Has Internet changed the way we read, think, learn and discuss?
Explore how the internet revolutionized access to knowledge but diminished deep thinking and traditional reading habits. Learn the effects of "power browsing" and Pommer's Law on our intellectual and social abilities.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pre-Internet Era: The Pursuit of Knowledge
Before the internet reshaped how we access information, acquiring knowledge was a deliberate and often arduous process. In the pre-printing press era, knowledge was preserved in the minds of scholars. To learn, one had to physically seek out these experts, often traveling great distances and leaving behind home and family.
The invention of the printing press by Gutenberg in the 16th century marked a pivotal shift, enabling the mass distribution of knowledge. Libraries became sanctuaries of learning, housing books that underwent rigorous scrutiny by authors, publishers, and reviewers. This process ensured quality and reliability—a sharp contrast to today’s instant and unregulated online content.
The Internet Revolution: Knowledge for Everyone, Everywhere, Anytime
The invention of the World Wide Web by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989 revolutionized the accessibility of knowledge. Information was no longer confined to libraries or physical books but became available to anyone with an internet connection. With over 1.7 billion websites, knowledge could now be accessed at any time, from anywhere.
However, the rise of the internet has not been without consequences. The ease of accessing information has led to the decay of deep reading and critical thinking. In our previous blog, “Internet, Information, and Ignorance”, we explored how the internet fosters illusory expertise and hinders meaningful discourse. This article delves deeper into the ways the internet has transformed how we read, think, and interact.
Google is Smart—But Are You?
In the pre-internet era, accessing knowledge was an enriching experience. Visiting libraries not only facilitated reading but also fostered intellectual stimulation through social interactions and meticulous book selection. The process of finding and reading physical books activated the brain’s neocortex, promoting critical thinking and deep learning.
In contrast, today’s search engines like Google provide instant access to vast amounts of information. But unlike curated libraries, search results lack rigorous vetting. As Ron Fournier aptly puts it, “In the age of the Internet, every bigot is a publisher.”
This democratization of content has resulted in a proliferation of low-quality information. The convenience of Google has made us reliant on it, but it hasn’t necessarily made us smarter. Instead, our attention spans have shortened, and our ability to critically evaluate information has diminished.
The Downfall: From Enlightenment to Entitlement
Reading in the past was a means of enlightenment. Today, it’s often used to reinforce existing biases. Studies, like one conducted at Yale, reveal that searching for information online inflates people’s confidence in their knowledge, even on unrelated topics. This phenomenon fosters a culture where individuals feel entitled to be treated as experts without putting in the intellectual effort to earn that status.
Tom Nichols, in his book “The Death of Expertise,” explains how the internet encourages shallow thinking:
"Internet is actually changing the way we read, the way we reason, even the way we think, and all for the worse. We expect information instantly. We want it broken down, presented in a way that is pleasing to our eye—no more of those small-type, fragile textbooks, thank you—and we want it to say what we want it to say."
The result? A society of pseudo-experts who prioritize appearances over genuine understanding.
We ourselves experience the weakening of our ability to read these days. When I was small, i used to read a fiction book borrowed from my school library every week. Those books had roughly two hundred pages. But as I write this article, it now takes for me several weeks to complete a 300 page book. Internet has altered my (and probably your) reading ability by decreasing our attention span. The deficit in attention span caused by indulging in Internet 24×7 has affected the general public socially, psychologically and physically. On his article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, Nicholas Carr quotes about Bruce Friedman, a pathologist at Michigan Medical School and a blogger, who spoke about his altered reading habits. “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print. I can’t read War and Peace anymore,” he admitted. “I’ve lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.”
Maryanne Wolf, the author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain, warns us that Internet will make us “mere decoders of information”. The art of deep thinking which comes from deep reading (Wolf says that they both are indistinguishable from each other) will be lost in the new age of instantaneous and efficient reading. Reading as in the traditional sense is not about brushing through words as it is now. The act of reading from books and printed materials activates our neocortex a lot. The traditional style of reading involves contemplation, forming associations, imagining storylines and characters and developing the ability to think beyond the words. As Nicholas Carr tells us, “The kind of deep reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds”.
But how far have we degraded ourselves in our reading abilities? Is there anything worse than brushing off a long article on the web without deep reading? Well, not brushing through the whole article completely once is worse than taking a quick scan on the web. But one may ask who does that? Let’s see:
The Death Of Reading: The Era of "Power Browsing”
According to a University of Cambridge study, many internet users no longer read articles in their entirety. Instead, they skim through headlines, meta descriptions, and images—an activity often referred to as "power browsing." This behavior leads to superficial knowledge and overconfidence, rather than deep comprehension.
Distractions are everywhere. From clickbait headlines to ads and notifications, the internet constantly pulls users in multiple directions. As Nicholas Carr describes in his essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, we are increasingly “zipping along the surface of words” rather than diving deep.
Attention, Advertisement, and the Manipulation of Thought
The internet's problems stem from several factors, including spontaneity, availability, accessibility, and lack of regulation. For example, when a user searches for “how to prevent hair fall,” they are bombarded with thousands of results—many of which are irrelevant or driven by search engine manipulation techniques.
This abundance of choices overwhelms users, leading to "analysis paralysis" or shallow engagement. Moreover, targeted ads, notifications, and pop-ups further fragment attention spans, making focused reading almost impossible.
We must also realize how Internet has revolutionised traditional media such as newspapers, radios and television. These sources of information had to change their outlook and presentation to be in the race to satisfy a generation of get-everything-quick people. Newspapers have reduced their article length and filled up their pages with advertisements. News channels on television are now more entertaining and dramatic to watch than ever before. Like Nicholas Carr stated: “Never has a communication system played so many roles in our lives—or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts—as the Internet does today. Yet, for all that’s been written about the Net, there’s been little consideration of how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us. The Net’s intellectual ethic remains obscure”.
Pommer’s Law: From No Opinion To Wrong Opinion
We have seen how distractions catch hold of an Internet user. Now, let’s ask ourselves: have we learnt how to prevent hairfall with all these articles and advertisements? The answer would be yes and no. There will definitely be a group of people who would have benefited from all those reading. But what about the remaining group of people? How large is the remaining group of people? Do they number in thousands or do they form the major bulk of those who surf in the World Wide Web?
Considering the Sturgeon’s Law which we discussed on our previous blog along with the “search engine manipulation” effect and the power browsing, the majority is likely to fall in the bucket of ignorance. They are less likely to have benefited from all those “Reading”. Worse off, some of them end up having false information and ideas about hair fall than before. This happens because people fail to distinguish what they already know and what they have gazed as they flash through the search results. This has rightly given birth to Pommer’s Law: Accessing Internet can change a person from having no opinion to wrong opinion.
The UCL study suggested that this is because the users “have unsophisticated mental maps of what the internet is, often failing to appreciate that it is a collection of networked resources from different providers,” and so they spend little time actually “evaluating information, either for relevance, accuracy or authority. Nicholas Carr also says something similar about himself: “My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski”.
Conclusion : The End Game
Before we conclude let’s analyse the bigger picture which has started to unfold now after three decades of Berns-Lee’s remarkable invention.
In general, people have become less patient, less social and less likely to speak to people they disagree with. Internet gave birth to keyboard warriors who are ready to cross all limits and ethical boundaries of moral discourse to publish things which they would never had the guts to say in real. The growing polarization thanks to the distance and anonymity of the Internet is killing our ability to read, think, discuss and build human relationships.
Internet gave birth to keyboard warriors who are ready to cross all limits and ethical boundaries of moral discourse to publish things which they would never had the guts to say in real.
The writer Andrew Sullivan rightly sums us about the Internet culture:
And what mainly fuels this is precisely what the Founders feared about democratic culture: feeling, emotion, and narcissism, rather than reason, empiricism, and public-spiritedness. Online debates become personal, emotional, and irresolvable almost as soon as they begin.
Tom Nicholas warns us in “The Death of Expertise”:
The Internet is the largest anonymous medium in human history. The ability to argue from a distance, and the cheapened sense of equality it provides, is corroding trust and respect among all of us, experts and laypeople alike. Alone in front of the keyboard but awash in websites, newsletters, and online groups dedicated to confirming any and every idea, the Internet has politically and intellectually mired millions of Americans in their own biases.
Related Posts
What Reading Does To Your Brain and Cognition
Discover how reading enhances brain plasticity, strengthens memory, and improves attention span. Learn how grounded cognition allows you to "experience" what you read and protects against dementia.
