Beware False equivalencies - Breitbart and its kind are NOT news

I was reading another ZDNet article this time showing how fake news and siloed information was a danger to U.S. democracy.  The long-winded article went into a treatise, complete with spiffy chart of where on the political spectrum all the various "news" organizations fell.

CNN, AP and Reuters were considered middle of the road, mainstream with Huffington Post and Fox News occupying the left and right of them respectively.  Of course the middle is always under attack as being too liberal by somebody.

Seems the past decade has spawned an outcry for a more "balanced" media view bringing forth what is laughably called Fox "news" and ultimately lending legitimacy to far right wing "journalism" like that purveyed by the likes of Breitbart news (a known proponent of Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist ideologies.)

Folks,  the past 8 years have taught us what happens to a country caught up in in siloed rhetoric.  Men of otherwise good intent are prisoners of the polls and fearful of a vocal minority.  A minority that grows into an immovable majority on both sides sown only with the seeds of propaganda.

We're literally too stupid and too lazy to know any better.

We cherry pick that which we agree with and discard the rest.  You can't help it, the bias is so great, the vitriol so thick that it's nearly impossible to find common ground.

This is not the function of journalism.  Opinions belong on the editorial page not the front page.  But in a world of information overload we don't have time for opposing views especially when they come from those who care to know nothing but their own.

Those who refuse to recognize or even acknowledge the lessons and warnings of history are the real danger.  Degrees don't make you intelligent, being aware of your world does...

"We aren't a democracy - say the Pledge of Allegiance and realize this.  Democracy, as in the Roman Empire, is rule by the mob.  Heaven help us if we get there, as the Roman Empire didn't last as long as the U.S. has."

I'd like to say I made that quote up but I can't.  He's off by at least 300 years and doesn't care to realize it.

So much for "No Child Left Behind."

That quote, by the way, is from the comment section of the same article and sadly it's not alone.  I see it far too often and when the obvious oversight is called out instead of thoughtful reflection there is instead an attack.

Libtard, Butt-Hurt, Elitist.

These are the retorts.  These are the product of faux journalism and if nothing else we need to read the signs.

Is it so hard to form an opinion based on your own views instead of someone else's?

Is that NOT what this grand democracy is supposed to be?

Rhetoric is not governance, it's a campaign and campaigns are about wars.  Warriors are about conquering.  To conquer is easy, governing is hard.

Just ask a Roman...

Milennials

I'm in a weird place.

Not physically weird like the furniture is nailed to ceiling or anything like that.  No, I'm stuck between two human generations that are vastly different but more alike than they realize.  I believe time will bear that out but for now it's just a hunch.

I hear a lot about how millennials have an entitlement mentality.  Well, I can tell you that such condemnations aren't exclusive to them nor are they anything new.

The civil rights movement was accused of similar "transgressions" against society until the accused flipped the term around on their accusers.

Damn right that people shouldn't be judged based on their complexion!  That's as legitimate an "entitlement" as expecting to be able to walk down the street without a bunch of morons wearing sheets hanging you from the nearest tree.

It really boils down to a heartfelt belief in social justice.

Social Media, the Internet and information overload in general have enabled social activism for causes a world away.  But for many millennials it seems that it's enough to tap the "Like" key and call it a victory for the cause.

The problem is is that somewhere along the line social justice has gotten mixed in with Beyonce' videos and video game streams.  Just another element of a social profile.

Worse, it's my generation that caused it.  We are the helicopter parents who banned the word "No" and instilled the belief that everything our kids did was wonderful and had a higher purpose.  Even if the brat was a borderline sociopath.

I've frequently used the phrase "T-ball trophy" to express my disdain for this kind of parenting.  There's a narcissistic undertone that comes out of it that says that because a belief is dearly held and popular that all others are invalid.  It all goes straight back to my generation who were determined to throw out the lessons of 100 generations of procreation and somehow expect a better result in our offspring.

It's where the entitlement charge comes from as well.

How can we blame millennials for dearly held left-field ideologies when we never told them they could be wrong?

Ladies and Gentlemen of Generation X.   You've raised a generation of suckers that will believe and suffer anything so long as it plays into the fantasy world we created for them.

I've seen nothing that better illustrates this point than the groundswell of support for Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders. Most of which comes from millennials.

There's nothing wrong with that per se' but when asked about the reasons for supporting him you hear a chorus of anti-establishment rhetoric with little substance.

Hey, I'd love to see all those things that Bernie is promising come to pass too.  But reality says that he's pushing an ideology.  He's selling a product no different than an IPhone or  a designer handbag.  It's promotion without substance with a marketing program that promises instant gratification.  Offer anything less at your own peril.

In fact even President Obama suffered a backlash shortly after transitioning from candidate to President because many supporters thought he should be doing more than he was.  As though the heavens were supposed to open up and vanquish all the evils of the world the moment he took the oath of office.

I've gotten into discussions with millennials over this and the common thread always comes back to a hyperactive belief in the need for immediate change without delay.  Consequences be damned!  We're going to save the planet and bring income equality to the world in a month.  If only these old "establishment" types would just hurry up and die already!

I can appreciate the commitment and the ambition especially when it's focused in a direction I happen to personally agree with.  But I don't buy anything based on its marketing.  I dig deeper which runs headlong into the entitlement mentality.

It seems just because you want something it should happen regardless of the consequences.  Ideologies are great for those weened on instant gratification but they ultimately end up as little more than lip service.

It's not that I believe that the millennial generation is any more naive or less intelligent.  I think they're responding to the programming we gave them.

Which is interesting because at some point in life you throw off that programming.  They say as we age we tend to get more conservative and cautious simply because we have more to lose and less time to recover.

I wouldn't be surprised that at some point when I'm just about ready to collect my paltry social security check of $1200 a month, the millennial generation is going to look a lot more like my parents, the baby boomers.

Remember that young baby boomers were just as much social activists as millennials are now.  In fact my generation spent years dodging the barbs for having no social conscience.  We were the "Do nothing" generation while our parents were lauded for changing social conscience and their parents for ushering in the modern age after winning world war 2.

But our parents eventually got older and with it more conservative.  For the  most part they took advantage of the trappings of the civilized world, raised families and relegated their activism to collections of Time Life "Sounds of the 60's." CD's.  Social justice was important but the climb up the corporate ladder even more so.

If any generation got idled it was theirs.  We still deal with pay inequality for women, stagnant wages and erosion of personal liberties.  What happened to all that activism in the 40 year's they've been in power?

Knee jerk legislation, mandatory sentencing for minor offenses and a income inequality unrivaled since the days of the 19th century robber barons.

I see a similar future for the millennial generation.  At some point you have to look past the packaging if you don't want to end up with maggots in your Twinkies.

If Generation X is to be saddled with the label of "doing nothing" it was simply because we didn't have the power or the cause to do to otherwise.  The world was finally made in an image acceptable to our parents and for a long time we didn't know any better.   As their children we didn't really have anything to complain about other than possible nuclear annihilation from cowboy politics..

You can, however, point to Generation X as the modern root of anti-corporate sentiment.  The boomers may have hated " The Man" but that pretty much ended when "The Man" started offering up company cars and golden parachutes.  The term "wage slave" entered the popular vocabulary during my generation as productivity went up and compensation went down.

In short, we were sold a bill of goods.  We were promised what our parents had but in the end we ended up being the first generation to have less than our parents.  All this while saddled with debilitating debt caused by an economy built on the premise that you could never really afford to buy anything.

Have you seen those "End of Life" insurance ads on TV.  Now you can't even get away from your bills when you die!  Since when is it commonplace to saddle your relatives with your bills?  Hell, when I go, just throw me off some cliff in the wilderness and let the coyotes get a meal.  How's that for environmentally friendly....

Still, with all that, I'm fortunate to have lived in a time where I saw technology rise from novelty to world changing.

When I was a kid music was still listened to on LP's and Cassette  tapes.  From there I saw the rise of the personal computer, the advent of mobile technology to now where connectivity is expected to be ubiquitous.  

So to millennials I can say this.  I get what you're after but don't dismiss my skepticism at your ideology.  I'm glad that your market power has forced a change in education and social awareness.  Just be aware that what you may think is anti-establishment is the same bill of goods that we were sold some 20 years ago.

And don't beat yourself up too badly if you realize somewhere around your mid 40's that liking a Facebook page wasn't really activism.  Step back and see what you've really accomplished before condemning those who've gone before you.

Yes, I still say it's my generation's fault that millennials seem a bit impatient and naive but so is any young generation just coming into their own power.  You can make the changes you want to see but it's not going to come from YouTube or social media or voting for unrealistic ideologies.

It will come from a unified effort toward real change.  An effort with a foundation that however flawed came from those that walked the path before you.

I don't care what Barbara Streisand says! People don't need Peeple

As I observe the goings on in the world thousands of ideas, opinions and prejudices swirl around in my head at any given moment.  Golden rule aside, in a flash my opinion of you can literally swing from love to hatred even if we've never spoken a word to each other. 

For instance, you may truly feel a deep, soul burning, hatred for the moron who cut across 3 lanes of rush hour traffic for seemingly no other reason than to further complicate your commute.  But as much as we may revel in those dark thoughts while caught up in the moment, a mile down the road most of us barely summon up the will to be apathetic.

Now imagine if you could form a complete profile of that person based on just that moment in time.

Which brings me to what I can only surmise is a product of the failure of the American public school system to teach anything worthwhile. 

Peeple...

I'm no great fan of social media.  It's just too subjective and frivolous a medium to be taken seriously.  That doesn't seem to stop misguided idealism from taking it to new heights of the ridiculous, however. 

Peeple is best described as an app that elevates the digital equivalent of a popularity contest to a pseudo-science self-worth metric.  Users can evaluate anyone they want so long as they have a relationship with the other person no matter how fleeting.

But that's not the real issue. 

Unlike match.com or Facebook, you don't get the choice to sign up for the abuse.  Instead anyone with a Smartphone and a Facebook account can snap an image and start evaluating you based on nothing more than personal opinion. 

The creators, Nicole McCullogh and Julia Cordray attempt to console us with the app's "integrity features" which among others includes being 21 years old, having an established Facebook account and affirming you actually know the person.  

Verification apparently comes from knowing the person's cell phone number.  A piece of data frequently found on social media and career sites without restriction. 

If you don't sign up for the service you can still end up being evaluated by it but only positive reviews will be allowed.  

Which seems fair if we're playing Devil's advocate but that would seem to invalidate the whole ratings system.  Why not limit ANY ratings to those that choose to BE rated by signing up?

I'm sure that part was for the lawyers.  The real intent is revealed in the discovery that Cordray originally wanted to just scrape names from Facebook but the Facebook API doesn't allow for that.  In other words, in her mind anyone with a Facebook account was fair game for the app.

We live in a very public world, that's a given.  What's disturbing is how many unreliable metrics can affect you in that world, especially online.  That an errant post on social media can cost someone a career or relationship would seem ridiculous were it not so frequently the case.

Even choosing not to participate in social media carries a stigma of its own.  As though being unwilling to participate in such juvenile antics is the mark of deviance and dangerous intent.  People have actually been dismissed from consideration for a job because of a lack of a social media presence. 

It's madness!

Who are we to judge anyway?  What happened to all that lofty idealism of valuing others based on the content of their character instead of the superficial. 

Should I be content to be evaluated like some unwitting head of cattle in an auction?  Is it OK to destroy someone in public simply because they weren't as nice as you'd have liked them to be or elevate them to a pedestal based on nothing more than a passing interest?

Peeple is described as Yelp for People.

To that I say this...

Rate your hotel room....fine

Rate your favorite restaurant ....fine

Rate your Uber driver....fine

Rate people...You've crossed the line!

TWIT: Say goodbye to being social

...and the hits keep comin!

I'm starting to feel like a gossip columnist but it's an occupational hazard when one follows the sinusoidal wave of chaos that TWIT appears to be lately.

While the bulk of TWIT programming has soldiered on with little change since my last article, when changes do happen they can be dramatic.

Take for instance the latest installment of Lisa Kentzell's "Changes at TWIT" found on the TWIT.TV home page and perhaps updated a bit too frequently.  

In it we find out:

• ·         OMGCraft is moving off the network
• ·         RedditUp is on hiatus
• ·         Marketing Mavericks is getting a new time slot (again)
• ·         The Social Hour is cancelled

Let's ignore the elephant in the room for a moment and deal with the less weighty of our little punch list.

OMGCraft:

While OMGCraft's appeal was admittedly niche, it was arguably a better show than say "Marketing Mavericks" with more of a following if it's companion YouTube channel is any indicator.  

Considering what the show started out as and what it became after joining TWIT's "official" lineup it's understandable that host Chad "OMGChad" Johnson would choose to take it off network.  If it returns to the more freeform format of its TWIT "beta" days it should do well for Johnson and I honestly hope that comes to pass.

RedditUP:

While mildly entertaining I never quite understood the point of this show.  Co-hosted by Sarah Lane and Chad Johnson, It covered the happenings of the social network that isn't, specifically Reddit.  While Lane and Johnson did their best,  the show was the equivalent of somebody building a podcast around their twitter feed. 

But at least it wasn't...

Marketing Mavericks:

So the wildly successful (that's sarcasm folks) marketing podcast is getting moved to another time slot, again.  This is the TWIT podcast that introduces viewers to those giants of industry that brought the world opt-out spam, singing chickens and pop-up ads.  

Considering the far more "niche" OMGCraft podcast consistently produces episodes that can crest 20,000 views on its associated YouTube channel, Marketing Mavericks by comparison struggles to reach 50.  Why this show continues while other more popular examples regularly get the boot is a continuing mystery.

Which brings us to the elephant in the room...

The Social Hour:

"...We are also retiring The Social Hour. Originally called net@night, it is one of our longest-running netcasts, starting when “social media” was still in its infancy. As the landscape has matured and trends have shifted towards apps, we feel that social media coverage is now a part of almost every show on our network..."

This one is almost on par with Tom Merritt leaving...

While admittedly "The Social Hour" at times seemed more like an hour spent with a couple of chattering valley girls, the content was nonetheless relevant to its audience.  With no social media rock left unturned even those with a passing interest could find something of use. 

Considering the strict adherence Laporte and Kentzell demand of TWIT shows to be profitable, it's longevity could only be a result of its popularity with viewers...right?

It's abrupt departure is likely more significant than it may seem on the surface.

The Social Hour debuted on March 30, 2011 picking up where its TWIT predecessor "Net@night" had left off with host Amber MacArthur and Sarah Lane taking over co-host duties from Laporte.  Meaning that some incarnation of the show had continuously ran for nearly 9 years on the TWIT network before being deemed "redundant."

The decision was apparently made within the last week as no indication of the show's cancellation was indicated during the most recent episode that found Lane closing with, "We will see you next week."

Apparently not Sarah...

There was no episode of "The Social Hour" (not even a rerun) during its normal timeslot this week making the hour long void between "Know How" and "Coding 101" conspicuously present. 

Even the show's icon had been moved to the "retired shows" section of the twit.tv website.  A small but powerful statement as most retired shows have historically remained in the "current shows" lineup for at least a month.

The justification, " ...we feel that social media coverage is now a part of almost every show on our network..." plays to the supposed redundancy of content.  Yet TWIT still maintains not one but 3 shows based on the Apple Ecosystem with Macbreak weekly frequently rehashing content from Ipad Today, I5 for the Iphone not to mention This Week in Tech.

And what of the lackluster Tech News Today (TNT)?  Are we to infer that because a topic is covered that any other presentation is considered redundant as well?

Then we must conclude that other TWIT shows like Windows Weekly, Security Now, This Week in Tech and a host of others that regularly cover the same content as TNT are also on the chopping block.

It seems a double standard is at play here...

Perhaps this is part of a grand plan to eliminate any show on the TWIT network that may threaten the relevance of the news department. 

Although I don't see how that's possible considering the lack of improvement in Elgan's performance on TNT after 9 months.   TNT is nowhere to be found on the Itunes top 40 tech podcasts.  Which begs the question, if TNT isn't popular any more and isn't making enough money for TWIT because of it then isn't TNT itself "redundant?"

If we apply the same standard to TNT as has been brought to bear on other TWIT shows that have been cancelled then TNT must itself be discontinued.      

Don't hold your breath...

Kentzell has stated in the past that her goal was to make TWIT less dependent on Laporte's persona and allow him more personal time away from the network.  Truth be told, by and large he has backed away from all but the core TWIT shows.  In that respect she's succeeded but even a cursory examination of Laporte's demeanor over the past year suggests that the changes may not have yielded the expected results.

Watch any recent podcast of "The Tech Guy," Laporte's syndicated radio show, and frequently the lovable teddy bear of tech is instead curt and irritable.  For example, a recent caller to the show found themselves on the receiving end of the "dump button" because Laporte was unhappy with the pace of the caller's question and later justified the action by saying the caller, "just wanted a free phone."  

It's not an isolated incident either...

Even Laporte's guests aren't immune as they're often talked over or cut off mid sentence regardless of the proximity of a commercial break.  It's almost as though Laporte is in a race to the finish of every show and would rather be somewhere else.

It's likely the result of stress but unfortunately it appears that even indulging in the recreation that only Laporte's wealth can bring still can't alleviate it.

For his own sake, perhaps Laporte should consider just leaving things be at TWIT for awhile. 

Facebook buys Oculus VR, not as left-field as you think

Originally published on Kupeesh!

By now you've heard the big news...

Facebook has bought Oculus VR, the company at the forefront of virtual reality products aimed at the consumer and de facto mascot for the power of crowd sourcing.

The real question is, what does VR have to do with social media?  Does Mark Zuckerberg expect us all to start running around with VR headsets poking fingers at the empty air screaming "Like!" and "Friend!"

Zuckerberg has an answer...

"... we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face -- just by putting on goggles in your home."

Zuckerberg the futurist or maybe it's more like Zuckerberg coming to the realization that Facebook as a service is losing relevance. 

Enter Facebook, the brand.  Remember the failed HTC First?  It was the short-lived Smartphone that forced users into the Facebook ecosystem whether they wanted it or not.  It was the first indication that the Facebook bandwagon was losing a wheel.

As early as October of last year the company warned advertisers that "organic reach" will eventually be inconsequential.  "Organic reach," by the way,  is the number of Facebook page views that don't come from your "Fans" or "Friends" but rather from sources like search engines and shared links outside of the service.

That means advertisers have to work harder to attract eyeballs as veteran users become increasingly jaded against ads they have no interest in.  Not good news for a free service that depends on ad revenue.

There's little doubt that many of Zuckerberg's visions will come to pass but whether they're all Facebook properties remains to be seen.  It's far more likely that this move is meant to elevate Facebook the brand above Facebook the service. 

Much like Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility in 2011 it's less about owning a space than creating a halo effect around the brand.    In Google's case, they didn't need to dominate the Android device market to dictate what it looked like.  Mission accomplished and now Motorola Mobility is on its way to Lenovo sans a few patents safely kept in Google's breast pocket.

We're entering what could be called the "Post-services" era.  It's more about the halo around a brand than the products themselves.  History is on Zuckerberg's side.  Nobody thinks of Google as just a search engine anymore and Zuckerberg is betting that Facebook can evolve beyond social media. 

Much to the dismay (or the delight) of IP attorneys everywhere we may soon view online Icons like Facebook, Google and Twitter the same way we look at Ford, Chevy and Toyota.   You'll be picking brand not product.

But fear not social media addicts.  Facebook the service will always remain a place to jeopardize future job prospects by posting embarrassing videos of yourself.

Social Media is a lie

Social Media is a lie

There, I said it and you know damned well that it's true.  Popular culture has adopted the premise of social media being the new normal.  That's what people mean when they overuse the term "ubiquitous" by the way.

We're told to carefully curate our Facebook pages and polish our LinkedIn profiles to ensure that we're giving the "right" impression to any drive-by onlookers who may take a passing interest.  I mean we wouldn't want to send the wrong message would we?

Prospective employers love social media.  It's a quick and dirty way to get the goods on candidates without ever having to meet them.  In other words your social media persona might as well be another copy of your resume, dating profile and background report all in one neat multimedia package.

So best be sure it's showing you in your best light...Which defeats the purpose.

Knowing that almost everyone engaged in social media is either lying or too naive to realize the ramifications of that video from your last trip to Vegas means none of it has value.

The only people who are honest are the ones with nothing to lose which is exactly .000000001%.  Good luck finding that needle in the haystack and when you do try not to be disappointed when you find out those people aren't that interesting.

Social media is less about connecting than providing a mechanism for personal advertisement.  Which means it's about as useful as a commercial for a feminine hygiene product. 

Social media is just an outgrowth of a society built on lies.  We choose political candidates based on which one's empty promises we're most aligned with.  We associate with people that otherwise would never get the  time of day if we think they can be of use to us.  We go along with the popular groupthink for fear of repercussion should we speak our own minds.

Keep social media in the context of a public facing mask and you'll stay out of trouble.  Ignore the starry eyed optimists proclaiming how connected the world is because of it.  It's not, if you live in Nebraska the chances that you actually care about anything going on in Uzbekistan are negligible.  So long as there's that strong "media" component in social media (meaning it's fake) it's nothing more than personal marketing of a false image.

In short, keeping it real does not include being a social media maven.  Reality has nothing to do with it at all.