The problem here is he's misquoting history which is a big issue when your stated goal is to put things into historical context. I honestly don't have the time to critique this guy to the extent he deserves but I picked out a few points just to illustrate what I mean...<p>Quote #1: "I start with Plato's critique of writing where he says that if we depend on writing, we will lose the ability to remember things. Our memory will become weak. And he also criticizes writing because the written text is not interactive in the way spoken communication is. He also says that written words are essentially shadows of the things they represent. They're not the thing itself. Of course we remember all this because Plato wrote it down -- the ultimate irony."<p>I encourage you to read Plato's actual words here: <a href="http://www.platonicrelationship.com/blogger.php/?p=411" rel="nofollow">http://www.platonicrelationship.com/blogger.php/?p=411</a>
Plato wasn't against writing (as the author says Plato used it himself) he was against thoughtful debate via writing. He's saying that people who learn by reading rather than by interacting tend to parrot what they learn rather than actually understand the concepts behind it (and he's right in many ways). So Plato wasn't against writing he was just trying to get people to realize where it should and should not be used.<p>------------------------------------------------<p>Quote #2: "Thoreau objecting to the telegraph, because even though it speeds things up, people won't have anything to say to one another. "<p>Thoreau wasn't objecting to the Telegraph at all. Read the quote: <a href="http://www.allsoulscommunity.org/sermons/2003/BetweenWaldenPondandLakeMichigan.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.allsoulscommunity.org/sermons/2003/BetweenWaldenP...</a>
Then go here and read Martin Luther King's take on it (Search for "Improved means to an Unimproved End"): <a href="http://www.geocities.com/thoreaulogy/07sep.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.geocities.com/thoreaulogy/07sep.html</a><p>Thoreau was commenting on the illusion that technology improves the content of our communication not coming out against the technology itself.<p>------------------------------------------------<p>Quote #3: "Then we have Samuel Morse, who invents the telegraph, objecting to the telephone because nothing important is ever going to be done over the telephone because there's no way to preserve or record a phone conversation. "<p>I can't even find this quote by Samuel Morse but I suspect what he was saying is that the Telegraph records communication between two people where as the Telephone can't so the telegraph isn't made useless by the telephone. Not that the telephone is itself useless.<p>------------------------------------------------<p>Hopefully I've made my overall point. All these people were simply trying to help society decide how to use these inventions not saying the inventions were bad. That's exactly what people are doing now with Twitter, Facebook, etc... and it's a good instinct. This author's aim seems to be embarrassing people with that instinct into silence with false quotes and that's just wrong.
<i>"Far from heralding in a "2001: Space Odyssey" dystopia, Baron believes that social networking sites, blogs and the Internet are actually making us better writers and improving our ability to reach out to our fellow man."</i><p>That's an odd movie reference. Maybe the writer is referring to the scene where the astronaut is watching a video from his family and reacts very distant and aloof. I thought that was more of a comment on the vast physical distance and isolation involved in space travel, not necessarily by an evolution in attitude caused by technology - his family seems like they are having a good enough time at least.<p>So it doesn't matter how efficient our social networking sites get or how lovely Facebook chat is, there will still be an 18-minute lag getting the signal on a ship heading to Jupiter.<p>Maybe I missed the point, but I really like that flick :)
The internet empowers many with an opportunity to be part of the conversation - to the extent that they're able and willing. It brings together collaborators and ideas that might otherwise never have met. It opens opportunities to explore facts and ideas, and for self-expression, that have never existed.<p>"Destroying the English language"? I think not. More likely, there are those who are afraid of the empowerment of the many. So, as they so often do, they throw up FUD. The times, they continue to be changing, Mr. Jones.
A very thoughtful analysis, however IMHO the comment that "we have
all this apparatus to find the data we’re looking for" is only partially correct and an opportunity for hackers to develop applications to adequately filter the increasing noise of the web.
print version <a href="http://www.salon.com/books/int/2009/09/19/better_pencil/print.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.salon.com/books/int/2009/09/19/better_pencil/prin...</a>
No, it isn't. On the other hand there is no reason to blindly believe that the Web will make us communicate better than in real life. This guy hasn't been in flame war yet I guess.