New (better) naming scheme.

blog/posts/0131-new-media-usage.html

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+<p>Anyone that knows me personally - or maybe I've mentioned this in a
+previous post - knows that I'm generally a technology skeptic. I'm
+highly skeptical of new technologies, and I'm very conscious about the
+negative effects they seem to have on our lives. This is so to the
+extent that I do not use a smart-phone and I refuse to make use of
+social-media platforms such as Facebook or Twitter. In the case of
+Facebook specifically, I used to have one, and when I got rid of it
+(initially for privacy reasons) I had discovered how much of an absolute
+time suck it was for me. But this even goes into other means of
+communication, like how I often prefer e-mail over other means of
+instant communication, or this very website which is absolutely spartan
+in its design and maintenance.</p>
+
+<p>Perhaps my largest critique of modern media specifically has been
+superficiality. If one takes a look at the kind of content that is
+absolutely abundant on most of these media platforms, it is mostly
+superficial nonsense. Very flashy, very trendy, very catchy nonsense. It
+may even be nonsense related to a cause I sympathize with, but being
+reduced to nothing but pure image, pure superficiality, I cannot help
+but feel repulsed by the lack of real content. However, recently I've
+begun to rethink my view on these platforms (although not necessarily
+the content to which I have previously referred).</p>
+
+<p>I've been listening to a few episodes of Bishop Robert Barron's Word
+on Fire ministry<sup><a href="#r1" >[1]</a></sup>, and something that he
+he insists upon very much is the use of new means of communication (or
+media) to connect with more people (especially youth). He mentions
+especially his use of some platforms like Reddit, Facebook, and YouTube,
+where he has done a lot of work of online evangelization, not by posting
+content that superficially appeal to the viewer's senses (i.e.
+sensationalism), but rather by posting content that truly contains
+profound meaning, forcing the viewer to actually think and not simply
+react. And by thinking, meditating, and reflecting upon that content,
+the viewer can truly internalize what is being said in a meaningful way
+instead of a catchy post that will soon be forgotten, as they simply
+move on with their lives.</p>
+
+<p>Before getting into the main point of this article, I did want to
+stop here to point out that this is actually what evangelization should
+be about. If someone is exposed to the Good News as if it were just
+another post in their feed, then we're not doing our work of
+evangelizing correctly. The Good News needs to be something that sticks,
+that profoundly impacts people's lives. If it's not doing this, we're
+doing something wrong. And this is a high bar to meet indeed, but one we
+have to work towards nonetheless.</p>
+
+<p>Now, getting into the actual point of this post which is more general
+and does not only apply to evangelization. What this got me thinking is
+something that, although I had always somewhat acknowledged this, I
+hadn't truly internalized it: a technology is good or bad depending on
+how it is used. Although technology most certainly does impact the way
+we do things, and there are some which most definitely make meaningful
+use difficult or near impossible, when it comes to new media we can find
+ways of using these in a meaningful and good manner. The fact of the
+matter is, even traditional media such as film or literature can be
+meaningful or trivial depending on the use which is made of it. We've
+seen how in television there are really good and thoughtful TV shows,
+but there are also trivial shows that do nothing to stimulate us
+intellectually relying simply on cheap entertainment.</p>
+
+<p>So what about modern media? It's truly the same thing. It can be used
+adequately, but we need to know how, and we need to learn to sift the
+content we consume on these platforms, just as we do with traditional
+media, and always making sure that it's using the platform in a manner
+which is compatible with its <i>modus operandi</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Perhaps the easiest mistake to fall into is that meaningful media is
+simply media we agree with, that tells us what we want to hear. But this
+isn't it at all. Many times this leads us to simply finding absolutely
+trivial media that stimulate our senses, and therefore cause a very
+superficial gratification. Meaningful media shouldn't be necessarily
+that which we agree with or stimulates our senses, but rather that which
+causes us to think, that which stimulates our mind.</p>
+
+<p>It's also worth noting that not every platform will be useful for
+publishing content of the same kind of caliber or kind, but may be
+useful as an auxiliary. As an example, last I knew the media platform
+Twitter allows only 140 character (or maybe now it's up to 250, I
+haven't checked). It's truly difficult, if not impossible, to publish
+anything meaningful in simply 140 characters, and as a consequence I've
+seen examples of people chaining multiple Twitter posts/replies together
+in order to form longer messages. This simply is a bad use of the
+platform. It's not what it was made for. Much less for having long
+drawn-out discussions. Instead, Twitter is the ideal platform for people
+to subscribe to quick updates on things like events, or to post links to
+posts on another platform (where the discussion can truly take place).
+That is, making Twitter not a place where one finds the content itself,
+but a reference to the actual meaningful content.</p>
+
+<p>Obviously, I'm not going to say how each platform should be used,
+primarily because I don't have an account on any social media platform.
+I'm content with my website and e-mail as my public means of
+communication. However, I believe that this provides a general guideline
+for how to navigate social media and sift out the trivial, picking only
+that which is meaningful.</p>
+
+<ol class="refs" >
+	<li id="r1" ><a href="https://www.wordonfire.org/" >Word on Fire</a></li>
+</ol>