It is easy to suspect that the Web makes us stupid. I could fill the rest of this newspaper with anecdotes of British leftists using Facebook to reinforce each other’s belief that British opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is a triumph; of cybernats turning to Twitter to bury the nagging feeling that an enormous deficit would have left an independent Scotland close to bankruptcy; or of US conservatives finding incontrovertible proof on white supremacist sites that US President Barack Obama is a Muslim.
However, as I only have this space, I will give you the story of US radio talk show host Charlie Sykes. I do not believe anyone can count themselves properly adult unless they stop at some point in their lives and think through every prejudice they hold. The US shock jock did so last week and confessed at the end of his self-examination to being frightened by the conservative movement he had helped nurture.
When US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told a lie, Sykes said, he could no longer say to his audience: “By the way, you know it’s false.” Facts were biased now. Fact-checkers were the hired liars of the liberal media. The fact was, his fellow conservatives had had it with facts. The partisan Web was their trusted source. If they had read Trump was telling the truth on a conservative site or Facebook, that was all the confirmation they needed.
Sykes described an “alternative media reality and there’s no way to break through it. I swim upstream because, if I don’t say these things from some of these Web sites, then suddenly I have sold out. Then they will ask what’s wrong with me for not repeating these stories that I know not to be true.”
However, suspecting the Web has made us stupid is not the same as proving it. To understand is not to pardon, and I do not mean it as exoneration when I say you can make a good argument that the populist movements sweeping the rich world are understandable reactions to modern crises and fears, not a by-product of new communications technology.
A minority of schoolchildren in the US are white, and within 25 years whites would become a minority in the US population as a whole. You would be naive in the extreme not to have expected a frenzied backlash. Meanwhile, in Europe, Marine le Pen and Nigel Farage have not come from cyberspace. Economic insecurity and mass migration are real, as is the murderous violence of the Islamo-fascists. The euro will truly never work. The banks really did collapse and governments really did fail to send bankers before judges, and compelled taxpayers to bail them out instead. All these things happened without Twitter. You do not appear to need technology to explain our discontents.
Yet, listen to the jeering tone and cocksure ignorance of modern debate for a while, and perhaps you will think again. When Sykes talks about there being no way for the truth to break through alternative media reality, he is describing a world where people are so alienated from each other they cannot accept the good faith of an opponent who produces a discomforting argument. You can see the alienation in the T-shirts worn by Labour supporters announcing with pride that they have “never kissed a Tory.” They are not alone in their sexual taboos. In the 21st century, the idea of love crossing a political divide revolts partisans everywhere. In 1960 just 5 percent of Americans said they would be upset if their child married a supporter of a rival political party. By 2010, that number stood at 40 percent.
In a research paper that is to be published in the American Journal of Political Science, Yphtach Lelkes, Gaurav Sood and Shanto Iyengar have found depressing proof that the Web is fueling segregation. The rollout of broadband in the US allowed them to conduct a controlled experiment. Access to new broadband services varied wildly because each state had different “rights of way” laws governing the use of the conduits, trenches and towers broadband providers need. The researchers matched the attitudes of those who did and did not have broadband with data on partisan hostility from studies of voters beliefs in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.
Greater use of the Web ensured that an admirer of Jon Stewart, the TV satirist, would think that conservatives were not just mistaken, but stupid, or a viewer of Fox News would work on the assumption that liberals were wicked. Both sides could dismiss uncomfortable facts as lies. Both sides allowed their politics to become so bound up with their identity, opposing arguments felt almost as if they were physical assaults.
As the authors put it in a separate study: “Partisans discriminate against opposing partisans to a degree that exceeds discrimination based on race.”
Broadband access was worth studying because the better your connection the longer you spend online. Optimists might have hoped we would take the opportunity of fast broadband to read more widely, and challenge more preconceptions. Not a bit of it. The better the access to the Web many enjoyed, the more they clung to their own kind. The longer they stayed online, the more they turned for comfort to ideologues who shared their ideology.
Most use broadband to access entertainment from pornography to Game of Thrones, of course — assuming that is a distinction with a difference. However, you do not have to live deep in an ideological silo to be affected. One study of voting behavior estimated that watching a mere four minutes of Fox News a week was enough to increase the odds of an American voting for a conservative candidate.
It is vulgar determinism to believe that changes in politics can be reduced to changes in technology. That does not mean they cannot accentuate pre-existing hatreds and help create new ones. As they do, we face a future of hostile tribes, screaming at each other in incomprehensible tongues; of peoples with battlefields aplenty, but without common ground.
It need not be that way. An urgent, if undiscussed, reform is for governments to legislate to stop Facebook and others using their algorithms to deliver news users want to hear, rather than need to hear. More important would be a cultural reaction against the impoverishment so many supporters of the populist movements exhibit. Their inability to argue, their denial of hard evidence, their certainties, and their fanatical denunciations of sellouts, traitors and apostates speak of men and women whose souls have withered along with their minds.
They should be made to face their own inadequacies, and asked politely, but repeatedly: Who wants to live their life with only the echo of their own voice for company?
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
More than a week after Hondurans voted, the country still does not know who will be its next president. The Honduran National Electoral Council has not declared a winner, and the transmission of results has experienced repeated malfunctions that interrupted updates for almost 24 hours at times. The delay has become the second-longest post-electoral silence since the election of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez of the National Party in 2017, which was tainted by accusations of fraud. Once again, this has raised concerns among observers, civil society groups and the international community. The preliminary results remain close, but both
Beijing’s diplomatic tightening with Jakarta is not an isolated episode; it is a piece of a long-term strategy that realigns the prices of choices across the Indo-Pacific. The principle is simple. There is no need to impose an alliance if one can make a given trajectory convenient and the alternative costly. By tying Indonesia’s modernization to capital, technology and logistics corridors, and by obtaining in public the reaffirmation of the “one China” principle, Beijing builds a constraint that can be activated tomorrow on sensitive issues. The most sensitive is Taiwan. If we look at systemic constraints, the question is not whether
RSS