The Internet and the Changing Society

I recently finished reading Clay Shirky’s, Here Comes Everybody, and I would like to begin by saying, I am not a journalist. Yes I am sharing information which is published on the internet. Yes, this is a blog. But no, I do not consider myself a journalist. Shirky addresses the way the internet has changed the perception and perhaps rules of journalism, and a number of other interesting topics in his book which discusses the way technology, specifically the internet, is helping to reshape the global society.   

You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s old

I was born in the late ‘80s, grew up with the Web, and can hardly remember a time when e-mail wasn’t a main fixture of my communication. Shirky comes back to the point several times throughout his book that, after a technological innovation ceases to be an innovation, but rather, just a fixture of everyday life, it is at this point that the technology becomes interesting for society, and the effects of this technology on society can begin to be studied. As programs continue to be created on the internet, human connections continue to evolve (a phenomenon which will be discussed next), but as Shirky points out, and this is, I think, an important realization on the reach of the internet, “social tools don’t create collective action—they merely remove the obstacles to it.” An interesting current example of this has to do with the Arab Spring. Many people credited online tools such as Facebook and Twitter for causing the revolutions which are sweeping the Arab world. This observation however, according to Shirky’s view, and a view that I agree with, is incorrect. Facebook and Twitter gave members of the demonstration an easy outlet to tell a lot of people about their demonstrations, but the people of those nations would have been restless, and the demonstrations (likely) would have occurred regardless of those tools.

We may be sitting alone behind a computer screen, but boy are we social

To be fair, this is semi-exaggerated. As Shirky points out, the internet as communication has not become a substitute for being somewhere physically (a point which was not always known, but came to be realized from the above point that, with time, effects can be observed). Having said this, the internet has given individuals more opportunities to group together. Shirky discusses how the cost of finding like-minded people has decreased, so the online participation of groups has thus increased. This can be observed through political campaigns and the use of Facebook. For instance, it is much easier for me to go Facebook and click a ‘Like’ button, showing my support for candidate X than it is for me to go to the campaign headquarters and get a button that shows my support. Though ‘liking’ candidate X is a minimal move, it can be a stepping stone. So you’ve liked their page, you’ve made it public to the world, or at least the members of your networks, that you have support for this candidate. Now you might be more likely to go to Ms. X’s campaign site which you noticed on the Facebook page. Here, you will likely have the opportunity give your email address. Once you do that, you might be asked to volunteer. Once this happens, you may feel so invested that you choose to give a small donation. The level of involvement grows. This will not happen for everyone who “Likes’ the page, but people are social beings, and given the opportunity to join a group, such as on Facebook, the cost is so low that they will be more inclined to do this small step.

Just call me one in a mass of amateurs

This point relates to the above in how people now have a platform to not only meet at a low cost, but to present information at a low cost as well. As Shirky notes, “reproduction, distribution, categorization” are now extremely easy with blogs. Shirky calls this phenomenon “mass amateurism” where individuals who are not professional journalists by conventional means, act as journalists reporting on an array of different topics. The difference, as Shirky points out, is filtering. Whereas editors pick and choose what articles end up in the newspaper, with blogging, the writers are also the editors. Each case seems to be a double-edged sword. When it is only the editor choosing what goes into the paper, that places an awful lot of responsibility in the hands of a single person, and should that person choose to leave out certain stories, the effects of the public not having that information could be, well I wouldn’t say catastrophic, but it could have serious implications for some. On the other hand there are editors for a reason- someone to hold writers accountable (hopefully) and check the quality of the work. With blogging there is not this filtering process, so anything can be “reported.” This can be good in that bloggers can bring to light important information that reporters and editors my miss. It can also be dangerous because really anyone can make a blog and this has the potential for a lot of misinformation and a lot of disinformation. As Shirky points out though, we have already come too far. It is too late to ask the question if this is reasonable or not.