Technology, society, and opportunity
One of the commenters from the article posted in my previous entry, Michael Boehm, explained the dynamics of technology in society really well:
It all comes down to opportunities and assumptions. For example, let's take Mr. Frank's mechanical clock example as it pertains to civic participation. Take two hypothetical towns, A and B. Previously, decisions among town leaders are made in spontaneous conversations and ad-hoc meetings called as issues arise. All the elders know each other well and so it's not a problem. Now say town A gets a mechanical clock and town B does not. Since they have a clock, the citizens of A decide they want regularly-scheduled town hall meetings at the same time every week. So the assumption is that civic decisions will be made at these meetings, and if you want to be a part of it you must go to these meetings on time. Whereas in Town B people with issues must take their case to each elder one by one. A person in Town A who ignores the clock will be excluded from civic life, as the default assumption among the townspeople is that if you were interested in civic responsibility you would follow the clock. So the adoption of a technology initiates an expectation of use and an assumption of values that narrows the options of one who does not subscribe to that paradigm. Ignoring Twitter may be easy, but one must think of the opportunity cost.
As much as Facebook gets on my nerves sometimes, I think of the opportunities that I've had to keep in touch with my friends from college, with family members that I rarely see in person, and with people that I met in Japan. Without FB, I would be left wondering what these people were up to. Granted, interaction on there is not always meaningful, but sometimes those small interactions and mundane status messages give you a sense of what's going on with those people and allow you to remain close...or at least closer than you would have otherwise been...
It all comes down to opportunities and assumptions. For example, let's take Mr. Frank's mechanical clock example as it pertains to civic participation. Take two hypothetical towns, A and B. Previously, decisions among town leaders are made in spontaneous conversations and ad-hoc meetings called as issues arise. All the elders know each other well and so it's not a problem. Now say town A gets a mechanical clock and town B does not. Since they have a clock, the citizens of A decide they want regularly-scheduled town hall meetings at the same time every week. So the assumption is that civic decisions will be made at these meetings, and if you want to be a part of it you must go to these meetings on time. Whereas in Town B people with issues must take their case to each elder one by one. A person in Town A who ignores the clock will be excluded from civic life, as the default assumption among the townspeople is that if you were interested in civic responsibility you would follow the clock. So the adoption of a technology initiates an expectation of use and an assumption of values that narrows the options of one who does not subscribe to that paradigm. Ignoring Twitter may be easy, but one must think of the opportunity cost.
As much as Facebook gets on my nerves sometimes, I think of the opportunities that I've had to keep in touch with my friends from college, with family members that I rarely see in person, and with people that I met in Japan. Without FB, I would be left wondering what these people were up to. Granted, interaction on there is not always meaningful, but sometimes those small interactions and mundane status messages give you a sense of what's going on with those people and allow you to remain close...or at least closer than you would have otherwise been...