A Digital Landscape

My class participated in a 24-hour media fast (or tried to) and I was interested to see the conclusions. It got me wondering about if a line can be drawn on media use, or if it’s just a part of life now. Jessica Lees remarked on the fact that, though she appreciated the excuse for more physical sociality, she said, “I now see clearer how deeply technology has become embedded in my life, and I don’t think it is necessarily in a bad or harmful way.” Curtis Jenkins remarked on the power of machines in his life: 

“What I discovered is that the two are intertwined.  Not just with work, or school, but socially, emotionally, everything.  Machines are not our masters, nor are we their slaves.  They’re part of us, just like we are part of them.  Take away my cell phone and you’ve taken away a social element that’s infused with everything else I do socially.”

Likewise, Ellis Dyck said, “I expected the media fast to alert me to the ways the “machines” were controlling me.  Instead it reminded me what a tremendous blessing most media technology is, reminded me especially of the ways it keeps me connected and even makes it easier for me to be with the people I love.  We are so lucky to live in the Digital Age.”

But it’s not all positive. Rebecca Ricks admitted that she spends “far too much time online goofing off.” Nicole Black says she is “dependent” on her gadgets, a word that has become dirty. But is it really so bad to be dependent?

One blogger complained of a time she was with friends and they were all texting or checking emails. In her article "Technology Addict," she wrote, 

"We are all over wired. . .. Smart phones have made us dumb to the world around us. . . . Now, don't get me wrong. I love my smart phone. I love the Internet. I love technology. That's how we all live and work. But when people use technology to replace real human connections, then it's a real problem. Everyone needs to connect and to feel connected; this is fulfilling and is a deep, essential human need. But now, people are meeting those needs virtually rather than personally. People are relying more and more (and some solely) on technology and the virtual world to feel connected. And that's a problem." 

People like to blame the internet for all social problems. Yes, there is oversharing and overobsessing. I hate being at a group activity and having everyone be on their phones. But that’s just an issue of etiquette—an internal affair I don’t think we can blame on technology in general. People complain about a lack of social skills—maybe social mores are simply changing. We talk about being plugged in like it's a crime, like we've lost something. But aren't we just evolving?

It’s interesting how paranoid people can be about digital culture. “It’s changing us,” they clamor. Everyone is talking about “We lived without it before.” Yes, we also lived without cars and medical care—do we always want to go back? This is an integral part of our society. This is our now, so why not live it? Maybe instead of always fighting it and living this tug of war between past and future, maybe we should learn to evolve—to naturally learn to be efficient with the internet and digital media. Since when has life or culture been about stagnation? We have been growing, developing, evolving. That’s not to say we’re always improving, but we are always proving it’s impossible to go back. No matter how the Renaissance tried, they didn’t make it back to Greece; no matter how depressing, WWI wiped the Victorian era completely away; and no matter who pounds their fist and cries against change, the technological age—this world of Web 2.0—is here. So why fight it? Learn to control it, and not it you, yes. Learn to manage your existence in it and the impact it makes, sure. But don’t let it be a separate entity from “life”: this is becoming one and the same.

At one point this summer, my family was spread across the world. I was in London, my brothers were in Afghanistan, my sister was in Africa, my dad was in Wyoming, and my mom wound up in Paris. But we were able to text and facetime and hangout on google. One of the best moments of my recent life was when my brother facetimed me on my iphone while I was at my sister-in-laws house, and so we had my other brother skype his wife and we were able to hold the phones up so the brothers could see each other—for the first time in a year. So suffice it to say, technology has wooed me.  

That’s not to say our world should be one based entirely on web or influenced completely by digital mediums, but I can’t help but think we should stop fighting it per se, stop always looking back at the “good ole days,” and just learn to embrace it, appreciate it, and evolve with it.

I'd be interested to see what the naysayers have to say. I especially enjoyed this NYT article about major internet leaders worried about too much of a good thing. They bring up valid points about the threat of being "swept away by our technologies." So, yeah, yeah, yeah, there are definitely two sides to the argument--and it's a big argument--but I can't help but feel that...this is life. Deal?

It's the Thought That Counts?

My Digital Culture class initiated a "Media Fast" this weekend where we were all participants. Or were supposed to be. Unfortunately, it didn't go so well for me. I suppose part of it was I was highly unmotivated to stick to it. Life, for me, is very digital. I don't feel like some addict, but I am dependent on many a technological advance. But I don't feel ashamed about that dependency; this world is digital, so why fight it? After all, this is a whole class dedicated to better expressing ourselves on a digital playing field. But, to justify my complete failure, a few points:

Number 1: Communication.
My family is spread all over doing all sorts of crazy things all day long. I thought it was selfish to just turn all communications off. Especially since my brothers are both in Afghanistan and I never know when they're going to call or text, or--sorry to be morbid here--if they will be able to later. Every time I get a text, email, call from them, I drop everything else. It's that important to me. And I didn't want to say, "Sorry, I'm pretending the internet doesn't exist this weekend."

*Good thing, too, because I found out my brother has a romantic pen pal which, if a little strange, makes for a great story.

Number Two: Work.
I work online. I feel like everyone does. I'm a secretary in the library which means I spend four hours a day on the computer doing various things for various projects. There's no way to avoid that. But even after those four hours, I go to my internship--another job based on a computer.

Number Three: Social.
It's not my fault that this weekend my friends were setting me up on various dates to various activities. There's no way to plan that sort of stuff without a phone. I was texting my address, changing times, making plans. And, I mean, I had to take pictures of it all. On my phone. Plus, please note that if I hadn't had my phone to catch some of these calls and make some of these plans...I would have sat in my apartment all weekend doing absolutely nothing because 1) my friends would think I dropped off the face of the earth and 2) I wouldn't have even known some of the ward activities, birthday parties, sunday dinners were going on had I not had my phone. Is this pathetic? No, I really don't think so.

Number Four: School.
There is no way I can do my homework without the internet, and there is no reason I feel I should. It is a glorious and wonderful thing and I'm so glad I can type documents up, research online, find peer reviewed texts and online books--all in one place. But even besides writing papers, I'm writing papers about movies (Lit & Film), doing French homework (web-based), working on a group project (a lot of InDesign and emailing back and forth), and reading various articles (learningsuite, lib.byu, etc). There's just no way to avoid the internet--for any of my classes.

So, yeah, I pretty much failed this media fast completely and utterly. But is that such a bad thing? I feel comfortable in how I use the internet and I enjoy being connected. Even if I could curb some of my time clicking through websites, pinning things to pinterest, stalking people on facebook, I don't feel bad about it. This is our culture, so why fight it? I feel so lucky to be a part of this world of instant connectedness, and I won't avoid it.

P.S. I think facebook gets a lot of flack. It's supposedly a soul-sucking black hole of time wasting. But, really, I find it useful. For one thing, that's often how my brothers communicate--from across the world. I'm allowed to keep up with missionary friends and people on study abroads. I get updates from my various groups, like my ward (where important info like, say, when the temple dedication was being broadcasted) and study abroad group (where, this weekend, we were all working on planning a reunion together). Sure, I also spent an hour clicking through an album of unbelievable facts (did you know some ants explode when attacked?), but that was a social moment too: my roommate and I have never laughed so hard. So...moderation in all things, but complete absence? No thank you.

We Didn't Start the Fire

As I've been reading Jurassic Park, I've been wondering about the benefits of such a fast-paced, instant-gratification kind of world. It's not all "monster munch time"; there are definitely things to be gained. After all, even after being chased by T-Rex, and raptors, and compies (oh my!), Dr. Allen Grant, a renowned paleontologist first mesmerized by the park but quickly wary of its flaws, demands the dinosaurs be left alone. He is protective of the environment and allowing it to play out even though he is aware of the danger involved. 

I was reading many a posts from The Blog of Innocence where the author talks a lot about our digital world. In one, entitled "Is the Internet Killing Culture," she admits her voracious reading habits have died down because she is too busy on the internet. But I was especially interested in her point that, through her work (based via the internet), she has "[developed] a social network...fostering relationships with people who share the same interests." Then she says this: 

This, I would say, is not an act of "killing culture"; but an act of embracing it, an act of helping it flourish and grow. 

A commenter, piercival, in response to this neverending debate, wrote,

Whenever culture undergoes transformation there are cries of alarm. Are we losing our way, forsaking tradition? Perhaps...perhaps not. New paths are being discovered--some will have the curiosity to blaze them while others stand aside and curse the moon. 

Dramatic, yes. Probably true, too. There was actually a wide range of comments made from varying standpoints, something reminding me of the arguments on ethics involved in Jurassic Park. Like Allen Grant, I think a lot of people are aware of the changes, especially in cultural di/progression. We are eager to pick a side and scream at the other, but perhaps the digital divide isn't so obvious.
Another commenter, omnipotentseal, said the following:

The net is not a homogeneous culture, but instead a patchwork of subcultures each adding their own bit to the dialogue. 

Most interesting, carlomarx comments about the effects the internet has already had on culture, going over the good and the bad, mentioning musicians, newshouses, publishers, and local cultures, each suffering in some ways but thriving in others--most normally with the new availability of content. In the end, he concludes

There is a seismic shift occurring in the way that print is distributed and monetized. But I don't think we are going to suffer for it culturally. I think it will have quite the opposite effect. 

This optimistic point of view is pretty normal. But you do have people raising their voices to complain. I posted earlier on bullying and the internet's role in some horrific real-life stories. My dad and mom constantly complain about me giving life updates on twitter or facebook--a social media they don't appreciate or understand. I was also mulling over the digital culture's effect on art, especially film, in this post. Point is, people have lots of complaints. There are definite dangers and risks involved in such a global and uncontrollable culture--artists hate life because copyright infringements while parents hate the ease with which their kids can't get online and chat with some kid in the middle of nowhere (or who they hope is really a kid. and that they hope stay in the middle of nowhere). You have the craigslist killer, epic facebook stalkers, bad IM etiquette, crazy youtube videos, wikileaks, etc., etc., etc.

But there is good there too. A commenter called gingatao wrote in the comments of this post,

I think a great realisation of our complete interdependence is a result of spending time on the web. That interdependence is a fact in the real world, no one can survive in isolation. The internet makes collaboration so much easier, the world is experiencing an explosion of creativity. (emphasis added)

And this is true. We are connected, and that's not bad. I can talk to my brothers in real-time from thousands of miles away; I kept up with friends and family while I was in Europe this summer; I can connect to people all over the world, liking pictures on instagram, trending topics on twitter, getting readers on blogs, finding tips on pinterest. In another post, "Social Technology is Transforming Our World," blogofinnocence references the many changes we've faced economically, claiming the recent economic downturn effected the old world while our new world is far better and more fulfilling than any office, five days a week, 9-5 job. In another post about global collectivism, they write that

Social media and Internet collectivity is changing the order of scoiety. We don't know the extent social media will overturn aspects of the traditional.   

But that's part of the suspense. There is no solution to this digital war. People are playing out the unknown, arguing about if that dark alley of distrust holds the secret to true happiness...or if the past with all its predictability is better. And who's to say, really? I use internet everyday; I can't imagine (or remember) a world without it. Backwards is never better.

So, hey, maybe Allen Grant had the right idea: let it play out, control-free. Step back and let life happen, monsters and all.

...we just won't talk about what happens in The Lost World. No need to be a downer.

Anonymous

On Google+, Audrey Blake mentioned how she didn't see cyberbullying a lot growing up. I think it's such an important subject to remain aware of and keep talking about, because so many just don't take it seriously.

Sure, you have people getting "Jimmered" on facebook or people like Rebecca Black and the Star Wars kid dropping out of school. People laugh at these stories, roll their eyes and move on. It even spreads to celebrities, people we feel ask for public discord. It can be funny if they're willing to laugh at it, as is the case with this Jimmy Kimmel bit:

But how far is too far? When do we get involved? It's hard to say exactly because the internet has no limits, no control, no enforceable rules. But it is just a sign that we've allowed bullying to become everyday farce. LeAnn Rhimes was recently bullied into rehab, a story which even I roll my eyes at, thinking she's such a drama queen. But why is it fair for us to think anyone deserves a public belittlement? Just because we're not saying it to their face?

I think the internet allows for a sort of separation where perpetrators forget the bullied are human too. And once you see the nasty side of bullying--the side pushing young kids to kill themselves, the side where even posthumously their social feeds are inundated with hateful messages--you really just lose a whole lot of faith in humanity.

I think the article Joshua McKinney posted was especially interesting--about the idea of "trolling." Read it. It is both horrifying and amazing, the justifications and motivations behind these self-proclaimed internet trolls. The main perpetrator has no shame in what he does--attacking people on internet sites and communities he feels deserves a little backlash. He does it for the "lulz," the laughs and attention it gets. And he blames the bullied for his success, saying that he'll stop once they stop caring. At one point in the article, he says,

“I’m not going to sit here and say, ‘Oh, God, please forgive me!’ so someone can feel better,” Fortuny said, his calm voice momentarily rising. The cat lay purring in his lap. “Am I the bad guy? Am I the big horrible person who shattered someone’s life with some information? No! This is life. Welcome to life. Everyone goes through it. I’ve been through horrible stuff, too.”

People are mean. They're brutal. Take a look at any YouTube comment section. There's no propriety and everyone's a critic. And it's begun to push beyond anonymous youtube comments and social commentary. Now, it's personal attacks and brutal bullying that follows you everywhere you go, anywhere you're connected. People are being bullied to suicide, and it's no longer a joke.

Phoebe Prince: 15 years old, an irish immigrant about to go to a dance with a senior boy, hangs herself after months of belligerent harrassment becomes too much.

Amanda Cummings: 15 years old, high school student who jumps in front of a bus after being bullied. Her memorial page is vandalized by cruel messages even after death. 

Megan Meier: thirteen years old, killed herself when a myspace friend turned on her--turns out, it was a neighbor's mother posing as a young man to find out about her daughter

Hope Witsell: thirteen years old, bullied when nude photos went viral, hung herself.

These are some of the big names in the rising list of teen suicides. The one good thing? It finally has people talking. Something has to change. Someone has to take responsibility. Because cyber bullying is a serious issue masked by the semi-serious interest in trolling and anonymous derision. So when is too far too far? Probably now.

Digital Culture & Dinosaurs

Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park was written to explore the limits of science--or if there were any. Today, there's something more uncontrollable than an island of dinosaurs: a global network, without check and balance, having thrown the world into a new, digital age.  

There's something to be said about dinosaurs coming back to our world, wreaking havoc, causing uproars--all because they are something uncontrollable, inexplicable, unsure. With the digital culture today--a world rampant with constant social commentary, virtual worlds and anonymity, cyber bullying and constant connectedness--people are more than comfortable with the lack of accountability. Fan fiction and fan videos abound, parodies and rewrites and adaptions run amok, silencing copyrightists with every new page view; people text and tweet and facebook stalk and post photos and tag people and organize circles; there are forums and Q&A sites where questions give way to ruthless mockery or less-than-factual responses; news is broken, celebrities are stalked, vendettas are played out, all to a global audience. It's a conglomeration of genius and stupidity, where everyone is a user and no one can tell them how to act. There's no escaping it, this global network, a frenzy of free thought, free speech, free access. But free has become synonymous with without consequence.  The internet and the culture it's created has become a sort of monster without master. So when it comes to picking a book to parallel this idea of a world gone mad--and the consequence of no consequences--the story of a horrifying weekend spent in a genius park that just got out of hand seems perfect. So, yes, Jurassic Park is no 1984. But read it through a modern-day lens, applying digital culture to the fears of various characters lived out, and suddenly there are--excuse the pun--graphic connections to be made.

At the beginning of this fateful weekend, Dr. Ian Malcolm, a naysayer from the start, explains the dangers of such power being unchecked:

" 'What should do with my power?'--which is the very question science says it cannot answer." 

While he is talking about dinosaurs romping around an island, immediate connections can be made to the digital world. It's a great tool--an impressive, useful, life-altering tool that's been created and given out en mass. Someone made it happen and then left it to us, unchecked and unbalanced. But there's danger when there aren't rules, expectations, control. And we're facing them now in our highly-digital, highly out-of-control world. So, yes, this is a story about dinosaurs, but it is also a story questioning how far is too far. And this is vastly applicable to any conversation about today's ultra-digital world.

A Changing Art

I was really interested in a New York Times' article about the Digital culture changing film--literally. It got me wondering about art mediums and if it's fair to be up in arms over how a certain craft is done--or which form makes it legitimate--when art has forever thrived on different mediums. After all, when you meet an artist the first thing you ask is "Oh, what medium do you work with?" They can say anything from oils to watercolor to ballpoint pen and you wouldn't question their status as an artist, just their skill. Even photographers have their different cameras and subjects; musicians have their various instruments. But film, which forever has relied on film and reels and all that jazz, is now getting a digital face lift and people don't quite know how to react.

But can we really question the validity of filmmakers just because they no longer work with film? It would be like saying listening to the Beatles on your iPod isn't the same as listening to a record which isn't the same as being there. Of course, I'd be the first to agree that Ke$ha or Lady Gaga don't have the vocal skills of pretty much ANYONE past or present; the digital age has allowed for pop music to be basically computer generated (let's face it, now it's about performance, not talent). But does the medium change the art? Yes. Is it worth getting up in arms about? I don't know.

The highbrow crowd seems quick to love anything that sticks to the "classic" form. If a film is done on film, suddenly it's a favorite. Just look at past Academy Award winners: it's a hipsters lovefest, celebrating the indie/artsy/fartsy classic types. And that's great. But there's something to be said about what the digital world has allowed films to do.

Some films hit the mark. But that's true past and present. After all, the original King Kong is kind of laughable now (though a great piece of cinematic history) while the new one is as well (I mean, they cast Jack Black. Strike one). Meanwhile, a film like Audrey Hepburn's Wait Until Dark can still get more scares than a high-CGI Chernobyl Diaries, and the creatures in I Am Legend are kinda silly looking compared to even some of the aliens in Star Wars. So what has digital film done but allow for more options? I mean, LOTR is vibrant with computer-generated worlds. There's a certain cleanness involved in a digital form, sort of a richness where colors can be treated and changed to change a mood instead of just the high black and white contrast the old classics had to play with.

Disturbia, 2007

Rear Window, 1954

But that example brings up its own issues: the digital world has changed storytelling. And, yet, maybe the real crime is the fact that the stories are changing to fit this modern crowd. Now, it is about the shock and awe, not the craftsmanship. Take Hitchcock for example--he cared about telling a story and using, even designing, different ways to make his films rock people's socks off. But, today, a film isn't complete without some huge explosion or epic sweeping CGI-infested panoramic shot to show off the effects--the money, the talent, the "blockbuster" status. I mean, Avatar took a decade to make because the director was waiting for and creating the necessary digital effects. And this is what we got:

Nice.

So the medium is effecting the art. For better, for worse, it's happening. Not only does it look different, but perhaps the emphasis on story is shifting to effects. So...good or bad? Can we really complain about something we would complain about without? I know people who are vehemently opposed to watching black and white films; I know people who wait for the summer blockbuster because everything else is boring--not loud enough, not explosive enough, not Michael Bay enough. It's a mad, mad world. And it's a digital one at that. So is there any point in complaining that movie reels are done with? I doubt it. Films have changed, the medium has changed. But so have we. And maybe that's where the blame should lie--for whatever qualms one might have with modern-day cinema. Good or bad, I can't help but feel it's on us.

After all, we're the ones who brought Ke$ha to fame regardless of talent. And we're the reason Avatar is one of the highest grossing films in history. Right up there with, uh, Twilight. So thanks for that one, humanity. Now this is what we have to look forward to:

Conglomerate Me This: A Review of Surowiecki's The Wisdom of the Crowd

In reading Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds, I found myself finally patting myself on the back for being what I’ve always been: average. Finally—someone championing the wisdom of the little guy. The entire book is built around the idea of a crowd knowing what’s best. From figuring out how to maneuver a crowded street to finding lost submarines and judging economics, the crowd has got it down. Surowiecki makes an easily compelling case for the crowd, and he manages to do it in an entertaining way. His book is accessible to his subject matter—those common men, the lay people of the world. I am in no way an expertise, a genius, or a leader; I know very little about digital culture, politics, economics. And yet I was able to understand and—more than that—appreciate Surowiecki’s claims. Even if you don’t agree with the content (and I know some won’t), it is a well-written and enjoyable book.

But, to the point. 

The Wisdom of Crowds highlights various situations, most of them successful, where the crowd rendered an answer either the same or better than the experts opinions. Surowiecki outlines three different types of crowds and explains why it is the crowd that makes sense of the situation. We have our Cognitive, Coordinative, and Cooperative people each with a different success story. The Cognitive is about market judgment, where the crowd is allowed to think through problems, process information, and deliver a solution as a whole. Coordination deals with common cultural understanding and awareness. It comes off as street smarts, where the crowd all knows to walk to the right without really knowing why. And the Cooperation is all about the free market (obviously supported by our Mr. Surowiecki) and the building of networks of trust. He outlines these three “crowds” and their respective successes through various examples until, finally, we feel like we—the collective we!—can do anything. Forget the pros, forget the experts. Elect us! Call on us! Stick it to the man and release the hordes! 

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. After all, the crowd itself isn’t celebrated; rather, their aggregated knowledge is the champion. Even in his examples just in the forward—deciding the ox’s weight or finding the lost submarine—it wasn’t that a crowd gathered together to sort out the best answer. No. Everyone gave their individual answer, someone or some machine inputted the data, and the mean was decided upon. It was that number that was the winner. Not any one conclusion but a conglomeration—a conglomeration dependent on some geniuses mixed in with some idiots standing in a crowd with a bunch of averages. 

So perhaps it’s less of a revolutionary call and more of a celebration of collaboration. It’s the pat on the back from your elementary school teacher after your group project went swimmingly: it’s not about you, it’s about the end result. If it works, it worked; if not, you brush it under the rug and move on. That is both the point, the power, and the depressing reality of this book. Surowiecki tries to champion us simple-minded majority—and he does so in an enlightening fashion. It’s great to read a book about how well we’re doing, how the digital age has allowed us to open up a whole new can of possibilities. But this book is also about how the average remain average, the experts remain experts, and the idiots…well, they’re still stupid. And that's just fine. At least according to Surowiecki. 

Please Excuse the Opinion.

(photos via instagram)

My brother is currently serving in Afghanistan with his Army National Guard unit. He has a small cult following on his various social feeds of people, like me, desperate to keep in contact with him. His most popular feed is probably through instagram where he posts photos of the various people he’s with, the things he is doing, and the places he’s seeing. It’s been great for those of us to miss him to be able to see him…well, let’s say semi-happy or partially okay with being where he is. But he’s gotten a fair amount of attention for it with his impeccable use of hashtags, trending topics, etc. And, as it turns out, he's gotten into a fair amount of trouble for it.

He couldn't post a photo of himself because he wasn't wearing a helmet. It's against the rules. And people are watching. 

He was told his wife had to stop posting comments about missing him or needing him back or wishing things were different. 

He was told to tell his mom, dad, friends, strangers, to stop posting "inflammatory" comments about politics, the army, or my brothers job or they would be deleted immediately. 

So in one of the few ways of communicating with my brother, we've been limited. After all, my mom nor my sister-in-law are in the military, nor do they report to my brother's commander. Yet their expressions--of whatever--are being edited, deleted, and deemed inappropriate for my brother to allow on a social network. And I guess I can see their reasoning, I just wonder how they get such control over not only what my brother posts but what of other posts he is allowed to allow.  

Now, this is not a political rant. I respect the military and I love my brothers (both of them, actually) for their willingness to serve. I don't find myself caring about the government being in my business--not when it comes to my brother and his instagram feed. This is not me hating on the powers that be. Not at all. I just wonder...who has the power to control social media on an individual level? Does it really come down to whatever your boss--whoever that may be--says? Even when it effects not only you but others? I mean, in a world of instant communication and connection, is it fair to dictate what can be said when and where? It's a digital-age-old question, I know, but it just got me wondering. My interaction with my brother has been forced to change. Public communication about what he is doing, for how long, and for what is now frowned upon. Is it understandable? Perhaps in this context, yes. After all, he's off doing who-knows-what and there's hundreds and thousands in danger. But what is so frightening about a global network when it comes to my brother's day-to-day life? Is it fair to limit communications in a world built on instant access? Can the right to say what you will, like what you will, or snap a photo of what you will be limited by whoever's in charge? Or is this age built so entirely on free expression and a global community that this has to change? I doubt there's a solution--people will always be grappling for power--but I just wonder.  

Full Disclosure: I'm really not mad or frustrated, just curious. I really do love my country, its military, and the soldiers, I swear.