Seth Godin rightly observes that many web publishers have noticed that many web users have short attention spans and like to click on shiny, flashy things ("snackable content," in the industry jargon).
Seth bemoans the fact that web publishers appeal to this instinct (and try to survive) by providing shiny, flashy things for web users to click on. Seth suggests that, because of this, the Internet is dragging society down.
And we guess that's possible.
But since the dawn of media, someone has always been bellyaching about how media is taking society to hell in a handbasket by providing content that people actually want to consume.
First, it was newspapers, which, until they became cash-gushing oligopolies that droned on about their critical role in society, were as lowbrow as today's chat boards and blogs. Then it was radio. And TV. Every stop along the way, it has been alleged, the new media are dragging us into the gutter.
And, again, maybe that's right.
But perhaps it's time to float a new theory: We're already in the gutter. What we click on accurately reflects what we're interested in, no matter how much we think and protest and hope to the contrary.
We, for one, are glad Seth wrote a long blog post about this that lots of people will pass around and few people will read. Seth's a brilliant guy, and sometimes complex thoughts can't be articulated with a couple of sentences and a photograph.
Sometimes they can, though. And no one has enough time to read everything they want to read. And when you don't have any time and there's a shiny, flashy thing to click on, well, then, maybe one can be forgiven for clicking. (Something like Seth's head, for instance. Which he urged us to click on. And which we did!)
And, in any event, since the Internet is about personal freedom, shouldn't people be able to reveal their personal content preferences all day without worrying about whether that means society is going to the dogs?
See also:
25 Things You Can Control With Your iPhone
Follow Henry Blodget on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hblodget
Thus, it is fact: The Internet is what it is because we are the ones making it so. This seems so obvious as to be a needless statement; that is, until I read the comments preceding mine. Oy.
It's so funny--and so sad--how people refuse to take responsibility for their own persons, for their own world, for what they do and say, for how they feel and react. Thus the inaneness of the commenters. Such a head-in-the-sand perspective is at the essence of corparatism (and capitalism), and allows the ostriches a means by which they can slough off their responsibility for the world they're living in. Thus we get such phenomena as the cog working at Monsanto or Lockheed who says he's doing nothing to destroy the world, when in fact he's doing everything.
Ah, to be a cog. Isn't it grand?
"Snackable content," what Godin calls "wow," exists because people refuse to think for themselves, be for themselves. Because to do so implies taking responsibility (the real, authentic kind), and that's the last thing cogs, who make up most of this country by a large measure (and who include the president), refuse to do.
End of lecture. Now--get back to destroying the planet, cogs!
What on earth does that mean? They are able, and nobody has the power to stop them (us). What does the "should" mean?
Of course, I am not one of those people. ;-)
I bet in the ten years or so I've been on the 'net I've personally interacted with at least 100 of them. (But you are not one of them :-).
Did people ask for their tv shows to be interrupted by an escalating series of rapid succession flash bang advertising for their entire lifetimes?
Why do people need more flashy stuff? Because they have become desensitized to it by a lifetime of advertising.
Similarly the internet gives us the ability to seek out information that reaffirms what we "know", to drown out information that conflicts with what we "know." This is easier for us to handle. And with easy, free access to selective information, it is against human nature to be well-rounded- to eat our spinach as well as our ice cream.
I don't worry as much about the short-attention span... as people need more attention span, they can learn to use it. A bigger issue is our selective attention span and the addictive qualities of the info sources we select.
The pre-digital world reality disciplined us to slow us down, to delay our impulses, and to use our judgment and other human gifts to give us more control and depth and richness over our complex lives.
Our brand new reality makes possible communication in small quick bits that are sometimes useful and gives us more control over some things. But partial communications, e.g. texting, encourage incomplete thoughts or impulsive messages when in actuality more complex ideas would be better.People need to be alone and in silence to reflect fully and find their imagination and creativity.
Let’s discipline ourselves and realize how profoundly we as parents are affected by technology.
The clutter of smartphones and other digital companions is distracting and doesn’t allow us to be fully with our children. This can be damaging, especially to infants, whose emotional and intellectual brains are being wired by us. No texting while parenting. Let's stop making excuses and feeling guilty and make and stick to rules and limits we make for ourselves.
Dr. Eitan Schwarz is a child psychiatrist and author of "Kids, Parents, and Technology: An Instruction Guide for Young Families" (www.mydigitalfamily.org ).