Writing is my artistic expression. My keyboard is my brush. Words are my medium. My blog is my canvas. And committing to writing daily makes me feel like an artist.
There was a time when moments of silence were golden. When being alone with my thoughts was quiet and contemplative. When no sound meant calm and inspired serenity.
Now I fill those moments. I listen to books, podcasts, and music. I avoid the silence because that’s when my tinnitus gets loud… and even if I wanted that silence, I wouldn’t get it. My tinnitus is a constant tone, for others it’s like crickets. For anyone who has it, it’s the end of silence.
But there is another kind of silence. It’s the quiet of the mind. It’s like an ocean without waves. This is even more elusive. It is the moments when our minds are not reliving the past or creating unlikely futures. It is when our minds are not thinking about our schedule, worrying about our responsibilities, or planning our next moment, meeting, or meal.
It is when there is nothing to do, but there is no boredom.
It is when nothing is pressing, and there is no need to rush.
It’s also when you don’t seek a distraction. But now the distraction is always there. It looks like Facebook or TikTok, Instagram or Twitter, YouTube or Audible, text or email, WhatsApp or Snapchat.
We have let technology steal away our moments of silence. We are robbed of those golden moments. The dopamine rush of the next notification is too great to resist, and too daunting to allow silence a chance. Silence is no longer a desired state, it is a state of absence to avoid, not a desired state of stillness.
Moments of silence were already elusive, now they are all but nonexistent. I even wonder if for someone younger, who spent their teen years with a smartphone, if silence was ever known, is ever desirable? Or is this just a nostalgic ideal?
It’s quiet now, but my tinnitus sings it’s ever present song, and I put on some background music. The silence is gone.
The first social media app that I fully engaged with was Twitter. Of course, back in 2007 it wasn’t an app, it was a website. And in the early days it would often crash. I was so enamoured that I wouldn’t miss a tweet in my timeline. I’d come home from work and scroll from my last read tweet forward until I was ‘caught up’. And along the way I’d click on links, and read blog posts my friends shared, and even go to their sites to comment. Sometimes I’d end up with 12-15 tabs open and the catching up would take me over an hour.
I’d go to conferences and meet people I only knew through Twitter and I’d feel like I was meeting old friends. My connections were down to earth and very real. I loved the richness of the conversation and learning that happened on Twitter.
Then it changed.
It went from friendships to engagement, from conversation to activity, from a tool I spent time on to a tool I transmit to.
Now Meta has come out with Threads. Maybe the conversation is coming back. Maybe. But my time investment won’t be there unless I’m pulled there by others. Sure, I created an account, and yes, I’m interested to see where it could go. But it would require others drawing me in to make it something I use regularly. I’m not investing the time to making it work for me.
I’m just that much more selfish with my time now. I don’t have time for angry posts and outrage. I don’t care about building a follow-ship. I am not interested in clicking a link to see an image or video on another platform… which ironically someone on social media needs to do to fully read my Daily-Ink. In short, I’m not willing to put the time and energy into yet another social media platform, unless I see an immediate and positive engagement… and that doesn’t happen until a spend time on the platform.
So, I’m more likely to watch the threads fray than I am to stitch together a profile that I’m willing to wear. Threads is probably headed to my laundry basket of apps I never put on.
Background: In March of 2008 I purchased DavidTruss.com, DavidTruss.org, and DavidTruss.net. I didn’t start my blog on Google’s Blogger, or on Edublogs, or one of the ‘user-friendly’ blogging websites, I used Elgg, which I was invited onto by a friend, and it was clunky. To make changes to the look of my blog I had to play with the HTML. I often tried and failed, and I learned a lot that I would not have learned on an easier site. However, they sold out to Eduspaces, which in the transition killed a lot of my backlinks. Then it looked like Eduspaces was going to change again after I had spent hours cleaning things up, and I got fed up and decided to own my own domain name. I reserved the .com, .org, and .net as the most popular addresses, and I keep all 3 with the .org and .net being pointed to the .com site, (so if you go to DavidTruss.org it auto re-directs to DavidTruss.com).
I keep the .org and .net domains only for vain reasons… Search for David Truss online and you’ll probably find me for most of the links, and I like it that way. Maybe one day I’ll stop paying for the other domains, but for now, I will keep all 3 addresses. For a fun explanation of why my first blog was called ‘Pair-a-Dimes’ you can find the story here, under Why ‘Pair-a-Dimes for Your Thoughts’? For this Daily-Ink you can learn more by reading Why Blog Daily or The act of writing, where I coined my byline: “Writing is my artistic expression. My keyboard is my brush. Words are my medium. My blog is my canvas. And committing to writing daily makes me feel like an artist.”
The current backdrop: That’s a lot of reminiscing, so what value am I going to add here? The reality is that it is getting more and more difficult to parse truth from lies, and deep fakes from actual audio and video clips. Things go viral without fact-checking, and it would be easy for someone malicious to spread misinformation about you, me, or anyone else. We know that lies spread faster than the truth in social media and this is only getting worse. Soon, you won’t be able to trust anything that comes to you on social media and what will matter most is where you get your information from. The sources you trust will matter, although even these you may have to evaluate. For those sources you don’t already know and trust will be handled with caution and doubt… even when the message is something you want to believe.
Why own your own domain? While you might think that deep fakes are things only celebrities and politicians need to worry about, the reality is that ‘regular’ people are already getting scammed with technology that used to cost thousands of dollars but can now be done free with AI tools. While your own domain won’t help with an impersonation scam like the one I just linked to, your digital identity will be much easier to misappropriate. My voice and image are on the internet. There are quite a few photos and videos of me online, and so there is enough data for someone to create an AI enhanced video of me saying whatever the culprits decide will be funny, insulting, mean, our downright disgusting. A funny version of this was a prank a former student pulled where he and other students uwuify’d some images of me while I was on a social media sabbatical. This was harmless fun, and never intended to impersonate me, but the technology is now there for anyone to do this.
Your domain means you control the narrative. Your own domain means that if something is being shared that you didn’t create, you can point to reliable information. If you have your own website, that’s where you can share your perspective on things, and it isn’t controlled by anyone else. Someone can create a Facebook profile that looks just like mine, and use my images on it. Someone can create a @davidatruss or @datruss1 account on Twitter and make it look like I’m the one saying what they want me to say. A Youtube channel would be just as easy to set up as well. Whereas DavidTruss.com is my domain. I own it. I control the narrative. And… I have a big enough digital footprint that people can see it’s not some site that was just put up a week ago. Does this make me bulletproof to a scam? Absolutely not! But it gives me some leverage to share my own voice if I do get impersonated.
Your domain, your words, your narrative.
Scam prevention: As a final thought, to prevent scams where family members are impersonated, have a ‘safe word’ that you share in times of distress. Not your pet’s name or anything like that. Choose a word that even people you might know wouldn’t guess, like ‘apricot’ or ‘gazebo’ or a phrase like ‘This is extra sauce important’!
I made a mistake last night. I was on Twitter and clicked on a video of a guy knocking down a surveillance camera on a street light in Australia. I then scrolled to the next video and went down a right wing rabbit hole. The first video was a voiceover of Tucker Carlson recently ‘dismissed’ from Fox News, and it was essentially trying to make humourous jokes about a transgender host taking over. Next was a Republican semi-automatic gun wearing black man praising the NRA and claiming the democrats are ‘coming for our guns’. Then came a Sean Hannity clip that I didn’t watch. Then came my first Canadian content with a clip bashing Justin Trudeau. And finally I called it quits after watching a geologist bashing climate change… in case you didn’t know, carbon dioxide is ‘plant food, not a pollutant’.
Don’t ignore opposing views, measure them. Don’t jump on the bandwagon, figure out if you want to travel the exact same route. Don’t criticize, question. Don’t SHOUT, disengage until cooler heads prevail.
Don’t pretend the algorithms aren’t already influencing you, be savvy and question why posts and videos are algorithmically chosen for you. You are either trying to be digitally literate or you are probably being manipulated and steered towards an extreme view.
I’ve already seen some really good deep fakes of famous people that both look and sound real. That was over a year ago and the technology is far better now. I just watched this NBC Nightly News clip on TikTok:
The whole video is cautionary and a little scary, looking at Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a possible threat to Humanity. At the 2:17 minute mark this was said,
“AI tools can already mimic voices, ace exams, create art, and diagnose diseases. And they are getting smarter every day.
In two years by the time of the election, human beings will not be able to tell the difference between what is real and what is fake.”
It occurred to me that the lead up to the next US election is going to include countless deep fakes that will be virally shared and reposted and re-shared, which will be far more convincing than anything we’ve seen so far. The clever ones won’t be far fetched in content, they will be convincing because they will subtly send people down a specific narrative without being outrageous or egregious and easy to spot. For example: Biden supporting and endorsing some ultra-left wing, ‘woke’ group the makes the right outraged. Or Trump speaking to a friend about how he hates guns and the NRA. Each of these can be completely fabricated and completely convincing.
This is really scary because where you get your news will be vitally important. Hopefully major news outlets would vet the videos and verify authenticity before sharing, but digital newspapers are always worried about missing the scoop and letting other networks go viral. Many less reputable sites will share the fake videos just because it fits their narrative. Other sites will knowingly share the fake videos because their intent is to mislead, and to feed anger and vitriol to their naive followers.
Conspiracies will be magnified and any mention of the videos being fake will be counter argued that reports of the video being faked are just the way the government is trying to keep the truth from you. The message being, the fakes are real and the reports of them being fake is the fake news. People already believe fake articles with no fact-checking, they are going to be completely fooled by extremely convincing fake videos.
My advice, find websites that you trust and make sure the web url is correct. Follow people you trust and question anything suspicious from them that isn’t from your trusted sites. If it’s not from your trusted site, if it’s not right from the horses mouth and it seems suspicious, consider it fake until you verify.
How serious is this? You don’t have to be famous to be deep faked. Here is a story of a mom thinking she was talking to her kidnapped daughter, convinced it was her voice on the phone with her kidnappers, but it was a fake and her daughter was upstairs in her room. The point of the video is to have a safe word with your family because anyone’s voice can be easily faked.
We are entering a time when people are defining truth differently, when fakes seem more like truth, and when sources of information are going to be as important as the information itself.
A decade ago I had a digital network that was pretty amazing. There were educators from many distant places, across Canada, the US, and the world, who I knew through Twitter conversations and conferences. This network was pretty amazing, and while we were seldom, if ever, in the same geographical location, I felt connected to these people.
But Twitter changed and I changed. I ended up not participating in this network nearly as much, and the gap between conversations with these people widened. Sure I still consider these people I met through rich conversational exchanges friends, but I don’t chat with them like I used to. I don’t know them like I used to.
It’s easy to get nostalgic and want the old connections back, but the network isn’t as easy to maintain. The conversations don’t seem to be as rich in learning opportunities. The value for time ratio seems lower. But I do miss those deep learning opportunities, the long blog posts with 15-25 comments, and the subsequent Twitter dialogue that continued the learning.
The connections I miss were rooted in learning conversations. Conversations that I might now have in person, but seldom have online. I don’t engage in online conversations like I used to. I auto post this blog to Twitter, LinkedIn, and a Facebook page, and then I really only go on those networks to respond to comments but I don’t go to them for conversations… unless someone responds to my post, then I respond back.
That’s not the way I used to engage. I used to read and respond, I used to question and compliment. I used to actively seek out conversation and connections. So, while social media has changed, so have I. I’ve started seeking videos to learn from, not conversations. I’ve moved to searching for content and viewing, rather than using Twitter like Google, asking questions and letting my network help me.
I miss the conversations that used to happen, but I don’t imagine I’ll ever rebuild what I had. The effort seems too great at this point, and even the people I see still making those connections tend to be ones who travel and maintain those relationships with face-to-face connections… the relationships purely connected by social media network engagement just don’t seem to be there anymore. It’s not a mutual relationship, but a network of influencers and followers, not friends.
Perhaps that will change in the future but for now I see a gap in the way conversations happen online compared to how they used to happen, and I don’t see a social media network that is changing this any time soon.
I feel like in the last 5-10 years i’ve seen a shift in how time and attention are spent. Distractions are everywhere, especially in our phones that are almost always within reach. Distractions take time. Distractions draw our attention. But what about when we aren’t distracted?
When phones with on demand social media, streaming movies and series, and time sucking games or scrolling are not what we are doing, what then? Are we being efficient? Are we dedicating time to the right things, the things we say are the priorities in our life? And when we do spend this time, are we doing so with our full attention?
That’s the key question: when I’m giving of my time, am I also giving of my full attention?
What, and more importantly who, deserves your full attention?
I am fascinated by the US Congress hearings about banning TikTok. This speaks of how political issues are today. I don’t know enough about TikTok’s measures to ensure privacy of information but listening to the CEO, it sounds like they are doing what needs to be done and that is as much or more than Meta/Facebook.
Then there is the banning of books, and of drag Queen shows, that are both politically and religiously motivated. Meanwhile, some of the language of the book bans make the Bible a book that could be banned. As well, people protesting the drag show ban are bringing up current statistics of sexual abuse cases including many from the clergy and none from drag queens.
Each of these concerns are based on trying to block influence. These are concerns that come from fear, and lack of knowledge. They are about addressing politically and socially charged concerns and magnifying the fear of ‘outside’ influence.
Fear used to be battled with information, know more about the actual threat, and understand the enemy. Now information isn’t enough. The data is always interpreted and skewed so much that there really isn’t an opportunity to address the fear in a meaningful way. So instead ban, block, and legislate, not because it’s the best thing to do, but because it’s easy to implement.
It’s humerus to me that the approach of government is to limit the freedoms of citizens in the name of protecting them. But the same government that is protecting its citizens in these ways doesn’t increase health care or gun safety… two major concerns that affect the wellbeing of many US citizens.
Is it just me that doesn’t understand how politics can be so driven to address the concerns of a few? In the end I’m left wondering, ‘Who benefits?’ I’m not guessing it’s the typical citizen. No, there are political agendas at stake that have very little to do with people, and a lot more to do with money and/or politics.
The big question is, who has the political clout to address these concerns? Banning books, drag shows, social media apps, and although not mentioned yet, abortions… I ask again, ‘Who benefits?’ Because that seems to matter much more than the actual concerns.
In the satirical mockumentaryThis is Spinal Tap there is a hilarious scene where the guitarist explains that their very special amps are louder and better because unlike all other amps that have a maximum setting of 10, these go to 11.
While I find this funny, I have noticed a troubling trend recently where issues that are minor in concern are elevated beyond what they should be. In other words, a problem that should be a 3/10 or even 5/10 concern gets addressed as if it’s an 11/10.
This is most obvious on social media. In the past few months I’ve seen silly issues like getting the wrong order at a fast food restaurant, or a dispute over a parking space, or neighbours not being neighbourly, all leading to confrontations that far exceed what should have been appropriate for the level of concern. Now, I recognize that in some cases the concerns are legitimate and deserving of escalating, for example if the issue is related to hate crimes, racism, or bigotry, so strictly speaking, I’m talking about minor issues that get exaggerated into issues far bigger than necessary.
This is something I’ve noticed which has significantly increased since the pandemic. The ramifications are that every little issue or concern becomes a big concern. This is harmful in a couple ways. First of all, the stress of making things bigger than they are is hard on everyone… especially for the person that made the mistake who might want to make things better. This is almost impossible online where people are relentlessly attacked for their mistake. A small issue becomes a mountain of concern that can’t be traversed. It could include personal attacks, such as death threats, which are far worse than the original transgression.
Secondly, when the response is the same whether it’s a person making a bad decision on their worst day or a bigoted jerk intentionally being hurtful, the idea that both of these are attacked with equal vitriol waters down the response to the truly awful act. Vigilante justice handed out without discrimination makes the response more about harming than helping the situation.
Not every issue is an 11/10. When issues are that concerning, they deserve being handled as such. But in many, many cases a small issue deserves a small response, and escalating the issue as if it’s far bigger than it is only makes the whole situation worse. Worse not just for the transgressor, but for the person who feels harmed. We need nuance when dealing with concerns. We also need to consider the impact of negative responses.
Here are two examples:
1. A well known Tiktok food critic disagrees with another food critic and while he does this respectfully, his (so called) fans proceed to attack the other food critic with negative comments and also give the restaurant hundreds of negative reviews, even though they never visited the place themselves.
2. A teacher tried to do a do a culturally based art project and a parent didn’t find it appropriate. The parent reacts on social media and the post goes viral with millions of views. The next day the parent addresses the concerns with the teacher, who was not only apologetic, but as the parent suggests in a follow up video, the teacher was gracious, thoughtful, and open for feedback. However this update did not go viral and only a few thousand people watched it, unlike millions who saw the upset rant.
It’s one thing when these negative responses are online, and still another when they are in person. Everything doesn’t need to be an 11/10. Save those for the kinds of things that deserve a serious response. And, address smaller issues in less public ways with more opportunity for an appropriate response that isn’t elevated and likely to cause harm as much as bring about a solution.
A 3/10 issue isn’t going to be resolved because it’s treated like an 11/10, and is far more likely to have negative consequences if it is elevated to that level.
_________________________________
Somewhat Related: Last May I wrote a post about how when asking someone to rank something on a scale of 1-10, tell them, “You can’t pick 7“.
Whenever I see people get on diets or start jumping into crazy workout schedules I think about how long they will last? Is this a lifestyle change or a temporary change? And often the ones that are temporary are focused on unrealistic targets that they are very unlikely to get to.
Good habits, optimizing small patterns of behaviour, and living a good life without ridiculous sacrifices or hours upon hours of relentless dedication. Not 3 hour a day workouts, but at least 45 minutes five days a week. Not broccoli and chicken every day, but being thoughtful about junk food and making smart choices.
Not unachievable targets, but realistic goals over long periods of time where you’ve maintained good habits for eating, sleeping, and working out. Fit for life, not looking fit for my holiday bathing suit. Healthy living, not perfect diets and workouts. Because when the bar is set too high, when you believe the fitness magazines that tell you how to get a 6-pack in 6 weeks, you are not seeing thé tremendous sacrifices those abs require. We need to set a realistic destination, then enjoy the journey.
