WEEK 2
TOPIC 1: SOCIAL MEDIA
A bit of a disclaimer: I follow hundreds of accounts on Twitter.
If I had enough time to sort through them all for a "top three" or "most important", I'd no doubt be tediously revising an re-revising that list for weeks.
So, while these are some of the favorites and I view every one of them a vital inclusion of my twitter feed, they are by no means part of a definitive list (because Twitter has too many incredible people on it).
Three accounts I follow on Twitter:
#1
My first of the three would be Jon Lovett. If I were to follow Eli Pariser's format from his TED talk when he mentioned the balancing in editing between "information vegetables" and "information dessert", Jon Lovett would be my information dessert. While it's not like he's Justin Bieber, it's not the type of scenario where I'm intentionally looking for disagreeable ideas. He's entertaining, he's funny, and his calls to action have worked more than a several times to get me re-energized after the usual fatigue most people experience after following the news/politics intently. In addition, he follows even more people than me and acts as a bit of a "gatekeeper", retweeting interesting content from accounts that're completely off my radar.
#2
The second account for the list is Chris Hayes. He's a great resource for getting a more MSM perspective on the news. Since I'm involved in a lot of grassroots activism, it's important to not miss out on what may be dominating national news headlines. He's particularly great for how many BREAKING news stories are shared through his account with comment sections flooded by new information and articles. If there's ever anything that just happened and I need to learn more about what's going on, he's a go-to. Lastly, in interviews he's been on, I particularly like his style of analyzing political activity (it is fairly similar to my own style), and he's given Russia's disinformation campaign the attention it deserves.
#3
Last, but nowhere close to least, is Paul Krugman. If I don't know something, I try to make that apparent. A topic which I take special care to not appear as though I have all the answers is Economics. While Economics by itself is a vastly intricate system to analyze, it is made even more difficult to understand when most economists disagree with each other between articles. In this warped era of Trump-induced trade wars, Krugman has made the consequences of trade disputes much more clear than any number of economic graphs shoved my way could have while also bringing into focus the full depth of international trade the US is engaged in. I've learned a lot from following him and the complexity of each new issue has kept me eager to expand on what I currently know.
The best tweet I've seen lately was:
Just got off the phone w/ HHS. I am furious&horrified after immigration conference call – virtually no separated children have been reunified; no system, no plan, no path to assure reunification; no answers to key questions. Strategy seems to be: blame everyone else.
— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) July 6, 2018
It stood out to me because what has been currently out is that a federal judge agreed to delay the next meeting about extending the deadline to reunite 101 children under the age of 5 to Monday. Furthermore, some of the details surrounding the delay are currently moving through Twitter and claim that it was because the Trump administration lawyer has "dog sitting responsiblities" this weekend. Now, this IS Twitter, so as per usual I'll be giving the "dog sitting" details some time to be confirmed or denied rather than accept them as outright fact. What isn't uncertain is that it does appear that the deadline has not only been extended - but that we're now hearing from a US Senator that there's not even a plan for the reunification once we reach the deadline again. That revelation means that if we don't demand a clear strategy from immigration services - there might not be one. With current events and the concern that this info has brought to me and others - I'd say it's the best tweet I've seen lately, especially since it's encouraging further action on an incredibly significant issue.
I do believe social media has enchanced my ability to take action and participate in democratic activities. While I'm not a fan of how Facebook's endless timeline and limiting post format, it has been the hub for a lot of connections with individuals and groups.
An example of this would be using it to interact with other students at LBCC for the political club I became the President of - the "Our Revolution Club". When I took over originally, it was the "Students for Bernie Club", which had become outdated by that time, and I edited the Facebook page to get it up-to-date.
Because it was a Facebook page, when this change was done, we were able to retain the folks who'd liked the page from before, rather than lose them in the changes brought about from the rennovations. When the group you're managing is rather specific to "LBCC Students who're progressive-leaning and interested in politics", it's a valuable thing to not lose members who fit the niche.
Managing the page enchanced my knowledge of keeping people connected through social media and it gave us the legitimacy to get connected at a national level. Early last spring, we expanded into non-Facebook platforms before our hiatus to find a new advisor for the club. If we can find a new advisor over the summer, we'll be coming back in fall with a much more developed network/creative process than before; Most importantly, the rollout we've got prepared wouldn't be possible the contacts I've made through the group and the skills I've developed from working on its social media content. The experience has definitely been a crash course in social media skills, I can confindently say that it has enchanced my abilities.
TOPIC 2: THE INTERNET
Overall, I was rather lukewarm on Sherry Turkle's TED talk. It's certainly not the first time I've heard the criticisms she made - there are so many carbon copies of the points she used that they become terribly predictable, despite different speakers. Much like McGonigal's TED talk, the approach to technology that Turkle takes, doesn't create the impression in me that it comes from a full understanding of the systems that they want to influence. Neither of them went far enough to suggest an abandonment of the allegedly harmful systems, but they fantasize about ways to "game the system".
One of the problems is that the game is rigged at a biological level. There's a reason that conveinence has always been a driving force for business - people really like it. Typically, despite warnings about the dangers of "plugging-in", people fall back into the same habits for the long term. Unless the alternative provides a better user experience than what currently exists, I wouldn't expect widespread adoption, especially if the message to parents comes out as "teach your children to be lonely".
Some of the points she made, to me, felt like practical approaches to the current capabilities our tech has today. For example, she stated: "We expect more from technology and less from each other". In my opinion, this is a very rational approach to what we have currently. I'd expect more from technology than myself, because in most cases, it does actually perform better. I don't nearly check the math of my calculator or Wolfram Alpha as often as I do a classmate using scratch paper; Similarly, when I program a macro onto my computer to sort a spreadsheet, I expect it to work as it was programmed every time it loops. Digital logic is by-large more reliable than people and there's a trust built from that.
So, it seems off-base when she follows that statement by asking "Why have things come to this?", answering it by saying that "technology appeals to us most where we are most vulnerable" and moving on to technology replacing real companionship while skipping over the entire analysis of why we value the reliability and performance of technology.
Similarly, she skips over a great number of reasons why people might reach for a device at a checkout line or a red light. She claims that "being alone feels like a problem that needs to be solved", as though everyone grabbing their phone MUST feel alone. But, phones do so much more than communicate to others. At a checkout line, I can't ever recall using my phone to call out to a random friend because I felt lonely for a couple second, but rather I'm usually only trying to avoid awkward stares or seeming uninteresting to others.
The intense focus on claiming that the use of technology is a product of social desperation really disconnected me from the TED talk overall; It felt like most of her TED talk was spent trying to fit me and others into a mold of a "socially anxious tech addict" with various cherry-picked examples so that we can attempt to do a full 180 and "game the system" of technology to "lead us back to our real lives, our own bodies, our own communities, our own politics, our own planet".
If she had spent some more time establishing the modern necessity of technology and its many application, I'd likely be more convinced of her argument. But, it felt like more attempts to "game the system" and generalize large, diverse categories of tech users. That said, I do actually take steps to ensure I'm listening to others by keeping my phone away and maintaining more focused eye contact. I don't like people looking down at something else while I'm talking to them, so I try not to do it to others. My family has never tried to "reclaim" areas of the home as "device-free zones". To say the least, it'd be difficult to enforce. The very least that we do is try to pre-occupy ourselves with a computer or phone if we've got guests over, but it's not so strict that we couldn't do something like reply to an important email.
I wouldn't know how to quantify the sum how many games I've downloaded between my smartphones or computers in total.
However, I've installed 35/348 of my total games on my Steam account with an additional 10 more installed from seperate clients, so the sum is about 45 currently for my main PC.
Honestly, I play a lot of different genres of games for different reasons. Some genres tend to take the lead over others sometimes, but there's always a rebound to the standard "mix".
There are a handful of games that I enjoy beyond those listed, but they don't fit into any of the below categories, which I'm keeping to 3 so that I can be marginally organized and succinct in listing some examples, rather than drift off into numerous genre subcategories.
MMOs
Some MMOs that I enjoy:
- World of Warcraft
- Guild Wars 2
- Elder Scrolls Online
- Star Wars: The Old Republic
- Warframe
Part of why I enjoy MMOs is that I feel that they have more permanence than other games, since they typically have no defined "ending" and because you're typically collecting resources that build up and help advance you further. This is in contrast to most games where outside of a save game or ranking, there's no "carry over" of resources between activities. In addition, there is a community aspect to some of these, but not all. I play ESO and SWTOR as if they were single-player games, but they also allow for that more than the others would.
RPGs
Some RPGs that I enjoy:
- Fallout 4
- Fallout: New Vegas
- The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- The Witcher 3
- Dragon Age: Origins
- Torchlight II
I enjoy RPGs because they can typically have more depth than MMOs, even though they might not have as much permanence, since they'll have an ending at some point. What helps offsets that most of the games on the list of those that I enjoy also have active modding communities. For me, modding has extended the "shelf-life" of these games immensely.
Card Games
Some Card Games that I enjoy:
- Hearthstone
- Elder Scrolls: Legends
- Gwent
- Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Links
I enjoy card games because they have a similar permanence as MMOs, but are more focused around strategic decisions and deckbuilding. There's some randomness to keep things interesting and I'll use it sparingly since too much of the game being decided by chance can be frustrating if it doesn't go your way.
I spend about 40-55 hours a week on digital gaming and social networking, the total amount of time fluctuates depending on what I'm busy with. I'd say I feel like I'm a part of an online community for a couple games, but not most, because (in my opinion) just playing the game doesn't feel like a community activity.
On the games where I'd say that I do feel like I'm part of a community, I'm interacting with additional social elements like the game's subreddit, a guild's forum/discord, etc. There's more sharing thoughts about things in the game and getting feedback from other players; That interaction is what makes it a community for me - the game usually only goes so far.
Comments
Post a Comment