Driven to Distraction

I work for an organization called Friday Night Live in Sacramento County. Friday Night Live (FNL) focuses on preventing drinking and distracted driving and promotes a positive place for middle school and high school students to make healthy decisions. One thing that I have learned while working for FNL is some of the startling statistics related to the dangers of distracted driving. Most aspects of distracted driving are related to abuse of technology such as fiddling with GPS devices, changing songs on an Ipod, texting, and talking on the phone while driving a vehicle. Despite recent legislation in the state of California making texting and talking on the phone illegal, many Californians take the risks and do it anyway. Focusing on these technologies takes a driver’s focus away from the road and makes them more likely to get into a crash. Most people say that it is obvious that texting while driving is dangerous and distracts drivers from the road, and yet most also admit to having done it. The dangers of distracted driving are so astonishing, that it appalls me to read news articles that companies are creating new technologies for drivers on the road.

The New York Times article “Despite Risks, Internet Creeps Onto Car Dashboards” published in January 2010 discusses companies like Intel and Google sharing their ambitions at the Consumer Electronics Show to shift their attention “from the desktop to the dashboard.” As if cell phone communications were not enough, now consumers will have the option to scour the internet while they drive. Despite efforts of safety advocates and lawmakers, these companies are once again putting profit over safety. The companies have stated that when the “Audi System” turns on, a warning message will read, “Please only use the online services when traffic conditions allow you to do so safely.” But honestly, do they really expect this to deter consumers from using their products when the conditions are not safe? In my opinion, we should not trust consumers with this option when it could jeopardize the lives of others on the road. Checking the weather or sending an e-mail should not be prioritized above the safety and well being of drivers and passengers on the road.

Related material to this post can be found here.

Constantly Connected Cellphone Use: Brain or Boom?

Are cell phones safe? There is a long-standing debate about whether or not extensive cell phone use is possibly related to rare brain tumors, though many major medical groups have concluded that cell phones are safe. As technology progresses and cell phones become small portable computers that we find ourselves constantly connected to, it's important to ask ourselves, has a decision really been made on this issue?

According to a recent New York Times article,

"Researchers [from the National Institutes of Health] tested 47 people by placing a cellphone at each ear. After 50 minutes, brain scans showed increased consumption of glucose, or sugar, in areas of the brain near the activated phone."

The article also discloses that this study is among the first to discover that weak radio-frequency signals from cellphones have the potential to alter brain activity. It remains unclear whether these signals have beneficial or detrimental implications, but the point is that cellphone use is affecting the brain. One theory about how an artificial increase in brain glucose metabolism could be harmful is that it could potentially act as a catalyst for the creation of molecules called free radicals, which can damage healthy cells. Another theory is that repeated stimulation by electromagnetic radiation could cause an inflammatory response, which studies suggest can cause health problems, including cancer. Therefore, these theories suggest that extensive cell phone use may be more detrimental than beneficial.

In truth, there are everyday situations in which the overstimulation of the brain, as provided by cellphone use, may play a role.

Besides possible connections between cellphone use and health problems as significant as cancer, there may also be connections between overstimulation of the brain and sleep disturbance. It is believed we do not get restful sleep when lights are left on (even small power lights on devices), or when our cell phones are resting by our head as we [attempt to] sleep. Effects may not always be negative, though, as Dr. Volkow, an interviewee in the same New York Times article, explains that future research may show that the electromagnetic waves emitted from cellphones could be used to therapeutically stimulate the brain.

Ultimately, more research needs to be conducted in order to make a decision on whether or not constant connectivity, as it pertains to cellphone use, detrimentally affects the brain. Personally, I feel that while artificial increase in brain glucose isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's also not a good thing. Will I use my cellphone any less? No. Will I opt for the impersonal means of text messaging? No way! However, I feel more aware now of how much time I spend talking/listening directly on or from my cellphone. It's frightening to think that something that we are so dependent on may potentially be harmful for us. What exactly are we doing to ourselves when we employ the use of such technology? Even scarier is the thought that an entire generation is glued to their devices, with children being introduced to cellphone technology at a younger age than the previous generation. OUR MINDS ARE BEING ALTERED-LITERALLY! For the time being, those of us who remain skeptical about cellphone use not negatively affecting the brain are advised to use a headset or earpiece every now and then to alleviate concern. Thankfully, I rely heavily on my headset, though I hope that research in a few years won't show that headsets cause brain damage. So it remains to be seen whether relying heavily on such technology is "brainy," or if it causes for a mental/physical "boom" with negative implications. What do you think?

When the digital divide and the rural-urban divide align

We talked at one point during this quarter about who is "left out" when they are not constantly connected--either because they choose not to be--or because they have no opportunity to be. For the former category, I suggested the elderly as an example because they may not be willing to invest the time to learn new skills, to master new technology. Plus, we should remember that it is more difficult "for an old dog to learn new tricks."

Now, a front-page story in today's New York Times reminds us of a group who would like to be connected, but who don't have a choice. The headline is "Digital Age is Slow to Arrive in Rural America." In it, journalist Kim Severson reports from Coffeeville, Alabama, population 563, in non-metropolitan Clarke County, where only half of residents have access to the broadband that so many of us take for granted. The story focuses on Coffeeville, but it is essentially about the Obama Administration's plan to "wire" the nation for broadband and close the digital divide--with a special focus on unserved and underserved communities--many of them rural. More than $7 billion in stimulus funding was earmarked for this effort. Severson summarizes the situation:

In rural America, only 60 percent of households use broadband Internet service, according to a report released Thursday by the Department of Commerce. That is 10 percent less than urban households. Over all, 28 percent of Americans do not use the Internet at all.

In Clarke County, the situation is even worse. Half of the county's residents cannot easily engage in e-commerce, consult their physician online, participate in online banking, upload family photos to Facebook, or make an appointment with a public official. With cell phone service also lacking in many parts of the county, they also cannot receive emergency alerts. Severson tells us that the only computer many Coffeeville students ever touch is at school. For many residents, it is at the library.

Severson's story quotes Brian Depew of the Center for Rural Affairs, who likens broadband to electricity early last century, when the federal government made a huge investment in rural electrification to level the playing field for rural people and places and bring them a critical service.

“You often hear people talk about broadband from a business development perspective, but it’s much more significant than that ... . This is about whether rural communities are going to participate in our democratic society. If you don’t have effective broadband, you are cut out of things that are really core to who we are as a country.”

The story is a good reminder of the myriad ways we have come to rely on being constantly connected, ways not available to rural residents because the digital divide all too often does align along the rural-urban axis. Read a related post on Legal Ruralism here.

View a map of the places with broadband access here.

Online Identities: Opening the Door for Friends and Bullies

There was once a time when you played with who ever was on the playground. When the world extended only as far as the tan bark and you had to find self-validation in your fellow classmates. That time has been long forgotten as today’s youth now turns to a much higher power in their search for identity and acceptance. The power of the Internet has allowed people to find support for any aspect of their identity, and it has been a godsend for those who have recreated themselves via social networks. In the true spirit of postmodernism, many have begun to blur the borders of the self, abandoning the idea of a consistent self for online identities and profiles. These online avatars are worn and shed like clothes (Allison et al). However, the Internet has also given way to a new breed of bully that preys on the exposed and more sensitive parts of people’s identities.

The PBS documentary, Growing up Online (on reserve in Shields) shows teens who have used the Internet to find their niche and to locate others who support them. This affirmation can be beneficial as a depressed boy can receive much needed support or an adopted girl can find solace in others sharing her pain. On the other hand, some of the interviews in the documentary reveal darker forms of support. One girl found an online community of other anorexic teens that support her disorder, encouraging her to eat less and be skinnier. For better or worse, affirmation is now just a click away as individuals from across the world can band together.

The anonymity afforded by the Internet has acted as a stepping-stone for the shy or socially challenged. What you could not say on the playground you can say online. Jumping at the promise of affirmation, many have begun to express what they where afraid to, uploading parts of themselves onto the Internet. Psychologists have begun to utilize this in therapy for those with Asperger’s Syndrome. Although being constantly connected can help a shy individual break out of their shell, it also opens the door for bullies to get in and directly attack aspects of a person’s identity.

In his dissertation, William Woolley found that there is a statistically significant link between schoolyard bullies and cyberbullies. The Internet does not mutate a person into a bully, but acts as a force multiplier, giving new powers to an old bully. This new breed of bully is devastating, and unlike the schoolyard bully, it does not stop at the end of recess or even at the end of class.

The Internet can expose vulnerable aspects of individuals on an extremely public stage. What makes this worse is that many have voluntarily put parts of them selves up for everyone to see and attack. In his book, The Saturated Self, Kenneth J. Gergen argues that traditional ideas of a concrete identity have given way to the dissolution of the self in Postmodernism. We no longer cling to a constant identity but play different roles, breaking our selves up into online profiles. As Turkle, a 19-year-old mentioned in “The Development of the self in the Era of the internet and Role-Playing Fantasy Games” (Allison et al) put it: “you can have a sense of self without being one self.” By posting these parts of our identity online, one invites others in, and runs the risk of having ones secrets and self critiqued on a permanent and global stage.

The Postmodern dissolution of the self onto the Internet has proved a double-edged sword. Individuals can now seek affirmation for any aspect of their identity and have opened up in order to do this. However, cyberbullies can target these presented parts of people’s identities and do devastating psychological and social damage. This begs a few questions: Why are the assaults on our online identities so devastating if Internet avatars are seen as roles, personas we can don and shed? Why is cyber bullying seen as a more rampant and extreme problem if Woolley is correct that the Internet does not create a bully?

Anonymity in Cyberspace: Faceless Cage-Fighting from the Safety of Your Home?

Last week, 17-year-old Kayla, a girl from my theatre community in my hometown, stood up on stage and “came out” to her high school at an all-school assembly. She did not do this just to inform the world that she was gay; in a powerful and touching speech, she cracked open the taboos and barricades surrounding the acceptance of gay teens and gay marriage. Kayla’s speech was heartfelt and brave as she spoke about a personal subject that is very controversial. Kayla’s words were not confined to the time and space of the assembly, however; a video of her speech was posted on Youtube.

I was one of the very first people to watch the video on Youtube. I immediately posted the video onto my Facebook to share it with all of my online friends. By the end of the day, thirty of my friends had reposted the video. After three days, all of our friends and many friends of friends had seen the video. After six days, almost everyone in my hometown had seen or at least heard of Kayla’s speech. It was the talk of the town. It did not stop there; after a week, the video went beyond the boundaries of people who know Kayla: the video went viral.

Before the video went viral, the comment section was full of friend and family’s support, love, and admiration. As the video began to spread, complete strangers praised her words, her bravery, and her message. The upheaval of positive support was enormous. Yesterday, however, as the video reached 16,000 views since it was posted last Monday, some anonymous person wrote a short and hateful comment violently opposing not just the girl’s argument, but also the girl and everyone who supported her. There was an instant outcry against this comment, and things immediately got messy: the comment forum exploded into a battleground against this negative comment. It was like Pandora’s box had been cracked open: everyone began hashing out their opinions against the offender in a brusque manner. A few more rude and negative comments against Kayla’s argument appeared. These negative comments sparked angry and sometimes equally hurtful responses. Even the people who were against the comment were violent in the way the dealt with and answered the original offender. 

The conversations soon escalated into branched-out cyberspace fights, and soon a large majority of the conversation threads on the comment page no longer had anything to do with the actual video. Instead, every few seconds new comments would appear to bash apart a previous commentator. The majority of the people shooting angry comments back and forth did not even make an effort to censor what they were saying by trying to be polite and reasonable. Those that tried to do this initially quickly became incensed by the “ignorance” or unwillingness for the offender to see their point of view.

I was left wondering: what on Earth made it all right for people to brawl in such an undignified way on a public forum? Part of the answer, without a doubt, is the veil of anonymity cloaking a person to the point where they find themselves at liberty to say whatever they please, no matter how insensitive, hurtful or extreme. The comment section for Kayla’s video has turned into a bitter brawl as angry comments are flung back and forth between completely anonymous people. These people stopped arguing about the video and started openly insulting each other with profanities and accusations, most of which have nothing to do with any of the issues presented in Kayla's argument. 

What does this say about the power of anonymity in such a public forum? It allows people to say violent things that they would never say in person. Yet from the safety of their perch behind their computer screen, a person can say anything that they please and distance themselves emotionally from the repercussions their words might cause.

As of this afternoon, the video has jumped from the 16,000 views it had yesterday to a whopping 70,000 hits. Since this morning, over 600 comments have accumulated in the comment forum. Watching a video spread so rapidly and generate such a large response is an eye-opening vision of the strange functions of this modern world of cyberspace. It leaves me with these questions: is it OK to argue in this uncivilized, potentially hurtful way on a public forum? Or has the internet reduced human disagreements into faceless cage-fighting from the safety of your home? 

Warning: Disconnect!

My mother called on Thursday. Our AT&T bill had jumped up thirty dollars and she wanted to know what  I had been "up to." Like many young Americans, I live in an era of suspended adulthood--my parents still help to pay the bills for tuition, rent, and some living expenses. My fiscal contribution, negligible at best, is the spending money I attempt to save from my campus job.

Growing up, my parents taught me the importance of respecting boundaries as well as fiscal responsibility. That said, knowing I have a limited texting plan, I ought to have remained well within the limit, monitoring my use. I know better. But, I did not; I ended up texting nearly double my limit. Thirty dollars is a small fortune to my near-minimum-wage salary, but for my parents, it is earned easily.  However, I still feel terrible. Yes, my parents bought me a phone and pay for my phone bill, but how many of my minutes or texts were actually spent on them? These days I'm so busy and socially engaged that I'll call my parents at best, once a day, or, more often than less, receive their calls wondering about my health, safety, and school.

Cellphone Usage Alert

Therefore, when I heard about the FCC's proposition to instate mandatory alerts to cellphone overages, I was interested. What better way to monitor cellphone usage than mandatory alerts? As stated in the New York Times articles, users would receive notifications before they reach their plan limit, when they reach their limit, and right after they pass their limit. That way, one could adjust their usage accordingly and anticipate or limit their future use. Sounds great, right?

Well. Not to the phone companies.

The wireless industry’s trade group, C.T.I.A.-The Wireless Association, argues that the F.C.C.’s proposal “violates carriers’ First Amendment protections”; it contends that compelling carriers to provide use alerts is a form of “compelled speech.” So, by this logic, the carriers should be allowed to remain silent while your phone gobbles up data bits beyond your plan’s allocation.

The industry says customers can check their current charges by going to their carrier’s Web site and looking them up — or by sending short codes on their phones or installing apps on their smartphones that can provide a tally of minutes and data use. And if customers don’t remember to check, the carriers can shrug and say, “Not our fault.”

Just great. While I agree cellphone users should be responsible with their own usage, extra reminders to monitor usage would really boost responsibility. Mandatory alerts would serve as a wake-up call when you become too caught up texting or going online on your handheld device. It would prompt you to don that mantle of responsibility, helping you realize whether you should adjust your usage or invest in an alternative texting/data plan (i.e. unlimited data plans). But then, a sickening realization hit me. It would really hurt profits for phone companies if we were responsible about our consumption of social technology.


In class we've discussed benefits and the many detrimental side effects of being constantly connected, but the one aspect we seem to have overlooked, perhaps, because we do not pay the bills, is the fiscal side. We may feel "good" being connected, but somewhere out there are marketers, phone carriers, and internet providers urging us to fall deeper into the abyss of social technology. So, while the FCC and CTIA wrangle this proposal indefinitely, we should start working on responsibly consuming social technology. As for me, please don't text me until next month.

No More Make-Believe: the Death of Healthy Childhoods

When I was a kid, all of my spare time was spent reading or playing. Winters were spent curled up in front of the fire reading every book I could get my hands on and summers were spent running around outside, practically naked, for every moment of daylight. Stories in my head came alive in make-believe games; everything I did came from my imagination and was brought to life with my bare hands and with whatever I could turn into toys or props to enact my stories. My friends and I made hundreds of miniature fairy villages out of stones, twigs, and leaves, dressed ourselves up as pirates, princes and princesses, and romped through the mud until we became brown mud-monsters that were not allowed anywhere near the white furniture. This was my entire childhood; there was no Internet, no television, and no constant input of media. I was always happy, energetic, and, albeit constantly muddy, healthy.

Now, I look at my ten-year-old sister and how she is growing up. She was introduced to the Internet and television when she was about seven years old. I watched her slowly become more and more addicted to online games, social gaming networks for kids, education software, and Disney TV shows on Youtube. It’s as if her entire daily focal point is on the computer in the living room. She tunes the entire world out for hours everyday and her eyes gloss over as her brain hooks into the world of cyberspace. Getting her to just look up and focus on us when we are talking to her is a struggle.

Instead of using and expanding her imagination by reading and playing, my sister spends the majority of her leisure time online. I worry that all of the media is adversely effecting her development. I am not sure to what extent the constant connection is affecting her neurological responses, but I do know that her personality and reactions to social situations are extremely different from my own personality and reactions when I was her age. She is extremely volatile; after being constantly stimulated by media all day, any extraneous stimulation or stress throws her into a completely over-stimulated state. Temper tantrums are frequent and her real-life friendships suffer as she spends less and less time playing in person with her friends; they all have their own online gaming accounts and choose to spend their time together via the computer.

My experience of endless outdoor playtime and make-believe seems to be a foreign concept to my sister’s generation. In the book After the death of Childhood; Growing up in the Age of Electronic Media, David Buckingham explores this idea of the misplacement or loss of healthy childhoods. He explores the argument that electronic media is causing the disappearance or “death” of the type of childhood I had. Buckingham also touches on the idea that there is an ever-growing gap between different generation’s relationships with media and technology. He points out that the lines of what defines "childhood" are getting progressively fuzzy as the constant influence of media catapults children into pre-mature adulthood. 

The thing that is the most disturbing to me is that the amount of time my sister spends online is below the average of all of her friends and other kids her age. Everywhere I look, kids are plugged into their iPads, cell phones, laptops, Wii video games, etc., instead of spending their time actively playing with real-life toys and friends. My question is that is the world of cyberspace forcing healthy, playful childhoods into the backseat, or even destroying them all together? Can children develop properly with the constant stimulation from all of the surrounding media? I worry for the repercussions of this on my sister’s generation. 

~Cherise Glodowski

Constantly Connected, All Over the World

Not only are we constantly connected, but we’re widely connected. Not to hate on Lady Gaga, but her biggest contribution to my life was made possible through the very wide-spread use of technology and the internet.

This hilarious video highlights our ability to be constantly connected. (A parody of a song about being constantly connected, made possible by being constantly connected!) The men depicted are on active duty, stationed in Afganistan. This is perhaps one of the most inaccessible (to outside communication) positions on earth, and yet they are still in a position to watch music videos, video themselves, compile and edit the video, and distribute it! It is truly amazing!

I won’t say anything about the time this takes away from their other duties… Or maybe it’s great for morale? Whatever the case, these Army personnel are now able to be a part of mainstream society in a way that was completely unthinkable just a few short years ago. Now they’re stars, when in yesteryear, their only ways to reach the outside world would have been directly to a loved-one (letter, phone call), or as part of a propaganda/media initiative controlled by the “higher-ups” in the Army and politics.

These Army personnel now have almost as much societal freedom as you or I. Technology makes their lives more normal in an otherwise un-normal situation. I didn’t think of this until just now, but I wonder if this affects their adjustment in coming back home. Comments are welcome, and think of this: the more normal creepy is, the creepier normal is.

My Cat is Better Than Yours

iPhone applications (commonly known as apps) have come a long way since when they first debuted as primarily a tool for the investor and entrepreneur. However, with an ever active community of hackers and developers, the app library of the iPhone and iPad now has some off the most addictive games ever created (admit it, you’ve all spent hours playing those games). Soon, people started making games not for the iPhone owner, but rather their children. Disney games soon started to populate people’s devices, and children soon started to want their parent’s iPods to play those games. Now who would have thought that the next natural step would have been to create games for one’s pets, specifically cats! Well according to developer Nate Murray (developer of the now popular Game for Cats), it is indeed the future.

The idea of the games are simple, entertain your pet with your electronic devices. Apps such as Game for Cats, App for Cats, or Cat Toy are all currently on iTunes available for download. Conceptually, all of these games are the same, some kind of sprite moving around a screen. What’s interesting is how successful these apps seem to be. If you had told me even 5 years ago that one day this would be the future even I would have been skeptical. 5 years ago I would have never guessed that our society would become that dependent on their electronic devices to even rely as forms of entertainment for our pets.

However, watching this shift in culture has been interesting. I wonder if in the future when holograms become all the rage, will they be an acceptable form of entertainment, for both people and pets? Will one day people give up actual adventures into the woods to be replaced by journeys to places recreated purely by technology? Does this represent a fundamental shift in how people are now going to spend their time, forever getting more and more addicted to their portable electronic devices?

Photo Credits: http://www.thevine.com.au/resources/imgthumb/cat-ipad-fun-thumb_190410103144.jpg

 -Peter Yao

Is Technology Connecting or Disconnecting Families?

During my winter break, my parents and I took a trip to Tuscon, Arizona to visit the rest of our family for the holidays. Over the duration of our stay, it became increasingly apparent to my brother and I that our mother was attached to her cell phone and computer. At one point there was a complete upheaval in our night because the internet stopped working on my mom's computer (then was finally resolved in a forty minute phone conversation with tech support). These events opened my eyes, realizing how technology has dramatically changed our family dynamics. Even my mother, who banned television during the week in our younger years, has now succumbed to technological addiction.

I am just as guilty of these abuses as well. Numerous family adventures and meals came to a halt when I received an important e-mail or urgent phone call from a friend. Each of our technological addictions have completely altered our family interactions; every evening before dinner we converse over the tops of our laptops and at the dinner table all jump at the sound of a text. In a recent phone conversation with my mother, we talked about comments I had made on Facebook, rather than the activities of the day ahead. On the other hand, so many family moments have been shared using picture texts and skype. Using technology in this way, I have been able to witness each milestone in my nephew's young life, while attending college full time 300 miles away. I have seen the benefits and the disadvantages of a technologically savvy family and am curious how electronics impacted other families like ours.

In an article the New York Times published in June 2010, Kord Campbell and his wife were interviewed about Mr. Campell’s addiction to electronics. Brenda Campbell stated, “It seems like he can no longer be fully in the moment” while discussing his struggles with data over stimulation. I can relate to this in my own family interactions. Car rides are no longer a time for discussing the day’s activities, but an opportunity to change your Facebook status and check e-mails. There have also been some great benefits that have come with our smartphones, making our family more connected. We were able to receive hour by hour updates of my nephew opening presents from Oregon. It was very exciting to feel a connection to our family so far away but there were times I felt the constant multimedia messages were taking attention away from quality time spent with those who were present. For these reasons I am torn about whether or not our family has truly benefited from being constantly connected.

-Annie Roach