Join the Media Squatters discussion group

February 24, 2015
Lecture at Staten Island College
Staten Island, New York, NY, 4:30p

March 10, 2015
Think Outside the Boss: Cooperative Alternatives to the Sharing Economy
With Trebor Sholz, Sarah Horowitz and others
Civic Hall

New York, NY

April 6, 2015
Digital Media Environment
Middle Tennessee University
Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 7pm

April 11, 2015
New Jersey Communications Association Convention Keynote
St. Peters University
Jersey City, New Jersey

April 17, 2015
PSFK 2015
Present Shock - the followup
New York City

April 28, 2015
Transforming Media: New Realities of the Digital Age
Always On: Social Media as Social Programming
Davis Auditorium, University of Denver

May 15, 2015
Hilton Head Institute
Present Shock conversation, Douglas Rushkoff & Amber Case
Hilton Head, NC





Rushkoff Live: audio collection

BetterListen just put out an audio collection of my talks - one for each of the last three books. Steve Stein puts together some good collections, so I'm interested to listen to these, myself. 

Kinda cool to see a package like this, though. It's the closest I'll get to seeing myself in the bins at Bleecker Bobs.

Here's a sample:



CNN: Google Sees No Evil


(CNN) -- "Do the right thing; don't be evil. Honesty and integrity in all we do. Our business practices are beyond reproach. We make money by doing good things"

So goes the sixth point in Google's official statement of core values years ago, often condensed to the informal company motto, "Don't be evil."

It's supposed to make us feel better about trying new technologies from Chrome notebooks to Google Glass. Don't worry -- we're not going to screw with you. So when it comes time someday to inject our brains with nanobots that give us the ability to speak new languages, we can rest assured that Google won't change the user agreement on us after the fact and plant advertisements into our dreams while we're asleep. That is, if the company judges such practices to be truly evil.

Well, some of Google's recent forays are waking people up to the fact that evil is in the eyes of the beholder. The company just acquired military robot maker Boston Dynamics, leading to great consternation in the Twitterverse. As @BrentButt put it this week in a tweet that caught fire:

Google motto 2004: Don't be evil
Google motto 2010: Evil is tricky to define
Google motto 2013: We make military robots

Truth be told, the robots Boston Dynamics makes are pretty cool. Based on animal physiology, they can run, jump, balance and even chase stuff. As something of a technogeek myself, I can see why a bunch of engineers would want to play with this technology.

What we have to ask, and keep asking at every turn, is: To what end? What real purpose are we serving?

Not doing evil is actually a pretty low bar to begin with. Is this really a high aspiration? To avoid embodying Satan in silicon?

Even if we accept avoiding evil as the mantra of the digital age, the presumption here is that evil is like a line of code that can simply be excluded from the overall program. Oops! Line 45 of that app has some evil in it. Better change it.

We can't employ an entirely programmatic approach to human affairs. However well we think we might be embedding our technologies with the values we hope to express, more often than not we also get unexpected consequences.

Cars lead to pollution and oil to wars. Smartphones lead to distraction and car accidents. Big data leads to coercive marketing and government to massive surveillance. Something awfully close to evil is quite a common side effect.

Google seems aware of this, at least from a public relations perspective. Likely concerned about what it looks like for the company to be developing military hardware, the company recentlydonated $5 million to the World Wildlife Federation for drones to track down rhinoceros poachers in Africa. It's as if they're out to prove that drones are not necessarily evil.

Still, we can't help but do a bit of evil when we build technology upon technology, without taking a pause to ask what it's all for.

New technologies give us the opportunity to reevaluate the systems we have been using up until now, and consider doing things differently.

But the stock-market-fueled culture of Silicon Valley too often focuses on efficiency of execution rather than clarity of purpose.

The result is that our best Stanford computer science graduates end up writing algorithms that better extract money from the stock market, rather than exploring whether capital is even serving its original purpose of getting funds to new businesses.

Or the engineers behind Bitcoin develop a brilliant new digital currency without evaluating the purpose of money in our society. The problem to be addressed is that too much cash has ended up stuck in the coffers of the speculators. Instead of thinking about how to encourage peer-to-peer transaction, Bitcoin's developers simply built another speculative currency, only this time on digital steroids.

Likewise, war is not a great approach to conflict resolution. Adding robot soldiers to the mix merely improves the efficiency of killing. How might robots be used to reduce conflict instead of enact it?

When we develop technology in a vacuum, disconnected from the reality in which people really live, we are too likely to spend our energy designing some abstract vision of a future life rather than addressing the pains and injustices around us right now. Technology becomes a way of escaping the world's problems, whether through virtual reality or massive Silicon Valley stock options packages, rather than engaging with them.

But the don't-do-evil mandate doesn't even ask Google's programmers to evaluate the purpose of a technology -- only to perform a basic "checksum," or error correction, for evil itself. How pathetically binary. This is not enough for a company that appears dedicated to uploading human consciousness to the cloud, no matter how many robot warriors we have protecting our virtual reality servers from the people we leave behind.

I'm not arguing against technology or that we do less with it. Quite the contrary. I'm arguing we do more. It's not enough to computerize and digitize the society we have, and exacerbate its problems by new means. We must transcend the mere avoidance of the patently evil and instead seek to do good. That may involve actually overturning and remaking some institutions and processes from the ground up.

That's the real potential of digital technology. To retrieve the values and ideas that may have seemed impossible before and see whether we can realize them today in this very new world. 


Taking on the Singularity: Jason Silva and me at the 92Y

Here's a fascinating discussion I've been meaning to have for a long long time with Jason Silva, about psychedelics, technology, and the "designer reality" I've been writing about since 1988. I talk a bit too much here, but it's probably because I have been storing it up for a while.

What I'm trying to argue is that we don't yet know what's happening right here in this realm - so it might be a little early and foolhardy to be talking about uploading humanity to a new, technologically mediated platform. The opportunity of a digital age - of any new age - is to regain a sense of purpose. Whether it's reevaluating what our economy is for, or reevaluating what technology is for. Or even to consider the value system of "progress" and its own embedded biases.

Anyway, it's a fun talk with a taller, much handsomer version of me from twenty years ago.


Join me for Present Shock in MashableReads Book Club

From Mashable: Our next non-fiction selection for the MashableReads social book club is Douglas Rushkoff's Present Shock.

We'll be hosting a Twitter chat with Rushkoff on Dec. 16 from 5:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. ET. You can discuss the book with the author personally, along with other participants from all over the world.

In Present Shock, Douglas Rushkoff details our culture’s recent shift from our concentration on thinking toward the future to our obsession with the present through pop culture, social media and work habits. Rushkoff notes how we use smartphone alerts and multi-tasking in an attempt to emulate the productivity rates of machines, but highlights the risk we run of ignoring natural biological cycles in doing so.

Far from rejecting new technology, Rushkoff suggests a balanced approach to navigating a connected life that allows us to experience the moment without missing it altogether.

Be sure to follow @mashlifestyle to discuss Present Shock, using the hashtag#MashReads during the chat. You can also join our Facebook group to stay updated on MashableReads, and let us know what you think of the book throughout the month.

Want to hang out with the author in person? Share your thoughts on the book using the hashtag #MashReads via Vine video, Instagram or Twitter prior to the chat, and we will select 10 people to visit Mashable's New York headquarters to meet Douglas Rushkoff and participate in our book club.

If you want to get started on Present Shock, you can listen to the first chapter from Audible below.

Below, we spoke with Rushkoff about chronobiology, the importance of personal connection and resistance to mobile technology.

Q&A with Douglas Rushkoff

Mashable: Given your discussion of the active nature of modern entertainment with DVR and channel surfing, I’m curious to hear your thoughts on fantasy sports. Do you think they enhance sports fandom by making participants more likely to watch games because they feel like they’re participating in them, or do you think they cause us to miss out on the moment because we’re checking a box score instead of watching the game? 

Rushkoff: It always depends who you are and how you’re engaging. Fantasy sports went a long way toward developing the sabermetrics formulas used not only by oddsmakers but general managers in hiring players. So the amateur fantasists ended up creating some of the algorithms that Oakland GM Billy Bean’s statisticians used to win games with less salary money available for star players.

As far as downsides, I’m not very concerned with people being distracted from the TV (I mean, who really cares if they’re looking at a different screen, or texting with fellow fans instead of paying attention to the corporate-sponsored game?). 

What I am more concerned about is the way that "money ball” changes the game itself, as well as the bigger culture of fandom.

What I am more concerned about is the way that "money ball” changes the game itself, as well as the bigger culture of fandom.

 Everything is done with stats now. Players’ bonuses are based in numbers of wins or strike outs. So in order to save money, managers now pull pitchers from games if they are doing too well. They get replaced so they don’t get credited with the win. It’s every man for himself, which changes team dynamics. I think it’s a large part of why steroids have become so central to the game: the risk/reward equation is such that it makes no sense for a player not to take them. There’s some small percentage chance he’ll get caught, but a near certainty that he’ll make it to the next financial level by getting his numbers up.

And while fantasy play is interesting for fans, it’s a total abstraction of the game. Real, local teams (such as they are) don’t matter anymore, because the fantasy teams are constructed of players from many different places. It’s deconstructed, more like singles on iTunes than listening to a whole album in context.

I was fascinated by your discussion of the body’s natural rises in certain chemical levels in relation to the lunar cycle and how multi-tasking is never as efficient as we think. Do you think it will ever become “in” for businesses to adapt a work environment centered around this information, or will the trend continue to be to look for shortcuts that appear to accomplish as much as possible in the least amount of time possible.

Well, when businesses discover that people are more efficient when you task them in sync with their biological clocks (chronobiology) it will likely become the rage. If businesses understood that there was one week per month (the second week of the lunar cycle) when serotonin dominated brain chemistry, they’d know that’s the week to do heavy lifting. Or that the acetylcholine new moon is the time to launch a new product. When they see the results in the numbers, they’ll adopt all this as part of the ultimate lean strategy.

It’s really just a matter of them coming to understand that time is not generic. Each day or month is not the same. They understand this about seasons; they know when flying is more expensive or more heating oil will be required. That’s completely understandable for them. But they can’t understand more subtle things like low and high tide. That’s just voodoo to them. Moon influencing waves is “new age” to them, much less it influencing neurochemistry. 

While my peers are all attached to their smartphones (and I’m far from exempt), I’ve heard many of them express frustration that it seems impossible to have a face-to-face conversation without several interruptions by mobile notifications. Do you think there will ever be a widespread resistance to such mobile technology for that reason?

I think there already is. We know that people are less open in conversations if the other conversant puts a cell phone on the table. Even if it’s turned off. The sign is enough to close the mind and make a prospective client or lover less likely to do what you ask. As people realize this, they’ll start putting away phones or turning them off. Or they’ll start using filtering, letting the phone ring only for VIPs like spouse and child.

Mobile notifications put people in a state of perpetual emergency interruption

Mobile notifications put people in a state of perpetual emergency interruption — similar to what 911 operators and air traffic controllers experienced back in the '70s and '80s. And they took drugs for the nervous conditions that resulted. Alerts are for when a family member is dying. Otherwise, they’re not worth the trouble. Really. A bomb went off in some part of the world and three people died. If you are in a newsroom, you need to know right now. If you’re not — and you’re not going to go do something about it — why do you need to know about that right now? Yes, it’s horrific. But you can find out about it in an hour.

You discuss the value of sitting down with something like a book that requires sustained focus at a more relaxed pace to gain a deeper understanding of a subject matter. So, what do you make of tablets being integrated into education so aggressively? Is it a good way to gain student engagement or a shortcut that will lead to more shallow understandings of content?

Well, you can read books on a tablet. So I don’t see it as an either/or. I don’t think kids need to be reading books in the classroom, either, though. Unless they are actively learning to read. They don’t need to be sitting in individual media experiences of any kind. They’re in a classroom with people. They should be engaging with other humans in real time and space. 

I don’t think tablets are where we should be focused. But I do think they could end up being an efficient way of delivering textbooks. They’re just not really that, yet. There’s all sorts of poisons and mined minerals and carnage that goes on to make a tablet. Way more than to print a book. Or a bunch of books. 

U.S. culture has long focused on the self and praised individual achievement above all. As you discuss, in our current “fractal landscape,” connections are more important than individuals. Do you think this will lead to Western cultures adopting a more Eastern, group-centric manner of thinking?

Yeah, I think those who succeed in the digital landscape will be those who understand how to do the sorts of pattern recognition more typical of Easterners. It’s not just because the “individual” is diminished in a networked landscape, but because cause-and-effect logic ends up compressed into a really rapid feedback loop. You can’t really parse causes and effects so easily anymore. Everything is much more systemic and interdependent. To get oriented in such a landscape, you have to learn to soften your gaze.


CNN: Apple's new iOS follows the leader

Phil Schiller, Apple senior vice president of worldwide marketing, touts the new iPhone 5C last week at Apple headquarters.

(CNN) -- A few million iPhone users woke up to a new operating system this week, the much-heralded iOS 7, the biggest change in Apple's smartphone operating system since the phone was first released in 2007.

It's a different look and feel, for sure. But for those who may fear having to learn some whole new way of using a phone, rest assured: Not much has been fundamentally altered. It's still very much the same operating system you've made a part of your life.

That's really the news here: Apple is taking its users one baby step toward the next mobile platform. And while it may indicate something about where Apple hopes to bring smartphone interfaces in the future, this incremental step may say more about Apple's diminishing ability to make changes in our computing lives by decree.

Back in the Steve Jobs era, Apple could force its dedicated user base to go anywhere Steven told them. The original, VW Bug-inspired iMac was the first major desktop that did not offer a floppy drive. Users grumbled and panicked, but they did as Steven told them, and now we live in a world where many readers don't even know what a floppy drive is.

Then Steve took away serial ports, and so on, continually forcing new changes on Apple users for their own good. Consumers even lined up to purchase the iPad on Steve's command; they didn't have any real need for the thing but trusted that Steve knew best. The ongoing success of the tablet seems to suggest that he did.

Apple's new operating system doesn't ask users to make such a leap of faith. Yes, the new iOS is brighter and more colorful and the icons are simpler and less three-dimensional. It looks like a new phone. And the fonts are more streamlined and communicative.

Instead of using lines to separate things, font shapes and sizes are used more effectively to delineate items in lists -- making everything a bit more airy. Most significantly, the "things" depicted in the new OS look less like things. There are no little binders drawn on notebooks, no details on buttons, no leatherette address book and no shadows behind pages.

If anything, Apple is weaning us off the metaphorical desktop, trying to bring us into a virtual universe where we no longer depend on the familiar anchors of the "real" world to relate effectively to our applications.

On a smartphone, an address book is not really an address book, after all. It's an application that lets us search through data about our contacts. A notepad is not a pad with paper; it is a way of saving text. While the real world metaphors initially helped us understand what all these things were for, apps needn't be bound by the limits of real world devices. For the computing world to develop further, it needs to be freed of the obligation to do everything in ways that reflect real world processes.

Perhaps surprisingly, Microsoft already accomplished this last year. With nothing to lose, the company worked with Nokia to develop a smartphone and tablet operating system called Metro that no longer has a desktop, as we traditionally think of it.

Instead of depicting icons against a background, Metro breaks the screen up into tiles that deliver live feeds of whatever is happening in the apps. Streams of tweets, incoming e-mails or changing weather all flow from their tiles in real time.

Meanwhile, the apps themselves, once opened, have almost no lines or grids in them at all. The incoming e-mail list (there's no in "box" anymore) is broken up with space, not lines. Everything is accomplished with innovative font selection and sizing.

Microsoft's operating system represents the future of computing. It was also a market failure, at least in the short run. That's because Microsoft doesn't have the power or charisma to demand that users follow it into the unknown. People followed Steve Jobs because they believed in his vision -- even if they didn't know what it was. Microsoft doesn't enjoy that benefit of the doubt.

But today, without Jobs, neither does Apple. That's why -- instead of dragging us kicking and screaming into the future Microsoft has already developed -- Apple is trying to lead us there one easy step at a time.

Page 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 150 Next 5 Entries »


Book Business Katinka Matson
The Brockman Agency
Media Inquiries media[at]rushkoff[dot]com
Talks talks[at]rushkoff[dot]com
Personal rushkoff[at]
All Else contact[at]rushkoff[dot]com



Follow @rushkoff on Twitter.




Design by AMY E. MARTIN