Tag Archives: Social Media

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. THERE IS ANOTHER VIRUS CALLED MISINFORMATION.

25 Monday Jan 2021

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., COVID-19, Digital age., Facebook, Fake News., Google, How to do it., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Human values., Humanity., MISINFORMATION., Modern day life., Our Common Values., POST COVID-19., Reality., Social Media, Technology v Humanity, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The pursuit of profit., The state of the World., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., Viruses., We can leave a legacy worthwhile., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

 

(FUNDAMENTAL FIFTEEN MINUTE READ. TO CHANGING THE DIRECTION THE WORLD IS GOING IN) 

This virus has no vaccine against it, it extracts data about our behaviors and using it to manipulate us. It flourishes on social media that preys on the most primal parts of your brain.

You sign up to it with the terms and conditions when you get online with Twitter or Facebook, Google, and more.

Companies like Facebook and Google have corporate goals and interests that are backing us into an untenable social framework, where these monopolies own and operate the Internet, outside societal influences, and democratic control, extracting data on a massive scale.

They own your content in precise ways, and they have precise aims for your content.

As well, and, most of the time, treating our private lives as raw material for their profit.  

Their algorithms are engineered to amplify the most extreme, angry, toxic, content with the intent to maximize data extraction thereby creating a huge societal asymmetry of knowledge and power – a whole new dimension of inequality. 

WE ARE LEARNING THE HARD ABOUT THEIR DESTRUCTIVE EFFECTS – the election of Donald Trump, the Arab Spring, Promoting Popularism, false news on everything, from climate change to covid-19.  

WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IT IS INTOLERABLE TO ALLOW MISFORMATION TO BE SPREAD WILLY NILLY WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF THE TRUTH.

  This commercial surveillance has to stop because the boundaries between the virtual and the real world are melting. 

We the people should have the right to decide what becomes of data and what remains private. What data is sharable and what purpose data should be used for. 

WHY?

BECAUSE OUR PUBLIC DISCOURSE RULED BY SOCIAL MEDIA IS BEING RULED BY A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR PROFIT.

If we don’t in the not so distant future you will see algorithms with self-awareness or worse still self-aware robots.

Instead of massive concentrations of data to manipulate our commercial and political behavior, data becomes a critical resource for people and society to ensure we remove inequalities in society.

There is no room tweaking any of this to get us where we need to go.

Let’s not delve into whether social media are a boon or bane for society. Instead, let’s appropriate social media and use it as an extension of ourselves to reach out to others, and not as a replacement for our physical offline relationships…

Unfortunately, our political discourse is shrinking to fit our smartphone screens and it is too late to regulate or pass laws governing the use of Algorithms. Only the threat of the very large fines will get these platforms and the people behind to concentrate on this in an appropriate way.

Because the formulaic quality of social media is well suited to the banter it appears these days that you’re only as relevant as your last tweet.

WE NEED A FUNDAMENTAL WORLD RESET WITH AI TO TETHER INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY NOT INEQUALITY.   

                                         ———————–

Facebook is basically an advertising company; they exist to make money, like all companies.

Even though Facebook has joined WHO and UNIFC to supply accurate information about covid-19 vaccines misinformation still finds a way on to social media where it combined to make a whirlpool of misinformation.

For example. A post like this.

10 years from now you will hear commercials that say ” if you took the Covid-19 vaccine between 2020-2021 you may be entitled to compensation”

                                      ———————–

 

The world is experiencing dramatic events that are leaving their mark not only on our society and our economy but on each and every one of us.

On the plus side of Ai technology, machine-learning algorithms are helping researchers understand the virus, identify the regions of the world with the highest contagion rates, and forecast the capacity needs of national health systems, with the aim—among others—of minimizing fatalities in the COVID-19 pandemic.

These algorithms can identify patterns of concentration, contagion rates, hidden similarities among cases, and, in general, allow for the aggregation of valuable knowledge that provides a more accurate global picture of the pandemic. More importantly, such algorithms can be used to protect communities that might be more vulnerable. For example, if an elder-care facility is located in an area with a high concentration of contagion, it should receive special attention to prevent unnecessary fatalities.

Prediction algorithms, together with fine-grained simulations can be used to forecast the evolution of the crisis.

For all these outcomes to be reliable, an important precondition is the trustworthiness of the data used with the algorithms.

                                       ——————–

Social media is run by algorithms, programs that spit out the things you see online, working in the background to come up with the things you see.

The interest of the corporation is fueling the content that you’re seeing.

However, when we are talking about algorithms on the internet or social media, you’re talking about people’s data going into a system and reworked preferences that come from that data input coming out. So you’re seeing the same sorts of things again and again when you’re expressing your preferences online.

So clicking on Google, YouTube, Twitter, the Facebook which are reinforcement systems based on existing preferences is about giving anthropomorphic agency to something that really doesn’t make decisions in the same way that we do.

Are they giving us beneficial moments, or making actual choices for us? 

The question is if algorithms just show us what we want, can they push us in different directions. 

Think about it in terms of what the algorithm wants and how it’s treating us by personifying the algorithm.

To sum up. 

They are inescapable and encrypted in individuals’ online lives constantly, ‘making autocratic decisions…to produce a single output and agonistic in influencing individuals becoming a key site of power in the contemporary mediascape with the ability to, ‘shape social and cultural formations.  

To date, we as individuals have granted algorithms the, ‘almost unimaginable power to determine what we see, where we spend, how we perceive.

Their power seems to be located in the mechanics of the algorithm.

However, it is in the hands of the individual to modify their opinions and perspectives to what has been put in order for them.

Every algorithm falls under a certain class.

Basically, they are-

1)      Brute force.

2)      Divide and conquer.

3)      Decrease and conquer.

4)      Dynamic programming.

5)      Greedy algorithm.

6)      Transform and conquer.

7)      Backtracking algorithm.

 

 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. IS IT TIME TO STOP ANONYMITY ON THE INTERNET.?

20 Wednesday Jan 2021

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2021. The year for change., Artificial Intelligence., Communication., COVID-19, Dehumanization., Democracy., Digital age., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Disconnection., Fake News., Freedom, Freedom of Speech, How to do it., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Human values., Humanity., Modern Day Communication., Our Common Values., Post-Covid-19, Social Media, Social Media Regulation., Technology, Technology v Humanity, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Internet., The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., VALUES, We can leave a legacy worthwhile., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

( Ten-minute read) 

Since the internet was in its infancy, the rights of users to use it to express their opinions were sacrosanct.

However, there is a price for “free” internet, and that we’ve given up more of ourselves than we ever intended to.

Concern already exists that Facebook and similar social media platforms act as echo chambers that validate opinions we already hold – fuelling precisely the type of extreme views that Facebook says it has a right to edit.

Might this new position simply result in more fake news?

The Internet has and is empowering masses of people by access to world-wide information sources, education, and communication but what is now considered permissible and acceptable online is shifting.

The question is with this newfound freedom, that is influencing every aspect of our lives for good or bad, should we be requiring people to register their identity when using the internet.?

If so how.

It would be true to say as we have become constantly connected, none of us are as anonymous as we think.

George Orwell presciently realized that if citizens don’t know what is true and what is false, they can’t make a judgment about what to object to in their lives.

Is it time to introduce an online digital passport to eradicate individual desires, such as credulity, abuse, gender-swapping, exploration, radicalizing, hacking, trolling, spreading false news, promoting popularism groups, bullying, racism, the list is endless? 

( Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says. 

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.”

The GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 give internet users the right to privacy and the right to withhold their personal details.

The Malicious Communication Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003 make it possible to prosecute “trolling” – and many other forms of online harassment are also now covered by the legislation. )

Platforms on the internet avoided liability by claiming they were “mere conduits” of these views and not “publishers” of them.  The argument goes that this includes protection for freedom of expression by the right to remain anonymous online.

So which should remain enshrined: freedom of speech or freedom from abuse?

The world feels smaller and we’ve celebrated this but in any human population, there will be people with irreconcilably different understandings of the truth.

Repressing speech has costs, but so does allowing it.

The world, however, has changed, and many of us may be in the time warp of old values. Human beings are poor witnesses, easily misled by a personal bias, profoundly influenced by their social environment.

As products of their society, social media and journalists are no exceptions. 

The world is now a much more dangerous place, not because of Covid -19 which is plunging it into a Depression with social media exposing a system of governance corseted by greed – profit before the people. Then, on the other hand, social media is like cancer at the heart of societies spreading the news, not what the facts are, but what men wish to see.

The press once seemed to have a conscience, thanks to history’s painful social conflicts and questions of war and peace.

Social media is not concerned with any historical lessons it being a wildfire of the short-term reactions of unfounded populism without any in-depth investigative journalism.      

It is becoming impossible to distinguish between paid news and actual, unbiased news.

You could say that the world has more pressing problems.

However, our current and future problems, like the internet, are all interconnected.

Shifting trends and the advancement in communication technology require a re-examination of the underlying principle and its application in new contexts.

There are attempts to get some control.

Free-speech advocates typically claim that the value of unfettered expression outweighs any harm it might cause, offering assurances that any such harm will be minimal.

Because like several other precious freedoms, free speech must be placed outside the reach of political exigency.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, it is impossible to pass binding regulations or laws that don’t restrict the sanctity of free speech.

Free speech or the freedom of expression is the modern civilization’s most precious gift to human society but it can’t be reaffirmed by drowning out its opponents.

                                                         ————

The issuing of Digital Passports could not be left to the whim of Facebook or any other internet providers.

Also “Digital identity solutions leave us open to data exploitation with the valuable data from these solutions (being) used for other purposes, so governments could not be involved in their issuing other than making supporting laws with large fines. 

The most obvious hitch in this plan is that not everyone has a smartphone,

With the current Pandemic and vacations, there will be an attempt to introduce Covid-19 free digital health certification (Of course, this would only be applicable to people with smartphones.) and they could become a prerequisite for some activities.

But for now, we’re many steps removed from that kind of streamlined process even becoming possible. Widespread adoption of so-called immunity passports would require a level of coordination and organization uncharacteristic of any country’s response to COVID-19 so far.

So here is the challenge. 

Is it possible to create a Digital Passport that is unhackable, that can be applied for online, that would combine your present Passport information, that you could use to vote, to register an internet identity, and carry your medical history. 

People would only accept such a thing if it commands public trust.

As evidence with the recent election in the USA entrusting your democracy to a black-box proprietary system that is subject to hacking, glitches, and errors, but NOT subject to scrutiny, analysis, or independent verification, is the surest and quickest way to lose your democracy. 

However, creating an internet user register could be possible not only authenticating the user but making it more transparent and ensure that users have the right to remedy when wrong decisions are made.

As for platforms, they know what they need to do because civil society has told them for years.

Just in case they have not got the message they should ensure that the decisions they make about speech are in line with global human rights standards, rather than making the rules up as they go.

 

 All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. WE ARE NOW EVERWHERE AND NOWHERE.

13 Wednesday Jan 2021

Posted by in Social Media Regulation., Social Media.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

(Ten minutes read.) 

In theory, social media is designed to connect us. In reality, it acts as a barrier. Our impulse to broadcast our lives makes us miss out on them.

It has become an essential tool for providing a space and means for the public to participate in influencing or disallowing environmental decisions historically made by governments and corporations that affect us all.

However, it is also unmooring of mind from the body that has left people adrift, navigating a turbulent online world without the reassuring markers humans evolved to recognize.

Technology has wrenched mind from body.

Far from bringing us together, the digital world is breaking us apart into an unhinged world of short term gratification.  

It seems “who we really are” is now determined by how one chooses to present on social media, what we “want” rather than what we are.Group of people using their cell phones

Ironically, by engaging with social media, you lose the moment. In your quest to connect virtually, you disconnect from your reality and the people in it.

You’ve effectively pressed pause on the moment with your device becoming your main source of pleasure.

The mere presence of a cellphone, while two people are talking, interferes with their feelings of closeness, connection, and communication.

                                                ——————–

Social distancing started a long time before the threat of contagion, sometime around 2005 with the spread of high-speed internet.

And now due to the pandemic, its a technologist’s wet dream:

Forcing people online to shop, to educate, accelerating what were already inevitable changes, fuelling a crisis of democracy hiding our sexuality and identity.

Kathleen Richardson, Professor of Ethics and Culture of Robots and AI at De Montfort University, Leicester said “Rather than seeing the youth of today as profoundly happy with this cult of consumer self-making, the research indicates they are in despair, and worse still, are shunning opportunities to develop critical perspectives that could help them out of the quagmire.”

Technology is not neutral in what is happing in society.

It is an industry where the libertarian views of Silicon Valley’s founding fathers meet with the commercial imperative of profit.

Arguably, to some degree, we each now advertise and curate our online selves as products; mindful that the wrong tweet or “like” could cause reputational damage, or even end our careers. 

While the urge to look at shocking content is a neurological response, the descent into more extreme material is facilitated by profit-seeking algorithms.

If the trajectory from moderate to extreme political content has implications for democracy, it is fair to ask, what if anything can be done.

                                                    ———–

Are we wasting years of our life because we are more concerned with what is on the screen of our phones instead of the world around us?

Human interaction is becoming more extinct by the day.

The boundary between people and property is being systematically broken down, both in the form of customized social media surgeries to match the personas we each now advertise online. 

The rush into hyper-individualism, leaving no structure within which to frame human experience, nor legally protect human experience and bodies.

There is no better example of how over-dependent we have become on smartphones than the current Pandemic. 

Now before you call me a hypocrite, I will be the first to admit that I am using social media to post this blog.

With that said, I would like to clearly state there is nothing wrong with posting a Facebook status or Instagram photos to let people know how we are doing and what is new with our lives. However social media has now gone far beyond that. 

Through social media we have created the perception that our lives are a lot more exciting than they actually are, creating a false reality, which we now find ourselves – dare I say – forever entangled in.

It is as if the mute button inside of us is turned off and we are unable to have conversations with ourselves, again instead of substituting it with mindlessly scrolling around on our phone.

Geographical boundaries cannot stop social media from reaching people.

Around the world, billions of us use social media every day, and that number just keeps growing. To put it into some context, every minute we collectively send more than 30 million messages on Facebook and almost 350,000 tweets.

It is changing the way we are governed, and the way we live in society impacting our abilities to get a loan, down to how long a prison sentence you get in lockdown, or at the pleasure of the arm of the law. 

                                        ————–

Social media is a two-way street and allows non-experts to share information just as rapidly as health agencies, if not more so.

Before the dawn of social media, governments, along with the traditional media, were the gatekeepers of information. Whereas politicians and government officials once had to travel to interact with citizens, it’s now online. 

This relationship has been turned on its head.

Nowhere is this challenge more acute than in the world of international affairs and conflict, where the rise of digitally native international actors has challenged the state’s dominance.

The Arab Spring is perhaps one of the best-known examples of how social media can change the world.

What can be done to get transparent governance of these social media platforms?

We know social media content can lead to violence, but is there a plan to stop it?

The answer to this question

Is that these companies cannot fix themselves.

Is that in short, no one really knows how Facebook — or other social media companies — makes content decisions, and given the potential harms, this has to change.

We need governance solutions for social media, and we need them now.

because these platforms are owned by private companies they have no real transparency obligations. So self-regulation is off the table.

What about oversight from governments?

This is not a great idea as there is a big conflict of interest.

Governmental interests clash with responsible governance, whether it is a politician’s reputation or national security. We cannot — and should not — expect social media companies to be completely transparent to states.

So any oversight has to be independent, collaborative, and accountable.

A body made up of civil society, multilateral organizations, and researchers, with legal powers to enforce speech standards, algorithms, human reviewers, privacy practices, and internal policy processes, among other things rather than one staffed with those very companies’ picks.

This ideal oversight body should have an array of expertise:

From international law backgrounds to software capabilities to local socio-political context in various countries.

It should be able to tap into global networks of civil society and grassroots organizations. It should center a human rights approach — free of competing for governmental interests.

And of course, it cannot be a profit-maximizing initiative:

To hold social media accountable, its first responsibility must be too good governance.

Independent oversight is the only path to real change.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks ad abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. SOCIAL MEDIA ENSURES THAT WHAT IS SOWED IS WHAT WE REAP.

09 Saturday Jan 2021

Posted by in Social Media.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

 

 (Seven-minute read) 

In this day and age we go online for everything from news, shopping, and travel to everyday conversation, and most of the websites we visit encourage interaction through platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

We witnessed this during the build-up to the Brexit vote with the spreading of untruths and now with a man who was elected the President of the USA with Twitter lies.

So, here we are staring down the barrel of a cocked gun with the odd situation where freedom of speech is censored by Algorithms.

Twitter who supported the spread of false news trying to wash their Pontious Pilate hands of Donald Trump, by moving his followers to a new platform called Parler, removing his twits permanently, and  Brexit leading to the break up of the UK weakening the EU. 

Rather than being shocked by the events in the USA of a groomed mob breaking into the house of Representatives perhaps we now see when we set the rules for who we allow into our social media bubbles and we don’t, we are reinforcing our own beliefs against reality. 

Interestingly, different social media platforms are employed for different purposes during both the above situations.

Supporters get stuck in an infinite loop of making claims and increasing fear of the other group of supporters. Meanwhile, there is no discussion between the groups.

Claims are not countered, and both sides dig in further creating an isolation chamber where we live unchallenged lives that only reinforces what we don’t believe in.

Twitter is generally used to share or obtain information related to the event. Facebook, on the other hand, is used to check on the wellbeing of friends and loved ones. Twitter generally being open and fit for public broadcast, whilst Facebook is exclusive to friends and family by its own design.

There is a darker side to this refusal to accept even seeing these opposing views.

The downside to all of this is massive.

Social media is making our world less genuine.

The problem is, the way our technology-dependent world is headed isn’t going to just go away anytime soon. Alternatively, it’s going to keep evolving and transforming into new forms with who knows what other ideas to accompany it. 

If we aren’t careful, we will continue spiraling down into this insensitive, demoralizing world that has become of our society today, due to social media, and now with covid-19, we are facing an economic recession that is driving us all on line. 

One quick click and anyone who challenges your view on a topic are gone, leaving you exclusively in the company of people who agree with you 100% of the time. You are now isolated with people who just echo your own views.

It might be unfair to say that Twitter is now full of right-wing Trump supporters, and Facebook is full of left-wing Biden supporters with both sides preaching to the choir!

If our beliefs are not challenged, they do not evolve and grow, and we become more insular in our beliefs.

This is why Donald Trump is unwilling to accept that his time is up. 

Using Twitter to encourage his followers with countless claims and counterclaims of voter fraud and other election wrongdoing. (In amongst this heated battle, Twitter and Facebook have started to censor unproven claims, but Social Media allows us to set our own rules.)

The problem is that Social Media is having a massive effect on journalism – in how it is delivered and consumed.

We now receive updates delivered in real-time from individuals all over the world. where items are brought to prominence through the “likes”, “shares”, “favorites” and “follows”  Taking away what once use to be called the “exclusive scoop”

In a world that has become so dependent on technology, Governments can’t make social bubbles illegal, and the social media giants prefer you to stay in your bubbles

What it excludes could do us harm.

THERE IS NO REASON THAT SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATIONS AS OUTLETS OF MEDIA.

For those who still dismiss social media as a passing craze or fad, here is a simple test – for one week, keep a tally of websites you visit that do and do not have links to Facebook/Twitter pages, options to “share”, “like” or “follow”.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; ARE WE FOOLING OURSELVES WHEN WE SAY UNIVERSAL VALUE’S?

06 Sunday Sep 2020

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2019: The Year of Disconnection., 2020: The year we need to change., Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism, Climate Change., COVID-19, Digital age., Disconnection., Environment, Fourth Industrial Revolution., How to do it., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Human values., Humanity., Imagination., Modern Day Communication., Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., POST COVID-19., Purchasing Power., Reality., Religious Beliefs., Survival., Sustaniability, Technology v Humanity, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The pursuit of profit., The state of the World., The world to day., Truth, Unanswered Questions., VALUES, We can leave a legacy worthwhile., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

 

(Five-minute read) 


Never in history is such a question more important. Unfortunately, we live in a world of distractions.

In my previous post to this one, (THE HARDEST THING OF ALL TO SEE IS ALREADY THERE.)   I attempted to say that the truth has no past.

By this, I meant that the truth is reality, and therefore religion and the state must be separated.

Only then can one hope for value with the same value or worth for all, or almost all, people. A value is considered universal when it goes beyond laws and beliefs; rather, it is considered to have the same meaning for all people and does not vary according to the societies that have evolved. 

 In fact, cultural relativism is a belief that opposes the existence of universal values; proposes that a value can not be universal because it is perceived differently in each culture.

Given the ambiguity of the term, the existence of universal values ​​can only be understood as the values ​​that have to do with the basic requirements of the human being. Such as Fresh Air, Freshwater, Food, Clean Energy. 

Now with AI infiltrating our lives, it seems that the faster we travel, the importance of there place is getting lost.

It seems because there are no universal moral values, our command of science simply can not coexist with morals, and our internet fed imaginations 

We talk about the central issues of our times: A universal pandemic, an economic depression, continuing wars, climate change, migration, artificial intelligence, rising inequalities, erosion of the power of the vote, loss of individualism, loss of connection to ecosystems, to mention just a few of the problems to define any values that are universal.

We have many governments doubling down on the blame game and brinkmanship. 

We have bioengineering which alone is now much greater danger than a nuclear war. 

We have the maldistribution of wealth. 

We have world leaders unwilling to see beyond the next election. 

We have the extinction rebellion. 

We have non-transparent digital data.

We have 10.000 to 130,000 species going extinct each year.

We have a population of 7.7 billion   

We have extreme weather and biodiversity loss.

I ask myself why is it that with so many of us tryin’ to improve society, not that much changes but I hope that we don’t make changes to satisfy the noisemakers.

Rather than separating one problem from another, we need to connect them.

i.e. Climate changes to war and war to climate changes. 

The question remains.

> How do we the current guardians of the planet achieve a balance between living our lives and the life of the planet, that allows us to live them in the first place. 

 It is no longer that logic alone will solve the problems, nor protests, or political will but within functional societies, we do still have the ultimate weapon – VIEWING AND BUY POWER  and both are available in every type and form of human culture.

They must be added to the deep emotions of religion if we are to achieve change.

The life of now economies and pay later must come to an end if we are to avoid the hazards of the future. 

If Extinction Rebellion wants to be heard, it will not do so on top of bamboo towers stopping newspapers to be deliveries, or sticking themselves to windows. 

It must use social media digital platforms to encourage its supporters to use their buying power to attack profit for profit sake. 

Certain human characteristics as valuable – life regardless of whether or not it is believed in said characteristic.  

PROFIT WITHOUT CONTRIBUTION TO UNIVERSAL VALUES IS THE ENEMY. 

With these weapons, we can effect change and avoid the hazards to come.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin. 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHEN IT COMES TO WORLD PROBLEMS WHY IS IT THAT WE HUMANS ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE GRAVITY THEY PRESENT.

03 Friday Jul 2020

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2020: The year we need to change., A Constitution for the Earth., Big Data., Capitalism, Climate Change., COVID-19, Digital age., Disconnection., Economic Depression., Environment, Evolution, Fourth Industrial Revolution., GDP., homelessness., How to do it., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Human values., Humanity., Inequality, Life., Micro v Macro Economics., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., POST COVID-19., Survival., Sustaniability, Technology v Humanity, Technology., Telling the truth., The common good., The current state of our oceans., The essence of our humanity., The Future, THE FUTURE OF OUR OCEANS/SEAS, The Obvious., The pursuit of profit., The state of the World., The world to day., Truth, Unanswered Questions., VALUES, We can leave a legacy worthwhile., Wealth., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Economic Depression., World Leaders, World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

As global citizens, the news is packed with statistics and updates on the challenges we face. Most of these challenges have existed from time memorial and are too large to be solved by one person at a time and if they affect huge numbers of people we are numb by their enormity.  

Photographs can be effective for a while. They capture our attention — they get us to see the reality, to glimpse the reality at a scale we can understand and connect to emotionally. But then there has to be somewhere to go with it.

“There is no constant value for human life.”

Granted that certain global issues cannot be solved by on-the-ground, grassroots-style projects like human rights, climate change, wars, etc. 

So is it a perception problem? 

No matter how hard we try we are unable to perceive the whole earth never mind the Universe as one.   

We witness this many times in history when the value of a single life diminishes against the backdrop of a larger tragedy and now we are once again witnessing it with COVID-19.

We all go to great lengths to protect a single individual or to rescue someone in distress, but then as the numbers increase, we don’t respond proportionally to that.

We don’t scale up, even when we’re capable. 

There’s a hard limit to human compassion. The human mind is not very good at thinking about and empathizing with, millions or billions of individuals. As the number of victims increases, our empathy, our willingness to help, reliably decreases.

We seem unable to prevent our past from impacting our present?

However, our current behaviors are not shaped by past events but by mass media in the form of social media which is creating self-limiting beliefs.

They appear so real to the extent that we cant hardly tell whether its a self-limiting belief or a real one, as a result, we are unable to see the world correctly, so we look on as millions die. 

Numbers simply can’t convey the costs, there’s an infuriating paradox at play.

We know that we must protect the Earth but are unwilling to pay the cost of doing so.

Our problem is to replace the false beliefs we acquired with the right one.

Which issues are the most urgent?

And can one person, really, truly, make that much of a contribution?

Here are some of the major issues all global citizens should be aware of if not there are living in coco land. 

FOOD.

One in nine people in the world goes hungry each day.  

It has been estimated that if women farmers could be given the same resources as men, millions of more people could be fed. 

How can it be 2020 and people are still going hungry?

Nutritious food is often more expensive. Visit your local supermarket and compare the price of a punnet of strawberries to a chocolate bar. 

Even though approximately 12.9% of the world is undernourished, about 30% of the adult population is overweight.

HEALTH.

In a world of more than 1 billion people living in extreme poverty (less than $1.25 per day) and 2.2 billion living on less than $2 per day (2011 data)

The reality is far more complex. Untold hundreds of millions of people lack access to essential health services, in fact over half of the world population do not have basic health care. We are a long way from the universal right to health.

Communicable diseases were responsible for 71%  of deaths, and low-income countries are the most severely affected. 

EDUCATION. 

It’s estimated that approximately 600 million children are not mastering basic mathematics and literacy while at school. 

HABITAT AND BIODIVERSITY LOSS. OCEAN CONSERVATION

The earth is full. Full of our waste, full of our demands.

The economy is now bigger than the earth, unimaginable, unattainable, and unsustainable. There is no infinite growth possible on a finite planet because nature sets the rules and individual issues mean nothing if they are not attached to nature.  

There are countless studies and evidence all around you indicating that the coming crises are inevitable.

If an economy grows at 2% per year, it will double in 35 years. 

Imagine twice as much human economic activity as we now have. Can our planet sustain this? Do we need to do this? Why would we want to? Why are we doing this?

Even though a lot of us know that it makes no sense to try to grow endlessly and outstrip the only planet we have. 

What if anything can be changed? 

We all know that the road to global decarbonization must involve renewable energy.

Although the Paris agreement’s goals are aligned with science, alarming inconsistencies remain between science-based targets and national commitments.

Its a no-brainer in the current emerging global political climate.

Rather than tackle mitigation measures economies are now due to Covid-19 returning to pumping more not less carbon into the atmosphere.

Climate stabilization must be placed on par with economic development, human rights democracy, and peace.       

From a money perspective, we can’t help it—we live in a grow-or-die system.?

Currently, we have a system that provides humans to have an innate cost/benefit assessment tool called the smartphone operating at all times. 

Here are a few suggestions.

It is now vital that we consider the motivation and funding sources of those who are shaping our worldview. 

Money must be created without debt so it doesn’t force us to grow and consumer beyond our means.

New Money must no longer enter circulation as credit, that is, as debt.

It will simply be money spent into circulation by the government as a permanently circulating exchange medium to enable the country’s economy to function.

This money will be equity on the national balance sheet and be our commonwealth.

It will replace bank-created debt-money ending the privilege of commercial banks to create and issue what we use as money.

Then we have trillions in the form of pension investment funds that are nontransparently invested. If we demanded that these funds were moved from fossil fuel industries to green energy industries whose returns are going to be massive we would be reducing carbon emissions by millions of tonnes.

Next, we have the advertising industry.

All advertising that does not promote sustainability should be curtailed by law.  We must turn the direction of humanity towards thriving not consumption for profit.  

With the coming economic depression, we do have room for growth—the growth of community cohesion and commons conservation. We can grow our efforts to educate our children, care for our people, and care for the planet. We can grow into a more just, caring, sustainable society. 

Because we are careering into a world of a few haves and billions of have -not.

Access to information owned by Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Apple, to name a few, must become transparent and available to all as the interactions of all our individual worldviews shape the condition of humanity.

Lastly, we must address inequality.   

There are now 65.3 million people displaced from their homes worldwide.

Think about that number: 65.3 million. Can you even imagine it?

It’s now or never that we make a profit for profit’s sake contribute to a World Aid fund.

(see previous posts)

As Mahatma Gandhi put it, “Earth has enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.”

We can’t eat drink or shit data.

 

All human comments appreciate. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. IS SOCIAL MEDIA BECOMING JUST A PHONY WAR.

11 Wednesday Dec 2019

Posted by in Social Media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

(Twelve-minute read) 

Of course, it is being blamed for eroding trust, but trust isn’t something that can be immediately forged; it must be built over time.

Social Media, on one hand, has tremendous power for good but it also causes a breakdown of trust casting a negative net far and wide. 

The real power of Social Media is its decentralized nature.

Random stories, true or not, posted on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, can achieve sudden popularity and notoriety by touching the minds and hearts, not just millions, but tens and hundreds of millions of people.

So is Social Media the perfect mechanism for spreading emotionally powerful messages designed to generate an epidemic of fear even when the content is totally and obviously false, who cares?

This is why dictatorships cannot tolerate Social Media. Autocratic governments can’t control the content or who receives it.

There is no easy fix.

The issues involved are complex.

In little more than a decade, the impact of social media has gone from being an entertaining extra to a fully integrated part of nearly every aspect of daily life for many.

Yet one thing is certain, developing trust is contingent upon authentic communication and algorithmic mechanical content has no authenticity.

They are destroying our ability to create and consume valuable content.

What qualifies as “valuable content” is, of course, subjective.

For a piece of content to qualify as valuable, it must be relevant.

Valuable content isn’t static. 

Content that isn’t useful isn’t valuable.

Doesn’t that sound like Social Media should support and enhance the idea of democracy, that more people will be exposed to more diverse news and therefore more intelligent overall?

Certainly, that is the idealistic view.

There is no centralized control to Social media so there are endless ways that your data is being mined on a regular basis to feed Artifical Intelligence algorithms that are conditioning consumers with algorithm content.

But does that actually happen?

The reading audience determines what’s considered valuable content.

Better education should lead to better opportunities for all people.

If the audience wants short-form content, platforms believe it’s their duty to give it to them.

  • Tweets are limited to 280 characters maximum.
  • Instagram Stories currently max out at 15 seconds, video posts at 60 seconds.
  • Snapchat Stories are capped at 60 seconds.

My question is why are these platforms not smacking the viewer over the head with hard-hitting messages that clearly states what the content is and where it comes from.

IE it has been posted by an unidentifiable source or individual it might encourage him or her to dig deeper.

Of course, you can use social media to give quick-hitting answers to burning questions while linking to long-form content.

Google’s algorithms work under the assumption that blog posts worth reading must contain at least 2,000 words.

Longform content tends to spread the message out, allowing the reader to become more and more emotionally invested over time.

In this environment, it’s no secret that short-form content is increasingly prevalent and popular.

how can we feel we have “independent thinking”?

Have we been herded into a collective bounded and defined by fear?

How is this a society that functions as a true democracy?

In fact, bad actors have an advantage because they are not constrained by legal, ethical or moral considerations. They can direct their money, knowledge, and power toward totally selfish goals.

From the perspective of a bad actor, Social Media, as a decentralized, “free” messaging channel, is actually the most powerful and cost-effective tool for manipulation they have ever had.

What do we do to change the direction of decline? 

How can we have rational discourse about our differences, to learn mutual respect?

How can we support more positive, life-affirming messaging? Regardless of the stories we tell, how can we commit to the narrative of Social Media as a means of increasing the state of well-being of society?

Each of us has a voice. Use it wisely!

The way that prominent social media platform companies, particularly Facebook, are currently operating and are financed is inherently undemocratic.

Facebook adds 500,000 new users every day, that’s 6 new profiles every second!

No other platform enables target groups to be so directly contacted and motivated towards interaction.

There are some 680 million Twitter users. 

The question is, are we at a point where the social media organizations and their activities should be regulated for the benefit of all.

Digital technologies have become pervasive.

Of course, many have begun to believe that the biggest challenge around the impact of social media may be the way it is changing society. The “attention-grabbing algorithms underlying social media… propel authoritarian practices that aim to sow confusion, ignorance, prejudice, and chaos, thereby facilitating manipulation and undermining accountability.

Facebook and Twitter and they’re like maybe gone in 10 years, but there will be something else.

Do we want to try to put the genie back in the bottle? Can we? Does social media definitely have a future?

Social connections are fabrics of society. 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS IT TIME TO REGULATE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WITH LAWS.

25 Monday Nov 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Democracy, Digital Friendship., Elections/ Voting, Facebook., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Google, Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Reality., Social Media, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The pursuit of profit., The state of the World., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

 

(Ten-minute read) 

The beady eye is far from the first voice to ask this question and it certainly will not be the last.

We might even come to “question whether we still have free will.

There is no doubting that the social web has created amazing opportunities to learn, discover, connect, but its downside as it penetrates our daily lives is becoming more and more prevalent in the creation of our future lives and the societies we live in.

If the public discussion is shifting increasingly to online fora, and those fora are having more and more influence over democracy it becomes increasingly important to apply principles to them. 

Honest political debate is essential for the health of a democracy.  

If discussions of import move into space where they can be readily censored, then we will simply no longer live in a society with a free exchange of ideas, because the playing field will always be tilted.

One only has to look at how social media platforms are amplifying what is wrong with the world.  

While we all reveal a huge amount of personal information online we are losing the ability to determine honest facts that democracy depends.

Basically, companies that run social media platforms are monopolies or near-monopolies in their areas of operation, and the only way we can achieve the desired outcomes is through clear, effective legal regulations. 

We can’t always control how others use their platforms but we can apply the same regulations that govern all other forms of Media.

The public cannot rely on these company’s self-regulation, because self-regulation raises more questions than it answers.

The fact is that the formation of a platform takes place in a vacuum, whereas the formation of any competitors do not, so they cannot be considered parallels in any way. 

If we take companies like Facebook and Google they both derive most of their revenue from advertising. They essentially constitute a duopoly because they have access to the best data about individuals. Every memory, picture, emoji, song, video, link, gripe, fear, hope, want, dream and bad political opinion posted is mined and monetized as data.

As a result of their algorithms, they are creating and reinforcing divided and insular online communities that do not interact with people or information with which they disagreed.

At the end of the day, how Facebook and Google conduct their businesses undermines privacy and raises questions about ethical behaviour in the uses of our information and their role in society.

The Internet is a “utility” like water or electricity. It is essential to modern life, not an optional subscription service.

Determining how to regulate Facebook or any other platform may first require some kind of definition of what it is.

Facebook brags about connecting us to our family and friends — but it also about directly influencing the outcomes of elections across the globe.

It sits on top of industries including journalism, where it, together with Google, essentially controls the distribution channels for online news and, in effect, the way people discover information about politics, government and society.

They ( Google, Facebook, Twitter,etc) have figured out how to take advantage of this dynamic to distribute false information about political candidates and hot-button political issues in order to drive up traffic and advertising revenue.

Protecting our community is more important than maximizing their profits.

They are given protections that no one can sue them for any reason — that is Google and Facebook nither are responsible for the fake news that appears on their sites.

They are completely shielded from any responsibility for the content that appears on their service.

Changes to legal protection (which has been interpreted by judges to provide a safe harbour for online platforms even when they pay to distribute others’ content and decline the option to impose editorial oversight) would likely be devastating to online platforms like Google and Facebook and would transform the way people interact across the entire internet.

However, with legal protection, sites like these could be held responsible for libellous comments posted by readers, Google could lose lawsuits over potentially false or defamatory information surfacing in search results, and Facebook could be sued for any potentially libellous comment made by anyone on its platform against any other person.

The legal bills to defend against libel and defamation claims would be enormous.

We all need protection and the ability to request platforms to provide us with control over online information by making it accessible and removable at an individual’s request.

The government, on the other hand, has a regulatory intent to protect citizens from content that is obscene or violent.

Should Facebook and their like be regulated?

A question that is never going to end. 

However, until we recognize that there is no fool-proof safeguard to keep horrific content away from the eyes of children we rely on huge fines to the detriment of us all. 

Till then with all internet platforms deflecting criticism, social media will be more psychologically damaging than anyone expected. 

We need a radical shift in the balance of power between the platforms and the people.

It is beyond comprehension that we tolerate the present position.

Or is it? When you see the below.   

Would you ever be prepared to use a nuclear weapon?

This question is increasingly put to politicians as some kind of virility test.

The subtext is that to be a credible political leader, you must be willing to use an indiscriminate weapon of mass destruction.

We should be baulking at the casual way in which political discourse on this topic has developed which is politically unacceptable and morally despicable. 

If a mainstream politician unblinkingly said that they would use chemical weapons against civilians there would be uproar. If a self-proclaimed candidate for prime minister boasted that they would commit war crimes, it would be a national scandal. Nuclear weapons should be seen no differently. 

It’s time that nuclear advocates spelt out the reality of what their position means.

The human race is so good at speaking, it’s lost the art of listening.

It might be easy to brush away the febrile atmosphere online as a nasty byproduct of free expression: I don’t want Facebook having everyone’s verified identities. I do want their platform and other platforms to be held responsible legally for content that is false, racest, hateful, rightwing fascist propaganda.  

I do know that if the big platforms, as they already do in part, forced some verifiable information to back up use, we could tame this wild west with legal requirements

I’ll give up on the consensus-building when I can open a platform knowing who to hold legally responsible.  


All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WITH THE SATURATION OF THE WEB BY GREEDY ALGORITHMS ARE WE SEEING THE END OF CHOICE.

20 Wednesday Nov 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Dehumanization., Democracy., Digital Friendship., Education, Elections/ Voting, Fake News., Fourth Industrial Revolution., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

 

(Seven-minute read) 

The degree of choice on the web can be overwhelming, but who, exactly, is making the “Choice”

Has The web has been highjacked by Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Social Media and their like?

Why?

Besause they are absorbing their users’ personal data and feeding greedy algrithms who in the end are disempowered by isolation from the wider web. 

(By clicking continue below and using our sites or applications, you agree that we and our third party advertisers can:)

Greedy algorithms can be characterized as being ‘short-sighted’, and also as ‘non-recoverable’. The choice made by a greedy algorithm may depend on choices made so far, but not on future choices or all the solutions to the subproblem.

It is important, however, to note that the greedy algorithm can be used as a selection algorithm to prioritize options within a search, or branch-and-bound algorithm. They iteratively make one greedy choice after another, reducing each given problem into a smaller one.

They can make commitments to certain choices too early which prevent them from finding the best overall solution later.

Without any accountability, they are drastically changing the ways we conduct our daily lives.

There are a few variations to the greedy algorithm:

  • Pure greedy algorithms.
  • Orthogonal greedy algorithms.
  • Relaxed greedy algorithms.
  • It’s no wonder that Berners-Lee isn’t particularly pleased with the way things have gone with his creation.

With Social networks, slowly algorithms are growing more and more powerful and their predictions growing more accurate. It won’t be long before we could see living, breathing, as the choices of a greedy algorithm.  

In other words, a greedy algorithm never reconsiders its choices. 

The web is cleaving into the haves and have-nots of news readership. Wealthy readers will pay to opt-out of advertising; less privileged readers will have to stick with news that’s ad-supported.

For example, take Google, one of the leaders in using big data and algorithms to support human decision-making. Google has developed both a hiring algorithm and a retention algorithm it analyzes candidates against this profile to make hiring decisions.

Algorithms to develop lists of “flight risks” — that is, people who are likely to leave their jobs soon. 

Amazon’s Choice” algorithm, which leverages a machine learning model to discern what products a customer most likely wants. Amazon Alexa and other voice assistants are drastically changing the ways consumers encounter products.

Customers are no longer putting themselves in front of physical products before purchasing them.

As more users are turning to voice ordering through the Amazon Alexa platform and its competitors we are losing control over our personal data. 

Hopefully, Amazon’s algorithms are capable of remaining unbiased.

(We can make whatever choice seems best at the moment and then solve the subproblems that arise later.) 

On top of all of this, we have all become blind to the damage that the internet can do to even a well-functioning democracy. Brexit/ USA.

It might be true that around the world, social media is making it easier for people to have a voice in government — to discuss issues, organize around causes, and hold leaders accountable, but these governments are winning elections by false news, echo chambers where people only see viewpoints they agree with — further driving us apart.

Social media can distort policymakers’ perception of public opinion.

If there’s one fundamental truth about social media’s impact on democracy it’s that it amplifies human intent — both good and bad.

Unprecedented numbers of people channel their political energy through this medium, it’s being used in unforeseen ways with societal repercussions that were never anticipated. 

So it is inevitable that Facebook to influence public sentiment — essentially using social media as an information weapon.

Some 87% of governments around the world have a presence on Facebook.

And they’re listening — and responding — to what they hear.

Misinformation campaigns are not amateur operations.

Increasingly the web will become profoundly useless unless we demand the Web we want from Governments and the Monomorphic platforms that dominate it today. 

We are all part of the web so what we endorse must be questioned as to the transparency as to where the information comes from in the first place.

Today the bulk of people who are or not doing this are isolated from each other by Apps.

The like button is not a public metric for the popularity of content. It is a flattener of credibility.

There is no point waking in the morning with Alexa telling you what to do, where to go and what it has bought and who to vote for.  

Even if social media could be cured of its outrage -enhancing effects it is undermining democracy.

Even though we have unprecedented access to all that was ever written and digitized we are less familiar with the accumulated wisdom of humanity becoming more and more misguided. 

The Web is now a global experiment that will test the very foundation of our global communities

There can not be self -governance for the web.

Fake news, Racism, Pornographic content and unfounded crap should be removed by not allowing anything to be posted without a traceable verified name or source.  

Are you sure you want to post this? It is your choice and your choice alone.

Perhaps its time we all franchise our data as we are entering into a continuous partnership so both parties need to be confident it’s the right fit. It’s all a choice. Just do something about it- YOU CAN, what is true technology integration? 

How we are going to learn content is one of the ways forward.

In fact, everywhere we look we are starting to be presented with more choices.

Resolve to avoid false comparisons on the web is not possible so the future of the web is all about choice but it is important to understand the paradox of choice.

Choice without education or choice with education.

you ultimately do have to choose. so be the difference that

makes the difference. 

 

Events change our perception and our perspective changes

with experience but at least let our choices about Our lives

which are constantly in flux be our choices. 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: HAS FRIENDSHIP CHANGE. WHAT IS FRIENDSHIP THESE DAYS?

08 Friday Nov 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Artificial Intelligence., Communication., Digital Friendship., Education, Emotions., Facebook, Happiness., Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Reality., Social Media, Technology, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

 

(Twenty-minute read)

The dawning of the digital age has not just changed communication, facilitating individual and group interaction in previously unimaginable ways it has fundamentally changed human relationships, or more specifically, the establishment of fraternity amongst people?

The internet has made it so you don’t need to physically see people feel close to them.

I miss those days of pre-digital friendship.

Thirty years ago we asked what we would use computers for.

children-1149671_640

Facebook. Twitter. SecondLife. “Smart” phones. Robotic pets. Robotic lovers.

Now the question is what don’t we use them for.

Technology promises to let us do anything from anywhere with anyone and the introduction of social media platforms has changed the “friendship playing field”.

The way friendships are played out in the digital world is changing how young people express themselves, how they define ‘good’ friendships and interact with each other.

Now, through technology, we create, navigate, and perform our emotional lives.

In a surprising twist, relentless connection leads to a new solitude.

We turn to new technology to fill the void, but as technology ramps up, our emotional lives ramp down. At the threshold of “the robotic moment,” our devices prompt us to recall that we have human purposes and, perhaps, to rediscover what they are.

The huge role that technology plays in supporting young people’s friendships, with over half (55%) saying they interact online with their closest friends several times an hour and 63% saying they are closer to their friends because of the internet.

The basic components of friendship USE TO BE interdependence and voluntary participation but technology is now embedded throughout our relationships.

So the question is.  Has friendship changed because technology changed it? Or both?

The popular platforms 8-17-year-olds are using to chat to their friends on a daily basis are YouTube (41%), WhatsApp (32%), Snapchat (29%), Instagram (27%) and Facebook or Facebook Messenger (26%)

Technology provides an important way for them to support their peers who are going through difficult times with Social media providing a vehicle of self-promotion, a means of fixing an idea of yourself in the social sphere, without people actually knowing you at all.

Has it made friendship less personal, less connective, less real?

The distinction in the online world is that the effort it takes to present ourselves in a certain way is much less.

Not to mention the fact that technology has allowed us to maintain friendships that might have otherwise waned when time, distance, and the constant demands of parenting take hold.

The lines between real friendships and fleeting acquaintances have become

blurred in the virtual world, not just but also because of many Social media

users showcase more than 1000 friends on their profiles, while the realistic

maximum number of people we are able to maintain relationships with lies at

150 people.

Our brains are just not wired to cope with.

——————

True friendships are hallmarked by each member’s desire to engage with the other – it’s about a mutual interest in one another’s experiences and thoughts, as well as a sense of ‘belongingness’ and connection, there’s no telling when and where a friendship will develop.

The cornerstone of friendship isn’t the public nature of the relationship, but the private connection of it and that private uniqueness hasn’t been eliminated; it just looks different now.

The Internet is undoubtedly an invaluable link between people separated by distance. But this link must be built on a stronger foundation of intimacy and familiarity and a balance of online and offline interactions will pave the way to better relationships in the world.

We “met” through a mutual friend on Twitter.

(Posts Tagged With friendship in the digital age,

 “I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.” is number five.)

Sexual online meetings themselves may be a replacement for deeper longings in couples. It may be an extension of particular needs not being met within the relationship.

They find that the relationship to their primary partner is more undervalued than in the past and that traditional definitions of intimacy are vaguer. They explain that couples who once experienced a secure relationship now struggle with the new –often ambiguous– rubrics surrounding agreed-upon Internet conduct.

Young people also need to be empowered to take control of their digital wellbeing, by recognising their emotions and the way that their use of digital technology can impact on their self-esteem and mood so that they are able to implement strategies to achieve a healthy relationship with technology.

Social exclusion can have just as much of a damaging impact on young
people but may not be easy to detect and manage in digital spaces.

Facebook has completely redefined the definition of a friend.

It wont be long before we could be seeing the following.

“We’d like to say a big ‘thank you’ every time you recommend a friend to us by rewarding you with a retail shopping voucher £250 will be paid for a friend.

Two in five adults (40%) first look at their phone within five minutes of waking up, climbing to 65% of those aged under 35. Similarly, 37% of adults check their phones five minutes before lights out, again rising to 60% of under-35s.

The average amount of time spent online on a smartphone is 2 hours 28 minutes a day. This rises to 3 hours 14 minutes among 18-24s.

A decade of change in digital communications.

Infographic timeline showing notable events and products or services launched between 2007 and 2018. 2007: first iPhone released; Amazon Prime launched. 2008: first Android smartphone; up to 50 Mbit/s broadband launched; Spotify and Amazon Kindle launched. 2009: Ashton Kutcher becomes first person to amass one million followers; YouTubers Fred becomes first to reach one million subscribers; WhatsApp launched. 2010: National launch of fibre-to-the-cabinet broadband; iPad goes on sale in the UK; 3DTV and Instagram launched. 2011: Snapchat launched. 2012: 4G mobile service launched in UK by EE; completion of digital switchover; Netflix and Candy Crush launched. 2013: Chromecast launched. 2014: Netflix begins streaming content in 4K; Amazon Prime Video and FireTV launched. 2015: Apple iWatch makes debut; Samsung VR headsets on sale; Facebook Live launched. 2016: Friends Reunited, pioner of social networking, closes; Amazon Echo launched. 2017: Sonos (with Amazon Alexa built in) released; Google Home launched. 2018: Share of digital radio listening exceeds 50%; 78% of adults have a smartphone; Apple HomePod and YouTube Premium launched.

It is said that in the course of a normal life one is lucky to have a handfull of friends.

Now its social mobile, analytics, and cloud all want to be your friend.

When we think about social, the key is to consider why social is happening, rather than think of it as just a set of tools.

For example, Facebook, Twitter, and so on are tools, but why people use them is much more important. The same was true with the internet when we first started using that — that was a tool, but what it did to the lives of normal people in terms of access to information, increased freedom, etc., was much more important.

Mobile is a similar shape to social in that it’s the why as to why people use mobile devices as opposed to anything structural about the devices themselves.

The idea behind big data is that you can derive understanding about behaviour through statistical analysis of clumps of data. You can then take that understanding and implement some form of control to either get more of what you want, or get less of what you don’t want.

Finally, we come to the cloud.  This is really about how companies buy. There are all sorts of reasons to like outsourcing IT functions to the cloud, whether it’s just outsourcing compute power into a load of servers that you run as if they were your own, or buying functionality on an SaaS basis ( Software as a service)

Is cloud necessary for digital?

To an extent, it likely does not. However, as a fashion/trend, it’s clearly important, and a lot of the tools and services involved in digital are unlocked as part of a cloud-based approach, hence it’s likely important.

It’s a sociological change, rather than a technical one.

You can see that by the fact that this is generally all about the “why” this is happening — why are customers using social, why are they using mobile, why big data is showing the trends that it is, why are companies able to buy and use consumer products, and why is running systems in the cloud easier.

Because they all your Friend without you knowing and couldn’t care less who or how they share that friendship with or what they do with it.  Google it.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.