Identity-Be Yourself

• Considering that only 7% of human communication is verbal, and we strip away the other 93% of nonverbal, tonal, and physical communication by interacting through digital technologies, what are some of the societal side effects we can expect?

Already we are mistaking digital communication by misinterpreting the sender's           message as angry, irritated, etc. This has caused arguments and long                   conversations about what message the other person truly meant to convey. 

In my opinion the loss of the other 93% of communication has caused us to suppress our feelings and sense of empathy. When we are limited to merely text, we miss out on basic human interaction. This also causes us to become accustomed to missing nonverbal cues and other types of nonverbal communication. If we continue down this path of increasing technology for communication purposes, these types of nonverbal communication may soon become obsolete.

• What key differences between the generations that have "adapted" to digital technologies and those that have grown up "native" with digital technologies does Rushkoff point out? And why is it relevant to identity?

In terms of identity, the digital "natives" (aka teenagers) are currently wrestling with the lack of privacy and loss of identity. Their social lives are consumed with social media even after they leave school for the day. 

Seemingly, they are going through the tumultuous time of adolescence and are constantly searching for an identity. Interestly enough, this quest for identity typically takes place in nothing other than the digital realm where we are faced with innumerable identities to potentially choose from.

 The author points out that the experimentation, which defines one's adolescent experience, is ultimately being robbed from teenagers today. This type of free experimentation no longer exists because of the net and the many social platforms that adolescents use. 

In this desensitized environment, we are seeing more children that are becoming increasingly narcissistic as a result of social media. The "selfie" trend has become are way for adolescents to feel noticed. The number of "likes" has begun to determine their own self-worth. 

Identity is no longer something that occurs by self-discovery in real-life experiences, but rather becomes the social media profile you generated.

• Respond to this proposal: No one should post anything online anonymously unless under threat of physical or legal persecution. And even then, the ideal behavior would be for everyone to post their similar sentiments and thus make persecution impossible.

Hiding behind anonymity while online is a breeding ground for arguments and completely uncensored and unrestricted commentary. In my experience, I have found that people that hide behind the computer screen are generally out to wage wars on the internet. 

I do agree with Rushkoff 100% when he says that we should always reveal our identity on  a social networking platform. When we are our true selves, there isn't room for negativity or brutal attacks on others. As the author points out, we have too much to lose. 

Engaging in online digital communication normally takes place on some type of social platform, and these people create a reputation for themselves. Not only would you risk losing your reputation, but your online community that you have worked so hard for as well. 

Scale-One Size Does Not Fit All

What are "vertical and "horizontal" integration mentioned by Rushkoff in this chapter? And how do they differ from the new requirement of "scaling up?"


According to the author, going vertical means establishing your business as the place to do it all in a particular industry. This means that your business is the one-stop shop for sports equipment, hardware supplies, etc.

Going horizontal means to offer a service that applies to all of these category's transactions. (Rushkoff uses the example of credit card transaction software.)

Formerly, businesses of various industries adhered to only one of the aforementioned integrations. However in the current age of the digital, we find businesses that are scaling up, or cutting through both the horizontal and vertical integrations.  These newly aggregated businesses that utilize both the horizontal and vertical integrations are what we use as our search engines and other various web portals.



While abstraction allows us to use such important tools as language and math, it also makes us more dependent on centralized standards, such as the presentation of online identity and the categories and genres of cultural objects. What does this dependency do to the power structure of contemporary society, especially in the worlds of business and politics?



When the author says that abstraction makes us more dependent on centralized standards, he speaks of the central authorities such as indexers, aggregators, and currencies through which all of our digital activity must pass. So his argument is that rather than 'liberating the people and their ideas from hierarchies, the digital realm enforces central control on a whole new level.'

In a nutshell, Rushkoff maintains that the abstraction of the digital universe causes its users to rely even more heavily on trusted brands and companies. And I cannot say that I am fully exempt from this-I prefer to use my more trusted and reputable websites such as Amazon.com and the search engine Google.

Rushkoff takes it even one step further to generalize that the teenagers or digital natives of today are surprisingly the most common victims of this digital abstraction trap.

And I agree with him wholeheartedly on this assumption, however haven't we always relied on the familiar brands and trusted authorities? Even in the times before the rise of the internet? Is this concept really new or any different from the 80's and 90's in which we shopped in our most trusted department stores?

So we can see that in the world of business and commerce there seems to be a trend towards dealing with the most trusted companies and authorities. In my opinion, this is a natural human tendency that can be witnessed as far back as the dawn of time. Rather than taking a risk, we assess the situation and stick with the "tried and true."




According to Rushkoff, how can the German philosopher Walter Benjamin's ideas help us navigate and appreciate our abstract world?


The early twentieth century philosopher Walter Benjamin proposed an idea about photography and other reproductive technologies, and how these reproductions change our relationship to real art. He observed that when photographs of art were found in a mass-produced book, these reproductions somehow altered the "aura" of the original. He found that this mass production of photographs made the original more sacred.

So if we think of this proposed philosophical idea in terms of our abstract, digital world-it has a similar effect. If we use this digital bias of abstraction to our advantage, we can use the digital realm in the same way that Walter saw the art reproductions being used. Rushkoff says it best when he says-

"...our digital abstractions work best when they are used to give us insight into something quite real and particular."

Complexity-You are Never Completely Right

While there are obvious benefits to having aggregated personalized content, what are the cultural implications of filtering out what does not fit your profile?

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

Due to the various algorithms that continuously filter our news feeds and Google searches based on our preferences and "likes" we now see only what we want to see. And this is serious-very serious. If we continue with this trend, we're going to create a narcissistic group of people that are more narrow-minded than ever. 

Being exposed to different opinions and ideas teaches us to value cultural and political diversity-it opens our minds to new horizons. It teaches us how to be critical thinkers and appreciate another person's opinion without accepting it. Ultimately, diversity is not only good but essential to the development of empathy within our human race.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

What does Rushkoff mean by a "data-point?" How have data-points been used in political debates? Is this a new phenomenon? What makes it seem different now?

As Rushkoff puts it, data points are internet information we now substitute for facts. This could be any information that we find after doing a quick "google search" on the web. He argues that these so-called data points retrieved from digital archives are falling short, because they are devoid of the process of authentic inquiry. 

Back in the day prior to the age of the internet, we were forced to delve deep into academic study to "search" for something. Rushkoff even criticizes the use of encyclopedias-stating that they are "watered-down digests of knowledge [that] deny a person the learning that takes place along the way."

Personally, I was born in 1990 so I cannot even recall a time before encyclopedias. However, the process selecting a data point to me is synonymous with what we call cherry-picking. And the process of cherry-picking has been around for ages. We will scan through material, whether it be in an online or paper format and pick out the lines that best support our argument. Isn't this simply argumentative writing?

But, what makes this digital selection of cherry-picking different from years before is the speed and method in which we can find these so-called data points. At the touch of a screen, we can do a quick search and find any answer we're looking for. The problem is that we are not reading multiple sources to find our answer-the first link that pops up under a Google search will suffice.

But I'd like to argue that these data-points can be used positively, particularly in the field of education. These quick answers should be used as simply another entry-point into the process of inquiry and discovery. Just as we as educators design lessons to facilitate multiple entry-points for students of all levels and ability, these data-points have the potential to be used in a powerful way.

Reflect on how, in your life, exposure to unexpected people, places, events, and ideas have shaped who you are. What are the ways the bias of digital culture filters out these unexpected and complex encounters?

Sometimes there is beauty in the unknown and the element of surprise, because that is precisely what life is-an unexpected journey.

We can't deny that digital culture has become a huge part of our lives-we are truly connected at all times. So, when our networks filter out things that don't fit our preference profile we risk losing these unexpected events and ideas.

So, funny story alert ahead. My boyfriend (of about a year) and I met on Facebook. Yes, your read that correctly. Normally I wouldn't even respond to a message from somebody unknown, but the tone of the message seemed so kind and warm-hearted that I decided to reply. Several conversations and a few days later we went to dinner, and like they say-the rest is history.

However, a few months before I realized that Facebook actually filters your messages automatically to your "spam" folder. A friend pointed this out to me, and I proceeded to turn this feature off. Had I not actively turned that feature off, we might have never met. Who knows?

The point I'm getting at is that these unexpected digital encounters can shape the person we are, just as previously real-life unexpected adventures and people used to do.

What are some of the effects of this digital oversimplification on education? What are the effects on skilled labor and the experience of discovery? 

Students nowadays run that quick Google search to find the answer they're searching for. This is only a negative effect when we stop seeing this as another entry-point for students to delve deeper into academic study.

Rushkoff argues that because of the digital oversimplification that we experience within the realm of our technological devices, we mistakenly assume that we live in a less complex world. And I partially agree with him on this. However, in the same token, I believe that the reduction of complexity has also prompted people to seek related real-world experiences. In essence, I try to look at what Rushkoff terms as a reduction of complexity as simply a way to get the ball rolling. But, I'm also a "glass half-full" kind of person-so I think this is just all in the way you view it.

For me, this so-called digital oversimplification can be used in a quite positive manner. Students can explore other people and cultures without traveling across the ocean, and we can take virtual field trips in various museums. So, I respectfully disagree with the author when he notes that digital oversimplification has society in a downward spiral.

Additionally, the experience of discovery can still remain intact if we implement Project-Based Learning into our educational curriculum. We no longer need to have a long process of inquiry to explore what is accepted as facts or common knowledge, because we have become too intelligent for mundane concepts. Rather we should implement rigorous, interesting, and challenging curriculum (such as PBL) that promote overall critical thinking skills and problem-solving.

Drawing on Education

What are the benefits to using children's drawings to do classroom research?

Children's drawings can provide insight as to what instruction and learning actually occurs within the classroom. Drawings can also be used to assess how the student feels about the subject and/or the teacher. 

Whereas children are not likely to write a synopsis of their feelings toward a class, they are much more apt to draw a picture of their emotions. Not only do drawings provide researchers with the resources to gauge students' feelings, but they also give rise to the students' overall perceptions of the classroom. 

I particularly enjoyed the section in the article Drawing on Education on student drawings of standardized testing. Researchers and educational policymakers aren't particularly aware of students' negative feelings and emotions toward standardized testing, and drawings have offered a glimpse into their mind. 

What have we learned about teaching and learning from children's drawings?

Through drawings, we have learned that teaching can be extremely teacher-directed. An example drawing from the article demonstrated a teacher standing in the front of the class while they lectured to students that were seated in rows. This type of drawing depicts the traditional teacher-student relationship in which the teacher lectures and the students listen and take notes.

What methods can be used to code drawings reliably?

In order to reliably code drawings, you can begin by reviewing the drawings and creating a checklist that documents the specific features found in the drawings. For instance, if you were to ask students to draw a picture of how technology is used in their classroom, you could use trait coding and number--

0-no technology present

1-technology only used in latter part of instruction 

2-technology present throughout the teaching and learning process

Holistic coding can also be used, which assigns a point scale based on the overall judgment of how the situation is depicted. The article Drawing on Education referenced drawings of classrooms that have been rated on whether they were depicted positively or negatively. 

Lastly, holistic review is used with a group of teachers that seeks to identify patterns, why these patterns occur, and what changes could be made in your school as a result of these drawings. This type of coding incorporates both analytical and holistic coding. 

What evidence is there of the reliability and validity of using drawings to make inferences about teaching and learning?

Reliability of using drawings is equated to the test/re-test use of other studies. The reliability of using drawings is enhanced by using coding to determine various inferences about aspects of education. Reliability of drawings is also distinguished by stability. This concept refers to the extent to which assessment results are stable over time. Stability of drawings can be determined by using trait-coding features.

Validity studies have been conducted by observing what teachers can learn from using drawings to improve their teaching and classroom practices. Oftentimes, children's drawings along with other types of quantitative data (i.e. student assessment scores) can provide elicited information about similar characteristics, and thus a direct correlation is observed. 

In what contexts have drawings supported change?

Children's drawings have supported change within the classroom by providing the opportunity for teachers to engage in reflection. Seeing their classroom through the eyes of the students is a powerful tool-as it enables teachers to reflect on their own teaching and instruction.

Drawings have purportedly been extremely influential in documenting the educational ecology of classrooms and schools. They can demonstrate teaching attitudes and styles, student-teacher relationship, technology integration, and the overall learning atmosphere. 

Write a prompt designed to elicit drawings from children in an after school program focused on STEM education that would help us understand change in student thinking about how technology can be used to solve problems.

-I definitely need some help refining these prompts, but I think I have a decent start. Here are several prompts that I came up with that would elicit distinctly different picture drawings ad responses. I would be extremely interested to see the differences between technology use to solve problems at home versus at school. 

• Draw a picture of how you would use a computer to solve problems at school.
• Draw a picture of how you would use technology to solve problems at home.
• Draw a picture of how you would use technology to solve problems in the world.
• Draw a picture of somebody using a computer to help save the environment.

Week #9 Choice-You may always choose "none" of the above

We are used to seeing “aggregated” (content pulled together from various other sources) content based on our own purchase history, but how do you feel about content created based on our own purchase his- tory? What does this mean for culture? 

First of all, I will begin by saying that America is a consumerist society. The notion of consumerism drives our everyday life and activities. The internet, in my opinion, has done everything to fuel the very idea of consumerism. 

In regards to this question, I feel that the 'aggregated creation of content based on purchase history' is a smart business move, however it feels somewhat like an invasion of my privacy. The feeling is quite odd-I would almost equate it to the way in which social media users nearly "stalk" other social media profiles. Just as it has become "socially acceptable" to 'stalk' other people, it has become acceptable for corporations to generate advertisements and content based on our internet search history and recent online purchases. 

Our culture is changing at an ever-rapid  pace as a result of this. Instead of going to the a store and having a real-life interaction with a human being, we now enjoy the ease of "one-click" shopping. Interestingly enough we mistakenly think that this gives us more power, but the reality is that we are rendered almost powerless by the corporate deception and manipulation of the "one-click" purchase. Because the reality of this situation is that it's not good for us, but it is good for the company because they will inevitably increase their production. 

What happens to content that doesn’t fit into any easy categories and demographics? 

This is an excellent question, and I assume that this unusable content is simply tossed by the wayside. In my life I have learned that money equals power, and Google is a corporation. Therefore, the aggregated content that supplies the most money and the most advertisements will always prevail. These ads will always bypass our local ads and companies. 

Why is the bias of digital technology so heavy toward
choice, rather than ambiguity? What are the human results of making so many digital decisions? Why would ambiguity be valued? 

Throughout the text I have discovered that digital technology is composed of binary code, which is simply a series or arrangement of 1's and 0's. And this is precisely where the lack of ambiguity begins. The digital world appears real, discrete, and absolute to us; and we like this. Soon enough, we begin to see this theory reflected in the entire digital world. 

This is where we have to realize that nothing in the real world is truly discrete, and this distinction seems to be very difficult to accept as we continuously switch from the digital world to reality. 

Every time we click our "gender" and "age", we are experiencing what the author referred to as "forced choice." Granted, this is a 'choice' that we are given, and the act of choice is equated with autonomy, freedom, and democracy. However, is this digital 'forced choice' really a choice at all?

The result of all of these digital decisions is that we have become an obsessive, less engaged, and ultimately controlled society. And this is particularly evident in our everyday interactions. It's quite the paradox-we begin to feel as if we have no choice in the matter at all. 

Ambiguity is valued continuously in our life experience. I have discovered throughout my young life that it is okay to be unsure about things. However, this has taken me quite a while to be able to accept, and the more that I think about it-the more I wonder if the digital world's 'forced choice' is propelling the idea that ambiguity is unacceptable...

Declining to post your political preferences and religious views on Facebook is the most appropriate example of when ambiguity is certainly valued within the digital realm. I consider myself to be politically aligned with the left, but I try to practice serious discretion when engaging in political discussions on social media. Unless all of your "friends" think and believe like you, there's really no reason to be explicit with your political or religious ideals-this only creates distaste and hurt feelings.

Rushkoff points out that this world of constant choice is a benefit for marketers and those who would use these decision points as pressure points to force sales. How exactly does this work, and what is an example of marketers using forced choice as a sales force? 

When you sign up for Pinterest, the site will prompt you to click on your favorite categories so that it can 'tailor' your news feed to your preferences. While this may seem like a novel idea, the 'forced choice' actually gives you fewer options. You are no longer able to view everything on Pinterest because of the selections you made, thus causing you to possibly miss something great that you haven't heard of. 

This idea of 'forced choice' stems from the original digital idea-that everything is digitized and composed only of the binary digits 1 and 0. This is translated throughout the digital realm where you cannot proceed without first making a choice. 

The idea of "choices" is a dream come true for marketers and sales forces. They now have the opportunity to tailor their sales schemes to our preferences in this new digital world, where they were previously unable to reach us in reality. 

Week #7-Chapter 2 "Place"

Search the internet for information about of a favorite local business. What kind of information do you find? Evaluate their online presence: website, social media, maps. Discuss how small businesses can compete with the giants like Amazon.com. Does digital technology favor certain kinds of local businesses? What would you prefer not to purchase online?


One of my absolute favorite local businesses right now is the Joe n' Throw in downtown Fairmont, WV located on Adams Street. It's a lovely locally-owned business that operates as a combination of a coffee house and pottery studio. The atmosphere has such a great vibe that can't be recreated on a commercial level, and it also brews some of the best exotic Mayan and Sumatran blends for the coffee connoisseur in mind.

The Joe n' Throw surprisingly has a prominent and reputable online presence, which I would attribute to the fact that the owners are on the younger side. However, they're also acutely aware that a viable social media presence can positively impact your business. They currently utilize Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter.

Small businesses face some added difficulty when attempting to compete with giant online businesses. For one, the price is probably the #1 reason why some consumers prefer to stick with the big guys-when you're a family on a budget you want to get the most that you can out of your paycheck. (And, as a college student that is something that I can empathize well with.)

When it comes to online purchases, I will purchase everything from clothing to appliances in order to avoid going shopping. (It's just not my cup of tea.) However, I don't shop for too much food online, unless it's something obscure that doesn't require refrigeration. (e.g., Chia seeds, protein powder, Goji berries.)

Search the internet to see if your local community has a “shop local” movement? What is the messaging the campaign uses to educate the public about the need to “relocalize” itself?

I currently live in Fairmont, and there is a grassroots "shop local" movement. Despite the fact that there isn't too much online marketing taking place, there's a small movement in the downtown area that has a few new shops, including an organic market that has all natural and organic foods. They sell local honey, meat, and produce from farmers here in Fairmont.

I've been to a few events this past summer, where the Veteran's Square would hold outings that supported local commerce with everything ranging from artwork to farmer's market produce.

However, we really don't have too much of a local campaign gong on here-it's basically small businesses teaming together in an effort to bring quality local business to our community. The small events supporting all local providers and businesses is a great start-we just need to see more of that in order to spread the word about the local movement.



Even though it gives exposure to a worldwide market, in what ways does the internet work against local business?

The internet gives preference to the big businesses by promoting their advertisements on search engines and even social networks. Obviously, these corporations have more funds to support their marketing ploys-something that smaller businesses just simply don't have. The larger commercialized businesses also have vivid and engaging advertisements as a result.


What are some ways the internet can be a benefit to local business, local activism or local culture?

Despite the fact that the internet is a decentralizing technology, it can still be of benefit to local business, culture, and activism. Particularly in regards to activism, the internet makes it possible for an entire nation to 'rally around an idea' as the author puts it. Rather than local activism ending at the local level, the entire world has the opportunity to see social injustices that are taking place.

In terms of local business, I believe that regardless of the amount of marketing that can be employed with the use of the internet, local businesses will still have a difficult time competing with "big box" retailer giants. Even though the local businesses now have the ability to reach out to consumers, they are nonetheless at a disadvantage because the larger corporations have more money to spend on marketing and advertisements. However, this isn't to say that we haven't made a move towards favoring local businesses despite this apparent disadvantage.


One result of the “delocalizing” nature of the Internet is the use of long-distance technologies when local and face-to-face interaction is possible. (Have you ever used an Instant Messaging Client to message a roommate, even though she was working on her computer in the same room?) What are two more examples of delocalization as a result of a networked existence?

There have been many times when I have sent a text to my sister or brother, when they were in the same exact room. Often times though, we would completely realize the irony of it all and laugh. (And many times we were texting about our parents, who were in that room. Clearly we're still kids.)

Another example of 'delocalization as a result of a networked existence' would be a lesson in school where students sit in front of computer monitors and interact with one another on a social network platform such as Edmodo. Rather than engaging with one another in real time in a real place, they use a method of decentralizing technology where we lose the essence of human interaction.

Another prime example of this could be where a group of friends are out to dinner and they are mindlessly scrolling through their news feeds-when they could be interacting with the people right in front of them. (Nothing irks me more than this! lol) What is the purpose of going to dinner, if you're not going to speak to the people directly in front of you?



Beyond the way we sometimes employ technologies for the gee whiz factor, or for convenience, do we sometimes utilize distancing as a “feature” rather than a “bug?” In other words, when do we like the fact that the person we’re communicating with is far away?

This question was kind of tough-I had to ponder it for a while, and I'm still not sure if I'm approaching this correctly. But I think this would apply to the instance where I mentioned that my siblings and I will sometimes talk about our parents (who are in the same room) via text. We wouldn't be able to do this without technology. (Well, I guess we could write our message on a napkin.) So, we obviously like that we can communicate in this way.

Another example of when somebody could use technology for the convenience factor, could be a mom texting her children that dinner is ready. Rather than walking up the stairs, we could just shoot them a text-since they're probably engrossed in their technology anyway.

Week #6 Program or Be Programmed

After recently dropping my phone in a toilet(for the second time), I was blessed with the opportunity to experience life "offline."

My first thoughts were worrisome-what would I do if there was an emergency?! What did people do for emergencies prior to the cell-phone era? After the initial fear and anguish I was able to collect myself and deal with the next few days that I would be without my beloved smartphone.

Over the next few days, my sense of immediacy & urgency (that Douglas Rushkoff references in his book) soon began to diminish. It was replaced with a sense of time & complacency-nobody could get a hold of me via text, facebook, or email, and I reveled in this new idea.

Granted there were times when it would have been convenient to have my smartphone device back; such as the missed opportunities for Instagram-worthy photos. But this new-found opportunity had given me the ability to stop and smell the roses-to truly stop and observe the world around me, which oddly enough left me feeling more connected.

Looking back, there are times when I truly wish I could simply do away with my cell phone altogether. As I look at it sitting here next to my laptop, I think of all the missed real-life opportunities and the many times I've sat down to read my latest literary obsession only to be engulfed in a plethora of text messages and mindless scrolling of various news feeds.

However, please don't mistake my opinions for a lack of appreciation for technology. Just as is the case with all matters, there is a time and place for everything. Technology and digital media serve a wonderful purpose for thoughtful and relevant discussion, as well as a powerful learning device for information seekers.

With this being said, I challenge everybody to participate in being "offline" for at least 24 hours. At the very least, the experience itself is invaluable and eye-opening.



When is it socially appropriate to be online?

We live in a state of perpetual online activity, but that doesn't make it right. In an era where we can almost be referred to as digital natives, we have lost the ability to discern when it is socially appropriate to be online and when it simply isn't.

With that being said, I can list the times when it is socially inappropriate to be online: when you're out to dinner, having a real-time conversation, and when something else is simultaneously demanding your attention. However, when it comes to a socially acceptable time to be online-I feel like this varies depending on the person. Some people are less social, and this is seemingly more acceptable when something else doesn't demand your attention.

In an ideal situation though, we would only go online once in the morning & once in the evening. As the author puts it, this would allow for deliberation and contemplation of responses, thus increasing the quality of those responses.

Why do we sometimes aimlessly surf the web?

Aimlessly surfing the web has become the new alternative to waiting to get off the elevator. Rather than speaking to other people in an elevator, we have reveled in the idea of aimlessly surfing through our phones in an effort to make it "less awkward."

Another reason for aimlessly surfing the web, is the simple fact that it's addicting. As the author explains,

"The possibility of one great email from a friend, or one good contract offer somewhere down in that list of unanswered messages keeps us compulsively checking our inboxes, iPhones, and BlackBerrys like classically conditioned gamblers at the slot machines." 

And we can't argue with him. We are all guilty of this-each one of us.

In an effort to connect with people long-distance, we neglect the connection with those right in front of our very eyes.

What does Rushkoff say about the nature of computer programming that causes digital technology to be biased away from continuous time? And what are some examples of the asynchronous (asynchronous means “not at the same time”) bias of digital technology?

The programming of our computers have been created with decentralized technologies that do not exist in a time at all. Whereas we as people, time is always ticking for us. Despite this, computers and the internet continue to exist regardless of time. The author notes that even though there is a ticking clock in the background of a computer, the computer doesn't recognize the passage of time from one keystroke to the next.

The author gives examples of how rather than keeping our email in an asynchronous holding bin, we connect our inboxes to our phones, and thus the vicious cycle of competing against the "timeless" bias of digital technology commences. I found the Douglas Rushkoff's following quote to illustrate this concept very well:

"We work against the powerful bias of a timeless technology, and create a situation in which it is impossible to keep up. And so we sacrifice the thoughtfulness and deliberateness our digital media once offered for the false goal of immediacy-as if we really can exist in a state of perpetual standby."

What prevents people from claiming their own time in the face of digital distraction? How are these interruptions and distractions any different from those that plagued us before we had cell phones in our hands or pagers on our hips?

I don't really have a coherent adult memory of the times devoid of cell phone usage. (I was in the 4th grade when my mom purchased her very first cell phone.) However, I feel that prior to the "smartphone" I was a much less distracted person. For instance, I have have become so accustomed to the sense of immediacy that it's now what I ultimately desire. That sense of urgency and immediacy is driven by the smart phone in my back pocket.

We always feel like we need to catch up with our technological devices, and I truly believe that this idea prevents us from claiming our own time in the face of digital distraction. The author hit the nail on the head when he said,

"We are like drivers trying to catch up with the image in the rear view mirror."


While the chapter focuses on the early, more asynchronous styles of communication on early networks, even newer technology such as streaming video and Facetime applications bring us onto each other’s screens in something like real time, or what we refer to as “synchronous” time. Do these new forms of digital communication negate the basic premise of digital non-nowness? Or do they simply hide a greater imposition on what we think of as time?

Live-streaming digital applications are offering something very new-something that allows us to participate in synchronous time "online." In my opinion, this gives us the ability to expand our idea of "time" in an online environment. It reinforces the concept of time in the here and now, while simultaneously creating the awareness of time as an "illusion" in the online world.