The Curmudgeon Speaks

I have several issues with Facebook, but probably more with the average user’s understanding of how Facebook works. There is the issue of how Facebook makes money. You are trading information about  yourself that Facebook can sell to support your “free” use of the system. Use the system understanding how  you pay.

Then, there is the notion of a “news feed”.  Here is a recent study of the “news” most Facebook users receive (http://www.niemanlab.org/2017/12/how-much-news-makes-it-into-peoples-facebook-feeds-our-experiment-suggests-not-much/). I think a significant issue is that users don’t really understand how Facebook works. They bias their experience by what they like and what their friends forward. The Facebook algorithms will gladly offer you more of the same. Hardly a fair and balanced way to see the world. If you want news within your “news feed”, try following actual news sources – New York Times, Washington Post, etc. Make an effort to view the news as reported by those who actually investigate the issues and not from your friends who likely think like you and only forward stories with this same bias. You can create a more balanced experience if you make the effort.

I remember an analysis of the 35% corporate tax payments from early in the year (I am not sure if I commented on this analysis before or not) and thought it time to share as this critical time in consideration of the Republican budget. The analysis explains what corporations actually paid rather than the theoretical tax of 35%. The actual payment is less than the present 21% proposed payment. The data are convincing. I am not aware that the present budget provides any protections against the continuation of these special corporate deductions.

As I often also complain about the FCC reversal of net neutrality (to improve corporate innovation), I would encourage your close look at the data from this report noting the actual taxes paid by ATT, Verizon, etc.

Last evening was my final online class session for the semester (and perhaps forever). I end the course I was teaching with a focus on multiple issues that could influence how educators make use of technology – cyberbullying, copyright, equity, online predators. The topics do not necessarily share common underlying issues beyond influencing how parents, administrators, and others would like to see student learning activities focused.

An interesting thing about online classes is that they may contain students from different regions and circumstances than the majority of those in the class. On the topic of equity, readings students were expected to review in preparation for class included an older study by Wenlinsky on different ways technology is used in schools with high and low proportions of students from low-income families and Mimi Ito’s concept of a participation gap when it comes to students personal use of technology outside of school. Ito claims that there are SES differences in the way low and high-income students use technology influenced by cultural differences. The lower income students place a stronger emphasis on social connections.

In response to the examination of cultural differences, one of my students described her teaching situation as involving a high number of gang members. She claimed that these less affluent kids had the resources for nice cell phones and interests and interactions were dominated by the priorities of their gang. This was the way they saw their present and future. This was a new revelation for everyone in the class and I admit that I was somewhat uncertain as to how to integrate this information into the discussion. I decided that this was an extreme example of what Ito was talking about and a challenge to expectations for how adolescent learners might use technology for educational purposes outside of school. I certainly had nothing to say about how an educator in such a situation might encourage technology use outside of the classroom. Reminds me of a Maslow’s hierarchy issue – it is difficult to promote higher level needs when lower level needs are difficult to meet.

I did not grow into adulthood wealthy, but I was privileged.

– I was born white and male

– My parents were not wealthy when I was young, but they were committed to each other.  They were college educated and encouraged their children in whatever personal interests we had. I followed a career path they did not understand. Rather than object they found money to expand my undergrad training so they were comfortable that I had a backup plan. My own goals worked out and the breadth of my preparation ended up being a benefit throughout my career.

– I found a lifelong partner who supported me and who shared professional interests that magnified whatever personal talents I had.

So many struggle because they do not benefit from such privileges. They deal with discrimination because of irrelevant personal characteristics that are of no consequence. They mature in an environment of turmoil or hardship that was not of their making. They miss out on a break here or there that may have eventually resulted in great opportunities. They are unable to connect with someone who allows them to achieve far more than they would have on their own.

I take some credit for the successes of my life. I also realize that pretty much every possible break went my way.

This time of Thanksgiving should be a time of reflection. We seem to be in a time of great turmoil and a willingness by many to ignore life’s privileges. I hope the inequities generated by privileges are not overly magnified by the political decisions now being considered.

How would you go about convincing the world that it was in the grip of a power that was deeply hypocritical and corrupt?

This is the question John Naughton asks about our commitment to big technology. He answers this question in a strange way – by reference to the way Martin Luther confronted the corruption of the Catholic church. I admit that being brought up as a Lutheran probably caused me to read more than the title of the Naughton post, but his analysis, Lutheran or not, is interesting to consider.

Naughton makes a number of interesting observations. How did Luther survive (in a physical sense) taking on such a powerful institution? He was protected by powerful people and his access to a means of mass communication (new media – the new printing press) allowed him a measure of protection.

What was the key to the success of the complaints he listed? He identified both flaws in the ideology and the business model of the Catholic church. The key was the focus on indulgences (payment for the forgiveness of sins). Religion was not supposed to work this way.

Like the author, I find myself reluctantly realizing that I am a recovering utopian.

recovering utopian. When the internet first appeared I was dazzled by its empowering, enlightening, democratising potential. It’s difficult to imagine today the utopian visions that it conjured up in those of us who understood the technology and had access to it. We really thought that it would change the world, slipping the surly bonds of older power structures and bringing about a more open, democratic, networked future.

This technology and internet thing is working out quite as I had hoped. What we have lost is the voice of the little guy. The business sector was able to gain control and we are now more and more at the mercy of big money. They figured out that we were either not as smart as we think we are or more likely simply lazy and cheap. We are willing to trade our values and control of our attention for free. Luther called folks on similar weaknesses – paying a few bucks for release from the responsibility for sins was a good deal. It was easier than doing the right thing.

I do not know if I agree with Naughton’s theses, but I do find them scary and worth the effort to oppose.

No 19: The technical is political
This thesis challenges the contemporary assertion of the tech industry that it stands apart from the political system in which it exists and thrives.

No 92: Facebook is many things, but a “community” it ain’t

The Naughton piece seems to end before he gets to the point of proposing solutions. I guess this is up to us. I propose we start with this – awareness. Revelations related to the election of 2016 should make this clear. Twitter and Facebook feed our biases to harvest our attention. I would use these same services to declare awareness of this corrupt business practice.

The foolishness of assuming someone successful in one domain would have the skills necessary to be successful in another is there over and over again. Whether you believe Trump is a flawed and maybe criminal individual is a secondary issue. It is obvious daily that Trump lacks the personality characteristics and leadership skills necessary to be an effective president. There is so much negativity and wasted time required to deal with this individual. He will not back down from his failures because he sees any concession as a sign of weakness. Failing to fact check and identify mistakes allows egotism. lack of compassion, and lack of judgment to prevail. I understand that this is a strong focus on the negative, but people of character cannot walk away from this reality and pretend it does not exist.

I have a kind of geeky concern, but it is a concern nonetheless. I wonder if the culture of sharing rather than authoring is reducing the quality of online search and personal reflection.

The logic of my concern works like this.The original Google system for listing search results was based on a system called page rank. Based roughly on the way journal articles are assigned importance, page rank is determined by the frequency with which something posted online is linked to by other sites. The assumption being that the more frequently others link to your work, the more important your work must be. In addition, the more important the pages linking to your page, the higher your page would be ranked. The Google algorithm has grown more complicated and more mysterious, but linking still plays an important role. The variables used in the ranking algorithm are frequently called signals. These signals are not weighted equally. There are strong signals and there are weak signals.

What I see online is a decline in original work and a drastic increase in sharing. Twitter offers little opportunity for analysis and explanation, but is great for sharing. Facebook does not impose the character limit of Twitter, but my experience has been most contributions are still shared news articles, posters, and videos. There are clearly data in the frequency of what is shared, but sharing is too easy and too imprecise. Sharing does not require careful reading of what is shared and without personalized, shared summarization, there is little evidence that what is shared is even understood. In comparison to something that is personally constructed and referenced, sharing provides only weak signals.

Maybe it is laziness. Maybe it is overload of one type of another. I think we are losing the strong signals that come from the thought required to put together personal statements in blogs and other social media constructions. Search will likely suffer. I also wonder if people even consider what they really think when they find it easier to use others say instead of speaking for themselves.

Just so we are clear, you are complicit in this situation with Facebook. You were willing to be a heavy user of Facebook without understanding how Facebook works and how the company makes its money. You were willing to share your personal information in exchange for free access to the services of the social media company to share your pictures and comments about your family. You were also convinced that Facebook provided access to credible news and made this judgment because the news appeared in your feed so it must be accurate and well reasoned. You may have even forwarded the Russian propaganda to others with little personal analysis and related commentary. Now that some of the players – Facebook, Russia, you – have been identified, the big question is whether or not the list is complete. Were the characteristics used by Kushner and the RNC in targeting ads shared with Russian actors?