Okay... let's see:
>increased wealth distribution (globally)
Trend began before the internet (the subject at hand).
>changing social norms towards individual rights and equality
Trend began before the internet (the subject at hand).
>I can, for example, participate in international engineering efforts from any one of a billion places with steady internet that will allow me to stay.
Irrelevant to the subject at hand.
>I can eat a greater variety of foods than my grandparents enjoyed. I can do research and study about my own medical alignments and make better informed decisions about my healthcare than every before. I have the option to marry anyone that agrees to it, regardless of race or gender. I can practice the religion of my choosing openly.
All irrelevant to the subject at hand.
>I understand that there is a lot of pain and a large risk of group think associated with our global information system. I have the individual freedom to choose which information sources I tune into, and I have never had a greater variety than today.
Disagree. It isn't about your basic individual freedom to choose. You can choose, yes. But it is about the field of vision presented to the focus of your mind, or rather the collective mind. It is about the narrowing of that field of view. Narrow the field of view: narrow the choices people believe they have. This, in effect, narrows their choices, regardless of their ability, or freedom, to choose.
Exactly. It’s almost like the internet isn’t the most important thing happening right now. Combining the world’s networks into one is really powerful, but the world is a big place. The internet isn’t going to cause a utopia or a dystopia.
Having freedom and liberty does not automatically result in increased wealth distribution, individual rights or equality.
Just because we have a system that allows people to communicate and collaborate across the globe instantaneously doesn't mean that they will do so constructively towards positive directions. They can also use this power for selfish and/or destructive mean. This is really the lesson that we've been taught in the past 10 years.
> I have the individual freedom to choose which information sources I tune into, and I have never had a greater variety than today.
I trust that your information sources are sound, but many other people choose to tune into information sources that are not, but confirms that own bias. There is a part of human psychology which finds this type of behaviour immensely rewarding.
The idea that more information and more connectivity automatically result in more freedom which would then naturally better society is exactly what led us down to the path to the current information dystopia.
I was actually arguing the reverse.
> the current information dystopia
My position is that we are not living in an information dystopia. You simply cannot compare our current problem of echo chambers and fake news to the 1930s problem of nationalist propaganda or pre-renaissance problem of the church controlling which information is heresy. At least now we access to different views we can use critical thinking to evaluate and awareness of echo chambers.
The great firewall is an example of how bad things could be with all information censored by state actors.
Fair enough, but that is also confounding, maybe just as much - technology didn't cause more freedoms or liberties. Individual rights and equality is also the result of the striving towards the ideal of freedom and liberty.
>You simply cannot compare our current problem of echo chambers and fake news to the 1930s problem of nationalist propaganda or pre-renaissance problem of the church controlling which information is heresy.
That's a very premature conclusion. We're in the middle of a shift in the information landscape and we can't really predict which ending this will lead us to. We may very well be on the path to another dark era in the history of humanity rivalling fascism or the inquisition.
That's because, in itself, information and the flow of information (as dictated by contemporary technology) is just a force multiplier. It allows us to organise more effectively removing barriers to action. What we do with it is another matter.
Just because we have more of it or do it better doesn't mean it is a unequivocally positive force. Looking at the current trajectory on the use of data, there is the potential for it be to even more destructive force than your examples.
To be honest, there would be group think anyway. There always is, it's just a human proclivity. I'm not sure why exactly people felt that's something the internet was going to eliminate? The printing press solidified nationalistic thought (and other kinds of group think as well), the internet is solidifying it further.
I guess I just think, group think is kind of, something to be expected considering mankind's history.
Except who people want to date and marry is highly influenced by media/entertainment. So it's possible who you want to marry does not want to marry you because of prejudice instilled by information s/he consumes.
We are moving into a world where people have more freedom and liberty. Sometimes we take a (big) step backwards, but the trend is towards more.
These new freedoms and liberties are created by technology, increased wealth distribution (globally), and changing social norms towards individual rights and equality.
I can, for example, participate in international engineering efforts from any one of a billion places with steady internet that will allow me to stay. I can eat a greater variety of foods than my grandparents enjoyed. I can do research and study about my own medical alignments and make better informed decisions about my healthcare than every before. I have the option to marry anyone that agrees to it, regardless of race or gender. I can practice the religion of my choosing openly.
I understand that there is a lot of pain and a large risk of group think associated with our global information system. I have the individual freedom to choose which information sources I tune into, and I have never had a greater variety than today.