stranger danger no more (on the web)

I type this fairly certain that you (the reader) have signed into a google account in order to access this blog site, and therefore know that I am preaching to the choir. That said, my request is reducing the number of anonymous human interactions we have online.

Anonymity in warfare

One of the greatest parallels I found between my topic and the later periods we've studied is actually a backward parallel.

Wars began very personal. The earliest familial disputes were likely settled with fists, until we fashioned clubs, spears and blades. Other weapons of war followed (cimeters, swords, clubs with spikes, etc.) but even into the Enlightenment, wars were fought in a very personal way. The invention of gunpowder then changed the way we fought.

We discussed the great destruction that came with WWI, as soldiers used the personal war-tactics they had always known. New technologies rendered old strategies obsolete. Because no one was prepared for this new brand of warfare many soldiers died.

The destruction was compounded as technology evolved. According to many estimates nearly twice as many lives were lost in the second World War than the first. When one considers the bombs dropped in Japan or over London, the link between destruction caused by those weapons and the relative separation officials involved had with the actual suffering that followed, it is no wonder that trends move away from personal combat where possible.

(A caveat to this example is the world's shift away from chemical warfare. We recognized that some things are too destructive.)

As warfare moved from a very personal style of combat to anonymous killings, casualties have dramatically increased. When individuals are removed from the destruction that follows their actions they are less likely to appreciate the gravity of their actions – as happens by the second on the web.

We must facilitate a more deliberate shift from anonymous communications on the internet. Warfare over the years has submitted to the opposite, and the evidence of destruction is sobering.

Humanity in Human Interactions

While preparing for our last post, I had two interactions online: one on a traditionally "social" medium--Twitter, and the other on a more anonymous site--Reddit.

There was a distinct difference in the quality of ideas exchanged, and I believe much of this had to do with the responsibility that comes with attaching your name to posts.

Stay cute! (Like this thumbnail)

Millennials of all lands, Vote!

There are many issues with our current system of voting, but one of the primary ones is that there is a restriction on who can vote. People who do not have the time to stand around in seemingly endless lines aren't allowed to vote. The idea that people should vote because they have the ability to vote is a priceless enlightenment ideal, but it needs to be updated to the modern age.

Viral or Downward Spiral

What color is this dress?

Chances are, some of you see white and gold and some of you seem blue and black.

Last night, this dress hit the internet and online forums (Tumblr, Twitter, Reddit, etc.) went berserk debating the color of the dress. "Blue and black Camps" and "Team White and gold" started popping up, usually accompanied by #thedress. I first noticed the epidemic on twitter, where the only two trending topics were escaped llamas and the dress pictured above. I had been working for about five hours, during which time both dilemmas had risen to internet fame. The tweets at the beginning were fairly innocuous, most people were just weighing in. Did they think the dress was blue? How many iterations of "llow speed chase" could the active, tweeting community really come up with? But as I scrolled closer and closer to real time, comments posted became increasingly caustic. People spent less time defending what they saw in order to cut down whoever saw the other colors.

Ultimately the dress story will die down, but it illustrates a nice point and made my internet discussions with strangers a bit easier. In my last post I argued that we are too easily fueled by our passions and confirmation bias online, but after participating in a few Reddit threads and Twitter conversations I would like to amend my claim. We are likely fueled by the same bias concentrations in person and online, however, the platform of the internet facilitates fiery-er responses. Either anonymity or that degree of separation we are allowed online removes the human aspect of whomever we are talking to. Even as I was scrolling through different feeds to try and find a good place to begin conversation I cringed at most of the material I was sorting through.

My argument here is not any sort of regulation of anonymous comments, rather a call for ideas. How can we fundamentally change the way we think? How can we, in the future, look at comments online and see the person who wrote the comment before we see the potential argument?

Professor Burton also took part in the conversation after class on Wednesday, at my request, and provided an interesting suggestion: rather than regulate content, write "codes of conduct" into literal codes (and I'm paraphrasing). But what if we actually wrote into the codes of programs that would... say... bring a comment that got more likes to the top of a feed? That way most of the filthy comments could sink to the bottom and be ignored. Of course there are problems with a model this simple, but isn't it an intriguing idea? In one of my discussions I brought this up, and the user cited the app YikYak. For those unfamiliar with the app, it is essentially an anonymous Twitter for your geographic area. All user posts are anonymous, but if any post gets five "down" votes, it is deleted from the site and those with more "up" votes can be found on popular pages.

Even this has its problems, and after a few days of trying out the app I deleted it for wont of content worth scrolling through.

Perhaps as the internet continues to develop and we as individuals become more "programmed" into our profiles and as we become more comfortable with relationships that are strictly digital, we will be able to recognize the humanity of those we interact with on the internet. And perhaps when they are more human, we will maintain a decorum more similar to that which we carry on in physical debates and will blog with the understanding somebody thinks that the opposite side of your argument is valid, and maybe even consider not typing that thing at all if it isn't nice. 

In the meantime, the next time you are tempted to write a disparaging blog post that has the potential to go viral, or tweet an insult that tells the white and gold team that they must see white and gold because they are depressed, remember who the other side is and ask yourself if you would start that conversation face–to–face.

Internet Epistemology

The Enlightenment inspired us to ask ourselves how we know what we know, an ideology that we sometimes sweep under the rug. A change that is necessary, particularly in our internet age, is asking ourselves where we learned what we know.

The advent of mass media facilitated unearned credibility. It began with the printing press and has found its new home on the web–particularly in the blogosphere. I am not arguing that these sources should always be ignored, but the effulgence of the knowledge of those authors caught in the throws of their own passions is lost. Their watchers, readers, subscribers often only pass on base, emotional rhetoric.


Beyond this, information cherry-picking is easier than ever. Demassification of mass media has created niches in which validation for any worldview, opinion, or "best family recipe" is not only available, but readily accessible.

I understand confirmation bias has been and will continue to be an integral piece of individual development. However, moving forward with more information more accessible than ever, we must train ourselves to be vigilant in the media that we consume, particularly when it is more driven my emotion than reason. A professor recently relayed a caution about searching for news media, "if there is more heat than light, it is useless."

The next time you hear or are tempted to say, "I read in an article that..." remember that Facebook friend who authors a popular blog. We must fundamentally change what we consider credible, or at the very least take more grains of salt rather than spoonfuls of sugar with our information.

Credibility on the Internet

While the amount of money and time put into shopping sight unseen had increased with the introduction of internet vendors, the thought behind the spending has not, and this is a problem. Someone in the late 1800s ordering a stove from the Sears catalog could depend on the reputation of the company in a way that someway putting their credit card information into an obscure website cannot, and yet they make the purchases with the same amount of trust. Studies have shown that 88% percent of online shoppers will trust a review like they would trust the recommendation of a friend.

That people present truth through the Internet

Montaigne begins an essay with, "No man is free from speaking foolish things; but the worst on't is, when a man labours to play the fool." The growing ability to share information and communicate all over the world presents an interesting dilemma. The ease of access to the Internet allows anyone to present anything. He can create an article with false information or even a false personality. Many social sites have avatars that represent their users. This is an opportunity to create the "perfect person" representing what the user wishes he were or what he believes he truly is.

Our society is being negatively impacted because the true idea of human worth is being compromised. The Renaissance birthed the idea of "what a piece of work is man" to celebrate the individual and his accomplishments, but now the tendency is to hide behind an invented face with an invented personality because the inventor believes himself to be boring or unsuccessful. In essence, he is laboring "to play the fool." Beyond this, fake relationships develop and ties that link family and community weaken.

This new style of representing oneself merits some respect, however. The Renaissance also brought with the idea of exploring new worlds. Today most of the land area on Earth is known. Instead we have begun to explore the digital world. Full of information and beyond real experiences, we now can enter fantastical worlds that only existed in dreams before now. The ability to redefine oneself and then interact with other uniquely designed personalities give us an opportunity that the real world does not produce. Without an aviator's degree, I have flown an airplane. Without having to buy a ticket and travel to a different state I have attended concerts. I have even traveled to far away galaxies and observed a pair of stars that orbit each other.

The Internet is a sandbox of limitless creation. Dishonesty abounds but so does creativity. Who we are influences what we create and what we create influences who we are.

Anarchy and technology

Anarchy. It's that unusual and undesired state where there is an obvious lack of order and/or authority (Definition). We've all heard it stories and ideas before, one of the most memorable coming from the Dark knight (Authority). "All you have to do is introduce a little anarchy, and everything becomes chaos." This strange phenomenon has been a major factor in the decay and destruction of a number of once proud civilizations, including the Roman empire and the Russian monarchy (Precedent). It continues to be a factor in our day as well, although the rules of the game have changed.

Reports say that as the digital age continues to advance, we are slowly isolating themselves into our own individual worlds (Document). The internet has become a medium for people to connect, yet it also forces us to remain distant (Cause/effect, Contradictions). While this is obvious physically, it works on us in our mental behaviors and social interactions as well. We grow more agitated through trolls, more cynical and heartless due to anonymity, and it shows in media and everyday life (more Cause/effect,). Anarchy does not necessarily mean that an uprising will occur as in past times, although that remains ever a present threat (Past fact/Future fact). It is also quite plausible that we will become so focused on our own little worlds the real world will no longer be of importance to us. Through that, it may be that government and society as they are currently defined could dissipate as we know it (Antecedent and Consequence). Perhaps this is the way the world ends. "Not with a bang but a whimper" (Maxim/Proverb).

As plausible as it may be, it isn't necessarily the outcome (Possible/Impossible). The internet also holds the potential usage to link people together over distances not feasible by the real world alone. I can talk to my friend in Japan and message my sister in L.A. all while sitting in a bakery in Germany. There is power for good and order that is unlock-able through this means, just as there is for destructive chaos (Similarity/difference). Where will it all end up? That remains to be seen as the world continues to engross itself in virtual reality. Now that this is finished, on to Youtube to be sucked in myself...