In the 1970s, Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) was a budding hub for innovation, kind of like a miniature version of Bell Labs during the first half of the 20th century.
Okay, here's the counter position. I don't think, on balance, it's healthy to be connected to that many people. I think this ability for all of us to connect to ever-increasingly numbers of people outside of our communities is actually a huge problem that's making the world worse. (says the person who is at this very moment doing exactly that. Yep, I know.)
Many of us now interact with more people in a single day than past generations would have in a whole lifetime. I think the damage this is doing is incalculable -- to our nervous systems, our ability to focus (I'm writing this comment instead of working on my Beatles podcast...), and perhaps most notably, our ability to connect with our geographical communities, and focus on making those communities better, rather than halfway around the world in a place we'll probably never visit and where we know not a single person in real life (and sometimes not even online.)
How many people donate to causes in faraway places (or political campaigns in states they've never even been to?) and do absolutely nothing to help their local communities?
Example: Fifteen minutes outside of Santa Fe, one of the most "progressive" cities in the US, there are communities suffering from exactly the same problems as many communities in distant third world countries -- lack of access to water (at all, not just clean water) and electricity and healthcare and education. I tried for years, when I lived there, to get the "progressive" citizens of Santa Fe to pay attention to this problem, but they're all are too busy worrying about the problems of people half a globe away to pay any attention at all to the suffering of their neighbors. It's not sexy, you see, compared to saving Tibet or sending donations to Ukraine.
I think all of this connectivity is also wrecking our nervous systems and stressing all of us out. We're now exposed to -- and somehow expected to care about -- every single bad thing happening to anyone anywhere in the world. That's not doable or reasonable, to care about that many things in any useful way, but it's now the definintion of a "good person," to spend lots of energy worrying about more things than we can possibly worry about. It's overstressing our compassion, our nervous systems, our ability to truly do anything meaningful about any of it.
Just because something can be done (in terms of connection) doesn't mean it's a good thing to do it. And yet here we are, on substack. I wonder why it is, that we continue to think that being connected to more people is inherrently better, even when (at least for me) I see that it's not actually working out all that well.
PS I think it's the profit motive. Companies want to connect with more people to be able to advertise/propagandise to more people and thus get more customers and make more money, and they've sold us a bill of goods that it's something we should want for other reasons, to get us to go along with it.
Thanks for sharing this, Faith. I hope I didn't give the impression that I think all this connectivity is unambiguously good! I really just wanted to describe what Metcalfe's Law is so people understand the phenomenon. I really appreciate this perspective, though, and it's an important one to present in the conversation.
Oh yes, I should have added that. But I think the default position for most people, without giving it any thought, is that more connection is by definition better. It seems to be one of the assumptions in our culture that's never questioned, and at this stage of the game, we probably need to question every assumption to get us out of the mess we're digging ourselves into with all of this!
well, see, it's more that your pieces always appear about midway through my morning writing session when I'm looking for distraction... well timed, good sir. (Or not, depending on your point of view) 😎
I still miss Friendster, or at least my perception of what it was. In reality, it was probably pretty lacking. But at the time, I didn't get why people ditched it for myspace.
I wasn't ever on Friendster, but the reason I got on Myspace is definitely that critical mass/network effect. It doesn't answer your question except maybe to imply that society was ready for something like this by the time Myspace was ready for prime time, whereas Friendster was just a hair early.
Hey! I remember ethernet like this! We would have LAN parties where everyone (6 or so buddies) brings their big hulking desktop PC and we take over the dining room and there'd be cables EVERYWHERE for the whole weekend... Ah, happy days. Wireless has made things much more convenient and much safer. But the memories and the nostalgia remain...
SO much nostalgia. I almost feel guilty, but I justify it by remembering that I need to understand myself in order to understand anything else in the world. <3
Lots of groups love to expand and I think as long as there are shared values or benefits Metcalfe's Law applies. But going back to your myspace example part of the reason I dropped it was that at some point people who weren't my friends wanted to be included in the friends part of myspace.
I didn't want to share some parts of my life with my Mom and Dad and definitely not my Grandma. I think we see similar effects with churches. Once they become too big to contain their groups they splinter. We need enough people that the group is useful but not so many that the free-rider problem or tragedy of the commons rear their ugly heads.
Ah yes, I always referred to this by the generic "Network Effect" moniker. Nice to know the origin!
On a much smaller and sillier scale, there are a few board games that follow a version of this law. The two I know and own are: Smash Up and Unmatched. Each game relies on pitting different characters/factions against each other as you play with other people. The more separate characters there are, the more valuable your collection, as you can mix and match them against each other in exponentially more ways. And that's how you end up going broke buying up endless Unmatched or Smash Up editions. (I only own 2 Unmatched and 3 Smash Up boxes, but I can see how people end up collecting them all.)
I used to play Magic back in the day with friends. Now, thanks to NET-work effects, I instead play Hearthstone against anonymous strangers from all over the world from the comfort of my bathroom via my smartphone.
It's a nice way to kill some time, but it's a very different experience. I still prefer playing board games etc. with people in the physical plane of existence. But when that's not an option, Hearthstone it is!
Another way to look at it is that as more buyers/service users get involved in an activity, it incentivizes more sellers/service providers. Using the above statement as a basis, can we consider open-source projects, LinkedIn (we can probably call it a social media platform), Amazon and eBay Marketplace, Ride Sharing, and Gaming networks examples of Metcalfe’s Law? Expanding this basis further, can we consider Wikipedia as another example of Metcalfe’s Law? Similarly, can we expand it further when a location becomes popular, more and more people want to live there, which leads to generally more economic opportunities, better schools, better infrastructure, and better services and amenities, etc.?
There are some positives, but on the other end of the spectrum, there are ample negatives for following this kind of behavior. However, this could be a topic for another day.
I asked GPT-4 for non-traditional examples of Metcalfe's Law. Here is the list:
Economic Opportunities: As more people move to a particular area, businesses and services are drawn to the location to cater to the growing population, which in turn creates more job opportunities. This attracts even more people, creating a positive feedback loop.
Cultural Vibrancy: A growing population often leads to a more vibrant cultural scene, with more events, restaurants, arts, and entertainment options. This cultural richness makes the place more appealing to live in.
Infrastructure Development: Popular places often see improvements in infrastructure, such as better transportation systems, parks, schools, and hospitals, which in turn make the area more attractive to potential residents.
Real Estate Value: As demand for housing in a popular area increases, property values typically rise. Homeowners may see this as an increase in their wealth, which can contribute to the perceived value of living in the area.
Services and Amenities: A higher population density can support a wider range of services and amenities, such as specialty stores, gyms, healthcare facilities, and more.
Safety and Community: As areas become more populated, there may be improvements in safety and a stronger sense of community, as more resources are allocated to public services and community-building activities.
Okay, here's the counter position. I don't think, on balance, it's healthy to be connected to that many people. I think this ability for all of us to connect to ever-increasingly numbers of people outside of our communities is actually a huge problem that's making the world worse. (says the person who is at this very moment doing exactly that. Yep, I know.)
Many of us now interact with more people in a single day than past generations would have in a whole lifetime. I think the damage this is doing is incalculable -- to our nervous systems, our ability to focus (I'm writing this comment instead of working on my Beatles podcast...), and perhaps most notably, our ability to connect with our geographical communities, and focus on making those communities better, rather than halfway around the world in a place we'll probably never visit and where we know not a single person in real life (and sometimes not even online.)
How many people donate to causes in faraway places (or political campaigns in states they've never even been to?) and do absolutely nothing to help their local communities?
Example: Fifteen minutes outside of Santa Fe, one of the most "progressive" cities in the US, there are communities suffering from exactly the same problems as many communities in distant third world countries -- lack of access to water (at all, not just clean water) and electricity and healthcare and education. I tried for years, when I lived there, to get the "progressive" citizens of Santa Fe to pay attention to this problem, but they're all are too busy worrying about the problems of people half a globe away to pay any attention at all to the suffering of their neighbors. It's not sexy, you see, compared to saving Tibet or sending donations to Ukraine.
I think all of this connectivity is also wrecking our nervous systems and stressing all of us out. We're now exposed to -- and somehow expected to care about -- every single bad thing happening to anyone anywhere in the world. That's not doable or reasonable, to care about that many things in any useful way, but it's now the definintion of a "good person," to spend lots of energy worrying about more things than we can possibly worry about. It's overstressing our compassion, our nervous systems, our ability to truly do anything meaningful about any of it.
Just because something can be done (in terms of connection) doesn't mean it's a good thing to do it. And yet here we are, on substack. I wonder why it is, that we continue to think that being connected to more people is inherrently better, even when (at least for me) I see that it's not actually working out all that well.
PS I think it's the profit motive. Companies want to connect with more people to be able to advertise/propagandise to more people and thus get more customers and make more money, and they've sold us a bill of goods that it's something we should want for other reasons, to get us to go along with it.
Thanks for sharing this, Faith. I hope I didn't give the impression that I think all this connectivity is unambiguously good! I really just wanted to describe what Metcalfe's Law is so people understand the phenomenon. I really appreciate this perspective, though, and it's an important one to present in the conversation.
Oh yes, I should have added that. But I think the default position for most people, without giving it any thought, is that more connection is by definition better. It seems to be one of the assumptions in our culture that's never questioned, and at this stage of the game, we probably need to question every assumption to get us out of the mess we're digging ourselves into with all of this!
I'm glad you're here to question it, Faith! We need balance and nuance.
well, see, it's more that your pieces always appear about midway through my morning writing session when I'm looking for distraction... well timed, good sir. (Or not, depending on your point of view) 😎
Ha! Midway is a good description of what I normally want to assert. If anything, my mantra these days is "it's complicated."
I still miss Friendster, or at least my perception of what it was. In reality, it was probably pretty lacking. But at the time, I didn't get why people ditched it for myspace.
I wasn't ever on Friendster, but the reason I got on Myspace is definitely that critical mass/network effect. It doesn't answer your question except maybe to imply that society was ready for something like this by the time Myspace was ready for prime time, whereas Friendster was just a hair early.
Hey! I remember ethernet like this! We would have LAN parties where everyone (6 or so buddies) brings their big hulking desktop PC and we take over the dining room and there'd be cables EVERYWHERE for the whole weekend... Ah, happy days. Wireless has made things much more convenient and much safer. But the memories and the nostalgia remain...
SO much nostalgia. I almost feel guilty, but I justify it by remembering that I need to understand myself in order to understand anything else in the world. <3
Lots of groups love to expand and I think as long as there are shared values or benefits Metcalfe's Law applies. But going back to your myspace example part of the reason I dropped it was that at some point people who weren't my friends wanted to be included in the friends part of myspace.
I didn't want to share some parts of my life with my Mom and Dad and definitely not my Grandma. I think we see similar effects with churches. Once they become too big to contain their groups they splinter. We need enough people that the group is useful but not so many that the free-rider problem or tragedy of the commons rear their ugly heads.
Good point. "Value" is in the eye of the beholder.
Ah yes, I always referred to this by the generic "Network Effect" moniker. Nice to know the origin!
On a much smaller and sillier scale, there are a few board games that follow a version of this law. The two I know and own are: Smash Up and Unmatched. Each game relies on pitting different characters/factions against each other as you play with other people. The more separate characters there are, the more valuable your collection, as you can mix and match them against each other in exponentially more ways. And that's how you end up going broke buying up endless Unmatched or Smash Up editions. (I only own 2 Unmatched and 3 Smash Up boxes, but I can see how people end up collecting them all.)
Nice, makes me think of Magic the Gathering (certainly a huge beneficiary of network effects).
I used to play Magic back in the day with friends. Now, thanks to NET-work effects, I instead play Hearthstone against anonymous strangers from all over the world from the comfort of my bathroom via my smartphone.
Would you say this is a good thing or a bad thing overall? A little of both?
It's a nice way to kill some time, but it's a very different experience. I still prefer playing board games etc. with people in the physical plane of existence. But when that's not an option, Hearthstone it is!
Another way to look at it is that as more buyers/service users get involved in an activity, it incentivizes more sellers/service providers. Using the above statement as a basis, can we consider open-source projects, LinkedIn (we can probably call it a social media platform), Amazon and eBay Marketplace, Ride Sharing, and Gaming networks examples of Metcalfe’s Law? Expanding this basis further, can we consider Wikipedia as another example of Metcalfe’s Law? Similarly, can we expand it further when a location becomes popular, more and more people want to live there, which leads to generally more economic opportunities, better schools, better infrastructure, and better services and amenities, etc.?
There are some positives, but on the other end of the spectrum, there are ample negatives for following this kind of behavior. However, this could be a topic for another day.
Even the positives can be perceived as negatives, depending on your point of view!
EBAY is a great example. I remember how quickly it became useful. people like me flooded the internet, very excited to do business on our own.
I asked GPT-4 for non-traditional examples of Metcalfe's Law. Here is the list:
Economic Opportunities: As more people move to a particular area, businesses and services are drawn to the location to cater to the growing population, which in turn creates more job opportunities. This attracts even more people, creating a positive feedback loop.
Cultural Vibrancy: A growing population often leads to a more vibrant cultural scene, with more events, restaurants, arts, and entertainment options. This cultural richness makes the place more appealing to live in.
Infrastructure Development: Popular places often see improvements in infrastructure, such as better transportation systems, parks, schools, and hospitals, which in turn make the area more attractive to potential residents.
Real Estate Value: As demand for housing in a popular area increases, property values typically rise. Homeowners may see this as an increase in their wealth, which can contribute to the perceived value of living in the area.
Services and Amenities: A higher population density can support a wider range of services and amenities, such as specialty stores, gyms, healthcare facilities, and more.
Safety and Community: As areas become more populated, there may be improvements in safety and a stronger sense of community, as more resources are allocated to public services and community-building activities.