Technologically Enabled Dissent
Are you putting yourself in a box?
“In a room where people unanimously maintain a conspiracy of silence, one word of truth sounds like a pistol shot” - (Czesław Miłosz)
In our modern, technologically driven, and knowledge based global society, we have arguably greater access to information and data than at any other time in human history. One would imagine that given all this information that is readily and freely accessible, we would be the most informed civilization that has ever inhabited this planet. That may be objectively true, but how have we mobilized this knowledge?
The vast amounts of data that is consumed on a daily basis, and the copious amounts of data that is available, has arguably convoluted our ability to discern quality information that is reliable and valid from that which is click bait, or downright false. Equally troubling is the concept of personalized news and media feeds that utilize algorithms to predict what we would like to read or consume. The result is an altered sense of reality; an existence inside an echo chamber that reiterates our own views and reflects only our own preferences. Personally curated content simultaneously limits the flow of alternative perspectives, that may enlighten or inform our perspectives - albeit at the cost of emotional or intellectual comfort.
All of this shielding from discomfort, and reinforcement of what we already accept, has a chilling effect on objective discourse and is better suited to polarize, rather than inform. Meaningful discourse must necessarily include a multitude of perspectives. In a polarized society this hierarchal ordering of perspectives has a chilling effect on the production and expression of dissenting views.
Dissent, however, is both a critical component of a free and democratic society, and a crucial component in the development of critical thinking skills. - It prevents a tyranny of the majority, and prevents the relegation of unpopular thoughts to only the margins. Without dissent, our discourse would be limited and myopic. The ability to challenge convention and consider alternative perspectives is essential to knowledge acquisition and transfer.
Where polarization manifests and builds a home, the zero-sum approach to discourse and social cohesion naturally follows. Rather than seek common ground and understanding, we strive to win the argument by any means necessary. In such an environment it is easy to disregard those we disagree with as dullards, and vilify their motives as inherently evil and misguided. It sends the everyday internet social justice warrior down endless rabbit holes looking for data and information to negate their “opponent’s” arguments and “educate” them on the right facts.
What is consistent, however, in all these polarized arguments, both on the internet and in person, is that no one ever seems to convince anyone else to change their position. Equally troubling is that no ever walks away having changed their own position.
I have argued that the mere existence and availability of information does not automatically make us more informed, nor better suited to cooperate with others. - I have suggested that polarization of thought is enabled by technological systems that personalize, and simultaneously limit, the flow of objective information. Finally I have argued that dissent is critically important to gaining a more informed perspective of the world.
We all love our technology, our curated and personalized content, the algorithmic suggestions we receive that makes shopping or picking a restaurant so easy. What we love even more however is that most of the apps on our devices are free to use. - You have to pay for access to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. You have to pay to read The Globe & Mail and the National Post - But, Facebook, Instagram, and Google are all free. Then again, that too was explained by Tristan Harris, a former Google design ethicist, who stated;
“If you're not paying for the product, you are the product”.
All that remains now, is the question; how will you mobilize this information?.
Bio: Neil Gonsalves is an Indian-born Canadian immigrant who grew up in Dubai, U.A.E. and moved to Canada in 1995. He is an Ontario college professor, a TEDx speaker, a columnist, a recreational dog trainer and an advocate for new immigrant integration.
(The views contained in this article are solely those of the author, intended for opinion based editorial purposes and/or entertainment only. They do not represent the views of any organization I am otherwise associated with.)