I was overwhelmed just reading the initial description of the author's device/media usage. My personality doesn't allow me to be fully engaged with that much external input at the same time - it just shuts me down.
I'd be curious if the OP really is "better informed" or just imagines he is. What value does knowing what year an obscure book was published provide for his life in general?<p>Or is it another method of entertainment, as ephemeral as the football game on the TV?
I think this guy completely missed the point. He mixes distractions from real research work. "Being informed" is a vague phrase. Sometimes information consumption is like eating junk food - it can be too much. In case of author, it feels like a solid case. Unless he uses social networks for real work - I cannot see how reading Facebook can be productive or relevant to work.<p>In the end, this article felt like self defence, or even more like rationalization on the topic. But I must admit that it forced me to think about this topic a little.
I think my experience would line up with the author's fairly well if I tried something similar. Honestly I know I spend too much time on social media and whatnot, but even before the Internet I spent a lot of time on my computers so if I were to unplug from everything completely I'd just be bored and miserable.<p>Maybe I'm not the most enlightened individual ever but I don't see how spending your free time idle or reading books instead of screens is somehow intrinsically better than using technology how you feel it benefits you the most.<p>To be blunt the whole concept to me reeks of "back in my day..."
my biggest gripe is that social media makes human interaction shallow and mechanized. always reminds me South Park episode where Steve Jobs is unsuccessfully trying to teach his humancentipad to actually read.