Virtual Integrity | Faithfully Navigating the Brave New Web | Daniel J. Lohrmann Blog: Faithfully Online

Opt-In To Online Integrity

Daniel Lohrmann — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:58:30 GMT

Why do we dislike the word “censorship” and love the word “freedom?” There are certainly many answers to this question, but I think one aspect is that no one likes being forced to do anything – or told we can’t do an activity. Even when we know that some action is right or the even the best choice, we don’t want others coercing us. We want the freedom to choose it. Of course, this includes online surfing.

Check out these words from a recent Christian song by Jason Gray:

“Give me rules - I will break them. Give me lines - I will cross them. I need more than a truth to believe. I need a truth that lives, moves, and breathes - To sweep me off my feet.”

It shouldn’t be surprising when we revolt at online “censorship” – and not just for Christians in select third-world countries. Why?

Our sinful natures like to test boundaries. More than that, we want to volunteer and not be drafted into service. We love our freedoms and ability to choose. Anything else seems “un-American” and “un-Christian.”

True, we want to be “protected” and “kept safe.” However, if we are honest about accountability and transparency, we realize that one person’s filter is another person’s censorship. The words we use to describe online challenges and solutions are very important.

I’ve been managing technology staff for two decades in the public sector. More than that, I oversee the networks supporting tens of thousands of government customers who know right from wrong online. Still, they choose to do the wrong things fairly often. They regularly violate policies and procedure and more. They may even “mean well,” but surfing patterns can get out of control and staff need to be disciplined. The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" rings true.

Not to let my private sector colleagues off too easy – this is not just a government employee problem. It is just as bad or worse in the private sector and in homes across the world. (Yes, I know this from multiple, reliable sources.) I’ve also spoken at homeschool conferences and various churches to a variety of audiences regarding Christian online conduct. I have interacted with Mom’s and Dads, teens and kids, young and old. (You can see several of my presentations at: http://netsafetyresources.com/videos/ )

The simple truth is that people are struggling in cyberspace. More policies and workplace edicts will not solve this problem. (On the other hand, we do need clear, concise policies at work to articulate the appropriate ways to use new technologies like smart phones at work. We do need to hold staff accountable, which means we do need lines.) Still, this is only a part of the overall solution for Internet Safety at home and work. Rules and censorship alone will never work in the long run - since people will revolt.

Who is right?

So am I siding with the Internet Libertarians? Not fully. I think they underestimate the global problems and nature of the Internet. I believe our governments have important roles to play in stopping organized crime, enforcing laws and providing a safe, reliable online experience. However, I do think Libertarians correctly point out the limitations and over-reach that can occur with too much government intervention or on reliance in government.

Am I siding with Socialists who say this is all going to be fixed with more government intervention and controls? Not! Government can never solve this problem alone. Personal responsibility is paramount. But I do think that government can (and is) providing helpful online protections from online thieves, child molesters and Internet stalkers. There are global Internet problems that are much more complex than most people realize, and we need governments around the world working together to offer appropriate law enforcement on our digital highways and not just our physical highways (roads).

Do I side with the free-market entrepreneurs trying to offer packaged solutions that are easy to use? Yes, please send us more answers, better tools and technology to protect us and allow us to surf our values. Security and privacy online are growing problems, and we need new solutions. Still, technology alone will not solve this problem. There will always be ways to use technology for evil. (Remember that we've had bank robbers for hundreds of years despite new technology.)

Do I side with pastors who preach against cyber lust and other online sins? Yes again. As a Christian, I think that Internet conduct (or cyber ethics) begins as a heart issue. It starts with your worldview and authentic, Biblical values.

What do you really believe? Overcoming temptation must include a bottom-up process that starts with individuals. Few Internet or security “experts” in the field want to acknowledge this part of the problem.

Still, as a society, there are many aspects of online life that are out of control for well-meaning Christians who start off with their “hearts in the right place.” I have discussed cyber ethics and related Internet behaviors with several men who believe that Internet accountability and solutions regarding technology and process are overblown. They feel that if your heart is right, you don’t need anything else. They basically ignore the technology and process sides of the equation.

I disagree with this heart-only approach. Why? Verse four from the famous hymn “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing” says it better than I can:

O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.

Our hearts are prone to wander. We are sinners who are easily deceived. God has given us family and friends to help us overcome sinful habits. He has also given us technology to help – just as He has given us the Internet as a tool to get things done.

I've asked some of these men if they ever fall to temptation online? "Yes, but I just repent and move on."

I think this approach lacks the required depth of analysis and adequate protections to be successful (for the majority of people) in the long-run.

What to do?

OK, so what words can we use if we don’t want to say “censorship” or “Internet freedom?” I prefer “Opting-In to Online Integrity.” Or, Surf Your Values. We need to implement the Seven Habits of Online Integrity.

No doubt, some will think I am just pushing concepts in my book. However, Virtual Integrity is now out of print, and there is no personal financial gain for me to say these things. The truth is that I want to help your family achieve victory in this online battle that will last for the rest of our lives.

Bottom line - We need "all hands on deck" to solve these complex Internet problems. Avoid the extreme positions. Solutions require answers that cover people, processes and technology - together. Yes, that means government can help. But more importantly, churches, families and passionate individuals need to stay engaged and “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”

On a personal level - we need new hearts, transformed lives. We need a Redeemer. Like Jason Gray sings, we need to “fall in love” with the right person – Jesus Christ. That will motivate change in our behaviors – including the processes and technology we use each and every day.

Our God is our creator who knows our needs – and our vulnerabilities. When we are tempted – there will be a way out. We also have a Savior who will forgive us when we turn our backs on Him, if we sincerely repent. Knowing God is life-changing – even in cyberspace.

Internet Safety: Does the Government Help?

Daniel Lohrmann — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:55:40 GMT

A few weeks back I addressed the question: Can Christians Balance Online Freedom, Personal Responsibility, Technology Adoption and Government Action/Regulation in Cyberspace? I started with the Libertarian approach – which basically wants the government out of the Internet safety role altogether. This blog will look at the other end of the spectrum and discuss government action in cyberspace – which is currently fairly extensive.

At a basic level, this topic is straight-forward. The vast majority of Americans agree that the government needs to be involved in combating online crime (with 243 million Google-search results), stopping child porn and helping with cyber safety training. Indeed, this US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website proclaims that cybersecurity is our shared responsibility – and many helpful links are provided from the public and private sector.

Readers of my CSO Magazine and Government Technology Magazine blogs (Lohrmann on Infrastructure & Lohrmann on GovSpace) over the past four years will be very familiar with the numerous aspects of this topic related to online government. The technology and security space that I cover often relates to Internet safety and cyber ethics as well. Since I am a government Chief Technology Officer (CTO), many readers will probably think I am biased in the government intervention direction as well. And yet, I often discuss the limitations associated with “top down” enforcement of policies and laws. As described in my book, I strongly believe that a changed heart is where we must begin to be effective online as Christians in the long run. While I cannot deny bias, my book leans heavily on personal responsibility and accountability.

So why does government need to be involved online – at all? Put simply, the scope of the global problem. I’ve been quoted several times as saying that online crime can be compared to the mafia’s activity in Chicago in the 1930s. Articles like this one are common which point to scams, online fraud, increased hacking by organized criminals, and the global trafficking of children using the Internet.

Put another way, why do we need police on our roads? (If you have recent speeding tickets, you may wish you didn’t see another police car.) As we move more money into online banks, the bad guys will inevitably move further into cyberspace. With the merging of offline and online life, won’t we be replicating the same interactions in cyberspace that we have in the “real world?” Won’t the same protections and safeguards be required? So is it a surprise that our federal government seeks stronger online privacy protection for children?

While most readers may feel fine with the government helping to stop hackers and bank robbers, some readers will no doubt want no government involvement with the Internet in my house, if I’m not breaking any laws. OK, now were getting into the gray areas. We need to start defining right and wrong behaviors online. We’re back to debates on legislating morality. For example, is it a societal right to view (adult) pornography online? Many people would say yes, freedom of speech and press make this fine and the government has no role here.

But what if you are being spammed, tricked, deceived, misled or worse online? What if the content is being pushed at you against your will? Whose job is it to stop this activity? Is this the sole responsibility of households? Can they possibly be successful – without turning off the Internet? What if web filtering companies can’t get the job done? Should the government help citizens in these cases? (Many of these online situations eventually lead to illegal activity, and these lines of “acceptable” are constantly moving.)

With the postal system, mail fraud is a crime. Do we need similar online laws? Indeed, we already have them - but they are not being enforced. (Check out our spam laws around the world.)

In Australia, the government has taken a more active role in web filtering. The global “free Internet” community calls this censorship and actively fights against every step. While I have some difficulty with this government approach, their goals and activity reflect a deeper understanding of the serious online problems we face. I think many Americans underestimate the online dangers we face, and most families do far too little to protect their families. (I am including Christians in this statement.)

In conclusion, this topic evokes emotions and attitudes that are complex and require a discussion that most Americans avoid. Words like “Internet censorship” make us want to respond – NO! We think of China or Iran. We want FREEDOM!

However, words and phrases like: “family safety,” “good cyber citizenship,” “purity,” “Godly character,” and “safe online,” make us feel good. As Christians, we want these things in our lives. The terms we use are “loaded” with emotions. As political debaters know well, the way you say “it” matters. (How can Americans both “oppose abortion” and support “a women’s right to choose” at the same time?) The key question is, as my father taught me, “What is the question?”

Next time, I’ll try and bring these opposing views together into a pragmatic middle ground for Christians. Meanwhile, I’d love to hear your thoughts on government involvement in Internet Safety.

New Internet Tracking Industry Report

Daniel Lohrmann — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:16:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal released a story on how widespread Internet tracking has become. Get used to this, because this is the new normal. Here's an excerpt:

"The largest U.S. websites are installing new and intrusive consumer-tracking technologies on the computers of people visiting their sites—in some cases, more than 100 tracking tools at a time—a Wall Street Journal investigation has found....

The 50 sites installed a total of 3,180 tracking files on a test computer used to conduct the study. Only one site, the encyclopedia Wikipedia.org, installed none. Twelve sites, including IAC/InterActive Corp.'s Dictionary.com, Comcast Corp.'s Comcast.net and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN.com, installed more than 100 tracking tools apiece in the course of the Journal's test."

What is my reaction? First, I'm not surprised in the least. I mention this and similar trends in my book. This practice has been going on for a long time, and it will continue to grow.

Second, as I mention in chapters 9 and 10, I am as concerned - just as other privacy advocates are. The main reason I'm concerned is a lack of knoweldge of these practices and clear communication of what's going on to users. I continue to advocate for an "opt-in" approach to gathering data by Internet companies rather than this default experience.

Third, and this will surprise some readers of my blog who haven't read the book, I think this trend goes both too far and not far enough for true, helpful accountability and the blocking of unwanted online content. Too far in that it happens automatically, without true consent and understanding of users and without much control and easy to use ability to assist Christians.

But not far enough in that those who want to "opt-in" could truly "surf your values" and have a wholesome Internet experience - if this monitoring was used for good. If opt-in profiles were used by trusted providers to enable us, this "tracking" could become an active tool to help. The article describes how we are targeted with ads, but is this done for evil or for good? Are we being tempted down the primrose path? YES.

I'd like to see the ability to truly block unwanted material. More than that - to deliver what I truly want to see, so I don't have to go running all over the Internet looking for content and traverse distracting or even innapropriate material. I believe that this view is shared by many Christian families and others who want to surf their values.

All of this is described in detail in chapters 9 and 10. Technology is heading in a direction where we can offer customers what they truly want and opt-in to see. These developments are both exciting and scary at the same time.

Any thoughts on this trend?

[NOTE to readers - I will continue my previous series on Internet regulation in August. Again, a too-tempting article popped up for me to comment on.]

Introducing Digital Drugs: A Scary New Virtual Trend

Daniel Lohrmann — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:57:47 GMT

I'm taking a quick detour from my mini-series on the Internet Saftey perpsectives from various Christians. I'm doing this because of this new hot topic that just surfaced. This is another indication of how the dark side is progressing in cyberspace.

And now we have digital drugs ...

I was watching the morning news while jogging on my treadmill, and this story came up about digital drugs. This is no joke. Apparently, music is making kids high - just as if on illegal drugs.

Here are a few stories from various sources: The Huffington Post: DIGITAL DRUGS: How Teens Are Using The Internet To Get 'High',

Google search for digital drugs, and from the United Kingdom - i-dosing: the DIGITAL DRUG TERROR that is SWEEPING THE NATION, possibly

For parents, this is a very serious issue that again reflects on virtual life is merging with real life in almost every area of society. This means the good, the bad and the ugly.

What are your thoughts on digital drugs or i-dosing?

Can Christians Balance Online Freedom, Personal Responsibility, Technology Adoption and Government Action/Regulation in Cyberspace?

Daniel Lohrmann — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:49:48 GMT

The more time I spend researching various perspectives regarding appropriate use of the Internet by Christians, the more I come across conflicting points of view on how to achieve Internet Safety. I’m talking about big differences. In fact, many people question the role for schools, the role for families, the role of government, the role of the church or even the role technology can play in stopping unwanted content from crossing PC screens at home, work, libraries or churches. What’s strange is that these same Christians from both the right and the left (and north and south) of the political spectrum desire similar outcomes (such as purity in thought, word and deed, protecting children, helping families, etc), but their “how to” answers often contradict each other. In fact, seemingly irreconcilable differences often emerge. The various sides often demonize each other as well.

In this blog, I’ll discuss the Libertarian approach to the Internet, and next time I’ll discuss some of the more active (government engagement) approaches which I am seeing. But I want to start by suggesting that I see good points on both sides. My concern is that, no matter which view you take, each Christian parent must understand that ultimately it is your responsibility to protect your family and your character online. The level of government involvement and help can be debated, but each of us is ultimately responsible to God.

Many authors write about the need for more Internet freedoms. Data should be free. Keep the government out of Internet activity. Don’t tax online transactions. They discuss (even rant about) Internet censorship in countries like China and Iran. All sides agree that religious freedom and an accurate account of history are victims when inappropriate filtering and blocking the free flow of thought occurs in certain countries. Supporters of Internet freedom are everywhere, as shown by this article in which Hillary Clinton unveils U.S. policy on Internet freedom.

Here’s another video in which Hillary Clinton discusses Internet Freedoms.

And yet, groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation go further and extend these same anti-censorship principles to everyone in the US and Europe as well. They encourage web surfers to go around their company’s filtering of “inappropriate content.” To them, any blocking of content is censorship. Personal privacy is the ultimate goal.

Christian Libertarian advocates also want to keep maximum freedom. For example, read this excerpt of a piece by Lew Rockwell:

Two basic pillars of libertarianism are personal freedom and an aversion to aggression. Libertarians rightly do not believe that people should be compelled to make decisions by the government. Even Christian libertarians, such as myself, who are morally opposed to activities such as smoking, drunkenness and homosexual behavior, still realize that it is not the proper role of the State to try to dictate to adults whether or not they should smoke. Nor does it make much sense for the State to patrol people’s bedrooms to make sure they aren’t engaging in sodomy. While many people view such habits as destructive, they can also look at the empirical evidence from history and realize that the State has a very bad track record trying to intervene in such matters (Prohibition, anyone?).

Their Libertarian motto: Fully free, Fully Responsible, Fully Accountable,

Of course, all of this seems fine until you read articles that take this even further. Is it ok to have no rules? This blog suggests that all automatic filtering should be stopped at schools. Here’s an excerpt:

“In the course of our conversation, we also clarified his central point, which is, I think, common-sensical and inarguable: People, not machines, should have authority over what students are allowed to access on the Internet. The final authority over Internet access should reside with the teachers and librarians charged with overseeing students, not software.”

Here’s another article in which most librarians think that filtering is a bad idea from a pragmatic perspective.

It might be worth taking some time and reading this article on personal freedom from a Biblical perspective. Which leads to my last two articles. In the first, the case is made for “real” Internet freedom or Cyber-Libertarianism.

In the second, the two basic pillars of libertarianism are described. I close with this excerpt so that you can gain a better understanding of where this group is coming from philosophically.

“Two basic pillars of libertarianism are personal freedom and an aversion to aggression. Libertarians rightly do not believe that people should be compelled to make decisions by the government. Even Christian libertarians, such as myself, who are morally opposed to activities such as smoking, drunkenness and homosexual behavior, still realize that it is not the proper role of the State to try to dictate to adults whether or not they should smoke. Nor does it make much sense for the State to patrol people’s bedrooms to make sure they aren’t engaging in sodomy. While many people view such habits as destructive, they can also look at the empirical evidence from history and realize that the State has a very bad track record trying to intervene in such matters (Prohibition, anyone?).

On aggression, libertarians have long been champions against governmental coercion and unprovoked harm. Libertarians oppose unprovoked, immoral military aggression against foreign countries that are hardly waged in the name of defense. Likewise, libertarians oppose personal aggression that threatens ones life or property. Not only that, but governmental aggression against an individual’s pursuit of economic liberty is denounced rightly as aggression. This principle of non-aggression is innately tied to the concept of personal freedom and liberty. No outside governmental force has the right to compel or coerce another person’s personal behavior through the force of the State. Also, the State is immorally engaging in aggression when it sanctions murder or other forms of personal harm against its own or even foreign inhabitants for non-defensive reasons.”

So where does this leave me on Internet Safety? Of course, Libertarians believes that ALL Internet safety is a personal matter. We should be addressing this with our Internet Service Provider (ISP) and our family members. Just head to Staples or Best Buy and load up the software. Of course, they also understand the role of "heart issues" related to freedom of choice.

While I applaud this “can do” personal responsibility on the Net mentality, I seriously doubt if most families can pull this off without significant help. The government may not be our answer, but the next question is: who is truly living-out this freedom model role in Christian families today? In my opinion, very, very few people are doing well regarding moral purity online – unless they just turn off their computers.

No doubt, this vacuum creates an economic opportunity for businesses, but my friendly tech vendors are struggling badly to just keep the malware and viruses off of my laptop. They do a very poor job of helping me to protect my character and “surf my vales” in cyberspace. As I describe in my book, we need the seven habits of online integrity in each of our lives, but unfortunately, most people aren’t catching that vision yet. So yes, the government is stepping in to fill the void – for better or worse. This is both scary and fairly predictable – based on their role in just about all of society and their stances on what’s allowed in public schools. (Prayer is not allowed.)

Next time, I’ll look at government activities and upcoming Internet regulation. While I don’t support all that’s going on, and in my heart I’m for “Internet Freedom,” the wild, wild Internet is getting out of control and beyond the ability for the average Joe to protect himself. We’ll also examine the steps that Chrsitians can take while the debate rages on.

My last piece on this topic will look at some potential middle ground. I will offer some pragmatic steps for Christians who find themselves on the front lines of these Internet battles.

Any thoughts from you on this topic?

Integrity Theft: A Hot issue for Young Adults

Daniel Lohrmann — Mon, 31 May 2010 13:59:59 GMT

A recent USA Today article proclaimed that: Young adults keep closer eye on 'online reputation' Here's an excerpt:

"The Web often comes across as a global watering hole where young adults freely trade personal information while more cautious older visitors stand to the side for fear of losing a grip on their online privacy.

But a new survey turns that notion on its head, showing that those 18 to 29 are more likely than older Internet users to keep a keen eye on their online profiles and who can access them, according to a Pew Internet & American Life Project report out Wednesday on 'Reputation Management and Social Media."'

These survey results won't surprise readers of Virtual Integrity. Indeed, online reputation is only one of the aspects of Integrity Theft which the younger generation is concerned with. The truth is that our integrity and character are at stake every time we engage others in cyberspace.

Indeed, just as identity theft happens online and in the real world (see this article where a Harvard senior charged with forging his way into university), so online behaviors will impact every area of our lives. I have seen people lose jobs, marriages or even go to jail for online activity. Nevertheless, we can also be cyber ambassadors for good.

The interesting things is that many in the younger generation seem to "get it" when it comes to what's at stake, while older generations do not. That is, those in their teens or twenties are seeing for themselves what happens when they don't act with online integrity.

On a related topic: RC Sproul Jr. recently answered the question: Should Christians be on Facebook? His answers are very similar to the the problems I describe in Virtual Integrity, and I urge you to read his comments.

The only item I disagree with him on is item #6 - "The cyberworld can be a barren wasteland, not because it is filled with pornography and gambling, but because it isn’t real, because it is Gnostic."

While I can understand his point - the cyberworld is very real with very real consequences to online actions. The view that the Internet is totally fake can cause problems in many areas of life. In addition, our cyber worlds and real worlds are merging closer together all the time.

What are your thoughts on these articles and trends in cyberspace?

Some Helpful Web Links

Daniel Lohrmann — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:41:48 GMT

Here are a few helpful links that you might find useful :

1) The Luddite's Guide to Technology (and all that stuff) - This short guide from the UK offers many "how to" descriptions from "How to subscribe to a podcast" to "How to get the most out of google searches."

2) For the more advanced users, you may find this CNN/Money Fortune series of videos to be helpful regarding a wide range of interesting technology topics.

3) Christians who have never visited Godtube.com or Tangle.com. may want to take a look at what those websites have to offer.

Happy Surfing,

Dan

fyi - For those who are wondering, I will be getting back to "The Mortification of Sin" overview in the next few months. It's been a busy Winter and early Spring in the Lohrmann household.

Important Trends and Hot Headlines

Daniel Lohrmann — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:15:25 GMT

Here are a few of the stories that I've been following over the past weeks:

Ads appear on school websites
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-03-17-school-website-ads_N.htm

Break Media's collection of websites knows guys http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-03-17-break17_ST_N.htm

FCC's National Broadband Plan raises divisive issues
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-03-17-fcc17_ST_N.htm

If you read through these articles, you'll quickly see that many of my predictions from Virtual Integrity are happening right now (faster than I expected).

One interesting question is this: if the government is advocating broadband connectivity as a virtual mandate for all, are they partially responsible for the bad things that happen as well? I'm not sure.

However, think of state lotteries and the free 800 lines for gambling addicts, etc. With the many good things online come the bad, so the government may be getting even more involved in these online topics as well.

This can be a good or bad thing - depending on many factors. But there is little doubt that this is a developing trend. There are already many government run websites like www.ftc.gov/idtheft that help in the fight against ID Theft, but what I'm talking about goes much further than consumer advice.

Nevertheless, we'll never eliminate the need for personal responsibility and godly character. Our trust is not in man but in the Lord. Psalm 73:26-28 says this:

My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my life and my portion forever. For behold, those who are far from you shall perish; you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you. But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord God my refuge, that I may tell of your works.

What are your thoughts on these articles?

Great lecture: Transformed Social Interaction in Virtual Reality

Daniel Lohrmann — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 01:33:09 GMT

If you have an extra hour and want to truly learn more about what's coming with virtual world's, new marketing techniques online and a host of other interesting material, watch this lecture from the Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Regardless of your viwepoint on these topics, the research is fascinating to watch and discuss.

The lecture is given by Jeremy Bailenson, founding director of Stanford University's Virtual Human Interaction Lab and an associate professor in the Department of Communication at Stanford. He describes how everything can be manipulated in virtual worlds. I won't even try to summarize his findings, so watch and learn.

No doubt, the implications can be pretty scary for the future of virtual worlds. And yet, it is important to know what the future holds.

An Avatar in Your Life?

Daniel Lohrmann — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:51:28 GMT

OK, so my daughter and I finally saw the movie Avatar last night. It was an amazing experience. There are millions of websites analyzing various aspects of the movie right now, but I want to discuss how this movie will likely impact the majority online over the next few years.

Avatar is an simply amazing accomplishment and a true milestone in filmmaking. Christianity Today has a nice review by Todd Hertz, and Pluggedin.com offers a more thorough look which is a bit more critical. Since Avatar just broke all box office records, I suspect that people will be talking about this movie for a long, long time.

So what's the immediate reaction for movie-goers? CNN describes a certain Avatar Blues in which: "James Cameron's completely immersive spectacle "Avatar" may have been a little too real for some fans who say they have experienced depression and suicidal thoughts after seeing the film because they long to enjoy the beauty of the alien world Pandora."

The articles goes on to describe how people search the Internet to learn more about Pandora and immerse themselves in "that feeling" again. It's a bit like how I feel after a big NFL football game - if my team wins and important matchup. I want to watch the replays, interviews, read blogs and get ready for next week.

Where am I going with this? I think James Cameron has given a huge, no monsterous, boost to avatars in cyberspace. Put another way, I suspect that there may be an avatar in your life - coming soon. How soon, you ask? It depends - but probably within five years and likely within a decade.

No, I'm not predicting any Pandoras coming to earth, but I am suggesting that plenty of earthlings will be running around virtual Pandora. More than that, Second Life and other virtual worlds describe what an avatar can be today. Over the next few years, we will all be using avatars like we use email today.

Don't believe me? Check out this post from Internet Evolution. Here's an excerpt:

"The patent, filed more than year ago but only recently publicized, is for 'Avatar Individualized By Physical Characteristic.' The patent's abstract says the avatar created this way 'reflects a physiological characteristic of the user, injecting a degree of reality into the capabilities or appearance.... The physical characteristics can be further extended to psychological traits associated with the physical person, including intelligence, religious beliefs, political affiliations, and hobbies that affect the rendering of an avatar.'"

So avatars in cyberspace will bring together the virtual and physical worlds in new ways. They will help us shop online, be our view (and perhaps filter) into the Internet, identify who we are, allow people to build new relationships in "virtual worlds" (like Second Life) with the "real" person being on the other side of the planet - just like in the movie.

Believe it or not, Gartner predicts that 2% of US citizens will get married in a virtual marriage by 2015, and many people are signing up today. Get this: "(Adam) Sarner predicts companies will spend more money marketing and advertising products and services to virtual “personas” by 2020 than they do in the physical world. He also says at least one city will elect a 'virtual anonymous persona' to be its mayor by 2020."

What are the implications for Christians and people of faith? That is one topic I will be discussing in 2010 in this blog. The implications for everyday life are vast, and I don't think we should run away from this topic. This trend will affect how we view the world around us and how we interact with others. Much more to come on this topic.

What are your thoughts on the movie Avatar?

Internet Behavior and the Mortification of Sin

Daniel Lohrmann — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:05:39 GMT

Back in December 2009, I introduced the book The Mortification of Sin and described how John Owen's short book which was written almost 350 years ago has helped me understand the power of sin in my life. Owen does an amazing job at explaining what the Bible describes as the "deceitfulness of sin" or how we are blinded to our heart's true condition.

Reading my new one year Bible today, I was struck by these words from Jesus, "But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander." (Matt 15:18-19)

In chapter 2, Owen describes why we must mortify (or destroy) sin in our lives. He describes the details of each of these items in the book. Here are his reasons:

1. Indwelling sin always abides while we are in this world.

2. Sin is acting and laboring to bring forth the deeds of the flesh.

3. Sin, if not continually mortified, will bring forth great, cursed, scandalous, and soul-destroying sins (Gal. 5:19-20).

4. The Holy Spirit and our new nature are given to us to oppose sin and lust (Gal. 5:17; 2 Pet 1:4).

5. Neglect of this duty makes the inner man decay instead of renewing him (2 Cor 4:16).

6. Our spiritual growth is our daily duty (2 Cor 7:1; 1 Pet 2:2; 2 Pet 3:18).

Owen goes on to describe the condition of many professing Christians living during his lifetime: "Perhaps we might find that, judging by the principle of mortification, the number of true believers is not as multiplied as it appears from those who made a mere profession.... If vain spending of time, idleness, envy, strife, variance, emulations, wrath, pride, worldliness, selfishness are the mark of Christians, we have them among us in abundance."

Wow! And that was back in the 17th century! How much more true is this statement today with the behaviors displayed on the Internet, TV, video games, etc? In other words, Owen is pointing out that our thoughts and actions give evidence of whether or not we are true believers.

While it is true that we are saved by grace, "He who is able to swallow and digest daily sins in his life without conviction in the heart is at the very brink of turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. Let a man pretend what he will, little concern over sin is a serious offence to the grace and mercy of God!"

Owen moves on and points out how our lives affect others and can provide an evil influence. Others watch professing Christians and think that they are just as good as those people who, "have a zeal for religion, but it is not accompanied with righteousness. They view their worldly and selfish lives. They see them talk spiritually but live vainly."

This condition can even leave others into a serious misunderstanding and false condition. "It deceives them to think that if they can just be as good as the unmortified professor (other person) it shall be well with them. In reality they might even go further in 'holiness' than the unmortified professor, and yet still fall short of eternal life."

Yes, this is just some of the solid meat in one chapter. I will go on next time to describe some of Owen's solutions based on Christ's teaching and the Apostle Paul's guidance in Romans.

But what is just as exciting to me is the practical reality that God's Word and Owen's teachings prove to be true in real life. Our everyday experience matches what Owen describes. Our online battles are real, and the Biblical solutions provide answers that work. Just read the papers, listen to testimonies, watch how people are deceived in cyberspace.

So often it starts with "small sins" or "little white lies" that lead to much, much more. and grows and grows. For some, their online behavior even leads to jail time. Check out this story as an example.

Next time, I'll speak to some of Owen's solutions, but I encourage readers to buy and read this book. You won't regret it

Any thoughts on cyber sin?

Avatars and Virtual Christmas Presents

Daniel Lohrmann — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:18:53 GMT

It's Christmas Eve (morning), and everywhere I go online I'm reading about avatars. Whether you are heading to the movies or buying last minute gifts, it seems that this new word is becoming more globally mainstream.

Starting with the movie, which I haven't seen yet, Avatar opened to a pretty good $73 million weekend. I won't comment on the movie, except to say that everyone seems to be talking about it at work.

Perhaps even more interesting are the many articles about virtual worlds and buying real Christmas presents for online characters. Many people I speak with don't understand this growing trend, but they didn't understand MySpace or Facebook's attraction a few years back. Now they do.

Take this USA Today article about hot selling, but cheap, virtual Christmas presents. Here are a few significant excerpts that I believe are very relevant for all of us.

"Sebastien de Halleux, COO of Playfish, which owns 11 social games and virtual worlds played on social networks, explained the appeal in an interview with Inside Social Games, a blog run by Inside Network. Some of the 8 million people who bought pumpkins on Pet Society this year said they were doing it so their friends could 'check out their Halloween decorations.'

'How many friends can go to your real house vs. check out how you've expressed yourself in a game on Facebook or MySpace?' he asked. "So the value of a virtual good can be in some cases higher than that of physical goods.'"

The entire article is worth reading, but here are more interesting thoughts:

"IMVU CEO Cary Rosenzweig, a former marketing manager for Tide, says virtual goods 'nvolve you to a greater degree and accelerate your standing in the virtual world.' Users, he says, 'don't think of the world as real life and this as 'fake stuff.'"

And another expert compared purchasing virtual items to the use of eBay in its early days.

One more story: Check out this YouTube video on the first ever marriage between a real man and a video game character. I know this sounds crazy, but so do all of these first time Internet stories. This is a step beyond previous articles on marriages and divorces of avatars.

So what's my point? Virtual worlds and virtual characters are becoming more and more popular. As described in detail in my book, this trend will accelerate over the next decade, until we all have avatars. Avatars will become as popular as IMing and email. This trend raises huge questions for all of us who go online.

A central question will become: how can you surf your values in cyberspace?

What are your thoughts on avatars?

Motivation for Virtual Integrity: The Mortification of Sin

Daniel Lohrmann — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:11:14 GMT

Over the past year, I have presented various aspects of Virtual Integrity to a variety of secular and Christian audiences all over the country. One of the most thoughtful questions that I consistently get revolves around end user motivations online. The question is asked in different ways, but the essence is this: What motivates virtual integrity?

Some interested attendees have come up to me after a lecture and said something to the effect, "The seven habits of virtual integrity are great, but it all comes down to heart issues. People will do what they really want to do on the Internet."

A few have been even a little more critical, "Could these practices lead towards works-based righteousness?" As the son of a Lutheran pastor, "grace alone" and "faith alone" were more than just famous theological debating topics, so I take these questions very seriously.

Initially, I had a chapter on motivation in the book. The draft chapter title was: "Where's Does Motivation Come From? Faith and Hope in the Information Age." My editor strongly recommended removing it, which we did, since my writing mainly pointed to others who are far more articulate on this topic than I. There is an age old adage that goes something like, "If you can't say it better, quote it."

Still, motivation for integrity is a very important topic, one that is much more fundamental than my book. As a Christian, the issue deals with the wider area of destroying sin, not just cyber or online sin (or sins), and overcoming all types of temptation.

I certainly agree, that our surfing actions and habits all start with our heart's desire. I like to use the example of Tolkien's "ring of power" from Lord of the Rings. We all have a "precious." While we think we can control our precious for our advantage or satisfaction, that precious will ultimately control us.

So over the next few months, I want to point you towards a few excellent resources to help with this important question of online motivation or heart issues. There are a few authors and books that have truly changed my life and outlook on this topic. One of those books is: The Mortification of Sin by John Owen. I like the abridged version that was made easy to read by Richard Rushing (The Banner of Truth Trust, 2004). I have read this short book many, many times, and I always learn something new. I highly recommend it, and I have purchased and given away numerous copies.

Don't be afraid of the word "mortification." To mortify sin simply means to crush, put down or even to kill sin and its affects in our lives. Christians are commanded to mortify sin in the Bible.

"Put to death (mortify) therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these, the wrath of God is coming." (Col 3:5-6)

Here's an amazing quote from chapter two of The Mortification of Sin: "Do you mortify? Do you make it your daily work? You must always be at it while you live; do not take a day off from this work; always be killing sin or it will be killing you."

I will go into more specifics on the book next time, but I want to be clear that the famous Puritan (John Owen) is NOT suggesting we can do this alone or in our own strength. Rather, he writes to Christians on overcoming sin and temptation in all areas of life. He describes the work of God in us through the Holy Spirit. And yet, he emphasizes our daily duty and the Apostle Paul's example of disciplining the body (1 Cor. 9:27).

What I love about this book is how practical it is. It gets at the "nitty gritty" when it comes to sin and temptation. He describes in detail how sin destroys and how it takes control and grows in our lives. It's almost like having our enemy's playbook. Needless to say, it is easiest to eliminate sin before the roots become too deep.

After one recent seminar I received an unexpected letter in the mail. This Christian man confessed lustful desires that had been ever-present since he was a teenager. Now, the Internet was making matters worse - facing daily temptations at work that attracted him towards the dark side of the net.

He loved the book Virtual Integrity, but he had more questions on his "precious" and help in overcoming sin in his life. I sent him a copy of Owen's book.

Our virtual lives are tied to our physical lives and it all starts with our thought life. In the end, we will all be held to account. Thanks be to God that we have time-tested answers that work. (Owen wrote his book in 1656.) It has never been more relevant than now!

More thoughts next time on The Mortification of Sin by John Owen. This book is fundamental to motivating Christian virtual integrity in the 21st century.

Google Wants to Know What I Like or Enable Surfing Your Values

Daniel Lohrmann — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:59:56 GMT

A good friend sent me an article this week that was written by Eric Schmidt, who is Google's CEO. His comment was that this article read just like the beginning of chapter 9 from the book Virtual Integrity. You decide if my friend is right.

The article is entitled: How Google Can Help Newspapers Here's an excerpt:

"It's the year 2015. The compact device in my hand delivers me the world, one news story at a time. I flip through my favorite papers and magazines, the images as crisp as in print, without a maddening wait for each page to load.

Even better, the device knows who I am, what I like, and what I have already read. So while I get all the news and comment, I also see stories tailored for my interests. I zip through a health story in The Wall Street Journal and a piece about Iraq from Egypt's Al Gomhuria, translated automatically from Arabic to English. I tap my finger on the screen, telling the computer brains underneath it got this suggestion right."

Of course, there are differences. Schmidt's scene is in 2015 not 2012 as in the book. He is looking for content on a device reader, while I am personalizing my visit at a hotel. Still the basic ideas are the same. Eric Schmidt wants us to be able to surf our values, as described in chapters 9 & 10. He uses different words, but the direction is clear.

What are your thoughts?

New Dashboard Displays What Google Knows About You

Daniel Lohrmann — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:01:57 GMT

Computerworld just ran a good article on Google's new dashboard, which tells users what specific data Google has stored on their servers about them. Here's a quote:

"The company said the Dashboard is set up so that users can control the personal settings in each Google product that they use. Google said the Dashboard tool supports more than 20 products and services, including Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Web History, YouTube, Picasa, Talk, Reader, Alerts and Google Latitude."

The Computerworld article goes on to discuss what information is not displayed, such as data linked to your computer's IP address or information on where you have searched.

More information on how to use your Google Dashboard can be found at this unofficial Google blog website.

I still believe that we are heading in the direction I describe in my book Virtual Integrity chapters 9 & 10. It will be interesting to see how these services progress with Microsoft and Google (regarding the tracking and use of our information) in 2010.

When I spoke at a church in Sawyer, Michigan, yesterday, many Christian men expressed a strong interest in not seeing so many tempting ads and commercials. That is, why can't this personal data profile be used for good to allows us to surf our values in new ways. I still think the "surf your values" approach has legs and is an option that most consumers would appreciate. I describe this approach in detail in the book.

Of course, users also want transparency around the data that companies have on them. They also want to be able to control privacy settings. This new Google service seems like a nice step in the right direction.

What are your thoughts? Sign up for free and let me know.

Net Etiquette and Acceptable Online Speech

Daniel Lohrmann — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:45:51 GMT

There continues to be a steady diet of articles being released on networking etiquette and what is acceptable or not when updating social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter or YouTube. Meanwhile, blogs and online news are starting to face the same questions that print media are dealing with regarding "free speech."

Unfortunately, many people still seem to draw the line at what is legal and not at what actions or statements are kind, helpful or courteous. The online norm still seems to be focused on getting attention - not doing the right thing.

The questions are endless, but here are a few: What is considered private or personal anymore? How do we deal with upcoming "private" events that may eventually become public, like surprise birthday parties? When does free speech become hate speech? While this may seem like a "no-brainer" to many readers, the "acceptable" line has moved so far that everyone must now be on guard online at all times.

Here are a few examples to consider: Online Hate Specch: Difficult to police ... and define. Here an interesting quote:

"An application on Facebook asks people to answer a quiz so they can see what "famous retard" they are most like. A Maryland police officer hosts a site with more than 100,000 members that tells people to 'Stop breaking the law, retard.' In July, a YouTube video hosted by 'ExecutetheGays1' provided graphic suggestions about how to kill homosexuals. The site was taken down after five days...."

Or how about a less severe case? Consider: Don't post that! -- networking etiquette emerges. "Stephanie Kahn wanted to bask in her engagement for a few hours before diving into the task of calling aunts, uncles and good friends with the big news. And even before she could call them, she had a surprise party to attend, one that her fiance had set up for their parents and her 'closest group of girlfriends.' That party was when Kahn lost control of her news...."

One more: Is Islamophobia a Worldwide Free Speech Threat?

"In Denmark, a 15-year-old Danish boy faces prison time for distributing leaflets warning that the country could someday become a Muslim nation and that he thinks that is a bad thing. A Danish prosecutor called the leaflets 'hate speech.'

Yet, across the water in Sweden, it was not hate speech when a leading national newspaper printed an article a few weeks ago claiming that Israeli soldiers harvest and sell organs from dead Palestinians. Some say that claim amounts to the anti-Semitic Jewish blood libel, that Jews commit human sacrifice on non-Jews.

The Swedish government, which defended the newspaper, said it was free speech...."

This last article hit home, since my 19-year old daughter likes to visit websites and blogs that discuss Christians witnessing to various people with other religions around the world. Some of her "innocent" statements have attracted unwanted attention from the other side of the globe.

So what are we to do? Chapter 5 of Virtual Integrity starts with this insightful statement from David Wells' book Losing Our Virtue, "We live precariously on the knife-edge between chaos and control. What was once an open space between law and freedom, one governed by character and truth, is now deserted, so law must now do what character has abandoned."

This is a very difficult online problem that is getting worse, not better. I suspect that we will be struggling with these speech questions for the rest of our lives. I discuss several online strategies in the book, but it all starts with a recognition of the problems we all face.

One tip: we must stop and think before we click. Could my online comments, blog statements or email be used against me? Could my statements be taken out of context if forwarded to others? You never really know where your "private" words will end up online, so be very careful what you say or do online. Are you surfing your values?

Or in Biblical terms: "A perverse man stirs up disssension, and a gossip separates close friends." (Proverbs 16:28).

Internet Freedom Versus Online Piracy

Daniel Lohrmann — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:45:49 GMT

I came across an interesting article regarding the ongoing battle between Internet freedom and controlling online piracy. The London Times article entitled: An uncreative soultion to online piracy offers a fair view of the issue - before siding with the freedom side.

I highlight this article for several reasons. I have received several letters and article comments which point out many legitimate fears associated with new government controls regarding online conduct. In the same way that the majority distrust government regarding health care issues and the active debate on health insurance reform, many Christians distrust government regarding their monitoring of Internet activity. This fear has recently been expressed with headlines such as Bill would give President emergency control of Internet. I fully understand and respect these fears.

There is also quite a bit of work being done globally to stop government censorship of the Internet in countries like China. There are many valid reasons to fight for Internet freedoms, and we certainly can't legislate morality.

And yet .... to the "Internet freedom" crowd, I ask this question: what role should government have online? (Almost) everyone wants to stop child predators online, curtail plagiarism, reduce spam and help users be safe online, but is the government's role simply to provide web training and not enforce laws? I suspect we will be debating this question for decades to come.

I tried to articulate a middle ground during a recent interview with The High Calling.

"Think of the Internet as our new digital superhighway system. We have many freedoms on our roads, but we also have many laws. There are numerous parallels between roads and the Internet, including the need for good training, ensuring safety, and accepted codes of conduct.

At work, you must remember that the network belongs to your business. Courts have upheld that there is generally no presumption of privacy on company networks, and you must abide by acceptable use policies, as long as policies are clear and equally enforced. So remember, there are no "personal" messages at work—according to the law.

I also agree that controls alone will never solve our problems. There are thousands of ways to get around filters and controls, and we cannot rely on technology (or governments) alone to solve online problems. Solutions must address people, heart issues, repeatable processes, and technology."

Finally, Christians may rightly fear too much government intervention or too many external controls, but we need to take personal responsibility for our actions. Are you a part of the problem or the solution? That is, do you steal by copying music illegally? Are you truthful online? Do you have a separate Internet identity that would harm your family or career if the details were made public?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic of Internet freedoms. It is easy to sign up and leave comments.

Microsoft CEO: Computers Will Know User Intent

Daniel Lohrmann — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:48:39 GMT

In a speech to the North Carolina Technology Association, Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), said computers will become intuitive and know your intentions over the next decade. The Charlotte Observer covered the speech and here is an interesting quote:

"When you type the word “Chicago” into a search engine, it will be able to determine whether you meant the city, the band or the musical based on your Internet history.

Another part of the future is the development of a more natural interface. Users will be able to speak to, touch and gesture at their computers even more."

In another announcement, Microsoft said that their next version of Office 2010 will have a free online version for those willing to watch ads or commercial messages.

I highlight both of these developments, since both of these trends were described in detail in the book Virtual Integrity, as well as predictions surrounding how temptations will accelerate in the workplace via these advertisements.

A central question will become, how will the computer know my values? Who will keep that inventory? Will my beliefs and faith be respected in this new office?

What are your thoughts on these developments?

Internet Ethics: The Difficulty with Defining What's Right and Wrong Today

Daniel Lohrmann — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:47:19 GMT

Over the past few months, I've been intrigued with the number of articles and blogs published which use the word "sins" as the topic. Here are a few:

The Seven Deadly Sins of Technology in Higher Education,

Seven Deadly Sins of Social Networking Security,

The Seven Deadly Office Sins.

Beyond the fact that each author used the number seven, I find it interesting how the word "sin" is now commonly used in society. For example I never thought of "mixing personal and professional life" as a sin. Nor have I ever been personally convicted with the idea that "distrusting new methods of acquiring knowledge" or "not emptying my inbox daily" were sins.

While I suspect that these creative authors are just trying to attract attention online and use dramatic words to make a point, this trend is a symptom of a very serious issue online today. Namely, what's right and what's wrong on the net? Yes, the general topic is not new, since Pilot asked Jesus, "What is truth?" But the Internet has taken defining good and evil to a new level.

Several people have asked me why I wrote Virtual Integrity from a Christian perspective. One of the reasons was that I wanted to address this question that Tim Keller describes as the all important "who sez" in his great book The Reason for God. That is, who defines what's allowed and not allowed? As a Christian, integrity for me is grounded in God's Word, the Bible.

US and international law is another answer that is commonly used as the benchmark, but laws change over time and vary around the world. Many people ignore laws and illegally download files or plagiarize content without thinking twice.

Differences are also evident amongst Christians. Although the vast majority of comments on the book are positive on Amazon.com, Jack H. David wrote this under the heading What Does He Mean By Wrong?

"Lohrman apparently makes the assumption that 'Christian values' is an objective entity that is universal and definable. I disagree. There are many Christian denominations and many more individual Christians with different interpretations of such subjective concepts as 'right or wrong.' I, for example, am a Christian who believes in salvation by grace alone - that we do 'good' things not to be saved, but because we are saved. I have a personal relationship with God, and I do not need Lohrman, or anyone else, to quantify the parameters of right and wrong for me. I know, within the boundaries of my own conscience, what is right and what is wrong. If I do something that is 'wrong,' it is because I choose to do so - and I alone am responsible for the consequences."

I thank Mr. David for submitting his comments, but I want to address one of his points.

In chapters 7 and 8, I describe the process for "surfing your values" and connecting your offline values with your online world. On page 123 of Virtual Integrity I write, "Each person must be comfortable with where they stand on Christian ethics. My main purpose in this point is not to question different Christian values and beliefs, as long as they are biblically based. Rather, I urge you to inform and transform your online life by first clarifying overall values."

I have no desire to "quantify the parameters of right and wrong" for you. That is not my place. However, I do believe in objective truth, and I offer the Bible as the basis for Christian ethics and parameters for right and wrong. I specifically point to the Ten Commandments and Christ's teachings on the Sermon on the Mount as accepted Christian teaching for the vast majority of denominations.

However, I agree with your statement that our own conscience decides what is right and wrong. Sadly, many people have different standards and behaviors for their online and offline life. My hope is that we can connect the two, but I also agree that our salvation is not dependent on our performance. God's grace inspires and enables integrity and ethics both offline and online.

Bottom line: The seven habits of online integrity are disciplines that I hope can help you surf your values - not mine or anyone else's. Once we have thought through and articulated our personal boundaries for right and wrong with trusted family and friends, living with integrity in a virtual world means that we do what we say and say what we do in cyberspace. Through it all, we are ultimately accountable to God, and we rely on His grace and forgiveness when we make mistakes.

Several non-Christians have thanked me for grounding my perspectives on the historic Bible. One said, "even when I don't agree, I know that you base your definitions on something solid."

What are your thoughts about defining "right and wrong" in cyberspace?

Do you have a problem with using the word "sins" in this way?

A Twitter Revolution - Or Not?

Daniel Lohrmann — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:44:29 GMT

The Internet is full of intriguing global stories displaying the power of the social networking site Twitter.com. The Washington Post published a story today entitled: Iran Elections: A Twitter Revolution. Here's are some excerpts:

"The State Department asked social-networking site Twitter to delay scheduled maintenance earlier this week to avoid disrupting communications among tech-savvy Iranian citizens as they took to the streets to protest Friday's reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

"Washington, D.C.: It seems like this is maybe the first time that technology has played such a role, with text messages and pictures on Twitter and other sites plus the use of cell phone cameras too. Is it a first? What is the Iranian government doing to try to stop information from coming out?

Evgeny Morozov: It's definitely not a first time. Technology has traditionally played a very important role in facilitating protest; remember that the early anti-communist protests in Poland were facilitated with the help of the Xerox machines! In the last decade, we have seen technology play a crucial role in helping people gather and, most importantly, get heard. Some of it was with the help of SMS technology; some -- with the help of blogs. You can look at the protests in the Philippines, Ukraine, Belarus, Burma, Moldova in the last decade and see that technology has been playing a very strong role in all of them!"

Back in April, a similar description of events in Moldova was entiled: The Twitter Revolution that Wasn't. Here's a quote:

"We've been waiting a long time for political upheaval to follow in the wake of technological change, and on April 7, it seemed to have arrived. From Moldova, of all places, came news of the Twitter Revolution: In one of the poorest backwaters in Europe -- a place that frequently features in global surveys as the world's unhappiest country -- a group of fresh-faced young people reportedly used Twitter tweets, text messages and Facebook postings to organize a demonstration in favor of democracy and against rigged elections."

The article goes on to describe how things didn't go the way that democracy organizers had planned.

"What we witnessed on YouTube, in other words, was not a new kind of Twitter Revolution but, rather, a new kind of manipulated revolution; not an Orange or a Rose Revolution, but a revolution deliberately led astray."

My point in this blog post is twofold. First, there is no doubt that Twitter and Facebook are very, very popular tools that are taking the entire world by storm right now. Technology is being used in exciting new ways by a new generation of tech-savvy millennials who truly want to change the world.

But second, technology tools like Twitter clearly have their limits. We need to be thinking about changes in the areas of people, process and technology. Both sides can use these tools, and reliance on technology alone is certain to lead to disappointment.

I found this excellent article called Redeeming Twitter at Christianity Today's website. If you are using, or considering the use of Twitter, you may find Heather Gemmen Wilson's comments to be helpful.

I am excited by global developments in technology and social networks. I am encouraged that democracy may be advanced by utilizing cutting-edge tools like Twitter. But we must remember that these tools can just as easily be used for evil as for good.

We live in exciting times. Our Christian faith can enable integrity in all areas of life, and even in our online activities. I encourage Christians to be ambassadors for good in cyberspace and fight to take back lost ground.

What are your thoughts on potential good and bad uses of Twitter?