Here is a quick snapshot of what the
current screen landscape looks like
as of the writing of this book.
current screen landscape looks like
as of the writing of this book.
there are
0
people communicating on the Internet worldwide.
that’s
of the world’s population.
144 billion
e-mails are sent
175 billion
tweets are sent
4 billion
YouTube videos are viewed
EVERY SINGLE DAY
1.35 billion
people log into Facebook and spend
10.5 billion
minutes uploading
300 million
photos and 500 trillion bytes of information
4.5 billion
likes are given
to which…
8,500
likes
1,000
comments
are given every second
Blogger Dave Pell has 18,693 followers. In one of his most reposted posts he answered the question: Does the Internet Make You More Connected? His answers raise questions. The following are excerpts from that post:
I’m more connected to people I don’t know. I’m equally connected to the people I do know. I’m less connected to myself.
“The Internet has had a dual effect on the level of connectedness I feel with the people I know in my offline life. On one hand, the basic communication tools now available make distance almost a non-issue. On the other hand, when I am actually with my friends and family, I find myself (and increasingly, my companions) distracted by a smartphone that’s either the object of my gaze or being fingered in my front pocket…I recently walked through a hotel restaurant where every single person was interacting with a device of some sort. They were together spatially, but that was about it. The actual number of social interactions I have with friends hasn’t been impacted by the Internet. But I do worry that the quality of those interactions has taken a hit because everyone in the room is not only connected to each other, but also to everything else in the world.
The distractions play an even more aggressive role when it comes to my connection with myself. Most of the moments once reserved for a little alone time have been infiltrated by the real-time Internet. I never just wait for a bus, or just stand in line at a bank, or even just sit and think as I sit stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic. At these moments, I pull my phone out of my pocket faster than a gunfighter pulls his weapon out of its holster. The only time I really experience any self-reflection these days is when my computer sleeps and my screen goes dark. And I’m not alone. According to Pew, 42% of mobile owners used their phone for entertainment when they were bored. If those 42% of people are anything like me, that so-called boredom now arrives sooner than the random thoughts that can lead to self-reflection, creativity or just a few seconds of nothingness. I can draw my phone faster than my mind can wander. Of course, the draw of our devices is about more than relieving boredom (a goal the devices only occasionally achieve). It’s about getting a fix; reacting to a feeling of urgency that you’ve got to keep up with whatever it is that’s coming into your stream right now. Part of the power of the real-time web is that it can quickly make you feel like you can’t live without a flow of data that you easily lived without before you discovered it.
That’s the Internet’s reverse placebo effect: you feel as though you were missing something important before you signed up for the latest service. It's a drug for an ailment you never had.
At an Arcade Fire concert, a guy in front of me held his camera phone towards the big screen that flanked the stage and hit the video record button. He stood like that for a long time, separated from a live concert by two screens. Maybe he gained some social benefit by sharing the video with a friend or a broader Internet audience. But the concert provided him an opportunity to lose himself in the music and the moment. He let a screen block that experience.”
The trouble seems to be managing an addiction we see as an accomplishment. We have only ON and ON. We don’t slow down till we get sick. We are afraid of shutting our computers down. The reboot takes too long. We are becoming the devices we use—a rote list of repetitive doings devoid of any awareness of being besides being on. If we are ON, we are connected. The off switch for doing requires the unbearable business of being. And when we have lost track of who we are and what we like, what delights us or makes us feel loved (besides likes and comments and posts and e-mails), it is deeply unnerving. Easier to go online.
The trouble seems to be managing an addiction we see as an accomplishment. We have only ON and ON. We don’t slow down till we get sick. We are afraid of shutting our computers down. The reboot takes too long. We are becoming the devices we use—a rote list of repetitive doings devoid of any awareness of being besides being on. If we are ON, we are connected. The off switch for doing requires the unbearable business of being. And when we have lost track of who we are and what we like, what delights us or makes us feel loved (besides likes and comments and posts and e-mails), it is deeply unnerving. Easier to go online.
This technological faux connection seeps into intimate physical relationships as well.
There is, of course, still the organic model in which a couple evolves, faces joy and hardship, success and failure—the ups and downs of life and discovers how to establish roots and grow. But, there is also now a more efficient, immediate, device-driven model grown out of a tech-savvy, time-starved, control-driven and emotionally uncomfortable population.
This model is characterized by applications like Bang With Friends (BWF), an international Facebook-powered solution to overcoming social inhibition and enacting sexual fantasies with friends involving virtually no accountability.
BWF stats are worth looking at:
Worth:
0
Users:
0
Hook-Ups:
0
The duo behind it, 28 year-old Ivy League graduate Colin Hodge and his partner Omri Mor, claim to have ‘made this in two hours with the help of a lot of Red Bull and vodka.’ Its official email contact is [email protected]. It has a doggy-style logo and if both parties agree to sex they receive an e-mail that says, “Your friend wants to bump uglies.” This is the transactional device model. Creators defend it as a more honest, direct way to ‘tag’ friends you want to have sex with without the awkward ‘crossing the friendship line’ issue. They argue it does not negate communication, just clarifies the objectives and expedites the process. It is a catalyst, a facilitator, a mediator—a benevolent wingman so to speak. It is not a new idea. There was Grindr for gay men and Craigslist Casual Encounters. And there are many more now. Perhaps it is simply the 21st century Internet version of the 60’s sexual revolution. Maybe “banging” is the new “free love” anesthetized by screens instead of drugs. Feels different though. Feels like a much different kind of “connection.” The artificial confidence a ‘screen’ offers makes it easy to say and do virtually anything. Blogger Joshua Hooper-Kay comments that,
“The sense of anonymity that the barrier of a screen gives Internet users leads people to behave with less restraint and act on unruly impulses. With no natural boundaries, there is a real risk of confusion, embarrassment, shame and humiliation.”
Psychologist John Suler calls it, ‘the online dis-inhibition effect.’ And this ‘effect’ has led to cyber-bullying, flaming, trolling and the sometimes tragic and permanent side effects. Bullying is not new but the ability to do it in a physically absent, publicly viral way is. The message has become deeply influenced by the medium. Marshall McLuhan, in the late 1970s spoke about the medium being the message. He said the medium (which at the time was only print, TV and radio) was more important than the message. I bristled at this. Isn’t content everything. What could possibly be more important than the message? Except maybe the messenger? However, his argument is irrefutable and even more relevant today than it was then:
“The singular message broadcast out at any given moment is nowhere near as impactful as the pervasive and constant intrusion of the medium itself on your physical reality.”
Psychologist John Suler calls it, ‘the online dis-inhibition effect.’ And this ‘effect’ has led to cyber-bullying, flaming, trolling and the sometimes tragic and permanent side effects. Bullying is not new but the ability to do it in a physically absent, publicly viral way is. The message has become deeply influenced by the medium. Marshall McLuhan, in the late 1970s spoke about the medium being the message. He said the medium (which at the time was only print, TV and radio) was more important than the message. I bristled at this. Isn’t content everything. What could possibly be more important than the message? Except maybe the messenger? However, his argument is irrefutable and even more relevant today than it was then:
“The singular message broadcast out at any given moment is nowhere near as impactful as the pervasive and constant intrusion of the medium itself on your physical reality.”
On a very public level there are numerous ways to contribute to charities (UNITE.com) and individual dreams (kickstarter.com). On a work level, milk* ad agency was able to help a valued employee who lost four of his nieces and nephews in a tragic house fire by immediately setting up a website for people to help contribute to his family. Thousands of people, mostly complete strangers to this particular person, were deeply touched by his story and contributed tens of thousands of dollars in total. On a personal note, when we lost our dog Pablo, we had over three thousand people share the link to help raise awareness. Hundreds of people offered and committed their help. Friendships with previous strangers were formed based on common experiences. This incredible outreach of support was due entirely to the medium.
So it’s true, the medium’s empire is more powerful than any individual message. But the medium cannot control the message we choose to send out. People use the Internet in all different ways: as a weapon to project their anger, as a megaphone to advertise their lives, as a party to feel socially active, as a coffee shop to share experiences in a more deeply meaningful way. People use the Internet the same way they use the telephone, to avoid the eye-to-eye interaction. The issue is not the medium and not entirely even the message. The issue is one of awareness, of paying attention to what, and with whom we are connecting. The double ON inside cONnectiON can either define the way we are constantly ON-task, ON-line, ready to send and receive at a moment’s notice, to do and go and act and accomplish. Or, it can describe the way we choose to live our life ON purpose—ON the heartbeat, the breath beat, the inner rhythms of our experience.
Regardless of the medium’s impact on our life, what we power ON is up to us.
