7 ms·
Barack Obama's rant against technology: Don't shoot the messenger
- andrewtj 16y ago“WITH iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations—none of which I know how to work—information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment.” Anyone got a pointer to the context of this quote? This piece relies heavily on it and it reads to me like it may well be innocuous.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- gizmo 16y agoIt's absolutely ripped out of context. Obama argues that when you're drinking from the information firehose you may lose track of more important things. A completely obvious and very dangerous trend. Full transcript here: http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-obama-hampton-address-transcript,0,7478536.story http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-obama-hampton-address-transcri...
- mynameishere 16y agoHis real problem is that the media is no longer centrally controlled. And meanwhile, you're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter. "Some" of which don't. And "some" of which do, which is the real problem. The fact that he is objecting to "all kinds of arguments" whatever their content might be, is a giveaway. information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment Well, if you're old enough to remember when there were 3 channels and 1 local paper, you know that "information", such as it was, was a sedative at best. Sit in front of the TV, believe every sugary bit of crap on the 11 o clock news, go to bed. Nobody, and I mean nobody, was ever "empowered" by the media configuration as it existed through the 20th century. But for a centralized government, it was ideal--very empowering.
- yardie 16y ago"His real problem is that the media is no longer centrally controlled." No longer centrally controlled? You know we are down to 5 distributors that control an overwhelming amount of the music and films that we listen to or watch. Add the fact that Comcast just bought NBC Universal and you can assume the media is more concentrated by a few more than ever. But as long as we have 1000 blogs carrying the exact same message than it doesn't appear that way. Which is worse 10 independent newspapers or 1000 blogs, financed and controlled by 10 people.
- jgrahamc 16y agohttp://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-hampton-university http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-o...
- protomyth 16y agoIt is a small part of a larger point, but the speech writer had to know it was a provocative, quotable line. I have some problems with this line that I mentioned in the other thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1345882 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1345882
- paulnelligan 16y agoEmmm, Socrates was right I know I remember things waaaay better when someone TELLS me something, versus when I read it in a book or online.
- lidmith 16y agoIf I have an interesting conversation with a friend, and we're discussing something, I will remember it pretty well. If I am listening to a professor read through a lecture, with little to no interaction from the students, I am not as likely to remember it as if I had read it from a book.
- eru 16y agoYes. I like lectures, by the way, but that's because most professors are smart enough to interact with the audience.
- protomyth 16y agoI have often found that most college lectures have a hard time with distance learning. There normal lecture style translates very badly on a TV screen and people tend to fall asleep in front of a boring TV. The best distance learning teachers I have found come from a community college background. They tend to have to be more interesting to their students and know how to work an audience.
- phoboslab 16y agoNot everyone learns in the same way. Some people learn better when they see something, some may want to hear it, some read... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles
- pyre 16y ago> Emmm, Socrates was right Consider the following statement: It's a good thing that the Library of Alexandria was destroyed, because now all of that information was handed down the *right* way, through oral tradition...
- 16y ago
- smutticus 16y agoNot everyone who criticizes technology is a luddite. There are some valid criticisms of technology as a waste of time and a diversion. This article doesn't give enough context to the quote before diving in and passing judgment on Obama.
- _delirium 16y agoYeah, this feels like a subject that needs a few pages, even for a short, journalistic take on the subject, and this article treats it pretty flippantly in half a page, which doesn't add a whole lot to the debate. (And I even like The Economist; it's the only dead-tree periodical I subscribe to.)
- jpdbaugh 16y agoExactly. I for one, and probably many others on this site, hate social networking. I really believe it dumbs down human interaction and that the South Park episode on it really summed up the issue. However, I do write code for a living so I am far from a luddite.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- rbanffy 16y agoSocial networks are not completely useless - Twitter, Facebook (and here in Brazil, Orkut) are useful tools to find old friends you lost contact with or to start conversations and point to interesting things you find. I get many tips from the hacker news popular feed. But I really, really don't care for the farms people manage, the hearts people get and so on. I don't need a second job managing a farm.
- jpdbaugh 16y agoI do think that Twitter is useful for self branding. Especially if you are famous. For me though, friends are old friends for a reason. If I still want to talk to someone I have their contact information.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- jgrahamc 16y agoWhy didn't he mention TV when saying "information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment"? Oh wait, he mentioned all media in the actual, in context quote: And meanwhile, you're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy. Way to go Economist for taking his quote out of context.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoI'm not sure they are taking it out of context. According to your quote, it sounds like he is grumbling about new forms of communication: the "24/7 media environment". That's exactly how the economist described it. (Note: I only read your quote, not the full speech. Please correct me if the full speech elaborates.) Also, the economist does observe that he dislikes some low tech media. Not TV, but radio: "...with his grumbling about the crazy theories circulated by the combination of blogs and talk radio."
- tptacek 16y ago"Talk radio" is just a dog-whistle reference to right wing punditry. I'm sure he has no problem listening to the Sox games on the radio.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoIt's true, he may not be complaining about the media itself. He may just be complaining that his opponents get a voice.
- wlievens 16y ago
- gizmo 16y agoI think the problem Obama hints at (but not really explains) is very real. We're the first generation with all the world's information at our fingertips. We could all be polymaths, we could all get sound understanding of Philosophy, Math, Physics, Chemistry, Politics and so forth... but largely, we don't. Learning has never been easier, because you can get information in the format you want (audio, video, text, or interactive content) with a click of the mouse. You can pick between course material from dozens of universities and you can read papers written by academics all over the world. And yet, largely, we don't. We read blog posts that have near zero information content, and the ever present discussion threads where only the least controversial and inane posts rise to the top. But why? Why do we do this, when we know that we'd get much, much more from the internet if we used it to read well written and thoughtful content instead? Most likely it's just human nature. We're addicted to small bite-sized chunks of non-information. There are a lot of people who can read the internet all day, ever day, only to take breaks by watching TV shows and playing video games. Without ever getting bored. Day, after day, after day.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- euroclydon 16y ago"papers written by academics all over the world" != "well written and thoughtful content" I think the power of the internet is not access to long boring and often useless or esoteric academic papers, but rather that the internet is the most powerful reference tool ever invented. It's information on demand. Rather than get a sound understanding of Chemistry, I can just look up the occasional chemical compound I am concerned with at the moment. Similarly, I can review individual historic topics at will, and math equations, and search large text volumes for Philosophical gems. Information a-la-cart is power, freedom, and leisure all rolled into one.
- jfager 16y agoThere are more well-written and thoughtful academic papers available online than any person will ever make it through in a lifetime. The fact that many (or even most) don't rise to that distinction is irrelevant to the basic point. It's a rare person who can "look up the occasional chemical compound" to any effective end who hasn't already immersed themselves in the subject of chemistry to know why they are doing so and what the information they're getting back actually means. Information-at-will is unbelievably powerful and amazing, but it's not a substitute for in-depth study.
- ZachPruckowski 16y agoI will offer irrefutable proof that Obama is right. Try to visit a site like TvTropes without winding up wasting half your day :-)
- dan_sim 16y agoI'm relieved to see that the most rated comments are on Obama's side. Even the "arranged" quote from the Economist sounds true to me.
- DrSprout 16y agoObama wasn't ranting against technology. He was making a nuanced argument about our new information society, and being prescriptive about how we should interact with the Internet. To roughly paraphrase what Obama said, quit dicking around on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. and look for good articles. You also might think about writing some, or even reading a good book. That's not in any way technophobic. He was just doing what any public figure should do at a commencement address, which is tell the graduates to use their education to lead meaningful and productive lives.
- RyanMcGreal 16y ago>To roughly paraphrase what Obama said, quit dicking around on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. and look for good articles. But sometimes I want to dick around with enjoyable distractions.
- misterbwong 16y agoHe didn't say never dick around with twitter, etc. In the context of this quote, he's saying that for many people, it's gotten to the point where the dicking around has become a constant distraction from anything more real (or good).
- rbanffy 16y agoI find the fact the writer focused on the wrong thing - the devices being denounced as bad - and miss the message - that important information is drowning in a sea of distracting, enjoyable trivia - telling. I too worry for this Facebook generation. I would be happier if they spent their time becoming smarter. We will need lots of smart people in the future.