Amplify the Signal - Randall Ross

Big "Social" Media

Randall — Sun, 24 Feb 2019 18:44:01 +0000

Big "Social" Media

What Have Big Social Media Done to Independent Bloggers?

Randall Sun, 02/24/2019 - 10:44

In my "About" page, I make a passing reference to independent web sites and how blogging was the norm until "the people who own and operate social media sites came along and did very mean things to people."

This prompted an attentive and inquisitive new reader of Amplify the Signal to ask, "What have big social media done to independent bloggers?" Good question! When I wrote the original statement about mean things I was imagining effects broader than just an attack on blogging. But for the sake of brevity I'll try to confine this answer to blogging and save the bigger topic for a possible future post. This is going to be a rough outline for now. Here goes!

1. Making blogging "weird"

Before "social" media, one way people expressed their thoughts online was by writing and posting articles, photos, essays and short bursts of text to their own web sites. There were even places that made setting up a simple personal website for blogging easy (e.g. Geocities, and later Wordpress). With a web site under their control, a person could write whatever they wanted and make the site their own and an expression of their unique personality. The collection of blogs on the web (i.e. the blogosphere) was a rich and diverse place.

Then, years later, along came "social" media. All of a sudden everyone (who was new to writing online) got shoe-horned into the same generic handful of sites and into the constraints imposed by the platform owners (rules, format, etc). The result was that anything that didn't conform to the new "standard" began to look quaint, strange, and possibly even scary.

The second punch occurred when the "social" media platforms began warning people that the site they were about to visit (i.e. the independent blog) could be malicious.

The final punch occurred when the platforms stopped (or severely restricted) the appearance of links that were outside of their own site.

Do you know anyone who is an independent blogger? A person that manages their own domain and web site? Do they also use social media? Are they weird?

2. Sucking all the oxygen out of the blogosphere

The "social" media phenomenon created an attention bomb. (A bomb that once detonated burned up all the attention in the area.) Fueled by advertising, the platforms made attention-seeking their top (and only) priority. They made their sites addictive and shape-shifting to ensure that eyeballs remained on their sites for as long as possible, and longer. Not content with having just an addictive platform, they placed links, trackers, ads and other tricks on adjacent web properties to drive eyeballs back to their own. Almost overnight, people were being sucked in. "Social" media was like a black hole, no attention escaped it. The blogosphere withered.

3. Feeding and incentivizing lazyness

Word got around that one could quickly sign up for a "social" media account and begin posting almost instantly, and potentially to millions of captives. This tricked people who should have known better, and who had the know-how to actually bypass the platforms and set up their own compelling sites, with just a little extra work. Why not take the easy way? I hesitate to use the word lazy. Maybe is was just a response to being busy. The net effect was destructive. Once on the platform, the person who could have been a blogger was bound by the rules, norms, and conditions imposed by the owners, and was sucked just as deeply into the swamp as the readers they were trying to reach.

There you have it. I'm sure I missed a bunch of other effects, but this should serve as a primer.

So, what has "social" media done to you?

---

Image credit: Rawpixel

This blog post first appeared on Amplify The Signal.

Add new comment

Language English

Respectful Technology

Randall — Wed, 30 Jan 2019 00:12:53 +0000

Respectful Technology

Is your technology respectful? How would you know?

Randall Tue, 01/29/2019 - 16:12

Everyone is dependent on technology today. But how many of us know what and who is behind our technology?

Should I buy this device for my home? Can I trust it? Should I give this gadget to my child or grandchild? These are important questions and it is *very* hard to get honest answers. The information to help make good decisions is drowned out by advertising, algorithms, and public relations firms.

I want to help change that. I'm an engineer (electrical, in case you're wondering) and have been a technology professional my entire career which spans over 20 years. But more than that I'm an advocate for technology that respects those who rely on it. Humans first. Machines second. No predation allowed.

I have spent the past year researching and developing a framework (a comprehensive collection of things to check) to help ensure that our technology choices are beneficial and not harmful before we agree to accept them into our lives.

The funds that are collected through this campaign will be used to build informational resources. I expect this will include: a website, brochures, and a crowd-built ranking system for technology products.

A placeholder for the site is already up at: http://respectfultechnology.org

I'm building "Respectful Technology" on my own time, in my spare time. But, in order to make this a reality sooner, I realized that I need to dedicate myself to the task full-time for at least two months. I also need to build out some support tools on the website which will require detailed programming and configuration. For this, I set up a GoFundMe campaign to gather a small amount of "seed" money to scale back my daily work obligations. I've thought about seeking sponsorship through other avenues, but none of them can offer the promise of non-interference. I need a source of seed funding that will not make demands like "Make sure our products are given good treatment."

Your support will be of immediate benefit to the project and will help jump-start a life-long dream of mine: to give people everywhere the means (and tools) to protect themselves from unruly, unethical, or even dangerous technology.

The link to the campaign is here: Respectful Technology gofundme. I and the people worldwide who will ultimately benefit from this thank you in advance for your support.

This blog post first appeared on Amplify The Signal.

Add new comment

Language English

An Open Letter to the Mayor of Vancouver

Randall — Thu, 13 Dec 2018 20:21:25 +0000

An Open Letter to the Mayor of Vancouver

You have a problem. A big one.

Randall Thu, 12/13/2018 - 12:21

Dear Mr. (New) Mayor,

You have a problem. A big one.

I bet you're thinking "Oh great, another rant about the sorry state of housing in this city." Well, you're wrong.

On Monday evening, a little boy, barely 4 years old, and his Mom were hit hard by a reckless driver while crossing a residential street adjacent to East 1st Ave. Both were tossed like crash test dummies onto the pavement. The little boy landed on his head and lay crying with his skull bleeding. The mom fared a little better, but barely. Have you ever landed on your head? How did it feel? Have you ever watched an ambulance close its' doors and rush away wondering if you will ever see your little boy again?

Do you get the picture?

Your immediate problem is that you have a police department (and emergency response teams) that think it's normal and OK for drivers to endanger pedestrians. You are mayor of a city where human life is in danger every single minute and you don't seem to give a rat's ass. An if you do, you certainly don't seem to be doing anything about it. You are Mayor of a city where little boys and girls (and their Moms) are endangered and hit every day.

Let me tell you how I know.

As a person who walks everywhere, I see things closely. At busy intersections, during every traffic signal cycle, EVERY SINGLE ONE, I observe two (it's almost always two) drivers run the red light. The light's not yellow. It's not even barely red. It's SOLID red. There is no possible way that the drivers running these lights do not see that they are red. What these drivers *do* know is that they've never been caught. They've probably been lucky enough to not hurt or kill other people... YET. (Take a look. Here's two of them.)

As a person who walks everywhere, there are also things I don't see. I don't see red light runners (or other reckless drivers) being pulled over and ticketed for their life-endangering lifestyle. I don't see your fancy police cruisers hunting them down and enforcing the law. Ever.

I also don't see the camera systems that are designed to photograph red light runners ever turned on. Are these decorations, or do you intend to actually use them some day?

I'm sensing you're still not convinced. Or, maybe I'm exaggerating?

Let's assume a traffic signal interval of three minutes, and a busy period of six hours a day (morning, lunch and dinner rush times), that's 120 cycles where drivers endanger human life. That's 240 chances at each busy intersection for a life-threatening injury, or death EVERY SINGLE DAY. Are you feeling lucky? I'm not. And neither is one 4-year old with a smashed up head.

With 240 nearly guaranteed chances a day for injury and death at every intersection, what do you think the odds are that someone is going to be killed at one of them today? I bet you have at least 100 intersections like this in your city. Do the math. 2400 is a big number.

A telltale sign of chronic negligence is when people don't even recognize it as such. People in Vancouver I talk to that have lived here for a while say they see red light runners all the time. They don't seem to connect the dots though. Maybe over the years one becomes blind to the rot? I'm sure you see it though, right?

I bet you don't.

Does Public Safety appear on the agenda for your first real council meeting? Does Public Safety appear anywhere in the list created by the Standing Committee of Council Policy on Strategic Priorities?

None of this is OK and negligence stops now. All your city real estate improvement plans will go to hell if your city isn't safe for the people who live in it.

Tell your Chief of Police to adopt a zero-tolerance for dangerous driving and to enforce traffic laws beginning right now, or to find another job.

I'll close with some good news. You're new. And, as "the new guy" you might legitimately say that you have an excuse. But, with every signal change at every intersection in Vancouver your excuse erodes. Don't be like that last guy. Where is he now? Oh yeah.

The light just turned red. Did you see it?

Update: Jan 18, 2019: Do you think this problem is solved, or on its way to being solved? Here's another one:
https://mediareleases.vpd.ca/2019/01/18/vancouver-police-search-for-hit-and-run-driver/
Will VPD begin to enforce traffic laws this year?

(Photo credit: skhakirov. Not the actual accident photo.)

This blog post first appeared on Amplify The Signal.

Add new comment

Language English

Fake News

Randall — Tue, 15 Jan 2019 02:46:32 +0000

Fake News

You're likely worrying about the wrong problem

Randall Mon, 01/14/2019 - 18:46

In the past few years, the world has been awash in a term called "fake news." I recall first hearing the term in conjunction with the US presidential election campaign in 2016. My American colleagues at the time were chatting about whether news they were seeing and reading was real or not. I could sense clearly that this situation was to them quite troubling. How to know who to vote for? How to know if a given story was trying to trick "us"?

After a bit of squirmy hand-wringing, one of them helpfully pointed out that there was a website (or was it several websites?) that could confirm/verify whether a given story would pass a fact check. The rest of the group seemed pleased with the tip. Problem solved. How useful!

Here's my perspective. "Fake news" is a red herring. It is likely the biggest red herring that I've seen in my lifetime. The problem is not whether news is fake or not. The real problem is whether news is useful, relevant, and actionable. And to that, dear reader the answer is definitively "No". News has never been worth ingesting.

So how could the term "fake news" even become a thing? As I've pointed out in an earlier writing, news addiction is real. There is a large portion of the population that has been trained (either by education or by socialization) that the consumption of news is a de-facto requirement for an informed life. I don't pretend to know what percentage of people fall into the addicted category, but based on the people I encounter in my daily travels I'm guessing it's 80% or more. The message that one must follow the news is everywhere. And, as you might expect, that idea is spread by the creators and sellers of news and by politicians and propagandists who know that a news-consuming public is a public that is easily manipulated.

The regular consumption of news (RCON) is an epidemic. It's also an excellent vector for attacks on people's thinking.

Scott Adams (the famous Dilbert cartoonist) is an extremely clever (and controversial) audiocast personality. (If you aren't familiar with his work I recommend you check it out.) Scott has written and spoken at length about master persuasion techniques. One of the most powerful techniques that he has brought to my attention is "thinking past the sale". Thinking past the sale is the notion that if you want to persuade someone to think (or do) something, you should offer an idea that is one or more steps beyond the position that you are trying to persuade them to adopt. For example, if I'm trying to sell you a car, I might describe a perfect roadtrip that you are taking with the love of your life. A beautiful scenic drive down an idyllic country road. The top down. The wind in your hair. See what I just did? You haven't even bought the car and you're already on the road in a dream.

So, if I were a propagandist and well-versed in the techniques of persuasion and manipulation and wanted to exert control over people, I would distract people in this way too. Who wouldn't?

The next time you hear the term "fake news", I recommend that you think of it as the cunning tool that it is: A sneaky trick designed to persuade you that news is worth something when it's actually worthless, fake or not.

(Image Credit: The Public Domain Review)

This blog post first appeared on Amplify The Signal.

Add new comment

Language English

Joseph Overton

Randall — Tue, 01 Jan 2019 18:05:45 +0000

Joseph Overton

What Is Dare Not Said

Randall Tue, 01/01/2019 - 10:05

The Overton Window is a concept that some of you might be familiar with, but probably not in this context. Please allow me expand on it to encompass the theme of this site.

According to the authoritative source, "Joseph Overton observed that in a given public policy area, such as education, only a relatively narrow range of potential policies will be considered politically acceptable."¹

In nearly every domain, there are alternatives ways of living or topics of discussion that a large majority of people deem to be too radical or off-the-wall to even entertain. And if they do, it's usually with a dismissive sneer. (I've also heard this referred to as the "third rail", a reference to the electrified rail on a subway system that provides an instant lethal jolt if touched. Stand clear!)

So what is forbidden to utter? What is clearly outside of Overton's Window? What is the third rail? Seemingly this:

It is absolutely unnecessary to keep up with current events. It is unnecessary to consume television news, the news that is reported in newspapers, and the news that appears on web sites. One can lead a perfectly happy and thriving life without any of it. In fact, one's vitality is diminished with every piece of news ingested. None of it is healthy.

There. I said it.

Am I the first person you've heard dare utter that sentence? Maybe. Have you ever seen that idea appear in the media? Nope. In a way I'm not surprised. One shouldn't expect those who make their living by pushing news push the one idea that would make them broke.

What's worse though is even the harshest of media critics that I can find don't say it. For example, people like Doug Rushkoff, Scott Adams, and even the godfather of "media is manipulation" Noam Chomsky himself. Perhaps they also fear the repercussion of an audience that suddenly declares "I'm outta here!" I hold them to a higher standard though, and I think they are doing the world a major disservice by not saying in clear terms to stop paying attention to news and get on with a meaningful life. Shame on them!

Whether you're a media critic with a large audience, or simply a low-key person with a handful of friends and acquaintances, I encourage you to smash Overton's Window and encourage everyone you know to dismiss the news forever.

All of it.

1. Mackinac Center for Public Policy. https://www.mackinac.org/overtonwindow

(Image Credit: Sean McCormick.)

This blog post first appeared on Amplify The Signal.

Comments

I believe Doug Rushkoff…

I believe Doug Rushkoff presented that idea in Present Shock.

Yes, Rushkoff is well versed…

Yes, Rushkoff is well versed in these things. Thanks for the comment (which I'm seeing 5 years after you posted it :P)

Add new comment

Language English

Second Hand Smoke

Randall — Sun, 30 Dec 2018 18:01:53 +0000

Second Hand Smoke

Who's Blowing It In Your Direction?

Randall Sun, 12/30/2018 - 10:01

I'm old enough to remember when I'd walk into a restaurant and be asked "Smoking, or non-smoking?" I've never been a smoker, but my answer to the question seldom seemed to matter. There was nearly as much smoke in the non-smoking section as there was in the smoking section. Smoke drifted everywhere, and unless one wore a respirator, it generally couldn't be avoided. The question more aptly should have been, "Would you like some smoke or a lot of smoke with your meal?" Ah, the good old days!

As a society, we got smarter. It took decades though. The "smoking does not cause cancer" lie was finally exposed, and the horrible health effects of second-hand smoke became public knowledge. It's easy and tempting to look back on the smoking generation and say "They should have known better." Unfortunately, society doesn't seem to work that way. People get infected with information that harms them. In this case, the idea that smoking was cool, or fun, or not harmful ultimately destroyed millions of lives before it was extinguished by a gang bigger than the public relations industry that started and promoted it.

We're living it again.

No, the modern problem isn't the second-hand smoke from cigarettes. Thankfully, smokers have been exiled to areas safely out of reach of the lungs of others. The problem today is a different kind of second-hand smoke. This smoke is from those who are addicted (in the truest sense of the word) to the information cigarettes that come in the form of newspapers (be they paper or electronic), TV news (be it on a television or on a web site), and social media gossip. The addicted are spreading their information smoke to those of us who have decided not to ingest the toxic information from these sources. And yes, it's all toxic.

Let me give you an example. I work and write from coffee shops. As a person who's out in these spaces a lot, it's not uncommon for other coffee shop patrons to notice my (normally) friendly face and try to strike up a conversation with me. Usually they initiate conversations in a manner like this, "How about that in . Isn't that amazing?" I try to be polite in my response. I say things like "No, I haven't heard of that" and then change the subject to something more meaningful and relevant to the neighbourhood we're in. This cue is sometimes enough to get a real conversation going. But more often than not, it's met with another random piece of information harvested from whatever source these things come from. (See above).

On several occasions, I've even cut the conversation off by saying, "Hey, I don't read or follow news so could we talk about something else?" This was met with incredulity. How could someone not read news? The scandal! And in the most extreme and persistent cases, I've even said "What you just shared with me is second-hand smoke, and I'd prefer if you didn't." Not the most endearing response, I admit. But the effect was as intended. No more useless information to wade through and debunk.

The people who ingest "news" are addicted. If they've been addicted long enough, their thinking is likely impaired. I am sympathetic, and on a good day, I might be willing to coach. But I am never willing to breathe their second-hand smoke. I don't smoke. I never have.

We live in an era where nearly everyone is smoking information cigarettes. If you are not one of them, congratulations! I want to talk to you. I would love to hear your perspective.

One day, hopefully in my lifetime, the ingestion of information cigarettes will be widely known as dangerous and harmful. Until then, if you are one of the addicted, all I ask is that you blow your smoke in another direction, far away from me.

(Image Credit: Kati Jenson. Smokified by author.)

This blog post first appeared on Amplify The Signal.

Add new comment

Language English

French Fried Information

Randall — Sun, 23 Dec 2018 20:12:13 +0000

French Fried Information

What have you eaten recently?

Randall Sun, 12/23/2018 - 12:12

I love french fries. They're delicious, inexpensive, and comforting. They're also easy to get.

But, I don't eat them every day. I want to, but to do so would be to subject myself to health risks that don't justify the pleasure that I would get from a steady diet of comfort food. It is widely known that one's body chemistry changes with foods ingested. The chemistry changes that french fries are known to cause are not changes that I want. And, spending the remainder of my life in a state of poor physical health for the sake of a short-term "Mmmm that tasted good" doesn't sound like a bargain. At best french fries are a once-in-a-while treat. Maybe you feel the same?

So what does that have to do with "decluttering the infoscape" (the stated mission of this blog)? Everything!

Here is my line of reasoning: One's mind becomes the sum of one's experiences, whether from direct experiences or from descriptions and depictions of other people's experiences, whether in print (on paper or screen), video, or audio. Information is to the brain as food is to the body. Over time, one's thinking becomes the collection of ideas one has acquired or ingested. Over a decade or two, this adds up.

Here's where it gets dangerous: With the explosion of information brought about first by books, then by movies, then radio, then television, then the internet (the web really), and now "social media", other people's experiences are generally now more available than one's own. The net result: You are the sum of what you've ingested and to a lesser degree what you've experienced. Your brain has been tuned, or more accurately stated -- "de-tuned" to reflect mostly the experiences of others.

So what's going into your brain with regularity? The optimist in me wants to hope that it's a steady stream of accurate, relevant, actionable, respectful, and testable information. That brain diet would lead to a cumulative positive impact on your thinking. Over time, and given enough good information fuel your brain would be stronger and clearer. The pessimist in me worries that that is expressly what's not happening.

Many people that I've observed day-to-day are ingesting the equivalent of "brain french fries". Without enumerating all of the observations I've made here (a task I may do at a later date), I will just say that the patterns I see are troubling. People are reading about (or listening or watching) other people, usually not near them, doing things that largely don't matter to them and never will. Worse still, the depictions are usually second or third-hand and take the form of "Someone says that someone else is doing something somewhere other than here." Mostly it's hearsay and it's packed with bias and agenda.

So what has your mind ingested recently? Information can be like french fries. Is that really what you want to "eat" every day?

(Image Credit: Roland Tanglao.)

This blog post first appeared on Amplify The Signal.

Add new comment

Language English

Mobility Greed

Randall — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 19:39:00 +0000

Mobility Greed

This is a placeholder for an upcoming post. Please stay tuned.

Randall Sun, 12/09/2018 - 11:39

Nulla neque massa, lobortis auctor sollicitudin vitae, sodales aliquet est. Pellentesque vitae nunc sed nisl suscipit sollicitudin. Etiam suscipit bibendum ultricies. Phasellus interdum suscipit tristique. Aenean vel felis hendrerit, tempor nisi a, blandit mi. Quisque quis justo lectus. Etiam finibus venenatis sapien nec venenatis. Nulla ante tellus, facilisis hendrerit semper aliquam, dignissim sit amet felis. Nulla tempor sapien et ex consequat egestas. Mauris interdum laoreet diam vitae tempor. Donec non dui non purus cursus tempus nec eu dolor. Vivamus nec semper dui, non efficitur nibh. Donec feugiat erat in varius sollicitudin.

Nulla aliquam accumsan augue, eu posuere sem porta non. Aliquam id blandit leo. Praesent sed sapien non lacus volutpat aliquam. Suspendisse tincidunt, est eget laoreet rhoncus, leo orci venenatis velit, id scelerisque diam felis at odio. Nam porta lorem id massa viverra, a cursus massa aliquet. Maecenas lobortis posuere purus, id laoreet mi pretium eget. Sed id turpis in metus laoreet sagittis. Cras orci quam, varius sit amet enim sit amet, finibus iaculis mi. Morbi in arcu porta nisl suscipit laoreet vitae vitae quam.

Quisque at lacinia est. Nulla a consequat tortor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Sed varius, neque vehicula laoreet pellentesque, dui dui accumsan tortor, sit amet ullamcorper tellus diam in dui. Quisque massa arcu, blandit sed porttitor id, accumsan quis tellus. Cras quis orci molestie, luctus nisi nec, ultrices quam. Ut commodo consequat leo sit amet pretium. Aenean suscipit leo id quam vulputate, ut rhoncus libero ultricies.

Nullam mi magna, laoreet vel metus a, semper consectetur dui. Aenean vel egestas urna. In eget elit sed sapien laoreet posuere sed id ex. Nullam vitae consequat lorem, sit amet feugiat ex. Nullam purus neque, pharetra et mollis at, vulputate non lectus. Fusce sit amet risus sed orci feugiat porttitor. Suspendisse potenti. Proin at auctor tortor. Mauris pharetra malesuada ullamcorper.

Quisque porta nunc at velit vestibulum cursus. Nulla posuere, urna in pulvinar congue, dui magna iaculis nunc, sed fermentum velit nisi venenatis enim. Curabitur dictum lorem magna, et luctus lacus facilisis non. Nunc ac eros justo. Donec at scelerisque massa. Cras non elit ac enim tincidunt vehicula ac sed arcu. Sed lectus mi, posuere eget sem non, volutpat vehicula mauris. Quisque tempor lacus vel urna placerat, non tincidunt ante tincidunt. Morbi elementum, justo et finibus porta, augue lorem posuere enim, eget semper dolor orci a arcu.

5 paragraphs, 387 words, 2530 bytes

(Image credit: Sandy Brown Jensen.)

This blog post first appeared on Amplify The Signal.