The shifting internets
I think the shift to talking about internets rather than The Internet might actually be happening. A couple years after Bush called it the internets, we all laughed, and it became a kind of joke to pluralize: the internets, internets, interwebs. But then just this week, the CFP for AoIR’s 8th conference came:
Let’s Play
The Internet better, internet/s - is at once part of the background hum of the developed world and an exotic realm of fantasy and play. It is an essential, mundane part of daily life, and simultaneously radical, revolutionary, profane, and fun. Internet/s invite us to play. We surf, blog, role play, and chat in the interest of work, learning, and play. Serious technologies and applications invite playing around as a way to learn how to use them.
…
Our conference theme of play invites empirical research and theoretical reflection on how human beings “seriously play” with one another on, via and through internet/s, on local, regional, and global scales.
…
As internet/s become interwoven with ordinary life on multiple levels, in what ways do these alter ordinary life,
and/or how do prevailing community and cultural practices reshape and tame such internet/s and the interactions they facilitate?
Now, I had a disagreement with a friend about this; he thinks they’re using internet/s as textual play to fit in with the conference theme of “play.” I am not so sure. Internets actually has a Wikipedia entry:
Internets was originally used as shorthand for cluelessness about the Internet or about technology in general but is often used today as an homage to when U.S. President George W. Bush referred to “the Internets” in the 2nd Presidential Debate with U.S. Senator John Kerry on October 8, 2004.
But then, under the article’s Criticism section:
While the term is popularily understood to be a Bushism, it is possible Bush’s word choice was accurate, if he meant to refer to the Internet2 as well as the Internet proper, or TCP/IP internets in general.
I think this latter point is being more seriously taken up, and it’s also recognized as seeming more accurate not only in terms of the technical infrastructure of networks (which I know little about), but also in terms of users’ experiences with them: everyone has their own internet. Let me quote myself from 2004, talking about the move toward lowercasing Internet:
Easing up on the capitalization is probably the first step to recognizing that we all have different experiences with the internet, that it facilitates myriad activities. Maybe the plural “internets†is the next step in referring to what it really is: a vast, varied well of experiences that are individually constructed for each user by herself….My internet is not the same as yours: we “visit†different “places†every day, we create our own online routines, extracting different combinations of words, images, sounds, and interaction. So while from the technical side there may still be only one Internet, capital letter definite article, from users’ perspectives there exist multiple internets, lowercase plural.
I’d be interested in hearing whether people notice usage of internets in a not-tongue-in-cheek way, or if this still seems to call attention to itself as an ironic formulation.


