The Illusion of Access

blurred image of people walking with open umbrellas over a crosswalk

We are more connected than ever, yet deep down I feel as if the distance between people has grown. We favor speed over quality, cultural context holds less weight in our exchanges, and we talk more than we listen, but at what cost? Through a short series of articles we will explore how connection, empathy, and trust are shaped, or strained, by the systems we build, the choices we make, and the conversations we neglect.

By Hans Sandkuhl, eolas – 10 minutes read

Living with constant access

Access is something that defines our era: Messages arrive instantly, profiles expose fragments of personal lives, and information appears searchable at any moment, creating a reassuring sense of availability and reach. When this access is constant, people start to feel they know each other, even before they actually do.

On social platforms, people see updates without having conversations. They like posts without responding, scroll through opinions without asking questions, and move on after a few seconds. Familiar names appear every day, though interactions remain limited to short comments or shy emojis. Messages arrive to you out of sequence, their tone gets often misunderstood, and pauses get finally interpreted as disinterest. Over time, people assume they know each other because they have seen so much, even though they have rarely spoken in depth.

Loneliness has grown alongside these tools. Research published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine identified a clear relationship between intensive social media use and perceived social isolation among young adults, 2017. Contact frequency increases, though emotional safety depends on depth, continuity, and trust, qualities that require more than availability alone.

Learning at high speed

Education shows the same pattern. Learners move quickly from one resource to the next, watch videos at increased speed, skim summaries, and bookmark articles they rarely return to. Courses pile up in dashboards, progress bars advance, some completion badges appear, even though little time gets spent testing ideas, asking questions, or revisiting mistakes to grow in experience. Exposure to information and knowledge grows steadily, while effort, repetition, and feedback remain limited and uneven.

Digital fatigue then follows. Constant alerts interrupt reading, tabs stay open while attention goes elsewhere, and study sessions break into short bursts between messages. Research from Stanford University, 2009 showed that frequent multitasking lowers comprehension and memory retention. Information continues to arrive without any pause, while your understanding only develops when intake slows down, and focus stays on a single activity long enough for it to settle. 

Microlearning often appears as a practical response to these conditions. Short formats fit fragmented schedules, disrupted attention, and constant expectations of productivity. They work well for recalling procedures, reinforcing existing knowledge, or quickly revisiting something already learned. In these situations, brevity supports action without claiming to produce deep understanding.

The real issue appears when short formats become the default. Learners move from one brief unit to the next, finish quickly, and feel productive, though sustained engagement with a single idea rarely happens. Learning starts to resemble scrolling, activity remains high, and reflection stays optional. If access feels immediate, understanding still depends on slowing down long enough for ideas to sink in.

Proximity without presence at work

Work environments show that same pattern. Collaboration tools keep teams reachable across time zones, calendars fill quickly, and messages interrupt the day without pause. Tasks move faster, meetings stack, and decisions get logged, even as fewer conversations happen long enough to check shared understanding. People stay in contact, though alignment weakens because explanations get shorter and assumptions replace discussion. Proximity increases, frustration follows.

Cultural context breaks down under the same pressure. Messages move quickly across borders without background or clarification. For instance, humor gets misread, priorities clash, and small misunderstandings accumulate. Anthropologist Edward T. Hall described this effect decades ago in his work on high and low context cultures, 1976. Shared meaning depends on common references and time spent together, not on how fast information travels. According to Hall, in high-context cultures “much of the information is conveyed implicitly, by context, shared background, status, tone, non-verbal cues,” while low-context cultures depend on explicit verbal or written communication.

Why presence changes the equation

Presence changes behavior in simple ways. Attention stays on one conversation instead of splitting across messages. People listen longer before replying, and pauses occur without pressure to fill them immediately. Decisions take more time, and misunderstandings surface sooner because they get discussed instead of ignored. When people respond quickly, they often miss misunderstandings, and when people slow down, those misunderstandings become obvious.

Education shows this shift clearly. Learning environments that allow time for discussion, feedback, and reflection produce different outcomes than those focused on delivery alone. Learners revisit ideas, ask clarifying questions, and see how others interpret the same material. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) publications on digital education and the Learning Compass framework published around 2021 highlight the limits of access driven learning models and the importance of interaction and reflection.

Social media follows similar dynamics. Smaller groups make behavior visible, longer formats force explanation, and clear norms limit performative responses. People notice when they misunderstand each other because the conversation does not move on immediately, which creates space for clarification.

Daily life reflects these differences in ordinary moments. Conversations last longer when phones stay off the table. Interruptions reduce, silence becomes part of the exchange rather than a failure of engagement. People feel heard because responses come after attention rather than alongside distraction. Trust grows quietly through repetition of these small changes.

Choosing access with intention

The tools people use influence how they respond. When systems expect fast replies, people answer quickly, keep themselves available, and move on to the next task. When systems allow more time, conversations last longer, decisions get discussed instead of logged, and misunderstandings come up before work moves forward. Fewer corrections are needed later because expectations were clarified earlier.

The illusion of access exposes a recurring pattern. People stay reachable, information circulates constantly, and contact increases, while replies become frequent and clarification happens less often. Messages get sent, updates stay regular, and exchanges continue, even as fewer conversations pause long enough to check what others actually understand. Once this pattern becomes visible, habits can start to change, instead of being taken for granted.

Different choices lead to different situations. When replies are not expected immediately, people take time to read and think before responding. When responses slow down, questions can be asked and misunderstandings get corrected. In learning contexts, ideas return instead of being replaced, and in relationships, contact leads to conversation rather than substituting for it.

This series returns to a small set of questions. What happens when responses wait? What shifts when speed stops setting the pace? What changes when attention receives the same protection as efficiency?

Connection improves when people stay with the same conversation long enough to understand each other.

Some sources of inspiration: