Aha?
I know what it is that bugs me about the backchannel. I think. Let me write it down and see if I’ve got it right.
Individual people tune out of presentations individually, and do individual things to cope with their boredom (or their two-track nature, whichever). This is inevitable—and what’s more, it’s okay. It doesn’t threaten a presenter’s status as The Important Thing Going On In The Room.
On a large scale, it can, because bored or otherwise-occupied humans throw off body language that affects others, however subliminally. Even so. Basic point is, individual disaffection doesn’t threaten the group activity.
But a backchannel? Could well be more absorbing than a presentation, for reasons that have little to do with the nature or quality of the presentation. We’re spastic sorts, we humans. We prefer running our mouths to running our ears. Can even good presentations stand up to that? Should we really ask them to?
Yep. Yep, I think that’s it. That’s what’s buggin’ me.
Co-optation of the backchannel by the speaker—the so-called “official” backchannel—appears to be the socially-blessed way out thus far. Forbidding backchanneling leads to backlash, and is probably pointless anyway.
Wi-Fi jammers, anyone?