies become resigned to their lack of freedom. Everyone lives like this, racing and skimming their way through their days. We didn’t drop the anvil, and there’s nothing we do about it except soldier on, make the best of it.

There is a popular misconception that criticism regarding our tech use is merely a generational difference—older people not understanding younger people. The term that we often apply to the youngest generation, Digital Natives, “suggests that they live in an all-digital environment all the time and want to be there.  The young people are more nuanced,” Powers claims. “These tools are a part of life, but they’re [young people] not machines and they don’t want to be plugged in 24/7.”

The natives are restless. “Younger people,” says Powers, “have really been open to critiquing technology.”

In certain respects, we may be reacting to the unfulfilled grandiose promise that digital tech and social networks implies: more friends, more time, and more fun. Many of us, the young generation especially, may feel a sense of anxiety, alienation, and claustrophobia that wasn’t supposed to exist in this brave new world. The Future According to Zuckerbeg and Schmidt sounded like a utopian paradise. “Like all utopian visions, it was never going to fully deliver.”

Hamlet’s Blackberry is an essential read because it switches the power dynamic from the technologists that are selling us products and moves it to your own internal compass. How do you reach a healthy equilibrium between your inner self and external self? Have you focused too much attention on the external and not enough internally?

You quickly realize while reading Hamlet’s Blackberry that it is not focused merely on offering quick solutions to maintaining a healthy digital lifestyle. It is a soulful book filled with personal stories, useful metaphors, and insightful historical context that frames the issue as a deep, existential struggle. It is a struggle that has occurred with every major technological disruption throughout our history. What does it mean to be human? How can we not only live, but live deeply?

Hamlet’s Blackberry details the struggle that Powers went through to find his own personal balance. As a father and a husband, he wanted to ensure that his family was connected on a meaningful level. Too often, however, an overreliance on screens led to reduced state of being.

The point isn’t that the screen is bad. The screen is, in fact, very good. The point is the lack of proportion, the abandonment of all else, and the strange absent-present state of mind this compulsion produces…We were living for the screen and through the screen, rather than for and through each other.

The problem was that his internal/external balance was off kilter.

“You have to build an inner life where you don’t need to seek constant affirmation,” says Powers. “When we are able to stand alone and be happy we bring more to relationships.”

Powers is optimistic that we are headed towards a positive future. A future where we learn how to incorporate technology into our lives in a manner that offers enrichment, not escapism. “We are learning to emphasize the positive and de-emphasize the negative. We’re learning not to be dependent on technology.”

The crucial step towards creating a good life in the digital age is realizing the very power, and responsibility, that we have to mold technology to create a fulfilling life, not just allowing technology to mold our life. “We tend to forget when we create a new device,” says Powers, “that the magic is in us.”

====

Hamlet’s Blackberry

William Powers / Website

=====

David Ryan Polgar is a writer, speaker, and educator based in Connecticut. As a Tech Ethicist he examines the ethical, legal, sociological, and emotional impact that technology has on our lives.

Leaving a Digital Footprint

Tags

David Ryan Polgar, Digital footprint, googleganger, reputation

By David Ryan Polgar

Getting ready for your big job interview, you pick out your nicest professional attire. You spend extra time making sure not a single hair is out of place. Your shoes are shined. You remind yourself to sit up straight. Now, you open the door to your interview.

You fail.

Despite your best laid plans, here’s what the person across from you sees: you have a lot more clothes on today than featured on your Instagram account, your online rants make Ann Coulter blush, and, despite listing your major as Accounting, it seems a whole lot closer to beer pong.

Welcome to your digital footprint: the collection of pictures, status updates, tweets, and blog posts that create a major impression. It’s your online reputation, which, in a world where online and offline are increasingly becoming merged, is the same as your overall reputation. Given the common nature of Googling someone, your online reputation molds the first impression you give.

Your digital footprint is akin to you credit score: your past actions have a dramatic influence on your present and future. The mistakes you made years ago can live on to haunt you. It may not seem fair, but it just is. There are countless examples of people being fired or not hired because of their online reputation. Most common would be the Teachers Behaving Badly scenario, which, given their role, is set at a much higher standard.

There are, of course, ways that you can go about improving your chances that you have a positive digital footprint.

Google yourself.

You can do it when no one is looking. It is essential to assessing the impression that you have online, and crucial for determining if there is any damage control you need to do. You may also find that you have a googleganger, your online doppelganger who shares your name. Let’s hope that your googleganger is an upstanding citizen that pays their taxes.

While a lot of attention is placed on what YOU post online, it is also crucial to understand how your reputation is dramatically affected by what others say and post about you. You need only scan the comment section of your local paper to realize that people spill an incredible amount of vitriol online. More commonly, however, are pictures taken of you that are posted online.

Smartphones make it incredibly easy to take and post photos, often uploaded before thinking of the potential ramifications. A recent example is the the MLB pitcher Matt Harvey, who posted a picture of himself flipping the bird on Twitter. Backlash ensued and he deleted his account. The picture, however, will live on. There are no mulligans on Twitter.

Uploaders’ remorse.

The new normal is a world where previously forgettable moments are searchable and potentially held against your character. It’s best to think of everything you post in 2014 as being public. You may gain the false sense of intimacy online because you are sharing in the context of friends or followers, but nearly every post has the potential to be shared unwittingly. The intricacies of privacy settings on social media platforms are more complicated than insurance policies.

In many ways I’m glad that pictures and words from my capricious youth were not heavily documented, one click away on a search engine. Think about yourself. What would I find out about you if your whole life had been documented?

—

TV clip on Digital Footprints

mental-food-plate.png

Tags

Mental Food Plate, Tech balance

Tech Balance: Tastes Great, Less Filling

Tags

David Ryan Polgar, digital diet, Tech balance, unplugging

 

Tech usage has been a heavily debated topic so far in 2014. How much tech is too much? Should I take a digital diet? Should I use technology to reduce my overall use? Should I use distraction-blocking software? 

In other words, how do I create a healthy digital lifestyle? 

Unfortunately, the topic is still so young that we tend to view the concept of tech balance as a black/white issue. Either you are a tech fundamentalist or you are a Luddite (one who rejects technology). Your tech usage, of course, is nuanced. You can love your iPhone and your tech-free moments. You can enjoy playing Candy Crush and with your kids. It’s your life. 

Right now, however, many commentators (such as a recent piece in The New Yorker) are hunting for irony and paradox. They are looking at the issue through the lens of a purity test, which is inherently flawed.  It is seen as ironic, for example, that a person uses social media to promote tech-free times and zones. 

It’s 2014. Get used to it. 

In the future we will likely treat our tech usage like we treat food and alcohol. Let’s think about our relationship with booze. Is alcohol good or bad? 

Neither. 

Our relationship with alcohol is complicated, just like our relationship with technology. On one hand, alcohol provides a great deal of pleasure and is interwoven into most of our social situations. On the other hand, alcohol consumption and overconsumption has led to countless amounts of human suffering.  Therefore we try, with various degrees of success, different strategies to appreciate alcohol while also being cognizant of its associated problems. 

Personally, I enjoy drinking beer and wine. But I try to be mindful of my consumption. I use moderation. I make whatever rules I feel like. When I see advertisements that tell me to Drink Responsibly (see Consume Less Alcohol), I don’t pick apart the issue in an either/or framework.  

Just like tech usage. I can embrace the many benefits it provides while also trying to limit its downsides.  I find a balance that works for me, just like you carve out a lifestyle that works for you.  The goal is not to remove yourself from technology, but to reach a personal equilibrium that satisfies YOU.

We’re at Now, Now: Interview with Douglas Rushkoff

Tags

David Ryan Polgar, Douglas Rushkoff, Frontline, Generation Like, Google Glass, overplugged, Present Shock, Spaceballs, Tech balance, tech ethicist

Douglas Rushkoff / Credit: Seth Kushner

By David Ryan Polgar

Our life has turned into an absurd moment from Spaceballs.

There is a scene in the Mel Brooks’ comedy classic that seems incredibly apropos these days. In a day and age where we are often recording our life behind a smartphone instead of actively being present in the moment, it eerily recalls a Meta setup in the 80s flick involving Dark Helmet, Colonel Sandurz, and the Corporal.

While seeking to track down Princess Vespa and company on a scanner, Sandurz gets a brilliant idea: let’s watch a VHS of Spaceballs: The Movie—the same movie they’re currently in.

After fast-forwarding through the very parts of the movie that we (the viewer) have watched up to this point, the video reaches the present moment. Dark Helmet and Sandurz now find themselves staring at a movie that is recording themselves in real-time. They are the movie, and the movie is now.

Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at?! When does this happen in the movie?!

Colonel Sandurz: “Now.” You’re looking at “now,” sir. Everything that happens now is happening “now.”

Dark Helmet: What happened to “then?”

Colonel Sandurz: We passed “then.”

Dark Helmet: When?

Colonel Sandurz: Just now. Were at “now,” now.

Dark Helmet: Go back to “then!”

Colonel Sandurz: When?

Dark Helmet: Now!

Colonel Sandurz: Now?

Dark Helmet: Now!

Colonel Sandurz: I can’t.

Dark Helmet: Why?!

Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.

Dark Helmet: When?!

Colonel Sandurz: Just now.

Dark Helmet: [A beat] When will “then” be “now?”

Colonel Sandurz: Soon.

Dark Helmet, clearly disoriented, could have been suffering from what prominent media theorist Douglas Rushkoff calls “Present Shock.” Present Shock is the feeling of trying to capture an ever-fleeting moment that is constantly slipping away. It is a feeling that many of us get in today’s multitasking world where traditional narrative timelines have collapsed and we are bouncing around in the distracted present.

Dark Helmet was in two places at once: he was both living his “real life” and playing a part in a movie. While this scene may strike us as absurd, it is incredibly similar to how most of us are living in 2014. We exist as both an online avatar and a real-life person. Facebook even creates a Look Back movie for us, recasting our moments on the platform as a movie that catches us up to the present moment. Our always-there tech devices allow us to divide both space and time with ease. It’s what Rushkoff has coined Digiphrenia.

I recently spoke with Rushkoff about this phenomenon, along with other hotly debated issues surrounding our evolving relationship with technology. Rushkoff is the author of Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now, now out on paperback. Rushkoff has also penned several influential books on technology and culture, such as Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age. Given his expertise, I wanted to know his thoughts about hotly debated topics like Google Glass, WhatsApp, and being able to create a space for uninterrupted contemplation.

In regards to Google Glass, what bothers Rushkoff the most is that yet another tech innovation is being coopted by the corporate culture of always being on and always working.  “Like most wearable technologies, they are trying to make it easier to be two places at once,” says Rushkoff. “It creates more socially-acceptable ways of dividing our attention.” Similar to Bluetooth users that project an always-working vibe, Rushkoff sees Glass wearers as dedicating a certain amount of their vision to work.

“I still respond weirdly to Bluetooth guys,” says Rushkoff. “I look at that and think of them as working for The Man.”

An often overlooked aspect of product adoption is the role that social etiquette plays is determining either success or failure. If people respond weirdly to Glass wearers, and that response doesn’t quickly erode towards acceptance, it would spell danger for the mainstream potential for Glass.

“Augmented reality is fine for industrial situations,” says Rushkoff, citing the positives that Glass may provide airline pilots incorporating crucial data. On the other hand, “Augmented reality is troubling for social situations.”

Google is trying to get ahead of the various misgivings people have towards Glass by posting a rebuttal of sorts.  One area of constant debate and worry is the recording capabilities of Glass and the privacy concerns from it. While Google maintains that the privacy concerns are overblown and that all recording is clearly indicated by a red light, this doesn’t lessen Rushkoff’s unease with the device.  “I don’t yet trust our smartest engineers or the marketplace to make our decisions,” he declares.

Right now those intelligent engineers are trying to figure out the tech desires of Millennials. Silicon Valley is noted for minting twenty-something millionaires and billionaires with hot ideas, but it is also famous for providing rapid fluctuations from media-darling to has-been status. Given that, tech companies are in constant search for the Next Big Thing.

Facebook, not wanting to be Myspace, has been outlaying a fury of cash with investments in virtual reality and texting services. Their recent $19 billion purchase of WhatsApp exposed a potential sea change in our preferred medium of communication.

“Kids,” says Rushkoff, “have a desire for a more ephemeral relationship.” What they want, according to Rushkoff, is something that is superlight and worry-free.  Tools such as WhatsApp and Snapchat seemingly provide less potential for embarrassing online material such as an inappropriate Facebook post. One might speculate that their rising popularity is a reaction by Millennials concerned with their digital footprint. What Rushkoff has discovered, however, is that it is usually just the wealthy users who are concerned with their footprint.

Millennials are also, compared with Gen Xers and Boomers, more apt to push the line of appropriateness with the content posted online. If the goal today is to rack up as many Likes as possible, the ends may seemingly justify the means. Whereas Gen Xers and Boomers debate the distinction between fame and infamy, this is non-issue for the younger generation. “The metrics on their images don’t distinguish between infamy,” states Rushkoff.

These issues were explored in the PBS Frontline special,Generation Like, which had recently aired when I spoke with Rushkoff. He was the producer, co-writer, and correspondent for the feature. The special garnished a good deal of media attention, so Rushkoff was being pulled in multiple directions. I was curious if he was still able to find time for quiet reflection. For a man noted for groundbreaking ideas, I wondered how he dealt with the bombarding media request that might keep his mind distracted and on the surface.

“I spent the last three days just canceling things,” says Rushkoff. The big attention hit, while beneficial in the immediate for his Frontline special and book, has certain downsides for a big thinker in need of a certain level of calm. “It’s coming at the expense of my sanity,” says Rushkoff. “And it’s preventing me from creating the time and space to write my new book.”

Rushkoff’s next book will explore digital currency. His newfound strategy of finding the adequate mental space to have quality thoughts came about after he tried to contact his writer friend at BoingBoing. Instead of receiving an instant reply, something expected in 2014, he was greeted with an automated message stating that the writer is working on a book and will not be replying unless the message is essential.

It was a wake-up call for Rushkoff, who realized that he had to gain better control over his time commitments and mental distractions. He had to find a way to use technology instead of feeling used by technology.

We’re at moment in time where we are having a serious conversation about the role of the technology in our lives. Outside of the distractions that may get in the way of quality thinking, we have concerns more fantastical in nature. Sci-fi concepts that once seemed far-fetched, such as Singularity, now get discussed with a straight-face. When we try and imagine the future, commentators have drastically different predictions about how it will play out.

While Rushkoff can’t be sure about how it will shake out, he does declare that he is on Team Human. His main goal, he says, is to “impress on people the specialness of our humanity.”

I’m also on Team Human, entering this brave new world with an eye towards maintaining a semblance of authentic interaction no matter how virtual our future becomes.

Welcome to the now, now. Let’s see how we deal with it.

—-

Stay in touch with Douglas Rushkoff

—-

David Ryan Polgar is an attorney, educator, and author of Wisdom in the Age of Twitter. His site Overplugged examines our evolving relationship with technology, partnering with noted Cyber psychologist Dr. David Greenfield.

 

Google Glass: Cool or Creepy?

Tags

Augmented Reality, Google Glass, Tech balance

 

Even though Google Glass has not been widely released to the general public (you currently have to apply to be a $1,500 “explorer”), it has already spawned a heated debate about how we incorporate technology in our lives. In other words, as a recent New York Times article asked, are they cool or creepy?

 

I vote creepy.

 

Why? Wearing Google Glass is the antithesis of mindfulness. Instead of focusing on the present moment, the ability to have an augmented reality segregates your mental and physical state. Talking to a person wearing Google Glass can be a disorienting experience. Are they talking to you or their Glass? Are they finding out information about you while having a conversation? Are they present?

 

A few weeks ago I got into a conversation with a woman wearing Glass. Or, should I say, I tried to get into a conversation. While she was sitting alone and projected availability to converse, I never really knew. It was a few awkward minutes of, can I talk to her?

 

Every so often I would hear her utter, “Okay Glass.”

 

Finally I wiggled my way into a conversation. She mentioned that being in the East Coast (Connecticut), where Glass is much less common, she was getting a lot of odd stares. Google is obviously betting that over time you will start accepting augmented reality as normal instead of potentially antisocial.

 

I wouldn’t bet on it.

 

Although I am a fan of many of Google’s products, Glass is headed to be the next Segway. Or flat-line in its adopted use like Bluetooth headsets. It will be embraced by industrial fields and potentially the service industry, but the general public will continue to have a negative visceral reaction to the mental confusion it brings.

 

Confusion is creepy.