“Instead of bringing us all together in an omnipresent, multifaceted discussion, the internet has made sectarianism an almost default position.”
Author Patrick Ness said these troubling words at a recent writers’ conference in Edinburgh. What did he mean by these words? Those who have been regularly visiting The Express Tribune online and other local websites that allow comments or host forums (not to mention Facebook and Twitter) know the answer to this one.
A disturbing trend can be seen in how people engage with one another online. Sure, Pakistan’s emerging online community of over 20 million connected individuals have embraced the ‘democratising’ elements of the internet and are driving debates through comments, blogs and social media — but to what end? Is the medium creating a more democratic, open society?
In an earlier article, I argued that the internet may be emerging as “a system of control that is increasingly designed to present a myopic view of the world” based on how online entities like Facebook, Google and even The Express Tribune tailor-design their online space so you increasingly see only content you like, thus ensuring you willingly remain uninformed about anything you don’t like or (on the surface) aren’t interested in. This is perhaps, not as scary as the social phenomenon of myopia and ‘sectarianism’ within online comments and debates. At least Facebook and Google’s developers can change the algorithms that determine what you see; when it comes to online debate, no one is really in control.
So how exactly are comments sections, Facebook and Twitter creating greater social divides and more extreme, myopic viewpoints? The question seems counter-intuitive but in reality begs closer examination, especially when it comes to a nation as fragmented as ours.
Shias. Sunnis. Ahmadis. Baloch separatists. Sipah-e-Sahaba. The Pakistan Army. The PTI. The PML-N. The MQM. Ultra-nationalists. Liberals. Conservatives. Put members of these loaded terms into a room and invite them to chat — this would approximately mimic what the internet has done for Pakistan’s interest groups by way of interaction — but wait, does it translate into interaction? Not really. The Shias interact with the Shias. The Sunnis with the Sunnis, and so on. The only time one would ever need to interact with ‘the other’ is to attack, often en masse, by way of trolling or online campaigning. Any time one happens to peer into the online activities of ‘the other’, they would see a myopic world of highly motivated, (read: dangerous) like-minded individuals, busy reaffirming and solidifying their own myopic views, thus reaffirming and solidifying the original divides that existed for the peering ‘other’. Is this scenario more likely or the idealistic vision of the groups unexpectedly engaging in a way that leads to social harmony? Anyone who has spent time within the Pakistani online space knows the answer to that question.
As internet specialist and author Clay Shirky points out, the internet can be seen as “just another implementation layer for special interest groups”. Where does this leave the oft-cited ‘silent majority’? Silenced. As Ness further stated in his talk at a writer’s conference, a culture of self-censorship is becoming the norm as individuals and yes, even seasoned columnists and reporters seek to minimise conflict (flame wars), social isolation and online witch-hunts perpetrated by the rabid hordes of a highly motivated minority. Many change their online personas to fit the views of their particular community, further polarising viewpoints. Many others avoid engaging altogether.
A 2012 report aptly titled, “Social media in Pakistan: catalyst for communication, not change” noted that, “The risks posed by social media in Pakistan include their succumbing to the same ideological divisions that afflict Pakistani society and even becoming a haven for extremist online communication.”
I am afraid, much to my dismay, that this is what has happened to large swathes of our online space already.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 6th, 2012.
COMMENTS (11)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
The ROT set in when the mullahs brigades were allowed to go and fight the Rusians in the name of Jihad. They were sponsored by the Pakistani government. How do disarm a civilan army? How do you intergrate them into a normal society ? The last 12 years has been very traumatic for the people. Unless the truth is realised how is Pakistan ever going to stop the problems?
It is known as Circlejerking.
This is actually quite true. I have been feeling this since a while and it seems that the problem is specially glaring in societies that are becoming open. Our fears keep us digging our own hole deeper.
Typical case of blaming the messenger. The source of conflict is the intolerance of imported extremism.
Next logical step after shutting down the Internet: close down TV channels; then newspapers, next phone traffic, so all these bad Western influences. Don't stop there: after close the mosques, then block the streets. Last: close the ears.
"“The risks posed by social media in Pakistan include their succumbing to the same ideological divisions that afflict Pakistani society and even becoming a haven for extremist online communication.” "
I do not see where the incremental risk is coming from. People who only mingled with likeminded people socially, only watched talk shows where they agreed with the anchors opinions would continue to exhibit the same behaviors in the nline space. So no incremental risk.
However people who have intellectual curiosity about people/cultures/religions different from themselves have been provided with a very powerful tool to do so in a very cost and time efficient manner. So there is a big incremental reward for thos who seek it.
@BlackJack: I think if someone is close minded - no chanel of communication will alter their thought process. They will simply opt for the media/information sources that have a confirmatory bias to their thinking, just as they will choose is the real world to only socialize with people like them.
For people who are open minded and willing to learn, social media provides an opportunity to do so with people that you would never have had the opportunity to meet or interact with otherwise. I think the most enriching discussions are those with people who might have a similar value system but a different viewpoint based on their filters (nationality, gender, religion, education, age, marital status and life experiences). Many times such viewpoints do force us to reveiw and refine our opinions that maybe based on nothing other than conditioning. Sometimes there is additional information that they bring to the table that informs their opinion, which also can lead to revising your own opinion. Even in those instances where you end up reconfirming your own stand, you gain a beter understanding of why you thought or decided in a given way.
In this sense I tend to agree with @abhi and @falcon.
good article. i have rarely seen people of different sects or religion or countries agreeing on something.
Very well said. This is an interesting topic, partly because the manner in which the internet is currently used to influence opinion is very different from traditional means. In the 1988 book 'Manufacturing Consent', Naom Chomsky and Ed Herman had identified a propaganda model that worked in the pre-internet world - which was based on media ownership, advertising and reliance on official sources; clearly these factors still exert disproportionate influence - just look at the US Presidential campaign to see where bulk of the monies are invested in influencing public opinion. However, the internet has developed a separate model by shifting from a one-to-many broadcast to multiple 'narrowcasts' that segment the audience and expose them to content that they seem interested in, and locks them in to a semi-closed system with very limited bandwidth; this is a much more dangerous and potent weapon in markets like Pakistan (and other unstable muslim-majority countries) wherein the one-to-many 'broadcast' factors are often considered to be biased or subverted; instead several smaller groups are formed around a limited number of topics, and limited variety of thought, thus speeding up the radicalization/ polarization process.
I don't think it is true. Many times on the forums people interact with poeple having opposit views. Initially it may happen that you actually solidfy your point of view in the begnining, but you at least listen to other side of argument as well and it affects your thinking process on long term.
I think the writer might be relying too heavily on Patrick Nass's statement. Saying that human beings are heaps of rigid thought processes that only seek people similar to themselves is an exaggeration. Debate alters mindset of individuals, may be not in the short-term but definitely in the long term. And that's how any societal change works, it takes long time for alternative ideas to seep in and trigger a paradigm shift. Problems created over decades can not be solved over night through few online newspapers and blogs. Nonetheless, it accelerates the positive change process.
Oh Dear!!! .............[To use a term from Adam Curtis' Oh Dearism]