Value-laden Nature of Technology

I have heard many people discuss various digital technologies as being neutral, objective tools and that it depends on how they are used as to whether the technology is good or bad. However, this view loses sight of the fact that nearly every cultural phenomena are social constructions. By their very nature, social constructions of good and bad are value-laden.
Embedded within any tool is the nature of the thing. The nature of a thing may be implied or overt. The nature of a hammer seems to be pretty obvious. You use a hammer to pound (or remove) nails. How is that value-laden? Well, the value of living under a roof comes to mind, not to mention the value of building various enclosures--such as house, a wardrobe, or a set of drawers.

Digital technologies are similarly value-laden. We often view tools as a means to a desired end. Yet, for many, the technology has become an end in itself. When means become ends, we should take a moment to reflect. A good example is the GOP argument in several states that women should be required to undergo an ultrasound prior to an abortion. It can be legitimately argued that the tool (the ultrasound) is value-laden in that the tool is meant to assure the health of the fetus. Yet, the health of the fetus might be immaterial for a woman considering an abortion. When the tool is used not as a barometer of fetal health, but as a way to potentially intimidate a woman from seeking an abortion, we are talking about an entirely different set of values.

Computer interface design is another example of the value-laden nature of technology. In my book presentation, "Interface Culture" the Steven Johnson reviews the evolution of computer-interface design based on architectural metaphors. These metaphors led to our modern-day understanding of the computer desktop and windows based software. Over time, the visual metaphors became as important as the functions they signify.

Advertising Media Technology: Past, Present, and Future

It seems that in the past ten or fifteen years, new technologies have dramatically changed not only consumer behavior in terms of television usage, but have had an equally dramatic impact on how we (as media planning strategists) perform our jobs.

A perfect example of this dynamic is the path toward convergence that first began with the ability to control your analog television with the same remote control unit used for your cable box. The idea of convergence, that one day all of our electronic devices will be controlled through a central box or system, was given little attention from advertising pundits throughout the 1980's and 1990's. As technological advances in consumer entertainment became more prevalent, we began to see that convergence was indeed worthy of discussion.

Now, in 2013, to the extent that convergence is possible, I live in a converged household as we attempted to describe it back in 1999. There is one box in my house that controls, my television, my phone, and my internet access. In addition, I am now able to use this same box to time-shift my television viewing in a way that was never imagined in the days of VHS and Beta.

These technological advances have had a profound impact on traditional consumer advertising. In the past, we were required to negotiate with individual television stations and individual cable companies. While to a large extent, local advertising still works under this paradigm, the sands are shifting. As more consumers turn to satellite options vs. fiber-optic cable companies, the idea of advertising with local cable companies becomes more problematic. In 1999, the vast majority of cable households received their cable signal via local cable companies. However, satellites and other Alternative Delivery Systems (ADS) have now taken a big bite out of local cable subscribers and thus, audience. Whether satellite companies like DISH will begin offering local ad insertions in the near future, or not, the decision to invest in local cable schedules now bears close scrutiny.

Such is the way of technology. Joseph Schumpeter wrote about the concept of creative destruction, describing it as a phenomenon in which new technologies obviate old ones, with a resulting change in behavior, economy, and required worker skills. Despite the fact that Schumpeter was an economist from the mid 1920's, the same dynamic holds true for technology. It is truly a paradox that we cannot enjoy the rewards of creative destruction without also accepting that not everyone will be better off. In fact, some technologies have wiped out entire industries. When was the last time you shopped for a typewriter?

Just as innovation comes from new applications of old ideas, technological advances are most often the result of older technologies. For example, just eight or ten years ago, Steve Jobs doubted the viability of a tablet platform. However as technological advances continued, allowing functionality similar to that available on a laptop, the concept gained favor within Apple and was released with much fan fare in 2010.

I imagine that future advances will work under the same paradigm. Old ideas lead to new ones. Limitations of old technologies encourage the development of new ones. And so it will go with no foreseeable end in sight!

Is FaceBook the new global connector, or is it dying?

In this article the author posits that at 500 million users,and Zuckerburg cashing out to Goldman Sachs, the end must be near.This article suggests that FB is merely a fad and not a fundamental change in the way we communicate
Well that opinion is more of a whisper in a hurricane than a popular notion.
First, the fact that FB is in fact reaching our to corporate investors, there is no evidence to suggest that Zuckerburg plans to take the money and run.

I have seen others write in blogs and discussion threads on linkedin of their annoyance with privacy issues related to FaceBook. Of course when one really thinks about it, privacy is really an individual strategy. If there are things you want to keep private, simply do not post it anywhere on the internet. There is no real presumption of privacy on the Internet. Once the information is out there, any persistent individual can learn these things about you regardless of your privacy settings on FB.

FB now officially has 550 million users...adding the equivalent of the entire MySpace user base over the last several months. Some sources say FB will reach 800 million users by the end of 2012. With figures like this, it is hard to give credibility to the idea that FB has reached product maturity and will start declining as a result.

The most overwhelming evidence to date however of FB's strength in connecting people around the world comes with the recent revolution in Egypt. See http://bit.ly/ffY3RZ as just one writer's opinion. But the idea that the February 25th revolution was started on FB is, for lack of a better term, revolutionary.

Up until recently FB was entirely a social network with exceptional facility in connecting old friends who had lost touch. It also provided a forum for individuals to freely express their thoughts, likes and dislikes not to mention what they had for dinner.

But in Egypt it played an entirely different role. FB was one of the many catalysts in the revolution. Protestors posted 20 different protest locations on their FaceBook pages--knowing they were being monitored by the police. However a 21st protest was arranged through a secret FB page that the police were unaware of. By catching them off guard, the protesters were able to get a foothold in Tahrir Square they might not otherwise have achieved. Protectors continued to update each other with FB and Twitter throughout the 18 day protest.

Now this is a use for FB that Zuckerburg/the Twins most likely never anticipated. Using social networks as a catalyst for social upheaval is just another expansion of the ever-growing, ever-metamorphosing world of social media. What we have today is most likely simply an inchoate form of what is to come.

So, are we witnessing the demise of FaceBook? I resoundingly state NO!

Words have meaning.

I have been thinking recently of the group that seeks to censor Mark Twain's Huck Finn. I am deeply disturbed by this idea for several reasons. First, I am against censorship on it's face. So 'nuff said right? Oh, so very wrong.

To satisfy those who question my intention, the word to be censored is not part of my own vocabulary and if I hear it used in conversation I am quick to tell the offender what a bigot she it.

But that is not what this is about at all.

In the name of political correctness and sensitivity the words of one our greatest American authors would be altered. And in doing so the meaning changes.

In the context of Huck Finn, the word 'nigger' has a much more complicated connotation than the term 'slave'. The term slave does not always refer to someone who is black and the absolute oppression of an entire people is not inherently implied as it is with the term 'nigger'. The term 'slave' fails to convey the dehumanizing and torturous treatment of blacks in post-civil war America at the hands of whites.

Removing this term is absolutely revisionist history. Re-writing the words of Mark Twain robs our culture of a more realistic picture of southern society...the remnants of which still remain.

Is this a word that deserves any role in our current vernacular? NO. An emphatic NO. And the reason is that the word carries with it such deep offense that in the 21st century it simply doesn't belong. Not to mention there is no single word in the English language that can be directed at white people that comes anywhere within the same strataphere of carrying a similar level of offense.

The death of civil discourse in America

Our entire nation is mourning the events of this past Saturday at a Tucson Safeway. But the question is, can meaning be found in such a senseless act? It's hard to say. This event was on the heels of other acts of violence here in the Midwest. First an Omaha teenager shot and killed the associate principle and shot and critically injured the principal at his high school. This followed his suspension from school for driving on the football field. Then days later, here in Des Moines, a student was suspended after bringing a loaded gun on campus.

And it's important to remember the public discourse so common these days that might be setting the example. When you have Sharon Angle of Nevada suggesting "2nd ammendment remedies" for elections that do not turn out as one desires; Sarah Palin used a gunsight to target Gabriella Giffords congressional seat and we as a nation have been sitting on pins and needles just waiting for some wing nut to take these exhortations seriously enough to act on them.

Yes there has always been school violence and Political assasinations. And that is a terrible thing. But how much are we incentivizing the crazies to act out with violence? Is our national rhetoric becoming so hateful that we are telling members of society that incivility is appropriate behavior? Why isn't it possible for those in disagreement to engage in thoughtful and critical dialogue instead of resorting to maliciousness, foul language, and yes violence.

Recently I was involved in an on-line discussion in which one participant became especially vitriolic in her disagreement with the other members of the group. Several times she referred to the ideas of others as stupid or idiotic. In a later posting she finally resorted to fouled language. Now mind you, this was a pretty benign subject--nothing to do with politics or religion--just looking for opinions on a particular behavior. It should come as no surprise that the group picked up their toys and went home as evidenced by the lack of further posts to the site.

So again, one must wonder what is it about us that wants confrontation? What is it about our national identity that finds incivility in political dialogue helpful or appropriate? Clearly it is neither.

The question is no longer why do you blog? Now it is why don't you blog?

I have recently had the opportunity to participate in a conversation regarding why people blog. Naturally there were many different opinions expressed. Some believe it is for self expression,others believe it is for self-exposure and still other believe it is for self reflection. Many discussed the idea that blogging is one way of contributing to the community from which we often take so much. Another thought was that blogging is part of what web 2.0 technology is all about.
This was an asynchronous on-line discussion which has allowed for nearly 100 different comments so far. Needless to say everyone had something slightly different to offer.
And then someone said, "People blog because they are not talented enough to be published".
Abruptly the conversation stopped for a time. Two participants argued alternative views including that publication is not necessarily a metric of talent.
Another participant suggested bloggers only write for exposure and since exposure is greater in published documents then why wouldn't everyone want more exposure? Therefore, if people were talented enough to be published they would have no reason or motivation to blog.

These two individuals seem to completely miss the basic premise of web 2.0, which is a community of collaborators, sharers of Information if you will. In this brave new world, contribution of content is king and there are lots of opportunities to do so. Which is a good thing. The more voices that are heard the greater the democratization of mass communication. Thanks to web 2.0 just about anyone can have a voice. If their story is significant in some way, it will get exposure. In some cases, more exposure than could have ever been enjoyed had it been published in one paid publication.

I think many would disagree that people blog because they have no talent. I hope so.
Why don't you let me know what you think,

The times they are a changin'

I was talking with an old friend last night about social media, web 2.0, and the various tools and devices that are out there to help manage and add value to our lives.
She is somewhat of a newbie when it comes to these issues,but her eagerness to learn as much as she can was palpable.
She mentioned that despite having had a computer for a number of years, she really wasn't connected due to her home being in a rural area with no broadband. But recently (at last!) broadband has come to her area and she can now truly be connected.
The most interesting thing is that despite our different backgrounds and experience with computers, her excitement and interest in connectivity at least equals my own. Of course this gets back to our human need to connect to people outside our immediate environment.
As I mentioned in a much earlier post, surfing the net used to be more of a screen watching activity than interactive platform we now enjoy. My friend spoke of this in our conversation. I think she said, that despite being online for a number of years, she had never really found any aspect of the web to be particularly compelling and simply used it as I once did which was to search out specific information.
But today web 2.0 offers so much more. And she is seeing that too. We discussed our mutual fascination with forums such as linkedIn. Finally there is an offering on he web that is compelling enough to not only draw interest but sustain interest for web users across the continuum from newbie to the completely tech savvy.
The ability to interact with people all over the world on subjects of mutual interest is not only a great experience, but one that also provides insight and best practices on the topic of interest to the users. It seems there is a linked in group for just about any topic area one
can think of.
It appears now that both of us are hooked! Each for different reasons, but the bottom line for both of us is that web 2.0 technology is fundamentally changing the way we work, learn, and communicate.
I have long posited that new technologies only enjoy rapid adoption rates when they do in fact fundamentally change the way we behave. Take the VCR for example. VCRs were on the scene in the early 1980's yet it was another 20 years for it to reach high household penetration levels. Similarly the DVR and the ability to time-shift viewing has been available in one form or another since roughly 1999 or so. Today only about 25% of households have a DVR and even fewer people use it frequently. In fact the TVB reported in 2010 that the average adult spends 5 and 1/2 hours watching live television every day but less tha. 30 minutes per day watching DVR'd programming.
Neither of these technologies fundamentally changes our behavior. But guess what did? You got it--the smart phone and the Ipad. Both of these devices are in fact fundamentally changing our behavior and how we communicate. More than 13 million ipads have been sold since April 2010. By this time next year, it is likely that figure will substantially more than double. Or at least that is my own humble opinion!

Until next time!