The internet promised to connect us. Instead, it’s tearing us apart!
The internet is one of the greatest achievements of humankind. A massively distributed and decentralized system with no single ‘owner’. The internet connected people across the world, gave a platform to voices your would never hear otherwise, and made information available to anyone with a phone signal.
I recently read Deep Economy by Bill McKibben. A common theme in the book is to push for engagement with your local community and the people around you. Studies have shown that almost every daily activity is better when engaging in it alongside other people, and what better to engage with than the ones close to you.
You could argue that the internet has made this social interaction easier. With the push of a button I can connect with anyone, basically anywhere in the world. This is a wonderful thing. But it’s also a driver of the increase in division and the eroding of our shared humanity.
Social Connection, it’s a good thing right?
Before the internet, if you wanted to socialise, to exchange ideas, to just be around other people, you went to your local pub. Or a market. Or a community hall. And whoever showed up, showed up. Your neighbour with completely different political views. The guy from the other side of town with a totally different background. The older woman who’d lived through things you couldn’t imagine.
The people you grew up around, the circles you were in. They were just there. You had very little control over that. This was a double edged sword. On one hand, you were forced to spend time around people you might not necessarily agree with or even like. Diverse ideas spark better ideas and solutions. On the other hand, your gender/class/race/sexuality might have meant you meant certain circles or ways of thinking were inaccessible to you. This was, and still is, something we all collectively need to push against.
Just think about how you spend your time online now though. I know how I spend mine. I follow people who think roughly like I do. I read news/content that broadly aligns with my interests and worldview. The algorithms quietly learn what keeps me engaged, and also what makes me angry, and serve me more of the same. And slowly, without really noticing, I end up in a little bubble of people who are a lot like me.
Modern media (I’m grouping social and traditional together there) has moved to place that prioiritzes eyeballs/views/clicks over facts.
The False Promise of Connection
I’m not suggesting times before the internet were perfect. In Deep Economy Bill McKibben discusses talk radio. The whole premise of talk radio stations, and by extension all modern media, is that you can go an entire day without hearing a single opinion that you disagree with.
Whilst talk radio stations might have this problem, at least there is an element of human editorial oversight. If you pick any given newspaper/radio station/podcast you can quickly asscertain what the subject matter is going to be. What the hosts views are. Whether it aligns to you. Whether it seems factual, sensationalist, or anything in between.
Social media changes this dynamic completely. Now, there is a black box algorithm owned by a billionaire somewhere determining what is ‘valuable’ to you. You don’t know why you’re seeing this content. You just find yourself infinitely scrolling through a feed of content that someone else has decided that you will. Or, in a lot of cases, something that will make you angry.
Only hearing ideas from people who think like you is self-affirming. Equally only hearing ideas that make you anrgy entrenches you in your beliefs.
When you focus exclusively on these two things. Re-affirming or entrehcing your beliefts, you lose something amazing. The accidental collision of different perspectives. It’s a joyous moment when you hear someone say something you’d never have thought of, from a life you’ve never lived, and it genuinely changes how you see things.
The way you view the world will be defined by your experiences. And your experiences are different to mine. If you encounter someone you disagree with, take a beat to ask yourself if you’d lived that persons exact experiences maybe would you find yourself thinking like them as well?
A difference of opinion shouldn’t be about convincing the other person how right you are, it should be about being interested in each others ideas enough to both come out of the experience ‘better’.
That used to happen almost by default, simply by being around enough people in face to face settings. Now, I’m not so sure. If you disagree with someone on the internet how do you deal with it? Quietely get angry, feel it rise up inside you? Maybe you angrily post on social media indirectly calling them out. Maybe you engage directly, reply to the person in question explaining how stupid they are and why they are wrong. I’ve been guilt of all of those things in the past.
Face to face is a different situation. Remove the keyboard, put people face to face and humanity has a chance of shining through. Eye contact triggers oxytocin, the ‘trust hormone.’ A handshake or a shared laugh disarms defensiveness. Online, we lack these cues—so we default to outrage. It doesn’t always. I’ve seen many a shouting match (and sometimes a physical match) from a differing in opinion. But keyboard warriors are real, and I’m sure you’ve all seen things on the internet and thought I don’t think they’d say that if they were in person.
Aim For 1% better
How many of you actively seek out differing opinions to your own? This doesn’t have to be focused on the bigger challenges of humanity. It could be related to your day job, your relationship. Even what might seem like a micro decision, there is still value in understanding another persons perspective.
Why would you do that? It’s uncomfortable. It’s easier to stay in the feed that feels familiar.
Social media companies, and the media writ large employ hordes of people to grab your attention. Media is built to maximise engagement, and engagement goes up when you show people things that re-affirms their beliefs. Whether that’s through something they agree with, or something that makes them so angry it further entrenches what they believe.
Does this accidental diversity of ideas still happens anywhere? Even if it does, does it happen in a constructive way. Maybe at work, if you’re lucky enough to be around people with genuinely different backgrounds and opinions. Maybe in person, depending on who’s in your social circles. Maybe in the comments section of the internet, although more often than not that descends into a shouting match rather than a genuine conversation.
The internet gave us the ability to find our people, which is wonderful. But what did we give up in return. I challenge you all to ask yourself one simple question, how are you going to find some content that you disagree with and engage with it in a way where you seek to understand? Not where you seek to dismiss.