Internet ... couch potatoes

Both the Google and Twitter doctrine has come to dominate thinking in many social networks today. Such doctrine is centered on the notion that somehow uncensored, unrestricted flow of information can spread democracy in the world, by encouraging the masses to react to an event, issue or cause in disgust, and thereby change the world. Facebook provides an interesting example of this via its Causes application, claiming that "Causes empowers anyone with a good idea or passion for change to impact the world. Using our platform, individuals mobilize their network of friends to grow lasting social and political movements." One can chose between "Animals, Education, Environment, International Issues, Religion" amongst many other possible categories. Those "cyber-utopians" who believe in such a vision believe that by using the Internet, they are able to propagate their message to a much wider community -- quoting examples from young Iranians using Blogs, Twitter and YouTube to broadcast their message to change history.

A wonderful new book by Evgeny Morozov entitled The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World challenges this vision. Morozov, himself a cyber-utopian (who, according to Crowd Surfing, "spent the early part of his career advising political activists in the former Soviet block, is well placed to comment on the behaviour of the political elite in places such as Russia"), has challenged how effective the Internet has been in supporting such activism. His observation that by passively clicking on applications such as Facebook Causes, we have essentially become armchair activists, each click producing big numbers but very little commitment from the individual involved. Virtual resistance is not resistance at all. Morozov also challenges the notion often adopted by sociologists that "technology is neutral, it is how it is used that determines its value". Morozov indicates that it is the form of the technology that determines its use, and therefore the nature of the Internet is much a reflection of its limitation. According to Crowd Surfing, "Morozov also cautions against the assumption that a new generation of ‘digital natives’ – the teenagers and twenty-somethings brought up in a digital world – are more likely to become political activists. He argues that younger Web users, especially in developing markets such as China, are more interested in cyber hedonism than cyber activism. In this way, the web can be seen as another opium for the masses, rather than an engine of political change."

He notes that the Internet is often used for entertainment, distraction and social networking -- and less a potent tool for activists. Perhaps, the easy availability of information and videos through YouTube makes one desensitized to such information -- often with attrocities that would have once triggered action now merely being another distraction, of interest for a short duration, and easily forgotten? Perhaps the information revolution has left us distracted, easily aroused couch potatoes rather than potential activists who could potentially become more active citizens in a democratic society? Worth a thought ...