Does the internet maintain and increase stupidity and prejudice?

[Astaroth]

I think the internet is great. I can't imagine not having access to it -- even aside from all the fun aspects, the internet is incredibly useful for many areas of life. From free dictionaries to wikipedia, the internet has it all.

In a way, I always thought the internet contributed at least a little bit to reducing general stupidity throughout the world: I mean, not only do you get access to many sources of knowledge, but you also come into contact with many different people from all over the world, English being the lingua franca. This should help reduce existing prejudice against other people and be a tool of furthering the enlightenment, right?

Unfortunately, I increasingly feel that this is not entirely true. While the internet might be a positive development as a whole (I certainly appreciate it!) I have lost most of my hope of it becoming a means to fight against borders between different groups of people (ethnicities/nations/languages etc.).

Instead, I feel that the internet actually serves to maintain and even increase general stupidity and prejudice. There are several reasons for that:

1) Due to the size of the internet and its countless participants, almost every stupid belief will be shared by at least a few people who can easily find each other. If in pre-internet times you were the only neo-Nazi in your small village, chances of you maintaining that belief or spreading it were fairly slim. Nowadays, many neo-Nazis have their own forums that result in them strengthening each other's beliefs.

2) The anonymity of the internet makes it easier for stupidity and discrimination to get an audience. It's not that "normal" people become racists because of the internet, but whereas racists might keep quiet about their views in the "real world", they might well act differently online.

3) The amount of sources does not result in a more balanced, rational or logical view on the world: Most people are completely unwilling to question their own opinions. Instead, they try to find a source that conforms to their previously formed view. Obviously the same happens in the "real world" with left-wingers reading newspaper X, right-wingers newspaper Y (see FoxNews etc.). But the internet as a whole harboring more extremism (see points 1 and 2) means that even the most racist, radically right-wing extremist will find a source that "confirms" his own beliefs yet "looks" as "proper/serious" as any regular newssite.

Having to print and sell a newspaper (or produce a TV channel) means that you have to maintain some sort of standard and not publish the most inane nonsense, stupidity or racism, in most countries at least. But the same doesn't apply online.

Prejudiced people with uninformed or racist views have an incredibly easy time to find some sort of source on the internet that upholds or even increases their stupidity. In combination with points 1) and 2), the internet thus results in something akin to many parallel societies forming, each of them having their own radical views, their own forums and websites and their own exclusive "sources of information" (no matter how manipulative or downright idiotic these sources might be). These small communities of stupidity and extremism serve to confirm their members' views over and over again, increasingly radicalising them and estranging them from society and reason.

Thus, the internet -- at least in part -- unfortunately does not reduce existing prejudice and stupidity, but instead adds to it in a considerable way.

Discuss.

[Denny Crane!]

Resisting desire to comment on irony.

No I think its far to subjective a concept but given what populations were like 100 years ago, not employing a person because he was protestant and its a catholic factory or disliking people from the next village, yeah I'm going to go ahead and say its been better than its ever been, and as subjective opinions go I'll await an empirical analysis should anyone think of a way to do it.

[Caelifer_1991]

I tend to just go out of my way to avoid/ ignore/ block those parts of the internet that harbour the greatest degrees of filth. Take Youtube comments for instance, after seeing the comments section deform and devolve into a race/ religion/ nationality/ gender/ *select any arbitrary means by which people wilfully segregate themselves* argument one time too many, I decided it would be best to simply block the entire comments section on the website. One might wonder: "why not simply choose not to scroll down?", a very good question, to which I answer that it doesn't quite offer the requisite finality and insurance against seeing the sheer degree of stupidity on offer. It may sound strange but some of the things people say on the internet actually makes me lose compassion and have less respect for people in real life if it exists in great enough quantity. The internet is like a bowel of fruit, it pays to pick and choose the parts of it that haven't started to rot.

[Himster]

There is a more sinister implication in online interactions IMO: bullying and children.
bullying is a natural part of growing up, of learning what is appropriate, a child will call another child "fat" or "stupid" or a "pooh face", then they see the reaction being mean has and that naturally makes them feel bad (usually). This process is dehumanized online, a child is less likely to develop an awareness of how words can affect other people and grow up without ever learning it, eventually it becomes too late to learn that.

I agree with Denny that we've never had a period with this level of tolerance and understanding before. But it is still a fragile state of affairs, we are all roughly aware that the internet is a double edged sword even though we're not entirely sure where these edges are just yet, things are moving awfully fast and we're struggling to keep up, we're not sure what the real risks are concerning the internet and there are so many possible risks, not all of them can be genuine, so we tend to ignore pretty much all of them.

[Guy]

Hasn't it simply given people the opportunity to bask in stupidity? Therefore those who people may already regard as "stupid" simply bathe in the same stupidness amongst those with an equal level of stupidity?

It helps develop people either way. Development is always a good thing, right?

Resisting desire to comment on irony.

First thought.

[O'Hea]

I'm inclined to think the internet gives you whatever you ask for. If you come to it wanting to learn something, you'll learn something, and if you come to it expecting it to confirm what you already believe, you'll find that too. I don't know of anyone who got 'converted' to some kind of ignorant or extremist attitude through the internet who wasn't already one of those susceptible types, and I know lots of people who have had their horizons expanded by it.

Also, on the note of how Youtube comments are always horrible: I read about a study recently that assessed where the subjects were on different personality disorder spectrums and then observed what their online habits were. The conclusion was basically that the sliver of the population that rates highly for sociopathy, machiavellianism, etc account for almost all internet trolling, which makes me feel better because it says that it's a relatively small group doing it and they were already crazy people to begin with.

[dogukan]

I thought being exposed to others and "strangers" should have been good...but now I think there is simply too much misinformation and everyone thinks they got stuff figured out and expresses hatred even more.

My father pre-internet was a rational sensible guy....now he is a conspiracy freak that won't listen to anyone and get mad at others for not listening to his secrets....so I cannot really tell.

[Stavroforos]

It definitely seems so, OP.

[Gaidin]

I think the internet is great. I can't imagine not having access to it -- even aside from all the fun aspects, the internet is incredibly useful for many areas of life. From free dictionaries to wikipedia, the internet has it all.

In a way, I always thought the internet contributed at least a little bit to reducing general stupidity throughout the world: I mean, not only do you get access to many sources of knowledge, but you also come into contact with many different people from all over the world, English being the lingua franca. This should help reduce existing prejudice against other people and be a tool of furthering the enlightenment, right?

Unfortunately, I increasingly feel that this is not entirely true. While the internet might be a positive development as a whole (I certainly appreciate it!) I have lost most of my hope of it becoming a means to fight against borders between different groups of people (ethnicities/nations/languages etc.).

Instead, I feel that the internet actually serves to maintain and even increase general stupidity and prejudice. There are several reasons for that:

The internet is an object. How you act, that is you. To think otherwise, that is a frivolous excuse.

1) Due to the size of the internet and its countless participants, almost every stupid belief will be shared by at least a few people who can easily find each other. If in pre-internet times you were the only neo-Nazi in your small village, chances of you maintaining that belief or spreading it were fairly slim. Nowadays, many neo-Nazis have their own forums that result in them strengthening each other's beliefs.

Let's pretend we're not talking about the internet right now. Just a closely packed huge city. Hell let's go deeper. Let's name a real city. What about New York City?

2) The anonymity of the internet makes it easier for stupidity and discrimination to get an audience. It's not that "normal" people become racists because of the internet, but whereas racists might keep quiet about their views in the "real world", they might well act differently online.

Not special. You find the wrong online hangout you get banned so fast it's hilarious. You find the right hangout you have the exact scenario you describe. Now, let's run with my analogy. Find the wrong bar in New York City. You'll find yourself thrown out on the street. The right one, you're a part of the crowd. All the while, you're a part of the anonymity of the huge population that is New York City. As long as you don't break any laws. Same for the internet for that last, by the way.

3) The amount of sources does not result in a more balanced, rational or logical view on the world: Most people are completely unwilling to question their own opinions. Instead, they try to find a source that conforms to their previously formed view. Obviously the same happens in the "real world" with left-wingers reading newspaper X, right-wingers newspaper Y (see FoxNews etc.). But the internet as a whole harboring more extremism (see points 1 and 2) means that even the most racist, radically right-wing extremist will find a source that "confirms" his own beliefs yet "looks" as "proper/serious" as any regular newssite.

Let me sum your statement down into four words: "People are not logical". Welcome to humanity. Whether it's the internet or it's the city or the town or the wherever, people are more emotional than logical unless they've specifically trained themselves to be logical.

Prejudiced people with uninformed or racist views have an incredibly easy time to find some sort of source on the internet that upholds or even increases their stupidity. In combination with points 1) and 2), the internet thus results in something akin to many parallel societies forming, each of them having their own radical views, their own forums and websites and their own exclusive "sources of information" (no matter how manipulative or downright idiotic these sources might be). These small communities of stupidity and extremism serve to confirm their members' views over and over again, increasingly radicalising them and estranging them from society and reason.

Not really. I mean, sure, they find their sources, but those sources get called out for the idiocy they are at most places. Unless they're at a site that's singing to the choir. Or unless they're at a site that has some strange rules.

Thus, the internet -- at least in part -- unfortunately does not reduce existing prejudice and stupidity, but instead adds to it in a considerable way.

Discuss.

Assuming we're talking about a forum that isn't stormfront, most will call these sources out for what they are. Others...have strange rules. There's the irony Denny was talking about, where he resisted, I will blatantly point it out and swing the baseball bat. You might maybe spend too much time at a site with those strange rules.

[Astaroth]

Gaidin, I don't necessarily disagree with all of your points. Obviously these developments take place in other situations as well, sure.

But the difference with the internet is just how easy and common it is. There are millions of people in NYC, but how many people use the internet? There are countless different communities in NYC, including plenty of stupid and racist ones -- but how many more are there on the internet? And how much easier are they to find, join and participate in?

Of course all of these aspects are in the very nature of the internet itself. It facilitates and speeds up a great number of things. But naturally that can be a problem when what is facilitated is the spreading of racism and stupidity.

Beyond that there are also some aspects that are unique to the internet with regards to stupidity and the likes:

Aside from how easy it is to find likeminded people online, the anonymity of the internet makes it easier for racists and such to let go of the masks they present to society. It's one thing to go to your local skinhead club and openly identify as a neo-Nazi (even if there is such a club, s. problem of finding likeminded people above) and something entirely different -- and much easier -- to post racist BS online under a fake ID.

Furthermore, the internet easily gives something a more professional vibe than "real life" does. It's fairly easy (if you have some money or following) to have a professional looking website that presents racist content or other nonsense (e.g. creationism) to a large audience. If you then add a semi-large amount of following to it, every viewer quickly gets the impression that 1) this is a decent enough source (at least if he has the necessary proto-bias to begin with) and 2) enough other people agree with this, so it can't be totally bogus. This leads to following an "alternative newssite" and becoming an increasingly fervent believer in its nonsense.

In "real life", things are a bit different. Sure, there are other newspapers besides the main ones as well. But it is much harder to present a professional front with a comparable amount of effort. It's just not the same to buy a newspaper that has obviously print quality, is rarely ever sold anywhere and that you know is produced by a neo-Nazi skinhead with his two friends in his mom's basement that smells of cat piss. In contrast, the very same people can (if they have some knowledge and/or resources) easily present a much more "respectable" site online, thus attracting a much larger audience.

[Gaidin]

Gaidin, I don't necessarily disagree with all of your points. Obviously these developments take place in other situations as well, sure.

But the difference with the internet is just how easy and common it is. There are millions of people in NYC, but how many people use the internet? There are countless different communities in NYC, including plenty of stupid and racist ones -- but how many more are there on the internet? And how much easier are they to find, join and participate in?

You're taking the analogy too literally. There's a reason it's called an analogy. It's an analogy because any bald nazi whitehead in New York can still find a place to hang out with people that agree with him and a choir to preach to. Just like he can eventually find stormfront.

Of course all of these aspects are in the very nature of the internet itself. It facilitates and speeds up a great number of things. But naturally that can be a problem when what is facilitated is the spreading of racism and stupidity.

It's the aspect of people. Not the aspect of the internet. The internet is an object.

Aside from how easy it is to find likeminded people online, the anonymity of the internet makes it easier for racists and such to let go of the masks they present to society. It's one thing to go to your local skinhead club and openly identify as a neo-Nazi (even if there is such a club, s. problem of finding likeminded people above) and something entirely different -- and much easier -- to post racist BS online under a fake ID.

Anybody willing to put forth the legwork can find the identity of the person in both environments. You as a moderator should know this. Now the person willing to put forth the legwork on the internet can also hide his identity...you as a moderator should also know this. But both do take legwork. Make no mistake about it.

Furthermore, the internet easily gives something a more professional vibe than "real life" does. It's fairly easy (if you have some money or following) to have a professional looking website that presents racist content or other nonsense (e.g. creationism) to a large audience. If you then add a semi-large amount of following to it, every viewer quickly gets the impression that 1) this is a decent enough source (at least if he has the necessary proto-bias to begin with) and 2) enough other people agree with this, so it can't be totally bogus. This leads to following an "alternative newssite" and becoming an increasingly fervent believer in its nonsense.

It's actually easier to tear the websites down than it is the real life meetings. You should know this. Go watch a few real life debates of Creation vs Evolution and watch the Creationist get those crowds going. Meanwhile, online, we can tear apart those websites to the point that the only people that give them credit are True Believers(TM).

In "real life", things are a bit different. Sure, there are other newspapers besides the main ones as well. But it is much harder to present a professional front with a comparable amount of effort. It's just not the same to buy a newspaper that has obviously print quality, is rarely ever sold anywhere and that you know is produced by a neo-Nazi skinhead with his two friends in his mom's basement that smells of cat piss. In contrast, the very same people can (if they have some knowledge and/or resources) easily present a much more "respectable" site online, thus attracting a much larger audience.

Let them. If you care, see my point above about the Creationists. Get off your laziness and do something about it. You know something about web programming? Get as proactive as them!

[conon394]

@Astaroth

I think you are focusing on the negative aspects a liitle too much.

Does anonymity casuse some issues in comments or let people express views they might otherwise keep to themselves. Sure but those views likely always existed and in like you can't tune into some AM extreme station of choice as well, or say go to a particular christian books store to have your belief reinforced and find a community that will support it.

You can sit on the couch and watch FOX news or MSNBC if you just want to here comfort viewpoints from the right or the left. You know I had co worker once who was more or less attached to his views: For example we go out to a chain restraint called the Mongolian barbecue for Lunch. THe ideal was you dozens and dozens of choices of ingredients - you picked (buffet style) and they where grilled for you -all you can eat. Now he always had one huge bowl, same stuff every time, never changing (he had a little card to remind himself of what he liked). Interesting he liked the place and opted for if we were voting even though he sort of missed the whole point of it. Now that's fine but I suspect his approach to the internet was much the same.

Its True that many people don't understand that first link on Google is maybe just a slick opinion blog that has no data links or misues the ones they have or only presents some links but that problem is as old as well books.

Example: there are still books and papers published and printed that cite the ideal silent reading in the Classical World was a fantastically rare exception. That was debunked forcefully and repeatedly by numerous authors in numerous works over 50 years ago... But even the internet all to many authors and academics still only have partial access to collections of works (or lazy graduate assistants). The Internet may allow false memes or Racism or wather to happen a bit faster but it also allows more access to the facts which can deal with as well.

The internet does help there are more books online and more open access etc. Even just 3 free papers a month from JSTOR is important if you are at poor university in the Third World vs say Harvard or Iowa State University that can effort every subscription and huge and multiple libraries.

But I do agree all too many people fail appreciate what a sourced argument or position is and to actually read the source(s) and follow up on links if offered.
Another example there is French Study floating around the Internet published in what is a low tier journal that links GMO monsato round up reday crops and roundup to ghastly tumors and cancer in rats and implies thus the same result in Humans.

Fine thay have awful pictures which Anti GMO people love to put in web sites. But...

... Of course what is not disclosed is the rats used are GMO themselves designed explicitly to prone to cancers and that the standard of ethics for thier use calls for them to be humanely euthanized as soon as the cancer is detectable. That first point raised the first backlash against the study - it was cruel and designed to just produce gross pictures. Second others noted that the level of Roundup exposure was orders of magnitude beyone what anyone would encounter - they fed the rats round up directly. Third as my wife concurred and many other did in print the statistical power of the tiny sample size was not credible (by design and forced to live as long as they did most of the rats would have devolved Tumors anyway). The result was many researchers saying they would never summit a paper to the journal in question ever for having allowed such a study as PR to be published. Oh and the funding that came from sources looking to have France stop GMO crop approval so unbiased right?

So one the one hand you are right lefty Greens can easily find a comfort site to tell them they are right and GMO is evil, but at the same time given a couple hours I can debunk that with a little clicking(*). All in all Gaidin is right the internet is a tool. How the tool is used is more less up to any user.

* I am pretty sure the posts with links I did the last this came up here is still around if you want I'll find them

[Phier]

You can't fix stupid, and you can't make it worse either. It is what it is.

What the internet does though is allows stupid people to feel smart because they read biased or articles written by stupid people (yahoo news I'm looking at you), and think they now KNOW the truth. GMO stuff is a prime example of it.

But right now in the free world you have a lot of people wearing things like these....



Those people would have been stupid at any point in history, its just that now you get to hear their opinion on the internet.

[Astaroth]

You can't fix stupid, and you can't make it worse either. It is what it is.

What the internet does though is allows stupid people to feel smart because they read biased or articles written by stupid people (yahoo news I'm looking at you), and think they now KNOW the truth. GMO stuff is a prime example of it.

That's pretty much my point, yup.

The problem is, I'd say the stupid-percentage is higher online than offline. At least the stupidity-community is a lot more vocal and "proud" of itself on the net than IRL.

[Gaidin]

At least the stupidity-community is a lot more vocal and "proud" of itself on the net than IRL.

The stupidity-community is a lot more vocal in a crowd, it doesn't matter whether it's on the net or in real life.

[Astaroth]

And a crowd is a lot easier to find online, particularly a crowd of conspiracy-stupidity fans who don't dare to show their faces as easily IRL...

At least for some, the internet is the America of the 17th century and later: a refugee for the persecuted. That the "persecuted" (at least in democratic countries) nowadays are mostly those with ridiculous fringe views (as opposed to the mostly religious persecuted immigrants to the US) is a different matter altogether.

[Gaidin]

And a crowd is a lot easier to find online, particularly a crowd of conspiracy-stupidity fans who don't dare to show their faces as easily IRL...

At least for some, the internet is the America of the 17th century and later: a refugee for the persecuted. That the "persecuted" (at least in democratic countries) nowadays are mostly those with ridiculous fringe views (as opposed to the mostly religious persecuted immigrants to the US) is a different matter altogether.

So what. Get off your laziness and counter what they put online. This is a people thing, not an internet thing.

[Astaroth]

So what. Get off your laziness and counter what they put online. This is a people thing, not an internet thing.

Years on the internet have shown me that you cannot realistically convince someone to let go of their conspiracy theories et al.

You can't cure stupidity, you can only hope that stupidity does not gain traction by mass and finding "alternative" sources. Unfortunately, the internet facilitates that.

[Lortano]

Years on the internet have shown me that you cannot realistically convince someone to let go of their conspiracy theories et al.

You can't cure stupidity, you can only hope that stupidity does not gain traction by mass and finding "alternative" sources. Unfortunately, the internet facilitates that.

Hence why you should counter what you believe to be retarded, if you can disprove their views in the eyes of a guy who stumbled upon them he's not going to join them because you just made them look like a complete idiot.

See, that's the beauty of the internet, yes it does allow fools to type out arguments about as watertight as a sieve. However, it also allows you to counter them and prevent such foolishness from spreading.

I'll finish with this quote, "The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

[chilon]

About the only objective things you can say the internet changed was:

1. Speed of information travel - no more delay in information spreading almost instantly across the world

2. Removed the geographic barrier to communication - I can talk to Arsenal fans in London far easier than I could before the internet.

Anything beyond those two points is not due to the internet but to human nature, special interests, etc.\

*obviously there are lot more minor points from an economics, psychological and legal point of view as well but in general most things start from points 1 and 2