• Home Page
  • About this website
  • Biography
  • Dr. B's Notes
  • Contact
Richard S. Beam

117  Why I Don’t Do Social Media

4/18/2018

0 Comments

 
As at least some of you know, I do not (never have) been a part of the “social media” set.  I’m old enough to remember the world, and the internet, prior to the existence of such things and I’ve never felt a major loss to my life by not participating in that “world.”  That’s always been, at least partly, because I saw so many people spending what I considered to be an excessive amount of time checking up on the folks they were “following” and posting messages which I (mostly) didn’t really care about.  I mean really, how important is it to me that my daughter, or some acquaintance, is having lunch with a friend at some new restaurant?  I might be interested, if the experience is good, or bad, but do I really need a Pinterest picture of her lunch plate?  So, it has frequently struck me as something of a waste of time.
 
Then, I’m also old enough to remember when Facebook first appeared (I think it was the earliest manifestation of social media) and everyone wondered how there could be a business model based on providing a “free” service which (at that time) had virtually no advertising.  As I remember, for the first several years, Facebook had virtually no income and its demise was regularly announced as imminent, although some advertising did start to appear on it.  Of course, what we now understand is that this was a time of getting established in the market and starting to collect data which would allow the assembling of a socio-geo-demographic picture of Facebook users sufficient to be able to allow highly sophisticated targeting of advertising to those users who would be most likely to be susceptible to it.
 
While I was teaching, I became quite concerned about the nature and quantity of personal information which I understood my students were sharing on social media mostly because (having been around in the earliest days of the internet) I knew that, once something hit an internet server (which happens extremely early in the process of internet use), it is almost impossible for it ever to be removed.  Yes, one can “delete” whatever has been posted, but how can one be assured that she/he had deleted it from every server that information has encountered prior to ANY backup occurring?  The answer is that one can’t.  This means that ANYTHING one puts on the internet could be retrieved by someone who wants badly enough to find it.  I worried about that for my students.
 
What I long suspected, and have had confirmed recently, is that what Facebook (along with many other creators of “free” apps, like Google, and a bunch of others) was doing was keeping track of who was doing what, touching what topics, looking at what websites, etc., etc., and collecting this sort of data for the purpose of selling access to it for purposes of targeting advertising.  Now, there is nothing new about that.  Advertising has always been targeted to try to reach those believed to be most likely to respond to the ad.  Apple’s iTunes uses such techniques to “suggest” music which I might be interested in based on previous choices.  Barnes and Noble frequently sends me emails suggesting that; “Since you bought book “X,” you might be interested in book “Y.”  And the list goes on.  These are choices which I make, however.  I am not required to give B&N my email address in order to do business with them.  I don’t have to use iTunes.  In fact, I’ve never actually bought anything from it (music, books or apps), although I have used it to play music, listen to audio books, and obtain free apps.
 
We are now coming to a greater understanding that the collection of personal data to be used for commercial purposes is the whole point of some apps and that this sort of thing can easily be abused, especially by using data collected over social media to send us advertising which is disguised as NOT being ads.  As Madeleine Albright expresses it in her new book Fascism: A Warning, this technology has​ ​“…provided both the blessing of a more informed public and the curse of a misinformed one – men and women who are sure they know the truth because of what they have seen or been told on social media.  The advantage of a free press is diminished when anyone can claim to be an objective journalist, then disseminate narratives conjured out of thin air to make others believe rubbish.  The tactic is effective because people sitting at home or tapping away in a coffee shop often have no reliable way to determine whether the source is legitimate, a foreign government, a freelance impostor, or a malicious bot.” (p. 114.)
 
As an aside, I am reminded of an extremely early cartoon about the internet which seems appropriate here.

​
Picture
Albright goes on to point out that a number of agencies, and countries, including some who historically have not been our friends, are using these sorts of techniques for their own purposes, not all of them benign.  As she puts it, “… Many of these troublemakers can generate products that show people – including democratic politicians – doing things they didn’t do and saying things they never said.  For maximum impact, the phony information is then distributed to recipients based on personal profiles derived from social media posts.” (Ibid.)  Of course, anyone who has seen a movie in the last ten years should be aware of what can be done with CGI.
 
I find it particularly worrisome that this sort of “information” is not always revealed to be, in fact, advertising (propaganda).  And, due in part to the fact that law has been struggling to try to deal with the tremendous volume of “information” on the internet, social media can be used to disseminate information which may be difficult or impossible to separate from advertising.  This is further complicated by the fact that there is no requirement, or incentive, to reveal, let alone substantiate, the sources of such information.  Since selling advertising (which may not appear to be advertising) is what supports these “free” apps, it doesn’t appear to be going too far to come to the conclusion, as Steve Wozniak recently did, “… with Facebook, you are the product.” (emphasis added, RSB)
 
That is, Facebook (and others, including, I believe, other social media systems and many browsers) makes its money by collecting as much information as it can about its users and selling that information (or their knowledge of it) to help their advertisers (and who knows what others) to target audiences for various purposes, while, apparently taking few steps to make sure that there is any revelation of the fact that they are collecting this information, or that they are using it for their own commercial purposes.  Of greatest concern, at least to me, is their apparent lack of real interest in protecting their user data or making sure that it is not misappropriated or used by others for potentially improper purposes.  (Yes, I know that “privacy settings” do exist, but I understand that they have been complicated to set, difficult to find and, apparently, inadequately protected.)
 
Newspapers and television advertising is required by law to be identified as advertising and the sponsors are required to be identified. (Even if various “patriotic” sounding PACs do not have to reveal the sources of their seemingly unlimited funding, thanks to “Citizens United.”)  It’s true that this revelation of sources IS often pretty minimal, but it IS there. The traditional media (newspapers, magazines and broadcast radio and TV) has always been allowed to have an “editorial policy” which allowed them to publish their corporate opinions, but this was supposed to be confined to editorials, columns and specific commentary. This has become somewhat muddied with the advent of “cable” news agencies, which, since they don’t use the “publicly owned" airwaves, have much greater freedom to take a much wider editorial stance.  But, even there, identified advertising is treated much as it is by more traditional media.
 
Be that as it may, I have very little desire to have my personal opinions harvested for someone else’s commercial purposes without my knowledge or desire.  Historically, so called “privacy” settings have been complex and have required a good deal of savvy (and time) to set up in order to not be exposed to what I see as an undesirable invasion of my privacy.  I actually have less of a problem with those annoying telephone calls seeking me to respond to an opinion survey, although I don’t appreciate having my life interrupted by them and almost always simply hang up.  
 
I feel that my opinions are MY opinions and I feel I should have the right to share them as I see fit and with whom I wish.  I am aware that folks who want to badly enough can probably determine fairly accurately how I feel about many things based on public records, or other sources over which I have only some control over, such as this blog, but I have no desire to make it any easier for folks to “harvest” data about me in order to provide them with a source of income, especially when I have little confidence that they won’t use MY data for purposes which I may not approve of or appreciate.
 
Life’s too short (and my blood pressure’s too high) for that sort of aggravation.  After all, I would just like to be left alone to--
 
LLAP
0 Comments

116     The Importance of Fiction

4/4/2018

0 Comments

 
I think that it may well be the case that the most important thing we ever learn is how to read.  It’s almost certainly true that, as the son of a librarian, who was the daughter of a professor of English, the value of reading would be drilled into me.  And, that IS what happened.  I don’t know that I learned to read substantially earlier than most kids of my time, nor that am I an unusually fast (or slow) reader, but I do spend a lot of time reading and it may well be my favorite pastime, at least in retirement.

Having spent a good portion of my life being involved in education, I have, obviously, put in a lot of hours reading “scholarly” works on subjects of some interest or utility to me.  Since I retired, that sort of reading has tended to focus around the general topics of (1.) the life, times, plays, and theatre of William Shakespeare and his contemporaries; and (2.) the events, people and theories relating to the witch trials in Salem, MA, in 1692.  Being a descendent of two people accused (one hanged) during the events in Salem may explain at least some of that interest, although I confess to some real fascination with the damage which combining religious fanaticism with politics, law and social tension can do.  

My interest in Shakespeare may be a bit more complicated to explain, but I think that it comes, primarily, from my being a theatre person who has believed for many years that Shakespeare was viewed (at least by many scholars [most of whom were in English Departments]), primarily as a poet.  The fact that the bulk of his works were dramatic doesn’t seem to be a part of their thinking.  It is true that these dramatic works tend to use a combination of rhymed and unrhymed poetry as well as prose, with the balance varying considerably.  But, it certainly doesn’t alter the fact that, during his time, he was often referred to as a “player” (he was also an actor and theatre-owner), but seemingly much more rarely as a “poet.”  My interest, then, is based on the idea of putting his plays back in the theatre (where I think they belong) and removing them from the category of “musty, old” literature only to be read by boring, old critics and frustrated academics.  Thankfully, I am not alone in this endeavor and Shakespeare has moved a good way back into the theatre and out of just the classroom and library.  But, I am digressing….

My topic here was stated to be “the importance of fiction.”  By that, I am not trying to diminish the value of non-fictional writing.  News, opinion, scholarly works of all sorts, are all of value and I have spent many hours reading and studying such works with some care, especially as they relate to the topics mentioned above.  
​
On the other hand, I have also spent a great deal of time in fictional worlds, both professionally and for pleasure. Let us be accurate, drama is fiction, with very few exceptions!  Even Aristotle says so.  Personally, I find little difference between a novel and a play, except for format. Thornton Wilder, who wrote both plays and novels, explained what he considered the difference between the two this way:
On the stage it is always now; the personages are standing on that razor-edge, between the past and the future, which is the essential character of conscious being; the words are rising to their lips in immediate spontaneity. A novel is what took place; no self-effacement on the part of the narrator can hide the fact that we hear his voice recounting, recalling events that are past and over, and which he has selected - from uncountable others - to lay before us from his presiding intelligence.
While I won’t dispute the idea that novels tend to be written in what one might call a “narrative” style (many, perhaps most, do have a central character who serves as a narrator), I’m not sure that I can agree with Mr. Wilder’s distinction of the novel from “drama.”  Probably Wilder’s best-known play, Our Town, COULD have been written as a novel and, I think, has many “novelistic” features.  It was written in 1938 and presents actions which took place between 1901 and 1913.  Hence, it is not presenting events happening in the “now.”  And, it takes many of the same sort of liberties which novels take with time, locale, etc.  It is clearly (in my opinion) Emily’s story of her life which we are guided through by a narrator known as the Stage Manager, who serves in a god-like fashion to describe changes in time, character relationships and locales.  Even the events presented are presented in what I would describe as a “novelistic” fashion.

In much the same way, most of Shakespeare’s plays take events which Will took from historical or literary stories and modified them into his plays, often describing events, motives and characters which came from places “long ago” or “far away” into his plays.  One can even read many, if not most, plays in much the same way that one reads novels, although, since Shakespeare provides few stage directions, the reader must use more ingenuity in filling in the details of locale, etc. which is, generally, provided in novels.

So, I would argue that the difference between written plays and novels differ primarily in the manner in which they are conceived to be presented.  PLAYS are intended to be presented by live actors in the same space as the audience as if the performers actually ARE the characters being portrayed and that the “fictional” events being presented ARE actually happening as we, the audience, are watching.  THAT is the “now” of the theatre, and it requires an imaginative leap of the audience to allow it to happen (Coleridge’s “willing suspension of disbelief”).  The novel does not require the same sort of leap because it describes its events from a different point of view, as events called up and described by the narrator, so there is a sort of “pastness” which is inherent in the form, which one encounters much as does the reader of a play, as opposed to an audience member at a performance.  But, at least from my point of view, there is little ultimate difference between the two forms, except that the novel may be easier to read because the reader has less to create out of his/her imagination.  Both are, I believe, essentially forms of fiction differing primarily in the manner in which the author intended for his/her audience to encounter the work.


I believe that both of these can be of real value.  Novels are portable and require only that the reader has the time and energy to enter into the fictional “world” by reading the words.  Plays, on the other hand, require much more from the reader because they were not intended to be read, but PERFORMED.  This was one of the things I tried (probably not always successfully) to convey to my students.  A novel is written for a reader to read.  A play is written to be read by the people of a theatre company and transformed (translated) by them into a theatrical event, with all of the pitfalls which can enter into any translation.  

Translations are never perfect, which creates one of the major delights (I think) of theatrical production: interpretation.  Since the playwright has, with rare exception, not filled in all of the details, the theatrical presenters must make decisions as to what they feel is the best way to present the plot, characters and actions of the play to their audience by providing the details of the environment (physical and vocal) which surround those events and allow them to be seen (and felt) as now.  Thus, Branagh’s Hamlet is not the same as Olivier’s, nor Burton’s, although all of them may be legitimate interpretations of Shakespeare’s play.  The same is true of your production of Our Town, as opposed to mine.

This, I believe, is actually also true of novels, as the described details of a novel will, in fact, be imagined somewhat differently by different readers, although they may be more similar as the author has, usually, provided more detail in the novelistic form.  I still consider both forms to be, essentially, fictional.

So, what’s valuable about fiction?  I think that it is that fiction (at least well-written fiction) can take us out of ourselves for a time to explore times, places, events, and emotions which we are unable, or don’t wish to actually encounter in life.  When I read Heinlein, or Asimov, or Lewis Carroll, or Jim Butcher, for example, I can explore an imaginative universes which I can’t encounter in real life; when I read Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes novels and stories, I am transported into the late 19thCentury in a country I can visit in the present, but which is not the same as it was then; when I read Bernard Cornwell, I can experience some understanding of life during the Napoleonic Wars or the time of Henry V; and so on.  I know that none of these are completely historically authentic (they ARE fiction), but I can gain some sort of insight into those times and places and, perhaps, learn something which might help me to better understand and/or appreciate the events of the “real life” present where I do actually live.

I think that is at least a part of the importance of fiction.  It allows one to consider ideas, events, and emotions from within the safe bounds of not having to experience them in real life.  If you don’t want to actually have to live through an atomic war, read On the Beach by Nevil Shute.  It was written a good while ago, but it still provides plenty to think about, most of it not pleasant.  And there are innumerable other possible examples of ideas, characters and emotional states to be explored.

Fiction gives us insights into the consequences (good and not so) of events which are possible (or not so possible) in the “real” world.  It gives us a chance to use our minds, to consider the idea that we don’t know everything, that thinking before acting might be a good idea.  After all, we all want to…

LLAP
0 Comments

    Just personal comments about things which interest me (and might interest others).

    Archives

    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly