Paul Carr at TechCrunch as a long and thoughtful post questioning triumphialism about the real-time web. Carr ties together experiences at a recent Weezer show (similar to the mobile-phone-armed masses I wrote about in this post) as well as his discomfort watching how social media seems to be driven in the wake of disasters, and how perilous Twitter and other real-time communications can be in an environment like a jury room (an issue I’d like to see some lawyers respond to like this). It’s well worth reading the full piece, which I’ll pull a few large chunks from here:
[The] real-time mentality – pictures/tweets or it didn’t happen – continues to seep into every aspect of our lives, both personally and professionally. Whereas once we might attend a conference to watch the speakers and perhaps learn something, today our priority is to live blog it – to ensure our followers know we’re on the inside; first with whatever news might be broken. And it’s not just journalists doing the live-blogging, but anyone with a laptop and a wifi connection.Worse still, we’re told that this is the future. The real-time web – a web where every single thought that enters our head, or image that passes our eyes, can be instantly captured, shared and archived for the approbation of our friends and followers. [..]The assumption at all of these events is the same: real-time is where we’re heading; real time is good. Newspapers were good, cable news was great, blogs were better, instant attention bursts are best.
Hmmmm.
[...] it’s not just a question of micro-ego: when a juror is tweeting teasers from the jury room, part of them must know that a guilty verdict is much more exciting to their audience than one of innocence. How can that not subconsciously influence them? Likewise when we – the real-time generation – watch someone being attacked in the street or a plane crashing into our building and instinctively reach for our phones, can we be sure that our first impulse will be to dial 911, rather than firing up Tweetdeck or clicking the camera icon to ensure we get props for being there? I mean, really sure? In a perverse twist on the uncertainty principle, knowing that our behavior is being observed inevitably changes it for the more dramatic. Just look at reality TV.
And that’s when the real-time web – for all the attention it’s getting right now – starts to look less like a brave new world, and more like the path to a hideous dystopia. A world where our reaction to any event, no matter how serious, is influenced, not by what’s right, but by how it will play with our micro-audience. An audience that, thanks to Google and Microsoft’s wholehearted support of the real-time web, is about to get even bigger and more tempting.
When I wrote about some of these difficult questions, I defended those who would tweet and share and document their experience online out of the belief–one I still hold–that the enriching experience of the social web is our ability to be many places at once and maintain an ambient awareness (Jarred brought this term to my attention, and I love it) about the activity of those we love and those with whom we wish to be connected. Ultimately, understandings of balance and moderation fuel this debate. Journalists try their hardest not to “become the story.” That mandate is hard to follow when we can all be at times documentarian, entertainer, friend, expert, citizen, community leader, the subject of news or the target of criticism. The ubiquity of self-publishing tools (in other words, the social- and real-time-web) demands that we define for ourselves how far we will go, and at what cost (if at all) we will craft our reality to draw pageviews and re-tweets.
I think it is absolutely correct and important to question the real-time web. But at this point, the “real-time generation” that Carr describes has arrived. It is incumbent upon us–content creators and, perhaps more importantly, consumers–to embrace technology in ways that enrich our lives without detracting from the offline obligations that ultimately define our relationships with others and our commitments to values like integrity, honesty, and justice.
About a year ago, I 
There’s a new book out that Taylor pointed me to a few weeks ago called Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. The book’s 
Clive Thompson, a columnist for Wired, contributed a fascinating piece to Sunday’s New York Times Magazine. 
Subscribe by feed
Subscribe by email
Follow on Facebook
