"Black Mirror": Episodes 1-3 [Post #10]

After watching the first episode of "Black Mirror" in class, I was a little skeptical about just how dark things needed to get before a point was made about our addiction to screens as a culture. However, after watching the next two episodes on my own, I really started appreciating the different stories told in each episode. Each episode, telling an entirely different story (in a different reality, with a different cast), made its own statement on our growing dependence on technology as a society, and presented a possible outcome of its unending evolution.

It was a smart choice for the show to start off in a present-day scenario in Episode 1, "The National Anthem". Kicking off the show with a message about our current tendency to become absorbed by the technologies around us, "Black Mirror" gives us two following predictions of how that addiction will someday evolve once our technologies have advanced. For me, the scariest prediction was in Episode 3, "The Entire History Of You", through which we're shown a reality in which our every memory is stored as a tangible recording to be played back and reflected on at any time.

I thought this concept played off of many issues that we struggle with as a society of digital media consumers today: privacy, digital permanence, trust, etc. Despite the many problems this technology would amplify, like how much the government would legally be able to access, how privacy laws would work around our memories (something once existing in our minds alone, now tangible), and how we would act differently knowing our every memory was being recorded, the scariest part of this for me was the issue of trust (especially within a relationship) that this technology would amplify.

When we're suspicious of another person's unfaithfulness, betrayal, or general wrongdoing, our first instinct might be to look through their phone. After all, everything but our memories are stored on there as tangible proof: photos, text messages, our activity on different social media networks, and more. That's what made Episode 3, "The Entire History Of You" so scary to watch- it was a very real idea. We watched what "show me your phone" might look like in the not-so-distant future: the suspicion, the snooping, the investigation, the analyzation, etc. Except, in this not-so-distant future, we would see quite literally everything. Our memories can't be twisted by how we've worded something in writing, how something appears in the context of a social network, or the absence of human contact from behind a screen. This episode suggests that we might not be very far from eliminating all that uncertainty, and having the entire history of ourselves on hand at all times, ready for playback, through the good and the bad.

"Geek Heresy": Chapter 3 [Post #9]

In Chapter 3 of Geek Heresy, "Geek Myths Debunked: Dispelling Misguided Beliefs About Technology", we finally read about a different perspective on human responses to new technologies. In other words, it's finally being discussed that we, as technology consumers, just might be more to blame for our addictions than the technologies themselves.

It's a pattern we see each time a new technology is introduced into our lives: we get it, we use it, and we slowly start to realize we have a hard time living without it. Every now and then, said technologies become domesticated and ingrained in our lives. Nothing new. However, before we place blame on the advancements of technology, the addictive nature of said technologies, or even the consumers of these technologies, we should take a step back- all the way back to the very fiber of our beings.

Toyama writes, "we certainly didn't walk around with tiny speakers in our ears prior to the 1980s. But that doesn't mean these new behaviors were out-of-the-blue creations of the technology, per se" (p. 39). He then delves into a discussion that technologies access aspects of human nature and amplify the tendencies we already have, but they tend to take the majority of blame for feeding our addictions to new technology. He then goes on and writes, "Sony leaders recognized this desire [to listen to music in a portable way] and built a low-cost, portable device to meet it. Consumers bought hundreds of thousands of units and adapted their listening habits...throughout, it's people taking action. The device is inanimate" (p. 39). Hmm...

As our technology and media advance, it's easy to see these devices, build them up to be of higher control than us, and give them credit as living, breathing, scheming beings with intent. However, we need to take a step back as consumers of these technologies and media and remember that only humans can acknowledge, act on, and adapt to human tendencies. And with these skills, humans have created these technologies and media, humans have interacted with these technologies and media, and humans have adapted their lives around these technologies and media. It's time to start taking credit!

"Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change From the Cult of Technology" : Intro & Ch. 1 [Post #8]

The introduction of "Geek Heresy" raises an interesting point: "talent is universal; opportunity is not" (ix). I was skeptical of this at first, but kept reading to give it a chance. As the introduction goes on, we delve into Megan Smith's arguments that technology creates a vast availability of everything there is to know about everything, all in one convenient place (the internet), and that these technologies not only bring us together, but also bring us all widespread opportunity: an outlet for all of our "talents".

My issue with this is, does everyone really have a talent worthy of limitless opportunity? Do we all deserve this opportunity? And most importantly, what does "talent" become when opportunity becomes vast?

It's this kind of thinking that has driven consumers of digital media to being perceived as selfish, narcissistic, and arrogant. When we're given these opportunities that technologies bring, it's not long before we see ourselves as worthy of attention, recognition and reward. Is this the positive social change Smith envisions in her discussion of talent and opportunity?

Certain people are given opportunity to influence and change technology. Certain people are given opportunity to make themselves known with technology. Certain people are given opportunity to influence social change with technology. It's important to note the difference between seeing technology as something we deserve to host our talents, and seeing technology as something we can use in conjunction with our talents to help change the world for the better.