In this essay, I culled on the question; ‘The Internet does not represent a democratisation of the media, because the online world mirrors the inequalities of the offline world.’ I interpreted this question as ‘Do the inequalities of the media in the online world mirror, the inequalities of the media in the offline world?’ I am going to argue against this question. Although, I agree that ‘the internet does not represent the media in the correct form’. I am going to argue that the online world does not mirror the inequalities of the offline world. Rather the lack of equality that the online world shows compared to the offline world needs to be scrutinised and analysed as the times have changed. Furthermore, by focusing on the effects of ‘social media’, ‘discrimination’ and ‘fake news’, I will debate these dilemmas with evidence and informational points, I will come to a clear division on why there are no similarities between the online and offline world.
The first argument I am going to make is about the distribution of fake news and how this affects the online world compared to the offline world. Firstly, the internet does not represent the media because there are no equal democratic systems for either sides. Chris Atton supports my argument by referring to the news as being ‘Redefined news’ (Atton, 2005). The democratic principles are out of place and un-real. We are either getting lied to, deceived or manipulated. When newspapers were the go-to-source for the news, people would believe everything that was written. Although in the newspaper’s, there was not much chance of getting away with fake news, due to it being struck down by people/companies. Now, because the internet is so broad, it is easier to get away with the creation of fake news. Therefore, it is a lot harder to determine what is real and what is not. Sites such as Google and Facebook have been heavily criticised recently, due to them not cracking down on the number of fake news stories released. In the Independent, a story was realised about Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) launching a ‘crowd-funded’ news service called ‘Wikitribune’. Wales expresses it will be the first-time professional journalists and citizen’s will work together as equals, Wales states that at all times the stories will be backed up and all facts checked (Landi, 2017).
Much of the media has censored generations from all the bad state-of-affairs. This is so we would not see how bad the world and how horrible humanity can be. However, now there is an online world, it gives us the access to share and see all that has happened or that is happening in the world. We are not aware of what is going on around us because we are too invested and involved in the online world. Everyone is walking around with their phones never putting them down. No one is aware of something happening unless they see it online. This is how most news is spread, it spreads much quicker now than it did thirty years ago, although television was just as addictive, news was not covered like it is now. You can go online and have access to any news story out there, whether this be good or bad. As we have never been exposed to this type of horror before, it is slowly damaging us and the way we see things. We have never believed we live in utopia, but in the recent years, we have realised this world is full of terrible things.
‘Technology penetrates our intimate routines and emotive processes, it affects the relationship between private and public, memory and experience, self and others.’ (Dijck, 2007)
This extract pulled from Dijck’s-Mediated Memories, supports my argument by suggesting the digital world is damaging our relationships with people and the way we reserve memories/experiences. Moreover, it is suggesting the inequalities are us not keeping things private, we are more inclined to share everything online because it is tranquil, non-discriminatory and self-expressive. Witte and Mannon talk about Digital privacy and raise a valid point of online and offline sharing. We usually hesitate sharing our private live offline, however, online we share personal things without a second thought (Witte and Mannon, 2010, 152). It is dangerous and companies get rich by gaining access to this. For example, when we participate in a quiz on Facebook, we agree to them taking our information. Consequently, we do not need to keep our memories in physical form, especially when we can have it in digital form, making it easy to access. It is high-calibre compared to the offline world and will continue being a self-developer. The downfall to the online world being the way it is, means nothing will ever change and no one will see how the offline world is falling apart unless seen through a screen. We are part of a system and it is impossible to see beyond it because we are trapped within. More importantly, we get exposed to a lot more news. For example; the severe terror attacks and political tensions, we would not normally get exposed to this type of problem.
When was the last time you were without a phone or a device that keeps you connected to the online world? An article in The Telegraph shows Dr Van Zwanberg telling us that she believes children are too trusting of the modern technologies and they do not realise the negative influences the internet can have. Children are turning to counsellors because they need help coping with the encumbrance of being on social media. The amount of screen time children have, determines how bad they relate to anxiety, depression or emotional distress. (Jamieson, 2015) Young and older users send and make statements without seeing the immediate impact of their comments, messages online have always been misunderstood. This leads me onto my second argument.
How do the inequalities of the online world affect how we feel in the offline world?
The online world is used as a mask to pretext how bad the inequalities are in the real world. The world-wide-web and social-media were ordinarily made to share information freely. However, we have all brought into the biggest con ever. The internet now is about data and money, not just free information. This is our data, it is brought and sold to companies all over the world. It is like living an imitation of oneself, the things you see are there because your data tells you that is what you are interested in. You believe you are looking at new things, but truly, all you see is you.
‘Physical and virtual geographies are allegedly in a form that is weakening national prejudice and eroding the link between social interaction and locality.’ (Carran and Seaton, 2010, 277)
Carron and Seaton mention an alleged statement that says the internet is eroding the link between a real environment and the real world. (Carran and Seaton, 2010, 277-279) Before the internet, we could see the world for what it really is, the offline world was more powerful than the online world. Now everything is hidden under the surface of the web, the violence and brutal power is just part of political manipulation, and is a battle between a state of connectivity and dis-connectivity.
Back when the web was becoming known globally, people who had the internet would have been richer than people who did not, being part of the online larger society would have sparked consumer empowerment between the rich and poor. Witte, for example, shows research of policy makers who speak of a digital divide between people who had the internet and who did not (Witte and Mannon, 2010, 2-3). The new generation have grown up with the internet as part of their everyday lives. Even my generation and the generation before me have become inclined and tempted with the modern technologies, and the evolving internet status’ (Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat etc.). Since 2010, there has been an increase in mental health issues. Around this time, there was a rise in internet users interacting on sites such as Facebook and Instagram. This has been linked to a report (Jamieson, 2015) that shows a dramatic increase in mental health searches on google, all because these sites have become a significant factor in millions of the populations lives twenty-four/seven. From then on, we have undoubtedly lived off notifications delivered to our very pockets. Mainly, we use social media for social validation, because we have a fear of missing out and we are constantly looking to validate ourselves in a way that is false or deceiving. The offline world holds too much emotional distress. Therefore, we inject ourselves with a digital syringe because it makes us believe we can be something we are not.
I asked myself, is our mental state better than it was forty years ago? Our grandparent’s world was them sat in one room. In this room is all the connectivity they were able, the connectivity to the outside world was small. Moreover-Now, we can sit in a room, pick up and a phone and instantly, our world is enormous. We can connect with whoever we want, wherever we want. That is billions of people in the same room, imagine the impact that has on our brains (Steven Bartlett, 2017). We see users who are ‘socially perfect’, this makes them and their lives desirable, even though it is fake. It has triggered anxiety and inadequacy to almost everyone. We see all these fake men and women and we get the feeling of not being good enough, this triggers the pressure to look good all the time and to get the validation we need and think we deserve.
Going back to Carran and Seaton, they also mention, ‘virtual-disembodiment’. Fundamentally, what they are saying is through virtual bodies we can be remoulded through our new identities to become an entirely subjective and enlightened self; –
– ‘People can assume online whatever identity they want, and also talk about themselves with unaccustomed frankness, in this way exploring fundamental questions about who they are and whom they want to be. Role-playing (as in pretending to be a member of the opposite sex) can also be liberating, it is argued, because it enables people to experience at first hand socially conditioned responses and to acquire new insight about others.’
(Carran and Seaton, 2010, 279)
By using anonymous interaction, we can change our gender, age, ethnicity and so much more. However, this text is essentially supporting identity reconfiguration. I understand what they are trying to say, the remoulding of identities online gives us a chance at a new perspective on life and how we feel. Although, I disagree entirely as it is not safe. Not just for the people on the other end, but the people ‘role-playing’ would suffer more at the end of the online day. They would be absorbed back into reality, and feel anxious and depressed. It is the biggest comedown ever, once all the dopamine is gone from all the likes and complimentary comments, we feel empty, therefore, we want more. Hence forth, we become addicted to social-media. It is clear, that social media is one of the biggest drug dealers in the world.
In conclusion, it is impossible today, to say the online world and the offline world equally represent and mirror the media in a diverse manner. They do show inequalities, but they have never been the equivalent of each other. The online world dominates the offline world, people and the media are more superior in the online world due to the possibilities that are available. The online world has some benefits as does the offline world. Online, the possibilities are endless, you can learn and achieve much more. Offline there are still some things that cannot be taught or accessed online. For now, there are still ways to remain non-artificial. The online world is so much more powerful than the offline world, the internet is where the power lies. In hindsight, the offline world shapes the online world more than the other way around, it reveals the true-dangerous world we really live in ‘now’. The ‘now’ is the real world, it is all we physically have. The media is slowly realising how influential/damaging the digital world can be, however, the offline world will always remain less equal as the internet improves, and everything will end up being a Science-Fiction film.