Needle, Meet Haystack

The iPad has been in the news a lot lately.  Even if you’re not going to buy one (there are some good excuses here), you’ve probably still heard and seen a lot about it.  And one of the phrases that a lot of bloggers and news media bonafides are throwing around a lot with regards to the device is that it’s an example of “the future of mobile computing.”

Really?

Now, granted, I enjoy getting wireless Internet as much as the next person.  And it would be nice to not have to squint at the screen of my iTouch whenever I play Bejeweled, but the mobile Internet experience has the potential to be horrifying.

Where we are now

I’m pretty outspoken when it comes to the problems and misuse of technology (see examples one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, etc.), but the real terror comes from the cultural shift that will occur once it becomes socially acceptable to have Internet everywhere.

It’s great to be able to pull up Google Maps when one is lost, or to use Yelp when you’re in a new city looking for an awesome place to eat.  It’s cool that you can get Internet on a smartphone to do business from almost anywhere, and the communication and information options are endless.  Unfortunately, this is probably the opposite of what will really happen.

The next time you’re out in a public place, notice how many people are on their cell phones or texting.  Whether it’s at a restaurant, movie theater, bookstore, antiques shop or even a funeral, the addiction to technology is so powerful that we can’t bear to be away from all communication for more than an instant.  Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other social networks are supposed to help us expand our communities and improve relationships.  But what if they’re doing the opposite?

The social hermit

Have you heard of Dunbar’s Number?  It’s a theoretical proposition that states that one cannot maintain close, stable relationships with more than 150 people.  Now look at your Facebook friends list.  How many of them are you communicating with, and how many of them are you just collecting?

By giving more accessibility to existing social networks, a fully accessible Internet will limit our options for future interactions with people.  Instead of branching out to discover new friends, we will instead become so engrossed and distracted by our existing connections that we will only add to our social circles (and rarely subtract from them) when we are forced to interact with others, like at work.

The technology will allow us to be in a sea of people we don’t know, focused on a select few that we do.  We’ll become social hermits.  After all, it’s safe and comforting to have the same people to interact with – there’s less surprises, less drama and fewer chances to be disappointed or get emotional.

The cure

As popular as the Internet is, there should be limits.  While I’m a strong proponent of net neutrality, the idea that there should somehow be restrictions to the Internet is a good one.  Not in terms of content, but in terms of time and connectivity.

We spend enough time online as is.  At last check, the estimate is that the average American spends 13 hours a week online (this was not an observational study, so I don’t quite believe it).  Factor in the use of computers in non-Internet activities, cell phone use and so on, and that number jumps significantly.  And if we can get Internet everywhere, there’s every reason for that number to go higher.

In France, movie theaters have used cell phone signal jammers for years.  Why not apply the same principle to mobile Internet?  Schools (k-12), restaurants and other public locations could have mobile Internet signal jammers.  In this way, the prevalence of online use is somewhat diminished, and personal interactions are encouraged.

Even if the Internet becomes available everywhere, it doesn’t mean that it should be used at all times.  So the next time you find yourself texting during dinner, put your phone away and enjoy the company of the people you’re with.  And remember that things could be much worse.