Fear of a Networked Planet

ReadWriteWeb takes to task a recent USA Today article by Jon Swartz that warns against the dangers of the real-time web. Marshall Kirkpatrick, the lead writer for RWW, humorously compares the USA Today article to Reefer Madness, the 1936 film that has become something of a cult classic for its hyperbolic depiction of the evils of marijuana use. Kirkpatrick opens his piece with this criticism of the USA Today article:

The article blames "the real-time web" for declining test scores in school, anti-social addictions, short attention spans and texting-while-driving. Swartz smooshes YouTube, social networks, online banking, location-aware search and social media marketing all under the same umbrella of doom.

Kirkpatrick would be right to mock Swartz's piece--if it actually contained distortions and fears about the real-time web that warranted a comparison to hysterical anti-drug propaganda. The problem is, Swartz's article does nothing of the sort. Instead, it's a fairly typical example of journalism that seeks to explain the phenomenon of web 2.0 and its advantages and disadvantages through interviews with users. In fact, the only unambiguously negative claims come at the end, in a very brief section that compares GPAs between Facebook users and non-Facebook users. Here's a characteristic section from Swartz:

The impact of this latest evolution of the Web — good and bad — can be measured in everyday life. People are more likely to attend high school and college reunions because of shared interests with friends, thanks to social-networking services such as Ning and Facebook, according to both companies. Automated stock trades have replaced human-generated ones, O'Reilly points out.

But privacy and simple communication are often sacrificed in the process, say privacy advocates and academics.

While Swartz does emphasize the drawbacks to being always connected--the potential for distraction, overwhelming amounts of information, loss of privacy--these all seem to me entirely valid topics of discussion, not, as Kirkpatrick puts it, " a great example of the same old Fear of the Internet getting a new name". Indeed, we regularly have discussions here on HASTAC about the privacy issues surrounding Facebook and how to organize all the information now available in productive ways.

I think, instead, what Kirkpatrick objects to is that Swartz does not unreservedly embrace the revolutionary potential of the real-time web, a stance that is more or less unquestioned at ReadWriteWeb. Even though I am not a web 2.0 skeptic--I have a Twitter stream, a Facebook page, blogs, and too many RSS subscriptions--and also feel the Swartz article does slant towards the possible negative effects of being always-on, always-connected, it is not fear-mongering. It is, instead, a fairly typical example of contemporary journalistic practices (the problems of which are numerous and worthy of a post in themselves) aimed at a general, not necessarily Internet-savvy audience.

Kirkpatrick objects, primarily it seems, to this tone and to Swartz's definition of the real-time web; he therefore provides an alternate definition:

The Real-Time Web is a paradigm based on pushing information to users as soon as it's available - instead of requiring that they or their software check a source periodically for updates. It's being implemented in social networking, search, news and elsewhere - making those experiences more like Instant Messaging and facilitating unpredictable innovations. Early benefits include increased user engagement ("flow") and decreased server loads, but these are early days.

A fairly standard rhetorical analysis of this definition, though, makes clear just how loaded and biased this description is. There is no sense that there could possibly even be drawbacks or limitations to these media and such interconnectedness. Instead, it is all "benefits" that make life easier for users in order to facilitate "unpredictable innovations." While I doubt many here would entirely disagree with Kirkpatrick's points, with his unabashedly positive take, he does just as much of a disservice to the phenomena as he argues does Swartz.

What Kirkpatrick's article highlights, for me, is the dangers of becoming too starry-eyed about new technologies. There are, indeed, drawbacks and limitations to what they can do. It's just so easy for those "in the know" to lose sight of this fact.

Myself, I'm going to unplug now and have breakfast with my family.