2021年6月22日 星期二

On Tech: The big impact of small changes

Only some of us are riding Peloton bikes and ordering food via app. But this can still disrupt everything.

The big impact of small changes

Irene Suosalo

I'm going to try to shock you with some numbers. They show that we might have a warped view of the popularity of some habits, but also that even small changes in our collective behavior can have huge ripple effects.

Some statistics:

Americans spend about two-thirds of their TV time watching conventional television and just 6 percent streaming Netflix.

Online shopping accounts for less than 14 percent of all the stuff that Americans buy.

Remote work is a hot topic these days, but only about one in six U.S. employees are working that way.

About 6 percent of Americans order from the most popular restaurant delivery company in the United States.

Maybe you're not surprised by those figures. I was. They're a sign that we sometimes believe that behavioral changes from new technologies are far more commonplace than they really are. Why? I'll offer two possible explanations.

The first one is that people (and journalists) tend to pay more attention to what's new and novel. That might be particularly true if the behavioral changes are happening to relatively affluent people. The vast majority of American workers kept doing their jobs in person even in the depths of the pandemic, but about half of professional workers at one point did their jobs away from an office because of the coronavirus.

ADVERTISEMENT

And Peloton, the maker of $2,500 exercise bicycles for streaming fitness classes, has about 2.1 million customers paying to use its exercise bicycles or treadmills. For comparison, about 3.5 million households in the United States had birds as pets during a recent year, according to a veterinary trade group. Peloton might be less popular than parakeets, but it gets far more attention.

This doesn't mean that Peloton doesn't matter, that remote work isn't worth paying attention to, or that Netflix isn't a big deal. Today's novelties can become tomorrow's commonplace.

That brings me to the second explanation, that relatively small but rapid changes in individual acts, repeated millions or billions of times, can disrupt everything around us.

I've written before about how many of our habits and the functioning of pretty much all businesses and cities have been profoundly altered by Amazon and online shopping, which is still a fraction of what we buy. Ditto for Uber and Lyft. The companies account for a small amount of miles driven in the United States, but their vehicles are a significant contributor to traffic and their treatment of couriers has helped prompt a reconsideration of what a job means in the United States and Europe.

ADVERTISEMENT

In an article about New York's economic recovery from the pandemic, my colleagues dropped the mind-blowing stat that if just one in 10 Manhattan office workers stopped coming in most of the time that would translate to "more than 100,000 people a day not picking up a coffee and bagel on their way to work or a drink afterward."

You can imagine that might hurt sales for a bar in Times Square — and maybe help one in the suburbs if people swapped an after-office drink with an after-Zoom one. Just a little more remote work could also profoundly change roads and transit systems that have been designed around peak office worker commute times.

The digital butterfly effect of a zillion little changes can be unpredictable and uneven. People, companies and policymakers will have to figure out how to deal with the big differences that can come from little changes.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

TIP OF THE WEEK

Do (and don't) buy these used electronics

Buying used products is often gentler on our wallets and the planet. Brian X. Chen, the consumer technology columnist for The New York Times, recommends which electronics parts and accessories are a savvy secondhand purchase — and which ones might not be worth it.

Memory for computers: Buy. Also known as random access memory, or RAM, these sticks to improve a computer's speed will last indefinitely, as long as the previous owner didn't scuff them up with a screwdriver. It's a good idea to inspect any product photos closely.

Batteries: Avoid. In general, I recommend against buying a used battery for any gadget. Batteries are intended for limited use, so it's better to purchase them new.

Screens: Avoid sometimes. The screens on electronics wear out and look less bright over time. They're also susceptible to disfigurements like "burn in" and dead spots. You can occasionally find a good deal on a used TV with a screen that's not too old and has good picture quality, but it's wise to consider those purchases only from someone you know and trust.

Add-on accessories: Buy most of the time. Peripherals like computer mice and keyboards are pretty reliable. It's still ideal to test them in person to make sure all the buttons and keys work properly. Take a pass on any accessories powered by rechargeable batteries that are not replaceable. And earbuds are a hard pass. Do you really want to wear someone else's used earbuds?

Charging cables: Buy. As long as the cable isn't frayed and the connector looks to be in good condition, it's fine to buy a previously owned charging cable. Try not to spend more than a few bucks apiece since brand-new charging cables tend to be inexpensive.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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 …

Hugs to this

Here are fuzzy king penguin chicks surrounding, pecking and chasing off a cat. (You want the sound on for the full sensory experience.) Thanks to my colleague Erin McCann for tweeting this one.

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. You can also read past On Tech columns.

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

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

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

2021年6月21日 星期一

On Tech: The inequality of the GoFundMe economy

Online charity drives help some in need, but don't expect them to fill the gaps in the social safety net.

The inequality of the GoFundMe economy

Timo Lenzen

Turning to the internet for financial help didn't work very well in a pandemic.

That was among the discouraging conclusions of a new academic research paper that examined efforts on the fund-raising website GoFundMe to collect money for health care bills, groceries, funeral costs and other needs that resulted from the coronavirus crisis.

Out of nearly 165,000 pandemic-related campaigns in the United States from March to August last year, more than four in 10 received no donations at all, the researchers found. The typical charity drive collected just $65. And the most successful GoFundMe campaigns for coronavirus assistance seemed to be for people in wealthier communities who most likely needed the least help.

Overall, charitable giving in the United States increased during the pandemic, and GoFundMe campaigns raised more than $416 million for pandemic assistance, the researchers found. Still, it was stark to see the gap between the prevalence of GoFundMe requests for help and the numbers of people who didn't get very much.

The research found that in a country with high wealth inequality, digital fund-raising tools reflect and, in some cases, may worsen the real-world gulf between winners and losers. In short, online charity drives don't equitably or consistently fill the gaps in the social safety net.

ADVERTISEMENT

"There is a long history in social crises for people who need the help the most being last in line to get it," said Nora Kenworthy, one of the paper's authors and an associate professor at the University of Washington Bothell School of Nursing and Health Studies. "I'm troubled that this seems to be the pattern here and contributing to further inequities."

Kenworthy and Mark Igra, another co-author of the paper and a University of Washington graduate student in sociology, talked me through some explanations for why many online donation campaigns failed to raise much, if any, money.

The people who needed the most help last year might have had family, friends and neighbors who were in similar circumstances and weren't able to donate much. Some people who set up fund-raisers likely didn't have sprawling social connections that make a big difference in spreading donation requests on Facebook. (GoFundMe last year released its own analysis of pandemic-related fund-raisers. Using different data, it found that coronavirus assistance campaigns raised about $625 million from March through August 2020.)

But Igra and Kenworthy also said there were deeper issues about both technology and America.

They said that they worried that the prevalence of mass online charity drives might divert attention and funding from traditional charities, or reduce people's interest in addressing the root causes behind why so many people needed to turn to online donations. GoFundMe's chief executive has also said that the company shouldn't be a substitute for effective social services.

ADVERTISEMENT

I asked Igra and Kenworthy what we and companies like GoFundMe should do to make sure that people in need are more likely to receive donations. And if we should think twice before we donate to GoFundMe campaigns.

They said that GoFundMe and websites like Facebook could be more transparent about what campaigns get the most attention online and why. They also said that we all needed to consider the wisdom of a for-profit company like GoFundMe playing a larger role in charitable giving. Some prior research and reporting also suggested that GoFundMe campaigns in wealthier parts of the United States tended to be more successful.

The researchers also made a fair point about spreading the help we can give. Kenworthy suggested, for example, that if you're donating to a crowdfunding campaign for a financially stable friend who is being treated for cancer, you could also give to an organization that assists lower-income cancer patients.

Most of all, Igra and Kenworthy don't want mass charity websites to blind us from the big picture: It's a problem that so many Americans have to resort to internet donations to meet basic needs like food, housing and medical attention.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Don't stop giving to individuals when there are systemic problems but make an effort to think a little more broadly about trying to address the broader issue, not just the individual one," Igra said.

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

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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 …

  • A stunning amount of waste: The British television network ITV News found that one Amazon warehouse was destroying millions of unsold or returned products each year, including sometimes new and unopened merchandise like TVs, books and face masks. ITV wrote that it's sometimes cheaper to throw inventory away than to continue storing it.
  • Where both homework and video games are intense: South Korea is a global hub for competitive video game playing known as e-sports. My colleague Choe Sang-Hun talked to students at one of South Korea's e-sports academies, where young people attend school and practice hours a day for a shot at careers in gaming.
  • Kudos to the dumb little robot: For one Gizmodo writer, her robotic vacuum cleaner handled a chore that the pandemic fog made difficult and made bigger tasks seem bearable, too.

Hugs to this

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. You can also read past On Tech columns.

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

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

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