Has the internet helped the radicalization of political perceptions?

[Rainman05]

What I want to ask is, to be specific, has the internet helped, through forums such as these or popular sites like youtube, facebook, etc, to radicalize people in terms of political perspectives? Or has it done the opposite?

is it possible that despite greater connectivity and unprecendented capacity to share ideas and information, the internet through the aforementioned means, backfired? With people being unable or undesiring a discussion but rather a validation of what they already believed. And when presented with the opposite of their belief, they radicalize more?

And I am not talking about religion here. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF THE DISCUSSION DO NOT TURN THIS THREAD INTO:
-A RELIGIOUS DEBATE
-A WW2 DISCUSSION
-A COMMUNISM/FASCISM/AND SUCH DISCUSSION.
So nothing that pulls the conversation into an extreme direction.

I'm aiming at something closer to home here. So. Has the internet radicalized political perception on things? Instead of growing the middle ground and bringing people together, people have used the internet to solidify their own positions and hold fast. Build up walls behind favorable information and preferential documentation, ignoring the rest. Am I making it clear? Because if not, you know, I'll rectify this.

Don't forget to vote in the poll. Don't ask what poll, it takes a few mins before it gets put up. Thank you.

 

[ecofarm]

People who seek only validation would do the same with or without the internet. It's not as if, before the internet, people could be forced to listen to other perspectives.

 

[Captain America]

To many people today believe that the way to solve problems is to start a blog about them.

At least that keeps them off the streets smashing windows out.

 

[Rainman05]

Ok, So my votes are:

The internet helped share information that reduced political radicalization
Because I do think the internet helped share, at a large scale, a lot of information to reduce political radicalization. To help people see the other side better. Whether this has actually worked, and to what effect, who knows. I tend to think yes.

At the same time: The internet gave radicals the voice they were denied in the world and used it greatly
because lets face it. When the airwaves were dominated by mainstream tv and radio, it was pretty hard for a non-accepted voice to make it's way in. Now I applaud this aspect, but the downside is that there are people who radicalize people politically too and spread misinformation to suit their agenda and get popular. But I guess it's a step up from having only the "accepted radicals" on TV and Radio to have some unaccepted radicals on the internet.

And I voted for this too: What is the internet? Oooh, you mean cat-net?
Because let's face it. 40% of the internet is porn. 40% of the internet is about cats. 10% is actual useful information and 10% is that part of the internet nobody goes to.

 

[ecofarm]

To many people today believe that the way to solve problems is to start a blog about them.

At least that keeps them off the streets smashing windows out.

The internet does not keep them from committing crimes. Before the internet those same people would just blabber at whomever was around, the recipient would shake their head and go on with their life. If a blogger had the intellect to actually do anything about a problem (legal or illegal), they wouldn't be a blogger. Dumbass loudmouths have and always will exist, and they can safely be ignored.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Usually radicalism spawns from lack of education. The internet has brought education to the masses. Radicalization has taken a huge hit.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I don't know. I don't sense that the Internet has had a noticeable effect either way. I will say that I don't consider "radical" politics inherently worse than "moderate" politics. I've noticed that people tend to speak about "radical" politics as if they are something to be avoided whereas they value "moderate" politics less. In the past, movements for women's suffrage, abolitionism, civil rights, gay rights, universal healthcare and many other GOOD things have been viewed as "radical" whereas the "moderate" position was sexist, racist, homophobic and many other negative things.

In sum, people tend to argue for the "middle ground" as if it is the objective good. The middle ground is often not the "good" position. It's often complacent or worse. Even further, "bringing people together" is often not the best immediate goal. On the contrary, often tension and discord are necessary for progress. Therefore, I would contest the value judgments being upon both categories by the poll and the OP. (For the record, this is less a shot at the OP specifically and more a criticism of the pervasive value judgments that OP shares.)

 

[Fisher]

The internet has 1) given fruitycakes the ability to connect with other fruitcakes so instead of asking "What am I missing?" they are able to be all fruity and think it is normal; and
2) the micro-targeting has become insidious--when people are represented as "Liking" politicians whom they despise on Facebook then it borders on fraud IMO.

 

[clownboy]

The internet has 1) given fruitycakes the ability to connect with other fruitcakes so instead of asking "What am I missing?" they are able to be all fruity and think it is normal; and
2) the micro-targeting has become insidious--when people are represented as "Liking" politicians whom they despise on Facebook then it borders on fraud IMO.

Fruitycakes have almost always been able to connect with one another, pre-internet. The obsessed gather together like water seeking it's level. Once the internet, and especially forums and social media were established, it gave the fruitycakes a chance to connect to a larger audience and portray their image away from the real life image that would usually scare normal folks away.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Fruitcakes and nutjobs abound on the internet, the ability to instantly spread mass disinformation has brought out the worst in some people. The immediacy has also contributed to a coarsening of the "debate". Sitting in the perceived safety of mothers' basement gives the individual an undeserved bravery and willingness to rudeness they wouldn't dare commit in real life.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

It might spur some to become more radicalized. At the same time, in spurs others to become more balanced and informed.

 

[mbig]

Not just the net, but mainly so in the last decade. Much More so than in 2004 when the below was written.

How the 'neo-cons' are taking over the world - or not
January 7, 2004 - David Brooks
originally NY Times
now: How the 'neo-cons' are taking over the world - or not - www.smh.com.au

"..There's something else going on, too. The proliferation of media outlets and the segmentation of society have meant that it's much easier for people to hive themselves off into like-minded cliques. Some people live in towns where nobody likes Bush. Others listen to radio networks where nobody likes Bill Clinton.

In these communities, half-truths get circulated and exaggerated. Dark accusations are believed because it is delicious to believe them. The White House aide Vince Foster was murdered. The Saudis warned the Bush Administration before the September 11 attacks.

You get to choose your own reality. You get to believe what makes you feel good. You can ignore inconvenient facts so rigorously your picture of the world is one big distortion.

And if you can give your foes a collective name - liberals, fundamentalists or neo-cons - you can rob them of their individual humanity. All inhibitions are removed. You can say anything about them. You get to feed off their villainy and luxuriate in your own contrasting virtue.

You will find books, blowhards and candidates playing to your delusions, and you can emigrate to your own version of Planet Chomsky.
You can live there unburdened by ambiguity.

Improvements in information technology have not made public debate more realistic. On the contrary, anti-Semitism is resurgent. Conspiracy theories are prevalent. Partisanship has left many people unhinged.

Welcome to election year, 2004.