Two of The Most Beautiful Things: The Internet and Democracy
And the problems that occur when we mix those two things together…
One of the biggest dilemmas online right now is the spreading of misinformation. Telling everyone that your cat is the best cat in the world no matter what is not that big of a deal to try and innocently spread via the internet. (It’s true though, my cat is the best cat in the world and there’s just simply no point in trying to deny it) It’s when people start spreading misinformation in regards to science and politics that can complicate things for everyone. Simply put, the spread of disinformation and misinformation complicates the relationship between the online and social media world & a world where democracy is valued and strived for. Because of technology, social media has allowed humans to participate in society in more ways than previously possible. Campaigns, gatherings, interviews etc., are easier to access when all you have to do is log onto the world wide web.
What’s troublesome about the world wide web right now is that there are no severe consequences for (re)posting misinformation. That means that anyone from anywhere could make up a story regarding a politician or a political party and frame it in a way that makes it sound legit.
Several weeks ago, I listened to an episode of Krista Tippett’s On Being podcast that was recorded in January of 2017. In the podcast, Tippett interviewed Anil Dash, a well known blogger, tech entrepreneur, and Silicon Valley influencer. The podcast had been recorded in the months following the infamous 2016 election and Tippett and Dash had a fascinating conversation on the influence of the Internet and social media during the election process.
One of the topics that Dash and Tippett spent a great deal of time on was the media that was being circulated online the night of election day. Particularly, the misinformation that was being circulated online. Mr. Dash mentioned how The New York Times’ homepage that day (nearly five years ago!?) had a special animated “live” and “real-time” result dial that would go back and forth between the two presidential candidates (Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump). This dial could supposedly predict, based on “real time data,” who would win the United States 2016 presidential election. Mr. Dash commented how this was “probably the single most stressful implementation of technology [that he had] ever seen in [his] life.” (I agree 100% with Mr. Dash.)
But what made it even worse was that, according to Mr. Dash, if you looked at the code of the page it “only updated, at most, a few times a minute.” Real time data…? I think not. What is still swimming around in my head weeks after my initial listen was that, as Mr. Dash made reflected, at max, probably only one percent of the population who saw that animation could understand and see the animation for what it really showed.
Yeah, you read that right. One percent.
I can tell you right now with absolute certainty that I would not have been in that top one percent. I am no computer scientist or software expert so I would have looked at that animation without thinking about it much. And it’s not like the United States is made up of solely computer and/or software engineers, nor should it be.
But that, my friends, is the point. All that dial was meant to do was grab one’s attention just like any other good ol’ fashioned clickbait.
What makes this dilemma even more problematic is that this sort of problem is not going away anytime soon. Since the United States runs presidential elections every four years (so, relatively fast) it means that the next election cycle will be here before we know it. This time next year, people will start to focus on midterm elections and then months after that the States (as well as the rest of the world) will start talking about the next presidential election. Democracy in the United States is a never ending cycle but that means that it is our job as digital citizens to be responsible online and think before we (re)post. When people either knowingly or unknowingly spread misinformation, it affects every single person in the United States and more importantly, it affects everyone who is qualified to vote.
If you think that the spread of misinformation was just a one time thing or a phase… Oh boy. Think again! Covid-19 has provided a huge opportunity for misinformation to spread and while it’s one thing, again, to say that my cat is the best cat and spread that “fact” all over the internet, it’s quite another thing to be spreading misinformation regarding a major pandemic.
The New York Times published an eye opening article titled Coronavirus Misinformation: Quantifying Sources and Themes in the COVID-19 Infodemic where they found that, “From January 1 to May 26, 2020, English-language traditional media outlets published over 1.1 million individual articles (total 1,116,952) mentioning COVID-19 misinformation. This represented just under 3% of the overall COVID-19 conversation (total 38,713,161 articles) during the same timeframe.” This data is shocking, but what’s more terrifying is that the United States’ 45th president was one of the top people to be spreading misinformation regarding the Covid-19 pandemic. The New York Times study showed a peak in the spread of misinformation starting in and around May 20th, 2020 when the president “President Trump claimed on May 20 to be taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventative, keeping this issue in the limelight longer.”
According to the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, there are five main sources of ethical standards that ethicists can view through. If we were to take a look at the dilemmas of spreading misinformation like the former president of the United States participated in from a Right’s and Utilitarianism perspective, the act of spreading misinformation (in this case related to Covid-19) does not respect those who actively work in the medical and research field as professionals. By saying thoughtless, seemingly random things about miracle cures without backing up said opinions with resources from actual doctors is harmful. Not to mention disrespectful to all the frontline workers who are risking their lives by trying to save other human beings. In the long and short run, spreading false information about “miracle cures’’ can end up seriously hurting the physical well being of others.
From a Justice and Common-Good perspective, all stakeholders are of course from different socioeconomic backgrounds which means that, naturally, not everyone who listens to the president has the tools to fact check and get valid, medical information. Being in a position of power and still spreading this potentially life-threatening information is not something that people want to see in someone. From a virtue perspective, stakeholders won’t be as willing to listen to someone in power when that person is actually talking about something that they are informed enough on to do so.
I have grown up with technology and the internet for the majority of my life. Because of this, I feel a certain responsibility to constantly be aware of what others are doing in order to learn from their ideas and their mistakes. When I take a look at the dilemmas of misinformation in my own life, I pay special attention to the Common-Good perspective and the Virtue perspective. Whenever I see something being posted online, I try my best to make informed decisions before I (re)post anything on any of my favorite social media platforms. Even if I want to repost something from a source that I generally trust, I find it super helpful to ask myself whether or not the position I am supporting best serves the community as a whole. Taking an almost holistic approach before tapping that repost, retweet, republish button and asking myself: will this do more harm than good? not only makes me slow down, it helps me make responsible decisions while surfing the internet. I truly strive to be a thoughtful and responsible digital citizen. I want the internet to be a better place for generations to come. I want the internet to be a safe and enriching environment.
Unfortunately the spread of misinformation will continue to happen for the foreseeable future. Author and director of the American Press Institute, Tom Rosenstial, said it best in a Pew Research interview: “Misinformation is not like a plumbing problem you fix. It is a social condition, like crime, that you must constantly monitor and adjust to.” I think I speak for everyone that no one wants to take away the internet and/or stop using social media. That means, however, that Rosential is right when he says that we must continue to watch with constant vigilance that these problems are real problems.
We are so extremely fortunate to be living in a world where technology has allowed us to achieve and overcome so much. Humans are able to connect with one another to do so much more than share cat pictures. Technology can introduce us to new ideas and because of the internet, we are able to learn from so many more people around the world within seconds. But with all that potential power comes huge responsibility. If we’re not careful, technology will undoubtedly become humanity’s downfall. Misinformation could, if we’re not vigilant enough, be the one thing that tears us all apart.
