Confessions of a Social Media Addict

Admittedly, my last several posts have been somewhat gloomy. In "The End of Solitude/The Dawn of Isolation" I talk about how the Internet is my only island of social connection; in "My Health is Not the Same" I talk about a subtle weariness, a lingering fatigue, which has recently come over me . . .

I think I know what the problem is, and it should come as no surprise: I'm spending too much time in front of the computer.

No guru can tell me what I know in my heart. I am watching myself throughout the day, sometimes more, sometimes less. But I see what's going on here . . . I'm no fool to my behaviors . . .

Let us turn to Michel de Montaigne, who writes:

In comparison with most men, few things touch me, or to put it better, hold me; for it is right that things should touch us, provided they do not possess us.

I have allowed the Internet to possess me.

My temperament is such that I grow hypnotized by the object of my attention. While I have never played video games compulsively, I can see how the Internet has a similar effect on a person.

On a given day, I will bounce from one social media network to another, I'll update my Twitter accounts, read emails, chat on Twitter, read daily feeds, retweet interesting links, and surf more webpages . . . . this becomes my video game.

Montaigne:

Consider that even in actions which are vain and frivolous, in chess, tennis, and the like, this fierce and ardent involvement of an impetuous desire instantly casts the mind and limbs into thoughtlessness and disorder: we daze and hamper ourselves.

Sucked into the social web, I can't remove myself for the next three to four hours. My body aches, my mind grows tired, my eyes hurt. I forget to eat . . .

I also put off my real work. Which requires me to then come back to the computer later. But the first thing I do when I come back to the computer is go on Twitter; and the vicious cycle begins again. I'm on the computer all day and all night.

I must learn to touch the Internet and its lavish, electrifying superabundance while not becoming possessed by it. This is my goal.

To know the order of precedence is the beginning of wisdom. (Confucius)

There is an economy of the self. Each of us must learn that economy, or we may find ourselves in a deficit of time and attention.

Attention is becoming a scare commodity in today's world. Every major company, media source, bank and institution wants your attention and is willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get it.

The Internet is a dangerous black hole of attention. You can get lost and never return to your normal self. I gave up reading classical literature for two years.

What I'm learning to do is discriminate between online and offline activities, devoting a certain amount of time to both. My favorite offline activities include reading books and drawing. I started the EIL Moleskine Project without ever imagining that it would become an antidote to my social media addiction.

All is not lost. I can reclaim the part of myself that is not connected to the online world. I just need to realize how easily I fall down the social media rabbit hole, and how quickly the Internet possesses me. Without a conscious economy of the self, I am destined to compromise my life as an artist and an intellectual.

ARTWORK BY RYUKO AZUMA

Found via CGUnit

What does a Global Collectivist Society look like?

Whatever it is the Internet has created--this force moves with light-speed--and I argue it will ultimately surpass the traditional "failed" economy, leaving mega-institutions and mega-corporations to operate, if they operate at all, in a second, inferior space.

What does this new economy look like? How does it function differently from capitalism? And what are the changes in social behavior?

This month's issue of Wired magazine hints at some of the distinguishing features of a "new new economy" (Chris Anderson's phrase). Anderson writes:

What we have discovered over the past nine months are growing diseconomies of scale. Bigger firms are harder to run on cash flow alone, so they need more debt (oops!). Bigger companies have to place bigger bets but have less and less control over distribution and competition in an increasingly diverse marketplace. Those bets get riskier and the payoffs lower.

And then Anderson quotes venture capitalist Paul Graham who says, "It turns out the rule 'large and disciplined organizations win' needs to have a qualification appended: 'at games that change slowly'. No one knew till change reached a sufficient speed."

I'm not going to pretend that I'm an economist; because I'm not. But what I will do is tell you my experience.

I am witnessing an extraordinary level of collaboration and connection between strangers over the Internet. Many of you know that I run an Arts and Culture webzine called Escape into Life. Part of my job is to find writers and artists to feature in the webzine. I speak to scores of individuals each month asking for their participation in some form, whether it is posting their artwork or asking them to write articles.

Ten years ago, communicating with a stranger over the Internet and asking them to do an assignment for you was unheard of. I'm not paying these writers and my site barely gets 200 hits a day. My influence is virtually nil. And yet, I am greeted with interest and excitement when I tell people I would like them to contribute.

What has changed? Are we acting differently toward each other as a result of social technology?

I think everyone would agree that social media and Internet collectivity is changing the order of society. We don't know the extent social media will overturn aspects of the traditional marketplace, but we are seeing some interesting results.

As a professional blogger and social media freelancer, my work puts me at the center of a perfect storm that is leveling the playing field between institutions and individuals. These days it seems like the bigger you are, the worse off you are; and the tighter your network, the smaller your scope, the better you'll fare.

The New York Times talks about the influence Amazon.com is starting to have on the publishing industry because digital books for the Kindle are expected to be cheaper. The publishing conglomerates don't want to lower their prices, but the people demand that they do; and Amazon.com is actually putting their ass on the line, taking cuts from sales, because they have more faith in their new economic model then the economic model of corporate capitalism.

It's ridiculous to pay $15 for a digital copy of a book anyways. The article suggests that eventually the publishing houses will bow to Amazon's pricing just as the music industry did to the i-Tunes store.

Mega-corporations cannot compete with the innovative technologies of startups. And as Paul Graham keenly points out--they cannot keep up with the speed. It's like waking up from a long sleep and finding yourself in a new location. The landscape has drifted from a physical location to a digital one. And in the digital world, the same rules of purchase simply do not apply.

With behavior changing between individuals toward a greater collectivist spirit, and prices changing to accommodate an economy based on the decentralized power of millions of small companies, it is not hard to foresee a time when nations become artifacts.

We are working together with people from all over the world to create, produce, sell, share, trade, hire, and invent. A global collectivist society is not a science fiction utopia but an emerging reality and I can't wait to see myself as a citizen of the world.

ARTWORK BY ANDY MUELLER