Introduction
They say the internet is increasingly shaping people’s opinions and democracy. This is precisely what Carole Cadwalladr believes in her article Google, democracy and the truth about internet search. According to Cadwalladr (2016), Google’s autocomplete predictions, particularly the ranking of search results, shape people’s opinions on particular subjects. Indeed, given how much the internet affects modern life, it is only logical to consider how it affects democracy and public opinion. Although Cadwalladr makes reasonable observations, I say that her argument is weak since the internet is only a tool that allows access to information but does not govern or shape beliefs.
As an illustration, the immediate impression that comes to mind when we think of the internet is that it is a worldwide network of connected computers that makes it easier to share information and communicate. Accordingly, understanding how the internet shapes our beliefs and democracy is important for people, policymakers, and society in general to ensure that it is used in a way that fosters critical thinking, informed decision-making, and a healthy democracy. Nonetheless, while the internet may facilitate the interchange of ideas and enable access to information, individuals have the ultimate responsibility for logically formulating their thoughts and engaging in democratic processes.
The Internet Is a Tool, Not an Influencer
The internet gives access to a wealth of information, but it does not influence or control opinions. In my view, humans have free will and make decisions depending on their views and ideals. Consistently, many people view the internet and related technologies as largely beneficial innovations that improve human lives and the world around them. According to Nicholas Brody’s article, It Turns Out Our Tech Gadgets Aren’t as Isolating as Experts Say, people are motivated by a need to connect with others. According to Brody, humans are social creatures that learn about themselves and their surroundings mainly through their contacts. To support this argument, he cites research indicating that cell phone use has nearly “the same effect on mental health as eating potatoes” (Birkenstein et al., 2021b, p. 594). My interpretation of Brody is that the issue is not the technology that humans use, but rather the people who possess them. In short, human beings are addicted to their phones because they immerse themselves in their virtual social universe among other benefits.
Similarly, I argue that as a medium, the internet only exposes people to a wide variety of opinions and beliefs. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok allow users to interact with individuals who have diverse views, fostering conversation and understanding. In fulfilling this role, Internet companies cannot choose for individuals what they should post. This means that as a social media user, I have access to a range of opinions and perspectives on the internet, but it is up to me to choose whether to accept or reject them. Case in point, racist comments are often met with severe consequences such as users being banned from online platforms. The UK government has gone as far as introducing laws that would ensure racist football fans are banned from stadiums for up to 10 years (Home Office, 2022). These consequences should serve as a reminder to anyone who wants to use the internet to spread hate to think twice. However, I still see many people spreading hate and bigotry over the internet.
Further, I believe that the internet does not directly influence people’s views and opinions. Research has shown that social media users’ perspectives on sensitive topics such as abortion, racism, and internet regulation are generally influenced by several factors, including their upbringing, cultural background, and individual experiences (Wu & Atkin, 2018). As an illustration, I consider the rising problem of antisemitism. On the internet, hateful words and propaganda are often disseminated by individuals and organizations with antisemitic beliefs. These antisemitic attitudes are more likely influenced by their upbringing, social environment, and life experiences than by what they have read on the internet. According to Phillips (2018), antisemitism started in central and eastern Europe, where ancient beliefs about the Jews have remained to this day. In this regard, Africans are far less likely to have antisemitic sentiments than those from Western countries no matter how much information they read on the internet regarding the topic and this has been proven (Davies, 2017). This demonstrates that, while the internet enables the exchange of ideas, it has little impact on people’s opinions.
Individuals Have a Personal Responsibility for Shaping Opinions Online
The notion that humans have a responsibility of shaping public opinion can be linked to human nature. In my opinion, rudeness and hostility on social media are not a reflection of human nature or due to one particular factor, like technology. In his opinion piece, Augustin Fuentes asserts that a combination of human social skill growth, the social media explosion, and the contemporary political and economic environment can be faulted for the rise in online hostility (Birkenstein et al., 2021d). Further, he suggests that humans are designed to cooperate, form different social bonds, and develop innovative solutions to problems as a group. However, the divide arising from political and economic processes breeds a multitude of biases and blind spots that separate individuals. Thus, Fuentes claims that social media eliminates a vital component of human sociality by fostering recurrent and intense displays of violence through anonymity and a lack of offline interactions (Birkenstein et al., 2021d). Ultimately, I agree with Fuentes’ position that the answer is not to restrict people’s internet access. Instead, people should engage in communal action, sanctioning and exposing antisocial behavior such as harassment or bullying, and fostering cohesiveness.
Since humans are inherently good before they are exposed to external influences, I posit that they should use the internet morally and responsibly. This entails exercising critical thought, verifying the accuracy of the information they give, and doing it constructively. Furthermore, it requires accepting responsibility for how their comments or posts affect other people and respecting others’ ideas and points of view. People can influence public opinion by actively participating in constructive discourse and advocating for positive messages. The internet offers a forum for people to express their opinions and interact with one another. Social media users can use their accounts to promote tolerance, compassion, and understanding. For instance, if someone sees an incident of online bullying on their Facebook feed, I can speak out against it by leaving comments and sharing content that encourages respect and empathy. This way, I am actively combating the harmful message being disseminated and inspiring others to do the same.
Racism is another problem that has persisted in society for a long time. It is an issue that affects people of all colors and backgrounds and has the potential to be disastrous. Nevertheless, individuals can contribute to influencing public opinion and fighting racism by actively participating in meaningful discourse and sharing positive messages. Accordingly, if I see anything racist said or done, I should confront or call out the culprit. I can also spread messages of tolerance and diversity by sharing cross-cultural content and showcasing the accomplishments of people of other races. Through such actions, social media users can influence public opinion and minimize the detrimental consequences of hate speech and disinformation.
Democracy Remains a Choice of The People
The internet has little influence over election results or political processes. Democracy remains to be the people’s decision, not the internet or social media. Thus, I argue that whereas the internet facilitates political conversation, it is upon citizens of a country to engage in democratic procedures such as voting and communicating with elected representatives. Moreover, instead of solely being influenced by the internet, political decisions are influenced by several factors, including historical and economic context. To be precise, the Arab Spring revolutions benefited greatly from the internet and social media. Throughout 2010 and 2011, there were many rallies and demonstrations in several countries in the Middle East and North Africa (Smidi & Shahin, 2017). These demonstrations were mostly organized by young people who organized and communicated with one another using social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
The internet and social media played a role in democracy during the Arab Spring by giving people a forum to voice their ideas and spread knowledge to a larger audience. Social media platforms allowed protestors to communicate directly with one another instead of using traditional state-controlled media, forming networks of activists and like-minded people who could organize for group action. Additionally, social media and the internet allowed for the quick spread of information, which contributed to the exposure of official corruption and other forms of power abuse. This information could be widely and promptly disseminated, revealing authoritarian governments’ actions and inciting public outcry and mobilization. The Arab Spring demonstrations demonstrate, in this context, that the internet and social media in general were utilized as a channel of connection rather than a source of influence. It had little impact on the calls for democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. As a result, assertions that the internet is negatively influencing democracy are difficult to justify.
Counterarguments
On the contrary, some critics strongly believe that the internet especially social media and internet companies are shaping people’s opinions and impacting the democratic process. As mentioned earlier, one such claim has been posited by Carole Cadwalladr who believes that Google’s autocomplete suggestions are influencing how users view or understand some topics. For example, when she typed “are Jews…” the algorithm brought autocomplete suggestions such as “racists”, “evil”, “white” and more (Birkenstein et al., 2021a, p. 625). When she pressed enter one of the top articles claimed Jews are evil. According to Cadwalladr, she had never thought of Jews as evil before the incident. Undoubtedly, such results are concerning because some individuals will take them superficially without assessing their authenticity.
However, I think that Cadwalladr is wrong to blame Google because those are not the company’s views. Indeed, when she contacted Google, the company provided a clear response as to how its search engine works: “Our search results are a reflection of the content across the web. This means that sometimes unpleasant portrayals of sensitive subject matter online can affect what search results appear for a given query. These results don’t reflect Google’s own opinions or beliefs – as a company, we strongly value a diversity of perspectives, ideas, and cultures” (Birkenstein et al., 2021a, p. 629). Google argues that because search results are based on content that is publicly available online, it is occasionally possible for sensitive or offensive depictions of particular themes to show up in search results. They claim that these findings do not represent Google’s attitudes or beliefs and that the firm values a variety of viewpoints, ideologies, and cultural backgrounds.
Google’s response suggests that Cadwalladr does not understand how search engines work. According to Zhang and Cabage (2017), Google’s search algorithm is built to crawl the web and index material based on relevancy and popularity, which lends credence to the aforementioned assertion. This implies that the search results for a particular query are ultimately determined by the information that is made available online. The relevance of the content to the search, its quality, and how well-liked it is by other users are just a few of the many variables that Google’s algorithm considers. Furthermore, I believe that Google has been open about its dedication to diversity and inclusion. The corporation has developed rules in the workplace to encourage diversity and prevent discrimination, and it has been outspoken about its commitment to social justice issues.
In her piece Stop Googling Let Us Talk Sherry Turkle appears to share the same belief that technology, particularly cell phones and the internet, is influencing how people communicate in public or face-to-face. Turkle notes that most people alternate between paying attention to their phones and the individuals they are with, which results in fragmented and disengaged discussions. This is particularly common among young individuals who have grown up with technology and have created a “rule of three” for using their devices during mealtime or social occasions (Birkenstein et al., 2021c, p. 615). The author claims that although technology fosters a feeling of community and access to knowledge, it has also resulted in a reduction in empathy and natural, open-ended dialogues where people may be vulnerable and completely present.
Undoubtedly, Turkle’s argument can be used to explain the concern of increasing hate and violence witnessed online. That is, they are due to a decline in people’s ability to be empathetic and feel a sense of connection to one another. In my opinion, she attributes this problem to technology and interconnected devices. However, I find it inaccurate to say that using a phone during a conversation automatically makes it harder to feel empathy and connection. Many individuals are efficient at using their phones sensibly and putting them away when having important conversations. Additionally, from personal experience, some individuals prefer using their phones during interpersonal interactions because it makes them feel at ease and connected, especially in settings where they may otherwise feel embarrassed or uneasy. As a student, I have also observed that the reduction in empathy among college students is not entirely attributable to the development of technology. Rather, it is impacted by other aspects such as the rise of individualism and competition in society as well as economic and social inequality.
Conclusion
To summarize, the internet is a technology that enables access to information without negatively shaping beliefs or democracy. People are responsible for critically evaluating information and forming their conclusions. Internet users must understand the importance of personal responsibility in forming their opinions and democratic choices. The internet provides a lot of information, but it is up to each individual to critically assess the facts and make informed decisions. Finally, we must actively engage in critical thinking and responsible decision-making in our democracy, particularly during elections. When we let other people’s opinions influence our beliefs regarding who we should elect, we jeopardize our future.
References
Birkenstein, C. Durst, R. & Graff, G. (2021a). Google, democracy and the truth about internet search. In C. Cadwalladr (ed.), They say I say: The moves that matter in academic writing: With readings (pp. 624-642). W. W. Norton.
Birkenstein, C. Durst, R. & Graff, G. (2021b). It turns out our tech gadgets aren’t as isolating as experts say. In B. Nicholas (ed.), They say I say: The moves that matter in academic writing: With readings (pp. 593-596). W. W. Norton.
Birkenstein, C. Durst, R. & Graff, G. (2021c). Stop googling. Let’s talk. In T. Sherry (ed.), They say I say: The moves that matter in academic writing: With readings (pp. 614-623). W. W. Norton.
Birkenstein, C. Durst, R. & Graff, G. (2021d). Are we really as awful as we act online? In F. Augustin (ed.), They say I say: The moves that matter in academic writing: With readings (pp. 643-649). W. W. Norton.
Davies, C. (2017). Jewish jokes, anti-semitic jokes and Hebredonian jokes. In D Chritie (ed.), Jewish Humor (pp. 73-96). Routledge.
Home Office. (2022). Racist online trolls banned from football stadiums by new law. GOV.UK. Web.
Phillips, G. (2018). Antisemitism: How the origins of history’s oldest hatred still hold sway today. The Conversation. Web.
Smidi, A., & Shahin, S. (2017). Social media and social mobilisation in the Middle East: A survey of research on the Arab Spring. India Quarterly, 73(2), 196-209. Web.
Wu, T-Y., & Atkin, D. J. (2018). To comment or not to comment: Examining the influences of anonymity and social support on one’s willingness to express in online news discussions. New Media and Society, 20(12), 4512-4532. Web.
Zhang, S., & Cabage, N. (2017). Search engine optimization: Comparison of link building and social sharing. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 57(2), 148-159. Web.