In the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland is the latest curmudgeon to recycle Nick Carr's distraction trope, microwave it, and serve it with gravy. The argument is that Twitter -- though possibly a wonderful thing for Egyptian revolutionaries (we can argue that trope another day) -- is distracting us Westerners from our important work of deep reading and deep thinking and something simply must be done. We have a crisis of concentration brought on by a crisis of distraction, he tells us. Some I respect react and call this matter urgent.
Bollocks, as my Guardian friends would say.
I want you to think back with me now -- I'm hypnotizing you, which should alleviate the stress of distraction, at least momentarily -- to the moment in 1994 or soon thereafter when you discovered the World Wide Web and a new activity: browsing. Didn't we all, every one of us, waste hours -- days, even -- aimlessly, purposelessly clicking links from one site to the next, not knowing where we would go and then not knowing where our hours went? Oh my God, we would never get anything done again, we fretted. We are all too distracted. We were hypnotized.
I know from market research I did that back then that it was not long before browsing diminished and died as our main behavior online. We became directed in our searches. We came to web looking for something, got it, and moved on. That's partly because the tools improved: Yahoo gave us a directory; brands took on the role of serving expected content; Google gave us search. But this change in behavior came mainly because we got over the newness of browsing and had other, more important things to do and we learned how to prioritize our time again.
It is ever thus. Think back to the early days of TV and cable: My God, with so much to watch, will be ever get anything done? The exact same argument can be made -- indeed, one wishes it were made -- about books: With so many of them unread, how can we possibly ever do anything else? But, of course, we do.
Twitter addiction shall pass. Have faith -- faith in your fellow man and woman. I was busy doing other things yesterday, important things, and so I pretty much did not tweet. I survived without it. So, I'm depressed to say, did all of you without me. I just wrote in my book that Twitter indeed created a distraction to writing the book, as I was tempted by the siren call of the conversation that never ends. But it also helped with my writing that I always had ready researchers and editors, friends willing to help when I got stuck or needed inspiration.
Twitter is a tool to manage and we learn how to do that, once the new-car smell wears off. That's exactly what has happened with blogging. And here is the moment the curmudgeons triumphally declare the triumphalists wrong and blogging -- which, remember, was also going to destroy us -- dead or dying. What killed blogging? Twitter. Ah, the circle of life, the great mandala.
But I can guarantee that the distraction trope will be pulled out of the refrigerator and reheated again and again as the curmudgeons raise alarms about the destructive power of the next shiny thing. I'm loving reading a long-awaited new book by the esteemed Gutenberg scholar Elizabeth Eisenstein. In Divine Art, Infernal Machine, she takes us back to exact same arguments over the printing press among the "triumphalists" and the "catastrophists." That is perhaps better title for our curmudgeons. She quotes Erasmus arguing that:
the benefits of printing were almost eclipsed by complaints about increased output: swarms of new books were glutting the market and once venerated authors were being neglected. "To what corner of the world do they not fly, these swarms of new books?... the very multitude of them is hurting scholarship, because it creates a glut, and even in good things satiety is most harmful." The minds of men "flighty and curious of anything new" are lured "away from the study of old authors."
And isn't really their fear, the old authors, that they are being replaced? Control in culture is shifting.
What are our catastrophists really saying when they argue that Twitter is ruining us and Western (at least) civilization? They are branding us all sheeple. Ah, but you might say: Jarvis, aren't you and your triumphalists making similarly overbroad statements when you say that these tools unlock new wonders in us? Perhaps. But there is a fundamental difference in our claims.
We triumphalists -- I don't think I am one but, what the hell, I'll don the uniform -- argue that these tools unlock some potential in us, help us do what we want to do and better. The catastrophists are saying that we can be easily led astray to do stupid things and become stupid. One is an argument of enablement. One is an argument of enslavement. Which reveals more respect for humanity? That is the real dividing line. I start with faith in my fellow man and woman. The catastrophists start with little or none.
Ah, but some will say, these tools are neutral. They can be used by bad actors as well. That's certainly true. but bad actors are usually already bad. The tools don't make them bad.
Take the Great Distractor of the age: Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. The real debate over him in The Social Network and among privacy regulators and between catastrophists and triumphalists is about his motives. I write in Public Parts:
If, as the movie paints him, he acts out of his own cynical goals--getting attention, getting laid, getting rich--then manipulating us to reveal ourselves smells of exploitation. But if instead he has a higher aim--to help us share and connect and to make the world more open--then it's easier to respect him, as Jake [my son] and I do. . . .
There is the inherent optimism that fuels the likes of him: that with the right tools and power in the right hands, the world will keep getting better. "On balance, making the world more open is good," Zuckerberg says. "Our mission is to make the world more open and connected." The optimist has to believe in his fellow man, in empowering him more than protecting against him. . . .
He believes he is creating the tools that help people to do what they naturally want to do but couldn't do before. In his view, he's not changing human nature. He's enabling it.
I talked with Ev Williams at Twitter and he says similar things. He's not trying to distract us to death. (That would be Evil Ev.) He's trying to help us connect with each other and information, instantly, relevantly. (That is Good Ev.) It's up to us how we use the tool well -- indeed, we the community of users are the ones who helped invent the power of @ and # and $ and RT to refine the gift Ev et al gave us. I heard a similar mission from Dennis Crowley at Foursquare: helping us make serendipitous connections we otherwise wouldn't.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the one who started this whole mess in the beginning (damn you, Sir!) is trying to push all the toolmakers to the next level, to better understand the science of what they are doing and to unlock the data layer of our world. Wonderful possibilities await -- if you believe that the person next to you isn't a distractable dolt but instead someone with unmet potential. There's the real argument, my friends. And you are my friends, for remember that I'm the one who respects you.