Maximillian Kaizen's Public Library

Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.



What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.



This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right."

Online or off, all of this congregating is really just a product of biological necessity. Research indicates that engaging with friends helps us live longer and better lives, with those with strong friendship bonds having lower incidents of heart disease. They even get fewer colds and flu.

A decade-long Australian study found that for the duration of the study, subjects with a sizable network of friends were 22% less likely to pass away than those with a small circle of friends, and the distance separating two friends and the amount of contact made no difference. It didn't matter if the friends stayed in contact via phone, by letter or email. Just the fact they had a social network of friends acted as a protective barrier.

A research project by Paul Zak, a professor of economics and the founding director of the Center for Neuroeconomic Studies at Claremont Graduate University, found that when a test subject learns that another person trusts him or her, the level of oxytocin, a hormone that circulates in his brain, rises.

"The stronger the signal of trust, the more oxytocin increases," wrote Zak, whose primary interest is neuroeconomics -- a discipline that attempts to gauge how the brain's neurologic functions process decisions involving money. Trust, Zak learned, fosters more trust. The more oxytocin swimming around your brain, the more other people trust you.

Notably, the test subjects had no direct contact with one another. All of their interactions took place by computer and with people whose identity they didn't know. "Trust works as an 'economic lubricant' that affects everything from personal relationships to global economic development,

You may only have one individual on the social media frontline and not a team for listening and engagement, but that set-up does not prohibit streamlined, behind-the-scenes collaboration with those of vital skill sets throughout the organization.

Take it from someone who has gone down this path as the sole person responsible for listening/monitoring and engagement, you cannot do this alone.

As I roamed the building site under the tower, what I noticed most was the smell. It was abiotic with cement and sand, sure, and shimmering, as if the heat had a stink of its own (which it did—it was the smell of buildings and roads baking in the sun, and oil flares, and bulldozer exhaust fumes), but then it occurred to me: it’s not the building site you’re smelling, it’s the absence of living things, the subtraction of what you took for granted before you arrived. Finally I understood: it was the smell of the future, of a tomorrow as it will be lived in many places when my children are grown up.

If that first study, released last year, crystallized skepticism that click-through rates weren't the be-all end-all success metric for display, this most recent report might just be the last nail in the digital coffin.

The 2008 study found half of all clicks come from lower-income young adults, so prizing clicks ignores the vast majority of internet users, especially the types of users many marketers want to reach.