busy busy busy

Sorry I haven’t the time to write much of a blog post today. After writing about Google+ and social search the other day, I started systemically removing everything I’ve ever posted to anything owned by Google. And it’s a good thing. Yesterday The Washington Post wrote about Google’s new terms of service, that Google plans to follow a user’s activities across all of the platforms it operates, such as Gmail and YouTube.

Apparently Google is facing some backlash over this. And while it’s tempting to throw my opinion into the mix…well, I just did that. What I had to say about Google+ and social search applies in much of the same way as Google combining my data from Docs and Picasa.

So the reason I don’t have time for much of a blog post is simply that I’m busy deleting anything I can find that I ever posted to any Google-owned site. Over the last six years we’ve developed an extensive partnership. But that ends today.

Goodbye Google. Good luck with that whole don’t be evil thing.

anti social-search

David Foster Wallace writes,

Fiction writers as a species tend to be oglers. They tend to lurk and stare. They are born watchers. They are viewers. They are the ones on the subway about whose nonchalant stare there is something creepy, somehow. Almost predatory. This is because human situations are writers’ food.

I’ve been a fiction writer since the first short story I wrote in fourth grade, so I know the above to be true. And I also know the following to be equally true:

But fiction writers tend at the same time to be terribly self-conscious. Devoting lots of productive time to studying closely how people come across to them, fiction writers also spend lots of less productive time wondering nervously how they come across to other people…The result is that a majority of fiction writers, born watchers, tend to dislike being objects of people’s attention.(1)

He goes on, at Wallacian length, to make the argument that television’s benign malice is that it allows for watching without being watched, although of course what’s being watched isn’t an accurate reflection of reality.(2) My point isn’t to argue with or refute this claim. My point is that today we have a much better tool to watch without being watched: social media.

Facebook and Twitter allow me to do exactly what television allows. I get to peek into people’s lives. I get these little snippets that I can piece together. It has an advantage over real life in that if I met a friend for coffee I’d have to pay attention to things like body language and tone to divine how that person feels about anything, and I’d have to do it constantly. Using social media, people just tell me how they feel…and I don’t even have to ask.

Furthermore, social media allows me to choose whose lives I watch from a distance. When I find someone to be untrustworthy I can simply un-friend, un-follow, or un-subscribe from that person’s life. I only have to pay attention to what I want to pay attention to.

And, for the most part, people only watch me when I want them to. Were I the creepy guy on the subway, I’d have to constantly watch everyone else and run decision trees on how they might be perceiving me, all while I’m watching whatever it is that’s caught my interest. It’s a lot. But on Facebook, people only see what I want them to see, whether that be my profile or my status updates.(3)

And so of course I have to be aware that I’m only seeing what others want me to see. In other words, social media is mediated content, just like television. Except that, for the most part, the goal of mediation isn’t simply to make money for some faceless corporation. Some people are obviously out to get as many followers as possible, but having the type of ego – or pathological need – that makes that situation a factor is also part of the reality that I, as a fiction writer, so desperately want to take in. 

Without being, myself, observed. Which isn’t sneaky nor creepy. It doesn’t come from a place of harm or, I hope, damage. Let me put it this way: we, as human beings, tend, I think, to think that most people’s desires aren’t different from our own in any fundamental way. How we go about achieving those desires is, of course, wildly different. But the fundamentals are the same. So if I have a desire to watch everyone around me while I hit the little RECORD button of my memory, I generally assume that others are doing the same thing. Which is what makes me terribly self-conscious even while being simultaneously aware that probably no one is really paying any attention to me anyway. And so it’s only natural that I would embrace anything that removes that problem.

This is why, even though I kind of hate the thing that is social media, I simply cannot let it go. It lets me do the only thing I’ve wanted to do since I wrote my second story: record people without myself being recorded.

Which is why Google is now my enemy.

Image Credit: Biggovernement.com

Google’s new Social Search feature, which allows people who have you in their Google+ circles to see things that you’ve searched for with Google, is more than a violation of privacy. More than a violation of trust. It is a violation of the very lure of social media, which is to watch other people without them seeing more of me than I want.

Suddenly now, self-consciousness has entered into my online life. I have to be worried that people in my circles can see what I’ve searched. Because I’m a writer, because I have a curious mind, and because I have a tendency – for whatever reason – to see and learn about many of the more unsavory aspects of human life,(4) I am genuinely concerned about this.

Furthermore, because Google first touted their service as a network that let you control what other people see, I added people to my circles whom I never would have added on Facebook. And so now I have to worry that people at work know that sometimes I really do try pretty hard to find real pictures of people who have three breasts.(5)

And they did all of this without first telling me. The only reason I knew about it was when I searched something a week or so ago and Google showed me similar things that one of my friends had searched. Self-consciousness set in just as much as if I’d gone naked to the prom.

So I quit Google+ right away. And in the past week, I’ve been divesting myself of all the Google services I use. This isn’t easy, since I’ve had a Google account for five years or so. But I am not willing to risk them releasing whatever other information they have of mine or about me to anyone else, whether we’re friends or not. Forget privacy. Forget trust. I spend time on the internet because it helps me accomplish something I simply cannot do in real life. Google has violated my sense of personal security, not my information, not my emails, but aspects of my very self.

At the very least, this makes me horribly uncomfortable. This is the type of thing that in the real world would cause me to get off the subway at the next stop, even if I had no idea where I was. To leave the party. To never talk to a certain person again. To move to a new town. Not because of the violation, but because I have been made too terribly self-conscious to ever face that situation again. So goodbye Google. And congratulations on becoming the town gossip-queen I’ve always worked to avoid.


  1. Wallace, David Foster. “E Unibus Pluram” in A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1997.
  2. It’s well documented that pretty much no one would want to watch a show about real life anyway, because real life is allegedly boring. I submit that real life isn’t precisely boring. It’s just that we can’t skip over the long amounts of less interesting points.
  3. I’ll add that the new Facebook Timeline lets you go back and delete pretty much everything you want to delete. It’s a great tool for revisionist history of a very personal sort.
  4. Should be obvious what that means. But it means more than that too. Mine is the kind of mind that finds books about serial killers fascinating. The internet was practically made for people like me.
  5. That fact supports note 4, supra.

i’ll burn this whole city down

Ashley is not a fan of Apple products, so when she brought up to me on Friday the much ballyhooed statements Steve Jobs made w/r/t to Google and Android, she brought it up to make her point that Jobs was, well, kind of a dick.(1)

Believe it or not, she and I have actually gone a couple of rounds on the subject of Apple and, recently, of Jobs. Her hesitation with Apple’s products partially comes from an anti-populist perspective: everyone loves them, they’re all the rage, and she’s not going to buy into something just because that’s what everyone else is doing. I can appreciate that stance.(2)

But when it comes to Steve Jobs, she believes he was kind of a dick. I don’t entirely disagree.(3) Like I told her, I don’t think you get to be in that position of that kind of a company without being abrasive more than just occasionally. But I think the difference is that I’m a bit more willing to let certain things go. Context, as they say, is everything.

So let’s take some of Mr. Jobs’s statements w/r/t Android:

I’m going to destroy Android because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go to thermonuclear war over this.”

I recognize that Mr. Jobs is perhaps being a bit irrational in this statement. But I can appreciate someone who’s willing to go to any length – any – to stop a wrong.(4) Mr. Jobs perceives that Android/Google ripped off Apple’s iOS and, whether he’s right or wrong, he’s willing to challenge hell itself over this infraction. Many people these days are willing to stand up for what they think is right, but precious few are willing to stand against what they think is wrong.

This sort of extreme behavior and unfaltering conviction is something I can appreciate. Ashley’s stance is that his being willing to take down another company is evidence of him being a dick. Maybe, maybe not. But at least he’s willing to state and stick to his purpose.

The real problem here is that we wouldn’t have Apple if Jobs hadn’t ripped off Xerox. He visited the company back in 1982 and walked out with an idea for a graphic user interface. I’m not faulting the guy: he took something someone else was doing and simply did it better. That’s free enterprise. But to fault Android for (allegedly) doing the same is…well, a bit hypocritical.

Furthermore, the tech-world has piracy in its friggin’ DNA. I’m not really even a part of that world and I know enough to know that everything awesome that exists right now was at least partially built on something someone else saw or had a hand in:

  • Windows 7 looks a lot like OS X. What I’ve seen of Windows 8 does even more so.
  • iOS 5 has a notification system that works and looks a lot like Android’s.
  • Netscape gave way to IE which gave way to Firefox which gave way to Chrome.
  • Every smartphone ever.
  • Amazon Cloud Drive. Google Music. iTunes Match.
  • Kindle. Nook. Kobo.

For Mr. Jobs to go thermonuclear over tech-theft is, as I said, hypocritical. It’s ridiculous too in that, in its own way, the theft of ideas is what make the tech world spin. So yeah, that makes him kind of a dick…but not because he’s willing to destroy a company over it.

I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong.

Ah, but being willing to destroy his own company…that’s a different story.

Again, the lengths that he’s willing to go to are, to me, admirable. But that he’s willing to risk the livelihood of every Apple employee and their families – to say nothing of stockholders – it shows a certain unforgivable selfishness. Apple hasn’t belonged to just Steve Jobs in a long time. It’s not his to sacrifice.

This, of course, is the downside of that ‘at-all-costs’ mentality, that it doesn’t calculate the costs of the innocent. Apple’s employees have done a lot to help Apple get to where it is today, so to be willing to scuttle the whole thing simply to destroy a company that did what Mr. Jobs himself did way back in the day is, yes, a little dickish. Maybe even a whole lot dickish. But still. I appreciate the lengths he was willing to go to.


  1. Which I can further back up my interpretation by pointing out that she actually said he was kind of a dick.
  2. Though of course the argument is that not doing something just because it’s what everyone else is doing is just another way of letting the masses dictate your behavior.
  3. I’ll point out here that I haven’t yet read the biography that came out today.
  4. Note that I didn’t say ‘right a wrong.’ There’s a distinction.

google+, minus the friends

The internet is already crawling with praise and criticism of Google’s new social network, Google+. I don’t have much to add one way or the other, honestly. At least, not in the technical vein. Nor in the aesthetic vein.

Yet I would nonetheless like to talk about why I love Google+. And I can sum it up in one word: Circles.

Allow me to redact that just a bit. I love Google+’s circles(1) largely because they’re not something else: Friends.

Facebook’s rampant use of the word friend has been bothering me for years. Only someone inherently and terribly lonely would create something that allows him to have friends without ever having to leave his dorm-room. That part make me sad.

What makes me angry is that Facebook requires a relationship between me and someone else. If I want to know what that person is up to, I have to request that that person be my friend and he or she has to accept my request.

What, are we in second grade?

Friendships are not asked for, nor do they rely upon overt acceptance. You know someone is your friend through actions and statements, not because you passed her a note in class. And more importantly, you know someone is not your friend because you stop talking to them. You cease being interested in that person’s life. For whatever reason. The trickle of their life ceases to affect your own.

Facebook changes that. It allows you only to be friends. If you don’t want to see someone’s updates you can either de-friend them (aggressive) or hide their updates (passive-aggressive). There is zero middle-ground. So real-life friendship-breakups get even more complicated by a social network, which strikes me as about the most ridiculous aspect of modern times.

Facebook also doesn’t let me know what people from high school are up to unless I’m willing to call them my friends. But I’m not willing to do that. I haven’t talked to most of them in nearly two decades; there is no reason to think of them as friends. So when people send me friend-requests I deny them almost purely because of that word.

On Google+ I would simply get a notice that so-and-so added me to a circle. I don’t have to approve it. I don’t have to do anything at all. I don’t have to add him or her to a circle. In fact, nothing about Google+’s circles(2) implies any type of two-way relationship. He or she could have added me to a circle they call ‘Narcissistic Windbags’ for all I know.

But I wouldn’t know. That’s the point.

In other words, Google+ just lets me keep tabs on someone, or vice versa, without forcing any type of relationship.

Furthermore, when I check my Google+ stream(3) I can limit it to any circle I want. So I could conceivably have a circle of former-high-school classmates that I check up on, say, once a month. I don’t have to know that they’re playing some inane game. I don’t have to see pictures of their 2.3 standard-issue. I don’t have to hear what they think of Republicans whilst I’m trying to see what my actual, real-life friends are up to.

Google+ gives me a way to control which pieces of information I’m seeing, and which pieces I’m sending to whom. I’ve added several people from my workplace to a Google+ circle though I will never add them on Facebook. This is simply because Google+ lets me – very simply – control which content of mine that they can see.

So when I post that I saw a fox cub on my bike ride, I don’t mind including my work-circle because most of them live locally and might be interested.

But when I post about having made good friends with a vat o’ mojitos, I exclude the work-circle because none of them need to know I got maybe more than my fair-share of drunk on Saturday.

And I don’t have to think of them as friends. Because they’re not. They’re just in my circle.

What I call that circle is my secret. But I will say that not a single one of my circles is called Friends.(4)


  1. That’s the most awkward apostrophe-s construction I’ve ever made.
  2. See note 1, supra.
  3. Think of your Facebook news-feed.
  4. NB:If you want to add me to your circle you can find me here.

the great e-reader debate: tech-crunch

Yesterday I talked about the basic functionality of e-readers v. books. Today I want to talk about e-readers themselves.

Because holy crap there are a lot of them.

Amazon’s Kindle is probably the most well-known. In fact, recently Amazon announced that it’s the best-selling item in their store. Ever. Some of this is due to e-books finally starting to catch on in the general populace, but most of it’s because of the improvements and improved price-point of the third-generation Kindle. More on that later.

Barnes & Noble’s Nook might be the runner-up, popularity-wise. After that, maybe Sony’s e-readers. After that…who knows. Let’s just say that there are a bunch.

So, which one is best? Or, more importantly, which would be best for me?

Now that they’re selling the Kindle in stores1 I’ve had a chance to play with it a bit. Frankly, I like it a lot.2 It’s comfortable, I don’t have the screen-blindness problem I have with computer screens and/or my phone, and it looks really nice. The only problem I run into is that I keep thinking it’s a touch-screen device.3 But that’s not a deal-breaker. Should I opt for it, Amazon’s 3G doesn’t require a contract or subscription. Pay the extra money and I can download anywhere. That’s pretty cool, but really, when am I that far from some Wi-Fi? And if the thing holds 3500 books, when would I need 3G?

I’ve also played with the Nook. There are several versions of the Nook, including one in color.4 While I like the touch-screen interface5, I don’t find the screen as crisp as the Kindle, nor do I find the device as comfortable. And it doesn’t hold as many books. Plus, and maybe this is my own thing, but I’m incredibly irritated that I paid for a Barnes & Noble Membership Card but that the member discounts don’t apply to e-book purchases. Also, as I mentioned yesterday, I like the program in which you can read any e-book for an hour a day at any Barnes & Noble store, but that doesn’t quite push me over the edge.

Sony’s e-readers seem clunky to me, as does the Literati. The advantage to these though is that they’ll read any epub file format.

Obviously there are a lot of options, each with pros and each with cons. At the moment I’m leaning towards a Kindle…but I’m not there yet.

Because as much as this is about fundamentally changing the way I read, it’s also about technology. And technology these days moves fast. Super fast. By next Christmas, maybe the Kindle will be a touchscreen device. Maybe they’ll update the Nook to be sharper with better battery life.

You just never know what’s coming up next, even if you give Mashable a closer read than Pete Cashmore himself.

And that’s part of the problem. Books haven’t changed a great deal. And those changes took centuries. I can all but promise you that the Kindle two years from today will be quite different than today’s. Hell, there might even be some all-new device…What is this new type of devilry? Boromir would ask.

You can never know.

So do I commit to a Kindle, knowing that a new and better one will come out soon? I get that America is essentially a throw-away culture, but we’re talking $139 minimum. To me, that’s not throw-away cash. I bought an iPod, what…seven years ago? Eight? I still use it. I did buy an iPod touch last year, but only because someone offered me a good price on a used one and I was experimenting to see if I wanted an iPhone. So I’m not going to buy the newest e-reader that comes out. But when do I buy? Which version do I take home?

There’s one other consideration: tablets.

The iPad is only the beginning. Samsung’s Galaxy tablet is also sleek, and runs on Android. Last week’s CES saw lots and lots and lots of new tablets, including Blackberry tabs.

Tablets have some of the advantages of e-readers. The Galaxy, for example, is almost the same size as the Kindle, though it does weigh more. And available for most of these tablets are a Kindle app, a Nook app, and other e-reader apps. Android tablets will have Google’s e-bookstore. The iPad and iPod have Apple’s iBooks.

In other words, tablets give you options of purchase. They force competition. If I buy a Kindle, I’m locked into downloading from Amazon. If I buy a tablet, I can buy from whichever store sells it more cheaply. Plus, Google’s e-books have a major advantage over all others in my opinion: page numbers. Google’s e-books read just like other e-books, but there’s a menu option that shows you the page as it is in the book. That’s a big deal for a nerd of my variety, but also for someone who’s doing graduate research. It’s nothing short of awesome to be able to search a book, find what I need, and then be able to put it into MLA citation. I can’t do that with any other e-reader; only Google’s.

Google doesn’t have a dedicated e-reader. Yet. Remember: technology is fast.

But I don’t really like tablets. It’s not just the iPad, but all of them essentially duplicate the functions of other devices I have. They have high-gloss screens that strain the eyes. They’ll tell me every time I have an email, interrupting my reading. At the moment I can leave my phone in the other room and forget about email. I lose that if I get a tablet, unless I disable some of the other functions. Furthermore, the battery life of a tablet is nothing compared to the Kindle.

So do I care enough about competition, about getting the best price from a list of services, that these objections are rendered meaningless? I can’t quite decide.

There’s another consideration, though. One that almost sells me on the tablet idea. For that, tune in tomorrow.


  1. Staples, Best Buy
  2. I’m talking the Kindle 3, with the 6-inch screen. Wi-Fi version $139; Wi-Fi + 3G: $189.
  3. Though to be honest I’ve been doing this with a lot of things. I feel like a damn idiot every time I touch my computer monitor.
  4. Original Nook starts at $149; Nook Color is $249.
  5. The Nook Color is all-touchscreen; the Nook has a small touchscreen for navigation.