The Computer as a Private Part of the Body

case study #2, male, 2003-2021

James, born to tech-savvy parents during the dot-com bubble¹, was introduced to the Internet at age five or six through Flash and Shockwave games².

We talk about James's early experiences, including his move to the United States at age seven, where the internet became a tool for cultural assimilation and social connection. James recounts how quoting online content helped him make friends and navigate his new environment.

A significant portion of the discussion focuses on James's premature exposure to adult content online, highlighting the potential risks of unsupervised internet access for children. James reflects on how this early exposure may have influenced his sexual development and preferences.

We also explore how the internet became a private space for James, serving as both an escape and a coping mechanism during times of family tension. He describes using the computer as a "pacifier," allowing him to retreat into a digital world while maintaining the appearance of a well-behaved child.

James notes a shift in his internet use from active content creation in his early years to more passive consumption with the rise of social media platforms. Throughout the interview, James reflects on how his internet use affected his social skills, creativity, and worldview. He expresses concern about the addictive nature of technology and its impact on his ability to engage in real-world activities.

This interview underscored, for me, the challenge of regulation, even self-regulation: internet usage has become an extension of our interior world—it feels like thinking, private and unobserved, something we instinctively protect the way we might shield “a private part of the body.” This sense of intimacy makes us resistant to policing it, including internally, and certainly it creates difficulty with third parties (like parents). But herein lies the problem: unlike actual thoughts, which remain sealed within our skulls, internet usage is an external action. And this externality creates a vulnerability—because while we treat it as private space, it remains porous, open to pollution in ways that thought can’t be. There is no recommendation algorithm in our brains, after all.

---