All online contacts are not created equal--whether they're friends, connections or followers.

1. Segmentation. All contacts are not created equal–whether they’re friends, connections or followers. Relationships naturally form along these lines, as we make social distinctions among family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances. Though Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter have provided users options for organizing contacts, Google+ is the first social network to make audience segmentation a primary design feature. “Circles” are the best manifestation, to date, of what I think will become a defining characteristic of social media: tracking our online connections with the natural ways we form and segment relationships. My recent work with Bullhorn Reach has illuminated this issue for me, as users often share that Facebook friends consist of a motley mix of personal and professional relationships, making decisions about what content is appropriate to share increasingly difficult to manage (1).
2. Specialization. Like liberal arts students emerging into the working world from broadly-focused educations, social media are reaching a point of maturation where they are increasingly purposed for specific business goals. Whether for finding talent or identifying sales prospects, social media are being leveraged by professionals to a greater extent than ever before. LinkedIn paved the way for professional-centric social media, but limited user engagement is leaving the door open for others to displace it as the preferred professional social network. Google+, with Google’s dominance in cloud-based business applications, could ultimately become LinkedIn’s greatest rival. As of now, however, LinkedIn’s current pay offerings (that I know of) only serve two professional groups: salespeople/business developers and recruiters/hiring managers. Beyond LinkedIn, niche networks are emerging that serve specific professional groups, such as doctors and teachers.
3. Socialization. By ‘socialization‘, I mean “a continuing process whereby an individual acquires a personal identity and learns the norms, values, behavior, and social skills appropriate to his or her social position” (in this case, appropriate to being a user of social media). More specifically, norms on how to behave on social networks are gradually being learned and adopted, as social media are used by an ever-broadening cross-section of the population. The shift is marked by the growing number of interactions and conversations via social media, as opposed to one-way broadcasts of content. With authenticity and relevance as table stakes for adherence to ‘social’ etiquette, social media are getting closer to fulfilling the promise of being channels for engagement, not just publishing.

Norms on how to behave on social networks are gradually being learned and adopted, as social media are used by an ever-broadening cross-section of the population.

Where do we go from here? Who really knows?

It’s one thing to identify trends; it’s another thing to predict them. The problem is that predicting actual use patterns is a crap shoot. Contrary to what Shoeless Joe Jackson might lead you to believe, if you build it, they won’t necessarily come. That is, even if innovators design tools with specific use cases in mind, the reality is that users’ expectations, thought processes and subsequent behaviors will vary as widely as there are personalities in the world. Take, for example, how people leverage Twitter’s search of tweets, versus LinkedIn’s search of updates. At Bullhorn Reach, we’ve found that the shelf-life of jobs posted via Twitter is considerably longer than those posted on either Facebook or LinkedIn because people are leveraging Twitter’s search function. In contrast, even though LinkedIn allows users to search updates, users continue to consume content as they do on Facebook (clicking on what they see in their newsfeeds), just to a lesser degree of engagement.

All that said, just because it’s hard to predict the future doesn’t mean I’m not going to try! After all, we’re living the in the future (2).

Footnote:

1. I believe that “localization” (think location-based social media services like Foursquare and SCVNGR, in addition to check-in features on Twitter and Facebook), which some may identify as it’s own trend, is just another form of segmentation–viz., “Some connections are geographically closer to me, requiring a different kind of treatment than those who are further away.”
2. You may notice that it’s been awhile since my last post on this blog. Apologies, dear readers. There have been a lot of major life changes in the last year, including a new job, a new love, and health issues in my family. Rest assured, however, that there will be more to come.
   

Share the Future

People today are faced with the cumbersome task of dealing with disparate content on multiple screens, via multiple platforms, and through multiple profiles. The unification of experience is the great frontier for innovation in technology, user interface design, and computing. How we get there is up in the air.

The number of ‘digital’ screens we view every day and the sheer amount of diverse content we consume through those screens can feel overwhelming at times. How our experiences of those screens and the content we consume through them (more the latter, as screens may become antiquated) are brought together, consolidated and streamlined is the great frontier of innovation in technological development and user interface design, I believe.

The unification of experience is the term I’ll use to describe the unrealized ideal of a trend toward the coalescence of our experiences through those screens (though I’ll limit the discussion to ‘digital’ screens, as opposed to traditional ‘screens’ like book pages and canvases).

The screens I personally interact with regularly are: my  personal laptop, my netbook, my personal monitor, the other personal monitor/LCD my friend loaned me, my work laptop, my work monitor, various other screens I use at work (the LCDs I use on the walls of meeting rooms and the projector in the screening room), my smart phone, and the TV in my living room.

I admit, though — I probably interact with a lot more screens than the average person. Still, according to recent research by the Council for Research Excellence (recently cited by CBS), “The average American adult now spends 8-1/2 hours a day staring into screens.” That’s not an insignificant amount of time, and chances are that those interactions aren’t limited to a single screen.

The screens of our life and the content we consume through them take up varying proportions of our time, on average. An interesting infographic from Boston's AMP agency, released during MITX's first annual FutureM Conference.

As both the number of screened devices people use and the time they spend with those devices increases,  the unification of experience becomes an increasingly important idealization of a trend — and one that  the titans of media and technology are seeking to attain at an ever faster clip through varying strategies and tactics.

3 Approaches That Could Work

While there are a host of innovators aiming to attain the unification of experience  through myriad tacks, there are only a few avenues that I think are truly viable. Even these, though,  are harried by obstacles that lead me to believe it’s unlikely that any single one of these strategies will ever have the opportunity to fully succeed.

1. The Cloud, Ubiquitous Broadband & Inter-Operable Languages. Companies like VMWare, Cisco and IBM (among others) are laying the groundwork for a computing future in ‘the cloud’, while the FCC pushes policies to expand the scope and speed of broadband coverage in the United States. These trends, in tandem with development and dissemination of inter-operable computer languages, could be factors that facilitate the perfect storm of tech that would ultimately lead to (something like) the unification of experience naturally. Simply put, the cloud provides an external place where programs, content and even computing can live, while users are free to move from device to device and have similar experiences that are delivered via the internet.  Think Google Apps, but broader. The adoption of a singular inter-operable language (which is dominating certain niches of cross-platform communication — e.g., Flash vs HTML5), while less likely, would augment the cloud and broadband’s strides toward the unification of experience.
2. A Closed Ecosystem of Devices, Software & Experiences. Undoubtedly, the company most successful at executing this strategy is Apple. Their “walled apple grove” is both beautiful and verdant. Their hardware, software, virtual shopping experiences and developer community — while aggravating to many competitors and developers — has created an unparalleled attempt at taking on the unification of experience single-handed. The problem: there are competitors that are coming out with comparably awesome experiences. Their barrier for creating a similarly closed ecosystem? — They’re not as cool. Don’t count competition out, though. Companies like Samsung are going to give Apple a run for their (heaping pile of) money.
3. Cross-Platform programs that Bridge Devices and Share Content. While many of these types of programs (e.g., Google’s many online apps) reside in the cloud, there are a host of ‘hybrid’  programs (downloadable programs, online portals, mobile interfaces) that allow devices to communicate and share content among each other seamlessly and with little thought for users (other than using them). Among my favorites are Evernote and Dropbox; sadly, I have yet to see All Share (on my Samsung Epic 4G) work in action, though it seems to have a lot of potential. Less ambitious programs like Gmote are also tackling the unification of experience, though in much smaller bites.

Barriers to Unity

• Privacy, Security & Cultural Backlash: With data, content and operable capabilities flowing from device to device, it’s no wonder that attaining the unification of experience is fraught with security and privacy issues. User access, compliance with regulations and figuring out where data resides are among the many security challenges, for example, that cloud computing faces, according to Gartner Research. Google and Facebook are the most publicized villains in the ever-growing debate over online privacy. Truth be told, though, it’s a broader cultural question — with vast differences across nations — that pits one of the fastest growing areas of business (how companies wield data) against traditional cultural mores about privacy. How this will play out remains to be seen.
• A Competitive Market & Fragmented Innovation. The nature of a competitive market gives rise to the fragmentation of technological innovation (as a result of differing business models). Not every company can be Apple, but many will try their damnedest to break the efficacy of Apple’s business model and introduce disruptive innovations that prevent them and others like them from gaining too great an advantage in any one of the aforementioned strategic areas. The result is a ‘king of the hill’ approach toward playing in this space. But, if businesses can find mutual benefits from helping each other win (as many are already doing — e.g. Sony, Intel and Google with GoogleTV) we may be looking at a more unified future.

Closing Thoughts

I initially wanted to include a piece about ‘pervasive computing,’ which is, in many ways, of the same ilk of idealized trends as the unification of experience. But, for the sake of brevity (yes, I realize this post is long), I’ll leave you with a salient quote from IBM’s W.S. Ark and T. Selker:

“Part of the beauty of pervasive computing is that we will not even realize that it is here, once it has become a necessary part of our lives. In the future it will often be invisible, and the user interface will be intuitive. The other important part of the story is that it will all be networked. Data, once entered, will never have to be entered again, but will be readily available whenever and wherever needed.”

Regardless of whether unification of experience or pervasive computing is attainable, is it a reality we want? Do we really want to be that ‘jacked in’?  I leave you with this video, which one of my colleagues sent me with the note: “If this is the future, shoot me now.”

I’d love to read what you think in the comments section.

Share the Future

Observations

That our relationships with others have changed as a result of social media is a foregone conclusion.

Blurred  and Broadened Borders of Social Spheres. Social media’s initial default of openness made normal the notion that the borders of our neatly distinct social spheres of who is granted access to the content of our lives are blurred, intersected and broadened. It’s increasingly tough to draw distinctions between ‘personal’ and ‘professional,’ not to mention ‘public’ and ‘private’ social spheres. And it’s increasingly expected — as is satirized in the South Park episode below this post — that we open our lives’ contents to previously siloed participants in our lives.

Increased Social Productivity. Our ‘social productivity’ is on an upward trend. That is, we ‘interact’ with more people on a broader array of subjects in a shorter amount of time than ever before. This is more a function of   technological innovation in communications and a heightened threshold for multi-tasking — broadly speaking — than a unique effect of internet-based social media’s ubiquitous popularity. But these new media have provided a platform for sharing rich forms of content, effectively expanding the palette we use to express ourselves.

A Deeper, Different Look

Spending more social time online can result in less in-person social time. After all, there are only so many hours in the day.

Social media have certainly expanded the absolute number of human social interactions. A qualitative look at how we use these media to interact with others, however, sheds light on a somewhat ironic result: social media can actually enhance physical isolation, loneliness and detachment from others.

Socially Prolific, but Physically Isolated. While our social interactions on an binary scale have absolutely increased, being increasingly ‘jacked in’ has also resulted in a larger proportion of our ‘social’ lives being spent in physical isolation. Though we can share our lives through social media with people in-person, actually using the media is necessarily a personal, solitary experience. Our immediate interaction is with devices — our computers, smart phones and tablets — not people. Whether more prolific but less physical social relationships are preferable to the less frequent physical intimacy of yesteryear is a big conversation best saved for another day.

The social time we spend online can cause detachment from in-person relationships.

Detachment from Others. As traditionally physical interactions are increasingly superseded by virtual counterparts, the decline of our physical interactions with others has real impacts on how we relate to others. As mentioned in a previous blog entry, the interesting (though unethical) research of Harry Harlow with rhesus monkeys indicated a primal longing and need for physical contact with others. Long periods of time without physical social contact result in further withdrawal from society, a self-perpetuating cycle of loneliness. And loneliness, as you’ll soon read, can be both enhanced and spread through social media.

Social media can act as a more efficient platform for spreading the contagious effects of loneliness.

A Platform for Loneliness. Recent findings by professors at Harvard, UChicago and UCSD discovered that loneliness, like a cold, can be contagious among social networks. Involving roughly12,000 people over 60 years, the study concluded that lonely people are highly likely to share their loneliness with others, extending up to three degrees of separation (One lonely friend makes one 40 to 65 percent more likely to be lonely, a lonely friend-of-a-friend makes one 14 to 36 percent more likely, and a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend makes one 6 to 26 percent more likely, the study suggests). Says UChicago’s John Cacioppo:

“These reinforcing effects mean that our social fabric can fray at the edges, like a yarn that comes loose at the end of a crocheted sweater.”

Social media amplifies and exacerbates the spread of loneliness, providing a more efficient platform for lonely people to share their loneliness with others. Not only that — increased use of social media both increases physical isolation (see above) and provides a disheartening view into more popular people’s lives.

Social Media Success, Where In-Person Largely Fails

Social media isn’t all bad, though (duh). In fact, it produces some great results where in-person interactions often flounder. Harvard Business School professor Mikolaj Jan Piskorski astutely observes:

“Online social networks are most useful when they address real failures in the operation of offline networks.”

Among the biggest failures of in-person interaction that social media addresses are keeping up-to-date and in-touch with friends and acquaintances outside our most immediate social periphery, establishing new relationships (both professionally and personally. Interestingly, online social networks may soon become the No.1 way Americans find significant others, some experts suggest), and facilitating a passive job search. And, needless to say, it allows us to satiate our voyeuristic desires to peer into others’ lives and points-of-view, even as people are increasingly pushing their privacy thresholds back against social media’s push forward. Piskorski confirms:

“People just love to look at pictures. That’s the killer app of all online social networks. Seventy percent of all actions are related to viewing pictures or viewing other people’s profiles.”

Closing Remarks

Admittedly, this account of some of the impacts of social media on human interactions is incomplete. In particular, I never explore the impact of social media on the presentation of self in everyday life. Undoubtedly, social media have provided an elevated platform for narcissists, self-promoters and online celebrities to broadcast their lives, thoughts and points-of-view. How this affects the general consumer of social media’s sense of self and identity is best saved for another entry.

In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts on both that subject and the one in this post in the comments section below! Thanks for continuing to follow the blog, and apologies for not writing more. Rest assured, though, I’ve been keeping up with at least some social media, and there’ll be more to come on the  blog soon!

Share the Future

Last week’s security lapse that exposed personal Facebook chats was embarrassing for both the social media giant and its users, materializing  many’s most salient concerns about sharing private information over the social Web.

Personal lives are broadcasted across online social networks. Are young people more apt to act with indiscretion? Conventional wisdom says 'yes'; recent studies say 'no'.

The New York Times’ Laura M. Holson recently reports, however, that the tell-all generation (those between 18 and 29-years-old) is learning to keep things offline. Holson writes: 

The conventional wisdom suggests that everyone under 30 is comfortable revealing every facet of their lives online, from their favorite pizza to most frequent sexual partners. But many members of the tell-all generation are rethinking what it means to live out loud.

Young adults in their 20s, in fact, more frequently delete unwanted posts and more actively limit profile information, according to a soon-to-be released report by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. This fact, the report suggests, is indicative of heightened diligence among young adults in exerting control over their digital reputations.

Says Mary Madden, lead researcher on the forthcoming Pew report:

“Social networking requires vigilance, not only in what you post, but what your friends post about you. Now you are responsible for everything.”

Recent academic research by Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society and UC Berkeley’s Center for Law and Technology attest to young adults’ online vigilance. In the UC Berkeley study, which explores how young adults differ from their elders when it comes to information privacy attitudes and policies, the sentiments are especially clear:

• 88 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds believe laws should require websites to delete their stored information;
• and 62 percent say they think laws should require that people have access to what websites know about them.

Interestingly, as Holson highlighted, this runs counter to conventional wisdom about young adults’ online behavior on social media. The Berkeley study succinctly describes the misconception, which is fueled by frequent media coverage of the risks of social networking:

“Media reports teem with stories of young people posting salacious photos online, writing about alcohol-fueled misdeeds on social networking sites, and publicizing other ill-considered escapades that may haunt them in the future. These anecdotes are interpreted as representing a generation-wide shift in attitude toward information privacy. Many commentators therefore claim that young people “are less concerned with maintaining privacy than older people are.”

According to the study, however, the apparent license with which the young behave online stems from a gap in privacy knowledge. In general, it seems, young people know very little about privacy issues:

• 42 percent of young Americans answered all five online privacy questions in the study’s survey  incorrectly;
• 88 percent answered only two or fewer correctly;
• and the problem is even more pronounced when presented with offline privacy issues – post hoc analysis showed that young Americans were more likely to answer no questions correctly than any other age group.

While many sites offer tips for maintaining one’s general online privacy, substantial guides for navigating social media privacy concerns are limited, largely due to the ever-changing privacy policies of our favorite social media giants.

As the future of privacy online is necessarily unclear, whether the ‘tell-all generation’ remains ‘jacked in’ or ‘checks out’ is now a more relevant question than ever.

Thanks for reading! I’d love to read your thoughts, comments and concerns on social media privacy in the comments section below. I’ll leave you with this relevant cartoon by The Joy of Tech by Nitrozac and Snaggy.

Share the Future

The Dawn of the Mobile Internet Era

Morgan Stanley’s Mary Meeker — the ‘Queen of the Internet‘ behind both Netscape‘s and Google‘s initial public offerings — recently provided research and insights into the upward trend of the mobile web and social networking.

Among her more startling predictions was that, within the next five years,

“…more users will connect to the Internet over mobile devices than desktop PCs.”

This trend, Meeker posits, marks the beginning of the fifth era of modern-day technology’s historical progression, roughly approximated below.

1. 1950′s-1960′s: the mainframe era
2. 1970′s: the mini-computer era
3. 1980′s: the desktop era
4. 1990′s-2000′s: the internet era
5. 2010′s-: the mobile internet era

And, compared to the uptake of desktop internet usage, mobile internet usage is growing at a considerably faster rate. This rate, Meeker and her team suggest, is evidenced by the disparity between contemporary adoption rates of iPhone/iPod touch versus AOL/Netscape in the early 1990′s — a staggering 11x difference. This trend, Meeker et al. add, is enhanced by the rise of 3G technology, which is available to nearly 21 percent of the world’s cellular users. Japan leads 3g penetration levels with a breath-taking 96 percent.

Data Usage and a Shafting Landscape for Carrier Networks

Carrier networks, however, will face the challenge of dealing with increasingly cumbersome data loads, as mobile internet usage continues to rise. At present, Meeker’s research notes, average cell phone users’ usage patterns consist in roughly 70 percent voice. In contrast, iPhone users’ voice usage only comprises 45 percent of bandwidth usage. Carrier network NTT DoCoMo of Japan, which Meeker (and others) assume to provide the model for the mobile internet’s future, reports a significantly different pattern: data usage comprises 90 percent of network traffic.

By 2014, Meeker et al. predict, data traffic will increase by roughly 4,000 percent, with the expectation that each year the annual growth rate will exceed 100 percent. Some U.S. networks — namely, AT&T — are already encountering problems in highly populated areas (e.g., New York and San Francisco) due to increased data loads. The data logjam on their network, AT&T claims, is due primarily to iPhone users. Comprising only three percent of the AT&T’s customer base, iPhone users reportedly consume approximately 40 percent of the network’s capacity. And data loads look as though they’re only getting heavier. The next wave of smartphones look more hungry for data than ever.

The Next Wave of Smart Phones (in the Foreseeable Future)

• HTC’s new phone, EVO 4G, comes video chat-ready. Apple’s new iPhone promises to offer similar functionality (through iChat) in its latest iteration, though one wonders when Apple will bring video chat to the iPad.
• Rumors that Facebook will produce its own phone are preceded by Microsoft’s unveiling of its Kin, a social media-focused smart phone with otherwise lightweight hardware.
  

  While interesting, Mircrosoft's Kin only syncs within its "loop" of status updates and messages every 15 minutes -- a time delay that many criticize as being too slow for the social media generation.

• Google’s Nexus One and Motorola’s Droid have subsumed the ‘traditional’ role of mobile GPS navigation devices, and look to enlarge their stake in the navigation market, unfortunately for Garmin and TomTom.
• HP’s recent purchase of Palm promises the advent of a whole new slough of business-ready smart phones that will compete with Blackberry’s newest line of preferred devices for the suits & ties.

What It Means for the Future of Content Production

• Advertising: The most important platform for reaching a captive audience will not be TV, e-mail or the (desktop) internet. Rather, it will be through mobile phones — and companies are catching on. Apple’s iAd will provide developers and agencies opportunities to deliver in-app advertisements. Google is hot on its tails with its attempted purchase of AdMob, but has encountered snags along the way.
• Publishing: It’s  obvious that big publishers are well on their way to taking their content live on the mobile internet. In the near future, do-it-yourself mobile content publishing programs like Maxdox and full-service companies like PressMart will provide publishers — both small and mid-sized — the tools they need to bring their content into the mobile internet era. This point doesn’t take into account the imminent increase in usage of various online publishing platforms like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.
• Virtual Goods: With nearly $600m in revenue and $1 per average user engagement, FarmVille’s continued success has proven that virtual goods are no longer a trend relegated to the Far East. And both Foursquare‘s and Gowalla‘s location-based apps center their models on rewarding users with virtual honors like ‘badges’ and other rewards, sometimes in exchange for real rewards. With the rise of upstarts like Booyah and an ever-growing potential base of users, virtual goods are becoming an unforeseen form of content that is certainly a force to be reckoned with, given it’s significant revenue generation and popularity.

That’s it for now, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on what the rise of the mobile internet means for other aspects of life — technology, media, culture, life or otherwise. Please provide comments below!

See this post re-blogged on Wall St. Cheat Sheet, Jack: a Blog about Experience Brands (Jack Morton Worldwide’s blog), and Point About.

Share the Future

Facebook and Google are increasingly going head to head -- for users, functionalities and the advertising dollars that sustain either site.

Facebook’s first triumph comes at no fault of Google’s, whose traffic increased by 9% over the same period last year. Facebook’s traffic, in contrast, nearly tripled, joining fellow social media giant MySpace as one of two sites who have ousted Google from the position of most trafficked site for a full week (last done in September 2007).

Of the Facebook’s second triumph over Google, Hitwise analyst Heather Hopkins writes,

“Hitwise data indicate that visitors from Facebook.com are more loyal to News and Media websites than are visitors from News.Google.com. In particular, among the top 5 Print Media websites in the week ending March 6, 2010, 78% of Facebook.com users were returning visitors compared to 67% from Google News. The figures are almost identical for Broadcast Media, with a 77% returning rate for Facebook.com compared to 64% for Google News.”

Returning visitors prefer news provided through Facebook over Google. For example, 81% of visits to CNN.com in the week to March 6, 2010 were returning visitors while 84% of visitors to CNN.com that came from Facebook.com were returning visitors and 72% from Google News were returning visitors.

Though this may seem surprising at first glance, a closer look at a couple different aspects of either site, I think, reveals why this outcome is natural, if not obvious.

2 Characteristics to Consider: Facebook versus Google News

1. Fan Pages & News Feeds: Facebook fan pages are the perfect way for media outlets to consistently reach a targeted, interested audience with their content. Not only is membership opt-in, but new content posted to a given page is streamed into fans’ News Feeds. The only similar offering that Google provides is Buzz, which is a comparatively cluttered, less user-friendly experience in its current form.
2. The Variety of Google News: What makes Google News so appealing to me (and other news junkies, I assume) is that it provides myriad, varied sources that cover the same topic. In other words, there are always a lot of choices on Google News. It’s no wonder, then, that readers are choosing major media outlets less frequently through Google News. In fact, I think it’s a testament to the strength of major media outlets’ brands that they attract so many loyal followers through Google News, despite the available choices.

Beyond structural characteristics, I think it’s also fair to say that context matters. In an online environment surrounded by friends, users are more susceptible to make choices that are consistent with ‘loyal’ behavior. While this may seem like a stretch, considerable research in advertising reveals that cognitive priming of context does, indeed, affect how messages are received.

On that note, I’ll end this post with a funny but relevant cartoon about social media that I came across. Enjoy, and please feel free to share your thoughts!

Share the Future

A graphic provided to convey differing opinions on privacy by the The New York Times in its 'Week in Review' Section on February26, 2010.

Contrary to most contemporary intuitions about media treatment of stars like Tiger Woods, the court ruled, as related in an article by MSNBC‘s Bob Sullivan, that:

“…posing for the photographs did not mean Dumas and Menken had surrendered their rights to privacy and dignity, even if they consented to do just that during a heady romantic moment. These rights trumped any commercial property rights the photographer might have claimed, the court said.”

For most Americans, this ruling, along with the recent ruling against three Google executives in Italy for passively allowing ‘privacy-infringing’ videos to be posted on YoutTube, is troubling.

Beyond the need to fine-tune Google’s passive distribution policies for offensive content, this case highlights a deeper ideological divide, which Dumas’ case also exemplified. As The New York Times‘ Adam Liptak writes,

“… it called attention to the profound European commitment to privacy, one that threatens the American conception of free expression and could restrict the flow of information on the Internet to everyone.”

In the  abstract (no, I didn’t read the entire paper) of Yale law professor James Whitman’s paper ‘The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity versus Liberty,’ Whitman (or, more likely, some editor of the Yale Law Journal) clearly describes the issues and implications at stake:

Privacy advocates often like to claim that all modern societies feel the same intuitive need to protect privacy. Yet it is clear that intuitive sensibilities about privacy differ from society to society, even as between the closely kindred societies of the United States and continental Europe. Some of the differences involve questions of everyday behavior, such as whether or not one may appear nude in public. But many involve the law. In fact, we are in the midst of major legal conflicts between the countries on either side of the Atlantic–conflicts over questions like the protection of consumer data, the use of discovery in civil procedure, the public exposure of criminal offenders, and more. Clearly the idea that there are universal human sensibilities about privacy, which ought to serve as the basis of a universal law of privacy, cannot be right.

The article (achem…abstract) later argues:

European privacy norms are founded on French and German ideas of “personal honor.” Continental “privacy,” like continental sexual harassment law, prison law, and many other bodies of law, aims to protect the “personal honor” of ordinary French and German folk. American law takes a very different approach, protecting primarily a liberty interest. The Article traces the roots of French and German attitudes over the last couple of centuries, highlighting the French experience of sexual license in the nineteenth century and the German experience of Nazism…

Throughout, the Article argues, American law shows a far greater sensitivity to intrusions on the part of the state, while continental law shows a far greater sensitivity to the protection of one’s public face. These are not differences that we can understand unless we abandon the approach taken by most privacy advocates, since such differences have little to do with the supposedly universal intuitive needs of “personhood.” Instead, they are differences that reflect the contrasting political and social ideals of American and continental law. Indeed, we should broadly reject intuitionism in our legal scholarship, focusing instead on social and political ideals.

For those of you still reading the post after reading through that quote (it might be a bit dry for some), I tend to disagree with Whitman’s rejection of the notion of some universal concept of ‘personhood’, though I also (unsurprisingly) lean toward sympathizing with American ideological and, hence, policy decisions.

The differing opinion lies in what I believe to be a false dichotomy that Whitman presents: between ‘dignity’ and ‘liberty.’ The value of ‘liberty,’ I think, draws its compellent force, like ‘privacy,’ from an intuitive notion of ‘personhood’ or ‘human dignity.’ And so, the dichotomy instead lies between ‘liberty’ and ‘privacy.’

Like most talk of ‘rights,’ however, these discussions are muddled by differing foundational concepts, not to mention differing laws (premised on those differing concepts) across national boundaries.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, we must weigh the value of ‘liberty’ against ‘privacy,’ knowing that that the results will vary by situation. I wouldn’t, for example, value a voyeur’s autonomous choice to spy on someone through a window over the watched person’s desire not to be watched while changing. More broadly, it’s understandable, too, that there should a sliding scale for the threshold of what constitutes tolerable infringements of either value across different cultures and national boundaries.

University of Michigan Internet law professor Susan Crawford also cautions against cagetorical thinking in the aforementioned NYTimes article:

Privacy is a broad enough concept, and Europe and America are varied enough, that it is easy to find counterexamples. Britain, for one, is only slowly moving toward the Continental model.

Something tells me, however, that the ideological divide will continue and deepen as online media continues to proliferate. I wonder how French courts would feel about the sale of copies of of Dumas’ and Mencken’s photos on this NY state-based site.

Share the Future

An image pulled from DeviantArt by CrapsY (username).

The first was with an old friend, Michael P. (whose facebook profile I took the below quotation from), who forsook the life of  a Harvard-graduated consultant to work in a coffee shop and live as a Central Square hipster. Our conversation, which ranged from ‘catching up’ to ‘big issues,’ gravitated toward Michael’s thoughts on an emergent counterculture that he termed ‘the unplugged’ — that is, those who refuse to subscribe to a lifestyle that increasingly depends on modern technology. A proponent of this lifestyle, Michael made significant efforts in the last couple years to reduce his online footprint, pare down his digital interactions, and do things like increase the size of his record collection and work on a screenplay about an 80′s record producer.

As I understood them, Michael’s views (and those of ‘the unplugged’) are premised on the notion that technology detracts from our lives’ experiences by drawing our attention away from our real-world experiences and interactions. Michael posits that those who are ‘plugged in’ misguidedly reify technological advances as ‘progress.’ While technological artifacts seemingly make our lives better, they actually distance us from one another and definitively human activities — e.g., expressing ourselves through art and engaging the world through our tactile senses (sound familiar?).

The ‘unplugged’ view, I think, tends to overly romanticize the past and a (purportedly) simpler way of socializing, expressing oneself, and interacting with the world. Though I understand the love for and actually tend to prefer activities that more intimately (in a physical sense) connect me to the product of my work, I (and, I think, many others) view technological artifacts as just another set of tools we can use to interact with the world — e.g., a paintbrush, a pencil, a pair of glasses. In other words, technological advances most directly affect media, not expression. Or, more simply, technological advances most directly affect the tools we use, not how we use them.

That said, the forms of expression undeniably change as a result of the given media through which they are expressed. The notion of ‘friendship,’ for instance, has changed dramatically. In a world where roughly 30 percent of the facebook friendships of those between 18 and 24 are people whom they have never actually met, ‘friendship,’ it seems, certainly means something less substantial than what it perhaps once did. For photographers, the development of Adobe’s Creative Suite has changed how they view their craft.

In this light, I think the dichotomy between ‘unplugged’ and ‘plugged in’ is misguided. The analogy implies a reliance upon a sort of technological energy for functionality. But technology is more than that–at least for me. It enriches, enhances and augments my reality; it creates opportunities to share information, connect with others and learn about things I never would have been able to otherwise. In many ways, my subscription to a life filled with technological artifacts is more akin to the Matrix’s ‘jacking in’ — that is, it’s a choice to participate in a whole other experience of reality (I recognize the negative implications that this term may hold. My use of this term is also an admission that there is certainly something lost in exchanging the simplicity of more immediate physical interactions with the world for a view shaped by a world in which technological advances are a given). In contrast, a life without technology, I think, is a rejection of participation in this world and its benefits — and so, I will term it ‘checking out.’

This distinction leads me to think of the second conversation I had on this subject. During my final interview presentation with Jack Morton Worldwide, where I now work in business development, Liz Bigham, the Director of Brand Marketing, asked me if I perceived a pull-back reaction to a world saturated with social media — a desire for real, physical connections with other people. During the interview, my first response was that the nature of interactions is being transformed by media and the capabilities of technology. That is, the line between ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ experiences would continue to erode as time progressed, and any desire for ‘physical’ experiences could eventually be entirely satisfied by virtual ones.

But thinking back on this question, I’m not certain this is the case. I anticipate that the ideological divide between ‘jacked in’ and ‘checked out’ peoples will only increase as technologies transform our experiences of reality more dramatically. Michael’s disdain for technology isn’t fading quickly, and there’s something intuitively appealing about his rejection of the ‘jacked in’ life that evokes sympathy. Don’t I also enjoy it when I get out to nature, leave behind my cell phone and computer, and cut myself off from the technological world? But my memory of the practicality of using technology always seems to win out. I like having a world of information at my fingertips, the people I know available at the touch of a button, and the host of possibilities technology provides me. I suppose, though, that’s the divide–some people don’t.

But perhaps there is something to my initial intuition in my conversation with Liz, and the ‘checked out’ counterculture will ultimately have less ammunition to fuel its ideology. At the core of disdain for technology, I think, is disdain for ‘the complex,‘ a purportedly enhanced reality in which our actions must conform to the constraints placed upon them by the limitations of technology. What this disdain fails to recognize is that accompanying the trend of technological complexity is an ever-increasing tendency toward simplicity in design. User interfaces are becoming more elegant and intuitive, despite increasingly complex back-ends. Physically, technological artifacts — e.g., televisions — are also becoming less cumbersome and streamlined. This tendency toward design simplicity will only become more apparent as  futures waves of technological artifacts reach us.

My guess: ‘checked out’ people will resist until Apple comes out with a strong enough ad campaign for its iTablet.

“As I look around the contemporary American scene I am puzzled by what seems generally to pass for a historical object or monument…With us the association seems to be not with our politically historical past…what we cherish are mementos of a bygone daily existence without a definite date. Archie Bunker’s armchair will recall–at least to the present generation–not only the many hours agreeably spent watching television, but also the environment, the setting, of a popular program, though not necessarily the program itself.”
- J. B. Jackson

Share the Future