In the beginning (circa late seventies), the hope was that the Internet (aka WorldWideWeb or WWW) would help to bring us all together. The network was designed by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the Department of Defence DOD) to withstand a nuclear strike; the problem was how to defend a computer installation from an enemy attack. The solution was to decentralize Pentagon computers locating them safely, physically distant from one another but still somehow connected so that if one went down the others in the N(liketwork would continue functioning. This ArpaNet soon became available to civilians under the name “The Internet” thanks mainly to the efforts of then Senator Al Gore. At first only large universities and DOD facilities had access to the Internet via their local large computers but as time went on, smaller universities got connected and finally individual users like you and me acquired access to the Internet using our own Personal Computers (PC) and, as they say, the rest is history.
This jump in technology was as momentous as the invention of the telegraph in terms of creating a social network. On the other hand, Thoreau, when informed that this fabulous new technology would enable a man in Maine to talk to a man in Texas, his response was something like, “But what would a man in Maine have to say to a man in Texas?” Indeed, if we substitute the word Democrat and Repulican for Maine and Texas that comment seems prescient. To explore this insight more thoroughly, search on “What Would Thoreau Think of Our 24-Hour News Cycle?”
But the problem raised by Thoreau seems to be pretty much solved. One of the defining features of the Internet is, not only that it helps us keep in touch with friends and family, it allows us to make new friends and keep up-to-date on whatever news is happening anywhere. Anyone and everyone can find something to mull over and that certainly includes me: I am interested in what a person in Hong Kong, let alone Texas, is thinking and feeling right now.
Unfortunately, there is a flip side to this remarkable technology. Rather than bringing the country and our elected representatives closer, it seems to be driving them apart. We don’t listen --- we talk past one another and that only exacerbates our differences and continues this vicious cycle of dividing this country and indeed, the world. We find ourselves in this paradoxical situation where connections are being made and broken with equal ease.
So, this so-called stupendous technology is simultaneously connecting the human race and driving it apart. If the venom facilitated by the Internet continues, especially via social websites such as Facebook (which has over 2 Billion monthly active users) and Twitter as well as the Comments sections of most all news sites --- if this continues, then I believe the United States will continue to unravel becoming the “Untied” States of America. (Sorry about that).
As an antidote to this problem, social sites are beginning to fact-check and to remove or flag hateful speech as well as misleading political ads using Artificial Intelligence programs (AI) as well as hordes of people (Facebook claims that it has over 35,000 fact checkers.) In the near past, both Facebook and Twitter had laissez-faire attitudes regarding political ads including those that could be interpreted as rabble-rousing. , Mark Zukerberg, CEO of Facebook, has said, “What I believe is that in a democracy, it’s really important that people can see for themselves what politicians are saying, so they can make their own judgments and that when it's not absolutely clear what to do, we should err on the side of greater expression”. But pressure from advertisers (More Than 1,000 Companies Boycotted Facebook. Did It Work?” NYT August 2020) and groups trying to protect minority rights has forced him to back away from completely free expression and to adhere to a policy that bans political ads that contain hate speech or are factually false.
Similarly, Twitter has tightened up its vetting of political ads that contain hate speech. Here is a snapshot of a page in its community standards:
“...we expanded our rules against hateful conduct to include language that dehumanizes others on the basis of religion. Today, we are further expanding this rule to include language that dehumanizes on the basis of age, disability or disease.
We will require Tweets like these to be removed from Twitter when they’re reported to us:”
I’m sure the editors of this newspaper will agree that It is becoming an increasingly tough call determining what is publishable and what is not.
