Clay Shirky Is Kind of Annoying. He Is Also Right.
The Weekly Standard's Jonathan Last finds Internet guru and technology triumphalist Clay Shirky annoying. Last objects to Shirky's black suits, aphoristic style, and devoted following. Fair enough: Bright-eyed evangelists and fiery-eyed revolutionaries are everywhere and always annoying, and NYU "interactive telecommunications" prof Shirky certainly deserves to be counted among their number. But Last—a member of the Weekly Standard We Aren't So Sure About This Whole Internet Thing Men's Chorus—also thinks Shirky is just plain wrong.
Here's Last summarizing of Shirky's key argument:
Shirky's thinking runs like this: Two billion people are now online. Right now most of those people spend their free time watching television. As television watching (which is bad) is replaced by Internet surfing (which is good) people will combine to create worthwhile virtual projects that become civic capital. Shirky's Exhibit A is Wikipedia, the estimable online encyclopedia created and maintained by an army of volunteers. Shirky estimates that, to date, Wikipedia has consumed 100 million man-hours of work. By contrast, Americans watch 200 billion hours of television a year. As those hours shift to the Internet, people will band together into working groups and create worthwhile endeavors out of this "cognitive surplus."
When Last uses the word surfing, he gives away the game. (I should note here that Last is a smart guy, a Grade-A geek of the best kind, and a friend of mine. On this matter, I think he's wrong. But he's not at all annoying.) Using the word surfing is like using the word cyber—it implies a mental picture of the Internet that is slightly out of date.
Shirky's entire point is that the Internet isn't about passive consumption anymore. For even the schmoest Joe, it's about producing stuff and participating in mass production. Last is quite right to point out that most of the stuff produced is crap—tweets, Facebook updates, or YouTube rants. But he's wrong to worry that mass participation in self-selected Internet endeavors will wind up "lowering the standard of middlebrow discourse" and that the results will be dire for both individuals and society as a whole. For starters, middlebrow discourse was none too impressive to begin with, as Last himself notes when he condemns Shirky by suggesting his book is fit primarily for middle managers.
But even this degraded discourse is an improvement than the non-discourse of television or oldstyle mindless clicky "surfing." One doesn't have to be militantly anti-television to think that everyone is better off, individually and collectively, if some of those television hours were devoted to actually doing something—even if that something is adding to the already-maxed out corpus of Harry Potter fan fiction—and interacting with real, live humans.
Here's me, succumbing to Shirky's wiles, back in 2008.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The folks in charge of the USAF "cyber" war section are reasonable,cool, + not a bit stupid, FWIW. I had a whiskey with 'em recently.
Why is TV "bad"? What is it with so many douchebags who want to do their "oh my GOD, that boob tube is so insipid" routine? Sure, there are a lot of incredibly dumb television shows; there are also really intelligent ones, and ones that make you think. Is Jeopardy "bad"? You think when you're watching it, after all.
Basically it just boils down to idiots who, in their need to feel superior to others, pick TV to look down their nose at. How utterly unoriginal. If you're going to be a dick, pick something different. Like pizza.
I don't like that it's so passive. I prefer the internet because it provides much more interaction.
Sure. But is TV "bad" for being passive?
"Stupid TV! Be more interactive!"
Frylock: Yep, I think it's about time we invested in a high definition plasma screen.
Meatwad: I thought you said TV was bad.
Frylock: It is. But we fucking need it!
I RULE you, with VIOLENCE.
Jeopardy? Sure, but even sitcoms like All in the Family, and MASH are educational.
Two and a Half Men isn't.
Josef Fritzl is a Two and a Half Men fan, FYI.
http://translate.google.co.uk/.....knast.html
That makes sense, since that show also makes me want to rape my own children. Luckily, I don't have any children, so that urge has gone unfulfilled.
[i]I don't have any children[/i]
Lucky for them.
You would think that when trying to hurl a zinger I could get the tags right. But no.
HA HA
See what happens when you try to clown me?
I'll get you.
Actually...Emulating Sheen/rejecting the brother's behavior will up your notch count. So there's that.
Two and a Half Men isn't.
Sure it is. I know a (much-younger) woman who had a boss who was a Charlie Harper type. He was the son of a man with a successful business, but he was all slick and no responsibility. She figured out who and what he really was because of 2.5 Men.
If I was a media mogul, I would release whole new seasons of shitty TV series on election day every year to stream via internet. Jersey Shore, Real Housewives of Where-the-fuck-ever, Two-and-a-Half Men, etc. Anybody that rates watching shit TV over their civic duty should probably be gently nudged into staying out of a voting booth.
Anyone who refers to voting as a civic duty should probably pay more attention to the news. Maybe on TV.
Well, you should at least check to see whether there is any point to voting. Every once in a while there are candidates that aren't complete shit, yet have a respectable shot at winning. Shouldn't let those opportunities go to waste.
That ain't this year. Wake me in 2000-never.
I won't be sad if they kill laugh tracks, unless they added them to the political news channels.
Let's be honest - while there may be more of it now, "middlebrow discourse" has always been shit. Pining for a time when it wasn't is like pining for a time when we were all sturdy virtuous yeoman-farmers.
Yes, the woods have always been full of opinionated middlebrowers. Just that with facebook and blogs, every blowhard with an opinion (oh, but not me, of course... just those other guys...) has a wider audience.
I think that TV watching will be replaced by TV streaming to the Intertubes. Folks will still use HUGE amounts of time not thinking, they'll just do it in a different place.
NETFLIX
and, hey, i take exception to that. I use TV as a background to my thinking.i need something to keep me from disappearing into a self-induced coma and SouthPark or ItsAlwaysSunny does just the trick to keep my mind in something-approaching-reality-but-not-so-close-i'd-have-to-kill-myself.
Ya, just ordered a Roku box. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to watch MMA anymore, but I'm OK with that if I can save about $80/month.
Well I don't want to be all dated and stuff, so what is the new, modern way of saying that someone is using a computer to view various computer files through the internet?
It's called humping the internet.
Nethumpers. Fucking nethumpers are ruining the internet.
Dumbasses. It's called facetwitspacetubestering.
If middlebrow discourse were lowered, this blog would diasappear.
And in its place Max would be forced to jackoff to his responses to himself. Thank Zod his wishes do not become reality.
I wonder if Max could survive if he could not seek attention from people who smarter than him.
He'd have to be the last man on Earth for there to be no one smarter than him.
The real beef that traditional journalists have with Shirky's argument is that if the internet does what Shirky says, they aren't special any more.
The fact that most people are passive consumers of entertainment content [whether in print or on the tube] is a GOOD thing if you're one of the people getting paid to produce that content. Anything that might rock that boat is therefore BAD.
If I wrote for the Standard I would whine about how everybody writing blogs and updating Wikipedia is producing crap, too.
+1
If I wrote for the Standard I would whine about how everybody writing blogs and updating Wikipedia is producing crap, too.
reply to this
Keeping the links to Sugar's site at a bare minimum.
"Last is quite right to point out that most of the stuff produced is crap?tweets, Facebook updates, or YouTube rants."
Or useless comments that make no point.
"Or useless comments that make no point."
Huh?
Threadjack...
Went to pullup a Redman song on YouTube's VEVO....was prefaced by a commercial for O'Malley, where he and a few other white guys arrested some evil darkies threatening OUR children. Wooo.....wait, what?
Look, I got no kids, so I don't give a shit what happens to yours. Keep voting on that basis, and I'll find no reason to stop my legion of Robot Nixons from coming into homes and wrecking up the place. Fuck with my musics and Nixon is gonna rape your wife when he's done breaking your collection of CHIPs figurines.
"Last is quite right to point out that most of the stuff produced is crap?tweets, Facebook updates, or YouTube rants."
As though all facebook updates, tweets, or youtube rants are all of the same quality. Talk about mindlessness!
Have you read any of them? Maybe a few twits are somewhere above the others, but it's the same morons commenting on youtube as are updating on facebook.
Nirvana - Sappy - Comments:
"blah blah blah Justin Beiber blah blah blah"....and after my head finished explodng, i took another shot and just listened to the song again. No worries.
no, not the same "morons." It's just one, evil, moronic gnome producing everything on the internet from his mother's basement
(foiled again by the joke-handle)
Thanks for tipping me off to Shirky. I just wonder if he is aware of Santa Fe Institute complexity. I hope so. The spontaneous organizing they both are trying to make us aware of will become the foundation for peaceful anarchy to have some legitimacy and acceptance.
threadjack... did Jon Gruden just say Peyton Manning is adept at ball handling? *snigger*
Clay Shirky is kind of annoying. He is also bald....oh, wait....
What's wrong with doing nothing?
Wikipedia has consumed 100 million man-hours of work. By contrast, Americans watch 200 billion hours of television a year.
This would only be a meaningful stat if in the aggregate those 200 billion hours belonged to someone or a specific institution. Who do they belong to? That's right, no one.
The arguments of Last and Shirky are both self indulgent fantasies, and it's odd that a libertarian would humor them.
Not to mention the comparison of man-hours with hours. Very sneaky.
If we compared apples to apples, it would be less than 700 man-hours of TV-watching a year vs. 100M for Wiki.
Fuck. Brain fart there, ignore that last post.
This is right. The idea that time not spent on something productive = time lost or wasted is one of the most pernicious misunderstandings of human life out there.
I asked the Internet to marry me. It said, "No!". LOL
Jess
http://www.anon-yes-please.com
If you love the internet, set it free. If it comes back to you, it's yours. If not it was never meant to be.
44 posts and no one asked about surfing porn and the huge amount of time it takes.
You'll disgust me.
Whether surfing or not, we would still be jacking off, so I don't see how you go about metering it.
That's interactive, though.
Plus, you, um, learn some things. Not necessarily useful things, but things.
I don't know, I actually make some pretty cool stuff and put it on the internet, but I also spend way more time than I should on it doing shit that's as pointless as watching Nanny and the Professor reruns.
thank you
I stopped getting cable a few years ago. With some of that time and money, I started my own webpage. Last week, I canceled the broadcast TV, because my local provider dropped Fox. I don't have any moral objection to TV, but I think my life has become more interesting and enjoyable without it.
So Katherine, you're saying you're not up for cyber?
What kind of AOL chat room is this?
thanks