Online Realities

Back in the early days of IRC and Usenet, I used to confront people over racism, bigotry, and general nastiness. The inevitable rejoinder was that I was being a control freak and a Nazi, and that what they said or did didn’t count because it “wasn’t real”, it was “just the internet”. I have never understood this, as I feel the internet is just as “real” as any other abstractions (and more so than most). We established rules for basic social interaction because they allow those interactions to take place; once we abandon civilization, its fruits are useless to us. I always thought that this was evidence of poor moral character, that these were people who did not understand that there were reasons beyond “getting in trouble” to not act like a savage, and so once that threat was gone they saw no purpose in being civil. However, I have seen people with a deep understanding of ethics offline act like total asses online. Their defense, again, was that the internet was not real.

So the question is: is online life subject to the same kind of cares and duties as offline life?

OMG we’re all gonna die of swine flu!

No, actually, we’re not. In fact, very little will happen at all. So why is it being so blown out of proportion? Think about this…more people die every day from…well, everything, than swine flu. Name it. Even the common cold has a higher body count. More people have died of being blown up in space shuttles than Americans have died of swine flu. Just think about that. Space shuttles. How rare is that? Swine flu is even rarer. So why is everyone freaked out?

I’ll tell you why…because humans are a panicky bunch. Oh, sure, we like to make myths and stories about ourselves being fearless warriors and unstoppable killing machines, but really we are primates who evolved to live in cooperative groups. We did not gain dominance through martial prowess but through our tendency to work in concert and run when outmatched. Those that didn’t run are no longer with us, genetically or actually. When we try to make humans into these mythic creatures, these warriors, it very often breaks them. Post-traumatic stress disorder, emotional disassociation, and periodic depression are common symptoms of broken humans, but of course there are matters of degree; some are not broken but merely bent, and these often make very good soldiers but very poor humans. While this is regrettable, until humans learn a different way to resolve disputes, it is also necessary. Some must give up their humanity so that others may keep their lives.

But the rest of us are a fearful lot. We repeat unlikely things because they scare us rather than because we know them to be true. We spread fear and inspire chaos. And, even worse, we give license to ourselves and each other to act in idiotic and horrendous ways, all because we were afraid.

So enough. Quit it. You are spreading panic and making everyone anxious for no reason. Quit tweeting and retweeting the latest stupid update on swine flu. Stop making Google Maps mashups. Stop posting the latest WHO and CDC figures. Stop. Even if there were a real danger, this chicken-little crap would not be helpful. Save it for the zombie holocaust…I am sure Tom from accounting will get a big giggle out of your last tweets of “OMG ZOMBIES WDFFBKW” as he chomps your brains.

And on that note…celebrities aren’t celebrities here, so quit letting the media lead you by the nose.

That’s right, I’m talking about Oprah and Ashton and whoever else wants to ply their dirty little trade here. They don’t get it, and most likely never will. Narcissists don’t do well in social media because they give nothing back. Look at the so-called celebrities’ profiles…look at the ratio. Look at how much they interact. Ashton at least seems to make an attempt…most of the “celebrities” seem to think that Twitter is just another place for them to play “look at me!”.

The real celebrities of our ranks are those who interact, who have ideas, and who actually do things. Robert Scoble, Howard Rheingold, Tara Hunt, Leo Laporte, Chris Brogan, Brian Solis…we all know the names. The people (and many more, some of them I am lucky enough to know personally) are the real celebrities of social media. And I know some of you are groaning about me listing all these A-listers and crowing about “internet fame” like it’s “real” fame, but hear me out: I don’t know what “real” or “unreal” fame is. All fame seems to be an abstraction; we made up the concept and apply it as a social construct. And on the basis of this construct I say that “internet famous” (I am talking about the Jason Calacanis kind of web famous, not the Numa Numa guy kind, in case you are confused) is more “real”, or at least handed out for better reasons and according to values I am more in agreement with, than the fame dished out by Hollywood, TV, and the music industries. I like our kind of fame…it comes because a person is smart, cool, funny…not because an executive someone decided to promote them and turn them into a cash cow. I will take the Gillmor Gang over The View any day.

And for my final trick, I will also rant about #amazonfail.

What the hell is wrong with us? Do we so enjoy schadenfreude that we will leap to offense just on suspicion? I was just as guilty in this one…I jumped up on the issue when it first surfaced in the stream and posted, tweeted, and argued as I usually do about anything remotely related to gay rights. And we were wrong. While Amazon dealt with it horribly and I am still unsure as to whether it was a hack (as was claimed on livejournal) or an honest error on their side, we allowed our collective righteous indignation to flow out and attack with no real information.

Why care?

Well, I am a bit shocked at how easily we are all directed. We make a huge noise about how we have taken control of the conversation, but we are really just spinning in circles. If some of our pet theories are true and there is a collective intelligence going on in social media, then this intelligence has just woken up, is barely sentient, and reacts like an anxious teenager: eager to embrace every fad, governed and led around by emotional reactions, and unsure of its own place. If we are to take advantage of this new world, then our “smart mob” needs to get a lot smarter.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Social Graph Payola – The Twitter Dilemma (inquisitr.com)
• Twitter Explains Their Selections for Default Suggested Users (centernetworks.com)
• Forget Dunbar’s Number, Our Future Is in Scoble’s Number (bhc3.wordpress.com)
• The Vortex: Less is More (guidewiregroup.wordpress.com)
• Robert Scoble is Fake Following (loiclemeur.com)

Our Story Up To Now…

Once upon a time in the land of California, there was a little piece of legislation named Prop. 8. It met opposition, but in the end (and thanks to the support of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), it turned out to the be the little proposition that could. It passed, amidst much controversy, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, out of which arose great protests.

The Boycott of an Entire State

One of these protest is virtual. Various bloggers and people with social media influence have called for a boycott on the entire state of Utah, attempting to damage the state economy by attacking its tourism industry. For those who don’t know, Utah is the headquarters of the LDS church and tourism is a huge chunk of its economy, bringing in about $6 billion a year.

Let’s make something clear: not everyone in the state of Utah is a Mormon, and not every Mormon is opposed to gay marriage. But everyone in the state of Utah will suffer if their economy tanks due to this boycott. People will lose jobs, children will go hungry, infrastructure will fail. Harm will be done.

First, Do No Harm

When people gain influence over others, they gain power. Social media allows individuals to amass an amazing amount of this power, swaying the actions and opinions of huge numbers of people in a very short time. The details of President Elect Obama’s use of social media in his presidential campaign is a wonderful example of just how truly remarkable the power of social media can be; in no other context can an individual unempowered by church or state gain such influence over others.

So we have otherwise ordinary people with extraordinary powers: social media superheroes. But what is the proper use of these powers?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Revenge Is Not Doing Good

I was originally going to do this as a poll, and talked to several people on Twitter and Rejaw. I decided not to go that route, because this really is much simpler than that.

The LDS and Catholic churches that supported Prop. 8 and took away the rights of others did a horrible thing, breaking both the tenets of their own faiths and the laws of the land, in spirit if not in letter. This has hurt many people and made them angry, and that anger is more than valid: it is righteous.

But to attack the entire state is not justice, it is punishment. It will not bring back anyone’s rights, it will only cause more harm and hurt more innocent people. The moment you move into the realm of revenge, you are no longer fighting the good fight or protecting rights and freedoms; you are just hurting others because you were hurt. This is wrong, and it is just as bad if not worse than those you are trying to punish.

Final Word

I am not a social media superhero. I am not an a-lister, b-lister, or even an n or m-lister. In fact, I am pretty sure we have to start getting into Greek letters to describe my status in the social media hierarchy. Thus I do not have the ability to use my influence to stop the boycott.

Instead, I must plead with my betters who may read this, those with more power and influence than I:

Please, do no harm. Do not pursue revenge. Do good. Help, don’t hurt. We need good people with power to do good things, desperately. We need heroes, not avengers. Please don’t support the boycott or any other retributive measure.

Image via Wikipedia

There is always some article to be found about ‘the children’, that generic, amorphous group, who are identical of characteristic and circumstance. The articles range in tone from genuine questions and debate about concerns (such as found on this good site itself), to blatant grandstanding, panic, fear mongering, misquotes, and inaccuracies galore. I would link some, but I am fresh out of anti-nausea medication.

You know the ones, anyway, “Does breathing scar your child’s lungs?”, and “Statistics show every child predator is speculating about contemplating about thinking about the possibility of moving to your postcode – even next door! Stay tuned for how to be outraged about it!”. Excuse me, I feel slightly queasy now, let us move back to something a little more rational in tone.

This post is not going to quote studies, nor will I indulge in lies, damn lies, or statistics. Or hyperbole. This post is just going to discuss technology and children.

I offer only these qualifications – I am a geek. An utter Linux using, hardware playing, totally besotted, geek. I also happen to have five children. My children are 22, nearly 16, 13.5, 7, and 5. That is a fair sampling across the advance of technology, and its reach into our lives. Three distinct generations, with a more in depth and advanced involvement in technology than most.

So, I think I have a bit of experience in this area, certainly, enough to make some observations, and do a little conclusion drawing of my own. Let me start with background. You need to understand just how much they have been exposed to technology.

My children have been exposed to computers since the oldest was about 7 years old. Starting small, it became more than a hobby for me, it was my calling, my passion – besides them:) I was studying for an Info Tech degree in 1997, when the middle one was 18mths old. I was one of the group of people that helped found ITShareSA, a not for profit group taking recycled computer hardware, refurbishing it, and donating it to low income groups, individuals and communities. For many years, this ran from my home. I also worked professionally in the industry, until I had my fourth child, and began to run ITShare in earnest. All of this meant their home was full of interesting tech and geek type people, ridiculous amounts of hardware, and exposure to principles of Open Source computing as an advocacy platform. I even have a much treasured shot of Linus Torvalds with my kids at a Linux Conf.

Their fathers are both heavily into computers and technology, and have worked, or are working, in IT. The kids have had their own computers since they were very young – the younger two share a kid friendly customized Kubuntu computer, the 13.5 has an EeePc with Eeebuntu Netbook Remix install, the nearly 16yo, a laptop with dual boot Windows XP & Kubuntu, and the oldest one bought her own Windows based computer when she started working.

Now, that is a heavy concentration of technology in their lives, both in actual technology, and in being exposed to people who work in IT, advocate for technology, and in the actual nuts and bolts of technology – hardware and software. How has this affected them?

None of them are, so far, Open Source zealots. They have a comfortable understanding that there are times when one operating system is right for them, sometimes, they wish to use a different one. The small ones have their computer in the lounge room, and the girls keep their notebooks there too. We actually use our computers in a social way, sharing things we find, discussing what we are doing. When a predator started grooming one of my children in what had been a safe, moderated game, that child was able to discuss it with me (after some initial teenage embarrassment at being gullible), and show me how an expansion pack had been installed, moving that child away from the safe site.

They use their computers as an extension of their world, making a seamless integration of offline and online interactions. They have no fear, discomfort of new technology, or adapting to new concepts. They do not, as adults tend to, distinguish online as somehow less valid.

Friends online are as valuable as offline, it is different interactions that occur. Indeed, when they moved away to attend high school, the older ones were able to maintain contacts with friends, and as some moved away, that friendship was also maintained. Distance is not an obstacle to friendship anymore. They still connect with their friends offline at events, movies, shopping – the usual teenage social calendar applies.

They do not bother with going to libraries -the libraries of the world are at their fingertips. Information is easier to find – and the use of appropriate search terms to gain that information comes more and more naturally to them.

This does not mean it is all perfect. There are times when I have to remind them to get off the couch and move – no obesity issues for my active lot, however. The online predator was scary – but there are predators everywhere, on and offline. Educating your children, and ensuring trusting, honest, open communication is the responsibility of parents, not of technology.

They are aware of the risks of viruses and trojans, and if in Windows, ensuring that the appropriate software is updated – they have to deal with the consequences themselves, after all. Making sure their research is correct, and that the cut and paste method isn’t used, has been a process of education.

So, what is the point of the lengthy post? What conclusions have I to offer? Well, technology itself is not good or bad for children. People who raise their children well, communicate with them, and are educated and responsible with technology use, can see their children flourish. Children are so much more adaptable than adults, and instinctively can utilise the technology to achieve much.

Like any benefit, used wrongly, unsupervised, by children with parents too afraid or too indifferent to be active as part of the process, can be vulnerable, poorly educated, and at risk. This does not mean the technology is at fault. The parents are ultimately responsible for their children’s development. Technology can give children a wonderful advantage, or a terrible problem – but is it not in and of itself the problem.