Final Exam … Final Thoughts

In Technopoly by Neil Postman, the author is expressing his viewpoint about the negative or downside of technology. Postman admits “that anyone who looks at technology as an either-or development -- that is, either all good or all bad -- is making a mistake.” All technological change is what I call a Faustian bargain. It gives you something, but it also taketh away something” (mrbauld.com). Technopoly was published in 1992 and odespite the fact that is only 17 years ago, it is light years in technological growth. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg who was just named Time Magazine’s Person of The Year was only 8 or 9 when the book came out.

The point it is impossible to call technology good or bad because it is both. What it always does, for me anyway, is amaze. While doing some Google searches on Postman I came across the eulogy given by his son Andy at Neil Postman’s wake. On Wednesday, October 8, 2003, at Parkside Chapel in Forest Hills, Queens, a son remembered his dad in a remarkable tribute that the miracle that is the internet has allowed me to experience.

I was so moved by Andy Postman’s stirring words that I contacted him via Facebook. I think his dad would have approved this usage of technopoly. Andy was obviously deeply impacted by his father. As was I…by my dad’s passing. My dad went to St Peter’s in Jersey City on the GI Bill and graduated with an accounting degree. He secured a job with what is now KPMG prior to graduation. My dad died alone in a horrible little room over a bar. I didn’t know where he was living nor did I care. No son should ever have to say that about his dad. It would impossible to quantify what alcoholism has done to my family. I hope many more sons say about Neil Postman what his son Andy said at his passing than what I have to say about my dad. By the grace of God I am 5 years sober and I spend much of my time speaking at prisons, to convicted drunk drivers, at drug rehabs and recently to the seniors at my old high school in the hopes that they don’t have to endure either what I nor my father endured.

Anyway, I think while there is a downside to technology, the upside usually outweighs it. Because of technology, I was able to relive the eulogy Neil Postman’s son gave for his dad and I was able to share the story about my dad with him. Of course, I am used to things happening very quickly using technology and the fact that Andy Postman has not responded to my message, which I sent to him all of 10 minutes ago… well, its starting to get annoying. Lack of patience, that’s a downside…

Here’s link to the Harvard gazette with a great article about embracing technology in education… I missed it for the paper, but it’s great… http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/12/digital-drive/

“What we want to be able to do is make sure the teaching is driving the technology,” said Katie Vale, director of the Academic Technology Group, Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS)...I think Neil Postman would agree that this is how technology and education can be combined for the ascent of humanity.

Moving forward, technological growth and innovation will continue to evolve at a dizzying rate and embracing it while at the same time acknowledging the downside is most certainly the way to take on society’s challenges in the coming years. And, as we have seen in this class from the invention of the first computer, to the widespread incorporation of the internet into daily life, young minds will keep on this path resulting in near daily changes to the way we live our lives.

The Facebook Effect III

In my second blog post about Computers: The Life Story of a Technology authors Eric Swedin and David Ferro quoted Steve Jobs of Apple Computer who stated about the Apple I, “We didn’t do three years of research and come up with this concept. What we did was follow our own instincts and construct a computer that was what we wanted” (Swedin and Ferro 96). Now, in the last blog about David Kirkpatrick’s The Facebook Effect it seems that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg shared the same instinct in the creation of his social network. Most people view our economic system as a zero sum game, but Zuckerberg sees a different future. Kirkpatrick writes, "Facebook is changing our notion of community, both at the neighborhood level and the planetary one. It may help us move back toward a kind of intimacy that the ever-quickening pace of modern life has drawn us away from" (332). Zuckerberg understands the universal theory that the more people you help the more you help yourself.

In December 2000, former President Bill Clinton stated in the online magazine Wired:

The more complex societies get and the more complex the networks of interdependence within and beyond community and national borders get, the more people are forced in their own interests to find non-zero-sum solutions. That is, win–win solutions instead of win–lose solutions.... Because we find as our interdependence increases that, on the whole, we do better when other people do better as well — so we have to find ways that we can all win, we have to accommodate each other....  

Zuckerberg understands our complex society. He states, “We want an ecosystem which doesn’t favor our own applications… People can develop on this for free and can do whatever they want. They can build a business inside of Facebook. They can run ads. They can have sponsorships. They can sell things, they can link off to another site” (221). Kirkpatrick tells readers that media theorist Marshall McLuhan is a favorite at the company. He coined the term “global village” (332). Facebook has united over 500 million people. McLuhan’s vision of bringing the whole of society together may be coming to fruition on Facebook.


Large companies run by old white guys… bankers, mortgage brokers, Wall Street financiers… wearing suits have landed the US and global economy in the worst recession in decades. Forward thinking entrepreneurs wearing t-shirts and flip-flops like Mark Zuckerberg will lead the way out of the abyss. His vision is clear on monetization; “The basic idea is that ads should be content. They need to be essentially just organic information that people are producing on the site… it’s part of our identity as people that we like something, but it also has commercial value” (260). The integration organically of economics will be crucial as the new economy evolves.

“We have the most powerful distribution mechanism that’s been created in a generation,” Zuckerberg pronounced (217). He is correct. Human relationships are the most vital form of human capital, and Facebook, in the sets of friend connections, has assembled a powerful network capable of unlimited forms of distribution channels. Whether or not Facebook will take over the world is unknown, but they have fulfilled Zuckerberg’s vision of changing the world. As Kirkpatrick tells readers, “The company is already embedded in the fabric of modern life and culture,” and the company’s social impact continues to broaden (334). And, with a leader like Mark Zuckerberg who possesses the instincts which have propelled Facebook’s meteoric growth, it seems the story of the site’s global impact is just beginning.

Final Exam Post I

In my previous blog posts on Neil Postman’s book Technopoly I expressed my disagreement with the author’s analysis and opinion. And, I welcome the opportunity to expand on those thoughts in the final paper. Criticisms of technology's impact on culture are not uncommon. And, Postman’s “gloom and doom” predictions of the negative impact of technology are totally fear-based and incorrect. Postman states, "Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology." Technopoly, he argues, flourishes wherever people "believe that information is an unmixed blessing, which through its continued and uncontrolled production and dissemination offers increased freedom, creativity, and peace of mind.... Technopoly flourishes when the defenses against information break down" (p. 71 ). In the final paper assignment, we are asked whether technology contributes to or detracts from the philosophy of University educational missions and to answer the question “Are modern-day college campuses technopolies?” . Postman’s book is written with thinly disguised despair regarding technology. So, the paper topic, the way it is framed, may call for a concession that college campuses are a Technopoly, but, unlike Postman’s view, that is not bad.

In any case, I will be disagreeing with Professor Postman’s opinion that we live in a "totalitarian technocracy" (p. 48). The pseudo-intellectualism that permeates Postman’s book is obvious. The guy basically says us common folk are too stupid to sift through the information that is available because of technology. I personally have a lot more faith in the “average Joe” than does Postman. The idea that technology will render individuals impotent is utterly ridiculous. People seek out information to help them in their daily lives. The fact that the internet, for example, has made information easily accessible is a good thing, not a negative consequence as Postman purports.

One of my last blog posts was about Sal Kahn who is providing a new model for stripped-down free learning. According to You Tube he has the most popular open-course video library on its site, with more views than MIT, Stanford or UC-Berkeley. Private Universities should be fear-mongering, because Kahn has created a site which could put them out of business. And, the number of views his site generates proves that people are pursuing their information wisely. The “defenses against information” (71) which Postman warns readers are the minds of the people. My paper will show that new technologies create new opportunities for empowerment not powerlessness.

The Facebook Effect II

Facebook Chief Privacy Officer Chris Kelly declares about the site, “We’ve been able to build what we think is a safer, more trusted version of the Internet by holding people to the consequences of their actions and requiring them to use their real identity.” (201) Marc Rotenberg executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information takes a slightly different tact stating, “At every turn, it seems Facebook makes it more difficult than necessary to protect user privacy” (201). The problem with Rotenberg’s argument is that people willingly put their information on their Facebook page. Admittedly, once Facebook has the personal data of its users, the site targets ads based on a person’s “likes,” however, if privacy is an issue, don’t join Facebook. As twenty-five-year-old Facebook holdout Shaun Dolan proclaims, “My generation is unbearably narcissistic. When I go out with my friends, there is always a camera present, for the singular goal of posting pictures on Facebook. It’s as if night didn’t happen unless there’s proof of it on Facebook” (206). It seems, at least for the college aged and younger crowd, that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has indeed changed the world.

James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at the New York Law School explains that, “Most of Facebook’s problems are… natural consequences of the ways that people enthusiastically use Facebook” (212). The privacy issues usually revolve not around Facebook company policy, but rather behavior of a person’s accepted friends. The old adage “be careful who your friends are” is particularly appropriate for Facebook culture. In essence, Facebook is the ultimate virtual small-town. Everybody knows everybody else’s business. In the halls of the Facebook offices it’s a concept known as “ultimate transparency” or “radical transparency” (209). And, unlike many other locations on the Internet, we use our real names, thus we must be responsible for what we say. Zuckerberg emphatically states, “You have one identity… Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.” The CEO may be on to something. After revealing it’s news feed feature many users felt their privacy was in jeopardy and 700,000 of them joined a Facebook page started by Northwestern University junior Ben Parr. Zuckerberg did not flinch in the face of the mass criticism. In September 2008, Parr now a technology writer, effectively recanted. “Here’s the major change in the last two years; we are more comfortable sharing our lives and thoughts instantly to thousands of people, close friends and strangers alike. The development of new technology and the rocking of the boat by Zuckerberg has led to this change… News Feed truly launched a revolution that requires us to stand back to appreciate. Privacy has not disappeared, but become even easier to control-what I want to share, I can share with everyone. What I want to keep private stays in my head.”

The forward thinking of an entrepreneur is often light-years ahead of everyone else. When Robin Reed joined Facebook to help in recruiting new talent for the rapidly expanding company she was an experienced businessperson. But, she quickly realized the genius of  Zuckerberg and his Facebook team was their ability to create new ways of doing things. “So I decided to forget what I knew and have a beginner’s mind,” Reed concluded. The rest of the world might do well to take head of this advice.