Since the news first broke of Philip Markoff’s arrest, I’ve become increasingly obsessed that we’ve reached the tipping point in the trend of real life blurring with online. That particular crime hit me hard when it came across the news scroll. The murders took place in cities I’ve frequented: Warwick, R.I. and Boston. It felt eery. I moved into research mode, got online and crowdsourced opinions on online personal safety, people’s personal experiences using Craigslist, Facebook and Twitter for goods and services, whether cyber ads for face2face sexual hookups should be banned. I spent time debating with criminal lawyers and psychologists, exploring the (often creepy) convergence between parallel universes of real life and virtual existence and how the criminality of the real world is playing out in cyberspace. I wondered, is online giving criminals a means to locate new victims, or is it cultivating an entirely new breed of bad behavior? You might say I am a trendspotter in pursuit of ground zero. But what exactly am I looking for—and why do I have this extraordinary urge to find Craigslist the innocent party?

I keep thinking back to a particular day in the early 1990s, when I helped organize a “Welcome to Cyberspace” event at Chiat\Day on Maiden Lane. A speaker that afternoon referred to a Time Magazine writer’s theory that cyberspace was just the real world in a new format. (Our fears of the unknown were unrealistic. Our suspicions that deviants populated the online world were unfounded.) My key takeaway? What parent would let their kid walk unsupervised from the Time/Life Building (at Rockefeller Center) to Times Square? Cyberspace is everyplace, the criminals are just concentrated in particular areas (as they once were in Times Square).

When a lawyer acquaintance and I began to debate the Markoff case through our respective professional lenses, his argument reinforced what I have called “That Time Truth of Modern Life” all these years. He hammered facts and figures at me: Prostitutes have always been victims of heinous crimes. The online world just facilitates access, to anything and anyone. A basic truth once upon a time, in the 1990s, and still so a decade and a half later.

June 20-something 2009: I check the news one morning and encounter another alleged Craigslist crime—another person charged with luring victims into his web via the online community bulletin board. Rape this time, rather than murder, and just as frightening: Known film composer Joseph Brooks apparently lured victims with false promises of stardom. It’s sad that we live in a world so vicious. Am I just remembering my suburban childhood through rose-colored glasses, or was life really safer back then? But my next thought on reading the Brooks story was of Craig Newmark, a seemingly decent person and businessperson (he recently offered support for wounded U.S. service men and women via ReMIND.org, a charity I work with). What can Craigslist do about the fact that people are using its listings to seek out victims? Why is this service which has provided me everything from housecleaners to dog walkers to landscapers—some great, some terrible, but none criminal, that I know of—under so much scrutiny when all it has done is offer a digital forum for people to live real life? The truth is, not all online personal connections come to a lecherous end. In fact, one in eight couples that marry this year will have met online. So can we create a system that ensures only upright, legal pursuits are advertised online?

In the early 1990s, a very young version of me did some market research for America Online as the company prepared to face the arrival of competitors Windows 95 and its online service, MSN. I helped conduct focus groups and ethnographies and sat in a war room for days eating all the requisite junk food. I remember looking at pictures of the people we were surveying and having one of those eureka moments: It really is America, online—or it will be. Even then, all kinds of people were communicating in this newfangled way. We couldn’t fight it, but we could work to make it vivid and inclusive and wonderful. And so it was.

Backward to go forward: Craigslist isn’t motivating or permitting or accelerating criminality or even misbehavior. Craigslist simply facilitates modern life. And its postings, with their rich local texture, are an online representation of human behavior at its best and worst. As one New Yorker posted on my Facebook page, Craigslist is like the Port Authority. Lots of deviance, but also lots of good, decent people, rushing about doing what they need to do. Since the 1990s, our online activity has blurred the old accepted boundaries between our lives, our work, our relationships. It’s only fitting that I was working quietly at home this week (a big week for cyber-related news) when I got an e-alert that peaked my interested, and I flicked on the TV. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford had finally spilled the beans on his disappearance, which had been news fodder off- and online. Via press conference he admitted he’d had a yearlong affair with a woman in Argentina—and it all started with an innocent e-mail relationship.

Life is complex, and the unpleasant and unsavory aspects of it have made their way into cyberspace right along with the rest—what else did we expect?

If you’ve watched “Mad Men” (and if you haven’t, get thee to a Netflix account), I’m certain you’ve been struck by the constant puffing away by nearly every single character. Can’t you just imagine the fictitious stench wafting through those sleek, sexy, uber-stylized Sterling Cooper offices?

Yet while I wouldn’t know exactly how historically and culturally accurate the depiction of 1960s Madison Avenue life is (I was a bit young to be a switchboard girl—or an ad exec—back then), I do remember that even 20 years on, some of the smartest people I knew still smoked at their desks, on planes, at the dinner table.

But despite some occasional pangs of nostalgia for a more carefree existence, I’m really happy those days are behind us. I’m so accustomed to our smoke-free lifestyles that I find myself surprisingly taken aback when I step into a restaurant or bar that still allows it.

Yes, nonsmoking has become the norm, and those who still like to light up generally aren’t allowed to do so within sniffing distance of the public. A mixture of scientific research, legislation and social pressure has banished them. Society’s attitudes have shifted in a big way.

Which leads me to consider what other 180-degree turns in societal acceptance we’ve seen over the past few decades. Lots have to do with technology. Print media evolved into online media around the same time that people gave up their landlines for cell phones. Then cell phones morphed into multimedia devices that put the online media in our pockets. Tech innovations and our willingness to adapt to anything 2.0 move so fast that a brand-new device can be passé in the space of a year.

But looking beyond the technology of online and mobile, what larger behavioral aspects of today’s life and culture will seem outdated and old-fashioned a few years from now?

Recycling statistics have vastly improved over the years and will keep advancing with increasing education and legislation. And there’s no doubt that we’ve begun to see shifts in what’s normal and accepted in relation to how we use energy and transportation. With a combination of higher gas prices, peak oil and environmental concerns, how long will it be before we watch a movie with a crazy car chase and think: “What a waste of gasoline!”

Try and put yourself 20 years into the future as you watch TV tonight. Which scenes and props and attitudes will you look back on and see as old-fashioned?

Anybody I’m connected with on Twitter or Facebook has surely noticed me giving lots of character-love to the troops-supporting fundraiser Tweet to ReMIND, which kicked off Memorial Day weekend and hits fever pitch as we approach the Fourth of July Weekend.  It’s a vital project that’s harnessing social media to give back to the men and women who have risked their lives serving in Iraq and Afghanistan—many of whom are now coming home with physical and psychological injuries none of us can see. I helped develop the social media aspect of Tweet to ReMIND (we’re championing the collective strength of small donors and the networking power of Twitter for social good), working with ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff and his foundation to rally tweeters and tally dollars that will go directly to helping these people heal and restart their lives at home. I’m personally committed to this causeTweet to ReMIND and the Bob Woodruff Foundation’s ReMIND.org have captured my interest not only because I get the chance to apply my specialties to further the cause as best I can, but also because I feel these issues really expose the harsh reality we’ve set ourselves up for as a nation by letting our health care system get so far out of whack.

There are reasons behind my embrace of our troops—instances that have made their plight truly hit home for me. There’s the story of my friend ABC News journalist Bob Woodruff, who happens to be married to my friend Lee, a former public relations executive who spent years at Porter Novelli. While on assignment in Iraq in early 2006, Bob was critically injured by an IED (improvised explosive device).  The road to recovery was a long and grueling process for the Woodruffs and their family and friends, but during all that time in hospitals and rehabs, they were lucky enough to get to know many of America’s injured heroes and their families, which moved Bob and Lee to establish the Bob Woodruff Foundation, home of ReMIND.org and Tweet to ReMIND.

I, myself, have been hit over the head (literally) in the past couple of years by the reality of health care costs and the burdens placed upon family members who must become caretakers. This realization came from my own life-altering experience—I had a brain tumor removed. (When I fill out medical forms these days, I’m stumped by whether or not to check off cancer—mine was an atypical meningioma, the best kind of brain tumor to have, if there is such a thing.)  I now have a titanium skull and my head is like a weather vane, but besides those aches and pains, my operation was a success. Yet I was blindsided by how lucky I was to be well-insured and well-connected with top-flight resources. I know I was treated very differently than if I had been Jane Average in a chaotic urban hospital. I was also blown away by the astronomical costs, and I truly appreciated for the first time how tough life is for Americans facing medical bills. The fact is that good health insurance and contacts are the domain of the well to do, and that’s no good. I owe my life to my fantastic employer at the time (JWT Worldwide), a fantastic insurer (Aetna) and the most amazing hospital, Massachusetts General, which a friend found for me after I received my unexpected diagnosis that spring.

When I was ill, I was forced to depend upon kind support from professionals, family, friends and even well-intentioned strangers. The role of caretaker is underappreciated in our society, and that is about to change. With injured troops returning from war and huge numbers of Baby Boomers hitting retirement age, compounded by a flawed health care system, we’re seeing a dramatic rise in the need for regular individuals to act as caretakers for our own family members. The person who assumes this role on behalf of the sick, injured or aging has to deal with even more than the patient. He or she is both the advocate and the victim, often powerless and guilt-ridden, nearly broke and driven around the clock to protect and defend. Forget living your own life on top of all that. The resources from Tweet to ReMIND and the Bob Woodruff Foundation help the caretakers too, as they are the ones our veterans often count on.

The shock of the economic crisis has opened a lot of eyes—including mine—to the way millions of ordinary people struggle from day to day.  The past year has been a very anxious time in which we’ve felt precariously close to the edge of disaster.

Between my illness, Bob and Lee’s experience, the economy and the new administration in Washington, I’ve been rethinking a lot. And setting up Tweet to ReMIND has offered me the double benefit of harnessing a new technology that really excites me to serve a purpose I really believe in. It’s part of my own personal reboot.

If you haven’t already tweeted about your own personal hero, please do so and remember the hashtag #tweettoremind. Pass along the message of Tweet to ReMIND to your own followers. And don’t forget to visit TweetToReMIND.org to chip in $5.25 toward our big “thank you” of $1.65 million (that’s just one dollar for every service member deployed since 9/11).

Globalization has been the headline for years as it’s changed the face of communication, finance, business and society. But it’s not a stand-alone phenomenon; it’s totally dependent upon mobility. Constant movement from place to place has made the last few decades frenetic. In fact, we live in an era of supermobility.

Crops are supermobile: Fresh flowers are flown to auction in the Netherlands from far-off growers in Colombia and Kenya, then freighted on to customers in other countries. Manufactured products are supermobile: China imports raw materials from all over the world and exports finished goods in a quick turnaround. People are supermobile: In addition to long commutes, we routinely travel great distances for business and leisure. Not only are we moving around like never before, we’re more connected while we’re doing it.

The biggest change of our era is the mobility of information. With the one-two punch of digitization and wireless Internet, information is not just supermobile; it’s hypermobile. And that’s the focus of “Mobile Lives & Times,” the latest issue in Porter Novelli’s Intelligent Dialogue series.

In it we polled experts, pegged trend patterns and researched global data. So download a copy, read up on the key findings, and post your comments.

• Personal use of mobile and wireless technology is unprecedented. Around 58 percent of the world’s population has an active mobile subscription. The number has quadrupled in just the past six years.

• Location-based services create huge potential to learn about customers and increase marketing intelligence. Marketers’ challenge: seize the opportunity without becoming intrusive or annoying. Mobile providers’ challenge: monetize the opportunity effectively.

• Mobile is a stepping stone for developing countries. It’s a cheap and accessible way to facilitate connections, improve access to health care and build local business.

• Health care is behind the mobility curve, but there is incredible potential to use the technology to improve deficient systems: streamlining data sharing; increasing the range and power of diagnostic tools; enabling off-site patient monitoring; lowering costs and much more.

• Teleworking is taking off: It’s convenient and cost-effective for both employee and employer; it makes sense for the growing number of independent consultants and freelancers; it allows for globe-spanning team interactions and forecasts show it can lead to a huge reduction in carbon emissions.

• True device innovators thus far have been relative outsiders to the telecom game (RIM’s BlackBerry, Apple’s iPhone, Amazon’s Kindle, Google’s Android).

• Intrusive mobility is so widespread that new codes of behavior need to be agreed upon. And it’s not just about bad manners—it’s also a matter of privacy, confidentiality and personal safety.

What do you think about the prospects of mobility to solve some of the world’s biggest problems?

Back in the 1950s, while Americans were cruising the highways in massive V8 Chevrolets, Italians were bouncing around their narrow cobbled streets in tiny Fiat 500s. That 500 stands for cubic centimetres, equivalent to 30.5 cubic inches or a large American lawnmower.

In the decades since then, the United States has put men on the moon and created world-changing innovations such as the 747 jumbo jet, personal computers, the Internet and Google. Italy has given us the pleasures of pasta, pesto and pizza, coffee culture (via Seattle) and balsamic vinegar, but no great inventions or great corporations. Italy’s small and family businesses have thrived, largely under the radar, but its big corporations including Fiat have lurched from crisis to crisis.

By 2000, Fiat was keen to get out of the car business and did a deal to sell to General Motors. In 2005, GM paid $2 billion to get out of the deal to avoid taking on what The New York Times called Fiat’s ailing auto business.[1] And now here we are barely four years later with GM in dire straits while Fiat is thriving, partly thanks to booming sales of its updated classic Fiat 500. In fact Fiat boss Sergio Marchione has bought a 20 percent stake in Chrysler and is now looking to take over big parts of GM’s European operations.

Reversal of fortune or what?

Of course Fiat’s bid to grab GM Europe and create a pan-European, transatlantic car group may not go through. And with the Chrysler deal too, Fiat may end up with a severe case of indigestion. As the Financial Times put it, “Sergio Marchione is either a visionary or seriously deluded.”[2]

For Americans, the prospect may well be startling. Fiat’s signature cars are mostly sub-sub-compacts by American standards—they look as if they would easily fit on the back of a pickup and maybe even in the back of an SUV. They’re the sorts of cars that many Americans find it hard to take seriously, but they may start having to do just that. The design concept that Fiat executed so memorably in the 1950s still works today, albeit in an updated, more sophisticated form. How many American car companies could revive one of their designs from decades ago and have it work in today’s cash-strapped market, with the prospect of peak oil hanging over us all?

CNN: Twitter Mania

Online brand-bashing is a reality all companies face, just ask Domino’s. Companies can help guard against it by opening up an honest dialogue with consumers and by maintaining transparency, but if in fact they get hit, they had better react fast.

I started this discussion among industry colleagues and consumers (we are all consumers, after all) via Facebook, Twitter and HARO, and my research shows opinions about the best courses of action fit into six groups. These form vital checkpoints for defending and ultimately enhancing reputation.

Be There Fast. Awareness and Presence: It’s vital for brands and corporations to be present where conversations are taking place (e.g., social media), so they can track, troubleshoot and respond quickly.

How did Domino’s handle the situation? From where I sit, badly. Domino’s spokesman Tim McIntyre said executives decided not to respond aggressively, hoping the controversy would quiet down. While the company had been made aware of the videos by Monday evening via a blogger, it took them until Wednesday to get a Twitter account as well as a YouTube video of the CEO in place to respond to consumer concerns. —Ken Makovsky, My Three Cents

#1: Rapid response. Find the people who are spreading the misinformation. #2: Feed them accurate info (targeted messaging). #3: Listen and measure results. —Jason Selss, Communications Director, Remarkable Search, via e-mail

Suck It Up. Acknowledgment and Apology: When something bad happens, it’s vital to acknowledge it quickly and to apologize sincerely. Stalling and shifting blame are counterproductive and will raise further ire among consumers.

KatyHarrison20 @mariansalzman Dominos first needs to own the fact that it happened, apologize, and assure ppl there are serious changes coming #HARO —via Twitter

In our 20 years of research on how leaders build trust, we found that there are four ways in which trust is built: by being Reliable, Open and honest, Competent and Compassionate. We call this the ROCC of Trust. Domino’s took a good first step with its YouTube video by expressing remorse and being open and honest about the situation, taking responsibility for it instead of hiding behind two incompetent employees. —Karen E. Mishra, Assistant Professor of Marketing and Advertising, Meredith College School of Business, via e-mail

Don’t Hide. Transparency: Reputation problems can be both prevented and remedied by thinking and acting transparently. The corporation must be ready for public scrutiny—because it can occur at any time.

ljjones @mariansalzman Domino’s needs a transparency campaign exposing the inner workings of franchises – quest to improve cleanliness/quality —via Twitter

Domino’s may wish to invite some influencers to witness the entire process: food selection, logistics, hiring, storage, making of the pizzas, etc. —Brad MacAfee, Partner and Managing Director, Porter Novelli, via e-mail

Remember Desire. Marketing: The established disciplines of marketing still apply. And a reputation crisis is actually an opportunity to win customers back and draw attention to the right things.

If Domino’s really wanted to be creative in its response, record a video of chef Gordon Ramsay conducting one of his notoriously pedantic inspections of the kitchen in question. With Ramsay’s seal of approval, Domino’s customers would feel comfortable ordering pizza again. —Andy Beal, founder of Trackur.com and co-author of “Radically Transparent: Monitoring & Managing Reputations Online,” via e-mail

I’d put messages targeted at existing patrons first (pizza box tip-ons, in-store posters), followed by paid mass-media messages targeted at patrons who may have reservations about ordering from Domino’s (coupons for discounted pizzas, incentive offerings to drive orders to local locations). —Noel Griese, APR, author of “How To Manage Organizational Communication During Crisis,” via e-mail

Talk Sense. Tonality: What a corporation or brand says is very important, but so is how it says it. Serious events demand a serious tone that matches the mood of consumers but doesn’t amplify it.

davidparmet @mariansalzman dominos handled this right. they took it seriously. they took the blogs seriously. they dealt with it in a public manner —via Twitter

The video response from Domino’s president struck the right tone and included all the right elements for moving forward—restating the facts, punishment for the culprits, making sure it never happens again and asking for brand forgiveness. … Brand terrorists are all around us. It is how companies respond that makes the difference between success and failure. Domino’s will do just fine.” —Leslie Gaines-Ross, Chief Reputation Strategist, Weber Shandwick, via e-mail

Be One. Solidarity: Provided a brand or corporation hasn’t alienated people beyond repair, it should ally itself with the common cause of customers, employees and other corporations with similar interests.

I just watched Domino’s video response and found it effective. Focusing on the independent owners and thousands of employees who may lose their jobs if people stop ordering their pizza […] is the right message in these “times are tough” times. People are aware of the horrible things that can happen due to wild Internet postings and urban legend rumors and can be sympathetic, if this is positioned as a rogue incident. —Elise Goyette, via Facebook

Perhaps they might want to put up a Web site where people can send in specific questions and concerns. People nowadays don’t simply want to be told, they want to take part in the process. As is often the case, in the midst of controversy, there is opportunity. Lots of people are thinking about Domino’s right now, so let’s get them thinking for us. What ideas can you think of that would make our product better? Maybe it’s time for some changes and new direction. Now’s the time to act. —Dan Collins, APR, ABC, PR professional, via e-mail

As if the recession weren’t challenge enough for business, brand execs have a new scenario to keep them awake at night: random, viral brand-trashing via social media.

The recent victim: Domino’s Pizza. Two employees in Conover, N.C., filmed an unsanitary prank in the restaurant’s kitchen and posted it to YouTube. In a matter of days the video had more than a million views and Twitter (and major media) were buzzing with it. Domino’s quality reputation metrics took a nosedive that appeared undeserved but beyond the company’s grasp.

It’s a PR nightmare at the warp speed of social media. Reputations are made or massacred online, and we are all potential targets. But what steps can we take to guard against impulsive social-media brand-trashing by employees or even the occasional disgruntled consumer?

I opened up the question and invited colleagues and competitors to share their views via Facebook, Twitter and Peter Shankman’s HARO (Help a Reporter Out) network. The sheer volume and quality of responses made clear what a hot topic this is. I’ve included some of them here (and will post more later), and hope you’ll use the Comments section to contribute your thoughts.

Megan Casserly of Weber Shandwick shared her agency’s recent study (in cooperation with the Economist Intelligence Unit) “Risky Business: Reputations Online,” which found that 67 percent of leading global executives acknowledge that their companies’ reputations are threatened in today’s economy. These executives cite employee sabotage and misdirected e-mails among their greatest concerns.

So we know it’s a threat, and we’ve seen it happen, but what are companies really willing to do about it?

PR professional Dan Collins thinks Domino’s should have already had a social media presence in place, to give it a ready, instant link to its consumers: “Domino’s had to quickly create a Twitter account to respond—in the meantime, precious hours and days were passing by. Its strategy of doing as little as possible in hopes the crisis would simply pass away didn’t take into account the incredible viral nature of issues like this on the Web. People were Twittering their complaints and concerns and there was no response. Nothing gets people riled more than to believe they are being ignored—that just made matters exponentially worse.”

Interbrand’s Mike Langton advises other food companies to take notice and use this as both a warning and a learning experience: “This could happen in a Burger King or anywhere else. Competitors need to show how it could not happen in their kitchens.”

Via Twitter:

· rpulvino @mariansalzman All food companies are vulnerable to this. It is up to employers to instill empathy in the employees … make them think

· eddiemart @mariansalzman Opp for the food service industry as a whole to address this issue. Use SM tools to show good business practices

Let me know your thoughts—post them in the Comments section here.

Accepting change is no problem. Until you actually have to do it.

Laurie Coots, a long-time friend and colleague recently reminded me that I used to be ferociously loyal to Apple computers and refused to even consider using Microsoft. I used to get really riled at the prospect. But circumstances—i.e. (no pun intended) a new job at Young & Rubicam at the end of 1997, goodbye Chiat/Day and Mac…—forced me abandon more than a decade of brand loyalty. I’ve been working with computers running Windows ever since.  And guess what?

I lived. But I still remember how important Apple felt to me. It seemed to hold some of the magic of the agency where I worked, Chiat/Day. It embodied a spirit of challenge and creativity and sheer pragmatic, get-the-job-done smarts that I loved. (Okay, maybe I’m still pining a little.) I didn’t like having to change—it was almost traumatic—but I just had to accept it and now it all feels like several lifetimes ago.

Lots of people would say that I’ve transferred my ferocious loyalty to Blackberry, although now it’s more about the machines than the company. I admit it: I’m addicted to my connectivity. But let’s be realistic. If circumstances forced a change (shudder), then I would have to give it up. It just might have to be surgically removed though.

It’s hard to imagine life without all the things that have become deeply integrated over recent years—my Blackberry, Google, The Huffington Post—but I seemed to manage well enough before I used them, so I guess I’d figure out how to manage without them if and when I ever had to.

Let’s get one thing straight, though: My dogs, Sacha and Chase, are not negotiable.

While living in Amsterdam just over a decade ago I was impressed by the way everybody I met spoke English—fluently, not just conversationally. What’s more, there were plenty of English-language movies and TV shows with subtitles, as well as books, magazines and newspapers in English. In my global travels since, there have been very few times when I’ve had to resort to phrase books or gestures, not even in France. Just kidding—sort of.

People all over the world are so keen to learn English, it seems like the world has opened up for English speakers. Face-to-face or online, I can chat to my heart’s content with friends and colleagues from Latin America, Europe and Asia. What’s not to like? More than you might think, in fact. A comment in our PepTrends Tweetup last week got me wondering. What about all the communication out there that’s not in English?

My Dutch friends could connect with me, and the rest of the world, in English or French, but they could switch back to their own private Dutch language world in an instant. It’s the same with my Indian and Chinese and Russian friends. My English language world is completely accessible to them, plus they have a whole world of their own language and culture. And walking round midtown Manhattan, as a visiting friend observed, you hear more snatches of Spanish than English. Those Latinos are completely part of my world and completely part of the Latin world too.

Not a single one of those non-English-speaking worlds is accessible to me.

While living in Amsterdam just over a decade ago I was impressed by the way everybody I met spoke English—fluently, not just conversationally. What’s more, there were plenty of English-language movies and TV shows with subtitles, as well as books, magazines and newspapers in English. In my global travels since, there have been very few times when I’ve had to resort to phrase books or gestures, not even in France. Just kidding—sort of.

People all over the world are so keen to learn English, it seems like the world has opened up for English speakers. Face-to-face or online, I can chat to my heart’s content with friends and colleagues from Latin America, Europe and Asia. What’s not to like? More than you might think, in fact. A comment in our PepTrends Tweetup last week got me wondering. What about all the communication out there that’s not in English?

My Dutch friends could connect with me, and the rest of the world, in English or French, but they could switch back to their own private Dutch language world in an instant. It’s the same with my Indian and Chinese and Russian and Indonesian friends. My English language world is completely accessible to them, plus they have a whole world of their own language and culture. And walking round midtown Manhattan, as a visiting Indian observed, you hear more snatches of Spanish than English. Those Latinos are completely part of my world and completely part of the Latin world too.

Not a single one of those non-English-speaking worlds is accessible to me.

Suddenly being a native English speaker feels less like a passport to a globalized world, and more like a one-way ticket to a global isolation.