Have you done either of these things?
1) Shared a link with someone but then later realized that the impulse to share had more do with you than them.
2) Seen an article link from a friend and thought, “Oh. Another task has just landed on my plate. I have to read and respond to this.”
I certainly have. Link-sharing confuses me because it’s obviously not all bad. These links often antecede wonderful, free-flowing conversations. They also work as “bids,” allowing us to reinforce bonds with our friends.
But they do create a time issue. A friend of mine has researched remote work for a long time, speaking to dozens of remote workers all across the world, and he’s highlighted that there’s a lack of “general ambient awareness” when we’re physically apart. This means that you don’t know what mood the recipient is in. You don’t know if I’m receptive or naffed off when you sent mea link. If we forced people to send up flags, like, “Hey, I’m receptive,” we’d be adding yet another thing to people’s to-do lists. Great, now I have to signal whether I’m receptive or not to new information.
If, like me, you have some reservations about just how much media / information we’re all consuming, I encourage you to have conversations about information fatigue. We live in saturated times. You are not a jerk if you say, “Hey, I’m on an info lockdown. I’m not reading any articles for a while.” That’s discernment. We’re entitled to that. Our friends love us and they’ll understand and wait until we’re ready.
I have lots and lots of thoughts about information as communication but I’ll save those for later. For now, let’s remember, as we swirl through cultural upheaval, we have to find ways to attune to each other and solve the timing issue in non-physical communication. This will lead to consent-driven link- sharing and deeper conversations.
No Comments