This is part of an ongoing series in which we highlight particularly fascinating talks from some of the world’s most innovative thinkers. These videos are featured courtesy of a Creative Commons license; for more on the TED conference (Technology, Entertainment, and Design), click here.
I’ve been at times transfixed, horrified, depressed, inspired, and astounded by the information streaming out of Iran. Following the active cloud of conversation regarding the Iranian election via Twitter, I’ve been reminded once again of how powerfully the web changes the ways in which we as communities experience events in real time. Only now can a group of physically scattered people experience history together, blending real time reports from ground zero of a revolution with distant analysis and global reactions. These recent events reminded me of a TED video that I wanted to share. The projects Jonathan Harris demonstrates in this video are not comparable in urgency to the situation overseas. But Harris’ work evokes the same unique emotional connection we feel with far-flung individuals through the modern miracle of the modem. I hope you find his projects interesting and inspiring:
You can also download this video to iTunes (MP4 file) by clicking here (”Save Link As” on Windows).
Subscribe by feed
Subscribe by email
Follow on Facebook
What do you make of the effect of Twitter, YouTube, etc. on the political debate over the situation in Iran? I agree with you that the impact of modern technology on how we observe–I wouldn't say “experience”–history really is remarkable, but I'm worried that in addition to the genuinely worthwhile opportunity to get more information about events on the ground, new technology lends itself to exploitation by our very own demagogues here at home.
As Will WIlkinson said recently: “So folks on Twitter have been turning their avatars (little profile photos) green to show solidarity with the protesters in Iran. There are websites to help you do this. But why do this? How does it help? I want the Iranian people to live in freedom, just as I want all people to live in freedom. But the point of the gesture eludes me, unless the point of the gesture is to be seen making the gesture by others who will credit you for it. Like so many political gestures, it is vanity dressed up as elevated moral consciousness. It doesn’t help. Is it harmless? Unlike the stupidly grandstanding House resolution, the ruling regime probably won’t be pointing to verdant Twitter avatars as evidence that the uprising is an American plot. So I wouldn’t worry about that. Here’s what I do worry about. When people feel pressure to signal, and it’s free, they’ll signal. But sending the signal creates a small emotional investment in the overt message of the signal — solidarity with opponents of the ruling Iranian regime. As every salesman knows, getting someone to make a big, costly commitment is best achieved by getting them to first make a tiny, costless commitment. The tiny, costless commitment of turning Twitter avatars green is thin edge of the persuasive edge for the neocons who would like to sell the public a war in Iran. Since I would rather not be Bill Kristol’s useful idiot, I will conspicuously leave my avatar as is, and continue hoping for the best.”
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/06/...
Like Wilkinson, I am afraid that the in-your-face–and sometimes creepy, as in the appropriation of Neda Agha-Soltan–media coverage creates an excitable public. And good things rarely result from politicians' realization that the public is excitable.
What do you make of the effect of Twitter, YouTube, etc. on the political debate over the situation in Iran? I agree with you that the impact of modern technology on how we observe–I wouldn't say “experience”–history really is remarkable, but I'm worried that in addition to the genuinely worthwhile opportunity to get more information about events on the ground, new technology lends itself to exploitation by our very own demagogues here at home.
As Will WIlkinson said recently: “So folks on Twitter have been turning their avatars (little profile photos) green to show solidarity with the protesters in Iran. There are websites to help you do this. But why do this? How does it help? I want the Iranian people to live in freedom, just as I want all people to live in freedom. But the point of the gesture eludes me, unless the point of the gesture is to be seen making the gesture by others who will credit you for it. Like so many political gestures, it is vanity dressed up as elevated moral consciousness. It doesn’t help. Is it harmless? Unlike the stupidly grandstanding House resolution, the ruling regime probably won’t be pointing to verdant Twitter avatars as evidence that the uprising is an American plot. So I wouldn’t worry about that. Here’s what I do worry about. When people feel pressure to signal, and it’s free, they’ll signal. But sending the signal creates a small emotional investment in the overt message of the signal — solidarity with opponents of the ruling Iranian regime. As every salesman knows, getting someone to make a big, costly commitment is best achieved by getting them to first make a tiny, costless commitment. The tiny, costless commitment of turning Twitter avatars green is thin edge of the persuasive edge for the neocons who would like to sell the public a war in Iran. Since I would rather not be Bill Kristol’s useful idiot, I will conspicuously leave my avatar as is, and continue hoping for the best.”
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/06/...
Like Wilkinson, I am afraid that the in-your-face–and sometimes creepy, as in the appropriation of Neda Agha-Soltan–media coverage creates an excitable public. And good things rarely result from politicians' realization that the public is excitable.