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.
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."
You really need to read more Tom Friedman before you go foaming off at the mouth, specifically "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", one of the best books ever written about globalization.
Friedman completely realizes the power of the Internet, but that doesn't refute for ONE MINUTE the points he made. The Internet is, by and large, a refuse-ridden electronic drooling cup, and we haven't BEGUN to tap its power for good yet. There is no doubt in my mind (or Friedman's, if you read his book) that we can do so.
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.
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.