Goodwin is right to not overstate his claim; the meaningless pursuit of the completion high (and all the vices that accompany it) can be found amongst myriad modern media. But while his analysis on the issue is illuminating, I cannot help but feel that part of the argument is missing. For his lament to gain traction, something must differentiate the Web from the typical cable television schlock-fest. After all, the Essay is titled “What’s Wrong with the Internet?”
To be fair, Goodwin implicitly pegs convenience as the relevant variable. The time it takes to read one more blog post, view one more YouTube video, or play one more Sporcle game is minimal, tempting us to continue in time-killing bliss. But though the Siren’s Call of completionism sounds more frequently on the Internet, its seductions are shorter lived. Get caught up in a two-hour movie, and you’ve got a bigger problem on your hands. So though Goodwin points out a unique danger in the Internet, it’s altogether unclear whether it is in any way more pernicious than preexisting information vices.
Ultimately, however, I still buy Goodwin’s belief that the Internet poses a unique threat. First, as a simple matter of extrinsic reality, the Internet is more ubiquitous than alternative media. The white collar employee would be hard-pressed to flip through television channels during work; your average university student lacks the gumption to watch a DVD in during class time, but both are fully able–and fully willing–to surf the Web at just about any hour of the day. The advent of the 3G revolution only exacerbates matters. Never before has a mode of communication pervaded every waking moment.
Second, and more intrinsic to the medium itself, the Internet offers a smorgasbord of benign distractions. We’ve seen the problem before: cable TV is more pernicious than antenna-based predecessor because you’re almost bound to find palatable programming. The Internet likewise entices with endlessly diverse options. Immerse yourself in the day’s happenings; chuckle at various Engrish mistranslations offered for your amusement; play flash versions of now-obsolete Nintendo games; or lose yourself in the labyrinthine pages of Wikipedia. There’s sadly no ball of string to lead the way out.
But now, in a sense, we’ve come full circle, since our discussion of the Internet all began with a debate over the evils of the echo-chamber. Perhaps the Web won’t precipitate an intellectual doomsday, but it too easily gives us what we want. And when the menu always serves your favorite dish, what need have you to branch out and experiment?
In the end, Deal or No Deal may be profoundly inane, but, at the very least, it just might bore you enough to turn off the television and pick up a book.
I appreciate Mr. York’s thoughtful remarks, and will address them in a later comment in greater detail. One point that cannot wait, however: I dispute this claim.
“Never before has a mode of communication pervaded every waking moment.”
I would argue that never before has a mode of consumption proven so pervasive. And that it is consumption, as opposed to communication, is significant to my thesis and the dangers posed by the medium.