Select a result to preview

TLDR 130

Too Long; Didn't Read Issue 130

Published: 2017-12-30 • 📧 Newsletter

Welcome to Issue 130. Stop, collaborate, and listen.

This week was relatively busy as I spent some time writing and analyzing data. I have a request for feedback at the end of this week's newsletter.

This week I also made sure I spent time playing with the kids and enjoying the family. I hope you find the time to spend with those that you care for.

This week I posted the following:

I'll have two more posts over the coming days, but I'll continue to share more guidance like this over the coming year on my blog. I believe that it is your responsibility to think through and utilize these habits and practices if you choose to use these digital tools and platforms. Hopefully these posts will help.

This week I added an extra section to TL;DR. I'm working on some research and have been ironing out a model. I added it to the end of the week's issue along with some questions. Please take a look....and send me your thoughts.

Please subscribe to make sure this comes to your inbox each week. You can review archives of the newsletter or on Medium.

Say hey with a note at hello@wiobyrne.com or on the socials at wiobyrne.

🔖 Key Takeaways

📺 Watch

This video from Tali Sharot, Principal Investigator at the Affective Brain Lab discusses how out brains operate as we deal with confirmation bias, and new information or perspectives.

Presenting facts and the same facts over time may drive people further away. Sharot presents findings that suggest that finding common motives and identifying a shared goal is better than winning a fight.

📚 Read

Congress is debating warrantless surveillance in the dark

Along with all of the other news we've had recently about Russian hacking, disinformation campaigns, and net neutrality, another large story hasn't gotten much attention. You might not know much about Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act (FISA) but you should. Much of Section 702 came into scrutiny thanks to the Snowden leaks and what we learned about Upstream snooping and PRISM.

Section 702 is a surveillance authority passed that is supposed to collect foreign intelligence from non-Americans located outside the United States. As the law is written, the intelligence community cannot use Section 702 programs to target Americans, who are protected by the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. But the law gives the intelligence community space to target foreign intelligence in ways that inherently and intentionally sweep in Americans' communications.

Most proponents and detractors of the expiring law don't truly know how Section 702 works. No one, except those with the right security clearances, really understands how the law is used, how many Americans it affects, or how effective the programs it authorizes are at catching terrorists. The only individuals with a detailed understanding of Section 702's programs are those inside the US intelligence apparatus.

Congress has to renew Section 702 every few years. It was last renewed in 2012 and is set to expire at the end of 2017. If Congress doesn't pass a bill to reauthorize Section 702, the surveillance programs under the law will have to shut down. Congress has begun debating whether and how to reauthorize Section 702. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees, as well as the Senate Intelligence Committee, have already held hearings on the issue. As the post above from Wired suggests...we need more transparency and informed discussion about these important debates.

Facebook's uneven enforcement of hate speech rules allows vile posts to stay up

Over the past year, I've been slowing unpacking this picture of Facebook and their role as stewards of this online network that connects many on the planet.

On one note, they tried to utilize "disputed flags" to indicate fake news on your feed. The problem is that their research arm noticed that this wasn't working. Users saw the flags...and clicked even more. :(

On the other hand, in the lead post for this story, ProPublica approached Facebook to discuss 49 posts that might be deemed offensive. Facebook acknowledged that its content reviewers had mad the wrong call on 22 of them.

Let's think about this for a second. We see how Facebook at times plays fast and loose with our data and signals. Last week they admitted that our feed could be bad for us. Take a bit of time to read through the 49 offensive posts compiled in this ProPublica piece. Please be warned...this is hate speech. After reviewing this content...what should general users of the social network expect? What is an appropriate way response to these circumstances?

I review these "year in review" posts with a grain of salt. Typically they're very hyperbolic as they try to make sense of the year that was...while searching for your clicks. This one from Charlie Warzel at BuzzFeed had me nodding my head in agreement a lot as he tries to connect the dots between the social and the tech.

Yes, the underlying theme is one of the political rifts that currently exist in the U.S. But, I think you should read this while suspending political bias for a minute. I also think that you should read this is you're from outside of the U.S. As I've suggested in previous issues of TL;DR, I think we're seeing a wave of reactions ripple around our globe. None of this is primarily related to just the Americans.

What Warzel is setting out for us is that we're living in an informational war. There is a lot of noise, news, and buzz that is feeding off itself, and taking us hostage. He describes this as a "collective online nervous breakdown" that is splitting society and discourse in half.

If you can, read this and think primarily about the discussions and dialogue that we need to have as citizens in society. What impact will these rifts have on the ways in which we connect with one another. Also, keep in mind that these technologies and bots will become even more sophisticated. What happens when we see computer rendered creations of people that look like and talk like the real thing?

An interesting thing has been happening during the year in many of the discussions that I've been a part of. Many colleagues, friends, and family-members have been struggling to make sense of the term "privilege."

This has been in the form of social media posts that question "why are the athletes kneeling?" A particularly poignant moment came when a colleague at a recent academic conference indicated that she recognized that she needed to unpack the "privilege" that she has, but no one was there to help educate her. The only advice that I've gotten, and she was given was that she needed to recognize privilege, and sit in the discomfort for a bit.

It's only now after several months that I'm beginning to understand the weight of these words. My naive initial understandings of this center on first recognizing this "privilege." The next step is sitting in the discomfort and soak it in. Finally, there is a need to recognize, individually, that you will not get it. You will not understand...and that is okay. Think of it as a sociological form of "cognitive dissonance." You're exposing yourself to worldviews outside of your own. And...that's a good thing.

I'm continuing to research and write about this as I continue on my own journey. I'm also researching a related field...intersectionality.

This piece by Scott Barry Kaufman explores the reticence to focus on curiosity in our classrooms. This is despite the research that suggests that it is one of the strongest markers of academic success. The post explores the areas of motivation, gifted and talented education, and IQ.

One of the key takeaways for me is the partialling out of intellectual giftedness and motivational giftedness. Kaufman also presents research that suggests that giftedness is not something that an individual is born with or without. It is a developmental process.

🔨 Do

As you're cleaning up the previous year, and planning for resolutions for the upcoming year, perhaps you might finally try to tackle your email inbox.

I've written about the mythical land of Inbox Zero in the past. For me, seven steps is too many steps. :)

I prefer to use gMail, and select all...and then archive your emails. You can still search for your emails, but they're not in your face. I value Inbox Zero when I'm helping a colleague on their computer, and I notice that they've got 1563 emails in their inbox. I go into a panic attack. :)

This post from FastCompany gives you a good understanding of how to make this happen. Once again...I think it's important to make a clean break.

🤔 Consider

"Knowing trees, I understand the meaning of patience. Knowing grass, I can appreciate persistence." — Hal Borland

As 2017 closes with themes of confirmation bias, surveillance renewal, hate speech failures, and sitting in privilege's discomfort, Borland's nature wisdom offers perspective. The work of understanding, of fighting for privacy and shared reality, of developing curiosity over giftedness labels—these require both patience (trees growing slowly toward truth) and persistence (grass returning despite being trampled).

Previous: TLDR 129 • Next: TLDR 131 • Archive: 📧 Newsletter

🌱 Connected Concepts:

Part of the 📧 Newsletter archive documenting digital literacy and technology.