Pariser 1-6
I’ll start with chapter 6, since that was my favorite. It touched on the comic inhumanity that I see with some of these developers’ attempts to improve the world:
But systematizing inevitably involves a tradeoff-- rules give you some sense of control, but you lose nuance and texture, a sense of deeper connection. And when a strict systematizing sensibility entirely shapes social space (as it often does online), the results aren’t always pretty. (173)
I’d extend his argument to say that this outlook also risks seeing human beings and our social worlds strictly in terms of their instrumental value, which means their value as means to an end. One example that sticks out in my mind is the startup “Bodega”:
The latest unwanted tech “innovation” aims to make the bodega obsolete, and Twitter is not having it. A startup, boldly called Bodega, has invented a vending machine that would house non-perishable convenience items, which sounds fine. But, the two ex-Google employees behind the concept are positioning it as a replacement for the local corner store, even adopting a cat as the company’s logo, a reference to the cats that live at convenience stores in cities like New York and Los Angeles.
They did say in a press release that they envisioned a future where corner stores are obsolete because of how ubiquitous these little vending machines are. They also published a blog post saying that they totally don’t want to replace bodegas. These appear to be people with no strong convictions.
Basically it's a box with stuff in it that's connected to a database with your credit card info. They call it “the relevant part of the store”, and that’s generated all sorts of rage from folks for whom bodegas are an important part of the community. My point is that this startup created a technical solution to what might be an annoyance, but made the mistake of thinking that the only value of a store was its capacity to get you new stuff. I think it's totally possible to make a positive impact with technological innovation, but it requires a sensitivity to the intangible things that shape human life. You can’t reduce something like a community fixture down to how it provides for material needs; its also a site of meaning and relationships.
One thing I keep coming back to as I read is the importance of developing codes of ethics that respond to the potential impact of the personalized web. There’s nothing inherent in the technology of the printing press or television that makes those mediums guardians of the public. Rather, that role is possible because of the decision made by people like editors and journalists to pursue their profession in light of certain values, as a kind of vocation or mission. Pariser writes about the potential impacts of this technology, but his book is thin in terms of measured impacts. What behavior changes have been observed? What attitudes can we shifting? While I think he presents a strong argument as to the dilemmas faced by institutions, he’s very weak on the audience/consumer side of the equation: when the newspapers made sure to report the important but not so eye-catching stuff, did people really think differently? Or did they skip to the sports section?
Jack,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I like how you touch on the idea of a code of ethics which I think ought to be brought into play whenever we're talking about any mode of writing, but especially aspects of the digital realm. In a world where everything it seems is so easily accessible with just a few clicks ethics are paramount. I'm thinking about your ideas in the context of my own post about popping the filter bubble that, as I see it, we have somewhat constructed ourselves via our identities (or at least aspects of them). You touch on it a bit here, but are there certain situations in which you think a code of ethics is even more important than perhaps in others? For instance, when we are dealing with something as personal as our own identities, I think ethics are a must. What other situations do you see within the realm of just writing specifically do you see ethics being perhaps more important than normal or other situations?
- Jared
Honestly, I think the most important place to develop something like a strong ethical foundation is in your individual self before you step into any of the roles you occupy in your public life. Before I'm a writer, I'm a person, right? As a person, I'm trying to grow in terms of some central ideals that I measure my actions and thinking against. Am I being humble when it comes to the question of what's true? Am I serious about figuring out what it means to be good, and do I live like it? Do I treat others with love? That all happens in that whole mess of living and praying. Stepping into the role of a writer, I think the purpose of my writing really shapes what's ethical. Public debate is an area with a lot of ethical concerns, I would say. If I step into that type of writing, I draw on that central stuff to figure out how I should act. A commitment to love and truth should lead me to see that writing comes with certain ethical commitments: engage ideas that are critical to solving human problems for the purpose of solving those problems (or engage ideas that will help others understand an issue in a more productive way so they can be part of the solution, or can respond in kind), be conscientious when responding to ideas I disagree with (make sure I understand their ideas as they do, not in a way that's convenient to me, and characterize the positions I disagree with in terms of their intelligent advocates, instead of the belligerent ones) since the whole thing with figuring out what's right and true is that I'm flawed in my ability to apprehend truth and do good, and write as clearly and accessibly as possible for the public forum. I think its important to learn to tell whether, as a writer, I am motivated by the good of others or by defense of my own identity. So to answer your question about where this is important, I would say that public argument is a place where writerly ethics are really critical right now, especially within the more niche areas of the blogosphere. Those are places where non-writers are going to see the shape of public issues, but also forming their own voices on those issues. For that reason, I would say that ethics are even more important than how you answer the issues, since what I hope people adopt is my approach as much as my opinions.
Delete