Defining the Internet
It may seem like an easy question, but the answer will vary depending on who you ask. And The Tow-Knight Center’s new Initiative in Internet Studies is tasked with finding out.
I started with that very question while preparing for the “Designing the Internet” class, a new multidisciplinary course for graduate students from across the City University of New York’s collective schools and housed at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, where I led a lesson on research techniques.
I asked my younger sister what she thought the internet was for. Being a 2000s’ kid, her first interaction with the web was YouTube. She views the digital world as an experience and a place for affirmation, to find others who were interested in what you found interesting.
Then I asked my mother, who has two degrees and is currently working on her educational doctorate in curriculum and instruction elementary cognate, to describe her decades-long experience with the Internet. “The [Web] was a resource; you could trust it. But now it’s interactive, which is bad.” When I asked her why, she went on, saying how students used to turn to it to learn “but now the Internet can be manipulated with ads, and anyone can post anything. We took it for granted that the information was truthful. Now we have to verify it all.”
Equipped with these initial perspectives, I considered another conceptual community that aligned with these perceived and researched intentions of the Internet, where social, economic and cultural events have adjusted its technical purpose over time. What historical or present-day parallel environment could bring people together around a belief that trust was key, could serve as a mechanism for an exchange of ideas, and be a source of affirmation for the individual?
As I see it, it’s Burning Man. I won’t dive heavily into the details just yet, as I intend to explore the similarities and differences between our evolving digital landscape and the annual week-long desert event over the course of my time as the research and communications associate for the Tow-Knight Center’s new grant-funded Initiative in Internet Studies.
My objective is to elucidate the Ten Principles of Burning Man using my insight as a three-time Burner and my experience as a journalism researcher at First Draft and Aspen Digital, and add a level of creative analysis to our understanding of the Internet, from ambition to perception to reality.
I introduced my comparison with the graduate students of the initiative’s pilot course, which is led by Jeff Jarvis, the Center’s director and author of What Would Google Do?, Public Parts, and Geeks Bearing Gifts, and Douglas Rushkoff of Queens College, author of Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus, Team Human, and Present Shock. I showed the students of this hybrid remote/in-person class the research techniques and tools they would need to build their “designing the internet” projects, challenging them to think about the sort of questions they should consider as they narrow their focus.
The first aim of the Internet studies initiative is two-part: providing students a chance to expand their understanding of the Internet by asking questions such as “what purpose is the Internet serving?” The second effort revolves around my role in gathering, summarizing, and sharing research on the Internet’s impact on society — the good, the bad and the unforeseen.
While researchers at MIT analyze the technical components of the internet, and subreddits knock down user definitions of the web and its purpose, I initially wanted to understand what people — the digital masses — are saying about the purpose of the Internet, outside of the literal definition. As an early starting point, I turned to everyone’s first research source: Google. I typed this into the search bar and Google’s autocomplete delivered some interesting assumptions.
Google’s search suggestions confirmed who I should be connecting with (educators, digital literacy advocates, journalists and the like) and the questions I should be asking.
I adjusted my search terms to narrow my question down to,“What is the internet a place for?” A user on Quora, a social question-and-answer website, answered the more specific question of, Why do we think of the internet as a place rather than a thing?
Fernando’s explanation of the Internet aligns well with my understanding of the Burning Man experience, where people are able to remove their titles and reputations in the “real” world and express themselves in ways that they may not show while at home, at the workplace and so forth. This seven-day event in the Nevada desert harnesses the power of radical inclusion in a judgement-free space with a simultaneous sense of both anonymity and community towards your fellow Burner.
My question is, is this the same set of values that appeared in the early days of the Internet? Or was the desire for anonymity an unforeseen occurrence that arose as the web evolved? Who has benefitted from this? Is that still the case today?
The Internet is often compared to the industry of media and journalism, and while there are similarities and overlaps, anonymity is a critical line of separation. In journalism, news stories with an anonymous source puts the reputation and credibility of the editor, if not the entire news organization depending on the claims and information provided by the source, on the line. Verification and trust are key before any anonymously-sourced information can (or should) be published. That level of ethical accountability doesn’t exist on the Internet when a user can remain hidden behind a username. So as my mother shared, anybody can post anything.
Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have viewed anonymous internet postings as the removal of the gatekeeper, an expression of one’s First Amendment right. The question now is, is online anonymous posting still viewed as freedom of speech when that speech is racially charged and laced with threats, or amplified by an algorithm created and owned by a social media platform? Who has benefitted from this? Who hasn’t?
In that same vein, does that level of editorial anonymity — whose original intention was whistleblowing on the wrongs in society without retaliation — still exist today? TikTok influencer @gmfmusik shared videos of the amount of plastic waste that pigs — set for human consumption — were fed, could argue otherwise, as he claims he lost his job as a result.
Building off my coursework as a 2019 graduate from the Newmark J-school’s social [now engagement] journalism program, I will gather insight from a variety of stakeholders in the Internet’s present format and its future, asking critical questions and building a knowledge base for the Tow-Knight initiative.
My intention is to fine-tune this comprehensive strategy by connecting with experts in a number of academic fields and backgrounds, as well as those less likely to be invited to the table, and sharing the findings with those who write about or study tech and the digital world.
The Internet is a vast and constantly evolving landscape. What was solid and normal yesterday has morphed into something fluid and shocking today, sometimes as a result from implicit activity, accidental virality or intentional disregard. Some may argue that it’s evolved into a hopeless cesspool of abusive discourse and disinformation. Others believe the Internet can still be the great connector, a rainbow bridge of infinite information exchange that allows humanity to become a truly global community, despite its shortcomings.
This is the first in a series of posts that will work to understand how much of either is true today and what is possible tomorrow from the perspectives of those who’ve gained and lost with the rise of the Internet.
Follow @TKCInternet to follow the daily efforts of the initiative, participate in discussions and more. Tips, comments and suggestions on who we should be connecting with are very much welcomed.
