Tag: digital culture

  • Some Vital Signs

    Some Vital Signs

    Chicago Public Media could be showing encouraging signs of life.

    It recently announced the release of a new website about Chicago for its residents. This space, which reportedly reflects a passion for this city and confronts its fractured communities, is based upon a central public media belief that some “civic infrastructure” cannot come from, and depend upon, the marketplace.

    This site at the moment is basic. It features slick testimonials about the city, a donation link, and a contact form link for those who want to contribute to its development.

    The most exciting element is the link to its rationale, which explains that CPM hopes to offer “trusted local information, communication knowledge, civic and cultural resources, and new opportunities for participation” from its “trusted organizations” — the Chicago Sun-Times and WBEZ. Like these, this new space will be driven not by profit but by the public media mission, and will consider its members not as “number[s]” but as “neighbor[s]”.

    This proposal suggests an awareness of its challenges. However, the proof obviously will be the ways these principles are converted into practices.

    The world has obviously changed, and these changes seem to be accelerating. CPM exists in a world for example where fewer people read newspapers and listen to the radio, and do these if at all online.

    At the same time, the last few years have been challenging. CPM seemed unprepared for instance to integrate the newspaper and to compensate for the predictable federal funding loss.

    Perhaps more challenging has been the inconsistency between its assertions and its actions in small and big ways. Most if not all of these efforts to confront such inconsistencies have been frustratingly ineffective and resulted in maddeningly inadequate responses if any at all.

    Public media are essential, especially in this disinformation era (McQuade 2024, e.g.). Chicago Public Media must retain the best of its previous purposes, such as providing reliable information and curating news stories, and reconfigure its contributions for a fluid future.

    That could go far in restoring my confidence in, and restoring my reduced financial contributions to, this important Chicago institution.

  • The Neo Danger

    The MacBook Neo by all accounts is amazing.

    This newest Apple laptop, which consists of MacBook Air compromises for a much more affordable price, has been praised for its performance, build quality, and value. The demand for this “perfect compromise” even surprised Apple, and reportedly contributed to a record number of new customers.

    MacBook Neo website screenshot

    The Neo has few competitors among Windows budget laptops at least at the moment although it could motivate Lenovo for example or HP to improve its offerings. It has next to none among Chromebooks, which are little more than surveillance browsers without the Linux virtual machine option, and still nowhere close with it activated.

    For these and other reasons, the Neo laptop will attract individual users, especially those who already have iPhones and AirPods or Apple Watches but before now couldn’t justify a thousand dollars or more for an Apple laptop. It will also likely have an increased appeal to institutions, such as schools and small businesses, as a result of the same reasons, including the network effect.

    With it, Apple is extending its reach into hardware, which has always been its focus, and adding this extension to its software, platforms (FaceTime, e.g., or iMessage), and services (iCloud, e.g., or Apple TV). As a result, Apple is consolidating its control, and slowly but surely becoming the primary portal through which people access digital networks.

    Such a consolidation challenges adversarial interoperability, or the cooperative potential of different devices and platforms even without the consent. This condition, which has long been considered a threat by Apple, is both central to the invention of the internet (Berners-Lee 2025) and possible remedy to its chronic devolution (Doctorow 2025).

    This consolidation also promotes its colonization of psychological, social, and cultural spaces, which should be increasingly evident. More and more people are walking or worse driving for example while messaging, surfing, or talking as a result of Apple devices. Too many if you ask me seem enthralled with immersion, subjectivity, and other cultural immediacy features that have been promulgated by these devices.

    Some might be more or less alarmed about a human future that increasingly exists within digital networks. Regardless, all of us can be concerned with the way that Apple has positioned itself to exert the greatest control and make the most money, which only compounds its control.

    None of us can dismiss this dependency no matter how much Apple promotes user privacy for example or environmental stability or otherwise presents itself positively to the world. We cannot be confident that it will continue to promote these or other prosocial practices, especially if or when sales start to slump.

    The Apple MacBook Neo in other words might be amazing but upon second thought is also alarming because it contributes to the degradation of digital networks and encourages digital dependency.

    Equally alarming is that such second thoughts might not disqualify the MacBook Neo as my replacement laptop when I need a new one or worse before then.

  • An Internet For All

    Tim Berners-Lee’s (2025) recent memoir, which he co-wrote with Stephen Witt, is an invaluable account of the invention of the internet and useful counterbalance to mainstream accounts of it.

    Berners-Lee recounts his experiences from imagining a world-wide web, convincing CERN administrators in 1989 to support his proposal, and its stunning evolution since then into the backbone for contemporary digital life. He also considers other central concerns, such as content moderation, platform monopolies, and artificial intelligence, along the way.

    Central to this account are the central principles in Berners-Lee’s original vision. This vision was, and still is, an open network as a positive tool for human connections that is available to everyone, and not controlled by any single institution or individual.

    I was elated to learn that the internet inventor is still promoting an open and accessible space. He touts for example open-source software and federated platforms, such as LibreOffice and Mastodon, and he is developing personal data pods or wallets, and in so doing promoting data sovereignty.

    I was particularly interested near its end by his distinction between attention and intention economies, or what we’re currently experience and what he envisions for us. In doing so, Berners-Lee rejects both AI-doomers and AI-boomers — he acknowledge challenges and dangers, and criticizes the profit-driven approaches, but embraces the relative advantages — and advocates for in an AI-era reset.

    I found the rhetorical approach to be too episodic at times. One moment is followed by another and then another, and these are compiled and then offered as significant, and too infrequently connected to larger themes.

    I wanted more interpretation, synthesis, and conclusion from such a visionary and hopeful thinker. That though doesn’t mean he isn’t offering a vision of a different digital world, one that is also evoked by recent antitrust lawsuits against Google for example and Apple and successful verdicts against social media companies.

    Surely the one who imagined a networked world must be proud of his creation, and those who continue to develop it.