The emergence of social media has become
a pathway for average people across the world to communicate and exchange
ideas. In theory, social media should be an unrestrained path to access
information, where everyone can research similar pages. However, this is
usually not the case. Many newsfeeds and timelines are directly tailored for
the specific user viewing the information. Whether it be local advertisements
or one-sided political posts, the filters use an algorithm based on your past online
experience to make decisions on what you see. This doesn’t sound like the free
exchange of ideas that the Internet promised, but rather it creates a system of
secular ideas that become even more withdrawn from any opposing beliefs. The
isolation has been intimately referred to as the “filter bubble”. In the scheme
of things, the “filter bubble” has been relatively benign in peaceful Western
countries. However, what happens when the “filter bubble” is extended to war
torn areas?
This past summer the conflict
between Gaza and Israel reached a boiling point as missiles streamed overhead
both territories. In the end, the conflict was only resolved with a new
dialogue between the opposing sides. In this case, persuasion, with effective Dissoi
Logoi, could have meant the end of the bloody conflict much sooner. However,
popular support for each of their respective sides fueled the continuing war
effort. Many sources report social media may have been a contributing factor to
the war cries. A Data Scientist with Betaworks, Gilad Lotan noticed that in
pro-Israel areas, it took a great amount of effort to find any type of
contradictory narratives. “When
looking at the events and especially when you're in Israel at the thick of it,
it is so hard to get away from it. So you get this polarization in Israeli
society as well that makes it even tougher to look at the other side.” Only bringing like-minds together has stifled
any true discourse between the warring sides. However if you can reach beyond
the algorithms and interact with others not like yourself, it can provide for an
enriching experience.
Although the “filter bubble” has
harmed a true discourse in Gaza, there are both technological affordances and
constraints to social media. Its relatively anonymous nature allows for
unpopular opinions to surface on either side of the border without
ramifications. In traditional debate settings, these minorities would be
condemned for their beliefs, so many would choose not to speak at all. Although
anonymity allows for minority involvement, it can come at the expense of
quality debate. It hinders one of the major tenants of argumentation: ethos. In
the absence of ethos, it is difficult to gauge credibility because it becomes
unclear why an audience should adopt their stance over another. With all things, users have to weigh the
benefits and consequences when using social media as opposed to formal means of
communications. Also there has to be a bit of social responsibility on the part
of Internet giants like Google, Twitter and Facebook, especially when the stakes can be this high.
Sunstein reading
No comments:
Post a Comment