As anyone using or researching digital media will find, the Internet is widely regarded as a democratic platform. Its wide reach, ease of access, low cost, and ability to provide a voice to anyone with a message are the main reasons why it’s considered an answer to the problem of selective exposure granted by traditional media. Digital media, however, has its own biases, and it’s important to take a step back from the euphoric celebration of cyber utopians and evaluate the true nature and function of the Internet.
The internet is human-made technology. It may be getting increasingly sophisticated with time, but with the advancement of technology, there’s also an increasing availability of tools to game it. As Gerhards & Schäfer (2010) show in their study, there is minimal evidence to support the idea that the internet is a better communication space as compared to traditional media. In their study, they compare framing and the type of sources quoted in articles about human genome research for a sample of stories culled from search engine results and articles from the online archives of newspapers. I was surprised to know that ”the concentration of communication by a few actors in the internet exceeds that in the print media.” The authors also found that though these findings are true for both countries; US internet communication is even more one-sided than its German equivalent.
One of the main reasons for these findings is the mechanism of search engines that organizes public debate on the Internet. The system is so organized that it gives an unfair advantage to established voices and actors, making it more difficult for smaller actors and their arguments to appear relevant in Internet searches. As this article in Wired magazine mentions, Google’s search engine algorithm is decided by “three dozen engineers, product managers, and executives.” This shows that we’re leaving the decision of deciding the kind of content we read, in the hands of a few elites who may or not have an interest in promoting diverse views.
Then there’s also the issue of gatekeeping by search engine companies through the creation of monopolies. The same Wired article says Google commands a 65 percent market share and is still the only company whose name is synonymous with the verb search. It’s not unimaginable, that with such a huge control over the market, companies might resort to agenda setting, or become attractive targets for unscrupulous companies wanting to game their search algorithm. That’s exactly what happened in 2011 when JC Penney’s products started appearing on the top of the search list for various popular items such as home decor, clothes, accessories, furnishings and so on. This New York Times article succinctly describes a very important criterion used by Google in ranking pages for a search: The more links to your site, the higher your ranking. “In a way, what Google is measuring is your site’s popularity by polling the best-informed online fans (of the subject matter of your site) and counting their links to your site as votes of approval.”
This leads to a dangerous pattern of the voice of a few loud netizens shaping online discussions, and maybe even opinions. If search engines work purely on mathematical algorithms, elites in online communities could reproduce their own agendas and market it as the dominant viewpoint. Worse, a handful of powerful and vociferous elites from the online community could be used to further the agenda-setting aims of other, more powerful institutions. As this article mentions, social media makes rumor mills faster, not smarter. “The technologies of new media turn everyone who uses them into news sources, blasting out information, with attached links, in one click.” To add to it, there’s little responsibility for the accuracy of the news disseminated on social media.
The Habermasian idea of the public sphere includes the idea of everyone having equal opportunities to express their opinion, and that is true for social media, but when it comes to the content of those expressions, social media falls far below the standards of reasonable, meaningful, discussions that should be occurring in the public sphere. Unlike real-life public spheres such as cafes and public gathering spaces, it’s easier for people on digital media to ignore the opinions of those they don’t agree with, breeding more insular attitudes.
Lastly, there’s also the gatekeeping of digital media as performed by governments through censorship. As Evgeny Morozov mentions, the Internet can aid in spreading the opinions of dictators.
Like most issues, the idea of democracy on the digital sphere has two sides. While it’s undeniable that it allows a platform for the most disempowered to speak, how effective that speech is, remains debatable.
References:
Gerhards, J. & Schäfer, M. S. (2010). Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media Society. 12(1) 143–160.
The internet is human-made technology. It may be getting increasingly sophisticated with time, but with the advancement of technology, there’s also an increasing availability of tools to game it. As Gerhards & Schäfer (2010) show in their study, there is minimal evidence to support the idea that the internet is a better communication space as compared to traditional media. In their study, they compare framing and the type of sources quoted in articles about human genome research for a sample of stories culled from search engine results and articles from the online archives of newspapers. I was surprised to know that ”the concentration of communication by a few actors in the internet exceeds that in the print media.” The authors also found that though these findings are true for both countries; US internet communication is even more one-sided than its German equivalent.
One of the main reasons for these findings is the mechanism of search engines that organizes public debate on the Internet. The system is so organized that it gives an unfair advantage to established voices and actors, making it more difficult for smaller actors and their arguments to appear relevant in Internet searches. As this article in Wired magazine mentions, Google’s search engine algorithm is decided by “three dozen engineers, product managers, and executives.” This shows that we’re leaving the decision of deciding the kind of content we read, in the hands of a few elites who may or not have an interest in promoting diverse views.
Then there’s also the issue of gatekeeping by search engine companies through the creation of monopolies. The same Wired article says Google commands a 65 percent market share and is still the only company whose name is synonymous with the verb search. It’s not unimaginable, that with such a huge control over the market, companies might resort to agenda setting, or become attractive targets for unscrupulous companies wanting to game their search algorithm. That’s exactly what happened in 2011 when JC Penney’s products started appearing on the top of the search list for various popular items such as home decor, clothes, accessories, furnishings and so on. This New York Times article succinctly describes a very important criterion used by Google in ranking pages for a search: The more links to your site, the higher your ranking. “In a way, what Google is measuring is your site’s popularity by polling the best-informed online fans (of the subject matter of your site) and counting their links to your site as votes of approval.”
Top search results on Google for all kinds of consumer products led to JCPenney.com for several months.
Some people described it as the “most ambitious attempt to game Google’s search results ever seen.”
Photo credit: New York Times.
This leads to a dangerous pattern of the voice of a few loud netizens shaping online discussions, and maybe even opinions. If search engines work purely on mathematical algorithms, elites in online communities could reproduce their own agendas and market it as the dominant viewpoint. Worse, a handful of powerful and vociferous elites from the online community could be used to further the agenda-setting aims of other, more powerful institutions. As this article mentions, social media makes rumor mills faster, not smarter. “The technologies of new media turn everyone who uses them into news sources, blasting out information, with attached links, in one click.” To add to it, there’s little responsibility for the accuracy of the news disseminated on social media.
The Habermasian idea of the public sphere includes the idea of everyone having equal opportunities to express their opinion, and that is true for social media, but when it comes to the content of those expressions, social media falls far below the standards of reasonable, meaningful, discussions that should be occurring in the public sphere. Unlike real-life public spheres such as cafes and public gathering spaces, it’s easier for people on digital media to ignore the opinions of those they don’t agree with, breeding more insular attitudes.
Lastly, there’s also the gatekeeping of digital media as performed by governments through censorship. As Evgeny Morozov mentions, the Internet can aid in spreading the opinions of dictators.
Like most issues, the idea of democracy on the digital sphere has two sides. While it’s undeniable that it allows a platform for the most disempowered to speak, how effective that speech is, remains debatable.
References:
Gerhards, J. & Schäfer, M. S. (2010). Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media Society. 12(1) 143–160.
No comments:
Post a Comment