The novel presents a dystopian view of America, set in a time in the future where everyone’s data is public, accessed via a single device. The impotent government is simultaneously oppressive of its constituents while under the control of corporations. And society is illiterate, referring to good old fashioned books as ‘written artifacts.’ Sound familiar? It’s no surprise that when presenting his work at a public reading at the Brattle Theater in Harvard Square, Shteyngart pinpointed the book’s timeframe as ‘Next Tuesday.’

It’s interesting to me how confused some get when they hear me praise a work like this as accurate or, at the very least, a prophecy behind which I can get (sometimes I describe it as the pharmacist who, shockingly, does not self-prescribe Prozac). One friend was even dismissive. “No,” they declared upon my refusal to read books on any material but paper, “that is complete nonsense.” After all, what right does a ‘tech guy’ like me have to be so skeptical of the very systems in which I work every day?

I recently saw two ads on TV that I think illustrate the nuance in this dichotomy. The first, for Amazon’s Kindle, tries to prove that reading on an e-reader is just like reading a real book:

Frankly, a disappointing showing from an otherwise admirable brand (at least, from my interactions with it). Why try to make me feel like a jerk simply because I appreciate the experience of an actual book over a piece of plastic?

The next is one of Apple’s iPad 2 spots:

What a contrast in tone. “When technology gets out of the way” provides a significantly more human take on how we interact with our devices than, “Well, my Kindle folds down the page, too.”

I try to think of myself as a technologist with the Apple approach: I work to understand technology, to be skeptical of it, cynical of it, to make sure it gets out of the way. And it’s that cynicism that helps me get better at what I do. The original Cynics, after all, were purists. Taking a step back and questioning is what allows us to come at problems with a stronger approach, one with (hopefully, possibly, miraculously) fewer implications in the long run (queue the photos of people wearing tin-foil hats here).

Of course, in Shteyngart’s world, we don’t read books anymore—we simply scan them electronically for specific points of data, something the Kindle and iPad already help us do quite well. I suppose this may be an inevitability. The author himself noted during the event last month that he is no Luddite (he regularly posts photos of his dog to his Facebook page).

But if we don’t allow ourselves to question the systems and processes that are being developed at an alarming rate around us, aren’t we all that pharmacist snorting Flonase to the point of brain damage?

I realize passwords can be stolen. Maybe I’m a sucker and was phished. Maybe one of the various public Wi-Fi networks I’ve been on in the past few months of traveling was compromised. It doesn’t matter. I should be changing my password more often.

But it also got me thinking. How was it so easy for these guys to send out a few hundred emails from my Gmail account? If Gmail is so good at filtering incoming spam (and it definitely is), how are its outgoing spam filters so poor? There are things Gmail could do to help this problem.

For instance:

The “Wait, What Are You Doing?” Filter

By my count, 47 emails were sent from my account between 3:14am and 3:17am, each without a subject line, each containing just a link, each to alphabetically sequential addresses from my address book. Maybe Gmail should raise a red flag at some point? Maybe after the first five are sent? How about a “hey, we love you and all, but maybe you can send the next five after a few hours” alert? I woke up at 6:19am to an email from a friend alerting me to the spamming. I could have shut it down at that point.

The “You’ve Let Go Of Your Ex-Girlfriend…I Guess We Can, Too” Feature

Gmail is to email addresses as cell phones are to phone numbers: no one has to remember them any more. Just type in a couple of letters from an address, hit tab, and move on. That’s awesome. What’s not awesome is that clients, co-workers, and random people I happened to email five years ago got a link from me this morning asking them to buy Viagra. To top it off, each note had my signature, so they were reminded which idiot from their past lives was being hacked. So I’m asking Gmail to be dumber: after six months or a year, if I haven’t emailed my junior year accounting professor, do me a favor and forget his email address. If I need it that badly, I can do a search for his name within my mail.

The “We Know You Hate Taking Your Medicine, But It’s That Time Again” Lab

The previous two features I mentioned could not be part of Gmail Labs; it would be too easy for outgoing spammers to turn them off. But what if Gmail had an optional feature that reminded you to change your password everythree months? Too few people would use it. And it’s something we can remember to do on our own (I just added it as a recurring event on my calendar). But if “Go Back To Gmail Beta” is a Lab feature…surely we can add this one, too.

Maybe these are tougher features to implement than they seem. The product managers and developers at Google who work on Gmail are significantly smarter than I. But I woke up this morning and found that a few hundred of my closest random acquaintances got an email from me with a link to buy pills online. And that’s frustrating. My wife pointed out that most online users understand that spam happens. But each one of those emails had my website in them (which is how I know the hackers were using the Gmail web interface), and who knows what the readers of those emails will now think about me and my work.

Here’s to hoping Gmail’s outgoing spam catches become just as smart as the incoming.

Have you been hacked? Got any tips or tricks to keep it from happening? Any more outgoing spam features you’d like to see in Gmail? Hit those comments.

By the time I landed in my seat for this panel, I was quite tired. BOS was a complete madhouse thanks to the spring breakers and getting to my hotel from AUS wasn’t so smooth either. I had very little time to throw my bags down in my dungeon of a room and get outside in case the next shuttle came by to bring me to the Austin Convention Center. Once I arrived there, I immediately understood why I was told again and again about South By Southwest: “dude…it’s overwhelming.” So many people…everywhere.

Badge pickup. Quite the process.

But the title and premise of this panel really intrigued me, especially in the context of my past semester and a half at DMI. I was glad I showed up early, as it filled up quickly.

This “core conversation” style session was led by two gentlemen with quite varied backgrounds and speaking styles: Daniel Hope (an Austin based counselor focused on social media’s effects on human relationships and a blazer-wearing, note-card-toting, organized type) and Zach Burt (a California based developer “attempting a win-win approach to disseminating information” and a t-shirt and jeans, off-the-cuff-commenting, sort-of-spacey-but-smart-you-know? type of guy).

The two did a nice job of bouncing off each other when leading the discussion, which focused around the lack of gratitude and the overwhelming sense of entitlement among technology users today (see: Louis C.K.’s rant, which inspired the title of the panel). Daniel brought up the concept of digital autism: the unawareness of the ‘emotional economy’ going on around us. He spoke of the power of transformative presence: actually being there for another person; mindfully shutting down technological interactions (with a phone, with a computer, with a TV) before entering a conversation. At one point, one of the panelists asked, “how do we express nuanced feelings online?” An excellent question.

Perhaps the most poignant comments, however, came from the audience members themselves (I had not worked up nearly enough energy or courage to participate at this point in the conference). We talked about the fact that multi-tasking is a technological term applied to humans. Humans cannot actually multitask, one gentleman noted. He went on to explain that we can only work sequentially. We may slice tasks up into little pieces and rearrange them, but we’re not able to put them back together and complete them in the same way we could with continuous focus. Amen.

After plenty of ironic Facebook bashing (which prompted even Zach to mention that “if you’re not on Facebook…you’re considered weird”…ahem), one listener noted that the technology isn’t “doing” anything to us, but we are doing it to ourselves. Perhaps, he or she offered, the technology is just a channel for our human nature. Another discussion participant asked, “would technology have evolved so much if we hadn’t expressed this sense of entitlement?”

Both are good points, but I think they are easy outs. It was mentioned that “we are emotional creatures who are not rational, but we rationalize.” I agreed, especially when Zach said that we could use technology to create competitions based on who could give the most money to charity, and better humanity that way (I went up to him afterwards to express my disappointment in this sentiment; isn’t that how we’ve gotten into this mess to begin with? Don’t we aggrandize those who give for recognition rather than obligation to society? Why not skip the name on the side of a building and pay taxes without complaining? His answer was along the lines of “well, it’s better than nothing…”).

There was a lot going on here and it’s (clearly) difficult to succinctly sum it up. I’ll finish with the quote that I think leaves the door wide open for solutions to this gratitude vs. entitlement problem. It was by a gentleman sitting to my left who said it towards the end of the discussion. He was speaking of the systems which provide the most fulfillment in our lives when he offered that, “technology feeds the creation impulse.”

And he’s right. The question then becomes: how do we encourage creation of healthy systems?

Here are some of the links/resources mentioned during the panel:

http://awesomenessreminders.com/

http://www.compassionpit.com/

http://www.o-life.com/

What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly

Today’s media does a fantastic job of labeling everything either red or blue, right or left. Anyone with the time to think for a few minutes, however, can identify that political thinking is not that simple. There are so many levels of complications and considerations and we have very little time to actually think about it.

Underlying image by David McCandless & Stefanie Posavec

So my question was: as a dynamic media designer, can I help someone understand where they sit on the political spectrum? And by spectrum I don’t mean a binary decision of red or blue – I mean where they sit along a political continuum. Can I harness the nuance of an individual’s opinion? And better yet, how many people out there are not voting at all, simply because they don’t know which of these two polarizing sides to pick? Is there a way to compare someone’s results with a politician’s and provide that help?

System

I immediately began compiling a list of potential inputs:

Surveys
Questionnaires presented to individuals
Personal voting records

Live Activity
Periodic updates regarding timely issues
Regional polling data

Historical Data
Public voting records

Albeit very high level, I moved forward form this list of inputs and started thinking about the next two important aspects of a system: the algorithm and output.

Algorithm & Output

Early on in the project a classmate of mine, Mr. Kaiser, sent me a link to Vote Smart’s Vote Easy app, a tool put together by a non-partisan group to help individuals decide which candidate to vote for. My immediate reaction was that I was just too late to the game – this had already been done.

Vote Smart's Vote Easy Project

After further inspection, however, I realized this project was much too narrow in scope. Whereas Vote Easy’s system is only 10 yes or no questions, I wanted significantly more detail in my system. I wanted to make sure people weren’t being forced to check a box they didn’t feel comfortable with. As another classmate, Mr. Buckley put it, I was at risk of forcing an objective algorithm on a subjective opinion. At the same time, some people just want an answer so they can go and check the box.

Zach pointed me towards the branding of a town in Norway (Nordkyn, to be exact) which changes based on the current conditions in the town (temperature, wind speed, wind direction). The result is a dynamic shape that encompasses multiple levels of data points.

Nordkyn, Norway's everchanging brand

Turns out that was exactly what I needed. Rather than restricting myself to the dimensions of a plane, I could now work inside out from the core of a 3D form. And instead of forcing a great deal of data into a limited number of axes, I could break out into new directions as needed.

The Shape

So here‘s how the system works in full (link to Vimeo – having trouble embedding).

You can see in the video above an extremely rough overview of the user flow for the questionnaire functionality. Some key points;

As the user answers questions from various categories (foreign, domestic, fiscal, social) the corresponding plane on the shape changes colors.

and

When a user decides that a question is not specific enough and chooses to dive deeper, the resolution updates, and the current category’s plane splits, changing the entire form of the shape.

Nuance of Opinion

By mapping political beliefs on in an abstract way, the shape is able to provide value to an individual whether it sits alone or in comparison to others. A user can track shapes over time to see how opinions have evolved. She can also hold it up to others’ shapes, helping her make decisions on which candidate, media outlet, or institution her political thought is most like. And as a shape breaks down into a higher resolution of data, the question of “why” can perhaps be answered. One can realize what nuances of opinion her political choices are based on.

Comparing your shape over time

Comparing your shape to others

Another friend of mine pointed out that his father has very conservative opinions about fiscal policy but rather liberal social beliefs (same-sex marriage, for example). He gets frustrated, however, when his father votes based solely on what he reads and sees in the conservative media. When I showed him this project he was intrigued. Perhaps his father could now see where his political views as a whole exist. In the end, his father may decide that fiscal policy is simply more important than social – after all, this is partly about checking box A or box B eventually. But providing individuals with the ability to truly visualize their political opinion could definitely enlighten.

Further Considerations

This was only a five week project – and it shows. There is a great deal more to explore here.

Specifically, the development of the question set is extremely important. The sheer number of topics and questions that can be compiled is rather daunting. I would need a team of individuals with an extremely varied political background – in terms of experience, party affiliation, institutional affiliation, and category expertise. I’d also like to give users of the application the opportunity to submit questions. After all, how can I embrace the nuance of opinion without making room for opinions I haven’t considered.

Plotting results on the shape itself is not flushed out either. I worked with many different forms before finally going with a tetrahedron – mostly because of its simplicity as a 3D object, upon which I could break out more complex shapes. But maybe this isn’t the right one. And forcing every issue into a four basic category set could also be problematic. Plus, how do I integrate the other data inputs besides user answered question onto the shape?

Finally, how can this shape be used in other applications? Do we share our shapes or keep them private? Do we create a collective of opinion based on every individual’s shape? Should we?

So it comes as no surprise that when offered the chance to combine my love of emerging technology with some sort of competition, I’m, um, game. Enter: social gaming.

Social gaming is the use of social media for competition. You’ve seen it already: games built on social media platforms (Farmville, Mafia Wars), social media platforms with game layers (Foursquare, Whrrl), and games built on their own platforms (SCVNGR).

Completing a SCVNGR Trek Activity. Noooooorm!

Last week I had the opportunity to try SCVNGR at the AdClub’s Hatch Trek, a hunt around the city of Boston, culminating in a cocktail hour to introduce the judges for the 50th Hatch Awards. My partner in hunting, John Park, and I moved through the city, completing certain tasks and answering trivia questions.

The team over at Allen & Gerritsen have put together a great recap of what SCVNGR does well and what it does poorly but here’s my quick summary: It was a great way to learn about the city, showcase the event sponsors (each stop had a tie in to a sponsor), and get out on a nice (albeit muggy) evening in Boston. The problem is when it came to announcing a winner. John and I completed every task, answering all trivia questions. But if we didn’t type in the answer exactly as the administrator expected us to, it would lock us out after a few tries. And while I was on a team, there was no real way to connect John’s SMS interaction with the system and my iPhone app based interaction.

These points seem minor. And they were. Like I say, we had a lot of fun and eventually ended up at the cocktail hour to network and enjoy some post-game refreshments. But even these small flaws in the system highlight something important about social gaming: it’s still a game. I mean, I wanted to have fun…but I also wanted to win an iPad.

We’ve already seen plenty of discussion about how platforms like Foursquare are working against “cheaters.” The CEO of SCVNGR, Seth Priebatsch, spoke at TEDxBoston 2010 last week and said that “the previous decade was about social, this one is about gaming.” He’s probably right – just take a look at Google’s recent acquisition of Slide.

People are competitive. They like a challenge. In fact, the reason some Apple Stores were built with a false floor is because once someone takes a step on to the six inch incline at the entrance to the store, they want to complete that challenge and come all the way in. But with competition comes other problems. I hope Priebatsch is right and we’re about to see a huge expansion in the social gaming sector. I’m extremely curious to see how these problems get worked out.

Last week’s unfittingly named MITX event “To Check In or Not To Check In?” provided some insight as it featured representatives from three location based services working their way through the LBS ecosystem. I say the event wasn’t properly named only because the question being answered wasn’t “should I check in?” or even “should I use an LBS as a marketer?” Rather, the discussion focused on which services were best and how to leverage them effectively.

The panelists themselves were informative, and Allen & Gerritsen‘s Mike Schneider did a good job directing the conversation (though, with the exception of Yelp‘s Leighann Farrelly, everyone was tweeting while sitting on stage – rather distracting). Perhaps the most poignant thing said, however, came from an audience member (whose name I do not remember, unfortunately). The discussion was revolving around how venues or brands can use an LBS to engage their consumer base when this gentleman pointed out that “nothing beats face to face engagement.” Seems rather obvious. But then again, here we were, talking about how to leverage digital visitors to real stores.

Phil Thomas DiGiulio from Pegshot noted that every brand has a story to tell, and telling that story is what brings brands and venues face to face with customers. But I’d argue that the beauty behind the location based service is that it provides the complete opposite: now consumers can tell the story the way they see it. Here’s another way we can start to build brand advocates or tap into the insight our consumers are providing.

At the beginning of the session I tweeted, saying that I had yet to see any sort of true differentiation between most location based services. But by the end, there were obvious stand outs: Pegshot lets users tell their story via photos, Yelp lets users tell their story via text reviews, and – as Mike pointed out – Foursquare lets marketers decide how consumers will tell their story via the API (I’m sorry to say, but the fourth panelist, Wayne Sutton from TriOut, has yet to convince me of its unique value).

Afterwards, I approached Pegshot’s Phil (who, it turns out, is a die hard Philly sports fan – win!). I told him that I’m taking my iPhone out when I walk into the restaurant, but I’m only going to open one– maybe two apps. How does he make sure one of them is his? He responded that they need to have a good answer for that question, but that he hoped his user experience trumped what others could do. We’ll see. I really like Pegshot, so I hope he wins.

In the months since my first LBS blog post, I’ve slowed my Foursquare use significantly. I still use it at venues where mayorship may provide value (discounts at Starbucks and WholeFoods). But for the most part, I’ve turned to other services (Whrrl, Foodspotting, Pegshot) because they let me share more than just “I’m here!” They let me tell a story.

Mr. Carr’s assertions were certainly interesting. He started by pointing out how the innovation of information technology dates back well before the web, perhaps even before Gutenberg’s printing press to when the written word became just as valuable as the spoken. But a book, he argues, requires (allows for?) a single stream of consciousness, providing our long term memory the opportunity to absorb knowledge as the short term consumes it.

The Internet (and as an audience member rightly pointed out, Mr. Carr refers to much of today’s current technological advancements as “The Internet” – so much of what we do is connected, it’s excusable), on the other hand, allows for (requires?) so much going on at once: to the point that in just a few short years blogging has gone from long form prose to 140 characters. In turn, our long and short term memory struggles, our attention spans suffer, our ability to multitask deteriorates.

Irony: all of those books behind Mr. Carr made it extremely difficult to focus.

Questions from the rather large group of people who came to hear Mr. Carr speak were broad. There were those who wanted to know if this was an individual problem or could be solved by institutions (he figures both), those who wanted to know if the benefits of collaboration via connectivity outweighed the negatives (he’s not so sure that’s the case), and those who were curious how long it would take for the anti-Net counter culture to become prevalent (could take some time, probably won’t be significant enough to effect immediate change).

I, being the practical applications and commercial implications type, asked if the iPad – with its emphasis on reading books, browsing magazines, and watching movies – could be a glimmer of hope on the horizon: technology saving us from its own perils. Alas, no. And he’s right: devices such as the iPad and Kindle (and yes, I realize they are not the same device) have only inspired publishers to make their books more “connected,” distracting readers along the way.

Deep. Sigh.

So is this really legit? Are we destined to a life without the capacity for knowledge or memory to which our parents’ generation was privy? Do those of you who, like me, think you’re an excellent multitasker actually struggle to juggle all that’s going on?

As someone who just returned from two weeks [mostly] off the grid, I will say this: it’s refreshing. But by now you’ve gotten bored with this blog post (if you’ve made it this far). And I have about 20 new emails to read.