Notes+and+research+October+17

Thomas Solley STSH 4980-01 Senior Thesis Costelloe-Kuehn 10/17/2014 10/22/2014

Click here to return to portfolio.

__ Notes and Research findings; as per Research Questions, and Proposal Topics; __ Research questions; [from Record_All] Ridley, Michael. “Beyond Literacy: Are Reading and Writing Doomed?” //14th ACRL Conference, Seattle, Washington. Retrieved August//. N.p., 2011. //Google Scholar//. Web. 6 Oct. 2014. , talking about how the "act of reading written words" could become displaced...
 * 1) (Overall question) "have we come to define 'humanity' to require physical, flesh-based contact?"
 * 2) To the Anti-Facebook mentality; "if those technologies (smartphones, social networks, facebook) are 'bringing us down,' how do you view the 'negatively' impacted? Are they something 'less than human'?"
 * 3) 'Connotation between "human" and face-to-face reactions' [Professor Brandon]
 * 4) 'People have been talking about this, part of this is the way we interact... for a long time! Definition of "introverts," "social zombies," "shut-ins"...' [Professor Brandon]
 * 5) 'The way we communicate is fundamental to our definition to "humanity"' [Professor Brandon]
 * 6) 'Speech is given priority over writing' [Professor Brandon]
 * 7) The "Postliteracy" document,
 * 1) ... I concur with this, as does Star Trek (Movie 4?), Kirk's physical copy of "Moby Dick"... Physical books seen as an artistic item, a "collector's" additon... More of an art-value than a practical thing. Therefore physical books may continue to exist, but will liekly only cater to the rich, the sophisticated, or the privileged.
 * 2) Stephenson's "The Diamond Age" and Clarke's "Childhood's End"/"3001, The Final Odyssey" seem to also endorse this view.
 * 3) 'Facebook "isn't real," favor presence over absceence' [Professor Brandon]
 * 4) 'Embodiment' [Professor Brandon]
 * 5) 'Looking at ethnographics; who reacts against these [smartphones, SNs, Facebook]? Who is claiming that these persons [who use these technologies] are "becoming zombies"?' [Professor Brandon]
 * 6) 'New Yorker cartoon, kid on the screen is called a "zombie" by a passing mother...' [Professor Brandon]

>>>> >>>>> //• Apps are guilty until proven innocent// >>>>> //• Anti-technologists that are ahead of the curve" ....// Whelp. I'll accept the "apps" bit for now -- maybe. I don't know which the author will be focusing (though I suspect Snapchat and Tindr will be on that list). Pity I don't have access to his "ahead" article though -- I'd be interested to see what he means by "ahead" AS WELL AS his perceptions of "the curve."... >>>>> These disorders are far more prevalent than we might like to admit; one [|2010 study] of phantom vibration syndrome found that 68 percent of subjects experienced the hallucination. Another [|study] way back in 2006 found that one in eight Americans showed at least one symptom of Internet addiction—and that was before the advent of YouTube or affordable smartphones." Ok, that is more like it. Now if I can find the original studies for evidence... If relevant. While I've been very successful in finding the "anti-connection" thoughts and opinions, I have had much less luck with the H+ response or "counter arguments" to these claims. Now, I expect most of them will be similar to my own -- limited perspectives, origins of fears in organic evolution, illusions of "immortal man," delusions of evolutionary role of technology... Yet these "pushback" ideas have some merit, too. There are some good points here, that I've been making in my own head for a while now. Yet the argument -- from the Transhumanist perspective, that is, strikes me as being more specific than addressing the claims of these "conservatives."
 * 1) What can the debate between anti-Facebook users and Transhumanists tell us about.... [REDACTED]
 * 2) What can we learn from these two perspectives on the "moral weight" of "humanity" and the relation to technology?
 * 3) Transhumanists seem to view technology as "liberating," if not as humanity's "salvation." Granted, the H+ movement takes a more caitious view of this -- factoring-in the bioconservative and ethical fears into their discussions and conferences.
 * 4) Not certain about the ... other side.
 * 5) How do the anti-facebookers define "humanity"?
 * 6) Not sure yet.
 * 7) (how do the h+ define humanity)
 * 8) See above. Will link below.
 * 9) As per the "about" page, Humanity Plus says, "The human is a biological animal, which evolved approximately 200,000 years ago as the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans). The Western world’s consensus on what is “normal” for a human biology, life span, intelligence and psychology established certain precedents. Outside these precedents would mean that a human is subnormal or beyond normal. A person who is afflicted with a physical affliction, a mental condition, or degenerative disease would be considered to be outside the normal range. Likewise, a person who has increased physiological performance or cognitive abilities, or lives beyond the human maximum lifespan of 122-123 years, would be considered outside the normal range. This determination of “normal” has not kept up with the advances in technology or science." This does not explicitly include what that "consensus" on "normal" is, however. Nor what those "precedents" are.
 * 10) What are the relationships to technology of the anti-facebookers' definitions of humanity[?]?
 * 11) What assumptions about the future do both sides make?
 * 12) Transhumanists (from the H+ website, ) within the H+ page -- or at least, the organisation calling itself Humanity Plus -- takes a rather diverse perspective on the future. Their "about" page, , seems to prophesizing several events within the future;
 * 13) "these technologies, and their respective sciences, would take the human beyond the normal state of existence", E.g. that this will be something negative -- assumption that technology will transcend "humans", and that humans will be "left behind" [both distinct future concerns]
 * 1) "these technologies, and their respective sciences, would take the human beyond the normal state of existence", E.g. that this will be something negative -- assumption that technology will transcend "humans", and that humans will be "left behind" [both distinct future concerns]
 * 1) Technology can "expand human capabilities" and -- extrapolating from the "about" page -- render the discrimination against injured or afflicted persons "null and void," as technology will be able to render all physical impediments nonexistent.
 * 2) About Smartphones and wearable tech; "Both therapeutic and selective enhancement challenges the normal status and aim to expand human capabilities that further human physiological and cognitive functions and extends the maximum life span. External devices such as smart phones, smart watches, wearable bio monitors, Google glasses, etc. are all expanding human capabilities In the field of medical technology," thus "smartphones" are a positive thing. However, I feel that their definition of "smart phone" is different from the colloquial "smartphone" -- even though the two terms are similar and may have a shared "true" definition [they are not, see below]
 * 3) As per the linked article, , "smart phones" are just "phones" that have increased capability besides calls -- such as texting, calendar, playing music, taking video and photos, playing games, checking email, IM, mapping, and FM radio (full list at attached link). The term "smartphone" is a marketing term used today to describe the "typical 'smartphone' by US definitions (see above), usually a 3.7", 4" or 4.3"-screened touch slab driven by Android." These "smartphones" also are trending towards Cloud-stored data and "always on" services.
 * 4) What gets me wondering is if the Anti-facebook group (if it exists?), which "technology" they have a problem-with.
 * 5) Continuing on, "There is nothing intrinsically wrong with aiming to be better than well.", which is an assumption even-of itself.
 * 6) The "Christian Perspective on Human Enhancement," (2010) seems to have a coutner claim, [quote in-text from a Conference of European Churches "The internal logic of enhancement is its own undoing, because one would have no reason to be satisfied whatever enhancements one amde to oneself." I feel this is more referring-to the "Body Dysmorphic Disorder" than "trying to make people better than well" -- as the focus the H+ seems to take is on supercharging health. This view of the H+ seems removed from their (shared) discussion of misuse of medicine...
 * 7) See , original citation.
 * 8) c
 * 9) ... "Ello" makes a few "assumptions" in their website, such as;
 * 10) "Virtually every other social network is run by advertisers. Behind the scenes they employ armies of ad salesmen and data miners to record every move you make. Data about you is then auctioned off to advertisers and data brokers. You're the product that's being bought and sold.Collecting and selling your personal data, reading your posts to your friends, and mapping your social connections for profit is both creepy and unethical. Under the guise of offering a "free" service, users pay a high price in intrusive advertising and lack of privacy." Most interesting. So -- proven or not -- there is this claim that "Facebook is violating privacy"..
 * 11) Seems to stem from the "Net Neutrality" and/or "Metadata" concerns?
 * 12) Or, is this issue of "ads" and "privacy" seperate from that? Granted, that is how Facebook makes money -- by targeting ads, in a similar fashion to Google.
 * 13) "We also think ads are tacky, that they insult our intelligence and that we're better without them." Another rather interesting claim -- about "intelligence," this time. I must say -- I'll be rather intrigued to see how this comes together.
 * 14) When did the "debate" begin -- if it had a beginning? When did the focus shift to smartphones and social networks?
 * 15) How do transhumanists respond to the anti-facebook, "human contact" debate?
 * 16) Unknown yet -- need specific articles first.
 * 17) What is the "anti-facebook"/"anti-smartphone"/"anti-Social Network" ideas consist of? Is it a movement? Does this movement have a name?
 * 18) Is there an "anti-facebook" movement?
 * 19) There is a "anti-facebook" SN called "Ello," , their "assumptions" I will discuss above. Found out about them from , which makes its own assumptions; "Ello appears to have caught on with its simple message which seems to take aim at frustrations of Facebook users." Quite interesting. I wonder how they gathered that data?
 * 20) Internal quote taken from Nathan Jurgenson, social media researcher at University of Maryland, "<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',HelveticaNeue,helvetica,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">"Ello is getting so much attention precisely because it promises social media of a different politics. We’ve collectively come to the realization that the rise of social media has been accompanied by handing far too much power to far too few people, and there’s energy to shake things up, even if just a bit."" So... there is a perception of social media being "controlled"?
 * 21) As per <http://antifacebookmovement1.blogspot.com/>, there are other similar SNs out there -- diaspora.com, no-fad.com.... [++ Unthink]
 * 22) Suspected internal quote; "There are fish who like to swim against the stream. Facebook is the cancer of the 21th century. It's spreading everywhere and pollutes our human environment, damaging the most important thing in our life: our social, romantic, and family connections. It promotes values like voyeurism, hypocrisy and boisterousness. It's the most serious treat on our freedom - not Al-Qaeda." Rather intriguing. Unknown what source that came from originally, sadly.
 * 23) ... John Purian, owner of the no-fad.com dating website, interview included within the article.
 * 24) More; "Wow, actually know their friends?<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 15px; text-align: justify;">-You're laughing, but the weird thing is that this concept became subversive. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 15px; text-align: justify;">-Isn't it really a site for social outcasts? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 15px; text-align: justify;">-These you can find everywhere in Facebook. Many of our users are "people persons", who just can't stand the shallowness and artificiality of the Facebook society. Until today they were facing a cruel choice: join or vanish. We address the silent majority, people who spend their time with their real friends and family, who believe in person to person communication, and their private life is private." So... Rather interesting as well.
 * 25) My takeaway from this furthers the "common definition of social outcast"... Or at least, this seems to confirm that such a "notion" may "exist" in "common perception".
 * 26) My takeaway thus far is that //__**<range type="comment" id="526984362_1">THERE IS NO CENTRALIZED ANTI-FACEBOOK MOVEMENT IN**__ **EXISTENCE</range id="526984362_1">.**// Rather, there are small, disparate websites that each seek to accomplish something of the "anti-facebook"-specific frustrations that have been expressed by users. This is NOT a generalized comment against Social Networks as a whole or against Smartphones, however. Having browsed the first page of results after Google-ing the words "anti-facebook movement," my results indicated the above -- see attached image for a screenshot.[[image:antifacebooksearchresults_10172014.PNG width="800" height="463"]]
 * 27) This of course does not mean that such a "centralized" movement or group CAN'T or DOES NOT exist -- merely that if they do, they are currently too small to be shown or mentioned within the first page on Google (which is a User Assumption). As a part of that assumption, I claim that IF such a group existed, GIVEN how controversial the Facebook ads/privacy debate is, I would expect to see news articles (if not also a homepage) for such a movement -- discussing its origin, arrival, debut, views, claims made, controversies created, etc. Yet this is not the case (as per above).
 * 28) As per page 2 of that Search, I found this; <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unthink>. Unthink did at one time claim to be the start of a "movement," to "promote an entrepreneurship era" (1). However, the Wiki article does not provide detail as to whether this is still the case -- //__**HOWEVER**__// strong parallels are made between it's ideologies and the Occupy movement. May need to look to the Occupy movement for more info (which I originally thought, in 2011, was about finance and tax income inequality -- part of a series of social reforms that SEEMED on the verge of invoking ACTUAL change to "the system" [see the African/Egypt dictator overthrows earlier that year]).
 * 29) The current website of Unthink <unthink.com> just says, "future home of something quite cool." It is unclear if they still exist or act as a force for change -- but judging by the lack of activity on their website, my guess is "no."
 * 30) "<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;">Christopher Barger speculated on <span style="color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.3999996185303px; text-decoration: none;">[|Forbes.com] <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.3999996185303px;"> that Unthink and other new social networks may encounter difficulties drawing users because consumers "may have reached a saturation point with social networking". <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 11.1999998092651px;"> [|[8]] " So with all this in-mind... This adds another dimension -- that of "saturation" of the market, e.g. putting the debate into "supply-demand" terms.
 * 31) Is there an "anti Social Network" movement?
 * 32) <http://www.talentzoo.com/beyond-madison-ave/blog_news.php?articleID=17041>, seems to claim that the move away-from social networks was positive and in-line with the advancements from "tv, radio, and print" to the Internet as forms of communication [parallels to the argument of the "Beyond Literacy" article]
 * 33) <http://readwrite.com/2010/08/30/the_rise_of_the_anti-facebooks>, more of an anti-facebook article really... More Diaspora stuff.
 * 34) <http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/digital-marketing/anti-social-media/>, this is more like it! This sounds like the "is google making us stupid?" piece I read back in Freshman year... Similar points -- focused on a conference about workplace productivity (included reps from Facebook, Zynga, Twitter), concluded with tips for how to manage "online" diet.
 * 35) Has me wondering fi I should be putting more thought / focus towards an "offline movement," an "unplugging movement," one that focuses on "putting oneself back into physical space"...
 * 36) .... The article did make mention of how "there is a movement," but just like the "anti-facebook" articles no express name is given to it -- leading me to think it a comment on an "unnamed trend" rather than a "user-driven collaboration."
 * 37) <http://www.thenation.com/article/155225/antisocial-network>,
 * 38) "<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #1d1d1d; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 15.1999998092651px;">(Americans now spend more time on Facebook than on the next five most popular websites combined.) This is the capitalist narrative that runs closest to Facebook's popular press coverage." Most interesting... What are those five websites? As a quote, this is a useful one -- though I'd like to know where he got his info from. Give me demographics, give me data!
 * 39) ... The article gives a bit more history into the particular concerns about Facebook (several campaigns are mentioned by name). There is also a bit more info about the adapted film, and the means by which the depicted Zuckerberg acquires persons private information.
 * 40) <http://www.trackingterrorism.org/article/social-network-alteranti-globalization-movement-and-counter-forums>, I no not know what to make of this article... As it seems to take a "military strategy" approach for "how to deal with social networks" and "communication amongst insurrectionists"... Although certainly if this topic is receiving such considerations, it is "big" enough to be worth the effort...
 * 41) UrbanDictionary definition of "antisocial network," <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Antisocial%20Networking>, seems to fall in-line with criticisms of "introverts"...
 * 42) So clearly there ARE concepts of what is "suitable" in terms of communication -- there are "expectations" held by certain groups. Now, if I could only find WHAT those expectations are...
 * 43) <http://theantisocialmedia.com/unfriending/>,
 * 44) "<span style="background-color: #f5f4f0; color: #363636; font-family: 'Gill Sans','Gill Sans MT',Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">It’s easy to just keep following people and adding friends. If it were up to the social networks, that’s all you’d do. You’d end up drowning in so much information you’d never be able to take your eyes off the news feed. - See more at: http://theantisocialmedia.com/unfriending/#sthash.zgpIbDcA.dpuf" . Assumptions about what the "social networks" are seeking to do.... (assumed intents). Not sure if this assessment is "fair" though -- what gives this website that impression?
 * 45) "<span style="background-color: #f5f4f0; color: #363636; font-family: 'Gill Sans','Gill Sans MT',Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The joy of modern life is that even when we are alone, we continue to be together, building the weakest of relationships. - See more at: http://theantisocialmedia.com/unfriending/#sthash.zgpIbDcA.dpuf" "The weakest of relationships," you say? What constitutes a "stronger" relationship, then? Well, their main webpage <http://theantisocialmedia.com/about/> discusses this website as "satire"... Which is interesting, certainly.
 * 46) //__**<range type="comment" id="527005514_1">I COULD CONTACT THE AUTHOR!!?? INTERVIEW HIM, ASK ABOUT WHERE TO LOOK FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE "ANTI SOCIAL NETWORKING"**__ **TREND**//...</range id="527005514_1">
 * 47) <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/> Had to be included, of course, as I have referenced it myself a few times over the years. The article itself focuses on the behavioral changes in reading-styles and mental patterns as they have changed over the years, from a "long immersive full-body dive" to "short skims of context, looking for a quick win." The particular mannerism described there may also have its roots in the "busying" of society -- our "rush to nowhere," as Fitzgerald once said.
 * 48) "<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px;">Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self. “We are not only //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px;">what //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px;"> we read,” says Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University and the author of //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #00598c; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none;">Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px;">. “We are //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px;">how //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px;"> we read.” Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace. When we read online, she says, we tend to become “mere decoders of information.” Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged." Most intriguing... Seems to support the idea that the internet and phones have become enablers of information-access (just as I had been claiming in my most recent memos).
 * 49) .... In self-reflection, I must admit, he has a point. I've learned to turn-off the "thinking" part of my brain when reading articles online... And instead I become a "decoder," fishing for buzz-words or phrases to capture my attention. I partly blame the limited timespan I had this evening for this research -- for I like to think that, given more time, I could have gone "deeper." And while thinking about it, my typing skills "feel slow"...
 * 50) "<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px;">“The brain,” according to Olds, “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”" And yet, I feel I have not had such a "re-write" in such a long time.. Or does the last summer count? I used to have these phases, every term, where I would self-analyze, see a flaw, follow it, and then "re-discover" what I had been "missing" in my approach to life... A process which is similar to both research in academia as well as crafting scientific papers for study. [See what I did there? The article talks of how sentence-structure has changed to be terser, less "prosaic", so I began re-drafting my sentences to hold greater contribution].
 * 51) [Skipped the rest?] "The Internet promises to have particularly far-reaching effects on cognition. In a paper published in 1936, the British mathematician Alan Turing proved that a digital computer, which at the time existed only as a theoretical machine, could be programmed to perform the function of any other information-processing device. And that’s what we’re seeing today. The Internet, an immeasurably powerful computing system, is subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies. It’s becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV. When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image. It injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration." An interesting view of the Internet -- and possibly one of the "arguments" used against networking. This claim that "networking" (or "networks") are "taking-over" our lives....
 * 52) See the talk on smartphones above -- shift in systems towards a more "Cloud"-based storage system... Diffusion of technology, as well as an "outsourcing"... Perhaps this "outsourcing" is a global phenomenon, though? Roots in the 90s....
 * 53) "<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px;">The Net’s influence doesn’t end at the edges of a computer screen, either. As people’s minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience’s new expectations. Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets. When, in March of this year, //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px;">The ////<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px;">New York Times // <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #00598c; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none;">decided to devote the second and third pages of every edition to article abstracts <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px;">, its design director, Tom Bodkin, explained that the “shortcuts” would give harried readers a quick “taste” of the day’s news, sparing them the “less efficient” method of actually turning the pages and reading the articles. Old media have little choice but to play by the new-media rules."" <range type="comment" id="527015260_1">Very similar thread to the MOC video -- this "feedback" caused by media, propogated by technology... </range id="527015260_1">
 * 54) "<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px;">The idea that our minds should operate as high-speed data-processing machines is not only built into the workings of the Internet, it is the network’s reigning business model as well. The faster we surf across the Web—the more links we click and pages we view—the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements." Another interesting perspective on how "networking" and the Internet work...
 * 55) "<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px;">Perhaps those who dismiss critics of the Internet as Luddites or nostalgists will be proved correct, and from our hyperactive, data-stoked minds will spring a golden age of intellectual discovery and universal wisdom. Then again, the Net isn’t the alphabet, and although it may replace the printing press, it produces something altogether different." Harkens to the postliteracy article...
 * 56) Analysis thus far confirms my idea -- there is also no generic "anti Social Network" movement,w ith coherent strucutre, order, goals, or page... Much like the "anti-Facebook" trend, this is aprt of a more generic "movement" against a single corporation, or an establshed systen/structure -- all the compalints I have seen thus far refer to Facebook-specific ones.
 * 57) Then again, I have yet to see a SINGLE complaint against Social Networks as an idea -- in fact, there seems to be a lot of support for them, with companies froming their OWN versions, in complaint against Facebook...
 * 58) Is there an "anti-smartphone" movement?
 * 59) .... Uncertain to begin-with. While I know already that there is some legislature aiming to reduce the presence of smartphones in the public domain [e.g. texting laws, calling laws, "hands free" device laws...?], I have not seen a concerted effort against smartphones -- nor against social networks as mentioned. Yet, from the George Takei and CollegeHumor posts I see, there may be some "common view" circulating that sees Social Networks as destructive.... So clearly there is a sentiment (See Prince Ea)... But I don't know if there is one. We shall see, won't we?
 * 60) As of this point, I don't feel like I've really answered all the questions I wanted to answer (see above). I'm still struggling to "understand the phenomenon" on something approaching a surface-level -- which is difficult, certainly, given how my research questions do not discriminate within time- or demographic-frames. Which they probably should, to make my research more... "Accessible".
 * 61) After doing some Google-searching for "anti-smartphone movement," I came up with a few interesting results. Again, as with the above ones, I did not find something immediately "striking," except for a few, such as <http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2022315255_ricardogomezstacymorrisonopedtechnologypushback24xml.html>, which actually gave a name to the " growing number of people are pushing back and dropping out of social media and other technological forms of communication."(1) The researchers at University of Washington Information School gave a name to this phenomenon too, "pushback" -- which while useful for the purposes of this article, is NOT a term I've seen applied in the previous articles I've been viewing (which means it isn't a "universal" definition, at least not yet). However, the creation of SOME moniker -- even if local -- helps my ends, at least.
 * 62) " As researchers, we believe this phenomenon is here to stay", strikes me as a bit conceited, but ok. As social analysts, I would think your goal would be to remain unbiased, and -- given the rapid shifts in sign systems [language, technology, and politics] in the last three years alone -- I would see it as rather... Unprofessional... to claim ANY 'constant' force... But that is, of course, my opinion.
 * 63) "This is not an anti-technology nor an anti-social behavior. It’s about technology users seeking balance in their lives, regaining control over their use of technology and wanting to re-establish more authentic connections with others. Constant connectivity is consistently resisted when it undermines a meaningful life and deeper human connections." This is more like it.
 * 64) Wha do you mean by "balance"?
 * 65) Certainly, I have picked up on this feeling of "unbalanced" due to addiction? [REDACTED]
 * 66) What makes the technology "uncontrolled"?
 * 67) Where would such a fear be coming from? Looking at H+ and bioconservative arguments previously, I suggest that such a fear of "uncontrolled technological momentum" was inspired by minds and papers such as Warwick's "March of the Machines" [and maybe a bit of 1970s film]. Possibly the biggest concern among scientific bioconservatives [UNCONFIRMED]?
 * 68) What is meant by "more authentic connections"? Is there something that makes any other [unspecified] connections "less authentic"?
 * 69) As per Professor's comments, there certainly seems to be this view that interacting through a network -- a screen, a virtual avatar, etc. -- holds less "meaning," which seems to imply something of a.... "Intrinsic value" (as per Wikipedia def, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(ethics)>) to "physical" contact, that is somehow lost through "virtual" or "simulated" interaction...
 * 70) I should have more notes on this -- Colin and I used to talk about this. I used to hold that objects did, indeed, hold an "intrinsic value" that was separate from their "extrinsic value," and that this "intrinsic value" was represented as a metaphysical association...
 * 71) For my own part, I can corroborate with this feeling, having spent a few Winter Breaks separated from my various significant other(s) -- and feeling that our communications via Skype were "shallower" than in-person. Perhaps a chemical interaction? Interaction of EM fields? Subliminally-detected smells, pheromones, heat-distortion -- likely play a role. In general a phone-call was better than written/typed language, though a video-with-audio was the next-best thing to actually being there talking with the person(s) in question.
 * 72) " There is little academic research on this topic. Out of the sources we studied, we found that firsthand reports, particularly blogs, offered some of the best insights about pushback. What an irony: People used technology to describe their pushback on technology." ... Yep, that's pretty-much the same boat I'm in.
 * 73) Hey...<range type="comment" id="527021742_1"> //__**WHY DON'T I CONTACT THESE FOLKS TOO FOR AN INTERVIEW, ASK THEM FOR GUIDANCE, WHERE TO**__ **LOOK.</range id="527021742_1">..**//
 * 74) Discussion of types of pushbackers; "tech addicts, tech discontents and tech hipsters"
 * 75) I'd love to know how they came up with those classifications...
 * 76) " Tech addicts could not stay away from a phone or screen for more than a few minutes at a time. They wanted to regain control of their lives rather than lose themselves in distraction. They weaned themselves off technology by establishing simple limits, such as no screens at the dinner table or in bed, no email on weekends, or no Facebook or Twitter until a certain time of day." Sounds rather similar to me!
 * 77) " Tech discontents felt disconnected from genuine relations with others despite constant online contact. They yearned for more intimate connections with friends and family, finding that faster and easier contact did not necessarily lead to better or deeper relationships." Most intriguing...
 * 78) "events like the National Day of Unplugging" ... This exists? Interesting. So, there IS some "nationwide" "commonalities"... Or "commonly-held and understood opinions"...
 * 79)  " Tech hipsters felt that the mainstream worship of social media was vastly overrated. They wanted to make a statement of independence and counterculture that values retro technologies or a complete disengagement from some technology." ... Ok, so this DOES seem to corroborate at least mostly with my understanding of what a "hipster" entails....
 * 80) Why "retro"? Does this have to do with some of the "nostalgic" views and feelings I've seen -- e.g. Prince Ea?
 * 81) " James Poulos recently reported on [|The Daily Beast:] “Our anti-tech hipsters are playing with fire. But they give voice to a secret longing that burns deep within us all.” Essentially, they resist the status quo, suspicious that technology-laden lives are full of mindless entertainment and shallow connections.”" Most interesting -- so, perhaps yes... Those "throwbacks" to a "less technical" age are of the Tech Discontent and Tech Hipster categories... (Prince Ea is a mix of both).
 * 82) " Pushbackers recognize this and are reaffirming their humanity, mindfully limiting technology for valuable reasons. It seems clear that, deep down, people want meaning in their lives more than they want distraction or entertainment." Well then... "reaffirming their humanity"?
 * 83) <range type="comment" id="527022090_1">That is certainly a defintion i would love to ask of the two Guests who contributed to this article....</range id="527022090_1">
 * 84) <range type="comment" id="527023734_1"><http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/put-your-smartphone-away-and-read-this-article.premium-1.506429>, this one discusses the "Slow Tech" movement.... Burning Man is mentioned. Seems a "counter-tech" use-case.</range id="527023734_1">
 * 85) " “Every week,” he continues, “a new study comes out of MIT, Stanford or another university, showing a direct connection between life in front of the screen and numberless physical and mental problems. At the same time, I also drew inspiration from the ideas of thinkers who did not live in the digital age, such as Henry David Thoreau, Malcolm X and Hermann Hesse.”" . .. While "backwards," there is MAYBE some truth -- although the "story" told by the user DOES read like a "hippie soul-trip" from the 60s and 70s...Hell, they even created their own company called, "Digital Detox".... Fairly stereotypical.
 * 86) " Of course, it is very difficult to write about experiences like this without sounding like a true believer in a cult. It is even more difficult to write positively about them in a milieu that sanctifies the need to be connected every minute of the day, and dreams of the day when it will be possible to implant microscopic mobile devices in the human body and thus finally unite man and computer − or of the day when our obsessive virtual activity will confer “eternal life” upon us ‏(as depicted in the TV series “Black Mirror”‏)." ... Well, at least the author is aware of the difficulties of discussing such a subject in an unbiased viewpoint. Though I can't say he really succeeded.
 * 87) " According to a survey published last November by Pew, an American research center, 87 percent of all Americans have at least one mobile device, and 67 percent of them check it regularly even when it doesn’t ring or signal the arrival of incoming messages or emails. Almost half ‏(44 percent‏) of Americans sleep with their mobile device next to them. ‏(Most explained this was due to the fear of “missing a call or email during the night”‏). Even though psychologists, sociologists and culture researchers started using the term Internet Addiction Disorder back in the 1990s, it is only now that the authors of the thick Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ‏(or DSM, which is updated every few years‏) are considering including IAD in the fifth edition, due out this May." Most excellent. I have been looking for such statistics -- though it seems I'm still denied actual "physical" evidence (e.g. changes to brain-structure). But, hey, some "new" medical conditions are present now, right?
 * 88) <range type="comment" id="527022280_1">... MIGHT be a good idea to follow this lead...</range id="527022280_1">
 * 89) " One of the problems inherent in the attempt to define what constitutes Internet addiction is the fact that we are all addicted, to one degree or another. In a survey published in Time magazine last August, 84 percent of the 5,000 interviewees admitted that they “could not survive a whole day without their mobile phone”; 40 percent admitted to using that device in the toilet." Oh excellent. And I am a member of that 84%, it seems. Lovely. Interesting, though, that this article uses words like "addiction" -- though not yet mentioned expressly, the view conveyed of these "tech-users" is less than positive. No mention has been made of "humanity," but I'm waiting for one to show up. probably near the end.
 * 90) The stats and jargon seem to continue... New words to describe the anxieties felt by persons... Which, while perhaps satirical, certainly sound demeaning.
 * 91) <range type="comment" id="527022872_1">I would be VERY interested to hear what, say, Nick Bostrom has to say about these terms and slang...</range id="527022872_1">
 * 92) " All of those phenomena illustrate one of the major problems of the digital age: Every idea, argument or thought is accompanied by statistics, data, surveys, examples and new jargon. We are inundated relentlessly with information. Worse, we are starting to treat other people ‏(and ourselves‏) as ongoing channels to transmit information." ... Yes, though I can't say I fully agree with the reasons why. For my part, as one who exists "apart" from the major social structures and order, my process of acquiring information can be -- and often is -- in terms of how to extract data from acquaintances. Not very flattering or ethical, but effective. No, I have not created some kind of master-list of each person and what they are "good for," but I've been considering it -- if only to manage "professional" contacts.
 * 93) " “We have become used to communicating with computers as though they are people, and at the same time we have begun to think of ourselves in terms that come from the world of programming, such as the relentless need to catalog and to choose between categories,” says Jaron Lanier, 52, who is considered one of the founding fathers of virtual reality and was chosen by Time as one of the world’s 100 most influential people."" Rather intriguing that this overlooks the "virtual self" positives, e.g. that "communicating with computers as though they were people" is not "inherently bad."
 * 94) Perhaps the "virtual presence" is a good counter-argument here.
 * 95) Gotta skim the rest here, this article is **AMAZING** in its depth and scope. <range type="comment" id="527023224_1">Will certainly be using this one for my Paper!!</range id="527023224_1">
 * 96) 10/22/14 as per my comment on the link (above), I can't get access to the original article anymore without paying a fee -- which really sucks. I suppose I could pay the $1 for a week and try printing the article in full, but I don't actually know if that would work? Anyways, gotta move on now, sadly. Gotta get to those other articles I left from last week.
 * 97) <http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23241639>, I'm amused that the article actually says "become a Luddite" in the title...
 * 98) Check the Editor's note too, "//<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Editor’s note: The Anti-Technologist is a new column by //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #2354ac; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none;">//Blake Snow// //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">. It advocates late adoption of consumer technology until proven useful, and dishes advice from Snow’s forthcoming book, " //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #2354ac; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none;">//Finding Offline Balance in an Online World// //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">."" //Heh. "Anti-Technologist... advocates late adoption of consumer technology," and includes pieces from Mr. Snow's book? <range type="comment" id="527023734_2">Could I interview him?</range id="527023734_2">
 * 99) "<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Smartphone orphans had their parents back." So... Another "I went away for vacation to a place without tech and came back a changed man," seems to be a common theme among these stories...?
 * 100) "Reformed Luddites," eh? That's something to check-up on... See if THIS is an actual movement...
 * 101) "<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">And that’s what this column is all about. To be a voice of reason amid all this wonderful but mostly useless, fleeting stuff. The stuff that really doesn’t matter. The stuff that gets in the way of a trip to Big Sky country, imagination, good conversation, intimacy, focus and resolve." So this is what the author defines as "important" and "human," then?
 * 102) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Seems a similar theme to the Prince Ea video -- a "return to normalcy," a "trip back in time to when things were less complicated," which to my mind.... It could be called "nostalgia" at least, or "living in the past" by others, or at worst "delusional." However those "counters" all have a similar theme to the DXHR promo video -- that, "if I don't upgrade myself, if I don't augment myself, I'll be less smart, less capable than the rest of the human race." Which has a theme of "fear of getting left-behind"....
 * 103) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">It would be great to take some of these thoughts to a professional psychologist, but at this point in my life I don't actually think that experience would give me much more insight [except maybe some more "official" terminology and hegemonies to think about -- if I am allowed to put on some airs].
 * 104) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Yet, that is why this and other similar stories have such an impact -- they are examples of "when being conservative worked," of when "going against the mainstream worked," of when "the not-newest thing was still reliable and better than the 'newest thing,'" which TO ME harkens-back to a common theme amidst popular media and television. The latest "Bionicle" film from 2011 (?) showed this with the robot-fight at the end... Perhaps there is a theme, a hegemony of "trust the old stuff," or "old-school is the dependable school"...
 * 105) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">This is an interesting thread -- and possibly a sign of a common movement, a common "reluctancy to adopt," a reluctancy to "move on," a... collective "clinging to the past, clinging to what is known and comfortable"...
 * 106) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Phrase of "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" may also reveal this...
 * 107) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">So, I may have found another Hegemony to add to this "anti-technology, anti-adoption" theme -- one that may run //__**AT THE CORE OF THE ARGUMENTS I'VE SEEN SO**__ **FAR**//.
 * 108) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Well, on the subject of "human," Star Trek: The Next Generation is a great piece of work on that with the Data-interactions...
 * 109) Heh, check-out the "upcoming columns"... "<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Verdana,Bitstream Vera Sans',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**//Upcoming columns://**
 * 1) <range type="comment" id="527652910_1">So it seems that the author's claim here is that "modern tech" is "pulling people away" from "their roots," from "more meaningful" interactions with persons and with the environment -- in that "throwback to the past and good old days" vibe.</range id="527652910_1">
 * 2) <http://www.salon.com/2013/11/02/smartphones_are_killing_us_and_destroying_public_life/>, rather a bold title as well -- "smartphones are killing us... destroying public life." I'm going to guess -- though I shouldn't be predicting -- that this may be another "vacation-retreat Oneness story" like the Heeratz and KSL articles...
 * 3) " In situations where politeness and concentration are expected, backlash is mounting against our smartphones." Yes, that is a common response I'm seeing -- in the anti-smartphone / anti-phone / "slow tech" articles, that there is this claim that "phones and modern communications [internet, smartphones, tablets] are detracting from conversations -- people are not talking to each other anymore in public or private"... " At restaurants, phones occupy that choice tablecloth real estate once reserved for a pack of cigarettes. In truly public space — on sidewalks, in parks, on buses and on trains — we move face down, our phones cradled like amulets."
 * 4) " It would be unfair to say this person isn’t engaged in the city; on the contrary, she may be more finely attuned to neighborhood history and happenings than her companions. But her awareness is secondhand: She misses the quirks and cues of the sidewalk ballet, fails to make eye contact, and limits her perception to a <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|claustrophobic one-fifth of normal] . Engrossed in the virtual, she really isn’t here with the rest of us." Another "idea" I've seen expressed...
 * 5) So this does seem to capture some idea of what "human" or "living" means -- the author seems to claim that physical presence and physical interaction are needed to "exist" in the physical world (something of a Kierkegaardian existentialist mentality, that). Well, that's one useful clue, maybe? Though this is the first article I've read that comes this close to saying that "physical embodiment" is a requirement...
 * 6) So this article seems to focus on how handheld tech is a "distraction" from the physical world...
 * 7) Author does expressly mention the "computer, tablet, and phone" as being the "focal-point" of this "distraction"...
 * 8) " Essentially, smartphone users in public operate under the illusion that they are in private. They exist, in the words of two Israeli researchers, in “ <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|portable, private, personal territories] .” Their memories of visited places are much worse than those of control subjects." I can't tell yet if that "illusion of public-privacy" is a .... Well, I can't tell how negative that is.
 * 9) " Our current strategy is to wire everything, everywhere — Wi-Fi in parks and subway tunnels; chargers in the squares bubbling with free electrical current like Roman drinking fountains. McCullough believes this freedom is irreversible. “To restrict information would be unacceptable,” he writes. “The communications rights of individuals and communities must be inalienable, insuppressible, and not for sale.” The tasks of filtering and decorum, he believes, fall to us as individuals." Makes sense, I suppose. I am a proponent of information-freedom and the open-sharing of knowledge, so I do have a personal bias in this sense. Though I am not so certain that I agree with the idea of "individual-emphasized filtering," e.g. with the "burden" on the "user." Humans may not be smart enough to do this [granted, this is another bias/opinion of mine -- one I've actually had difficulty finding the roots-of. This perception of "more than half the world is full of idiots," "more than half the U.S. are idiots," does not seem accurate -- granted, I have not explored the entire United States, so I could not say for sure -- but from what I have seen of the world, it seems the educated population is not that "small"?]. I would personally place the "burden of proof" onto the corporations to provide, NOT on the individual -- which also comes from a PDI perspective of "design to be careful, design to make your product idiot-proof."
 * 10) In reaction to Kit-Kat's use of wifi blockers in Amsterdam; I can see restricting phones in "pedestrain traffic" and "vehicle traffic" zones for reasons of safety, HOWEVER where communication and information-exchange are IMPORTANT [such as colleges, businesses, the Army -- places of self-learning], I would see it as useful NOT to restrict such technologies. Especially for college -- where student-driven ideas need to be cultivated and encouraged...
 * 11) <http://elizabethany.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/why-im-proud-to-be-anti-smartphone/>, I'll admit this article reminded me how I had been looking forward to getting a real job, could get a new consistent group of friends... And could not have to use my iPhone in public anymore. I have been hoping to get a greater emphasis on calling and hand-written letters [my own personal bias with regards to the "inherent value" of calling and letters, which has its own basis in the idea of "physical embodiment," or "fewer degrees of seperation" between myself and the recipient...]. And at the same time, I have a desire to implant myself with replaceable tech [a socket for an RCF chip, maybe], to eventually replace my [now 3 years "old"] iPhone 4S with a Blok-phone to allow-for the customization and hardware-optimization of interchangeable parts... And docking/wearing that phone in a wrist-mounted (turnable) brace [COPYWRIGHTED 2014 SOLLEY INDUSTRIES] to allow-for quick media-use and music/bluetooth.
 * 12) "I’m far enough from all my friends as it is, and as much as social media helps keeping in touch become a lot easier, it makes it a lot more fake too.<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Lucida Grande','Lucida Sans Unicode',Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><range type="comment" id="527657832_1">Phone calls are what make you feel the closest to someone who’s not right next to you</range id="527657832_1">. Texts come in second." Here is an actual example of the quantification of those "degrees of separation" I mentioned earlier.
 * 13) So. This article seems to fit in-between the Salon article.... It's a single complaint-article, doesn't really contribute anything original so much as "confirms" a theory/complaint I've heard before.
 * 14) //__**<range type="comment" id="527661230_1">IT IS ALSO THE FIRST ARTICLE I'VE**__ **READ</range id="527661230_1">**// that expressly communicates a complaint "inherent" to smartphones -- the 'separation' and 'distance' that Email, IM, FB, Social Networks and Internet-communication are implied to create, which come 'inherent' to Smartphones. To be clear -- this is the closest I've seen an author come to saying, outright, that these "instant communicators" on Smartphones are responsible for "less personal communication." E.g. the first "direct" tie of SMARTPHONES to this phenomena -- the Heeratz article refers just to "internet" without mentioning a specific technology, the Seattle Times article refers to just "unplugging from technology" in terms of phones and the Internet Media <does not refer to smartphones as the source>...
 * 15) <http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/24/why-are-we-still-demonizing-smartphones/>, the article seems to be focusing on some of the feedback that comedian Louis C.K. has in regards to smartphones --
 * 16) "<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #231f20; font-family: 'Open Sans',sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Worrying about whether our smartphones are dehumanizing us is, at its core, not all that different from worrying about whether all of this food we ha<range type="comment" id="527662794_1">ve around is makings us fat or whether our unlimited running water is properly filtered. Perhaps it’s just human nature to obsess over our overabundance." Pity that the author couldn't write more here about what their definition of "inhuman" was... Though to try summarizing the "feelings" I've read so far, the notion that "smartphones are making us less human" seems based-in several "observed" complaints: 1) IM-culture and communications [text, IM, Social Network messaging, and email] create feelings of separation in interpers</range id="527662794_1">onal communications [relative to the "comfortable" interactions of the past, e.g. face-to-face, hand-written letters, and phone calls]; 2) portable communicators [phones] are distracting pedestrians from their surroundings which creates dangerous hazards in high-traffic areas; and 3) the heavy use of "communications technology" [computers, phones, tablets] has shifted cultural priorities away-from "Nature" and "non-technical interactions" and "technology-free" activities, such as vacations, parks, and recreation.
 * 17) Sadly this article is more focused on the "trends of adoption of internet" of the one comedian than on tackling the "smartphone"/"Internet" issues....
 * 18) <http://newswithmorenews.blogspot.com/2012/09/resist-smartphone-cult-while-you-still.html>, the title refers to smartphones as a 'cult,' a term I've seen used more-often with hardcore "Apple enthusiasts" than with smartphones as a whole.
 * 19) "<span style="background-color: #3d85c6; color: #666666; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">People are more anti-social, rude, impolite, and cold in social situations than ever before. Nothing is wrong with having such a device. It's the manner in which people are using them. Pretty soon, no other phone options will exist, so resist this obsessive cult of the smartphone while it's still possible" Again, referring-to that similar (I now associate these complaints with the "social backlash-opinions" regarding the use of smartphones and the Internet -- that these words and sentiments, "we've become ruder, colder," are a part of the "social anti-image" of the Smartphone- and Internet-user) trend from before... Though at least this concerns itself with "user behavior" rather than "inherent technological consequences," which I find interesting. Perhaps there are a mix of views -- some see the technology as "inherently neutral" [like this author], some see it as "inherently destructive" [Haaretz, KSL, Salon, elizabethany, ...], and the H+ see it as inherently beneficial [no articles of this kind yet, but there have been articles which discuss the "positive potential" of Connection while referencing the negatives too, such as VentureBeat and Salon]. *Sigh* there is such a complicated spectrum of responses and reasons and opinions....
 * 20) As much as I want to copy-paste the rest of the article in here (it has GREAT negative-points regarding social behaviors), I think I can classify it with the "disrupts social interaction and fosters feelings of separation" category. Heh. The author is REALLY negative about the social behaviors -- //__**FIRST OUTRIGHT BASHING OF NEW SOCIAL BEHAVIORS AROUND SMARTPHONES IN**__ **CONVOS.**// Heh. I may include this as a "negative view"/example.
 * 21) <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anti-Smartphone/180994285266011>, I can't actually tell what this page is -- it's a community-page on Facebook calling itself "Anti-Smartphone," but there is no information in the "about" section. There are only four shown posts on the page's Wall, the most interesting and comprehensive being from October 6 2013, showing a video with the caption "Zombies..." The video itself is a one-minute short showing a man who gets onto a train and sits next to an attractive blond woman, who is engrossed in her phone that she has on her lap. As the man tries to get her attention, he sees that the woman apparently cannot hear him because of the earphones in her ears. Disgusted, he gets up to leave, at which point the woman notices him and tries to say, "hi." The man leaves with a disappointed "wel, but I was leaving," leaving the audience with the feeling that the woman's focus on her phone was responsible for the prevention of communication between the two of them. On the whole, quite an apt piece -- this is a "stereotypical" situation that came to my mind when I was writing the "Describing Practices" Memo last week; however, having not experienced that event myself in quite some time, I was unable to document it then. Certainly, this situation -- of "face to face communication thwarted by digital focus" -- is one that comes into my mind when I read about articles [such as KSL and newswithmorenews] discussing the "separation" that "smartphones have done to us."
 * 22) I am not entirely sure how to view this .... Practice or event. On the gripping hand, in a tech-hipster/tech-discontent I am revolted at the thought of having a phone/media/digital device "interfering" with interpersonal communications -- on the shaping hand, and from an "efficacy" perspective, I am rather enamored of the idea of being able to "multitask." Yet as-per my above comments, I wonder if that "tasking" should be restricted to just the "information building and sharing spaces," e.g. work/industry and college?
 * 23) <http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-anti-tech-tech-movement>, nicely talking about all the entrpeneurial attempts to create "offline" devices to signal people's "disconnect"... Which in and of itself is a rather fancy overview of all the stuff I've been finding. This "disconnect" seems the full "tech-hipster" approach to "dealing with social media and phones"...
 * 24) "<span style="background-color: #f4f4f4; color: #222222; font-family: 'Open Sans',Helvetica,Arial; font-size: 16px;">When you get an email, text or notification, your brain <span style="background-color: #f4f4f4; color: #7974bd; font-family: 'Open Sans',Helvetica,Arial; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none;">[|produces dopamine] <span style="background-color: #f4f4f4; color: #222222; font-family: 'Open Sans',Helvetica,Arial; font-size: 16px;">. This makes you feel good. But it also elicits what neuroscientists are calling a <span style="background-color: #f4f4f4; color: #7974bd; font-family: 'Open Sans',Helvetica,Arial; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none;">[|seeking behavior] <span style="background-color: #f4f4f4; color: #222222; font-family: 'Open Sans',Helvetica,Arial; font-size: 16px;">: you want more of it." So... I finally get some medical stuff. Great. Where are the reports and case-studies I can find which prove this phenomena?
 * 25) "<span style="background-color: #f4f4f4; color: #222222; font-family: 'Open Sans',Helvetica,Arial; font-size: 16px;">The result has been a slew of [|new disorders], including nomophobia (the fear of not having access to technology) and phantom ringing or vibration syndrome (where you’re positive that your phone rang or vibrated, but it really didn’t).
 * 1) I've seen the H+ homepage, which seems similarly concerned about the misuse of technology -- so in terms of the "bad cases" of "disconnected individuals" and "preoccupied pedestrians causing harm," it would seem to me that the H+ movement is right with the Conservatives in abhorring the loss of human life. YET, in response to the Haaretz and KSL articles, I don't have an easy view from the H+ perspective. <range type="comment" id="527675844_2">I don't know what the Transhumanists think of "returning to nature," as it were</range id="527675844_2">.
 * 2) In terms of "the internet" and "smartphones" as a whole, I can't see the Transhumanist community being "against" these technologies -- and in fact, I would expect the Extropian movement (at least) to claim an "inherent value" from a "virtue ethics" point of view, claiming these technologies are "furthering communication" on humanity's path to "technologically-aided evolution." <range type="comment" id="527675844_3">So I'm at an impasse with that too</range id="527675844_3">.
 * 3) And as you can see, there are even more articles on this topic -- which makes it the much more "interesting" and "unique" one to be pursuing. This... debate... seems to be pulling-info from the "anti-internet" theme, something that appears connected-to, yet seperate, from the Annti-Facebook debate. This... These... Seem their own ideas, their own arguments. Will have to go back and understand them all individually later. For now... Gotta summarize, and write some stuff for the Memos.
 * 4) ... Well... This has been quite informative. Quite informative indeed. I'll be drafting a quick summary below, then moving onto the Memos (don't have time do more than sketch some content, to be filled-in later -- hopefully Sunday).

Proposal Sections/Summaries;
 * 1) State of the Phenomena;
 * 2) Anti-facebook; as per above, is mostly being championed by discrete, seperate corporations whom take issue witht he "privacy" and "ads" concerns at Facebook in particular. That seems all. There is currently no cohesive movementto either remove facebook or to change its policy.
 * 3) Anti-Social network; as above. Social networks seem here to stay...
 * 4) Anti-smartphones; .... There is certainly a trend against smartphones (see the Seattle Times article), however -- as per the Haaretz article -- there exists a more global "unplug," "pushback," or "slow tech" movements... Each of these three are similar, yet not the same. The "unplug" and "pushback" seem to exist within the "tech" culture (as per the definitions of the three groups in Seattle Times), while the "slow tech" seems to be the ... perhaps more "global" sentiment, feeling, or nostalgia. Currently there are organizations which aim to "detox" people from their technology... Though I have no record yet of the H+ response to this.
 * 5) State of the social and cultural studies literature on the phenomena;
 * 6) As per above, there are many articles discussing the "anti-facebook" social networks -- which appear to act as a "counter-culture" to the problems of ads and privacy they see within the Facebook structure.
 * 7) No cohesive meovement exists -- ad in fact, I didnt find any articles trying to remove Social Networks as a whole. Quite the contrary, it seemed that it was "universally accepted" within the parameters of my search that Social Networks were a "positive thing"
 * 8) MANY articles from the Bioconservative view (generalized, of course) on this topic. I'm very pleased with just how much info I've been finding -- all of it relevant, recent, and helpful. However, I do have some issues compiling it all -- as there is so much!
 * 9) Preliminary findings
 * 10) See above. Will not be continuing pursuit of this topic.
 * 11) See above. WIll not be continuing pursuit of this topic.
 * 12) See above. The debate continues and rages on -- I think I see a negative-space in the "transhumanist" response to the claims of "addiction" to technology, at least. So I'll be looking more closely into that if I can, on Saturday when I get back.

__Concerns;__ Need this info to do the memos for this weekend. Not much time though, need to be brief and thorough. Using the above 7 Research Questions (may have more?) to do this.

So Ello is a single organization that is "anti-facebook," eh? Or, more specifically, "anti-ads." Interesting.

Ooh! Jay Dolan, the mind behind "the anti social media" blog, could be an interview-source!!!!

Students at the University of Washington Information School, could be an interview-source!!!!

Potentially ask Nick Bostrom about his response to the "technology addiction" problem -- reference the slang, could be an interview-source!!!

Potentially ask Blake Snow from "The Anti-Technologist" for a "conservative" viewpoint? Seek to clarify his arguments perhaps...