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.