Boy, Did We Get Digital Wrong

There are a few things you can say about the differences between digital publishing and print publishing — objective differences that generate little to no argument, and differences we knew mattered from the start:

• Digital allows published information to be accessed from anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds
• Digital information can be reorganized more easily
• Digital information can be stored at relatively low prices
• Digital information can be changed on a go-forward basis

(I never believed digital would be cheaper, and this has proven a prudent stance. However, the myth has fueled many seductive and wrongheaded initiatives, sadly.)

Now, given these attributes, an industry charged with generating a reliable record of vetted scientific and scholarly claims might have privileged a few important roles to get the job done as things changed — roles held by librarians, editors, professional publishers (especially non-profits), and trusted intermediaries in general.

After all, if information can get anywhere quickly, can change priority at a whim, can be stored in greater quantities, and can be modified in moments, you’d want these roles to have extra influence and impose some obligations to make said information as reliable and sensible as possible.

Wouldn’t you?

Well, we didn’t, and in fact did quite the opposite, buying lock, stock, and barrel the claims of technologists seeking big paydays and having little shame about what kind of tricks, gaslighting, or political shenanigans they’d have to pull in order to get that job done.

Information wants to be free — Technology has a path all its own, one we cannot interrupt — We must follow where technology leads us — We need to be disrupted — The leaders of technology companies and their offspring matter more than professionals in key firebreak roles

It was hogwash, and we’ve suffered major social, political, and economic setbacks because of it.

But it’s not like we weren’t warned.