2021年3月12日 星期五

On Tech: Our pandemic year

The pandemic has showed how much we need technology, and its limits.

Our virtual pandemic year

Brenna Murphy

The pandemic, which officially hit the one-year mark on Thursday, showed how much we need technology — but also that it's probably not the solution to our biggest challenges.

Here are three things that I've learned in the past 12 months: Technology showed its utility by helping people and businesses manage through a crisis. Our increasingly digital lives have also created new problems that will be hard to fix. And the most important things have nothing to do with technology.

Let's talk about each of these.

First, I am grateful that technology helped many millions of us muddle through work, school and family life. It also kept us informed when little seemed to make sense.

I'm glad that my apartment was able to become On Tech's headquarters. I entertained myself with digital books and streaming videos, and I stayed in touch through screens with friends and family. I chose to shop at local businesses based on whether I could place online orders and reserve a time for pick up. Technology has helped many of us retain shreds of normalcy in a pandemic.

One big question, as my colleague Steve Lohr wrote this week, is how much this past year has permanently changed work and consumption patterns. (The most honest answer: Who knows?)

ADVERTISEMENT

People who follow technology and people's habits pretty much all say that the pandemic invented some digital behaviors out of the blue, but that mostly it fast-forwarded digital trends that had already been percolating.

More people learned to order their groceries online, tried and liked restaurant delivery services, connected with pals over video games, became used to meetings over Zoom and had appointments with their doctors by video call. A lot of this was by necessity, but there were helpful aspects to digital life. Stores, fitness studios and many other businesses have been forced to adapt faster to what consumers want.

I hope we can keep the best of these new behaviors and attitudes. I also worry that those benefits came with profound downsides — and that the upsides haven't been shared equally.

It is my everlasting fury that so many Americans, particularly Black and Latino people and those living in rural areas, cannot access the internet from home. And we don't really know exactly the size of the problem.

ADVERTISEMENT

And the technology that promised to bring restaurant owners, product merchants and job seekers more income during challenging times also created new and unwelcome dependencies on the digital middlemen, such as DoorDash, Amazon and Uber. The influence and economic might of the Big Tech superpowers become even more glaring. It will be a failure if the new digital economy — like the old economy — does not work for everyone.

And my lasting memory of the past 12 months is that technology often does not matter very much.

Humans and human-run institutions pulled off last year's presidential election with few problems. Humans also were largely responsible for undermining credibility in the election outcome.

Humans looking out for one another as well as policymakers' choices were the most important factors in keeping people safe — or not — during the pandemic. And the magic of coronavirus vaccines and the protests that demanded a more fair country had little to do with what we think of as technology.

ADVERTISEMENT

It's been a long, awful year and let's hope that the next 12 months will be brighter. And also let us hold in our minds that people, not technology, change the world.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

What's your new tech habit?

We want to hear about a tech habit that you started during the pandemic. Share with On Tech how it's helped you manage the past year or unleash your creativity. What do you like (and hate) about your new virtual behavior? Do you see yourself keeping it?

Please include your full name and where you live (city or town and state or country). We may publish a selection in an upcoming newsletter. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Before we go …

  • Getting to Facebook's core problem: An MIT Technology Review writer wondered why the Facebook team responsible for fairness in computerized decisions wasn't changing the automated rankings of posts that polarized people. Her question led to this nuanced article about the root problem of Facebook seeking to maximize our attention.
  • China can't get enough of Elon Musk: China's technology workers are feeling pessimistic about their industry and disillusioned about the country's technology tycoons. Instead, my colleague Raymond Zhong reported, Musk has become the tech figure of the moment in China.
  • Yes, Netflix knows that 10 friends share the same password: The company hasn't wanted to mess with people sharing passwords, but now it's testing a way to nudge some people to get their own account, The Streamable reported.

Hugs to this

"I told him my name is Tony, to which he replied sarcastically 'like Tony Hawk haha.'"

The most famous skateboarder in history met a kid at a skate park who didn't recognize him. It was wonderful. (This happened in 2019, but the whims of the internet made Hawk's Twitter thread popular again this week.)

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

2021年3月11日 星期四

On Tech: Tech executives aren’t fortune tellers

Plus, geopolitics under the sea.

Tech executives aren't fortune tellers

Rad Mora

People who work in technology are often incredibly smart. But that doesn't necessarily make them accurate forecasters of human and social behavior.

This week, Airbnb's chief executive said that he thought more people would hop between multiple homes when the pandemic ends. Mark Zuckerberg talked about his vision of people using goggles that read their minds. A co-founder of Stripe, the digital finance start-up, spoke about a range of things, including worker productivity metrics and the need for improved medical technology.

These were thought-provoking ideas, and successful tech executives have been right an awful lot.

But I am asking for a little more humility from technologists and a little more skepticism from the rest of us. Being really smart and overseeing products used by millions of people doesn't make tech executives oracles. (That's true even for the tech company named Oracle.)

As tech has become more enmeshed in our lives and the economy — and as tech founders have become red-carpet-worthy celebrities — people want to know what technologists think about … everything: the future of cities, education, health care, jobs and the environment. It makes sense. I want to hear what they think, too.

ADVERTISEMENT

Seeing the activity of millions or billions of people and businesses gives technology companies insights that few others have. We want powerful corporate leaders to be thoughtful about the world. And technologists can turn their beliefs into our reality.

But like all of us, technologists have blind spots and biases. They can misjudge or opine on topics that they don't really understand. And humans are not always good at understanding humans.

The problem, I fear, is that we too often associate running an innovative company with an ability to predict the future. And that can have real consequences if we build policy and our lives around what they say.

One of the most glaring examples was Uber's proclamations that it would help alleviate traffic and pollution in major metropolitan areas and reduce the number of cars in the United States. In 2015, Uber's co-founder Travis Kalanick described the future of his company: "Fewer cars, less congestion, more parking, less pollution and creating thousands of jobs."

ADVERTISEMENT

Perhaps Kalanick and others who backed Uber's vision of a less car-reliant country didn't mean it. Maybe they just wanted to make Uber sound virtuous.

But more likely, the lesson here is that technologists often don't foresee how people will respond to what they create. Zuckerberg now says that he didn't anticipate that Facebook would empower authoritarians and create incentives for the most radical voices.

Some of the same promises that Uber was making a few years ago are now coming from companies working on computer-driven cars, fast trains and other transportation innovations. I'm excited about these ideas, but also mindful what happened to the original hope of the ride services.

ADVERTISEMENT

That track record calls not for cynicism but for healthy doubt and self-criticism. We need more questions asked, both by the technology companies and the rest of us. We could start with: What makes you think that? What if you're wrong? What might you be missing?

It might also help if technologists answered, "I don't know," when someone asks them to weigh in on China's gross domestic product.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Geopolitics under the sea

I wrote in Wednesday's newsletter about the blurry line between countries' desire for technology self reliance and protectionism. Now I want to make the connection to undersea cables. (As regular On Tech readers know, I love boring technology.)

Most of us will never see the cables that run under oceans and seas, but a few hundred of these pipelines move nearly all international internet and telephone traffic around the world.

That makes the people and companies that control the undersea cables the masters of the internet. They wield choke points that could be abused to spy on what's happening online or cut a country off from large swaths of the internet.

With that kind of power, these dull clusters of glass fibers are of great concern to governments.

You can see that in the tussle over a new undersea internet cable called Peace that is snaking from China to Pakistan and then underwater around Africa to France.

This cable is being built by Chinese companies, and U.S. security officials worry that Peace could be used by China's government for sabotage or surveillance. France says the undersea link will help its economy, and it's stuck in the middle between its American allies and China.

The Wall Street Journal also reported on Wednesday that a group led by Facebook dropped its plans to build a new internet cable between California and Hong Kong after months of pressure from U.S. national security officials. Again, the officials' concern is that a physical link to Hong Kong — and China's greater assertion of control over the island — could be a security risk.

The fights over undersea cables raise a messy question about technology in a fractured world: Is there a way to connect people without laying the foundation for security threats? Shared internet infrastructure has been essential to link the world, but it doesn't work if countries doesn't trust one another.

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Before we go …

  • Two new technology stars: The video game beloved by tweens, Roblox, went public on Wednesday, my colleague Kellen Browning reported. (Fun aside: Reese Witherspoon doesn't get Roblox.) My colleague Choe Sang-Hun also detailed how the newly public e-commerce giant Coupang has transformed South Korea's always-connected, delivery-obsessed economy. Its couriers are now called "Coupang Friends."
  • WANT TO FEEL FREAKED OUT? The Wall Street Journal reported on license plate scanners on tow trucks, garbage trucks, telephone poles, police cars, parking garages and more that routinely record billions of records of Americans' travel. The license plate data has helped solve crimes, but there is little oversight over how the information is used.
  • I don't understand any of this: A digital file by the artist Beeple sold for $69.3 million in a Christie's auction. This is one of those "NFTs" that … yeah, just read the article. (Related: Erin Griffith wrote last month about the new mania for digital ephemera.)

Hugs to this

Sidney the harbor seal was orphaned in California and now lives at a Brooklyn aquarium. Sidney loves playing fetch!

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018