before Facebook?

[George]

The best thing on my smartphone is the guitar tuner...  What did we ever do without them?  We talked to each other...  They can be a hazard to one's safety when totally distracted by it...

[Riverbend]

I've gone the smartphone route for about 6 years now and I consider it a valuable tool. I've never played a game on it, I have talked and emailed extensively, carried out necessary business functions with it, texted occasionally and taken many high quality photos without having to carry around a real camera. My first few decent cameras didn't have the resolution that my phone has and I often joke that my camera nowadays came with a phone attached. 
   

[adern]

... I often joke that my camera nowadays came with a phone attached...   

And a tuner, and metronome, a database of chords and scales, and several audio analysis tools, sine wave and noise generators, light meter, SWR meter for radio antennas, but no, no games. 

[George]

And a tuner, and metronome, a database of chords and scales, and several audio analysis tools, sine wave and noise generators, light meter, SWR meter for radio antennas, but no, no games. 

   

[skyline]

I've gone the smartphone route for about 6 years now and I consider it a valuable tool.  [ ] and I often joke that my camera nowadays came with a phone attached.   

And a tuner, and metronome, a database of chords and scales, and several audio analysis tools, sine wave and noise generators, light meter, SWR meter for radio antennas,

they're also really handy audio recording devices, good for playing back tunes you're trying to learn (sometimes in slow-speed)

but smart-phones certainly don't need facebook

texting or messaging can be a real time saver when you're picking up people from airports or train stations.

[ST]

For the next little bit I'm talking about a regular gig in a bar or a restaurant, not a concert.

I don't mind if people use their phones at a gig. I certainly don't judge.

If people tweet or use Instagram or put something on Facebook to tell their friends that they are having a good time at a gig, that's all good.

I watch people at gigs. They eat and drink and talk and flirt and work and watch people and use their phones, and they may be nodding or singing along at the same time.

I can't tell people how to have a good time and I can't expect them to behave in ways that I understand while they are doing it. 

Today is today and that's all we've got. Grieving for the good old days just squanders today.

[skyline]

Today is today and that's all we've got.

Wow - that's optimistic.

Sometimes if feels to me that half of what I ever did at gigs is remind people that today isn't the end  

Grieving for the good old days just squanders today.

Sure, we've been down this street before a few times in the last century or so. It's hard not to feel like there's some inverse proportion of benefit at play here though - mass print -  radio - telephony -  television - internet - "social" media. Arguments were made for and against in each case; in each case they were very similar arguments. Ultimately there is a clear relationship between the ease of central control of these technologies and their actual benefits.

Imagine four graph lines*: one is the benefits to the individual from a technology - second line is the reach of that technology over the planet - third how much of an individual's life is taken up by that technology - and fourth line how centralized is the control of that technology. It won't be a happy graph.

Paine's "Common Sense" sold over six-hundred-thousand copies to an audience of two-million - there may be the odd cat video with that level of penetration, but I doubt it, and even if there were, it certainly isn't as important.



*shades of Donnie Darko here?

[ducktrapper]

I don't care. Get offa my lawn, pull your pants up, get a job and get off the phone.

[ST]

Wow - that's optimistic.

Setting aside how one might view the possibility of being able to change the future, a focus on the present is what allows me to actually live the moment instead of being preoccupied with things long gone or that may never happen.

In person, I'm extremely optimistic. The absence of hope is despair.

Sometimes if feels to me that half of what I ever did at gigs is remind people that today isn't the end  

And today is the end

... of today.

Sure, we've been down this street before a few times in the last century or so. It's hard not to feel like there's some inverse proportion of benefit at play here though - mass print -  radio - telephony -  television - internet - "social" media. Arguments were made for and against in each case; in each case they were very similar arguments. Ultimately there is a clear relationship between the ease of central control of these technologies and their actual benefits.

Control in the days before Facebook (well actually there were some platforms that predated it), control included:

• Who could publish
• When they could publish
• What they could publish
• Who could see what was published
• How long it would be available

With social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Ello, and many more (for those who have access to it)

• Who can publish
  Anybody who subscribes**
  
• When they can publish
  Anytime
  
• What they can publish
  Almost anything subject to the rules of each platform
  
• Who could see what was published
  Anybody who subscribes**
  
• How long it would be available
  
  Seemingly... forever
  

**As of the first quarter of 2016, Facebook had 1.65 billion monthly active users. In the third quarter of 2012, the number of active Facebook users had surpassed 1 billion. Active users are those which have logged in to Facebook during the last 30 days.
Source: http://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/

Imagine four graph lines*: one is the benefits to the individual from a technology - second line is the reach of that technology over the planet - third how much of an individual's life is taken up by that technology - and fourth line how centralized is the control of that technology.

Within the confines of the list above centralized control has been given over to the people who socialize social media. It's instant, effortless self-publishing.

It won't be a happy graph.

Paine's "Common Sense" sold over six-hundred-thousand copies to an audience of two-million - there may be the odd cat video with that level of penetration, but I doubt it, and even if there were, it certainly isn't as important.


*shades of Donnie Darko here?

I look at the technology platforms that allow instant self-gratification through seemingly mindless stream of consciousness sharing as being in their infancy. And here's the optimism. We'll figure it out.

I just came back from a couple of weeks in countries where English was the second or third or fourth language. I had a lot of conversations that on the surface would have appeared trivial or pointless. It was a different medium speaking through a language (technology) barrier. But what I got from the small talk was a genuine desire to connect, to express interest and concern, to share and understand something.  And I got and gave a lot more than a transcript would reveal.

[ST]

I don't care. Get offa my lawn, pull your pants up, get a job and get off the phone.

84 characters - pithy, poetic, perfect for twitter or Facebook.

[mike in lytle]

I don't care. Get offa my lawn, pull your pants up, get a job and get off the phone.

Are your neighbors Hmong, and do you own a really cool old car?
Mike
L-05

[ducktrapper]

Are your neighbors Hmong, and do you own a really cool old car?
Mike
L-05

The Hmong are mostly north of here in Wausau but I have no problem as long as everyone stays offa the lawn, pulls up their pants, gets a job and gets the **** off the ******* phone. I own a pretty unremarkable 2011 Toyota Camry XLE. Great car though. Speaking of cool old cars, I just got my volunteer package in the mail for the Iola Old Car Show. One of the largest old car shows in the US. Very cool!     

[SMan]

I want everyone off my lawn and have a cool 1969 El Camino.  FWIW I still have an HP 12C calculator kicking around somewhere.  (There was a time when I was on the cutting edge of technology.  )

[Walkerman]

Oxnard has a "historic district" comprised of houses built many, many decades ago.  They all have front porches, where folks sat after dinner and talked.  That was before TV.

[headsup]

now we're talking!!!

[skyline]

Setting aside how one might view the possibility of being able to change the future, a focus on the present is what allows me to actually live the moment instead of being preoccupied with things long gone or that may never happen.

In person, I'm extremely optimistic. The absence of hope is despair. And today is the end

... of today.Control in the days before Facebook (well actually there were some platforms that predated it), control included:

• Who could publish
• When they could publish
• What they could publish
• Who could see what was published
• How long it would be available

With social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Ello, and many more (for those who have access to it)

• Who can publish
  Anybody who subscribes**
  
• When they can publish
  Anytime
  
• What they can publish
  Almost anything subject to the rules of each platform
  
• Who could see what was published
  Anybody who subscribes**
  
• How long it would be available
  
  Seemingly... forever
  

**As of the first quarter of 2016, Facebook had 1.65 billion monthly active users. In the third quarter of 2012, the number of active Facebook users had surpassed 1 billion. Active users are those which have logged in to Facebook during the last 30 days.
Source: http://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/


Within the confines of the list above centralized control has been given over to the people who socialize social media. It's instant, effortless self-publishing.

I look at the technology platforms that allow instant self-gratification through seemingly mindless stream of consciousness sharing as being in their infancy. And here's the optimism. We'll figure it out.

Maybe, but, no.

Interactions through FaceBook are completely limited by the FaceBooks interface. Their search algorhythms push non-native FaceBook content out of sight. The user has no control beyond choosing to post something (which may be automatically deleted) or to "like" someone else's posting. Imagine you're trapped in some hideous Lloyd/Fox universe about to photocopy a 'zine, or write a letter to the editor, but the default action is to "Like" . . .

Facebook represents the first time in history that people have voluntarily relinquished the ability to expand a new communication platform. Up until now, restrictions on communication were always imposed via legislation after heavy duty lobbying. With FaceBook people have simply accepted those limitations upfront.

I think you would really enjoy this:
https://www.amazon.ca/Master-Switch-Rise-Information-Empires/dp/0307390993*

Virtually everything in that book has a bearing on how to consider FaceBook (or whichever walled garden rises next to challenge it). It's also a fascinating insight into the resilience of American ingenuity at the grass-roots level, a resilience that has weakened with each new technological innovation.

At best, FaceBook is a limited "user gallery" with heavy restrictions on what can be curated and how it is accessed.

Ironically, the 140-character-limited Twitter is a much more relevant social media network than FaceBook. Most importantly, it is easily incorporated into any other internet platform - a concept that is total anathema to FaceBook. Combine Twitter with Imgur or Instagram and FaceBook becomes . . .

If all goes well, Web 2.0 will eventually be recognized as a "first try". The biggest difference between "social media" and every preceding communication technology is the internetz. FaceBook's fundamental design premise is to limit the power of the internetz so that users think FaceBook is the internetz


* digital version of "The Master Switch"

[skyline]

Maybe, but, no.

Hey - that was my Gibson ES posting. WooHoo!

[ducktrapper]

Oxnard has a "historic district" comprised of houses built many, many decades ago.  They all have front porches, where folks sat after dinner and talked.  That was before TV.

We have one of the oldest houses in Iola. A Victorian built circa 1885. Beautiful old girl but in need of a lot of TLC. 

[ST]

Hi Skyline,

Sorry to take so long to respond to this (four graph lines...)

Wow - that's optimistic.

Sometimes if feels to me that half of what I ever did at gigs is remind people that today isn't the end  
Sure, we've been down this street before a few times in the last century or so. It's hard not to feel like there's some inverse proportion of benefit at play here though - mass print -  radio - telephony -  television - internet - "social" media. Arguments were made for and against in each case; in each case they were very similar arguments. Ultimately there is a clear relationship between the ease of central control of these technologies and their actual benefits.

Imagine four graph lines*: one is the benefits to the individual from a technology - second line is the reach of that technology over the planet - third how much of an individual's life is taken up by that technology - and fourth line how centralized is the control of that technology. It won't be a happy graph.

Paine's "Common Sense" sold over six-hundred-thousand copies to an audience of two-million - there may be the odd cat video with that level of penetration, but I doubt it, and even if there were, it certainly isn't as important.



*shades of Donnie Darko here?

I can imagine the first three lines could be superimposed and have them appear identical depending on how you scale them. The correlation of the first two "one is the benefits to the individual from a technology - second line is the reach of that technology over the planet" are not troubling to me. I am patron of the arts (music) and sponsor of my musical career.  And that is enabled almost entirely because of these two points.

"third how much of an individual's life is taken up by that technology"
I would change the wording to something like this.
"third how much of an individual's life is taken up by (involved with, supported by, enabled by, enhanced by, engaged with, ...) that technology"

I remind myself daily that if the lights went out (no electrical power) most of what I do would be impossible and the guitars I play most; firewood.  I would have no access to my most significant friends and relatives who are far-flung around the world.


The fourth line seems based on the premise set forth by Tim Wu (The Master Switch). While interesting - I'm not ready to accept (or engage) it.

Swinging back to the premise of the thread, I don't accept the premise that there is anything inherently evil about the technological advances of the last few decades. It's not the end of civilization, civil conversation, true human interaction, relevant and meaningful human contact.

You can opt in or out. You can use these new technologies well, or not. It's easy to dismiss these things out of hand and that's a choice. I'm not ready to slink off into the darkness.

[ST]

Maybe, but, no.

Interactions through FaceBook are completely limited by the FaceBooks interface. Their search algorhythms push non-native FaceBook content out of sight. The user has no control beyond choosing to post something (which may be automatically deleted) or to "like" someone else's posting. Imagine you're trapped in some hideous Lloyd/Fox universe about to photocopy a 'zine, or write a letter to the editor, but the default action is to "Like" . . .

Facebook represents the first time in history that people have voluntarily relinquished the ability to expand a new communication platform. Up until now, restrictions on communication were always imposed via legislation after heavy duty lobbying. With FaceBook people have simply accepted those limitations upfront.

I think you would really enjoy this:
https://www.amazon.ca/Master-Switch-Rise-Information-Empires/dp/0307390993*

Virtually everything in that book has a bearing on how to consider FaceBook (or whichever walled garden rises next to challenge it). It's also a fascinating insight into the resilience of American ingenuity at the grass-roots level, a resilience that has weakened with each new technological innovation.

At best, FaceBook is a limited "user gallery" with heavy restrictions on what can be curated and how it is accessed.

Ironically, the 140-character-limited Twitter is a much more relevant social media network than FaceBook. Most importantly, it is easily incorporated into any other internet platform - a concept that is total anathema to FaceBook. Combine Twitter with Imgur or Instagram and FaceBook becomes . . .

If all goes well, Web 2.0 will eventually be recognized as a "first try". The biggest difference between "social media" and every preceding communication technology is the internetz. FaceBook's fundamental design premise is to limit the power of the internetz so that users think FaceBook is the internetz


* digital version of "The Master Switch"

These are very bleak characterizations of the Internet and Facebook. Please understand, I'm not a fan. Nor would I advocate for, or exhort others to join Facebook. I will meet and interact with people where they are. If that's on Facebook, then to the extent that this suits my needs, I'll join them there.   This is the same decision I make about going to physical venues.

ST