Is Internet going to have some kind of reverse effect?

[Pekka]

First, it was proclaimed to be the thing that provides free flow of information. As such, it would be good for everyone; it doesn't matter where you are from, you will be able to get information that somehow is non-biased and "true". That in turn promotes equal opportunity.

My point is, now that my priorities have changed, I don't read all the tabloids anymore. So I'm out of the loop, I don't know what's on TV tonight, I don't even care. So much useless information is dumped that I'm left with an information void. What's happening in the world? Of course I try to follow some news, but I don't know what's happening in the world of Lindsay Lohan. I don't know what's happening with the latest "who slept with who" and who said a racial slur and what's the latest what ever.... I don't know my position in things because I don't know what the thing itself is.

This made me think... if the internet is such an equal forum, then why do the ones who used to have the biggest voice STILL have the biggest voice? Why do the ones who had the biggest resources still seem to dominate the issues that are being lifted to the forums all over the internet? Why? Is it so that there are no other things going on? Seriously? Or is it that it's not really equal to begin with, and it never was? Of course if I have a, say, media company, and I strategically decide to push something in the internet, then I have more say, a bigger voice than, say an average blogger. I can buy space. I can buy a bigger voice.

But here lies the trap... the perception of "freedom" of the internet then manipulates people into believing it really is, and thus all that is there is equal, when it's really not. It's like getting punched in the face, which is good, and then in the version 3.0 you get punched in the face, except it's called love tap, and you're supposed to like it and if not, you are, in fact, a racist, and you feel guilty about it, even conflicted.

So my question is, do you think this is true?

[Pekka]

Reverse effect means that people actually KNOW less.

Couple of hundred years ago, what did an average person know? Maybe information worth of 10 books? Less? What about now, an average person with an internet connection "knows" bits of information from various areas probably multiple times of 10 books in a day, excepts it's tiny bits and various areas. Which is better though?

1000 years ago, what did a person know, especially if that person could not read? All they knew was what other people told them. At least then you can see that other person, decide if that other person is reliable. Now? People fall for phishing so easily it's not even funny.

In the old times, you could at least know you don't know. Now? You think you know, when you in fact don't know, which might be a state of happiness for some, but it also plays into your decision making and view of the world. What I'm saying is, that big media will dumb the whole internet down, and we'll be all dumber as a result.

The equal opportunity part doesn't work, because big companies plays nice with China and others when it counts, and others don't even have electricity, let alone computers OR reading ability.

[ZEE]

I was thinking about something like this today Pekka. And a 20-year 'NetVet like me has a legitimate voice on this. The problem that i see is the negative community aspects and hateful comments abounding everywhere (because of the Safety of Anonymity) that can sort of brainwash people into thinking that people IRL will say, do, and think hateful things as well. Sort of if you soak a rag (a person) in this bowl of red dye (the net) it turns red and stays that way even after its taken out of the bowl. So even though things are now done 'For the Lulz,' and with all the the constant monthly and yearly day-to-day exposure to negative things, your thoughts will remain that way when you are away from the Net. And the higher your tolerance to these things the moar you will blow people IRL off as a hateful person. Its just not a healthy way to think.

This can be countered simply by telling yourself that everybody IRL is a good person, with their own perspectives, and the negativity will wash away like that red-dyed cloth soaked in bleach. Your day will be easier, tasks that you thought were impossible will be simple, and even people that you "hated" will just be a minor annoyance at best. This also can put your internet activities into proper perspective as well.

[-Jrabbit]

The Net has been co-opted into being just another extension of the same information sources as the other mass communication vehicles. The intense concentration of search rankings has resulted in the "bigger voices" (moneyed interests) gaming the system so that the same views found on TV, radio and newspapers are reinforced online, concentrated into the top results. I'm tempted to blame Google, just for being so dominant.

While we do still have some measure of independence in terms of net neutrality, the fact is that small independent voices are less and less likely to be noticed, especially in areas like pop culture and politics. On TV, it's Fox vs. MSNBC. On the Web, it Huffington Post vs. a range of righty sites.

Those cool "lone blogger" voices in the Web wilderness of just a few years ago have been absorbed into the mainstream for the most part, just as MMOGs have moved from quirky sideshows to corporate money-makers. Sure, there's still room for outsiders, but only the truly net-savvy will rise into easily found search results, ensuring they will be left to find their audience in the ghetto of social networking (which will be the next cool tool to be dulled into blandness).

So yeah, Pekka, you're right. The corporate oligarchy has taken over, and will decide what news, views, and entertainment is fit for first-page Google rankings. And yes, we can all look forward to a less-informed, more homogenized future as a result.

Thanks for bringing this up. It reminds me how pissed off I am.

[Ecofarm]

Learn to recognize bais and think critically. Then use drudgereport.com, cnn.com, bbc.com and foxnews.com

It's all full of crap to some extent or another, but if you check a few perspectives and think critically... you can get a pretty good idea of what is going on (given one's own ideology filtering most of the process).


I don't know who ever thought they could go somewhere and get "the truth". That's silly. We can get most of the truth and with a few sources almost all of it. The basic truth is available in mainstream media, but never at one source.