Stephen Fry on Web 2.0

Stephen Fry, British comedian, writer, and self-proclaimed dork, has a weekly column titled “Dork Talk” in the Guardian Observer. This week’s column discusses “Web 2.0,” and how all that social networking isn’t necessarily a good thing.

For some reason, my password for signing in to Mr. Fry’s blog (where he cross-posts his column) to leave a comment always comes up as an error, so I will post my thoughts here, instead. Okay, I was able to fix it, and leave a modified version of this post as a comment.

I take the point that the temptation with social networking is to build oneself a small corner of the web, and then stay there. But I would posit another way of looking at the matter.

The internet is huge. A wilderness, a frontier, as Mr. Fry correctly states. Whether it’s “good” or not, the pioneering spirit that sends us forth in search of brave new worlds is tempered by an urge for civilization of some sort. Why did the pilgrims set forth? Not to commune with nature, but to find someplace new where they could set up the type of society they preferred. Why did the explorers set forth? Sure, to boldly go where no man had gone, etc., but if you think that most of them weren’t looking forward to spending some of the untold riches to be discovered when they got home, you’re even more nuts than I am. And the people funding the trip were more interested in what the explorers would bring back— they weren’t going anywhere, they already had power where they were.

I’d offer the following incomplete theory for the success of social networking– we want to explore the web, but often feel lost as to where to start. Where better than with similarly-minded wayfarers? If someone in your social network has similar interests, you may well like, love, be excited by a part of the web they’ve discovered that you hadn’t before known existed. Web 2.0 is a form of armchair travel– we see where the people we like have gone, and then give it a try. Further, knowing that there are corners of the web we can call “home” emboldens us to go out and do some exploring of our own. If we don’t like what we’ve found, well, thank goodness for the familiar, to comfort us. But if we find something new, then how exciting to be able to share it with our InterFriends!

I could write a whole essay on the irony of Web 2.0 in such a large, rich country as ours. In social environments in which we ought to be able to find plenty of others who share our interests and provide support, we turn to the internet to find people who will help us feel less alone. And we succeed. Perhaps a rumination on why the facelessness of the internet allows us to be bolder, more honest, more real, and more kind (or more who-we-want-to-be) and supportive is in order.


4 thoughts on “Stephen Fry on Web 2.0

  1. Mary

    This is interesting. I think about these issues now that I’m blogging: shouldn’t I be having coffee with a real friend rather than tending to very spare relationships online? What’s my actual point, blogging and reading blogs? But I do feel like I’ve come into some interesting corners and enjoy it. I don’t think that Fry’s comparison is entirely accurate: today’s internet is nothing like the one that brought us Compuserve. You’re right – it is too big. Plus, you can be in all the social networks, flit in and out of all kinds of things without the rigidity of past system. The other thing I think about is privacy and the construction of the self. On one hand, our traditional definitions of privacy are gone. Yet even as opening up online and revealing much about one’s self is an opening of sorts, there is still the private self, the real body, that doesn’t get to make contact. Anyway . . . .I’m in bed with the flu and have time to wax philosophical! Thanks for the thoughts.

  2. Al

    Sometimes getting involved with the internet community is a lot better than going to the bar and doing something really stupid, fueled by mucho cerveza or your favorite drink of choice. The internet, like one of it’s predecessor’s- the personal add, allows you to let go of the physical constraints that tend to foul most ‘meeting people’ situations. Which is not to say that physical attractiveness, etc. is not important but it’s just not as important as most of us think. I’ve been involved with hotties who couldn’t carry a conversation and mediocres (for lack of a better term) that I could talk to all day and who eventually become hotties. Further, as a self-described intelligent and hot woman, I abhor being eyed as a piece of meat and in the internet dating community, that is not really an issue.
    That being said, I still wish I could get my ass out there and meet new and interesting people, without relying on the internet community to do so. Like any trend, it is great for some and terribly useless for others.

  3. Jenn

    For me, the Internet augments–it does not replace. I have lots of friends and get together with them quite a bit. But writing is a bit deeper than speaking, it gives you more time to say what you want. I think that it is the attraction for me; to be able to go a little more in depth. Also, I like reading people whose lives and experiences are very different from mine. Our paths might not cross in real life, but we might share similarities and interests; the blogosphere allows us to discover one another. Anyway, interesting to think about.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s