Thinkstock by Getty Images <\/p>\n
Have we, as Americans, broken the internet? Everything is amazing and terrible, all at the same time. <\/p>\n
The ability for an individual to open up worlds of information on a hand-held device is awe-inspiring. If someone who had been in a coma for the last decade woke up today, they would look at a smartphone with utter astonishment. <\/p>\n
Surrounded by such wealth of information, we face a new problem: When we have access to all the information in the world, its tantamount to having access to none. <\/p>\n
Our society has lost the ability to appropriately filter good ideas from bad, and truth from fiction, a role the media used to play. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
A basic tenet of free markets is the idea that the dissemination of more good information creates better market outcomes, assuming were dealing with rational actors. This should be true of goods and services as well as ideas. In theory, the best ideas should rise to the top. <\/p>\n
With millions of ideas filtered through millions of people on Facebook walls, Twitter feeds, chat rooms, and 24-hour cable news networks, its logical to think some consensus about politics and culture would ultimately emerge. That, sadly, is not the case. As almost anyone who has scrolled through his social media feed lately will tell you, the cultural and political environment has never felt more fragmented. <\/p>\n
Worse: What happens when all the trusted sources necessary to filter ideas have betrayed the trust of the people? What serves as a filter? <\/p>\n
The way coverage has changed over the last decade is stunning. Newspapers, radio stations, and television are all driven in large part by the internet and social media content. It strains newsrooms and traditional journalists, relentlessly challenging reporting and ethical standards. <\/p>\n
People feel violated and lied to when media outlets fall short. Whether it was the revelation that CNN contributor Donna Brazile shared debate questions with Hillary Clintons campaign, or the full retraction of a story from Fox about Trump dissenters bused into Austin to protest the new President (they werent), people have been given ample reason for their skepticism. <\/p>\n
A Gallup poll taken in September of last year showed us that our trust in traditional mass media outlets has dropped to historically low levels. <\/p>\n
One solution to the problems of an erosion of trust and a false objective standard is to simply forego the mass media filter. The internet and social media allow us to easily and readily find stories that seem tailored to even the most niche reader. <\/p>\n
We no longer must rely on a single source to find the take that is most salient to our perspective its all out there and likely already in our news feed. Many newer media outlets dont pretend not to have a slant, and as a result, a rational person can look at content and take the source into account. This customization shifts the power of information dissemination away from a few elites and broadly distributes it among those willing to create content. <\/p>\n
But that personal empowerment is not without costs. <\/p>\n
I was giving a speech shortly after the election, and one woman eagerly raised her hand to proudly announce that she had unfriended at least 20 people, as if purging others from our virtual lives was a badge of honor. This is a symptom of a larger problem. With the press of a button, we can silence those who challenge, offend, or even hurt us. But doing so prevents the kind of dialogue necessary to reach any understanding with those unlike ourselves. <\/p>\n
In economics we believe in a principle of diminishing marginal returns; in essence, the more of a thing we have, the less we value each additional unit of that thing. If someone gives you one orange, you might be thrilled if you dont have one, but if you have 4,000 oranges, being given that additional one will not be as special. Access to information gives us the ability to learn anything, but each additional bit of knowledge becomes less valued. Facebook gives us friends but the cost of losing twenty friends is nothing when you have thousands. In real life, the cost of losing twenty friends would be devastating, but access to volumes of them gives us the luxury of valuing each less. <\/p>\n
If we are now our own content generators who can directly communicate with thousands of people at a time, how are we both so connected and so alone? A recent study from the University of Pittsburgh showed that frequent social media users are 2.7 times more prone to depression. Whether thats causal or correlative is unclear. <\/p>\n
Many pieces written after the election of Donald Trump outlined the increasingly toxic nature of social media interactions. Fact and discourse have been replaced with feelings and ad hominem attacks directed at those with whom we disagree. Each tweet and trolling comment seemsto simultaneously mean everything and yet mean nothing. <\/p>\n
The more access we have to others, the more overwhelmed and tribal we become. Behind the shield of a keyboard, we lose our very civility. We self-curate our inputs when we start with actual friends, the people we know in real life. This expands to those like-minded individuals with whom we have mutual interests or tangential connections. Eventually, between the increased access to information which affirms our life view, and the decreased access to information which challenges us, we enter into a comfortable bubble. <\/p>\n
Recent stories decry the young people on college campuses who now require safe spaces from opinions they find objectionable. Merely challenging their premises becomes hate-speech and assault, sometimes met with violence. Although this reaction seems extreme, imagine growing up with only an entirely self-curated set of inputs. People entering college today have had Facebook, Twitter and Instagramfeedstelling them what they want to hear for much of their lives. <\/p>\n
Young people are using a new and curious phrase: I am standing in MY truth. The mere fact many now claim truth can be owned by an individual andisthereforesubjective assumes by extension they also believe there is no universal truth. <\/p>\n
Like so many hard problems facing America today, the best solution is not easy and it is rooted in personal responsibility. We all must take the time to read in good faith that which offends us, and engage in a civil manner with those with whom we disagree. E.L. Doctorow wrote: You never see further than your headlights, but you can make the whole trip that way. Even if your entire trip must be made in the dark, at least make an effort to turn on your brights. <\/p>\n
Kelly Maher is the executive director of Compass Colorado. Follow her on Twitter:@okmaher <\/p>\n
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Go here to see the original:<\/p>\n
Have we broken the internet? - The Denver Post<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Thinkstock by Getty Images Have we, as Americans, broken the internet? Everything is amazing and terrible, all at the same time. The ability for an individual to open up worlds of information on a hand-held device is awe-inspiring Continue reading