Response to the Shirky thing

While many of the social networkers have picked up on the Shirky thing as "oh yeah, he said it, that's so right!", I wonder if for some this is not because it justifies their time on teh internets? (I spend too much time in that place too, but don't try to justify it!)

Mark Bernstein has raised some issues about historical accuracy in Shirky's talk, but does admit that the conclusions have merit.

I wonder, however, about the overall merits of the talk. For me, there are not just possible historical flaws, there are logical ones also. For example, if Desparate Housewives was a cognitive heatsink, what is wrong with that, and why should television watching be downgraded as a second-rate, passive activity? Watching television is, in fact, a social activity. People talk about shows the next day, and they do so on the basis of shared experience. Talk and shared experience are the building blocks of a culture and a society. And if society needed, and got, a heatsink, that seems like a good thing to me.

Shirky's conclusions are attractive, but they are based on a flawed argument and should be examined more closely. Their real value is as a discussion starter, and it would be a shame if people accepted them too quickly without having a much more valuable discussion.