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.
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.
It’s apparent in schools, it’s apparent in the workforce… there are students and young adults who are disengaged with societal norms and constructs around school and work. They are questioning why they need to conform? Why they need to participate? There is a dissatisfaction with complying with expectations that schools is necessary, or that a ‘9-5’ job is somehow meaningful.
Some will buck the norm, find innovative alternatives, and create their own niches in the world. Others, many others, will struggle, wallow in unhappiness, and fight mental health demons that will leave them feeling defeated, or riddled with anxiety, or fully disengaged with a world they feel they don’t fit in. Some will escape this, some will find pharmaceutical ways to reduce or enhance their disconnect. Some of these will be doctor prescribed, others will be legally or illegally self-prescribed.
The fully immersive worlds of addictive, time-sucking on-demand television series, first-person online games, and glamorous, ‘living my best life’, ‘you will never be as happy as me’ illusions on social media certainly don’t help. Neither does unlimited access to porn, violence, and anti-Karen social justice warriors dishing out revenge and hate in the name of justice. The choices are fully immersed, unhappily jealous, or infuriatingly angry… and disengaged with the world. Real life is not as interesting, and not as engaging as experiences that our technological tools can provide. School is hard, a full day at work is boring, and it’s easier to disengage than participate.
The question is, will this disengaged group find their way? Or will they find themselves in their 30’s living in their parent’s basements or subsisting on minimal income, working only enough to survive, and never enough to thrive?
School and work can’t compete with the sheer entertainment value this group gets from disengaging, so what’s the path forward? We can’t make them buy in if they refuse, and we can’t let school-aged students wallow in a school-less escapes from an engaged and full life. I don’t have any solutions, but I have genuine concerns for a growing number of disengaged young adults who seem dissatisfied with living in a world they don’t feel they can participate meaningfully in.
What does the future hold for those who disengage by choice?
I think in an era of fake news and deepfakes, we are going to see a resurgence and refocus on web page branding. When you can’t even trust a video, much less a news article, the source of your information will become even more important.
I was on Twitter recently, after the tragic earthquake in Turkey and Syria, when I came across a video of what was claimed to be a nuclear reactor explosion in Turkey. The hashtags suggested that it was a video from the recent crisis, but with a little digging I discovered that it was an explosion many years ago and nowhere near Turkey as was suggested. The video had tens of thousands of views, likes, and retweets. I didn’t take the video at face value, but many others did. I reported the tweet, but doubt that it was removed before it was shared many more times.
Although I wasn’t fooled this time, I have been fooled before and I will be fooled again. That said, part of my ‘bullshit detector’ is paying attention to the source. Recently I saw a hard-to-believe article online by a major news station… except that the page was designed to look like the major news station but had a completely different web address. The article was fake. What drew my attention to it being fake was that it seemed more like an advertisement than a news article. Otherwise I probably would have been fooled. As soon as I was suspicious, the first thing I did was ask myself if this really was the news organization I thought it was? I went into my browser history and looked for the website this morning to take a screenshot of the article, and I found this:
The website is down… which is good, but again I wonder how many people it fooled? It was a website surprisingly high up in a google search just a few days ago, and so I clicked thinking it would be legitimate.
When looking for information from controversial people or topics, it’s going to get harder and harder to know if the source of the information is reliable. One sure fire way to be certain is to look at the website. In some cases even if the source is legitimate, you might still have to question the accuracy of the source, and use a tool like MEDIA BIAS/FACT Check to see what kind of bias the site tends to hold. But you will build a repertoire of reliable sites and go to them first.
More and more the web domain will be the ultimate litmus test that will help you determine if a claim or a quote (delivered in written, audio, or even video format) is legitimate. Because fake news and deepfakes will become more convincing, more authentic looking, and more prevalent… and that trend has already started.
This is the world we now live in. Almost everything we do is public by default, private by choice. But even then we can’t guarantee our privacy. Share something, anything online privately and it’s only as private as the least privacy-minded person.
Send a photo to just your closest friends, but one friend finds it funny and passes it on.
Send an email to a few people to try to resolve a private problem, but one recipient decides to forward it beyond the group… or worse yet, shares it on a public forum because they disagree with how you are dealing with the situation privately.
Send a direct message to someone rather than having it in your public timeline, and they respond by sharing your message on their public timeline, along with their response.
Privacy is hard to do in a world where so much is easily made public. It’s hard to do when the default is public. This speaks to how important it is to act as if anything you share is public. Because while we might make the choice to be private, we are only one part of the sharing equation. Private by choice means keeping something just to yourself, and not saying/sharing it with anyone or on any social media platform.
All communication is public by default. Privacy is an illusion that can be broken at any time.
