Last week, I returned to Berkeley to defend my dissertation on the Day of Atonement (ironic, eh?). This involved both a public dissertation talk and a private defense. The public talk was an opportunity for me to share my findings with my department. The private defense was an opportunity for my committee to share their critiques and feedback with me. For those sitting on pins and needles, don't worry, I passed. What this means is that my committee has now handed me a tree's worth of paper covered in red pen and 2.5 hours worth of feedback to integrate in the next 6-8 weeks. Luckily, their general attitude was: "Good job! You're almost there! Here's a few thoughts for the dissertation and a large stack of thoughts for the book."

This now means that I'm officially in the final throes of my PhD. I'm not yet Dr. but I'm close... real close... the kind of close where failing to finish is not an option. The kind of close where looking at my dissertation makes me want to vomit. The kind of close where I've started dreaming about the next project. The kind of close where I'm no longer convinced that I'm going to fail and where I'm completely shocked that this is for realz. Of course, it's not yet over... I still need to edit this puppy and get it into a format that the Borg will accept at which point I will need to deftly enact circus tricks to get it through the layers of UC bureaucracy. But still... close! I can see the light!

The whole defense process was pretty emotionally overwhelming. I'm super duper thankful for the most amazing committee a girl can ask for. I call them the goddesses because they have been truly supportive in ways that I wasn't really prepared for. That said, I can't help but miss Peter. I wasn't alone in this thought. Right before my defense, Mimi posted a Tweet that got me all choked up: "happy to get to play proud advisor today though really wishing a certain other advisor was here to share the moment." We were all missing him. Many of those who attended my public talk had him on their mind and when I got to the end of my slide deck, I concluded with a dedication to Peter. Upon seeing tears in the eyes of people in the room, I had to choke back my own for the second time that day.

It's weird to be nearing the end and to realize that I'm about to move on to a new phase in my life. Everyone says that post-PhD is much better than grad school. I hope they're right. My body certainly hopes they're right. At the same time, it's been an unbelievable 5.5 years. I can't help but think of all that I've learned and done and the amazing people that I've been able to work with. I still can't believe that Berkeley's iSchool and my committee let me get away with all that I've done. When I started at Berkeley, Peter promised me that it would be the perfect place to cause trouble and grow into my own kind of scholar. He vowed to protect me as long as I vowed to kick ass and take names. I can't help but smile thinking about those conversations and I hope that, somewhere out there, he's smiling too.

dissertation defense

I'm heading to London on Sunday to speak at Handheld Learning 2008 with a bunch of other cool smart thinking types. I've been remiss in posting this because I've been totally focused on my dissertation but I'm looking forward to this event and I think that some of you (especially all y'all Londoners) might enjoy it. w00t!!

conference

When I read the Chicago Tribune's coverage of why teens have eschewed dates for school dances, I wanted to scream. This shift has nothing to do with "the way young people view personal relationships in the age of Facebook, MySpace and Twitter" (and not just because teens don't use Twitter in significant numbers yet). And this is certainly not because teens are being "shaped" by these technologies such that they "consider friendship the highest form of compliment, making dating, and sometimes even high school love, irrelevant." Even in the context of the article, the supposed experts and teens are voicing very different explanations for what's going on.

School dances have traditionally been structured around mating rituals, dating back to a point in time when parents encouraged teens to go on such structured dates in order to find the ideal partner. This is no longer the era in which we live. Parents are no longer encouraging serious relationships in high school; quite the opposite. Even teens are no longer treating high school as the place to find their future husband/wife. Decades ago, teen dating turned into a different kind of ritual, one driven by status and validation and decoupled from pair bonding. While not having a date had long been stigmatized, the cost became purely social rather than marriage.

For decades after school dances were about pair bonding, teens scrambled to get dates to school dances purely as a form of plumage - a prom date was simply proof that one wasn't a social pariah. Many teens went to school dances with people with whom they had no sexual relations whatsoever. Yet, by the 1990s, LGBT pressures started mounting actions against heteronormative dynamics at school dances. Some schools started allowing same-sex partners to go to school dances together. In some places, teen girls started repurposing this "freedom" to opt to go to the school dance with their best friend even though there was no romantic interest involved. The date-based school dance ritual began crumbling decades ago in different ways across the country. Thankfully, schools caught up and many stopped requiring dates to attend. This, in turn, motivated many teens to eschew dates altogether.

If you're an adult, think back to your own teenage years. How many of you hated your homecoming or prom date? How many of you went with a friend of the opposite sex with no romantic feelings? How many of you stressed about finding a date, keeping a relationship going long enough to make it to the dance, or otherwise dealing with the potential dramas of being single for the dance? Now, imagine if the school said that you no longer needed to have a date. And imagine if the social norms caught up so that not having a date was not a stigmatized reality. Would you have gone with friends and simply had a good time? Hell yeah you would've.

What's happening is not a radical shift in teen friendship practices. It's about the collapse of an outmoded, outdated mating ritual. It has nothing to do with technology. It has everything to do with social norms relieving unnecessary pressures that no one liked anyhow. Teens aren't going date-less because friendship is suddenly more important. Teens are going date-less because it's socially acceptable and teens haven't wanted the pressure to have a date for decades. Dating is much simpler when you don't have to secure a date for an important night months ahead of time and then fret about the possibility that that tenuous relationship might fall apart. Even teens who are dating would prefer to buy a single ticket, go with their friends, and meet up with their significant other at the event.

Why this is so shocking to people is beyond me. Teen dances are finally looking more like 20-something dances than images of dances from the 1950s. How do 20-somethings to to bars, clubs, and other events that involve dancing? They gather with their friends, and go out en masse. Those who are dating include their significant other in the group and there are often networks of connections to other groups going out. The fact that teens are modeling 20-somethings should not be surprising to anyone. Teens have long modeled up. Why shouldn't they be modeling contemporary practices instead of those that only exist in the movies?

Please... can we get real about teens? Can we please realize that what they're doing is totally logical given broader societal norms and not some radical cognitive change?

PS: Teens are still dating and many find having a significant other to be important. Some value that sig-other more than they value their friends, but the old sayings of "bros before hos" and "chicks before dicks" still stand in most communities. But to think that teen dating is gone is completely foolish. Just because teens don't want "dates" doesn't mean that they don't want sig-others.

teens dating friendship courtship rituals dances

Last week, Pew released a report on "Teens, Video Games, and Civics" that made its way around the web (see posts by Mimi Ito, Amanda Lenhart, Cathy Davidson). Briefly, some findings:

• Almost all (97%) of teens play games. They play many different kinds of games and gender is a salient factor.

• Gaming is often social and teens often game with people they know.
• Parental monitoring of game play varies.
• Teens encounter both pro-social and anti-social behavior while gaming.
• There are civic dimensions to video game play.

I want to follow-up on that last finding and the connected findings because it's important. Games are regularly referenced as proof that the world is ending. The stereotypical image of a gamer is an oily-haired, pimply-faced geeky boy with no social skills or interest in human interaction. The prevalence of gaming amongst youth dispels that notion, but there is still a myth that those who game are anti-social. As such, it is often assumed that gaming makes people anti-social, anti-community, anti-civic.

Pew's findings show that there is no correlation between civic/political activity and gaming. In other words, high participation in gaming does not decrease civic participation. That said, gaming characteristics and in-person social gaming are correlated with civic engagement. Likewise, in-depth participation that involves social interaction related to the game (like participating in forums) is also correlated with civic engagement. Most importantly, "civic gaming experiences are more equally distributed than many other civic learning opportunities" because teens can get access to civic gaming experiences even when they can't get access to other forms of civic life.

In other words, participation in gaming does not cause a decrease in civic participation and, if anything, certain forms of gaming activity are correlated with civic engagement (although causality cannot be determined).

All too often, we blame technology for the downfall of society. Gaming has long been the super demon, the crux of media effects panics. It's fantastic to have a study to point to that conclusively shows that our fears make no sense. Yet, this also raises important questions:

• If there are correlations between civic engagement and gaming practices, can we engender certain forms of civic participation through gaming? In other words, is the link connected to other factors or is there an element of causality at play?

• If we understand that teens with certain practices are more likely to be civically minded, can we tap them there for other forms of civic engagement?
• Are there ways to design games that encourage civically minded participation?
• What will it take for people to stop fearing games and realize that learning takes place beyond the classroom?

gaming civics report

Earlier this week, I had the honor of giving a talk at the opening of the Microsoft Research New England Lab. I have uploaded a crib of that talk, entitled "Understanding Socio-Technical Phenomena in a Web2.0 Era" for anyone who is interested in what I had to say. The abstract is here:

Web2.0 signals an iteration in Internet culture, shaped by changes in technology, entrepreneurism, and social practices. Beneath the buzzwords that flutter around Web2.0, people are experiencing a radical reworking of social media. Networked public spaces that once catered to communities of interest are now being leveraged by people of all ages to connect with people they already know. Social network sites like MySpace and Facebook enable people to map out their social networks in order to create public spaces for interaction. People can use social media to vocalize their thoughts, although having a blog or video feed doesn't guarantee having an audience. Tagging platforms allow people to find, organize and share content in entirely new ways. Mass collaborative projects like Wikipedia allow people to collectively create valuable cultural artifacts. These are but a few examples of Web2.0.

Getting to the core of technologically-mediated phenomena requires understanding the interplay between everyday practices, social structures, culture, and technology. In this talk, I will map out some of what's currently taking place, offer a framework for understanding these phenomena, and discuss strategies for researching emergent practices.

Videos of my talk along with the other talks at the event can be found here. For those interested in computer science education (or CS in general), I strongly recommend the one by Erik Demaine (where he makes a compelling case for how computer science is everywhere). For those into design, definitely check out the talk by Bill Buxton (where he refutes the notion that everyone is a designer). Both of these talks had me giggling and smiling for hours.

talk msr

Over at the Berkman Center, a bunch of Fellows put together The Internet Lexicon (spearheaded by none other than The Great David Weinberger). The Internet Lexicon is "a wiki-based list of Webby people whose names are treated as if they were definable words." To make me giggle uncomfortably, someone (presumably David) defined me:

boyd, danah (v) to provide an environment for floating new ideas. E.g., "Sociologists were boyd by the research showing the class differences between Facebook and MySpace."

Some other entertaining ones:

shirky, clay (n) A tool for opening the most securely locked objects. E.g., "We'll never get past this door...unless someone has brought a shirky."

wu, tim (v) to attempt to persuade while staying strictly neutral.

zuckerman, ethan (n) One who pays equal attention to all species, no matter how exotic or unfamiliar. E.g., "Who takes care of the zoo? Why, the zuckerman, of course!"

zittrain, jonathan (n) a passenger locomotive conveying one in a direction over which one may be powerless. E.g., "I wish I could stand and pull the emergency brake cord to prevent this vehicle from plunging over a cliff, but it is, alas, a zittrain."

And of course, one cannot forget David:

weinberger, david (n) a delicious sandwich that makes sense of countless miscellaneous ingredients in an entertaining fashion. E.g., "The acclaimed chef threw up his hands and let his customers combine his mis-en-place, venison and precious truffles into fantastic weinbergers."

::giggle:: Happy One Web Day!! Cheers to the Internet and its role in shaping society! ::clink::

onewebday internet

Guess who has a post-dissertation job? [Yes, that implies I'm actually going to finish this *#$@! dissertation.] ::bounce:: In January, I will be joining the newly minted Microsoft Research New England in Boston, MA. w00000t!!!!! I couldn't be more ecstatic.

For those who don't know Microsoft Research (MSR), it's a pure research lab. What this means is that researchers are hired to advance the state of knowledge in their respective areas of research. MSR is a different structure than Microsoft proper and researchers are expected to publish in peer-reviewed journals and they are evaluated on the contributions they make to the field. Researchers are welcome to collaborate with whoever they please, engage with students at local institutions, and co-teach classes if that'll help them fulfill their research agendas. Researchers are welcome to pursue the research topics that they find to be interesting and important. In essence, being a MSR researcher is quite similar to being a faculty at a research institution. To the shock of most folk, MSR is not about directly contributing to the bottom line of Microsoft, but about advancing knowledge that will benefit the future of computing.

As many of you know, I've been quite cagey about the possibility of the future for quite some time. I've been frustrated with academic restrictions and fearful that academia wouldn't let me do the kind of research that I wanted to do. I've been equally scared of industrial research because I've watched too much research get trapped down behind closed corporate walls. I've always been in awe of MSR because of its openness but I wasn't really jumping to move to Redmond. I had been pretty set that I was going to go independent and pay the bills through freelancing. Then, a funny combination of events happened.

It all began with Dopplr. Linda Stone noticed that I was swinging through Seattle and she called me up and told me that I had to do dinner with her. Linda's plots are always tremendous so of course I said yes. When I arrived, she introduced me to Jennifer Chayes and Christian Borgs, the physicists who were starting the new MSR lab. Jennifer immediately began interrogating me about my research and about social science more broadly. To say Jennifer & I clicked is a bit of an understatement. Like me, Jennifer is loud, crazy, and intense. We got along like peas in a pod and spent the night chattering away. When she told me that I should come work for her, I laughed it off and didn't think much about it. But I couldn't stop thinking about it.

Jennifer and Christian's vision for the lab aligned with my view of research. They believe in interdisciplinary work, believe in the ways that new ideas can come from unexpected collaborations. While I know a lot of social scientists who curl their nose at the idea of a lab full of physicists, mathematicians, and economists, I find that quite appealing. I love the idea of such a diverse group thinking about how the world works from different angles. Plus, meeting the folks at the new lab - Henry Cohn, Yael Kalai, Adam Kalai, and Butler Lampson - only made me more intrigued by it. Everyone was so ridiculously nice and even though we didn't work on the same problems we found funny intersections.

The more that I talked with folks at MSR, the more I fell in love with the possibility of going there. And then I started meeting with execs and realized that what MSR researchers were telling me fit with broader strategy. I met with Rick Rashid, the head of MSR, who explained why he started MSR and how he saw it fit into the company. I met with Ray Ozzie (who I've known and adored for quite some time) and he confirmed the importance of research for the future of Microsoft. Both of them made me feel fully confident that my approach to research would not only be tolerated but welcomed. Plus, there's a broad desire to understand the intersections between computing and all things social which is straight up my alley.

As the pieces came together, I realized that it just made complete sense. Going to MSR will allow me to continue the research I do and it will give me a productive, collaborative, interdisciplinary environment in which to do it. There's amazing work at MSR concerning social media and even those at MSR-NE who are not working on social media are more than open to the topics engendered by it and more than ecstatic to engage with me. Being in a room full of scientists might not seem like the most obvious fit, but really, you have to meet them to understand how invigorating an environment it is.

Personally, going to MSR will mean a continuation of the good things that I do and a reduction of the things that exhaust me. I will continue to publish, go to conferences, and blog. I will keep my Berkman Center fellowship. I will continue public speaking, political interventions, and sitting on advisory boards. I will get involved in the intellectual communities in Cambridge and collaborate with scholars. I will escape dissertation hell (w00t!). I will escape IRB bureaucracy and have a much more sane ethics review process. I will stop consulting and doing private corporate talks. I will get to lower travel to a sane level. All of this will be possible because I will get paid to do the research that I want to do.

I have no doubt that this move prompts concerned questions from those who know me as well as those who don't, so let me take a moment to pre-emptively respond to criticisms that I've already heard...

• But you hated Boston... It's true that Boston and I weren't the closest of friends. We've called a truce and we're going to see what happens. One thing is for certain: I can't wait to get back to some very dear friends (although I will miss my west-coast pals). And I *cannot* wait to get back to my favorite gym in the whole wide word: Healthworks. Mmmm... oh goddess do I love that woman-friendly place. I'm even kinda excited by the idea of turtlenecks. I think I look HOTT in turtlenecks.

• But you're a Mac fiend... In every company I've ever worked for, I've always used products produced by competitors. I think that companies who expect employees to buy into their product line hook, line, and sinker are cults. Much can be learned by understanding why people know about your product and prefer a different one. There are plenty of Microsoft products that I use and adore, but I ain't giving up my beloved Xanadu. And, surprisingly, Microsoft respects this and is willing to let me continue to work on a Mac.
• But industry research is selling out! When research is useful, people use it. It doesn't matter if you're in industry or academia - if you publish for others to read, you're a fool if you don't think it'll get used. MSR is giving me the opportunity to direct my research agenda and produce scholarship for the public good. They will inevitably use what I produce, but they would've anyhow. In any other configuration, I would have (and have) consulted for private companies to make ends meet. There is no doubt that I will effectively consult for Microsoft but my research, like always, will be for the public good. I will continue to publish and I will probably publish more since I won't be writing grant applications or consulting.
• But job security!?!? I find it odd that academics always point to job security as the reason to stay in academia because I am watching too many of my favorite elder scholars struggle desperately to get research grants to keep their labs going. How is grant-driven academia that forces you to give up research to go out begging for grants considered job security? And besides, I'm happy to keep producing quality work steadily over time rather than racing the hamster wheel for 7 years. At least at MSR, I don't have to wait to get tenure to be rebellious.
• But Microsoft is the devil incarnate! Years ago, I crafted a post comparing search companies to evil nation states of the 20th century. I think that my metaphors still hold and I've already worked for (and survived) Japan and the States. There is plenty about Microsoft's history that I have problems with. There are even issues today that I disagree with. But I've never been a part of a company (or a nation-state) that I fully agreed with. Even though I dream of going to Canada, I plan to stick it out here and push to make change. Likewise, even inside Microsoft, when I disagree, I will say so. I don't think that Microsoft is the devil, but I think that they've done some really stupid things and are actually working hard to right some of their past wrongs. I commend them for this. And hopefully I can do some good by being there. When I told Bill Buxton that I intended to address this issue here, he offered another perspective: "there's no merit to being an angel in heaven." I like that. That's a good one.

I have every expectation that folks out there will not understand my reasoning and will think poorly of me for choosing to go to MSR, but I'm utterly ecstatic. My interactions with folks at MSR have been non-stop fantabulous. It's an intellectually stimulating environment where I will have the resources and space to do my research and the encouragement to pursue a social media agenda. And frankly, I can't wait. I can't wait to be a part of an invigorating research environment. I can't wait to think about the intersections of science and social science. I can't wait to begin a new project and publish, publish, publish. I'm a bit wary about the snow, but we'll work on that one. At the end of the day, I couldn't be more pleased. w00000t!!!!!

microsoft research future job

When I first learned that Oprah was doing a show on internet predators, I was wary. Her site emphasized a list of rules for kids centered around "don't talk to strangers" and centered around the language of "Internet sex predators" and linked to Dateline's very problematic show. I was concerned that she might use her stature to further ongoing myths about online predation. Oprah proved me wrong. Her show wasn't talking about internet predators in the sense most people do (although her website reinforces myths); her show focused on the connection between internet child pornography and physical molestation in communities.

Her show detailed the very real and very horrific child porn industry and the ways in which the content being produced continues to grow more and more graphic, especially as live videos are made of young children (often the man's child) being molested and harmed based on requests by child porn consumers. An investigator detailed the ways in which child molesters use child porn to normalize their abuse of children that they know. Oprah repeatedly emphasized that most children know their molesters and that the real risks for molestation are very local - family members, neighbors, community members. The experts she brought in were very knowledgeable and clear about what they didn't know. For example, the investigator made it clear that we simply don't know the causality relations of consuming child porn and molestation but that data suggests that there is overlap a decent percentage of the time and that there is no doubt that large numbers of children are harmed in the making of this content. Three teenagers and their parents discussed one of their neighbors who was convicted of drugging and molesting them and at least 5 other of his daughter's friends. This molester was found through his child porn consumption and investigators found videos of him molesting these girls. Although each of the three girls had their doubts about their friend's dad, none of them knew that they were being molested while drugged until the videos were found.

The Internet connection is interesting in all of this. The investigator made it very clear that the Internet allows him to trace the networks of potential child porn distributors, but he simply does not have the resources to follow up on all of the leads. Oprah emphasized that only 2% of leads are ever followed. Although a few pot shots are taken at the Internet for enabling distribution, there's an implicit message that the Internet is actually enabling investigators to get a better handle on the problem. That said, because of lack of resources, they simply cannot do anything about the issue. Oprah leverages this point to drive home an action item: call your Senators to ask them to pass Senate Bill 1738, the "PROTECT Our Children Act." Unlike other bills meant to stop the Internet, 1738 focuses on providing resources for investigators, FBI, prosecutors, and other elements of law enforcement to investigate, prosecute, convict, and sentence molesters, partially through the channels of child pornography distribution.

Of course, 1738 is introduced by Biden and Obama (and Clinton) so there are questions of partisanship and I've heard rumblings that McCain introduced a similar bill. And there are questions of how much money should be spent. Unfortunately, I can't really suss out what's happening in the Senate around this bill. Why hasn't it been passed? Is it all a matter of politics or are there real issues? Are there things in the bill I should be worried about? I read what I thought was the final text and it seems completely sane to me but maybe I'm missing something.

Still, at the end of the day, I have to commend Oprah for a very real and non-sensational portrait of one aspect of the child molestation issue. I'm also very thankful for her very practical realism about the Internet in this issue. The Internet is undoubtedly allowing easier access to child porn, but it is also allowing investigators to get at guys who show no other markers of their molestation. And I agree with the solution 100%: more funds for law enforcement and much higher penalties for molesters.

[Note: the emphasis on this show was the graphic child porn in which children are clearly abused or harmed in the making of content intended for distribution. There are other classes of child porn which are more complicated and require different prevention mechanisms. For example, porn that is the product of teens and tweens creating nude photos or sex videos of themselves or their friends, whether distributed intentionally or not, is a different class of child porn. The harm in these cases is not often in the making of the content, but the ways in which it gets distributed. Additionally, there are huge issues about how teens and tweens are getting validated or seeking validation by peers through such self-portraiture.]

oprah molestation childporn pornography legislation 1738

When Nicole and I were trying to decide what term to use and how to define it, we struggled with the many misinterpretations of social networking sites. "We chose not to employ the term "networking" for two reasons: emphasis and scope. 'Networking' emphasizes relationship initiation, often between strangers. While networking is possible on these sites, it is not the primary practice on many of them, nor is it what differentiates them from other forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC)." To our frustration, online dating sites and community forums and other such sites were all getting lumped into the frame "social networking sites." To clarify, we purposely employed "social network site" to emphasize that what makes this genre of social media unique is the way that it allows people to publicly articulate (and leverage) their social network. It's a small shift, but a significant one. Some people leverage their network to engage in networking, but many don't. We wanted to account for this and really scope out what made a specific genre of social media unique.

Folks thought we were crazy. I can't tell you how many tech folks have told me that no one thinks that "social networking sites" implies that people meet new people. Yet, the moment I walk into any public audience where non-tech parents are present, I'm confronted about how the whole purpose of these sites is to help strangers meet, no? It's been clear to me for a long time that there's a divide in understanding when the term "social networking site" is employed. And that has tremendous ramifications for how people engage with these sites and how they are politicized (and regulated).

Well, this curshuffle isn't over. Today, Tech Crunch reported a brewing controversy over an application that encourages collecting of Friends. An email sent from Facebook to a user states:

Please note that Facebook accounts are meant for authentic usage only. This means that we expect accounts to reflect mainly "real-world" contacts (i.e. your family, schoolmates, co-workers, etc.), rather than mainly "internet-only" contacts. As stated on our home page, Facebook is a social utility that connects you with the people around you, not a "social networking site". It is meant to help reinforce pre-existing social connections, not build large groups of new ones. If this is in direct contrast to what you expected as legitimate Facebook usage, I apologize for any confusion. This is simply the intention behind the site.

TechCrunch responds by noting that people do connect to people that they don't know and gives an example of a public figure in the tech world who has mostly connected to people he doesn't know personally. My co-author Nicole takes up this issue to point out that data shows that most (but obviously not all) users are not engaged in mass connecting to strangers. Fred Stutzman takes this in a different direction by emphasizing that a corporate mantra doesn't necessarily dictate practice. Later, TechCrunch posted an update from Facebook:

To simplify this a bit, users on Facebook cannot have more than one account and creating another account for the purpose of playing this game violates our Terms of Use. We recognize and appreciate that each person uses Facebook based on their own interests and preferences and are happy to see people meeting new friends on Facebook. To ensure users are comfortable on the site and not burdened by unsolicited contact, we encourage users to add people that reflect their real-world connections and create trusted networks.

Putting these pieces together, we should collectively experience a massive wave of deja vu. Feel the wave, feel it... cuz you know where we saw this issue before? Friendster. Let's back up.

Nicole is 100% correct that people primarily use Facebook (and MySpace and Friendster) to interact with people they already know. We know this and that's why we agree that the term "social networking site" is a bit of a red herring. Labeling is simply political and we believed that it's better to label a genre in a way that best reflects the practices taking place rather than use a term that signals something that is not dominant. (This is particularly important when, as in the case of these sites, the term is used to create cultural misinformation so as to add fire to a moral panic.)

That said, the categorical term that we use to label a particular site or genre of social media does NOT determine practice. The intentions of the designers do NOT determine practice. The demand of the company does NOT determine practice. In science and technology studies (STS), we have a term for this foolish worldview - it's called "technological determinism" and calling someone a "technological determinist" is an insult. Unfortunately, far too often, companies take on this reductionist role and expect that the technology will determine practice.

A different approach is the "social construction of technology" (see: Bijker, Hughes & Pinch). SCOT argues that technologies shape people and people shape technologies. Practices are not determined by technology, but are driven by how people incorporate technology into their lives. Technologies are then shaped and reshaped to meet people's needs and desires. In essence, technologies and people evolve together.

When companies and users fail to hold the same worldview, companies typically make one of two moves. Either they roll with user practice and try to encourage the good and shape the bad. In other words, they adopt principles that connect with SCOT. Or they try to demand that users behave exactly as they think they should. This latter approach is often labeled "configuring the users" (see: Grint & Woolgar). Needless to say, configuring users has a bad rap. This means that the companies are trying to demand that users fit into their box and punish them when they construct the technology in ways other than designed.

I dealt with these issues before with Friendster. [See Etech 2004 talk and None of this is Real article.] I also talked about how Friendster made an ass of themselves by acting like arrogant dictators of practice and how other companies could learn from this [See: Friendster vs. MySpace essay and Etech 2006 talk].

So how does this apply to this situation? Facebook is undoubtedly first and foremost about pre-existing networks. As a company, Facebook has every right to stop whatever behaviors it does or does not like. Banning applications that promote collecting is fair game. That said, there are costs to placing restrictions on desired practice, particularly if it results in stopping a large number (or influential group) of people from using the system in ways that they think are best. In other words, if their "intention behind the site" and what others "expected as legitimate Facebook usage" are in great conflict, there's a problem. What is particularly interesting is that they then move on to say that "accounts that are used solely for the purpose of applications are in violation of their TOS" as if this automatically implies non-authentic usage. This is quite fascinating because I'm sure that plenty of legitimate users created accounts for this. I know people who created accounts for Causes or to play Scrabulous (RIP). Upon clarification, they take a different tactic to say that users "cannot have more than one account." It's not clear if the person deleted indeed had multiple accounts or not, but there are plenty of people with only one account who for all intents and purposes engage in the practice of collecting.

Of course, I've always found the TOS restriction against multiple accounts quite dubious. Back in the day, when I was obsessed with structural holes, I did a lot of research on people who held multiple accounts. I was fascinated when I started meeting gay men in Europe who had different SIM cards so that they could decide whether to answer their phone as "gay" or "straight." I know soooo many people who break this TOS for very legitimate reasons involving the potential cost of context collisions. Teachers who have a teacher-friendly profile and a personal one, local politicians and micro-celebrities who have a public profile (not page) and one for their close friends, professionals who have a profile for their college buddies and one for their more presentable side, etc. Still, it is a TOS item.

Yet, the idea that gameplay amongst collecting only occurs through a game is preposterous. I know many folks who collect... micro-celebrities who feel awkward saying no to fans, teenage boys who are hoping to get as many cute girls to notice them as possible, college students running for student government who want to get the attention of as many peers as possible, etc. Hell, as I talk about in Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8, there are all sorts of reasons why people engage in collecting, not the least of which has to do with status.

OK, so they don't like collecting and multiple accounts and Apps that encourage them. That's their right and they can boot folks. But I find it interesting that there's no room for dialogue or recourse: "Unfortunately, I will not be able to reactivate your account... this decision is final." That's where things get very very nasty. People put time and effort into creating a profile in a walled garden and then with the click of a few keys, the company can disappear you in a matter of moments with no opportunity for recourse for failing to abide by its terms and, more significantly, the "intention behind the site." That's where Friendster got itself into MASSIVE trouble in their games of whack-a-mole during the "Fakester genocide." Configuring users, pointing to the TOS to justify deletion, and going after anyone who sees the site differently is a recipe for uh-oh.

Of course, lots of folks have been disappeared from Facebook already. You can piss off a lot of people who lack connections and power, but when you piss off the wrong people, you've got a PR nightmare on your hands. And, like it or not, with a blog read by millions, Michael Arrington and his connections are the wrong folks to piss off.

STS SCOT control

Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you know at least two of the candidates running for President. You might even know the Congresspeople running or if you have a Senator race this year. But do you know who is running for city council, school board, state legislature, or judge? If you have propositions, do you know what they are? Do your friends? Sadly, for most Americans, the answer is a profound no. This can be fixed.

Our democracy is most effective when we have an informed citizenry. This does not just pertain to federal elections, but elections at all levels. Often, the local elections are the most important. The judges that you elect to superior court might be nominated for Supreme Court a few years from now. The people you send to state legislature may be running for federal office in no time. Who you help get experience at the local level shapes what happens at the federal level in all sorts of direct and indirect ways. Furthermore, it affects your life directly.

Wading through information on local elections is undoubtedly a pain in the ass. Sure, you're about to be inundated with pamphlets telling you which way to vote and if your local newspaper is still functioning, they will inevitably list who they want you to vote for. But is this really what it means to be informed? I think not. Rather than waiting to be told what to do, I vote that each and every one of you hosts a party where you leverage the collective intelligence of those around you.

Steps for throwing a ballot party:

1. Find your local ballot and make a list of all items that you need to know something about. Make sure to include state legislature, county supervisors, city council, school board, judges, and all local and state propositions. Include anything unique to your area. And if it makes sense, include the federal races, although I usually skip those altogether.

2. Invite your friends to your house for a ballot party... promise alcohol. Encourage them to indicate which items they'd prefer to research and to invite a friend or two.
3. Assign all items on the ballot to attendees. Double up or assign multiple if necessary. Try to give people a mix of races/measures.
4. Ask all attendees to research their assigned items. Encourage them to document the pros/cons, the people who are supporting and protesting each, any and all information they can find about the issues at hand.
5. If it's your thing, buy a lot of alcohol. Wading though a hefty ballot can be better with alcohol and there's nothing like being tipsy while debating with friends. Finding a comedian also helps tremendously. This eases tension. If all else fails, record The Daily Show or Colbert.
6. When everyone is gathered, go through the ballot, item by item. Have the attendee(s) who researched it detail what they learned, what they couldn't find, and what their impression is based on their research. Discuss. Document the discussion.
7. After the party, put together a "cheat sheet" from the night, listing each element, the key issues, and the collective consensus. I usually use YES, yes, mixed, no, NO and make a special note if case statements are necessary [e.g., if (pro_bond_measures) YES;]. Send this document to all of your friends who attended and those who didn't. At the top of the sheet, indicate the election day and last day for registering in your community. If you're a geek, put this up on a wiki and share it with everyone in your local area.
8. The day before the last day of registration, call up all of your friends to confirm that they've registered. If not, volunteer to drive them to where they can register.
9. The night before the election, resend the list to everyone and encourage them to vote.

I've thrown ballot parties for years now. Not only does this result in a fun excuse for a party, but it's also an ideal way to make sure everyone knows what the hell they're voting for. Even if you and your friends don't agree, at least an informed decision is being made. This also results in network effects. Your vote might not shape an election, but if you get 30 of your friends to vote one way through information and they get 30 of their friends, ... well, that changes the results quite quickly, especially for local elections where decisions are often made based on hundreds or tens of votes.

Many of us (self included) are actively working to become global citizens. Often, this means that we know more about what's going on in Darfur or Georgia than we do about what decisions are being made at our school board. Don't get me wrong - being a global citizen is really important. Yet, while local politics may feel unimportant in comparison to world crises, the decisions made at a local decision affect your life in so many ways. Who fixes your potholes? How does your trash disappear? How are your hospitals structured? Who makes sure you have water, power, and gas? We always bitch and moan about the state of the union, but too often, we forget about the importance of local communities. They matter. And being an informed citizen really matters. Democracy isn't about presidential races. It's about engaging in civics at all levels to make society a better place. It's about knowing who's running, what they stand for, and how they will make your community a better place.

If you're reading this, please, I beg you, get informed and vote. This election isn't just about Obama and McCain and you shouldn't think that you're relieved of civic duty because your state is not a swing state. Sure, your vote might not matter when it comes to the presidential election, but it definitely matters when it comes to local elections. The vast majority are decided by very small margins and if you engage and encourage others to engage, you have the power to shape those. Throw a ballot party, spam your friends, hell, drive them to the bloody polls. Just get involved. Our democracy depends on it.

elections voting democracy local informed

Many of you know that I've been co-directing the Internet Safety Technical Task Force as part of my fellowship at Berkman and I wanted to give you a few updates and invite you to the public meeting.

My role on the TF has primarily been to lead the Research Advisory Board and help the ISTTF ground their analysis and recommendations in a solid understanding of research. At earlier meetings, researchers have come and presented their work and we've made videos, slides, and handouts from these meetings available here. Also, the fabulous Andrew Schrock and I are currently working on a literature review of all research in this space which we will share here shortly for public vetting.

While I've been working on the research side of things, the Technical Advisory Board has been reviewing various proposed technical solutions to safety concerns regarding youth. On September 23-24 at Harvard, there will be public presentations of some of these technologies for public feedback, questions, and critique. We're still sorting out the schedule, but some valuable information on the public meeting is here.

I'd like to invite (AND ENCOURAGE) all of you who are vested in these topics to join us if at all possible. This will be a great opportunity to see how different companies are proposing to address the internet safety concerns that have been raised. The topics will include age verification, filtering, text analysis, and authentication. This is a great opportunity to provide feedback (both technical and social) to this process. Many of you have strong opinions on what kind of technical solutions are and are not possible and it would be super duper helpful if you turned up to state those thoughts on record.

If you can't, I totally understand and we will ask for broad feedback afterwards. But please do spread the word to those who you think are interested in or concerned about these issues. I would really like to see some thoughtful people in the audience asking tough questions.

ISTTF internet safety children MySpace

When I learned of how United's stock plummeted after an information mishap this week, I have to admit that I laughed out lot. It wasn't a LOL, but full-on hysterics. I couldn't help but think: karma, bites you in the ass every time. Y'see, whenever I think of United, I think of my trip from hell this summer and the atrocious ways in which the company handled it. I shudder when I hear their name and when travel agents try to put me on a United flight, my emotional response is pure panic.

United managed to dehumanize me at an unprecedented level this summer. United's attitudes were worse than AT&T and Blue Cross... combined. I felt used, abused, and taken for a ride. I missed the wedding of two dear friends and was practically laughed at by United when I voiced my dissent. I have never spent so much money to be treated so terribly. And I'm so bitter about it that I do everything possible to dissuade those that I know and love from getting on one of their aircrafts. (So for those of you booking flights, think twice before going with United.)

Earlier this summer, I went to China. I got there via American, did my speaking thing, and then went to leave. By that time, my lungs were a mess and I was anxious to leave. Plus, two of my dear friends were about to get married and I was to leave Beijing to join them for their rehearsal dinner. I had booked the United flight because it was the only direct to Dulles. I was wary of United and so I had checked multiple other routes and felt confident that I should be able to get to DC one way or another, especially since I was booking an expensive business class seat (almost $10K). I should've known. Here's the abbreviated story:

As we were about to board, they reported mechanical issues. We were to wait around. Delay after delay and eventually I went to the Lounge, hoping to find a United rep to tell me what was going on. All of the other business folks were there too, irate. Much to my horror, there were no United reps there because it was a partner lounge. Worse, the Air China employees were downright hostile and unhelpful. I asked to get onto alternate flights, but the Air China people told me they couldn't help me and, more irritatingly, wouldn't. They told me I had to speak to United. I asked where I could find a United rep and I was told (rudely) that I would have to go back out through security/customs to the front desk. My visa wouldn't allow this. I asked if I could call United from there and they told me no. Everyone around me was calling back to the States to get information. There was no WiFi and only 5 Internet data ports so there was no way to go that route.

Things got worse as the night progressed. It became clear that the flight was to be cancelled, but they wouldn't cancel it which prohibited any of us from being moved to other flights. Finally, late into the evening, United reps came around to hand out vouchers to a hotel. No clear instructions were given and it was utter mayhem. From the time they gave us the vouchers to the time that they got us to the hotel (sans luggage) took three hours. The United reps called twice in the middle of the night to wake us and tell us that we would be leaving earlier.

At 9AM, I met the United reps downstairs and they hurried us onto shuttles. We got to the airport (having collectively bonded) and when we were given our boarding passes, they had vastly different board times on them: 11.45, 12:15, 14:15. Much confusion, every rep said something different. It also became clear that there was no plane and that we wouldn't be leaving.

Y'see... we learned later that they didn't have a mechanic. They didn't bring one in the night before and they didn't have one in the morning. We sat around the lounge all morning, getting more and more angry as no information was provided and the China Air folks continued to be hostile to our presence. Many flights came and went but we weren't allowed on those other ones. At noon, a representative showed up with little to no information and was bombarded by pissed off people with questions that she couldn't answer. She told us that she'd return again at 1PM. It took us a few more hours to get out of there and we boarded a plane with barely working A/C and a worn-out but gracious flight staff.

Not only did I miss the rehearsal dinner, I missed the whole wedding. I was exhausted, miserable, and emotionally drained. The only people who were remotely polite were the United reps who were too junior to have any information whatsoever and just kept apologizing in broken English and the very exhausted flight attendants. Everyone else was as rude and horrid as possible, along with completely unhelpful, unresponsive, and unaccommodating. Even though there were a bazillion alternatives (who weren't even flying full), United did nothing to help. It wasn't even that I wasn't high enough on the totem poll - they were universally assholes to everyone. I asked a few of the Business Class passengers why they flew United and their reason was depressing: "because my company makes me." A few of them told me that when they flew personal, they flew anything but United.

At the end, we were given a "friendship kit" to submit to United. I did, along with a four page letter detailing what happened when. The response? A generic apology letter and a $150 discount for future flights. As an apology for a mangled $10K flight. Fuck you too United.

My partner always makes fun of me for being an overly loyal customer. It runs both ways though. I'm loyal to those companies who I feel treat me with respect and I hold long grudges against those that appear to enjoy screwing me. Grudges that I'm happy to share with others and incite mini-boycotts. And, at the end of the day, when I watch such ungracious, condescending, cruel, and greedy companies get fucked over by an act of fate or information accident or however you'd like to explain how that old article about their earlier bankruptcy ended up getting treated as contemporary, well, I just have to laugh. Karma... it bites you in the ass every time.

United airlines horror flight China trip

As many of you know, I'm on the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities. The goal of this commission is to assess the information needs for local communities (in relation to democracy) and determine how to best achieve them. This involves the intersection of old and new media, grassroots action and government intervention, technology, education, and policy. For more details, check out some background info.

We are hosting a series of public forums. The first will take place in Silicon Valley on September 8. Details are here. I know many of you live in or near the SV so I thought you should know about said meeting. Anyone is welcome, although you need to RSVP by September 5. For those unable to attend, it will be webcast live and recordings will be available.

I'm sure that it'll be interesting, especially for those of you who are fascinated by journalism, information dissemination, creating a healthy political public, etc. Personally, I've been loving the private discussions we've been having and I look forward to this next meeting. So I hope to see some of you next week!

information public democracy media politics

As a woman, I'm offended by John McCain's decision to select Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. It is clear that the decision is primarily driven by politics, by the belief that to get Hillary's supporters, all you need to do is play the gender card.

I respect what Palin has done in Alaska in terms of calling out corrupt politics, and I'm sure that McCain does too. But being a whistleblower and working towards a clean state government are not qualifications for the (vice) presidency, especially not in times like these. We need whistleblowers and we need people who will work to clean up the government, but we need so much more than that.

McCain is not a young man. The most important quality in a vice president is their ability to be the president should something happen. It's one thing to say that Obama is not ready because he hasn't spent enough time in Washington, but he has worked on issues at many levels and he is very well connected globally and engaged in global political issues. There's nothing that indicates that the same is true of Palin.

Palin is the Governor of a state with severe economic issues. What has she done? She played protectionist politics to keep a dairy company in business when it was clear that they couldn't compete and they still failed. Trying to protect failed business plans is not the path towards economic growth. Her current plan, although not yet implemented (thank god), is to destroy the environment and put at risk future generations for economic prosperity today.

As a woman, I'm offended. Women have long borne the responsibility to protect the environment and future generations. How can she turn her back on this to reap short-term political and economic rewards?

Palin marks her identity by noting that she's just a soccer mom. She is respected politically for questioning powers that be. She is respected by evangelicals for not aborting her son after learning that he would have Down Syndrome.

As a woman, I'm offended. Palin has the right to choose what she does with her body, and I respect her decision, but I also demand the right to make my own choices. Feminism isn't about aborting - feminism is about the right to choose and make decisions about our bodies based on what is best for everyone involved in the social context in which we live. A woman's personal choice alone does not make her eligible for presidency.

I voted for Barack, but I deeply respect Hillary. I am in awe of the work she has done and that she continues to do. In 1992, I would've (could I have) voted for her in a second over Bill. 2008 is different and I think that Barack is bringing to the table something far more important. My choice of Barack is not a diss on Hillary. For the first time in my life, I made a choice about who to vote FOR not who to vote against.

Palin is not Hillary. Palin lacks the experience, the connections, the political stature, and, most importantly, the deep respect for women and women's issues that Hillary has.

As a woman, I'm offended. I'm offended that McCain is choosing a woman who is clearly ill-equipped to be the president of this country in an effort to woo over Hillary's supporters. I'm offended because McCain's decision is one of the most misogynist ones I've seen in recent history. Does he honestly believe that women in this country are so stupid as to believe that any woman is a substitute for another woman? That all that us women boil down to is our XX chromosomes and estrogen? C'mon now.

Don't get me wrong - I want to see women in the highest positions of power in this country. But I don't just want any woman. I want women in power who have earned the respect and worked to achieve said power. I want women who are chosen because of what they have done, not how they look in a political power game.

I was expecting McCain to choose a woman. I figured that's why he waited this long. I was expecting him to go outside of the DC circuit and my latest musing was that he'd choose Meg Whitman. Sure, she'd be controversial as hell, but damn is she a professional power house. And, unlike Palin, she actually knows something about economics. Her experience as CEO of a major international company has given her tremendous experience that would complement McCain tremendously. She's financially self-sustaining and appealing to the economic conservatives that the Republican party lost under Bush. Sure, she's controversial and I'd hate to see that kind of corporate-ness inside the White House, but she's beyond qualified and capable. Palin is an entirely different picture. She appeals to the social conservatives because of her personal views, but she lacks anything resembling the qualifications to be president.

As a woman, I'm offended.

I wasn't going to vote for McCain before, but I had at least respected him and what he's done for this country. He's completely lost any ounce of respect in my mind. His decision to choose a vice president based solely on her gender is absolutely antithetical to every value I hold dear. Our sisters, mothers, and grandmothers did not fight for women's rights only to have a woman toted around as an accessory in federal politics. I am confident that Palin is a smart, compassionate, and capable person, but she lacks the qualifications, experience, and long-term thinking to be president. This isn't about DC. She hasn't even done anything worth mentioning in Alaska. For McCain to tap her for this position is just outright offensive.

On the anniversary of women's right to vote in this country, Hillary asked the crowd if they voted for her or for the people that she's trying to serve. In asking the audience to vote for Barack, she asked them to move beyond individualist-politics and focus on the issues at hand. My hope is that women everywhere took that message to heart. This isn't about getting a woman into the White House. It's about creating a future that we want to live in.

mccain palin election gender

Just as the Olympics was a spectacle of physical prowess, the Democratic National Convention has been a spectacle of political aspiration. As best demonstrated by my preference for Fantasy Congress over Fantasy Football, I'm much more of a sucker for the political. And this week's convention was most definitely a 10.0.

Each speech addressed a different American anxiety around Obama's candidacy. Michelle Obama began by taking back the idea that Republicans have a stranglehold on the meaning of family. Hillary Clinton's brilliant articulation of the need to rise above individual candidates and move forward as a united party went straight at the efforts by Republicans to leverage a divided party. Bill Clinton reminded us that he was attacked by Bush Sr. as being the young upstart with no experience. And then Barack, oh Barack...

Barack articulated the problems that we are currently facing and the costs of the last 8 years. He made light of his "celebrity" status, noting that his experiences and connections to people aren't quite what one might imagine a celebrity lifestyle to be like. He then offered concrete moves he intended to make as president, dead-on facing the attack that he's all dreamy and not-at-all concrete. And then... oh and then... He laid out why dreaming and moving towards a higher purpose is more than political bullshit, making it clear that government cannot fix society alone. He asked everyone to take responsibility for their actions and to work together to make this a great nation. He set out what government can do and what people must do. He asked people to engage and promised to work for them in return.

In my work, I am constantly reminded of the costs of hyper individualism. The publics that we know are driven by consumerism, not collective goods. The politics we live with are power-games that capitalize on sound bytes and psychological diversions. The information culture we inhabit is driven by fear and sensationalism. I'm not looking for nationalism, but I wouldn't mind a culture that recognizes that we are our brothers' and sisters' keeper. I would like to see a culture that concerns itself with the public good, that makes decisions that and words towards what benefits the collective. This can't be done with policy. It must be done through inspiration and mindfulness. And good policy must be integrated with efforts to right ourselves in this direction. Barack's speech asks everyone to realize that politics as usual comes from our collective apathy and obsession with minutia. Details are important, but we must be moving towards a meaningful goal for any particular policies to matter.

Policy is important, but that's not why this election matters to me. I don't think that the intricacies of politics can be laid out in a policy speech and I don't think that being an informed voter is about policy. I think that it's about the direction we are headed, about the higher goals, about the things that we all have a stake in and can contribute towards. I want a leader who can lead, not just one who passes laws. I am interested in the philosophical question of how you can motivate a population to work towards a common good and achieve great things.

I know not everyone is inspired by Barack, but what excites me is how many people are. I see people engaging for the first time. I see young people getting excited that they can do something. Of course, I also see a lot of bitter, angry, and cynical people. I'm not sure if Barack is going to be able to help them turn those attitudes around, but I am confident that he's going to try.

At the end of the day, I live in a country with tremendous wealth, power, and privilege. And thus, I'm reminded of the Noblesse oblige: with great privilege comes great responsibility. Many individuals have used that call to drive them to do good, but now I think that we must find a way to make that our collective mission both domestically and globally. My hope is that Barack's candidacy (and ideally presidency) may help people recognize their place in this networked world and their responsibility to it as well. Whether we're talking about the environment, terrorism, education, health care, or the economy, we need to be talking about networks and networked peoples. These are systems and systems cannot be managed individually.

So...

I have a dream... that one day the people of this nation will open their eyes and see their neighbors as brethren once again and work to make sure that they too are happy and prosperous.

I have a dream... that one day the people of this nation will let go of their selfish desires and work towards the collective good, caring for those who are in need, and helping other achieve to their fullest potential.

I have a dream... that one day the pursuits of knowledge, innovation, and happiness will be the gross national product we seek to maximize.

I have a dream... that come this November, we put a halt to being an arrogant, controlling, greedy, and aggressive global actor, that we ask our allies for forgiveness, seek humility, and work to right the wrongs that we have inflicted on so many peoples for so many years.

Let communities rise... Let people come together as one... Connected at last.

obama DNC election dream MLK

MacArthur has announced its second Digital Media & Learning Competition. The focus this year is on participatory learning and they are giving awards in two categories:

• Innovation in Participatory Learning Awards will support projects that demonstrate new modes of participatory learning, in which people take part in virtual communities, share ideas, comment on one another's projects, and advance goals together. Successful projects will promote participatory learning in a variety of environments: through the creation of new digital tools, modification of existing ones, or use of digital media in some other novel way. Submissions will be accepted from applicants in Canada, People's Republic of China, India, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States, countries in which HASTAC or MacArthur have significant experience. Winners will receive between $30,000 and $250,000.

• Young Innovator Awards are designed to encourage young people aged 18-25 to think boldly about "what comes next" in participatory learning and to contribute to making it happen. Winners will receive funding to do an internship with a sponsor organization to help bring their most visionary ideas from the "garage" stage to implementation. For this competition cycle, submissions will only be accepted from applicants in the United States. Winners will receive between $5,000 and $30,000.

For more information and to participate, check out the competition's website.

learning competition grant award newmedia macarthur

I am pleased to announce that John Palfrey and Urs Gasser's Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives is out in the wild! This book grows out of the digital natives project at the Berkman Center (with which I am loosely affiliated). "Born Digital" investigates what it means to grow up in a mediated culture and the ways in which technology inflects issues like privacy, safety, intellectual property, media creation, and learning.

Intended for broad audiences, "Born Digital" creates a conversation between adult concerns, policy approaches, technological capabilities, and youth practice. This is not an ethnography, but JP and Urs build on and connect to ongoing ethnographic research concerning digital youth culture. This is not a parent's guide, but JP and Urs's framework will benefit any parent who wishes to actually understand what's taking place and what the implications are. This is not a policy white paper, but policy makers would be foolish to ignore the book because JP and Urs provide a valuable map for understanding how the policy debates connect to practice and technology. The contribution "Born Digital" makes is in the connections that it makes between youth practices, adult fears, technology, and policy. If you care at all about these issues, this book is a MUST-READ.

To buy the book, click here. Also, check out the Born Digital website for more information. And if you live in Seattle, SF, Boston, or DC, stay tuned for book-related events in your area.

To the academics in the room....

I want to take a moment to address the academics and academic-minded that read this blog because I know that many of you are very wary of pop books in this area. I also know how much y'all hate the term "digital natives" and I too feel my skin crawl when that term emerges. When I first learned about this book, I was very wary. I didn't know JP or Urs at the time and I didn't want to offend, but I reached out with a few of my concerns. To my astonishment, JP invited me to sit down with him and hash out my thoughts. Thus began a discussion that has truly shaped my thinking about these issues and has made me deeply appreciate this book and what it's doing. Said conversation is also how I got involved in efforts to leverage my scholarship to make change.

From the beginning, JP acknowledged that the term "digital natives" is hugely problematic, but also pointed out that it's the kind of term that makes interventions possible. Society and mass media has already done the othering and rather than pretend as though this wasn't happening, they wanted to tackle it head-on. Throughout the book, they bring up adult fears, myths, and techno-phobic frameworks in order to dismantle, ground, and/or situate them. This is not an academic intervention, but a socio-political one. They purposefully and intentionally take an approach that speaks to those who are doing the othering, those who are thinking "kids these days..." At first, I was very resistant to their approach, but the more time I spent with parents, teachers, and policy makers, the more that I realized how effective such a tactic is.

Academics tend to err on the side of nuance and precision, eschewing generalizations and coarse labels. This is great for documenting cultural dynamics, but not so great for making interventions. Creating an impression, an image in the minds of those who are fearful requires more than accurate data. It requires a compelling story and a framework that can replace the boogie monster. This is why polemics tend to speak in extremes. They key to using generalizations responsibly is to work hard to make certain that the impressions rendered are as representative of cultural frames as bloody possible. It's easy to convince people to generalize from extremes; it's much harder to get them to build images from what's normative.

Combatting pre-existing images requires more than accuracy, more than nuance. It requires either a new more-sticky image or a reworking of the original image. By working inside the frame of "digital natives," JP and Urs seek to ground that concept through a realistic image of practice. Reclaiming a term does not relieve it of all of its baggage, but it is a service to discourse if you can accept that the term won't just disappear by ignoring it. Once it's grounded, nuance becomes possible in entirely new ways.

I had the great honor of being able to read an early draft and provide feedback. I've read lots of parenting guides and white papers and other pop culture coverage of these issues. What struck me about "Born Digital" is how well it is connected to what is actually going on, how well it speaks to the research that we do. It's not sensationalist or extreme, but very even-handed. They move between different perspectives to try to paint a full picture. Sometimes, they are too patient with idiotic perspectives, but that's when I breathe and remind myself that telling people that their ideas are stupid is not a good intervention tactic. Sometimes they are also too techno-centric, but once again, this makes sense if you recognize what they're trying to do. Of course, the only reason that these things stick out is that they do such a good job of addressing the practices of the population they map out.

As I got to know JP over the last year, I developed a deep appreciation for his approach to life, the universe, and everything. He tries to help people from different sides see the others' perspective, using whatever tactics are necessary. He's calm, even-handed, and works hard to stay true to cultural complexities. He's the compromiser and he's willing to take the heat in order to help bridge gaps and ease tensions. This shines through in "Born Digital." As I read the book in the context of its mission, my wariness slipped away. They've done a tremendous job of building on what we know and connecting it to systems of power.

If you're an academic and you choose to pick up this book - and I strongly encourage you to do so - try to read it in context. Because it is deeply grounded in research, it might be tempting to see it as an academic book with too few citations. I'd encourage you to resist the critical reflex that comes with being piled higher and deeper and appreciate the ways in which scholarly work is being leveraged as a tool for cultural intervention. I think that JP and Urs have done an astonishing job and believe that they deserve our deepest gratitude. I for one am VERY thankful of their efforts to make change based on what we know instead of what we fear.

Internet technology culture youth digitalnatives

Across the United States, dozens of higher education leaders have signed on to the Amethyst Initiative. It's a fascinating approach. The signers aren't committing to a stance, but rather asking American society to begin an informed and unimpeded debate on the 21 year-old-drinking age. It's a controversial topic and it hit the airwaves in controversial style. Merely trying to cover the story touched a nerve across the country and countless media channels dedicated air time to the debate, if only to dismiss the initiative. Still, a conversation began.

In 1984, the United States passed a bill that required States to institute a 21 minimum drinking age in order to receive full federal highway funds. Many States had age limits before this, but this bill effectively federalized a drinking age and restricted alcohol purchasing to those 21+. The drinking age has a long and sordid history, wrapped up with Prohibition, moral reform, and age consciousness.

Anyone who tries to tell you that something magical happens for everyone at the age of 21 that makes youth brains capable of moderate consumption at that age is full of shit. The drinking age is not about psychology, no matter how many reports appear to "prove" otherwise. The drinking age is first and foremost about social control. We tried to prohibit everyone from drinking and when that failed, we went about trying to oppress the population that could be controlled. Like all other acts of Prohibition in this country, the minimum drinking age stems from a set of moral values projected onto a population as a means of control.

While the age limit is about social control, there is no doubt that alcohol is a dangerous drug. The chemical effect can damage the body in all sorts of ways and alcoholism is a very real addiction with costly repercussions. Binge drinking can be deadly and, even when it's not, it can cause severe long-term damage. Alcohol doesn't just affect the imbiber - alcohol affects everyone around the drinker. Drunk driving is a leading cause of death, alcohol destroys families, and a large percentage of domestic violence incidents involve alcohol. Alcohol abuse is linked to depression, poverty, violence, health problems, and all sorts of societal "ills." Alcohol is one of the most dangerous and most abused substances out there. That said, people like it.

Let's assume that the age-limit prohibitionists meant well since most moral reformers do (especially when the law runs counter to economic profitability). Even laws passed with the best of intentions can result in dire side effects. The Minimum Drinking Age is one of those laws. Like other abstinence approaches, this law set in motion a series of social and cultural factors that actually magnifies abusive acts. I want to briefly map out some factors at play and then discuss how the combination of them is outright deadly.

1) Alcohol is a marker of status. Youth desire adult vices because they desire the status and freedom that they symbolize. The more that adults tell youth that they are not old enough or mature enough to imbibe (... have sex, drive, stay out past midnight, etc.), the more imbibing becomes a desirable act. So long as alcohol is seen as a status symbol of maturity, it is consumed in excess by those seeking any means of being validated as mature. The harder it is to get, the more status it confers.

2) Moderation of enjoyable and high status activities must be learned. Humans naturally moderate (a.k.a. avoid) unpleasant experiences but they also naturally seek out pleasant ones. For many, alcohol consumption is enjoyable. To complicate matters, risk taking and the status that it affords is desirable. Illegal alcohol consumption combines these two elements. It is naturally pleasurable and excessive use of hard-to-obtain substances affords status in many circles. Moderation runs counter to this. Moderation is typically learned through personal exposure to the unpleasantries of alcohol or the shift in its status amongst a person's social circle.

3) Age segregation makes learning to moderate harder. Age segregation means that status is conferred locally. Each new cohort goes through the ropes of alcohol consumption with few guides who have learned the costs and side effects. More problematically, age segregation means that status is local. Youth validate each other's consumption as a marker of adulthood and there aren't adults who have gone through the hells of abuse to curb the status structures. Thus, youth are socialized into a culture where massive consumption is highly regarded.

4) Abstinence programs make education and guidance impossible. We know that youth start drinking in high school, but there's a general "don't ask, don't tell" mindset at play. Schools that provide quality information are viewed as "encouraging" bad behaviors. Instead, schools are required to tell students of the horrors of alcohol while youth are simultaneously witnessing adult consumption. The hypocrisy of these messages is well recognized and youth end up dismissing all of the abstinence material as inaccurate.

University settings are by-far the worst configuration possible for this dynamic. Youth leave home, attaining one marker of adulthood, only to find an age-segregated social world with pressures to live up to the images of "cool" adulthood set in motion by mass media. They are no longer accountable to their parents and they desperately want to be validated by their peers. Universities are discouraged from educating underage students about alcohol and so there's tremendous amounts of winking taking place in lieu of proper dialogue. Abuse runs rampant and is further magnified by the status that it affords from being risky in an age segregated community. Underage drinkers drink in private where their intake is not monitored rather than drinking in age-mixed public spaces where social pressures discourage genuine abuse. Youth aren't socialized into drinking like adults, but rather drinking like media's image of adults. Youth are afraid to seek help when they've gone too far because what they're doing is illegal. Talk about a recipe for disaster.

Yes, youth make dumb decisions. But so do adults. Alcohol abuse is not just a problem for youth; millions of adults have problems with alcohol. Many adults with problems developed their habits as youth where their consumption was underground. They never had someone guiding them and no one ever realized that they had gone too far... until much later. The brain is like a power law - it grows most rapidly in the womb and slows as we get older. There is no magic age where it stops learning, but learning does get harder. Youth habits die hard, but lessons learned in youth also stick stronger. Holding off the possibility for abuse is certainly desirable, but if it means the difference between slowly ramping up and going from 0 to 60 in under a second, guess which is more likely to result in an accident?

I'm glad to see a debate raging on this topic. I think that it's absolutely critical. My research with youth has led me to believe that the 21-minimum is deadly. I think that it encourages greater abuse than other scenarios. If I were given a magic wand to change the laws regarding alcohol, here's what I would do:

1) Children may drink alcohol in private residences at any age when their parent or guardian is present.

2) Youth may apply for an alcohol permit starting at the age of 16. A mandatory education course and test (perhaps online) is required for getting this ID. With this ID, youth 16-17 can purchase alcohol in public when accompanied by an adult 21+ and those 18-20 can purchase alcohol in public by themselves.

3) No one under-21 can drive with even one iota of alcohol in their system. Consequences include fine, community service, permanent loss of alcohol permit, and multiple year license suspension.

Will this make alcohol abuse go away? No. That said, I believe that it would drastically reduce it. Changing the laws in this way will encourage parents to actually begin conversations about alcohol with their children rather than avoid the topic. I feel as though such an approach would mean that youth ease into alcohol and learn its limits while in an environment with older adults. By the time that youth hit college, alcohol would not hold the same level of allure. It would not be a marker of freedom in the same way. It would allow educational approaches to come into play. And it would allow what is underground to come above ground and reach a healthier state.

I know that many folks out there support reducing the age limit because, well, "they do it anyhow." There's no doubt that there's a lot of underage drinking going on, but this isn't just about legitimizing what is. We need to build safety structures in place, structures that allow youth to come of age in a healthy way. That's not what exists right now. Thus, when youth head off to college, they drink their freedom to excess and the damage is palpable. If we're going to curb that, we need to be more honest with ourselves about where alcohol stands in the cultural consciousness. We need to realize that you don't learn to drink from a tap when all you know is a fire hydrant. And we need to recognize that imparting knowledge is more effective through socialization than pamphlets.

The Ancient Greeks believed that the amethyst quartz would prevent intoxication. The goddesses stepped in to help Amethystos ward off the intoxicated Dionysus. It is now our time to step in and help create structures that help youth have a healthy relationship with an otherwise unhealthy substance.

alcohol youth age

Last night, I went to bed watching girls' gymnastics. I found myself very irritated. There were 24 girls in the finals, but NBC focused only on those that they thought would medal. The result is that there was tremendous downtime that the announcers filled with speculation, gossip, and historical reminiscing. I was quite irritated because what I wanted was to see more gymnastics. Anyone who is at the Olympics has to be fascinating to watch - why only focus on those who are likely to medal?

Come to think of it, everything about how NBC has covered the Olympics has been abysmal. Last weekend, I was with a hardcore copyright conservative who kept arguing that people watching the opening ceremonies online were cheating NBC out of money. I countered that what these people were doing was indicating what the market wanted. Many were happy to watch the Chinese CCTV version live instead of waiting until what NBC declared to be "primetime." Personally, I was quite annoyed with NBC starting around 5.30AM when we woke up to watch the opening ceremonies only to learn that they weren't covering it live. So, logically, we went to NBC's homepage to see if they were streaming it live. No. That's where I think that NBC fucked up royally. I don't know why they decided that the Today Show was more important than the opening ceremony, but they did. Still, there was no reason to not stream it live on their website. I would've happily sat through dozens of commercials to see it live. Instead, I TiVoed it and watched it sans commercials. Big win on NBC's part, right?

What NBC has tried to do is configure its viewers. They've told everyone how they should watch the Olympics and are peeved when people have a different idea of how they want to watch this symbol of nationalism. Normally, the people have no choice. Yet, because of the Internet, there's a lot of push for alternatives. Of course, personally, I'm just angry and annoyed. I can think of so many ways that NBC could've handled this better. What I want is Olympics 2.0.

I want an Olympics where the "best" is broadcast on TV, like now. But I also want an interactive version. Take gymnastics. I want to know on each apparatus who is up live. And I want to be able to switch between different cameras and choose my own view through the stadium so that I can watch whichever competitor I want. I want to be able to watch live, all day, on ALL sports (even judo and the other weird ones where Americans are not so present). I want interactive live and I want to be able to pull down and follow any individual Olympian or team through their events at a later point. I want the Olympics to be treated as a bunch of spliceable objects that I can remix live for my own viewing pleasure. And I want to be able to see it ALL. Is that that hard to ask for? Hell, I'd be willing to pay for such interactive watching options. And I'd certainly be willing to watch ads to see things LIVE. But boy does it annoy me to watch a "live" NBC broadcast that is already well reported on in the NYTimes.

So can I please have Olympics 2.0? And dear International Olympic Committee, please don't sell exclusive rights to the next Olympics to an organization who is doing more to curtail and configure access than to engage the market the way that they want to be engaged. And NBC, would you stop being so antiquated and leverage new media for what it's good for?

olympics media

First, thanks to all of you who've written nice things asking me about my health. Since I bitched here, I feel compelled to send an update too. The good news is that it's relatively simple and I'm going to be fine. The bad news is that it's going to take a little bit.

For those who don't know the backstory, I fractured C2/C3 when I was 16 playing ultimate frisbee. I've had various problems over the years as a result, but it's been a while so I was rather shocked to see old symptoms reappear. After finding a doctor who didn't think I was crazy, we set about to test things and figure out what might be causing it. Blood work, CT scans, physical evaluation, etc. Everything with my blood work and CT scans came back clear. There are still old scars on my neck, but that's nothing to worry about. Nothing new. But, here's the funny part - my alignment has gone to shit in all sorts of funny ways.

My body's alignment issues are funny because they're the result of trying to exercise. ::groan:: So, I knew that the various injuries that I've acquired over the last few years in an attempt to get into shape - golfer's elbow, strained shoulder, knee issues - were most likely caused by my attempts to compensate for my neck and wrists. Well, annoyingly, it seems as though my body has decided to additionally compensate for those injuries, further setting my body off kilter. The result? Dreadful alignment, pinched nerves, trapezius spasms, etc.

Doctor's guess is that this, combined with dissertation stress and the allergies and cough I managed to develop in Beijing, set my body into especially high freak out mode. It was a matter of time and, well, time hit this summer. As in the past, the problems with my vision are stemming from trapezius spasms. Only this time it's not due to too much exercise, but to improper exercise. Even working with a personal trainer wasn't the best of ideas because my injuries are too complex for that to work out well so that probably made things worse. But it's all fixable.

The good news is that no one is suggesting surgery or medicine. Instead, physical therapy. Directed, targeted, measured exercise with constant assessment. Get the body back into alignment without causing new injuries. Do exercises that don't let me compensate in stupid ways. Very precise and careful development of muscles. No additional exercising "for fun." The doc guesses it'll be a few months until I feel right again, but that if I work with a therapist to put my body back into shape, I should feel ten bazillion times better shortly. If not, we reassess.

Personally, I'm relieved. This all makes sense and the "solution" is something that I can live with. Or at least try without reservations. The only downside is that this stupid sneezing is probably not going to go away so long as I live in environments with pollutants. Hrmfpt.

health

Some of the questions posed when I requested brain fodder were, shall we say.... odd. In fact, it felt a bit like an "About Me" quiz. So I couldn't resist answering....

Alison Bechdel or Jorge Cham? Jorge Cham. It might be different if I ever le