I missed this one from SXSW, but apparently it rings true for some people:
I used to think that writers on the Web who feared hate mail and carping bloggers were just being old-fashioned and precious. But now, while I brood on the maxim “connectivity is poverty,” I can’t help wondering if I’ve turned into some banged-up street kid, stuck in a cruel and crowded neighborhood, trying to convince everyone that regular beatings give you character. Maybe the truth is that I wish I could get out of this place and live as I imagine some nondigital or predigital writers do: among family and friends, in big, beautiful houses, with precious, irreplaceable objects.
I think the flaw in this argument is the classic statistical pitfall: association does not imply causation. Just because EXTREMELY rich or important people tend not to be connected on Twitter doesn’t mean that being connected on Twitter makes you not rich or important.
Of course, what with Orpah and all, that perceived tendency might not even be true anyway.
What do you think, is connectivity poverty?
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Connectivity has almost nothing to do with causation of poverty, as you’ve pointed out here.
Placement in a network and access to networks absolutely does have a role in determining poverty/wealth.
I was born into an affluent community, and because of this I received a leg up over a male born on a fundamentalist-LDS compound in Texas, or an unschooled boy from Waziristan. I can leverage my network in my own self-interest to gain outsized value from my contacts, and any assistance I provide to my network will give me an outsized reward.
If I were connected largely to poor people, or powerless people, I would be less effective and have much weaker hopes when it comes to income.