I don’t know if you can call it a “tide of cyber-skepticism”.  The usual reaction is to dismiss Turkle as exhibiting a “Luddite reaction”. Consider this analysis from “The Observer”:

Turkle’s thesis is simple: technology is threatening to dominate our lives and make us less human. Under the illusion of allowing us to communicate better, it is actually isolating us from real human interactions in a cyber-reality that is a poor imitation of the real world.

Social networking under fresh attack as tide of cyber-scepticism sweeps US | Media | The Observer

I don’t think Turkle would put it that way.  Or if she would,  I would challenge it.  “Under the illusion of allowing us to communicate better”  is just the sort of statement that suggests that any analysis that recognizes improvements in communication as illusion is rightfully dubbed as Luddite.   Then,  “it is actually isolating us from real human interactions”  further communicates that impression. 

A “cyber-reality that is a poor imitation of the real world”.  Again,  ALL of that which could be deemed “cyber-reality” does not fall under the grade  of “poor imitation”.  There are advantages.  I can go on all day about them.  But this talk of extremeties is simply fodder for polarized arguments. What I wish we would do is focus on the actual thesis of the book,  as hard as that can become in many places throughout the book.  I say that because Turkle engages in way too much frontal attack before setting the stage properly and outlining the positives she might see.  From her earlier works ,  especially Life on the Screen (which came out before the mobile communications revolution),  I have to believe that she does see many positives,  and she has been on Twitter since the release of Alone  Together,  making that point.  But I am with her on the stand-alone  issue that there ARE potential dawbacks, dangers,  and compromises we are making with our innate urges to know and be known.

The subtitle on this article is the worst hyperbole in this debate:

Twitter and Facebook don’t connect people – they isolate them from reality, say a rising number of academics

That’s not Turkle. She  would NEVER say they don’t connect people.  Simply writing a book on how much of that connection can become unhelathy is  not in any way saying “They don’t connect people”.  That’s like saying “cars don’t get us  anywhere,  they simply cause accidents”.  That’s nonsensical.  What IS true about cars is that in order for them to be a positive and not a negative,  some responsibility has to be taken for safe operation.  Relationships are a complex, intricate,  integrated-into-humanity kind of thing.  There are numerous ways to abuse them.  For me,  the matter of attention to our friends and yes,  attention to the gathered community that should be protected.  In calling that to our attention I am not discouraging the exploration of how we might enhance or enable worship,  or connected-ness,  to the physically remote.  I just think we need to at least explore just what we consider to be crucial elements  and relational/social pre-conditions of a healthy, wholistic worship.  I see very little of this exploration in the church.  It’s either” all in” or “all out”  it  seems. Given the ubiquity of networked relationships today,  I find that gulf to be inexcusable. 

I am barely past the first paragraph in this article,  and already I sense that they’re going for the debate between two groups situated on the opposite sides of that vast gulf of “aware but careful”.

The list of “others” in this “tide” of “cybersketicism” are also listed with a brief synopsis of their arguments,  which seem to gather around the notion that we are losing our ability to digest or process larger  amounts of  information.  (That,  by the way,  also seem to be the general feeling of Aaron Sorkin,  writer of the screenplay for “The Social Network”)

Oh,  there’ll be more soon.  This is going to push my buttons.