I was pointed to this article on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11793847The idea is that rather than have lots and lots of weak ties (read: friends in name only), the site helps you foster stronger friendship ties. These ties are designed into the system by limiting the number of friends you can have. I think it's similar to going back in time to film cameras, before digital: You really had to pick your moments, not waste the film. When digital came along, you could snap as many crap pictures as you liked, because they didn't cost anything to throw away. But is this a good model for friendships? Is this a fair comparison to Facebook?
There is some evidence - cited by the article - that humans can only manage 50 friends, so the notion that Facebook promotes, that we can have 1,000 if we wanted, cheapens the very word "friend".
I think if we value true "friendship", we ought to be thinking of ways to make that word meaningful again in the era of Facebook. People ask me all the time what I mean by "spiritual technology", and follow up with, "Can you give me an example of one?" I now have an example. This is getting closer to what I'm talking about: Asserting human values over and above technological capabilities.
I received this comment via email:
ReplyDelete...Apart from using ‘architect’ as a verb, the problem with this statement is that it reveals an assumption about products – that we can actually create a “product that brings happiness”; this is highly questionable.
In addition, while it offers a (albeit very limited) platform for ‘relationship and human connection’ – by doing so, such applications/products tend to bolster a false notion of what we mean by relationship and human connection. The Path’s video promo on YouTube says its “A place to be yourself and share life with close friends and family.” And the video itself it filled with images of beautiful happy people having a good time to a soundtrack of catchy music. I would question the idea that browsing a few photos and comments on an iPhone is actually sharing life with close friends and family. Such messages and promotions are insidious – but they distort and erode our humanness. In Zen Buddhism this is seen as a corruption of purpose – because it fails to recognise a more holistic, deeper understanding of human activity – but reduces it to a very specific (and therefore partial and inadequate) rendition. This partial view prevents full engagement – this is precisely what Borgmann distinguishes as the device paradigm – it provides a seeming benefit but in a highly focussed, un-rounded manner. The alternative, according to Borgmann is the “thing” – unlike a device, a ‘thing’ allows full engagement and “focal practice” – where we are fully engaged in an activity – that might be with friends or family in actuality (not a substitute through an phone screen). Similarly, and for largely the same reasons, Thackara has said that use of such devices adds to our blindness.
So, if this identifies an inherent inadequacy with devices, and an inherent contradiction to the claim of “a product that brings happiness” – the question perhaps changes – from trying to design a device to bring happiness (by using it) - and to, perhaps, trying to create a product that supports and facilitates activities that really do bring happiness (activities that most than likely do not require a device at all).
According to this argument – the aim would not be to design a device/application/internet that – through using it – attempts to make us happier, more spiritually developed etc. Rather, the aim could be to identify those (or some of those) human activities or modes that have long been seen as being congruent with notions of happiness and spiritual development. Then to see if there are ways that technology can be used to enable us to give time to, arrange, or focus on those activities.
Alternatively, we could consider how the nature of our mundane, everyday acts (many of which involve the use of technology) can be made more congruent with notions of happiness and spiritual development because of how the technology enables us to engage in those activities (i.e. the nature of technology-use can support or detract from those things that have long been understood to be in accord with happiness and spiritual development). For example, if, say, one aspect of happiness/spiritual development is about focussed engagement or focal practice – then technology design that supports this (rather than technology that interrupts or distracts) would be congruent with, and support of these ideas. (My conceptual design for an ‘inconvenient’ mobile phone is one example of such an object.)