Slashdot Mirror
Technology: Fueling Hatred and Misunderstanding
Red Leader. writes "This Thomas Friedman op-ed entitled "Global Village Idiocy" and this article by George Packer, entitled "When Here Sees There," both touch on some interesting observations regarding technology's impact on tolerance and understanding. My favourite quote from Friedman's piece is "the Internet, at its ugliest, is just an open sewer: an electronic conduit for untreated, unfiltered information."" We've previously posted the Packer piece, but combined with other story, I think it's worth a retread.
"...the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing the barriers to communication between all civilizations, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of the galaxy."
From the article:
"...integration, at this stage, is producing more anger than anything else."
Hmm...
Cheers,
Ian
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
The Internet is strictly a technical medium, with no inherent bias, filter, or viewpoint. As a result, all "news" has the potential to be more opinion than news, and there's no inherent correction for bias.
Take a look at the US for example, arguably the most tech-savvy nation of sophisticated media viewers on the planet. How many people do you personally know who take everything they read "on the web" as pure unvarnished gospel? How many people beileve the e-mailed virus hoaxes, chain letters, and Nigerian 419 scams?
A lot more than you'd hope, that's how many. And that's here in the US, where supposedly they'd know better. They don't.
Now take this human tendency to believe what's written, and take it to a repressive or technologically unsphisticated country that normally only sees the news their government wants them to see. Give them satellite dishes, but with channels that present events in the same fashion, agreeing with the prevalent viewpoint. Give them a media that exists at the sufferance of their host government, where if they stray too far from the party line they'll be shut down and possibly jailed. Give them no incentive to look at two sides of a story.
And then teach the citizens that do have access to more sophisticated and independent news your point of view so thoroughly that they assume that anything outside of that narrow viewpoint they subscribe to is just lies, distortion, and propaganda.
Watch what happens. We're even seeing it to a lesser degree here in the US - witness the rise of Fox News, the Washington Times, and all the specialty news presenters that have sprung up. People are not inclined to listen to viewpoints outside of their own worldview if viewpoints that correspond to it exist. Liberals think the media is too conservative. Conservatives are convinced the media is liberal. Both would rather get news from sources that tell them that their view is correct, and ignore the other side.
And we wonder how people can't see through the obvious (to us) bias on Al-Jazeera?
It's a similar problem here. It has nothing to do with the Internet per se, other than to say that it's easier than ever to confine your information sources to those that agree with you in the first place. What can we do about it? Very little, I'm sorry to say. The Internet is what it is, and humans seem to be by and large tribal in nature. I used to think that eventually all nations would be relatively harmonious, learing to live together as people from different traditions, religions, and cultures in the pursuit of happiness and prosperity together. But people don't seem to want it, and politicians won't let it happen even if the people did want it.
The human race is screwed.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Welcome to the real world, techno-idealists!
The Internet is nothing more or less than a global medium of communication. There is nothing intrinisic to the Internet that dictates whether what is communicated is good or bad, truth or lie, hateful or loving. The same is true of speech, writing, radio, telephone, or any other mode of two-way communications.
We are in a transition phase, where society around the world is still adjusting to this new, rapid communications medium. Obviously, there is a chunk of the world that has to re-learn the lesson of "don't believe everything you hear/read/etc--check the facts." Some will learn; some people will be perpetually gullible. That's life in the Real World.
By way of illustration, one of the nastiest, most persistant bits of inflammatory propaganda in the last three centuries, one that is still circulating and accepted as fact in some circles, is the infamous Protocols of Zion. That text, originally created by the Russian Czar's secret police in the late 19th century, circulated as a printed work decades before radio or television, let alone the Internet. (I believe you find it on the Internet, however). It was the basis of much of the Nazi's anti-Semitic propaganda, and provides the themes and lies for the current, virulent anti-Semeticism of the Middle East.
The point? The only thing new about the Internet is the rapidity of global communication; the same old evils are still here. On the flip side, the Internet gives everyone with access the chance formerly open only those who could afford global travel: the chance to talk to people in distant places, to read their local news, to hear their views and see their problems. However...
At the end of the day, the Internet is still only a communications medium. It won't magically grant you understanding of those problems, nor will it give you compassion for or empathy with people who face the same basic problems common to all humanity. Neither will it magically force you to hate what you don't understand, or brainwash you into believing rumors without thought.
The so-called "problems of the Internet" are the same problems people have always had with themselves and each other. That these two editorialists are shocked to discover this is rather like the French inspector being shocked to discover gambling in Rick's Cafe... one wonders what the ulterior motive is.
I believe in the strengths of a free press, for the same reasons as the authors of the U.S. Constitution--among other things, a free society is not possible without free communications/free press. I am aware that a free press has its drawbacks, but like the founders of the United States, I believe that an educated citizenry is capable of telling the good from the bad, and that, to such a citizenry, the downsides of a free press are no more than an annoyance.
I believe the Internet is potentially the most powerful free press in the world. I also know that there are governments and other interests that are terrified of the threat represented by a global free press, who would like to see it muzzled by any means possible. The excuse that an unfettered free press causes division and disturbs public order/encourages "agitators"/etc. has long been used by many governments to censor the printed press in their countries.
Traditionally, even the press in most "free" countries has been limited by the high barrier to entry: TV broadcasters have to jump through hoops to get government licensing and permission to use the EM spectrum, expensive equipment has to be bought, highly-paid technicians and support staff have to be hired, etc. Printed press requires a printing press, highly-paid staff, extensive, expensive channels of distribution, etc. TV broadcasters can't offend the government too greatly, or they don't get the licenses and spectrum. Printed publications can't offend the majority tastes too greatly, or they can't get enough customers to pay the cost of entry. Thus, freedom of the press traditionally belonged (as was once said) only those who could afford a printing press. It limits "the press" to a small, select group, and a small, select group is easier to sway to one viewpoint/keep under control than "everyone in the world with enough literacy to string two sentences together".
That's the threat and promise of the Internet as a free press: anyone who can get a website and the trivial technical skill to code a web page can put their views out for the entire to see, ignoring the even simpler methods of spreading news and rumors such as IRC/Usenet/web boards. It's still not a zero-difficulty barrier to entry, but it opens up the "free press" to an uncontrollable number of potential publishers.
As such, the Internet is a grave threat to governments and other bodies who have reason to fear a free press--either because their political model depends on a gullible, uneducated citizenry that only hears what it is believed to be safe for them to hear, or because they really do have something to hide. It is also a threat to the traditional press, who don't seem to welcome competition in their hard-won positions of influencers of public perceptions from a huge bunch of brash upstarts. (God knows they don't want the public deciding for themselves what is worthwhile news and entertainment!)
I ask again: what is the real agenda of these editorials? Keep an eye on whether or not this meme spreads, and what "solutions" are proposed and pushed to "solve" the "problem".
---dragoness
Actually, throughout most of the history of Islam, it was far more tolerant towards the other religions of the book than Christianity. For example, Jews lived unmolested in Spain while it was under Islamic rule, but shortly after the christians took over, the jews were expelled.
As for the 'truly horrific history', check out the history of Christianity - rampant antisemitism, progroms - and don't even get me started on the crusades. Oh, and while conservative christians in the US don't do suicide bombings (yet? Maybe they haven't got the guts?), some of them do go out and shoot people they disagree with - e.g. doctors providing abortions.
Perhaps if you put a little more thought, more research and a little less prejudice into your posts, we can appreciate your POV better.
As for the cliche about "Christians have shed more blood in God's name than ANY other religeon, ever," I would like to see a number --
... go figure).
As would I. Islam ran rampant across two of the largest continents in the world (Africa and Asia) and large portions of a third (Europe). Christianity has killed many, many people, but so too has Islam. Which is the greater offendor? I'd be curious to know, but I suspect the point doesn't really matter a whole lot. What is of more relevant concern is who is killing today in the name of religion, and Christians, as much as I despise their belief systems, haven't been engaged in mass killing since World War II, 60 years ago.
especially compared to belief systems like Communism or Naziism.
Contrary to popular myth being propogated by the Catholic church and other Christian groups, the Nazi's were not athiests at all. In point of fact, Hitler was a devout Catholic (which helps explain the Church's rather despicable collaboration in much of the holocaust), and the Nazi mysticism promulgated by their propoganda was a mixture of Christian and earlier European myths (including some real absurdities like Germans being descended from the original inhabitants of an asteroid that wiped out Atlantis
The only legitimate example of "athiestic" regimes engaged in mass murder is communism, though it appears little if any killing was done in the name of religous intolerance (though plenty of discrimination was). Far more was done in the name of 'national security' and petty politics, but even so, the communists simply haven't been around long enough to have committed anywhere near the number of atrocities as Christianity and Islam have.
You are absolutely right about the reformation movements, which Islam needs to go through rather soon, before they destroy themselves with their religious intolerance and, quite frankly, madness.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Listen up, people. We Americans are funny. The only reason we get along with one another at all is because we are too dumb to understand what everyone else is thinking and saying. We are all so certain that our neighbors are decent people, but we are not at all possessed of the necessary intellectual curiosity to investigate what the hell it is, exactly, that our neighbors stand for. And even if we did know what it is that our fellow Americans stood for, we'd be far too ignorant about how logic works and just plain too gutless to follow these facts through to their natural conclusions. We Americans prefer comfort far more than intellectual honesty. We dread the idea of confrontation so much that we don't have the balls to draw the line, even when there is no other real choice! And so the Internet forces you to come face to face with other people's real beliefs, with the personal facade removed, and everyone is so astonished at what they find: there are all kinds of people out there, really! What a bunch of dysfunctional pansies we've become. All the Internet is doing is forcing us to do things we should have been doing already: argue! Fucking ARGUE! What is wrong with that? Buck up, you fucking nerds. A little hostility isn't gonna kill you.
"Thank you, God, for your healing gift of religion."
"you don't see conservative Christians and Jews lining up to strap C4 to their bodies and suicide bomb their "enemies.""
Just a little thing I would like to point out. The violence going on between Isreal and Palestine has very little to do with religion. It's going on because Palestinians have foreign soldiers on their streets imposing martial law, bulldozing houses, to make way for their own people. It's called ethnic cleansing. It's happened many times in history, and it's quite moral to oppose this in the most violent way possible. Were Allied pilots terrorists because they deliberately targeted German civillians?
I hate to say it, but in an all out war, civillians are valid targets, because they feed and control their armies. Look at it from the perspective of a war. Palestinians just want their own land. Israel wants to kick them out and build houses for their own people. Suddenly this sounds very similar to almost every other war in history, because it's primarily about economics and property, and religion is a wonderful excuse and scapegoat.
Remember, it's every Israeli's dream to have a nice apartment in the West Bank or Gaza, without any Palestinian in sight.
I'm willing to accept, for argument's sake, the general case: that it can be easier to keep an open mind without face-to-face contact.
In the specific case of the inner-city gang member, I have to disagree. They tend to be as paranoid as the Kremlin or the Communist Chinese, and only slightly less so than us cops. It's actually a relatively rare one who's been more than five miles from his place of birth, not counting hospitals and correctional facilities. People who get drawn into gangs tend to have a worldview that almost denies the existence of a world outside of their own turf and maybe that of their rivals.
Smaller cities (like my own, a city of under 150,000 in Colorado) tend to have gangs with less of an insular worldview, but it's still a much smaller world for them than for us. And there's not a whole lot of desire to expand that either.
You also have to remember that a number of these gangs are multigenerational, and especially California-based Hispanic gangs. There are plenty of people who are actually the third generation of their family to be inside. Grandpa, if he's still alive, is decidedly a veterano and that's one source of prestige for his grandson.
I'll give the internet this: I don't see how it's making things worse. The nazis, communists, and other related scrotesacks may have an easier time joining each other, but it also makes it easier for the rest of us to watch them.