What the Information Age Means For Us

h

Aaron Durlauf

The information age has given rise to new technologies with vast potential to change the social and political climate of the world. As with any new innovation with the capacity for social upheaval, the creation of the internet and social networking, with their vast potential for organizing people and proliferating information, have sparked a debate about whether these technologies will be used positively or negatively. Nicholas Carr, columnist for The Atlantic and vocal critic of the internet argues that the new style of reading in the information age will cause decay to both our culture and our cognition. Cass Sunstein, law professor at the University of Chicago and author, contends that the information filtering on the internet causes polarization of the political climate, which may be damaging to democracy. Clay Shirky, columnist for The Wall Street Journal and proponent of new technologis, on the other hand argues that the internet has not only a positive effect on our lives and ways of thinking, but also the potential to spread democracy and human rights the world over. Through examining these differing point of views it becomes evident that the digital age has vast potential to help people all over the planet, however we must develop responsible use of new technologies in order to make sure the culture surrounding these technologies reflects our the values we as humans hold dear.

Nicholas Carr, in his now lauded article, “Is Google Making Us Stupider?” begins his piece by praising he benefits that the internet has given the world. He quickly however poses that the internet and the way we use it causes us to search broadly rather than deeply, turning us from “deep sea scuba diver[s] in the sea of words,” to “guy[s] on a Jet Ski,” moving quickly but barely skimming the surface (Carr, 90). Carr claims that our cognitive style has adjusted to the rapid way the internet distributes it, causing us to lose our ability to read and think deeply. He quotes a University College London study which suggests that the internet has given rise to new forms of reading, as people scan headlines and abstracts for the information they want rather than reading in the traditional sense. Carr even goes so far as to suggest that our usage of the internet has even begun to restructure our neural pathways causing significant impact to our cognition. Quoting playwright, Richard Foreman, Carr bemoans the death the culture of books, reading, and intricacy of thought he believes is occurring as a result of the internet and these new forms of reading. Even as he points out what he believes to be cultural and intellectual travesties, Carr does not answer the big question: What are we supposed to do about it?

Cass Sunstein in his book, “Repulic.com 2.0” asserts that the information age is damaging the political discourse of the United States. Like Carr, Sunstein acknowledges the many benefits that new technologies have had for society however he still contends that people have lost the virtues of civility, self-criticism and open-mindedness. In a telephone interview with Salon.com Sunstein states that he was first stuck by the personalization and customization of the internet. What stunned him was “the extent to which… the Internet enthusasts really can’t even see a problem and can’t see the individual and social benefits of being exposed to stuff [they] didn’t choose” (Salon). Sunstein points out that on juries the “empirical finding [is] that like-minded jurors, when they talk to one another, tend to get more extreme” (Salon). This finding is echoed in the study of judicial decisions. When there are all liberal or all conservative judges on a panel, each individual judge tends to vote a lot more conservatively or a lot more liberally respectively than if the panel was mixed. This same trend can be shown in studies of discussion groups of politically like-minded citizens. Sunstein is not in favor of government regulation to solve this problem, stating that it “has a cultural solution, not a legal solution” (Salon).

In contrast to the misgivings of Carr and Sunstein, Clay Shirky views the internet as a vastly positive force in the 21^st century. In his article on the Encyclopedia Britannica blog, Shirky responds to Carr’s arguments, first by agreeing with Carr’s premise and next by disagreeing with what should be done about the problem. Shirky drives at the crux of Carr’s argument by stating that “the anxiety at the heart of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” doesn’t actually seem to be about thinking, or even reading, but culture” (Britannica, 1). Shirky contends that Carr is blaming the internet for the death of the culture of literary reading, when in fact, lengthy verbose books have been falling out of popularity for decades. Shirky goes on to say that, “having lost its actual centrality some time ago, the literary world is now losing its normative hold on culture as well” (Britannica, 1). Shirky states that Carr’s “pseudo-Luddism” (Britannica, 2) and any efforts to turn back the clock are wastes of time and intellect. “The change we are in the middle of isn’t minor and it isn’t optional, but nor are its contours set in stone. We are a long way from discovering and perfecting the net’s native forms,” (Britannica, 2) Shirky argues. In another article, he elaborates on this idea, pointing out that the printing press when it first began spurred the publication of trashy erotica, and that it took time for a literary culture to rise and take hold of the medium. “Just as required education was a response to print, using the Internet well will require new cultural institutions as well,” (Shirky, 2) Shirky argues. Thus Shirky makes his point: the internet like any new media form will develop a culture of quality and intellect just as writing did.

Clay Shirky is not only an advocate of the internet as a new form of media, but also as a way of spreading human rights. Shirky has coined the term “cognitive surplus” which he says “represents the ability of the world’s population to volunteer and to contribute and collaborate on large, sometimes global projects” (Shirky Ted Talk). Cognitive surplus is made up of two things: the worlds free time and talents and the media landscape of the 21^st century. Shirky’s main example of cognitive surplus at work is a website called Ushahidi, which began in early 2008 as a way to map the violence occurring in Kenya after a recent election, by people posting their reports on the internet and those posts being placed on a map. Within the last three years, Ushahidi has gone global, helping people in many situations, ranging from tracking voter fraud in Mexico to snow clean-up in Washington D.C.

Now what are we to make of these various viewpoints? As my thoughts and feelings on this issue have evolved, I have come to several conclusions. The first of which is that any type of effort to reject the internet and the new landscape of social media we have today would be both ludicrous and ineffective. The question that faces us today isn’t whether or not we should use the internet, but rather how are we going to use it. Nicholas Carr’s concerns about human cognition are reasonable, the changing technological environment our world lives in likely has significant effects on the way we think and process information. This however does not mean we are losing something that makes us essentially human, but rather the products of humanity are simply changing. Cass Sunstein’s worries about the internet and customization of filters are very well thought out, yet even he does not believe that the polarization this causes has a legal remedy, but rather a cultural remedy. The solutions to these problems are straightforward but still easier said than done. As consumers and producers in our new digital age, we must be vigilant in our efforts to use the internet properly. We must advocate for responsibility in web browsing, variety in search filters, and use our natural human motivation to use the internet for positivity rather than hatred.