A Glimpse into My Project: Social and Psychological Impact of Technology

The Social and Psychological Impact of Technology

I was researching about the social and psychological effects of technology on people for my project and I have encountered some very interesting things. Some of them were very obvious things that I "always" knew but now it was presented in a more concrete fashion.

When I was growing up, my parents would play with me often. We would go out as a family frequently. In my early years, I was never glued to a t.v., it wasn't part of our routine. This is essentially how most people today have spent their time as children.  Their daily activities were full of movement and numerous learning experiences. This, I always believed, was something that children did because they were privileged and allowed to do so, not because it was necessary to do so.

Here is a glimpse of my research findings:

I have learnt that it is absolutely necessary for children to play with adults, real live adults as they are growing up. This helps them learn key social skills which they will use in the future. Moreover, it is crucial for them to play with "toys" by physically touching them and learning about them. This action helps them build their motor skills. It helps their brain wire itself correctly. Furthermore, when children are watching television and having that experience as a substitute for their "natural" experience, hence they are enduring a massive sensory overload. They experience a massive amount of visual and audio signals, which their brains are trying to cope with and learn. In addition to that, they are not using their bodies as much. This forces their brain to wire itself and adapt to that artificial environment.  Unfortunately, the skills that young children learn are crucial, and they have a very short amount of time to master them, otherwise, they will "never" learn those skills.

Older children suffer from a wave of psychological effects which include anxiety, depression and narcissism due to this lifestyle.

When slightly older children spend most of their time either on the computer, with portable video games or watching T.V., they experience physical problems that are generally suffered by adults.  There are many instances of neck and back pain minor patients at physiotherapists and these professionals, along with doctors, are "expecting a wave of the children from the younger generations.." to require such care.

I have seen many instances where caregivers put young children in front of a TV. or some video game to keep the children busy. They are subconsciously harming their wards. Most people fail to realize that children, even adults, have "adapted" to this new lifestyle but they have not "evolved" for it. Our bodies are not capable of handling such environments, yet. 

Open Source

Open Source

In my opinion, knowledge should not be hidden. Knowledge should not be difficult to access.  The ability to share knowledge drives progress. This is especially true in the case of medicine.

For example, there is a disease called NMO. There are many research centers around the world who are independently working on finding a cure for NMO. These research centers do not like to share their knowledge with each other because they want to file for patents and other issues.  One individual, Victoria Jackson, had a daughter who developed NMO and was told she would die very soon. Jackson realized that there were many institutions trying to find a cure, however they never cooperated, hence there was no progress. She founded her own charity http://www.guthyjacksonfoundation.org/, invested millions of dollars of her own, and forced the different organizations that were to benefit from her money to cooperate to find a cure for NMO.  Great progress was made in the treatment of NMO because scientists now didn't all focus on one area, rather they picked up on where others had left off.

I believe using the Open Source licence is a great way to develop things. It definitely spreads the message of sharing knowledge. It is morally acceptable because it accounts for social benefit.

Another example of such progress from sharing is the success of the Linux kernel. It is one of the most stable operating systems available. It is thoroughly tested and sometimes goes beyond user expectations. The fast pace at which it is developed is solely due to great minds working together.

When it comes to knowledge, and the ability to access knowledge, I am disappointed at the fact that university textbooks cost hundreds of dollars. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with profiting from something, for example certain open source licences. However, the profit should be reasonable. It should not inhibit the ability to access knowledge. There is absolutely no need for textbooks to cost hundreds of dollars. 

Bill C-11 Recordings

Fixing Signals and Recording Programs for Later Listening or Viewing

In this section I have encountered something very interesting. If this bill were to pass, it would be legal for users to record shows provided they only record one copy (...(c) the individual makes no more than one recording of the program; ...). In our time, it is now possible to record shows on Personal Video Recorders (PVRs) provided by cable companies and on our personal computers. Often people may want a copy of the recording on a PVR so they can watch it on t.v. as well as take it with them on their computers. They do not intend to profit off the recordings. If the individual decides to claim one recording as a back up, then would this law allow them to own two copies?

I believe that this clause is trying to find a balance between allowing consumers to own a copy of broadcasting and controlling the quantity they own. However, I believe that this clause is too restrictive for the consumers because it is trying to dictate how the consumer should handle a situation in their private life. Moreover, I believe that this clause does not reflect the use of technology in the modern society. Consumers purchase technology and want to take advantage of it. They like to incorporate it into their everyday lives, even if they don't need it. No financial harm will occur to anyone if this clause is removed.

Another interesting condition in this clause is that the user is not allowed to retain the copy permanently (...(d) the individual keeps the recording no longer than is reasonably necessary in order to listen to or view the program at a more convenient time; ...). This I believe is also a compromise between allowing the user to make a recording and appeasing the media industry. However, I believe that this clause has no place in our society. This is an infringement on freedom. The government should not be able to dictate how long we own certain things. If a consumer has legally obtained something, for example a recording they made of a broadcasted event, they should be allowed to keep it as long as they want to. 

Bill C-11

I was browsing through the table of contents and one of the first things that caught my eye was "Reproduction for Private Purposes". One of the questions that I had was "... will I be limited again? ...".   As I read the document I noticed that the language used in the document is vague and seems to be open to interpretation. For example, the document uses the words " ... the individual had reasonable grounds to believe...". Everybody's reason is formed based on unique experiences; a child's reason is different from an 19 year old's whose reason is different from a 50 year old's.

While reading the section further, I came across this clause: "...  the individual does not give the reproduction away ...". Instantly my intuition suggested that such simple combination of words will be extremely significant in dictating people's every day lives.

I began to think about this by contemplating on analogous scenarios. I believe the best way to interpret this would be by comparing it to a scenario with no harm intended for the copyright holder. In elementary school, we would make tie-dye shirts. Our teachers, parents or school would purchase plain white t-shirts and then at school the entire class would get together and decorate these shirts. We would paint , dye and decorate them in numerous ways. We would make the shirts for ourselves or as gifts for our family and friends. If you dissect this scenario, you will notice that somebody or bodies, purchased some plain white t-shirts, with the clear understanding that they will be "reproduced for private purposes" and then they will be distributed to others i.e. "... give the reproduction away...".

When it comes to electronic media, if I were to reproduce something, perhaps a song or create a CD of someone's favourite songs and present it as a gift, how different is it from the tie-dyeing scenario? Hypothetically speaking, if I were to produce a music CD of someone's favourite songs to present as a gift, I would, under no circumstances, intend to financially profit from the act. Moreover, the person I were to gift this to would also not want to profit from the creation. Regardless of our intentions it would be illegal for us to engage in such activities. I see this as a fundamental flaw.

The answer to my initial question, " ...would I be limited again ?..." is yes, although not as much as before.

Another concept I would like to explore is sharing. I would like to know how this law would affect my ability to "share", as oppose to "give away" the reproduction or the original media. Hopefully by my next blog post, I would be able to determine if this law will impact the ability to naively share.

References: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5144516&File=48#8

Social Media

Technology is integrated into society much faster than research on its side effects. Social media is a very popular, and now essential, aspect of most people's lives. It allows people to re-connect with/re-discover family, friends and colleagues. Revolution, such as the "Arab Spring", definitely are fuelled by and benefit from social media. Social media applications have several benefits, but people, especially young people use it recklessly and are oblivious of the consequences. 

With the integration of social media into modern society, the tradition meaning or understanding of relationships, such as friendship, has changed. There is some research on the effects of social media on relationships of all sorts. There is evidence that reckless use of social media increases the chances of divorce. More youth are developing an addiction to the internet because of social media. They are constantly bombarded with information which takes over their lives.

Now even employers are using social media to attract talented employees. They are hoping to adapt to the current trends but they fail to see that they are contributing to a social problem in western society.

The negative consequences of irresponsibility are numerous. This CBC documentary, Doc Zone's Facebook Follies, CBC.ca illustrates the negative consequences of social media.

I believe that media literacy courses in elementary school must be redefined to incorporate social media into their curriculum. When I was in elementary school, I found media literacy courses as one of my biggest waste of time because we were being taught "how to use the internet" or other trivial skills. Most of us were better than our teachers these the skills there were teaching. Most parents are unaware of what their children are involved in so are unable to provide the right education at home. However, educators such as teachers are well versed in their students habits and are well equipped to provide the correct education at the correct age.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/divorce-attorney/san-francisco/prweb8972953.htm

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/704888_2

Gmail

          My Gmail e-mail account is one of my newest e-mail addresses. I have had it for just over a year. 

         

          When I started using it, I realized that there were many advertisements around my e-mails that were about subjects that I was interested in. Initially I believed that this was a coincidence but later I realized that the frequency is too high.  A friend of mine brought to my attention that Google screens e-mails and chat conversations rigorously. It was difficult to believe that but I knew it was not impossible. As I thought more about this, I wondered if it would be possible to characterize a person just from looking at the advertisement surrounding their Gmail main page.  

          As I started using my Gmail account more often, I realized that not only were the advertisements related to my e-mail content, they were related to my chat conversations. I felt Gmail was intruding my personal life even though "no human being" was to ever read the content. Under no circumstances did I ever imagine my private and confidential conversations being used to generate revenue. Even though I will "never be identified to the advertisers", I felt Google disrespected me by employing their aggressive advertisement targeting algorithm.

         

          Moreover, Google claims that they will never display advertisements based on sensitive matters. I recall a silly ad that was "served" to me regarding some financial service that dealt with sensitive issues and I am certain this was triggered by my friend and I discussing budgeting. Our conversation was very serious and the content was definitely confidential. At the end of the conversation, it felt as if we were mocked my Google when they "served" me that advertisement.

         

http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/privacy-policy.html