Being in your mid-40s sucks for many reasons. Suddenly, I have to watch my calorie count. I'm googling remedies for spider veins. I have regrets. I have to come to terms with the fact that I'll never make the New Yorker's list for "Best 20 Writers Under 40." That one really hurts.
One advantage to being in one's 40s is that you have a unique perspective on life before the Internet and after the Internet. I know how to research a paper with the Internet, but I also remember looking up issues of the New York Times in those foot long tomes in the library and the joys of accelerating the microfiche machine.
I remember getting a brand new Mac when I started grad school with AOL loaded onto the machine. My friends used to come over, have a few beers and then mess with people's heads in the AOL chat rooms. I remember learning about blogs from my husband who was one of the first readers of Lileks and Instapundit. I've always been an early adopter of technology, but, unlike my kids, I knew a life before Twitter. Unlike my parents, I can use Twitter.
I think that my generation, Gen Xers, has a unique grasp of the life-changing impact of the Internet, because we have one foot in the future and one foot in the past.
The Chronicle of Higher Education profiles Clay Shirky, an Internet guru operating out of NYU and one of the Gen X generation.
Internet gurus come in two flavors — optimist and pessimist. Shirky is king of the optimists.
Shirky "argues that as Web sites become
more social, they will threaten the existence of all kinds of
businesses and organizations, which might find themselves unnecessary
once people can organize on their own with free online tools."
He also says that "if a critical mass started shifting time from TV to Wikipedia-like
creativity and sharing, society itself would change, and he thinks for
the better. Those new activities—and he gives plenty of examples in the
book of projects already under way—could center on charity, civic
engagement, coping with diseases, and more."
When Shirky looks at the Internet, he sees Wikipedia and blogs and social networks. Others see cat pictures and online shoe stores.
I like Shirky, even if he's too much of an optimist for me. I wrote a paper last year that concluded with the idea that the Internet does provide great riches. However, it is only the elite that are able to access Wikipedia and blogs; they gain knowledge, networks, and power. Everyone else ends up reading about Lindsay Lohan's alcohol monitor on Perez Hilton.
Apt. 11d 
I think that my generation, Gen Xers, has a unique grasp of the life-changing impact of the Internet, because we have one foot in the future and one foot in the past.
We can also remember the days of three TV channels (plus PBS), but I don’t recall any deep lessons from that. Just that nobody under 30 gets it when I say “Let’s see what’s on UHF” instead of “Let’s change the channel.”
LikeLike
I think that blogs, social networks, and even wikipedia type sharing are not in compatible with cat pictures. I can has cheezburger? must be fairly high up in the list of collective projects, after all, and probably does as much to increase utility as many other more “elite” projects.
You’ve left out all the pron. That has to be seen as one of the big divers on the internet, I think.
And, this blog shows quite regularly that one can be a consumer of wikipedia and blogs while still paying a lot of attention to celebrity gossip, the sex lives of stars, and similar nonsense. I doubt the lines are as clear as suggested here.
LikeLike
“in compatible” should be “incompatible”, of course.
LikeLike
Sorry. Tried to summarize a paper in three sentences. Oh yeah, I can go from high culture to low culture really quickly. I actually love gossipy websites, online shoes, and youtube videoes. While that stuff is certainly entertaining, it doesn’t make the world a better place. The problem is that for some people, the Internet is just about porn and Perez and they don’t ever get a chance to read commentary about the health care on the blogs or on the newspaper websites.
LikeLike
I went on a Shirky Podcast spree about a month ago. He’s a very good speaker, and if you haven’t heard it, I recommend his SXSW panel “Monkeys with Internet Access”, the oldie-but-goodie “Ontology is Overrated”, and the EconTalk interview.
LikeLike
I wrote a paper last year that concluded with the idea that the Internet does provide great riches. However, it is only the elite that are able to access Wikipedia and blogs; they gain knowledge, networks, and power. Everyone else ends up reading about Lindsay Lohan’s alcohol monitor on Perez Hilton.
Eh, I’d go even further. The tech people in my social circle gaining real knowledge, networks, and power spend very little time on blogs, Facebook, or Twittering. They are too busy creating the next Facebook. Of the top 10 most powerful tech/internet folks I know personally, not one has a blog for any other purpose than to catalog their children’s lives for the grandparents.
Wax Banks wrote about this last year:
“Suddenly I remember that the people who created the tools that make today’s digi-pop lifestyle possible do not, in fact, have anything in common with the people now trading on those tools to get semifamous. I rediscover my capacity for pity; for how miserable must this young tribe of social-media-bloggers, hipster-foodie-photographers, indie-folktronica-hypers, organization-fetishists, corporate-shills-in-fashion-sneakers, graphic-designer-wannabes, and other assorted largely coastal organisms be, ten years out from their useless liberal arts degrees with nothing to do but talk to one another about how Ira Glass is really awesome and the new living room chair was totally worth the $400 because it’s, like, really a work of art?
The generation that used its engineering skills to escape Mom’s basement is not the generation that uses its graphic design skills to get into slightly smaller lofts with lots more natural light. That the latter fetishizes the former is a joke – but not on the former.”
LikeLike
While that stuff is certainly entertaining, it doesn’t make the world a better place.
I’d disagree, I guess. Why isn’t sharing funny pictures and stories in a way that’s creative, almost free, and not terribly controlled part of making the world a better place? (If one is a utilitarian, it is certainly making the world a better place, but even if one isn’t, it’s still adding lots of good to the world.)
But why would people who like porn, gossip, and cute animals not “have a chance” to do other things on the web? Do they have a different browser than the rest of us? I guess I can see that they _don’t_ do it, but surely they _could_, if they wanted. Or is there something else you’re getting at?
LikeLike
But why would people who like porn, gossip, and cute animals not “have a chance” to do other things on the web?
“Japan” is a good answer to the first part of your question.
LikeLike
it is only the elite that are able to access Wikipedia and blogs
Laura, I’d really like you to expand on this, since “access to Wikipedia” is not something I associate with “only the elite”, unless the elite includes something like a billion people.
LikeLike
“Laura, I’d really like you to expand on this, since “access to Wikipedia” is not something I associate with “only the elite”,”
Well, I can see both sides of this. It takes resources to access Wikipedia (one’s own computer at home, for example, and at the next step, the kids’ computer, the kid’s mobile device, etc.). It also takes intellectual resources, to read, understand, and use the information.
But, it’s also hugely democratizing. You *can* access wikipedia in a library, and, yes, you can even access it in poor villages in 3rd world countries.
Does this end up narrowing differences? Perhaps not, because the benefit to the “elite” could advance them further than the benefit to the rest, creating further separation of the elite & elite.
I found today’s NYtimes story on sports fields related. People fought in the courts to keep the fields accessible to private and public schools, and prevent the private schools from paying for private access. But, the public resource now, unpaid for, has become a private resource, because the public schools can’t afford the bus transportation to the location, while the private schools can.
LikeLike
MH, could you elaborate on the “Japan” comment?
I think for Matt’s comment, part of having the tools for using the internet is the culture of using it, awareness, etc. How do you evaluate websites (and no, undergrads, a martial-arts website is not a good source for Japanese or Chinese history, even if warrior monks are cool), how to use Google effectively, the idea and motivation to search deeper on the internet. I’ve noticed university librarians moving to teaching these skills in formalized ways.
Actual access is a separate problem, in this case. (Hi certain regimes. I wonder if you can access 11D on the otherside of the great firewall.)
I have to admit, some of this mindset stuff… Trying to “correct” it starts sounding too much like indoctrination to me. I have a sort of gut anti-indoctrination stance, so if all you want is TMZ, I’m not sure I want to re-educate you….
LikeLike
This is one of those times that I would rather be having this chat in a seminar room, rather than a blog.
re: access to wikipedia. Yes, a billion people have access to wikipedia. But only a handful actually write those posts. When Shirky is talking about the greatness of the wikipedia, he’s talking about the authors of those entries. He’s enamored by the creativity and collaborative nature of the writers.
re: Access to the Internet v. ability to use it properly. Sociologists including Eszter from CT have really interesting work looking at who is able to really manipulate the resources on the Internet. It actually takes quite a bit of skills to even find information properly using a google search. I’ve seen college students fail miserably at this task. Individuals with higher levels of education and interest can do better google searches, will be motivated to have these sorts of discussions, and to author their own wikipedia entries.
re: The Internet will widen the gulf between elites and non-elites. Yes, that was the concluding sentence of my paper.
LikeLike
MH, could you elaborate on the “Japan” comment?
Probably best if I don’t.
LikeLike
“re: The Internet will widen the gulf between elites and non-elites. Yes, that was the concluding sentence of my paper. ”
I recognize this as a potential hypothesis, and one worth exploring, that a casual acceptance that the technology will be equalizing, because it theoretically could be is wrong. I’d want to see data to see the actual effect, though.
One area I’ve thought about this a lot in is the crafts revolutions I’ve been seeing, in quilting, scrapbooking, photography, and,to go to more bizarre specializations, pumpkin carving and sand castle building. I think that in those areas, the internet is narrowing the gulf among the best and middle. In some ways, that might fit with Laura’s argument, because it means that the gulf between those who can make a living at, say photography, and those who can’t might be greater (that in the old days more people could make a living at photography). On the other hand, photographs are better now, especially the average one. Pumpkins are better now.
I think I might be repeating, in some way, the old capitalist argument — that though the gulf between the elite and the rest might be growing (and the size of the elite shrinking), the “quality” of both the elite & the non elite is going up dramatically. That’s the parallel of saying that though Bill Gates might be a gazillion times more wealthy than the average person, the average person is better off, too. In the economic domain, I’ve never been sure what the math actually turns out to be.
But in photography, I do believe that though it’s possible that fewer, and a more elite group, will actually be able to make money off their photography, that the photographic lot of the non-elite has improved tremendously.
LikeLike
MH, alright, maybe this isn’t the right place to do so (I wouldn’t mind taking it to another forum), but I really am honestly and non-hostilely curious. I have some experience with the Japanese internet (and its use), but how people see it, both within and outside of Japan, is something I’m only beginning to scratch the surface of.
I was surprised when one of my teachers said that she was absolutely frightened to death of 2ch. That started me looking a little at the political discussions on it, and aggressively anonymous forums and politics are really interesting.
(And I need to get my human subjects certification so I can post some research surveys on that and Mixi, if I can figure out the way to get into Mixi…. At least I have some friends on it.)
LikeLike
Re Wikipedia, I saw this yesterday. In my endless attempts to rethink the traditional research paper (why why WHY?), I’ve been drawn to the idea of having students write/edit Wikipedia entries instead. They get pissed off, though, when I have them do tech stuff because 9/10 times I have to teach them the tech stuff. I’ve been trying to talk up the need for a real info literacy course at my university, but best as I can tell, the real problem is who would teach it, because the faculty sure aren’t ready to.
My husband has been doing microstock photography for several years now and is making about $30K a year. He had been a graphic designer, so he had the advantage in knowing what graphic designers need from a photo.
LikeLike
bj, I’ve heard something about that photography issue lately, that stock photographers are feeling economic pressure from amateurs online… How much hard data is there?
I think there are amateurization (for lack of a better word) movements earlier. I wonder if any of those studies looked at professional side of things. Generally we see things moving from more participation, to less participation and the creation of experts or elites. (Science, for example.)
But one question would be whether we have to be careful not to confuse some hierarchy (professional and amateur photographers) with another one (educational, economic).
LikeLike
My husband has been doing microstock photography for several years now and….
I’m going to assume this involves photographing tiny cows and pigs. Please don’t correct me if I’m wrong.
LikeLike
“I actually love gossipy websites, online shoes, and youtube videoes. While that stuff is certainly entertaining, it doesn’t make the world a better place.”
Youtube can be anything you want it to be. My German brother-in-law was recently hooked on watching how-to videos for turning restaurant grease into fuel (his Mercedes runs on French fry grease), and I’ve seen some really good personal finance videos, like this guy explaining how he paid off his mortgage in 10 years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jJC0VWF3ao
“It takes resources to access Wikipedia (one’s own computer at home, for example, and at the next step, the kids’ computer, the kid’s mobile device, etc.).”
I’m seeing poorer and poorer people with better and better phones all the time.
LikeLike
I don’t know much about stock photograph, and I suspect we’re both citing the same NY times article on economic pressure on photographers. I’m a bit more familiar with the effect on what I’d call “bread and butter” photography. which is basically family portraits, school photos, senior portraits, and at a slightly higher level, wedding photography (and, mostly from online forums).
I agree about the confounding of different hierarchies, but, just want to be careful to say that I use the “professional/amateur” division to solely mean whether one gets paid or not. I guess there’s the next step of whether one makes enough to live on and whether one gets paid regularly or occasionally.
(Wendy, I think it’s very cool that your guy makes 30K. That must indeed make the discussions about photography equipment much easier :-).
LikeLike
I’m seeing poorer and poorer people with better and better phones all the time.
Indeed — I often walk to the library when it’s closed to return books and see the same homeless guy with his shopping cart sitting in the shade outside working on his laptop with the library’s wi-fi.
Now that’s access!
LikeLike
Point. Los Angeles has some people who seem to spend most of their day collecting bottles for deposit and some pretty swanky phones. I saw such a woman with a Razr back in 2006.
LikeLike
Yes, a billion people have access to wikipedia. But only a handful actually write those posts.
I really think that this both overstates the position–after all, while numerically the most article edits are made by a small number of contributors, most article content comes from a large number of casual contributors–and is wrong in other ways.
I recognize that contributing to wikipedia requires some sophistication–not least because a neighbor down the street enlisted me in an edit dispute–and that the cultural norms peculiar to wikipedia discourage casual contributors. However, although my neighbor can’t navigate editing wikipedia now, twenty years ago I couldn’t edit any encyclopedia or equivalent work. bj’s take about the middle’s entry into realms formerly limited to the elite is, I think the correct one.
LikeLike
I recognize that contributing to wikipedia requires some sophistication–not least because a neighbor down the street enlisted me in an edit dispute-
The first time (and only) time I tried to make a significant edit to a Wikipedia piece, I got into a huge dispute. I lost (anyway, I backed down), mainly because I decided the other guy wasn’t deliberately trying to be an ass.
LikeLike
“That must indeed make the discussions about photography equipment much easier :-).”
Saved our marriage, I swear.
LikeLike
“Youtube can be anything you want it to be”
I agree, there are all kinds of things on there. I can learn how to play simple guitar arrangements of pop songs by watching others do covers. A easy song is a twenty minute investment, sometimes less. Playing by ear from the radio, or learning to read music, or having friends to show you the songs is much more difficult.
LikeLike
yes, you tube can be anything you want it to be. I used it to get help putting a tie on Jonah and making Morroccan chicken. But what I’m saying is that there is great stuff on the Internet and not so great stuff. Shirky only focuses only the great stuff. I think that only a small percentage of Internet users take advantage of the great stuff.
The Internet pessimists see all the time-suck elements of the Internet. While there’s nothing wrong with porn or online gambling sites, the problem is that the Internet makes reading porn and gambling much, much easier. So, people are spending more time than ever looking at boobs and it’s taking time away from other activities. They’re not bowling together, because they’re looking at porn alone in their rooms.
There’s something to that argument.
LikeLike
There is something to that argument, and Shirky addresses it by asserting that all that time-wasted by sharing LOLCats is time that formerly would have been wasted watching TV. He buttresses this by pointing out that real-life social good like political participation is actually increasing.
LikeLike
Possible solution: topless bowling.
LikeLike
Laura, you might also like Douglas Rushkoff, if you haven’t encountered him before.
As for Wikipedia, I have a visitor right now who’s real old-school internet, and he tells me tales of his friends who use Wikipedia as a sort of MMORPG. They have numerous personas who are doing both social and technical engineering on the site, and no small number of them have achieved admin status. They do things like write bots that change “is” to “is not” in random entries, or move dates back and forth by a day or two. (Allegedly Jimmy Wales lies about his birthday, but only by a day. Other very high-level Wikipedians are alleged to have even greater eccentricities.)
Wax Banks sounds like a prong.
LikeLike
“Other very high-level Wikipedians are alleged to have even greater eccentricities.”
Wikipedia sounds like Scientology for non-photogenic people.
LikeLike
Let me add that “Bowling Alone” was originally written in 1995, so the situation Putnam described can hardly be blamed on web-surfing.
(I will grant, however, that the internet lets some of us spend more time on obsessive fan-boy behavior in comment threads.)
LikeLike
“I think that only a small percentage of Internet users take advantage of the great stuff. ”
But, based on what evidence? I can see that might be true, and the fact that I find the internet to be an amazing resource (though I can identify time sink & money sink behaviors of my own) doesn’t mean that’s true generally. I am very wary, however, of believing things that *could* be true, rather than are actually true. Neem oil *could* kill lice; it’s physiologically possible. But, does it? I have the same worry when pundits espouse theories about changing human behaviors based on technology, where oddly enough (given how very complex answering the question “does neem oil kill lice?” is) the questions are even more difficult to answer.
LikeLike
online porn, online gambling, online info on destructive behaviors (drugs, etc.) and violence (bombs, guns, etc) does worry me, though. I think that ease of access to those things does make reduce the barriers to engaging in behaviors that are bad for a person and bad for society. Say, as a counter argument to the social and personal good of lowering the barrier to entry of reading encyclopedias, listening to and producing online books, building sand castles, searching for addresses, learning about rainbows, researching travel locations, etc. And, the potentially pro/and anti ability to shop online or watching cat videos or spend too much time on comment sites.
I think I’ve heard that the data says the moneymaking sites are the gambling and porn sites. But, I know less about usage and how it’s measured on the internet.
LikeLike
Possible solution: topless bowling.
Have you seen the sort of people who go bowling? This solution might be worse than the problem.
LikeLike
Have you seen the sort of people who go bowling?
No, I haven’t. That’s part of the problem. I need to get out more and away from the comptuer.
LikeLike
There is a lot of evidence about who uses what stuff on the Internet. The Internet is for porn. I can dig up numbers later, if needed. Blog writers and blog readers have extremely high SES. They are much more likely to have a history of voting and other political participation. Most people don’t even know what a blog is.
There are counter arguments to “dumb Internet stuff replaces dumb TV stuff”
First, in the past everybody watched the same dumb TV stuff, so even if you didn’t get a lot of value out of Gilligan’s Island, everyone watched it and everyone would talk about it the next day. That chat brought people together. Good thing. Now, everybody is looking at different dumb stuff and there’s no common talking points over the water cooler.
After the stupid Susan Boyle video exploded on YouTube, I saw it on seven different blogs. I went into school the next day and asked my advanced Media and Politics students what they thought about it. Thirty blank faces. They had all watched dumb stuff on the Internet over the weekend, just different dumb stuff from me.
Second, we’re consuming more dumb stuff than ever before. One hour of Gilligan’s Island doesn’t not compare with hours of Facebook, etc…
LikeLike
“what I’m saying is that there is great stuff on the Internet and not so great stuff. […] I think that only a small percentage of Internet users take advantage of the great stuff.”
I do agree. Didn’t mean for my comment to be arguing against your general idea. “The Internet will widen the gulf between elites and non-elites.”
Yeah, there are democratizing and leveling potentials, but I see them swamped by the dynamic you mention, at least here, right now.
LikeLike
So is there any data/analysis out there on the equality changing effects of other technological inventions (like printed books, bicycles, steamships, automobiles, air travel, penicillin, . . . .). My guess is that autos could have increased inequality by allowing people to segregate themselves more effectively. I don’t know the historical assessment of the others.
LikeLike