Email as a Revolutionary Medium

In an increasingly interconnected and technologically sophisticated world, our capabilities for communication and diversity of ways to do so also increases. This is often approached as a problem, with each method merely remaining due to network effects, but I believe that this multitude of means are a strength and not a weakness. I do however still see what I deem as a misuse of tools, and I shall endeavour to explain, and hopefully convince you of, my ways of structuring communication in different spheres.

The key difference that I think many do not make is the division between urgency and importance. This might seem an unwieldy or arbitrary division, but I believe it is crucial. In many cases needing an answer quickly is the only thing one cares about, and in others it is the accuracy of the response that matters. To explain simply, here an order of different modes of communications:

Sorted by importance:

When you want to be very clear about something you always want to meet in person, and if speed is necessary nothing is faster than calling someone’s cellphone. But there is one medium that has been overlooked, or in many cases even despised, email.

The Indieweb wiki’s section on email describes an “Older [reason] to use email” as “messaging among older internet users” as if this is an archaic or outdated form of messaging. This is echoed by my anecdotal experiences with talking to younger generations of people who in many cases detest email, having only used it in a professional setting and for making “accounts” to websites that then flood them with newsletters and advertisements. I understand these experiences that I imagine many people have, but they do not mean that email should be thrown out altogether. Instead it should occupy a new place in the way people communicate.

The word revolution has an interesting history, meaning both a transformative change in a given field (although often political) as well as a simple revolution of a spinning object, returning to its starting position (see RPM; revolutions per minute)¹. These two seemingly homonymous words are however deeply interconnected, and to explain this I want to use the example of the Glorious Revolution. It was not only a profound political development, overthrowing the established idea of the divine right of kings and replacing it with popular sovereignty, but also formulating it as a return to the normal political order of the ancient rights of the English people². The Meiji Restoration in Japan was also of this nature, a profound and forward-looking development that framed itself as a return to the original state of things.

So what does this have to do with email communication for the kidz? I see email as a niche that no other medium occupies, that being asynchronous communication. All communication is of course asynchronous in some sense, but there is an expectation that texting should ideally be done instantly and intensely. One is expected to respond quickly, and “leaving” someone “on read” is seen as an insult. I think that this form of synchronous communication, when combined with the scale of modern technology, creates enormous stress on the individual. At all times one is able to intimately³ communicate with thousands of people, leaving the individual paralysed from overstimulation. Email by contrast emphasises long-form messaging, often being longer than posts on microblogging services meant for permanent or semi-permanent publication. This gives the individual more time to respond but also the sender to live their own life while waiting for a response. Originally this was of course a technological necessity — it was impossible to reach someone through the internet when they were not at their computer — but that limitation has since disappeared through the introduction of the cellular phone and later the smartphone.

This does not mean that the problems with email are not real but that they are obscuring the usefulness of the technology. The primary change I would recommend (or that needs to be done) is the division between communication and information. There is no denying that a lot of services rely on email for registration and advertisements. But there is a clear mental barrier between receiving an email from a real human being and a machine sending you a morass of spam that one is not expected to reply to, but simply to consume⁴. The greatest damage to email has been done by no-reply@domain.com. To counter this one needs multiple email addresses, one for machine communication that is seldom used and another for human connection. This allows for the mental separation of messages so that the enormous flood of email does not drown out the signal, and so that individuals are not anxious when they are sent an email.

What would then be required to return to the earlier asynchronous mode? It is unclear if the massive use by commercial-scale actors can be undone or reduced, and email spam filters mean that the system is heavily centralized to just a few big actors. But it is hard to deny the powerful networking effects of email, where almost every user of the internet can be assumed to have one. Would it be better to simply torch email and convince a new generation of users to move to a new system of E2EE async messaging? I do not know. But I do still believe that email has the potential to be the solution to many people’s problems with the internet and communication as a whole.

It is apparent to everyone that social media is distinctly a different experience today from how it initially developed. It has become a form of mindless consumption instead of a social space where one interacts with other genuine individuals. The concept of content, once merely used on Madison avenue, has become so ingrained in the social media environment that those who would otherwise call themselves entertainers, artists, or journalists have now come to regard their field as mere content creation, as producing things merely meant to get you hooked so that you will look at more advertisements. This has been accelerated due to LLM’s ability to quickly create things that are “good enough” to look at, read, or otherwise consume. Consumption has become the only reason to interact with social media. But alternatives are not only necessary, they are already here.

Social media’s fall from grace did not occur with ChatGPT, but it has accelerated since then. Social media platforms do not make money off of our enjoyment, but merely from our attention. This was perhaps best displayed by the stratospheric rise of tiktok, and of the subsequent explosion in short-form video platforms that followed. These built on an ecosystem that had continuously been trying to capture more and more of our waking hours. Actions to resist this were slowly being taken, even if subconsciously. The decline of independent forums, where discussion is instead taken to deep-web⁵ spaces like slack, discord, group chats and direct messages, is perhaps the clearest sign of this. This was well underway before generative AI arrived, but as Maggie Appleton has pointed out, “the dark forest” of spam and slop has expanded — and will continue to expand — rapidly.

When talking about email as a mere asynchronous medium the focus is on how email benefits the user individually, and on how spam has forced people to move to other such mediums. Here, I instead want to describe how one can not just return to the email-workflow of yore, but reimagine it as a new form of social media that allows one to curate and decide on what to interact with, but also how to format that interaction and to contribute to the meaning and interpretation with the work.

Writing emails is a laborious task, at least compared to scrolling an infinite feed. But it is this labour that is put in to email that is the differentiating factor. Microblogging platforms like twitter, mastodon, and bluesky can never become places for genuine presence because of its ease of use. Writing a toot on mastodon is little different from writing as short prompt for an AI. What LLMs have taught us is that one must put in the work to create something meaningful in the eyes of others, because what is valuable is the time you spent in formulating those ideas.

Social interaction is by necessity a creative process. One does not merely communicate raw information in the form of statistics or binary data, but we instead choose to frame and disseminate information in a unique way. This creative process is what makes us interesting as individuals, to interact with, and valuable to others as agents in the world.

Email also facilitates an inner discussion. While other mediums require little of the author to critically examine their statements, writing emails allows oneself the time to read, reread, and edit ones position. This means that in an email conversation between just two people, each person takes control of the conversation completely in a way that instant messaging and the like does not do. The author is free to have an entire discussion in their head, picturing responses in their mind. This then moves the conversation forward in a double dialectical fashion, with each person’s internal debate framing their responses that are in turn responded to.

When I write emails, it is not uncommon for the word count to reach into 2-3000 words. This is longer than many blog posts I write, and while it commonly covers multiple topics — all organically developed — it allows for a form of creative expression that other mediums do not posses. It allows me to write in a much more free manner, to an audience whose intellectual strengths (and weaknesses) I am much more aware of, and yet still cut those parts that would otherwise be necessary to paint a full picture of the issue. It allows me genuine connection with people I know in a way that reading their newest tweet does not.

Email’s asynchronous nature allows us to write and respond whenever we personally have time. Some people argue that email fails to accomodate groups of users greater than 2, but I disagree. Things like mailing lists allow large groups of people to communicate in public with lots of other individuals, with anyone quickly jumping in when required. Conversations chains are easily listed and followed, compared to the fleeting reply chains of large slack or discord groups. We can take our time to respond, and those wo are interested in what we have to say can quickly get up to speed in the conversation, much like the easily digestible feeds of social media. The difference is that instead of quickly scrolling by to read short messages by lots of different people, you are forced to sit and listen to one person’s reasoning for much longer — not all that different from how you would in real life.

James O’Sullivan, of University College Cork, writes in noema magazine:

Social media’s current logic is designed to reduce friction, to give users infinite content for instant gratification, or at the very least, the anticipation of such. The antidote to this compulsive, numbing overload will be found in deliberative friction, design patterns that introduce pause and reflection into digital interaction, or platforms and algorithms that create space for intention.

This is exactly the sort of deliberate control that email offers. This is not to say that email as it exists today is a perfect alternative, but the way it is ubiqutous and at the same time completely forgotten means that we have to make a deliberate attempt to understand the technologies that already exist in practice.