Select a result to preview

TLDR 131

Too Long; Didn't Read Issue 131

Published: 2018-01-06 • 📧 Newsletter

Welcome to Issue 131. From safe spaces to brave spaces.

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 posted the following:

I appreciate all of the feedback provided to me behind the scenes on the discussion model I shared last week. In terms of full transparency, I'm sharing an updated version of the model below. 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

Normally in TL;DR, I try to focus on bitesized video clips that you can consume in a short period of time.

The first video in this playlist is 9:35 and it will give you a good framework with how to approach this week's issue and the remainder of the stories. After you've finished that, please consider reviewing the remainder of the videos in the playlist from Innuendo Studios.

Please be warned that the materials you'll review, including the subject matter and language used is very graphic. This video playlist discusses the background of the "gamergate" story. Innuendo Studios regularly spends time focusing on some tough subjects that, perhaps, we need to think more about.

📚 Read

We've talked quite a bit about online behaviors and the negative, or darker side of some of these behaviors here in TL;DR. Pew Research Center surveys regularly find that online harassment is a common phenomenon in the digital lives of many Americans, and that a majority of Americans feel harassment online is a major problem. Every report they push out...I almost immediately tweet and include in this newsletter.

Even with this regular focus, strangely there is considerable debate over what online harassment actually means in practice.

To make some sense of this, the Pew Research Center presented individuals with three scenarios, and asked them if this was a situation in which they would identify this as "harassment." Scenario 1 details a private disagreement between friends that becomes public and escalates in severity. Scenario 2 used a story involving a character named Julie to explore how Americans view online harassment issues involving sexism and sexual harassment.

Scenario 3 used a story involving a character named John to explore how Americans view online harassment issues in the context of racially motivated content. Scenario 2 is nearly identical to Scenario 3 but with racial rather than sexual overtones.

Findings suggest that Americans broadly agree that certain behaviors are beyond the pale. For instance, in various contexts most agree that online harassment occurs when people make direct personal threats against others. At the same time, the public is much more divided over whether or not other behaviors – such as sending unkind messages or publicly sharing a private conversation – constitute online harassment.

If you're still trying to understand "gamergate", please watch the video playlist I shared at the start of this week's issue. I think this is a very important topic, and I'm surprised when students or colleagues indicate that they have never heard of this.

Please, take some time to review the subject. Please note that the materials you'll review, including the subject matter and language used is very graphic.

After you review the content, and video thread, I wonder why the FBI cared little about the investigation. Even as the FBI identified at least four men believed were responsible for sending threats and harassment...no charges were filed.

There's been a lot of public protest and backlash against Twitter over the past year as people wonder why the company will not suspend Donald Trump. They suggest that his tweets regularly violate the company's policies by harassing people or threatening acts of violence. In this newsletter, I've several times discussed my thoughts about whether there should be a terms of service attached to freedom of speech.

These calls were renewed this week, after Trump used Twitter to taunt North Korean leader Kim Jong-un about his nuclear arsenal. Protesters in San Francisco beamed the phrase "@jack is #complicit", a reference to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, onto the walls of the company's headquarters.

There is some pushback on this request to ban Donald Trump, citing that we're tying ourselves into "semantic pretzels" trying to explain away these behaviors.

The link shared at the top of this story is Twitter's response to why they will not ban Trump from the social network. They do not outwardly state it, but it seems like "world leaders" are held to a different standard than the rest of us.

Once again, I hope that you can review this story by suspending political ideology and whatever tribes you subscribe to. What rules, norms, and expectations should we have for these online spaces? What should we expect from Twitter, and other companies that facilitate these interactions?

Comedian Sarah Silverman has been recently quite vocal, and honest, on Twitter trying to understand Trump supporters. She tweeted out a link to this story about these attempts, and received a crude response from a Twitter follower.

I will not post the response from the supporter in this newsletter, but I think you should click through and review the initial response, and the response from Silverman. Please note that the language used in the initial response is quite crude.

Silverman's response tries to neutralize the tweet with the "neutralizing impact of unexpected love." What follows is a heartwarming story about the good things that can happen in these digital social spaces, if we take the time to speak from a place of acceptance and empathy.

This post from Thom Markham on the MindShift blog explores what learning means as we watch students interacting and communicating with others.

With the ability to obtain any fact from anywhere, perhaps real learning now is not collecting these facts in your mind. Perhaps real learning now is the ability to network, connect, and communicate. Much in the way that we tend to plants, there is a need to pay attention to students, and their ability to tend to each other...whether this is in the next seat, or the next continent.

"Education has noticed, driving the move to personalized, learner-centered, teacher facilitated, applied skills approaches to schooling, with increased emphasis on teamwork and collaborative project-based work in school, accompanied by a sharp necessity to tap deep student attributes such as engagement, motivation, openness, and curiosity."

🔨 Do

Over the past week, you've most likely either developed your own resolutions for the new year...or heard many others sharing what they'll change over the next 360 days.

Tim Ferriss suggests, and I agree, that these resolutions are mostly a waste of your time. I try to focus on building (or breaking habits) throughout the year as indicated in this episode of the Tim Ferriss podcast.

But, in thinking about the start of a new year, it is human nature to think about new beginnings. In light of that, I've been working on developing an annual review for myself as Tim discusses in this post.

I'll post my review once I've completed it. I'm currently using this model to develop my assessment. Once I've developed my metrics, I'll perform an 80/20 analysis of my effort and time during the year...and make the appropriate changes.

Do you conduct an annual review, or can you explain an 80/20 analysis to me like I'm a five year old so I can be successful? Please shoot me a note if you can. :)

🤔 Consider

"I think we all have empathy. We may not have enough courage to display it." — Maya Angelou

Previous: TLDR 130 • Next: TLDR 132 • Archive: 📧 Newsletter

🌱 Connected Concepts:

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