Nicholas Carr hammers it home: we're doomed. You can probably tell what the book is about, what Carr's thesis is, and probably already have a cemented opinion about it just by reading the subtitle: "How technologies of connection tear us apart". But according to Carr, your initial gut feeling is probably wrong (or at least not fully correct) and his conclusion is very pessimistic.
The book starts by going over the history of communication technologies and how each major breakthrough was greeted with near identical optimism. I was bemused, at least, to read examples that could have -- with a few words changed here and there -- come from one of many Wired magazine articles from the early 2000s talking about the peace and utopia that the Internet would bring. Some examples:
In 1865, the International Telegraph Conference (to draw up the "International Telegraph Convention" that would define "an intergovernmental treaty that established the basic principles for international telegraphy") declared itself “a veritable Peace Congress,” suggesting that all misunderstandings that previously led to war would be eradicated by the ability to communicate swiftly through telegraph lines.
Nikola Tesla, because of his early work in telecommunication and wireless technologies, predicted that he would go down in history as “the inventor who succeeded in abolishing war.” There's another quote from the early 20th century that I unfortunately can't find right now which says something along the lines of "when a man can communicate quickly and cheaply across borders it is inconceivable that he would ever go to war again".
Obviously -- obviously -- the early optimism is always grossly not just over-optimistic but entirely off-target and, well, wrong. Including, again obviously, the Internet, social media, etc. Carr makes a lot of interesting points in this book but the thing I want to focus on is the cause(s) of increased support for fascism, far right insanity, dangerous radicalization online, etc. One partial explanation that pops up often and that I'm sure at least crossed your mind in the intro is that of the "online echo chamber". Basically, the algorithm learns what we like and just keeps giving it to us. So not only do we think everyone thinks like us, but we get more and more "deep" into that viewpoint and start taking more and more extreme views that fit into our political leanings and as others get more and more exposure they also get more extreme and the cycle continues. Add in mis-information and you've got a full recipe for radicalizing people and making a fully polarized society.
That on its own is bad enough. But what's even scarier is the conclusion that (1) the algorithm / echo chamber explanation is not the root cause; and (2) it's just human nature:
"The phenomenon of online polarization and extremism is not, as some have suggested, a manufactured product of algorithms. Instead, they are manifestations of deeply ingrained tendencies in human nature that have invariably influenced and strained social relations and political debates."
Carr points to a both unsettling and very interesting study where participants were categorized into "left" and "right" groups after filling out several survey questions. Half of each group was put into a version of the experiment where they saw only social media posts that matched their prior beliefs (the echo chamber). At the end (it was a long-running study), they were asked further questions to see what effect this might have had on them. On average the left group members became a little more left and the right group members became a little more right.
The other half of the participants got a version of the experiment where the social media posts they saw were designed to give a good balance of views they agreed with and views they were opposed to. You would think this might help to counter the echo chamber phenomenon. But at the end of the study, both groups were even more entrenched in their beliefs than the echo chamber participants were. This could be because your brain starts actively working to fight against what the other side's points are and you therefore have to double-down on your views to be able to fight their points more successfully. But it shows that just the echo chamber (while clearly not ideal for many reasons, especially before you've formed an opinion on an issue) is not the only problem. From Superbloom:
The researchers conducted a second round of experiments to examine why a more balanced information diet stimulates greater partisanship. Recruiting new sets of Democrats and Republicans, they again deployed their bots to tweak Twitter feeds, but this time they also held extensive interviews with the subjects. They found that exposure to an opposing view triggers a sort of immune response within a group. Members band together even more tightly to defend their position against what they perceive as an invasive idea. People "experience stepping outside their echo chamber as an attack upon their identity," Bail reports. That makes "differences between 'us' and 'them' seem even bigger." Groups are just as prone to dissimilarity cascades as individuals are.
Finally, this got me thinking about how this manifests in practice. And I had an example already. As the vast majority of Canadians were just starting to get to know Mark Carney a little over a month ago, he gave what I saw as a fantastic answer to a ridiculous question from a so-called reporter. Watch the video below:
"Reporter": Umm you have not been elected in a federal election yet and you recently flew to uhh duhhhh Europe on a government wide-bodied jet (???) at the expense of at least half a million dollars so the question I have for you today ummmm and maybe I'll say this before I ask the question, these people <duhhhhh> around you all paid for that flight??? and you've not been elected yet, so will you commit, to, refunding these tax payers for that flight?
Prime Minister Mark Carney: Well it's an interesting question.. uhh.. way of framing it. [Gives us an extremely well thought out answer to the stupidest "question" ever]"Reporter": I'll take that as a "no" then.Prime Minister Mark Carney: No you'll take that as a very comprehensive answer to your question.
