With the rise of the internet, how free are we in a sea of information?

The internet has made information more accessible, but it also risks making us lose critical thinking and creativity. Online communities are useful, but they also create conflict. Can we maintain independent thinking on the internet?

 

The world has changed tremendously in the last 20 years. A new world, a meta-world (a new world that physically transcends the real world, but contains information about the real world), has been created that is untouchable, revealing and infinitely vast. It is the Internet, also known as the World Wide Web. People began to upload unrefined information from the real world to this meta-world, processing it in their own way, and anyone, anywhere, at any time, could access it, participate in its many happenings, and download information from it. The digital meta-world that is the Internet has become a way to connect people in the real world. All that is required to connect is logging in and searching, and no social skills are required (e.g., human courtesy to others or making appointments to meet and ask questions). These so-called “networks” have dramatically reduced the inaccessibility and cost of acquiring information. But are the changes they have brought about only beneficial to people? Many of the changes in our lives have been brought about by our interest in the information on the network and our active incorporation of it into our lives, but is it really making us more rational and convenient? And is the rationality and convenience brought about by the Internet really better? In the following, we will explore and discuss some critical perspectives on these questions.
When we access the vast world of the internet through our computers, smartphones, and tablets, we are faced with an overwhelming choice of information. However, the more we surf the web, the less choice and freedom we have in our thinking. As networked people, we enjoy discovering new things, but we also enjoy sharing something in common with many people. This reduces the breadth of content we have at our fingertips and the likelihood of appreciating it and thinking about it anew. We neglect to really think about a given problem and imagine different ways it might play out in the real world, and we are tempted to look for metadata about other people’s organized slices of the real world and opinions to solve it easily. And then we get comfortable with the easy way out, rationalizing that it’s already been done, so why bother?
In a recent interview, Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt made the following comment about Sai, the world’s most successful K-pop star, when he argued that the Internet is the answer to the future. He recounted his experience of meeting Sai in person and attributed his success to the fact that he had “something unique and different to offer.” “The internet is constantly discovering new geniuses,” he said, adding, “There’s a lot of creative talent around the world, so there will always be people who will become even more successful than Psy.”
It is true that the Internet, the most efficient information distribution technology in history, has allowed people with unique personalities and talents like Psy to be known and recognized. But has the internet created such people and inspired them so powerfully? There are tons of talented people in the world, and there were even before the internet. It’s true that more people have access to opportunities, but the internet itself hasn’t increased the quality of their inspiration and creative output. Also, when a networked cultural phenomenon like Saiyi is created, the internet’s blind spots become apparent. People enjoy sharing the same thoughts and feelings, enjoying the same content together. The horse dance trend spearheaded by Psy’s Gangnam Style is a prime example of this. However, the audience that receives content becomes accustomed to “content products” that are optimized for attention, such as exciting and enjoyable stimulating experiences and clichéd emotions of sadness, rather than popular art that invites diverse and deep appreciation and thought, and becomes desensitized to active appreciation through deep thought and critical reception, or the production of new creative inspiration. The internet is great for accessibility because it makes it easy to distribute information, but it’s also great because it gets everyone on the same page and thinking about the same things. The phenomenon of viewers being “synchronized” to such content and being drawn into the emotions and thoughts of the creator’s intended audience has the effect of removing our individual sense of self. This phenomenon of consuming our time with passive entertainment and entertainment is one of the effects of the Internet world that cannot be ignored.
Secondly, we need to pay attention to the new communities that are being created on the Internet. People living on opposite sides of the world can easily meet online and exchange opinions and information if they have common interests and goals, and there are a huge number of communities in many fields. This has made it easier for individuals to develop their skills and knowledge in the areas they are interested in, and it has also made it possible for scattered and similar opinions on a particular topic to come together and speak out loudly, leading to noticeable social change and development. The internet has done a great job of uniting people and opinions that want to come together, but it has also increased conflict between people with different opinions. The ease with which a large number of like-minded people can come together and exchange opinions has made it incredibly easy for them to unite, but it often has the side effect of ostracizing others outside of that community. In recent years, there has been a growing problem with internet communities where unorthodox behavior has become the norm. The phenomenon of extremely biased and violent reactions to political and social issues, which are casually and contagiously displayed by many users, is a classic example of an internet community that has lost its self-regulation. Another example is the mindless criticism of Christianity online. If you look at the comments on portals such as Naver and other sites, you can see many people who are often swept up in the military-centeredness of the word “Christianity” without understanding the religion, and scapegoat Christianity for the wrong problems. While the internet has the power to easily bring large groups of people together and bring them to a common understanding, it can also create divisions and fights on social issues such as politics, religion, and sexuality, rather than generating normal and healthy criticism and debate that can unite entire communities.
As we have seen, the meta-world and network of the Internet has the potential to penetrate deeply into our lives and cause a variety of negative effects. We can lose our sense of agency and become addicted to passive consumption of content, or we can lose our ability to think critically as we become immersed in the flow of a particular community due to the narrowing of our horizons. At this point, we can ask a more serious question. Are our thoughts our own, or are they the result of an assemblage of information on the network? Is the line between who is thinking and who is not blurring? We need to ask ourselves if our minds are being hijacked by the internet. One thing is clear: efficiency is a means to an end, not an end in itself. We should always ask ourselves whether we are living our lives and our thoughts centered, whether we are grains of sand drifting aimlessly in the waves of the network, or whether we are living as fish that can use the waves to swim at our will and purpose.