Themes from SXSW #3: Restraint

You read that right…restraint. A shocking word to the tech-savvy, bleeding edge SXSW Interactive crowd. At its heart, the question of restraint is: Just because we can do something, should we do it? In other words, should we show restraint as we continue to innovate in ways that may result in economic and social disruption? These are not usually questions that occupy the minds of the SXSW crowd, but they were asked often and in different ways throughout this year’s festivities.

Technological Restraint

Author Douglas Rushkoff described the phenomenon of “present shock” (or presentism) during his engaging SXSW session. Present shock occurs when people formed within an industrial-era culture try to adapt to an emerging culture shaped by digital technology. Industrial culture is tied to a linear structure (tied to its relationship to time) while digital culture frames a reality where everything happens NOW. With our 24/7 news cycle (CNN) instead of newspapers and segmented newscasts, Netflix instead of network/cable television, Spotify instead of radio programming, Social media instead of telephone calls, and email instead of delivered letters, we are always “on” and anticipate that everything will happen now. This leads to a pervasive attitude of impatience, digiphrenia (a loss of a sense of self because “I” am digitally fragmented across different digital domains), the loss of the feeling that we are part of a larger human story, and an eager acceptance of alternate forms of reality (like alien cultures or the zombie apocalypse) that are easier to comprehend than the onslaught of data in the digital present. Rushkoff is not confident that people can survive presentism because of our real, human limitations. Even in a digital future, there are certain real boundaries that make us human and not information. Rushkoff called for a culture of technological restraint where we create technologies that enhance our real, authentic, human lives and reject attempts by technologies to “digitize” our existence.

Design Restraint

This caution resonated through two sessions at SXSW 2013. “Let Conscience Be Your Guide: Moral Design” offered several principles for user experience design that demonstrate restraint. The key is to design experiences for people that enhance their humanity and not dishonor them by violating their physical and psychology limits. R. J. Owen suggests that good UX design should be minimal, respect human limitations, encourage simplicity, be honest, reflect good craftsmanship, create value for people and be organic. Rather than asking what is technically possible in UX, these moral design principles aim to create interfaces with technologies that uphold and extend our humanity. These principles seemed to be at work in the Google Glass presentation session. This first public demonstration of Glass underwhelmed the SXSW crowd because of the very limited functionality of the device itself and the structural assumptions within its API. Google Glass in its first iteration allows for voice activated search, geolocation, mapping, email, capturing video and still images. Each of these functions were chosen, per the Google Glass Product Advocate, because they enhance our lives and do not get in our way. While the tech futurists in the room imagined a device that would do facial recognition and identification along with VR geolocation recognition out of the box, they were faced with a device that was simpler and did far less – by design. In addition, the API that will allow other apps/brands on to the device is extremely restrictive both in its lack of immediate interaction with Glass and in what is possible in Glass’ software architecture. The key point is that these limits are all intentional – an act of design restraint.

Legal Restraint

Another call for restraint came from a panel of lawyers presenting at SXSW on copyright legislation..oh, and the Cheezburger.com guy was there as well. The fallout over online music and film piracy has resulted in a situation where the U.S. Federal Government serves as both police and prosecutor for media companies. Instead of using civil measures that already exist to manage claims against those who breach copyright and other statutes governing media, corporations appealed to the U.S. Government for a “bailout.” As a result, these criminal cases are bankrolled by U.S. taxpayers. Attorney Andrew Bridges called for restraint in these situations through the reinstatement of the rule of law. The criminal nature of these civil offenses is stifling innovation through scare tactics that paralyze startups afraid of violating copyright statutes and having no restitution – restitution once found through civil and not criminal litigation. A balance must be struck here so that corporations and the society at large negotiate a rule of law that honors artistry while at the same time invites innovation. From the perspective of Christian social ethics, this balanced approach where all at the table both give and receive honor to one another seems a move in the right direction. The value of this position is that it calls for restraint on both sides and will help create better solutions to allowing broader access to media in a way that is responsible to artists.

Retrospective Restraint

In his closing address, Bruce Sterling offered the most profound call for restraint during SXSW Interactive. In response to the culture of disruption created by the massive technological shifts, Sterling called us all to own up to the realities that lay in the wake of all of the economic disruption of the past decade or more. While many have made fortunes disrupting industries, others have lost more than just jobs and money but a sense of place in the world and a sense that they were contributing to the greater good. Owning up to the dark side of disruption, as Sterling puts it, calls us to take ownership of this past, make it a part of ourselves and – only then – move forward. The ethical implication is that we cannot be the same going forward as we were before. Some sort of restraint is inevitable.

In light of these calls for restraint, could it be that the open, futurist, technocratic party is over? Legal restraints are being applied more stringently, consumers are pushing back against a constant cycle of disruption, moral theorists are openly suggesting that we are undoing humanity with the current pace and nature of digital technologies, the fiscal situation is somewhat dire in consumer economies as markets continue to be stagnant and people are seeking safe harbors. Does this mean the tech revolutions are either over or will simply move at a more gradual, adaptable pace? Only the future will tell, but the theme of restraint resounded loudly throughout SXSW 2013 and may inform the shape of technology and the social web in the year to come.