Social networking as conversation is a good analogy, and one that Gabler doesn't follow through on in this article. Yes, the vast majority of conversations are banal, and always have been. The only difference is that, because of social networking, we now have a lasting record of how mundane our conversations are. Most conversations are not three-hour monologues about the End of History (and thank God for that). That doesn't mean that the quality of discussion has declined, or that we are in a post-idea era. It just means that throwaway small talk is located on the same global platform as the big ideas.

A positive side effect is that the interesting conversations are now available to everyone. For example, most chatter in a Philadelphia bar in 2011 is of no interest to anyone except the people having the conversation, but chatter in a Philadelphia bar in 1776 would make a fascinating read. I sure wish we had a record of that. Take Twitter as an example, since Gabler singles it out for criticism. Most of the time, I don't care what Muhammad Everyman in Cairo is tweeting about, because the quality level is the same as that of ordinary conversation. But when a revolution breaks out, I can listen in on tens of thousands of conversations talking about what is happening on a street-by-street level. Conversation is mundane, except when it isn't.

As for the comment about the Internet following a sort of Gresham's Law, with trivial information pushing out the big ideas, I think it's off the mark. Nothing is getting pushed out because there is nothing to get pushed out of. More bytes of kitten photos does not mean less bytes of Nietzsche. The amount and availability of big ideas and trivial data are increasing concurrently. The issue is one of attention: You can seek out and pay attention to big ideas, or you can look at cats. Most people look at cats. But that's always been true.