Article: here comes everybody.
In the related podcast, Clay Shirky talks about how he became a partial pessimist about the effects of the huge new freedoms of the Internet. How basically sensorship has become nearly impossible, so for example anorexic girls can exchange tips on how to stay skinny, or people can express a racial preference in real estate listings (on craigslist, which has no central publisher.)
I think we need a perspective. Sure, you can point to temporary negative effects of total freedom of communication. But everything has a cost, and I believe this cost is very small compared to the gain. Free communication is very essence of progress.
Also, things take time, and sometimes one has to go through short-term painful developments to get the long-term positive effects. And the potential positive effect of the Internet on humanity over the centuries and millennia is awesome, almost unimaginable.
Peaceful Blade sez:
Not to mention anorexic girls can trade fitness tips all on their own, and just because racial preferences cannot be expressed in a real estate listing it doesn't mean they don't exist. I think it's better to let people be who they are and then decide how we will respond.
Will some women be hurt by following the anorexic girl's advice? Yes, but they're the ones who choose to follow it and the moment they feel it's having a dangerous effect on them they are free to stop.
Do I feel comfortable living near a racist? Not particularly, but I can't change him nor can I refute what I deem to be a wholly irrational outlook on people of color. I can tolerate him so long as he is an idle bigot and he doesn't insist on being part of my life and he doesn't try to convert me. In fact I consider this more tolerable than not knowing, not because his thoughts on race are any of my business but because dishonest people are ticking time bombs. You can make racism illegal but you can never get rid of racists. The backlash against oppression of opinions and behavior is often more extreme than what we face when we just let people be.
The interviewer Glenn wrote to me:
I really disagree with your interpretation of what Shirky said and the commenter on your site! But I don't have time to write a lengthy reply at the moment.
In short, Clay said he was no longer a utopian. And when your commenter writes:
"Will some women be hurt by following the anorexic girl's advice? Yes, but they're the ones who choose to follow it and the moment they feel it's having a dangerous effect on them they are free to stop."
Not women. Girls. Teenagers.
All right. It may sound like I think that Shirky is saying the Net is a bad thing. This would indeed be a simplistic and dumb interpretation, though one that I'm sure many people would take away from it.
But it does sound to me like he is saying that there are important downsides to the Net. And I think there are not... not if we compare it to the upside. If we do that, even the worst downsides are trivial.
Like cars. People are getting killed every day by cars, yet the upside is so great that this is disconsidered.
In any case, I just swooped down on a detail, this was not the main thing they were talking about, and the podcast (and surely Shirky's book) is talking about many interesting aspects of how the Net is changing the world in ways we can't predict.
For instance, he talks about a funny story of how a cleaning company in France were suing cleaning women for bypassing the company and organizing their own car pooling. Which he points out is similar to what the music industry is trying to do. The "music industry" is not the people making music, it's the people who used to control the distribution monopoly! A hell of a difference!
An old story by... Heinlein, I think, tells about a company which invents a method for people to know the day they will die. And the life insurance industry sues them! The judge in the trial points out that just because a specific level of technology has made you money for some years, you do not have a legal right to have that income protected. A hard lesson to learn, but an important one.
3 comments:
Not to mention anorexic girls can trade fitness tips all on their own, and just because racial preferences cannot be expressed in a real estate listing it doesn't mean they don't exist. I think it's better to let people be who they are and then decide how we will respond.
Will some women be hurt by following the anorexic girl's advice? Yes, but they're the ones who choose to follow it and the moment they feel it's having a dangerous effect on them they are free to stop.
Do I feel comfortable living near a racist? Not particularly, but I can't change him nor can I refute what I deem to be a wholly irrational outlook on people of color. I can tolerate him so long as he is an idle bigot and he doesn't insist on being part of my life and he doesn't try to convert me. In fact I consider this more tolerable than not knowing, not because his thoughts on race are any of my business but because dishonest people are ticking time bombs. You can make racism illegal but you can never get rid of racists. The backlash against oppression of opinions and behavior is often more extreme than what we face when we just let people be.
I consider the internet a form of anarchy. In fact it's a prime example of chaotic anarchy and order-by-choice anarchy. This is a much more honest, open and healthy way of functioning in general. If you don't like what one web page has to say, you don't have to sit there and read it. There's numerous other places to get information. Whether you're looking for "the truth" or merely an opinion that's in line with yours, lo and behold you can find it. The internet is humanity uncensored and this may well be the biggest boon to our progress.
I live in the USA and we can't show boobs on our blogs if we chose to use a service like Windows Live Spaces. Our TV landscape is littered with anal cream and menstrual pad adds, but gawd forbid we show any skin.
People are controlling our lives for their perception of what is good and bad. I try to not let it get to me. And the Internet allows me the freedoms that many religious other zealots would deny.
"Not women. Girls. Teenagers."
This information is still freely available to girls whether or not they find it on the internet, not to mention some live this way all on their own without having to hear about it. The problem is not that the information can be found- you're never going to remove every trace of something you deem objectionable. The problem is the lack of discernment amongst the people who partake in this behavior. Even children and teenagers are responsible for the decisions they make. (Responsible, but not necessarily to blame.)
It seems more effort is expended to get rid of objectionable content than to teach kids a healthy way of living. (This extends even to adults. More is done to scare than to educate, at least in America.) I believe this applies less to eating disorders than it does to most matters, but there's still a flaw in the overall approach.
Kids are scared witless to get them to comply with what society deems right. Sometimes they are told half-truths or outright lies to accomplish that aim. This hypocrisy within authority figures does not endear them to the minds and hearts they're trying to influence. Further, a child is often left with a feeling that the choices they're presented with are not their own to make and they are somehow flawed if they think otherwise. This breeds anger, confusion... Then girls see images of super models and they become interested in boys and, without a sense of what's healthy, they cave to peer-pressure and try to mold their identity to this false ideal. This can be a form of rebellion, a result of confusion... The motivations are as numerous as the individuals who take these actions. Regardless, responsibility lies with the parents and ultimately the girls themselves. They need to be raised with enough sense to act in their own self-interest when no one is around to do so on their behalf. (Or when they would be tempted to turn on themselves.)
I don't think the one who wrote the article would contradict my last sentiment. The rest of what I wrote was a roundabout way of saying that I think the internet has done little to influence girls into anorexic lifestyles. Perhaps I am sorely mistaken on that, but it doesn't change my overall stance. (Plus, it can be said the internet also provides help for those suffering from eating disorders, a case where I'd say the positive outweighs the negative.)
In short, what Eo said. ;)
Post a Comment