internet

Race to the bottom

It may not be a total coincidence that one of the most recent conflicts over book banning is taking place in McMinn County, Tenn., less than an hour from the town of Dayton, in the same state, which was the site of the renowned Scopes “Monkey” Trial, 97 years ago.

The fight over whether Art Spiegelman’s graphic memoir about the Holocaust, Maus, is suitable reading for high schoolers echoes the earlier debate over whether teaching the theory of evolution was appropriate fare for students in a place and time where the biblical creation story was the only accepted narrative.

The debate over the banning of books and ideas is a hot topic these days, though hardly a new one.

Fortunately, we live in an age when banning ideas is nearly impossible in a free, or even partly free, society. Only in totalitarian and authoritarian regimes are governments able to block information. Around the world, in many countries, gaining access to forbidden ideas is relatively easy. In North America, the New York Public Library, among others, has made it easier for people anywhere to access specifically banned or challenged materials. People who want to seek out publications that authority figures try to limit are generally able to do so.

A phenomenon less easily addressed is the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation. This proliferation is the flip side of the ability to access banned ideas. In a world where anyone with a computer can access information, anyone with a computer can just as easily invent information and then circulate it widely.

Misinformation and disinformation have always existed. But almost certainly never have they so dramatically defined civil discourse. The difference between these two terms is important. One source calls misinformation “false information that is spread, regardless of intent to mislead.” Disinformation, from the same source, is deemed “deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda.” Both are problematic, but intent matters. Misinformation can sometimes be righted through correctives. Disinformation is often formulated in ways that actively deter correction.

For example, the greatest threat to American democracy right now is a narrative that has been formulated in such a perverse, Orwellian manner that the perpetrators of the lie that the 2020 U.S. presidential election was illegitimately “stolen” are the very people who are trying to steal a legitimate election. Those who perpetuate a lie accuse opponents of lying.

The first issue of The Atlantic magazine this year was almost entirely devoted to this subject and the thesis, if we may summarize crudely, is that, unless some dramatic corrective is applied, American democracy has less than two years to survive.

The internet, which is the keystone of our 21st-century ability to read and write virtually anything, has also emerged at a time of massive diffusion of so-called “mainstream media.” The grandchildren of those who grew up with three TV channels can now access thousands. We self-select our information and entertainment, with the impact that we have more, but smaller, frames of reference. One of the results of this is that we have largely been able to choose our own “truths.”

There are no simple solutions to these problems. But, if there is an antidote to ignorance, misinformation and disinformation, it is a recommitment to liberal values of free expression and unbridled academic inquiry. Applied to younger generations, this means inculcating in them an ability to assess and analyze context, information and sources. This sounds like a simple remedy but, of course, learning to think critically is a lifelong pursuit and cannot be taught in a single semester.

Yet, this is the primary way forward. As a society, we need to acknowledge that critical thinking is the foundation upon which democracy and civil society rests. We have abandoned balanced discussion and nuanced consideration of topics in favour of memes and slogans that suit our purposes.

We face a tough crawl out of the hole we find ourselves in – that is, assuming we have stopped digging – but confronting and contending with challenging ideas is the ideal we must strive for. Every banned book is another shovelful of dirt in our democracy’s race to the bottom.

Positive Jewish leaders online

It’s hard not to doom scroll lately, but I’ve been heartened by watching Jewish leaders take centre stage via social media. These are bright spots in a difficult time. Here are a few to Google and follow. I’ve learned a lot online this way. Perhaps you might, too.

In the world of social media and Talmud study (yes, that’s a thing!), the short social media videos of Miriam Anzovin have gotten a lot of attention. She offers TikTok, YouTube and Instagram posts and links via Twitter. These are on the Daf Yomi, the 7.5-year cycle where one studies a page of Talmud a day. Anzovin’s amazing effort offers a brief summary and analysis of some of the big rabbinic issues. It’s also a breath of fresh air in a field historically dominated by men. Anzovin is a writer and visual artist. She describes her videos as “Daf Yomi reaction videos.” These takes often include slang, curse words, and perhaps difficult interpretations for the usual Jewish text study audience.

Some Orthodox men have voiced criticism to this approach to Talmud study. I would argue that this is a defensive, unhelpful reaction. More Talmud study is good. Talmud study of any kind, is, quite simply – more. It brings more attention to Jewish text and ideas, which is a good thing both for Judaism and for intellectual analysis. Sometimes, the reaction stems from being forced to admit that there are other perspectives and ways of reading religious text. Anzovin centres women’s voices, issues and opinions, critical thinking, liberal and modern views of very old texts. Social media offers her a perfect platform and her work has taken off. It’s long past due. I’m thrilled to see her show up in my feed.

Rabbi Sandra Lawson has been one to follow for awhile. She’s a leader – an activist, a musician and a teacher. Her social media presence allows me to learn a lot. I’ve learned Torah, said Kaddish, and more. Through her anecdotes, she’s encouraged hard examination of ways in which racism is a problem in Jewish life. She’s taken on a lot of firsts in both her former role as the associate chaplain for Jewish life at Elon University and is now the first director of racial diversity, equity and inclusion at Reconstructing Judaism. She was the first African American and first openly gay African American accepted by the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College. Her open, strong online presence embodies many things Judaism needs to see: her identity as a veteran, vegan, personal trainer, musician and wise educator pushes the boundaries of what some people think Jews or rabbis look like. For younger Jews on the web, seeing her laughing with her wife Susan, featuring her little dogs as she makes music – these are models of joyful, modern Jewish life that we need now more than ever.

What does informal Jewish education look like on Instagram? Well, many people source Jewish news specifically from A Wider Frame (@awiderframe).

Debbie, the jewelry designer behind @rootsmetals, posts deep dives into very specific historic, geographic and cultural Jewish topics. It comes complete with bibliographies. Prepare for her snarky responses to trolls (ever present online) who try to threaten her well-being.

Ashager Araro, @blackjewishmagic, is a liberal, feminist, Black Israeli. She does incredible work as an educator in person in Israel. She’s also on Instagram and Twitter, and travels to speak at Hillels and Jewish student centres in the United States. Her focus on Ethiopian Israeli history and modern Jewish life is illuminating, particularly for those who view race only through a parochial North American lens.

Some social media education targets a specific group. For example, Shoshanna Keats-Jaskoll speaks out for others who aren’t able to in the Orthodox world. She tackles the issue of agunot. Agunot are women who cannot obtain a Jewish divorce from their husbands and are unable to remarry according to Jewish law. Keats-Jaskoll also works to provide modest images of women through an internationally sourced photo bank. This works to combat the erasure of women’s faces and bodies and imagery in Orthodox photos, publications and Israeli billboards. Chochmat-Nashim (Women’s Wisdom), her organization, advocates for Orthodox women, including both modern Orthodox and Haredi groups in Israel and the diaspora.

This is just a taste of what’s out there. It’s a start to diversifying your feed. You may have noticed that I started by writing about leaders I admire and, guess what? They’re all women. It’s not that I don’t admire some male leaders. There are plenty of them and some of them are fine human beings – but too many “leader lists” leave women out entirely. March 8 is International Women’s Day. It’s one thing to say we advocate for equality, and to celebrate women’s achievements on a specific day. It’s another to raise up, embrace and educate on a daily basis.

Our tradition offers us moments to celebrate women’s roles, such as the recitation of Woman of Valour (Eishet Chayil) in some homes on Shabbat. However, that’s not a standard practice in every household. Plus, it’s only one moment of one day of a week, when Jewish women are contributing 24/7.

Many of our paid leaders, rabbis and cantors, and even volunteers, such as synagogue board members, are men. It’s been “traditional” to embrace a male leadership model in some communities. However, in an era when more of our lives are both online and more egalitarian, it’s OK to stop the doom scrolling and open up one’s mind – and feed – to some new leaders. In this case, they also just happen to identify as Jewish women.

Joanne Seiff has written regularly for CBC Manitoba and various Jewish publications. She is the author of three books, including From the Outside In: Jewish Post Columns 2015-2016, a collection of essays available for digital download or as a paperback from Amazon. Check her out on Instagram @yrnspinner or at joanneseiff.blogspot.com.

Rights in the digital age

Taylor Owen, one of Canada’s leading experts on digital media ethics, is the featured speaker at this year’s Simces & Rabkin Family Dialogue on Human Rights event Nov. 9. (photo from cigionline.org)

On Nov. 9, the Simces & Rabkin Family Dialogue on Human Rights, in partnership with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, hosts the online program Is Facebook a Threat to Democracy? A Conversation About Rights in the Digital Age.

Platforms like Facebook, which collect and share huge amounts of information, are being accused of putting profit above democracy and the public good. Can government regulation protect us and our children from online harm and misinformation – or is “Big Tech” ungovernable? How can Canadians balance freedom of expression and protection from harm on social media?

These questions and many others will be discussed by Taylor Owen in conversation with Jessica Johnson.

Owen is the Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communications, the founding director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, and an associate professor in the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University. He is the host of the Centre for International Governance Innovation’s Big Tech podcast, and is also a senior fellow of CIGI. His work focuses on the intersection of media, technology and public policy.

Johnson is editor-in-chief at The Walrus magazine. A former editor at the Globe & Mail and National Post newspapers, she is an award-winning journalist who has contributed essays, features and criticism to a wide range of North American publications. She was the co-creator, with Maclean’s journalist Anne Kingston, of #MeToo and the Media, an inaugural course in the University of Toronto’s Book and Media Studies program.

The Simces & Rabkin Family Dialogue on Human Rights will be on Zoom on Nov. 9 from noon to 1:30 p.m. PST. It will include an audience Q&A session opportunity. Register to attend the event via humanrights.ca/is-facebook-a-threat-to-democracy. Once registered, you will receive a confirmation email and, later, a reminder for the event.

– Courtesy Simces & Rabkin Family Dialogue on Human Rights

Taming online world

Two bills recently introduced by the federal government are aimed at reducing online hate and putting some controls on the anarchic world of online commentary. Some, like Jewish community organizations, have been calling for stronger rules to deal with rampant online vitriol. Others, like civil liberties groups, balk at any incursions into unfettered expression. It might not matter anyway.

Bill C-36 is intended to crack down on online hate, something Jewish community advocates and many others have been supporting since a similar section of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed in 2013 over concerns around free expression. Groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have expressed apprehensions over the new bill, as they had over the repealed section.

The bill would make it an offence to make statements on the internet that are “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” It would target commentary that is “motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.”

The bill defines hate as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain,” and is not merely language that “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”

A different piece of legislation, Bill C-10, is also aimed at online content. In this case, the government would require platforms, such as social media and video streaming sites, to enforce guidelines that extend Canadian content rules, which have long governed radio and TV, to the internet. Again, critics say this is an infringement on the freedom of expression.

Both bills attempt to walk a line between free speech and the government’s attempts to encourage particular outcomes. They are likely to please some and they are likely to offend many. Both are probably founded on the best intentions, but, as critics have pointed out, Canada already has hate-speech laws that apply online and off.

Given the chaotic efforts of social media companies themselves to enforce guidelines for conduct and to curtail hate speech, it is difficult to imagine how legislation would provide a clearer guide to online etiquette. More worrying is the possible chaos that human rights tribunals and courts might have thrust upon them if Canadians begin reporting thousands or millions of problematic online statements.

We should be wary of heavy-handedness not only because the proposed laws hand a lot of arbitrary decision-making power to government or judicial overseers, but also because it is unwise to bury hateful ideas. The best way to confront hate and extremism is to shine a light on it, not to force it onto emerging platforms created specifically to give shelter to the most extreme people and ideas.

However, this all might be moot because Parliament has recessed for the summer. If, as many speculate, a federal election is called before Parliament resumes, these pieces of legislation would die. If the Liberals were to be reelected, they could reintroduce the bills. Conservatives have charged that the two proposed laws are “virtue signaling,” as much about campaign fodder as substantive change. The NDP and Bloc voted in favour of Bill C-10, with the NDP asserting that the “modernization of the law is necessary for [the] cultural ecosystem.”

Whatever the fate of these two bills, the fight against hate (online and off) will continue. We have long contended that the most powerful response to hateful words is more words – words that heal and educate. The online world is a jungle of facts and fictions, wonder and woe, insights and insanity. It is, perhaps, like the larger world, only condensed onto a small screen that amplifies the most fringe and sensational voices. Criminalizing those voices may or may not bring the result most of us seek, which is a kinder world. That said, contesting the worst of the online world is a Sisyphean task that we cannot abandon.

The medium is the message, said Marshall McLuhan, who died long before ordinary people heard the word “internet.” The anonymity and unruliness of the internet has no doubt helped to create a toxicity in our culture. But, while we should take seriously dangerous ideas online, we should remember that these are symptoms of strains in society and not solely products of the technology. Addressing online hate demands returning to first things and addressing all forms of hatred and division in our society. Fixing the online dialogue demands changing minds – and that has been the challenge since long before the advent of the internet.

Evaluating info online

Dr. Noah Alexander was the keynote speaker at the Jewish Seniors Alliance Spring Forum on March 21. (photo from medicalmentorcommunity.com)

Can I Trust That? Evaluating Health Information Online was the topic of the Jewish Seniors Alliance Spring Forum, held virtually on Sunday, March 21.

Gyda Chud, co-president of JSA, welcomed about 100 people to the afternoon event. She reminded attendees of the four foundational elements of JSA: outreach, education, advocacy and peer support. She then turned the mic over to Tamara Frankel, a member of the program committee, to introduce the guest speaker, Dr. Noah Alexander.

Alexander is a practising emergency physician at Vancouver General Hospital. Although he usually works on the front line, he also works to empower patients. He does this through his role as the associate director of digital health literacy at the InterCultural Online Health Network. This organization helps members of many different communities understand and manage their chronic health conditions.

Alexander began his talk by stating that his goal was to provide a systemic approach to health education. He highlighted many elements, beginning with the question, How do you know who to trust in this information age?

When using a search engine (he likes to use Google Chrome), use key words or short sentences to find information. When looking at the search results, consider whose website it is, their credibility and the value of the content. Credibility and content are key to the whole process. For example, who wrote the article or blog, and are they known and respected? How old is the entry? Is it relevant to the question you’re asking? Is it peer-reviewed or is the writer or organization accredited? Check the site’s URL: for example, .com entities are usually commercial and profit-based, whereas URLs ending in .org, .gov and .edu are not-for-profit.

Check both the credentials of the authors and whether they are being paid and, if so, by whom. If the entry has advertisements, there is likely to be a bias involved, Alexander warned. He said people should not trust a Wikipedia entry for important information, as anyone can add their own comments to the post. Rather, use a credible health website such as the BC Centre for Disease Control, HealthLink BC, Vancouver Coastal Health, or any other government agency.

If an article’s page contains links to other websites, there could be a conflict in that they may be selling merchandise. Red flags should be raised when cures are being offered and sold online, said Alexander. Do not trust simple, non-medically proven solutions, or advice contained in group chats. Make sure that there is a privacy policy.

Alexander then presented an interactive quiz based on his presentation, after which Chud thanked him for clarifying the elements involved in seeking accurate health information online. She also summarized the questions attendees posted in the chat and Alexander answered a number of them.

The answer to the question posed about health information online – “Can I Trust That?” – is yes … if you follow Alexander’s suggestions.

Shanie Levin is program coordinator for Jewish Seniors Alliance and on the editorial board of Senior Line magazine.

Trump’s golden idol status

When Moses went up Mount Sinai, the Israelites grew restless and constructed a golden calf to worship. Every Jew and everyone with any theological literacy knows what happened next. So it came to pass that, last weekend at the annual convention known as the Conservative Political Action Conference in the United States, a giant golden statue of Donald Trump was wheeled around, drawing adulation and selfies. With an apparent absence of irony, the defeated president was transformed into a literal golden idol.

CPAC has been an annual shindig for Christian and other religious conservatives, libertarians, right-leaning economic thinkers and a big tent of the country’s centre-right. As evidenced by last weekend’s iteration, it is now, like so much of that country’s political establishment, in thrall to Donald J. Trump.

This is the latest in an avalanche of evidence that, despite losing the election, Trump maintains a stranglehold on the Republican party and much of the country. The literal idolatry he inspires deserves fresh consideration. It is the inevitable end-point (we hope) of a trend that was predictable.

It is easy – and not wrong – to view the perpetrators of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol as domestic terrorists who threatened the very foundation of American democracy. But these people view themselves – or, at least, some do, based on interviews after the incident – as saviours of democracy. They (or, at least, many of them) genuinely believe that the election of Joe Biden was a result of a rigged process; that millions of votes were stolen or some other jiggery-pokery ensured that the true voice of the people was thwarted.

They believe this because they have been told, repeatedly and as recently as last Sunday at CPAC, by Trump, the man they believe won the election, that the process was rigged, that American democracy has already collapsed and that the election was stolen. Thus, we observe people attempting to steal a free and fair election carrying signs demanding, “Stop the steal.”

Certainly, some recognize that the election was fair but hop on a bandwagon arguing otherwise simply because they dislike the outcome. But there are many who are absolutely convinced that corruption and trickery unjustly deprived Trump of a second term. More alarmingly, a subset apparently believes in an entirely alternate reality, in which Trump is still president, operating the “legitimate” government from his Mar-a-Lago retreat or, even more fancifully, that a series of events is yet to unfold in which the election will be proven wrong and Trump will triumphantly return to the White House.

Listening to the comments of some Americans on cable TV or in online sources is chilling. It is hard to decide whether the scarier position is the one that winks at the truth, as many Republican members of Congress do, claiming disingenuously that they merely want to investigate to make sure the election process was fair, or the one that is rooted in thin air, asserting, despite all evidence and scores of court decisions, that Trump was cheated.

There is much talk of the political polarization that the United States and other countries are experiencing, a result in part of a refraction of the media universe. We are now all capable of consuming a diet of news and information that completely reinforces our prejudices. Combined with a charismatic (to many, anyway) leader who repeats lies endlessly while stoking a narrative of grievances, this refraction has led not to differences of opinion but to incongruities about the very facts of history and current events. To use a condescending and clichéd construction, the people who are convinced Trump won are themselves victims of their leaders’ lies.

This is not to let either side entirely off the hook in this time of division. Much has been made of perceived snobbery that dismisses or diminishes the intelligence or goodwill of Trump supporters. Terms like “wokeness,” which suggest one side has awakened to incontrovertible truth while the rest of the world is mired in somnambulant ignorance, do not leave much room for constructive dialogue. The certainties of the left are visible online and on cable news as well, if for now at least founded more sturdily on a foundation of reality.

There is much talk of healing the divided society that Biden has inherited. Even this elicits disagreement, however, with some demanding accountability for the egregious oversteps of the Trump era before moving on to making nice.

This challenge runs deeper than politics. The United States may be an urgent example but all societies must confront the divisions created by the diffusion of information and contested ideas of “truth” in the internet era. This is a challenge for educators, for elected officials, for thinkers and activists and, significantly and problematically in a free society, for media.

A society requires some shared understanding of reality. When we are literally arguing over the definition of truth, when terms like “alternative facts” are uttered without a smirk, we have a problem. To say nothing of a chunk of the population who reject science, including denial around whether a virus that has killed more than 500,000 Americans actually exists. This is a desperately urgent, possibly existential, challenge for democratic societies. The first step may, as in other cases of human behaviour, be acknowledging we have a problem.

Trump exploited, and continues to exploit, a situation in which it is possible to convince large swaths of people that up is down and black is white. But, while he makes excellent use of the ambiguity of our time, he is a product of it. Whether Trump remains an influential figure or not, we have inherited a world where others like him will emerge from a miasma of mistruth unless we find some common foundations of fact.

Trying to protect cyberspace

As the use of the internet has grown, so has the need to protect data stored online, as well as prevent an organization’s website or social media platforms from being hacked. Since COVID-19 has hit, that need has increased manifold, as businesses, communal agencies, schools and synagogues have moved most of their activities online.

Cybersecurity, and security in general, is an area on which the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver has focused attention and resources for years. In 2015, it formed a security advisory committee, headed on a volunteer basis by Vancouver lawyer Bernard Pinsky.

photo - Bernard Pinsky, head of Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver’s security advisory committee — Bernard Pinsky, head of Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver’s security advisory committee. *(photo from Jewish Federation)*

Pinsky, who was born and raised in Winnipeg, has been involved in the local Jewish community in various ways since he and his wife, Daniella Givon, an Israeli, moved here in 1981.

“Since the first war in Lebanon, I got involved in the Jewish community in a very big way … because I was concerned that the Jewish community in Vancouver was way too reluctant to get involved and raise their head and fight anti-Israel sentiment, both in Vancouver and across Canada,” said Pinsky.

Pinsky has volunteered with and supported many charitable organizations, both in the Jewish and general communities, and his efforts were recognized with a Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012.

Over three years ago, the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver was one of almost 150 North American Jewish institutions that received a bomb threat. All of these threats ended up being traced to an Israeli teen and no one was hurt, but the potential harm raised concerns higher than they’d been in the past.

“In 2015, the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver decided we need to start a security committee, which was focused on physical security,” said Pinsky. “They asked me to be the committee chair.

“We started a physical security committee, which would train some volunteers, send people to events and help some of the synagogues train their people in security – not to carry weapons or actually try to take down terrorists, but to be extra eyes and ears before police are necessary … and to know how to defuse situations, if possible.”

The idea was to work with an overarching communal view and pool resources, rather than having each organization have to take on their own security initiatives. Jewish Federation annual campaign funds have since helped with security-related equipment, policies and programs. In 2017, Daniel Heydenrich was hired by Federation as director of security and he has coordinated efforts, trained volunteers and staff, worked with community members and law enforcement, as well as helped procure federal government Security Infrastructure Program grants.

About a year ago, when cyber-attacks on companies and institutions worldwide started involving ransom demands after systems were hacked, it became obvious that, in addition to physical security, cybersecurity was also an issue that needed to be addressed. And, in 2019, a cybersecurity and information protection subcommittee was created.

“We spent the first few months determining what our mandates were, who we were going to be helping, how we’d help, and how much would be as volunteer work and how much would be referring people out,” said Pinsky. “Then, COVID-19 hit. Very quickly after, we started making all of these decisions. With COVID-19, everybody had to be working from home, all of a sudden … people weren’t going to work in the office. So, the fact that you had office cybersecurity protocols … from home, this could be completely different – your own personal computer could be hacked.

“We realized that what we really needed to do was to offer to go into organizations and help them determine how well-protected they were. One committee volunteer decided to create an assessment tool, where we’d go through a series of questions with the organization and could tell them how weak or strong they were in different areas of cybersecurity and information protection.”

After making that assessment, the committee would then provide a list of recommendations to bridge any security gaps.

The mandate of the subcommittee, wrote Pinsky in Federation chief executive officer Ezra Shanken’s Sept. 25 Shabbat message, “is to recommend and communicate to Jewish community agencies information about specific cyberthreats and guidance that is published by recognized authoritative sources regarding cybersecurity (e.g., best practices, assessment tools, educational/training materials and policies/procedures); to provide training sessions; and to help Jewish community agencies work together to procure and implement cybersecurity services from commercial providers, where available. A key aspect of the subcommittee’s work is to help our partner agencies understand their level of exposure to cybercrime and to make recommendations on how to reduce the risk.”

So far, the cybersecurity experts on the committee have conducted six or seven assessments. Not wanting these volunteers to be overtaxed in the long run, Pinsky said, “We’re starting to train some additional people now. Hopefully, we’ll have some people qualified to do [assessments] within a month or so.”

Rebeca Kuropatwa is a Winnipeg freelance writer.

Helping people help

Help Each Other Today’s Ilya Goldman, left, and Carlos Taylhardat. (photo from Help Each Other Today)

Ilya Goldman and Carlos Taylhardat have created Help Each Other Today, a messaging platform that connects people who need help with those who want to help.

Goldman, a computer programmer and software engineer, was born in the former Soviet Union and made his way to Israel in 1990. He and his family moved to Vancouver in 1994.

“Eventually, I started my own marketing company (internet-exposure.com) in 2001,” said Goldman. “Recently, because of COVID-19, business did slow down, basically because not as many clients are working right now – a lot of my clients were local businesses.”

In light of the new situation, one of Goldman’s clients, Carlos Taylhardat of artofheadshots.com, started creating coronaSOS.com. While putting the site together, Taylhardat contacted Goldman and Goldman saw in it the potential to help many more people. So, together, they created helpeachothertoday.com.

“I wanted to move beyond just helping people during the coronavirus,” said Goldman. “I wanted to make it available for people when they need help, even after the pandemic is over. Also, I wanted to automate how people are being matched.”

People wanting help and people offering help first need to sign up for to the service, which they can do at no cost. Then, they can post an offer of or request for help that falls within the site’s categories of Delivery, Financial Support, Peer Emotional Support, or Any.

When posting, people need to submit a location, as the platform matches helpers and people needing help based on location, with people able to access posts in their area.

“Helpers will see help requests in their area and can decide if they want to help that particular person,” said Goldman. “Once they decide to help, they essentially offer this help, and they can chat on the website and arrange how.”

Taylhardat and Goldman have been volunteering their time and resources to help people during the pandemic. They considered incorporating ads into the platform, but decided not to, as they felt it would distract from the core concept of the website.

While no one monitors conversations, if ever an abuse of the system comes up, Goldman will step in and block users as needed. So far, no abuse has been reported.

Requests have ranged from a need for groceries or diapers to help with the cost of a wheelchair or in finding public housing.

image - Note of thanks to Help Each Other Today — A note of thanks to Help Each Other Today.

“Unfortunately, not all help requests can be answered,” said Goldman. “And, unfortunately, not every place has helpers available to help with every request. That’s why we’re trying to get more attention to the website, so all people who need help can register there … and, also, so people who can help can be there for those in need.”

Right now, help and helper posts are only shared within a city, but Goldman is working on a system that will let users choose a post radius.

“Currently, I think we’re helping in 1,091 cities around the world,” he said. “As we move further, we probably will be doing it one country at a time – starting with the U.S. and Canada, and then expanding it further.”

A recent Help Each Other Today media release noted, “The COVID-19 pandemic has made huge changes in all our lives and, often, those who were most vulnerable at the onset were also disproportionally affected by the virus – both by the disease itself and by its huge economic impact. On the other hand, this crisis also shows the great willingness of people to help each other, as many people donate their time and money to help those in need.”

“Social distancing is not social indifference,” Goldman told the Independent. “So, spread the word, post it on your social media, and help more people help each other.”

For more information, visit helpeachothertoday.com.

Rebeca Kuropatwa is a Winnipeg freelance writer.

Constructing age-tech maps

Keren Etkin (photo by Pazit Oz)

Keren Etkin, a 32-year-old Israeli master’s student, has been working on what she calls the Age Tech Market Map. This small but full link library is a place for older adults to find the latest news about technology.

“I am a gerontologist by training and tech enthusiast by nature,” said Etkin, who was born and raised in Israel and currently lives in Tel Aviv. “Gerontology is the study of various aspects of aging and gerontologists are either scientists researching the various aspects of aging or professionals working in the aging business.”

While working on her undergraduate degree in the sciences, Etkin began volunteering with Holocaust survivors, which she found a stark contrast to working in the lab. After graduating, she continued further along this path, finding work in the nonprofit sector. But she soon realized that, without a relevant degree, it would be challenging for her to advance her career, which is why she is currently studying for a master’s in gerontology.

“I work at the intersection of tech and aging, which is a very interesting place to be right now, professionally,” said Etkin. “I also run The Gerontechnologist [thegerontechnologist.com], which allows me to explore different aspects of the age-tech ecosystem and talk to many interesting people who do interesting and impactful work.”

Etkin’s first job in the industry was with Intuition Robotics, where she helped develop and build ElliQ, a friendly sidekick for older adults.

“ElliQ was the first big project I was involved with,” said Etkin. “I was recruited to Intuition Robotics in 2016 as the company’s first employee and only gerontologist. That was a very hands-on project that I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to work on for several years.

“I know there are other gerontologists out there working in or with start-ups or investing in start-ups, and I think that’s a good thing – to have professionals from the aging industry come work inside the tech industry and help build tech solutions for the aging population.”

ElliQ makes it easier to connect to family, friends and the digital world, and helps users stay active and engaged. With it, people can read and respond to messages, share pictures, get reminders about medications, respond to questions and even receive surprise suggestions throughout the day.

“I think incorporating technology into any field of work is beneficial, specifically when it comes to the aging industry,” said Etkin. “There’s a lot to gain, since it’s very labour intensive. Some of the work currently being done by humans could be done by machines – like paperwork and some physical tasks – hence, freeing up humans to perform tasks that require uniquely human skills, such as empathy, critical thinking and creative problem-solving.”

The biggest hurdle Etkin sees in the industry is that most tech companies do not view older adults as potential users. In her opinion, they are missing out on a huge sector.

“Studies show that older adults are adopting technology more and more,” she said. “Internet use is rising steadily and many older adults own smartphones. From my experience, older adults are willing to use technology as long as they find that it’s useful and brings value to their lives.”

According to Etkin’s website, “The global spending power of people 60+ years old is expected to reach $20 trillion by 2020. Americans over 50 are expected to spend $84 billion annually on tech products by 2030.

“Contrary to common belief, most older adults hold a positive perception of technology. Many are eager to learn new tech skills as long as they find them useful. However, most of them admit they require some assistance in setting up and learning to use new devices.

“A report by the Pew Research Center found that 42% of older adults in the U.S. own smartphones and that 67% use the internet. Baby boomers spend an average of 27 hours a week online.”

Etkin began working on The Gerontechnologist in 2017. At the time, she was just looking for was a snapshot of the ecosystem and she was curious to learn what other people in the field were working on.

“After spending many, many hours doing online research, I came to the conclusion that there was no age-tech market map out there and so I decided to create it myself,” said Etkin. “After publishing it online, I got a lot of feedback and realized that other people were also interested in this. I also realized that I enjoyed creating content about age tech, and it sort of took off from there. The blog today serves anyone who’s interested in tech for older adults.”

This past summer, Etkin started posting podcasts and video series on thegerontechnologist.com, and she plans to keep working on projects that she is passionate about and that she thinks bring value to the world.

Etkin is working on the 2020 Age Tech Market Map. In the process, she will evaluate more than 2,000 service providers and choose the top 200 for the map.

“I would love to hear about Canadian start-ups developing tech for older adults,” said Etkin. “You can reach me through the contact page on my website or message me on LinkedIn and Twitter.”

Rebeca Kuropatwa is a Winnipeg freelance writer.

Time to face ourselves

Actor and comedian Sacha Baron Cohen delivered the keynote address last month at an Anti-Defamation League conference. His words quickly went viral because he pinpointed fears and challenges shared by millions about the power of social media. He hit many nails on the head.

“Democracy, which depends on shared truths, is in retreat, and autocracy, which depends on shared lies, is on the march,” he said. “Hate crimes are surging, as are murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities. All this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history.”

He was referring to social media like Facebook and Twitter and platforms like YouTube and Google, whose algorithms, he said, “deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users engaged – stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that trigger outrage and fear.”

Had Facebook existed in the 1930s, he went on, it would have run 30-second ads for Hitler’s “solution” to the “Jewish problem.”

Baron Cohen acknowledged that social media companies have taken some steps to reduce hate and conspiracies on their platforms, “but these steps have been mostly superficial.”

“These are the richest companies in the world, and they have the best engineers in the world,” he said. “They could fix these problems if they wanted to.” The companies could do more to police the messages being circulated on their sites, he suggested.

He’s correct about the problems. But the first problem with his solution is that he is asking a couple of corporations to judge billions of interactions, making them not only powerful media conglomerates, which they already are, but also the world’s most prolific censors and arbiters of expression. Of course, by abdication, they are already erring on the side of hate speech, but is the alternative preferable? If we think Facebook chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg has too much power now, do we really want to make him the planet’s censor-in-chief?

Yes, the platforms benefit from and, therefore, promote, the most extreme viewpoints. But, even if we could, would forcing those voices off the platforms make the world a safer place? There are already countless alternative spaces for people whose extremism has been pushed off the mainstream sites. Just because we can’t hear them doesn’t mean they’ve gone away.

Marshall McLuhan, the Canadian philosopher who declared “the medium is the message” died four years before Zuckerberg was born. He could have predicted that social media would change the way we interact and communicate. But has it fundamentally changed who we are? Or has it merely allowed our true selves fuller voice? Perhaps a little of both. Facebook, Twitter and the others are not agnostic forces; they influence us as we engage with them. But, in the end, they are mere computer platforms, human-created applications that have taken on outsized force in our lives. And all the input is human-created. Since the dawn of the industrial age, we have imagined our own inventions taking over and controling us, from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to 2001: A Space Odyssey’s Hal to Zuckerberg’s Facebook.

In all these cases, fictional or not, the truth is that the power remains in human hands. This is no less true today. We could, if the political will existed, shut down these platforms or apply restraints along the lines Baron Cohen suggests. But this would be to miss the larger point.

We live in a world filled with too much bigotry, chauvinism, hatred and violence. This is the problem. Dr. Martin Luther King said: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” And there are plenty of sites on social media that advance mutual understanding and love over hate. Are their messages as likely to go viral? Probably not. But that, ultimately, is determined by billions of individual human choices. A small but illuminating counterrevolution seems to be happening right now with a renaissance of the ideas of Mister (Fred) Rogers and his message of simple kindness. While much of the world seems alight in hatred and intolerance, a countermovement has always existed to advance love and inclusiveness. This needs to be nurtured in any and every way possible.

If Facebook were a country, its “population” would be larger than China’s. Bad example when we are discussing issues of free speech and the accountability of the powerful, perhaps, but illuminating – because an entity of that size and impact should be accountable. As a corporate body, it has few fetters other than governmental controls, which are problematic themselves. Concerned citizens (and platform users) should demand of these companies the safeguards we expect. We are the consumers, after all, and we should not ignore that power.

But neither should we abstain from taking responsibility ourselves. Social media influences us, yes. But, to an exponentially greater degree, it is merely a reflection of who we are. It is less distorted than the funhouse mirror we like to imagine it being. If what we see when we look at social media is a depiction of the world we find repugnant, it is not so much social media that needs to change, it is us.