| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
|
|
>
> | What is the polarization of society by the Internet? |
| | |
|
<
< | Polarization of society by the Internet
-- By RyotaSaito - 08 Dec 2021 |
>
> | -- By RyotaSaito - 08 January 2022 |
| |
1 Introduction
|
|
<
< | As discussed in our class homework assignment, "The Great Hack," social fragmentation caused by the Internet has become a worldwide problem. Tolerance for opinions that differ from one's own is declining (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/), and the polarization of society by the Internet has been accelerated by the echo-chamber phenomenon and the filter bubble. How should we deal with this problem? |
>
> | As mentioned in "The Great Hack," social fragmentation has become a problem in the world. Many people argue that the Internet, especially social media, is the cause of this social fragmentation. In this paper, I will attempt to examine the opinions. |
| | |
|
<
< | 2 Causes of the increasing polarization of society due to the Internet |
>
> | 2 It is natural for social fragmentation to occur |
| |
|
|
<
< | Why is the Internet dividing society so much? I believe that the reason is the increase in the number of media due to the Internet.
Before the spread of the Internet, the main media were television and newspapers. Families got their information from one TV and one newspaper. |
>
> | In response to social fragmentation, many people argue that fragmentation should be avoided. However, I believe that clichés such as "fragmentation is bad" are not really accurate arguments. For example, "diversity" is considered to be a good thing today, but diversity in thinking can be said to be division itself. Therefore, the argument of "how to solve the division" is a thoughtless argument.
Benedict-Anderson argued that "nation" and "people" are nothing but artificially created "imagined communities". As Benedict Anderson has argued, the nation-state is effective in the process of liberating the people from the rule of national despots and foreign domination, but on the other hand, it can also strengthen the sense of exclusion of the different, and there is a tendency to discriminate and exclude minority groups with different languages and cultures even in the same region. In today's world, where there has not been a world war for some time, it can be said to be a natural consequence that "citizens" who actually have different ideas and cultures (i.e., citizens who were not originally of one mind) are becoming divided. |
| | |
|
<
< |
Are you sure? I grew up reading at least two newspapers a day, as many other 20th century people did. I still read three major newspapers a day in English, though I read them online rather than on paper. I think the understanding of media diet has to be based on something more than number of sources.
|
| | |
|
>
> | 3 Society was fragmented even before the advent of the Internet |
| | |
|
<
< | Since networks were not as developed as they are now, the number of TV channels was much fewer than now, and if you went to school or work, everyone was often watching the same TV programs. Thus, before the advent of the Internet, there were few mass media, and thus, even if the information was not of interest to you, you were semi-compulsively exposed to it. However, with the spread of the Internet, the number of media has increased exponentially. This has made it possible for people to select only the information they are interested in, and to eliminate opinions that they are not interested in or with which they disagree.
Along with this, the senders of information have also changed. That is, in the past (at least in Japan), because there were fewer media outlets, the newspapers and TV stations of the time were representative of the media and provided news on a wide range of topics in a neutral manner. However, in today's world where there are many media outlets, newspapers and TV stations often express extreme opinions in order to survive. This is because the increasing fragmentation of the readership has created an environment in which extreme opinions are more likely to attract specific customers.
Thus, I believe that the increase of media through the Internet is the cause of the polarization of society. |
>
> |
The term "social polarization caused by the Internet" may lead us to believe that the Internet has fragmented society, but this is not the case. However, this is not the case. Society was already divided before the advent of the Internet. For example, in developed countries, urban development has led to the migration of new residents to the area, and the new residents have taken control of the area by abandoning the customs that originally existed in the area (sometimes the old residents are driven out by increasing the rent, etc.). This phenomenon has been occurring since before the advent of the Internet. In other words, society was divided before the Internet appeared, and the Internet did not divide society. |
| | |
|
<
< | 3 IT giants' promotion of the echo-chamber phenomenon |
>
> | 4 What is the problem with the Internet? |
| | |
|
<
< |
As discussed in class and in "The Great Hack," the promotion of social division by Facebook and Google is also a problem, as they acquire users' privacy and display ads and search results based on it, even though it is technically unnecessary, and encourage users to obtain only certain opinions by selecting what they prefer. In this regard, as we have dealt with in class, it goes without saying that it is desirable to limit unnecessary privacy acquisition. However, I do not think that this is enough to prevent the fragmentation of society by the Internet. This is because even if we limit the unilateral acquisition of privacy by Google and Facebook, the Internet allows users to select only the information they are interested in. For example, even major media outlets allow users to specify their favorite topics in advance so that they can set their preference to display such information. On the other hand, I also believe that we should avoid disallowing the selection of such topics in order to prevent the loss of user convenience. So, how should we deal with the fragmentation of society caused by the Internet? |
| | |
|
>
> |
As mentioned above, the Internet is not dividing society. Then, what is the "polarization of society by the Internet" that is currently considered a problem?
I believe that it is the fact that the Internet and social media have given individuals who were previously unable to transmit information on their own the tools to do so, and that this has merely made visible the diverse ideas that exist in a society that were not previously visible. I believe that this is the case.
However, in exchange for the advantage of having the tools to transmit information to individuals through the Internet or social media, the Internet also has a negative side. This is due to the echo-chamber phenomenon, which has already been discussed in many places. In other words, people with particularly strong opinions use the Internet to disseminate information, and this, combined with their radicalization, leads them to reject and eliminate opinions that differ from their own from the very beginning, treating them as "enemies. |
| | |
|
<
< | 4 Suggestions |
| | |
|
>
> | 5 Proposal |
| | |
|
>
> | As mentioned above, "social fragmentation caused by the Internet" does not mean that society is fragmented by the Internet, but that the fragmentation of society is made visible by individuals having information transmission tools such as the Internet and social media. I believe that this is due to the fact that people have lost their tolerance for other opinions. Therefore, I would like to make the following proposals regarding this issue. |
| | (1) Require platformers to show users that there are always multiple views on the subject of the information they acquire. |
|
<
< | As mentioned above, I believe that the biggest cause of social polarization caused by the Internet is the fact that users acquire only information of the same opinion as their own and exclude other opinions. This leads to intolerance of other opinions, which in turn causes social polarization. Therefore, it is conceivable to oblige the platformer to always show the user that there are multiple views on the subject of the information the user acquires. This would force users to be exposed to opinions that differ from their own halfway through the process, just as they were before the spread of the Internet, and we believe that this would increase their tolerance for other opinions. We believe that such an approach should be technically and legally possible without gaining users' privacy. This is because such a mandate is only an indirect restriction on freedom of expression, not a direct restriction on freedom of expression that would exclude certain views. |
>
> | Require platformers to show users that there are always multiple views on the subject of the information they obtain. This would force users to be exposed to opinions that differ from their own halfway through the process, just as they were before the spread of the Internet, and we believe that this would increase their tolerance for other opinions. We believe that such an approach should be technically possible and legally feasible without obtaining the privacy of the user. This is because such a mandate would only be an indirect restriction on freedom of expression and not a direct restriction on freedom of expression that would exclude certain views. |
| | (2) Consciously listen to opposing views |
|
<
< | Naturally, in addition to the legal and technical solutions of obliging the platformers mentioned above, there is also a need to improve the awareness of individuals. In other words, it is important for us as individuals to consciously listen to opinions that differ from our own. We should also educate our children about this.
The draft spends way too much time on presenting a familiar account of how "polarization" is created by "echo chamber" effects attributable to the engagement-maximizing social media platforms. It would be valuable to give some critical attention to the mechanism assumed. If the platforms are maximizing engagement with them as a proportion of the "attention day," is this displacing activities that used to "de-polarize" sentiment? Sensationalism was not the bane of well-meaning if somewhat condescending social critics, left and right, in the 20th century?
Another way to think about this phenomenon is to see the merger of the vernacular of the street with the distribution mechanisms only available to "broadcasting" (and therefore to consolidated capital and/or state power in the last century. This view need not deny the importance of the political economy of the platforms, or even to deny the existence of my Parasite with the Mind of God. But it does not grant the causal simplicity that this new mythology seems to depend on. I think that's a criticism to which both you and I should be responsive.
|
>
> | Naturally, in addition to the legal and technical solutions of requiring platformers to do so, it is also necessary to improve the awareness of individuals. In other words, it is important for us as individuals to consciously listen to opinions that differ from our own. We should also educate our children about this. |
| |
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. |