Tech Vacay

This won’t be a “tech” article, specifically.
But it will be about a world enabled by technology.
Technology is an awesome thing, and has made our lives immeasurably better. But like the Titan Prometheus’ gift of fire, it can both warm, and burn. It’s no accident that “Prometheus” can be translated to mean “forethought.”
We are all caught up in a world of online conversations, instant news, battling anonymous opinions, and the demand both on and for our attention.
I tried two little experiments recently: one was to test every “meme” I encountered, an the other to spend a few days using my computer only to work (no social media or non-work email).

My meme test was simple:

• where it originated, 
• whether it could be validated, and 
• how much it distorted “the truth,” if I found it to be suspect.  

I probably don’t need to tell you that the vast majority of these breathless posts to Facebook, Twitter, and email “News” magazines were demonstrably false, or at least misleading. That was true across the board. There are even words for these sorts of propagandizing headlines: “clickbait,” and “false flags.”
Clickbait is easy to translate: write something like “Watch (Name) EVISCERATE/DESTROY/OWN (Name of The Enemy).” Those wishing to validate their opinions click, read, and post. Those wishing to disagree click, read (furiously) and post (furiously). The “discussion” devolves into something like “Your (sic) a moron!” “Ever heard of spell-check?”
False flags actually means a deliberate attempt to distract the public from some shenanigans perpetrated by the government, a corporation, or some other powerful entity. However, I have expanded it (as have others) to mean any pithy statement (usually adorning a provocative photo) that contains a kernel of truth but is deliberately misleading, and drawing false conclusions.  Again, nobody (no “side”) is blameless.
In the words of a famous prophet: “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell
When I have time, I check for truth (or at least, I check multiple sources and try to reference both the entity’s biases and the biased opinions of more than one organization). Sometimes I bother to note that, others I just feel sufficiently satisfied that I’ve either learned something, or I’m learning to recognize BS.
My second experiment was perhaps the more beneficial of the two: spend a little time away from all the noise. I realized that I hadn’t listened to music in while because I was spending a lot of time listening with half an ear to radio, tv, or checking in on the major social networks.
I turned on the tunes, turned off the chatter, and within a few days, felt infinitely more at peace. I’m not suggesting that it’s a good idea to stay uninformed – that’s ultimately dangerous. I do think, though, that every so often, just like getting out in nature, we get away from the un-ending and often ugly national debate that technology has enabled. Once upon a time, when there were only three TV channels (plus PBS) and a handful of radio stations that concentrated on music (with news “on the hour”), news was filtered (for better or worse), validated, and delivered with a certain amount of restraint.
Now cell phone cameras and setup events “make” news, and opinion and arguments dominate the news hours.  Most of it is designed to get our blood boiling – whether we agree or disagree. And much of it is, as noted in Experiment 1, not even “true.”
Of course, it’s not a permanent fix, and sadly, we will probably end up sadder, and less wise people as our filters become more refined, and we “hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest.” Still, I recommend a periodic trial of both tests, if for no other reason than to give it a rest.

Nancy Roberts