Information has
always been a vital aspect to learning and improvement, and it has evolved and
adapted to the constraints of time and space. We, as a society, breed
destructive habits when we produce information at the overwhelming rate we do
now. Geert Lovink presents compelling results from his analysis of the
interaction between society, information, and technology in his book, Networks
Without a Cause: A Critique of Social Media. Lovink believes that an
information-saturated society will bring on negative consequences, but he
accepts the explosion of information and enhancement in technology as a result
of time and human progress. In
considering his views, I agree with his results and believe that we are obliged
to progress as a society, and adapt to the needs and imminent effects. Technology
has the ability to create networks and expedite processes that would,
otherwise, be less than convenient without technology, but it generates a
series of complications and consequences.
The use of
networks has exponentially increased along with technological improvement,
leading to enhanced abilities to connect users from around the world. Information
technologies, such as the mobile phone and computer, make it especially easy
for users, with similar interests and backgrounds, to connect. As a result,
users are able to develop multiple identities, an online self and an offline,
public self, which stems from the fact that users cannot physically see the
person on the other side of the connect. Distinguishing between the two
identities can be difficult, depending on how the user interacts through the
technological device. As stated by Lovink, “Only with the rise of the blogosphere
did the internet become inundated with self-promotion. Social networking sites
unleashed a collective obsession with ‘identity management’” (Lovink 38). Users
wish to express themselves in a positive manner, while also establishing the
cause and reason for expression, which can lead to an inadvertent bias as to
what information and ideas they put into and take from the Web. At what point
does the online self diverge from the True self? Lovink affirms that computer
networks are used to escape reality, leading to the belief that much of the information
accessed through the Web is not reliable or trustworthy (Lovink 39). From Jan
van Dijk’s work, “Social Structure”, “The new media are individualizing media,
mainly because they are based upon individual human-computer interaction… as
these computers are connected in networks.” (van Dijk 172) Computers give users
the power to create an identity and become an individual in the online
community, which is a privilege society did not have before computers. This
newfound freedom allows users to be anything they want to be; an exciting
aspect for generations to come. Subsequently, an explosion in information and
created identities will saturate the information economy, leading to
information overload.
Information is
such a pervasive concept that we cannot control or understand, leading to
development of organizational methods that are accessible and, in some ways,
partial. Today, society primarily uses Google to filter through information we
want to see because of its easy use and reliability. What average users do not
know is that the result of Google’s search algorithm is a ranking of links by
popularity and number of clicks, rather than credibility and truth. Entities,
like Google, are what society needs to control the flow of information. The
only problem is that Google has biased tendencies in regards to what information
is considered a top hit. When money is introduced into the equation,
corporations become a profit-driven force, rather than being driven to find the
truth. Society has developed such a reliance on search engines that it has lost
the ability to think critically and write concisely and intelligently. As
Lovink bluntly articulates, “Computers were introduced as general
problem-solvers... personal and social tensions cannot be resolved by simply
declaring them a problem” (Lovink 149). We, as a society, have the problem of
confiding in Google for all of our disputes and concerns. We think that typing
our problem into a search box will lead us to the ultimate solution. As Carlo
Rotella points out in his piece, “No child left untableted”, “That’s the root
of what she calls in the crisis in the ability to talk… their students ‘are
fixed on programs that give the right answer, and they’re losing the notion of
talking and listening to each other’” (Rotella 9). The use of technology, such
as the tablet, pushes students to pursue answers in a direct manner rather than
placing emphasis on the learning process, which promotes critical thinking and
communication. This ineptitude compels us to involve ourselves in criticisms
that we are not qualified to be in.
The point of
criticism is to produce ideas of elite, credible minds and to share them with
the masses, so they can elevate their minds and modernize society.
Sense and reason are key factors in
criticism. When users insist on spoiling themselves through information
overload, sense and reason are lost. Lovink believes that the rise of pop
culture has led to the death of criticism because it undermines the authority
of the credible critic (Lovink 64). Since the rise of the blog in the early
2000s, users have the freedom and reason to post their ideas and opinions for
the world to see. There are two sides to this development. First, web-reviewing
and criticism is a power and freedom solely in in the hands of the user;
second, there is a degradation of literary taste when incapable users saturate
the web with their opinions. Anyone with access to the Internet has the ability
to become a “critic”, leading to critique saturation. Specifically, the art
industry is in peril because art sales arise from valid, trustworthy critiques.
Art criticisms are now massively produced, and therefore, massively ignored. We
no longer look at art as society has in past times. As Lovink puts it, we look
at cell phones and running shoes in the way we used to look at art. (Lovink 67)
This display of web and technology use shows how much society enjoys voicing opinions
and analyzing every aspect of the world, especially political and social views.
A new concept
known as slacktivism has arisen with the expansion and acceptance of
information technologies. Slacktivism is the idea that users are able to
actively participate and incorporate their views on political and social issues
from the comfort of their seats. Slacktivists employ the use of the Web and
networking technologies as tools for social change, yet it seems to only serve
as an organizational tool. The Internet does have the capacity to accelerate
the movement of awareness and issues based on the value and number of people
behind the cause.
This leads to a decrease in the
necessity for public spheres, which are physical places where a community can
come together and discuss current events and concerns. The web empowers society
to conduct human connections through networking, thereby eliminating
constraints of time and space, i.e. public spheres. Correspondingly, Lovink
introduces that with the expanded uses of the Internet and explosion in the
amount of data, there have also been similar increases in the surveillance of
users and networks. (Lovink 159) Elevated security and surveillance means
slacktivism cannot solely rely on online networking anymore. Social change has
always required physical mobilization to invoke response from the opposing
side. Ramesh Srinivasan has similar
thoughts on social change through slacktivism in his reading, “Bridges between
cultural and digital worlds in Revolutionary Egypt”, “she argues that social
media technologies may best foster strong ties in highly policied
environments–and that these ties may ultimately empower oppositional networks…
social media may “speed things up” they are neither necessary nor sufficient in
the making of contemporary revolution” (Srinivasan 52). Srinivasan acknowledges
that social media is integral in the spread of information and cause, but he
clearly agrees that one needs more than just being a slacktivist to brign about
social revolution. Srinivasan, who has encountered social revolution firsthand,
expresses that slacktivism is not necessary because you cannot induce
oppositional response through online debate and chatter.
As previously
illustrated, the Internet allows you to escape from reality by creating online
identities, it has sites like Google that will give you the answer to perhaps
any question you may have. And it authorizes you to be a critic of any matter
that may be trending now. Through these capabilities and qualifications, you
are now able to conduct and involve yourself in social and political transformation
for a matter you are truly passionate about. Even with the great capacity to
promote positive change, why does the Internet still arouse argument and debate
over its negative side effects? There are trade-offs between the benefits and
disadvantages to Internet use, will we suffer from data obesity as a result of
information overload or will we change the world? The only certain thing is
that technology has shown the world its infinite potential, yet it has also
shown us how much dependence and fallout comes from it. Time moves on and
technology progresses, you are only able to accept the consequences with the
improvement of society.
