I will propose, then, that the use of consume came about because of adults. Yes, Generation X, I’m blaming you. Power to the Millennials! (I’ll discuss my intentional evasion of the phrase “digital native” in a later article. In fact, I don’t put faith in the term millennial either, but for the sake of brevity, it will remain for now.) I blame the older folk who grew up with television and commercials, spent money to go to the movie theater, and customarily lived in a pecuniary society. They are living, breathing customers. As customers, the adults of today matured regarding the world with an eye bent on finances rather than fervor. Therefore, it follows that they would approach the Internet with fiscal perspectives and intentions. Consuming digital media, specifically media inherent to the Web, then evolved from a money-hungry stomach.

And us kids are just, well, different. We’re not online to make money or use money (at least not all the time, though I do not deny calling the Internet the new teenager’s shopping-mall-turned-after-school-hangout). I’ll even go far enough to accuse adults and their outdated perspectives as the cause of the dot-com crash way back when, because they simply approached the Internet in an ignorant manner (I commend them for taking risks). My hypothesis reflects what David Weinberger and Jonathan Zittrain discussed at the final discursive session of Berkman@10, Onward!. Weinberger said, “It occurred to me that what does hold Berkman together and probably for everyone here is that we really really love the internet, just love the internet. How many people were at ROFLCon? The atmosphere at ROFLCon (an internet pop culture conference) was very different type of love of the internet. So in 10 years, how are we going to love the internet?” He expounds that the youth approach to the Internet is one of curiosity, intimacy, and passion. Youth are developing a culture online because they are not consuming the Web, acidically digesting its content and defecating LOLcats, but instead embracing the Internet creatively and living inside it, rather than using it as a tool while remaining outside its realm. In response to Weinberger, Zittrain stated, “I was struck by David Weinberger’s description of ROFLCon. I wasn’t there, but I can’t help but think that some of the goofiness, and the wonderful inanity of it, is exactly the spirit of the Internet that we celebrate here that I am continually amazed and amused by. … It’s the ability not to take ourselves so god damn seriously, while doing serious things and worrying about things like billions of people who are about to join the club, digitally speaking.” Charlie Nesson’s final words echo a similar response: “The question in shorter term for me really is, can we figure out how to engage kids of all ages in an open integrated media educational environment in a way that has them learning critical, algorithmic, strategic, thinking skills, in a form that we can measure — and that can be used as a meaningful credential.” Both professors identify the Internet as a space of informal learning, just like the neighborhood streets where adults grew up. Kids are just doing it online these days.

So how do youth engage with the digital space, strategically thinking and processing the culture that they unconsciously create? Certainly not through consumption. It’s simply by maturing, growing up, experiencing.

I’ve already discussed the social tools used (or overused, or underused?) during Berkman@10, but of course as at any conference much real networking occurred as well. Not one particularly adept as networking in any sense, I did meet an excellent bunch of new contacts and friends. I didn’t speak with many adults — probably a mistake on my part — but I did make the acquaintance of Jeff Young from the Chronicle of Higher Education; Miriam Simun, the coordinator of research in the Digital Natives project over at the Berkman Center; and recently-graduated Andy Sellars. Of course, I’m extremely sociable with those my own age, so I spent a good deal of time speaking with and hanging around Diana Kimball, Tim Hwang, Dean Jansen, Greg Price, Christina Xu, David Edelman (from Oxford University) and Rob (aka. moot, of 4chan). I have to admit: I’ll probably be attending more Harvard Free Culture events than those of BUFC in the future. On the other hand, two pieces of really good news: First, I spoke with Miriam about participating in the Digital Natives project next spring as an intern, after I return from Japan, and the potential looks good. Second, after talking at length with Christina and Diana, it looks like I may have a spot on the team of ROFLCon 2008. All in all, I took away a bunch of real-world connections from Berkman@10 and now I’m hooked on attending conferences.

If anyone’s willing to help me fund a trip to Washington D.C., I really want to go to Beyond Broadcast 2008 at American University on June 17th. Maybe I’ll get some cash from my 21st birthday on June 8th *hint hint*.

Or, in this room, is the demographic of the adult audience limited? Is it a niche in the totality of adult digital users? A mix of industry guests and academic scholars and researchers, is the demographic more educated than the average digital adult?

Then I must ask: Should we be defining the future of the Internet by these adults’ terms?

If you look at my spotlight on Michael Wesch, re/view the three videos. He argues that humanity has defined computing and the Internet in archaic terms, but also by archaic methods. I’m not saying that adults aren’t everpresent online, but they certainly are not omnipresent. Neither are youth. I don’t want to approach the digital divide in this article, though. I do, however, want to say this:

I wish that more youth had registered for Berkman@10. There certainly exists a dichotomy between the adult and adolescent perspectives toward the Internet and contemporary technology. My generation possesses different values and approach digital ethics differently. I do not want to suggest that we are more right than adults. But if we, Berkman@10, are going to argue about the future of the Internet, then we need to hear more from the “younger” generation present in the audience.

There is a strong polarity between Berkman@10 and ROFLCon, and not simply a polarity of content. I admire ROFLCon because it encouraged an amalgamation of digital inhabitants (contributors and critics) and digital creators (the “industry”). The demographic of the “inhabitants” consisted mainly of adolescents. I believe that, because so many youth attended ROFLCon, the audience was much more involved and familiar with the practicality of the technology, rather than the theories and assumptions present in an approach to the technology. A good example is the Question Tool used by both conferences (the ROFLCon tool is down at the publication of this article), where the audience members can submit questions and then vote up or down “good” questions, later to be viewed and answered by the speaker(s). The implementation at ROFLCon simply worked, while at Berkman@10 the tool hasn’t reached its full potential, nor do I think it will. My guess is that the membership of ROFLCon simply was more interested in what everyone had to say, while here we just want to hear from the infamous panelists. The presence of technology at Berkman@10 trounces that at ROFLCon, however, and I find that a bit strange. More laptops… but that may be because of the more academic nature of this conference, and it’s definitely easier to transcribe notes on a keyboard.

Either way, I am almost twenty one years old. I am very involved in technology. I grew up on a Macintosh. There is a septuagenarian sitting across the aisle. Is he that much more involved? Will I be less involved digitally in 2025 than the contemporary youth at that period? Or will Web 3.0, or whatever we’re in for, enable a highly digital future? And will I be heralding in that age, or will it still be the adults of today?