We live in a divided world. My country is fractured. Your country is fractured. Everywhere I’ve been of late, from Brazil to Italy, from the Philippines to Nigeria, I see struggles to address fractured societies. Deep fissures of ethnic, religious, economic conflict.
The underlying issues are longstanding. They are further challenged by changes in the global politic. Open markets and borderless capitalism drive fear of lost jobs. Growth in immigration is perceived to disrupt culture, to disrupt religion. And yes, these challenges have been exacerbated by the frictionless means of expression enabled by the Internet.
We see frustration with the perceived value of democracy. We see less willingness to engage in constructive dialog. When the motivation to achieve compromise or consensus is lost, democracies break down.
We live in a highly polarized world. History warns us. It tells us that polarization stretched to the breaking point does not end well. You can go back centuries on that one. The only thing that has changed over time is that communications technology makes it all happen faster.
As technologies of media progressed, from the printing press to radio to television, it became easier for people to consume more and more information. However, the ability to speak to the people, to influence them at scale — good, bad, or indifferent — was limited to a privileged few. Participation was not diverse, minority voices were not fairly represented.
The Internet changed that. It put a printing press in everyone’s hands. Everyone had the opportunity to share his or her voice in the public square. Millions did. It enabled diverse voices to express themselves to every person in the world, or more precisely, to anyone willing to listen.
In a world of unfettered free expression, the nature of both public discourse and political engagement changes. Yes, the Internet can elevate noble speech — that which appeals to our better angels and allows us to find consensus. But it also enables heinous speech, where anger, outrage and self-righteousness can fuel a hatred of others.
We, our species, are more easily stimulated by emotional expression than by reasoned, complex analysis. We prefer that our biases be confirmed. Affirmation is more satisfying than information. It always was. It always will be.
pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Gar 8 Nov 2023
I think cryptography and bitcoin offer a good start to fixing some of what you've described. With so many voices, not all motivated to properly inform, the truth becomes harder and harder to see. A bitcoin standard is a good start to establishing truth in finance and takes away the power to influence and coerce using the money printer. Truth in finance could go a long way to dispelling the insincerity and manipulation we find today in the current system.
Cryptography can also help us get to the truth through zero knowledge proofs, open time stamps, sovereign identity, and decentralized communication. There are many experiments taking place to leverage this tech to create a matrix of truth. It's a race though, as misinformation, deep fakes, and opaque AI are all over our feeds. We need to formalize our information validation so that pieces of information can be assembled into the stories that influence public opinion. Cryptography can help with this, but it needs to be integrated into our social systems as soon as we can.
Personally, I've tried to evaluate how I consume inform and how I arrive at my opinions. Of real value in that regard is the concept of epistemology and the which epistemological philosophy you subscribe to. For me it's Critical Rationalism. See the work of Karl Popper and David Deutsch.
If people used the tools and thought about their approach to knowledge, we could build a more trusting world because more of us would arrive at the truth, and faster.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Gar 8 Nov 2023
Case in point regarding timestamps: https://twitter.com/nic__carter/status/1722091188558200914
reply