The New York Times > AP > Technology > Voters Checking Out Other Sides' Sites
Despite the fact that Pew's methodology is based on the telephone and, thus, by definition excludes wireless phone users (those of us that have permanently turned off our landline), which is hevily biased in age, education and, i think, political orientation, these results are, nevertheless, interesting and challenege the "tunnell vision" point of view. The report itself indicates that people do access information on both sides of the story, and they found not by asking people whether they access both sides of the story (the theory of self-presentation would immideatly devalue such findings because people want to appear much more knowledgeable than they actually are), but by asking them directly about specific political issues.
My major question, after reading the report is probably laughable... but how many people were sitting in front of their computers when on the phone? could they simply type everything into "Google" and check??
However, considering that Paul Reznick (whose research I admire quite a bit) is part of this project and I am sure the statistical analysis is flawless. Still, advancing age was found to be indicative of the breadth of exposire to arguments about candidates and THAT may be due to wireline-wireless distinctions more so than interest and involvement distinctions.
what I really liked though, were the "types" of presidential race information consumers outlined in the report. The technique of doing this is something I need to do for Internet users in general and haven't had the time to figure out the process (which is a bit complicated - two-step clustering).
It's also interesting that people have heard more about the issues than candidates. Granted Kerry is sort of a wild card and there hasn't been much personal dirt dug up on him yet and everyone is tired of Bush's national guard stories, but could this also be linked with gender? Historically it has been expected that women care about personal characteristics more than men do, although I do not know the research on this all too well.
High speed connections at home may be what actually allows people to consider the Internet as an alternative source of information. I suspect it is far more common to spend time reading opposing view sources with a fast connection than a costly slow connection.
30 October, 2004
Verizon Plans Focus on Wireless and Broadband
"Verizon Communications is considering shedding millions of its local wirelines to gain $30 billion to pay for the rollout of advanced fiber and wireless technologies. The company reported that its 2004 third quarter profit remained flat, while its wireless business helped push revenue up 6.7% to $18.21 billion in the third quarter 2004, up from $17.06 billion in the third quarter 2003. Verizon Communications reported losing 666,000 business and consumer wirelines in the third quarter 2004. The company is now considering dropping 15 million of its remaining wirelines and seeks to transform itself into a wireless and broadband company. (Source: Wall Street Journal) "
Whoa... now this is interesting. Verizon has been a really big player in wireline business... What's curious is that they still want to provide Broadband, but they require a phone line to have a DSL. I am guessing that many of their subscribers use the cheapest form of a phone line for DSL but use a wireless phone as their main means of communication. This is the first instance of such a shift at least as far as I know. I wonder how the baby bells will do. What kinds of bundling will they try to offer to keep their customer base? BT in Britain has done some very interesting things with offering various wireless-like services to their wireline subscribers, like SMS ability. In the land of SMS that is understandable of course (not as important here at least no quite yet).
Whoa... now this is interesting. Verizon has been a really big player in wireline business... What's curious is that they still want to provide Broadband, but they require a phone line to have a DSL. I am guessing that many of their subscribers use the cheapest form of a phone line for DSL but use a wireless phone as their main means of communication. This is the first instance of such a shift at least as far as I know. I wonder how the baby bells will do. What kinds of bundling will they try to offer to keep their customer base? BT in Britain has done some very interesting things with offering various wireless-like services to their wireline subscribers, like SMS ability. In the land of SMS that is understandable of course (not as important here at least no quite yet).
The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > Weaned on Video Games
The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > Weaned on Video Games
this article is fascinating. with all the research on MMORPGs coming out saying conflicting things (its good for you, its bad for you, its good and bad for you, there are different strategies, etc.), adding young children to the mix may have two results - making the research itself of interest to a wider audience and more fundable, and creating a very interesting social impact that we will only see in about a decade. I wonder though... the part about non-traditional controls is intriguing. What about those non-traditional controls? will they be able to energyze not just the body and mind, not only teach, but also challenge and call to create?
Many people have worried about kids reading less and watching TV more, that part of the shift to a purely visual entertainment may be affecting ability to visualize and even imagination. I wonder how video games will impact this.
this article is fascinating. with all the research on MMORPGs coming out saying conflicting things (its good for you, its bad for you, its good and bad for you, there are different strategies, etc.), adding young children to the mix may have two results - making the research itself of interest to a wider audience and more fundable, and creating a very interesting social impact that we will only see in about a decade. I wonder though... the part about non-traditional controls is intriguing. What about those non-traditional controls? will they be able to energyze not just the body and mind, not only teach, but also challenge and call to create?
Many people have worried about kids reading less and watching TV more, that part of the shift to a purely visual entertainment may be affecting ability to visualize and even imagination. I wonder how video games will impact this.
Lawmakers Seek Ban on Prepaid Wireless Phones in Japan
"The Liberal Democratic Party in Japan is seeking to ban the use of prepaid wireless phones, according to an Associated Press report. Culprits make calls from prepaid wireless phones, which are difficult to track, falsely claming to be a police officer or lawyer dealing with a son or daughter in trouble. The culprits demand cash be transferred quickly into a bank account to save the child. The Liberal Democratic Party's suggested ban still requires further discussion among lawmakers, making its passage unlikely in the current session of Parliament ending on December 3, 2004. (Source: Dow Jones Newswire) "
I seriously wonder whether this is a purely cultural outcome or if this will follow in other countries. In the latter case, this will severely affect the pricing structure and the economy of the wireless world. Considering that it's the teenagers that are some of the biggest users of pre-paid phones in Europe, for example, this kind of ban may bring some control back to the parents for the kinds of communication their kids engage in (it's easy to demand the logs of the phone calls at the end of every month and check who they speak to and how much).
I seriously wonder whether this is a purely cultural outcome or if this will follow in other countries. In the latter case, this will severely affect the pricing structure and the economy of the wireless world. Considering that it's the teenagers that are some of the biggest users of pre-paid phones in Europe, for example, this kind of ban may bring some control back to the parents for the kinds of communication their kids engage in (it's easy to demand the logs of the phone calls at the end of every month and check who they speak to and how much).
Yahoo! Launches Service for Wireless Handsets
Internet media company Yahoo! launched its Web service targeted at U.S. wireless subscribers. The new service promises to offer easy-to-use Web search interface for wireless handsets. Yahoo!'s Web search as well as its specialized local and image search functions will be offered by Sprint, Cingular Wireless and AT&T Wireless. (Source: Reuters)
have you ever tried to do a search on the web via a phone? especially a spring phone (although AT&T is pretty horrendous too). Its ridiculous - since most web pages are not designed for a phone-based interface, it's almost impossible to find the exact pieces of information you need on a page because the screen only shows little parts of it. Curiously enough, Yahoo is offering these services with companies whose data-plans are some of the more expensive on the market.
It's not surprising though to see At&t and Cingular in the list together. Yesterday FCC approved the merger (finally, that took a while). Let the age of media and ICT super-mergers begin... the marketplace is going to be interesting for the next few years and then it will resemble that of the cable TV and baby bells - almost entirely geographically based. The wild card though, is geographical baselessness of the phone itself.
have you ever tried to do a search on the web via a phone? especially a spring phone (although AT&T is pretty horrendous too). Its ridiculous - since most web pages are not designed for a phone-based interface, it's almost impossible to find the exact pieces of information you need on a page because the screen only shows little parts of it. Curiously enough, Yahoo is offering these services with companies whose data-plans are some of the more expensive on the market.
It's not surprising though to see At&t and Cingular in the list together. Yesterday FCC approved the merger (finally, that took a while). Let the age of media and ICT super-mergers begin... the marketplace is going to be interesting for the next few years and then it will resemble that of the cable TV and baby bells - almost entirely geographically based. The wild card though, is geographical baselessness of the phone itself.
Campaign reporters grow dependent on Wi-Fi
The Wi-Fi presence on the Presidential campaign trail is proving how reporters have come to rely on the latest in technology to get their job done. When John Kerry rolls into town so does a Wi-Fi hotspot allowing high speed Internet access to the laptops of dozens of reporters and television producers covering the event. Reporters have also grown dependent on BlackBerry devices and AirCards that allow laptops access to the Web wirelessly. (Source: Wall Street Journal)"
This is really interesting. A campaign is a high-speed chase at this point, so I suppose it doesn't make sense to search for local offerings in the form of Wi-Fi, but I wonder whether this could be made usable to the public as well and how would that affect both the image of the "campaign trail" and the idea of a mobile Wi-Fi hotspot. Dependency on devices, however, is not new. People who depend on information as a source of income and profit, will use any technology that provides access to information and facility to move it from place to place faster. They will also grow dependent on these facilities especially if they become common...
What is more curious, is the slightly disconcerting language of the article - "dependency", "rolls in" - I am sure George Lakoff from UCBerkeley would have lots to say about this. WTJ is a fairly conservative publication and the image that is drawn here is not exactly positive especialy with regards to technology use and dissemination as well as the modality of work that jouranlists engage in.... all of that, as a subtext... hmm... does that suggest ICT is more of a democratic gimmik? factcheck.com anyone?
This is really interesting. A campaign is a high-speed chase at this point, so I suppose it doesn't make sense to search for local offerings in the form of Wi-Fi, but I wonder whether this could be made usable to the public as well and how would that affect both the image of the "campaign trail" and the idea of a mobile Wi-Fi hotspot. Dependency on devices, however, is not new. People who depend on information as a source of income and profit, will use any technology that provides access to information and facility to move it from place to place faster. They will also grow dependent on these facilities especially if they become common...
What is more curious, is the slightly disconcerting language of the article - "dependency", "rolls in" - I am sure George Lakoff from UCBerkeley would have lots to say about this. WTJ is a fairly conservative publication and the image that is drawn here is not exactly positive especialy with regards to technology use and dissemination as well as the modality of work that jouranlists engage in.... all of that, as a subtext... hmm... does that suggest ICT is more of a democratic gimmik? factcheck.com anyone?
27 October, 2004
The New York Times > Arts > Art & Design > How to Cross Borders, Social or Otherwise
The New York Times > Arts > Art & Design > How to Cross Borders, Social or Otherwise - this NYT article has an interesting review of art that questions legal and societal definitions of identity as they become more stringent in the post-9/11 US-dominated world. What does the concept of borders and border crossings mean? Why is crossing them illegal and where is the sense in the boundaries that run through the vast expanse of the alps or the lakes and rivers of the north. Why are we expected to travel with posessions and claim so much suspicion for getting rid of the pull of things and travelling light? What is identity as it is encased in the plastic of cards complete with a bad picture and cursory description of association with some entity or another. Why are some of these "identities" are easier to get and some are harder? Which are "fake" and which are "real". As the world hurtles towards the madness envisioned by Orwell, Bradbury and others, as we repeat those mistakes that we had never learned from, how long will it be until the art that questions fundamentals of law and the basis of homeland security is banned from view lest it give people ideas...
22 October, 2004
Boaters Rescued After Placing 911 Call Underwater
Three boaters in Michigan are alive after they placed a 911 call from a wireless handset while underwater. The Coast Guard, County Sheriff's dive team and the local Fire Department were able to rescue the men after receiving the call. The men were in a submerged cabin of a sailboat that flipped over. All three were treated for mild hypothermia. (Source: NBC News Detroit) "
The wireless tabloids are full of entertaining cell phone banter today - help! bubble bubble! underwater! bubble bubble!
But seriously, not so long ago, New York Times ran an op ed on how adding wireless access in national parks made rangers worry that everyone would call them about a twisted ankle or a bad bruise. That may be true, but I know many people who would have appreciated this ability as they had to crawl with broken/twisted ankles or knees out of the backcountry of various kinds. Yet the article made another interesting point - would cell phones provide a "safety blanket" both giving a false sense of security (I can be rescued anywhere, so I can do stupid things anywhere now!) while providing valuable leg up on the elements in life-threatening situations. I onwder, would they? Would they allow people who are scared of leaving the civilization safety perimeter, finally venture a little bit out into the wilderness? (this is relevant to the Amerca's but not to Europe really). Will that increase injuries and accidents, prompting a rushed attempt to protect people from themselved by the government through regulation? Will it really help save lives? not in hard core mountaineering maybe (although there have been examples of that in less remote locations), but something more mild, rock climbing for example, or hiking or even boating? This tether to civilization that we have, that we may perceive as an extension of ourselves, that we willingly carry around, how much of a trade off between safety, security, privacy, freedom will it be? Hearing a phone ring 200 feet off the ground on a piece of rock is a little bit disconcerting, even if somehow amusing. Will we still be able to find places where solutide and silence are punctuated only by thunder and cries of birds and not cell phone rings? Will we have to go deeper into the wilderness for that now?
The wireless tabloids are full of entertaining cell phone banter today - help! bubble bubble! underwater! bubble bubble!
But seriously, not so long ago, New York Times ran an op ed on how adding wireless access in national parks made rangers worry that everyone would call them about a twisted ankle or a bad bruise. That may be true, but I know many people who would have appreciated this ability as they had to crawl with broken/twisted ankles or knees out of the backcountry of various kinds. Yet the article made another interesting point - would cell phones provide a "safety blanket" both giving a false sense of security (I can be rescued anywhere, so I can do stupid things anywhere now!) while providing valuable leg up on the elements in life-threatening situations. I onwder, would they? Would they allow people who are scared of leaving the civilization safety perimeter, finally venture a little bit out into the wilderness? (this is relevant to the Amerca's but not to Europe really). Will that increase injuries and accidents, prompting a rushed attempt to protect people from themselved by the government through regulation? Will it really help save lives? not in hard core mountaineering maybe (although there have been examples of that in less remote locations), but something more mild, rock climbing for example, or hiking or even boating? This tether to civilization that we have, that we may perceive as an extension of ourselves, that we willingly carry around, how much of a trade off between safety, security, privacy, freedom will it be? Hearing a phone ring 200 feet off the ground on a piece of rock is a little bit disconcerting, even if somehow amusing. Will we still be able to find places where solutide and silence are punctuated only by thunder and cries of birds and not cell phone rings? Will we have to go deeper into the wilderness for that now?
Restaurant Introduces 'No Cell Phone' Area
"The Vineyard Restaurant in Florida has a new way to please both diners that need to chat on their wireless phones and those that do not want to be disturbed by the devices. The restaurant has created a 'No Cell Phone' area allowing customers to dine without their handsets. Others can dine in the wireless phone designated area and conduct business as usual from their wireless handsets." (Source: Associated Press)
Sir, madam, smoking or non-smoking? cell phone or not? The choices for selecting the right corner of the restaurant are increasing. As norms for technology use are slowly developing, some places are getting ahead by trying to please everyone. This woud have to be a rather large location. I wonder if they have a smokers area as well. Do they partition both then? Do they place the wireless people to the smokers? Is this a development of a new semi-stigma, like for smoking? curious!
Sir, madam, smoking or non-smoking? cell phone or not? The choices for selecting the right corner of the restaurant are increasing. As norms for technology use are slowly developing, some places are getting ahead by trying to please everyone. This woud have to be a rather large location. I wonder if they have a smokers area as well. Do they partition both then? Do they place the wireless people to the smokers? Is this a development of a new semi-stigma, like for smoking? curious!
12 October, 2004
The New Atlantis - Our Cell Phones, Ourselves - Christine Rosen
The New Atlantis - Our Cell Phones, Ourselves - Christine Rosen is an interesting article I found this morning. It's essentially a long ode to the cultural horrors of cell phones, the aweful effects it is having on our society. Some are good points, some are overhyped, some are plain wrong, but in general it's an interesting article. Interesting in no small part because it very clearly takes cell phones as a "brand new" technology and gives this techonlogy agency over the lives of its users, while sometimes giving the users the right to behave. When talking about a particular technology it is difficult not to slip into this odd pattern of techological determinism.
Christine Rosen doesn't like cellphones. Although new techonlogy excites her, she feels guilty and longs for the lots quiet of spaces. She rings alarms of disconnection and erosion of community life, echoing similar alarms rung for the Internet (along with the odes written to it simultaneously) less than a decade ago. It's the encantation of "we have changed for the worse", the anxiety of losing that "good world we had before"... I have heard many times that when my grandmother was my age...things were usually better. Were they? probably not, but in the short term we tend to remember bad things (see Baumeister et al. "Bad is stronger than good" paper), yet in long term we tend to see the past in rosy colors.
Requires reading to help re-asses this point of view - Claude Fischer "On Telephone" and "To Dwell Amon Friends"
No, the world isn't falling apart or imploading, communities are not eroding and personal relationships are not shallower, conversations still happen, and they are just as rare in comparison with chit chat as were a decade ago or a century ago. Technology doesn't change people, people adapt techonlogy to their needs, and only then do changes begin - the secondary effects, the unexpected compromises... those take years to develop, to be adapted... a new techology adoption process is a growing process complete with a development of new social norms... Besides, there is always the "off" button, and, if you really want to "disconnect" leave the damn thing at home.
Christine Rosen doesn't like cellphones. Although new techonlogy excites her, she feels guilty and longs for the lots quiet of spaces. She rings alarms of disconnection and erosion of community life, echoing similar alarms rung for the Internet (along with the odes written to it simultaneously) less than a decade ago. It's the encantation of "we have changed for the worse", the anxiety of losing that "good world we had before"... I have heard many times that when my grandmother was my age...things were usually better. Were they? probably not, but in the short term we tend to remember bad things (see Baumeister et al. "Bad is stronger than good" paper), yet in long term we tend to see the past in rosy colors.
Requires reading to help re-asses this point of view - Claude Fischer "On Telephone" and "To Dwell Amon Friends"
No, the world isn't falling apart or imploading, communities are not eroding and personal relationships are not shallower, conversations still happen, and they are just as rare in comparison with chit chat as were a decade ago or a century ago. Technology doesn't change people, people adapt techonlogy to their needs, and only then do changes begin - the secondary effects, the unexpected compromises... those take years to develop, to be adapted... a new techology adoption process is a growing process complete with a development of new social norms... Besides, there is always the "off" button, and, if you really want to "disconnect" leave the damn thing at home.
07 October, 2004
Basics: Who's There? How Parents Can Be IM Watchdogs
The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > Basics: Who's There? How Parents Can Be IM Watchdogs
An article on parental paranoia-child-control is in NYT today, suggesting that parents must monitor activities of their children online as well as offline. While this topic is not new, some work in the UK by Sonia Livingstone and her colleagues suggests that parents and children have very different perceptions of what the other knows and what the other does online. Children are also far more relaxed about the "dangers" of the Internet, showing a significant amount of understanding that some things should not be done, others one has to pay attention to.
HomeNet's own work has shown that teens rarely comunicate with strangers. It is curious that strangers are the brunt of concern of the article, which cites only that as an articulated reason for parental control, leaving others to imagination (although implying there are many). Teens from the HomeNet interviews were very clear that meeting strangers online was not something they did for the most part. It was a rare occurance and, really, they preferred chatting with their friends anyway. Certainly these claims are subject to questioning - were the teens actually honest with experimenters? considering, however, that "meeting new people online" is still a fairly low-frequency activity in the US population in general as well as among Internet users, it seems plausible. In fact, the teens from the interviews spent most of their time chatting to their friends with whom they have just parted at school. This kind of "always on" connectedness seems in quality similar to the SMS-trends of EU and Asia and fits well with theories about demands of relationship development in this age group.
While parental controls may make parents feel better they may also build resentment from the children while trying to fix something that isn't entirely broken. Filter systems have been shown to be inept and blocking far more legitimate sites than the illegitimate ones (see the court cases for library-filter use from several years ago in the US). In Livingstone's data, children are not only aware of this, but find it both amusing and frustrating as well as largely useless. Just imagine if you live somewhere like Essex or Sussex in the UK... all the websites regarding these locations or web searchers with these names would be blocked.
Yet Parental Paranoia - the demand that one must always be watching their childs every move in order to be a good parent - has been perpetuated in this country over the last decade or so. Children with over-scheduled activity calendars almost have to rely on IM and/or SMS to build relationships that they don't hvae time to build as they are involved in a myriad of activities, always controlled and observed by the watchful parent. As such, parental-gard software sells itself on the wave of such paranoia-demands and NYT writes promotionl articles for this software, AOL and MSN. Go brand-advertising in the name of our children.
An article on parental paranoia-child-control is in NYT today, suggesting that parents must monitor activities of their children online as well as offline. While this topic is not new, some work in the UK by Sonia Livingstone and her colleagues suggests that parents and children have very different perceptions of what the other knows and what the other does online. Children are also far more relaxed about the "dangers" of the Internet, showing a significant amount of understanding that some things should not be done, others one has to pay attention to.
HomeNet's own work has shown that teens rarely comunicate with strangers. It is curious that strangers are the brunt of concern of the article, which cites only that as an articulated reason for parental control, leaving others to imagination (although implying there are many). Teens from the HomeNet interviews were very clear that meeting strangers online was not something they did for the most part. It was a rare occurance and, really, they preferred chatting with their friends anyway. Certainly these claims are subject to questioning - were the teens actually honest with experimenters? considering, however, that "meeting new people online" is still a fairly low-frequency activity in the US population in general as well as among Internet users, it seems plausible. In fact, the teens from the interviews spent most of their time chatting to their friends with whom they have just parted at school. This kind of "always on" connectedness seems in quality similar to the SMS-trends of EU and Asia and fits well with theories about demands of relationship development in this age group.
While parental controls may make parents feel better they may also build resentment from the children while trying to fix something that isn't entirely broken. Filter systems have been shown to be inept and blocking far more legitimate sites than the illegitimate ones (see the court cases for library-filter use from several years ago in the US). In Livingstone's data, children are not only aware of this, but find it both amusing and frustrating as well as largely useless. Just imagine if you live somewhere like Essex or Sussex in the UK... all the websites regarding these locations or web searchers with these names would be blocked.
Yet Parental Paranoia - the demand that one must always be watching their childs every move in order to be a good parent - has been perpetuated in this country over the last decade or so. Children with over-scheduled activity calendars almost have to rely on IM and/or SMS to build relationships that they don't hvae time to build as they are involved in a myriad of activities, always controlled and observed by the watchful parent. As such, parental-gard software sells itself on the wave of such paranoia-demands and NYT writes promotionl articles for this software, AOL and MSN. Go brand-advertising in the name of our children.
06 October, 2004
The New York Times > New York Region > Area Codes, Now Divorced From Their Areas
The New York Times > New York Region > Area Codes, Now Divorced From Their Areas
Blogger, blogger why did you eat my blog-post last night? This article inspired quite a bit of thinking about phones, places, changes from places to people, identity... I disagree with a statement that is made half way through the article that numbers don't mean as much anymore. On the contrary, they do, but that meaning has been transfigurated into something different. Where numbers used to denote class status to people within immediate physical proximity but meant simply place of current residence to people outside such location, numbers now mean - origin, allegiance, source, attachment. Changing numbers is as much a symbolic statement as it is practical even when the symbolic aspect of it is not articulated by the users. The question of "where are you from" can now sometimes be answered by obtainining their cell phone number. This can also be an indication of just how much the person in question identifies with their current location (is their area code local?).
Yet not all of this can be symbolic for the reasons of infrastructure resistance. In some places cellular phones still do not work, in others, it is necessary to obtain a landline for a number of reasons. Yet in most urban areas the symbolic nature of the cell phone persists. Numbers still mean something... they mean people now, not places but individual allegiance to places. Same? Different? time will show.
Blogger, blogger why did you eat my blog-post last night? This article inspired quite a bit of thinking about phones, places, changes from places to people, identity... I disagree with a statement that is made half way through the article that numbers don't mean as much anymore. On the contrary, they do, but that meaning has been transfigurated into something different. Where numbers used to denote class status to people within immediate physical proximity but meant simply place of current residence to people outside such location, numbers now mean - origin, allegiance, source, attachment. Changing numbers is as much a symbolic statement as it is practical even when the symbolic aspect of it is not articulated by the users. The question of "where are you from" can now sometimes be answered by obtainining their cell phone number. This can also be an indication of just how much the person in question identifies with their current location (is their area code local?).
Yet not all of this can be symbolic for the reasons of infrastructure resistance. In some places cellular phones still do not work, in others, it is necessary to obtain a landline for a number of reasons. Yet in most urban areas the symbolic nature of the cell phone persists. Numbers still mean something... they mean people now, not places but individual allegiance to places. Same? Different? time will show.
04 October, 2004
The New York Times > Job Market > Before Applying, Check Out the Blogs
The New York Times > Job Market > Before Applying, Check Out the Blogs
The article in the New York times talks about blogging as this brand new cool way of applying for jobs and being contacted for jobs. While I do not argue with the validity of the statement that this happens and the anecdotal evidence presented, what bothers me, is the theme of "this is soo new and good and wonderful!"
This phenomenon is not new (how good and wonderful it is, time will show, I doubt it will last long in its pure form once the branding begins, but I've just read "no logo" so its clear why this paranoia seems logical to me). This phenomenon, in fact, is simply another in a list of more and more elaborate iterations that started with personal web-pages, expanded with the coming of search engines, became more popular with job-search sites, was perfected by Craig's list (where at some point, several SF companies hired exclusively from Craig's list claiming they could advertise to exactly the right kind of people there and the response they got was far more personal. Similar claims were from the employees seeking jobs on the site).
Blogs are a different approach to the same problem of job-seeking, fine, maybe it is, but not SO different from previous online iterations of this process. In a way that it IS different is that the employee allows the company know a lot more about them than the company previously could. I am not sure that such levels of disclosure are actually a good thing. Granted, in "hip" and "cool" companies that are still growing this may be an advantage. However, words are a tricky medium especially in a case where they persist despite their authors once they are made public.
Lovely statement about 2 million people blogging by the way... It eerly reminds me of the hayday of muds where 2 million people were mudding and the level of engagement was dramatically changing everyone's lives too. 2 million people is less than 2 percent of the 250 million on this country... just a bit'o'perspective.
The article in the New York times talks about blogging as this brand new cool way of applying for jobs and being contacted for jobs. While I do not argue with the validity of the statement that this happens and the anecdotal evidence presented, what bothers me, is the theme of "this is soo new and good and wonderful!"
This phenomenon is not new (how good and wonderful it is, time will show, I doubt it will last long in its pure form once the branding begins, but I've just read "no logo" so its clear why this paranoia seems logical to me). This phenomenon, in fact, is simply another in a list of more and more elaborate iterations that started with personal web-pages, expanded with the coming of search engines, became more popular with job-search sites, was perfected by Craig's list (where at some point, several SF companies hired exclusively from Craig's list claiming they could advertise to exactly the right kind of people there and the response they got was far more personal. Similar claims were from the employees seeking jobs on the site).
Blogs are a different approach to the same problem of job-seeking, fine, maybe it is, but not SO different from previous online iterations of this process. In a way that it IS different is that the employee allows the company know a lot more about them than the company previously could. I am not sure that such levels of disclosure are actually a good thing. Granted, in "hip" and "cool" companies that are still growing this may be an advantage. However, words are a tricky medium especially in a case where they persist despite their authors once they are made public.
Lovely statement about 2 million people blogging by the way... It eerly reminds me of the hayday of muds where 2 million people were mudding and the level of engagement was dramatically changing everyone's lives too. 2 million people is less than 2 percent of the 250 million on this country... just a bit'o'perspective.
22 September, 2004
apophenia: fair use restraints dampen my love affair with audible.com
In apophenia: fair use restraints dampen my love affair with audible.com danah complains about her discovery that the rules of consumption established by audible.com for their digital content are breaking down treasured social behaviors that she has enjoyed in the past with real, paper books (I believe that if publishers could do what Audible.com can, they would, but they can not so there you have it, that's why libraries are still allowed to exist). This concept of sharing though... it has come up in several conversations so far and I have a hunch there is something very important here. Sharing... we like to share... its a social process that establishes our position in the social network, develops a set of IOUs in social relationships, defines us in a way. Sharing is a really important thing, it performs some extremely important functions in society that seems to think it has grown out of sharing, seems to never have noticed this one aspect of human relationships, never have accounted for it... although all of us share our knowledge, experience, food, posessions, emotions, ourselves from time to time with different people. Maybe ebcause its such a constant integral part of human relationships, that we do not notice this particular behavior as anything special. Yet it is special if only because it is ubiquitous and is a building block of social structure in nearly every respect. Yet in the computer world, sharing is seen as a bad thing. It's often classified as stealing.
One of the fundamental probelms RIAA and the like are facing with their "piracy" issues is that they are going against one of the more intrinsic parts of human nature - the social act of sharing that works as a set of social signals within a structural hierharchy of relationships. In plain speak - people buy books and music not just because they want to listen or read it, but because they want to share that knowledge, the giddiness of sharing the cool find and having someone else find it cool too. We are social animals, but the computer world is built by people who either
1. want to make sure they can get every penny for everything (sharing is aweful, the publishers association actually considers libraries the worst offenders in terms of profit loss... just think about it, libraries let people read books WITHOUT buying them! the HORROR!)
2. built by people who are either antisocial to begin with or largely choose to ignore that people use technology not for the technology but for the social interactions that technology has the potential to create/augment/change/motivate...
I consciously choose to not use the ipod for its intense anti-sharing qualities. I will never subscribe to audible or anything else that tries to force me not to share. I've bought more CD's because someone else burned me a copy of something and I liked it and bought more and bought it for others, than I have just because I found out about it through advertisement. I've bought books because I borrowed one and loved and wanted to give it to someone else, but the social rules of borrowing meant that it would't be proper to lend a lent book. There are social structures and norms that already exist in cultures that use sharing as a form of propagation both of knowledge and of consumption. Companies that produce forms of entertainment like books, music, etc... don't seem to realize that... they have put so much effort into trying to stop people from the fundamental social act of sharing and they wonder why it doesn't work...
One of the fundamental probelms RIAA and the like are facing with their "piracy" issues is that they are going against one of the more intrinsic parts of human nature - the social act of sharing that works as a set of social signals within a structural hierharchy of relationships. In plain speak - people buy books and music not just because they want to listen or read it, but because they want to share that knowledge, the giddiness of sharing the cool find and having someone else find it cool too. We are social animals, but the computer world is built by people who either
1. want to make sure they can get every penny for everything (sharing is aweful, the publishers association actually considers libraries the worst offenders in terms of profit loss... just think about it, libraries let people read books WITHOUT buying them! the HORROR!)
2. built by people who are either antisocial to begin with or largely choose to ignore that people use technology not for the technology but for the social interactions that technology has the potential to create/augment/change/motivate...
I consciously choose to not use the ipod for its intense anti-sharing qualities. I will never subscribe to audible or anything else that tries to force me not to share. I've bought more CD's because someone else burned me a copy of something and I liked it and bought more and bought it for others, than I have just because I found out about it through advertisement. I've bought books because I borrowed one and loved and wanted to give it to someone else, but the social rules of borrowing meant that it would't be proper to lend a lent book. There are social structures and norms that already exist in cultures that use sharing as a form of propagation both of knowledge and of consumption. Companies that produce forms of entertainment like books, music, etc... don't seem to realize that... they have put so much effort into trying to stop people from the fundamental social act of sharing and they wonder why it doesn't work...
14 September, 2004
The New York Times > Health > F.D.A. Links Drugs to Being Suicidal
The New York Times > Health > F.D.A. Links Drugs to Being Suicidal
This is an interesting article that brings up issues of drug use in treating personality and emotional disorders. A sort of "help us help ourselves" turning into "protect us from the side effects of helping us help ourselves". Anti-depressant medications may help some and damage others, its a risk people take when deciding to take a medication - there is no happy pill without side-effects... there just isn't. The issue here though, is more emotional, dealing with children and emotionally unstable children simply because they happen to be teenagers. Its hard enough without the drugs, its really hard if there is an emotional problem, seems like its a different hard with drugs and emotional problem. So now, the parents of children that comitted suicide will push for what? abolishing the drug? So that the rest of the children that are helped by them can't get any lest they try to kill themselves? Tough choice, but its the vocal few that mostly get their way not the "comparatively" happy many.
This is an interesting article that brings up issues of drug use in treating personality and emotional disorders. A sort of "help us help ourselves" turning into "protect us from the side effects of helping us help ourselves". Anti-depressant medications may help some and damage others, its a risk people take when deciding to take a medication - there is no happy pill without side-effects... there just isn't. The issue here though, is more emotional, dealing with children and emotionally unstable children simply because they happen to be teenagers. Its hard enough without the drugs, its really hard if there is an emotional problem, seems like its a different hard with drugs and emotional problem. So now, the parents of children that comitted suicide will push for what? abolishing the drug? So that the rest of the children that are helped by them can't get any lest they try to kill themselves? Tough choice, but its the vocal few that mostly get their way not the "comparatively" happy many.
11 September, 2004
Sick of Work: Cracking Under the Pressure? It's Just the Opposite, for Some
The New York Times > Health > Sick of Work: Cracking Under the Pressure? It's Just the Opposite, for Some
Well... diary writing may be bad, and working hard and being stressed out may not be after all... what a day of scientific findings. This one, though seems far more entertaining as well as blanaced and based in something more or less reliable... hmm flourish under stress eh? interesting :)
Well... diary writing may be bad, and working hard and being stressed out may not be after all... what a day of scientific findings. This one, though seems far more entertaining as well as blanaced and based in something more or less reliable... hmm flourish under stress eh? interesting :)
10 September, 2004
The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > A Digital Generation's Analog Chic
The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > A Digital Generation's Analog Chic
This is a really interesting article about form factor and modern design and, how modern technology design sometimes overlooks some nuances of social rhetoric and everyday mundane aesthetic. The modern design pushes towards the "future" which is hard to see through the dredges of the current, but the current may not be so bad.
This reminds me of an interesting story in one of our mover-interviews this summer. There was a couple that switched to cell phones and dropped a landline in the process of moving (people often seemed to renegotiate their use of technology as they decided on its applications in the new location). While the husband worked, the wife stayed at home with a newborn baby. Her phone had good reception in the house, and, having moved so recently, she spent quite a bit of time calling friends and family back home. She was a bit tied to the house with the child needing constant attention and the only people she had managed to meet were her neighbors and some old friends that lived in the area. She was a bit lonely and wanted to talk... yet she discovered that the design of the cellphone really did not support it being used as a house phone for the following reasons:
1. Its small. Size and weight are important considerations when we select an item that we will get to carry around with us nearly everywhere. However, at home, it seems silly to always have the phone in your pocket or carry around a bag for it (doesn't it?). So the phone develops a "place" in the house, usually next to the keys, the wallet, the handbag - a cognitive trick to reduce its changes of being lost - due to its size. Then again, because its so small and mobile, it can be carried anywhere in the apartment during conversation... and then left where the conversation ended. Of course, this is not the first time we are encountering handsets we can carry around the house. Wireless housephones have been around for ages. Unfortunately a cell phone lacks one important thing - a little button on the base station of the housephone that would make the handset make a loud annoying noise, allowing it to be found. The cell phone doesn't even have to wring if you forgot to switch off the vibrate or "etiquette" mode (on some models).
** on a sidenote, this problem has been dealt with in asian countries in a brilliant way - their handsets are even smaller, small enough to be worn around the neck like pendants. (works at least for women, men can use a belt-clip, no matter how ugly that looks its at least functional and many men don't seem to mind, far fewer women use that feature according to some market research stats).
2. Vibration - cell phone are often put on vibrate - their ring tones are for the most part annoying and you don't want it to ring loudly in a quite public space (or when the child is sleeping). Its a good feature... very good, unless you happen to have a pale of water standing underneath the cabinet where it resides together with keys and wallet... and someone calls... and it happens to vibrate (move in this case) off into the water because it was on a flat surface... It can also simply vibrate off the shelf and fall on the floor, vibrating itself under the cabinet... Successfully loosing itself for the owner. When was the last time you had to deal with technology that walked of its own accord?
There are many others, but I think this relates in some interesting way to the NYT article. Some of the "older" "outdated" technology had enjoyed years of design iterations. Maybe its not such a bad idea to go back and learn form these (as some of them were very successful)
This is a really interesting article about form factor and modern design and, how modern technology design sometimes overlooks some nuances of social rhetoric and everyday mundane aesthetic. The modern design pushes towards the "future" which is hard to see through the dredges of the current, but the current may not be so bad.
This reminds me of an interesting story in one of our mover-interviews this summer. There was a couple that switched to cell phones and dropped a landline in the process of moving (people often seemed to renegotiate their use of technology as they decided on its applications in the new location). While the husband worked, the wife stayed at home with a newborn baby. Her phone had good reception in the house, and, having moved so recently, she spent quite a bit of time calling friends and family back home. She was a bit tied to the house with the child needing constant attention and the only people she had managed to meet were her neighbors and some old friends that lived in the area. She was a bit lonely and wanted to talk... yet she discovered that the design of the cellphone really did not support it being used as a house phone for the following reasons:
1. Its small. Size and weight are important considerations when we select an item that we will get to carry around with us nearly everywhere. However, at home, it seems silly to always have the phone in your pocket or carry around a bag for it (doesn't it?). So the phone develops a "place" in the house, usually next to the keys, the wallet, the handbag - a cognitive trick to reduce its changes of being lost - due to its size. Then again, because its so small and mobile, it can be carried anywhere in the apartment during conversation... and then left where the conversation ended. Of course, this is not the first time we are encountering handsets we can carry around the house. Wireless housephones have been around for ages. Unfortunately a cell phone lacks one important thing - a little button on the base station of the housephone that would make the handset make a loud annoying noise, allowing it to be found. The cell phone doesn't even have to wring if you forgot to switch off the vibrate or "etiquette" mode (on some models).
** on a sidenote, this problem has been dealt with in asian countries in a brilliant way - their handsets are even smaller, small enough to be worn around the neck like pendants. (works at least for women, men can use a belt-clip, no matter how ugly that looks its at least functional and many men don't seem to mind, far fewer women use that feature according to some market research stats).
2. Vibration - cell phone are often put on vibrate - their ring tones are for the most part annoying and you don't want it to ring loudly in a quite public space (or when the child is sleeping). Its a good feature... very good, unless you happen to have a pale of water standing underneath the cabinet where it resides together with keys and wallet... and someone calls... and it happens to vibrate (move in this case) off into the water because it was on a flat surface... It can also simply vibrate off the shelf and fall on the floor, vibrating itself under the cabinet... Successfully loosing itself for the owner. When was the last time you had to deal with technology that walked of its own accord?
There are many others, but I think this relates in some interesting way to the NYT article. Some of the "older" "outdated" technology had enjoyed years of design iterations. Maybe its not such a bad idea to go back and learn form these (as some of them were very successful)
Dear New Scientist, you make me sick
Article: Dear diary, you make me sick| New Scientist
The above article reports some results from a study at Staffordshire University that purpoterdly disputes the common understanding that writing can be theraputic and that diaries are a form of therapy. In this study, researchers studied 94 diarists and compared their health with that of 41 non-diarists. That is, they went to a bunch of college kids, and asked them fill out a survey. <<-- 1! survey.
The very first paragraph of the article reports the results in a language that leaves no doubts as to their authenticity - "Keeping a diary is bad for your health, say UK psychologists. They found that regular diarists were more likely than non-diarists to suffer from headaches, sleeplessness, digestive problems and social awkwardness."
Nearly 8 paragraphs later they add the "problems" of the study - that despite the language in the first two thirds of the article there is actually no basis for asserting a causal direction. Did diary writing cause these problems or did the problems cause people to write diaries? That's relegated to future work, of course, but who cares? And how many individuals read to the end of the article anyway? The is sensationalism at its best in a magazine that is supposed to be at least half way reputable. It really bites me that researchers will do studies that are purely correlational (proper longitudinal studies, of course, take too much time, dont' they?) and then make causual claims that appear in publication. I bet that this type of report would not make it through peer review, but the New Scientist is happy to publish it!
The above article reports some results from a study at Staffordshire University that purpoterdly disputes the common understanding that writing can be theraputic and that diaries are a form of therapy. In this study, researchers studied 94 diarists and compared their health with that of 41 non-diarists. That is, they went to a bunch of college kids, and asked them fill out a survey. <<-- 1! survey.
The very first paragraph of the article reports the results in a language that leaves no doubts as to their authenticity - "Keeping a diary is bad for your health, say UK psychologists. They found that regular diarists were more likely than non-diarists to suffer from headaches, sleeplessness, digestive problems and social awkwardness."
Nearly 8 paragraphs later they add the "problems" of the study - that despite the language in the first two thirds of the article there is actually no basis for asserting a causal direction. Did diary writing cause these problems or did the problems cause people to write diaries? That's relegated to future work, of course, but who cares? And how many individuals read to the end of the article anyway? The is sensationalism at its best in a magazine that is supposed to be at least half way reputable. It really bites me that researchers will do studies that are purely correlational (proper longitudinal studies, of course, take too much time, dont' they?) and then make causual claims that appear in publication. I bet that this type of report would not make it through peer review, but the New Scientist is happy to publish it!
08 September, 2004
Citing Threats, Entrepreneur Wants to Quit Caller ID Venture
The New York Times > Technology > Citing Threats, Entrepreneur Wants to Quit Caller ID Venture
This is fascinating. When callerID just became available for residential customers, phone companies were forced to ask their customers whether they wanted to opt out. A very large proportion of customers did (I wonder, actually if there are any figures for that). Even now, if you are getting your landline phone, you are offered the option to "block caller ID" but for a fee of course. With the advent of cell phones, caller ID was not an issue for some reason. Cellphone companies didn't even offer the opt-out version. In fact, when they got accused of overcharging customers because they were charging for incoming calls (in the US, this was/is not an issue in Europe), cell phone companies actually cited caller ID as a feature that would allow their customers to decide whether they wanted to take (and, by definition, pay for) a particular phone call or not. At the time, they claimed that if someone was blocking caller ID why would you want to talk to them anyway (framing the "blockers" as them shady people).
What's curious is that initially, caller ID played hell with some of the assumptions telephone users have gotten used to make about their phone calls - a measure of obscurity was taken away - i.e. you couldn't repeatedly call and hang up on your ex anymore because now they would KNOW it was you without having to actually TALK and CONFRONT you... ouch...(then *69 appeared as a feature, or was it before caller ID? In any case, it was extremely unnerving but offered enough loopholes to make it manageable).
Because cellular phones made callerID simply an aspect of the technology, these expectations of obscurity never came up. In fact, some people now get annoyed about calling landline phones because they actually have to introduce themselves in order to be recognized and have to spell out their phone # instead of simply saying - you now have it on your phone, don't you? This loss of introductions is a very little thing, but my grandmother still gets a little freaked when I pick up the phone and say "Hi grandma!" before she has a chance to say hello... On the other hand, I find myself a little disconcerted when I actually have to introduce myself over the phone to someone - its such an odd, almost uncommon thing for me.
So here comes Star38, advertising a service that would not only let you block caller IDs, but to successfully pretend to be someone else entirely. A license to lie that apparently bothered a number of people (exciting a number of others). What I am curious about, however, is the sentence in the article that says people were concerned about their privacy... whose privacy? the giving or the receiving end? The very curious thing is that existence of Star38 would actually make the whole thing of caller ID safer, by make it very clear to cellphone users that they simply can not believe their callerID (thus ruining some phisher-business, no wonder they sent death-threats). It doesn't just give a license to lie, it actually teaches everyone a good measure of caution. The caller may not be who you think they are... We might have to re-learn to introduce ourselves and to stop relying on the ID feature... a step back or forward?
This is fascinating. When callerID just became available for residential customers, phone companies were forced to ask their customers whether they wanted to opt out. A very large proportion of customers did (I wonder, actually if there are any figures for that). Even now, if you are getting your landline phone, you are offered the option to "block caller ID" but for a fee of course. With the advent of cell phones, caller ID was not an issue for some reason. Cellphone companies didn't even offer the opt-out version. In fact, when they got accused of overcharging customers because they were charging for incoming calls (in the US, this was/is not an issue in Europe), cell phone companies actually cited caller ID as a feature that would allow their customers to decide whether they wanted to take (and, by definition, pay for) a particular phone call or not. At the time, they claimed that if someone was blocking caller ID why would you want to talk to them anyway (framing the "blockers" as them shady people).
What's curious is that initially, caller ID played hell with some of the assumptions telephone users have gotten used to make about their phone calls - a measure of obscurity was taken away - i.e. you couldn't repeatedly call and hang up on your ex anymore because now they would KNOW it was you without having to actually TALK and CONFRONT you... ouch...(then *69 appeared as a feature, or was it before caller ID? In any case, it was extremely unnerving but offered enough loopholes to make it manageable).
Because cellular phones made callerID simply an aspect of the technology, these expectations of obscurity never came up. In fact, some people now get annoyed about calling landline phones because they actually have to introduce themselves in order to be recognized and have to spell out their phone # instead of simply saying - you now have it on your phone, don't you? This loss of introductions is a very little thing, but my grandmother still gets a little freaked when I pick up the phone and say "Hi grandma!" before she has a chance to say hello... On the other hand, I find myself a little disconcerted when I actually have to introduce myself over the phone to someone - its such an odd, almost uncommon thing for me.
So here comes Star38, advertising a service that would not only let you block caller IDs, but to successfully pretend to be someone else entirely. A license to lie that apparently bothered a number of people (exciting a number of others). What I am curious about, however, is the sentence in the article that says people were concerned about their privacy... whose privacy? the giving or the receiving end? The very curious thing is that existence of Star38 would actually make the whole thing of caller ID safer, by make it very clear to cellphone users that they simply can not believe their callerID (thus ruining some phisher-business, no wonder they sent death-threats). It doesn't just give a license to lie, it actually teaches everyone a good measure of caution. The caller may not be who you think they are... We might have to re-learn to introduce ourselves and to stop relying on the ID feature... a step back or forward?
An Online Pioneer Resists the Lure of Cashing In
The New York Times > Technology > An Online Pioneer Resists the Lure of Cashing In - NYT printed a nice story about Craig's List due to the big event of EBay buying a stake in the company. In my interviews with movers Craig's list came up several times, with respondents routinely singing praises to it. It truly think these praises were where they were due.
There is one thing that Craig's list succeeded at doing where most failed. It created a social space where people feel like they are interacting with people like them (and these are quite different people). Another interesting thing that we observed was the secondary effect of Craig's list listings. I think in general, this could be extrapolated to a secondary effect of online presence for physical locations, but it happened in the context of craig's list only.
In effect, users found apartment listsings on the site and went to take a look. The apartments they found were absolutely atrocious, but there was one next door that turned out to be perfect. This suggests a curious thing - at a certain point of adoption/penetration of a particular technology, not everyone needs to have an online presence to enjoy effects of it. In fact, these rental properties essentially piggy-backed the efforts of the property that put itself on Craig's list, because the latter increased non-local traffic. By the same token, I wonder if this is happening to individuals - that is, if someone is not using a particular technology but people around them are, then the non-users will experience secondary effects of access and use. I wonder what these might be.
There is one thing that Craig's list succeeded at doing where most failed. It created a social space where people feel like they are interacting with people like them (and these are quite different people). Another interesting thing that we observed was the secondary effect of Craig's list listings. I think in general, this could be extrapolated to a secondary effect of online presence for physical locations, but it happened in the context of craig's list only.
In effect, users found apartment listsings on the site and went to take a look. The apartments they found were absolutely atrocious, but there was one next door that turned out to be perfect. This suggests a curious thing - at a certain point of adoption/penetration of a particular technology, not everyone needs to have an online presence to enjoy effects of it. In fact, these rental properties essentially piggy-backed the efforts of the property that put itself on Craig's list, because the latter increased non-local traffic. By the same token, I wonder if this is happening to individuals - that is, if someone is not using a particular technology but people around them are, then the non-users will experience secondary effects of access and use. I wonder what these might be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)