It seems to me that in the last year or so, criticism of internet technology, and especially all the services that are usually referred to as «web 2.0», has been mounting. Recently, Umair Haque talked about the «social media bubble» in an article; and Jaron Lanier fears that social media is «de-humanizing» the internet in his book «You Are Not a Gadget». Others have voiced similar concerns, fearing that social media is not just not advancing humanity as promised, but is in fact threatening. Of course, each of these authors has different arguments, and some of the concerns they raise should be taken seriously. But all in all, I feel that «social media fatigue» is becoming a trend - and that I'm getting tired with it.

It's certainly true that social media has been overhyped for some time, and that we're partly experiencing the backlash. But I think the critics make a couple of mistakes:

1) The zero-sum mistake. Very nicely illustrated in this recent New York Times article summing up some recent books on the subject (including the one by Jaron Lanier):

«Given the constant bombardment of trivia and data that we’re subjected to in today’s mediascape, it’s little wonder that noisy, Manichean arguments tend to get more attention than subtle, policy-heavy ones; that funny, snarky or willfully provocative assertions often gain more traction than earnest, measured ones; and that loud, entertaining or controversial personalities tend to get the most ink and airtime.»

The big problem with this argument is that it suggests that one form of communication or discourse - the fast, short, subjective, provocative, Twitter-style form - has replaced another - the slow, thoughtful, reflective, balanced. But I'm not sure if there is any evidence for that. And while I don't have hard evidence to prove the contrary either, it seems to me that it's more likely that one form of discourse has not replaced the other, but rather added to it. The same is true for the idea of Facebook «friendships» - who have not replaced traditional friendships, but merely added an additional layer of communication and relationships. This all suggests a very simple fact: That technology or communication, as the economy, is not a zero-sum game, and that new developments not necessarily replace or destroy old patterns, but merely add to them - and thereby often enhance them. (As a side-note: The argument can also be used against technophiles proclaiming «revolutions» all the time, because it suggests that what's taking place is rather an evolution).

2) The historical perspective mistake. Closely connected to the zero-sum mistake, and an absolute classic of progress criticism. The benefits of the past are exaggerated to create the illusion of a decline, which leads to a gloomy picture of the present, and an even gloomier one of the future if the decline continues. This is what Umair Haque is suggesting when he says that «Farmville [a Facebook game] is not Casablanca». Not only are today's kids just interested in Tweet-sized trivia - 20 years ago, they were all reading Shakespeare all day long! Of course, that's nonsense. Trivia and shallow entertainment were not invented with the internet; they have been around forever. When the printing press was invented, the first book to be printed was the bible - but soon after it followed the erotic novels. The internet has dramatically changed the way we consume information; but again, I see no evidence that the overall quality of this information has dropped in any way. If anything, more people have access to high-quality information and culture thanks to the internet.

3) The normative mistake. The biggest of all, made both by technophobes and technophiles. Technology is attributed a «normative» power, meaning that it can, by itself, be either «good» or «bad». There might be cases where this is actually true (think nuclear bombs), but in the case of social media, it seems pretty clear to me that the technology - or the form of communication, if you prefer - does not have an inherent normative quality. Rather, if the effect it produces is «good» or «bad» largely depends on its usage. Additionally, it very rarely is clear what is good, and what is bad. It's perfectly legit to denounce certain uses of new technologies - we can all agree that spam is really annoying, and that throwing virtual sheep at someone hasn't advanced mankind a lot. But by confusing the uses with the technology itself (which probably often happens intentionally), the criticism is broadened to a point where it becomes meaningless.

I believe that there is a shift in attitude towards social media happening right now - but it is not fatigue. Rather, I suggest to call what's happening a process of «demystification» of the digital world (the term goes back to German sociologist Max Weber, who called the process of scientific rationalisation a «demystification»). We're at a point now in social media (and digital technology), where (almost) anything is technologically possible. Technologial progress is therefore demystified, and the important question is not anymore the «How?», but the «Why?». We start thinking harder about how we can use these technologies to actually have a positive impact. This process necessarily brings with it some disillusion; but it is too important to leave the discussion just to the critical voices.

If we want social media to matter, we need to actively shape its uses now. The tools are here, and so are the great ideas and the manpower to make them happen. But I believe that we can only get there if we stop thinking about social media as either a force for good by itself or a curse.