First things first. I am a huge proponent of the internet and always have been. As much as people will try and shout down an entire generation for having their noses in their phones all the time and pretend like theirs didn’t have their faces in papers 24/7 or watched the TV or listened to the radio – history is full of the latest thing being used as a form of escapism and condemned by the generation before.
The reality is that an unprecedented number of people now have access to higher computing power than was used to send man to the moon in 1969, all contained in a smartphone or laptop. A modern phone will be able to hold more data than a home computer could in any of our childhoods. That is the pace at which these technologies advance.
But, (and there always is a but) even the most ardent defender of technology and the internet has to admit that it has introduced a number of problems that would have been unimaginable in other eras. The concept of cyberbullying. The fear of missing out (FOMO). Looking at everyone presenting the heavily edited and carefully-curated highlights of their life and comparing it to your behind-the-scenes reality. It can be very easy in today’s day and age to feel inadequate or that you aren’t achieving anything if you get lost in the scroll. There was a saying from long before the internet that sagely stated that comparison is the thief of joy, and the truth is that we now have so many more chances to compare than ever before.
The main problem that comes from social media is not even one that (for once) they didn’t do on purpose. It is a combination of two very dissimilar nuances. The first is entirely technological – the mysterious algorithm. It’s the weirdly accurate way that all these sites track what you’re interested in and show you more things they think you may like. Most of the time, it works pretty well. You watch a few chess videos? Well, you might like these similar ones. Spend a bit of time googling for beer online? Here’s some targeted ads. It can also work against you. Say (entirely theoretically) that you need to play a number of relaxing compilations and birthing videos for a home birth – well, congratulations. Your recommended feed is now all Taoist chanting and bell chimes for the next wee while.
That feeds directly into the guts of the problem. Whatever you tend to look at, whatever you research and whatever you click on, the internet machine will send more and more of that stuff your way. With the greatest of intentions, this can lead you indirectly down a path towards the numerous echo chambers of the interwebs. With even the best of intentions, you can end up on pages, in groups and otherwise interacting with only people who feel the exact same as you do.
It is a jarring experience indeed to see an article or a video posted in two groups that are on opposite sides of the spectrum. One side of the issue will rubbish it openly, mock it directly and more than ninety-nine percent of the replies will be derogatory. Yeah, there will be the occasional dissenting voice but they will be circled round and shouted down. Then view it in the other group. Where it is treated as the second coming of Christ. Where it is infallible, truthful and a beacon of sense in a world of nonsense. Again, there were be the occasional detractor but they are similarly rounded on and out-shouted by the regulars.
What does that tell us though? It tells us that as people, we are the second factor in this scenario and, arguably, the most dangerous. Creatures of habit and easily swayed. Some people love to refer to the other “group” as NPC’s or “sheep”. The reality is that we are all sheep – we just might be in different fields.
This brings us roundly onto the second point here – the disappearance of the middle ground. It definitely seems from online interactions that most of the voices you hear are from one extreme side of an issue or the other. An all or nothing approach. Either literal Nazis or Communists. Ardent racists or Race apologists. Hardcore man-hating feminists or bitter Men’s Rights Activists. Now why would that be?
I happen to think it is due to a number of reason. The first (and strangely, the biggest) is that probably 90% of all people are somewhere between these two extreme outlier opinions on any given issue. The vast, overwhelming majority of people do not hold opinions that are anywhere near the fringes and as such, are far less likely to either care enough to comment on an issue or fight for a cause. This leaves the vast majority of interactions on any topic or issue to consist predominantly of zealots who care deeply about the matter in hand and are not afraid to insult, harass and threaten to back their cause.
What it looks like to the casual observer is that everyone within whatever sphere they happen to be in is some sort of button-pushing maniac who wants to explode the world and fight everyone in it over whatever the cause-de-jouer is.
As little as anyone would be tempted prior to weigh in with an opinion that is something like “I don’t much care either way, but here are my thoughts”, they will be completely dissuaded once they see the bile and vitriol spurted. A sad second consequence of this is that people who are marginally more inclined to one side or the other, if they wish to participate, will be forced to essentially ally themselves with the most extreme elements in that side of the discussion.
The only thing that is abhorred more than the “opposition” in any sort of debate, discussion or virtual duel is someone who refuses to nail their colours to either mast. They run the risk of being completely eviscerated by both sides – the side they disagree with will still open them up as if they were fully committed and at the same time, their own allies will cut the legs out from under them for not committing fully.
So what can be done? In short, not much. These technological algorithms work bizarrely well for their main job and just because some people get sucked down into endless echo chambers, the giants of the social media space are not going to rework their code just to avoid this side-effect of it. People who care the most and hold the most extreme opinions will always voice them more often and forcefully than anyone else – this was the case even before the internet. There is nothing that will change it.
The only viable option if you really want to defend the existence of the middle ground is not one that meshes well with the culture and nature of online interaction. You need to spend time in spaces where your opinions are either disliked or treated with suspicion. Commit to interacting in a meaningful way with people who think differently from you. And this is not a task I would expect anyone to undertake willingly. It takes either a strong wish to fully understand what others think and/or thick skin to brush off jibes and personal attacks but you may well learn something.
Granted, it might just be that some people on the internet are truly beyond salvation, but you’d still learn something…
