adamyntium

Category: society

  • Dear FB, Twitter – We want narrowcasting, not just broadcasting!

    Earlier this week, I wanted to send a Facebook message to my dancer friends in the Bay Area  to invite them to a local event.  I ended up manually sifting through my entire friends list, since there’s no way to invite or message an intersection of friends.  Similarly, I wanted to post a twitter note to my Google buddies in a particular geographic region, but Twitter doesn’t support any sort of useful narrowcasting, either.

    Basically, social service nowadays seem hellbent on having us share our lives and connect with more and more people.  I don’t want that, and I’m betting a lot of you feel the same way:  we want to deepen our relationships with our current friends, share details of our lives with the friends who are most likely interested in those particular details, and so on.

    A lot of the brouhaha over FBs aggressive more-sharing push has been over privacy, but in the rush to protest “ZOMG, I don’t want my mom to know THAT!” the complementary concerns of narrowcasting have been largely ignored.  I’m personally a lot less worried about someone finding out something I don’t want them to know about, and far more concerned about burning out my friends with info they find irrelevant and uninteresting.

    Is it not madness that I can’t post a note joking about a local politician just to my Mountain View  friends?  This highlights one of a great many situations in which there are no privacy issues (I’m not trying to keep my bad sense of humor a secret from my friends in Europe), but rather that my friends outside MV aren’t likely to care about this topic.  And worse yet, these friends will likely stop reading my posts altogether unless I either post less overall (a bummer!) or magically somehow write entries that are appealing and relevant across my diverse group of friends (pretty impossible).

    *  *  *
    I think I speak for most of us non-hermit’y types in noting that:

    • Our sphere of acquaintances and friends is growing at an astonishing rate… due to the awesome people we meet online, at work, via friends, from family members, etc.
    • We have an innate desire to stay in touch with many of these folks and to share interesting and relevant stuff with them.
    • Relationships are not symmetrical, nor are the related communications desires!  I may hang on the every brilliant and witty word of a friend, but she may be, um, less fascinated with my mutterings (while still wanting to keep in touch with me overall)
    • There should be easier ways for us to finetune who (and what groups) we share with and who we hear from… beyond the scope of privacy considerations.
      • For instance, it’d be awesome to be able to tell our computer: “I want to share this musing with my friends who love hiking and are within 20 miles of Mountain View” or, conversely, “Highlight messages from friends who live nearby me and aren’t talking about politics.”

    But alas, services like Facebook seem to be lately more concerned about giving people a megaphone than letting them share and filter more effectively.  They’re amplifying and extending the noise, which from what I gather, is more likely to alienate people than have them maintain Facebook as part of their daily routine.  And that’s a shame.

    *  *  *

    What do you think?
    – Do you share my interests in narrowcasting?
    – Or do I have an unusually large addressbook and/or overly geeky demands re: sharing and filtering?
    – Are you familiar with any services that are helping folks connect more deeply vs. broadly?

  • A heartwarming story about bridging the culture gap

    A heartwarming story about bridging the culture gap

    A gaggle of giggling young teens — pre-Facebook — pesters this cranky, lonely guy, and asks him… everything.

    Luxembourg, 1998. On a whim and with zero preparation, I’d decided to spend a weekend there, only to face crappy weather and a lack of available nearby hostels. After much schlepping, I wearily ended up in Echternacht at a hostel teeming with a gaggle of giggling teenage kids.

    They ate dinner at their reserved table, and I ate — alone and lonely — in the opposite corner. We largely ignored each other, but they’d occasionally glance over as if to ask:

    “What is that weird, tired looking guy doing at OUR hostel?”

    Restless, I wandered the cobblestone streets to find something to do or see. Before long, I heard a familiar set of young voices behind me. Great :\. I continued walking, but somehow still wasn’t escaping their nattering.

    Almost as if in a cartoon, the young’uns instantly piped down when I peered back at them. Imagine my surprise then, when one of the girls broke from her group and shyly approached me.

    “Hallo!”

    …she said, not quite sure of herself, but with quiet yet visible support from the others.

    Still shocked, I blurted out an un-matching American “Hi there.”

    She smiled broadly, and told me she was from Germany, which I’d already guessed, but then…

    “Are you… by yourself?” she asked? I nodded, even more unsure about where this was headed.

    “Do you want to be our friend?”

    Ah! Such sweetness and innocence and courage! I could have hugged that kid right there.

    Instead, though, I delved into one of the most honest and memorable conversations I had during my time Europe.

    The friends of this girl, Christina, immediately sensed that I did welcome a chat with them. And so, as they approached, they fired off a sometimes cacophonous bunch of questions in German for Christina to translate to me, and then waited eagerly for my response and acting-spokeswoman Christina’s translation.

    A few of the initial questions were admittedly ignorant but nonetheless amusing in their simplicity:

    “Do you [Americans] really eat at McDonald’s every day?”

    and

    “Are all the streets in the States very big?”

    and

    “Do you always go to the beach?”

    It was quickly clear that most of what these kids knew of America they had gleaned from imported American entertainment. D’oh! Baywatch was super-big in Germany, so I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised at the perception that America is just one big beach flanked with fast food outlets.

    Before long, the kids got braver with their English and started addressing me directly. I figured this was a good time to shift gears a bit.

    “So what do you think of Americans?”

    …I asked.

    They responded eagerly: “Creative!” “FAT!” “Sportive!” “Lazy!” “Funny!” and “Friendly!” But then, one of the boys had a different take.

    “Americans don’t like Germans. They’re friendly to themselves but not to us. From the War.”

    I should have been prepared for this. I’d been living in Germany for a bit and the issue of the Holocaust often came up. People — especially college kids — often wanted to know… What did Americans think of Germany? Of Germans? Of the War? And why? Was it fair to perpetuate the Guilt? Those that brought up this subject with me often did so almost randomly, over beers and fries, with intensity but respect.

    This same curiosity, combined with innocence, was so clearly present in these young kids. On one hand, they saw America as everything “cool”… but still so distant geographically and emotionally. There was a marked admiration for, yet confusion about and partially even disdain for Americans, perhaps no different than that reflected by our own general ignorance of other cultures.

    But here there was such a heartwarming yearning from them to connect to me, to connect with the America I was an impromptu representative for. They continued asking me questions for nearly an hour, and drew closer to me all the while.

    “You are nice!” gushed one of the girls out of the blue, prompting some bantering in German that I understood more than they realized. Not long after this, Christina — by now pretty emboldened and unshy — asked, “Can I have your address?”

    “Sure,” I replied, amused and flattered, though I couldn’t help but ask, “Why?”

    “Because Julia likes you!” Christina replied with a huge grin, followed by a horrified look on a quickly clued-in Julia, “And she won’t ask you!”


    Silly kids. Playful, wondering, movie-watching, tall, short, blonde, brunette, crush-having, sneaker-wearing kids.

    At that moment I was reminded… that deep down we’re pretty much all the same, everywhere. There’s a child-like curiosity and goodness in everyone that never really dies. Sometimes it gets hardened a bit or repressed or shouted over, but it’s still there.


    I had been tired and lonely and frustrated before I met these kids. And of course I’ve had quite a few rough days since then. But when life accentuates separation and distance, I look back on my encounter in Luxembourg and similar experiences and am reassured that friendship and understanding are still inherently valued. And though I never did hear from Julia, thinking of her and her friends still makes me smile.

  • Time spent on social networks and the like – I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours

    After having fallen hugely behind on browsing my Facebook newsfeed, Friendfeed, etc., I decided to see just how much time I had been spending during those “on top of it” days… and, by extension, how much time it’d take me to keep up each day.

    Around 10pm last night, I “cleared out” my Reader, and picked a stopping point in Facebook and Friendfeed, so I could start fresh tonight (Monday) and see just how much would accumulate in 24 hours… and how long it’d take me to get through it.

    So here are my numbers:

    • Facebook:  Browsing (and commenting a bit) on a filtered newsfeed of one group of 270 friends:  20 minutes
    • Friendfeed:  Browsing (and commenting/liking a bit) on a selected group comprised of about 80 friends:  8 minutes
    • Twitter:  Browsed through unfiltered/ungrouped list via Brizzly (happy to offer invites to the first ten people who contact me):  12 minutes.
    • Reader:  Browsing through my ??? feeds (and checking out a few original pages + adding a couple comments):  28 minutes (”???” because Reader never was able to load up anything when I clicked on “Manage my subscriptions.”  Bummer!  But I’m guessing I have over 200 feeds, of which probably 100 are updated at least weekly)

    Just a bit over an hour.  Not that bad, right?  Except when you realize a few very important things:

    • This is more than an hour every single day, including weekends, holidays, vacation times, etc.
    • Worse yet (and more importantly), this does not include my personal e-mail, which I estimate would take me about an hour daily in and of itself to read and appropriately reply to messages.
    • Nor does this include Wave.  Or Techmeme.  Or online News.  Or really anything else in the vast online world.
    • It certainly doesn’t include the time I should be spending composing thoughtful e-mails to my Grandpa, to my friends near and far, and so on.  500 or so contacts in my addressbook… people that I care about.  If I e-mailed each one just once a month, that’s more than one substantive e-mail every day (in addition to the other replies).
    • And it certainly doesn’t include corporate (work) mail and related stuff, but that’s well beyond the scope of this inquiry, in which I’m trying to pin down this…

    How much of my free time do I spend (or would I have to spend each day) on “keeping up” with friends and news online?


    *  *  *

    Well, now you know, or at least have an idea about my time allocations. 
    Where does your time go?
    – How much time do you spend each day on Facebook, Twitter, etc.?  (Not sure?  Try what I did, and actually time it!)
    – Is that more than you thought?  Less than you thought?  Does it make sense for you?

    Curious to hear your numbers and your feelings on this…

    [Edited at 1:18am October 13 to add: Twitter stats]

  • Insane transparency — Seeing or even setting what your colleagues earn

    At Google, we have pretty radical transparency, at least in Engineering where I sit.  With few exceptions, we can all see what every colleague is working on (via the Project Database or “PDB”), what they’ve recently accomplished (via weekly self-composed “Snippets”), and even what their core contributions have been to the company (their Google resume).  Through our performance review system, we can not only review our peers (and have them read exactly what we wrote about their strengths and weaknesses) but even review our bosses.

    I think on the whole this transparency is outstanding… ethical and useful.  But one part is missing, right?

    – We can see what people are working on.
    – We can see how people are performing.
    = We can see what they accomplish.

    but…

    – We CANNOT see what their compensation is.

    and beyond that…

    – We do not have a direct SAY in their compensation, only quite indirect input into promotions.

    Let me make one thing very, very, very clear here:


    I believe that total compensation transparency (beyond one’s own private understanding of his or her own salary and compensation mechanisms) IS A BAD IDEA.  Let me repeat that.  I am NOT seriously advocating that companies disclose the salary of each employee within or even outside of the company, nor do I suggest that employees be empowered to set and adjust their peers’ compensation packages.

    But… what if?  And why does salary remain so strongly one of the last taboos in this increasingly hip world of transparency?  What is it about human nature which makes us (even me!) shudder at the thought of this specific set of ideas?

    *  *  *

    Notwithstanding my quite-likely rational revulsion to the idea of compensation transparency, it would seem that there are some good arguments for such openness:

    • This might fix (what rank-and-file consensus would deem) stunningly inappropriate salary packages… on either end of the spectrum.  That do-nothing middle manager?  He’s making WHAT?  Not any more he isn’t!  That super hard worker in internal systems who stays late and doesn’t get the glory of working on glamorous projects?  Totally increase her salary!
    • People would (at least in theory) be paid more along the lines of what they’re currently worth vs. what they had the savviness to negotiate.
    • You could potentially stress out less when asking for a raise because either you’d have full knowledge of where you are on the pay scale or, in the scenario in which peers set your pay, it’d be out of your control.

    But I do believe there are far more arguments against radical compensation transparency.

    • Biases based upon “visible wealth” might skew perception and adjustments, resulting in harmful demotivations.  Have you seen the car that manager drives?  She surely doesn’t need more money.  Let’s dock her pay (even though that may drive her out of the company, to the firm’s detriment).
    • That aforementioned super dedicated hard worker in internal systems?  Her low profile and lack of direct revenue impact may cause many to perceive her as less driven, less worthy of compensation star status despite the actual criticalness of her work in the background.
    • Study after study has shown that our perception of and happiness with compensation is driven less by raw numbers or trends or even buying power, but rather keeping up with the Joneses.  In other words, getting a raise of $5000 is apparently not nearly as satisfying as earning $5000 more than one’s teammate.  Can you imagine the drama involved with compensation transparency given this aspect of human nature?!

    *  *  *

    And here’s an even crazier additional proposal:
    What if you could actually set your own pay (again, with the group transparency)?  As in, each quarter or year, literally determine how much you’re paid (though obviously if you asked for $10 million, the company could fire you on the spot due to reasons of insanity).

    • Rich folks who were working just for the love of it could more easily adjust/decline “excessive” salaries.
    • People might temper their pay a bit out of embarrassment, realizing that they really shouldn’t be earning 8x what their equally-worthy colleagues do.
    • People who needed a bit extra short term (for a house payment, etc.) could temporarily front-load their salaries.
    • When an individual employee accomplished an admirable but not very visible achievement, they could again temporarily increase their pay.  Or when they realized that they’d been slacking, they could dock their pay.
    • Or if an individual felt like taking a couple of extra days off, they could take that as “unpaid time” without form filling and bureaucracy.

    There’s some precedent for this self-determination at work; Netflix, for instance, lets their employees take vacation “as needed” without a preset limit.  And vacation is a type of compensation, right?

    *  *  *

    What do you think?  Again, please remember that I’m bringing this topic up not to advocate change but to philosophically examine our thoughts on compensation, transparency, taboos, and so on 😀

  • #geekfail — Valuing immediacy over depth, accuracy, and understanding

    Yesterday, I learned about the turmoil in Iran… from the blogosphere.  Some have argued that the immediacy of news on this and other breaking topics is a sign that mainstream media has failed and online media—specifically “real time” components of online media—have triumphed.  I believe such an assumption is not only dead wrong, but dangerous to society.

    Today, I can get more information—and more importantly, more *verified* information—about the situation in Iran from mainstream media.  And in a few days, I’ll no doubt be able to get some insightful background information, valuable context, and more-likely-accurate news from weekly magazines.

    Even online, let’s compare, one day later:
    – http://search.twitter.com/search?q=iran
    – http://news.google.com/news?q=iran

    Some would argue… but Adam, don’t you want information right now?  How can you wait a day or even a week to learn what’s going on?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!1

    To that, I’d reply with the following question:  Why do you value immediacy over depth, accuracy, and understanding?  Or, better yet, what difference will it make in your life to know about the Iranian election mess one day sooner?  Will you be able to change anything?  Help anyone?  What will you and the world lose by waiting a few more hours?

    *  *  *

    So why do I believe this increasing predilection towards immediacy is actually dangerous, and not just misguided?

    • It’s pressuring news media and politicians to report, respond, and act before they have all the facts, before they’ve had a chance to digest what is correct and what is right.  While I doubt that people with access to nukes won’t be relying on twitter “reporting” to make that crucial decision, I wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing more and more decisions painfully botched due to a reliance upon “what’s happening right now.”
    • While there’s a chicken and egg scenario here, I wouldn’t be surprised if push towards “real time” is further feeding and exacerbating society’s collective ADD, dulling our interests and abilities in long-term thinking and planning.  What are people reading?  What are they thinking about?  If, as we’ve noticed, fewer and fewer people (including me) are taking the time to write (and listen) beyond soundbites, what does this mean for the peaceful progress of our society?

    Yes, I know I’m sounding like your grumpy neighbor who perhaps just got on the net (via dialup).  No, I don’t think my griping alone will make a whit of difference. 

    But perhaps if enough people say, well, ENOUGH!… immediacy != value, then perhaps the tide will start turning.  Not gonna hold my breath, though.

    P.S.—I realize that there IS value in real time.  In the case of disasters (natural and manmade), services like Twitter have helped with the mobilization of protests and rescue efforts and so on.  So for the citizens of Iran, I have no doubt that tweets may well have served as valuable inspiration and coordination.  But this is not news, this is broadcasting.  And for the rest of the world, I stand by my assertions that there was little value in seeing a flurry of micro-messages about events happening in other places of the world except as—and I hate to label it as such—entertainment.  But unsurprisingly the impulse to be entertained, to be un-bored… is now clearly more powerful than the desire to be patiently enlightened.

  • On public displays of affection — but not that kind

    Today, we send and receive notes publicly in a way that seems shocking when viewed by communications standards just a decade ago. Expressions of friendship, social plans, etc.

    “I miss you!”…
    “Hey, are you going to Fred’s party tomorrow?”…
    “Save me a dance this Wednesday!”… etc.

    Why do we like this, why do we post rather than e-mail? Bonding? Convenience? Insecurity? Is it just an extension of the old “You’re the greatest!” scribblings we got in our high school year books? 🙂

    I feel torn about this.

    On one hand, I must confess to being oft-delighted by both the chance to quickly share warm feelings or make arrangements with friends and acquaintances all over the world, many of whom I might not otherwise have a chance to more formally or personally converse with.  But on the other hand, this almost seems like a narcissistic and lazy version of friendship, and a behavior that’s not particularly seemly in someone who is nearly four decades old.

    I’m almost past feeling bad about not handwriting letters anymore.  I still feel awful that I have unreplied-to e-mails in my inbox from dear friends that I’ve put off for “when I have time,” yet here I am writing a blog post.

    Have we become a culture of relationship snackers?  Has the ease of publishing, of communicating, of virtual hugging (not to mention cow-throwing) resulted in an exciting and perhaps overall-positive broadening of our social circle… but at the expense of deepening relationships?

    What do you think?  Why are we so drawn to this micro- and public communicating?  What does it mean for us?  What does it mean for relationships?

  • Dependence on the Internet

    Just going through some of my old files, and I came across an unpublished journal/rant thing re: my frustrations upon loss of Internet connectivity.  This was from back in *2001*.  Amazing how some dependent at least I was on the Internet back then!

    Okay, I feel as blind as a bat right now.

    My internet connection has been flakey for the last week or so, and that’s been frustrating, but now as I write this my connection is completely down, and I feel both furious and helpless.

    I’d like to put postage on a few packages I put together for friends, but I can’t print postage when I can’t connect to the Internet, so I’ll have to drive to the post office and wait in line.

    A friend from out of town is coming out to visit today, and I promised to take her around to some tourist traps, er, I mean tourist attractions.  But without the net, it’s a lot harder to figure out driving directions, get parking information, find out attraction prices, and so on.  I’m picking her up from the hotel she’s staying at in San Bruno, and I don’t even have a map of that city.  So I’ll have to call the hotel to get directions.  Except that I don’t have the number of the hotel, nor do I have a yellow pages handy.  Guess I’ll have to call Directory Assistance and pay 50 cents.

    I was supposed to order some travelers checks and Swedish currency this morning for my trip, but I can’t compare rates online or even order the stuff without my net connection.

    I had hoped to research and order some tourist guides on Stockholm and London, but I can’t do that either.

    Before heading out with my friend today, I wanted to check on the latest weather report, but that’s a no-go as well.  Guess I’ll have to turn on the radio and sit through a bunch of crap in the meantime.

    I wanted to look into some travelers insurance and health insurance for my trip, but I can’t imagine doing that without the Internet.

    And of course, I can’t access any of my new e-mail, nor can I send any e-mail, and that drives me nuts.

    Heh… wow.  Remember, I wrote this more than eight years ago!  And after re-reading it I got to thinking… my goodness… what would happen if the whole Internet went down for even just a day (particularly a businessday)?  And just to be fair, imagine that the SMS network was down, too, so teens couldn’t text each other.  Would people be panicking in the streets?  Curled up in a ball in bed?  Actually discover a book or sit down to play piano for a while?  Maybe actually talk to other people in cafes instead of clickety-clacking away?  I wonder.

  • Facebook’s Frustrating Friending… and my reluctant choice

    I have over 500 Facebook friends.  That’s a statement to help you understand my predicament, not a badge of honor.  Of these, a handful are close friends, a big bunch are “regular” friends, a ton of ‘em are colleagues with which I have varying degrees of social contact and interest, and an even larger ton are “acquaintances or less.”  From that latter category, I still value many of those admittedly “weak ties.”  I may not know someone well, but perhaps she and I connected strongly even after just a brief meetup.  Or… maybe I don’t chat with that one fellow much anymore, but he used to be my best friend in high school and I still care about how he’s doing.

    But then there are the other “friends.”  People I met once at a conference and exchanged pleasant pleasantries with.  Someone from college who was the girlfriend of an acquaintance.  Or someone who… uh… who is that guy?

    *  *  *

    The biggest and most painful flaw in Facebook’s friend-system is that it assumes that two people in a “friendship” see the relationship in the same way… and thus have the same interests (or interest level) in both sharing and learning about each other.  I have no doubt that there are people I’m interested in hearing about (and from), but who absolutely couldn’t give a rodent’s posterior about my latest blatherings or photos.  On a related note, I have work buddies that I enjoy chatting with, but would probably not to subject them to my occasional angst, drinking photos, dating whines, and so on.  As a friend of mine once commented, “You don’t want to see your boss in Speedos” or, more intellectually, many people understandably feel uncomfortable sharing or reading “out of social context.” You get my point.

    *  *  *

    Sure, Facebook’s “friend lists” can ameliorate some of these issue a bit.  But not completely.  And the UI is so awkward, so confusing, so annoying, it almost makes setting up friend lists more trouble than they’re worth.

    What Facebook needs to do is break the friend-reciprocity requirement.  Just because I’m interested in following a person’s photo stream or reading their latest musings doesn’t mean they want to be forcefed AdamInfo.  More specifically, Facebook needs a “subscription” model, just like what we have for blogs, on Twitter, on Friendfeed, and—for crying out loud—in real life. 

    Each person has two rights in this far-more-ideal non-reciprocal friends model:
    1) The right to set privacy boundaries, dictating who (individually and/or by group) can access what aspects of their space (profile, activity stream, etc.)
    2) The right to follow or subscribe to whatever or whoever he or she wants, subject (of course) to any applicable privacy boundaries mentioned in #1… WITHOUT the other person having to indicate the same level of interest.

    There’s also a #3, which I find to be a strongly desirable albeit not required component of this model:
    3) The right to more keenly control sharing, so that it’s aligned intelligently not only with the interests of the sharer (as in #1), but also with the interests of the potential reader (related to #2).

    #3 might seem redundant, but it’s not.

    *  *  *

    A hypothetical example:

    Pat has buddies Fred and Jen.  Fred and Pat are fast friends.  In contrast, Pat has a crush on Jen and want to know everything about her, but she doesn’t have the same interest in Pat.

    – Clearly, Jen’s gonna want #1 here.  She doesn’t want Pat to see her stuff at all, so she either blocks him or gives him limited privileges. 
    – She may, however, want to keep tabs on the fellow to see if he’s spreading rumors or going from creepy to threatening, so she takes advantage of #2 above.

    Under the current model, the latter part wouldn’t be reasonably possible.  Jen would have to friend Pat, and wouldn’t that be awkward?! (and potentially hazardous, by sending absolutely the wrong statement).

    So then we have Pat and Fred.  As fast friends, they really want to follow everything of each other.  There should be a system, perhaps not only algorithmic (which I believe FB already has in place) but optional-manual as well, which enables the two to indicate, yes, turn on the firehose; let me know when my best friend sneezes.  Again, Facebook has some functionality along this line, but it doesn’t scale well within an account, it’s confusing, and it’s basically a pain in the ass.

    This is where #3 comes into play.  Facebook should enable folks to more easily share smartly… e.g., “pushing” those conference photos or blog entry on technology to colleagues, but not gym buddies or high school chums.  Of note, this is NOT the same as privacy; I’m not suggesting that this should be used as a substitute for effective privacy controls or filtering, nor even that the untargeted folks in the above scenario couldn’t view those items if they wanted.  But rather, it’s an issue of respect and priority; it’s less that those folks would be offended and more that they’d be simply bored.  What I’m calling for is a sharing that respects not only boundaries, but likely interests.

    *  *  *

    And lastly, we return to the most painful part of Facebook’s current friending model:  the increasing noise to signal ratio.  In other words, when I view my homepage feed, a lot of it is uninteresting to me.  And, alas, I miss tidbits about friends that I am interested in hearing about.  Yes, again, I could use friend lists (and do), but this doesn’t help streamline many other reading or transactional activities on FB; I still have to wade through 500+ names when recommending friends to friends, for instance.

    So today I’m finally making that hard choice:  I’m being selfish and reclaiming my addressbook.  I’m removing a not-insignificant-number of folks from my Facebook addressbook (read: de-friending them) not because they stole my girlfriend or poked my eye out with a bb-gun or made me lick Grand Central Station with my tongue (though, indeed, all of those would be good reasons for de-friending), but rather because we don’t really chat so much any more or have drifted apart or never really chatted much socially in the first place,  etc. etc. etc., and the benefit of those weak ties is outweighed by the collective—I hate to use this word—clutter.

    Offended?  Blame Facebook.  Or, better, yet, if you’re bummed that I’ve de-friended you, do one or both of the following:
    – Contact Facebook and let them know that it’s high time they update their friending system to improve sharing & privacy and reduce awkwardness.
    – Follow me on FriendFeed (and, obviously, feel very welcome to engage in conversation with me there).

    *  *  *

    Thanks for your understanding :-D.  Also, why not share your thoughts below on how Facebook Friending works?

  • Proposition 8 isn’t just about civil rights, it’s about love and commitment

    Hi there,

    I don’t tend to post much about politics in this blog, especially nowadays.  But I have something I want to talk to you about that’s more than “just politics.”  It’s about my friends.  It’s about—with semi-apologies to Princess Bride—True Love.

    For those of you who aren’t familiar with Proposition 8, I’ll quickly fill you in:  It’s a ballot initiative in California that aims to modify the state constitution to eliminate the right of people to marry the one they love if they’re gay or lesbian.

    And let me tell you, it has warmed my heart to see gay and lesbian people I know tie the knot… people who are committed, monogamous, dedicated to their communities.  People who care about schools, who care about our country and the world. 

    They just want to live out their lives in peace with their loved one.  Pay taxes jointly.  Have full visitation rights if one of them ends up in a hospital.  And, for those whose partner is from outside the U.S., they want to stay in the house they’ve bought together in this very state.

    They’re not out to “convert” anyone for goodness sake, despite what some people are trying to scare you into believing.  In fact, I doubt they wish on anyone the challenges and hatred and sometimes even violence they suffered growing up.  I haven’t met a single gay or lesbian person who sees this as “making a statement” or “forcing change” or anything like that.  They just want to be able to love the one they’re with, and have their commitment be recognized fully by both the state and our country.

    Perhaps you’re reading this and thinking to yourself, well sure, Adam.  I agree with you.  You’re preaching to the choir!  We used to not let blacks marry whites.  We used to not let people originally from Ireland (and elsewhere) hold jobs amongst us.  Our country has been through so many dark times… the burning of “witches” and the baseless ruining of lives of suspected communists and so on. 

    Of course, we’re better now, right?  More and more people, especially young people, know people who are “different” than themselves… work with them, laugh with them, love them.

    But I fear that the Yes on Prop 8 people have created uncertainty where there should be clarity and resoluteness.  So let me set the record straight (no pun intended):

    • This proposition will not change what kids are taught in school.
    • It won’t cost you any money.  If anything, it’ll keep more jobs here and maintain / build more revenues via taxes.
    • Churches won’t lose their tax-exempt status.  The court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

    If you’re straight, voting NO on Prop 8 won’t change your marriage (or for you fellow single folks, your lack of marriage).  Churches can still marry whomever they want.  Parents can still take their kids out of school classes that go against their beliefs.

    The only real thing voting NO on Prop 8 will do:
    Let two consenting adults marry each other.

    *  *  *

    Please, let love prevail.  Those of you who are eligible (and haven’t already voted), PLEASE VOTE, and vote No on Prop 8.

    Thank you :-).

  • I, Robot

    Hello.  Good day.  A little quiet?
    I’m feeling a little blue myself.
    You know, A little anxious for no particular reason
    A little sad that I should feel anxious at this age.
    You know, a little self-conscious anxiety resulting in non-specific sadness.
    The state that I call blue.

    – spoken by the narrator (“Man In Chair”) in the awesome musical “The Drowsy Chaperone”

    Today I am a little sad because of a small heartbreak.
    And a little anxious because, well, I should not be admitting this in public.

    Real men don’t do cry.  But real businessmen… the type who are strong, who manage or mentor, who think of respect and solidness and promotions… they are not bloviatingly blathering on a blog, blissfully or blamefully or otherwise.

    Think.  Think of someone you look up to at work.  Do you want to know his private foibles, hear of his personal struggles?  Really?  No. You want someone to look up to.  Someone at least a little bit larger than life.  A rock, or minimally a damn large stone.

    You have your own problems, and when you want to schadenfreudically delight in someone else’s problems, you have your TV or paper or favorite internet gossip sites within an arm or eyeball’s reach.

    When your current or future dear leaders are feeling blue, they ideally do not show you, much less tell you.

    Then again, maybe it’s different today.  Maybe the Live Journalers of the modern era will grow up to be respected leaders… warty angst, noserings and all.  Perhaps someday we’ll view an executive’s late night facebookings with indifference rather than annoyance or scorn.

    Or maybe not.  Maybe he or she will methodically scrub, hoping the last trace of emotion is gone.  Here, look, a résumé.  A fine, level-headed portfolio indeed!

    And only a strong, competitive, safe, and secure heart.