Let Me Google That -- Final Paper

Hey everyone,

Here is my last post for my Apple, Google, Facebook class. It has been a great term and I hope to continue explore the awesomeness that is technology and human interaction.

Below is my final paper, hope you like it!

Let Me Google That: the Expansive and Representative Nature of Google

Buddhism Paper on Sinfest

Below is a paper I wrote recently for my class on Buddhism in China and Japan. I was happy with it, and so was my professor. So, I thought I'd share. Hope you enjoy:

Bood the Buddha: Analyzing a Pop Culture version of Zen's Buddha

I unplug to ______.

Another really interesting article from BoingBoing.
As much as I disagree with Lanier. I do think that unplugging is good for the 'soul'. 

I unplug to:

• play board games
• feel the sunlight
• be physically active
• participate in meals

Why do you unplug?

Acknowledging the Change

Free! Access! Free! Access! Free! Access! [[imagine a chanting crowd]]

That seems to motto of many internet products/site/communities. But this has been fought tooth-and-nail by companies trying to maintain a more traditional business model.

Some, however, are realizing that they may not have a choice, or at least that clinging to the old business ideas are going to cost them more than it makes them. So, they are adapting.

Getty images is just one of these examples. 

Boing Boing gives a quick explanation of the shift. 

If things keep moving the direction they are, Getty will be just one of many to adapt to the new internet culture.

Neocities

I made a Neocities site!

It's not much but it was so fun to make! I focused mainly on making hyperlinks and formatting work. So, check it out and let me know what you think!

Internet Democracy isn't dead -- it evolved!

So, we have moved on to talking about You are Not a Gadget: a Manifesto by Jaron Lanier.

I'll admit at first I was very put off by Lanier's approach and conclusions. As I kept reading, my annoyance faded, but my questions grew. I had this nagging feeling that he was missing something.

As we discussed in class, Lanier views the self as infinite and wants the web to be sort of magnifying glass for the self. And his problem with the "open-web culture" is that it minimized the individual and emphasizes the group.

I couldn't help but think about Bellah in "Habits of the Heart". Bellah frames the individualizing that defines America culture as being wrapped up in ideas of democracy. The idea that our individual ideas and opinons are important and can revolutionize the whole.

That is how the internet has functioned since it's beginning. But, like any technology, its use has evolved. And to some extent, whether or not some people like that is irrelevant.  Recognizing how it has and how it continues to evolve is relevant.

I believe that the internet is evolving away from the 'democratic process' -- with foundations of individualism and self focused -- and toward a more, dare I say, socialist structure.

Now that may seem a little weird, but think about it. The focus is now on the“wisdom of the crowd" or what works for the most people. This isn't bad. It might be "un-American" (as ridiculous as that concept it). It's not the Borg. It's just different.

It's just different. And because of that our understandings and use of the internet needs to adjust with it. And being focused on the negative, focusing on the past. Why not look forward? Why not talk about what good things the "new" internet can do for us -- individually and collectively?

People vs. Twitter

Did you know that one picture, by one person, could break one of the largest online communities?

Well, it happened!

Yesterday, the picture below broke Twitter:

Not only did if break twitter, it also broke the record for most retweets!

I just think it is amazing that one photo can do so much! 

 

Better. Less. More. Worse. Facebook. People.

Zadie Smith's article "Generation Why?" is very bluntly anti-Facebook. Or perhaps more broadly, the technology age. And some of her analysis on the technological effects ring very try, "the software currently shaping their generation is unworthy of them. They are more interesting than it is. They deserve better"

We have all felt that frustration. It doesn't load fast enough. It doesn't have a way for me to do "this". If it just had "this" one feature, then it would be perfect. Smith questions if it will ever be enough, "I can just about imagine a time when Facebook will seem as comically obsolete as LiveJournal."

But will it ever be enough? Not for the generation or even humanity in general. But for Smith?

I can agree with Smith that technology has a long way to go in living up to the beauty of the human race.

However, in the process of trying to point some of the current holes in our relationship with technology, she ends up dehumanizing the very people she is trying to save. And that is an even bigger shame, for me, than her disdain for Facebook.

She divides us (and by us, I mean humans) into two categories. In the case of The Social Network, she explains it like this, it was a "movie about 2.0 people made by 1.0 people".

But she doesn't stop there. Almost everything she says about the new generation is coated not just in cynicism for the tech but a disrespect for everyone who has chosen differently that her.  Descriptors like"overporgrammed, furious, lonely" are like daggers in the back of those disagree with her.

What does that say about her? She has a lot to say about tech. And I can't say I disagree with all of it. In fact, I agree with a lot of it. But I can't agree with her tactics. I can't agree with her anger. I can't believe that is really where the solution is.

The 2.0's, the 1.0's, the 1.5's and the 3.0's to come need to work together if anything is to move forward -- in any direction.

Better vs. Less. Worse vs. More. Facebook vs. Humanity. 

Google as Multiplier

"Google as the platform for the choosing self" has been the catchphrase of our class for the last two weeks. This idea presents itself in different form in Google's different platforms. But, I wanted to go a little meta and look at how it works with Blogger.

Blogger is, as it's name would suggest, a blogging platform. The features page highlights design, reach, money and mobility. All of these things allow you to customize your blog to fit your style, audience and lifestyle. But I think that Blogger goes one step further in appealing to individual choice; it allows you to pick and choose what part(s) of your personality you want to express. Let me explain.

This is my Blogger dashboard:

Each of those titles is a different blog I have started for different reasons at different times in my life. On has focused on technology, one on daily life and another on familial stories. Each a part of who I am and each distinctly separate.

What strikes me when this is paired with "Google as a platform for the choosing self" is that it is not just choosing what we want. It is choosing who we are. Which parts of ourselves we want advertised to the public in blog form. And we don't have to choose just one part.

We can essential be two faced (or three or four faced) without repercussion. We are allowed or even encouraged to have multiple faces [blogs] that represent different parts of our individual personalities.

Rather than choosing what product we use, what video we view or how we process information, we choose how our personality is processed and presented. We get to choose who we are!

Googling Google

As we have moved into the next phase of our class (the Google of 'Apple, Google, Facebook'), I couldn't help but notice how often we were googling Google.

We discussed during the Apple section of the course that Apple was pervasive in it's influence on the tech industry and on our culture in general. But it also seems that we are having a harder time getting our collective heads around what Google is. Who are they? What do they do? How do they do it? Why do they do it? Etc.

The questions just keep coming and there don't seem to be a lot of conclusions being reached. That seems to be a characteristic of Google -- that we can't pin them down or pigeon hole them. But my bigger question is how does that characteristic effect Google's place in the language of individualism that blankets our culture?

We have talked about that Google likes to "throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and see what sticks". This means that they have a hand in every technological pie. And while they may not strive to be the best or perfect version of every product they create (like Apple), their horizontal business strategy still lands themselves a front row seat in the tech industry.

In contrast to Apple's unattainable perfection, where even the assembly room was meant to be spotless, Google has maintained a more organic structure and appearance. This is visible even in the very beginning of Google. Douglas Edward's describes their "cage" (i.e. the place where all of Google's actual work is done, on computers and CPUs);

"More than fifteen hundred machines, each sprouting cables like Play-Doh pushed through a spaghetti press. Where other cages where right-angled and inorganic, Google's swarmed with life, a giant termite mound dense with frenetic activity and intercepting curves." (21)

These feeling of organized chaos has lived on in Google to this very day. With an every growing list of products, Google's ideas have become the Play-doh in the spaghetti press. But is that so bad? Is that really a less efficient, less valid business model (as some of my classmates may have hinted at)?

I would argue that Google is hard to pin down because we, all of Google's user's -- both collectively and individually --, are complicated, organic, contradictory, and just generally hard to pin down.
So while Google's search engine may be able to predict what I want when I search for "Gluten Free Cake Recipe", they still can't tell what I want -- or more accurately, will want -- for the next product I'll use.

Unlike Apple, who has mode of operation has seemed to be creating our needs based on their predictions, Google has decided that they with be as diverse as their users. So while Apple fits into our ideas of individualism, Google exemplifies it!

Pinterest as a Lifestyle Community

Here is my webinar presentation on Pinterest. Enjoy!

Pinterest & Lifestyle Community from Sunsiree

If you can't hit play right away, it is probably due to the audio needing to load. So, give it a minute and try again!

Google Glass

Speaking of Google as a lens through which we view the world. Did you know Google has actually created a literal lens through which you can view the world? A pair of glasses?

They call it Google Glass. And they are just that -- glasses! 

It it just down right dumbfounding to me that we are living in the future! These little glasses allow users to google search on the go. I can't explain to you how it works but I can tell you that it is pretty amazing.

However, some people have reacted very negatively to Glass. Citing that it is a invasion of the privacy of those who aren't wearing Glass. Other just think it is unethical for technology to be so pervasive in our lives.

I think it is the just awe-inspiring that we have come so far, just in my lifetime! What do you think?

Through the Lens of Google

Google is everywhere.

As one of the largest tech companies, Google has reached to just about every aspect of our culture. Google has even branched out from being a noun. We use it in daily speech as a verb, as websites like  "Let me Google that for you!" display.

In Nicholas Carr's article for the Atlanitic "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", Carr claims that Google (or rather the internet at large) has changed the way we think. While I can't agree with his negative approach to the issue, I do understand his argument that Google is everywhere.

Google has become the lens through which I view and process information. Like a pair 3-D goggles you put on when entering a movie theater. They organize the images so my brain doesn't  have too. Giving me the images and information I want without the hassle of sorting through it myself.Carr says,

"A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after."

But it's not just the quotes I can find more easily through my Google lenses -- it's just about everything.
All the products Google puts out are meant to help you organize and sort through information.
Google Drive organizes my documents.
Google Cloud backs up and sorts my photos.
Google Plus organizes my friends and acquaintances.
Gmail process my communications and contacts.
Youtube sorts and presents everything from humor to learning in video format.
Blogger lets me presents and organize my ideas.

I use all of these lenses. Daily. In fact, multiple times a day!
Without my Google lenses I fear I would feel like a movie goer without my 3D glasses. The images would be complicated and blurry and I wouldn't be able to find what I was looking for easily.
I am holding off judgement on the effect of my lenses. But, I'll admit that they certainly make my view experience much more pleasurable.

What is technology?

I was drawing a blank on what to talk about in this week's short post (lets blame it on my sick-brain). Because of this I found myself ruminating on the various basics of our class discussions. Quite obviously, the word "technology" kept coming up over and over again in my thoughts.

I am quite often facinated by the differences between the connotations and denotations of words. And I wanted to see if technology was another word in which meanings got twisted and misrepresented on their way out of the dictionary and into our culture. I wanted to see what denotations of the word "technology" were -- what did the dictionary have to say about this household term?

So, logically, I googled it!
Below are the first two results:

This first definition is Google's definition. It is very simply and to the point. Next comes the first sentence of the general Wikipedia article on Technology:

This version is less simple and more accuratly displays the twisting (not inherently bad or good) that cultural usage can have on a word. Ideas of problem solving and improving emerge and to some degree overshadow the underlying ideas of the simple application of scientific knowledge.

I think it's amazing what such a little word can come to mean -- come to represent. And if we fully want to explore it's impact, we need to go back to some more basic platforms.

What does the word "technology" mean for you?

Pinterest - Creating Community via Lifestyle Enclaves

Pinterest. What in the world is that? I seem to have encountered three opinions of the site; totally sucked in, refusing to participate, not aware of it's existence. The last category is somewhat irrelevant to what I want to talk about. The second category is really not that different from the first. If you ask them why they refuse, it is usually not due to the fact that they disagree with what it says or who uses it. Instead it is because they are avoiding becoming part of the first category.

But what is so terrible about the organizing of ideas and images? I would argue that it is the draw of familiar individuals within lifestyle enclaves formed by collections of boards and search categories.

Let me first preface by saying that I have a different definition of 'community' than Bellah does. Or rather, I think it as been redefined by our current culture. Community has become more of something you create or build. Say a high school is experiencing an extreme case of the cliques, the administrators may chose to hold workshops on 'building community'. Community is about creating relationships and fostering connections that might otherwise have fallen flat. It is not necessarily organic in the way Bellah suggests.

On Pinterest, the idea is to find other boards that host similar things to your own or search based on what you are looking for and discover pins from anyone who has pins that fit in the category.

What this creates is a thread of connections or, as Bellah would put it, online lifestyle enclaves. Following the links of who follows who would show a web of connections that was totally based on preference. But multiple lifestyle enclaves converge on your home feed to create your personalized community. I use community because it doesn't qualify as Bellah's lifestyle enclave because it is more than one self-selected group.

So, Pinterest presents a interesting twist on Bellah's binary. The individual threads of "followings" (along with the Pinner's own board) may be lifestyle enclaves, but the whole of Pinterest participants form a thriving community.

Make it work!

I know we have moved on to Habits of the Heart, but while browsing on of my favorite tech blogs, I kept seeing different do-it-yourself tech things. The one that particularly caught my eye was an open source thermostat. I thought to myself that this was the kind of thing Jobs would have created after school during his younger years.

I couldn't help but be sad that he lost his need to discover and experiment -- whether or not it was perfect or marketable. This type of unhindered innovation is one of my favorite things about the tech culture. I wish that the heroes of the industry were as curious as their followers.

iSuccess - Self definition

Google search defines success as "the accomplishment of an aim or purpose."
Conversely, Merriam-Webster's first definition is " the fact of getting or achieving wealth, respect, or fame."

Our discussions in class and our readings from Bellah's Habits of the Heart indicate that success isn't really definable by a dictionary. It is only definable by each and every individual.
That doesn't stop the media from presenting us with how  our culture defines it, and therefore, how we  should define success.

"Yes, You Can Be Happy While Pushing Yourself to Success" Wait? Success is in opposition to being happy? Culturally, we are told that 'success' [whatever that means] is the path to happiness. But we also seem to know, internally, that the way the it is often define is contradictory.

Bellah recognizes that success is individual in nature. His definitions of Utilitarian and Expressive Individualism are very different and very relateable. One focuses on gains in the public sphere and the other on achievements in the private. Bellah presents these as somewhat disconnected or disparate.

Using different words and semantic context, I can't help but think that this article attempts to combine those two versions of individualism. The author uses the definition of success as material gain, and happiness as separate from that. The author, James Clear, says "Here's the problem: I want both." Clear goes on to outline "How to stay driven" and "How to be happy". While I don't want to say that either or those are definable in a paragraph. I think his thought process adds an interesting layer to Bellah's proposition.

Bellah outlines people who exemplify his different forms of individualism. But in reality, peoples definition of success is not black and white. And that is what the author struggles with, trying to find a balance, trying to find a medium.

How do you define your success?

AI and God

Does Siri believe in God? It might seem like a silly question to ask as computer. But Siri is not just an AI, she is also a window into the opinions and alignment of the company and people that made her. In fact that is exactly where Siri directs your attention when you ask her about it:

Siri knows what you are asking and she doesn't really want to answer. But the Huffington Post interviewer,Yasmine Hafiz, didn't think that was sufficient. She asked more specific questions. Siri continued to brush them off, but she also began to get a little cheeky:

What does all this say about Siri? What does it say about Apple?

I know these questions are religion in the concrete sense, rather than the abstracted version we usually address in class. But, it just seemed like too good of a thought experiment to pass up. If you were Jobs, if you were Apple programmers, how would you have Siri answer questions of this nature?
Me?...I honestly don't know.

God as Us, God as Tools, God as Verb

The Whole Earth Catalog. There is a lot of history and ideals and practices wrapped up in those four words.

I know we were supposed to scan through various volumes of the catalog to find something that stuck with us. And I did. Lots of things were interesting. But I couldn't stop thinking about two things in the very beginning of the very first issue. So, I decided to stop wandering through pages and dive in:

"We are as gods 

and we might as well get used to it." 

That is the first line of the Whole Earth Catalog's purpose statement. That's a pretty profound way to start out. This is followed, on the very next page, by Buckminster Fuller's poem "God is a Verb".

I can't stop thinking about the bold move the creators took in setting their stage with these two statements. It very blatantly positioning themselves, or more accurately their product, as something divine. The Whole Earth Catalog is "access to tools" for accessing that divine. But what are they really saying is divine? I think it's the individual and individual choice.

While the ideas of the "self" and "self determination" have been recurring topics of discussion in class, The Whole Earth Catalog make the idea concrete and marks it in ink. The Catalog's purpose refers continually to the idea of the power of the individual. The second part of the purpose statement even repeats the phase "his own" several times. The individual is a god.

But so are the tools he uses. And that idea is what the "God is a Verb" enhances this position. The first line of the poem is "I see God in the instruments and the mechanisms that work reliably". Without going into a full fledged analysis, this line sets up a poem that, while mildly confusing, paints the divine as a actionable entity. As instruments that make our existence better. Tools that somehow mask our failings.

As I went through this thought process, I couldn't help but to start think about Jobs. We know that he was a part of the same tradition as the Whole Earth Catalog, but think this fundamental idea, of the individual and tools as divine, runs deep for Jobs. We've talked about how he was so focused on his products, on making them perfect, even in the places that were invisible to the consumer. I think that to him making products (instruments) that "work reliably" and beautiful is like attaining some aspect of the divine. He was as a god, and his tools were divine carriers of his ideas.

We are as gods.

God in our instruments.

We and our tools.

We are our tools. 

We are as gods.

Steve Job's Commencement Analysis

On our first official day of class we watched a myriad of commercials that all lauded technology as the next great thing in our lives, whether based in community, intimacy or accessibility. We also watched Steve Job's Commencement Speech at Stanford. The text and video of which can be found here. Steve Job focused on three stories each with their own moral or upshot.

However, I found that each seemed to resonate with the idea of testing, persevering and triumphing presented in a biblical setting. The closest relation I find is the story of Job. Now, let me clarify. I am referring to the cultural representation and usage of story. Not the actual biblical teachings. (Ha, and not the spelling similarities!)

Culturally, Job is used to say "Don't worry, it will all work out in end." ...even if you can't see the end. This is not all that different from what Jobs was saying in his commencement speech. That while he was trudging through his early years "It wasn't all romantic." Well, in many ways, that is an understatement! He has a classic rags to riches story. His is an antihero ragamuffin who has faith in himself and his ideas and he grew into a romanticized icon.

The biblical Job doesn't understand why God has chosen to put him through all these trials. But, he does understand that his faith is being tested and he trusts in God that it is all part of his plan and will work out in the end. Jobs trusts, not in a higher power like Job, but in the power of his own design, his own path. He says, "again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards." The struggles and confusion may seem like they will forever weigh you down.

However, Steve Jobs and biblical Job both trust that hindsight is 20-20. They both trust in the power of their path, of divine or individual design.

New Class, Same Blog!

I started this blog for a previous and now I have the opportunity to start up this blog again. I am now taking Apple, Google, Facebook. It's a religious studies class thought by Martin Smith. Here is how he describes the class:

"Our current relation to technology and information feels new, but it fits in with long term cultural and religious transformation in American life. This exploration of the three corporations in the title of the course will be framed by Robert Bellah’s classic sociological study Habits of the Heart. The course is not only interested in the story of these three corporations, but also the elements of technology that they exemplify: personal devices, information, and social websites. The argument of this course will be that these elements can ultimately be related to American notions of the Self and religiosity"

I'm glad to be back to blogging about technology! I'll be posting at least twice weekly, so check back soon for my lasted posts!