Internet Icons Are Merely Universal Traffic Signage

An acquaintance of mine asked a really great question on Twitter last week about why we use the “favorite” feature on Twitter—he uses it more as a bookmark and I explained that, for me, it’s a “a non-verbal way of saying, ‘I’m in like with you,’ insofar as you agree with/like said thought.” Amidst this conversation was the somewhat late hullabaloo over Gmail’s redesign (I say late because the redesign leaked in October and has been available for usage for some time now) and its utilization of symbols over text in the new interface. While I don’t think the Gmail redesign deserves discourse, the trend toward universal virtual “signage” is worth a moment or five.

Over the last couple of years, we’ve seen a surge of icons/emoticons/shorthand takeover text conversations—even online. Suddenly, we have the usual code emoticons, hashtags, the reblog/replay icon, stars (which serve to favorite, bookmark, and flag for later usage), and the ubiquitous heart. They all mean different things to those who use them and yet they all somehow communicate the same thing, “I’m in like with you.” 

I use the starring feature in Google reader a lot, usually as a flag to come back to X-post because 1) I just really dug the post or 2) I want to reference something of it in a blog post of my own (or other project.) I also use the star as a “favoriting” tool in Twitter, but not necessarily just to denote that I like the tweet…it serves to say that I connected with what was shared, that I connected with the tweeter, or to denote that I like the anecdote, but it’s not necessarily something I’d share with my followers. Other platforms offer other options…Tumblr’s heart (i.e. like) “button” is a tricky one for the fact that it doesn’t always equate to finding something positive in what’s being said (much like Facebook’s “liking” feature.) Even tagging can have a social aspect to it beyond optimized search—it can be part of an inside joke between friends or a collection of thoughts tied to a general consensus.  

Like traffic signage, these icons provide guidance along the virtual roads of the internet age. Google’s transition to icons over text is merely a contribution to and acknowledgement of the non-verbal line of universal communication that comes with signage—no matter how one is using said signage.

While starring or “hearting” a blog post or won’t do the justice that a written comment will, but both signal the same message: we share a common line of connection and understanding.   

Drawing the Line of Personal Privacy Online: Where is it?

The more that I work as a journalist and as a writer, the more I feel the need/desire to censor myself—even just for personal space reasons. I’m a public person for the sole fact that I work in journalism, so boundaries between personal and professional have to be in place to some degree…you have to maintain some level of personal and professional integrity. 

The internet was born and came of age after I was born, so the compulsion to share everything and anything about oneself is something I thankfully lack. However, I have struggled at times in deciding what to share of my personal life on this blog and other social media platforms—what do you share that will connect with your readers? What do you share to build some sense of a relationship/friendship with said readers? After all, social media is about and is formed around community, is it not?

Still, I try to keep my personal life out of it…most of the time.

This doesn’t exactly happen when it comes to writing about music. Music is such a visceral experience and the joy in sharing music with others revolves around that innate relationship we all have to music—removing personal experience just isn’t possible. I have the wonderful consequence of listening to some amazing sounds, boomeranging conversations with some prolific songwriters and composers, and at the end of the day teem with an intangible resulting spark. 

 My work in the industry has undoubtedly led to relationships and friendships that I wouldn’t trade for anything…you find your people where you find your people. What I haven’t wasn’t prepared for (who knows why? It’s the music industry, right?) were groupies (theirs, not mine.) Groupies are different than hardcore fans (All groupies are fans, but not all fans are groupies.) and the lack of distinction between what is appropriate to share and what is far too personal to blast to “public” people IN PUBLIC has me wondering what the hell happened. 

Am I just behind on a trend that I find appalling? Or am I the weirdo that looks at the trend of over-sharing personal information as a voluntary violation of personal privacy? Granted, it’s not just groupies that do it…I guess that everyone wants the fifteen minutes of fame that Warhol guaranteed all those years ago. Or perhaps I’m still wrapped up in Marshall McLuhan’s “the message is in the medium.” 

So where do you draw it? How personal is too personal? How personal is not personal enough?

And what is the kicker in setting those boundaries?

The Hate Has to Stop: Get Off My Internets

I’m a little late to the game when it comes to Get Off My Internets (GOMI) and until this afternoon, remained entirely ignorant to its existence. Now, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I’m of the opinion that everyone has the right to voice said opinion (certain governments might disagree with me on this, but I digress.)

However, I draw the line when it comes to mass bashing for the sake of merely encouraging cruelty and hatred.

It’s an accomplishment to have made it through grammar school and junior high, particularly if you weren’t spared the experience of bullying. When I was that age, the end of the day meant that you left the dipwads that made your life a living hell behind with the promise of retreating to the haven that was home. (Maybe it wasn’t truly a haven, but at least the horror of junior high wasn’t something that found its way into your bedroom via the computer screen.) I can only imagine what it must be like to be a 12-year old now and completely unable to get away from kids that bully. 

Still, you sort of expect this from kids. Kids use whatever means possible to torment others when they deem it necessary because they haven’t figured sh*t out yet. Adults, on the other hand, are wholly responsible for their actions. Why? Because one should knows better once adulthood rolls around. Does this stop people? No; it simply equates to passive aggressive behavior as a way of inflicting pain.

This afternoon, after reading a Twitter conversation involving dooce and posts on GOMI, curiosity called. Was I surprised at the fact that the site and its forum are devoted primarily to bashing on bloggers and internet personalities? Probably not. What surprised me is the fact that GOMI feels like an internet version of Mean Girls. Grown adults tearing into each other. Specifically, grown WOMEN tearing into OTHER women. The rants do not consist of constructive criticism about what certain bloggers are doing and could do better, but rather personal attacks on these women as human beings. What kills me further is that the “authors” of the site are two women. Disclaimer: there is the occasional post about men, but the vast majority of the content is aimed at female bloggers.  

It’s bad enough that the internet and its many social platforms have become launch pads for cruelty between kids, often with sad results. We sit around and wonder why this passive aggressive form of sh*t slinging has become so prevalent, but we’ve no farther to look than our fellow adults. Opinions are opinions, but to encourage bash sessions (not to be confused with roasts) for the sake of bashing isn’t acceptable—it serves no greater good. 

Furthermore, to get on my feminist soapbox, I find it appalling that a couple of women have organized a place for a whole lot of other women to bash on a bunch of females who happen to hold a web presence. All for fun. For the sake of “commentary.” We (women) already live in a gender-biased world that creates inequality for both men and women. Why on earth would we want to contribute and encourage the growth of that gender bias? It serves no one. (The same sentiments go to a certain blogger who took it upon herself to label certain female journalists as sexpots based on less-formal Twitter avatars.)

Point: hate breeds hate. We have this wonderful tool that allows us to connect with different kinds of people all over the world. It might (oh my) allow us to understand our perspectives and beliefs a little better—even if we don’t agree on/don’t quite understand them.) Why on earth do we continue to use it to create more separation (excluding the conversation regarding the digital divide)?

Selling the Experience of Reading the News

With the exception of my father and a handful of others hungry to hang on to the nostalgia of breaking open the NY Times over an espresso and breakfast on Sunday mornings, everyone I know accesses their “need to know” news via the web—why pick up a paper when you have the news of the world in the palm of your hand and in many cases, for free?

Back when I used to read print newspapers, the aesthetics of the reading experience were really important and went so far as to determine which papers I favored over others. For example, the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News was my go-to read largely because it was printed magazine style without the “below the fold” aspect that the Denver Post employed and continues to employ. The NY Times carries with it both in print and reputation, the air of sophistication—it’s an old school, urban newspaper highly regarded for it’s vast coverage of news worldwide. There was always that certain self-importance one felt when sprawled over one of these papers in a coffee shop in the early hours of the day. The Wall Street Journal with its clever penciled renderings of the notable contributors echoed a similar thought: this was a publication for smart people.

The list goes on and on. Time and Newsweek were other publications I once read with a religious fervor until my life was swallowed up in the film industry. Either way, when I came back to reading the news, the platform was and remains totally different—blogs, Twitter, FB, and a plethora of other news sources have taken over the place in my life that news-specific publications once held. Again, the same factors come into play: page layout, site navigation, diversity of coverage, et cetera. In short, aesthetics.   

The irony in this is that instead of focusing on what they’re delivering to readers, the newspapers have allowed themselves to become entirely enveloped in the crush of, “How do we get people to pay for content? How do we survive the move to digital?” The stereotypical layout found on most news sites today is columnar with a mash of bold headlines, images, and occasionally video. Some websites do this well. Some do not. 

Case in point: Newsweek/Daily Beast versus Time. Layout is the same, but I’m more keen to read Newsweek than ever visit Time’s website. Why? They’ve copied Newsweek down to the colors, but chosen to put too much on the homepage in a serif font (which does not translate well online,) avoided sectioning in any identifiable way, and can you say, “Too much red?” 

Newspapers, in the digital era, are no longer selling the news. They are selling the experience of reading the news.

The Art of Disconnect…

…or why I have neglected the old blog here for the last two months and quit Twitter.

Back in January, Arianna Huffington was interviewed by Prospect Magazine and made a comment about the need “to disengage from our 24/7 connectivity.” She went on to explain that constantly being locked into the rest of the world has hampered our “inner wisdom”. Why is this important?

For many of us, most of these connections are never fleshed out in physical life and most of our time is ticked away tied to our screens—whether they be that of laptops, desktops, cameras, or the computer/video/stereo/phone device in your pocket. I am guilty of this myself: as a writer, much of my time is spent looking at the glowing rectangle with its bluish glow casting shadows on the walls while I work into the late hours of the night. I spend equal amount of time burning out my corneas handling work for the studio and cranking through the wonders of academia. It’s enough to make your head explode.

If we never unhook ourselves from the constant stream of information, will there not come a time when we no longer distinguish between wholesome information and filler information—the digital equivalent of a home-cooked meal versus fast food? What if there is simply too much data to imbibe on a daily basis between the Crackberry and fifty million social platforms to glean from? Ironically enough, we get to a point wherein we actually feel guilty for taking time away from reading the blogs, checking the email, and tending to our online selves. How is it viable to feel guilty for pulling out of these things if we are then nurturing our physical lives and in-person relationships?

Life is more than a virtual thread connecting you to another person, another life. I quit Twitter a couple of months ago because it no longer added anything to my physical life. Snippets of jokes, anecdotes, and news links were great, but most of my information consumption is streamlined these days by way of Tumblr, Google Reader, and Facebook. More is not better when it comes to information—less is spectacular.

If we cultivate our tangible lives, we might not spend so much time logged in to our digital ones. We might spend more time writing books, getting outside, travelling, and having the conversations of which fragments usually end up on Facebook anyway.