On Mon, 20 May 2002, Nick Arnett wrote: > I've heard that idea elsewhere, but I don't hear it from Friedman. And it > is flawed; if the Internet is mass media, then the definition of mass media > has changed considerably. It is a many-to-many medium, particularly in the > context in which Friedman is discussing it. The people in Indonesia are > learning thing -- things that obviously are not all true -- from new > sources.
Ok, bad analogy on my part. > > Friedman's point is not that Indonesia's elite 5% are ignorant. It's that > > a sufficiently dangerous number of them are willing to encourage the > > masses' hatred of Jews and Americans, using the 'Net's ostensible > > credibility as a bulwark against normal skepticism. It's that without > > education and access themselves, the masses are largely helpless in the > > face of such manipulation. > > That's elitism. They are not helpless. They're waking up to the fact that > people are trying to manipulate them. They suspected that western media was > doing so; they'll figure out that people use the Internet to do the same. > One thing you can be sure of -- with 5 percent of the population wired, > alternative points of view are *available*, which was not so true > previously. Just so I understand...are you saying that prior to the 'Net, the only viewpoints available in Indonesia were those promulgated by Western media? > > The situation in Indonesia is just as static: a tiny elite controlling > > what the people have a right to know. > > It's not static! Friedman is pointing out a change that the Internet has > brought about. He's pointing out that the change, in a certain context, is not always and immediately going to be for the best. > None of this fits with Friedman's description of the Internet as > "unfiltered." Why do you imagine he used that word, if he isn't advocating > filtering of some kind? I doubt if he'd advocate outright censorship, but > I'm fairly certain he's advocating the kind of filtering that western mass > media applies to information. He doesn't say a word about increasing > Internet access in Indonesia or anywhere else. I have a hard time imagining > that this article would lead anyone to believe that Internet access is a > good thing. Who roots for more open sewers in their neighborhood? Friedman points out that the Internet can be a source of both wonderful education and filthy lies. *Both.* He states that there's a problem when only the lies get promulgated to the general population. > What he's saying about Indonesia today is pretty much exactly the kind of > thing that people were saying about the west a few years ago when the > Internet first exploded. Reading something in print on the net gives it an > aura of credibility, etc. But in the space of a few years, people learned > to become skeptical again. And that has done far more good than any kind of > filtering system, particularly the one at work in the mass media (which > filters according to what sells advertising, of course). Well, if 'Net use explodes among the general population in Indonesia the way it has in the West, perhaps all will be well. All will probably be well in the long run in any respect. On the other hand, I don't think we can blithely assume that technology X will have the same effect on population B as it did on a radically different (wealthier, better educated, more democratic, more liberal) population A. > > Saying that, you sound as though all masses are created equal with respect > > to the opportunity for knowledge, or as though Friedman think so. They're > > not, and there's nothing in Friedman's article to suggest that Friedman > > thinks they are. > > People do have equal ability to learn. I'd argue that they don't learn from > the homogenized point of view of mass media. The "5 percent" represents a > huge and rapid increase. The expansion of points of view brought by the > Internet will do a great deal to provoke learning -- not "book learning" so > much as learning about liberty. Friedman doesn't care to see that; he's > expressing a preference for preventing the dissemination of points of view > that he thinks are harmful (sewage). That's what "filtering" means in this > essay, in my opinion. I agree with you about the mass media; I still don't see Friedman acting as an advocate for any particular kind of censorship or filtering in his article. The problem I see with your decision to infer this goal from Friedman's statement that the Internet "at its ugliest, is just an open sewer: an electronic conduit for untreated, unfiltered information," is that his statement is the truth. It's a fact. Period. The thing is, so is any form of communication, from neighborly gossip up to Fox News and ANN (note that even unfiltered, crappy content has been carefully crafted and "filtered" by its creator). The trouble is that people who may be very intelligent and skeptical about one kind of information (what they hear from their neighbors or from TV) may be very credulous towards other kinds of information (what they hear from their preachers or holy men or the Bible or the Internet). I agree with you that people are intelligent and that people can learn. We also both know that people are incredible morons who hear only what they want to hear. At the same time, even. So what's Friedman's recommendation? More education or more censorship? It's the former, so I really don't see the problem. > > The problem Friedman presents is not that people cannot > > be trusted to make up their own minds; it's that a certain class of people > > aren't being given the opportunity to make up their own minds, and it's > > that the existence of the Internet can't solve that problem if it only > > belongs to a privileged few. > > There's just no way that's what he's saying. If it were, he'd have called > for greater Internet access in Indonesia. It's clearly a part of what he's saying. He's also saying that greater Internet access isn't *sufficient* so solve a *cultural* problem which the Internet and satellite TV exacerbate, but of which they are not the source. > > I think he's also arguing that the Internet, > > by itself, will never be a sufficient solution to the problems of > > hatred that already exist. Again, the solutions he presents are not that > > people should watch more TV; it's that people need to meet more and know > > more about different peoples in personal, human to human contact. > > I doubt it anyone regards it as a solution. And I think you're making my > case with the last sentence. I have no doubt that the Internet allows > people to see more points of view. Sometimes those points of view are not > in our interest, but that doesn't mean that it should be filtered to remove > them. It does, but if only one point of view is socially and religiously acceptable, then moderate or divergent points of view will be filtered out by users with just as much diligence and speed with which you and I delete spam and ignore hate speech. Readers will be very intelligent and creative about ignoring and discrediting disagreeing viewpoints unless the value exists that the existence of different people and divergent viewpoints are good in and of themselves. It's these values that Friedman says the Internet cannot be expected to yield of itself. Mass stupidity and evil in the minds of otherwise intelligent people is the norm in the history of the world. Sure, the Internet can help change that some. But not by itself and not in a social context that discourages its responsible use. > You could argue that Friedman wants the "filters" to be in the minds of the > people using the Internet. But he argues mostly against content -- scenes > "designed to inflame passions," producing only anger, making the world less > tolerant, less understanding, "an open sewer: an electronic conduit for > untreated, unfiltered information." That's not about educating people, it's > paternalism, passing judgment on content. Just because it's about passing judgement on content doesn't mean it's paternalism. 90% of all content is shit. Educated, liberally minded (in the classic sense) people can relatively successfully pass judgement on content. Uneducated, mentally blinkered people can't (including knee-jerk liberal westerners like me sometimes). Indonesian society keeps its masses in the latter state, Friedman asserts. Friedman's recommendation is to educate the masses, not to filter the 'Net. I still don't see the problem. > Would he really use the sewer metaphor if he didn't think that it needed to > be cleaned up? Yes. If I say that George Bush, Ken Lay, and Dick Cheney are lying, full of shit scumbags, it doesn't mean I think their opinions must be censored and kept from the public. The fact that I clean up dog poop and wash the scum out of my shower doesn't mean I expect a metaphorical cleansing to be applied to the right to speak of the individuals I detest. > Again, I'll argue that this is elitism -- he wants to give Indonesia a > "safe" Internet, scrubbed clean of what he regards as "sewage." And who is > he or any of the rest of us to make that judgment? I think it's fairly obvious that he wants to give Indonesia an opportunity to be a tolerant, liberal, open society, the kind of place where the 'Net's sewage-infested sublevels cannot cause much harm. That's probably cultural elitism of some kind, but I'm afraid I agree with it. > The fact that people become angry because of rumors spread via the Internet > is *encouraging*, as far as I'm concerned. It means that a real alternative > communications channel is opening up. Friedman might see a sewer, I see > fertilizer. The fact that alternative communications channels are opening is good. If no new ideas come through those channels -- you don't think Indonesians were brainwashed by Fox News into loving the west and adoring Israel *before* the 'Net, do you? -- then they aren't doing much good *now.* Besides, excess fertilizer swiftly kills otherwise healthy crops. Marvin Long Austin, Texas "Never flay a live Episiarch." -- Galactic Proverbs 7563:34(j)
