Opinion Piece: The Internet; Good or Bad?
Debates about the internet are often polarized between optimism and pessimism, however, skepticism is a useful approach often thrown to the wayside. It is possible to have optimistic expectations for a device as revolutionary as the internet, yet question its effectiveness, study its consequences, and document its shortcomings. The only road map by which we can judge whether or not we will retain the ability to individually represent ourselves and continue our traditional journalistic methods in the age of the world wide web, argues Naughton in Chapter 1 of From Gutenberg to Zuckerberg, is history and our imperfect analysis of it. In the meantime, our only viable option is to study this new form of communication and how we are influenced by it. Coming to a conclusion on whether or not the pros of it outweigh the cons depends on what we aim to get out of using it, and that objective is yet to be defined.
Before we can answer the question of whether or not we will be able to dominate or be dominated by technology, or more specifically the internet, we must first define what it means to do both. For society to dominate the internet, this would ideally mean that the underlying purpose of it would need to be for the good of society. Specifically, the internet’s purpose would be to serve us. Considering that a main function of it is as a medium on which meaningful operations can be conducted on, with one of the most meaningful operations being the spread of information, it would be easy for it to fall into the wrong hands if it everything on it is expected to be true. Take for example the point that Stephen Bijan makes in his article “Get Up, STAND UP; How Black Lives Matter is rebooting the civil rights movement for the 21st century;” the internet can be used to bring attention to pretty much anything. It is a useful platform to raise awareness and call for social and civil change. However, people can and will never not lie on the internet. A skeptic's point of view would remain quintessential to approaching it because, as we know, as we know, it is just as easy to spread true information as it is to do so with deceit. Other types of organizations could just as easily seize the internet’s attention to promote their own agenda, and in this time of sensationalism and news nebulousness, journalism as we know it faces a major threat.
Human nature has always been progressive. We exploit everything around us in order to move forward. With that in mind, it is logical that the profit motive is what drives capitalist environments. Boundaries, however, are necessary to avoid corruption. The problem with the internet is that there are none. Corporations like Amazon, Facebook, YouTube, and the like certainly make enormous profits, however, they are capitalizing on the attention spans of their user bases. A pessimist might say that corporations like Amazon and Facebook are sacrilegious to the founding principles of the internet because they are monopolizing resources like shopping and communication instead of allowing for a free and open market.This shifts the profitability and utility from the actual population making use of the internet to a handful of people. Thus a pessimist would also argue that we are being dominated on the surface by the influence of the media but subtly by the influence of the agendas of these behemoths, which have made themselves rich on the omniscience we have given them by providing them with our data. James Marcus, an ex-employee of the Amazon conglomerate, recalls feeling uncertain about what the consequences would be in Steve Wasserman’s article “The Amazon Effect,” saying the concept of it felt like “either a Utopian daydream or a targeted-marketing nightmare.” Whether or not this is a malevolent approach to “giving the people what they want” depends on how useful the population finds it and whether or not the goal of these corporations will shift from merely making a profit to more sinisterly gaining control of how and what people think.
On the flip side, an internet optimist would argue that the services these companies offer are more so useful tools than a money-making or power-grabbing scheme; the fact that they offer profits to their operators is just a bonus, and we do have our trusty old government after all to regulate what they’re allowed to do.. An optimist might agree that we can dominate the internet in a financial sense because everyone has a shot at using it to make money. A skeptic might question who “everyone” in this case, and they might conclude that it is only really the small group of people actually profiting from harnessing our attention spans. Journalism, or more precisely news, can’t thrive in an environment where information is bought and sold because it cannot be exclusive. Naughton would likely argue that, similar to a newspaper, for anything to be “powerful” on the internet it must have a large user base and a high quality product or service it provides. For example, he compares people using social media to spread ideas and prompt change to how Martin Luther used the printing press to publish and spread his ideas relatively rapidly amongst a large group of people, leading to the foundation of Lutheranism and the launching of the Protestant reformation. Compare this to the #BlackLivesMatter movement, or any of the other social movements founded upon the widespread sharing of information on the internet and supported by the number of people that support them. There are infinite opportunities for infinite more modern Protestant reformations to occur today.
The internet has and will change many more of the traditions, ideas, and practices that we as a society have become accustomed to. Whether or not those changes will have a positive impact depends on how its purpose is interpreted by its users, how they decide to actually use it, and what kinds of boundaries are implemented upon it. If we choose to use the internet as it was intended, it will serve us instead of being used to serve those that have learned to monetize our use of it. For this to happen, boundaries are necessary. If every color is used to fill the empty space on a page, it will become saturated in one muddy color. However, if colors fill spaces defined by lines, an image will be created. This is why a middle ground must be found that does not blow out of proportion but also tailors the right of people to speak out, transmit information, do business, and advertise on the internet. We must guide ourselves into using it to serve not only media conglomerates and shady information vendors, but also all of the regular people like us that use it.
Before we can answer the question of whether or not we will be able to dominate or be dominated by technology, or more specifically the internet, we must first define what it means to do both. For society to dominate the internet, this would ideally mean that the underlying purpose of it would need to be for the good of society. Specifically, the internet’s purpose would be to serve us. Considering that a main function of it is as a medium on which meaningful operations can be conducted on, with one of the most meaningful operations being the spread of information, it would be easy for it to fall into the wrong hands if it everything on it is expected to be true. Take for example the point that Stephen Bijan makes in his article “Get Up, STAND UP; How Black Lives Matter is rebooting the civil rights movement for the 21st century;” the internet can be used to bring attention to pretty much anything. It is a useful platform to raise awareness and call for social and civil change. However, people can and will never not lie on the internet. A skeptic's point of view would remain quintessential to approaching it because, as we know, as we know, it is just as easy to spread true information as it is to do so with deceit. Other types of organizations could just as easily seize the internet’s attention to promote their own agenda, and in this time of sensationalism and news nebulousness, journalism as we know it faces a major threat.
Human nature has always been progressive. We exploit everything around us in order to move forward. With that in mind, it is logical that the profit motive is what drives capitalist environments. Boundaries, however, are necessary to avoid corruption. The problem with the internet is that there are none. Corporations like Amazon, Facebook, YouTube, and the like certainly make enormous profits, however, they are capitalizing on the attention spans of their user bases. A pessimist might say that corporations like Amazon and Facebook are sacrilegious to the founding principles of the internet because they are monopolizing resources like shopping and communication instead of allowing for a free and open market.This shifts the profitability and utility from the actual population making use of the internet to a handful of people. Thus a pessimist would also argue that we are being dominated on the surface by the influence of the media but subtly by the influence of the agendas of these behemoths, which have made themselves rich on the omniscience we have given them by providing them with our data. James Marcus, an ex-employee of the Amazon conglomerate, recalls feeling uncertain about what the consequences would be in Steve Wasserman’s article “The Amazon Effect,” saying the concept of it felt like “either a Utopian daydream or a targeted-marketing nightmare.” Whether or not this is a malevolent approach to “giving the people what they want” depends on how useful the population finds it and whether or not the goal of these corporations will shift from merely making a profit to more sinisterly gaining control of how and what people think.
On the flip side, an internet optimist would argue that the services these companies offer are more so useful tools than a money-making or power-grabbing scheme; the fact that they offer profits to their operators is just a bonus, and we do have our trusty old government after all to regulate what they’re allowed to do.. An optimist might agree that we can dominate the internet in a financial sense because everyone has a shot at using it to make money. A skeptic might question who “everyone” in this case, and they might conclude that it is only really the small group of people actually profiting from harnessing our attention spans. Journalism, or more precisely news, can’t thrive in an environment where information is bought and sold because it cannot be exclusive. Naughton would likely argue that, similar to a newspaper, for anything to be “powerful” on the internet it must have a large user base and a high quality product or service it provides. For example, he compares people using social media to spread ideas and prompt change to how Martin Luther used the printing press to publish and spread his ideas relatively rapidly amongst a large group of people, leading to the foundation of Lutheranism and the launching of the Protestant reformation. Compare this to the #BlackLivesMatter movement, or any of the other social movements founded upon the widespread sharing of information on the internet and supported by the number of people that support them. There are infinite opportunities for infinite more modern Protestant reformations to occur today.
The internet has and will change many more of the traditions, ideas, and practices that we as a society have become accustomed to. Whether or not those changes will have a positive impact depends on how its purpose is interpreted by its users, how they decide to actually use it, and what kinds of boundaries are implemented upon it. If we choose to use the internet as it was intended, it will serve us instead of being used to serve those that have learned to monetize our use of it. For this to happen, boundaries are necessary. If every color is used to fill the empty space on a page, it will become saturated in one muddy color. However, if colors fill spaces defined by lines, an image will be created. This is why a middle ground must be found that does not blow out of proportion but also tailors the right of people to speak out, transmit information, do business, and advertise on the internet. We must guide ourselves into using it to serve not only media conglomerates and shady information vendors, but also all of the regular people like us that use it.
Comments
Post a Comment