On Saturday, Paul Carr posted a perspective piece inspired by a special Weezer concert event attended by a mix of MySpace fans and VIP guests. In that article, Carr criticized the technology community’s recent fascination with real-time search, viewing the concert as a good example of the negative effects brought about by the iPhone generation.
[I]t’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? […] 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.
While I am an advocate for the many positives that emerge from engaging people in their own lives and being willing to share these observations with others, Carr’s insight is undeniable. Humans have always been affected by their interactions with the environment. With access to social media and a culture of attention to support it, the difference now is that the observer is also a conduit capable of bringing others into the experience. Carr sees this as “a hideous dystopia” where participants are worried more about audience than the context of what they are witnessing.
This prediction of doom, however, is predicated on a handful of flawed assumptions.
The first is that posting content is performing for an audience. While journalists and the bloggers they spawned likely do view the world in that way, I don’t think it follows that as content contribution expands to the general populous everyone becomes a journalist. Most networks on Twitter are small ones reflecting social circles already existing offline. Posts in this context are arguably not about taking credit or reaching the masses as much as sharing experiences with friends.
The second key assumption is that the real-time web is an individual activity. It isn’t. Individuals are involved, but the appeal and value of real-time content is in the sheer number of people participating and the wide range of personal experiences they capture. Real-time is an emergent phenomenon, which means much of the value we may draw from it in the future is unknown. Writers following Twitter’s deals with Microsoft and Google may focus on how quickly trending topics can be identified and reflected better in search results, but where most people spend their search time is with the long-tail terms that have personal relevance. Search may well migrate from individuals-finding-information to ad hoc interest groups finding each other. The real-time web is made of people.
Most importantly, a culture of embodied observation is also one of changed behavior. A third assumption may be that those who are motivated by ego to post content will always be motivated by ego. With new information comes new skills and opportunity for reflection. We see this happening all the time with the evolving strategies of Twitter use (get lots of followers, prune your network, automate follow messages, don’t use direct messages, etc.). The value you see today may not be the same value you will see tomorrow. People change.
It would be a mistake to adopt a utopian view and discount Carr’s critique. However, I believe that what will ultimately emerge from real-time web is a Zen awareness in the here and now. The current flaws in this beast can and will be overcome.