Communication in the Internet Age

[vertigo]

In the late 90's as we know there was a surge of interest in the internet. Suddenly people had this new tool, one could shop online, chat online, find friends online, set up dates online, etc. A consequence of the internet being functionally a broadcast medium is that everyone can be shown an interface to the same one service. Like with TV where there is one channel to change to if you want to watch a sport match or whatever, there is one site for one purpose on the internet and it brings together everyone who wants to use it. Whereas for instance there would be a need for many bookstores in the past, now one book store, Amazon, dominates all others. And everyone (in an applicable country) knows that they can buy books on Amazon, computer hardware on NewEgg, etc. Suddenly, we are all much similar to each other than we were before.

I say we are much similar to each other because suddenly we shop and interact at the same places and in the same ways. We buy things on eBay, we chat on MySpace or Facebook or perhaps on IRC. But what do we chat about? Because we are so much similar now, there is less to talk about. Of necessity, we see others as more similar to us than before.

Especially, the news is much more global now. Looking online, anyone can get the same news, have the same concerns, etc. It should be more easy to find someone to discuss something with if one wants to discuss something. But here is my point, who would you choose to discuss something with? Now that everyone is receiving the same information, there is nothing anyone can add except by means of a different opinion. But how can there be different opinions when everyone is receiving the same information? The only different opinions can be with respect to how one interprets the information one is receiving, but there is no evidence that anyone can point to to justify a different opinion because the same evidence is available to everyone, everyone has equal access to it.

So I think differences of opinion can be expected to occur far less often. Also, because everyone is in better contact, the opinion of the majority will tend to be with respect to the same evidence. Whereas before there was some control over what information people have access to, now politicians have less control. The only leeway is in the interpretation and the only way to determine how the evidence is interpreted is by controlling education or appealling to authority.

Controlling education has proven to be difficult. For instance, although people are more interested in green issues, they aren't interested enough when it comes to their own home, their own wallet. It seems that one can't be educated to sacrifice oneself but one can be educated to demand that others be sacrificed. So for instance, the "green conscience" can be turned against business but it cannot be turned inward.

Then by means of grand gestures, like having politicians in many countries interpret things in the same way, it can be made unfashionable for people to disagree publically. But appealing to authority can't actually go against the majority opinion in cases where it affects people personally. People can't be cowed into make sacrifices themselves, they will publically agree but behave otherwise in private. For instance, it will be difficult for the drug war to stop drug use because people personally don't have a problem with itand it benefits them. It will be difficult to get sportspersons to stop using steroids because they personally don't have a problem with it and it benefits them. Going against this brick wall doesn't work.

So controlling education and appealing to authority both have limited effect when it comes controlling individual behaviour, and access to information is, especially now, difficult to moderate. To be more effective, politicians must stop behaviours from being taken up in the first place because once taken up, it is difficult to kurb as noted above.

Given the current state of things, it is understandable if there is a progression towards greater control and greater moral authority. We can expect whether something is right or wrong to be blasted on all media channels and through public education. The goal would be focus propaganda where it must now be focused, on preventing people from trying or even considering doing things they shouldn't.

And of course, this would do even more to make people more similar to each other. So many factors have worked and work to make people more similar to each other. And again, people who are more similar have less to talk about, less to discuss. So while the internet has appeared to offer new ways for interaction, it has simultaneously worked to reduce the need for communication.

And because of the homogeny of the internet, there is nothing left to discover. For instance, if you care to play a game, there are many ways to satisfy that urge. There are emulated games of the past, computers games to buy online or download on demand, small browser based games of any type, online card games and board games, and many types of interactive games for those who want to play something interactive. There are even game worlds that one can spend all one's time in, chatting to others in character and such. World of Warcraft has its own in-game auction system, quite like ebay really, for characters to sell items. And it's all there, right now, if you so choose. There is nothing left to discover, you just go to Google, search for what you want, and inevitably, you'll find it.

So only experience is left to talk about, your experience doing X,Y or Z which others also have access to. But your experience cannot be expected to be different, really. It'll come down to preferences, what you like or dislike. You like chocolate, I don't, but there is no real reason for you to tell me about your experience eating chocolate because I can recreate the experience with no trouble. Most likely, I've already experienced it and there is really nothing to say apart from the fact alone that you like chocolate. That doesn't make a conversation.

Music is quite similar, there is only to talk about preferences but not experiences. Why should I want to discuss the experience I had listening to some song? Most likely, the song is well known, others have heard it and whatever I say about my experience will either be just the same as what the other person experienced or will indicate fundamental, irreconcilable differences between us. If we disagree, we are unlikely to agree.

So I think it is evident that communication is under threat in our modern reality because we have less to talk about. To keep it going, I think we must learn to tell other people our opinions even if they are different, and even if that they are different is enough for them to be irreconcilable. We should learn to accept and be proud of being different even if government propaganda might actively seek to make us more alike. Otherwise, we might eventually become like zombies or walking automatons, having no need to communicate.

I think communication is too important to lose and therefore, although I may be different, I'll seek to let others know that and I hope they will do the same. Disagreeing with me is just as fine as agreeing because this is becoming all there is to talk about. If we all agreed, there would be no need to talk at all, so be proud to disagree and wear your uniqueness proudly.

[Centurijohn]

To keep up the communication: I really don't think we've got less to talk about. We have got a lot more information to deal with and more people to easily talk with, and consequently more decisions to make than we used to before the internet. Even if most people buy books from the same store, the number of different books available is bigger than it has ever been.

Although the internet increases similarity, because people using it will necessarily have at least the very usage of that medium in common, it also leads to diversity, because of the incredibly vast amount of information it provides easy access to. More information means more questions. What's more, there are so many discoveries to be made, basically waiting for us to indulge our curiosity.

Everyone's unique set of experiences combined with our imagination result in plenty of potential for discussion. Google can tell you a lot of things, but it most definitely can't tell you everything.

[Sparx]

Yeah, although this information is available to all of us, one cannot get access to everything and embrace it at once. And communication is not really always about agreeing and disagreeing. Brainstorming is when people exchange and compliment each other's ideas, building a larger, more complete picture of a concept. Exactly because individuals uniquely interpret information and have different focus preferences, communication lets you see things from a different perspective and fill in the blanks - it makes your understanding of the world more complete.

Even if we assume that in the future, brain microchips would be available to replace the process of learning, one person cannot possibly act on everything he knows, even if he has become a walking Google. And because of the brain's limitations, one would not be able to know everything at a given moment - time and effort are still needed to focus the attention, and logically and heuristically connect the dots.

[Dil]

The internet can give one all the information one desires.

The question is, whether people desire the information. Those who want the information, were not hindered before, they simply went out on a limb to the libraries. Those who do not want information, who are satisfied in ignorance, have less of an excuse not to know about things, yet they find learning taxing just in general. So they don't look. Easy access does not give one curiosity.

It has been said that some people rather die than think, and have.

Those who are spontaneous and have a short attention span, are given more opportunities by the net to learn, indeed. But that just gives one trivia facts and does not discipline the mind in the way reading volumes does. There are studies which show a shorter attention span among young people. I do have it myself, I like instant gratification and reward. Online games provide instant gratification and reward. According to the Skinnerian model of psychology, and proven by experiment, the longer the time between reward and the act to produce it, the less reinforcement one gives to an animal. For example, the fact that marks get returned a few weeks after the fact means that it gives very little psychological satisfaction.

And because of the homogeny of the internet, there is nothing left to discover.

Au contraire, I believe the internet is much less homogeneous than the state run school education system. Schools mandate the curriculum, show me where a person's curiosity is mandated in curriculum. For example, schools will never show a good representation of anarchy and the net allows for the contrary opinions. I bet that there are more anarchists now because of the internet than back before the net. The net allows for people who would be marginalized in the classrooms to find true peers on the web. In short, freaks and geeks can hang with eachother here

I do understand what you mean by the consensual reality that the net produced, but it is less worse than television because the net is more interactive. TV just passively spoon fed people, while people on the net have to go and find what they want.

I am concerned about Google being the next god head though. It's quite orwellian already since we google everything and assume the information we get is all there is to be seen. Google could be repressing what it doesn't support or controlling our minds. The programming geeks have the power now and I hope they're more libertarian than the government. Because I have no fucking idea what to do about the google consensus reality.

[Centurijohn]

I am concerned about Google being the next god head though. It's quite orwellian already since we google everything and assume the information we get is all there is to be seen. Google could be repressing what it doesn't support or controlling our minds. The programming geeks have the power now and I hope they're more libertarian than the government. Because I have no fucking idea what to do about the google consensus reality.

If you are concerned about information being withheld and leading to many people reaching conclusions contrary to what you think, the thing to do is promote the information that is being repressed. The internet makes that easier too.

[vertigo]

Had some trouble with the laptop today, it wouldn't charge, but I managed to fix it, the power connector had worked loose, I needed to solder it. Anyway, now that it works I'll get to replying here.

[vertigo]

With respect to Centurijohn's angle, that people have greater access to more information so there is more variety, perhaps there is more variety than one had access to but it may reduce the total variety. Like look how popular English has become since the Internet happened. I don't think he can deny that variety is becoming less.

Sparx, so information is just a little more available but still needs to be processed in the same way as before? I suppose that is true but some of the magic has gone. We can preview the information before getting into it, which could not be done before. One can read what others say about it, for instance. Before I try skateboarding, I can read about how others experienced it in lieu of experiencing it myself. Experiencing it oneself almost becomes unnecessary because the outcome will most likely be the same. We aren't all that different, I don't think.

Dil, you make a good point about how minority opinions get a voice on the internet, that is very true. In particular, although things tend to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, the internet allows content that isn't dumbed down. Niche markets are available online. So it's not all bad, I suppose. One can talk about how one chooses to be different.

I don't worry about Google, they just show us what is already available. I worry about Wikipedia because some of the content is quite obviously biased towards present political interests. The silly thing is, when it wasn't like that, people used to complain that you couldn't trust it. Now that it has become like that (status quo), I don't hear those complaints anymore. It's like it should not be trusted if it offers an alternative viewpoint. That shows you how biased public discourse is.

So to sum up, the internet allows access to information that was hidden before but still present, but a result of the information being accessible is that people can judge better for themselves. They can also seek out others who think similarly, although we will have make the transition to seeing disagreements as perfectly normal or perhaps even good. There is little reason to talk to those who agree with you.

[Centurijohn]

With respect to Centurijohn's angle, that people have greater access to more information so there is more variety, perhaps there is more variety than one had access to but it may reduce the total variety. Like look how popular English has become since the Internet happened. I don't think he can deny that variety is becoming less.

Well, if someone doesn't know English and wants to be able to use the respective pages on the internet, they will add English to the other language(s) they know. So you have more people knowing one more language than they would have without the internet (if that was in fact their motivation for learning English). You could say that because of that, people have one more thing in common. But OTOH, this commonality gives them the aforementioned access to a lot of information. You could also argue that because English is becoming more and more important, the variety of spoken languages is decreasing. But OTOH, speaking the same language facilitates communication, something you pointed out as being very important.

We can preview the information before getting into it, which could not be done before.

Sure you could read summaries of books before reading them or ask people about their experiences doing things before the internet. What was more difficult, of course, was previewing the content of some literature etc. the internet would give you access to in the first place.

One can read what others say about it, for instance. Before I try skateboarding, I can read about how others experienced it in lieu of experiencing it myself. Experiencing it oneself almost becomes unnecessary because the outcome will most likely be the same. We aren't all that different, I don't think.

So you mean that you are so good at visualising things that you practically need the mere description to experience them?

...They can also seek out others who think similarly, although we will have make the transition to seeing disagreements as perfectly normal or perhaps even good.

Do you know many people who see disagreements as abnormal?

There is little reason to talk to those who agree with you.

It is probable that since different experiences, points of view, and beliefs make discussions interesting, you've got less to talk about with people who agree with you about absolutely everything. But then, when is that ever the case?

[Dil]

I am concerned about Google being the next god head though. It's quite orwellian already since we google everything and assume the information we get is all there is to be seen. Google could be repressing what it doesn't support or controlling our minds. The programming geeks have the power now and I hope they're more libertarian than the government. Because I have no fucking idea what to do about the google consensus reality.

If you are concerned about information being withheld and leading to many people reaching conclusions contrary to what you think, the thing to do is promote the information that is being repressed. The internet makes that easier too.

Actually, my point was, that it's so very easy to use google vs. the old method of looking for books in libraries, that, people forget that there exists information that is not on the internet.

For example, if you tell someone something, and they don't believe you, and they look it up on google and find nothing, they automatically think you're full of shit.
Well, to be fair about that angle, often, if you can't find it on google, then that person was full of shit, but it isn't always the case. It has to exist in reality first before it exists on the net, information that is.

[Centurijohn]

Actually, my point was, that it's so very easy to use google vs. the old method of looking for books in libraries, that, people forget that there exists information that is not on the internet.

For example, if you tell someone something, and they don't believe you, and they look it up on google and find nothing, they automatically think you're full of shit.
Well, to be fair about that angle, often, if you can't find it on google, then that person was full of shit, but it isn't always the case. It has to exist in reality first before it exists on the net, information that is.

I'd be surprised if people actually forgot that google doesn't know everything. Have you had a lot of such experiences?

[Dominato]

Actually, my point was, that it's so very easy to use google vs. the old method of looking for books in libraries, that, people forget that there exists information that is not on the internet.

For example, if you tell someone something, and they don't believe you, and they look it up on google and find nothing, they automatically think you're full of shit.
Well, to be fair about that angle, often, if you can't find it on google, then that person was full of shit, but it isn't always the case. It has to exist in reality first before it exists on the net, information that is.

I'd be surprised if people actually forgot that google doesn't know everything. Have you had a lot of such experiences?

Actually... I would not be suprised if people forgot that there was information outside of the internet. In 50, maybe 100 years, who knows what technology will exist. Maybe all (or 95%+) of available information WILL be on the internet. With that said, I don't see the printed word going extinct anytime soon... it's just that I wouldn't be suprised if the internet had a virtual monopoly on information within my lifetime. Whether that is a good or bad thing is a totally different issue.

[Centurijohn]

Actually... I would not be suprised if people forgot that there was information outside of the internet. In 50, maybe 100 years, who knows what technology will exist. Maybe all (or 95%+) of available information WILL be on the internet. With that said, I don't see the printed word going extinct anytime soon... it's just that I wouldn't be suprised if the internet had a virtual monopoly on information within my lifetime. Whether that is a good or bad thing is a totally different issue.

Well, it is conceivable that we'll get to a point where a very big part of the information available will be on the internet, but expecting all of the information available to mankind to be on the internet basically means expecting every person who discovers or creates new information to share it via the internet and that no one interferes with the process.

[Dominato]

Well, it is conceivable that we'll get to a point where a very big part of the information available will be on the internet, but expecting all of the information available to mankind to be on the internet basically means expecting every person who discovers or creates new information to share it via the internet and that no one interferes with the process.

Agreed, I should not have even said all, because it is extremely improbably that all information will be digitized. However, I think it is very easy to imagine a world in the next century (or even the future in general) where over 95% of the information has been digitzed (or put in an even more advanced form).

[Centurijohn]

Agreed, I should not have even said all, because it is extremely improbably that all information will be digitized. However, I think it is very easy to imagine a world in the next century (or even the future in general) where over 95% of the information has been digitzed (or put in an even more advanced form).

Sure, but forgetting that there is information outside the internet would mean forgetting about those 5% and the dynamic of information-gathering I described above.

[Dominato]

Sure, but forgetting that there is information outside the internet would mean forgetting about those 5% and the dynamic of information-gathering I described above.

Of course. And if such a time does come to fruition, that 5% might be the most valuable and important information. Part of me is scared that this will happen, only because it will become that much easier for the government to control if almost all information is stored on one medium.