Online Radicalization

Although I am confused as to which reading/topic is this week, I want to talk about the radicalization of Zeke Spier article. In particular, I want to bring up the idea of radicalization through the internet. Specifically, I want to bring up an idea that the author brought up.

The article paraphrases Cass Sunstein by saying, "...the Internet is replacing the physical public space where citizens are exposed to different points of view with a private place where individuals withdraw into themselves and reinforce deeply held prejudices." One of the problems that I have with this idea is that people would be exposed to other ideas in the "real world", but not in the virtual world. In the virtual world, just like in the real world, people choose to associate with other like-minded people. People do not like to be challenged in the views, and instead like their opinions to be confirmed (don't you agree?) The internet can be used to so many things, including accessing knowledge that would otherwise be unavailable, such as political groups or national institutions. However, instead of looking at websites that disagree with their opinion, people choose to look at like-minded websites. Spier himself says that when he was doing research, he would look at an organization's official website, then 20 to 30 other protest group websites. That's 20-30 opinions that agree with his point of view, and maybe 1 that disagrees. Rather than use this vast resource to look at other points of view, Spier chooses to reinforce his own beliefs. Even within the protest groups, this tendency to join with like-minded individuals occurred, look at the affinity groups. People associate with like-minded individuals, both online and in "real life".

My point is that people associate with individuals who will agree with them, and this trend occurs both online and off. In this way, the internet is just another tool to find like-minded people, neither better nor worse than "real life" associations. Both will polarize people, since all people normally seek out are the same opinions as their own.

The (Cyber)Elephant in the Room

Here is one last thing that I think is in the background of the conversation but that nobody is bringing up. Do we think, perhaps even subconsciously (whatever that means), that a relationship is only real if we can physically touch someone else, including kissing or sex? In other words, does a relationship require physical sex in order to be "real"?

Does physical interaction change anything?

After reading a few different posts and responses, I came across a motif in our answers. We keep on saying that by meeting people in person, this somehow validates the relationship more so than if it were just online. Also, you can't truly know someone who you can't see in person. I think this brings up an interesting idea, that if you meet someone or talk to them in person, somehow you can trust them more than if you can not see someone. Obviously, this is true on some level, since it's harder to lie about things like height, gender, race and age in person than online, but what about other characteristics, such as psychology, goals and preferences? Not to sound too over-dramatic, but how well do we know someone, even if we've interacted with them for years. I am sure that we have all had those experiences where our best friend/significant other/family member says something that surprises us and we think "do I even know you?" I guess my point is that we have more faith that if we can meet someone in person, suddenly we can trust them more. What is it about physical interactions that provide more trust than non-physical relationships? We all know stories of people lying through cyberspace, but don't we also know stories of people lying in real life? How does that physical interaction validate a relationship that non-physical interaction can't?

1. There is no doubt that Alexis falls in love online. But what does that mean? What does love mean for Alexis and what is it about the online chat room environment that might facilitate this love relationship?

I think that an online chat room helps to create a space where individuals can interact and be free from physical limitations. By physical limitations, I mean that when two people meet, the first thing you notice is one's physical appearance. This means everything from race, age, gender, hair color, eye color, height all the way to how one dresses. Each of these characteristics brings with it a certain number of assumptions. If someone is African American, then we assume certain things (not all necessarily negative). If someone has blonde hair compared to brown hair, we assume a certain number of things. If someone is wearing black eye-liner, nail polish and lipstick, we assume a certain number of things and these assumptions affect the conversation, i.e. you don't say certain things or you mention other things or you just ignore them altogether. However, in a chatroom, all you have is someone's screen name, what they say and what they choose to tell you. Therefore, instead of an interaction being influenced (unduly) by any number of physical characterists, all you have to go is what they are saying. For many people, this means that they can be less inhibited in their interactions, as Alexis points out in the article. Also, if you connect with someone, it is not because of what they look like or wear, but instead, because of their personlity. Instead of getting too caught up in one's physical appearance (am I wearing the right shoes? does this dress make me look fat?), what you say matters and I believe that this type of connection is much deeper than one based purely on physical characteristics.

Personal Story of Distance Love

I have a story from my own life about a long-distance relationship that grew out of cyberspace and phone conversations. Back in High School, belonged to this youth group where Jewish teenagers from around our region (Eastern PA) belonged to individual city chapters, but got together three times a year for Regional Conventions. Now, my story begins with a girl (my current fiance, just to give perspective) coming to her first convention. She was rooming with a friend of mine named Alex, who told her that if she saw any guy who she thought was cute, to let her know and she would do the rest. Of course, at the convention, she points out my best friend and Alex sets the two of them up. After a little while, Lisa(the girl in question) and I start talking via AIM and phone, since she lived out by Valley Forge, PA. A little while later, my best friend and Lisa break up. Of course, by this point my fiance and I have been talking via AIM and the phone for a few months, and like in the story, we began to form a connection. Skipping ahead a few years, Lisa enrolls at Syracuse University in central New York, while I go to Goucher College, a small liberal arts school in Baltimore, MD. We started dating right before going to school and we are currently engaged and living together in Bethlehem. However, for the entire time previous to this past November, we lived at least an hour apart, sometimes for more. We only saw each other physicaly about once a month (if we were lucky) during our college years, and only once for a semester when she studied abroad in London. My point is, that for the majority of our relationship up until this current point, we have survived being long-distance by talking online or via phones. So, I can understand where the girl from the article, Alexis, is coming from. I know the exact feelings she has, when she says that after a while, the line between the "virtual world" and the "real world" becomes blurry, since your are having the same conversation whether you are face-to-face or in cyberspace. I will talk more later about the specific questions that Dr. Bob brought up, since this post is becoming quite long. But before I end this post, I just want to add that I truly believe that our relationship would never have occurred if we could not talk online or via phone or even through letters.