There has been some terrific debate on my theorizing of what I call “augmented reality.” In brief, I reject “digital dualism”, the tendency to view the on and off line as separate spheres, and instead argue that we should view them as enmeshed, creating what I call “augmented reality.” [I talk more about this here.]

Today, I am posting some of the debate that occurred over Twitter and another post responding to a critique of a talk I gave on the topic.

One criticism has been that the augmented reality perspective somehow obscures the important ways in which the on and offline are different. I agree that the spheres indeed have different properties. I write here and here about, for example, how atoms tend to be more scarce than bits. Further, I write here about how these important differences are best viewed through the augmented lens.

It is this last point which I feel is most important in responding to the specific criticisms given by Zeynep Tufekci over Twitter. It is my hope that future conversations on this topic take into account the points made in that short essay. I’ll post the debate, still ongoing, below.

An interesting dynamic of the “digital activist” sphere in the Arab Uprisings is how many know each other offline, across nations.
techsoc
October 4, 2011
@techsoc becuase it is not “digital” activism! it is augmented http://t.co/sBoH7sbT
nathanjurgenson
October 4, 2011

@nathanjurgenson … except through much effort & most of connections are first online & only then offline–very different than US for most
techsoc
October 4, 2011
@nathanjurgenson This is diff from the the way FB is naturally online/offline. These people are not regular part of each others’ lives.
techsoc
October 4, 2011
@techsoc right, but physical meetings massively important for the cause; activism, even when primarily digital, benefits from the physical
nathanjurgenson
October 4, 2011
@techsoc the importance bloggers meeting up in physical space speaks to the power of augmentation, against the idea of “digital” activism
nathanjurgenson
October 4, 2011
@nathanjurgenson Yes, the in person meetings are crucial. But there is also power in “digital” activism — and a lot of it as well.
techsoc
October 4, 2011
The conversation takes off the next day when Zeynep tweets…
So many stories of dangers -including torture & death- social media activists face! Nobody shld say “slacktivism” near me ever again. #ab11
techsoc
October 5, 2011
ppl could only think digital activism is “slacker” if they first wrongly think of digital & physical activisms as mostly separate @techsoc
nathanjurgenson
October 5, 2011
@nathanjurgenson In fact, the interesting discussion was sometimes online expression is not activism — but it has political consequences
techsoc
October 5, 2011
@nathanjurgenson The discussion wasn’t about that angle–in many cases in the region, it is separate. Online/offline not always integrated.
techsoc
October 5, 2011
@techsoc disagree. the over-assumption of that separation between digital and physical activism partly why “slacktivism” viewed pejoratively
nathanjurgenson
October 5, 2011
@techsoc ppl failing to see slacktivism leading to torture or non-activist online talk having material consequences = the fallacy in action!
nathanjurgenson
October 5, 2011
@techsoc seems i am saying ‘people view on/offline too separate’ and you are saying ‘that separation still sometimes important’ – fair?
nathanjurgenson
October 5, 2011
@nathanjurgenson I’m saying what you call augmentation has many levels and inflections — “online/offline integrated” can be too flat.
techsoc
October 5, 2011
@techsoc not sure i follow “levels” and “inflections”, but my sense would be that they could be best described thru augmented paradigm
nathanjurgenson
October 5, 2011
@techsoc wld be a good blog post; but i think the differences b/w digital/physical activism best articulated through ‘augmented’ perspective
nathanjurgenson
October 5, 2011
@nathanjurgenson … & also not forget that there is a lot of “digital only” micro-politics which does not link to offline in any direct way
techsoc
October 5, 2011
@nathanjurgenson … but it’s important not to collapse the distinction b/w online and offline and also all the different ways they interact
techsoc
October 5, 2011
@nathanjurgenson What you call “augmented” has always been my only & default way of looking at it–so I don’t necessarily name it but … +
techsoc
October 5, 2011
@techsoc agree on/offline have differences, but those can really only be described by taking the other into account: http://t.co/lFzw1UIT
nathanjurgenson
October 5, 2011
Here, I am linking to my essay on this blog that deals with how the augmented paradigm does not obscure the differences between atoms and bits, but instead provides a better language to talk about these important differences.
Defending and Clarifying the Term Augmented Reality » Cyborgology 

Yesterday, Sang-Hyoun Pahk delivered a critique of the usage of the term augmented reality on this blog. First, thank you, criticism of this term is especially important for me (and others) because augmented reality is the fundamental unit of analysis about which I seek to describe.
The conversation picks up again for a third day.
Same in my region. Not everyone is as wired as US. $$$ RT @techsoc @nathanjurgenson in the region…. Online/offline not always integrated.
katypearce
October 5, 2011
@katypearce @techsoc but of course the online influences those without access and those logged off
nathanjurgenson
October 6, 2011
@nathanjurgenson @techsoc umm… Not always.
katypearce
October 6, 2011
@katypearce @nathanjurgenson Yes, not always. That’s the point I’m making. The link can be fledgling.. I’m agreeing with @katypearce here.
techsoc
October 6, 2011
@techsoc @nathanjurgenson + thus, less incllinded to share w. have nots. plus ‘internet doesn’t register as credible source for have nots.
katypearce
October 6, 2011
@techsoc @nathanjurgenson when government + media are untrustworthy, interpersonal comm is #1. Would be hard to do 2-step flow here.
katypearce
October 6, 2011
@techsoc @katypearce the link between on/offline just as important when people use distinct spheres
nathanjurgenson
October 6, 2011
@katypearce @techsoc augmentation comes in many flavors and these folks exist within that augmentation in different ways
nathanjurgenson
October 6, 2011
@katypearce @techsoc tho wld love to see longer form discussion of y you may NOT want to think from an augmented framework. havent seen that
nathanjurgenson
October 6, 2011
@katypearce @techsoc protester not using digital tools still influenced by digitality; person not on FB still (more?) influenced by it
nathanjurgenson
October 6, 2011
@katypearce @techsoc credible source example quite good at articulating just how digitality (in its absence) has massive impact on these ppl
nathanjurgenson
October 6, 2011
@katypearce @techsoc differing outcomes depending on ones engagement w/ digital/physical demonstrates how the link is not “fledgling” at all
nathanjurgenson
October 6, 2011
@katypearce @techsoc downplaying the link as “fledgling” leads to a very different set of research questions and conclusions
nathanjurgenson
October 6, 2011
@nathanjurgenson @katypearce that digital world is part of this world is trivially true — (even as there are idiotic attempt to separate)
techsoc
October 6, 2011
@nathanjurgenson: @katypearce But beyond that just saying it’s all augmented hides significant differences & that there are many regions+
techsoc
October 6, 2011
@nathanjurgenson: @katypearce +there are “digital only” spheres in a way you don’t see in US. (Again, beyond the trivial first-level effect)
techsoc
October 6, 2011
Agreed RT @techsoc @nathanjurgenson: @katypearce +there are “digital only” spheres in a way you don’t see in US.
katypearce
October 6, 2011
@katypearce @techsoc strongly disagree. “digital only” a fallacy and conceptually obscures important relations
nathanjurgenson
October 6, 2011
@techsoc @katypearce not “trivial”: much academic, popular, journalism makes bad conclusions from standpoint that holds dig/physical seprate
nathanjurgenson
October 6, 2011
@techsoc @katypearce only from augmented perspective can we articulate significant differences & impact of so-called “digital-only” spheres
nathanjurgenson
October 6, 2011
@nathanjurgenson: @katypearce well, that they do and I always rail against that. but really important not to hide vast differences.
techsoc
October 6, 2011
@techsoc @katypearce agreed, of course. i’ll link here again: http://t.co/lFzw1UIT would love to hear how augmentation obscures differences
nathanjurgenson
October 6, 2011
I link again to my post arguing that the augmented perspective is the best one to describe important differences between digital and physical.
Defending and Clarifying the Term Augmented Reality » Cyborgology 

Yesterday, Sang-Hyoun Pahk delivered a critique of the usage of the term augmented reality on this blog. First, thank you, criticism of this term is especially important for me (and others) because augmented reality is the fundamental unit of analysis about which I seek to describe.

Follow Nathan on Twitter: @nathanjurgenson

Follow Zeynep: @techsoc