A Free Press Needs You

By The Editorial Board

August 15, 2018

      In 1787, the year the Constitution was adopted in the USA, Thomas Jefferson famously wrote to a friend, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

      That’s how he felt before he became president, anyway. Twenty years later, after enduring the oversight of the press from inside the White House, he was less sure of its value. “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper,” he wrote. “Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”

      Jefferson’s discomfort was, and remains, understandable. Reporting the news in an open society is an enterprise laced with conflict. His discomfort also illustrates the need for the right of free press he helped to preserve. As the founders believed from their own experience, a well-informed public is best equipped to root out corruption and, over the long haul, promotes liberty and justice. “Public discussion is a political duty,” the Supreme Court said in 1964. That discussion must be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” and “may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

(www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/15/opinion/editorials/free-press-local -journalism-news-donald-trump.html?action=click&module=Trending& pgtype=Article®ion=Footer&contentCollection=Trending. Adaptado.)

                                         Knowledge and the library

      It was not until the development of monastic libraries in Europe around 1200 that humanity amassed in a single place what approached the collective wisdom and knowledge of the age. Libraries may be exchanges of information and market places for ideas but they are also the buildings which contain the bulk of human knowledge. Or, at least they were until the electronic digitally stored information revolution of the 1980s.

      Now knowledge is virtually everywhere; it has broken free of the constraint of buildings. Today if you were today to destroy all the world’s libraries, it is unlikely that more than 20% of human knowledge would be lost. Certainly, a large amount of archival material would disappear forever, but a substantial volume of knowledge would survive. If a library is a repository of knowledge, this is now just one of its functions. The library’s prime function is now making that knowledge available and encouraging exchange and reflection upon it.

      Electronic knowledge is nowadays available to everybody – in the home, workplace, airport terminal, school, and so on. The Internet has liberated the library; nevertheless, it has not removed the justification for library facilities.

                 (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978185617619410017X. Adaptado)

The real reason Apple and Google want you to use your phone less

                                         NIR EYAL MAY 19, 2019

If tech is “hijacking your brain” with their “irresistible” products, as some tech critics claim, why are these companies now acting against their own interests?

      This week Apple follows Google by announcing features to help people cut back on their tech use. Why would the companies that make your phone want you to use it less? If tech is “hijacking your brain” with their “irresistible” products, as some tech critics claim, why are these companies now acting against their own interests? Perhaps the tech giants have had a change of heart or have been persuaded by public pressure to change their ways? Hardly. I studied the sophisticated psychology these companies deploy to keep people hooked and wrote a book about how they do it. At first glance, it appears their business model would benefit from addiction. The more you use your phone, the more money they make through the apps you buy and the ads you view.

      However, the addiction story falls short when considering the long-term interests of these companies. Apple and Google are making it easier for consumers to cut back on phone use because it is in their interest to do so. In this case, what’s good for the user is also good for these companies’ bottom lines. Apple and Google don’t want you to get addicted. Addiction is a compulsive harmful behavior. Rather, they’d prefer you form healthy habits with your digital devices.

      Consider why you wear a seatbelt. In 1968, the Federal Government mandated that seat belts come equipped in all cars. However, nineteen years before any such regulation, American car makers started offering seat belts as a feature. The laws came well after car makers started offering seatbelts because that’s what consumers wanted. Car makers who sold safer cars sold more.

      Similarly, thousands of third-party apps have given smartphone owners ways to moderate tech use with tools to help them monitor how much time they spend online, turn off access to certain sites, and reduce digital distraction — tools very similar to what Apple and Google recently announced. I started writing about this burgeoning trend, in what I called “attention retention” devices, back in early 2015 and today there are more digital wellness products than ever.

       As they often do with successful apps built on their platforms, Apple and Google took note of what consumers wanted and decided to incorporate these features as standard — just as car makers did with seat belts in the 1950s. They also went beyond what app makers can do by adding features only the operating system makers can offer, like batch notifications to reduce the frequency of intraday interruptions and the ability to put the phone in “shush” mode by flipping it over.

      The history of innovation is littered with examples of new technologies causing unintended harm. As cultural theorist Paul Virilio said, “When you invent the ship, you also invent the shipwreck.” Although the devices these modern shipbuilders make certainly have potential negative consequences, like overuse, it’s also in their interests to make their products less harmful.

      With few exceptions, when a product harms people, consumers tend to use it less often or find better alternatives. The feature fight between these two tech rivals benefits everyone. The move to help users create healthy habits with their devices is an example of competition making products better.

       Although they are certainly designed to be persuasive and user-friendly, we aren’t slaves to our technologies and it behooves us to stop thinking we’re powerless. The tech companies are taking steps to help users rein in device overuse. Now it’s our turn to put these features to use, buckle down, and buckle up

(Available in: https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/the-reason-apple-and-google-want-you-to-use-your-phone-less. Accessed on May 19th, 2019. Adapted.)