ava's blog

is offline the new luxury?

I saw an image recently where someone wrote “offline is the new luxury” on a cup.

My first instinct was to agree. There’s a certain privilege to being able to stay offline that I can’t quite grasp with words - maybe something about evading addiction, needing less or no escapism, having enough energy for discipline, not needing to advertise yourself online, being surrounded by people who accept that you don’t have these accounts, not being part of anything that forces you there. There is also this idea sometimes that being very online is a thing for the masses that rich tech execs know to be harmful and avoid, restricting their own family’s access to it. I don’t know exactly where this started, maybe with Steve Jobs allegedly doing that. So to avoid it is associated with higher class, with money, reserved for a few.

I think what the image hints at for me is also this type of luxurious self care that’s idealized - ironically - online: A soft life filled with smoothies and pilates and matcha, being too absorbed in books and vacations to care for a phone, being private and journaling instead of tweeting, making moves in silence and minding your own business, avoiding online toxicity while you do your skincare routine. A life of wellness and relaxation, too full but also clean and removed from the mainstream to have to care about online drama and performing for the feed. It is all being taken care of, so don’t worry your pretty little head about online squabble.

And there’s the trend cycle angle to it, too: whatever gets too easily attainable, too common is when it is out. Many people were drawn to socials when their favorite celebrities got on there to overshare and respond to fans. But that time is long over; many have deleted their accounts, don’t post anything anymore or let their publicists handle it. Now it’s uncool being online. Terms like “chronically online” have poisoned it; now it is cringe. Celebrity culture will always move on to something more unattainable or exclusive. And unfortunately, many think not being on social media is not feasible at all.

I think this is the biggest weakness of the statement: Equating online with social media only. That’s fine on the cup, since who wants to write an entire essay with exceptions on a cup as an aesthetic picture or reminder for oneself? The intended message is clear. But I want to dig deeper into it.

Online is not just toxic social media. Their sticky nature, slow killing of external links and absorbing what feels like half the internet landscape before it made it feel like that, but it isn’t. Online can be

just to name a few things, and none of these even need social media or only exist there.

In 2024, an estimated 2.6 billion people are still without internet, accounting for 32% of the world's population1. Is this a luxury for them? No. They’re mainly from low-income countries and miss out on way more than just the list above. In low-income countries, only 27% of the population is estimated to be online1. Not being able to access the internet is robbing the people of additional education, comfort, entertainment and culture, further weakening their position globally and cementing more economic inequality in this system.

I think it is time for more gratitude and opening our eyes to the healthy side of the internet ecosystem.

Reply via email
Published 20 Jan, 2025

  1. ITU on Global Internet Use↩

#2025 #bestof #social media #top