Well, I got round to watching the last episode the other night and I think it was a very good series and too short. It really needed just one or two more programmes to fill everything out.
The only thing I'd take issue with is the Apple-centric focus of the technology design. When the Macintosh first came out I though it was a nice idea but when I used them in the shop it was very much a case of yes, it's nice enough, but it's just not for me.
Then the ipod was trotted out as if it was the first mp3 player ever but the fact was that it was nearly 4 years late to the party. I think the only reason that the ipod catalysed the mp3 player market was because finally here was a company that finally had enough financial clout to stand up to the record companies. I was all geared up waiting for my mpman to arrive in 1998 when they were forced to stop selling them. I really don't see what's so great about the interface on the ipod - I don't find the circular pad particularly usable and the behaviour of the buttons never really seems to make complete sense; I certainly don't find it intuitive. If the portable mp3 player pioneers had been able to develop their ideas without the threat of financial clobbering I think a much more intelligent interface would have evolved but instead we're kind of stuck in Apple limbo where most manufacturers seem to think they have to make their products like the ipod to succeed.
Of course we also had to have Stephen Fry along to educate us as well. I don't have any particular problem with him per se, but there seems to be some kind of consensus that he's some kind of polymath and an expert on all matters simply because he's reasonably well educated, well-read and well-spoken. I take issue with this because there are often times that he's factually incorrect and nobody calls him up on it (this is why I had to stop watching QI after about four series).
There were a few other minor points throughout the series, such as in the Bauhaus episode. It really needed some editing so that they could bring to light some of the apparent paradoxes within the movement as well the tensions that resulted in later years which effectively broke it apart. I would hope that it encouraged people to find out more anyway.
But I'm losing the plot here. My whole problem is that Apple were being put forward as enablers of technology and the ones who made computers accessible, which perhaps is true, but there are also loads of people now who think they know how to use a computer or think they understand about digital media, when all they really know is how to use Apple products - They don't understand the technology at all and when the apocalypse comes they'll be screwed. (If you don't think that will happen think again - Do you think films (and the books they came form) like The Omega Man, Soylent Green and Logan's Run came out of idle speculation? Think again!)
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Are Social Networks devaluing social experiences?
As I was coming home today I saw a Nokia ad on a bus touting their phones' abilities for mobile, social networking. Apparently Carrie is on her way to a picnic and wants everyone to know how much fun she's going to have. So, Tom something-or-other wants her to keep a sandwich. "All that's left are crumbs" she giggles back, etc. You get the idea.
Anyway, it just struck me that with people broadcasting their social experiences to all and sundry, are they devaluing the more intimate personal experience that's been presented for public consumption? By diluting it with repetition in a letter medium, have they denied themselves the ability to now reflect on the actual experience and from this point on will their memories consist of only the most glaring details of the event with subtleties pushed out by the reprocessing of what is deemed to have "social networking" value? After all, if I go to a picnic and there are people involved that I don't really know or have a passing acquaintance with, it's an ideal opportunity to do some actual social networking and see what they're like as a person. If you're telling everyone what you're up to and they comment or reply back, without participating, what does it mean for you and them that you're now discussing an event which you've shared only in the most tenuous sense but are discussing as if you were all there?
I suppose it just seems strange to me because I'm at that age where I'm technically competent and understand technology but my socially formative experiences were generally face-to-face. I was in my early twenties when I started using BBSes and email over dial-up (and I don't meant the Internet) and from what I saw it only convinced me that only personal interaction will show what people are really like. Too much can be lost or manufactured in the transition from person to screen and back to person again, unless you're prepared to be very specific and unambiguous. When you're on the outside of a flame war looking in, it's very easy to see how foolish the argument is and the end result of things like that is that nothing is achieved, nothing is resolved and very few people learn from it.
It seems to me that social networking sites can be good for reinforcing existing friendships or creating new ones where a real-life connection existed (even if unknown before then) but these artificial friendships lull people into a false sense of social inclusion, until they experience a point where they find out the hard way who their real friends are. Quite possibly I just don't "get" the whole social networking phenomenon, but I just don't see that it is moving us in a good direction.
Anyway, it just struck me that with people broadcasting their social experiences to all and sundry, are they devaluing the more intimate personal experience that's been presented for public consumption? By diluting it with repetition in a letter medium, have they denied themselves the ability to now reflect on the actual experience and from this point on will their memories consist of only the most glaring details of the event with subtleties pushed out by the reprocessing of what is deemed to have "social networking" value? After all, if I go to a picnic and there are people involved that I don't really know or have a passing acquaintance with, it's an ideal opportunity to do some actual social networking and see what they're like as a person. If you're telling everyone what you're up to and they comment or reply back, without participating, what does it mean for you and them that you're now discussing an event which you've shared only in the most tenuous sense but are discussing as if you were all there?
I suppose it just seems strange to me because I'm at that age where I'm technically competent and understand technology but my socially formative experiences were generally face-to-face. I was in my early twenties when I started using BBSes and email over dial-up (and I don't meant the Internet) and from what I saw it only convinced me that only personal interaction will show what people are really like. Too much can be lost or manufactured in the transition from person to screen and back to person again, unless you're prepared to be very specific and unambiguous. When you're on the outside of a flame war looking in, it's very easy to see how foolish the argument is and the end result of things like that is that nothing is achieved, nothing is resolved and very few people learn from it.
It seems to me that social networking sites can be good for reinforcing existing friendships or creating new ones where a real-life connection existed (even if unknown before then) but these artificial friendships lull people into a false sense of social inclusion, until they experience a point where they find out the hard way who their real friends are. Quite possibly I just don't "get" the whole social networking phenomenon, but I just don't see that it is moving us in a good direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)