Tag Archives: Internet

Too much information?

At left in the foreground, a printer removes a...

Image via Wikipedia

There is no doubt about it — we are living in an information Golden Age. In just a matter of minutes, and assuming my computer and Internet connection are working, I can find the top news stories of the day, plus analysis and commentary; I can research almost any question I have; I can read opinions on pretty much any subject; I can watch videos, view art and listen to music, all with a click.

But is it all too much for us to cope with? I’m reading a fascinating book about the history of science: Coming of Age in the Milky Way by Timothy Ferris. He describes how the invention of the printing press put books that were once extremely difficult to obtain into nearly every university, library and even some homes. Just as importantly, the accuracy and consistency of those books became much more reliable because they were no longer copied out by hand. As a result, science experienced a boom time, because scientists could finally easily read, study and build on each other’s ideas and data.

The development of the Internet, I think, will carry us into another boom time, if it hasn’t already begun. Not since the invention of the printing press has it been so easy to share information and build on what we already know. I don’t think it’s possible to have too much information. Information inevitably leads to innovation and progress. (That’s why it is so often suppressed.)

Internets = srs.biz. Parody motivator.

Image via Wikipedia

However, we have to change our habits when it comes to dealing with this unending flow of information, just as readers and publishers had to in the Renaissance following the invention of the printing press. It is no longer sufficient to be a passive receiver, even if you are not a scientist, but are a mere consumer of information. And content producers can no longer be one-way broadcasters of mass media, pushing content out to the lowest common denominator.

Rather, we must cultivate our sense of discernment, our ability to analyze, our critical thinking skills. We must be more willing to challenge what we read, see and hear on the Internet. We also must actively cull our incoming information flow, constantly editing our content stream so that it best serves our needs. I didn’t learn these skills in school; I don’t think many of my generation did. But they may (and should) be taught to my son.

I have had to learn for myself how to direct the fire hose of information. I have found this challenging and exciting, especially as I have watched the rise of social networks and seen how others engage in commentary and sharing. We are all helping one another to learn. We no longer rely on experts; each one of us can be consumer, publisher, analyst and critic of information.

My son is only three years old, but already I can see that he is unwilling to act as a passive receiver of information. Television cannot hold his attention when the computer beckons. What has been a challenging learning experience for me will probably be second nature to him.

I think it’s a waste of time to wonder if there is too much information available to us today. There is clearly no such thing as “too much information.” Human beings thrive on information, and if our species can be said to have a common purpose, it has been to increase our knowledge, to explore and discover. We will figure out how to better use these tools that we’ve invented. Our ability to adapt is one of our strengths, after all. But best of all, we will progress. With all of this information at our disposal, I don’t think we’ll be able to help it.

Analysis and thoughtful writing not endangered after all…

I like this take from Clive Thompson on how the blog, once a literal log of Websites, is now becoming a forum for longer, in-depth analysis once reserved for magazines and newspapers. His thesis is that Twitter and similar tools have replaced the quick link-sharing function once served by blogs, and that these social networks also provide a more appropriate place for instant reactions to news and stories — the “short take,” as he calls it. So more thoughtful analysis has moved to the blog. What really suffers, he posits, is the “middle take,” once provided by weekly newsmagazines like Time and Newsweek, but probably unnecessary in our wired world.

I see this at work in my own blogging and online sharing. I tend to confine links and thoughts “of the moment” — such as breaking news and reactions to it, or something that’s momentarily funny — to “short-take” forums like Twitter and StumbleUpon. I reserve more thoughtful pieces for sharing on my blog and preserving in Delicious.

But for truly long-form writing, such as essays, short stories and book-length writing, I return to paper. I still can’t stomach reading anything much longer than a typical blog post on the computer screen. Maybe if I had an iPad?

Read: Clive Thompson on How Tweets and Texts Nurture In-Depth Analysis | Magazine.

New pet peeve: “Once and a while”

I have a new pet peeve to report, and it’s kind of driving me crazy. I’ve been seeing this a lot in Internet comments recently: “once and a while.” This is a bastardization of the correct phrase, once in a while.

Let’s look at this a little more closely, shall we? Once in a while is not difficult to understand. It is used when something happens not often, but every now and then — “in a while.”

Once and a while is a bit more difficult to understand. The best I can figure is that it means that something happens once and goes on for a while. Or it means that the writer is too lazy to take a moment and think about what they’re saying writing. Which makes the rest of the comment completely worthless, in my opinion.

So please, if you care, type it correctly. What you mean to say is: once in a while.

The Web is dead?

I guess we can add the Web to the list of things that are officially “dead,” at least according to Wired‘s cover story. Is the web really dying? The New York Times doesn’t think so. But making the ridiculous statement that the Web is dead sure got everyone talking about Wired. Think that’s what they wanted?

Previously: The death of everything

If you are so inclined, you can watch the mind-bending time-travel film Primer in its entirety here (h/t i09). Here is a primer on Primer–you will need it. Also, I should have followed my own rules and not read an article … Continue reading

The End of Forgetting?

Reading the New York Times Sunday Magazine‘s big article today, “The Web Means the End of Forgetting,” I had several thoughts. The article, about online privacy and how old data can haunt us all our lives in a socially networked world, rehashes a familiar chestnut. In the age of Web 2.0, our privacy is greatly eroded. Our past misdeeds live on forever digitally, and we will be judged by them until the end of time, unable to get jobs or dates or a fresh start.

I had several reactions to this. The first was that this behavior is nothing new. Before the industrial age, we lived in small communities, where everyone knew everything about everybody, and made judgments — whether deserved or not — based on that knowledge. We still have those villages today; they have just changed form. The article idealizes past village life, stating that villagers were admonished to forget the sins of their neighbors, but whether this was actually done is not clear. I don’t think so, based on countless novels I have read about life in those villages. The article makes a metaphor of the scarlet letter, but wasn’t the scarlet letter intended as a way to make sure no one in the village forgot the sin of the past?

Human behavior hasn’t changed all that much, but our tools have. Our tools are not the problem, as these articles always seem to suggest. As if technology were some amorphous personality with its own desires and motives. Regardless of how many drunken photos are pasted on Facebook, it’s not Facebook that judges us, but one another. And if we didn’t have Facebook as the means to facilitate judgment, something else would take its place.

I would argue that these technologies are actually helping us, rather than setting us back. Sure, there is the obligatory anecdote of the person getting fired because of an indiscreet photo posted online. The frightening bugaboo of potential employers, scanning the web into the wee hours for our indiscretions, even our poor choices in books and movies, so they can decide not to hire us based on these things, is dutifully trotted out. At some point, such scrupulous employers will run out of candidates who meet their ridiculous standards, at which point, such standards will be relaxed. When almost everyone has a drunken picture of them somewhere on the web, it will cease to be scandalous. And I think that day is approaching more quickly due to all our openness.

Our social technologies have moved gossip and judgment out of the dark corners of the village and out into the bright light of day. I don’t think the solution is to find better ways to erase or hide our digital pasts. On the contrary, more openness about who we are and what we do, I think leads to better understanding of one another, and more acceptance and more tolerance. When something is hidden and secret, it becomes titillating and scandalous. When something is out in the open, it becomes commonplace. Perhaps not forgetting, rather than forgetting, is a better way to move toward a more tolerant world.

The Web Means the End of Forgetting (New York Times)

The death of everything!

I am getting a little tired of reading blog posts and articles proclaiming the “death of this” and the “end of that.” Just a quick Google search turns up the death of beer (The Atlantic), the death of fiction (Mother Jones), the death of the open web (New York Times — actually an article I liked), the end of men (The Atlantic again), the end of the best friend (New York Times again) and the death of the Internet (quite ironic for a video posted on YouTube). Other things rumored to be dead or dying: newspapers, science fiction, the novel, print books and my sense of humor.

This hyperbole makes me weary. It is not really appropriate to proclaim the death of anything until you have actually viewed the corpse. But I often find that articles making such proclamations have very little in the way of real evidence to back up their predictions. Instead, they tend to reach for the worst conclusions based on scant evidence and overblown fears. I’m ashamed of these fine publications for succumbing to wild speculation just to bring in readers.

From now on, I will refuse to read an article that proclaims the death or the end of anything, unless it’s an obituary for an actual living being. I want to read about life, not death.

Some Google Buzz tips: How to post privately & address your posts to particular people

I have been enjoying using Google Buzz the past few weeks (although I wish more people in my network were on Buzz). It has been a great medium for sharing links via Google Reader and then having interesting discussions, sometimes with total strangers, about the links.

But Buzz has been even more useful for quick, asynchronous chatting with friends and family. Gmail is a terrific email program, but it is not so good at threading. When you exchange more than a couple of emails with someone, particularly when the messages are very short, it quickly gets unwieldy. Here’s where Buzz fills the void. The comments feature supports quick back-and-forth conversations that are easy to follow and review later. So far, I have used Buzz to set up book club meetings, figure out where to go for a family dinner and chat with my husband all day long.

But you don’t necessarily want the world to read those chats. By default, what you post on Buzz is public and is recorded on your Google Profile page. Buzz makes it very easy to make any conversation private, but the process is not entirely intuitive. Here’s how you do it.

  1. Type your message into Google Buzz.
  2. Beneath the message you’ll see a button that says: “Public on the web.” Click it and select “Private.”
  3. You’re not done yet. Next to the button is a link that says “Select group.” Click this link.
  4. A list of your groups appears, if you have any. This list is taken from your Contacts. Check the group whose members you want to be able to read the Buzz. If the group doesn’t exist, click “Create a new group.” In the window that opens, give the group a name and select the contacts to add. For example, you may want to add a group containing just your spouse. Then click the Done button.
  5. Click the Post button.

The message will appear with a little lock symbol to indicate that it is private and visible only to the people in the groups you selected. (If you click the Private link next to the lock, you will see who can read the post.) It also won’t show up on your public Google Profile.

Now when you go to post a Buzz, your last privacy setting will be selected by default. So if you want to post a public message, such as a link, you will have to re-select the “Public on the web” option under the message area.

If you are posting a message for a specific person, it is a good idea to identify that person in the message itself. Buzz will send the message to the person’s Inbox, where they are more likely to see it. Here’s how you do it:

  1. In the Buzz message window, type the @ symbol followed by the first few letters of the person’s name.
  2. A pop-up box appears showing all matching email addresses from your Gmail contacts. Select the correct email address. The address now appears in the Buzz message.
  3. Continue typing the message and click the Post button. The post will contain the person’s name, highlighted and linked, instead of their email address. It will also go to that person’s Gmail Inbox.

You can use this same trick when commenting on a Buzz post as well.

Now the recipient of the message can read the post in their Inbox and reply to it using the comments feature. All of the replies should show up in your Inbox. Just like email, but easier to read and quicker to reply.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

This feminist’s dilemma, and a side of rant about mommy blogging…

{{en|Portrait shows Florence Thompson with sev...

Have we come a long way, baby? Image via Wikipedia

The most interesting reading in the New York Times Magazine this past Sunday was this little article titled “The Femivore’s Dilemma” in a direct homage to Michael Pollan‘s tome, The Omnivore’s Dilemma.

Posit: Once upon a time, women raised kids and took care of the home and were generally unsatisfied.

Posit: The feminist movement made it possible for women to go out and get jobs they can’t stand so they can work too much and never get to see their families, just like men. Now no one is taking care of the home, and everyone gets to feel equally unsatisfied.

Posit: In the modern-day “Mommy Wars,” you are either a Stay-at-Home mommy or a Working Mother. There is no middle ground. And you can absolutely not relate at all to someone who would make a different choice than you.

And that’s where we stand today.

I consider myself to be a feminist. When my son was born, I quit my job (and I have to admit that I wasn’t all broken up about that decision either) to take care of him full-time. Since I will probably only have one child, I considered this to be a once-in-a-lifetime experience, one that both my son and I will benefit from. Meanwhile I have the rest of my life to work, sigh. But I did not feel like I had to turn in my feminist card at the door, and I completely reject the label of “stay-at-home” mom (or the more insipid SAHM).

According to the NYT Magazine piece, there are plenty of other highly educated moms who have followed the same route. I do recognize something of myself in the article. For example:

A generation and many lawsuits later, some women found meaning and power through paid employment. Others merely found a new source of alienation. What to do? The wages of housewifery had not changed — an increased risk of depression, a niggling purposelessness, economic dependence on your husband — only now, bearing them was considered a “choice”: if you felt stuck, it was your own fault.

It seems that today’s feminist feels a tad guilty about just staying home with the kids. So they become 21st century homesteaders, raising chickens and stuffing sausages and brewing their own beer and whatnot. They turn into “radical homemakers,” or to use the article’s cute term, “femivores.”

All of this extra, probably unnecessary hard work lends enough cachet to the non-employed-for-money mother that she no longer has to feel ashamed of stepping out of the rat race just to take care of the kids (which is hard enough, believe me). I don’t think there’s anything wrong with taking on some of the lost domestic arts, if they provide enjoyment and a feeling of self-sufficiency. What I do take issue with is the notion of doing so to justify to other feminists the choice of dropping out of the standard career path.

Why can’t we embrace the middle ground, which is where I find that most of us live in the real world anyway? Some of us feminists don’t have any interest in breaking the glass ceiling. We get exhausted just thinking of power suits and power lunches. We’re not cut out for it. But neither are we entirely willing to tie a kerchief around our heads and go muck out the chicken coop either.

There should be room for all kinds of women and all kinds of ways to choose to live your life. And your choices don’t have to be a statement, whether for feminism or for so-called traditional values. They can just be your life. Enjoy.

P.S. Another article that caught my eye was in the style section. It was about “mommy bloggers” (another odious term), their conferences and brand-building and the general professionalization of motherhood now that we’re all on social networks. Here’s my question: Do we really have to commoditze everything? I understand that it’s nice to make a few extra bucks, but is it worth it to turn your every experience with your children into something that’s for sale? Or to chase after free swag to the detriment of your relationships? (True confession: I have one “mommy blogger” friend who I have stopped following on Twitter because I could no longer take her incessant PR-fueled tweets.) Well, if you ask me, the whole world of “mommy blogging” has become so infested by marketing shills, it’s hard to find anything authentic there anymore.

The Femivore’s Dilemma (New York Times)
Honey, Don’t Bother Mommy. I’m Too Busy Building My Brand. (New York Times)
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thoughts on advertising on the Internet

I am revisiting a perennial bugaboo: advertising on websites. This was sparked after reading a post that pretty much equated ad-blocking to stealing (similar to the “using DVRs to fast-forward through commercials is stealing” argument).

Not too long ago, I started using AdBlock. I had never seen the need before, but since I switched to web surfing on a Netbook, website ads became not only annoying and interfered with the content I was trying to read, but also slowed down my computer unacceptably. Even though installing the Chrome AdBlock extension is relatively fast and easy, I probably wouldn’t have taken this step if my web surfing experience hadn’t deteriorated so much.

The post mentioned above claims that if I cared about the content I was reading, I wouldn’t block the ads that support that content. On the surface, they have a point. But dig a little deeper, and I think this argument quickly falls apart.

This argument makes a couple of huge assumptions: 1) that each website deserves to make money off the Internet, and 2) that ads are the best way to make that money.

Let’s look at point #1 first. I don’t think that everyone who sets up a website has the right to make money off that website. There’s a lot of stuff on the web, and a lot of it is garbage or regurgitations of other people’s content. Even running AdBlock, I can usually tell when a site primarily supports itself with garish or tacky ads. The content is often insipid or a basic rewriting of something I’ve already seen a dozen times or just plain bad. There are exceptions, of course, but I’ve more often than not found the best writing on the web is coming from sites that aren’t getting directly compensated for it by ad revenue, such as bloggers, authors on their own websites and columnists writing for fun.

This reminds me of the content I find in local newspapers. In some newspapers — such as the New York Times, which I read regularly offline and on, and which I pay for — the content is often quite good, interesting, well-written and educational. Go down to the local level, though, and the content becomes one-dimensional, just filler between the ads. No wonder newspapers are dying. I might glance at the local newspaper from time to time, but I feel no need to support it because it doesn’t provide the value I’m looking for.

Now for point #2: I’m not convinced that the advertising model either works online or is appropriate for the Internet. Television is an advertising-supported medium (although to tell the truth, I tend to watch more pay TV than anything). The reason this works is because the barrier to entry is high — you need a lot of money, people and talent to make a good TV show like Lost, for instance — and the payoff in terms of audience numbers is equally high. If I really like a show, then I will sit through its advertisements.

But anyone can start a website in a matter of minutes. The barriers to entry are low. You don’t need a lot of people to do it; you can write it alone, in your spare time. As a result, there is a lot of free content on the web, and some of it is quite good, even if the writer isn’t getting paid.

In fact, some of my favorite sites or blogs are run by people who aren’t making any money directly off their efforts. Many of them are writers who use their sites to promote their books or columns. Others are professionals writing about their work and thus building the reputation of themselves or their companies or nonprofit organizations (or whatever they are promoting). Many are bloggers like myself who write just for the fun of it. Because these content creators have other motivations than increasing ad revenues by getting large numbers of pageviews, their writing is often more passionate, honest and compelling than the content found on ad-supported websites.

There are exceptions that prove the rule. Lowest common denominator sites like FAIL Blog or LOLcats can support themselves handily with ads, and more power to them. For sites like those, ads are a good match. But for the vast number of websites, running ads — especially the kinds of ads that interfere with the content or are the equivalent of late-night infomercials — devalues the content, if it even had value to begin with.

I’m not saying that writers don’t deserve to make a living off their words and their talent. But I am saying that maybe not everyone who sets up shop on the web deserves to make big money off of it. If you offer content that has high value, people will probably support you, either directly or, more likely, indirectly. But if you don’t provide the value, and if you cheapen the content with obnoxious ads, then people will block the ads or move on to some other site. As long as the barriers to entry remain low, and talented people are motivated to provide good content without ads, there will be someplace better to move on to.

“Why Ad Blocking Hurts the Sites You Love” (MetaFilter)
Why Ad Blockers Work (Rob Sayre’s Mozilla Blog)

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]