Swipe Right If You Love This Blog

Our world is increasingly pushing toward the mobile interface and ease. This comes in the face of working harder and experiential interfaces. While every progression in the human experience is very personal to a generation and beneficial, there are definitive drawbacks to moving in any given direction also.

I recently was at a restaurant in Chicago with my family, and as we are waiting for our food I notice this gal sitting in a booth with another guy there and she isn't even speaking with him. She is taking selfie after repeated selfie. The selfie itself didn't seem all that bad to me. It was curious to me how her face contorted with each new picture, proving not only her dissatisfaction with the previous ones, which only varied in micro-expression, but also the complete disregard for her setting.

I am a millenial myself, and I definitely understand wanting to post pictures of where you are at and your happenings. We all want to share what we are doing in life and let our friends know. It's a relationship element that everyone wants - people sharing events and life stories. There is a social element of that which seems evident to me, but it is becoming more and more obvious that my generation and the next one are abandoning many of the benefits of the past in exchange for the future benefits.

I think it's a well-backed argument that the benefits of traditional social relationships are more weighty than those of the mobile world. I personally have a few rants to give off about some specific things that I find problematic. Please feel free to indulge:

1 - Selfie-nation: I have no issue with selfies. I have a problem with people losing the experience they are having for the mobile experience. That particular gal sacrificed her experience with another flesh and blood person at a place in an iconic town for some "likes" on facebook or instagram. Similarly, people regularly sacrifice actually WITNESSING events in exchange for posting tons of pictures online for everyone to see. I think we all know that most people are clicking on "like" or saying things like "oh cute!" and then on to the next one. I, for one, would much rather have the experience. I view my life as collecting various experiences. Some of them are good and some are bad, but they all belong to me. They are all memories and events that I can recall and visit again in my mind. Despite even the worst parts of my assorted life, I wouldn't trade my origins or experiences for a "like" or a "share."

VALUE YOUR EXPERIENCES AND LIFE - You only get them once.

2 - SnapChat: I realize that I am getting into some debate with this up front. In the advent of social media and pursuing the best way to relate, there are many false pretenses that are generated with services like SnapChat. The idea that a picture has "gone away" digitally is inaccurate. Once something is posted online or in a mobile interface, it can be retrieved. The idea that there are chat rooms where people randomly are sent videos and services where pictures are sent "anonymously" create a problem where people aren't able to see the cause/effect relationship to their actions. When you take those selfies and videos of yourself in less than savory dress, you are exposing it to hundreds of thousands of people. It's not just your "friends" that can have access, despite what your "settings" say on facebook and such. The services here are not specifically the problem. The problem is that people forget the direct consequences of their actions.

USE CAUTION WITH PICTURES/VIDEO - once you put it out there, it's out there

3 - Tinder - The idea here is completely deplorable to me. Sex in general has always been a commodity, so to say that it is "becoming" one is inaccurate. I think the big problem is that sex has long been both a commodity and a very relational and personal thing. It's a very strong bonding ritual and unifies two people in a way that nothing else can. Tinder's line of thinking is purely devoid of all of that interaction. It's absolutely grotesque that someone can go to an application, look at a picture, swipe their finger to the right, and (assuming the other person does also), they will agree to sleep with one another. It strips the experience of the integrity of getting to know someone. You lose all of the deep emotional connections of knowing someone and the things that make sex a wonderful and beautiful thing. In an easier way of saying what I mean, you are giving up all of the relational and personal aspects of sex and exchanging that for a true "commodity," where it is simply a transaction.

PRESERVE THE VALUE OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCES - Sometimes the old way of doing things is better and carries intrinsic value. Once you lose it, you can never get it back.


In general, I think there is a general sense that older methods are not deserving of the same respect as new methods. There is definitely a value to new experiences. Online dating, facebook, snapchat, and other interfaces certainly add a wider availability to create connections, but the important thing to remember is that the generations before us have held value also. There is something about opening the door for my wife that gives me a deeper satisfaction. There is something about pulling the chair out for her and holding her hand that holds more value. It has nothing to do with her "ability" to do those things, but has everything to do with the respect and love that I feel for her. Those actions convey a deeper level of respect and honor, and I think that is something sorely missing from the way that we currently experience things in a mobile world.

On the other end, there is something about coming home to my wife and a cooked meal that cannot be explained. It's not about the convenience. It's not about being chauvinist or any kind of agenda. It's something that she chooses to do for me and that respect is something that older generations understood.

I guess what I am getting at is that for every advance we have in pursuing the future, there is also a deep value to the way of the past. We didn't get to where we are now as a community and people without standing on the shoulders of those generations. While there are a lot of things that were messed up with race and gender issues, there are nuggets of gold in there that should not be thrown out with the refuse of the past.

Fathers Don't Have Enough Say About Abortions

I recently saw a post online about abortion and I was really provoked into evaluating the situation further.

The post was doing the same old debate about how some people argue about abortion and the varying disparities in opinion of what constitutes "life," "rights," and "choice."

Ultimately, I think the main problem with any/all childbearing law is that exactly none of those three options are explored fully, and the laws are all unfairly kedged to popular media. Instead of looking at everything from a slanted viewpoint, let's evaluate the topic of abortion from these three standpoints and show a few different sides.

LIFE

In the arena of life, this can possibly affect all three parties involved. The mother's life is certainly changed and her life is significantly valuable. The father's life is very much also changed, not just financially, but emotionally, and mentally also. The child obviously has a stake in this category also.

Here are some basic statements that I think are true:

• At whatever point you call something life (conception/heartbeat/brain signals/etc), it should be entitled to whatever potential that life provides
• A mother has the right to decide what she wants to do with her body and her future
• A father also has the right to decide what he wants to do with his body and his future

If those are all true, the concept of life is a bigger picture than simply "when does a baby become a baby" or "is the mother or the baby more important" and it becomes something that is more complex. It's an evaluation of what this life has the potential of being, how that potential affects the lives of the people who conceived it, and how that triad plays a role in the community around it. 

So when you are speaking with people about "What Constitutes Life" please be sure to acknowledge that ALL of the lives involved with this are exactly that - involved. 

The argument comes in when people argue at what point actually begins. Some people argue that life begins when the full body of the baby is formed. Others argue at the first heartbeat. Others argue at conception. 

I think to really get at the heart of what the issue is, you need to get to the dirty and gritty truth of the question. The real question is, "at what point is is still okay to completely mangle something that may potentially become a human being and when is it no longer acceptable?"

In my personal opinion, I would argue that the question is rather superfluous, because nobody really wants to do that, but I would also wager that most people can agree that once something can FEEL it's morally reprehensible to do something so painful to something. At that point, I make the argument that the "life" point is when the zygote/fetus/baby/etc has nerves that can actually send signals.

If your argument is to the contrary, understand that you are saying you feel it's okay to intentionally mangle and liquify potential life while it is able to feel every moment. 

Current law doesn't take into thought AT ALL what the actual thing inside the mother FEELS. It is based on viability outside of the womb, but that's really not considering the LIFE inside her if you agree that being able to feel presumes life.

RIGHTS

On the subject of rights, let's talk about equality and making everything fair for everyone. I talk about it this way, because the general consensus is that everyone should have equal rights. There are again, three parties involved here. 

The Baby/Fetus/Zygote/etc. - Once this "thing" inside the mother attains the luxurious status of "alive" it now attains all of the rights that are attributed with that. Since people are consenting to this, the general argument is "when does life begin" - because nobody wants to be accused of ending a life, particularly a "young" life because it has potential. Personally, I would then question that even further and get to the idea that once something has potential for life it now has the potential for all of what is entailed by that also. Once something has "life" it has rights.

The Mother - the mother has all the rights of being alive, which carries the rights to her body, the rights to her future, the rights to her finances, and the right to make choices. Certainly a pregnancy carries a hefty physical choice along with mental/emotional and financial choices. 

The Father - The father should have all the rights of being alive also, carrying the right to his body, his future, his finances, and his choices. There is a very big mental/emotional and financial toll for him also. 

The problem with law currently is that it affords rights to the potential child only when it becomes viable outside the mother. It hardly affords the father any rights, and the mother has nearly 100% rights. Let's look at this in several situations:

1 - The mother decides she cannot financially support a baby (Potential child and father have no say): She can abort, give up for adoption, apply for government aid, etc.

2 - The father decides he cannot financially support a baby (Father and potential child have no say): Too bad. The mother can decide to keep a baby he may have used protection against and his finances, emotional, and mental futures are all altered without his own permission. 

3 - The baby has reached a point where nerves are present and working (father and potential child have no say): Too bad. The mother has 100% legal rights to blend those nerves up as much as she likes, even if she simply doesn't feel like she can financially support them.

In these three scenarios, the current laws are OBVIOUSLY neglecting both the potential child and the father. 

CHOICE

I think the main problem with the concept here is not what DEFINES choice, but more of a WHEN is the choice defined. Many times people say that the mother doesn't have a choice, the father doesn't have a choice, etc. 

Choice for childbearing is a two part decision and is fluid in my opinion. Simply, if a guy isn't using protection against it, then he is conceding that he is accepting to potential childbearing. If a woman isn't doing something to prevent it also (pill, implant, ring, female protection, etc) then she is equally culpable at that point in time. 

The true point of choice for a guy is always leading into the romance. Any situation after that is already outside of his control and thus outside of his ability to choose. For the gal, the choice making still has a few steps before there is even a third party. 

A woman could take a morning after pill, use cleaning methods, and other precautions to make pregnancy a less likely option by a vast margin. 

The law currently acknowledges only the mother's choices at the point where she is pregnant. It doesn't look at actions from the guy and doesn't look at preventive measures taken. 

WHAT IS THE FIX?

I don't think that I have a universal answer to the question. I do have a few ideas as to things that should rectify some of these questions. Here is a list of things that I think would help - maybe not fix entirely:

1 - Life should be defined as whenever something has working nerves. At that point it can potentially feel and morally and ethically deserves to not feel pain. 

2 - Men should be offered a parental rights and responsibility waiver once they are informed they are going to be a father. At that point, they should (prior to the child being aborted/adopted/birthed) be able to know, just as much as a mother is allowed to abort at any point before "viability," whether they want to and can support the child. At that point, they can make the decision and then definitively give the mother another piece to making her decision. 

3 - Women should be given a deadline (window of days) to announce to potential fathers that they are potentially a parent in order to facilitate the father's right to waive

I am not a chauvinist nor a feminist, but as I look at the current law it becomes more evident that the potential child and potential father are distinctly disadvantaged in this situation. Women, by all means, should have the right to control their own bodies. At the same time, that shouldn't come at the expense of the rights of the majority of everyone else involved. 

That's the way I see it.

Net Neutrality - Life in The Fast Lane (For a Price)

Net Neutrality. What the heck? What is this junk and why do people care about it? What in the world is the FCC and why do I care?

Alright...let's break this down into segments that are easy to digest.

FCC = Federal Communications Committee - This is basically a government organization that sort of polices the ethics of communication in our nation. It's what assumes to allow certain things to happen for companies and individuals to communicate.

Net Neutrality = Our ability to access sites and information being open and having equal opportunity to all people and all companies. This means you can watch videos, skype, blog, play Xbox live, add modems, and use the internet in a way that is of your choosing, hampered by only your own ability to access.

SO WHAT ARE THE RULES?

1. Transparency: That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network

2. No Blocking: That no legal content may be blocked

3. No Unreasonable Discrimination: That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet

So what is all of the hub-bub about then? This sounds like stuff that is pretty reasonable and regular. I mean, we do want things to be good for everyone right?

The problem is the consequences.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?

The legislation conflicts with a few simple statements:

1 - Comcast just bought out Time Warner Cable (TWC) and now owns 31 million subscribers. (by comparison the next runner up is At&T with about 17 Million and below this isn't worth mentioning)

2 - Coverage in the US is largely by the top two companies (Previously TWC and Comcast) http://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers - but they are now a single company, so the majority of coverage is offered not only by one company but it is mostly available THROUGH one company now.

3 - The new regulations allow ISP's to charge different money to companies like Facebook, Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, Skype, etc. for the volume of their service required for their site. In this case if, say YouTube pays an extra fee their site gets the speed needed, but if say Vimeo does not then videos on Vimeo will run so slow that the website will crash.

4 - The regulations don't stay with the companies specifically. That is to say, if your phone has the cool video call option, but it uses an ISP service to do that, the ISP now has a right to charge you as a consumer of that faster data, an extra price for that service.

DIAL IT DOWN AND KEEP IT SIMPLE 

Internet Service Providers (ISP's) are basically now allowed to charge more for smooth access to sites. In most cases this will be passed onto the company that offers the service (Hulu, Netflix, Skype, Facebook, etc.). There are some rare cases where you might have an ISP (AT&T) who enables your phone where they can charge you more for the faster access that FaceTime requires - i.e. charge you a "FaceTime Fee" essentially, although I'm sure they wouldn't call it that directly.

Consequently, when these service companies get fees, they will pass those fees onto their users. What this does is create a fast and slow lane for the internet. There will be blazing fast speeds and access to all of the information so long as you pay up to the almighty ISP that wants to charge you for it. In this case, you are likely in an area that only offers Comcast now, since AT&T has a very spotty broadband network and Comcast just bought TWC.

The short of this is that Comcast will basically now have the right to charge more money for access to sites that require faster usage - never mind that you are already paying them for a "faster connection" in the first place. Since they operate over 50% of the market and own the availability to much more than that with their availability, it's unlikely that even AT&T can oppose them, and will likely follow suit.

The end result is that we as consumers will be given slower internet with less ability to see places like Reddit, Facebook, Skype, Twitter, and so on unless we pay a fee. So when your kid wants to go to the internet and get information for a paper, you should make sure they don't need to get anything that would require a bigger or faster connection, or you'll pay more money. If you don't, they won't have the information...so what happens to their grades?

Remember when you could research a paper online? Gone unless you pay.

Remember when you could video connect with people? Gone unless you pay.

Remember when you could watch videos to educate yourself? Gone unless you pay.

Remember when you could exchange ideas with people abroad? Gone unless you pay.

Who will you pay? Most of us - Comcast. Others - AT&T.

Today is the day that Net Neutrality suffered a huge blow and with the open element to the FCC over the next few months we need to DEMAND that these fast and slow lanes are not allowed.