Darkness before the light?

Posted in Canada, Musings, News, Rant on March 20th, 2010 by Michael

Darkness before the light?

A quote in a recent article by MacLeans caught my eye:

For many years, Harris Decima pollster Allan Gregg has asked respondents whether they consider themselves conservatives, liberals or centrists, and he’s also asked them how they vote. In recent years, he told the Manning Centre conference, the number of self-identified conservatives has been growing. But what’s almost more interesting is that the political allegiance of self-identified centrists has shifted, too. In 1997, 41 per cent of centrists voted for the Chrétien Liberals. In 2008, 48 per cent voted for the Harper Conservatives. Two things have happened. As the population ages and is buffeted by polarizing events like the struggle against international terrorism, the centre has shifted rightward. And the Harper Conservatives have pushed the Liberals, sometimes with their hearty co-operation, off-centre.

Gregg found that 89 per cent of respondents, nearly everyone, agrees that “nothing is more important than family.” Sixty-seven per cent agree that “marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman,” 60 per cent that “abortion is morally wrong.”

This is interesting to me for a few reasons.

The first one a seriously right shift in Canadian society over the last few years that I noticed myself, but more interesting is in this poll who is responsible for it. For a lack of a better term the Babyboomers, many of which would be considered progressive back in their 30s and 40s but now in their late 50s and 60s are aiming for “stability”. A loaded word when it comes to political ideology, if there ever was one.

It is interesting and scary to me on two levels. Firstly, there is the reality that over the last decade life, for many, is perceived as unstable and volatile. 9/11, the Financial Crisis, none of these are new things in the context of human history, but in North America it was like war had broken out. 9/11 hit Canada too, directly back then but the political repercussions are still being felt and with the Financial Crisis of 2008 it was amplified.

The election of one Stephen Harper four years ago into a Minority Government is proof of this. The old geezers are getting scared of what the future holds for them and so they regress back to a time when they did feel save, their own childhood, post WWII Canada etc. A time when there seemed to be stability and certainty, all things that the 2000s have taken away for good for most of them.

What can this mean for Canada? Nothing good in my opinion. Instead of brining Canada forward and trying to continue on a path of progressiveness, openness the value proposition will be turned towards a more conservative attitude, driven by the believe that one needs to hold onto as much as possible in order to have a future. The only thing that could save Canada from sliding down the Mountain again would be people in Generation X and Y who are willing to pick a fight with the establishment and want to bring Canada forward. 

Will this happen? Unlikely, the old guard, as battered and scared as they may be now, have money and influence. That the Aspers are on the verge of losing their empire does not change this.

Lots of younger people have pinned their hope on Social Media, especially in Vancouver. “Social Media is where it is at” goes the battle cry, though I have my doubts that it will have the ability to affect real social change. it is easy to be for something while you are sitting at home on a computer or in a coffee shop and all you need to do is press a button and you’re done. It is a much more difficult thing to actually change society for good. Look at the social unrest of the 1960s, people taking to the street, getting into fights with the authority in order to make sure they are heard. Look at the fall of the Berlin wall and the Iron Curtain. It happened because a critical mass went onto the streets and told their rulers that they had enough and that they didn’t want them anymore. Pressing a button has not even close the same power of statement behind it.

So what do I think will be happening? I am not overly optimistic about our direct future, the debt crisis that started in the US in 2007 hasn’t run it’s course (I am reading a funny / interesting book about this, more on this once I am finished) and “The Automatic Earth” does a good job in chronicling the chaos that we are still in but that is currently hidden from most peoples view.

As the sea gets more violent, people will start gripping tighter onto things they think will prevent them from being swept away. For most baby boomers this will be a return to their childhood, or what they perceive as being the hallmark of it. The things that Harper’s conservatives are advocating, all the social progress of the past 50 years be damned.

How far will Canada fall? That is entirely up to people currently in their late 20s, 30s and 40s, they are the ones who have to guard Canada’s progressive future. That is, if they manage to put the iPhone down long enough to actually notice of what is going on.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The pitfalls of online communication

Posted in Canada, Musings, Rant, The Internet on November 5th, 2009 by Michael

Last night I had a wonderful example on how limiting online communication can be.

The whole thing started out when I noticed that Raincoaster had a poppy on her Twitter Avatar. I sent her a (private) direct message on twitter saying (in my mind at least mockingly) that I was surprised she actually did show a poppy.

The reply that came back was essentially: “There are many things you don’t know about me.” Which is fine, I don’t. I continued in a (to me) sarcastic tone and replied:

Shocking, Raincoaster giving in to peer pressure AND promoting Groupthink.

And this is where things took a turn to the utterly bizarre.

If you ever read or talk to / with her you realize very quickly that she is, how shall we call it, sarcastic and outspoken. Things that show up on her radar that she does not approve off she relentlessly mocks.

So imagine my surprise when the next reply was not a private message but a public one, and not only was it a snarky one but she also proceeded to retweet some of my replies (My tweets are private). Next thing I know some of her “friends” decided to kick me in the shins too, that even though they pretty much only knew (and retweeted) her tweets to me. So at best someone got only half the story.

The main accusation around this was that I didn’t bother to ask her as to WHY she was showing it, which is funny, because in the entire two preceding messages there was really no intend to seriously discuss this. In turn I could also say that she never asked what my problem with the poppy might be.

Now clearly, my remark seems to have hit some kind of nerve with her, which is fine; you don’t always know how people react to things you say, and if she would have indicated what she thought about my remark we could have easily cleared it up. Instead though she chose to make me a target for her “friends” and put words and opinions into my mouth that I don’t have (if you want to read my opinion on what I think of Remembrance Day and similar holidays, you can read it here).

The end result for me was a simple one. I ended up closing down the lines of communications this morning after sleeping over it. I removed her from my networks and I blocked her.

No, this is not about me being miffed that she shows a poppy or that she felt hurt or insulted by my remarks, it’s about the simple fact that she decided to take a private matter into the public domain in order to… Well, whatever it was / is that she decided to make out of it.

A few minutes ago, before I started writing this, she decided to kick after me yet once again. It is “funny” how she decided to make a big deal out of it that I am German and thus my opinion doesn’t count and any criticism of Remembrance Day by default should automatically be disregarded. If someone reduces me to my place of birth, how could I ever deal with that? Racism in reverse, but I am sure she’d disagree and would say it’s nothing like that. Let me channel my female here for a second: Whatever.

It is also interesting that her second argument was essentially: “Because you work for a large multinational, you have absolutely no right to criticize anybody in the DTES, many of whom who have served.” I love these kinds of “holier than thou” attitudes, but having been involved with some people in the DTES poverty industryThe Georgia Straight has a piece that echos many of my thoughts on the subject of the military.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

On Pandemic panic, an update

Posted in Life, Musings, The Internet on April 27th, 2009 by Michael

It seems since I wrote the original piece about the “swine flu scare” on Saturday things have taken a life of their own.

There have been quite a few “horror” stories in the media, not to mention the repeat mention of the “Spanish Flu” of 1918 and the millions of dead and the clear implication that the current outbreak could reach the same proportions.

Now Raul has pointed out an interesting article with regards to Twitter and how it is actually leading to even more panic (not that this surprises me).

If my reading list on Twitter was only restricted to the individuals who had produced the posts above, by now I would be extremely scared and probably feeling a great urge to post a scary Twitter update myself.

[...]

The problem is that while thousands of concerned and misinformed individuals took to Twitter to ventilate their fears, government and its agencies were still painfully missing from the social media space;

[...]

I think it’s only a matter of time before that the next generation of cyber-terrorists – those who are smart about social media, are familiar with modern information flows, and are knowledgeable about human networks – take advantage of the escalating fears over the next epidemic and pollute the networked public sphere with scares that would essentially paralyze the global economy. Often, such tactics would bring much more destruction than the much-feared cyberwar and attacks on physical – rather than human – networks.

The article makes a few good points, but the latter makes the mistake to think that this kind of abuse could be prevented.

Over the years I observed a few trends which Twitter now increases.

First of all there is the “participation” aspect. 9/11 was probably the first live broadcast terrorist event in human history, something that went around the globe in near realtime, with people participating online and at work, giving a play by play. Everybody was part of the event, even if you were thousands of kilometres away.

In the following months this became even more obvious as people repeatedly “felt” for the losses of the family members who had lost someone. Having outright emotional outbursts and depression.

This all comes down to the fact that we want to belong. With human face to face interactions having been greatly reduced by modern technologies and the way we live (from “hiding” in your car on the way to work, to living in large houses that are mostly self contained) people try to find other ways of emotionally connect. Part of this is the “fake” emotional attachments to completely strangers whose stories are broadcast in the news or the Internet.

Secondly, people are easily scared, very few people understand how a pandemic works, what makes things so dangerous and mostly how this could impact them directly. The examples given in the article linked above are symptomatic for this. The media is mentioning pigs (swine) and people but leaves a lot of additional information out that would calm people down. After all, if it doesn’t fit in the two minute blurp on TV or the 30 second read on the news website nobody will bother. Not to mention: “When it bleeds, it leads”.

Thirdly, the limited nature of twitter, as the article points out 140 characters don’t allow you to give a lot of context, though there is a bigger problem. People who are concerned first and foremost want to warn their “friends”, because of the “cred” that comes with having “befriended” someone people tend to be less suspicious of the information being presented and so a “Ponzi Scheme” of misinformation is being kicked off. This is were the amplification factor of Twitter comes into play.

Even people who may be skeptical will most likely think to be better “safe than sorry” and will contribute to the misinformation. After all, a “friend” warned them.

This is one of the downfalls of social media. Where there is a clear authority in the news media (in the past anyway) that you could question, in social media it all depends on the trust you give the person on the other end. The more scared you are though, the higher your bullshit threshold, because if in doubt….

If the media wouldn’t have been as sensationalistic about the outbreak over the weekend, my suspicion is that Twitter itself would be less flooded with these warnings and misinformation. As the media is continues feeding the fears with their talk about pandemics, millions of deaths etc. we have reached a perfect positive feedback loop in misinformation.

As people will “foster” more and more relationships through social media, the always connected, always plugged in and always short, way of life will continue to amplify these kinds of misinformation.

Unless people learn to be less panicky and more determined to get context this Swine Flu was just the beginning.

Tags: , , , , , , ,