fishers, surfers and casters

In the last podcast of A World of Possibilities, MIT Professor Sherry Turkle, and author of the seminal internet research book, Life on the Screen, talks about her new book, Alone Together. While I thought her first book was a sensitive, honest and honourable exploration in the lives of young people engaged in virtual worlds, it seems that Turkle is getting old and afflicted of with the same cynicism and fear that Carr has, covered up with social science.

The podcast conversation explores two topics: our relationship with robots, and our relationships with each other through machines. And she opened up her future fears.

Fear 1: that our need for connection with people will be replaced with robots. Her problem with this is that our need for connection will not fully be reciprocated, as robots may simulate a need for us, but not really have it (robots will have need for power and maintenance, but not touch, talk, etc). Remember how we feared this twenty years ago with tamagotchis? However, tamagotchis only ever entered our society as a game. While robots may give us the perception of need and communication thereof, there are definite therapeutic benefits in this.

Fear 2: that if robots need less, and do more, then they will replace humans. I agree this is a true fear, but it’s a problem that’s already happening in the world. E.g. Shifting work from Australia to India. To combat this we struggle to improve conditions for workers on a global scale, protect rights and build solid infrastructure that will fairly distribute wealth and health in the face of globalization. While globalization may shift to robotization, this problems remain and so too the fight for solution.

Fear 3: that sharing information on mobile devices gives us only illusion of togetherness, not a reality. She harks back to days where families watched TV together. Here Turkle really exposes her “Good old days” syndrome in that, back in those days, people complained that TV replaced true conversation, playing music as a family, etc. Parents lament they can only get their child to text "I love you" rather than say it. My parents complained kids didn’t talk at all. Her book’s chapter which explores this is titled "Don’t call!" The basic telephone offered the value of voice to conversation, that is now lost to us. Maybe the deeper issue is that telephone demanded time and attention, while kids may have voice but don’t have time commitment. This may be a result of poor parenting in technologised environment. My last post explored how parents are dealing with this. Also, recent news has shown that social media can be a powerful joining and mobilizing force, if used well.

Fear 4: the surge of triviality in social media replaces deep connection of full conversation. She is reiterating all of Carr’s laments here. Her experience of connecting with people she admired on Twitter only to see their banal tweets on not being able to find a good coffee at the airport. Laments the public sphere is being flooded with trivial information. In my eyes she merely shows that she is still stuck in the delineation between public and private. Social media is challenging us to reconsider the balance between public and private in our social connections, by rhizomatising them. It shows that she had an expectation of her meeting with this person through Twitter, but that may have just as well occurred if she happened upon him or her in person at the airport. Her expectations of Twitter are not mine, and so her response to it is different.

The generation gap between digital natives and digital immigrants is becoming more obvious as digital immigrants count their losses in the cultural convergence, and publish them. However I remain convinced that it is a repeat of countless shifts in cultural values and practices. Already the signs are here about emotional, physical and social well-being will be maintained, if not strengthened. Other things, we should just let go.

On 21 December, Richard Lawson posted an “article” on gawker.com, where he embeds a YouTube video of a child who throws a tantrum over receiving books for Christmas, alongside a Wii console and other toys. In the video the child is watched giving his best argument for why books should never be given at Christmas time, and his parents are heard calmly offering admonishment, while obviously entertained by the child’s antics.

Lawson’s argument is far less entertaining, and arguably less eloquent. He calls the child an “asshole”, an example of a country that is going dumb, a “jerk”. In the comment thread that follows, one reader wonders if a “retroactive abortion” is warranted.

In the fledgling digital age, there are some of us that lament the demise of a literate population, the slow death of a rich culture of words and their publishing. Every effort is made by them to remind us that worlds of imagination, which can only exist in the minds of readers, are sacred and must be preserved, and are under threat by the Internet and its attractive devices.

Yet I believe that a better case against the Internet lies here: where a private family event is made public, not for the enjoyment of Internet users, but as a sacrificial lamb for public moralising. And where it is deemed acceptable that a three-year old child is publicly bullied by so-called online journalists and their readers.

I’m reminded of both Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter and Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, cautionary tales regarding the future of a society that delights in the public shaming of others. These books come from the same country as this posted article. Maybe Richard Lawson should do some more reading.

1. Imagine a car that would drive itself, navigated by Google Maps and by its sensors on the front and sides of the vehicle. Now, imagine that while in the car you could not only see the landscape through the window, but the names, emails and even private information of people in the neighbourhoods you drive through.

2. Sherry Turkle, author of Life on the screen, has a lecture posted on her university’s website, in which she develops her own thinking on identity online. (HT: Louise Connelly)

3. A new mobile app that helps you track your own moods may help in improving mental health.

4. In a case where Victoria Police attempt to stop a stalker online, questions are raised about the service and enforcement of local law in a global space.

5. Google, in its long-term endeavour to make every printed word in the universe available online, has got the go from Israel to reproduce the Dead Sea Scrolls.

6. I think Axel Bruns is a great source of information on good methods for understanding online practices among Australians, and researching networks. This is a great example of the work he’s doing among micro-bloggers, and how he’s doing it. So is this.

I was listening to a podcast (I know I know, how 2006, right?) of triple j’s Sunday Night Safran, where I heard the story of a young woman who claimed to have been “tuned”. She bought an item from an electronics store, where the cashier asked for some personal details for, she assumed, warranty purposes. One minute after leaving the store her mobile phone alerted her to the fact that the cashier had requested her as a Facebook friend. “Tuning”, according to Safran, happens when your personal details are taken and used unwittingly for social networking purposes.

Has anyone heard of this term? Am I getting it right? I mean, “tuning” was the word I heard on the podcast, but it may be spelled differently.

I’d appreciate it if anyone could enlighten me.