Weird day, different day same.... - Ramblings

We have been socialized, but not civilized

nospam@example.com (Shane Johnson) — Mon, 21 May 2012 11:13:40 -0700

We have been socialized, but not civilized. This is not a rant about rudeness on the internet, those have been many and not far between. It is a comment on how connectivity does not lead to a necessarily enriched human experience. The big changes occurring in the world are not online, online life is a virtual world of sharing opinions and data (text,video,pictures) but not intimacy. I have largely left Facebook because of that. I have reconnected with old classmates and friends, but wasn't that the vision of Classmates.com 10 plus years back? I think if I really wanted to reconnect with old friends I would call them.

The virtual world is not accelerating, it is virtually(no pun intended) where it was 10 years ago with more computing power thrown in. It is still a shadow of reality, where every soul has a valid opinion on anything that they choose. It is no accident with the more socially connected we become the lonelier we become. People need to hear, see, smell and touch to communicate and develop deep relationships. The world as it exists now has plenty of one-dimensional communication, that contains some meaningful information but that has no nuance to it. How many times have you had to reread an email or text to figure out what someone "actually" meant.

We are communicating in ways that, we have not been evolved to handle. Our brains looks for queues, subtleties without them we are uncertain. This uncertainty leads to stress for both the receiver and transmitter of information, so we reduce the complexity and fullness of information to reduce stress. This reduces the depth of an interaction and diminishes the relationship. The other response is to throw caution to the wind, and assume that the receiver knows you well enough to know what you meant. This often diminishes a relationship too.

Until communication becomes multidimensional online, we may be more social but not more civilized.

Let's Do the Time Warp Again! How 2012 is like 2003

nospam@example.com (Shane Johnson) — Tue, 01 May 2012 10:58:28 -0700

There has recently been talk about how the start-up world is in a bubble. As can be imagined opinions vary widely, and unless there is a crash in valuations of start-ups we cannot really be sure there is a bubble. Bubbles can only be defined after they burst. What can be said is that we are in a time of start-up mania, entrepreneurs and the guys on the street all dream about being the next Instagram. The climate is very similar to people telling me to invest in AOL and Netscape fifteen years ago.

How things are similar is the way things are valued. When the Internet Bubble was expanding in the early 2000's it was all about page views, not actions, not purchases but about page views. Page views were the bees knees since the primary model of revenue was display advertising. The days of getting $50 per thousand banner displays were a heady thing, analytic software really didn't exist and people really did surf, unlike now where the spend there online time in self-constructed silos of social media and blogs. The new yet similar way things are being valued is the app download metric.

Companies send out press releases as to how many people have downloaded their app. Again, it is all about real estate not how the real estate is being used. It is a strange model when potential is worth more than real earnings, and risk is downplayed. We also never hear about daily usage, we just hear about registered users and downloads. I want to know how many minutes a day an app is used by a user, and what kind of media is consumed and what is purchased. One million installs of an app means nothing if it is only used for 10 minutes a day by 20,000 users.

Why did you sell your soul to the devil?

nospam@example.com (Shane Johnson) — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:53:08 -0700

I wasn't doing anything with it.

Change the question in the title slightly, substitute privacy for soul and internet for devil, and give for sell and you will have what most of us are doing. Funny thing is the answer would stay the same. We perceive that we really aren't doing anything with our privacy on the internet. Privacy online is like our soul (bear with me if for the sake of this argument if you don't believe in souls), we really don't feel like we are using it that much. Why is that?

Maybe it is like our souls, we assume that it is just there. That we have to make a conscious decision to give it up, that privacy in an inalienable right that we have to explicitly let go. For years, grocery stores have been trading us something for our privacy, supposed better deals. There is probably accounting somewhere that places value on all the shopping habit data they gather, and they would even rationalize that it helps customers because they know how to serve them better. It is debatable as to whether this data helps to serve customers better but at least we are given the choice to provide this information.

Why then do we not scream bloody murder about the fact that we are giving our data souls away anytime we use the internet? Many sites have terms of use and privacy statements, but how many people read them, let alone, understand them? Those documents are like the contract the devil shows up with when you want to do a deal with him, lots of pages and lots of small print. Nobody ever out foxes a the devil and he always gets the persons soul, which is just like how we lose our privacy on the internet.

What can we do as consumers of the content on the internet? Frankly, I don't know. I do know that we need more choices as to how and when we can opt to give up our information.

Friday Haiku

nospam@example.com (Shane Johnson) — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:55:57 -0700

Friday end long week
Spinning wheels, bored afternoon
Possibilities

The Look

nospam@example.com (Shane Johnson) — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:14:50 -0700

"Now you're a hacktivist. Which I would probably be if I was 20. Shuttin' down MasterCard. But there's no look to that lifestyle! Besides just wearing a bad outfit with bad posture. Has WikiLeaks caused a look? No! I'm mad about that. If your kid comes out of the bedroom and says he just shut down the government, it seems to me he should at least have an outfit for that".

John Waters

John Waters has laid his finger on a huge weakness of culture in this day and age. There was a time when members of communities shared dress and to a point a kind of fashion, it is sad that this is no longer the case. We are a poorer society for it. It is not about neatness of dress or even about likeness really, just that dress signified a kind of commitment to a cause and maybe even a definition of the cause.

There was fashion in the civil rights movement. Many of those civil rights workers of the sixties dressed in suits and dresses, impart to demonstrate that they were not here to overthrow society but here to join it. Then came the hippies, quite an obvious slide because they were more about accessorizing than fashion. The mod movement of Britain had the look but not the social substance. And since then it is all down hill, other than the punk/anarchists of the mid 70's.

Now we have the socailly vacant hipsters, all flash and dilattante engagement to social issues. They are the "Is there and app for that?" generation.