Electricity is very impactful. But most things that it provides had analogues, at least for the middle to upper classes. Servants fulfilled the role that appliances now play. Horses provided fast enough transport, because the scale of cities were smaller, etc.

All analogies will break down somewhere, but most modern electrical conveniences have fairly close analogues in the past. But nothing seems like the internet.

Now imagine showing someone from 1990 what things are like in 2012 with the internet we have today. While they would think it's "neat" and even "amazing", the magic effect would not be there.

The internet is cool, no doubt, but it's not the leap that electricity has been.

The effects of the internet are largely invisible. Some people today still don't get the internet at all. The world around them changed, but they can't notice. But for someone who does get the internet, it can completely change how you live your life.

I wonder what the biggest "future shock" for (let's say) a 1995 web user visiting the 2012 web? Video and bandwidth seem like the biggest differences, but as you point out, neither are "magic" from a 1995 context.

But I think the magic would be video and bandwidth on a handheld device?

I know I only went halfway back. If you go to 1995, there's a whole class of services that didn't exist.

And another social surprise would be Facebook because of the number of non-techies using the Internet.

Perhaps a better analogy for the Internet would be the printing press, but either way, it was arguably the ubiquity, accessibility and automation of electric power that changed society the most. Similarly, the fact that we can whip our phones out and query Wikipedia over a lunch discussion to settle a bet is much more revolutionary than the content of the article, or even the breadth of Wikipedia itself.

It's worth pointing out that McCluhan never wrote a book titled "The Medium is the Message", as the phrase is actually taken from his book "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man", which was published in 1964. I highly recommend it, if you're interested in challenging your preconceived notions of "post-modern" thought, whatever it is you take that to mean. This text covers many topics seminal to media theory, which I won't summarize here, but the line you casually discard as meaningless (as well as the greater context surrounding it) is by far the most influential portion.

Seeing as though I explained the meaning of the phrase for you above, I won't repeat myself here, but on a somewhat lighter note I think were he alive today, he would probably be intrigued by your comments, and the medium by which you derived them. The irony would not be lost on him.

Your linked source also doesn't say anything about criticism of the phrase.

"The title is a play on McLuhan's oft-quoted saying "The medium is the message"."

"Why is the title of the book The Medium is the Massage and not The Medium is the Message? Actually, the title was a mistake. When the book came back from the typesetter's, it had on the cover 'Massage' as it still does. The title was supposed to have read The Medium is the Message but the typesetter had made an error. When McLuhan saw the typo he exclaimed, 'Leave it alone! It's great, and right on target!' Now there are possible four readings for the last word of the title, all of them accurate: Message and Mess Age, Massage and Mass Age."

You don't need indoor plumbing once you have servants; You don't need read-to-eat dinners when you have cooks and you don't need a dish-washer or vacuum-cleaner when you have maids.

This even goes to entertainment. When you can afford to hire a musician you don't need a music player.

"Without internet it is back to 1970, without electricity, its back to 1890"

something like that anyway.

I do think there's legitimate value to the idea-- I'd bet most people would be a lot happier without electricity or indoor plumbing than we'd imagine.

But I think if somebody decided to try it for a year, a guy saying "No electricity, huh? Are you gonna stop cooking your food, or are you just doing like a halfway thing?" would sound like an asshole.

Also, what gives with calling my good-faith request for clarification an "attempt to suppress" you? I could have just downvoted you and moved on if that's what I wanted.

I think only someone who has grown up with both of those advances would be able to make this comment with a straight face.

Ask anyone who has nearly frozen to death in the winter because they couldn't afford their electricity bill what they think of that statement.

Or anyone who nearly died from cholera because of drinking from the nearest river due to no water utilities what they think of that statement.

I'm not writing this to be hostile. It is simply a statement that the "good ol' days" were not really so good afterall.

I dabble in a blog featuring $1 meals. I get snide quips from people criticizing "oh, but are you taking costs of running a gas/electric stove into account? betcha haven't taken THAT into account!" So...several meals posted (or coming soon) are indeed cooked over an open fire of random deadwood.

So lighten up. The query is a half-serious challenge to go a step further. Those of us who HAVE lived without Internet for significant periods know it's not that big a deal (though not trying to trivialize it either) and think a good comparable exercise IS to shut off the main breaker, shred the credit cards, and shift into a lower gear for a while. Sounds harsh to some, sounds like a delightful challenge to others.

Clearly I need to stop taking everything so serious.

Meanwhile, we'll be laughing about it.