Social Networking Introspection

Perhaps I should title this post: "Why I post on social networks"... Or: "A note on what led me away from Facebook and Twitter, and on to Google+"... It will serve both titles equally.

Ever since Google+ launched I've been thinking about sharing things online - about why it is the thing to do these days, and whether this is simply the automation or "cloud-ization" of existing social behavior for most people.

The "why" is more perplexing to me than whether there is a real world analogue that we mimic every time we post something online...

The Grey Side of Business

Evidence suggests that technology companies enabled brutal repression in Libya and Bahrain, two of the countries currently undergoing impressive change as part of the Arab Spring. This is not a surprise.

Technology is morally neutral - you can use it for good and for evil. This is been discussed enough and often enough. The real question of the hour is are businesses morally responsible, should they be held to the same standard as we hold individuals and governments? When is it OK for a business stop following a profit motive and hold to a sociopolitical position? Should every business deal be scrutinized to ensure it is not aiding and abetting something "immoral"?

In the aftermath of the Great Recession, given the "evil bankers and financiers" it is easy to pass judgment and say "Of course businesses need to be moral!" Nokia and Siemens have no business enabling dictators to better spy on their people! Lenders had no business lending to people they knew wouldn't repay!

I submit that this represents a less nuanced opinion than the real world would support.

An-na-na-na-na-na!

Mass movements make me nervous, because their leaders are deified and in the eyes of their followers, can do no wrong. The kind of intensity and focus that members of these movements bring to the cause is not often matched by depth of understanding of the issues, or more importantly, breadth of understanding of the world. No issues can be resolved in isolation, or there will be unintended consequences.

All too often, the recruits for these mass movements are those with the time to devote to them - not necessarily those qualified (in any sense of the word) to contribute.

Finally the leaders of these mass movements become rockstars - and from there either they are corrupted by their power, or become victims of their own fallibility, because no one is smart enough to be a god... unless they go completely offstage (or worse, die) before they make their first mistakes.

This is why Anna Hazare's "anti-corruption movement" in India is at best a quixotic piece, and at worst a circus that is going to benefit media TRPs more than the country. I almost feel sorry for the man - he has one good idea, but no vision to speak of, and is now cornered by his own followers. He reminds me of Raju Guide more than Mahatma Gandhi at this point!

A Clouded Memory

The Matrix

Remember the Information Superhighway? Used to be a buzzword about a decade and a half ago. No one uses it any more! I read about this study by Columbia University psychologist, Betsy Sparrow published a little while ago and I was reminded of the concept, and how it is finally coming to fruition. 

Scenario: two colleagues are talking about their favorite author or poet (who I've never heard of) while I'm sitting at my desk. I quickly Google the name, and join in the conversation - but I enter it saying "such and such" is my favorite poem by this poet... particularly the line "..."

Book Review: God is Not One

An interesting book!

We take a break from our regularly scheduled programming to speak at some length now about a book that got me thinking about my beliefs or faith (or lack thereof).

Stephen Prothero's "God is Not One" is the kind of counter-argument in the face of the prevailing conventional wisdom that wakes you up like a strong cup of coffee on a bleary morning.

His central thesis is that for all the analogies ("many paths up the same mountain" or "different pieces of the same elephant") being tossed around to describe world religions as being essentially the same, they are in fact very different from each other! They address different central dilemmas, and don't line up in a neat row as those focusing on their commonalities would like. This is a bold idea, and very relevant to our times. I was pleasantly surprised at how much I found myself agreeing with it; it brings a clear-eyed approach to a field that suffers too often from an excess of either fanaticism or romanticism.