How to create a new Google document, spreadsheet, or form in a specific Google Drive folder

By default, Google creates new office files of any sort inside your main Google Drive folder. If you want to make a new doc or other file in a specific spot, you’ve got to visit that folder in the browser, then create a new document there. I prefer to drag and drop files later and not have the creative process disrupted by organizational needs. Click, go! Then make it tidy. Also, a spreadsheet or document makes it harder to scan the long list of folders in my main Google Drive.

Below is a guide that shows you how to use a URL to create a new Google Doc in your preferred folder. One caveat is that if you set Chrome to automatically open default pages, it will interfere with the Automator shortcut for Macs. Use the “Open a new tab page” setting upon startup in your Chrome preferences.

Anyway, this how-to features a simple organizational principle, the critical URL trick, and a cursory look at the Automator app on Macs. It builds upon a Stack Exchange post from jaycer. [Here’s another trick about embedding specific columns and rows of a Google spreadsheet into a site.]

1: Create a folder called “1-inbox” in your main Google Drive folder. I use the number to push the folder to the top of my list; an asterisk or underscore could work, too. Your new documents will start in “1-inbox.” (This an “email inbox” organizational concept that many info-tidiness freaks like myself enjoy. You eventually move documents from here into the appropriate places.)

2: Visit your “1-inbox” folder in your browser and gets its ID. It’s the long string at the end of the folder’s URL. It will look something like this (details obscured):

3: Create a document, spreadsheet, form, slides presentation, or just about any type of Google office file in your 1-inbox folder by:

  • Google Doc:
  • Google Sheet:
  • Google Slides Presentation:
  • Google Form:
  • You can see that the only part of the URL that is changing is the part that refers to what type of file you’re making — you swap “document” for “spreadsheets” if you want to make a nice big text document to write in.

4: To speed up this action, you could make bookmarks out of the links above. Or, if you have a Mac, you could use Automator to make an app that opens a specific URL. A brief journey through Automator:

  • Open Automator. Choose File > New > Application
  • In the Library of Actions, look for “Get Specified URLs”
  • Double click on the action to add it to the process flow
  • Set the URL of the “Get Specific URLs” action to whatever Google file type you want.
  • In the Library of Actions, look for “Display Webpages”
  • Double click on the action to add it to the process flow
  • Save your app.
  • Put the app in your Mac dock
  • If you want to change the app’s icon, right click on it, choose “Get Info” to open a Finder window about it. Find an image online you want for the icon. Copy that image. Go back to the app’s Finder window. Click once on the icon to the left of app’s name. This will highlight it. Then paste the image you copied from the web. The icon should change. Zazing! You’ve got a one-click, tidy method in your dock to make a new Google doc.

40 years of wisdom for $4, and a call for your inescapable truths

I took the time to write down 40 things I’ve learned thus far in my short life. I mostly wanted something to make fun of when I’m older — it’s too entertaining to see how our attitudes change over time — but I do hope it transmits a few ideas that I find both existentially helpful and true.

My new book also comes with a website, It provides a form to answer this question: What have you learned in 40 years that you know to be true? Whatever people share, I’ll publish on the same site. Maybe another book will come out of it.

For a taste of my 40 quick takes on wisdom for the cheap price of $4 (just 10 cents per insight!), here is one of my favorites, something I learned amid the sadness that struck after my brother was shot to death in 2002:

Have a dream but don’t be a slave to it. Life is bigger than you and your ambitions. Sometimes you need to alter your needs and desires when the world or your own evolving self demand it.

Fighting for identity as change accelerates

We all know that life is change. What’s new is the pace. It’s faster than ever before. All of those thoughts in our head that create the experience of life from moment to moment — mundane and profound alike — have finally broken past the speed limits of time, distance, and hierarchical power.

Blame and credit the internet. There’s never been such a powerful way to gather, consume, judge, and share the concepts that make us human. On top of that, it’s affordable. It fits in your hand. It’s so easy to use, toddlers can operate it. And it makes someone in China as easy to reach as someone next door.

People spend hours a day eating up all that content. Professional, amateur, clever, dumb, inspiring, demeaning, destructive — all of it taken in, every second. And it never runs out. More and more keeps coming. You could do nothing but watch, read, and listen to something new the rest of your life with no more effort than reaching into your pocket.

That’s different. In the span of a few years, we’ve taken a huge leap in the broader trend of separating human mental activity from the limiting factors of the flesh. Telephones extended our voice; we could chat with someone in real time without having to take a massive trip. Now we have devices extending our voice and bodies, farther than ever before. And we’ve made it amazingly cheap. If I want to hold a face-to-face conversation with someone in Africa, I have myriad choices, many of them effectively free (a basic level of service costs nothing, but, yes, internet connections have a fee, which is remarkably affordable for a certain segment of the human population). Videotelephony has come a long way.

The strangest part of this information revolution is the feeling that what’s happening in my head is increasingly disconnected from what’s happening with my body. My concept of “me” may be undergoing a revolution as I engage more facts, stories, and relationships than ever before, but here “I” am, sitting in a chair in front of a desk in New Mexico.

A gap is developing. There is a “local me,” made of my body and place and all the limits they entail, and a “virtual me,” an ethereal concept defined by connections to other intangible, mediated ideas pulled from anywhere at all times.

It’s disconcerting. Which “me” is the real one? How many of “me” are there, if we define a personality as an intersection of information, tangible and virtual? Are they all real? Which one do I fight for? The “body me” that enjoys American freedoms? The “virtual me” enjoying friendships in Hong Kong?

In this environment, it becomes hard for anyone to claim ownership of a particular identity. Culture, once like stone that people were shaped by and shaped themselves into, now pours through and into and out of us like water.

If anyone can don an identity by filling their head with the concepts that define it (with less effort than ever before), then a foundation of being human has been remade.

Yet in an unstable world, sometimes your (illusory?) definition of “me” is all that holds still. If this too is under threat, there are two responses: fight for your identity, or redefine what it means to be you.

The fighters are coming out. It’s what I see in the fascinating arguments about cultural appropriation. I’m not indicating equivalence here, but it seems to be at play at the other end of the ideological spectrum. Far, far left, and far, far right hunger for a purity, though for far different reasons. I’d argue that these movements are a search for stability in a technological world that has cut the ties between one’s bodily identity and mental identity. People are trying to bring unity to what technology has sundered. They’re fighting not just for who they are, but for the process society has provided for defining ourselves.

I don’t know if they can win. Humans have always pushed to escape the brutal reality of bodily limits. I believe we’re moving toward more fluidity, toward a multitude of “me’s.” Virtual reality will become the norm, and people will wear cultures like clothes; they’ll use their characteristics like tools to elicit certain responses from those they communicate with. “Me” will become a functional choice. Identity will be a quickly shifting network.

Way, way ahead, I imagine consciousness completely separating from our bodies. It will travel to where it’s needed or desired, free and ghostly as light.

The era of the performer: As need-based communication becomes increasingly mediated and impersonal, civility plummets and partisanship rises

Life used to be so inconvenient prior to the internet. There were no one-button presses to satisfy every want, no Google to find every answer, no screen through which to mediate every bit of communication.

You had to talk to people in all their glory, ugliness, prejudice and promise. And if you wanted to get anywhere — if you wanted your problem solved or your question answered — you had to be somewhat nice. They had something you needed. So you talked. Civilly.

There was no screen between you and the information (have we forgotten that information comes from people, not computers?). People were actively involved in the transmission of the data you needed in the very moment you engaged it. It was not packaged for later consumption. It was not edited and filtered and search-optimized and nipped and tucked for a rectangular interface that would serve up anyone, anywhere, anytime. It was messy. Slow. Uncomfortable. It was risky — all that effort could produce nothing, and your seconds of life might be considered wasted. But it was worth it. It was more important than we realized. Because it came with a little-appreciated side effect: social cohesion.

It is hard to hate someone you know in three dimensions. Three dimensions? I mean the person you’re talking with is, in real-time, constructing your perception of them, rather than you independently modeling their personality based upon missives that person released at a previous point in time for a screen.

It felt human.

Now I find that a large percentage of my communication is mediated. It operates on a time delay, it goes through a screen and it is designed rather than spontaneous. I am now crafting a picture of people from their carefully crafted presentations of themselves; yes, I am distinguishing between the subconscious crafting of a persona that happens in regular conversations and the one that happens when someone, for example, assembles a selfie after dozens of takes.

We are all becoming performers. We are never off the stage — stages. Facebook, Twitter, personal websites (like this one), LinkedIn, Instagram, Snap, Mastodon, this site and that site and on and on and on. Everywhere is a show now, and those who survive are those who dance the best the longest.

The problem is that a performance is not a person. Hugh Jackman is not Wolverine. Brian Cranston is not Walter White. Those are characters meant to entertain within a specific context of communication need: distract me, engage me, lie to me. Performance is about story, not truth.

Human lives are never as neat as stories. Never. To expect them to be — to treat each other like performers because our modern means of communication seems to demand it — will feed a destructive cycle of increasing inability to recognize the imperfections inherent to all of us. That will leave us disappointed and that will spur resentment.

It doesn’t have to, does it? We can turn off our many stages (stop meandering through Facebook and its ilk). We can use the internet the same way we might use prescription drugs — as a medicine that needs to be monitored and controlled; we take a dosage to address a specific issue and then abandon it until it is needed again.

Maybe it’s simpler. Next time you’re bored, don’t reach for your phone. Look up instead. Notice the person next to you. Notice where you are. Look at people’s faces. How are they feeling? How are you? Stop being in between this performance and that performance. Start being where you are. You’ll find others there. It’s a lot less lonely. You might like it.

I made a copy of the EPA climate change page Trump wants to delete. Can any developers automate this?

The Trump administration ordered the EPA to take down its climate change page, according to Reuters. No, you don’t. Climate change is the most important issue facing the world today. It threatens the survival and well-being of everyone. Without the knowledge to understand it, we are helpless before the threats it poses.

View my copy of the EPA climate change page here.

The Earth doesn’t care about our project called civilization. We must maintain and change our cities and minds and technology and hopes — or watch nature bat them aside. Evolution cannot occur without information, and progress begins with awareness. Ignorance kills, and I for one want to live.

It’s true that the internet does not need the EPA page to keep the facts flowing. But I believe it is important that my government knows that this issue cannot be buried or distorted for the sake of petty politics. Such oppressive decisions threaten all of us and our futures, and undermine the people, intellect and passion that have made this nation amazing. America, as flawed as it is, already is great, Trump, because it is a country that wants to solve its many problems, not pretend that they don’t exist for the sake of an ideological agenda. I’m saving this copy of the EPA page to counter the despondency I feel when I witness how the current top employee of America’s citizenry is using his immense, borrowed power.

If you tell me you don’t believe in climate change, I’ll remind you that facts are not a matter of faith. Republican or Democrat, climate change believes in you. What are you going to do about it?

PS — Do any developers know how to automate a way to make thorough and fully functional copies of any pages that are removed from government websites? It would be a great public service. Here is how to contact me. My emphasis is more on the implications of communication decisions and design, whereas the excellent Climate Mirror Project is taking on the task of copying climate change data.

News companies, start building your virtual reality templates and tools for user-generated VR journalism

Fully immersive virtual reality environments are the next media space that will produce another generation of winners and losers in the race to provide the best, quickest and most engaging information. Which news organizations will win?

Their past performance is worrisome; the internet and its democratic system of links gutted well-funded newspapers. In the internet’s early days, news firms struggled or outright failed to bend the tools of capitalism toward financial survival in an information environment which, in an ongoing challenge and opportunity, defeats the concept of scarcity and destroys economically constructed distribution monopolies.

How will media companies fare in these new virtual worlds? Before it’s too late, news organizations should at the very least follow Visionary VR’s lead with its Mindshow product.

Mindshow provides simple tools to construct VR experiences. It would be amazing to see a suite of VR templates for the provision of news, from environments to props to avatars, that begin to build our shared cultural vocabulary around digitally constructed realities. Starting now is imperative — I suspect wearing goggles (or flicking on some embedded biological switch far in the future) will quickly become the norm over flesh-and-blood reality.

Believe me, here are 11 of the bigliest tremendous signs from women’s marches against Trump

So many awwwwwws and guffaws were to be had when scrolling the internets for images of yesterday’s remarkable protests. I found 11, arranged below in no particular order, that were memorable and demanded to be shared:

(Also, will our new government vote to leave the United Nations?)

I have the best signs

Excellent sign work today.

A photo posted by Alexis (@macaronic) on


#womensmarch @eunhapaek

A photo posted by Yuko Shimizu (@yukoart) on

Age of the goddess cometh

I sure hope so!

A photo posted by Kelly Bourdet (@kellybourdet) on

We f#cked up bigly

#womensmarch #womensmarchonwashington

A photo posted by Jonathan M. Katz (@katzonearth) on

I can’t believe I still have to protest this fucking shit

Looks like this one, which I thought came from the women’s marches, is actually an ongoing image from previous events — not sure where it originated, but below it is referenced at another activity:

This pussy fights back

A photo posted by bananaguns (@bananaguns) on

Not today, Satan! (Bonus points for comma usage.)

Women's March NYC

A photo posted by Ariane Brnrd (@arianebernard) on

We are the grandaughters (sic) of the witches you were never able to burn

Scenes from a protest 4

A photo posted by Donna Rickles (@donnar3000) on

i <3 naps but i stay woke

SAME YO @travon #womensmarch

A photo posted by BETCHES (@betches) on

Mike Pence likes Nickelback

A photo posted by Dave Fischoff (@davefischoff) on

This episode of Black Mirror sucks

If only it were

Politics revealed by the technical legality of murder in a slice of Yellowstone

It’s interesting enough that a section of Yellowstone National Park provides an area in which to murder someone without breaking the law due to a lack of proper jurisdiction, but I ended up being equally fascinated by a professor’s pithy analysis of U.S. government and the motivations of politicians. See how he explains their inaction:

The game: “But nothing happens in Washington just because it’s a good idea.”

The priorities: “If Congress really wanted to fix this, it wouldn’t take long at all. The problem isn’t that it’s complicated; it’s that they’re not interested in it.”

Power: “They don’t deal with hypothetical threats. They deal with concerns that are currently affecting influential constituents.”

The reporter gave space for a reply to the professor’s judgment:

Congress doesn’t seem to agree. Wyoming senator Michael Enzi’s press secretary told me in an emailed statement that “Senator Enzi has studied the ‘zone of death’ issue in Yellowstone National Park, and there does not seem to be a simple legislative fix.” Idaho senator Jim Risch told me the argument is “science fiction” and insists the state of Idaho would have jurisdiction over a crime there. “This is all very romantic and a great fictional thing,” he said, “but I’m telling you, the states have jurisdiction.” (This statute, however, clearly places Yellowstone under the “sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.”)

Trends in the journalism business and content creation: movies and the art of clickbait headlines

Movies and the art of clickbait headlines

“We found something out here” is the first line you hear (at the 0:21 point) in the trailer for the next Independence Day film. Sound familiar? Here are some recent headlines from the news(ish) world: This Is What Happens When Two BuzzFeed Employees Explode A Watermelon | What I Learned From Tickling Apes

As the news business increasingly faces declining revenues and no clear answers on how to monetize itself, it’s turning to the tricks of the entertainment world, which seems much better suited to thrive in the Internet age with its emphasis on aesthetics, blockbusters and appeals to emotion over intellect.

One result we enjoy/despise is headlines that withhold information and game the psychological dynamics governing people’s attention. Overall, my guess is that this will erode trust and damage attempts by journalism organizations to be taken seriously.

I realize I am making an assumption that a neat divide exists between news and entertainment, now and in some notion of its past. Not so. But there is a big difference between trying to compete for people’s “entertainment-type attention” and their “truth-about-the-world-please attention.”

Okay, I’m also assuming things around the concept of “truth” and “attention,” but the point feels valid: At what point on people’s entire information experience spectrum are you trying to reach them? If you pretend to be one, but really want to be another, I suggest you end up creating distrust, which erodes your value over the long haul.

For fun, let’s try rewriting the BuzzFeed headline in different styles that don’t reflect an attempt to meta-describe the event in terms of its place in the media ecosystem, but rather just try to get at what is happening:

  • BuzzFeed’s original headline: This Is What Happens When Two BuzzFeed Employees Explode A Watermelon
  • NYT: With rubber bands and a watermelon, performers discover the limits of fruit
  • AP: Performers wrap watermelon in rubber bands until the fruit explodes
  • The Atlantic: Fruit and rubber bands in the age of simple wonders
  • Hacker News: It takes at least 642 rubber bands to optimize the explosion of a watermelon
  • Reddit: So I made this watermelon explode with rubber bands
  • Upworthy: These amazing people wrapped rubber bands around a watermelon. What happened next will make you cry.

As print readership falls, 51 major metro newspapers’ websites are losing or failing to pull in readers, and young people engage more with print products than digital ones

Source: medialife magazine

I suspect these dynamics are unique to the nature of the markets theoretically served by these publications; given the nature of the online ad business and the overwhelming dominance of network builders/communication-tool-providers (Facebook, Google) to provide the reach into local people’s lives, it is very hard to be a player on the Internet unless you are trying to reach the entire world. Yet it’s surprising on the surface to think that the path to the future may lie in the past.

Online audiences are as big as they’re going to get. Without growth, investors don’t want to invest in them.

Source: Digiday

At Business Insider, for example, traffic increased 10 percent to 40 million monthly uniques over the past year, following an 80 percent increase the year prior. BuzzFeed’s growth was flat this year, at 75.3 million uniques in November, after a year in which it grew 42 percent. (All figures are U.S. cross-platform figures, from comScore.) Mashable’s traffic, on the other hand, grew at a faster rate from November 2013 to November 2014 compared to a year later: 18 percent vs. 32 percent. Gawker Media, which spent most of last year in turmoil, has seen a 16 percent year-over-year decline in unique visitors.

“There’s that sense that not all of these digital news startups will see continuing hockey stick-like growth,” said Ken Doctor, principal analyst at Outsell. “Fall behind in growth, and the current value of these companies may plummet; it’s a momentum game, win or lose.”

‘Call it the Internet, but it’s really this: The end of the Mass Media Era and the dawn of the Infinite Media Era’

Source: inma

At the heart of it, it’s an audience problem. In the old, information-starved days, we could guarantee market-dominant audiences just by doing news (or, for the broadcast media, entertainment). Today, news won’t get us enough audience to be competitive, and our audiences are too small for digital dimes to make up for the print dollars we’re losing.

Apps and websites will all blend together and talk to each other, because that is simpler and better for your audience

Source: Donny Reynolds on Medium

Rather than needing to download an app to access an experience, we’ll simply find the experience we want through whatever means and Google or Apple will “stream” that app to us as needed. No more interruptions between individual story of interest and a person’s desire. No more trying to catch people inside yet another walled garden.

But didn’t you hear that apps are dead? It’s all about the bots now.

Source: gupshup

I’ve not used this service yet, but I like its simple timeline describing the evolution of info/digital experiences:

  • Mid-1980s: desktop computers
  • Mid-1990s: browsers and websites
  • Mid-2000s: smartphones and apps
  • Mid-2010s: messaging and bots

Related: Luka, “a messenger for bots and humans”

Facebook Live is another pillar of its attempt to become the defacto “Internet”

Source: The New Yorker

No need to rewrite; here are a few grafs from the article:

I wrote several years ago that Facebook’s dream is not to be your favorite destination on the Internet; its desire is to be the Internet. It would prefer that when you connect in the digital realm—an increasingly all-encompassing expanse—you do it within Facebook, which now includes Instagram, Whatsapp, and Oculus VR (in addition to its robust news feed, its Messenger chat app, its Moments photo-sharing platform, its video-player platform . . . well, you get the idea). This isn’t exactly a new phenomenon; for years technology companies have waged platform battles, hoping to lock in users with hardware, software, or services that only function inside a proprietary venue. Closed systems make your patronage simpler and more consistent, and it is through a closed system that a company can most readily own and control your data, which is then converted to revenue.

Facebook has been particularly focussed on three areas lately: publishers’ content (that is, all the stuff that makes Facebook worth reading), video (the thing every creator on the Internet must do right now), and the youth market (all the people Facebook will need tomorrow). In all three places, the company has been playing a haphazard game of catch-up, trying to concoct a mixture of services, partnerships, acquisitions, and outright steamrolling that will insure ownership and control of these three crucial axes.

On Wednesday it launched a service called Facebook Live, which simultaneously takes aim at the trifecta.

Branded content is going to flood every communication channel, and there will be a backlash against it.

Source: Facebook’s guide to its branded content policy

People have told us that they find some types of branded content to be less engaging than others, and this was typically when the content was more promotional. Based on this feedback, our branded content guidelines prohibit overly promotional features, such as persistent watermarks and pre-roll advertisements. Additionally, cover photos and profile pictures must not feature third party products, brands, or sponsors. Branded content integrations that are allowed to be posted on Facebook include content like product placement, endcards, and marketer’s logos.

It will be harder to find “pure” information, if such a thing exists, and ever more difficult to understand the behind-the-scene motivations and restraints on the quality and character of the information you’re consuming. This, overall, is not good. We need institutions in our society with power and influence that have something besides profit as their motivation. Verizon, for example, will never produce news that damages its interests, which may not serve humanity overall in very beneficial ways.

Slack should become a publishing company. This makes sense. All ideas begin with conversations.

Source: Slack’s Trello board asking for customer ideas via Jeff Jarvis on Facebook

I’m still looking for the magic tool that combines robust calendars (that feed into other services), collaborative document editing with track changes, IMing, project management, video conferencing and phone calls, a CMS, social media integrations for publish-once-be-everywhere simplicity, ability to add/remove collaborators so to work with freelancers, curation tools, communication cleverness that allows all conversations on all mediums/tools to be organized by project effortlessly and quickly and on the fly… the list just keeps going. Right now I accomplish this using a ridiculous array of services. The only premise I’ve discovered is that all information turns into other information for different times, places and people, so I need to tools to handle the stresses of time, complex information-source networks and numerous publication/communication channels.

Companies that build the tools to communicate are the new publishers

Source: Poynter

Medium amps up its efforts to become the publishing powerhouse of thoughtful media. So give up your sovereignty in exchange for a network purporting to somewhat reflect the audience you want? Let them handle revenue and tech infrastructure so you can focus on writing, shooting photos and interviewing smart people doing great things? Well, your business becomes tied to theirs. And as more organizations flood the network, it becomes less differentiated. What about when lawyers and foreign governments show up telling Medium to take down certain posts?

Neil deGrasse Tyson talks online journalism with Arianna Huffington and Jeff Jarvis

Source: StarTalk

Trends in the journalism business and content creation: Centralized digital power and our virtual world (news roundup for March 26, 2016)

1. The Internet isn\’t distributing media power, it is concentrating it

From Joshua Benton on NiemanLab: The game of concentration: The Internet is pushing the American news business to New York and the coasts

“The Internet doesn’t spread things apart — it pushes them together,” Richard Florida, an urban studies theorist. “You’re seeing more of these winner-take-all effects.”

Modern digital publications in the United States (and, I\’d suggest, around the globe) will be based in huge cities to facilitate access to funding and talent. This is bringing a uniformity to the political leanings of the ecosystem of media powerhouses because they\’re staffed by liberal, urban residents. Those values don\’t play well with everyone in the United States (and other smaller population centers in other countries), and we\’ll see stronger reactions from the groups of people who fail to see their story reflected in the narratives being embraced by professionals immersed in a different culture. Does this explain the rise of Donald Trump?

I don\’t fully agree that the worry is that the concentration of media power results in stories being told about the locations in which they\’re located; the business and editorial models of leading digital publications based in places like New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco rely upon covering everything. Vice Media, BuzzFeed, Business Insider, Gawker Media, Mashable, Vox Media and others want global audiences because that\’s where the numbers are. The stories reflect that. The worry, and I think this is what Joshua meant, is about the narrowing lens — one reflecting the concerns and values of megalopolis residents — through which we view stories.

I wonder if there are parallels in the business world; look at the structure of a corporation — an abstract entity with owners all over the place united only by their investment in shares — vs. a locally owned business. A corporation (wait, some corporations) views the world, crudely speaking, as a resource to exploit to generate money for its owners. It is not necssarily working to represent the values of a local community, even if its headquarters are based in one, because it serves its distributed owners, not locals.

This analysis doesn\’t account for the important role that local freelancers (and foreign correspondents) play in bringing authentic (or at least more authentic) stories from locations outside of the corporate headquarters. The command and control centers may be in New York, for example, but the soldiers are everywhere — but is this structure financially robust enough to support the story-supply system? And to repeat the points above, if the editors are in New York, they\’re filtering work from abroad through their own viewpoints.

Overall, what I see is the emergence of a global urban citizen; my guess is we\’ll see this population of people develop more formalized community bonds and values as the Internet further develops to make virtual/mediated reality even more the norm.

But ultimately, we are beings inside bodies, and those bodies need food, shelter and other bodies to be around. We are tied to our places, at least until we go full Matrix.

2. Computers will do more and better writing

Feed your plotlines and character descriptions into the machine, and out comes a story? Why not: A Computer Wrote A Novel — And Nearly Won A Literary Prize For It

And Narrative Science has been underway for quite a while, and I assume will only get better: 30 Clients Using Computer-Generated Stories Instead of Writers

And computers will do our repackaging for us — sorting information streams to conform to specific knowledge-gathering goals. It\’s happening in bits and pieces; asking Google Maps for directions is one basic example. How far away can it be to ask a machine to give you a comprehensive analysis of Clinton\’s foreign policy statements as revealed in thousands of articles across the information ecosystem?

Sometimes things don\’t go so well: Tay: Microsoft issues apology over racist chatbot fiasco

3. The Internet is moving toward becoming a real-time, always-on virtual reality

Google’s placing its own bet on mobile livestreaming with YouTube Connect

Wouldn\’t it be odd to discover that all of our traditions of storytelling and media production are actually technologies that could also be replaced by machines that emphasize one sort of communication over another?

What if a story was just our old version of a hard drive? What if it was just a convenient way to storye information? And given the limits of the mind, we had to design those stories in certain ways. But machines lack the same limits, and so we design stories differently?

Is talking face-to-face the ultimate technology?

How do you survive and thrive in virtual world, and how does it operate in conjunction with a real world?

But like I said above: We are bodies, tied to the limits and needs of our biological machine — until we give ourselves over to the Matrix. That is the ultimate baseline for power, values and decisions.

4. Information distributors ultimately own the content, but they are nothing without the creators

Forgetting the homepage means forgetting control: NowThis

But what does \”control\” mean in a digital, virtual world?

Digital info distributors need info to create their value, but they don\’t want to pay to produce it — that is expensive, risky, slow, complex and unpredictable. So they need the people filling the pipes. Who has more power?

But you can bet that whatever community you\’re trying to serve, Facebook already offers all the sophisticated tools and conversation they need: Facebook is the new Excel

Yet isn\’t it tempting to just let Facebook take care of all that difficult audience building and monetizing for you? Facebook’s Instant Articles Advertising Fixes Win Over Publishers

5. Bots, messaging, texting, yep

Is your Facebook Messenger app ready? Facebook’s Messenger Bot Store could be the most important launch since the App Store

Maybe Chatfuel can help.

%d bloggers like this: