5. Ling also discusses the idea that we must not only take the “message” into account when choosing a communication medium/platform (e.g., voice call, text message, email), but also the relationship and what we know about that person (e.g., their daily routine, job schedule, etc.). How does this concept play out for different people in your life? Choose one concrete example (or a hypothetical case) and discuss how it relates back to Ling’s point about this issue.

Just like giving a low tip for a terrible server, it is a tricky discussion.  Input is needed to moderate systems, but empathy is needed to fight back systematic oppression.  Do you tip the person low so that they know they need to improve, or normally because they are probably already having a terrible day?  This is a surprisingly impressive question, and it just may be the perfect metaphor to compare every social and political fight in modern society.  Every (for lack of broader terms) masculine versus feminine debate may be based on this moral and practical border war.  Conservatism versus Liberalism.  Politically Correct versus Sh*tposting (Nothing is Sacred).  Do you support the army to support the troops, or fight against it because you believe standing armies incite terrorism and war? (But the server metaphor is my selected hypothetical case.)
Relating back to Ling, yes that is absolutely true.  The distance that a telephone provides can absolutely enable apathetic emotions in very empathetic people, as I have been affected by that very often in the use of IRC chat rooms.  It is very easy to convince yourself that people on the internet or on the other end of the phone should simply take your message and that will be it.  It is true that we need to spend more time thinking about how our messages impact others.  If the person we are talking to is someone we care about, we need to be aware if the distance makes them feel lonely or unloved, and yes- if they need it, toss the phone to the side and hug them.  (Me saying that people could need more face to face interaction?  Are the pigs flying?)  Our society (though people may disagree) may be stable purely because of this tip-or-don’t-tip balance.  And the rise of apathy in my generation that may or may not empirically exist (Turkle, looking at you) might have been supported by our use of mediated communication.  The world using so much mediated communication may have put the balance of apathetic practicality and empathetic fairness into upset.  In a time long ago, the two could be blended together.  Ruthless factory-monopolists could devise programs to increase the health and happiness of their workers to make production more efficient.  Hopefully, singularity philosophers will craft similar forces to help put the empathy-apathy debate back into balance.  Or maybe we are doomed to have this fight every ten years.  (And that’s not just the Buffalo Springfield in my headphones talking there, though I do consider myself to have hippie blood.)