I wanted to dive headfirst into the common root of the misappropriations and falsehoods that we looked at in class: lies themselves. At the heart of every example of photo, misappropriation, propaganda message, or digital reworking lies a message. While there are forms of deception that are not lies, the intent of providing untrue information is what constitutes the crossing from the ambiguous grey area of deceit into outright fabrication. Worse yet, some uses of deception using media—or in personal interaction—are malicious in nature, seeking to cause some form of harm.
According to researchers, namely Sisela Bok (Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, 1978), there are three basic components to create a lie:
1) Information is communicated
2) Originator of message intends to mislead or deceive their audience
3) Originator knows the message is false
There are all kinds of factors that question what a lie actually is, but those are the basic principles.
(Gross) Food for Thought:
If you tell a lie to a group of people not to eat the pie because there’s a worm in it—you really only want it to yourself—then discover there actually is a worm inside, are you really a liar?
I wanted to look at two cases of direct, measurable online lying and think about their effects.
The first, and most obvious case, is a girl who was being digitally attacked by a YouTube commenter (go figure, they’re the best kind of people). After merely commenting on a video and expressing her approval of the material, another user began badgering her, publicly urging other users to give her videos and comments “thumbs downs”. After failing to stop the onslaught, she turned to the Yahoo! Answers community for help. As you may have guessed, responses were hit and miss. I couldn’t find if the issue was ever resolved, but this is a pretty clear example of malicious lies online causing emotional distress on a very real person.
Another case is more broad and hypothetical. It examines whether the huge array of available information actually causes disinformation among voters. The article I found on Bloomberg Businessweek had two industry experts chime in their Pro and Con opinions on how online media effects the level of education in the voting populace. Below are brief excerpts from each mini-article, but by all means, read the whole thing. It’s a pretty interesting look at both sides of the discussion.
PRO:
While there is credible information on the Internet that helps voters learn more about candidates and issues, there is a shady side as well.
Opinion masquerading as information is frequently accepted as fact by individuals who have neither the training nor the inclination to skeptically evaluate the reporting they encounter. The “Birther” controversy counts as just one example of how misinformation can be spread virally and never completely put to rest, no matter how thorough a debunking it receives…
CON:
The Internet is blamed for all of society’s ills, so why not a misinformed electorate?
Thirty-six percent of the American population consults Wikipedia, a new and assumedly unreliable source given that it is (horror of horrors) user-generated and user-edited, clearly adding to the problem of misinformation.