Slashdot Mirror
Obama Calls Today's Ubiquitous Gadgets and Information "a Distraction"
zaphod was one of several readers unhappy with the sentiment expressed in President Obama's graduation address to the students of Virginia's Hampton University, writing: "According to Obama, 'information becomes a distraction' when it comes to iPads, the Xbox, etc. (All items he admits not knowing how to use.) He's basically saying we are getting too much information too quickly, and from 'unreliable sources.' Of course, he's referring to talk radio, blogs and other mediums that tend to disagree with his political views."
CNET has a slightly different, less critical reaction, focusing on the differences among the actual devices named; they note that the Xbox is not an iPad.
Bill Gates talked about Information Fatigue years ago when Microsoft was trying to bring together disparate information systems with their backend server tools.
Here's an article from 2006
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/2006/05-17eim.mspx
The idea was that it wasn't too much information coming in that was the problem. Rather it was too much pure data and "dumb" information being presented to users. This led to users getting too wrapped up in filtering this information themselves and spending too little time with the data that they truly needed.
Pascal once wrote "The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter." Cutting through the vast amount of unnecessary data to get to important intelligence is time consuming. Obama is right, but he's also a decade late.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." ... --Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Anyone else been noticing the difference between what comes out of Obama's mouth, and what his administration actually does? The term "distraction" isn't far off the mark.
I agree with him on this one. Sort of...
We are getting distracted by disinformation from bloggers who crave web hits over actual journalism. We also don't place enough value on actual journalists (you know the trained professions) who go out in the field and research the report, and their editors who fact check the story (*cough*) before it is placed on the web or in print.
We live in an echo chamber. Where if it's linked by three bloggers then it must be true. Where if it's similar to what you wish were true then it must be true.
My only beef is that he didn't mind the unsubstantiated "information" that benefited his position and allowed him to win an election with nothing more than a "Yes We Can" slogan.
Live by the tweets and blogs, die by the tweets and blogs...
I think it would be more accurate to say that we are distracted by technology (games, tweets, etc.) instead of actually trying to learn something... Really, how many teenagers are actually using technology to learn something beneficial? Really?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Mm, very interesting point. As an honest discussion-starting question, what are ways these new technologies could be used to promote democracy and involvement? As another post in this story says (and I totally agree), one of the biggest problems in our current form of government is a lack of involvement in and lack of importance placed on our democracy.
The ability to spread information so quickly and so ubiquitously could definitely be a useful tool for this, methinks.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
The other problem I am becoming more concerned about is people building bubbles of information and opion which does not include outside POVs.
What I mean is that people read blogs, watch TV shows etc., which only serve to reinforce their current world view. Whether that be to the left or right in the political spectrum. Or opinions on scientific research, or religious groups.
Recently I went to a precinct meeting of my $PoliticalPartyofMyChoice. I then volunteered to serve as a delegate to the county caucus. In this situation I was forced meet with, in real life, people I did not agree with. Even in the same political party there can a wide variety of points of view, biases, misinformation, lack of good information, undiscussed issues of concern to you etc. Speaking to people face to face without the shroud of the internet forced me to think about things and review some of my biases and positions. I had argue (in the classical sense of the word, as in "to debate") some of my points and allow myself to be educated.
It was actually was a good experience due to that. I would recommend it. Put down the iPad and XBox, get out of the house, and get involved face-to-face.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
...the original article does have a point about most people's definition of an "unreliable source" being "a source I don't agree with."
.
Bullshit.
Please define "most people", and cite your references.
It is damned easy to throw out blanket statements like this, especially when they have a kind of seductive way of prompting us to shrug and say, "Well, that makes sense." It is somewhat harder to actually think about what is being said. The strong implication is that all "sources" are reliable and we discount those we disagree with as un-reliable simply because we disagree with them. "Talk radio" is demonstrably unreliable as a source of information. And why should it be otherwise? It's an entertainment medium, designed to sell commercials, and nothing more. The fact that I disagree with him 99% of the time doesn't change the fact that Glenn Beck is fountain of nonsense 99% of the time. But I don't lose any sleep over Beck selling commercials to those willing to support his goofy show. I most certainly do lose sleep over the fact that there are a lot of people out there who think that Glenn is any kind of credible information source.
What all this has to do with iPads and whatnot, I don't really get, but I have a strong suspicion that some speech writer was trying to make the prez look a little less threatening (i.e. not "young and radical") to the demographic group that historically has trouble coping with changes... like "...all them new-fangled information gadgets".
What money has he put into cleaning up the oil spill, besides the money it cost to put on pressers yelling at BP? I mean, I'm sure he's mobilized some units of the Reserves, Coast Guard, and Navy/Air Force, but what real tangible action has the US Government taken, while our coastline (I'm from the Florida Panhandle, and trust me, we're already being affected) is getting fucked over. I can understand how a big portion of the fault lies with BP and the company they've contracted to run the oil rig that started this mess, but it was the US Government that gave them the authority to drill there in the first place with large acreage of drill rights given (sold) to BP from the US.
That means, as much as Mr. Obama may not like this, his government (regardless of the fact that it was some previous administration/congress that actually sold the rights) is partially responsible, and thus is partially also responsible for the cleanup effort. Also, it would be hypocritical for him to make such a big deal about how the previous administration handled Katrina, and then essentially do little besides call an oil company names in the media. I think the more responsible action would be to assist BP in whatever way possible with whatever assets it takes to get the oil spill contained, and then determine if BP should continue to retain the rights they own due to their negligence in preventing the spill in the first place (many supposed fail safes didn't even work correctly).
Of course, people against oil drilling in the Gulf are taking this opportunity to call for a halt in all oil drilling in this area, but in fact it's more of a cluster fuck by one company at one rig that resulted in this entire mess. They certainly do need to evaluate if BP should continue to be allowed to drill in the Gulf, and the need for better oversight on the safety measures being taken at these oil rigs. Also, I personally would rather us club baby seals and drill in Alaska than fuck up the Gulf of Mexico which affects 6 states and a good portion of Mexico's coastline, but then again, I could care less about baby seals and they are likely to be eaten anyways. (and to anyone who takes the last part seriously, WOOOOOOSH)
My job also consists of a lot of email, but some of us realize that email is just as much a distraction as it is a tool. I have seen too many people that sit in a meeting, and are so involved in their emails that they completely ignore the conversations going on in which they are there to be involved in. Yes, email is a tool, and a very handy one at that, but is not a replacement for actually interacting with someone.
I am not saying that the Blackberry is on the same level as an XBox, but that it is as much of a distraction to the user as it is an annoyance and distraction to anyone who is forced to wait for the imaginary friend on the other side of the email, before being able to continue a real-world interaction. Which, sounds a bit like, according to him,a point where "information becomes a distraction." He is speaking of not just games, but the overload of information, both good and bad.
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.
In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug issues.
"Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them," he said. "We're not at war with people in this country."
30 years ago, most of these issues were pretty much solved. Evolution wasn't questioned, everyone was vaccinated.
Well, the internet is a relatively new phenomenon. Twitter-level information spreading (aka. Swine Flu Panic) is even newer. It'll take some time to develop filters, both technical, social, and intellectual.
However, the Slashdot model does work fairly well: it's not credible because of the article itself, but because hundreds of people are discussing it. If half the comments are questioning the validity of the facts presented, you'll know there's something fishy.
The same applies to the comments as well: by reading the discussion, you'll not only verify the information, but also learn about related things, like better alternatives, subtle pitfalls, etc. This is also why StackOverflow works out so nicely.
Ultimately, there is no Truth, just levels of certainty, and we as a society should embrace that. Boolean logic does not apply to reality.
He was fine with twitter, and facebook, and media devices when he utilized them for his campaign. We've "moved on" and his stance is, "Now that enough of you have bought into my message, I'd like to discourage you from hearing messages from anyone else. Particularly my opposition."
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi