Techno-Elitism (2): Attempted Definition & Example

Techno-Elitsm
What is it? It's about tool-task fit and elegance of design. It's about trust in the technology and meeting a definable need. It's about a relative comparison to other similar objects or the current state-of-the-art. It's a shared sense of what is "elite" and what is "lame". Above all, it's about setting criteria and searching for the best instead of settling for what's provided or what's popular (although both may be criteria).

There's a shared mindset, a common foundation for analysis, that's not necessarily related to the amount of technology one posesses, although perhaps related to the amount of technical knowledge one has. Shared, in that in communication, people who are so-afflicted take this framework for granted. For instance, when discussing products and services with, say, Jerry or Rourke, we approach the comparison problem in the same way and tend to apply that approach uniformly to just about anything that consumes our time or money. There are also, certain shared knowledge and assumptions, some of which may be so deap-seated that they cannot be consciously recalled.

This framework is also incomplete.

But first, the definition I've provided is somewhat unintelligible. So, concrete examples of how techno-elitism functions in the context of the two cases above.

Case 1: Too Elite for Chain Mail
The key triggering phrase in Carol's email is:

Then send this to a whole bunch of people you know

It sets off the chain mail alarms that forces non-action even though (1) others just replied, with no need to spread it to new people, and (2) in an era of intense spam, chain mail's infrastructure impact is minimal. I suspect that, in terms of Internet time, the concept of a chain mail threat is positively archaic. So what is this threat? Well, at many institutions, especially those who have had Internet e-mail for a long time, propagating chain mail is a policy violation. CIT describes the nature of the violation in several locations, including a FAQ and a list of rights and responsibilities. Why is chain mail forbidden? Becuase it is among the activities classified to "impede, interfere with, impair, or otherwise cause harm to the activities of others." How can chain mail be so harmful? Well, in the old old old days of UUCP and dial-up based e-mail links it's acutally possible for such manual behavior to clog up the mail delivery network. But those days are long gone and the issue of chain mail is miniscule compared to the volume of spam modern e-mail networks need to handle.

There are also the issues of general netiquette and that chain mail is generally associated with bad results whether from ill-concieved but genuine altruism or from various kinds of malicious or disingenuous intent. There are no examples of chain mail being a tool with positive value. The very form of a "please pass it on" style e-mail is enough to discredit it.

Imagine, if you will, the Red Cross sets up a three-card-monte table in Times Square to raise money for disaster victims. Who would play? The concept of three-card-monte is so closely linked to cheap criminal activity that there is no way to disassociate the two.

Of course, if one isn't aware of the and sordid history of chain mail, there's no reason to eschew it.

Tomorrow: The more complicated case of Xanga.