Technology and the loss of democracy

This week’s readings had some very interesting titles! The first title was, “The Daily Me.” The second was, “What is the Elephant in the Digital Room” and the third began like this, “Wikinomics and its discontents….” On sighting these titles, I was mostly intrigued to discover the reason behind each of them. Therefore, in this blog, I will be sharing my discoveries and interpretations of what I felt these authors were trying to pass across.

The Daily Me

This book began with a fairy tale. It described a Utopian world, where humans are able to determine what they see, hear and read. The author believed that with the way technology seemed to be driving the society, individuals would soon be ignorant about every other thing that is not connected to their personal interests. Apparently, the author is not alone in his thinking because Time magazine termed it, "the Me generation." In other words, if I am interested in music, I could select just songs on my news feed, pay for only music channels on television, purchase only magazines related to music and the likes. It’s just like selective attention; choosing to pay attention to just things that interests me. This is what the writer coined as “The Daily Me,” which implied that an individual’s every day experience becomes all about him or her.

Technology is made for man

The author however forgot that no matter how great technology is or how it seems to be in control of man, man once existed and survived without it. On the other hand, human beings cannot survive without other people. Hence, as long as an individual remains on earth, he or she cannot do without encountering other people. If this is so, then there is no way one can control in its entirety, what one sees, hears or reads. This is only possible if a person is isolated in a universe or room without people, because the moment you are walking on the streets, you are seeing other people, who may not look or dress like you do. That in itself is a new concept, your mind has just encountered and for some people, they would keep pondering on the reason for the way that other person was dressed, which eventually leads to interest and then search for knowledge. So, often times even though individuals have areas of interest, they end up expanding to new areas as they interact with other people, either verbally or non-verbally.

Therefore, as much as the author would like to narrow down exposure or in this instance democracy to technology that is not the way life works. The book was focused on explaining the concept of democracy, which the author pointed out also included people listening or paying attention to the opinion of others, irrespective of their own personal interests and how technology appeared to be empowering people towards the opposite direction. Hence, the writer noted that “You need not come across topics and views that you have not sought out. Without any difficulty, you are able to see exactly what you want to see, no more and no less.”

Robots or human beings?

At this point, I wondered about what the author thought about human beings. Asides from the fact that we are social beings, how is technology going to be able to eliminate social structures that were erected a long time ago? Does the author mean that there would be no more schools or institutions of learning or churches, work places etc.? I’m sure we all agree that this is not possible. Therefore, even though one may be able to design how one uses the media, which for the record I have no problem with, one cannot only see, hear or read what one wants to all the time. It is impossible!

Too much information versus too limited information

My final conclusion therefore is that the writer was analyzing this issue as a "technological determinist" and so, ignored the social aspects of it. Even on social networking sites, one is exposed to interests of friends and others, which means that with technological advancements, there is also the possibility of exposure to too much information that may be irrelevant to one’s life. Thus, there are two sides to the coin; too much information versus too limited information. Irrespective of whichever seem more prevalent, critics must realize that man would always be superior to “things” (I mean technology). Technological growth is only rapid today because it is helping to improve lives and human interaction. So, to imply that human beings would begin to ignore one another’s interests because of technology is stretching it just a little bit.

What is the Elephant in the Digital Room?

On reading this title, I was curious to find out this thing or person that had been given the status of a giant. As I read on, it was funny to find out that the imagery did in actual fact refer to the giants in the technology industry that had transformed the once non-commercial mediums to profit-making ventures.

At first, I thought it was the internet that was being described, but then the author noted that it was high time people recognized the elephant in the room – Capitalism. I know! Where did capitalism come from? That was my question too!

Capitalism: defining the internet

The writer was of the opinion that the “Celebrants” and “Skeptics” of the internet had ignored the impact of capitalism in their arguments. According to McChesney (2013), capitalism defines everything that is of a social nature including the internet. To prove his point, he had several reasons. But, one that I thought was very valid had to do with the fact that profit motive (a feature of contemporary corporate capitalism) had over the years defined the way the internet had developed and would probably continue to influence its growth.

To me, this is very true because the way the internet is run today, is very different from the ideology it started with. Just as we have been discussing on this blog for the past three weeks, the internet has become a platform where big giants like Google and Facebook struggle to take over every space possible. They try to “lock in” individuals in order to have fuller access to individuals’ preferences and further channel their products to them. All of these were only made possible because of the free market system of government. Everything online today appears to be designed to attract advertisers, marketers, and public relations people; thus, commercialization is now the end goal for platform owners. For instance, most SNSs all have these little communities or groups that people are a part of either by choice or by invite. These little groups have become perfect baits for marketers and advertisers who now have all their customers in one place.

Political economy: A better way

These big giants have monopolized the system and thus created a power imbalance in the society, which is against true democracy (McChesney, 2013). In other words, capitalism, which is enabled by the government, "is turning the internet against democracy." Therefore, according to McChesney (2013), the key to understanding the internet was not in the confines of a “networked economy” or a “global economy;” but, through looking at it from the angle of political economy. This is because these giants were only enabled by favorable regulations and taxation policies of the government, who alongside other large corporations are enjoying the benefits of the current state of the internet - free surveillance and consumer information.

 

The world of the internet is fast becoming a scary place, with all these secret agendas from not just platform owners or even users, but also corporations and the government. Perhaps, the author is right! Looking at the internet from this point of view has definitely broadened my understanding of the internet.

Wikinomics and its discontents

As the title connotes, the article was about flaws found in the logic described in the book, “Wikinomics,” which was discussed in the last blog. Basically, this article was a critique from “Skeptics” of the internet, who opposed the concept of “convergence culture” proposed by “Celebrants” of the internet.

The authors argued that the notion of “collective intelligence” implied that consumers were all active users of the internet to collaborate with others. They also pointed out that content was the least important thing in the minds of platform owners, who were simply interested in connections (connectivity) made by individuals for data mining.

Collaboration versus connectivity

These were intelligent arguments, because it is true that not all who use the internet do so to come up with group solutions to the world’s problems. Believe it or not, most people use the internet for personal reasons not really to join with others in generating a cause on the internet. They log in, do what they need to do, which could include responding to messages and finding out what is going on and then, they log out. But, like I mentioned earlier there are always two sides to the story. So, there are also those who recognize the opportunities created by the internet and therefore, choose to collaborate with others of similar interests to find solutions. For an example, take a look at this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu7ZpWecIS8 

But, of course, these authors were critics of the internet and so, they attacked from their own standpoint, which was not balanced at all. The other issue they raised was that of “connectivity” and data mining, which has been over flogged on this blog and so, I will not dwell on it. I would nevertheless, advice that instead of being critical or overly celebratory about the internet or technology, more time should be spent understanding its implications and making the best out of it. Technology has its pluses and minuses, which is why media literacy is important. Everyone needs to understand the implications of technology and use it to the best of his or her abilities.

Second thoughts!

Although, now that it is owned and controlled by only a few players, I am unsure about whether any one user or consumer can truly manage the internet or technology the way he or she wants. But, you never know, it could be possible. Let’s find out what other authors have in store for us next week. Then, we’ll know! 

References

McChesney, R. W. (2013). Digital disconnect: How capitalism is turning the internet against democracy. New Press, The.

Sunstein, C. (2001) “The Daily Me.” Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7014.pdf 

Van Dijck, J., & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society, 11(5), 855-874.