Someone on the Internet is Wrong

Clay Shirky, in his article “We are indeed less willing to agree on what constitutes truth” highlights his particular point of the power of the Internet and its ability to see what people actually think.  Shirky’s commentary is salient as it exposes the freedom the Internet provides – it is a platform for any and all, the intelligent and ignorant, for all to publish their opinion for all to see and respond to, possible consequences be damned.  This liberty, unrestrained and unfiltered, pervades media outlets as well which should cause the public to question their objectivity.  As Shirky notes, “Each organization will have to try to convince its audience that it is trustworthy, without being able to rely on residual respect for any such entity as ‘the press.’ . . . They can no longer fall back on “experts,” as if every professor or researcher is equally trustworthy.”  Even though this development can be framed as a negative, it should be viewed as a positive – never has there been such an influential platform to question a media outlet’s bias, quickly dismantling an otherwise damaging story.

To emphasize Shirky’s point one only has to look to the comment section of any news article.  Ideally, it would be a platform form for civil and thoughtful argument and discourse however, it rarely seems it is, often devolving into hate and venom filled diatribes eliminating any possibility of actually debating in a respectful manner.  Mike Godwin coined the term “Godwin’s Law” which states “’As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1’ that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or his deeds.”  Given the polarizing political environment and the news articles generated, Godwin’s Law is often observed in full effect. 

Argument is a vital tool within communication – the discourse between parties to defend a stance can and should be a constructive endeavor and if done successfully, cause one to understand a new perspective.  Due to the rather anonymous nature of the internet, the filter in which public debate is executed under is removed and the level of effectiveness can be compromised.  With essentially no boundaries, inflammatory comments, name-calling, and essentially childish behavior tends to ensue so the question becomes, is the Internet truly an effective platform for constructive arguments?  I think that answer is still to be determined as we evolve with this relatively new form of communication.