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.