4 ms·

What is more dangerous in my opinion is the use of the internet for spreading mistruths that could lead to terrible consequences. On a much lower level you see

by kierank 17y ago

What is more dangerous in my opinion is the use of the internet for spreading mistruths that could lead to terrible consequences. On a much lower level you see countless facebook groups protesting against things which are untrue as well as false rumours perpetuating on twitter and other social networking sites with no level of moderation. Virtually all of this has been relatively benign so far but this could quite easily go the other way. However, the internet does have the advantage that people generally take it with a "pinch of salt". Nevertheless Voltaire's quote could still ring true one day: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

tome 17y ago
I don't doubt what you're saying at all, but do you have any specific examples in mind? I'd be interested to see.
- kierank 17y ago
  There was a Facebook campaign about a year ago saying that the British Government was going to use taxpayers money to build a £100 million super-mosque in London. If I remember rightly the mayor's office had to publically come out and say that no taxpayer money was being used after the Facebook group had many hundreds of thousands of members. In this case the harm was pretty minimal but in a climate that was more turbulent the wrong message on "real-time" social media could cause a dangerous situation.
schacon 17y ago
I think the major and very important difference is that the internet is basically totally free. For every Facebook group spewing some idiotic nazi crap there are three condemning it. If you let anyone stand on their little soapbox and say anything, then sure - people already inclined to thinking that way will stay and listen but everyone else will walk by. If, however, it's the only person speaking and you're forced to hear it, then that's different. In Rwanda there was essentially one radio station, completely controlled by the genocidares, spewing the sort of hate mongering that makes Sean Hannity look like Sesame Street. It helped them fan the flames and importantly, it helped them coordinate efficiently. It's not necessarily why there was a genocide there, but it's largely why it was so completely effective. It's also worth noting that this was 15 years ago - Rwanda is an amazing place to visit now. It is safe and beautiful there is some fantastic eco-tourism. If you ever have the opportunity, go gorilla trekking there, it's unbelievable.

by kierank 17y ago

tome 17y ago

I don't doubt what you're saying at all, but do you have any specific examples in mind? I'd be interested to see.

kierank 17y ago
There was a Facebook campaign about a year ago saying that the British Government was going to use taxpayers money to build a £100 million super-mosque in London. If I remember rightly the mayor's office had to publically come out and say that no taxpayer money was being used after the Facebook group had many hundreds of thousands of members. In this case the harm was pretty minimal but in a climate that was more turbulent the wrong message on "real-time" social media could cause a dangerous situation.

schacon 17y ago

I think the major and very important difference is that the internet is basically totally free. For every Facebook group spewing some idiotic nazi crap there are three condemning it. If you let anyone stand on their little soapbox and say anything, then sure - people already inclined to thinking that way will stay and listen but everyone else will walk by. If, however, it's the only person speaking and you're forced to hear it, then that's different. In Rwanda there was essentially one radio station, completely controlled by the genocidares, spewing the sort of hate mongering that makes Sean Hannity look like Sesame Street. It helped them fan the flames and importantly, it helped them coordinate efficiently. It's not necessarily why there was a genocide there, but it's largely why it was so completely effective. It's also worth noting that this was 15 years ago - Rwanda is an amazing place to visit now. It is safe and beautiful there is some fantastic eco-tourism. If you ever have the opportunity, go gorilla trekking there, it's unbelievable.