From Convenience to Consequence: How Apps Have Changed Our Relationship With The Internet

Have you ever thought about whether or not Facebook is an app or a website? To you, the answer may seem obvious, rendering the question too silly to be asked. However, it actually reflects a greater shift in how we use the internet and engage with social media.

To me—the Millennial who didn’t get a Facebook until her freshman year of high school in 2008—Facebook is a website that eventually had an app counterpart once smartphones became more ubiquitous. But it’s always been a website, right?

I don’t want to unfairly dog pile on Gen Z, but for many younger generations, they came to know Facebook as an app. They joined the platform through the app, and that's how they use it most frequently—if they use it at all, because who the hell uses Facebook anymore? In contrast, for those of us who are older, Facebook was originally just a website, and the app came later.

This distinction may seem like an argument of semantics, but it speaks to the way that technology has evolved and how we interact with it. And the argument of semantics is a key factor when examining how we communicate and relate to our means of communication.

I would have never thought to ponder this question if it weren’t for my favorite doom scroll app, TikTok. I came across a video that stitched another to point out a jarring distinction between generations. The video I saw first was a reaction to the statement:

“Listen, we all know that Facebook is a pretty trash app.”

Cut to POV: the most millennial video ever made in complete shock.

“The Facebook App. They call it the Facebook App because when they got Facebook, they got it as an app and when we first got on Facebook, it was a website.”

Here’s the link for the TikTok that inspired this essay. I’d recommend taking a watch, and let me know what you think of these perspectives. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRbc5JRc/

The Early App Age

Apps are supposed to be convenient tools and should be a seamless and meaningful continuation of the technology or platform it stems from.

If memory serves me correctly, when apps first came on the scene, they were not for social networking platforms. It was either to serve as the mobile OS counterpart for something we did using the computer or it was one trick gags and games. I distinctly remember a fake Zippo lighter app and a beer glass app where you pretended to drink beer out of your iPod touch.

But as smartphones became smarter and social platforms grew, it made sense to invest in the user experience to foster socialization and activity. The telephone made it possible to talk to someone in really time without being in the same room. The cellphone allowed us to talk to anyone at anytime anywhere we had a signal. The smartphone expanded the means of communication to a global scale with the internet.

On the one hand, this shift to mobile utility for the internet brought a lot of convenience. You could check your work email, look up something on Wikipedia, and update everyone in real time the salad you ate for lunch—all at the same time. And besides the vanity-plated jokes and memes of social media culture, there are, of course, other downsides to this shift of accessibility and convenience.

But, the conversation around the insular nature of apps and platforms powered by a fiercely hungry algorithm is not new. We have pointed out the problems of the echo chambers, disconnecting us from other communities and fencing us in next to our neighbors. Let’s not rehash what we already know because that’s not what is going to change social media or internet culture or technology overload.

Most of what we consider as apps is the composition of social media—that is media created, shared, and engaged with socially. But social media existed long before Instagram launched in 2010 and even before Tom was everybody’s friend. It was people calling into the local radio station to share with the DJ about a detour on Jefferson Ave. It was letter’s sent to the advice column in the local newspaper.

By the true definition of the term, I don’t blame social media as the originator of our current evils to face. When we think of the internet and internet culture, that lives online on the computer. But what we consider to be social media is on our phones and it manifests in the apps. The change—for better or worse—comes from the change of environment, the smartphone loaded up with apps changed the social and information digital landscape. The infrastructure of platforms configure themselves to accommodate the changing environment as how we interacted with it—physically and mentally—transformed as we migrated from a keyboard to tapping on a rectangular glass screen.

Ever heard someone say that our opposable thumbs are what set us apart from animals? It’s typically touted as a sign of our evolution and intelligence. But, while we have accelerated in intelligence beyond our primitive primate ancestors, the last ten plus years of the smart phones, it can feel like those same thumbs sent that intelligence in a violent nose-dive.

We may only use our thumbs on our smartphones, but we use all ten fingers with computers. And it all comes down to participation.

Not All Participation Trophies

The phrase “The medium is the message” is famously attributed to Canadian philosopher and communication theorist, Marshall McLuhan, which boiled down, argues that information is inexplicably tangled with how it is transmitted and therefore affecting the perception of the final message. It could be the difference of sending a business inquiry over Facebook Messenger versus an email.

Another one of McLuhan’s most famous concepts is the idea of “hot” and “cool” media, which refers to the way that different media engage the viewer or listener. According to McLuhan, "cool" media are those that require high level or active participation. On the other hand, "hot" media are those that require a lower level or passive participation.

Now, to be entirely fair, there is plenty of room to debate the transmutation of McLuhan’s original ideas relating to media technology of his time (radio, print, television, and film) to the contextual variety of today’s media technology. There is more commonality between a short film produced by a studio and a short film created independently and uploaded on YouTube, than that same short film on YouTube and a cringey prank video on YouTube.

For my purposes here, I am bringing forward the idea of high and low participation, not just with media, but with media technology. And operating under that assumption applied to apps on smartphones and the internet accessed through computers, social media apps illicit hot media or low participation while internet browsing is cool media requiring high participation to activate its capabilities.

Our phones and social media platforms have become central to how we consume and share information. They present to us a convenient means to access a variety of content curated by algorithms and data tracking. They require very little and ask almost nothing from us except time to scroll and a few hearts sprinkled through our feeds.

We don’t have to do much for it to work. And all we need is a couple of thumbs.

But when it comes to computers and the internet, the dynamic is slightly different. They allow us to actively seek out specific pieces of information with search engines or specific websites. With all ten fingers on the keyboard and a hand on the mouse, accessing the internet on a computer provides us with a more proactive way of engaging with information, rather than simply being served information.

The Real Problem, Our Relationship Status

There is something I haven’t acknowledged yet in this essay, and in all fairness, it poses a problem with my observations here.

So what I haven’t acknowledge until now it this:

Social media platforms are not exclusive to mobile apps and internet browsers are not inaccessible on a smartphone.

It is all entangled and symbiotic because we live in technologically modern society. We like our streaming services and WiFi connected devices. And while it can all feel like a burden at times, I don’t think any of us want to do without the internet or social media or smartphones or computers or any of our toys anytime soon. I do think we want it all to be less overwhelming and less of a life-suck.

I began this essay with the question of whether or not Facebook is an app or a website because it sparks a conversation in how quickly the generational experience with early social networks evolved. And now, that conversation leads us to a short exploration of the differences myself—and I’m sure others like yourself—have observed with our relationships with media technology.

For me, to think about my teenage years and the internet, I fondly remember sitting in bed with my laptop for hours to update my Facebook feed, return pokes, take really stupid quizzes, and meticulously curate my photo albums. I would scroll my Tumblr dashboard and browse an abundance of websites with StumbleUpon and watch the Vlogbrothers and Charlieissocoollike on YouTube.com. It is a nostalgia because it is in the past.

But now, we see younger generations considering the utility of technology many of us grew up with as lifestyle changes to adopt—a life hack, if you will. And it’s not just the youths; it is the rest of us too. The artists, the creators, the internet elders who are all around burned out and looking to slow down, but not give everything up because we like to spend some of our “me time” scrolling through apps.

Using a computer—not a phone—for web browsing is far enough removed from the constant thumb scroll on our phones to be seen as a more “analog” and romanticized experience, especially by our friends of younger generations.

We have already seen evidence of nostalgic curiosity driving trends, such as buying “dumb” phones or aesthetically pleasing flip phones. Functionally, they accomplish exactly what they are designed to be: cellphones. Point-and-shoot digital cameras are also making their rounds among younger generations who probably had a smart phone as their first camera. All of this hints at the coming desire for a more intentional and thoughtful approach, not just with internet use, but with technology as a whole.

In 2023, I believe we will see a deconstruction of the way we use social media and the internet—with our relationships to both as well as our relationships with the technology we use to engage them with. The focus will shift back to websites and blogs through the internet browser experience as a more fulfilling and engaging way to connect with others and share out thoughts and ideas. It will create a balance between staying plugged in to what matters and unplugging when we want and need to.

Ideally, adopting “older” means of technology will be a positive development as the use of technology will be deliberate and focused, rather than being constantly bombarded by distractions or phantomly reaching to tab the screen for any updates we may have missed.

A Renaissance of Sorts

One thing I’ve mentioned a few times already is the idea that apps are convenient. We hang on to our smartphones because it is suppose to be convenient. But let me leave you with another way to think about the shift from websites to apps, from computers to smartphones, and why we are in the early age of a Renaissance of sorts.

Everything has become too convenient.

Smartphones are too convenient. Every update received and every update to send is incredibly accessible. These advancements in media technology were inspired to make our lives easier. However, I think we are all getting the sense that this ease of accessibility and convenient is no longer adding value like we once were led to believe. It is no longer a convenience, it is both a numbing agent and an excessive stimulant.

What we need is slight inconveniences so we are forced to be more intentional and use more focus. When something is too convenient—or we justify its utility as convenient despite of its detriments—it becomes problematic and inescapable and we become passive. When we become too passive, we lose our agency and snuff out our spark.

I mean, it’s unlikely you’re going to pull out your laptop at a red light to check Instagram because that’s is truly inconvenient (and dangerous). Would that not cause you to think twice about checking social media anytime there is a pause in the mundane moments? Would you maybe ask yourself why you would want or think you need to check for notifications or feed updates right this red hot moment?

It is not lost on me the nuance available here in this conversation I’ve employed, and while I can’t address every scenario right here, right now, I do believe we are experiencing a shift already in motion. The momentum may usher in a return to practices of internet yesteryear; it may have been brushed aside as old news, but it doesn’t mean it is obsolete. Why else would a platform like Instagram invest in the redesign of their web browser experience for users?

With all of this in mind, I think many of us will look at analog alternatives and equivalents as compromises to mitigate the toxic or problematic or possessive hold the media culture has on us. It may look like lifestyle changes, a digital detox, or a deconstruction of social media practices. And that extends to the non-social media related conveniences, like email notifications and news updates pinging on the phone screen out of the corner of our eye.

The thing I’d leave you with for now is another question: Is the way things are now truly convenient for me, or are some things keeping me from fully participating when it counts?