Kranzberg's First Law: Technology is neither good nor bad, nor is it neutral

Kranzberg's First Law is my single most important take-away from this semester. We've taken on a lot of complex issues dealing with technology and mass communication, and I've learned that there is a whole lot more gray area than black and white. Technology is advancing more rapidly than we can keep up, and we're learning as we go along. Too often people try to make sweeping generalizations about technology and the effect it's all having on us, but the reality is never that simple. I've learned to think deeper about the far-reaching impact technology is having on our lives and to always consider both sides of the coin. Sure, Tinder might lead to shallow hook-ups and selfies might make us more narcissistic, but they're also platforms for connecting with new people and expressing ourselves in ways we couldn't have before.

In the next 15 years, biotechnology will provide countless new ways for people to manage their health and fight infection. Tiny bugs could be implanted in our bodies and detect pathogens long before people would have discovered them otherwise, accelerating the treatment process and prolonging life. But there will also be people who can't afford biotechnology to constantly monitor their glucose levels or heart condition. Advances in health care will likely widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots, requiring that we consider more than ever the ethical implications of our decisions.

The internet has made possible things we never could have achieved before. It lets us connect with like-minded people across the world. It gives us an outlet for artistic expression and infinite sources of information. We have a wealth of resources at our fingertips, and we've never been more empowered or more capable. But there's also a downside. We might be sacrificing our deeper connections in real life for more fleeting, superficial ones on the web. The constant presence of our iPhones might be pulling us away from truly living in the moment. And some argue we're developing broader, shallower pools of knowledge as our attention is increasingly divided between a flock of competing sources. There are incredible benefits to technology, but they don't come without dangers.

I've learned that with tech, we don't always win and we don't always lose. And sometimes it creates both winners and losers. Technology gives us the tools, but what people choose to do with them, and who controls them, are much more important than the technology itself.

Facebook isn't going anywhere, whether you like it or not.

There has been a lot of speculation about what the future holds for Facebook after the social media giant turn ten years old earlier this year. Some people think it's starting to lose its "cool" and is destined for a similar fate to that of Myspace. A study by Princeton researchers published in January forecasted Facebook's "impending doom" by comparing its growth curve to that of an infectious disease, predicting that it will lose 80 percent of its users by 2017. It's true-- there are tons of newer, hipper social media companies that have had massive success, like the photo-sharing app Instagram (which is actually owned by Facebook) and the popular direct-messaging app Snapchat. But is Facebook really headed on a crash course to self-destruction? I don't think so.

We may not like Facebook, but we need it. Zuckerberg has created a social media empire that has reached the point of ubiquity, boasting over a billion users worldwide. In the U.S., 57 percent of all adults and 73 percent of people ages 12-17 have a Facebook account. No other social media platform is used by such a majority of the population. If you meet someone new on campus or while vacationing in a foreign country, it's an almost-guarantee you'll be able to find them on Facebook and stay in touch. Even if it's no longer "cool," we need it more than we realize.

Zuckerberg directly addressed people's concerns that Facebook was losing its cool in an interview he gave to The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, James Bennet. "Maybe electricity was cool when it first came out," he said. "The real question you want to track at that point is: Are fewer people turning on their lights because it's less cool?"

Zuckerberg is very open about the fact that staying "cool" was never his goal for Facebook. It doesn't need to be cool. He just wants it to be something you can't live without. And with a rock-solid user base in the U.S. and a rapidly-expanding base globally, Zuckerberg is well on his way to achieving that goal. And now that Facebook has reached the stage of dominance, it can afford to experiment with new, creative ways to transform itself and become more profitable.

Part of Zuckerberg's vision for Facebook's future is to deconstruct it into a series of separate mobile apps, each with a separate purpose. His goal is to move away from the all-in-one Facebook platform we've become accustomed to, in favor of unique experiences that will keep users more engaged and draw in more ad revenue. The New York Times article "The Future of Facebook May Not Say Facebook" explores this new model that Zuckerberg calls Creative Labs, which seeks to unbundle Facebook into separate apps that may not even require a Facebook account to use. Zuckerberg said separate apps are simpler and easier to use, creating a more efficient and enjoyable experience for users.

But some question-- will it work? Facebook Paper, a news-sharing platform, was introduced with a lot of hype but failed to deliver the popularity that many predicted. Facebook Messenger had even less success, but as Facebook recently announced, users will soon have no choice but to download Messenger to chat directly with their friends. The company is now forcing users to download Messenger by removing traditional messaging capabilities from its main Facebook app. It promises users it will make their experience more enjoyable, but a lot of people think it's a mistake. After all, nobody likes being told what to do.

Even so, I don't think Zuckerberg has any reason to sweat. The simple fact is, unless we have the cell phone numbers of all the people we want to stay in contact with, Facebook will always be our next-best option. If we're planning an event or organizing meetings for a group project, there is no surer platform for getting in touch with everyone we need to reach. The network effects of Facebook render it a social necessity in today's world, and it's not going to die out because no other company is in any position to replace it. We may not like what Zuckerberg is doing, but it doesn't matter-- We have no choice but to go with the flow. And now that Zuckerberg has his grip on us, he has full reign to experiment with new ideas to generate larger amounts of revenue. Pretty smart, huh?

Electricity, like Facebook, is no longer cool--But that doesn't mean we'll stop using it.

When tech wins, who loses?

Advances in technology have revolutionized the ways we get our information and communicate with each other. Thanks to my iPhone, I have a constant stream of live news at my fingertips, I can instantly reply to emails on the go, and I can share photos with one tap of the screen. I use social media to form connections with potential employers and to develop a personal brand. Technology helps me feel connected to the many communities I've become part of, and I can't fathom a time when I knew how to live without my iPhone.

But some people do have to live without an iPhone, or a smartphone at all for that matter. When it comes to new technology, the issue of who has access raises some serious ethical dilemmas.  All the functions of technology I've become reliant on in daily life are still unavailable to a significant portion of the population. Pew's latest data on mobile technology reveals that only 58 percent of Americans own a smartphone, and 10 percent don't own a cell phone at all. The ubiquity of iPhones on UNC's campus makes people who don't have smartphones seem like a tiny minority, but that doesn't mirror the broader American population.

Access to technology is not a luxury created equal, and I think it's something a lot of people can take for granted. Access to technology means access to more information, which means more power and influence.

A piece published by Santa Clara University's center for ethics lays out four conditions for information access:

1. Knowing that the information or information service is available.
2. Owning the equipment to connect to the information source.
3. Gaining access to the information service.
4. Knowing how to operate the necessary hardware and software (computer literacy).

In other words, even if every person in America was given a free smartphone, not everyone would know how to use it or be able to afford a plan to stay constantly connected to the internet. And some people may not even be aware of what kind of technological tools are out there. Access is about more than just possessing the hardware.

But what happens when only some people can afford access to new technology? It means those people get to reap its benefits, while the ones who can't afford it continue to fall farther behind the curve. This is the "technology gap." The people with access to the best technology tend to be more educated and wealthier, and the people with the least access tend to fall much lower on the socioeconomic scale. The people with access use tech to advance even higher in society, leveraging the available tools to build powerful networks and to stay informed. And owning most of the technology means having the most control over technology, so these people get to decide how it should be used and regulated, for better or for worse. People with less access are probably less likely to educate themselves over concerns like privacy, making them more vulnerable to exploitation by marketers and data-trackers when they do use it.

More and more people are getting access to smartphones, but a technological gap remains, and it has real implications for the socioeconomic gap. Technology provides infinite channels and opportunities. The people who can't afford to get their hands on it, or who don't know how to use it, will struggle to achieve upward mobility in a world where tech is becoming increasingly necessary.

It's a problem with no easy solution. While nobody can guarantee that everybody has a smartphone, there are some things we can do to alleviate the technology gap. We can work to maintain transparency and inform the public about their rights and risks online. We can shape the future of how our world is connected to the web. IT developers are coming up with new products and services right now to bring the web to everyone, and a range of interests are battling for control over that process. We can support the interests that will level the playing field instead of concentrating power into the hands of a few.

The ethical concerns surrounding access to technology are about much more than the technology itself, but rather how it's used and whose hands it's placed in.

Is disaster porn ruining quality journalism?

salon.com

The Boston bombing, the missing Malaysian airliner, a seemingly endless string of political scandals from Bridgegate to Rob Ford smoking crack...

These are the stories that dominate our news feeds. Headline after headline reels us in with the allure of breaking details and juicy exclusives. But is our news suffering?

Today one of my classmates led a discussion about the problem of "disaster porn," the product of news outlets sensationalizing stories to stand out in an overcrowded market.One online columnist compared the national coverage of the Boston bombing to that of a sporting event, citing the constant reel of graphic imagery and the intense focus on individual victims. He wrote, "I expect to hear an anchor say, “Our continuing coverage of this latest tragedy is being brought to you by the new Cool Ranch Doritos Locos Tacos!” And in news outlets' constant effort to provide us with the latest and greatest, quality journalism may be the biggest casualty.

The internet and social media have given us access to 24/7 news coverage, and more sources than ever compete for our attention. Media outlets focus on the most violent details of tragedies instead of giving us the full picture, making us less informed if we rely solely on the mainstream media. Speed is prioritized over responsible fact-checking, which can cause misinformation to proliferate. Sometimes it seems like news outlets are there to entertain more than inform, placing important worldwide events on the back burner in favor of Jimmy Kimmel's Sochi wolf prank or Miley's twerk at the VMAs.

But who's to blame? The competing news outlets, or the public's insatiable desire to stay in the know? Not entirely one or the other. Covering news is a business, and attracting business requires giving people what they want. Normally people prefer the juicy gossip over NPR, and the real-time nature of social media forces news outlets to get the information out as quickly as possible, even if it means risking inaccuracy.  The result is that there's often a trade-off between succeeding in today's mainstream news market and practicing quality journalism.

It's not that I think quality journalism is totally dead. I think it's alive and well in more niche markets that operate on smaller scales. But when it comes to mainstream national news, disaster porn is the norm. If people want the latest story and you aren't giving it to them, they'll just find it somewhere else.

That's why I think that when it comes to staying healthily informed, the burden is placed mainly on us. My generation grew up during the advent of social media, so we should know to be skeptical toward some of the news we get. Gone are the days of families crowding around their TVs at dinner to all get fed the same information. Today we're bombarded with conflicting messages on many different platforms, and it's our job to sort through the muck and not take every story at face value. And relying on our Twitter feeds and the mainstream media isn't enough if we want the full picture. We have to seek out more information on our own from reputable sources that get buried underneath the flashy headlines. I don't defend disaster porn and media sensationalization; It's just a reality that takes a little extra work to rise above.

R.I.P. Facebook messaging

Zuckerberg's latest strategy for Facebook has been to develop a series of stand-alone apps to drive user engagement. Instead of using Facebook mobile for everything from chatting to sharing photos to reading the news, Zuckerberg has pushed for separate apps like Facebook Messenger and Paper.

The problem is, people aren't entirely receptive to this idea. Even though tons of people downloaded Paper the day after its release, it now doesn't even claim a spot in the top 100 free apps. Facebook's other attempts at stand-alone apps were even more disappointing. Facebook Camera and Facebook Poke (a blatant attempt to copy Snapchat) were so unpopular that Facebook is no longer pursuing any more active development with them. Some people have downloaded Facebook Messenger for separate messaging, but a lot of people still use Facebook's all-in-one app. Soon, they won't have a choice.

Facebook recently announced that it's removing messaging capabilities from its main app, forcing people to download Messenger to chat with friends. Facebook already started notifying some users in Europe of the change, and soon, it will apply to all users.

Not everyone is pleased about the change. A writer from Mashable published "11 Reasons Why Pulling Messenger From Facebook Mobile Is A Terrible Idea," which mainly argued that people will resent having to download a separate app and switch back and forth from regular Facebook to Messenger. Facebook responded to his article defending the switch, saying that in the months since Messenger's launch, it has grown more than 70 percent. Facebook also found that people get replies 20 percent faster on Messenger than they do on the regular Facebook app.

Zuckerberg explained:

“The other thing that we’re doing with Messenger is making it so once you have the standalone Messenger app, we are actually taking Messenger out of the main Facebook app. And the reason why we’re doing that is we found that having it as a second-class thing inside the Facebook app makes it so there’s more friction to replying to messages, so we would rather have people be using a more focused experience for that.”

A more "focused experience." Therein lies Facebook's plan to conquer mobile, one app at a time. Messenger hardly even resembles Facebook. Gone is the familiar navy hue, replaced with sleek and simplified navigation. You can even use Messenger to chat with friends who don't have Facebook.

In theory, standalone apps are a good idea. People are clearly moving in the direction of using many apps for separate purposes, like Snapchat for direct picture/video messaging and Instagram for photo-sharing. But here's the problem: People don't like being forced to change. And by removing the messaging feature from Facebook mobile, Facebook is forcing people to download Messenger.

It's just like when I was a kid and I refused to do what my mother asked me to solely because it was her idea, and I wanted to come up with it on my own. Maybe a lot of people have been downloading Messenger of their own accord and enjoying it, but those people aren't a majority of Facebook users. And now the rest of us have no choice but to download Messenger, and that may not go over well.

Zuckerberg's plan to shift toward standalone apps isn't a bad one, but forcing people to comply is.

Veet tells us: Don't risk dudeness!

You know those advertising campaigns that make you go, "what were they thinking?" That's exactly the response Veet's latest "don't risk dudeness" campaign elicited from me, and from women everywhere. In order to promote its latest product, Veet wax strips, the company came out with a series of ads that basically tell women if their bodies aren't perfectly smooth, they're manly and unattractive.

The ad that has generated the most outrage features a couple in bed after a one-night-stand. The woman puts her leg over her sleeping partner, who rubs it and realizes he's actually stroking the hairy leg of a Zach Galifianakis-esque man. "Yeah, I know, I'm a little prickly. I shaved yesterday!" the man/woman says apologetically to her shocked partner.

Twitter attacks immediately ensued. Women everywhere pointed out Veet's apparent shaming of women into removing their body hair to avoid looking like a dude. A Huff Post writer said, "if Veet is to be believed, there's nothing more terrifying to a straight dude than touching a moderately hairy leg." I think that's where these ads piss me off. It's not so much that I have a feminist argument defending hairy pits, but I don't like Veet telling me that I'm unattractive, or masculine, if I miss a spot shaving. And that if my significant other finds my semi-stubbly legs next to him in the morning he'll be utterly appalled and disgusted.

We've talked a lot in class about how women are portrayed in the media, and specifically, in advertisements. Veet's latest campaign is yet another example of the media implying that a woman's physical attractiveness is her primary source of value. Don't get me wrong-- I absolutely wear make-up and shave my legs. But when a company tries to tell me that if I don't I'll look like a man, I'm not going to like it.

Shaming just isn't a good advertising strategy. I can't imagine women watching Veet's ad and thinking, "wow, I don't want to look like a dude, I better go buy some Veet wax strips!" Other beauty companies like Dove have taken a much more effective approach to advertising. Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty that launched over 10 years ago focuses on embracing women's diverse body types and redefining industry standards for beauty. Women, myself included, loved the campaign. It made us feel good, reminding us that we don't have to mimic the models on magazine covers to be attractive, and that our unique features are what make us beautiful.

I wouldn't be surprised if Veet's ads get pulled altogether, judging by the swift and angry response from women just hours after they first aired. Veet could probably take a lesson from Dove here. If you want us to buy your product, make us feel good about ourselves and build a positive association with your brand. Don't make us fear the gender-normative consequences of not buying your product.

Stop being copycats!

I realize social media companies need to compete with each other, but why must they keep being copycats?

In the summer of 2013, Vine was just gaining popularity. No other big social media platform was based on video-sharing, and people were just starting to get into the idea. Then Instagram added video-sharing capabilities, and suddenly it wasn't so special. People didn't know if they should post their videos to Vine or Instagram (or both), and Vine quickly receded into niche markets.

Similarly, Facebook tried to copy Twitter by adding a hashtag feature in June 2013. Later in January of this year, Facebook added the"trending topics" feature, which pooled data about what people were posting about the most. I remember when I saw the "trending topics" section on my Facebook minifeed, and I honestly resented the blatant similarity to Twitter. I use Twitter for conversations, not Facebook. I don't need the same functions available on every social media platform I use; That kind of defeats the purpose.

The most recent example of social-media-copying was by Vine, which just added private video messaging capabilities. Seems remarkably similar to Snapchat, which I use to send funny (and thankfully, temporary) videos of myself doing silly things to my friends. I already have Snapchat-- Why do I need Vine to do the same thing for me?

Just because another social media platform pops up and gets popular doesn't mean others should compete by copying its functions. That's what I love about social media: There isn't one platform that does it all. I use Instagram for artsy photos, Facebook for my regular photos, and Twitter for my random updates and news-sharing. If these companies keep trying to copy each other, they lose their authenticity and unique roles in our social media lives. Each time I've seen a company try to copy another, especially after Facebook introduced hashtags and trending topics, people just resent the resulting overlap and confusion.

I think Mark Zuckerberg has finally started catching on to people's desire to use many different apps, each for a unique purpose. Facebook bit off more than it could chew by taking on a myriad of social capabilities, and people started abandoning the clutter for separate apps, like Snapchat for direct messaging and Instagram for photo-sharing. Now, Zuckerberg is expressing his desire to move away from a do-it-all platform to catch up with this emerging trend. Facebook released Paper earlier this year for news-sharing and purchased Whats-App for messaging.

People don't need multiple social media platforms that all perform the same functions. If companies want to compete, they need to come up with fresh ideas for us to share in new, innovative ways. Copycatting is not the answer.