Wrote a final column for the A-J, but it looks like they’re not gonna run it. Here it is anyway:
This will be my last column for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal.
In June 2008, I tried to brand this as an “Internet culture” column and explain how this space would be different from the cacophony of technology columns that were here before me.
The media was already full of people doing industry profiles and product reviews. I wanted to focus on the big picture, to take a moment each week and appreciate things that were threatening to pass us by.
New products are changing the way we communicate and the way we treat each other, but it’s all happening so fast, nobody has time to think about it. We’re so busy using these new toys, we haven’t stopped to consider the benefits of instant communication or the dangers of overexposure.
The A-J gave me the opportunity to do that, week after week, in a format that gave me tremendous freedom. It helped me prove myself as a writer and create a voice that I’ll be using for the rest of my professional life.
I have to take a moment and thank Terry Greenberg for launching a series of new feature columns in 2007. I have to thank Shelly Gonzales for helping me navigate the treacherous legal and ethical waters of modern journalism. And I have to thank Bill Kerns for pleading my case and treating me like a human being when I walked up to his desk with a manuscript in my hand.
I want to thank Beth Pratt and Karen Brehm for their consistent encouragement and feedback, and most of all I have to thank the copy editors who learned when to save me from myself and when to leave me alone. Special thanks to Leanda, and Glenys, and Leesha, and James for fixing my unquoted movie titles and removing a thousand Oxford commas.
The Avalanche-Journal has been very good to me. I’ll always be grateful for the opportunities I had and the friends I made here.
I didn’t slaughter as many sacred cows as I wanted to, but I was always able to poke them with sticks. I was trying to think back to my “proudest moment” in these pages but all I can remember is the fun stuff.
I remember abusing senior citizens in Grand Theft Auto and requesting help from Batman when my phone got stolen. I remember taking shots at Nick Denton and interviewing a Peggy Olson impersonator on Twitter.
I once described my job as “explaining the Internet to people who hate the Internet,” but I hope that description isn’t as true as it used to be. I hope the technophobes in the audience were able to read this column every week and come away with a bit more respect for technology and the people who use it.
I hope you read this column and decided to be nicer to people on blogs and forums. I hope you read this column and felt a little bit smarter each week, even when I was writing about things you never heard of before.
I hope you gained a bit more respect for video games and video gamers. I hope you learned to be a bit more careful with what you shared on Facebook, and I hope you learned to forgive people who shared too much.
I hope the people conducting job interviews learned to forgive candidates who left inappropriate stuff on their public profiles, and I hope a few grandparents learned to use Facebook to get closer to their kids.
I can’t say where I’m headed next, but keep your eyes on www.michaelduff.net and feel free to follow me on Facebook or Google Plus.
I’d like to leave you with one last thought, to sum up what I’ve been trying to say for the past four years.
The Internet is the real world. The people are real, the commenters are real, the emotions are real, and the consequences are real.
Every comment, every blog post, and every video game avatar represents a real person, with their own set of quirks and vulnerabilities. We’re getting better at this whole “online communication” thing but we all have blind spots, and not everyone can express themselves well in this medium.
When in doubt, be nice. Don’t assume the worst about people, and don’t rise to the bait when people try to provoke you. Something about the Internet can make rational adults behave like spoiled children. Don’t let them get to you, and don’t let them drive you away.
The Internet is the future, and the future belongs to everyone.
Thank you for your attention and your feedback. I may not be in print anymore, but I’ll be around.
Here it comes again, The Broken Window Fallacy.
I heard it just this morning, as a reporter for Fox News talked about the “economic stimulus” that would result from this hurricane. Paul Krugman has been beating this drum quite a bit lately, saying that America needs a disaster, a war, or even an alien invasion to “get the economy moving again.”
But destruction can’t create growth. Anyone who tells you otherwise has fallen for — or is trying to pull — the oldest trick in the book.
Let’s say I’m a shopkeeper who just had his window shattered by a little girl who was playing with a BB gun. Let’s call her “Irene.”
Irene shatters my window, so I have to pay the glass guy $250 to get it fixed.
Krugman and company will tell you that $250 becomes “stimulus,” but where did that $250 actually come from? I was planning to spend that money on a new suit, but now I have to fix my window instead.
The Keynesians are assuming that if Irene didn’t break my window, my $250 would just sit there forever, stuffed in my mattress for a rainy day. But I had plans for that $250. I wasn’t going to hoard it, I was going to spend it. If Irene hadn’t taken out my window, that money would have “stimulated” the clothing store instead.
Keynesians like to pretend that we’re all a bunch of crazy hoarders, rolling around in piles of unspent cash like Scrooge McDuck. But in a modern world, even saved money becomes part of the active economy. I don’t stuff my money in a mattress, I keep it in a bank, where it becomes capital for other people. My saved money is lent out to other businesses and used to finance productive investments.
Nothing is idle, nothing is wasted. When my window gets broken I have to withdraw $250 in saved capital and use it to replace something I already had. I can’t spend it on a suit, and the bank can’t loan it to their client who wants to open a restaurant. For the Broken Window theory to be true, you’d have to assume that I was holding $250 in cash and had no plans to spend it.
Just think about your own life. If someone broke your window tomorrow, would the repair cost come out of hoarded cash, or would you have to give up something else you wanted to buy?
We should feel bad for the people who lost property to Hurricane Irene because all the “stimulus” they’re about to spend on repairs was money they would have spent on clothes and cars and toys for their kids. Now all those plans are ruined, and they have to spend thousands of dollars just to replace things they already had.
This will certainly stimulate the construction industry, but what about the tailors and the auto makers and the toy stores who would have received that money instead?
Nothing good can come from destruction. Emergency spending doesn’t create wealth, it simply diverts resources that would have been spent on other things.
Hurricane Irene is a net loss for everybody, and it’s going to be a big one.
The first thing that went through my mind when I heard about Jeff Jarvis starting a revolution on Twitter tonight was “How the hell can I write a column about a #fuckyouwashington hashtag without using the word ‘fuck?’”
Then I saw somebody compare it to Howard Beale’s “I’m mad as hell” speech in Network. Have you watched that clip lately? The parallel is perfect. Howard doesn’t know what to do about crime, oil, or Russians, he’s just demanding that we do something.
The same thing is happening on Twitter right now. Nobody knows what to do about unemployment, corporatism, or the debt ceiling, they just want everybody to get mad about it right now!
Watch the tag for a while and you’ll notice that half of these tweets contradict the other half. Half the protesters think we should solve this by going hard right, the other half think we should solve it by going hard left.
But Washington is gridlocked because America is gridlocked. The outrage on Twitter is random and unfocused because there are actually three different kinds of anger at work here.
First, we have left and right anger, the friction you would expect when you have 30% pulling right, 30% pulling left and 40% stuck in the undecided middle.
But there is another kind of anger layered on top of that. The right wing guys aren’t really behaving like right wing guys and the left wing guys aren’t really behaving like left wing guys.
Republicans who were sent to Congress to cut spending and fight corruption are proposing half-measures and rolling over for the very people they were sent there to oppose. And this anger started long before the 2010 congress. Obama didn’t start the bank bailouts, Bush did. The incredible ramp in deficit spending started with Bush, too.
Obama ran as a hard left populist champion, promising to rise above corporate influence and bring the troops home. Now he’s starting new wars and raking in banker cash with both hands.
So there’s our third heat. The right can’t make things go right and the left can’t make things go left. Increasingly, Washington is working from a set of priorities that have no connection to the will of the people.
If the country was going consistently right or left, at least 30% of the voters would be happy. But we’re in the middle of a serious recession and our politicians seem to be broadcasting from another planet.
Every day they go on TV to stoke the fear, scaring us with words like “crisis” and “default,” each demanding that we blame the other side.
That part is working. Americans are angry and afraid. You told us there was a crisis and we believe you. But we’re not blaming “the other side” — we’re blaming everybody.
Thirty percent of voters will blame the left for anything that goes wrong and 30% will blame the right, but 40% in the middle are ready to blame both of you.
Playing political games with loaded issues is nothing new, but this time everybody knows it’s a game. Voters aren’t stupid. They’re watching cable and reading blogs. They’re listening to talk radio and swapping conspiracy theories on Facebook.
Everybody knows you guys are running the clock out, waiting for the next election. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t go on TV to scare the shit out of us every day and then expect us to wait patiently for 2012.
You can’t use words like “urgent” and “crisis” and then waste our time with Kabuki theater.
Either the situation is urgent and needs to be solved now, or it’s all just an act that can wait for 2012. This isn’t 1954, gentlemen. The voters are on to you now. We know you’re playing a game and we know you’re using us as chess pieces.
That’s why #fuckyouwashington is trending on Twitter. We’re tired of being pawns.
Every politician in Washington needs to pay attention to this outrage and remember who they’re working for.
This is a story about three people who abused their power, but I think all three of them did it by accident.
Rebecca was in Ireland for an atheist conference. She was chatting with strangers at the hotel bar until 4 a.m. and decided she’d had enough. A man she had been talking to followed her into the elevator and invited her back to his room for coffee.
Here’s the description of the incident that Rebecca posted on YouTube:
“So I walk to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me and said, ‘Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?’
“Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don’t do that. You know, I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4 a.m., in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and–don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.”
Rebecca posted the video of her (relatively mild) comments, and the Internet exploded. I don’t think she was trying to fire the first shot in a new Battle of the Sexes but she’s certainly in the middle of it now.
Feminist blogs erupted with admonitions for men to “check their privilege” and Rebecca’s comment section was overwhelmed by a misogynist backlash.
So how did an awkward moment between two people get blown so out of proportion? Turns out one of the commenters was famed atheist and science author Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins’ reply was so provocative I’m not comfortable quoting it here. He basically compared Rebecca’s small complaint to the plight of women suffering genuine abuse in Muslim countries, telling her to “For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.”
The man in the elevator didn’t understand the inherent power that men have over women. He misread Rebecca’s signals and didn’t understand the delicate nature of the situation. The fact is, once a woman is uncomfortable, it doesn’t really matter why.
Maybe something in his speech or body language felt wrong. Awkwardness that might have been overlooked at 4 p.m. is hugely magnified at 4 a.m., and if the poor guy didn’t know it then, you can bet he knows it now.
But Rebecca has power, too. A female blogger writing in a male-dominated field has tremendous power over her audience. Awkward young men get very excited when they find a woman who thinks like they do, particularly when the women go out of their way to seem attractive and approachable.
These men have exaggerated reactions to videos and photographs because they haven’t really learned the difference between reality and marketing. The girl in the picture isn’t posing for “you,” she’s posing for the camera. And no matter how insightful her posts are, she’s not writing blogs about “you,” either. She’s writing for her audience — for an anonymous, romanticized vision of an audience that may not even exist.
The Internet has created a world where geek girls can be treated like movie stars, but that attention cuts both ways. A blogger who knows how to sell herself can attract an extraordinary amount of male attention, but men who can’t tell the difference between reality and marketing can easily see indifference as rejection and take it personally.
Female bloggers inspire extraordinary levels of love and hate in the men who follow them. That leaves them open to abuse, but it also gives them a special kind of power. With a twitch of her finger that audience can be mobilized and used as a weapon.
Elevator Guy hasn’t been revealed yet, but it’s just a matter of time. The avalanche hasn’t landed yet, but it’s hanging right over his head. Awkward moments come and go, but Google is forever. If he’s lucky his name will never go public, and he’ll just have to spend the next six months worrying about it.
A man might have more power in an elevator, but a female blogger on YouTube is a hurricane in a bottle. She can destroy a man’s whole life in two seconds.
The third actor in this little drama is Richard Dawkins, and he’s the one who really should have known better. Dawkins is a recognized leader in the atheist community, an international celebrity whose every word is praised by fans and twisted by enemies.
He probably thought he was just firing off a silly comment, but he’s not some random commenter. His celebrity imbues his words with tremendous power, and he attacked Rebecca Watson like Zeus hurling thunderbolts from the mountaintop.
Men need to watch what they say in strange elevators, but female bloggers need to watch their language, too. They need to watch how they market themselves and be mindful of their own power, as they decide what to share on YouTube.
Finally, Richard Dawkins needs to remember that he’s not just a private citizen anymore. He’s a public figure, wielding tremendous influence and moral authority in this community.
“Check your privilege” is good advice for everybody, no matter what kind of elevator you’re in.
Google launched a limited beta of their new social networking service last week, and was quickly overwhelmed with traffic as eager alpha geeks rushed to find something, anything that would liberate them from Facebook.
Love it or hate it, Facebook has now become the Internet. It’s the most popular site in the world, a one-stop shop for personal messaging, public discussion, political activism and link swapping worldwide.
Google’s new service is called Google Plus, and if you followed Google’s previous attempts at social networking, I won’t blame you for being skeptical. Google Buzz was a disaster and Google Wave broke my heart. Google Plus is starting with a better design philosophy than Facebook did, but even if they do everything right, it’s going to be an uphill battle all the way.
The Internet is basically entering its third evolution now, as expectations become more complex and the last few stragglers make it part of their daily lives.
Phase One was just about finding stuff. In the early days, Yahoo could fit the whole Internet in a series of link lists. Early users jumped on the Internet to find news, trade tech articles, and fight with a self-selected group of early adopters on Usenet.
Phase Two was about sharing stuff. Google made search engines reliable and fast, so the Internet became more about connecting with people and sharing links with friends.
Google won the battle for Phase One and Facebook won the battle for Phase Two.
Now we come to Phase Three. We know how to search and we know how to share, but now we’ve got so much crap coming at us 24 hours a day, even moderate users are drowning in status updates. We’ve got so many “friends” interacting with us in so many different contexts, we can’t just lump them all into one stream anymore.
Phase Two was about making connections. Phase Three will be about managing them.
Google Plus is built around the concept of Circles. Every friend you add to the service must be added to a circle. Plus starts with a set of recommended categories: Friends, Family and Acquaintances. Most people will immediately add a circle for work, then they’ll make a circle for “Super Friends” – the eight or nine people in the world they can share everything with.
This is the function I’ve been waiting for, the function I’ve been screaming about in this column for the past two years.
Facebook is great but modern people don’t just have one face. I follow about 300 people on Facebook and each one of those people follows me for a different reason. Some of them like the columns, some of them like my political rants, some of them knew me in high school, and some of them have known me all my life.
But the people who like the columns don’t necessarily care about politics, and the people who knew me in high school don’t necessarily like what I write. I always feel a little guilty when I post to Facebook because I know any post that appeals to ten people is likely to annoy ten others.
With Google Plus I get to make the choice, and since everybody else is free to make their own categories, too, they can choose what box to put me in. This concept is so simple, I can’t believe Facebook has botched it so badly. Facebook has lists and sharing restrictions but they’re almost impossible to use.
Human interaction occurs in context, but Facebook’s one-stream-fits-all approach encourages people to ignore that context, leading to embarrassing, even disastrous consequences. The people who follow my column are nice, but they don’t need to see status updates when I go on vacation.
My friends love me, but they don’t all agree with my politics. A link that would be catnip for economics nerds might seem boring or even insulting to them. Forcing your political opinions on strangers isn’t just rude; it’s dangerous.
Interactions in the workplace occur in a very specific social context. It was bad enough when all we had to worry about was offending people, but now the things you share at work may be a violation of federal law. In this climate you’re not just protecting yourself when you segregate your social networks, you’re protecting your boss and your co-workers from things they really don’t want to know.
Google and Facebook have just entered into a steel-cage death match for the soul of the Internet. Can Google Plus gain market share before Facebook copies their best feature? My instincts say no. I think it will be easier for Facebook to add Circles than it will be for Google to steal its users.
I think we’re up against the Grandma Factor. Facebook has become so ubiquitous, even Grandma is using it. Will parents and grandparents be willing to follow their kids to a new platform?
I’m guessing no, but maybe that’s a Plus for you.