When the opportunity presented itself to write for Odyssey, I did not have to be asked twice. As a Political Economy student, it has always been very obvious to me that mass media, including online media, is a very powerful tool. So many things have been said on this matter, specifically about those words that are heard by the masses. My favorite of all of this is from James Madison who said, "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.” This implies that any corruption or miscommunication of 'knowledge' would be an impediment to Liberty,an idea so central to modern civilization.
With the introduction of the internet, especially social media, information dissemination was revolutionized in a capacity unseen since the invention of the Printing Press. Therefore, James Madison's point on diffusion of knowledge has been advanced and improved. However, as one of the points of this paper is, it has come at the expense of 'advancement'. The key to this 'advancement' is the truthfulness, validity and trustworthiness of information and its source. Listening to Donald Trump and other politicians talk endlessly, seemingly without any actual knowledge of the subject at hand, and yet seeing them rise in polls can make one wonder if truthfulness and validity has stopped mattering.
Leaving cynicism for a while, the story of the Reddit Conspiracy Theory on Boston Bombing shows that not all misinformation is deliberate or cynical. Sometimes, it stems from poor skills and a willingness to jump to conclusions and an intent to 'be the first' to report the story.
Unlike old-age media, social media does not have a moderating editor who will fact check, neither does it have mechanisms that will ensure that any misinformation people might have been exposed to will be corrected made available to these people.
For people to care enough to 'share' stories with their network, it must be at some level of drama and intrigue; sadly, real life is rarely ever dramatic enough. And false news being shared around only raises standards of drama. This compounds the apathy of much of the audience to share 'real' stories. This means that false news travels so much faster. And by the time a story is verified, people often either lose interest or have their reach limited by lowered 'shares'. This vicious cycle rewards fast reporting more and truthful reporting less.
Yet, we don't have catch-22 of reporting at our hands (namely, that reporting can only exclusively either be fast or truthful). They are not exclusive of each other. The way out is simple - to set up an acceptable level of truthfulness; but without editors, how do you ensure that? This level of truthfulness must be maintained in every person and a guarantee of this comes from 'Ethics'. In the easiest phrasing, it is to not be desperate.
If one is careful, one will understand that the internet is a body of knowledge readily accessible by anyone and that there is always someone who is going to believe the most ridiculous things - one does not want to be a contributor to those things. But as is the case with a Communist system looking to build morality in all populations, it is not possible. For now, we can follow a gradualistic move and stick to having a moderator or an editor for the things that are important. And shut up on the things that aren't! Oh how beautiful that sounds.
Further reading: An interesting story I ran into when researching for this is the story of Orson Welles.
