You are seizing on an off-the-cuff sentence in a long but casual interview and treating it as a denunciation by "another 1st world intellectual" -- like you are not?

He doesn't "proclaim" - he responds to a journalist's question: you are deliberately exaggerating or you are being careless with words. He isn't "defining one way -their way- of interacting with information as deeper and more true", he responds to questions in an honest manner.

In the course of the interview Chomsky comes across as self-consciously (but not, to my mind, pompously or self-righteously) ignorant of popular culture and with something of the hermit about him. But it is important to note that he is not evangelizing his views; just acknowledging his own preferences and prejudices in response to questions. He is ignorant of Wesley Snipes, Lady Gaga, Angry Birds, the number of books he himself has written, and Greg Gaffin. He says of the everyday world "I don't know, I just don't care about it. It looks to me pointless and superficial", shrugging wryly and eating his burger. He says "I'm into eating as little as possible, paying as little attention as possible. I never cook. Never use the stove or anything." He's just answering questions.

It's interesting that you seize on his comment about Twitter, and not Lady Gaga or any of the other objects of his ignorance. I think you're looking to pick a fight by exaggerating his sins. And in the process, you are a little patronizing to old folks. But then, I guess I'm on the way to being one, so maybe that's why I don't understand your need to defend venture-capital-funded private enterprise?

"Who benefits when digital communications are disqualified as less deep?"

With the decline of symbolic efficiency, a more relevant question is "Who benefits when digital communications are celebrated as liberatory?"

Also, this: "It’s because they don’t use it. You can’t get it w/out using it."

is essentially an ad hominem argument, I'm not sure why it's being treated as a slam dunk.

The lurker in me has no specific pro/con views re Twitter or any other tool/applet/gadget, etc. I've always thought its the use what makes the difference.
Sorry to be blunt, but a decontextualized Chomsky quote followed by tweets driven by emotional impulse rather than reflection is a perfect example of potential Twitter pitfalls. The trouble seems to lie with the choice of words and interpretations rather than Chomsky, as well as the phallacies around age and technically savy. Generation, youth & middle-age are constructs we should be conscious of, same as "digital native" and similar buzzwords we sometimes tend to give for granted.

Wait a minute!

Its taken well over 140 characters in each reply--including Nathan's initial discussion--to explain his intent.

I would argue that that is all that Chomsky means.

How "deep" can one get in 140 characters that isn't poetry?

Let's define "deep." Is it "meaningfulness"? "Explanation"? "Connection"? What is "deep"?

For a short, let's say 140 character, communication, most of the referents would need to be already well imbued in the recipients. Each "Tweet" functions merely a trigger for the deeper understanding that each person in a communication uses to add to the "conversation" on their end, inside themselves.

Tweets could be thought of as less "deep" because there are "less words" and therefore less of an opportunity for mutual understanding -- unless, as I just said, the meaning is already in each person and the Tweet is merely a "symbolic prod," if you will, of that data.

Rap and graffiti have the same issues. If you understand the reference points, they can be quite deep. If you don't, then they have a different meaning that isn't necessarily the intent of the artist, but still could or could not be "deep."

With Tweets, they are short. Let's face it, 140 characters isn't enough to full explain one's intent. (Look how many I've used already.)

Back in 1992, I said that "Poetry is the literature of the 90's" -- I was wrong. Literature stayed strong. There is clearly some need for descriptive prose--if only to explain meaning and intent.

Another interesting point not mentioned yet is the aggregate.

Maybe each Tweet is "shallow" by lack of being "deep" in terms of context, intent and meaning.
(Just go with me for argument's sake)

However, the aggregate of many of these together, can create an amazing depth.

It can also create a giant shallow as well--depends on the topic and those Tweets that make up the aggregate.

Also, the message may not be "deep" but the "act of the message" may be making a "connection" to someone that over time makes it "deep," and what is perceived as "depth" is the connection to those making the Tweets, not necessarily the messages themselves.

This is fascinating.

To recap:

Depth is within the spirit of the recipient. Do they have the shared knowledge that makes a Tweet "deep"? Is the act of the Tweet itself enough of a connection that creates a feeling of "depth" because of the connection, regardless of meaning?

mike, i disagree that because text messaging was invented by industry does not mean that all knowledge / cultural products are therefore to the benefit of said industry. but we had this debate before over PJ's post: i recognize subversive forms of power that happen within and using the tools of the powerful and you are much more in the line of Lorde's "you cannot destroy the master's house with the master's tools." both fair perspectives, but that we are having this discussion disproves your point that i am silencing critique.

great addition, PJ! takes the 'off the cuff' issue mostly off the table.

mike, yes, we really have identified why there is a lot of talking past each other. but i do think it is about tools and houses. out of curiosity, who do you think we take as the master, and who do you take as the master?

With time, forms of media will fade from our consciousness, and let us get on with the idea of the ideas, i.e., strands of human reflection embedded, contained, synthesized, and otherwise shoulder by the form. As a culture, we're still internalizing "social media"--perhaps to the detriment of the media itself.

There are extraordinary socioeconomic and intellectual (among other) disparities that exist completely independently of any external attempt to categorize them (including economic systems, political labeling, industry jargon, and nebulous, nomenclature intending to "brand" incredibly complex issues). This is not simply about Rwanda or OWS or poverty, but rather fundamental intellectual hierarchy that might begin to delineate not just the nature of information (media), but the role information--in any form, with any degree of accessibility to its users--for the human experience itself. Concepts like capitalism, socialism, and the rest are inherently tangled within any such analysis, none fully understand but through the interdependence with the rest.

"Here is the conversation on Twitter followed by a little more analysis that didn’t quite fit into 140 characters."

The above says it all - "didn’t quite fit into 140 characters." Chomsky is right - Twitter is shallow communication, at best.