People thought the internet would save democracy.
The web, especially social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, was expected to make sharing information easier and more open. It was supposed to give citizens an edge over governments, offer access to tons of new info and opinions, and create livelier political debates than ever before. It was meant to knock down dictators, boost teamwork in society, and discourage isolation.
But here we are in 2018, and those hopeful tech predictions from the ’90s and early 2000s don’t just seem wrong-they almost feel like a bad joke now.
Citizens swimming in new info? Just look at how big the fake news problem is.
Citizens having power over countries? That sounds weak after Russia pulled off hacking the US election.
Individuals gaining control over top-down systems? What about all those people whose data Cambridge Analytica grabbed without asking and used for political gains?
So how did we get it so wrong? I reached out to several guys (because hey, it’s tech – mostly men were the loudest voices) who were optimistic back in the early internet days about how the web might improve democracy or politics or society overall. I asked if they’d changed their minds with everything that’s happened since. Clay Shirky, David Weinberger, and Jeff Jarvis emailed me back; Alec Ross (who’s running for Maryland governor) chatted on the phone.
Some have revised their ideas. Others say they weren’t as idealistic as folks think and still stand by their original thoughts. And some landed somewhere in between. Their answers are lightly edited for clarity and length.
Bio: Writer, researcher, professor teaching journalism and interactive telecom at NYU & NYU Shanghai. Author of books like Here Comes Everybody (2008), Cognitive Surplus (2010), Little Rice (2015).
What he said then: “The use of social media tools – text messaging, e-mail, photo sharing, social networking, and the like – does not have a single preordained outcome. … The safest characterization of recent quantitative attempts to answer the question, Do digital tools enhance democracy? (such as those by Jacob Groshek and Philip Howard) is that these tools probably do not hurt in the short run and might help in the long run – and that they have the most dramatic effects in states where a public sphere already constrains the actions of the government.” (“The Political Power of Social Media,” Foreign Affairs, 2011)
What he says now (via email):
Sorry looks like some gibberish crept here accidentally-disregard!
Anyway continuing:
I’ve always believed that internet-based community models challenge old institutions rather than extend them-and nowadays pretty much everyone agrees with that-which is huge compared to a decade ago when many still doubted platforms like Facebook or Twitter mattered socially or politically.
But honestly I underestimated two things which make feeling pessimistic more reasonable today. First-the total win of what’s called “the social graph” as how social media organizes itself; meaning now when people say “social media,” they really mean stuff connecting your friends’ friends instead of any group interaction platform.
Second-I didn’t expect behavioral economics techniques to get insanely good at making ads hit exactly where they want emotionally.
Together these changes pushed aside older ideas about public discussion spaces made up of voluntary groups who actively identify members-as Jürgen Habermas described it-in favor of looser networks where viral content flows fast without much control.
My book Here Comes Everybody focused on this older type-a public sphere made up of opt-in groups with real membership bonds-Meetup is a prime example-not just broad connectedness like Facebook offers.
These voluntary groups protect themselves against outside content while controlling what spreads inside them-but lose this structure means shared feelings-especially anger-that spread quickly across large loosely linked networks get prioritized above other kinds of reactions or collective efforts.
Add advanced ad firms able to craft finely tuned emotional responses targeted tightly at specific audiences-you get what we see today online.
Bio: Journalist; professor leading Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism at CUNY Graduate School; author including What Would Google Do? (2009), Public Parts (201۱), Geeks Bearing Gifts (۲۰۱۴); founder Entertainment Weekly; blogger Buzz Machine.
What he said then: “Today it occurs to me Facebook Twitter You Tube may be Gutenberg press Middle East enabling people speak share gather Without these could revolutions happen Yes curmudgeons Of course no passion no revolution But why now No curmudgeons we’ll never answer.. crucial these revolutions depend on these tools hence protecting them protects freedom..” (“Gutenberg Of Arabia,” Buzz Machine ۲۰۱۱).
“Dictators politicians media moguls marketers try tell us think say But truly public society makes them listen whether complaining via Twitter or protesting via Facebook If they want succeed must treat us equally respect our individual power & group influence Else replaced by entrepreneurs insurgents good bad” (Public Parts، ۲۰۱۱).
What he says now (via email):
Your book Public Parts starts with long talk with Mark Zuckerberg showing shared belief valuing ‘publicness’ over privacy Have you reconsidered after Cambridge Analytica scandal? Does Facebook cross line on data sharing? Changed your opinion on Zuckerberg?
I still agree with Zuckerberg that being connected can improve life overall-I don’t think Cambridge Analytica alone disproves that idea. What do you think?
Did Facebook go too far sharing data? The feature letting researchers pull public info from friends-of-friends got shut down soon after misuse-and lotsa companies used it too. Also contrary to rumors Facebook doesn’t sell user data directly; instead it shares insights advertisers use for targeting better ads-like Google does-or smart news orgs using first-party data do as well.
I’m wary about freaking out too much over one researcher breaking rules back in 2014 then working with a shady firm because I believe news media future depends on moving away from mass treating-everyone-the-same approaches toward delivering relevant value tailored personally or by community membership.
This requires knowing people individually-which means gathering information or ‘data’ about them-and if we go too far banning this collection/use we’d harm ourselves badly by cutting off key ways news can survive sustainably going forward.
Have my views on Zuckerberg changed? Well I’m still optimistic but less dogmatic about openness than before-as Ev Williams recently said none predicted how much destructive behavior would come later beyond spam/SEO tricks but political trolls hellbent on chaos did arise unexpectedly.
Interesting fact: Now Facebook hires around 20k people fighting abuse online while daily newspapers employ fewer than 30k journalists nationwide! What does this say about priorities socially We might soon spend more detecting bad actors than reporting facts..
Do I blame Zuckerberg/Facebook alone ? No This is bigger societal issue needing work establishing norms fitting new hyperconnected reality
What he said then: “The Web’s architecture itself is fundamentally moral.. It isn’t some messiah nor apocalypse-it won’t make us millionaires overnight-but through use we build its world worth.”(Small Pieces Loosely Joined1992)
“It’s vital others keep people like me checked reminding us big business dominates internet again Although blogs bring new voices biggest ones belong either traditional media giants or individuals acting as major media..”
“So claims nothing changed must be considered yet many parts lives radically transformed often unnoticed because we’re living through change..”(ABC Radio Australia interview2012)
What he says now(via email):
Your book championed web improving political talk I’m curious how you see FB missing chance plus which ideas worked/didn’t?
The net’s way more open targets than early optimists guessed Also it’s centralized under commercial giants unlike hopes I’d had which causes problems:
The web links pages openly but people connections are controlled by closed profit-focused companies Many political troubles come from conflicting interests between companies/users/citizens That’s bad news
I try sometimes remind discussions focusing only failures also recall net helped politics positively It’s not time for cheerleading since threats exist Yet preserving good outcomes matters during damage control
If forced back old system we’d complain bitterly : limited nightly TV news few printed flyers basic mainstream views mostly white men Only few voices heard Besides misinformation lack engagement widespread participation. We’re more involved informed(misinformation too sadly). Echo chambers exist but awareness diversity high Plus talking among similar minded helps collectively understand events forms movements. Web excited us letting express ourselves personally Politicians sound human finally though racists narcissists also gain voice. Since early fans thought net architecture baked positives seeing it flipped upside down hurts badly. Large scale attacks possible via net perfect surveillance lies spread bots anonymity frees oppressed yet enables trolls hackers destroys trust. But hope remains Apps mediate experiences so adjustments possible even if tough task.
Bio:”One top US innovation expert.” Ex senior adviser Secretary Clinton wrote Industries Future Running MD Governor race.＜Ｐ＞He said:“Dictatorships weaker ever partly cause power shift nation state→individual Networks disrupt hierarchy giving strength citizens & small groups..” “Power moves government/large bodies→people/smaller bodies..21C Che Guevara=network”(Guardian Activate summit201۱) ”Tech harms citizens deadly yet connection tech puts power citizen nets vs hierarchies incl state”(Huff Post interview20١٣) Now(Phone chat): You’ve been optimistic tech weakens dictators boosts citizen power has view shifted post16 election/Facebook revelations? I haven’t changed belief technology disrupts hierarchies helping citizen nets Not tied only democratic ideals Tech neutral inert Russia’s effective FB use weakened mighty US system despite asymmetry Advantage lies outsider vs incumbent Here Russia My views never utopian/dystopian Tech ideas fuel build destroy depends user intent Some argue Cambridge Analytica = corporate/political elites exploiting citizens not empowering average folks I disagree CA tiny firm undermined US vote Using targeting built insurgent army unwitting voters Election damaged yes Corporate/state powers differ State vulnerable thanks tech Corporate less so FB supports genocide Myanmar Muslims govt silent Thoughts? Similar role Rwanda radio hate speech90s Social media fosters collaborative hate unlike one-way radio Honestly If given button kill smartphones/social networks Sure pressing Off seems logical Net negative? Not really Support responsibility boost but no blanket shutdown Most critics target platforms eg FB rather than connectivity concept Instagram safer maybe? Instagram FB owned same corp Different app culture tho Data practices doubt different No real competitors Most users cluster few platforms Twitter part same question Name another site? Govt should regulate socials prevent abuse? Reasonable govt role eg stop genocide propagation But govt lacks skill regulating net Many worst abusers govts themselves US president cyberbully Congress unreliable norm setters Regulate = kick most off reality Govt often worsen harmony online Antitrust enforcement feasible given little competition? From market view Yes Big number leaving FB Barrier lower than believed New entrants possible Fix needs creative startups not DOJ Trump politicized dept distrust DOJ enforcement unlikely near term Running governor role state play fixing Russian hacks CA fallout? Sunlight best disinfectant Governors help ensure transparency Election money origins visible ASAP Even advocacy funding Should disclose timely Not just candidates Advocacy disclosure concerns harassment risk Membership lists sensitive history E. g., Alabama subpoena NAACP blocked SCOTUS Free assembly protected Prevent violence lynching risks valid concerns Still current problem opposite Harassment funded behind closed doors Transparency needed Details matter Names amounts composition unclear Need move toward openness
Source link
