Social Media Archives - Sam Harrelson

Book Review: John Longhurst’s Can Robots Love God and Be Saved?

As someone with a rich background in the cutting-edge side of marketing and technology (and education) and someone often referred to as a futurist but is fascinated with ethical and theological impacts and contexts, I found John Longhurst’s “Can Robots Love God and Be Saved?” (CMU Press 2024) to be a fascinating exploration of the convergence between cutting-edge technology, ethical considerations, and theological inquiry. This book speaks directly to my passions and professional experiences, offering a unique perspective on the future of faith in a rapidly evolving world where concepts such as artificial intelligence (and AGI) must be considered through both technological and theological lenses.

A seasoned religion reporter in Canada, John Longhurst tackles various topics that bridge faith and modern societal challenges. The book is structured into sections that address different aspects of faith in contemporary life, including mental health, societal obligations, and the intriguing possibilities of artificial intelligence within religious contexts. Those are constructed out of interviews and perspectives from Longhurt’s interviews with a wide variety of cast and characters.

Longhurst discusses the ongoing challenges many face with mental illness and the role faith communities play in providing support. This aligns with my work in consulting and education, emphasizing the need for understanding and empathy in addressing situations such as mental health issues, whether in the classroom or the broader community. He also delves into the discussion on Christians’ duty to pay taxes and support societal welfare, raising essential questions about the practical application of faith from various personas and perspectives. I found this particularly relevant when contemplating the intersection of personal beliefs and civic responsibility, echoing ethical marketing practices and corporate social responsibility principles.

Exploring the deep bonds between humans and their pets, Longhurst touches on the theological implications of animals in heaven. This can be a fascinating topic in environmental science discussions, highlighting the interconnectedness of all life forms and reflecting on how technology (like AI in pets) might change our relationships with animals. The book also delves into ethical concerns about government surveillance from a religious standpoint, providing an excellent case study for understanding the balance between security and privacy rights—a crucial consideration in both marketing and technology sectors where data privacy is paramount.

One of the most thought-provoking sections of the book delves into AI’s potential role in religious practices. Longhurst’s exploration of whether robots can participate in spiritual activities and even achieve salvation is a direct intersection of my interests in technology and ethics. It raises profound questions about the future of faith, challenging traditional theological boundaries and offering a glimpse into future innovations in religious practice.

Longhurst also examines how religious communities can address the loneliness epidemic, which I found particularly engaging. The sense of belonging and support provided by faith groups is mirrored in the need for community in education and the workplace. Technology, mainly social media and AI, can play a role in mitigating loneliness, but it also highlights the need for genuine human connections. That’s also one of my motivators for exploring when setting up a marketing strategy: How does this product/service/technology help establish more genuine human connectivity?

Additionally, the book ponders the existence of extraterrestrial life and its implications for religious beliefs. This speculative yet fascinating topic can engage students in critical thinking about humanity’s place in the universe, much like futuristic marketing strategies encourage us to envision new possibilities and innovations. This is a hot topic, with other books such as American Cosmos making many “must read” lists this year, along with general interest in extraterrestrial / non-human intelligence / Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP) / Non-Human Intelligence (NHI) very much in cultural conversations these days.

Longhurst’s exploration of AI and its potential spiritual implications is particularly compelling from a marketing and technology perspective. As someone who thrives on being at the cutting edge, this book fuels my imagination about the future intersections of technology and spirituality. The ethical questions raised about AI’s role in religious practices are reminiscent of the debates we have in marketing about the ethical use of AI and data analytics.

The work is a thought-provoking collection that challenges readers to consider the evolving role of faith amidst technological advancements. Longhurst’s ability to tackle complex and often controversial topics with nuance and empathy makes this book a valuable resource for educators, faith leaders, technologists, and marketers alike. It provides a rich tapestry of discussions that can be seamlessly integrated into lessons on environmental science, ethics, technology, and even literature in a succinct and “quick-read” fashion.

“Can Robots Love God and Be Saved?” is a compelling exploration of how faith intersects with some of the most pressing issues of our time. It is a fascinating read for anyone interested in understanding the future of spirituality in a world increasingly shaped by technology based on first-hand considerations rather than a purely academic or “one-sided” perspective. For those of us on the cutting edge, whether in marketing, technology, or education, this book offers a profound and thought-provoking look at the possibilities and challenges ahead.

Good read!

Tech companies freezing political spending and why tech still matters

This is the death knell of PACs for tech companies with activist employees,” one source told Axios. “This is the final straw.”

— via Axios

This is a really fascinating development. First Microsoft and now Facebook are suspending PAC (Political Action Committee) spending in Washington. They’re joining financiers Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Citigroup, along with Marriott, Blue Cross Blue Shield (caveat — our insurance co), Boston Scientific, and Commerce Bank. Bank of America (caveat — one of the banks we do business with), Ford, and AT&T, CVS, Exxon Mobil, and Wells Fargo are considering pulling their political monies.

This hits politicians where it really hurts.

For years, many of us in the “tech world” have decried these PACs and looked at them as a unnecessary evil that needed to be banned or done away with for a number of reasons.

Here are my personal convictions:

The PAC system reinforces the existing system of graft and corruption that so many Americans claim to abhor.
PACs favor the privileged both socio-economically and relationally. It’s a blight on a Democratic Republic and shouldn’t be seen as a “necessary evil” to doing business in the United States. Whatever your sector.
Tech boomed in the late 90’s and then again in the early ’00s because it was seen as a disruptor. From Google to Tesla to Uber (well, maybe they aren’t a great example but they did usher in a transportation paradigm shift) to even Twitter, the tech sector excited us with the promise of something different and more democratic to challenge the status quo. However, as the going got weird, the weird turned pro and put on suits. I want a return to the weird disruption tech that spurred creativity and a hope for a better representation to the powers that be. We’re not so far gone that it can’t happen in light of #metoo, BLM, LBGTQ+, trans rights, accessibility emphasis, and recognition of differently abled persons. Real revolutionary tech that can change the world… I still believe. PACS stand in the way of that.

So as we continue to process and deal with the terrorist insurrection on our Capitol last week, let’s take a second to recognize what these companies are doing by restricting or redirecting their PAC monies and how we can all do our part to not just “unify and move forward” but to cause real change.

Marketing to Your Own Beliefs

I get these sorts of questions frequently from new clients:

“Why aren’t my Facebook Page posts getting more likes?”

“Why isn’t my website getting more views?”

“How can I let more people know I’ve written / made / created / offer the best service / product in my area?”

“When will people start responding to the emails I’m sending them about our product / church service / nonprofit fundraising?”

“What is the best way to market this because what I’ve done hasn’t worked so far?”

After being in the marketing world for almost 20 years now, these are among the most common questions I get from people just beginning to take marketing seriously (and have hired me to help them realize that vision).

We’ve all asked ourselves similar questions after the initial excitement of an idea has faded away due to the lack of engagement from everyone else who didn’t respond the way we wanted.

But that’s the beauty of marketing… it’s a system of nuance and subtleness and not a blunt tool. It’s not meant to “convert” (that’s sales) as much as “persuade” … and that takes extra effort and thinking outside of our own heads. Some do that with data. Some do that with incredible gut instincts.

Nonetheless, don’t fall into the trap of letting your own perspectives dictate all of your marketing efforts…

The dilemma for my boss, for me and for you – as humans – is that it’s very difficult to admit that you were wrong, or even stupid. It’s is the last thing someone will admit. The alternative is, instead of believing the evidence, you double down on your initial belief – belief perseverance – and say it’s the other person who’s wrong.

Source: Cognitive dissonance, conmen and cults: The ways marketers delude themselves

Siri and Incarnation

The theological lens through which we might view these questions is incarnation. In an age of increased engagement with disembodied digital assistants, what might it mean for the church to counterweight this with insisting on and facilitating in-person fellowship? In an era of disembodied conversation, my prayer is that the church might be a contrast society to model a more excellent way of fully-embodied community and in-person presence.

Source: Thanks for your help, Siri. But what about that human connection? – Baptist News Global

I fundamentally disagree with John Chandler here regarding the notion that smart assistants (such as Siri or Alexa or Google Assistant or Cortana or Bixby or M or… well, there are many more) lead to more antisocial behavior or the dangers of people not interacting with other people.

Chandler also invokes the (in)famous Nicholas Carr article Is Google Making Us Stupid? from 2008. One of my favorite rebukes to that article comes from a review of Carr’s subsequent book on the topic, The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Way We Think, Read, and Remember:

Perhaps what he needs are better strategies of self-control. Has he considered disconnecting his modem and Fedexing it to himself overnight, as some digital addicts say they have done? After all, as Steven Pinker noted a few months ago in the New York Times, ‘distraction is not a new phenomenon.’ Pinker scorns the notion that digital technologies pose a hazard to our intelligence or wellbeing. Aren’t the sciences doing well in the digital age, he asks? Aren’t philosophy, history and cultural criticism flourishing too? There is a reason the new media have caught on, Pinker observes: ‘Knowledge is increasing exponentially; human brainpower and waking hours are not.’ Without the internet, how can we possibly keep up with humanity’s ballooning intellectual output?

Socrates feared the same fears of antisocial behavior and intellectual laziness that we project onto television, music, and now the internet in regards to books and admonished Plato to stop writing them.

Smart assistants such as Siri or Alexa do pose a whole new world of possibilities for developers and companies and groups to interact with the connected world. In just a few short years, many of us (our household included) now use these assistants to do everything from schedule events on our cloud-based calendars to turn the lights off before bed. I also stream music, play audio books, ask questions, and crack riddles with Alexa, Siri, and Google Assistant on a daily basis.

While we fear the inevitability of a bleak future as depicted in the movie Her from 2013 in which human beings are completely subsumed into relationships and reality driven by their own personal digital assistants and rarely interact with others, I don’t think that’s the reality we’ll see. There’s a simple reason for that… antisocial behavior is a part of our own internal psychologies and neuropathies. Projecting these fears onto tools such as Siri is misplaced. I’d argue that positioning the church to be anti-tool to encourage incarnational relationships is misplaced as well.

This isn’t the same as arguing that “Guns don’t kill people; People kill people” although that’s an easy leap to make. But no, what I’m arguing here has to do with coming to terms with the ongoing revelation we are making and receiving about the very nature of human thought and how our brain and nervous systems work in tandem with our concept of consciousness. Understanding that newspapers, books, radio, TV, internet, and now Siri don’t make us any more or less lazy or antisocial is an important step in understanding that the core issue of incarnation relies on relationality between humans and the universe.

I do agree with Chandler that the church should be anti-cultural in the sense that it provides a way for exploration into the concept of incarnation. But positing that experience as anti-tool or anti-specific-technology seems to undercut the very notion of the incarnation’s theological and ongoing event in history (call that the kerygma or the Christ event or God Consciousness etc).

Yes, technology can be addictive or exacerbate issues. But let’s address the fundamental issues of culture and personal psychologies that the church is led to do with a healthy and holy notion of inter-personal and inner-personal relationships.

Churches and nonprofits should realize that Facebook privacy issues are just the tip of the iceberg

Way back in 2012, I was featured in a New York Times article titled “How To Muddy Your Tracks on the Internet” and offered up this bit as part of my interview (I was teaching Middle School Science at the time):

“The topic of privacy policies and what lies ahead for our digital footprints is especially fascinating and pertinent for me, since I work with 13- and 14-year-olds who are just beginning to dabble with services such as Gmail and all of Google’s apps, as well as Facebook, Instagram, social gaming,” he said. “I have nothing to hide, but I’m uncomfortable with what we give away.”

It feels like we were so naive then, doesn’t it? Perhaps.

Here’s a segment from a great post by Doc Searls:

Let’s start with Facebook’s Surveillance Machine, by Zeynep Tufekci in last Monday’s New York Times. Among other things (all correct), Zeynep explains that “Facebook makes money, in other words, by profiling us and then selling our attention to advertisers, political actors and others. These are Facebook’s true customers, whom it works hard to please.” Irony Alert: the same is true for the Times, along with every other publication that lives off adtech: tracking-based advertising. These pubs don’t just open the kimonos of their readers. They bring people’s bare digital necks bared to vampires ravenous for the blood of personal data, all for the purpose of “interest-based” advertising.

Source: Doc Searls Weblog · Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica problems are nothing compared to what’s coming for all of online publishing

I have no problem admitting that I’m a fanboy of Doc Searls. Search through the 12 years of archives here and you’ll find me quoting or sourcing him many times in posts regarding advertising throughout the years.

This is one of those seminal posts that I feel like I’ll come back to later and want to reflect upon giving newfound insight or knowledge. That often happens with posts from Searls.

What I’m particularly intrigued about here is the 1) action and 2) reaction notion of “NOW WHAT?”. It’s been no surprise to us that work in the marketing and advertising world what’s happened with Facebook and Cambridge Analytica over the last couple of weeks.

In fact, it’s incredibly easy and almost encouraged to use Facebook data to target people to an alarmingly intimate degree. It’s part of the game. I’ve always felt icky about the situation and I’ve more than once steered clients away from targeting users using FB Ad Manager for campaigns that would otherwise have been fine without that element.

It’s been an uneasy compromise for many of us, knowing what we give away in exchange for the enjoyment of friends and family pictures on Facebook. But this isn’t new. We just waited too long to do anything about it.

So where do we go now? I like Searls’ argument for a reader-first method of distinguishing rights and responsibilities for data on the web. Having worked in AdTech circles for 20 or so years now, I’m dubious about the execution or transformation that it will take to bring about such a revolution though.

Aside from the ethical dimension, there’s also the notion of democratization. Love it or hate it, AdTech and Facebook Ads and Twitter ads and affiliate marketing have leveled the playing field for many small businesses and nonprofits who could never have afforded agency rates as we knew them.

Perhaps that’s the lesson here for us all to learn. There needs to not only be profit involved in algorithmic marketing based on user profiles of demographic data, but also ethics.

We all need to do better with our marketing campaigns. However, the genie is out of the bottle to use another saying. There’s no going back to the quaint world of multi-million dollar Mad Men style creative brand advertisements dominating the industry.

I’d posit that’s a good thing. Meanwhile, online news and publishing and business and church and nonprofit sites should do better about monitoring the type of data they collect and pass on to 3rd parties either knowingly or unknowingly.

Churches and nonprofits especially need to heed this warning. Tracking is built into so many website builders and content management systems and email newsletter systems that they use. However, churches and nonprofits turn a blind eye to the reality that now faces them in an era where people are increasingly already turning away from their outreach.

It’s time to take the web (and those you’re looking to reach) seriously.

Google Rolls Out “Mobile First” Indexing Today

Facebook is undergoing serious challenges to its place as a web hub between the public PR crisis involving its role in the mis/use of data related to Cambridge Analytica and the 2016 election as well as its ongoing tweaks to algorithms which now demote business and group pages in preference to users seeing more content from friends and family.

In the midst of that, there’s been a real uptick in the amount of attention that Google search results receive and topics such as SEO and page loading speed as more and more companies begin to reconsider their social media ad spends on Facebook and Twitter. Companies of all sizes are either pulling their Facebook ad buys altogether or crunching numbers to determine the effectiveness of their campaigns.

Suddenly, Google search results and SEO are becoming the new darlings of the marketing and advertising world again. So, it’s important that starting today, Google is rolling out its “mobile first” indexing scheme.

Whether you’re a big company or a small church or a medium-sized nonprofit, it’s important that you take into consideration elements such as how quickly and how well your website loads on mobile devices (if you want to rank well, at least):

To recap, our crawling, indexing, and ranking systems have typically used the desktop version of a page’s content, which may cause issues for mobile searchers when that version is vastly different from the mobile version. Mobile-first indexing means that we’ll use the mobile version of the page for indexing and ranking, to better help our – primarily mobile – users find what they’re looking for.

We continue to have one single index that we use for serving search results. We do not have a “mobile-first index” that’s separate from our main index. Historically, the desktop version was indexed, but increasingly, we will be using the mobile versions of content.

Source: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Rolling out mobile-first indexing