The internet is undoubtedly an amazing resource. When used as a tool for instantaneous search and reference, it’s utility is indispensable. When used correctly it can act almost as an extension of one’s mind, like tapping into the collective consciousness at the drop of a hat.
Like many others, I have grown to rely on the internet as a source for consolidated public opinion. When I am curious about a topic, there’s essentially an infinite library of data at my immediate disposal. Not only data, but online forums, such as reddit, allow me to gauge a general public reaction to said topic, and extrapolate that out to form a broader collective opinion. I, like others, have grown accustomed to outsourcing many of my thoughts regarding significant matters to the redditverse – under the impression that the collective opinion, as established by these online forums, must possess some degree of truth. This is largely due to the apparent process of peer critique – every Reddit post is categorized by a simple upvote/downvote system. And similarly, the thread replies are rank-ordered using the same upvote/downvote system. The result of this format is a seemingly clear-cut reflection of authentic public opinion on nearly any topic or idea, as popular replies are boosted to the top, and less desirable replies are shunned into obscurity. This process acts as “the town square,” if you will, where collective masses gather to make their preferences known, one way or another. This results in one being offered a clean consensus on which opinion is considered “accepted” by a specific community, often with little room for dissent or ambiguity.
Now, a viewer might ask: “what exactly is the problem with this form of discourse? What would you do to improve the upvote system as it is currently implemented?”
And my answer to this is, “I wouldn’t.”
I’m not proposing a change in the site or any of its systems. I’m not suggesting a more efficient alternative for this type of discourse.
What I am doing, is trying to provoke a cautious approach to relying on sites like reddit in forming your individual opinion.
The more that I personally relied on the site, the more I started to notice patterns which may or may not be indicative of underlying realities online.
The majority of users who access the site do not post themselves. Like me, they rely on forms and subreddits as a source of consolidated public opinion, which can be incredible useful for deducing certain information or a set of opinions. These casual users tend not to question the motives behind most of the comments they read.
However, those who are in the habit of posting, tend to post more and more, and subtely form a hive mind which consequently dominates the aggregate conversation, even is this is not apparent on the average thread to thread.
For example:
Imagine a real-world successful person, entangled deep within a web of responsibility and community. In a vacuum, one might assume that this person’s opinions and experiences in life reflect a more acute grip on reality, than say, your average 20-something year old reddit user. The successful individual’s view on life should rightfully be acknowledged as that which is grounded in truth, or at least a true-enough representation of the world. One can look at the beliefs and values of this person, and then gauge those ideas with how well said person embodies them, authentically living them out. If that person is genuine, bearing fruits of their labor, socially adept and responsible, then perhaps their worldview is worth acknowledging. But if that real-world person is actually a nihilistic, perverse, socially unlikable sloth, we would dismiss what they had to say as simply a projection of insecurity, or misconception of reality.
Regarding the successful individual, a few questions come to mind – what incentive would this person have in turning to online forums for positive affirmation in their life choices? What skills or knowledge might they possess that is best pursued in the realm of online anonymous discourse, as opposed to a group, business, or labor that is oriented around an objective goal?
The important question to ask, is: would someone who lacks this real-world fulfillment be more likely than others to seek out justification within anonymous echo chambers from strangers who are entirely separated from the accountability of their espousing? And, if you are regularly resorting to the spaces for support of your subjective worldview, might this be indicative that your assumptions have strayed from reality?
On reddit, there is no system for separating the wheat from the chaff other than impulse. Opinions are too often categorized by reactionary emotion – how they make other browsers feel, which could be the result of all kinds of psychological projections, the least of which we should assume is genuine altruism.
Perhaps for the few who are altruistic, this assumption might make sense. But then again, I would encourage one to apply that assumption of reddit strangers toward all one’s real-world encounters, and then estimate how many people are truly acting out of pure selflessness and not some more ambiguous motive. In other words, is it useful to assume that strangers on the internet are acting to promote your individual self-interest, and are there other factors that may be driving their incentives to post? (Even if supposedly, in the context of a subreddit your interests are ‘aligned.’
Perhaps ask yourself, if you engage in this very behavior, what is your true motive behind posting?
In this way, the subreddit system, by its very definition, is the willful incubation of echo chambers. It is designed for those who share an axiomatic assumption to continuously affirm their beliefs in a space they know will garner no opposition. Even the most radical philosophies will be presented as consensus opinions within these subreddits. All it takes is a few minutes scrolling through r/antiwork or r/antichildren to realize the insane rabbit hole of self-absurdity that some people have driven themselves into.
In addition, these subreddits are controlled by a select group of “mods,” who by necessity spend such absorbent amounts of time on reddit that this behavior alone should call all others into question. Mods do not get paid or compensated, other than in the form of arbitrary power which can and is abused to virtually no end. Therefore, on every subreddit one should keep in mind that there may be and likely is one to several people through which the entire sub is filtered and refined. Mods can “nuke” threads that pose an existential threat to anything they deem in opposition to the spirit of the subreddits, obviously leaving open the potential for mass gatekeeping.
Proponents of this structure will argue that without mods, subreddits are open to “harmful” or “hateful” opinions, compromising the integrity of the thread, and preventing some from voicing their authentic opinion. Others might argue, on the other hand, that such is a necessary consequence of open debate, and is more reflective of the real world. The real world is not a safe little echo chamber where your edgy opinions are safe from criticism. In the real world, you have to demonstrate the power of your ideas in order for them to be taken seriously. You have to embody your beliefs within the arena of play, and not hide behind some obscure moral philosophy conducive to your narrow-minded view.
Leave a Reply