Web2.0 and the Loss of Human-ness

I detest the inhabitants of web2.0. Web2.0 is supposed to be this great empowering phenomenon that allows people to interact and have their say and so on and so forth. While I don't in anyway deny that it's generated loads of quality and easily accessible information, it's generated a hundred times more of the worthless kind. And the power to say what we want is so often the power to mindlessly say things that hurt and demean people.

Right and wrong will always be relative. 

A plethora of opinions will always exist. 

We will always want to be "right"; we're human. 

But we seem so sure that we're right. And anybody who disagrees with what we think suddenly becomes such a target in this hyper-connected world. It makes me think that we're all just as bad as Machiavellian philosophy suggests we are. It's a modern day "Lord of the Flies" if you will.

Someone whom I crossed paths with last year expressed a view on a blog. Many people commented. Some liked it and some hated it; nothing wrong with that. But then the people that hated it didn't say that they disagreed with this person's opinion because of reason a, reason b and reason c. They said that this person was wrong, that this person essentially sucked (although in more colorful language and in more creative and hurtful ways) and so on and so forth. It's perplexing to me how we treat racist comments and such so seriously and try to promote racial tolerance. Yet we lack basic tolerance for diversity of opinion, a fact that web2.0 accentuates in such a prominent and deeply disturbing way. I wonder if the people that wrote all of those things ever stopped to think what it would be like if people disagreed with their opinion and walked up to them, insulted them and walked away. That's essentially what they did to somebody else, just that they did it in the virtual world. That's why I detest the inhabitants of web2.0; a large portion are almost not human.

Just as I got to the point where I thought Machiavelli was completely right, I saw a post on facebook. This time it was written by someone whom I'd crossed paths with way back in 2008 and not spoken to after. I learned that he has cancer. He'd been through a few tests off late and his doctors told him that he wouldn't need a bone marrow transplant; he just needed to continue with his chemo. Good news for him obviously. Under there there were 166 likes, including some from those of us who'd met for a week years back, and a couple dozen comments wishing him love and luck. If I were him the simple microsecond people took to click "Like" would mean a lot to me. 

The internet and social networking allow for this great global support system. That to me is the one saving grace of the inhabitants of the web2.0 world. Maybe the internet and hiding behind screens doesn't always bring out the worst in us. I wish it brought out the good parts more often though.  

The Balancing Act of Regulation and Individual Freedom

(and why the US should consider voting two year-olds into office in 2012 :) )

In the US, the Republicans have voiced opposition to the proposal of implementing federal standards for usage of more efficient light bulbs. On the surface it sounds ludicrous considering that governments, industry and people are placing increasing emphasis on going green. Their justification is that mandating the use of light bulbs that meet a minimum level of energy efficiency encroaches upon the freedom of the affected American citizens.

The justification propounded by the Republicans is fairly paradoxical considering the government does pass laws that mandate citizens to do certain things, or not to do certain things, on a fairly regular basis. It’s a slippery slope really, because why can I not claim that paying income tax encroaches on my personal freedom much the same way having to use a certain kind of light bulb does. So then, can I choose to not pay my taxes?

At the heart of the entire issue is really the question of where the line between setting laws that promote utilitarian good and smooth (or less rough) functioning of society and regulation that violate ideals of individual freedom lies. When is it okay for the government to modify your actions and choices by way of laws and regulation and when it is not okay?

If individual actions and “desired” actions always coincided, then we wouldn’t need a body with authority to formulate and implement laws. However, given that some would choose to steal, kill, destroy and behave in ways that give rise to negative externalities for the rest of society, we need guidelines if we even want any semblance of a utopian equal-opportunity society. An equal opportunity society, which is a fundamental notion underlying the concept of democracy, would ideally mean that one individual’s actions do not have a negative impact on other individuals simply because such a negative externality would mean the impacted individual would no longer have equal opportunity.

Using this simplified logic, to keep regulation and individual freedom balanced on the tightrope, regulation should only restrict individual freedom when such freedom gives rise to negative externalities for other members of society. While this logic is fairly simple, practical implementation is anything but simple as the example below illustrates.

Recently, a fairly radical idea was put forth saying that morbidly obese children should be taken from their parents by the state and put into foster care. Firstly, you have to decide whether the parents’ actions and the home environment is responsible for their morbid obesity. However, obesity isn’t that simple and no one thing can be singled out as the cause. Secondly, if you decide the parents are responsible, you have to reason whether the regulatory alternative restores equal opportunity. There’s no guarantee that foster care can reset the kids’ eating and exercise behaviors although there are one or two cases where this has happened. In fact some kids may be worse off under foster care as the transition process could prove to be an emotional strain. So is a regulation of this nature desirable?

The problem is that “desired” actions are not easy to distil. While we seem to always be working towards utopian ideals, we don’t really know the path that leads to them (makes you thankful for Google maps and cabbies!). As far as light bulbs and the US debt ceiling go, however, the picture is a lot clearer. More efficient light bulbs would mean lower carbon emissions, which would definitely be a positive externality. Possible downside of slightly higher costs and not being able to use that light bulb in the pretty shape don’t seem like that much of a price to pay. Raising the debt ceiling would avert a potential global recession. The egos of Republicans, and maybe a few Democrats, are a negligible cost compared to the benefit. Unfortunately for all of us, some Republicans behave like stubborn two-year olds. Except for the part where two-year olds usually get what they want (which might well be because they want chocolate and are cute; not quite on the same plane as a few trillion dollars!).

 In many cases passing a black and white judgment as to whether a certain kind of law encroaches upon individual freedom in an undesirable way is enveloped in shades of gray. We implicitly trust our elected government (for those living in democracies, since equal opportunity, which is a basic premise of this article, pertains to democracies) to discern the shades of gray and uphold our individual freedom. That will always mean that regulation and individual freedom will continue to sway as the scales of the weighing scale move up and down searching for that elusive equilibrium that they will never reach since not everybody uses the same kind of weighing scale. 

New Media Nightmares

“All the world’s a stage” is an oft quoted line, yet only sometime in the past decade has the  prophetic quality of this Shakespearean quote been realized.  We now live in the world where not only is the entire world a stage, the entire world is the audience too.  This stage is what is known as Web2.0. So many extol the virtues of living in a world made smaller and brought closer together by technology, the internet and social media. People far away can stay in touch, voice their opinions and generate truckloads of content. How awesome! Or is it?

Three-quarters of all mobile phone users in Singapore own a Smartphone. Two hundred million- that’s 200,000,000- tweets are sent out into the vastness of cyberspace every day. Between the two facts I find myself feeling like a subject under observation so much of the time! I wonder while I cross the road to get to the bus stop every morning, inevitably in a rush to get to office on time, whether someone will click a picture and post it online admonishing me for jaywalking. Then somebody will put a name to the face and everywhere I go I will be recognized as THE jaywalker. (Or when I’m on the train and busy reading the day’s news on my phone and don’t notice the pregnant woman and offer her my seat if someone will tweet and/or facebook obscenities aimed at me.)

In my defense the zebra crossing is pretty far away and the roads are empty that early in the morning. Not to forget the fact that I grew up in India at a time when zebra crossings were all but non-existent and crossing roads with heavy traffic was a daily occurrence. While that by no means precludes death by speeding car, I have plenty of practice and trust my eyesight. So I still cross the road the way I know I’m not supposed to everyday and worry about internet infamy on a regular basis. It’s exhausting at times to feel like you’re always being watched. I often wish that I either didn’t care or there were social contracts which implicitly restored personal privacy by not indulging in such broadcasting. Unfortunately neither the former, nor the latter is likely to happen.

The general lack of privacy is a love child fathered by the internet era and mothered by social media (or vice-versa if you please. And a little bit incestuous as social media and the internet definitely have a familial relation. Anyway). Some people become global sensations overnight with youtube videos with millions of views or with a kiss in the middle of a riot. Others get caught in the act and face the wrath of millions of people they’ve never met and will never meet. Any social contract which protects a person from ridicule for getting caught digging their nose on a bus would preclude the person from making millions off a random youtube video of his kid biting his finger. Therefore, I will keep on wishing  for temporary invisibility when jaywalking and hoping that when I meet a person who appears to like me I don’t find a tweet later on proclaiming me the bitch of the decade/century/millenium or something to that effect (one, I do not talk from experience as far as the latter  goes. Two, isn’t it much better to just say it and not have to spend hours with a person you don’t want to spend hours with?!)

I once told a friend who is a fairly strong believer in the power of social media that I thought that the dark side of social media was pretty sinister. Little did I know that one day I would come to mean that literally after I had a nightmare about being ostracized in the new media-verse (I don’t have the faintest recollection as to the cause of said ostracism. Really).  He was fairly certain I didn’t have a valid case. Every time the thought of unknowingly being on someone else’s social media broadcast channel, be it in good or bad light, crosses my mind I think I have a good case. Not to say that he doesn’t. Just that I do too. Classic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide.  

The World Today.. Through Newspapers

Computerlessness at work compels innovation, take my word for it. Today I read all the local newspapers- The Straits Times by sitting opposite a gentleman who was reading it and mypaper and Today from the free copies being handed out at various train stations I just happened to be at. Then of course I moved on to every major media outlet online that came to mind. It still was a far cry from 6pm. So I wrote about all the amusing, strange and outrageous things I'd read on a sheet of paper I grabbed from the printer tray using a good for nothing office pen :) When I looked it over my instant reaction was #WhatIsTheWorldComingTo.

The world's first nudist hiking trail opened in Germany. You'd think people would have a problem with that if anything. People actually didn't have so much of an issue with that as with the sign put up which said, "If you don't want to run into any naked people, stop right there!" The person who objected could always go and change the signboard!

Women in Saudi Arabia can be punished for driving since it's apparently not allowed. A woman in Singapore was fined for walking- $1,500 (and landed on the front page above the fold of The Straits Times so you can add in national humiliation). She did however contribute to the death of a cyclist. What did the women in Saudi Arabia do again?!

500 children in the US died between 1998-2010 from being left in cars. If that's not at least a little bit incredulous, then a researcher said that if you can forget your phone, you can forget your child in the car. Probably a good thing for children that people can't seem to live without their iPhones these days then?

Business cards are falling out of fashion as internet services now fill that gap. Moleskin notebooks apparently are all the rage however. Maybe Steve Jobs should consider a moleskin iMac (ok, kind of lame). Moleskin business cards anyone?

In the Iron Man movie there is this outrageous scene where Iron Man discovers a new element in under 15 minutes. Well we found two new ones - Element 114 and 116 - but it took us a few years. Unfortunately they're kind of useless to us at the moment and cannot be used as the power source for any fancy (or non-fancy) power suits. Pity.

Weiner is going to rehab. Apparently #TMITweeting + #VirtualPerversion + #SuggestiveName = #Addiction. And with that I've now used more hashtags off the twitterverse than on.

The Syrian gay girl blogger is a guy. 

It's a weird world isn't it? I haven't even mentioned Gaddafi running out of money while sitting on 155 tonnes of gold, Greek bonds having the lowest ratings among all rated countries (CCC by S&P's), research showing brain scans of teenagers can predict the songs that top charts or research showing that coffee can cause hallucinations. Is there something research cannot show?

------

Click to Read:

German nudist hiking trail (Time)

Saudi Arabian women (Time)

Children dead from being left in cars (Time)

Business cards

Moleskin notebooks

Element 114 and 116 also anti-hydrogen contained for 15 minutes o.0 (Michio Kaku- bigthink)

Weiner Addiction? (Two Articles) 1 2 (Time)

Syrian fake gay girl blogger (CNN)

Gaddafi running out of money

Greek bonds credit rating downgraded (LA Times)

Teenager brain scans (LA Times)

Coffee causing hallucinations (Time)

-----

More Interesting Links:

San Francisco considering a ban on circumcision (Time)

The world's first virtual currency (The Economist)

An analysis of Sarah Palin's emails (Time)

Most popular iPhone unlock codes (Time)

Google, Apple, Microsoft and the Hilarious "Auto-complete Battle"

Autocomplete is hilarious.

For a fact.

I don't know whether anybody has tried this before, but I wanted to see what Google thinks about itself versus what it thinks about Apple and Microsoft. Of course technically rankings of search results are supposedly determined by actual search patterns among other things, but does anybody really think Google would allow itself to be ridiculed on its own search engine? Well, let's find out!

Apple is...

Microsoft is...

And now for the grand finale- Google is...

There you have it. Google is God and skynet. Everybody else is either doomed or the devil. I do wonder how a company can have a sexual orientation, unless of course the implication was that it was happy-gay. More than anything though, I have one burning question - Why, pray, is everything evil?!

*accurate as of 18th May 2011, 2320 (GMT+8)
**If you search for "Bing is " the second option is "not google". I find that very awesome in a lot of ways!
***Yes, I like inventing weird phrases like "auto-complete battle", so? :)

Amusing Incidents

Sunday 28th March, 2011
12 noon Singapore Time - The Singapore Immigration Counter

The officer looked at my passport and then at me. I don't look like the person pictured in the passport so there's always a reaction and I waited patiently for it. "You've lost weight, haven't you? How much? 10 (kgs)?" Now that was certainly a first, "16," I replied. He was satisfied; scanned, stamped and I was ready to go.

1800 hrs Singapore Time- Guangzhou International Transfers Counter

The officer again looked at my passport at then it me. And again. And once more. About ten more times. Then he mimed at me to pull back my hair. Still dissatisfied he told me to look at the screen and took a picture. I was beginning to think that that would be it but he kept looking back and forth and puzzling over the difference for another ten minutes. Finally came the stamp and I walked on to get lost in the apparent signlessness of transfers area.

Monday 29th March, 2011
0130 hrs UAE Time - Dubai International Arrivals Passport Control

This time he didn't look at me and the picture in the passport. Instead he spoke to me in Hindi, which was entirely unexpected yet made me like the place instantaneously for whatever reason. He scanned my eye, was relieved to get the image first shot, and stamped and signed so I could go see the place that I had already decided I liked.

I'm not much for blogging, tweeting, etcetera about personal experiences, but for some reason I HAD to write this and write it without my usual dose of opining.

The Crystal Balls of Journalism

The future of journalism is a topic which has generated a fair amount of journalistic material. It was getting to the point where I was beginning to think a large fraction of people in or related to the profession of journalism had become more interested in figuring out the future of journalism than actually working with the tools of the times and moving ahead (in which case the future of the profession could definitely be forecasting; tarot card tellers and mystics were getting old anyway). Then I read this amazing article called "Journalistic Nuclear Physics" on The Economist website.

Changing the meaning of the word "story", what an elegant and exciting thought! It's not really a prediction if you think about it. At this juncture with the juxtaposition of technology, the internet and social media, life has become persistent and continuous with fewer degrees of separation. What we do persists digitally, what we do next is linked to what we did before and the world has become a smaller place. Life is a succession of stories, and the stories are evolving in much the same way as the stuff they embody - life.

This was one article out of the seemingly endless ones on the "future" of journalism that actually made sense. I'd still maintain that the future is created by action, not speculation, so I guess I'm still not in favor of the obsession with figuring out the future instead of working on it. One article isn't quite enough to change my mind I suppose! 

Topics That Should Not Be Named

There are certain words that have inherently negative connotations in society. These words are best avoided in social conversations, and indeed everywhere else for they always bring with them a side of controversy. Incest is most certainly one of them. That is perhaps why although I learned of the existence of the documentary "Sleeping With My Sister" 4-5 months ago, I only got around to watching it tonight.

The documentary follows two couples who would both be pronounced guilty in the event of a societal judgement  on charges of incest. Both were half-siblings who grew up apart, met as adults and allegedly fell in "love". A disease called Genetic Sexual Attraction, or GSA for short, was introduced as the cause of both the relationships. GSA occurs when family members who have been separated for the entire duration of their lives meet and the overwhelming emotions that would occur at such a time take a sexual turn.

Frankly, I don't buy GSA. I also don't presume to judge the couples, on grounds moral or otherwise. I don't even pretend to understand where they are coming from. Watching the documentary made me wonder about the definitions of family and love prevalent in society. We are brought up to recognize the difference between family, friends and strangers. We are brought up to differentiate between the nature of familial love and romantic love. In fact the Greeks even defined love for ones children as a special kind of love and named it storge. I wonder, is there really a difference?

Of course pragmatically, incest is detrimental to societal due to its biological implications in case of couples who procreate. So it makes sense to shun the concept of incest of grounds of survival of species. But if one is not brought up with the notion that this other person is family and deserves one's familial love, then is that person family in any other way besides shared genes? Is the segregation of "love" and its nature just an imposed societal norm? Or are there really different types of love, types influenced by our DNA sequences?