In the past few days i've been struck by a contrast between how the immediate-ness of the Internet has both positive and negative aspects.
On the negative side D. A. Carson mentioned in an audio lecture the phenomenon of blogging when it comes to the Emerging Church. His main justification for not participating in the blog scene is that people blog too quickly. He says they disclose things that they might not otherwise disclose, and gives the example of a theologian being rather more open about certain aspects of his personal health than many people would consider appropriate in a public forum. Carson prefers to back off, think a bit, read more widely, pass his thoughts to friends and colleagues for comment, etc. This certainly shows in his writing and speaking - he always has a well-considered perspective to offer.
Blogging is just one setting where immediacy of communication that can have negative consequences. Email is another -- i've often been heard to say that it is the third worst form of communication ever invented (after instant messaging and SMS). So many misunderstandings and misinterpretations of intent can arise from it. To compensate for this, i will often sit on emails i've written for a day or more before sending them, and have my wife or a close friend review them before i send them to their final recipient(s).
On the other hand, i recently read at neoLoeader:
Remarkably, 1.5 billion people now access the Web for a wide range of activities. Twitter recently enabled eyewitnesses to pass on to thousands of other people their firsthand accounts (with pictures) of the jet that ditched in the Hudson River, well before TV and radio could tell the story. The digital world seems to change every time we blink!
In my mind, this is a positive aspect to Internet technology's immediate nature. It has decentralised the dissemination of news, which means people are seeing and hearing actual first-hand accounts, rather than the edited hyperreality versions which the large media corporations want you to experience. A similar story could be said for reports like this video of the Victorian bush fires (don't watch this if you are disturbed by swearing, or vivid images of real-life danger). Twitter reports are more likely to be relevant to their readers (unlike most hyperrality news) because they are more likely to know the person who is Twittering. The bush fire video's value lies in its accurate depiction of the fires as they occurred from one person's perspective.
What do you think? What other positive or negative examples of the Internet's "ludicrous speed" have you seen? How does this affect our lives? (If you'd like some food for thought, check out what Mark Sayers said about how we view time a few months back.)
[1] It appears the original site i downloaded this talk from is gone, but a search from http://pjtibayan.wordpress.com/2006/10/17/d-a-carson-audio-sermonslectures/ should find it easily enough. It was part of a series on the Emerging Church hosted by the Baptist Theological College of Western Australia and featured Andrew Hamilton and Geoff Westlake from Forge WA.
