What "AI" tells us is that content pollution isn’t a metaphor at all. Content is pollution, and we’re not only polluting with no consequences, but we’re being invited, on a minute to minute basis, to pollute more, to pollute bigger, pollute faster.
Really great piece. You pinpointed exactly why the term “IRL” bothers me — by divorcing the internet from the material world, i.e. it’s ecological impact, we also low-key give it a free pass to exist on its own plane, with its own social codes, where people can say repugnant things but pass it off as shit posting, for example. It’s all related.
Overall, I think this piece is excellent, and I appreciate the nuances that you bring to this conversation - a conversation that is all too often flattened out by the effects of social media and diminished attention span.
I do want to offer a counterpoint on the notion that technology is neutral, however. The late Neil Postman spent much of his career researching and writing about the effects of technological change on American society, particularly in his 1993 book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, and I find his arguments persuasive. He gave a speech in 1998 that offers an excellent summation of his insights; it's available here in full: https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/postman.pdf
The one most germane to the idea of technological neutrality is this: "[T]here is embedded in every great technology an epistemological, political or social prejudice. Sometimes that bias is greatly to our advantage. Sometimes it is not."
Really great piece. You pinpointed exactly why the term “IRL” bothers me — by divorcing the internet from the material world, i.e. it’s ecological impact, we also low-key give it a free pass to exist on its own plane, with its own social codes, where people can say repugnant things but pass it off as shit posting, for example. It’s all related.
Yes, this is exactly it – not a parallel reality, but a prosthetic reality, whose technology does affect us. Thanks so much for reading.
Overall, I think this piece is excellent, and I appreciate the nuances that you bring to this conversation - a conversation that is all too often flattened out by the effects of social media and diminished attention span.
I do want to offer a counterpoint on the notion that technology is neutral, however. The late Neil Postman spent much of his career researching and writing about the effects of technological change on American society, particularly in his 1993 book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, and I find his arguments persuasive. He gave a speech in 1998 that offers an excellent summation of his insights; it's available here in full: https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/postman.pdf
The one most germane to the idea of technological neutrality is this: "[T]here is embedded in every great technology an epistemological, political or social prejudice. Sometimes that bias is greatly to our advantage. Sometimes it is not."
Thank you so much for reading! I'll read this speech as soon as I get a chance. Thanks for the recommendation.
This is really great, Patrick. You've answered a lot of questions I wasn't even quite sure how to ask.
Ugh, thank you so much! It means a lot coming from you 💙