Category / Uncategorized

by colemanotttechno

The Devil’s details

“I am convinced the devil lives in our phones.”

Once again, I was struck by the title of an article running through my News app.

If we are tasked with discerning good and evil in the world we live in, then what might be evidence of the devil living in our phones?

Addiction.

Addiction that leads to distraction.

Distraction that leads to separation from a natural reality.

Whether it be the suspicion of something evil at work or of something more corporeal, the effects of children being exposed to screens at a young age are causing parents in Silicon Valley to freak out.

A recent article in the New York Times explains that since “technologists know how phones really work,” many have decided “they don’t want their own children anywhere near them.”

Much of this concern is centered around the addictive nature of screen activities.

In the aforementioned NYT article entitled “A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley,” Chris Anderson, the former editor of Wired, adds his expertise to defend the limitation of screen time by parents.

Mr. Anderson warns of the addictive nature of screens by saying “On the scale between candy and crack cocaine, it’s closer to crack cocaine.”

He maintains his cry of despair when addressing the difficulties of managing screen time as a parent: “This is beyond our power to control. This is going straight to the pleasure centers of the developing brain. This is beyond our capacity as regular parents to understand.”

Anderson has several hefty rules for technology use in place for his five children, including a no phone policy until his children reach the summer before high school and a call for no screens in the bedroom.

Other parents of young children are living by similar mantras, such as “the last child in the class to get a phone wins.”

The suspicion that tech developers are employing evil tactics to captivate the youth of the world has bled over to the formation of a new impression that these companies could be manufacturing a digital divide between the rich and the poor.

In a separate report by the New York Times about “The Digital Gap Between Rich and Poor Kids,” writer Nellie Bowles reveals that recent trends point to the creation of a social framework where “the children of poorer and middle-class parents will be raised by screens, while the children of Silicon Valley’s elite will be going back to wooden toys and the luxury of human interaction” (Digital Gap).

This ploy by tech giants to have children hooked on digital experiences, (which is a move supported by telling reports), carries an inherently evil quality.

If the devil is in the details of recent digital technology design, then the side-effects of addition and isolation are clearly intentional.

On the contrary, a psalm comes to mind when thinking of the parents who challenge the cultural norms of excessive screen time for their children:

Psalm 1:1-2

“1 Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers,

2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD, and who meditates on his law day and night.”

by hawkinsam

#Feminism

While significant battles in the fight for gender equality have been triumphant, the war has not yet been won. Our society as a whole needs an attitude adjustment when it comes to the treatment and perception of women. One radical tactic implemented by the feminist movement that is serving this agenda is spreading awareness via social media. The most buzz-worthy example of this approach is the viral #MeToo movement in which millions of people have shared their personal experiences with sexual harassment and assault online. The #MeToo movement is shedding light on the magnitude of this problem and is illustrating that sexual assault can and does happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime, thus proving that society is in desperate need of reformation. In addition, this campaign is showing women that they are not alone. The hashtag is empowering many to contribute their voices and experiences and is serving as an instrument for enacting social change.

#MeToo isn’t the only social media campaign to shed light on the scope of sexual assault. A few other examples include the Instagram account Cheer Up Luv, which is a photojournalism project that retells women’s stories of sexual harassment, and the #NotGuilty campaign against sexual violence and misdirected victim blaming founded by Ione Wells. In her TedTalk, “How We Talk About Sexual Assault Online,” Ione Wells (2016) explains that #NotGuilty was “giving airtime to the issue of sexual assault, opening up discussions amongst friends, amongst families, in the media that had been closed for too long, and stressing that victims shouldn’t feel to blame for what happened to them” She stresses that “we can begin to use social media as an active tool for social justice, as a tool to educate, to stimulate dialogues, to make those in positions of authority aware of an issue by listening to those directly affected by it” (para. 28). While it must have been exceptionally difficult for these women to broadcast their stories, it has resulted in a watershed moment.

For instance, Time Magazine named their 2017 Person of the Year “The Silence Breakers,” in reference to the people, mostly women, who came forward to report sexual harassment and assault and launched this viral movement. In 2016, Donald Trump was selected as Time’s Person of the Year. Over the course of his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump received allegations from over a dozen women accusing him of sexual misconduct and assault. Despite this, he went on to win the presidential race and was deemed person of the year. This stark juxtaposition between the 2016 and 2017 recipients serves as affirmation that radical action via social media can produce change.

It is imperative that we keep fighting via social media and keep the topic of sexual assault and gender inequality alive and relevant until we see a lasting change and dismantlement of the patriarchal system.

 

By Abby Hawkins

by hawkinsam

Is Streaming Shifting the Structure of Songs?

When shuffling through Spotify how quick are you to skip to the next song? Do you usually make it through the first thirty seconds of a song? Well the artist sure hopes you do. On Spotify, a song needs to be streamed for at least thirty seconds in order for it to earn royalty payouts and count toward chart tallies. If you skip the song before thirty seconds have passed, it is as though it never came on in the first place. If you’re someone who’s finger tends to tentatively hovers over the “next” button, you’re not alone. In Tom Barnes’ 2014 article for Mic, Science Has Some Comforting News for People Who Skip Tracks Constantly, he references the research of Paul Lamere, the man behind Spotify map tracking. Lamere found that “there’s a 25% chance listeners will hit skip within 5 seconds. The likelihood listeners will skip climbs steadily as a song progresses. There’s only a 48.6% chance they’ll make it to the final cadence.” Streaming offers listeners a seemingly endless supply of music at their fingertips. Thus, artists need to craft songs that standout right off the bat or they risk losing the attention of their listeners and the potential for profit.

Maybe listeners are desperate to find the perfect song for the moment. Maybe they are just trying to experience as much music as they possibly can. Or maybe our attention spans have decreased, and we no longer have the patience to finish a song or listen to it for longer than thirty seconds. With the internet and today’s technologies, we have access to an infinite amount of knowledge and stimulation. Likewise, streaming offers us infinite access to music.

As a result, musicians and producers are realizing that the beginning of a song is crucial. In the past, artists have had the luxury of easing into a song, creating suspense, and building it at their own pace. Now, the listener expects the hook to arrive almost immediately. Streaming has altered the expectations of listeners which has in turn resulted in a new formulaic approach to writing and producing music. The introduction and structures of songs is not the only thing that is being adapted to fit our streaming preferences. Additionally, songs are also getting shorter and more focus is being put on singles rather than full albums.

Streaming music appears to have both positives and negatives effects. It gives listeners the ability to listen to any type of music, anytime and anywhere. It also provides artists at all levels the opportunity to be heard. Yet, we need to question whether or not it is dwindling our appreciation for the music they are producing.

By Abby Hawkins

by colemanotttechno

The Mark of the Swedes

I was ready to go to sleep, but a shocking headline on my ‘news app’ prolonged my jump into dreamland:

“Thousands Of Swedes Are Inserting Microchips Under Their Skin”

The Mark of the Beast. Could it be?

The title certainly had my attention. The content of the article did not come close to implying that the Swedish people may be the forerunners for a global movement to end all global movement. The report did, however, highlight the world’s general craving for more accessibility and ease-of-access through the means of the today’s digital network.

I look to my iPhone lock screen as a reflection of the evermore intrusive nature of the digital economy.

My first iPhone, the 5s model, was the first iPhone model that accepted fingerprint scanning technology into its design.

I was hesitant to invite the finger-scanning device to live in my pocket because I wasn’t sure what Apple could do with my fingerprint.

And it’s still not clear what Apple could do.

I have found that Apple says all the right things about storing the fingerprint data within “an advanced security architecture called the Secure Enclave” – a place where my fingerprint data is “encrypted, stored on device, and protected with a key available only to the Secure Enclave” (Apple).

Though Apple is “saying the right things,” about the encryption of fingerprint information, an article by Ray Hennessey published in 2013 on Entrpreneur.com claims that “there are a few reasons to worry” about Apple’s Touch ID technology. Hennessey argues that after the N.S.A. leaks, “saying something is encrypted now doesn’t mean it’s not accessible, just a little harder to unlock” (Entrepreneur.com). CNN adds a shout for privacy to the debate by declaring that “We need to know that backdoors won’t be built into iPhones to allow security services to retrieve fingerprint data” (CNN).

While Apple claims that the fingerprint information is kept under wraps and only stored locally, Hennessey reminds us that seeing “biometric data captured in a larger, more global database” does not take a big stretch of the imagination.

The questions of privacy invasion that arise from the data sharing capabilities of big corporations, such as Apple, should be applied to the conversation surrounding the integration of microchip technologies.

The chips are appealing.

The NPR article about Swedish microchips (that kept me awake a few nights ago) explains that the chips are “designed to speed up users’ daily routines and make their lives more convenient — accessing their homes, offices and gyms is as easy as swiping their hands against digital readers.”

Proponents of the chips claim that they are “safe and largely protected from hacking.” In the minority camp of microchip critics is scientist Ben Libberton who is “raising privacy concerns around the kind of personal health data that might be stored on the devices.” Libberton is starting a campaign for lawmakers to initiate limitations for the technology. He argues that in the future, “chips could be used to share data about our physical health and bodily functions” (NPR).

This realm of possibility is cause for grave concern, considering the data sharing practices of large governments and corporations.

In other words, a world-wide integration of the microchip lifestyle could be beastly.

Jowan Osterlund, the founder of the lead chipping firm in Sweden (Biohax International), says that he “has a hard time seeing the rest of the world” following in Europe’s footsteps of establishing privacy rules that support mass microchip production (NPR).

“But at least all of Europe — I mean one continent — it’s a good beginning,” he says.

Could it be the beginning of the end?

 

by Coleman Ott

by suzidavenporttechno

Why We Should Care Where Waldo Is

In the 2013 episode of Black Mirror, “The Waldo Moment,” an animatronic bear named Waldo becomes a political candidate in a parliamentary election. While this idea may seem far-fetched – how could a cartoon character ever become a real political candidate? – the concept that drives the episode is firmly rooted in an idea that has been circulating for decades – politics is increasingly becoming a form of entertainment.

Waldo represents what people respond to in politicians – humor and honesty. At the beginning of the episode, Waldo provided humorous commentary on the politicians and their ideologies. The audience responded well to this commentary, and the television producers decided that they would register Waldo as a real candidate to bring more attention to Waldo’s show. Surprisingly to the producers, Waldo did well in the polls due to his honest opinions on the state of modern-day politics and his ability to entertain and relate to the public. Waldo’s honesty is borderline brutal and his humor often crass and juvenile. While the premise of a comedic cartoon bear attaining political power sounds outlandish and silly, this episode sheds light on very real fears and realities that we are facing in the current state of our politics.

This episode is focused around the anxiety of the power of social media in society. This episode came out before the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and a lot of the anxieties around that election reflect the anxieties of this episode. While Donald Trump is a real human, many on the left saw him as a caricature, a joke that would never make it past the primaries. But, they were wrong. People connected with his populist position and his sensationalism and attempts at humor on social media. To the surprise of many, he won not only the primary, but the general election, and became the president of the U.S. So, in many ways, we have seen the anxieties of this episode play out in real life.

Furthermore, sensational messages are given the foreground in news media channels and therefore gain the most attention from the public. Waldo’s candidacy was depicted as being both shocking and thrilling. His disconnect from humanity and the stereotypical politician is appealing. Waldo represents much of the common discourse around politics that can be seen on social media platforms, such as Twitter, and the media in general. To quote Ronald Reagan, “Politics is like show business.” The public is drawn to drama. Thus, a dramatic politician, such as Waldo or Donald Trump, is going to gain a lot of attention. While many of Donald Trump’s tweets are jarring, comedic, and sometimes even disturbing, he has 55.2 million followers that eagerly await his next one and media channels that prey on them.

This episode of Black Mirror calls attention to the dangers of the societal thirst for entertainment and controversy. Rather than letting the media and this thirst govern us, we should be tuned in to the intellectual capabilities and true leadership properties of our social leaders and confront the persuasive aspects of digital/visual media.

 

written by Coleman, Suzi, and Abby

by suzidavenporttechno

The Mysterious Magic Lantern

A few weeks ago, our Media and Technoculture class went to our school’s Communication Museum and had the opportunity to examine several communication artifacts. Coleman, Abby, and I were drawn to the Magic Lantern immediately because of its unique shape and coloring, and because we had no idea what it was or how to use it. After talking to one of the museum curators, we learned that it was an early projector popular in the late 19th century. It started out as a children’s toy and was eventually used for education and entertainment in large theaters.

The Magic Lantern is a unique communication artifact because it can still be operational today – it relies on technologies that we still have today: it is gas powered. As can be seen in the above photo on the right, the orb detaches from the body. This allows a person to light a wick that is in the base. Then, when the orb is put back on, a person can insert a glass slide into the red portion of the device, and the image is projected through the magnifying glass by the light from the flame.

As a device used principally as a children’s toy, the glass and fire features seem problematic.

The storytelling and child-like-wonder-sparking capabilities of the Magic Lantern have led to the development of projection technologies made for captivating audiences. We were struck by the clear way this technology has influenced so many technologies we use today, in a variety of fields. For example, this is an evident predecessor to the slide projector and most recently, PowerPoint. These technologies are used in the professional and educational fields to display images and text.

Jussi Parikka helps us understand the relation between PowerPoint and the Magic Lantern through his discussion of Media Archaeology. This analytical method of “excavating the past in order to understand the present and the future” can be applied by digging up the Magic Lantern to better understand the roots of the ‘magical’ and visually persuasive characteristics of the PowerPoint technology (Parikka, pg.2). Unlike the Magic Lantern, the integration of PowerPoint has transformed the way stories are being told in academic and business settings as opposed to the casual environment that the Magic Lantern has thrived in. Parikka explains that “new scientific and technological innovations contribute to the changing cultural landscape and even our basic ways of being in the world: seeing, hearing, thinking, and feeling” (Parikka, pg.7). The integration of PowerPoint has clearly impacted the cultural landscape of the business and academic domains.

While the clear characteristic that the Magic Lantern and PowerPoint technologies have in common is their positions as platforms for storytelling, a recent article by Forbes challenges the effectiveness of PowerPoint as a medium for storytelling.

“Using a real-world business scenario, PowerPoint was rated (by online audiences) as no better than verbal presentations with no visual aids.” In a culture that is so influenced and reliant on visual modes of communication, PowerPoint does not inspire the same kind of wonder that the Magic Lantern did when it was first introduced. Because we have focused so much on moving imagery – television, motion pictures, gifs – static imagery is less appealing and engaging. It also does not allow for as much creative control as video or other forms of storytelling, and therefore cannot provide as much interest to modern audiences.

Though the modern visual technologies inspired by the Magic Lantern are no longer as appealing to audiences, one cannot deny the impact that the Magic Lantern had on visual technology in general. The Magic Lantern was the precursor not only to PowerPoint but to motion pictures, which are still a very popular form of visual technology.

 

authored by Coleman, Suzi, and Abby