Time. It is a limited resource and without question absolutely finite. There are so many minutes in a day, or a year for that matter. In Seasons of Love (Warner Bros. 2005), we all learned that there are "Five hundred twenty-five thousand, six hundred minutes" in a year. Rent, 1996. That is one thousand four hundred forty minutes each day. And, we all know those are carved up into seconds. This is 86,400 seconds in a day, about 31,536,000 seconds in a year. You just spent a few reading this.
I knew a fellow once who reveled in anyone referring to a "moment." When wait staff would promise to "be with you in a moment," he would loudly question "What's a moment?" That is a fair question. Merriam-Webster says that a "moment" can be "a minute portion or point of time." That is a trick of the English language. This definition is not a minute (as in 60 in an hour) but a small portion as in minuscule or diminutive. They are spelled the same, but so different. Webster says that "moment" could merely mean "a comparatively brief period of time." Compared to what? In the scheme of this planet (4.54 billion years) a long human life (100 years) is perhaps a moment, perhaps not even.
The news got me wondering about brief periods of time recently. Social media was alive and in the news in July 2023 because a platform limited the volume of posts that users could access. The Associated Press reported Elon Musk imposes daily limits on reading posts on Twitter. That seemed anachronistic to the purpose of social media. I have labored under the impression that the platforms are dedicated to maximizing the time spent wasted on and lost within them.
To view posts on this platform, people reportedly must now log on. The story says that initially people were limited to "600 posts per day," but that those who pay $84 per year, the "verified," could view up to 6,000. That apparently shifted through a day's time to 800/8,000 and then to 1,000/10,000. The constraint is driven not by the people though. Apparently, this is to constrain the Autobots and gremlins "pillaging," scrap(ing)," and "scour(ing)" the site to train their artificial intelligence.
Who knew? Like something out of a science fiction movie, Skynet is scouring your social media to learn more about you, about us. "Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my?" (Wizzard of Oz, 1939). I have been on social media, and struggle to understand what there is to learn from a picture of someone's sandwich, a profession of affinity, or some product endorsement. Perhaps I am on the wrong platforms?
If you looked at 10,000 social media posts, for one second each, that 10,000 seconds would take about 2.8 hours. But is that realistic? More likely, 2-3 seconds and thus more like 5 to 8 hours. Some people spend that long sleeping each day. In fact, how much time do we spend on daily tasks? Clockify has some estimates worthy of note:
- "Sleeping: 8 hours 48 minutes"
- "Working: 3 hours and 14 minutes"
- "Watching television: 2 hours 46 minutes"
- "Personal care activities: 47 minutes"
- "Eating and drinking: 1 hour 11 minutes"
- "Food preparation and cleaning up afterward: 36 minutes"
- "Housework: 33 minutes"
- "Work-related activities: 22 minutes"
- "Educational activities: 29 minutes"
- "Telephone calls, emails and regular mail: 9 minutes"
There are assorted other tasks/distractions listed. There is no listing for social media. The closest Clockify has is perhaps "Socialization and communication: 39 minutes." That 39 minutes might allow us to view 2,340 social media posts at one second each or 780 at three seconds each.
If you total the bullet-point list, you have accounted for about 19 hours of your day. So, that leaves you with plenty of minutes for 2.8 hours of social media, reviewing 10,000 posts, but not enough time to spend three seconds on each one. And if you scrutinize the bullet list, the "working: 3 hours and 14 minutes" might seem a bit far-fetched. Even if you only work 7 hours a day, five days a week (35 hours), then you still average 5 hours of work per calendar day. I suspect that "working" number estimate is a bit low, but you be the judge.
Where would be the time to spend hours on social media? That is simple in a world of finite supply. You would simply take the time away from your other activities. One would find the time ("Who needs clean clothes?" "O.k. fast food again." "I'll exercise tomorrow."). Speaking of exercise, 17 minutes a day. Really?
I am reminded of Chicago and Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is? (Columbia 1969)
"(I don't) Does anybody really know what time it is?(Care) Does anybody really care?(About time) If so, I can't imagine why(Oh no, no) We've all got time enough to cry"
Do you care about time? Would you rather have the time to view 10,000 social media messages each day or the time to cry about what that would mean? And, in the grander analysis, who has time to complain about only being able to review 10,000 posts? What would you give up to have that complaining time? I would suggest, at least, that you not lose sleep about it. Whatever you give up, please don't let it be this blog. I literally spend minutes on this daily. This post is number 1,597, and as Casey Kasem remembered, the "hits just keep coming."
Take some seconds today to smell some roses. Pet someone's puppy. Speak to your family. Call a friend. Put down the social media, acquiesce in the 1,000 post limit, and experience the real world in real-time. The world is worth your pause, and you are worth your investment.
