WebPhil: 2015-01-04

January 10, 2015

Plato - Get Online to Get Offline

This video talks about where ideas come from and how the coffee house was a place where people could connect with others from different backgrounds, share certain ideas, and spark others. He emphasizes the architecture of the space as being an important component to effectively facilitate these discussions, which we could comparatively look at as the design of a website. Renoir suggested that this sort of intentional space to discuss ideas is what makes good art and artists.
For Plato, discussion was more important than just reading what another person had written. He did not want people to see his writings as ends in themselves, but as a means to discussion upon them. His written dialogs brought people together to read them, but then people were meant to stop reading them and start talking with each other about them. One of my friends has described this similar phenomena as it relates to social media in our day as "getting online to get offline." For Plato, he would maybe have said it as “start reading to stop reading.” It is more important for the people to talk with each other than to just keep their nose in the book. This is the same for good social websites. They should help people to connect actively participate in discussion and not just be an anonymous consumer. Social media websites should be a means to facilitate interaction offline- perhaps through live events/meeting with groups who share similar interests that are found online, but also form themselves offline. Thus, social media does not take the place of direct interaction with others, but still has a place it can take.

January 9, 2015

On Philosophy of Technology

From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/

1.1. The Greeks

Philosophical reflection on technology is about as old as philosophy itself. Our oldest testimony is from ancient Greece. There are four prominent themes. One early theme is the thesis that technology learns from or imitates nature (Plato, Laws X 899a ff.). According to Democritus, for example, house-building and weaving were first invented by imitating swallows and spiders building their nests and nets, respectively (fr D154; perhaps the oldest extant source for the exemplary role of nature is Heraclitus fr D112). Aristotle referred to this tradition by repeating Democritus’ examples, but he did not maintain that technology can only imitate nature: “generally art in some cases completes what nature cannot bring to a finish, and in others imitates nature” (Physics II.8, 199a15; see also Physics II.2, and see Schummer 2001 for discussion).

A second theme is the thesis that there is a fundamental ontological distinction between natural things and artifacts. According to Aristotle, Physics II.1, the former have their principles of generation and motion inside, whereas the latter, insofar as they are artifacts, are generated only by outward causes, namely human aims and forms in the human soul. Natural products (animals and their parts, plants, and the four elements) move, grow, change, and reproduce themselves by inner final causes; they are driven by purposes of nature. Artifacts, on the other hand, cannot reproduce themselves. Without human care and intervention, they vanish after some time by losing their artificial forms and decomposing into (natural) materials. For instance, if a wooden bed is buried, it decomposes to earth or changes back into its botanical nature by putting forth a shoot. The thesis that there is a fundamental difference between man-made products and natural substances has had a long-lasting influence. In the Middle Ages, Avicenna criticized alchemy on the ground that it can never produce ‘genuine’ substances. Even today, some still maintain that there is a difference between, for example, natural and synthetic vitamin C. The modern discussion of this theme is taken up in Section 2.5.

Aristotle’s doctrine of the four causes—material, formal, efficient and final—can be regarded as a third early contribution to the philosophy of technology. Aristotle explained this doctrine by referring to technical artifacts such as houses and statues (Physics II.3). These causes are still very much present in modern discussions related to the metaphysics of artifacts. Discussions of the notion of function , for example, focus on its inherent teleological or ‘final’ character and the difficulties this presents to its use in biology. And the notorious case of the ship of Theseus—see this encyclopedia’s entries on material constitution, identity over time, relative identity, and sortals—was introduced in modern philosophy by Hobbes as showing a conflict between unity of matter and unity of form as principles of individuation. This conflict is seen by many as characteristic of artefacts. David Wiggins (1980: 89) takes it even to be the defining characteristic of artifacts.

A fourth point that deserves mentioning is the extensive employment of technological images by Plato and Aristotle. In his Timaeus, Plato described the world as the work of an Artisan, the Demiurge. His account of the details of creation is full of images drawn from carpentry, weaving, ceramics, metallurgy, and agricultural technology. Aristotle used comparisons drawn from the arts and crafts to illustrate how final causes are at work in natural processes. Despite their negative appreciation of the life led by artisans, who they considered too much occupied by the concerns of their profession and the need to earn a living to qualify as free individuals, both Plato and Aristotle found technological imagery indispensable for expressing their belief in the rational design of the universe (Lloyd 1973: 61).

Good Definitions

A good definition of X is one that agrees with the cases we feel sure about as being X or not and helps us decide cases we are unsure about. A good definition of X is one that explains why something is an X.

"Planets are large objects" is a bad definition because suns are large objects but not planets.

"Sleeping pills are pills that have a sleep inducing effect" is a bad definition because it won't help us decide cases we are unsure are sleeping pills.

"What is right is what God approves of" is a bad definition, according to people in one of Plato's dialogues, because God approves things because they are right; they aren't right because he approves of them.

Why would Plato object to this definition:
Good shoes are ones that people like.

How would Plato define a social website?
How might he define what a good social website is?
What might he say are qualities that will make a social website a good one?

Good-making Qualities of a Social Website

From Lisa:
enjoyable to use
easy to use

From Topher:
capture and engage viewers in meaningful ways, including to--
fund a product
critique a product
collaborate
purchase a product
teach and be taught
market a product

privacy
fresh look
relevant content focused on the user

From Riley:
fun
relevant content
relevant people
easy to use
does something new
right level of privacy--clarity on what is shared and with who, and control
makes money for owner in a user friendly way

From Lori:
interactivity
consumer activity
creates a self-initiated desire to be involved

From Issac:
a mean

January 8, 2015

What do the SOCIAL people want out of their MEDIA?

What I am trying to outline in my title is that the people (the social aspect of social media) are what matters. I think that we can sit in the classroom all day and argue about what makes a great social media platform, but at the end of the day, the successful platforms are the ones that the users enjoy and feel are easy to use. I feel like one of the best forms of research can be done by actually having people experience different social media sites and see which ones they like best, and which ones they find easy to use. So in summary, I feel that yes, someone can and should start with a goal in mind, like how Twitter wanted people to share witty one-liners, but if people don't enjoy and understand how to use the social media, it won't be used and it will fail.

Social websites: not as easy as it looks

Much of what makes a social website good is hidden below the surface. As part of the Web 3.0 we have seen an explosion in the amount of "social websites" (a name I use loosely and include apps) that attempt to capture and engage users. There is no shortage of people looking to hit the next home run in the social world with a new website or app that they came up with in their garage.

Sadly, however, websites and apps have come and gone like dandelions in the wind. Many have even been particularly enjoyable or have received significant attention. For example; the obnoxious Yo, the contact sharing app Bump, the news aggregation site Digg, the laughable Google+, and of course the recently revived myspace. A few more can be found here.

With these fun, high-profile sites, we see that it isn't necessarily enjoyment nor attention (though you may argue Google+ is by no means enjoyable) that make a social website successful... but what does?

The essential element to succeed in social is the ability to engage users in meaningful ways with a product or service. For example, allow users to:

- Fund a product
- Critique product
- Collaborate
- Purchase a product
- Teach and be taught
- Market a product to others

At the same time, users are quick to abandon a site if they feel their privacy is being infringed on. Along with that, with the plethora of social sites available, each platform has to look fresh and provide content that is relevant and focused on the user.

So.. the social website must allow users to engage with a product, AND maintain a certain level of privacy and protection, AND keep content relevant and focused. No wonder we have seen so many failures in the social world.

January 7, 2015

What makes a social media platform valuable to go to?

A major reason I'm taking this class is because I'm developing my own social media platform. Over the past 8 months, I've done a lot of research and this is one of the questions I've explored.

Several weeks ago, I created a video articulating my findings.

The conclusion is a social media platform needs to be...

Fun
Relevant content
Relevant people
Easy to use
Does something new
Has the right level of privacy

Clarity on what is shared and with who
Control over privacy

It needs to make money (hopefully has a user friendly revenue model)

Each person has their own desires for many of these. So these principles would be vastly different across age ranges and peoples.

-Riley

Fascinating Article - Teens Perspective on Social Media

Hello!

I found an interesting article written by a teen who analyzes each social media platform. Great insights into why different features attract/discourage use from different people.

https://medium.com/backchannel/a-teenagers-view-on-social-media-1df945c09ac6

- Riley

Well, It Should Probably Be Social

In thinking about some of the nuts and bolts about what contributes to having a 'good social media website', the overarching element that's been on my mind is that it has to have a high level of interactivity. Thinking about what boarderline social websites I've seen that haven't reached the brink of success yet usually all lead back to lack of consumer activity that they carry. Sites such as mormon.org or the Boston Mission's website reallifeanswers.org that have rich quality and professional design aren't reaching their tipping point I believe because consumers aren't able to witness any form of outside connectivity or personal need of being involved with the site.

What the secret is to create a self initiated desire to be involved in a specific site is, I don't know. Many of the aspects that we discussed in class such as competitions, form of rewards, and live events surely open doors of opportunity for consumers to jump into this level of involvement. Going along with Isaac and Greg's thoughts, I agree - choosing which avenue to take depends on what ideal you are trying to reach.
So at the end of the day, a good social media website...well, should probably be social.

What I'd like one of my focuses to be this semester in discovering what makes a 'good social media website' is this question of interactivity: what makes consumers go from 'well that's nice' and clicking away, to having a propelled desire to become interactive with a site?

Being that this is a large opportunity that hasn't been reached yet on the reallifeanswers.org website, I am choosing that as my site of research for the semester.

A "Good" Social Website

In class, we discussed what the qualities of a good social website would be and my short answer to this question would be a common one amongst philosophers in that I would say, "It depends." The qualities of a good social website depend less on the website and more on how we understand what we mean by the qualifier word good.

Good for business?
Good for society?
Good for what/for who?

The answer to the qualities of a good social website would differ depending on the overall purpose of the website, which purpose is usually an extension of the person behind it's construction. Without first considering this, I think it is pointless, if not dangerous, to blindly enter into a discussion of all the technical components that make up a "good" social website.
I'm with Isaac, let's get a little deeper.

The Mean of Social Media

I think it it necessary to determine where I want to go (or what I want my audience to do) before I plan out a trip. We haven't discussed any philosophical figures yet, but I feel it among the more important goals to begin determining the "what" and "why" of our future website while we consider their thoughts. Then, I think we can decide how to use our tools. Perhaps this is simply a deeper thinking about what we've talked regarding the poetics. I'm wondering what the "idea" we want to create is so as to refine it toward the "ideal". I think what was talked about in class are elements of this idea, but I haven't quite come up with anything worth writing down yet. I find myself following Aristotle's line of thinking when he talks about the mean. What is the "mean" of social media?

Notes On Social Websites

What makes a good or ideal social website?

this isn't in any particular order
some of these things may not even be relevant or important

product/service
consumer participation
- funding
- user feedback for production/development
- user generated content
- collaboration
- purchasing
marketing
- testimonials (like a picture of your dinner on Instagram)

How do we filter out the bad content?

http://omnichannel.me/what-is-omnichannel/

How do we develop communities? How does a social website foster that community?

clear what you can do on it
reward/ranking system
contests

Amazon reviews
pyramid marketing
self sustaining
right level of privacy
relevance
instructional material
universal appeal - broad reach
end goal or purpose
internet as a tool