Zoom Can Be... Good, Actually
There are, and will always be, areas of uncertainty in life and law. Hiding out in ‘safe’ spaces / practice areas is not a viable strategy, and if you think you’re avoiding ethically charged cases by casting aside Criminal Law in favour of, let’s say, IP and Patent work, think about what happens the day your future client is going to need your help with securing a patent to a bird feeder which locks out the squirrels looking for nuts (apparently a true story).
Now more than ever, technology means responsibility. Making decisions to include or not include certain features in the interface of an app used to negotiate contracts, hear court cases, and conduct therapy sessions carries profound and long-standing implications not to be brushed aside. Even the decisions regarding which of these features are to be made optional / up to the meeting host’s discretion are of some importance. For example, I have attended virtual events where the code of conduct set out the expectations of video on for the entire duration (to whom it may concern: not going to happen for a 3 hour meeting unless it’s an SQE), or events where the host disabled both chat and Q&A, and the only way to ask a question was to speak on camera -- which is not necessarily a problem, except when the event is being recorded (which might make it too intimidating for some people).
What worries me is the following: if for any reason the day arrives where the video is made to be default and compulsory after a period of ‘getting comfortable’ with our recently established baselines of living our lives online, that day will arguably mark the beginning of the real era of isolation. In addition, it may be helpful to acknowledge that irregardless of their current functionality level, the video communication apps no longer ‘support’ our activities -- rather, they are now their Sole Facilitation Point. Upon reaching that milestone, in my view, a thing effectively becomes something else.
SFP probably deserves to be examined separately, and besides, this wasn’t supposed to be a very long post. So, onto the positives promised in the title -- I can confidently defend at least two points:
As much as I miss physical conferences and travel experiences they often brought with them, I must admit -- the ability to attend events I would normally lack the resources to physically travel to is undoubtedly an advantage, and I’m certain that most people feel the same way. Knowledge has never been more accessible. Once I submitted my Master’s dissertation (it is still being graded -- send good vibes!) I went through a long list of talks and seminars I had previously bookmarked, and signed up for the most interesting ones; all of them online and all of them 100% free. In the process, I realised: Knowledge has never been more accessible. It’s A Good Thing #1.
Good Thing #2. Chat window can give presenters a snapshot of your thought process -- without ever interrupting them while they speak
The chat function often serves as a channel for a parallel discussion between the attendees during the panellist’s presentation, which opens the door to even more collaboration possibilities. Sometimes, it’s even more. When ‘reading the room’ becomes... absolutely literal, and you can watch the panellists’ instant, unfiltered reactions to your thoughts and observations now spelled on screen (admittedly my recent ones were mostly jokes, but I promise they were funny), it provides a unique opportunity to be able to identify -- this quickly -- whether or not you would have a rapport with this person if, say, you approached them about a partnership opportunity. Or if they were interviewing you for a job. I can see this as a shortcut to assessing a potential fit, cutting down on time and energy devoted to networking. Which, without a doubt, can be a great experience helping you find new friends and collaborators -- but can also be a pointless exercise of wasted time and productivity drain.
This feature truly allows others to catch a glimpse into your mind; an opportunity previously not accessible at in-person events unless you were willing to stay and network afterwards (and they were willing to do the same) -- now you can just scramble their name on a piece of paper and look them up on Twitter or LinkedIn the next day. More importantly, to the relief of millions of people who have suffered through the ordeal of having to listen someone offer “well not exactly a question per se, more of an observation, really” during a Q&A, there is now an appropriate place to direct those -- where they are actually welcome -- and the Q&A part itself stays reserved for a genuine Q&A session. As it should.
To add a little bit to point #2. Of course many people have been using social networks such as Twitter in a similar way, for a while now. Those who have, know that at the end of the day it’s what you make it -- whether you will identify the potential of the platform for creative collaboration or end up treating it like Angry Birds (sorry but I had to!) is up to you. One challenge is walking the tightrope between personal and professional -- an equivalent to when your child / cat / overnight guest unexpectedly shows up on camera when you’re delivering a presentation on The Most Serious Matter; and the balance is something that each of us will have to figure out on our own. Forced into the realm of remote, we instinctively strive to fill the connectivity gaps that have emerged. The tech cannot do that, but perhaps it can give us the tools we need while we figure out a way to do that ourselves.