Many of you might recall from AP Euro discussions that Gutenberg's printing press was one of the initial causes for the Renaissance, as it greatly facilitated the spread of new ideas and encouraged intellectual innovation and distribution. It disseminated existing ideas more effectively than ever before, helped create new ones, and fostered new argument.
Is the Web the new printing press of the 21st century?
Certainly, the Internet has made the distribution of information much easier than it ever has been before. It has been said that the Internet is like all of the world's libraries combined, only with the books strewn about the floor. But with the advent of search engines and Wikipedia, anyone can put up anything, and now others can find it.
Its power even now is still only being recognized. In government, our new President has promised to make the governing process more transparent online, and already there are numerous websites out there where we can peruse bills. Suddenly, there are no physical restraints on information: when you're going by bytes, not books, it suddenly becomes feasible to put all of the world's books online, as Google once declared it would do. The Internet has connected us around the world, allowing us to spread information faster than we ever could before.
And yet some argue that the Web has brought forth a host of new problems. It may have become much easier to spread information, but it also has become much easier to spread disinformation. A significant amount of the population still questions the scientific backing and validity of evolution and global warming, and many people still do not believe that Barack Obama is a Christian. Incorrect perceptions can easily be reinforced and spread through the Internet. A quick Google search shows that.
Some say the Web has also led to increasing polarization, splitting us apart instead of uniting us. Now, a person can surf the Web for hours without ever straying into new intellectual territory, and can stay in websites that only reinforce his beliefs. A conservative could go only conservative sites, and likewise for a liberal. I doubt that the (right) Drudge Report and the (left) Daily Kos communities ever talk constructively with each other (constructive does not include flame wars).
Even the academic world has been effective. Scholars have discovered that many times nowadays, only the most known and mainstream opinions are cited in papers, simply because those academic papers show up the most on Google searches. That runs the risk of ignoring more unorthodox opinions that might not have as much Google clout.
Well, the Internet's certainly a two-sided coin. Thoughts?
-Eric W.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think the point about polarization is invalid when it targets on the internet. The fact that it is possible to stay anchored only to those sites that reinforce your beliefs can be said for any media. When you go to the library, you choose the books or publications you read, making it entirely possible for one to stay confined to their own little sphere, The same goes for other media such as television, with it being entirely possible to watch only one channel your entire life if you so desired. The fact that it is possible to experience the "tunnel vision" syndrome does not mean that it is a foregone conclusion.
The Internet is a tool, just as things such as literature, television, and radio are. It is up to the user to determine what sources they will trust, what material they will review, and how they use the information.
The Internet has already proven its worth as an important and beneficial tool for society. A recent example, among thousands, is the Hudson River plane crash. Within a minute and a half of the crash, the event was already recorded on Twitter and being picked up by various blogs and news outlets. The Internet is a way to quickly and efficiently(depending on the user) transmit information.
(Steve Szumski)
I think it's interesting how Eric brings up the disadvantages to the Internet. I would venture to say that, just as the vastness of available information has increased exponentially, so has the vastness of available disinformation. It is not that this (dis)information didn't exist before, it's just that it's more easily accessible and readily available now.
Eric mentioned that people can go on the web and never access a new viewpoint or opinion if they don't want to. Well, couldn't they do that before, too, using other sources of information? A person could choose to subscribe to only certain newspapers or magazines, or listen to only certain radio broadcasts. So, in one sense it seems that the internet has changed things, by making (dis)information more available, but on the other hand, it seems that some things will never change...
Emily T.
I think that the internet has its fair share of ups and downs. It is very useful. We can access large amounts of information with only a few clicks of the mouse. We don't have to waste time looking through a forest of books in order to find the specific one we are looking for. However, as Eric pointed out, the credibility of the information we find on the internet can be easily doubted. It isn't that hard for a person to make their own web page and post information. With books at least, authors have to go through this long process in order to have their information published.
Another problem lies within search engines. There are many situations where one search is associated with thousands of different web pages. In the end, its up to us to look through all of them and decide which ones have the 'correct' information. I guess sometimes, this may take longer than looking through a book. With all these things in mind, the internet is definitely a useful tool, but when using it, we need to be extra careful in determining which information to use.
Well, several good points have been made about polarization.
Yes, it is possible to become polarized using "old" media as well, as one could subscribe only to specific magazines and only read certain newspapers. But the Internet makes it easier and more temptingly dangerous than ever before. Before, there was a limit to the "polarization", but now, it is wholly possible for one person's Internet to be completely different than another's. People can now travel in utterly different spheres and never leave what they are comfortable with. I'm not sure that there are any old media equivalents of blogs such as the Drudge Report, the Huffington Post, or the Daily Kos. It's an effect the old media never quite had.
-Eric W.
In today's world, we are often expected to pick a certain opinion and defend it. People aren't too concerned with the counter argument as long as their own claims seem plausible. So although the internet provides a more tempting way to be narrow-minded/stubborn/etc.., this is what the people prefer. For a conservative, it's just as easy to type something liberal in the Google search toolbar as it is to type something conservative. Same goes for the liberal.
With the internet, we no longer have the right to complain about inconvenience. It has all boiled down to preference; we search what we want, and freely at that. We post what we wish to post. The crazy part? People are actually willing to read it.
In fact, when using books, it is easier to see why people would stick to one view point: to avoid unnecessary and laborious research. In a mere few seconds, the internet provides us with the extremes on the spectrum and everything in between. Whether we take the time to culture ourselves is totally subject to our time, energy, etc.., but never to availability of the desired material.
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment