After interactive intoxication, comes social media moderation

@wwaycorrigan

[For an audio/vlog version of this story, click here.]

Fellow imbibers, you know the feeling. The morning after the night before. 'OK, it was good fun but did I have to binge so much?'

When the hangover is particularly bad, the hair of the dog feels like the best, nay only cure. Or so we convince ourselves. And sometimes this does indeed do the trick, mentally at least. A few more doses of the poison that had done the initial damage, some rest and we're our regular selves again. Until the next time.

It's all a blur: Just like with alcohol, there really is no safe level of social media use.

Sobering thought

Anecdotally speaking — and from the odd personal experience (I'm usually good at not going over my limit these days) — hangovers tend to be worse the older one gets, from roughly mid-30s onwards. Equally worse is the beer blues, that uncomfortable feeling of self-reproach, when one has drunk to excess.

What often follows is a determination to go sober for a time. Some manage to do this for weeks or even months, especially if their last booze session ended badly. Others kick the habit completely.

I wouldn't mind going months without beer. My problem — or my excuse, if you will — is my unsettled lifestyle together with the country I'm in. Drinking out in standard tiendas in Colombia is one of the cheapest socialising pursuits on offer.

So come 6 or 7 o'clock of an evening the temptation for some tienda-beer time is strong. If only there were decent, more readily available zero-alcohol brews in such tiendas. Would I drink them, though? Is it the alcohol-fuelled sensation I'm after or merely the social setting?

'Early social media use was like downing Jägerbombs in the nightclub following an already heavy evening in the pub. It usually led to sloppy public displays of affection or ill-advised encounters of the brutish kind.'

Whatever the case, I've been more conscious of my Colombian beer consumption of late and have tried to cut back. (Again, I say Colombia because the last time I was back in Ireland I quite easily went weeks without any alcohol. Largely for the price reason already mentioned, I find it harder to not drink in these parts. Also, in Ireland I tend to have more non-beer-related activities with which to occupy my time.)

In fairness, I've always had a love-hate relationship with drinking, yet I feel I'm now more sincere, if not too successful, in my efforts to drink less. That I've just entered my 40s plays a part in this, no doubt. I may be becoming slightly more sensible. That's the hope.

Meta monsters

I get the same vibe shift — to use the phrase of the current zeitgeist — in not only my relationship with social media but also that of many other people. It's like there's a collective middle-aged-style questioning of our online behaviour, particularly with what I consider to be the more bathetic and vain platforms, Facebook and Instagram.

(Those Meta monsters are akin to cheesy daytime TV, dealing in lifestyle affairs, albeit Instagram does have a worrying mild-porn side to it. Elon Musk's X is of the late-night, heated-political-debate variety, swinging from the astute to the absurd. In case you're wondering, I'm not on TikTok and have no intentions of doing so. Ditto with Bluesky.)

In the early days of interactive intoxication, the average Facebook/Instagram user i.e. one whose content-sharing is not done with the aim of generating income either directly or indirectly, went on a post blitz. This appears to have waned of late. Many are now adopting a more considered approach.

In revelling terms, social media use fifteen or so years ago was like downing Jägerbombs in the nightclub following an already heavy evening in the pub. It usually led to sloppy public displays of affection or ill-advised encounters of the brutish kind. Or sometimes both. These days, it's more in the style of a quiet drink or two at the local. A reserved affair.

I can imagine those who follow me on Facebook or Instagram reviewing my recent activity and thinking that I'm still in the blitz phase.

In my defence, the chief reason I continue to use social media is to share the content I create, hoping — in vain — to drive more traffic to my blog, as well as to my Spotify and YouTube channels.

'They get their kicks via different interactive engagements, similar to Ireland's Zoomers cosying up to cocaine as they down less alcohol.'

Even with posts that aren't directly linked to my online material, the idea is that more interaction is better than the opposite in this gig. Or, as I'm wont to say, it's better to be a known loser than an unknown one.

I know, I know, one can reasonably ask what's the point when, after over thirteen years, all my blogs, vlogs and podcasts haven't returned me even a penny in income. I could waste time on worse things, though, couldn't I? The other side to this, of course, is that I could spend my time on more wholesome pursuits.

Poisoned posting

What's more, alongside the changes in netizens' interactions with social media, the platforms themselves have evolved as both they and regulators try to find safer ways to operate. This evolution has further boosted the voice and influence of the haves while simultaneously weakening more so the role of the have-nots.

This is the exact opposite of the fanciful vision that Facebook et al. had at their inception. Aiming to empower the proles has merely resulted in giving greater power to the plutocrats. Plus ça change.

Added to this, the younger generations who grew up with social media are less hung-up about it all. In the same way that Gen Z — or Zoomers, as they're also called — in some high-income nations are drinking less alcohol compared to their predecessors, these younger folk are more inclined to be voyeurs rather than active participants on Facebook and Instagram.

This is not to say that theirs is a healthier way. It's just that they tend to get their kicks via different interactive engagements, similar to Ireland's Zoomers cosying up to cocaine as they down less alcohol. Or, more positively, as has been suggested elsewhere, they use Facebook less as a platform to share personal moments and to socialise virtually than as a source of gathering and sharing information via groups and suchlike.

So as we older generations rethink our relationship with social media, it needn't be a case of complete abstinence. Then again, just as health experts advise about alcohol, the safest amount of online socialising might be zero. And if forced to continue with just one of the two poisons, I'd opt for the liquid kind.
__________________________________________________________
Listen to The Corrigan Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

The WhatsApp voice messages of wrath

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

'Oh for feck sake, not another WhatsApp voice message.'

Through gritted teeth, that's generally how I respond upon receiving a WhatsApp voice message.

One does try, in vain, to let others know one's feelings.

The joy of text

The intensity of this indignation is directly proportional to the length of these "verbal vectors". I'm terming them thus as there's a good chance they are causing me mental harm owing to the ill feeling they generate in me.

If they are no more than thirty seconds in length and don't turn into a verbal volley, then I can deal with them without getting too worked up. (I must also confess here, lest I be called a hypocrite, I have been known to send the odd one in certain circumstances. This, though, is very much the exception. For the most part, I text.)

The thing is, for a not-insignificant number of WhatsApp users the voice message is the default option. In terms of my contacts, it seems that Colombians in particular are big fans of them.

'I find the idea of voice messages quite selfish. More effort is generally required from the recipient rather than the sender.'

Of course, this could simply be a reflection of those I engage with the most on WhatsApp; my bad luck. I can't say with any certainty that most Colombians prefer voice messages to texts. Nor can I say that they are used more frequently here compared to other countries.

Whatever the case, despite my WhatsApp profile About blurb beseeching contacts not to send voice messages — I guess nobody reads what's written in that section — they're something I'm regularly "forced" to tackle.

So why do they rankle with me so much?

For starters, I find the idea of them quite selfish. More effort is generally required from the recipient rather than the sender. Basically, the latter expects the former to listen to a monologue that on occasions can be akin to a mini-podcast in terms of length.

(Just to be clear — lest the hypocrisy charge be levelled at me again — when I send a blog story or podcast or whatever, I'm not demanding that the recipient engages with the content. That's, obviously enough, up to the individual. It's quite different with voice messages.)

At least with a written message it can usually be glanced over to see if it requires "urgent" attention without even entering the application. This can't be done with a voice message. One either has to stop everything one is doing to listen to what was sent or ignore the audio for a time. I usually do the latter.

Vanquishing the voice message

You see, tied in with this is the fact that I use my phone for other audio purposes i.e. listening to podcasts/radio and watching YouTube. I also use it to read books. Voice messages are a greater distraction for all these activities than written messages. Hence the wrath.

In mild mitigation, as a society, we're still trying to settle on a widely accepted etiquette for social media interaction and the like. What one person views as a great innovation is an utter annoyance to another — see, as a further example on a related theme, my previous piece railing against an ever-encroaching Big Tech.

In terms of social media specifically, however, most mental health experts would agree that the best strategy is to use them very sparingly, if at all (see Facebook, Instagram: Killing us softly).

Nonetheless, WhatsApp has now become the chief means of communication for many people. In my line of work, I'd be putting myself at a significant financial disadvantage by not having the app.

As I've said before, such things are merely tools that we must control. We shouldn't let them control us. Yet, it's beyond my control if somebody sends me a WhatsApp voice message.

So surely the brains behind WhatsApp could introduce a version without the voice-message facility or at least have an option inhibiting the ability to receive them, with this clearly displayed for any would-be voice-message sender?

Come on Mr Zuckerberg, you've done far worse to the world. Just when you do roll this out, I want my cut.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

The Great Reset

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

There's been much talk of the pandemic ushering in a Great Reset. Depending on your viewpoint, it's either a positive opportunity to change how we live or it's an attempt by the controlling elite to exert even more influence over us, to ensure our subservience to the overlords.

The use of mechanically propelled transport will be severely curtailed.

Whatever the case, on the individual level, many of us have been reappraising our lives throughout these hokey-cokey times (by hokey-cokey, I refer to the 'one foot in, one foot out, shake it all about' lockdowns and other such restrictive measures we've experienced of late).

With both a desire by some to live a more virtuous life and a potentially enforced Great Reset in mind — heavy on grand rhetoric but light on specifics as the latter appears to be — here I suggest changes to a few key areas that, if implemented, will surely have us within touching distance of salvation. Until the rules of engagement change again, that is.

Travel and general movement

Good news first. There will be absolutely no restrictions on moving around for those on foot or push-bike (we're not sure about rollerblading and skateboarding — they seem a bit too radical). In other words, self-propelled movement, as in using your own energy to get around, is limitless. No interfering state here (but it will be tracking you, all the same).

For those who feel the need to use transport whose motion is propelled by means other than one's own energy, there will be a daily limit of 20 kilometres. While this may seem quite tight, you will be allowed to accumulate unused kilometres. So, for example, if you didn't use mechanically powered transport for two years straight, in the third year you'd have built up 14,600 kilometres to use. What more could you want?

Needless to say, billionaires and world leaders are excluded from this — and all the following measures — due to the fact that civilisation would end should their ability to operate be curtailed in any way.

Food and drink

Similar to travel, there will be no restrictions on what you can consume provided it is sourced within a — give us a number — OK, 50-kilometre radius of where you live.

To be clear, by sourced I mean grown or reared within that catchment area.

'As we're nearing the end of history, references to the past will be removed from the internet. It's time to look forward guys, not back.'

All other foodstuffs will be subject to very punitive taxes, the exact details of which have yet to be finalised.

Clothing

In line with the previous — can you guess what's coming? — there will be no limit on the purchase of clothing whose raw materials come from inside a 50-kilometre radius and whose fabrication also occurs within that area.

Outside of that, the restrictions are as follows:
- No more than five units of each officially recognised undergarment per person per year, i.e. five pairs of socks, five boxers, five vests, five knickers, five pairs of tights, five bras.
- No more than two upper-body items of clothing per person per year.
- One lower-body item of clothing per person per year.
- One suit per person per year.
- No more than two footwear items per person per year (there will be an associated campaign to get people to walk barefoot more often — think of it as bottom-up toughening up).

Technology

All citizens of the world will be provided with a smartphone that must be kept switched on during one's active hours.

What's more, everyone must have a Facebook account and spend at least two hours per day on it — no problem for many, that.

People can publish whatever material they wish, provided it meets the approval of the moderators. In addition, material can be removed with no prior warning and no reason needs to be given. 

Moreover, users can be banned from posting material should these faceless, answerable-to-nobody moderators see fit to do so. (Please note, the identity of moderators is not revealed in order to protect all of humankind.)

Finally, as we're nearing the end of history, references to the past will be removed from the internet. It's time to look forward guys, not back.

That's enough to take in for now. I'll be back with more later. In any case, it's an impressive blueprint for a better future, isn't it?
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Wrong Way's Loser and Winner of the Year Awards

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

Yes, it's that moment you've all been waiting for, the Wrong Way Corrigan Loser and Winner of the Year Awards 2020. We've had plenty of contenders for the former, the latter has been much more difficult to choose. Basically, we've had a dearth of outstanding candidates.

Our Loser of the Year brought about our Winner of the Year. (Photo from Facebook.)

Amazon high

It has, of course, been a year that most people will probably want to erase from memory. Not everybody, though. There's Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, for example. He's had a bumper 12 months. Ditto for those holding the purse strings at Facebook, Netflix and Zoom.

Also, a fair few folk in the First World's comfortable classes — their public mutterings of enduring an annus horribilis aside — have seen their lot actually improve, from a financial perspective in any case.

OK, it's not all about money. I've certainly had to keep on telling myself that this last while in any case. Alas, it doesn't tend to wash with many Colombian women. 'Instead of that fancy restaurant, how about a litrazo of Poker in the barrio tienda? No? Really?!' They'll come round, they will.

Anyway, let's get to the awards, starting with our Loser of the Year.

Xi's the man

The obvious choice for many here is outgoing US President Donald J. Trump. He certainly, um, trumps the lot for sore loser of the year. Indeed, he didn't actually lose the presidential election so he and many of his supporters tell us. 

Whatever the case, he won't be residing at the White House after 20 January, we can be pretty sure of that. Thus, he is a loser, but it's not enough for him to take our gong.

No, the Wrong Way Corrigan Loser of the Year Award is going east, to China to be precise. As the head of a country that initially buried its head in the sand when news emerged of a novel, easily transmitted and somewhat lethal virus at large, Xi Jinping is our top failure.

Not only that, but once coronavirus was let out of the bag (or is that lab? Or wet market?) and reached the four corners of the globe, Xi did what the Chinese Communist Party does best at home: suppression. 

Thus, contagion was curtailed in China while it flourished outside, aided and abetted by a dithering World Health Organisation kowtowing to Beijing.

'Our Loser of the Year and other world leaders did much to ensure Alan scooped the top prize, but credit where credit is due.'

This dithering behaviour proved to be as contagious as coronavirus itself, as governments across the world followed suit. Cue pandemic pandemonium and cures more damaging to society as a whole than covid-19, the infection coronavirus can bring about.

For all that, together with China's backfiring wolf-warrior diplomacy which is only serving to deepen mistrust abroad about the CCP's intentions, Xi Jinping is a worthy Loser of the Year.

Crowning glory

And now for the big one, our Winner of the Year. Many have waxed lyrical about the darling of world leaders, New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern. She's done well in some areas for sure, but in terms of being a global champion, that's stretching things.

There can really be only one winner. Some will accuse me of picking this individual simply because he appeared on my podcast.

For sure, I was delighted to have him on as a guest, but it's disingenuous to say this played a part in my decision. I'm far more balanced than that.

So, our Winner of the Year 2020 is — no, not Niall Ferguson — it's "Alan", aka coronavirus.

For sure, our Loser of the Year and other world leaders did much to ensure Alan scooped this accolade, but credit where credit is due. It may have been an open goal of sorts, but he still had to tuck it away. And that he did with gusto.

He has, quite literally, touched the hearts and minds of millions of people across the planet. At the risk of being facetious, his modus operandi hasn't been to everyone's liking and there are many who certainly wouldn't put him in the winner's enclosure.

Nonetheless, in terms of world dominance in 2020, be that good, bad or indifferent, no one else comes close.

What's more, his emergence may have just given humanity a timely heads-up to get our act together before something far more deadly comes along.

In a divided world, one doesn't hold out much hope that we'll take great heed of this warning.

_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz". 

It's war alright, but not as we know it

*Click here for an audio version of this blog entry.
In my previous blog entry, I wrote about the possibility of the current cold war between China and the US heating up and how it could bring biological warfare to a new, devastating level.

In light of the deep ideological differences between the two superpowers coupled with the almost daily jibes being exchanged, it's not that difficult to imagine a casus belli. 

A more optimistic take is that, as was the case for Cold War I, while they might reach the precipice, neither side will take the plunge to destruction. Not directly anyway.

The front line of today's war; nobody is safe. (Photo by Andri from pexels.com.)

Waging cyberwar

The USSR-US stand-off was characterised by many proxy wars — Latin America saw its fair share of bloodshed in this regard — so at the very least we can expect something similar in Cold War II. Again, though, the shape of them will most likely be quite different from the battles fought in the 20th century.

In fact, online electoral interference by Russian actors, state-sponsored as it is seen to be, gives us an idea of the clandestine proxy conflicts to come.

Rather than directly or indirectly fight each other, the belligerents will attempt to deepen divides in enemy territory to fuel ongoing internal strife and instability. War on the cheap for the instigator. It's also relatively low-risk with potentially high rewards.

In the US particularly, from the outside looking in, it appears not merely a case of the seeds for division having been planted, they've sprouted and are already in bloom in many respects, thanks in no small part to the media. 

For pretty much every issue, consensus is out, contestation is in. An insignificant spark is all that's needed to set off the warring factions.

The media, both traditional and new-age, amplify any divisions by a considerable amount, while in some instances they create them where none really exist. 

On the ground, the differences are often much less pronounced than they are made out to be. This gives some cause for hope. (Take a week's break from Facebook, Twitter and the media in general and there's a big chance you'll become more relaxed.)

Be that as it may, two-form media manipulation is as strong as it's ever been. There's manipulation of the media itself by outside forces as well as the media's own malignant influence on the people it speaks to.

On the first of those, in terms of superpower conflict, we're already in a hot war and have been for some time. 

From a Western perspective, this is relayed to us, as mentioned above, in terms of Russian interference. 

No doubt it's a two-way street, perhaps done more overtly than covertly by the West, as in public denunciations of the dirty tactics from conniving Eastern powers, while at the same time, we must assume, playing them at their own game.

'At this remove, the thinking must be that the West can be crushed by the very things it holds dear — its open society and liberalism.'

However, considering the more muzzled media in the likes of China and Russia compared to the West, interference by the latter on the former in this sphere is unlikely to be too effective.

Now, the fact that we hear dissenting voices and have verbal battles over the best course of action for a given situation is in itself not a bad thing. It's what liberal democracies with a free (in name anyway) press are all about. In normal times, this works fairly well.

Problems arise when our leaders look to unite the citizens behind a cause, especially an emotive one that is, literally, a question of life or death. This is what we're seeing right now with the coronavirus. The divide it has created brings to mind the old aphorism, 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.'

Comedown from a liberal high

In one sense, it's an inevitable product of an open, literate society replete with multiple sources of information available to the masses. If we lived under an authoritarian regime there would really only be one narrative. Thankfully, we're not subject to that — yet.

Moreover, deciphering what is #FakeNews from genuine information isn't easy in this particular conflict. 

There isn't even agreement amongst those best qualified to speak on the matter, so little wonder many lay folk, Google at hand, have serious doubts about debatable decisions being taken for 'our own health and well-being'.

As I wrote about previously, the approach to dealing with coronavirus isn't a simple black-and-white issue. It's not, as some like to make it out to be, a dollars-versus-lives decision. 

It's fair to say most agree that measures taken to stop coronavirus at all costs, to prevent premature deaths due to the virus in the here and now will have knock-on, adverse effects for some time to come.

Thus, while we can unite behind this common microscopic enemy to the extent that pretty much everybody wants it to go away — or, in the likelihood that it doesn't disappear any time soon, that it becomes less a burden on us than it currently is — we're far from united on how best to achieve this. (With such differences of opinion it's easy to understand why controlling the flow of information becomes such an attractive option for those in power.)

We can only assume that this makes for pleasant viewing for the monolithic systems in Beijing and, to a lesser extent, Moscow. At this remove, the thinking must be that the West can be crushed by the very things it holds dear — its open society and liberalism.

So have we given our worker ants access to too much information to the point that they're now harming the system itself?

Answering in the affirmative, it can be said we've already reached peak liberalism and operating at such heights has made us become lightheaded. 

It's far from clear as to the best route down to a safer level, if one exists that is.
_______________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz". 

Facebook, Instagram: Killing us softly

A few weeks ago on CNÑ (CNN in Spanish that is), in a discussion about social media, an Argentinian expert on the subject predicted that in years to come we'll view our use of Facebook and the like in the same way that most of us view smoking today. 

That is, a dirty, unhealthy habit that we can't believe we actually used to find "cool and sexy".

Insta-life. Or is that Insta-death?

Some people might view such an opinion as rather dramatic. Exaggerated scaremongering from the Argentinian fogey. Maybe so. The jury is still hearing all the evidence on this one, it's not even close to being sent out in order to come back with a verdict yet.

One thing we can say with certainty is that the arrival of social media has led to a seismic change in how we communicate and interact with each other. Save for the invention for real of teleportation, it's hard to see how more virtually connected we can become.

"Physically meeting those we might envy often allays any insecurity issues."

That's the crux of the issue here really: A growing virtual contact at the expense of face-to-face interaction. Worse still — for those on the social-media-is-bad side of things that is — virtual communication, or using our digital gadgets in some way, is dominating even when we are in the company of others.

We've all witnessed it. A group of people at a bar or dinner table or wherever, all with their heads stuck in their personal electronic devices. We shake our heads in disapproval. 

Yet there's a fair chance we've been looked at disapprovingly doing the exact same thing on another occasion. Practically everybody with a smartphone gets "caught" at some stage or another.

A new (dis)order?

The question is, "Is it actually doing us any harm?" Well, we do now have a social media anxiety disorder. A cynic — which I am not, of course — might say that the fact we've "invented" a disorder for it means very little in this day and age.

We've disorders for all sorts of things now where in the past they were simply conditions that required nothing more than a stern "for goodness sake lad, would you pull yourself together", or something to that effect. It's all much more softly-softly now, for better or for worse.

That being said, as documented before, the false impression that social media platforms create of the lives of others can be quite damaging to those susceptible to the "keeping up with the Joneses" condition. "Oh look, there goes Mary on another amazing adventure and here I am stuck in my crappy job." Or, "Bob seems to be doing great with the ladies and I can't hit it off with a single one."

For sure, being envious of others isn't something new, only arriving with social media. It's part of being human. However, our new way of interacting has made it more prevalent, exponentially so. The scale of it has been blown way out of proportion it would appear.

Physically meeting those who we may be resentful towards for whatever reason and, quite literally, seeing "their warts and all", will, more often than not, make us feel a little less insecure about ourselves. 

Social media not only takes that away but it puts us in daily contact with people who we would otherwise know next to nothing about and, I wager, care little about.

Take these (and please, do take them and send them off to some other planet) Instagram influencers. Young, pretty people — it's highly unlikely they'll either be the "wrong" side of 40 or not physically attractive — who make a living out of simply posting about their lives.

"Facebook and the like are dumbing us down."

Fair play to them. They're working the system. It's those who follow them, who give them this platform, those are the ones I question.

OK, if it's somebody who travels or the like, somebody who has interesting, informative snippets to share, there's merit to that. The thing is, many of these influencers don't. White, or whatever colour you want, trash.

Before I'm accused of being a hypocrite, I am fully aware that I play this game as well. As an unpaid blogger and podcaster, I need to use all outlets available to get the messages I write and talk about out there. 

The hope is that what I do will reach more and more people, eventually putting me, brand "Wrong Way" so to put it, in a position to be a conduit for companies to advertise via me and such like.

Obviously, time is ticking on that one. Or maybe I'm already past my "use by" date. I'm just refusing to accept it. Perhaps I should go underground now, back to unspoilt nature.

Whatever the case, I like to think that I use and take advantage of social media — the ideal scenario — more than the other way around. I like to think that, that is. I could be wrong.

Light up, dumb down

We mentioned the seismic shift that has taken place with social media. As a species, we've gone through this before. The printing press, the advent of radio and TV. Massive game-changers.

So rather than seeing the "new kids in town" as dangerous, perhaps we should take a more benign view. After all those older three, although TV to a lesser extent, in my opinion, haven't done us any real harm, have they?

The key difference for me is that all those, in their more dominant days, were agents of positive social change and largely educational.

At this remove and considering how the majority of us currently use social media and, just as importantly, are used by them, we can't view today's dominators in the same light. On the contrary, they seem to be dumbing us down.

They might leave us feeling a bit lightheaded, even sick at times, but the high is worth it. Gotta light? I need my fix.
___________________________________
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".
Listen to The Colombia Cast podcast here.

We are what we tweet

In these social media times we live in, it seems that virtual reality has become reality. 

Or at least our smartphone updates have allowed those who read/view them to believe they know us and make judgements about us, even if they've only briefly met us or, indeed, have never met us at all.

'I tweet, therefore I am.'

Living in a social media world

Of course, social media profiling is not just a lonely layperson's pastime. Companies often check out the Facebook pages, tweets, Instagram photos and what have you of prospective employees to 'get a feel' for the person in question before saying yea or nay. 

In some cases, that may be pre-interview selection, thus a decision is taken on your personality or suitability before they've actually met you. At times that might be a good thing; on other occasions not so.

It does, nonetheless, beg the question: Does how we portray ourselves on social media accurately reflect how our real lives actually are?

We may post fairly honestly, but for the majority of us, these are just snapshots in time, brief moments detailing some particular aspect of our life that we feel is worthy of sharing. (Whether we should bother to share these things at all is a valid consideration; maybe those of us who do it will get over this phase as we come to terms with the continuously evolving social media landscape.)

The more mundane, everyday aspects of our lives usually aren't publicised — at least that's how it is for most people. It's a highlights package of sorts, and often a very skewed one.

Moreover, what is put out there is open to falsities and manipulation. Just as someone can lie to you about themselves in person, it can be done, but with greater ease, virtually.

In terms of on-line discussions — Facebook debates for example — there's the issue of tone and sentiment perhaps not coming across as intended by the writer. 

Linked to that, some people can write in a rather aggressive, argumentative manner when in reality they're big softies, so to put it. 'Virtual warriors, real-life sheep', one could say.

As has been posted on this blog before, all these social media outlets are just tools and, like any tool, they can be used in a productive way or improperly. 

A lot of the time user restraint is advised. Completely switching off from them may be almost impossible for some people in certain lines of work, but letting them dominate your life doesn't seem the best idea.

There is a real world out there, distinct from the social media one. It's not always the case that 'we are what we tweet', despite what some people may think.
______________________________________
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Bogotá up in Smoak

Big city life, somewhat paradoxically, can be quite solitary. There are people all around us, yet as we go about our business they may as well not exist. Indeed, at times we might wish that to be the case.

In this regard, Bogotá is no different to any other metropolis (a few barrios excepted). Anonymous, insignificant faces abound.

This Smoak is on fire ...

However, one man is attempting to change this. Going by the belief that everybody has a story to tell — and in Colombia those stories can be quite something — coupled with his skills for photographing people, Jonathan Smoak has set about giving us a greater perspective to the faces we see in Bogotá on a daily basis.

Via his Facebook page Personajes de Bogotá (literally 'Characters of Bogotá'), he has been introducing us to the everyday characters around the city. 

The format is quite simple: a photo or two of the people in focus followed by a brief background blurb of their life story, in both English and Spanish. With more than 7,000 likes on his page so far, Smoak's virtual photo biography certainly seems to have found a niche.

The idea to create it partly came from the hugely popular Humans of New York, a Facebook page that has almost 18 million likes.

Another spark came from Smoak — whose previous humanitarian work has taken him to a host of developing countries — just being here in Bogotá itself. 

"I walk everywhere in the city. There are millions of people and I get a sense there's not much camaraderie, especially between classes and neighbourhoods", he explains. 

"I thought this (personajes) is a good way to humanise and connect races, classes, jobs, artistic communities, businesses — anything — and to say we all have a story."

While he tries to accommodate all sections of society on his page, he does reveal that some Bogotanos are more difficult to feature than others. "The higher up the socio-economic ladder I get, the more people say no." 

He acknowledges that security concerns in a city obsessed with such things, in many instances for sound reasons, probably play a factor in that. 

The fact that he’s a well-built man with a foreign face might also mitigate against him. Yet a few seconds in his company for anyone who might initially be intimidated and you'll find he's very much of the gentle variety.

Smoak's own life story has been quite the adventure. At three months of age his parents left their Virginia home to come to Colombia to work with a charity organisation that helped indigenous communities (it wasn't from nowhere he gained his charitable qualities). The country's secluded plains, in the department of Meta, were to be the family home for the next 17 years.

So while he isn't 'officially' Colombian, the country is another home to him in many ways. 

Yet, as he puts it, with such a background, one almost falls between two stools as to where home is: "Here, when I was growing up I was the 'gringo' and then when I went to the United States I was the strange kid from Colombia. In some sense when you're multicultural you don't have a true home; or they're both home."

Until this latest return to Colombia three years ago, the majority of his adult life was spent in the US, where he married and fathered four children. 

Images of a 'settled' life that might portray, but it was far from that. 

As a university student in Chicago he took a group of his peers to Honduras to install a potable water system in an isolated mountain village. "I did that because I was frustrated returning to the United States with so many people who were not socially and culturally aware of the world."

Out of that frustration emerged a future career where he continued to take university students to help out less well-off communities all over the globe. Countries that have benefitted from his humanitarian work include China, Honduras, India, Pakistan, the Philippines as well as the aforementioned Honduras.

Coming back to Colombia hadn't really been on the cards but a job offer that he just couldn't refuse saw him return. 

Unfortunately, that employment fell through. Not only that, but after setting up a photo studio he had the misfortune of having his top-of-the-range camera stolen last year. 

Despite these blows, he has set about making the country home again, be that temporary or otherwise. In fact, he has tinkered with the idea of doing here in Colombia the same non-profit, humanitarian work that he did elsewhere.

As for Personajes de Bogotá, the future goal is to publish a book with a collection of the best characters and their stories he has featured on the Facebook page. 

In the meantime, keep your eyes peeled for the affable Smoak traversing Bogotá's streets, camera in hand. 

Don't be shy guys, he's just trying to make the world a friendlier, more inclusive place.
________________________________________
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Respecting the hand(writing) of time

‘The pen is mightier than the sword.’ ‘Time is a great healer.’

They are two of the oldest sayings in the book and in many ways they complement and support each other. The result of using the sword is instant and, at its most effective, it generally doesn't allow the outcome to be modified.

Beware! Instant communication via smartphones. (Photo from Facebook.)

Healing hand/harmful hand

On the other hand, intelligent use of the pen, i.e. writing something with a clear head and thought, is physically less damaging than the barbaric sword and can be revised; or at least it’s not usually terminal.

In addition, it’s more time-consuming and can get you much better results in the long run. In this way, it's tied in with time and, depending on the circumstances, healing. Conversely, of course, it can be used to more devastating effect, depending on the author’s wishes.

The problem these days is that the pen has been replaced by the keyboard and keypad, linked to the World Wide Web, with the latter's multitude of ways of disseminating your message. Thus, the old time advantage, insofar as allowing for review and reflection, is wiped out.

For sure, in many aspects, instant communication can not only be advantageous but it can also be a lifesaver. It can be extremely efficient as well, especially in work environments. However, in other instances, it is damaging and dangerous.

We've seen numerous examples where the careers of influential people have been tarnished or ended by publishing things on social media that on 'mature reflection' they should never have uttered, or at least made public knowledge.

Nonetheless, our 21st-century communication tools are just that – tools. And like all such things, how they are used and/or abused depends largely on the human being operating them.

Just because you have the means to immediately respond to or comment on something, doesn’t mean you must – this is obviously more pertinent when the context is a negative or attacking one. Some people (and this writer has been guilty in this regard), though, just can’t resist. A virtual swipe of the sword, carried out with little forethought.

Nice birdie; but it can bite ... (Image from Facebook.)

Writing under the influence 

Such actions are normally much worse if done ‘under the influence’. Indeed, in the same way that you shouldn’t drive when drunk, it would be a good idea for many to avoid means of communication – real as well as virtual in some cases – when inebriated.

Now, in mitigation, you do have the old nursery rhyme, ‘Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.’ Should we really let a few ill-advised comments, in whatever form they come, offend us? Judge people by their actions rather than their words.

This, however, brings us back to the old pen trumping the sword. As mentioned above, the written (and spoken) word can and does cause harm, as much as it may seem, in a physical way in any case, silly to let it.

So just before you engage in your blitzkrieg-esque virtual written warfare, pause for a moment, take a long walk if needs be. And remember, some things are better left unsent.
________________________________________
For a related piece, see Unsocial media.

I'm yelling Tinder

As we all know, in this life there are the haves and the have nots, something that has been well documented in various ways on this blog.* 

In what could be seen as a microcosm of that on some levels, there are those who have a smartphone and those who do not.

Time to yell 'Tinder'? (Image from Facebook.)

At the moment I fall into that latter category. The reasons for this are chiefly split between personal choice and, to a lesser extent, economic circumstances.

The fact that much of my work currently revolves around technology (whose doesn't?) or at least staring at a screen, in my downtime, of which there has been a lot of late, I like to try and remove myself from such things. 

Hence, heretofore at least, I've been pretty content with my basic phone or flechita (literally, 'little dart') as they call it in Colombia. My thinking has been that with that, people can call and text me if they need to and I can do likewise if I want to. No more, no less. 

For all other technology and social media related issues, I can use my laptop at specified times of the day. Who needs to have Facebook or Twitter by their side 24/7?

The simple life: A 'flechita'. (Photo from Phone Outlet.)

Indeed, one of my bugbears when one goes out to socialise in person these days, something I've touched on before, is that you'll find a host of people with their heads stuck in their smartphones, preferring to virtually interact with people rather than engage physically with the person next to them. Perhaps that just happens to me, though?

Nonetheless, I'm slowly beginning to think that it may be time to take the plunge and invest in a smartphone. 

From a work point of view, considering plenty of hours are lost commuting across Bogotá going from one class to the next, having a compact device/phone that would allow me to do some additional research and writing while in transit would be handy and probably time-saving. 

Of course, there is always the dar papaya risk in flashing your smartphone in public,** giving would-be robbers an even greater incentive to have a go at the rich (if only they knew) Westerner.

That aside, a more compelling reason to join the smartphone revolution, if some people's experiences are to be believed, is the dating application (or 'app' as they say) Tinder. 

According to those in the know, it's basically a sure-fire way of at least securing a one-night stand. 

Not only that but in Bogotá, for Western men in any case, what's on offer is of pretty decent quality – superficially anyway. I imagine that's replicated throughout Colombia.

So for single and, apparently, not-so-single people, Tinder is proving to be a great place to get that much-coveted hookup. Word on the (virtual) street is that it takes a lot of the tedious small talk out of the equation. Both parties can just cut to the chase.

Beyoncé: She'd get a swipe. (Photo from Facebook.)

Now, if 'the chase' is something you actually enjoy, then Tinder might leave you feeling a little empty – fish in a barrel kind of thing you might say. 

Yet, if you're tired of the games that some potential partners play after you've had an initial rendezvous, Tinder could be just what you need to avoid becoming frustrated.

Thus, maybe it's time for Wrong Way to delve into the smartphone world and see how those swanky 'haves' live. If it saves time and effort across a range of activities it could prove to be a valuable asset.

And as it is with all of these things, there's always an off button. That, however, might not be as easy to find on whoever you happen to pick up on Tinder.
____________________________________
*See last week's Chasing a star(bucks) for starters on that.

**To get the 'dar papaya' reference and meaning, read 'Dar papaya' - letting the guard down.

All that you can't leave behind

Every now and again it’s a good idea to cut the crap from your life. To undergo a necessary pruning you might call it. This can be done in a number of ways and in different areas. 

For example, you can streamline your friend database – these days that might involve deleting from your mobile phone and/or Facebook the numbers and contact details of old acquaintances who might now be a source of negativity.* 

There are also the material things we build up over time – in some contexts, these could be seen as no more than clutter or rubbish but they can be hard to let go of all the same.

All that we can't leave behind?

It’s in that latter area where we often struggle – our penchant for holding on to various bits and pieces plays against us. 

Now, if you’re a settled person (whatever that means) with your own house or at least long-term accommodation, such a hoarding trait isn’t that big of a deal really. However, if you still have something of a backpacker lifestyle and mentality, as we generally do, then keeping hold of what are, objectively speaking, non-important things, is far from a convenient practice.

What we’re on about here is the ability to extend the travel light approach to living light. After almost two years of being based in Bogotá but with a necessary break (for how long, we’re not sure) from the city on the horizon, the dreaded time of gathering up our things is fast approaching.

At first glance and without really getting down and dirty in it yet, it appears that we haven’t done too bad in terms of a large accumulation of stuff compared to other places we’ve stayed in over the years. 

For one, we don’t own any big electrical equipment or cumbersome furniture – in any case, if we did, they’d have to stay put unless they were of incredible emotional value. As for everything else, the question is: Can we put what we want to bring with us into one bag that weighs no more than 20 kg? That’s the goal.

Many of us are guilty of having more than we need.

In theory, it shouldn’t be a problem. What more does one really need to travel with other than some basic clothes? Added to that, it’s not like we’ve got any expensive outfits in our wardrobe – a nice, not-that-heavy suit apart – that we can’t leave behind.

Indeed price-wise, the ‘Wrong Way’ set of clothes these days is very much in the value-for-money, practical department.

This is, however, where what might be described as emotion comes into play. What we do have is an assortment of football and rugby shirts of sentimental value. An ever-growing collection we like to have recourse to at any given moment. Individually, of course, these tops weigh next to nothing; collectively, though, is a different story, while they also occupy some valuable room in a backpack tight on space.

Alongside the shirts, but perhaps slightly more acceptable in terms of emotional attachment, we’ve the various little mementoes that we’ve built up over the last couple of years. ‘Important’ paper cuttings, various correspondence, thought-provoking books that we like to keep hard copies of for reference, stuff like that.

But if we’re being tough on ourselves, coupled with a potentially bulging bag, a lot of these things can be scrapped. Sometimes it’s best just to live with the memories – no more, no less. What’s going to be required is German-style efficiency and precision when we’re eventually packing things up.

Living light, the extreme way.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that being in a position to have this as a problem shows the privileged place we’re coming from. There are plenty of people on this planet who are not and never will be able to accumulate a stash of material stuff. 

For them, it’s just about finding sufficient food to survive on from one day to the next. We don’t need to look too far for examples of this – here in Colombia, the gap between the haves and the have-nots is as wide and apparent as anywhere.

So while it’s a good idea to cut the crap from your life, when doing so it’s also wise to put things into an appropriate context. However, both can be quite difficult to do.

___________________
*For more on some of the ‘evils’ of Facebook and its ilk, see http://bit.ly/Rbh9lc. Also, for how some Colombian ladies deal with 'friend clearing' see http://bit.ly/NsJyB5.

Unsocial media

A few years back we made a public call, via a newspaper letter and its subsequent broadcasting on radio, asking that the use of mobile phones be banned in public places. 

The main reason for this came about after numerous bus journeys in our native Ireland where people were yapping away for all to hear about their latest weekend escapades or what have you. 

It appears that the boundaries between private and public conversations become blurred for some people when they speak on their mobiles. 

Our letter plea was well received in many quarters at the time — someone felt it even warranted a Noble Peace Prize nomination, we kid you not. Alas, however, there has been very little corrective action in this regard, be it in our native land or further afield.

Many people's new best friends - compact & intelligent.

Now, while our appeal wasn’t really penned in a humanistic sense, more in a curmudgeonly way to be honest, the case for restricting mobile phone use for the good of our species can certainly be made.

Yes, there is little doubt that mobiles have revolutionised the way we connect and communicate with each other — in many ways for the better — but you must ask the question, is it at the expense of face-to-face interaction? The anecdotal evidence would suggest yes. 

If people aren’t talking on their cellular, then the likelihood is that they are either ‘pinging’ somebody, listening to music, messing around with some sort of app or whatever else they can do on these fancy pieces of plastic (you’re right, we’ve yet to be bitten by the smart-phone bug). The ‘real’ person sitting beside them doesn’t exist any more. 

OK, judging by many of the conversations we’ve overheard such as the ones alluded to in the opening paragraph, we wouldn’t be that keen to speak to such people anyway, but there might be some individuals who are worth the effort. The mobile, though — especially more advanced models — has become a barrier to in-the-flesh communication.

This is particular apparent in pubs and bars. The chance of a random chat with somebody has been greatly diminished in recent years. 

When people find themselves on their own, rather than look for somebody to talk to or at least be available for a chat, they go to the comfort of their phone for company. (Why would anyone miss out on the chance to converse with 'Wrong Way'?)

Thanks Facebook - we, um, like you, too.

Now, you might say that radio and TV have also had a negative impact on real, physical interaction, but not as close to the extent as the new-age phones together with the social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter have had. 

Radio is obviously far less intrusive and demanding than TV but for its part, the ‘great conversation stopper’ in the corner can often be the source of conversations, especially in public houses.

You really can’t say the same for mobile phones while Facebook and its ilk are even more harmful to natural communication. 

People will waste away hours of their time virtually chatting to friends and acquaintances at the expense of actually going out meeting somebody in person. For social beings that most of us are, that can’t be good for body or mind.

Another worrying aspect on the Facebook front is that it can actually be quite damaging to some people’s mental health, especially those at a low point in their lives. 

It can, at times, paint a picture that all your connections are having a wonderful time while your life is banging along at the bottom. But instead of logging off and heading out which would seem the sensible thing to do, these people stay hooked in, becoming in a sense new-age, social network voyeurs.

This kind of behaviour can be particularly damaging in the context of a recent romance break-up. It certainly doesn’t help you to move on from somebody if you subject yourself to constant updates and photos of the daily happenings of the person you once loved — or maybe even still love. 

In fact, in a previous article (see: ‘Mi Amor’ – or perhaps not?’) we jokingly had a go at how some Colombian female acquaintances are quick to delete you from Facebook if things turn even slightly sour. Perhaps, though, they’re right if moving on is what they want to do.

Of course, social network sites, mobile phones and all these things are just tools — they are not inherently evil in their own right. It’s how you use or, more importantly, misuse them that’s at the heart of the matter here. 

From our point of view Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn have helped us gain and maintain a plethora of contacts across the globe. Without such outlets, these new connections would have been next to impossible to not only sustain but to find in the first place.

Replacing a wife for WiFi - the latter is more reliable, for one.

However, virtual communication should not come at the expense of real-life, face-to-face contact. If we let this happen, we'll all end up like the person sitting at the computer at the final stage of that ubiquitous evolution poster. Hermits — but with technology.