Commentary
The Evil In The Internet
- by Joe Marchese , November 30, 2010
But, as with all tools, there are negative implications we must be aware of, even when discussing something as seemingly positive as a "free flow of ideas." With every wall we break down to allow for the spread of positive messages, we must accept that there are those who would use the same freedom to spread misleading, hateful and/or potentially dangerous ideas. This is the price we, as a connected society, must be willing to accept for progress; however, acceptance of this price should come with a more complete understanding of the implications.
As media sources continue to fragment, there seems to be a general trend towards polarization. What I mean by "polarization" is a movement away from the center (unbiased, data delivery) toward a more editorialized, narrative-driven interpretation of data (see U.S. cable news landscape as a macro-level example). What is happening is the combination of three forces:
advertisement
advertisement
1. In a sea of infinite choices of information sources, people tend to gravitate towards sources that coincide or confirm their own beliefs.
2. Given significant competition as publishers of information -- and nothing is more competitive than the infinite web -- publishers tend to compete to appeal to people's differences and more extreme viewpoints, until they have locked in on a small enough niche audience.
3. Previously publishers with very extreme positions and speech, appealing to relatively small audiences, would find it difficult to maintain lower-cost structures around content production and publishing (near-zero for Internet-only publishers), allowing for more niche content.
You might have noticed that I have tried very hard not to define any of the above trends as negative or positive, but simply as what is happening. The question becomes what the impact of continued fragmentation of society's media sources might be, both locally and on an international stage. It obviously gets more difficult to have intelligent public discourse when the public is not consuming the same information, but diversity in information sources provides new and valuable viewpoints and makes total control of media and information by oppressive governments nearly impossible. An additional concern: if media continues to gravitate towards polarizing views, people will do the same. This obviously becomes most troubling with the publishing of violent extremist teaching, both religious and secular.
The reason I have spent so much time thinking about this subject lately is that I have agreed to speak next week at The International Youth Conference and Festival, a fantastic event in Pakistan. I would like to focus on the positive change digital media will have in empowering youth to connect cultures -- after all, a new friend in Pakistan is just a Facebook click away, and that has never been the case before. But I think it is equally important to look at the challenges youth face, given the amount of misinformation and biased perspectives available.
I'd really love to hear your thoughts on where things are headed and the impact of digital media on international youth culture. I will also be tweeting from the event from www.twitter.com/joemarchese
Also, if you haven't read it yet and you are at all interested in the topic of digital's impact on international affairs, I highly recommend an excellent recent essay titled "The Digital Disruption" by Google's Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen.
People vote with their tuning habits. CNN was this wondrous voice of news until they lost their audience, big time, to Fox. The lesson is not that we have more fragmentation or polarization. It's that for decades before that, we deluded ourselves into believing that mainstream media, reflecting norms of big-city nuanced thinkers, were what the viewers in flyover country really wanted to watch. It runs out that most Americans agree with the content on Fox, not CNN, because that the way they vote with their remote controls.
Great post, Joe. Despite our collective best intentions, there are many forces at work which are not well understood.
First, investment research dating back to the 1980s demonstrates any information-oriented business naturally becomes monopolistic over time. From Reuters to Bloomberg to Google, once consumers start using a certain data type en masse, single-sourced data becomes tremendously attractive. Monopolies may mean well but negative externalities, like the results of concentration of ownership, typically don't manifest themselves until well after the monopoly has been established.
Secondly, international ownership and oversight has exploded since ICANN formally handed things over two years ago. In particular, the notion of "sovereignity" is going to raise its head as governments demand data on individual user profiles from corporations who wish to do business in those countries. While it's one thing for @KingJames to keep track of negative sentiment, its quite another when China asks for the names and locations of people who have published unpatriotic statements.
The very nature of "hate speech" continues to evolve past mere comments and spurring on more sophisticated activities like flash mobs and Zero Day exploits. Against this backdrop, one may very well ask, "What is a patriot?"
Ask me again in a decade.
Freedom is not free. The price we pay for a "free" voice on line has increased the cost and for some people their total lives have been lost directly or figuratively. What will you add to the dangers of mis-information and lies, bullying, fake commerce, stealing information, the loss of privacy including FB when the questions arise? Will you extend caveats? Does morality fly higher than religion ?
Sadly Joe you've identified the truth: Despite hopes that the net would become a democratizing power that would yield benefits in the form of an open sharing of ideas around the world, what we're seeing is the balkanization of information. To your point: you can now gravitate toward any point of view that most appeals to you - and stay there. Blindly ignoring any dissenting voices.
What concerns me is wholly unmoderated comments on brand name publications including LA Times, IMDB, Huffington Post, MySpace and others to name just a few. Even the simplest reports rapidly devolve into ridiculous threads of anonymous ad hominem attacks and useless spam. These are public companies with Boards and Investors not some random newsgroup. They have failed their fiduciary responsibilities to mitigate harassment, intimidation and bullying. To me, this is the missing piece in the dialogue regarding "bullying". Just because you don't have some legal liability doesn't mean you don't have a moral obligation to monitor, curate and yes, edit, your content!
I think the alleged objectivity of the news media establishment has never been more than a thin veneer. Historically, the people attracted to the journalism profession have been among those the least likely to be issue-neutral. In one of the recent presidential elections, 92% of the national news media--that's virtually unanimous, statistically speaking--was behind one candidate. Such a news media establishment slants the news through omission rather than comission, so the slanting is much harder to detect. I think content consumers can be better able to judge what they are consuming when the content creators are wearing their stance on their sleeves. This "citizen journalism" trend is threatening the news establishment, and it is still fairly chaotic as it sorts itself out, but I for one am eager to see where it goes. I am more concerned about the execution of the content. The web turned everyone into a writer, but there was no editorial oversight. This combined with the sad and continued deterioration of our school system is lowering the bar for what is considered acceptable writing. I've seen numerous grammatical, spelling, and usage errors on major corporate web sites that would have made me cringe in shame had I allowed them to get into my high school newspaper.
"1. In a sea of infinite choices of information sources, people tend to gravitate towards sources that coincide or confirm their own beliefs.
2. Given significant competition as publishers of information -- and nothing is more competitive than the infinite web -- publishers tend to compete to appeal to people's differences and more extreme viewpoints, until they have locked in on a small enough niche audience.
3. Previously publishers with very extreme positions and speech, appealing to relatively small audiences, would find it difficult to maintain lower-cost structures around content production and publishing (near-zero for Internet-only publishers), allowing for more niche content."
Except for the low cost component in #3, there is nothing new here. People have always gravitated towards the like-minded, and locking-in on a receptive audience is as old as dirt (no pun intended). Nailing our rants to trees and lightposts is a time-honored tradition.
What IS different is the ability, via the Internet, to nail our rants to a whole bunch of lightposts, all over the planet, and all at once. Even the craziness of the 'Net isn't new. Remember Citizens Band radio? It, too, began as a communications dream, which quickly turned into a nightmare.
I think the real lesson that must be learned as we move through the infancy of the Internet is how to be much more selective in our choice and processing of the information we get from it.
This could prove to be impossible, given the huge amount of information available, plus the almost total lack of editorial control and reliable fact-checking of online information, and the regurgitation of bad information by the (what else to call them?) great unwashed.
Yeah, it's a very elitist point of view. But what the hell. It's the Internet, so I can always claim my account was hacked and some evil stranger posted all this, right?
"I think the alleged objectivity of the news media establishment has never been more than a thin veneer." I agree with Susan's statement.
I think the solution is simple. If we've never had much objectivity with media and information, then if we source the information correctly and describe it for what it is, then we should let the public decide for themselves what they choose to consume.
Historically, news and media outlets have never been unbiased. Let's use FOX as an example since it's the travesty all the commentators are eluding too. Would we have a problem with FOX presenting the information in a skewed conservative right wing POV if they SPELLED OUT to the public that's where there interests lay while they were doing it? Niche media is nothing new. I think the problem is when biased media is presented to the public as objective. Let everyone have their opinion so long as they are honest about where their opinion comes from.