FeiyangDouFirstEssay 3 - 27 Dec 2021 - Main.FeiyangDou
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
Will We Take Our Freedom Back from the Internet? | |
< < | In the era of the Internet, we are all pets fed by those Internet Giants. We trade the convenience, illusive relief, and instant pleasure with our privacy, attention and wisdom. This is the best of times also the worst of times. Will this change in the future and how long will it take? | > > | In the era of the Internet, we are all pets fed by those Internet Giants. We trade the convenience, instant pleasure, and illusive feeling of relief and security with our privacy, attention, and wisdom. This is the best of times also the worst of times. Will this change in the future and how long will it take? | |
1. Freedom is easier to lose | |
Stealing away our freedom can be such an easy thing when we are treated like pets instead of slaves. Slaves take the fight against the cruel deprivation since they don’t have much to lose, but pets enjoy the confinement without knowing what has been taken away. | |
< < | On the one hand, we are provided with all kinds of information and contents that are everywhere and have strong sensory stimulation. When our attention as a limited resource is caught or kidnapped by unexpected Pop-ups, eye-catching headings, and all those popular but superficial topics and contents, it is more unlikely for us to notice what we are losing when enjoying these additive services. | > > | On the one hand, we are provided with all kinds of information and contents that are everywhere and have strong sensory stimulation. Our attention as a limited resource is caught or kidnapped by unexpected Pop-ups, eye-catching headings, and all those popular but superficial topics and contents. Our relationship with others is built on and even relies on all kinds of social media. It is more unlikely for us to think seriously about the long-term effects before enjoying these additive services.
Also, unlike physical freedom, the freedom (including privacy and our self-development) taken by the Internet is such an intangible thing that there are no obvious or warning hints and people have no feelings or knowledge of losing them. | | | |
< < | Also, our freedom (including privacy and our self-development) is such an intangible thing with almost no hints or warnings of losing them that it can be easily ignored and forgotten. People may think or hesitate for a moment before they turn themselves to the instant Internet fast food, but it’s just a moment. | > > | As a result, most people voluntarily give the freedom unconsciously. | | | |
< < | 2. Try making a change on your own? | > > | 2. Changes are hard to make | | | |
< < | It’s even harder for us to confront Internet giants’ power after giving away freedom. | > > | Changing the current deal is even harder than making the deal. | | | |
< < | Even if some people are conscious of the potential loss and would like to take more time to contemplate whether this trade is worthwhile and to what extent it will be in their best interest, this trade-off problem is so confusing that they can’t figure out a certain answer. | > > | People lack the motivation to make a change. Most people still don’t know for sure how they are negatively affected, so it’s difficult for them to assess the value of freedom compared with the value of the “benefits” get from the Internet fast food especially when the existence of potential or current harm caused by giving freedom away is indefinite, latent, and chronic. Seeking a sense of relief, pleasure, belonging and security is an inherent instinct of human beings. The fear about the invasion of privacy is mitigated by the convenience of getting a personalized exercise plan instantly; the annoyance with the targeted pop-up ads is eased by the excitement of the discount information; the frustration about being unable to focus is comforted by the sense of belonging when her online post gets liked. However, the loneliness of the failure to join her friends’ chat about online topics, the disappointment of missing the online sales, and the anxiety about not knowing the latest news won’t be easily offset by the "benefits" of enjoying the freedom.
What’s more, those “smart” Internet giants which captivate us have built our model of behaviors and created an ecosystem or network supported by their service. As a result, even if some people may acknowledge and regard highly the importance of freedom, attempts of an individual or small groups to save freedom are no longer an independent choice. Avoiding the service from the Internet giants also means a departure from part of their daily life and abandoning part of their social network, which makes the choice painful. I first learned the unreasonable and unfair part of this deal a long time ago, but I still don't have the courage to fight for my freedom. | | | |
< < | On a social basis, people with different backgrounds, social or financial status, intelligence, and personalities take different values about what we get and lose from the Internet service. | | | |
< < | On an individual basis, it’s difficult for a person to assess the value of freedom compared with the value of the “benefits” get from the Internet fast food especially when the loss caused by giving them away is indefinite, latent, and chronic. The fear about the invasion of privacy is mitigated by the convenience of getting a personalized exercise plan instantly; the annoyance with the targeted pop-up ads is eased by the excitement of the discount information; the frustration about being unable to focus is comforted by the sense of belonging when her online post gets liked. However, the loneliness of the failure to join her friends’ chat about online topics, the disappointment of missing the online sales, and the anxiety about body image won’t be easily offset by the effects of resisting those attracting service, since the effects won’t show immediately, but the “benefits” you will lose by refusing their service will constantly be reminded in all kinds of ways(either from the online pop-ups, highlighted hints or from your friends’ happy sharing). A definite and obvious loss versus an uncertain and unnoticed gain? Unless someone can prove in a convincing way that the latter overweighs the former, most people will hold their steps. Why bother leaving the familiar and comfortable environment when there is no obvious and imminent threat? | > > | 3. Will it change in the future | | | |
< < | What’s more, those “smart” Internet giants which captivate us with their service and our ignorance have built our model of behaviors and created an ecosystem supported by their service. Even if people may acknowledge the importance of freedom, attempts of an individual or small groups to leave this ecosystem are risky since people need to abandon what they have been fed and gotten used to in exchange for the threatened freedom which doesn't attract their friends, family, and colleagues. It takes more courage to be the minority without the feeling of security(even if it may be illusory, I tend to believe it’s in the human nature of most people) given by conformity.
3. Our governments? No way
What about our governments or some conscionable Internet companies taking some measure to return some freedom to us?
For governments whose main focuses are political interests, I can’t see an attractive incentive for them to solve this issue. This ecosystem helps achieve a highly efficient manipulation that is so inducive to the ruling. They may fight with those Internet giants under the name of protecting freedom, but sharing or taking the magic power from Internet giants and keeping the pets under their own surveillance and manipulation is what they truly crave. Relying on governments to help take back freedom is just a dream in my perspective.
Back to the question I pose, it’s a hard battle against those freedom takers which may take much time to fight( as we fight for global warming) and it may not win from my conservative perspective.
This is an essentially personal essay, premised on an individual decision whether to be in or out of a way of life that offers benefits and harms in apparently more or less balanced measure. But the missing person is you.
If this is an essay about a thought process that might be yours, why isn't it about yours? If balancing risks and benefits is what you consider this inquiry to be about, where is your proposal for learning how to interrogate that balance in your life?
There are reasons to doubt the extent of the choice. If you want the curriculum of the school to stop surveilling you, your teachers must agree to make that possible, instead of forcing you to use a surveillance system that has a side-hustle in curricular delivery. If you don't want the market to be surveilling your every purchase and movement, you have to use cash in daily life, and the State has to make sure your right to use cash isn't undermined or eliminated.
But if you want to emphasize the aspects of the situation that can be fairly characterized as matters of personal choice, it's not enough to show that choice is hard, or that every choice involves loss, or that distant benefits or harms tend to way less in human decision-making than harms or benefits that are immediate in their occurrence. These are all true, all of them the staples of maturation and the growing of wisdom in every human generation. Even philosophers could not rest quiet with such cliches, for in their presence still we must choose. And as a friend of mine once pointed out, the philosophers have only studied the world, while the point is to change it.
| > > | I believe that changing the current dilemma should depend on the efforts of the whole society. What society needs are more information and data about the significant harm caused by the loss of freedom. This information and data should be convincing and reliable (better with examples supported) so that it can be widely accepted. Only when most people see and believe the negative effects and realize how this game is unfair and unreasonable, can we gather the power to confront those Internet giants and challenge those nasty rules made by them and make our new rules. | | | |
> > | We need time and patience to wait, dig out and spread. We wait for the gradual emergence of the bad influence. We dig out more and do more research to gather proof for our loss. We spread as best as we can to convince more people to join the fight. I may not be able to fight alone, but I'll help to make it a movement or war. It’s hard to predict how long we need, but I believe it won’t be a quick battle and sometimes it may take some luck (for example, some unexpected popular accidents or mistakes) to make progress. | | | |
> > | Even if it is not an easy task, I still have faith in the bright prospect of this battle. Humans can never be held as pets because the need for freedom is an inherent nature in human beings and it is essential to define the unique identity of an individual. There will always be someone or some groups awakening firstly and influencing others. When more and more people are aware of our loss, the inevitable war starts, and will finally win. | |
|
|
FeiyangDouFirstEssay 2 - 30 Nov 2021 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
Will We Take Our Freedom Back from the Internet? | | Back to the question I pose, it’s a hard battle against those freedom takers which may take much time to fight( as we fight for global warming) and it may not win from my conservative perspective. | |
> > |
This is an essentially personal essay, premised on an individual decision whether to be in or out of a way of life that offers benefits and harms in apparently more or less balanced measure. But the missing person is you.
If this is an essay about a thought process that might be yours, why isn't it about yours? If balancing risks and benefits is what you consider this inquiry to be about, where is your proposal for learning how to interrogate that balance in your life?
There are reasons to doubt the extent of the choice. If you want the curriculum of the school to stop surveilling you, your teachers must agree to make that possible, instead of forcing you to use a surveillance system that has a side-hustle in curricular delivery. If you don't want the market to be surveilling your every purchase and movement, you have to use cash in daily life, and the State has to make sure your right to use cash isn't undermined or eliminated.
But if you want to emphasize the aspects of the situation that can be fairly characterized as matters of personal choice, it's not enough to show that choice is hard, or that every choice involves loss, or that distant benefits or harms tend to way less in human decision-making than harms or benefits that are immediate in their occurrence. These are all true, all of them the staples of maturation and the growing of wisdom in every human generation. Even philosophers could not rest quiet with such cliches, for in their presence still we must choose. And as a friend of mine once pointed out, the philosophers have only studied the world, while the point is to change it.
| | |
|
FeiyangDouFirstEssay 1 - 23 Oct 2021 - Main.FeiyangDou
|
|
> > |
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
Will We Take Our Freedom Back from the Internet?
In the era of the Internet, we are all pets fed by those Internet Giants. We trade the convenience, illusive relief, and instant pleasure with our privacy, attention and wisdom. This is the best of times also the worst of times. Will this change in the future and how long will it take?
1. Freedom is easier to lose
Stealing away our freedom can be such an easy thing when we are treated like pets instead of slaves. Slaves take the fight against the cruel deprivation since they don’t have much to lose, but pets enjoy the confinement without knowing what has been taken away.
On the one hand, we are provided with all kinds of information and contents that are everywhere and have strong sensory stimulation. When our attention as a limited resource is caught or kidnapped by unexpected Pop-ups, eye-catching headings, and all those popular but superficial topics and contents, it is more unlikely for us to notice what we are losing when enjoying these additive services.
Also, our freedom (including privacy and our self-development) is such an intangible thing with almost no hints or warnings of losing them that it can be easily ignored and forgotten. People may think or hesitate for a moment before they turn themselves to the instant Internet fast food, but it’s just a moment.
2. Try making a change on your own?
It’s even harder for us to confront Internet giants’ power after giving away freedom.
Even if some people are conscious of the potential loss and would like to take more time to contemplate whether this trade is worthwhile and to what extent it will be in their best interest, this trade-off problem is so confusing that they can’t figure out a certain answer.
On a social basis, people with different backgrounds, social or financial status, intelligence, and personalities take different values about what we get and lose from the Internet service.
On an individual basis, it’s difficult for a person to assess the value of freedom compared with the value of the “benefits” get from the Internet fast food especially when the loss caused by giving them away is indefinite, latent, and chronic. The fear about the invasion of privacy is mitigated by the convenience of getting a personalized exercise plan instantly; the annoyance with the targeted pop-up ads is eased by the excitement of the discount information; the frustration about being unable to focus is comforted by the sense of belonging when her online post gets liked. However, the loneliness of the failure to join her friends’ chat about online topics, the disappointment of missing the online sales, and the anxiety about body image won’t be easily offset by the effects of resisting those attracting service, since the effects won’t show immediately, but the “benefits” you will lose by refusing their service will constantly be reminded in all kinds of ways(either from the online pop-ups, highlighted hints or from your friends’ happy sharing). A definite and obvious loss versus an uncertain and unnoticed gain? Unless someone can prove in a convincing way that the latter overweighs the former, most people will hold their steps. Why bother leaving the familiar and comfortable environment when there is no obvious and imminent threat?
What’s more, those “smart” Internet giants which captivate us with their service and our ignorance have built our model of behaviors and created an ecosystem supported by their service. Even if people may acknowledge the importance of freedom, attempts of an individual or small groups to leave this ecosystem are risky since people need to abandon what they have been fed and gotten used to in exchange for the threatened freedom which doesn't attract their friends, family, and colleagues. It takes more courage to be the minority without the feeling of security(even if it may be illusory, I tend to believe it’s in the human nature of most people) given by conformity.
3. Our governments? No way
What about our governments or some conscionable Internet companies taking some measure to return some freedom to us?
For governments whose main focuses are political interests, I can’t see an attractive incentive for them to solve this issue. This ecosystem helps achieve a highly efficient manipulation that is so inducive to the ruling. They may fight with those Internet giants under the name of protecting freedom, but sharing or taking the magic power from Internet giants and keeping the pets under their own surveillance and manipulation is what they truly crave. Relying on governments to help take back freedom is just a dream in my perspective.
Back to the question I pose, it’s a hard battle against those freedom takers which may take much time to fight( as we fight for global warming) and it may not win from my conservative perspective.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|