Saturday, May 28, 2016

Saturday Good Reads


Since the time I first heard it in high school, I always liked the sound of the name “Venerable Bede.” He was a monk in England who wrote a history of the church in 731 A.D., and he is actually venerated by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Communion, and the Lutheran Church. Malcolm Guite has written a delightful sonnet about him.

Does the church consider people expendable? Read Ed Cyzewski’s post on it. Ever wonder what happened to Queen Susan in The Chronicles of Narnia? Matthew Alderman at First Things has an answer. Mick Silva puts his finger on the No. 1 writing problem, and how to fix it. And an insightful article at The New York Times on corporate America’s fixation on the millennial – a mythical creation.

And a wonderful video on the known universe from the American Museum of Natural History.

Life and Culture


Corporate America Chases the Mythical Millennial – Farhad Manjoo at The New York Times.

Faith




Whatever Happened to Susan Pevensie? – Matthew Alderman at First Things.

Art and Photography

How to Read a Renaissance Painting – Lucy Chiswell at the Royal Academy of Arts.

Ice and Fire – Tim Good at Fine Art America.


Poetry

Sun Day – Jerry Barrett at Gerald the Writer.

Theophilus Kewk – D.S. Martin at Kingdom Poets.

“Neruda” the Film – Maureen Doallas at Writing Without Paper.



Writing

The Backside Blessings of Blogging – Barry York at Gentle Reformation.


The Known Universe – American Museum of Natural History



Painting: Quentin Bell Reading, oil on canvas by Vanessa Bell; 1936-1938; Monk’s House, Rodmell, East Sussex.

Friday, May 27, 2016

Clouds


After Hebrews 12:1-3

The stadium: a mist,
clouds surrounding the track,
clouds of eyes, watching,
supporting, hoping,
clouds there for the race.

The few on the track,
ready for what is marked
out, ovals in circular motion,
white lines, cinders burnt red.

We run; the clouds watch;
we run towards the tape,
we trip and fall,
we get up,
we run, we’re injured,
we get up,
the race is not timed,
no victory to the first,
the victory comes
in running the race.

The clouds of eyes watch
the clouds will soon clear.


Photograph by Peter Griffin via Public Domain Pictures. Used with permission.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Listening to our algorithms


I have a rather eclectic group of friends on Facebook. On any given day, I will see posts for Donald Trump, posts for Hilary Clinton, posts for Bernie Sanders, posts by Christians, posts by atheists, posts by conservatives, posts by liberals, even posts by a few bomb-throwing types (figuratively speaking).

I may be in the minority, and not for any reason of my own.

The algorithm made me do it.

When Gizmodo published a story claiming Facebook was biased against conservatives in how it managed Trending Topics, I thought, “And this is news?” As I read the story, though, it was more serious than I believed. Facebook could have almost singlehandedly turned Black Lives Matter into a major story when it wasn’t one to begin with.

The major newspapers and television networks know this. Facebook is the largest driver of online traffic to their news sites. And in the kind of crazy election year we’ve been experiencing, we really don’t know how much of what is happening is affected by algorithms used by Facebook and other social channels like Twitter, and how much is real.

At first glance, using an algorithm to determine what you do and don’t see in social media sounds technologically unbiased. Except for the fact that algorithms read what you read and like, and they serve you more of it, because that’s what keeps you clicking, that’s what keeps you on the site, and that’s what the social channels sell to advertisers.

So we all like cute puppy and kitten videos, and almost 140 million of us liked Candace Payne putting on a Chewbacca mask. Those are funny and fun, and we’ll keep seeing more of these show up because of that trusty algorithm.

But there’s a darker side. Do you know what kind of news and posts those algorithms really like?

 
Conspiracy theories abound, and thrive, on social channels. They virtually impossible to kill because they keep showing up, and they keep recycling, and if you keep seeing them (with links!) they must be true.

Vani Hari, aka the Food Babe, discovered this all on her own. She was trying to drawn attention to what she saw as the negative health effects of butter and margarine, and was getting nowhere.

Until she called it Monsanto butter. That tapped into a baker’s dozen of conspiracy theories on social media, and she went from largely ignored to food celebrity almost overnight. It doesn’t matter that nutritionists and scientists see her as misleading at best and downright dangerous at worst; she now has an audience and they will follow her over the cliff, disregarding anything contrary to their (and her) beliefs.

The problem is that we all do this. Given a choice to click on a link that supports what we already believe, and one that contradicts or disagrees with what we believe, guess which one we are more likely to choose?

And the algorithms are watching, and will serve up more of it.

Have you ever been surprised, after looking at a book on Amazon, to discover that same book showing up as a promoted post on your Facebook news feed?

You shouldn’t be. Yes, it’s that algorithm again, supplemented by a little friendly cooperation with advertisers.

It’s one thing if it’s a book. But it’s quite another when it’s an issue, a controversy, or a political belief system.

None of us are abandoning Facebook anytime soon. But we can be aware of what’s happening, seek out alternative viewpoints, and promise ourselves not to accept something as truth, even when “all of our Facebook friends” are saying so.

Related:




Top photograph by Kevin Philips via Public Domain Pictures. Photograph of algorithm via Wikipedia. Both used with permission.