2018_11_16_ICS_manglano

For the philosopher Fernando Savater, the Internet is the agora of the citizens of the digital era. The network gives room for a wide range of opinions on the hottest topics of the day and the usual debates. But in many cases, disqualifications and radicalisms win the pulse. Some people ask whether we take off the mask of the offline world as soon as we sit down in front of a device.

"TheInternet is a reflection of society. But sometimes it can distort reality in one direction or another," says Javier García-Manglano, researcher Juan de la Cierva of the Institute for Culture and Society (ICS) of the University of Navarra. In the framework of the project he directs, 'Youth in transition', he has organized the seminar 'Tech & Society' for students to reflect on the influence of technologies in their lives, in their relationships and in society.

One of the issues he addresses is precisely how public opinion and the ideas of many people in digital forums have become polarized. "The Internet works according to mechanisms that make the most striking things rise higher in the rankings and become more viral," he says.

This does not mean, in his opinion, that there are no people willing to maintain reasonable dialogues, but that in the diversity of positions "the one who breaks the mold and says something radical is often perceived with more strength. The Internet rewards him and raises him in the ranking". Faced with this, he advocates "individual responsibility to be moderate and to interact with moderate content and people".

Anonymity and distance: factors of radicalism

As for the factors that explain why we are more willing to hold radical positions in the virtual world, he points to two: anonymity and distance.

"Although not everything is anonymous," he says, "there are forums in which one can participate in this way, which can lead us to lose responsibility for our words and to say things that we would keep quiet if we were identified.

Given this, he wonders if we are more ourselves without the social pressure to express acceptable arguments. And this is where the factor of distance comes in: "We are social beings and when we lose the social context, ideas can emerge from us that do not really portray us". He argues that "it is not the same to have a person in front of us and see their reactions to our words: their gestures, their looks.... In front of them we perceive that our words have consequences, which adds depth and rigor to our thinking".

Bubble filters and echo chambers

Roberto Ramirez is in his third year of International Office at the University and is one of the students participating in 'Tech & Society'. The topic he is working on are filter bubbles and echo chambers, related to opinion polarization.

With regard to the former, he mentions that companies operating on the Internet want Username to spend more time on social networks to collect more data and thus make advertising according to their interests, so that "they regulate the content they show to the surfer according to their comments and arguments". It warns of the risk of radicalization, since it means "that we only receive content that is more in line with our thinking and makes it difficult to access other ideas".

Along with this, he points out the filter of people (echo chambers): "In our noticeboard we see opinions and arguments similar to ours. This creates the false sensation that these are the most widespread positions and that those who have different ideas are wrong. Thus, "it encourages us to close ourselves off to other ways of thinking," he points out.

García-Manglano concludes that the Internet "was born with the promise of allowing us to get to know other places, other cultures, other opinions. It seemed to make us more sensitive, open and diverse. He is in favor of everyone getting out of the vicious circle of "repeating what we already know and talking to similar people", always in moderation, to recover that promise.