Humanity versus Technology and the Internet

I am a big fan of a new TV series in the UK, called Black Mirror, which explores how social media and technology of the future will bring about an info-dystopia — or, at best, land all of us in new kinds of personal hell. The writers of this series do an incredible job imagining where things like amped-up versions of Facebook, Twitter, and Google Glass might take us. The series- named for the way in which our powered down screens appear- explores different ways in which our future has gone technologically awry.

Arguments for the advancement of technology come from both directions. Will new breakthroughs, such as implants placed in our brains to enable individuals burdened by muscular and brain impairments, help to benefit our society? Black Mirror explores this notion in the episode “The Entire History of You” by imagining “grain” implants, or downloadable memory devices placed near the brain, as a way of abusing privacy and detaching ourselves from a moral and socially functional world.

Many of us do not pay much attention to the seamless transactions of our online experience. The algorithmic processes of search engines and social media sites go undetected by much of the population. However, some believe these guiding binary algorithms create an impermeable blockade against objectivity. These algorithms are essentially editors, pulling up what it finds to be of significance, based on someone else’s understanding of what is important. For those of you who imagined the internet as a way of breaking through the bias of traditional media, perhaps it is time to reanalyze how guided our quest for knowledge and truth currently is. Perhaps the public should consider how easily agenda-based groups such as lobbyist, political parties, and corporations could flood the “echo chamber” with facts and information which support its message. At what point does this concept infringe on human rights to privacy and free thought and speech?

Samsung’s new Smart TVs are now equipped with personal recording devices. The disclaimer in the manual reads straight out of a line from some Orwellian novel- "Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition." Better keep your TV watching conversation limited to “Please pass the popcorn.”

At the heart of all this is trust. The best and only defense against intrusion from the likes of Google to Samsung is this: "We don't really care about your private life. We just want your data, so that we can make money from it." As long as our privacy is in the hands of profit driven corporations, we can rest assure our most private extrapolations will be glanced over. Right?

It's inevitable that the more data that we put out, the more will be recorded and the more will be known about us by machines which are in the charge of people- or machines that are people- or…..where does that line get drawn?

http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/mind-control-and-internet/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/st_thompson_homophily

Obama Campaign uses technological networking to win

 "The key networking advance in the Obama field operation was really deploying community building tools in a smart way from the very beginning." said Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford law professor who gave the Obama campaign internet policy advice.

The campaign of Barack Obama in 2008 obliterated the campaigns of other candidates who either refused (John McCain claims he doesn't even utilize email), or did not recognized the importance of the public's new focus on the internet and social networking. Recognizing an advantage, Obama focused his efforts on reaching individuals who would use these tools to help win the election. Social media has the ability to create multiple levels of trust based on relationships.  Social media also allows information and opinions to travel across networks, amplifying messages and allowing individuals to participate as an opinion leader through media production and distribution, not just by passive consumption as does traditional ad campaigning.

Obama dominated the social media space because his team understood the advantage of networking.  The real power of social media is not in the number of posts or Tweets but in user engagement measured by content transmission. An important aspect of the Obama campaign’s social media success came from the increasing development of online data collection. The Obama field offices ranked call lists in order of support allowing them to mobilize volunteers to get people out to vote.
Obama has set the bar for future campaigns, and social media and network structures seem to now be given serious attention in the media strategy, whether it’s for politicians, organizations, brands or public service initiatives.

http://fgamedia.org/faculty/rdcormia/COIN83/pdf/How%20Obama%20Really%20Did%20It.pdf

Frontline's Internet Scare

htbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/ tp://www.p

According to Frontline's discussion on the influence of the internet on adolescents across America, including social networking sites such as MySpace and  Facebook,  "chatrooms", and access to "morally questionable" content, parents should be fearing for the lives of their children. Siting references of young girls gone wild, cocky teenage boys displaying their failed judgement online, and ultimately a young boy who took  his own life as a result of the encouragement from another online peer.

While all of the examples given by Frontline have clearly caused much controversy, and even turmoil, within the families interviewed, these cases are, to me, prime examples of typical teenage rebellion channeled through a new medium- the internet. Online social networking has enabled teenagers to become more influenced by their peers, and therefore more exposed to both peer pressures and the universal rule of teenage torture.

Developmentally, children during these years of both physical and emotional growth lack the judgement needed to separate the world online with the tangible, and more important world around them- which would include their family, true friends and adults of positive influence. It is easy for impressionable teens to become wrapped up in discussion that focuses on how one acts, who one associates with, pressures to expose their personal lives (and bodies), and so on.

As a parent of a burgeoning teenager, I look at these examples as a lesson. If a parent can lead as an example to their children, as many parents themselves are wrapped up in their own phones and computers (whether work related or social- children often do not see the difference), and make the effort to carve out personal, one on one time with their kids who at this age need the intimate guidance and attention to deal with these tough years ahead, it just may be possible to raise a decent kid who can make it through teenage torture without living through the examples displayed by Frontline.