[TLDR (too long didn’t read): If you are reading this, chances are you care about HR. This Reader asks questions that challenge the digital public system about the misinformation it spreads and that affects HR. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text]. Traducir/traduire los/les Readers; usar/utiliser deepl.com.
–Public opinion is not built freely but, in it, the media have a substantial weight; they use subtle mechanisms through which the social conscience is directed. (Albino Gomez).
1. Years ago, pundits assumed the internet would open a new era of democracy and human rights (HR), giving everyone access to the truth. But the growing number of dictators and (amateur and professional) demagogues have demonstrated how naive that assumption was. (Robert Reich)
2. Already Bertrand Russell, in his essay The Triumph of Stupidity in 1933 wrote: “The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” In his time, there was no internet, no information overload and the ‘podium’ was reserved for those with the knowledge necessary to make their opinion heard. Half a century later we have what we today call ‘the information age’ with its ‘consume-and-move-on’ culture, that inundates us with information, self-appointed experts and ideas that sometimes lack grounding, are built on uncertain credentials and, perhaps unsurprisingly, often expire more quickly than last week’s groceries. (Joseph Joubert)
3. The ‘old guard’ now using the internet for their own designs wants us to believe that sending memes all over Facebook, Instagram and TikTok is brave and relevant. Maybe it is, but making change possible and fighting the forces that plunder the world and the rights of all its inhabitants requires much much more. (Francine Mestrum)
Not really news for you: Not everyone is equal in the digital public sphere (Hans Dembowski)
4. Let us illustrate this with an example: US journalists are trained to give equal space and weight to both major political parties. Too few media houses have changed that stance as a response to only one of the two big parties still wholeheartedly endorsing democracy. Anti-democratic lies are thus presented as similarly legitimate as truthful warnings against authoritarian tendencies. Editorial offices no longer serve as impartial gatekeepers –wither HR.
5. Moreover, the core reason that so much populist propaganda is spreading online internationally is that the US Congress has exempted Internet platforms from liability for the content they make available. US law matters internationally, because many of the most important Internet companies are based in the US and we have no international regulation. Conventional media houses can be held accountable for disinformation they spread, but that does not apply to social media platforms. So, not everyone is equal in the digital public sphere …not to discuss the role that algorithms play downplaying some topics and promoting others. If you invest in Facebook advertising, for example, the Facebook algorithm will ensure that your posts get more attention. Not everyone has the money to do so, but some do spend heavily.*
*: The forces of the Right manage to impose a public ‘common sense’; we do not.
6. Internet users then pick from the choice that the algorithms present on their screens. Mind you: The algorithms are secret.** As users, we do not fully understand their biases, though we do know that they serve corporate interests. The algorithms are designed to maximize profits by attracting users’ attention. [They also ignore that disinformation (on HR issues included) tends to be particularly bad in languages other than English]. Internet corporations are obviously keen on staying in business so they do their best not to offend autocratic leaders. Algorithms also have a pattern of accelerating anti-minority agitation in many countries, while slowing down criticism of the government. (H. Dembowski)
**: The management of cybernetic power and data moves in the shadows –and even from the multilateral sphere (such as the United Nations) it is not possible to know the extent of its reach. (Fernando Reyes Matta)
Asking questions and encouraging our collocutors to challenge our and their own systems of thought can prove to be a powerful ally as we strive to fight misinformation and promote human rights (Konstantinos Arfanis)
7. Sadly, there is no single failsafe way to move away from the above self-appointed experts with their ‘ideas’. But some useful techniques can help:
- get your audience asking themselves questions;
- engage them through a journey of questions and uncertainties. (Socrates, more than 2,000 years ago, engaged his students or fellow diners in conversations where he would set questions designed to provoke controversy and uncertainty);
- In modern academia, it can be a helpful tool to use exaggeration to plant the seeds of enquiry in students thinking;
- Spark a debate and then say as little as possible and watch students come to the realization that their initial position was based on unsupported assumptions and misconceptions.
8. In other words, encourage everybody to elaborate on a position s/he believes to be unscientific and false, so s/he ultimately reaches a point where s/he realizes the fallacy of his/her initial premise and emerge with a new understanding of the topic discussed. The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. (J. Joubert)
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at schuftan@gmail.com
All Readers are available at www.claudioschuftan.com
Postscript/Marginalia
-The tyranny of time: It seems as if our days are getting shorter; as if they no longer had the traditional 24 hours. It has been said that the reign of immediacy the internet brings-about imposes this law: The more everything speeds up, the more time is needed; the more time is gained, the more ‘time’ is the winner …and we, the losers. (A. Gomez)
Note:
I repeat a footnote from many Readers ago: Are these Readers sometimes repetitive? Yes and No.
No, in the sense that they look at the many aspects of HR work, some new, some old, but the latter always from different perspectives and angles.
Yes, in the sense that they always reinforce key concepts of the HR framework.
This deliberate duality is considered indispensable for the readers to progressively internalize the concepts in such a way that they can then comfortably use them in debates and in teaching HR.
In that sense, this is no apology.
[Moreover, all the good and wise in these Readers has come from others; that of lesser importance has been mine].