With this in mind I am intrigued by the video you mention from Vox featuring Tristan Harris:
I liked his suggestions, but for me it is like going to McDonald’s to buy a salad. The issue is not the salad, but McDonald’s and their push for non-human consumption. I wonder about a sustainable smartphone, one that is built ethically from the outset, not one that puts the blame back on the user. As Audrey Watters argues:
I donโt want to suggest that this is something the consumer alone is responsible for โ blaming consumers, for example, for looking at their phone when it vibrates or beeps or for downloading Candy Crush and trying to get all their friends to play along. The whole modus operandi of the tech industry has been to create apps that are as engaging and compelling and viral as Candy Crush. The industry views its users as highly manipulable, their behaviors as something that can be easily shaped and nudged and controlled. Maybe itโs time to rethink and regulate and restrict how that happens?
Discussing the work of Harris the other such apologists, Watters asks why we should trust them:
Why should we trust these revelations (or revelators) to guide us moving forward? Why not trust those of us who knew it was bullshit all along and who can tell you the whole history of a bad idea?
I wonder then why we should trust Harris over Bridle and wonder whether in the end they both have a particular place at the table?
I know where you and Dai are coming from here, Aaron. Everyone, after all, has their own agenda. However, I’d highly recommend you read Bridle’s book. It’s eye-opening.
I have read it (you can read my review here.) I think that Thom Yorke captures it best in a resent discussion of music in which he explains that he listens to a wide range of music, not because it is the music that he is trying to create himself, but rather than it is about the different possibilities available. Harris and Bridle are both possibilities.
@mrkrndvs @daibarnes Thanks! Have replied. In addition to that comment, I’d always be slightly suspicious of someone whose main form of income depends on them occuping a certain point of view or having particular opinions. Myself, and friends included!
I enjoyed the discussion of โnewsโ. Personally, I draw upon a diet made up of aggregations, newsletters, podcasts and feeds. I have gotten to a place where I initially sift through titles and summaries to work out what is out interest and either read them or send to Pocket to read/listen or save to Huffduffer before saving them. I touched upon my filters here and my workflows here.
I wanted to clarify a comment made in response to my post. If the perception is that I sit all day at my desk reading the web, then it is wrong. I did spend time curating resources associated with Google, however I have moved departments and Google is no longer at the core of my work. Although I dip in now and then to my feed, the majority of my curation occurs out of hours on the train ride home or after the children have finally gone to bed. Rightly or wrongly, this is what I choose to spend my time with. I have little interest in gaming or watching television. I would argue that my current work does not necessarily allow the time, but rather the cognitive space to explore divergent ideas.
In regards to my newsletter, thank you for the feedback. Some food for thought moving into the new year.
Ian, I really enjoyed this post unpacking the association between Skinner, digital devices and literacy. It reminded of Doug Belshawโs discussion of literacies and the need talk about the critical and constructive as much as the cognitive and communicative. I also enjoyed your discussion of the โdigital black boxesโ.
Both of these pieces managed to capture something that has left me feeling uneasy of late. I am not adverse to devices and technology, but wonder where the conversation is associated with it all? That was the point in my post on being informed. The latest โblack boxโ is the introduction of the smart speaker into the classroom. The discussion seems to be about what it might afford, with little consideration of any other implications.
My wondering is whether turning off the behavioral aspects is enough or if the devices are in fact tainted to the core? This is something that I touched on in my response to Dai Barnes.