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.
It is no secret that groups that have increased contact with another group will find something to complain about. Romantic thoughts about a group are certain to be dashed with closer contact. Those ideals are likely to be supplanted by the worst stereotypes that the other group falls into.
In the South Central L.A. neighborhood, blacks who have no historical animosity about Koreans find themselves filled with anger at the stingy, disrespectful store-owners. The Korean store-owners, in their own right, harbor fears of the dangerous, thieving blacks. The result of this animosity was displayed during the Rodney King riots where blacks looted Korean stores with a vengeance and Korean store-owners shot back from the roofs of their stores.
Right or wrong, these stereotypes arose out of *increased* exposure.
I have been pwned because my
"...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
The only solutions to problems caused by free speech is more free speech. A little education and critical thinking can go a long way to dispell the crap that goes across the wire (or airwaves.)
Don't just listen to what is said, learn about who is doing the saying. If you know the motivation of who is doing the communicating then you can go a long ways towards determining its value.
How many people believe the car salesman when he tells you "This creampuff was only driven to church on sundays by a little old lady..." Look at the odometer, check the tires and check the engine. On every story you read and every comment you hear.
"untreated, unfiltered information"? Shock horror, maybe he'd preffer that The New York Times gets to filter our information for us? This is the biggest sin of liberal mouth pieces like the NYT, ommission. Read that paper and there's stuff you'll just never hear about, points of view they don't want you to hear.
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."
Here is why Tom doesnt like the internet - because it makes his job irrelevant.
See Tom has this really important job where he at the new york times tells people what to think and decides what information they should know.
But now the internet is here and people do not need to go to the new york times and their free fuscking registration to get information. And people can gasp form opinions on their own. Well then Tom's job is kind of useless then aint it? Running a ministry of truth while you have free information exchange is very pointless, noone will listen to you.
But the internet makes arabs angry and dangerous, because they see palestinians being beaten on cable!!! Now really, Tom dont you think that would be less of a problem if palestinians werent getting beaten by israelis soldiers all the time?
But its out of context!!! Well and what is the alternative? The New york times will provide the context? Of course not. The new york times will just not report it.
See thats the great think about the internet. People can provide their context. They dont need the official media to provide the context for them (ie tell them how to interpret the news).
but with the internet bad people find other bad people with like views. Big fing deal. I will always choose freedom of information over propaganda even if freedom of information provides speech to some bad people. It is not suprising that almost every oppressive and racist regime tightly controls information exchange, between its people. Cults and extreme groups also have real trouble keeping their memberships up when they cant control what information their members can access. In fact the best way to stop islamic fanaticism is to give internet access to most muslims (isnt ironic that Tom complains about muslims who are in general are not very likely to be hooked up to the net?).
Saying the internet spreads hate is stupid. Does he think that all this hate is due to the internet? Is it the gulf war with all its victims the internets fault? are the terrorist attacks and the bombing of afghanistan the internets fault? Were the israeli attacks on palestine the internets fault? How about terrorism?
There is adifference between the internet and the new york times that tom has to grasp. The internet will usually reflect the real world.
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
At least you have sites like /.
Intolerance and extremism may run rampant no the rest of the internet but not here!
Oh, wait...
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
I beg to differ:
These may not be "suicide bombings" but they are fueled by the same thing: fanatical hatred and intolerance.
Every religion -- even non-religion -- can have its zealots willing to do anything for "the cause." Your average Muslim, just like your average Christian, Jew, or atheist, is at least tolerant of other faiths. On the other hand, every religion has nutjobs that take its dogma to violent extremes.
You can ask your ISP not to carry sites that you find offensive.
And if we use the same ISP and I don't find it offensive, then what?
In the words of Metal Church, what gives you the famous final word? to think that your opinion is preferred?
Just like television, radio, newspaper. If you don't like it - don't watch it/listen to it/read it. Why should anything on the net be different?
Do I like pr0n? No. Should it be banned? No.
I am no so arrogant as to believe that my repressed, mid-west ethics should be the deciding factor in what is and what is not allowed on the Net. While I of course secretly hope (as do most people) that my morals would propagate and take over, I'm NOT willing to legislate that and destroy the right of others to enjoy whatever hedonistic or perverse content they desire. As long as it isn't violating any laws, it's not my decision.
And it shouldn't be yours.
Asking ISPs to not "carry" sites that I find offensive is the same as asking FOX not to air the Simpsons or my local radio station to not play pop-music because I find these things offensive.
Wouldn't happen and shouldn't happen.
Voltaire had the only right answer in these situations.
I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
You dont know which one of us on slashdot is a jew, hell I could be a jew, or you could be, or anyone here.
Because I dont know "WHAT" you are, i cannot judge you in an ignorant fashion. ALL i know is, you are human.
IF you are on the net long enough and make enough friends online, try asking them what they are at some point and be surprised when one of them is a jew, you could have hated jews all your life and find out one of your friends online is a jew and it all could change.
People who have never had positive experiences with jews learn to hate jews, I know some online and they arent bad people, I know some koreans too, along with south americans, asians, australians,
Its experience with all of these people, which lead me to the conslusion that all people are the same inside and diffrent outside.
The internet gives you a bridge to the religious, racial, and cultural gaps, the offline world does not.
An ignorant person hates the culture, the religion, or the race, but never the person.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
No amount of liberty to give up is ever worth a false sense of security.
Typical knee-jerk conservative response. Did you ever consider the following: No amount of security to give up is ever worth a false sense of liberty. It goes both ways.
Think about it.
Yes it does go both ways, in one version you have freedom and minimal security and in the other you have no freedom and minimal security. The problem is, when our liberty goes away, Osama Bin Laden will not be the biggest threat to our well being, it will be our own government. If you think the US government is above oppression of its people, I suggest you read some history, check out some books on how the government, in the name of security, treated the American Indians in the late 19th and early 20th century. While you are at it, read up on the fate of Japanese Americans during WWII and lets not forget the actions J. Edgar Hoover and Joseph MaCarthy. In all of these cases, freedom and liberty were taken away from American Citizens for a net gain of ZERO in security.
The Founding Fathers did not trust the government and neither should you.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
In fact, I think it's largely thanks to the canons of journalistic ethics (check & report sources, get confirmation, etc.) that we've managed to have as informed a public as we have in Western society as these practices at least impose some discipline on the "authority" that's providing information which people will inevitably swallow without a moment's reflection. So in a sense, we all owe The Western Press some small amount of gratitude.
However, Mr Friedman should really be directing his rant at the way we brainwash people into taking anything stated by someone wearing a suit, or on TV, or on the internet at face value.
I don't know how many times I've chastised my friends and family for forwarding inane spam about Congress on the verge of taxing email at 5 cents a message without even bothering to analize the claims for even the faintest patina of credibility (gee, according to thomas.loc.gov, that sponsoring senator doesn't exist, the number of the "bill" cited doesn't follow the bill numbering conventions for either house of congress, etc).
We need to find a way to teach people how to think. Of course, that's anathema to the power structure of our society (we can't have men between the ages of 15-24 realizing that drinking Mountain Dew won't cause silicone-enhanced sluts to fall from the sky and fawn over them, can we?) for that to ever happen.
This is exactly the problem - this issue is not cut and dried at all. It is intolerable that these so-called martyrs go attack civilians in the guise of being an army. On the other hand, there's ample precedent for taking up arms against your oppressor in ways outside the standard guys-in-camo definition, from Jewish uprisings in the Nazi ghettos to the American and French revolutions. And given that Israel has long used assasination and torture as tools of war, it's pretty hard to argue that this "war" has been kept inside those guys-in-green line.
If Yasser had set up a market system and concentreated more on the economic development of his people, rather than the extermination of the Jews, he might be worthy of respect.
This is an excellent point, Yasser Arafat does not seem at all effective in broadening the economic base of Palestine. However, the same point goes goes doubly for us and trebly for Israel, who are, after all, paying for all this monkey business. You want to see an end to the bombers, you gotta put all those smart people to work at something, or they'll work on their own plots and machinations. Food for thought, given that our foreign aid is 0.1% of our GDP (even worse if that 0.1% includes military aid).