We’ve seen the promise and the disappointment of many communication tools over the last century: the telephone, radio, print journalism, television. Now, another important tool seems to be at the crossroads. The tremendous force of the Internet as a communication medium continues to grow even as those governments and corporations who view the free flow of information as dangerous try to find ways to suppress and control it. And at the same time, marketeers desperate for eyeballs and attention look for new ways to exploit it.
The telephone was initially condemned by some as a devil’s device for disrupting personal quiet and putting everyone on call 24 hours a day to the sound of a ringing bell. Now, many people spend the entire day plugged into cell phones, texting and talking with everyone they know. Radio for a time brought families together and extended the oral storytelling tradition to the parlor, where comedies, drama, adventures, and suspense filled the airwaves, as well as locally produced news and events. Today, faceless, soulless radio conglomerates broadcast identical music and news produced for mass consumption hundreds or thousands of miles away. At the same time, HD Radio is funneling new life into smaller, public radio stations and community stations. Television in its early years was expected to revolutionize learning and open a communication renaissance across the world. You can find examples of that early promise—fine documentaries, well-produced drama, comedies cloaked in the guise of news—but you need to sort through a lot of dreck to get there.
It has always been a shaky balance between the forces that finance a communication medium and the communicators who channel ideas on that medium. Rod Serling waged a continuous battle with television censors over the subtle social critiques embedded in his Twilight Zone episodes, sometimes winning, sometimes losing. For years, magazines that profited substantially from cigarette advertising were largely mute on the crippling health risks of cigarette smoking. Through political pressure and appointees, the Public Broadcasting Service is looking more and more like the mainstream media, rather than a forum for alternative ideas. More recently, we’ve seen outrage at Facebook over the disclosure of personal information for profit and the progressive news portal, Truthout, has been engaged in a dispute with Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo over the filtering of their messages to subscribers. Efforts by telecommunications companies to circumvent the long-established principles of net neutrality (and selectively provide high-speed access only to sites paying them extra money) threaten the free exchange of information, a hallmark of Internet communication since it evolved from a militaristic stepchild of DARPA to a worldwide communication channel.
It’s a glass half empty or glass half full kind of issue. But, to keep the glass from being drained, and the promise of the medium from being squandered, we need to stay actively involved in shaping the development and direction of social networks as they grow. There are many examples of people bonding together and accomplishing great work, sharing ideas, offering comfort and a sense of community to those whose ideas and beliefs may vary from the mainstream. There are also examples of crass exploitation of peoples’ identities and preferences, as though the mere act of having a presence on the Internet makes you fair game for every marketer and huckster in existence—the better to sell you things you don’t want or need.
As with telephones, radio, and television, we netizens all choose the proper balance, a personal way of communicating that feels right. A community is nothing more than the sum of its parts and many virtual communities haven’t yet formed their personalities. To that half-full glass, members need to add their measure of fine wine or home-brewed ale, to fill it further with a heady mix of ideas, insights, fresh perspectives, shared stories, and—in the best-case scenario—pathways that will give us all tools to change the world in a positive way.
To make a genuine difference, ideas need to translate into action. Take what you learn in the virtual community—the knowledge, information, or outrage—and use it to make a difference in your local community. Help build a house with Habitat for Humanity. Volunteer at your local food bank, library, or animal shelter. Join some fellow activists on campus and protest the erosion of civil liberties by government fiat. Stop in at your local legislator’s office to weigh in on a pending measure about which you feel strongly. Organize with a group of like-minded individuals and clear a bike trail along the land skirting the railway tracks. Celebrate diversity through art, music, or a street dance. Whether you join the crew of the Sea Shepherd or do some weeding once a week at the local community garden, the actions of people, collectively, can and do serve as a force for social justice and positive change. If we didn’t honestly believe that, none of us would be hanging around Rethos and other progressive online communities. One voice can energize many. Many can act to spur change.
So, how to answer the question: medium for social change or channel for mass manipulation? It’s kind of a cheap literary device, posing a question that you don’t intend to answer. It’s not an either/or situation: the Internet leans in both directions. My suggestion? Veer away from the manipulation and exploitation and reject the companies that favor these vices. Add your voice for social change and the rising chorus for justice, non-violence, tolerance, and compassion will drown out the voices of apathy, indifference, and intolerance. Fill the glass, drink heartily, and then pass the brew around.
