Select a result to preview

TLDR 161

Too Long; Didn't Read Issue 161

Published: 2018-08-17 • 📧 Newsletter

Welcome to Issue 161. What are the normal people up to?

And, we're back. I took the last two weeks off from this newsletter and social media (for the most part) and it felt good. I didn't think that a bit of a digital detox would matter, but it was nice. I took some time to rethink my relationship to these spaces, and my goals in general, and will take time to act on these in the upcoming months.

Since we last chatted, here's some stuff I posted:

🔖 Key Takeaways

📺 Watch

Climate Change is a real and serious issue. In this video Bill Nye, the Science Guy, explains what causes climate change, how it affects our planet, why we need to act promptly to mitigate its effects, and how each of us can contribute to a solution.

Also, if you're a Netflix user, you should watch the new series, Bill Nye Saves the World.

Nye's accessible science communication matters precisely because climate change denialism persists despite overwhelming scientific consensus. Breaking through requires messengers who can translate complex climate science into terms general audiences understand without condescension or alarmism. Nye threads that needle—respecting intelligence of viewers while making content comprehensible.

The urgency is real. Individual actions matter. But individual responsibility rhetoric sometimes obscures need for systemic change and corporate accountability. We need both personal choices and structural transformation.

📚 Read

This week the latest version of the Horizon Report was released. The Horizon Report is a yearly look at the key trends, challenges, and developments in ed tech that are likely to impact teaching and learning over the next five years.

Educause stepped in this year to continue the work of the Horizon project after the NMC unexpectedly declared bankruptcy and ceased operations at the end of 2017.

This latest report highlights:

The report provides snapshot of where higher education technology is heading, though predictions don't always materialize as expected. The value lies less in accurate forecasting than in prompting conversations about what technologies serve learning goals and which merely follow hype cycles.

Over the last week, a very interesting debate has been occurring surrounding Alex Jones, and his website, Infowars. For those of you that don't follow these spaces, Jones has used the Internet and his radio show for years to spread conspiracy theories and dangerous hoaxes. These have incited abhorrent behavior and even violence.

This content was banned over the last ten days on Facebook, Apple, Spotify, and YouTube. Each of these tools identified Jones' content as hate speech and as such against their terms of use.

Twitter, on the other hand, was slow to respond to Jones in any capacity, until they finally suspended him for seven days this week. This has been met by many calls for individuals to leave Twitter. As I write this newsletter, today (August 17th, 2018) is labeled as D-Day in which groups have amassed to delete Twitter and send a signal to the company.

This raises broader questions about hate speech, freedom of speech, and rights online. I hinted at some of the questions I've been having about this topic several months ago in TL;DR. Should there be a "terms of service" for freedom of speech? Also, should we require that tech companies be the ones to dictate and enforce these freedoms? I'm still not sure. What do you think?

The deplatforming debates reveal fundamental tensions: We want platforms to moderate harmful content but worry about private companies wielding censorship power. We value free speech but recognize speech can cause real harm. We expect consistency but platforms face edge cases where rules conflict. We want accountability but struggle to define who decides what crosses lines.

There are no clean answers. Every position involves tradeoffs between competing values we all hold.

Location tracking services have been built in to Google Maps, and most specifically Android phones for some time. Google added the ability to turn location tracking off. An investigation by the Associated Press found that many Google services on Android devices and iPhones store your location data even if you've used a privacy setting that says it will prevent Google from doing so.

The AP had their results confirmed by Computer-science researchers from Princeton.

Click through the interactive section of the post to get a better idea of what this data looks like plotted on a map to see if you would be fine with this.

The violation here isn't just continued tracking but the betrayal of explicit user choice. When someone toggles "Location History" off, they reasonably expect location tracking to stop. Instead, Google continues collecting location through other services, storing data users explicitly opted out of having collected.

This represents dark pattern at scale—interface suggests control user doesn't actually have. The setting doesn't disable location tracking; it just disables one particular use of location data while allowing others to continue. The deception is in the naming and interface, not just the underlying practice.

Google's defense—that users can disable other location services too—misses the point. Users shouldn't need expert knowledge of Google's internal service architecture to understand what privacy settings do. "Location History Off" should mean "don't track my location," full stop.

Over my vacation, I was interviewed by EdSurge to talk about digital literacies, and Facebook's plan to share more resources on how to be digitally literate. In the wide ranging discussion, we talked a bit about how to effectively, or practically embed this content in instruction.

As I was reflecting on this discussion, this post from Michelle Schira Hagerman popped up in my feed. The post is from last year, but it provides good context as you begin a new school year.

Hagerman's six approaches:

  1. Start with questions - What problems do students face that digital tools help solve?
  2. Build on students' existing practices - Don't assume they need taught from scratch
  3. Make connections explicit - Help students see how skills transfer across contexts
  4. Create authentic purposes - Real audiences and real stakes motivate real learning
  5. Provide scaffolding and support - Digital doesn't mean easier; students need structured help
  6. Reflect on learning - Make thinking visible about what worked and why

The guidance resists treating digital literacy as separate subject requiring special units. Instead, it's woven throughout curriculum whenever digital tools serve learning goals.

Relationships matter more than rules

As I stepped away from digital, social spaces for two weeks, I also spent a lot of time with family and engaged face-to-face with loved ones that don't exactly have the same viewpoints that I may have. I then spent a day this week at a retreat for my department as we shared more about ourselves, and the strengths we bring to work.

One of the takeaways I've been having from these instances is the importance of sitting with others and just listening. As I sit in front of a computer and research or write, I'm frequently wrapped up in how I think the world should act. In truth, these messy spaces in which humans, loved ones may not agree with us—that's where the real "truths" may lie.

The digital detox reinforced this lesson. Online spaces reward quick takes, definitive positions, clear sides. Face-to-face relationships require sitting with ambiguity, listening to perspectives that challenge yours, finding connection despite disagreement.

This applies in classrooms too. Rigid rule enforcement without relationship building creates compliance without understanding. Students need to feel seen, heard, valued before behavioral expectations make sense. Rules provide structure, but relationships provide motivation to care about structure's purpose.

The messiness isn't weakness—it's where genuine human connection happens. The disagreement isn't failure—it's opportunity to practice holding multiple truths simultaneously.

🔨 Do

I've talked (and written) quite a bit about my use of Hypothesis in my own personal work, as well as in my teaching.

Remi Kalir pulls all of these threads together as he shares how he uses some of these open tools and practices to open up his classroom, and make learning more relevant.

I'm 3/4 of the way to what Kalir is describing. This Fall I'm fully diving in. As you plan, develop, and launch your courses this year, come join in and let me know what you think. I see this as being a powerful tool in secondary and higher ed.

The approach:

This transforms course documents from one-way communication into collaborative meaning-making. Students actively engage with expectations rather than passively receiving them. The annotation layer makes visible what would otherwise remain private—confusion, excitement, connections, questions.

It models participatory learning from day one. If students co-create understanding of syllabus, they're more invested in course and better equipped to engage with actual content. Annotation becomes habit of mind, not just tool for specific assignment.

🤔 Consider

"It's the rough side of the mountain that's the easiest to climb; the smooth side doesn't have anything for you to hang on to." — Aretha Franklin

Aretha Franklin's wisdom about difficulty and grip resonates profoundly with this issue's theme of returning from digital detox and engaging messy spaces where real truth lives. The smooth side looks easier—frictionless interfaces, algorithmic curation, echo chambers that confirm existing beliefs, rules without relationships, clean answers to complex questions. But smooth offers no purchase, no way to pull yourself higher, no texture for hands seeking hold. The rough side—disagreements with loved ones, platforms struggling with moderation decisions, privacy settings that don't work as expected, classrooms where relationships matter more than compliance—provides handholds precisely through its difficulty. Google's smooth interface hides rough reality of continued tracking. Alex Jones deplatforming reveals rough edges where free speech meets hate speech. Digital literacies require rough engagement with ambiguity rather than smooth consumption of predetermined lessons. Annotated syllabi expose rough collaborative process rather than smooth finished product. Franklin reminds us that growth happens through friction, that challenges provide the very handholds we need to climb higher, that smooth easy paths lead nowhere while rough difficult ones take us places worth going. The question isn't whether to choose smooth or rough—it's whether we're brave enough to grab hold of rough surfaces that actually support ascent.

Previous: TLDR 160 • Next: TLDR 162 • Archive: 📧 Newsletter

🌱 Connected Concepts:

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