Intuition, in general, shows that it is better to have a greater number of possibilities or variants when facing a certain situation. The more branches our range of options has, the more desirable position we will probably face.
For this perception to be valid, it is evident that one needs to think about the existence of an analysis and decision instance or mechanism that may cope with the complexity of each scenario: to greater proliferation of feasible paths, the appraisal game that allows not foundering before that growing sea of alternatives should be finer and more agile.
Unfortunately, this does not seem to happen in our culture environment regarding the handling of new technological tools. The advent of these connectivity and communication channels ends up by predisposing a kind of obsequent perplexity that complicates a more balanced and demanding stand before the outburst of media and contents.
Facebook is a clear exponent of this phenomenon. Initial contributor of a positive dynamic of search and communication, its intrinsic promotion of demagogy and the display itself of its massiveness have turned it into an active boost of the creation of online contaminant noise.
According to the insufferable rhetoric 2.0, dignity or what is the same, the membership to this new sphere of participation is defined from the sacralization of neutral practices such as sharing, publishing, writing, giving an opinion. And they are neutral because, after the original dazzle -which is already lasting too much- one should question the inherent positivity or the need of turning even the most elemental fragment of our manifestations into communication. Thus, the aforementioned environment is full of the most trivial marginal notes, which, by default, are reticularly monopolizing the home pages of any user with a minimum amount of contacts. Being fan of pizza or a movie becomes a descriptive link of a saturating gym that deteriorates the idea itself of identity and convergence: such light and general facets that do not seem to be useful to nothing but to reinforce the authoritarian logic of “see how many we are”.
To this idea a lethal confluence is added, with complementary applications like
Twitter on one side -definitely designed for fundamentalists of the multiplication of irrelevances-, and on the other, the growing advertising harassment, both integrated by a regressive design which has even managed to irritate the meek and hyper-tolerant users´ community.
The corporations adjacent to the phenomenon do not even intend to cover its approach with a slight critic layer. To the shadow of the academy, nerds arise who, with their condition of chronic lost ones of the technological interpretation on their backs, choose the easiest way according to their docility: to cheer the great delivery man of trinkets because, at least, they are many and enough for all.
The media, as an example we can observe the sensationalist “Grupo Clarín”, has a lot of facilities to cling to a poor tendency which fits very well with more and more inferior quality products functional to a basement bewilderment. The consecration of the freak “Cumbio” as a flagship of the relaunch of the unclassified set of trashy contents called Ciudad.com clearly shows its strategy to move in an already arrived future of super-mediation: to sufficiently decrease the quality so as to find a niche with such a doses of alienation that its consumption does not be affected by this resulting precariousness. This tolerance is disguised by diversity and it is exported as a stigma to near niches, probably less energetic ones to defend a territory that favors more the hegemony than a truly alternation.
The idea that disconnection appears as a reasonable option is one of the negative effects of this process, and this can be noticed in the evolution itself of the different cutting-edge tools: the email which is less and less viable due to the spam, the Web surfing, a growing torture thanks to pop-ups, advertising, security problems and content crisis. Probably, the Facebook itself has already started a gradual renovation of users with an incipient exodus of those who see an increasing “mental cost” of their experience of usage, version after version, and with the enlargement of their nets of prolific “friends.
However, this abandonment does not do another thing but being submitted in a pendulum like motion to the rules of this unfortunate coupling between technological tools and a culture which, in a key moment ideal to re-discuss and formulate innovative ideas and models, prefers to encourage a soliloquy that poses a clearly conservative attitude: the definition of identities from basic features so as not to make inroads into a more honest and committed dialogue that may pave the way to a new form of thinking, and above all, of thinking oneself.
To maintain a sustainable connection, from now on, maybe depends on an incorporation of attitudes, and intelligence and filter technologies, which allow the balance and the modulation of that link into a truly critic dimension. It could be a more arduous task, but with much more to provide.
The independence, by its own character, will never be a commodity.