READY PLAYER ONE and our Virtual Selves

Over Thanksgiving break, I read this book Ready Player One on a whim. It was a young adult futuristic novel that takes place in the year 2044. In a world driven by natural disasters, resource shortages, and overpopulation, there is a vast online virtual reality universe called OASIS that people—especially the main character Wade—spend all their time on in order to escape their bleak reality. The world is filled with everything from virtual reality videogames to virtual classrooms. However, people who engage in the virtual reality world are all obsessed with one common mission—the quest of finding the virtual “keys” in that world somewhere that would eventually lead to the late OASIS founder’s fortune, a fortune that he left behind for the first person that would solve his riddles and find all three of his “keys”, in order to claim both his fortune and control of OASIS. The game pits unlikely hero Wade against corporations battling to find the keys and take control of OASIS with entry fees and limited access.

Though I mostly considered Ready Player One to be a fast-paced, thrilling adventure book, I also found it to contain revelations about our current and future society. We’ve become increasingly virtual since personal computers and cell phones were made. As time progresses and technology gets even more elaborate, would we choose to abandon reality in favor of virtual worlds? In the novel, the main character Wade has lost his parents from an early age, and lives with extended family that he hates, so it makes sense that he would spend all his time involved in his online quest. But what about other people who live in close-knit families and communities? Would they choose to separate themselves from the “real” people around them to pursue the experiences and people that the encounter online?

Another topic that is addressed in this novel is regarding the differences in the ways we present ourselves online versus the ways we present ourselves in real life. In the reality world, Wade augments his features, making his avatar slightly slimmer and less acne-prone. One of his best friends on OASIS is this avatar named Aech. Aech is a white male, and yet Wade finds out later in the book that the person behind Aech is actually a black female who made her avatar white and male because she thought being a white guy would make her more successful and give her more opportunities. It’s no secret that when we can create virtual versions of ourselves even in today’s society—in games, social forums, etc.—we often augment the “good” parts of ourselves, like Wade, or change our appearance entirely, like Aech, in order to communicate across to others a better version of ourselves. Though we might be able to project our “ideal” selves, it does potentially hurt the genuineness of our communication—we might become entirely different people on the Internet, and people would make friends with not our true selves but the selves we project. 

How Digital Maps Save Lives

Growing up in a digital age, the days of traveling by paper map seem far in the past. I still remember being a part of the experience—looking over my dad’s shoulder on road trips as he painstakingly marked exits and destinations with a pencil, helping read the map for him while he navigated unknown roads. But still, paper maps had their limits. They couldn’t mark detours, road changes, accidents, or disasters.

It’s a marvel how much cartography has evolved into the sophisticated, comprehensive digital maps of today. Far beyond merely giving me easy access to GPS capabilities or warning me about traffic, digital mapping can provide information on little-known places and, when disaster strikes, digital mapping can save lives.

In earthquake-prone areas, computer scientists have collaborated with humanitarian aid workers and locals to construct a comprehensive digital map during times of relative peace; when disaster hits, the map alters. Collapsed buildings and blocked roads are taken into account, and places where humans are trapped, or in need of rescue or supplies are marked on the updated map. This method was used by Kathmandu Living Labs, founded by Nepalese-American computer scientist Dr. Nama Budhathoki, after their 7.8 magnitude earthquake of April 2015. However, this concept of “crisis mapping” goes back even further, back when Patrick Meier, in the wake of the 2010 catastrophic Haiti earthquake, decided to compile everything from the internet—tweets, Facebook posts, images—to construct a “disaster map” of the area. Crowdsourcing the information allowed locals to inform Meier and his team of the areas in most critical need of rescue or supplies, which then helped enormously in directing humanitarian aid efforts. Meier marked big red dots on the digital map to indicate pharmacies that were still operating, or that needed help. After the Haiti earthquake, Meier has tried to bring digital mapping a step further, and his next project is using drone technology to put together an even more seamless and comprehensive 3-D model of areas prone to disaster.

Meier's map of pharmacies during the Haiti earthquake (source)

To me, this seems like an example of a way in which social media and digital technology has enormously benefited communities, especially in times of disaster. Digital technology opens up channels of connectivity and allows for quick, adaptive humanitarian responses that would not have been able to be accomplished if maps were still confined to paper. Still, digital mapping overall is a relatively new technology, and its wide-reaching capabilities can potentially cause privacy infringements. But is that a small risk that is outweighed by the life-saving power of maps? Or should that be a bigger concern?   

Fake News: How Digital Media Deceived the Election

The night of November 8^th, I sat numb with shock in front of my computer until 2 AM, frantically refreshing search pages as news kept breaking—and I know that I wasn’t the only one. Last week’s presidential election results surprised many, setting off a frenzy of investigation within our media and news sources. Before, it was taken somewhat for granted that polls were accurate predictors; that our media would paint a portrait of the candidates and accurately report the news surrounding each of them. Now, it seems that everything has been called into question, and glaring inaccuracies in our media sources have been uncovered—in particular the series of “fake news” that have been discovered on Facebook and in Google search results.

Such fake news include (but are not limited to) headlines proclaiming that Pope Francis endorsed Trump, or that famous public figures such as Denzel Washington or Tom Brady also endorsed the Republican candidate. They give fabricated reports of specific instances of racial violence that could spark hatred and fear (for example, that two white men were set on fire by Black Lives Matter members—whereas in reality the perpetrator was never affiliated with BLM). On election night, one of the top Google search results that popped up (when one googled election results) reported that Trump was winning the popular vote, whereas in reality Clinton was winning the popular vote while Trump pulled ahead in electoral votes. On the flip side, Facebook has also been accused of heavy liberal bias early on this year in the primaries. 

On the surface, it seems almost ironic. Technological advances in social media that (in theory) are supposed to increase accessibility to news and keep the American people as informed as possible. So why is there more miscommunication and discord between the media and the people than ever?

I think there’s a couple of interlocking reasons for this. See, because people rely more and more on social media to get their news, the distribution of media has shifted from news and broadcast corporations to the internet. By shifting distribution to the internet, anything can be considered “news”—meaning that quality control can suffer. News that are filtered, accurately fact-checked, and routinely distributed can be overshadowed Internet news and social media websites. “News” on the internet can be anything—from fabricated articles to scathing satire to pure sensationalist op-eds. Since news are no longer tightly controlled and vetted for quality, articles could be incredibly biased or even blatantly untrue, but still could be viewed as credibly “news” just because they were viewed a million times on Facebook.

It’s not just the unregulated media playing a role in trumpeting false information and breeding miscommunication, though. Oftentimes, the staggering amount of news made accessible means that we can pick and choose which kind of news we want to hear, meaning that we create an “echo chamber” in which we conflate opinions on our circles as national opinion. (PEW research says that liberals and conservatives are more likely to interact among themselves and share news that supports their opinion). Confirmation bias is still prevalent.

Regardless whether the surge of fake news influenced the election outcome, its increased circulation can erode trust we have in each other and harm the communication of facts and information. So how do we avoid this? How can we tell what's real news and what's not? 

1. Double-check the headline. If you see a questionable headline, google it. If the same news shows up across multiple reputable platforms (such as ABC, CNN, WSJ, etc.), then it's most likely to be real. 

2. Take a good look at the source. Are they a credible website? Have they published fair and accurate media over the past few years? Also, a lot of fake news websites tend to spoof real news sources to trick their readers (abc.com.co is a fake news source, while abc.com is real)

3. Beware of the echo chamber. When I see that something on Facebook has 30K likes, or 400 shares, I instinctively consider it real news. But just because something is circulating widely on the internet doesn't mean it's accurate. 

What do you guys think? To what extent do you trust digital news today? 

Social Media: Truly Social?

Sometime right around when I was forming this blog, I read a fascinating article in the New York Times saying that in the last 30 years, people have gotten lonelier, with the number of peoples’ intimate friendships decreasing. In other words, people have fewer and fewer close friends to truly confide in. 

The reason? Social media. Or, rather, our use of it.  

It seems like a paradoxical situation. How could social media, made of platforms that actively encourage connectivity and friendship, make us lonelier? But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the way we interacted with others on social media and the vast, overwhelming nature of social media itself could potentially alienate us from the deep, empathetic understanding and communication we crave. Based on my own experiences, along with the articles read and videos seen in my Feedly, I theorized three ways that the increased usage of social media could lead to a decrease of intimate, meaningful relationships with others. 

1. Social media enables multitasking, which hurts mutual engagement and understanding. 

A few days ago, as I was talking to a friend, I found myself surreptitiously checking my phone and seeing an urgent Facebook message I’d gotten from a classmate. As I nodded along and tried to engage in my real-time conversation, I frantically tapped out a response to the message. I remember little of the conversations held with both friends; I only remember the stress of needing to engage with both friends, and the subsequent guilt I felt when I realized that I wasn’t paying either friend the individualized attention they received.  

Using social media to multitask in our interactions is becoming commonplace. We tap out of meetings and family meals with a cursory scroll through out phone. Sherry Turkle, a cultural analyst, mentions in her TED Talk (on the effect of technology on communication) that by multitasking in our conversations, we distance ourselves from the interaction at hand, short-circuiting the depth of our engagement with friends, family, and coworkers at that moment. On the other hand, when faced with a multitasker, we feel as if we have to compete for their attention, or that what we have to say isn’t important at all. This, in turn, makes us more hesitant to confide in one another. 

2. The pressure to maintain a flawless image on social media translates to real life as well.

When I scroll through Instagram, I see the lives of others portrayed through rose-tinted filters with whimsical names. Photo albums on Facebook show effervescent social interactions and radiate seemingly effortless happiness. Based on social media posts, it seems as if everyone around me leads immaculate, perfect lives, and that any struggle I have marks me as an anomaly. 

I know that many posts on social media, including mine, are carefully curated, and that they don’t always accurately reflect the extent of someone’s circumstances. However, I think it’s exactly that reluctance to “get real”; to display vulnerability; to portray our honest, complete, flawed selves in our digital communications with one another. That expectation of maintaining a perfect façade discourages us from reaching out to each other with our worries and insecurities, dampening our ability to be sustain intimate, trusting friendships. 

3. In being able to reach a wider network of people, we end up valuing quantity of friendship over quality.  

 Social media gives us access to an expansive network of friends and acquaintances. People marvel at the ability to connect with their high school friends and maintain long-distance relationships via platforms like Facebook. However, this Atlantic article reveals that people, dazzled by their large numbers of “friends” or “followers” on Facebook, are spending an increasing amount of time grooming their virtual social circles and interacting with large crowds mere acquaintances to appear well-connected, rather than investing deep reservoirs of attention toward cultivating their bonds with a few people they’re close to. This results in many surface-level interactions, rather than a couple of meaningful, deep conversations that lead to close friendships. 

Now I ask you: do you relate to any of the 3 situations above? Are there other factors in which social media usage could decrease intimacy? On the flip side: are there ways in which social media can increase intimacy and depth of friendships? 

Social Media: the Conduit for Corruption-Free African Elections

At this time of year, as America's election fervor spreads, we take to social media to express our views and opinions. In spite of heated Facebook discussions and inflammatory tweets, there is still the underlying, unshakable belief that we exist in a democratic country; we take comfort in knowing that we have a relatively transparent voting processes and open access to forums and social media networks. 

In some countries of Africa, the people have a similar democratic process; candidates run, the citizens vote, and elections are transparent and fair. However, in other countries, such as some of the central African states like Congo or Cameroon, resource-rich lands have encouraged political corruption and leaders' desires to stay in power (to control the lucrative markets) by any means. Elections in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, have been rigged in favor of the incumbent leader and party. Political dissenters are silenced by the government, opposing parties are edged out of competition, through intimidation and threats, and there is serious lack of communication between voters and governments. 

This is where social media has stepped in, fostering communication and democracy between citizens as well as keeping a check on government corruption. 

Africa in the recent years has been going through a mobile revolution, and increasing rates of cell phone ownership have marked the continent as the site of the next digital revolution. With access to mobile info-sharing social media apps like Facebook, Twitter, and Whatsapp comes the opportunity for widespread communication and grassroots activism. educate each other in politics, and participate in their own forms of grassroots activism. Citizens are able to expose evidence of government abuses and crimes, which educate voters. People can form massive online communities to galvanize and recruit voters who once believed they had no say in the political process. Live recordings of the vote tallying process, publicized via Twitter, helps keep an accurate ballot count nationwide.  

Whereas three decades ago there was virtually no modern communication infrastructure in many parts of the continent, now, the increasing availability of mobile technology and social media in Africa has fostered a political revolution and a culture of connection. There are undersides to this process—governments attempted to shut down internet access, protesters in the Congo and Sudan have repeatedly clashed with government forces over their elections, and there is fear of the violence this Arab Spring-like movement could cause. Still, central Africans are closer to democracy than they ever were before. Activists are now compelled to share their ideas and political advocacies, with an online audience listening in. People feel like they belong to a rapidly growing community that extends past their immediate surroundings--a community that wields its own power over the government process. In countries plagued by corruption and authoritarianism, the knowledge, connections, and communities that social media platforms have provided aren’t just advantageous to the people—they’re the crucial stepping-stone to maintain a true democracy. 

Plugged In: An Introduction

Sometime last spring, I found myself beginning my fourth-block Calculus class when my teacher pounded the table as if he were a professor at a lectern, and declared, "Real communication is dying." 

I wasn't particularly surprised at his departure from the topic at hand (which, at that time, was the construction of Taylor Polynomials). An interesting character, he often inserted stories, quips, and opinions from his own life into our class. What I was surprised at was at his statement--and at the certainty with which he made it. Turns out, he'd been recently reading the book, Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in the Digital Age. In it, the author describes how the advent of digital technology made communication more remote and impersonal and made face-to-face conversation more or less obsolete. 

My first gut instinct was to reject that statement--how could digital technology, which has made networking and communicating so accessible to the world, impede "real communication" and conversation? How could we claim that communication, an integral part of humanity, was collapsing? 

But the next day, I saw my peers disengage from important classroom discussions by covertly playing games on their computers. I read an article that blamed Tinder, a dating app in which people express likeability by swiping right or left on a picture, for taking away the novelty of dating and promoting a judgmental, impersonal hookup culture. I began to wonder if the author--and my Calculus teacher--were onto something. 

Since I wasn't quite sure of my stance on this issue, I'd like to start this blog to investigate the effects of digital technology on our evolving methods of communication. The scope will be pretty broad--I'd like to cover everything from the effects of technology on teacher-student communication in the classroom to our digital dating culture to the effect of social media on presidential elections--but even with the varied topics, I'll strive to cover them all in a way that answers this question: how does the use of this technology affect our ability to communicate and form relationships with others?  

As a high school senior who thrives on conversations, who loves studying linguistics and foreign language, I am very acutely aware, like many millennials, of the role that effective communication will have to play in our increasingly globalized--and technological--world. By exploring the effect of technology and communication, I hope to reach out to both peers of my generation and adults alike through topics that affect us all, such as relationships, politics, psychology, and education. Through synthesizing multimedia sources and my own observations as a teenager, I provide a bit 

more clarification on how our technology affects the relationships we create and the lives we build. 

Word Count: 445