In and out of the net

April 6, 2015April 1, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

What has the Internet turned us into?

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published by The Other Press. March 23, 2015

When we think of the Internet we think about the free flowing traffic between us and endless information and connections. Without having to put on shoes or brush our teeth we can go shopping, hang out with our friends, attend a course, and watch a movie. That is the Internet we know of.

As our dependency on the World Wide Web increases and technology advances, the Internet becomes more than a research data base, social meet-up, and entertainment resource. Like a plant growing fast and wild, branches and roots stray off in directions away from our periphery. The Internet is also now a cliquey underground society fulfilling the needs of those who want smut, drugs, and other products not readily available at Wal-Mart.

The dawn of the Internet—sometime during the late ‘90s—changed the face and other body parts of the pornography industry and the way criminals corresponded, exchanging insight. Remember when free porn was like a hidden gem and “how to make a bomb” articles were the red flag keywords?

As the web progressed, leaked photographs, stolen identities, and bootlegging have become the norm. We are no longer fazed by these wrongdoings. We condemn them, sure, but the lawlessness of the Internet does not institute any repercussions. Click away, delete, or access a different hard drive and we’ll be safe. As the law tries to end torrent sharing sites such as Pirate Bay, it seems they may never stop the numerous illegal acts occurring on the Deep Web, an area of the Internet not indexed by standard search engines.

As of 2001, the Deep Web was believed to occupy a space 400 to 500 times larger than the Internet we normally access, our surface web. Here are some numbers that might give you a better idea: over 10 years ago, the size of the Deep Web was estimated to be about 92,000 terabytes, which is 92,000,000 gigabytes. But all the numbers are merely speculation, because there is no real way to measure it. What makes the Deep Web worrisome to some? Well, can you imagine a physical place where you can buy a quarter gram of Afghan heroin, various firearms, fake identification, and hire an assassin? No? Well, on the Internet, there are hundreds and thousands of places.

The way we make money has changed thanks to the Internet. The way I make money is through content creation. I write marketable copy for different companies from tech to arts. My job would not exist without the Internet. However, many are choosing different avenues online to make a living as well: e-commerce, SaaS, and monetized user generated content. The last one in the list is interesting, because people can literally sell a show from the comforts of their own home. It can be a video blog like the kind you watch on YouTube, it can be a video game commentary like the kind you see on Twitch, and it can be pornography like the kind you find on MyFreeCams. There is literally a platform for any kind of entertainment you want to produce, and you can make a living doing it. Just try to avoid using public library as your settings.

It’s horribly clear that today we can only truly know a person by understanding their search history. The fact that Google has more information about us than our friends and family says a lot. Our relationships, our knowledge, and the life we’ve created are now a few gigabytes on the Internet. And that is how significant we’ll continue to be as the web, like the universe, continues to expand.

Like the real thing

April 4, 2015April 1, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

Your social media profile is not a measuring stick for success

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published by The Other Press. March 23, 2015

I can be certain that when I write a Facebook post, someone will read it. There are few other places where you can push a message publicly and have it received by those who you intended it for. If I want a close group of friends to read my inside joke I can link them to it. If I want to omit my colleagues from my radical political point of views—should I have any—I can simply adjust the privacy settings. We are all media producing outlets, however, today we aren’t using social media to present anything of value, we are merely shouting into the void, uttering mundane nothings, and expecting praise, affirmation, or approval in return.

We are living in an age where we are “liking,” “retweeting,” and “sharing” too casually. The reason is because the gamified aspect of social media is so addicting. We feel compelled to let people know about our meals, our feelings, our day at work, our vacation spot, our new relationships, our athletic achievements, and many other not-so-pivotal details of our lives. We present the part of ourselves we want people to see. We are our own public relations manager, but the thing is it always comes across as contrived, arrogant, or needy.

Everything we post today is measured as if “likes” have any merit to our real experiences. They don’t. So what? Liking is fun. It’s good for the human spirit. Sure it nurtures a narcissistic aspect of our being, but what harm does that do? Why can’t we like whatever we feel like liking? Why can’t we follow whomever we feel like following?

The thing with Facebook and other social media algorithms is that your feed impacts your friends. You are representing all the boring bullshit you are liking and sharing. Marketers see your behaviour and in return present more branded material on your news feed, more Buzzfeed surveys, and more peer-to-peer propaganda. By liking, commenting, and sharing content you are not invested in, you are inadvertently spamming your fellow followers, friends, and fans. If you don’t value the content and you don’t believe your social media community will appreciate it, don’t like it.

You are not obligated to like your best friends’ posts about their lunches or the way the Starbucks employee messed up in spelling their names. You are not obligated to like a news article your mother shared. Social media does a fine job recycling content. And with the new trending column on the side of Facebook, you really don’t need to share any pertinent stories at all; nobody is relying on you for the breaking news.

On social media, we often get our priorities mixed up. We get derailed from the informative and valued path into a trivial and anecdotal direction. Take the black and blue optical illusion dress we all saw earlier this year on social media. We couldn’t stop talking about it, because people wouldn’t stop talking about it. That’s the thing; it’s a vicious cycle. If you want a topic to die, you need to stop contributing to it. That’s why we should like, comment, and share sparingly.

Don’t be a passenger your whole life

April 1, 2015March 18, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

Why driving is a life-long skill worth having

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published by The Other Press. March 16, 2015

Younger generations are no longer putting car ownership as a top priority, and because of that the attitude towards learning to drive or earning a driver’s licence is left idling. Many have even accepted that they will never own a vehicle and that public transit is just something that will be a part of their lives forever. It’s true that owning a car is a big responsibility and learning to drive is a hassle, but while the economy may place a roadblock in our plans, we cannot be ignorant towards a fundamental skill of urban society.

Being able to drive is more than simply having an alternative to walking or taking the bus, being able to drive is being fluent in the rules of the road and having a lifeline for travelling. If you don’t know how to drive you will always be a passenger—always. It doesn’t matter if you are taking a taxi, bus, or if your friends are chauffeuring you around, you are always governed by someone’s driving habits and navigation skills. In a way, you are someone’s luggage.

Having the skills to drive gives you the freedom to travel. If you decide you want to—in a split second—rent a car and visit another city, province, or country, you can. The ability to drive will take you further in life.

You become a more valuable, respectable, and dependable person when you know how to drive. Pedestrians who don’t know the difference between a turn signal lever and a windshield wiper controller have little sympathy toward drivers and behave as though they own the roads. They are blind to what drivers have to deal with on a busy street and seldom give them a benefit of the doubt.

People who have never driven also have weaker navigational skills and direction-giving abilities. Often they will tell the driver to take a turn too late or have no idea where they are because they are not travelling along a bus route. Driving enables people to understand the layout of a city better. Getting lost is not a big deal when you are in a car, unlike if you take the wrong bus.

Not everybody needs a car. In fact, if you have spent time pondering life in rush hour traffic, you would believe that fewer people should actually drive. But that does not change the fact that cars are one of the most valuable technologies of the past century. Traffic is the pulse of a city and we need to help it beat. Knowing how to drive is the ability to see how a city functions. It’s a language we should all understand.

No Tinder for old men (and women)

March 30, 2015March 18, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

Call it a bad tiered-pricing strategy, friendo

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published by The Other Press. March 16, 2015

For Tinder users who are over 30 years old, the premium version of the hook-up app will soon cost double the price for those under 30. It’s a tiered-pricing strategy that movie theatres, airlines, and restaurants have used for decades, but why are people upset about it?

Perhaps we think that Tinder is trying to eliminate the older demographic completely. After all, the majority of Tinder’s user-base is below 30, generally between the ages of 18 and 24. But why would that benefit the company? Would having a dominant younger user-base really help? I don’t think so. I believe Tinder has made a big mistake, and if not for being a subsidiary of InterActiveCorp, which owns Match.com, OkCupid, etc., the app is committing usability suicide.

Tinder’s appeal is the large 30-million-registered-user gallery and the quick-on-boarding capability. Upping the price changes all that. The strategy will not only hurt the older demographic, but it’ll also hinder the younger people too. Sorry if you are paying $9.99 for the service, but I’m really sorry if you are paying $19.99 per month to swipe left and right.

It’s true that paying a premium for the service may help users achieve their goal on the app, doing whatever they are doing, but with so many free social-connection services out there, including Hinge and Coffee Meets Bagel, Tinder appears to be merely poking holes in its monopoly.

Returning to the idea of age discrimination, a company has every right to present this form of pricing. It doesn’t have anything to do with discrimination; it’s more of just how the brand wants to represent itself. Think of all the fashion companies that only sell products to young, good-looking people. But then think of all the fashion dedicated to older folks or people of all ages. Tinder is clearly placing itself on the far side of any Venn diagram drawn. There are hundreds of dating/hookup services out in the market that will accommodate those forlorn users. Tinder is not openly stating it, but it’s clear that it does not want to focus on them.

It’s hard to say that Tinder, so widely successful doing whatever it is it does, has made a grave mistake. They claim to have done the research and all signs point to the strategy being successful. But I believe Tinder did not have to take this route to be successful. We live in a time where age has nothing to do with love, passion, or intimate connections. We live in a time where we claim 30 is the new 20. We live in a progressive time. The fact that one of the pioneering companies leading this progression decided to implement this type of fee to keep certain users on the fringe is a big step backward and a rather surprising discouragement.

The ‘Blurred Lines’ of artistic plagiarism

March 27, 2015March 18, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

We are reaching the end of artistic originality

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. March 16, 2015

There is an old saying by Pablo Picasso that I take to heart every time I work on a creative project: “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” While it might sound like Picasso is supporting the notion of plagiarism, I actually believe he is condoning something different; he is saying that great artists are able to take ownership of their creation, which is inspired by a pre-existing work. But isn’t that what Robin Thicke did with the hit single “Blurred Lines”?

After listening to Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give it Up” from 1977, I am disappointed that the quote I have lived by—that Picasso probably stole from someone he overheard at a bar—had no support in the court of law. It might have seemed like millionaires arguing for a slice of a pie baked from a familiar recipe, but the event that took place will now open the door for many more lawsuits to come.

It’s clear “Got to Give it Up” and “Blurred Lines” share similar beats, but the two songs are not the same. The two songs do not have the same lyrics, the same theme, or the same audience. How many dance clubs are playing Gaye? With each passing generation, artists draw inspiration from works from the past. That is how creativity functions. Creativity does not exist in a vacuum. Artists take pieces from here and there and combine them. Can a cinematographer copyright a camera move? Can a painter copyright the scenery they painted? Can a musician copyright a series of musical notes?

More recently, Sam Smith was on the radar for his song “Stay With Me,” which to many sounding suspiciously similar to a slower version of Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down.” In this case, Smith accepted a settlement and credited Petty as a co-writer. The not-so-petty Petty will now receive a portion of the money for “Stay With Me” and this may be a common trend for the future. Artists will be credited for works which merely influenced, or that coincidence caused the two to clash.

There is more music than there is time to enjoy it. Because of this, notes, rhythm, and melody will be replicated in some form. We call it plagiarism and perhaps it is. But the same way we don’t copy and paste words from Wikipedia, musicians don’t crop and paste music from iTunes. You take the content and you make it your own.

I still believe in the idea that great artists steal, because the artists today will always be standing on the shoulders of giants that preceded them. What’s different now is the system protecting those giants. We as artists need to craft our creative work better so that it doesn’t resemble that from the past. More than ever, we need to make our work our own. If that means adding a banjo, so be it. If that means a sitar, well damn it, play that sitar. If that means more cowbells, well, it’s about time we cure that insatiable thirst for cowbells already. Then we wait for someone else to copy us.

Diversify your reading life

March 26, 2015March 18, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

Attention to apathy

March 24, 2015March 18, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

Why bystander blaming is far from the solution

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published by The Other Press. March 10, 2015

Mind your own business and stand up for what is right. Those two contradicting sentiments have led to many problems over the years as they’ve supplied fuel for revolutions and weakness towards authorities. We blame children for letting their peers get bullied; yet we punish them for confronting their demons. It’s a messy world and while awareness may be a method to clean things up, calling out people for not lending a hand is just poison to ourselves.

When it comes to the bystander effect and how we are moulded by it, I often bring up the example of a car accident. You are in a car and the vehicle ahead of you in the next lane merges, striking another car, and careens to the edge of the road. Do you a) stop and assist or b) continue driving? Most of us would like to think that we would choose the first option. It seems like the most reasonable choice, however, less than half of all people in that position would actually stop and help. With every passing moment the likelihood of help from bystanders decreases, and the more public the incident, the less likely anyone will assist at all.

But what does help really mean? We are not professionally trained; we are not a part of an emergency response unit. Should we make a situation worse, we can ultimately be hit with a lawsuit. There is a clear reason why being a bystander often makes sense. We don’t actually know what is happening or the level of severity.

Physical altercations and bullying are two scenarios people love to blame on bystanders for playing the part of spectators. I don’t know if you have ever jumped into a middle of a fistfight before, but it isn’t as easy as removing a magnet from the fridge. In a moment of intensity, people can be unpredictable. You never know if someone is hiding a weapon or is capable of doing physical harm. Social injustice is worth sticking up for, but two drunken people arguing on Granville is none of your business. Get the hell out of there.

Yes, if I was in a dire situation, I would want someone to save me, but would I ever blame a stranger for not stepping in to protect me? I sure hope not. We are all bystanders in someone else’s life. Everybody has problems and some rise to the surface like sweat. You cannot expect people to wipe it off for you.

When your budget won’t budge

March 22, 2015March 18, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

There is a time to budget for a better life

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. March 10, 2015

There is nothing more sobering than dealing with finance. Now that we have accepted the fact that it sucks, let’s figure out how we can make it better, or at least bearable.

When we are budgeting it’s important to consider the reasons why we are saving money. What are our objectives? Without a clear goal, a budget is only a low fence that we can easily jump over with no dire consequences. Consider what you want to do after the budget is established: pay off debt, save up for a vacation, or buy something expensive.

It’s never preferable working paycheque to paycheque. If you find yourself stuck in this vicious circle it’s time to budget your cash flow. We are all dealing with different circumstances so there isn’t one easy solution, but like all goals, it’s better to work in smaller sprints than longer marathons.

Start by preparing a 90-day plan. Calculate your income and expenses and see what the difference is. If the number is wildly under your expectations it’s time to prioritize your needs. Here is where it hurts: for 90 days, you’ll have to be frugal. Spend only on necessities.

Social life can derail your financial plans pretty quickly, so you need to be careful of that too. Schedule your nights out ahead of time. If something comes up without at least a two-week notice (approximately the same time as your paycheque is issued), respectfully decline the invitation. Being spontaneous can be addictive and often it’ll take you two steps back in your plan. If you want to hang out with people, invite them over to your place. Creating a BYOB event and having friends over is much cheaper than a night at the bar.

Don’t think of a budget as a life-long barrier. That attitude can bury your self-worth and confidence pretty quickly. Instead consider a budget as a way to establish some running room for the future. In order to get a better job or pay off some debts you’ll need some help. Like studying for an exam, the result will not be instantaneous. You’ll really need to commit to it, and 90 days is not that long.

After the first quarter of saving, what do you do after? Go back to your opulent lifestyle? No. It’s time to reevaluate your situation. Three months may lead to a lot of changes or none at all and it never hurts to revisit your goals. Are you still burdened with debt or are you further along in the green? Are you closer to affording your vacation? How many semesters of school do you still have?

Once again, everyone’s life is different. The key is to keep in mind that there is a goal to reach. There is a deadline to meet. There will be obstacles and other people will try to tempt and influence you, but you must stay the course. Budgeting is the price you pay for a better life.

The cost of convenience

March 20, 2015March 18, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

How will we cope with all our wasteful products?

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. March 10, 2015

John Sylvan is the inventor of Keurig K-Cups coffee pods. Like Doctor Frankenstein bringing life to his monster, Sylvan caused unintended havoc with coffee pods.

In an interview with the Atlantic, Sylvan openly admitted that although his creation had earned Keurig Green Mountain billions, he regretted it and does not personally consume it himself. It was a rare confession, but one based around a real-world dilemma. Since the inception of coffee pods into the morning routine, people have found it ever more challenging to be waste-conscious.

Environmentalists have condemned coffee pods from day one, but the product is thriving. In 2013, one in three Americans enjoyed a single-serving cup of coffee at work or at home and over 11.6 million coffee pod machines were sold. If there is a problem, we are not dealing it. But should we?

The premium price we place on convenience is hard to ignore. Coffee can be as cheap and as expensive as you want it to be. Instant coffee only requires a few tablespoons from a canister of Nescafé and a little bit of stirring in hot water. It’s not fancy, but it’ll give you the same jolt as a coffee pod. The price of that is approximately $10 for 50 cups. Not bad. For K-Cups, the cost is about a dollar per cup, which is a third cheaper than Starbucks. The price at the moment is in a grey area: reasonable and worth trying.

So what are we actually doing? Is there any logic to using coffee pods or are we all committed to it now that we’ve purchased the ultra-expensive kitchen appliance? We have become dependent on Keurig and other coffee pod machines. Like a home printer, we’ll buy ink just to keep it relevant. Caught in a wave of trendiness, coffee drinkers are now shackled to the machine. And sooner or later, remorse will seep in.

This is not the first product designed for coffee that people deemed wasteful: disposable cups, coffee sleeves, lids, stir sticks, and the like. It seems like everything associated with coffee is somehow wasteful. Should we stop drinking coffee? No. Caffeine is the fuel for our society and that isn’t going to change. What we need to reconfigure is our reason for convenience.

When do we need something convenient? When we are in a rush. When we are too tired to put in the effort. Those are reasonable excuses to use K-Cups. Sure. But when those two scenarios aren’t a factor, make a cup of coffee the old-fashioned way. If it’s not too much trouble, carry a reusable cup with you into a coffee shop.

There is nothing wrong with using products that are convenient. Technology is built to make our lives easier. And if it’ll make you a cup of coffee and help you catch the bus on time, then the bit of waste is worth it. However, if you are just lollygagging and hanging around waiting for the Keurig machine to brew your drink, shame on you. Make a cup of coffee in a less wasteful way. It might actually taste better too.

So lame it just might work

March 5, 2015February 27, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

How the stupidest technology can catch on

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. Feb. 24, 2015

This is not a criticism of any individual or organization, but rather the designs that come from an embarrassing collective demand. I’m talking about technology such as the selfie stick. You know, the elongated pole that people use to take pictures of themselves. Honestly I don’t mind it, the same way I don’t mind someone wearing a fanny pack, or socks and sandals. We can all do whatever we want; however, I’m surprised that technology has gone from innovative to awkward.

I’m as comfortable implementing hashtags into my social media posts as I am making cold calls on the phone. There is just something about the action that I still can’t buy into. For lack of a better phrase, when I do use hashtags to further my social media reach, I feel like I’m trying too hard. I feel like I’m trying to show off in an audition, I feel like I’m trying to get the pretty girl to look at me, I feel like I’m knotting a bow tie for a business-casual kind of party. I feel lame.

I know I shouldn’t because it is just technology, and hell everyone is doing it. In fact, some might say I’m stupid for not using selfie sticks to take my pictures and hashtagging my photos #SelfieStick on Instagram. Even that sentence caused me to cringe a bit.

For a while, I watched as some “fortunate” individuals walked around town with Google Glass on their face. They did whatever they did, smiling and explaining what they were doing while they were doing it, and it was all fun and merriment. However, one day Google Glass’s popularity plummeted and now I rarely see it around. Perhaps it was because those who were wearing it were deemed “Glassholes” and that led to problematic interactions. Like Bluetooth earpieces, you cannot look cool wearing it while walking down the street because you just don’t need it. You look stupid, arrogant, and lazy.

Technology, tools, and metadata tags are useful in situations where they are actually necessary. In my mind, there needs to be a purpose for something to be “cool.” It’s not cool hashtagging every word in your Twitter post, even if it’s done ironically, because that post will ultimately affect nobody.

However, if you are expressing your opinion, offering insight, or promoting something of value, then hashtags are great because you give someone who is searching #Cupcakes a place for them to find cupcakes, recipes for cupcakes, or your opinion on a brand of cupcakes. If you are driving a car, Bluetooth is wonderful. If you want to get a group picture without excluding someone, selfie sticks are the grand solution. And if you have other friends with Google Glass, it would be awesome to interact through that wearable platform. However, people are using technology for reasons that are beyond me, and that is why so many of us consider them lame.