October 29, 1969
Charley Kline attempts to transmit the text “login” to a computer at the Stanford Research Institute.
Circa 1994 –
Fast forward a few decades and the MacKenzie household connects to the internet for the first time, and a bubbling chorus of squeaks and chirups, the modem establishes contact with another machine. With much excitement, an image from NASA, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ATLANTIC(!), appears slowing on the screen. It might have been this one, or perhaps not.
Since then, “the internet” has almost disappeared. Connection is automatic and usually seamless. For those who dabbled with writing websites and SQL databases, that world has largely gone. The smartphone is everywhere, and Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality is just around the corner. The phenomenon of the always on social media platform, where anyone can publish anything, means that everyone has a voice.
Back in 2012 Timothy Kirkhope wrote in the Independent saying:
“The increased involvement of people in political debate is evident on an even greater scale on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. The internet allows for greater freedom of expression, facilitating citizens’ ability to challenge and criticise: a basic democratic right. These social media sites also have the power to actually bring democracy about – the Egyptian Revolution 2011 being a prime example.”
Today we see the result of always on, minute by minute coverage of events. Traditional news outlets compete with individual bloggers and tweeters for the attention of those with very small attention spans. To attract attention, eye-catching words are used to draw the read in. Outrage, fury, chaos, tragedy, horror, panic, crisis and betrayal are all regularly seen in headlines. Betrayal and outrage feature heavily in the political sphere, as Alex Massie has observed in the context of Scottish politics:
“…we live in the land of perpetual outrage where the nights are endless and the hysteria permanent. Social media encourages and exacerbates this, prompting knee-jerk over-reaction every minute of every hour of every day. We cannot afford an outrage gap, so anything that can be used to muster and foment outrage is very useful.”
In an environment where everything is an outrage, everything is offensive, everything is important, we lose sight of what is in fact important and what is not. On some things, as Alex Massie suggests “it would be nice to think we could give such matters a rest.” Mix crisis, chaos, outrage and betrayal with fiction and falsehoods, and the situation becomes very dangerous. There are some big issues out there that need careful thought. The World Economic Forum suggested in January 2018 that “2018 should be a year of all-out effort to negotiate global solutions”. There will not be many who will suggest that that is what we got.
It seems that rather than engaging on issues, stand off and bluff are the techniques being used. I have written about this before, and especially the commitment promoted by Collaborative Scotland. Instead of:
- Acknowledging that there are many differing, deeply held and valid points of view;
- Using language carefully and avoiding personal or other remarks which might cause unnecessary offence;
- Listening carefully to all points of view and seek fully to understand what concerns and motivates those with differing views from our own;
- Asking questions for clarification when we may not understand what others are saying or proposing;
- Expressing our own views clearly and honestly with transparency about our motives and our interests;
- Responding to questions asked of us with clarity and openness and, whenever we can, with credible information;
we see our leaders and politicians posturing and barking almost meaningless slogans at each other. This may provide seemingly unlimited material for comedy writers, but it does little to persuade Jo Public that the big issues that the country and the planet face are being addressed.
There are small signs that some leaders are prepared to take a different approach. I was struck by the approach taken by Nancy Pelosi in a recent meeting with President Trump. While some question the wisdom of debating “the wall” with President Trump, Nancy Pelosi in a measured and restrained way, sought to discuss an issue with a person occupying one of the most powerful offices in the world. She challenged the President saying:
“…it’s not transparency when we’re not stipulating to a set of facts, and when we want to have a debate with you about saying — we confront some of those facts”; and
“We have to have an evidence-based conversation about what does work, what money has been spent and how effective it is. This isn’t — this is about the security of our country. You take an oath to protect and defend. We don’t want to have that mischaracterized by anyone.”
and
“So let us have a conversation where we don’t have to contradict in public the statistics that you put forth, but instead can have a conversation about what will really work, and what the American people deserve from us at this uncertain time in their lives.”
Regardless of your political views, this must be the best way to resolve these big issues. What are the common objectives. On what issues do we agree. On what issues do we disagree, and why?
“I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day” is a Christmas carol based on the 1863 poem “Christmas Bells” by American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. The song tells of the narrator’s despair, upon hearing Christmas bells, that “hate is strong and mocks the song of peace on earth, good will to men”. The carol concludes with the bells carrying renewed hope for peace among men.
Modern Christmas songs tell of snowmen and presents, but if the principles set out by Collaborative Scotland were used more often perhaps we can have goodwill to others on many more days than just Christmas.
Justice in an Online World 