What do we do about information polarization in the internet age?

[MadImmortalMan]

Well, there's already a difference of consensus between different countries. A popular politician in one place would be seen as a kook elsewhere. The US split itself into red and blue states. Just stuff like that. I'm sure most of that isn't new though.

[The Brain]

Well, there's already a difference of consensus between different countries. A popular politician in one place would be seen as a kook elsewhere. The US split itself into red and blue states. Just stuff like that. I'm sure most of that isn't new though.

My impression is that we're getting a bigger diversity of opinion in a single country thanks to the ease of migration. In Sweden definitely. For instance Swedes are a lot more similar in opinion to people in the Middle East today than at any time in the previous couple of centuries.

[CountDeMoney]

Well, there's already a difference of consensus between different countries. A popular politician in one place would be seen as a kook elsewhere. The US split itself into red and blue states. Just stuff like that. I'm sure most of that isn't new though.

Nope, not new at all.  Jefferson versus Adams, pre-Civil War, Yellow Journalism, WW1, and so on..plenty of examples of America taking sides through media.

[Valmy]

Well, there's already a difference of consensus between different countries. A popular politician in one place would be seen as a kook elsewhere. The US split itself into red and blue states. Just stuff like that. I'm sure most of that isn't new though.

Nope, not new at all.  Jefferson versus Adams, pre-Civil War, Yellow Journalism, WW1, and so on..plenty of examples of America taking sides through media.

Certainly that sort of news ghettoization and polarization was a HUGE reason for everybody wanting to murder each other in 1860. I think of that era quite a bit.

I think it is really different now though because before communities would be extremely aligned. Local communities. It was very common back in the day for towns to vote 100% for a political party. Now the communities are more disparate. Like-minded people from different countries now come together and feel more politically aligned with them than they do with their physical communities. That is very new and interesting.

Also people who were isolated with extreme views can now find people around the world to support and affirm those views. It is not that that never happened before but now it is so much easier.

[Siege]

I was thinking about this -


Let's operate under the assumption that it is the case that the internet age has seen a shift in the manner that media is consumed such that the "information silo" effect often speculated on, where aero cost access to information does in fact actually mean that people become (overall) less prone to seeing multiple views, and able to simply reinforce their own (sometimes very extreme) viewpoints.


This is a human failing, not a technology failing. In hindsight, it isn't even that surprising. The human predisposition to simply using information to reinforce their conclusions, rather than forming conclusions based on information is pretty well understood at this point.


What worries me is that I don't see a solution, even in theory. It kind of flies in the face of my presumed Humanism, my presumption that more information is good, and people will make better decisions the more information they have access to...rather it seems like we were possibly actually better off when technology was such that there was a filter that restricted information (this of course presumes that those doing the filtering do so responsibly, and in many cases we know that THAT isn't true anyway).


Is this something that will eventually correct itself, it just takes time? Will humans simply learn to be better and more objective consumers of information, but right now we are smack in the very beginning of that painful learning process, so we cannot really see it?

So, you are not happy that people are not liberal enough. Well, bad news for you.

The invention of writing brought unparalleled power to the elite. It allowed them to control the tranfer of knowledge from generation to generation. The invention of the printing press brought unparalleled power to the new elite, controlling what was published and what people learned. The invention of the internet destroyed the monopoly on publications and on what the people believed or learned.

It is the way it is. With "internet neutrality" the elite will recover control of their power, but another invention, virtual reality, they will lose it again.

The circle of life.....

[Valmy]

It is the way it is. With "internet neutrality" the elite will recover control of their power, but another invention, virtual reality, they will lose it again.

So not allowing the elite to dictate which websites get premium service will...somehow...give them power?

The invention of writing brought unparalleled power to the elite.

You know this how? You have pre-writing ghosts around telling you the secret pre-literate history?

Before maybe only the few elites were given the oral knowledge.

So, you are not happy that people are not liberal enough. Well, bad news for you.

Left wing ideas are spreading much more rapidly and more effectively now with the internet. If Berkut really was the far left caricature you imagine in your own mind wouldn't he be embracing it?

Actually you know what? You always wimp out and never respond to my comments on what you say, so why do I bother?

[fromtia]

I tend to subscribe to this idea, that the internet has produced a fevered polarization of political viewpoints. Like all my ideas though, I have no clue where I got it from.

British newspapers have always been vigorously political, and made no secret of their political bias. Their editorial viewpoints reflected the opinions of the people who owned the papers. A person read the paper that reflected their own political view.So that was true before the internet, and obviously throughout history people have had completely mad views that were irreconcilable with their foes and led to warfare and bloodshed. So perhaps it's not an internet thing at all.

Personally I think that public education is a grand idea, and the more of it that is to do with critical thinking, analytical reasoning, media studies, civics, and whatever the hell else might help and the less of it to do with garbage testing and evaluation the better.

[Admiral Yi]

Holy shit.

[fromtia]

Holy shit.

It was pretty profound, wasn't it?

The other thing I always sort of thought, was if the media is really the fourth estate and it's oh so super valuable to our cherished democracy and all that stuff then we ought not let vast swathes of it fall into the hands of a tiny amount of owners. That's all out the window with the internet now though. You can find just about any point of view on any given subject you like on the internet, and I think that's a good thing. Although if I was a cop and I had to pull over one of those sovereign citizen guys who got a lot of good ideas from the internet I might not think so.

[Admiral Yi]

It was pretty profound, wasn't it?

it was total drivel. I'm blown away by your reemergence after 20 years.

Welcome back Fromagia.

[fromtia]

It was pretty profound, wasn't it?

it was total drivel. I'm blown away by your reemergence after 20 years.

Welcome back Fromagia.

It took me that long to recover from your +3 Hammer of Crushing Rhetoric that you used on me last time we crossed paths. I've been in the woods killing boars.

Great to see you. 

[fromtia]

Before maybe only the few elites were given the oral knowledge.

Now, thanks to the internet, everyone has the knowledge of oral. 

[Monoriu]

Before maybe only the few elites were given the oral knowledge.

Now, thanks to the internet, everyone has the knowledge of oral. 

Welcome back

[The Brain]

Hi f!

[Alcibiades]

It is the way it is. With "internet neutrality" the elite will recover control of their power, but another invention, virtual reality, they will lose it again.

The circle of life.....