#1: Rushkoff explains that during the early days of the internet, digital technology was originally used as a way to eschew the constraints of time. One could only log on to the internet via a large physical computer, and once doing so, everything operated at the pace we commanded. Emails were checked, and responded to at our leisure, and we had time to formulate our responses to online occurrences because digital technology was not always at our side and forcing us into a sense of urgency (i.e. modern cell phones). Here I thought it was interesting that Rushkoff outlined the history of the digital landscape, because in doing so we are able to understand how our society has progressed and developed alongside it. Many of us can hardly remember the era when the internet was an after-school/after-work activity because we are in the era of the now, or the "always on" era as Rushkoff describes it. While I don't think Rushkoff is advocating for a nostalgic return to the days of dial-up internet, I do believe that he is advocating for a return to the habits we once held in relation to the digital world. By reiterating the original purpose of digital technology, Rushkoff is attempting to make us wary of the pitfalls that can come with trying to make the internet align with our sense of time. It seems that we are best placed in a healthy middle-ground of digital consumption: The internet is indeed a integral part of our lives, and by extension our society, however it is also a potent, and sometimes double-edged resource that must be handled with extreme care--lest we want to begin losing our minds, and our humanity. Digital technologies are our means of getting a break from our time, they are not meant to operate in conjunction with our time.
#2: At the conclusion of Chapter 1, Rushkoff emphasizes the importance of recognizing the biases that technology brings into our lives, as well as our own tendency to change ourselves in order to accommodate technology's place in our lives. I believe this is a crucial point in Rushkoff's argument because we often do not stop consider the cost that comes when we use technology to facilitate daily functions that were once done without the internet. One of the simple, yet effective, examples that Rushkoff uses is the process of mapping a route, which is something that we easily allot to digital technology without understanding that frequently doing so may result in the net loss of a human skill. Using myself as an example, if I wanted to find a great place to eat in New York City, I would Google "great places to eat in NYC," copy and paste the location from Google into LYFT or Uber, and be well on my way to eat some good food. However, this small series of actions is merely a means of using digital technology to cut corners, when in all truth, I am perfectly capable of exploring the city myself by reading a map, learning bus/train schedules, and talking to real people to discern the best places to eat. While technology certainly facilitates ease of access for tasks such as this, it is also healthy to question the necessity of using technology as prevalently as we do--and this is a crucial point of wisdom Rushkoff offers for 21st Century living.