Digital Shrapnel in the War of Unintended Consequences

The likelihood of unintended consequences grows exponentially with incremental increases in the complexity of society. This is twice as true when the Internet is involved.

Unintended consequences can be as beneficial or destructive as intended consequences. Their gravity does not change as a result of their cause. Impact  is impact and damage is damage. The difference is, unintended consequences are not the result of  malicious or benevolent motivation. As such, progenitors cannot be indicted or praised the same way you would if the outcome was intentional..

That doesn't mean there is no responsibility for unintended consequences.

Intended consequence may attract praise or blame, but unintended consequences only endow burden.

If something good has happened accidentally, you want to understand why and you want to repeat it. If something unfortunate has happened, whoever is responsible for the trigger action, needs to prevent a re-occurrence and help mitigate any damage.

I am, of course, talking about problems faced by every company, especially online. There isn't a single successful website that hasn't had some unforeseen problems. In cases of security gaps or other programming issues, the problem is relatively straight forward. When it comes to the unintended repercussions of policy decisions, nothing is easy or clear.

Online companies in general, and social media especially, operate on the foundational concepts of the First Amendment. More speech is better; good speech and motives will win out over bad speech and bad motives. We are not there yet, but perhaps someday soon that will be true.

Today, we have a problem.

The desire to leave the majority of Internet content as unfettered as possible, for whatever reasons, has created a dark corner in the marketplace of ideas.

Videos, articles, books, websites, propaganda and stories, which on their own are simply offensive, objectionable, false or distasteful, but not overtly hateful, have accumulated. These covertly hateful collections have been allowed to amass in the name of free speech. This material is now being used to create self-validating narratives against Jews, Muslims, Blacks. Latinos, LGBT and a myriad of other groups whenever it is convenient.

It is easy to say that the Internet, the companies or their owners are biased. However, none of that is true.

The truth is worse. The endemic hate we now experience  is an unintended consequence of  lofty and good ideas. Unfortunately, we hesitate to attribute bad results to good ideas.

Now we need to address the problem.

Although the genesis of the problem was aided by the Internet companies, the hate itself was created by people. No doubt the companies have a role to play in setting things right. To lay the entire responsibility for the problem at the door of the industry is unfair and unrealistic. Equally, companies expecting users to to solve the problem without industry support is also skewed.

The best and worst things about the  Internet are like a landscape painted by countless companies and people. Repairing the damage will not be easy or simple, especially if we intend to get it right.

I Hate When People Post About Things They Hate

Because of what I do for a living, I have numerous Google Alerts. One of them is "hate" and "Internet." Yes, it is simplistic and overly broad. Yes, I get all kinds of crap as a result. I also find some really useful stuff, so I don't mind the garbage. Besides, if anyone is foolish enough to create an Alert like that, they deserve what I get.

My problem is not the stuff I get, but the mindlessness of some of the people who post it. At least try to post something that contributes to the world ideas rather than detracts or numbs. The most common, and the most annoying post I see is, "I hate my slow Internet!"  Really? Can we now hear from all those folks who love their slow Internet?! Worse still, most of these posts are nothing but complaining. No suggestions, no solutions and a complete speed bump in the quest for knowledge.

There are plenty of other  topics of hated things - like cat videos, standing in line, subway/bus/train/airline delays, your cable company, traffic and angry drunks, just to name a few. They are all almost universally hated by sane people. 

Then there are the topics that are liked by some people and hated by others. I hate the Kardashians, but love that Windows spell check doesn't think they're a word. I already hate most of the 2016 Presidential Candidates that I don't outright dislike.

I hope someday to be as hated as slow Internet, traffic, cat videos, standing in line and flight delays, because then you know you are really a part of the Internet. 

Things We’ve Learned About Ourselves from Science Fiction - The Imperfect, Misogynistic, Alcoholic and Egotistical Hero

We are drawn to each other as a society, as a collective and as the tribe of humanity, yet we fear each other individually – at least that is the picture we currently project into the mirror of science fiction - on screen, online and in print.

Going back to 1726 or 1735, in the fantastic story tradition of sci-fi, Gulliver’s Travels showed us the strange and petty interaction between societal factions. Jules Verne (1860+) rightly predicted that technology would enhance our hubris as it enhanced our lives. 

Of course the 1950s brought us the communist scare allegories like The Blob, The Thing and The Invasion of Body Snatchers. We were afraid of losing ourselves or our neighbors becoming someone/something else. But it wasn’t about monsters or outer space, it was about us.

Superman inspired our morality, Batman our resiliency. Wonder Woman had strength and showed being a hero included everyone.

Sci-fi, which started as fantasy stories soon discovered that the genre had the ability to abandon all social, scientific, historic and thematic constructs.

Then, television brought us Star Trek, which was initially envisioned as cowboys in space.   It soon became obvious that being free of real world conventions allowed Gene Rodenberry to stealthily open a window on a turbulent time in America.

Star Wars introduced much of the world to the idea that heroes were not perfect and our quests are not necessarily of our choosing, but ours all the same.

From the mind of Stan Lee we are now immersed in the Marvel universe.  A place where heroes are not only imperfect, they are deeply flawed and troubled with hidden powers and gifts, a place where the porous fabric of reality lets evil leak in from unexpected places. A place not unlike ours, where evil seeps into life  and maybe a place where deeply flawed people can be heroes too.  Maybe.

Satan in the Sidelines

The recent attacks in Paris, on top of all the other similar attacks, have created one of those key places in time. Muslims, Westerners, Christians, Jews, conservatives, liberals and everyone in between, must all face their own demons and issues and potentially chart a course forward. Only the cultural predators are sitting by the sidelines and cheering.

The social vultures of conflict instigation, unrest incitement, government destabilization and solo ethnic superiority are frothing at the mouth with anticipation. For the first time in a very long time, events present the possibility that enough chaos and discontent can ensue where their extreme agenda might get a foothold.  

Extremists on the right and left have started spreading propaganda and seeding the rumor mills.  Maybe the Muslim communities can be targeted for expulsion or random public attack; maybe the Muslims can be convinced that it is because of the Jews, Christians, western media or just Americans; maybe the right-wing upper class can convince the world’s terrorists that they are both on the same side. Perhaps the cultural kamikazes can trigger a few civil wars in Europe, or Africa or the Middle East (which has already begun) just to kick off a huge wave of multi-regional destabilization.

Iran has ties in some of the more oppressive South American governments and its state media is already circulating cartoons implying Israel is complicit in the Paris attacks. Right-wing politicians in multiple countries are helping the forces of disaster by calling for closed borders and wholesale deportations.

The internet is, of course, part of this equation of discord. If you can’t have cheerleaders without giving them megaphones, then you need to be careful when the cheerleaders make enough noise to distract the players on the field. If that presents a problem, maybe the cheerleaders should be limited to just running around on the sidelines, as usual.   

Destroying Discourse - A Weapon for Social Terrorism

The most productive tool in fighting social conflict, in reality or online, is constructive interaction. Some people will call it negotiation, diplomacy, discussion and engagement. Others will call it coercion, capitulation, co-opting or submission.  Invariably one side, or both, stands to lose something by reaching an understanding or détente. Sabotaging the dialogue or setting down unreasonable tangential arguments that prevent the real issues from being discussed is an effective way to prevent anything constructive from happening. 

Years ago on a visit to England, after a few pints, I discovered myself deep in a debate about the advantages of having the steering wheel on the right or left side of the car. The debate was serious, it was ironic and it was impassioned. We argued how it involved history, culture, industrialism, imperialism – with people I hardly knew – and no one got called a Nazi or a moron. In the end we agreed that in another 100 years it wouldn't matter because robots would be doing all the driving. It was great. I never looked at arguing the same. 

If you want to prevent discovery, agreement and truth or promote discord and distortion, it is not very hard. It is much harder to earnestly negotiate, be prepared to sacrifice and possibly build something new and unknown.      

Sometimes We Get It Right

January 6, 2016 will be the 75th anniversary of FDR's Four Freedoms speech. Do you know the Four Freedoms? If not, you need to Google it. It is as close to a reasonable mission statement for the United States as you are likely to find. 

With the inevitability of US involvement in WWII  looming over him, FDR started drafting a State of the Union address in January 1941. During that process he dictated, in one stream of thought, what is perhaps the best articulation of our goals as a nation.

"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world."

It is easy to spot that in 1941 the US fell far short of these ideals and still does.  History also tells us that no other country has ever offered such aspirations. The Four Freedoms are a concept to strive for, applied to everyone, not just Americans.   

The speech was, of course, part propaganda. It also contained more than a grain of truth. 

January 6 , 2016. Save the date. It's a Wednesday. 

Guilty as Charged: Not Counting–to-Ten

A reconceptualization of a sermon by Rabbi Gerald Skolnick

We all say bad things; rashly, thoughtlessly and destructively in the heat of the moment,. We often fail to stop and think about what we are saying. Heated discussions and arguments are rarely the time to say, “wait a minute, let me consider my next statement.” As a result unfortunate and regrettable things are said.

The likelihood of such things happening in real time certainly increases. However, it is astounding that such things happen in emails or forums, on Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Instagram where online activity naturally lends itself to a pause before hitting send or post. How is so much horribleness sent? Is it all intentional? Are people really that awful? Not mostly.

The problem is that not everyone realizes that words matter. Whether spoken in person, in public, on the radio, television or printed in books, pamphlets, newspapers or on a website – words have power. Words have duration and weight. They are cumulative and compound. They build narratives. They are a force that can build or destroy. This is the   real power behind the intent of freedom of speech.

What do your words do?

As long as we honor the concept and practice of free speech there will be trolls and other people of malicious intent saying, printing and posting awfulness. That is burden we have to live with.

But then there are the people who are not evil or malicious, the ones who simply don’t take the opportunity to count to 10, but should. Counting to 10 – before speaking or hitting send should be the cornerstone of a new civil- religiosity, it is a true blessing.

Attack of the Eatists

I am a middle aged, white, urban, omnivore.  Maybe that tells you everything you need to know about me, which would be too bad. 

In discussing the new multi-colored LGBT teen support Doritos, it was commented how they should be vegan and gluten-free because the LGBT community is very food aware. That seems somehow offensive. Micro-labeling LGBT teens as predisposed to veganism or gluten free diets seems to diminish the real point of their bravery, strength and challenges. 

George Takei rightly noted that Fashion Week model Ashley Graham should simply be called a model and not cast as a plus size model.  

We have become addicted to over labeling. In the process we diminish the truth and often get the labels wrong. Labels like normal, average and traditional have become meaningless. The longer, more specific the label the less effort we make to learn the truth about people, because we think we already know them.  

I’m looking forward to buying the rainbow Doritos. I want to know them better.

The Lower Moral High Ground

We do not have an immigrant and refugee problem. We have immigrants and refugees with problems. The immigrants and the refugees are not the problem. The issues confronting them are the problem.

These are people in extreme conditions. People don’t just pick up and leave their friends, families and homelands at the drop of a hat. They face certain hardship. Why would someone do that? Because they they have to - not to starve, not to be killed or not be persecuted. Rarely do they move like that just for the hell of it.  It is not a decision taken lightly. It never has been. 

To call it an immigrant or refugee problem is to make the displaced people the problem.  Making it seem as if removing the immigrants and refugees removes the problem.  It doesn’t. Wars, dictatorships, ethnic cleansing, death squads and geo-politics are the biggest culprits. But this is nothing new to us. We have been here before many times. Many refugee crises have there been? How many waves of immigrants - Pilgrims, Irish, German,  Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Russians, North Africans, South Americans and Asians, just to name a few? 

You would think we would have this down to a science, and we would if we used more common sense and kept politics out of it.

How should we improve on the challenges to immigrant and refugee communities? We should start by thinking about the words - insisting that our politicians stop sounding like David Duke or Geert Wilders and start sounding like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. Then we might begin to look like the country we think we are or the country we are meant to be.