subscribe: Posts | Comments      Facebook      Email Steve

Backlash against social media gathers steam

56 comments

Two articles recently caught my eye. Although they were not apparently related, I saw an underlying connection that speaks, perhaps, to the future of social media.

The first, on the front page of last Saturday’s San Francisco Chronicle, was headlined “Cafe asks customers to turn off laptops and start talking.” It seems there’s a coffee shop right here in Oakland whose owner “is asking customers to leave their laptops at home and actually speak to each other.” Anyone who’s ever been in a free wi-fi environment like Starbucks is familiar with the situation: people hunkered down at tables, nursing a $3 latte for hours while surfing the web. “I don’t have anything against technology,” said the cafe’s owner, a young, hip-looking guy with a goatee (i.e. not some dinosaur Boomer who “doesn’t get it”), “but it’s not the same as looking someone in the eye and pressing the flesh.”

I’ve expressed some negative feelings in this blog over the last year about the way laptops and other personal digital devices, like cell phones, are intruding into the social contract. That contract is an old one, understood pretty much by everyone, and it relates to how we behave in shared social situations. In a crowded elevator, for example, most people will be silent and avoid making eye contact with strangers. On an airplane flight, passengers understand the concept of personal space, which includes audio space: don’t let your arms stick over into your neighbor’s area, don’t make unnecessary noise, etc.

What technology is doing to us is destroying the traditional social contract. Now, that person next to you in the elevator is just as likely to be yakking into a Bluetooth. The other day at my gym, a woman was screaming at the top of her lungs into her cell phone for a good half-hour, while the rest of us had to endure her drama. With laptops in cafes, it’s just the opposite: where ten years ago patrons might have been debating about politics, gossiping, or playing chess, today they’re absorbed in their own little worlds. They might as well be on the Space Shuttle as in a crowded room with other human beings. “It’s now socially acceptable to text during dinner parties or stand alone at a party and check email,” the Chronicle article acidly observed.

Not at my dinner parties!

The second article was sent to me by Ron Washam, the famous Hosemaster of Wine. It is an excerpt from a new book, “You Are Not a Gadget,” by a Harpers Magazine writer, Jason Lanier. Lanier deconstructs many myths surrounding social media in a way I strongly agree with. His underlying message is that social media is not only not bringing us closer and making us better, more dextrous communicators, but in fact is achieving exactly the opposite. “I know quite a few people, most of them young adults, who are proud to say that they have accumulated thousands of friends on Facebook. Obviously, their statements can be true only if the idea of friendship is diminished,” Lanier writes, in a devastatingly pinpoint j’accuse whose truth is hard to deny. Lanier also demolishes one of the more persistent myths of social media: that its “hive mind” nature, in which thousands or millions of individual human minds are collectivized digitally, is somehow superior to a mere “organic human.” This is the assumption made by those entrepreneurs (and I’ve recently written about them) who are launching all these new “people’s wine tastings,” in which the collective wisdom of the crowd is said to be more trustworthy than the judgment of an individual expert. “The most tiresome claim of the reigning digital philosophy is that crowds working for free do a better job at some things than antediluvian paid experts,” Lanier writes. Tiresome, indeed.

The connection between the two articles is that there is a backlash setting in against social media. In the first case, real people, such as the cafe owner, are starting to understand how divisive technology can be (and it’s interesting that their customers are beginning to agree with them). In the second case, academics are questioning the metaphysics of social media, not just analyzing it, but peering into its destructive potential. So we have two prongs moving together in a pincer movement: normal people on the ground and the philosophers of the academy. That is now movements form, and generate momentum.

  1. When I go out to dinner with friends, even 10 or 12, I do not want to see them or talk to them, nor do I particularly care to taste the food and wine.

    I prefer to take pictures of the food and write tasting notes about the wine so that I can post them on websites and communicate to all of my internet friends about the great wine and dinner I had.

    Having a meal without twittering about it? Drinking wine, ANY wine, without writing a tasting note? That’s just prehistoric.

    People have already evolved away from the spoken word anyway. That’s why every other word is something like “like”, as in, like, he said, like, “you can’t do that”. Of course, if you’re not a middle-class female, then every other word is f**k, but it serves the same purpose.

  2. It is interesting to me how in just a realitivly short time we have been engulfed by technology. When was the last time you were out to dinner where someone at your table was not fondling their PDA? The skill of listening seems to have disappeared and cyber friendship has become the norm. The end began with the answering machine. We became convinced we needed to be connected. Beware of the long term effects of instant gratification.

  3. Interesting topic, so is Wilder’s peg on you trying to kill social media (i chuckled from the irony). What you discribe, how does a “Tweet” or FB posting sell wine, I do not think it does. However, (again back to Doug’s point) it does start the process of someone (or many persons) getting to know the product, after all we like to buy from “trusted” sources or from people we “know” and feel “comfortable” with. This, for some, may take time and what we are (i think) hoping for is a buying response set up by a greater (and easier – as in instant) recognition of the brand or product by the customer through their use of said social media. I think what the coffee house is trying for is a retro idea back to the coffee house as the Victorian Internet, not a bad goal. What I have seen along those lines is an uptick in tasting rooms of more socializing by folks who’s only connection to each other is the wine they are both enjoying. I do remember a time when tasting rooms where very quite places. Now, I hear a lot of “…oh, yes I found them on FB” or “I had to come out here to try there wine after reading so-in-so’s blog”. So, I think some aspect of social media is influencing (and may continue to do so) the potential client.

  4. Makes me curious if you feel gadgets have effected life so much. How did you write this blog? With a gadget?

  5. Tracy: no gradgets. Just wine, glasses and me.

  6. I feel that people who have so much angst with social media are the people who simply don’t understand how it works. It can be complicated, but that’s no need to dismiss it completely, especially considering how effective it is. Social media is a big part of Internet marketing and without it certain companies would struggle and some people would be jobless. Times are certainly changing, but there’s no reason t be stubborn to that change.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 3 Reasons Why Social Media Success is Extremely Difficult - [...] STEVE HEIMOFF| WINE BLOG » Blog Archive » Backlash against social … [...]
  2. NEWSFETCH - February 10, 2010 | Wine Industry Insight - [...] Backlash against social media gathers steam [...]
  3. Steve Heimoff Claims Social Media Backlash Is Forming « Wine Biz Radio - [...] Backlash against social media gathers steam [...]

Leave a Reply

*

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives