I wondered if my post about this episode raised a certain question - given what I said about it, why would I still include it in this series? There are two reasons, the first of which is the obvious one, though not necessarily something I feel obligated to state in each post - I have a great time whenever I listen to "The Takeover". This is worth emphasizing because it's true for anything I'll include in this series. Outside of all the analysis and reflections regarding the deeper implications of each episode, the core reality of my choices is that I enjoyed listening to the show, and I would enjoy listening to them again.
But of course, there has to be more, right? The second reason is that this episode, as it was the case when I highlighted my choice from 99% Invisible, improved the way I think about the topic. It's possible this will also be true for my choices in this series, though probably not necessarily so (hard to make the case that Barry Hearn appearing on Men In Blazers "improved my thinking", but there you go, life's tough). As it regards the Reply All episode, what it did for me was highlight the problem of the internet falling short as a substitute for the original. I suspect this is hard to notice without training yourself to notice it, but I think people are coming around to the idea, perhaps with the assistance of excellent work like "The Takeover".
The internet links us to more information than ever before, yet people seem misinformed to the extent that it fueled (is fueling?) the severity of a pandemic; the venerated online connectivity tools seem capable only of disconnecting people, to the extent that it erodes their mental health while dismantling the sense of shared community that comes naturally when we occupy physical spaces; people are reading more than ever yet doing so in such scattered fragments that they retain nothing of value. In each of the above, the internet has always taken credit for its contributions without ever taking responsibility for the mess it's left behind. The internet, with the promise of distributing its infinite quantities to us in ever-shortening measurements of "no time at all", has left us incapable or disinterested in replacing what we've exchanged for it. Is it a net positive if you factor in all negative externalities? I think the challenge posed to us now is how to apply the most useful tool in human history in a way that makes it actually useful, at least in the sense of eliminating it from those places where a digital substitute represents a collective setback in terms of our community, understanding, or experience.
