As has been observed by Brian (and Noam Chomsky), the incomprehensibly vast body of information now floating around the internet potentially becomes entangled in the phenomenon of 'Manufacturing Consent'. Think about the algorithms that parse content based on browsing habits: look for clips on Youtube, and, over time, Youtube will begin to actively suggest clips you might enjoy, based on your history. The same occurs when you shop on any number of online shopping sites, such as Amazon. This kind of directed content filtration occurs on news sites, such as Google news, as well. What if we, as consumers, elect to let our algorithms do the searching for us (something that is becoming more and more the default option). It is now easier than ever to direct us from one idea to another; channeling the way we navigate information and controlling the substance upon which we form our opinions. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but it wouldn't be unreasonably difficult for a particularly non-neutral media search company to subtly taint the results of its users.
The opposite of this phenomenon, where the anonymity of electronic information fostered dissent and promoted free thought, arguably happens all the time. Bloggers and podcasters have an unprecedented level of public exposure (there was a time when, if you wanted to hear crazy ranting, you would have to actually seek out the ranter). Further, the role that Facebook played in acting as an uncontrollable agency of communication during the Iranian elections not long ago only serve to underline the potential power this new form of mass communication possess, just waiting to be harnessed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteWhile reading through Hanno Hardt's Essay on Mass Communication and the Promise of Democracy (pp 20-25) there was the discussion of how democracy and the will of the people being created from the government or the "social elite" creates a sort of predictability, or "algorithm" as you mentioned, through implied consent by allowing the government to procede as established and accepting the education that one's society offers. This naturally goes along with Noam Chomsky's aspects of "manufactured consent".
However, I'd like to bring up two varying viewpoints on this issue. I feel to a certain extent that absolutely we are conditioned in a certain manner to think certain ways and perform specific functions based on who we are and what we do, and of course media through mass communication can reinforce this to a concrete-like extent. On the other hand, this may not necessarily be a bad thing. I suppose it can also be said that without methods of consent or control things such as governments and societies couldn't function the way they currently do. Here's an example (sorry another military reference!), discipline and regulation is forced upon individuals from day one of entering military service, and failure to adhere results in expulsion, and with good reason. If there isn't that algorithm that allows it to function in the manner that it does, there would simply be a huge breakdown with thousands of individuals scurrying about with no common goal and no contribution to an accomplsihment of anykind. And on another note, with humans being the social creatures that they are, we are perhaps genetically forced to a certain extent to stay with our patterns of predictability to function as a whole.
Bottom line, good post, it is very interesting to see how the things we take for granted may be sculpting ourselves more than we may think, and perhaps seeing the other side of it hopefully brings about another interesting point of view as well.
-Ian
In response to your comment, Ian, about how the government has particular methods of control, I also do feel that these are necessary because everything needs to be kept in checked, including the government itself. From a very early age, we are indeed programmed to think a certain way, just as you mentioned. For example, we're generally taught to trust those of higher authority, such as teachers, police officers, and government officials. Because of this, we tend not to question them and their rulings and this affects our way of thinking. Nowadays, less and less people are thinking outside the box because we've been trained to think within this certain range and we don't question what's already been established (aka tradition).
ReplyDeleteMass communication is just another means of teaching that indirectly tells us what and how to think about anything. It's a bit like propaganda, but a lot less subtle, which ties in with your comment about "directed content filtration," Andrew.
Yours,
Karoline