So my previous post on this topic, Digital world, generated some responses, but all of those were in-person discussions. Some people said they wanted to comment, but just couldn't find the time to do so. Here's a second chance for you all, because two things in the media yesterday made me think some more about the topic.
The first was an article in the newspaper saying that schoolchildren and students are having difficulties writing their exams. This time it's not because they cannot concentrate on the same thing for more than 20 seconds, but because they don't write anymore. Ever. One of the researchers that was interviewed said that the only thing he ever wrote anymore were his grocery lists. I found this kinda scary when I read it, because writing is one of those things that you come to think of as Big and Important when you study a language and its history. Without writing, we're lost, right? However, when I thought about that some more, I realised that there really is no problem if people can't write stuff down anymore, as long as they can type it. It is just another part of the progress we're all going through, we went from Cuneiform script (I had to look that up, btw, I don't know it by heart) to pen and ink to the printing press to ballpoint pens to this. The only problem arises when those machines that we now need to communicate (which is the main purpose of writing, I think) do not work anymore. It is rather a dark doom scenario, but what if in 20 years time nobody knows how to write anymore, having learnt it in primary school and then never done it anymore, and there is a war or major hacker attack or something. Can people still communicate in writing? I sure hope they can.
Another thing that was said in the article was that it is so difficult to write an essay or speech by hand, because you cannot simply move sentences around. I have heard this complaint more often, mainly from fellow students during essay-exams (in which you have to write 3 essays of about 750-1000 words). I do think it is a bit worrying that people find it impossible to gather their thoughts, order them, put them in a good linear fashion, and then start to write. Apparently, they just write down the first thing that pops into their heads, and then move the sentences around until they have some sort of a structure. If this is true, I find this amazing, because for me it would be impossible to write in a non-linear manner; you first think about what you want to write about, and in what order, and then you start writing. But maybe that is not fast enough anymore? Not sure what to think of that, I mean, it may very well be that lots of people work that way and that I am the odd one out, but "think before you act" has always been solid advise.
The second thing that made me think about the topic again was a documentary on BBC1 about cyberbullying. Apparently, some children drive other children to suicide by posting hateful messages on gossip-websites, which other classmates then like and comment on, usually anonymously, so that the victim has no idea who they can trust and who are talking behind their backs. Only it isn't behind their backs anymore, it is out there on the Internet. I find it really sad that the victim is named, but that those doing the bullying hide behind anonymity. I have had some trouble in secondary school, but at least I knew who those girls were, and I could have pointed them out if things got really bad. I'm tempted to say that "bullying is a thing of all ages" and people will grow out of it, but if children are driven to suicide about this, then maybe the anonymity of the internet is less of a good thing than we always thought.
Added to that was an even worse thing; the trolling of the memorial websites that were put up for these victims. Now I always thought that "trolls" were just random annoying people having a bad they and because of that posting annoying messages, but from the documentary (they interviewed several trolls) it appears that to them, the only goal in life is to "get a reaction", and if they have to post hateful pictures or racist messages on memorial sites for children, they will do so. Again, these are anonymous people, hiding behind a screen name, although one of them seemed really upset when the presenter of the program pushed a microphone under his nose and asked whether he was the troll posting those horrid things. He admitted it easily though, saying that he "wasn't breaking the law". Probably not, no, but it is really sad if the only way you are able to interact with other people is by posting such hateful and distressing things that people react by getting upset or logging off. The problem is not so much that people think it is okay to post these things (they obviously don't think so, because they know they will get a reaction), but that they get some sort of joy or satisfaction out of this way of communicating. I think such people need help, because they must not be receiving enough love or attention from their nearest of kin (if they even have those) if they are crying out for attention in such a manner. You can get angry at these people all you like, but it is no use, and I think they need help more than anything. I do wonder if such people without the Internet would just disappear into the cracks of society, or make an effort to connect with others in a "real" way.
So several things that made me think some more about the benefits of the digital world; are we able to communicate when it disappears, are we still able to organise our thoughts in writing, is anonymity such a good thing, and are some people unable to create meaningful, positive relationships with others through it? Food for thought, I'd say.
Now this has mainly focused on the negative aspects, because of the stuff that made me write it, and I know it is not all bad and horrid and terrible, but it is making me think about the more negative side of things. I personally have no experience with either one of these aspects (although I might have drawn some trolls over here by writing the word too many times, who knows?), but some people are clearly negatively affected by it, and maybe it is time to do something about that.
Interesting food for thought... let me post a reaction here, including some of the thoughts that popped into my head when I read your first piece on this subject, but didn't write down then.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, any major technological change brings about both positive and negative changes to society. For example, cars have enabled us to travel faster, further, expand the area in which it is feasable for us to commute to a satisfactory job, see parts of the world for which it would otherwise be prohibitively costly (in money and/or time) to travel to, etcetera. Yet of course, cars also brought on a slew of negative changes, such as the ever-present risk of accidents, demolishing nature in order to make place for roads and other infrastructure, an increase in pollution, and numerous other downsides. Yet while some would argue this is a reason to abolish cars and other forms of motorized traffic, most people seem to take the presence of cars in our society for granted, and wouldn't like to revert to living without them. The same is true, I think, for the changes the Internet has brought us, and will bring in the future. The Internet has been here for a number of decades, but the ever-present pervasiveness of the medium is still very young, and I think we as a society are only just beginning to come to terms with this techological change; to fully ingrain such changes into our culture will take a lot of time, and until this has been done, (parts of) the Internet will remain like the Wild West, a place without order or certainty where events with unexpected (positive or negative) consequences take place. For example, the global spread of the Occupy movement would not have been possible without Internet coordination; not only the technological infrastructure that the Internet provides, but also the Internet pervasiveness and ubiquity that have only been present in the last couple of years. Whether that is for good or for bad, I let you judge for yourself.
To comment on part of your previous post, in which you said that "it is mainly wealthy young westerners with a lot of free time (if we all needed to do hard labour for 12 hours a day just to get food on the table this whole thing would be a non-issue), and for most of them, it is just a thing to keep their mind occupied", I would like to offer the following counterpoint: In China alone, more than 100,000 people have a job working as a "gold farmer", meaning that they play massively multiplayer online games to acquire virtual riches, which are then sold to other players (often rich Westerners with more money than time to spend) for real money. These people depend on the Internet for their real, actual income, and would have to revert to long hours of hard physical labour (instead of long hours of sitting behind a computer screen) without it. Again, I won't judge on whether this is a good or bad development, but it has been creating real jobs and opportunities for an increasing number of relatively poor people.
Bram
PS: This comment was written top to bottom, without reordering or restructuring sentences. ;-)
I have been thinking about a suitable reply to this, but your comment somehow deviated so much from what I was expecting that it was difficult to get my thoughts in order. Anyway, here is an attempt anyway;
DeleteI agree with you on the pro's and con's of many technological changes. However, I do think that the cons of the Internet are far more obscure than the cons of for example cars. The bad influence on the environment that cars have were not perceived straightaway, that is true, but other dangers, such as accidents or cows refusing to give any milk (true story) were perceivable directly. Now I don't think that many people today would say that there are true "dangers" to the Internet, it is mostly seen as a very positive thing, I myself still see it that way. This does not mean that those cons do not exist, and my post here was an attempt to inventory some of the cons, because most of them were things I was completely unaware of. You mention parts of the Internet remaining like the Wild West for a while, which makes it seem as if you expect that they will be reigned in and be brought to terms after a while. I don't think it will work that way. There are still people speeding, driving through red lights, or driving around in stolen cars, and there will always be Internet-equivalents of that. I'm not saying either form is more harmful than the other, it's just that they exist. Also, we have recently seen how much "the Internet" protests against any form of legislation or action trying to influence its "free spirit", so I do not think people will stand being bound online.
Your comment about the gold farmers is very interesting, because you make it seem as if these people are happier working behind a screen for "us" than working in a factory for "us". You mention they depend on the Internet for their income, but I disagree, I think they depend on the rich West for their income. This is just another outgrowth of the colonialism with which we have prevented these countries of ever forming a proper, stable, wealthy society (and maybe even culture?) of their own. I know these people are happy to have a job and to make some money, but I do think that they should be able to build a life of their own that is not dependent on what we ask of them. Luckily, many of them now are. Also, I fail to see how this is a counterpoint to my argument, because your point does not disarm the fact that there are still a lot of bored young westernes spending time on the Internet. They may not all be playing games, but they may be trolling around, or just refreshin Facebook every 5 seconds to see whether "something has happened". It is still mainly the group I described who spend (most of) their free time online and you can hardly argue that those gold farmers are spending time playing those games because they have so much free time; I am guessing it is a very stressfull and competative environment, in which you can loose your job pretty quickly if your results are not up to scratch.
Lastly, in both of your paragraphs you mention something "good" in reaction to something I said. I am aware that the Internet has created many opportunities for many people, be it those that have a small webshop they can run from home or the "Facebook protestors". But I am not here to judge whether something is "good or bad". The only thing I can oversee properly are the direct consequences to myself, and the two effects I described in my post are not the whole and only way I look at it. It's not a pro and con list where every positive effect (like the Occupy spread) will offset one of the negative things. I am just trying to get a better picture of how this thing is influencing our lives (or rather, the lives of others, because I know my own experiences) and try to find some pattern in that. I am not here to judge, or at least, I am not trying to judge.
I have now read this post. Good.
ReplyDelete