Infococon, or the dangers of the Internet
The internet is certainly neither good nor evil. It is our reality, bringing both benefit and harm. And humanity's task is not to try to ban the internet or subject it to total censorship, but to learn to live with this reality, turning it to our advantage and, if possible, avoiding the threats it poses.
News hook? Millions of them.
With the advent of the internet, the amount of information dumped on the average citizen has increased not just exponentially, but by orders of magnitude. After all, what was it like in the pre-internet era? People read a couple of newspapers daily, often one about what was happening in the country and the world, and another about local events, plus a couple of magazines a month. In the evening, they might even catch up on a program, depending on their mood. News, a weekly program on a topical issue. Plus, there were discussions with colleagues and friends, during which you could sometimes learn something new. Radio was also popular, but it was usually used for entertainment purposes—listening to music. Added to this were book purchases and library visits, which, again, were infrequent.
Nowadays, in an hour or an hour and a half of scrolling through news feeds, you can get information about more events than you used to get in a week, or even a month. This means that a single news item (an event or fact worthy of public reporting) holds people's attention for a much shorter time than before. There's no time to think about it much, because we're faced with a literally endless supply of unread news items! Consequently, people have much less time to evaluate and analyze any given piece of information.
Sources of information and professionalism of the authors
In the not-so-distant past, information was delivered to the public in a much more centralized manner than it is today, not only in totalitarian societies but also in democratic ones. Reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, radio and television broadcasts) were few and far between. Consequently, monitoring their publications was entirely possible, which forced editors to avoid deliberate lies. After all, in democratic societies, false information would be noticed by competitors, providing them with an excellent opportunity to tarnish the reputation of the offending media outlet.
Therefore, serious media outlets had no interest in outright deception. They competed with each other to present information first, and they could present facts in a "special" way (a famous joke: after a running race between the leaders of the US and the USSR, American newspapers printed "Reagan finished first, Brezhnev second," while Soviet newspapers printed "Brezhnev finished second, Reagan second to last"). They might omit some facts while reporting others, but they tried to avoid outright lies.
The result of this commitment was that the authors of the materials were people who worked professionally with information: reporters with specialized training or those with education and experience in the field they were writing in. Even so, serious media outlets did not skimp on professional reviewers.
The number of sources online is so vast that it's uncontrollable, leaving the vast majority of authors free to explore their creative imaginations. No one checks or reviews their work. As a result, everyone writes about everything: the internet doesn't require you to be an expert in the topics you write about (incidentally, the author of this article is a case in point—remember that, dear reader!).
Of course, there are those among amateurs who are capable of presenting highly professional material to readers, but these are the exception rather than the rule. Overall, as a result of this freedom of speech, the quality and reliability of information on the internet have significantly deteriorated compared to the "good old days."
In totalitarian societies, the internet can often provide information that is impossible to obtain from official media, but this does not negate the generally low quality of internet content.
Clickbait and pulp fiction
The tendency to seek out negative information is ingrained in us by human nature: knowing about the bad was essential for health and survival. This instinct persists to this day, and it's exploited by those seeking to capture our attention at any cost. As a result, the internet is overflowing with fake, clickbait-y headlines designed to grab our attention. It's also rife with content containing so-called "hot facts"—sensational negative information about someone or something. Moreover, very often this information isn't entirely truthful, or even completely false.
But content creators don't care about all this. Their goal is to attract audiences to the resource by generating visits. Or, at least, to sell something to that audience.
Of course, untrue, juicy facts were common in the media even before the internet. But due to the mutual control of information between major media outlets, they found a home in magazines and newspapers known as tabloids. Such pulp certainly found its readers, but it never enjoyed much public trust. And the average citizen could easily shield themselves from the mainstream of "tabloidism" by simply not purchasing or reading such publications.
On the Internet, it is almost impossible to separate news streams.
Replacing live communication with electronic communication
The internet has a huge advantage over traditional media—it provides the best possible feedback for readers. Previously, if a citizen wanted to respond to a newspaper or television article, they could do so by writing a letter to the newspaper or television station. Now, after reading any news story, you can publicly express your opinion on it right there, without leaving your seat. And not only comment, but also find like-minded people and debate with those who disagree with your point of view.
The sheer volume of content combined with the ability to communicate is incredibly appealing, leading people to spend a huge amount of time online. Naturally, this takes time away from real, face-to-face interaction. We haven't yet become digital copies of ourselves, of course, but our time for real-life interaction has significantly decreased.
Information - an individual approach
In my previous article, I discussed how advertising technologies have evolved from a means of satisfying demand to a method of generating it. Advertising has come a long way from informing potential buyers about useful products and services to dictating what they should actually want. But the internet has taken advertising technologies to a previously unimaginable level, a level known as contextual advertising.
This is a form of online advertising in which the user receives advertisements tailored to their interests. These interests are calculated by special algorithms that take into account a person's online behavior, search queries, and location. history actions, etc., etc.
On the one hand, it all seems convenient and advanced, because from the vast flood of advertising of all kinds, a person receives only the information they are interested in. But on the other hand, contextual advertising is a terrifying thing, completely changing the rules of the information game.
The reason is simple: by providing us with information that matches our “internet personality,” contextual systems thereby cut us off from the rest of the information array.
It's believed that, following advertising, search engines will begin to adopt a similar approach, returning results that not only best match the search query but also best match the person who formulated it. Why? To provide resources that people will enjoy and revisit. This will increase traffic to these resources, boosting their revenue.
What resources do we like?
Naturally, those who share and support our point of view. Because it's human nature to be attracted to like-minded people. A person's own point of view seems right. Consequently, those who have reached the same conclusions as them always seem smarter than those who disagree.
According to the logic of contextual advertising, people begin to receive content that suits their needs. But this comes at the cost of search engines artificially shielding them from information that conflicts with their views.
This means that the internet is beginning to limit our ability to critically analyze the information we receive. Critical analysis is a systematic process of evaluating, interpreting, and verifying information, arguments, or phenomena to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Clearly, to analyze a given hypothesis, it's necessary to gather as many arguments as possible, both pro and con. It's important to consider not only the arguments that support the hypothesis, but also those that contradict it.
But contextual search methods can easily prevent the selection of contradictory arguments. Interestingly, this doesn't necessarily require completely eliminating "unnecessary" information from the user; it's enough to simply demote links to it in the search engine.
American psychologist Robert Epstein (not to be confused with Jeffrey Epstein, the man involved in the infamous "Epstein affair") found in his research that 80% of users only look at the top couple of links returned by search engines. Epstein noted that:
Most Google users click primarily on the first two results. Only one-tenth of the site's users visit the second page of search results. This leaves a lot of room for manipulation.
And this really does give a lot of scope for manipulation.
The Internet and Mind Control
So, the advent of the Internet in our lives has led to the fact that:
1. Real, live communication between citizens has been significantly reduced in favor of browsing Internet resources and communicating on them;
2. The number of news items has increased not even multiple times, but by orders of magnitude;
3. By virtue of paragraph 2, the time for assessing the reliability of a particular news item has been reduced by the same orders of magnitude;
4. The quality and reliability of information received by citizens has sharply declined;
5. The use of contextual advertising methods leads to a situation where a person receives information on the Internet that corresponds to his views, but is “protected” from information that contradicts his views.
What has all this led to? We are bombarded daily with a tsunami of reliable, not entirely reliable, and downright false information, yet our ability to distinguish truth from lies in the news flow has been sharply reduced. Perhaps we could say it has collapsed not just by a fraction, but by orders of magnitude. We have too little time to analyze a single news item, and even if we try to verify the source's credibility and understand the issue, the internet "carefully" shields us from arguments that could shake our views.
Even those of us who strive to analyze events impartially, who strive to formulate our search queries so as to find arguments not only confirming but also refuting our point of view, still cannot verify every news item that comes our way. As a result, it often turns out that if a certain message fits a particular person's worldview and they don't have the time or inclination to verify it, they accept it as truth, and if it doesn't, they accept it as false. However, it often happens that an information item accepted as truth turns out to be false upon closer inspection, while one rejected turns out to be true.
Dear reader, you can see examples like these on "VO." Some news that's pleasing to the audience will make the front page (an American aircraft carrier was shot down, or an F-35 failed), and many believe it, start actively discussing it, and rejoice. Then someone comes along who bothers to find and verify the original source of the news—and it turns out that it actually says nothing of the sort. This isn't because "VO" authors are trying to misinform their audience, but simply because sometimes a "dead phone" effect occurs: a foreign source provides one piece of information, while a domestic source, reprinting it, mistranslates it, misunderstands it, and so on. Ultimately, the author of the news supposedly got it from a credible source, but it turns out to be distorted.
And yes, the author didn’t mean, of course, that an aircraft carrier can’t be hit, and that the F-35 is flawless in every way, but this doesn’t change the falsity of the specific information.
Unfortunately, humans tend to believe in what fits and confirms their worldview. Consequently, with the abundance of newsworthy information, even those of us who are naturally inclined to critical thinking and are completely unwilling to accept everything at face value are gradually becoming saturated with "facts" online that aren't really facts at all. But they do influence our viewpoint on a given issue and contribute to its formation.
Thanks to the internet, we're gradually losing the ability to distinguish truth from lies. And, of course, we're becoming far more vulnerable to manipulation than before.
Hello, infococon!
All of the above could give rise to, or rather, has already given rise to, a phenomenon that can be defined as an "infococoon." While at the dawn of the internet, the web was a haven of free speech and a place where one could obtain information unavailable in other media, today the internet is gradually migrating toward the Wachowskis' dystopia, The Matrix. But The Matrix was more humane, if only in that the people within it found themselves in a fictional, yet still unified, information space. Meanwhile, the modern internet is gradually sliding toward giving each of us our own personal "matrix"—an infococoon composed of information that suits each citizen's needs.
At the same time, as I've said before, the internet doesn't care at all whether the information in your personal infococoon is true or false. It cares about you visiting websites and channels, increasing your views, making purchases... Providing you with reliable information about history and the present day isn't necessary for this—and, accordingly, the internet doesn't do that.
As is well known, Donald Trump, already during his 2016 election campaign (his first presidency), relied on online advertising, while his opponent, Hillary Clinton, preferred to promote herself through traditional media. I can't document what I'll say below, but I have information that Donald Trump's team used contextual advertising methods during his campaign.
If this is true, I don't think such an algorithm would have directly offered each individual citizen the opportunity to fulfill their detected desires. Otherwise, it could have happened, say, that someone interested in the occult would have received Donald Trump's election platform, promising to destroy Christianity and hold bloody black masses on the ruins of churches. However, more subtle algorithms could well have been used. I also think that such political methods are just the beginning, only the first, tentative steps in the field of online mind manipulation.
Продолжение следует ...
Information