Ayush Chaurasia - Week 8 - The Threats America Faces in the Digital Age
The world is in turmoil. War ravages Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
Amidst this, the American government has seen fit to take sides in these wars, but unfortunately, supporting one side earns the animosity of the other side.
We have made powerful enemies, and they are willing to attack us. Earlier this year, an attack on US government agencies was carried out by an online group based in Eastern Europe. Two years before that, there was an attack on a critical gas pipeline in Texas.
As the world becomes increasingly digitized, skilled hackers gain more and more opportunities to steal, extort, or destroy our country. For years, government officials have spoken about the importance of increased cybersecurity, and they seem to have successfully achieved some of their goals by establishing cybersecurity agencies.
But that is not enough. Major cyberattacks are not the only thing that cybersecurity officials need to protect the American public from.
Dissidents of America can use social media as a platform to spread misinformation: fear and lies about politicians and laws that weaken our democracy. Misinformation builds conspiracy theories, domestic terrorists, and more. It segments the American people because public conceptions about the truth fall apart—as more and more doubt clouds the truth, scientific advancements slow, and public support for new technology falls apart (think of the anti-vaccine movement).
This raises the question—what can American officials do to protect the people from misinformation? Excess regulation of the information that people share online seems excessively authoritarian, a violation of the people’s right to free speech. But a lack of regulation on online information is exactly how misinformation spreads.
My opinion on the issue is that the government needs to ride the fine line between regulation and freedom. Just as the American government regulates the supposedly “free market” economy to protect consumers from unsafe products and monopolies, the government needs to regulate free speech so as to protect citizens from being fed false information. America is at its strongest when the people are united, since that is when the opposing political parties are best able to come to a compromise and move the country forward.
However, I agree that this places excess responsibilities on the government—something that the government may not be mature or stable enough to handle. Because who would decide what real information is and what misinformation is? The government? That is a violation of the First Amendment.
This returns to the idea of America’s need to maintain balance in times of excessive antagonism and polarization; misinformation would not even be an issue if Americans could respect their fellow citizens more and avoid making unsupported conclusions on scientific or political topics. The lack of unity in America is just as big of a threat to the country as foreign adversaries are.
If Americans manage to come together and respect one another (despite their differing beliefs), the country can remain strong in the face of international conflict and controversy.
 |
| https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iE6gXWv2kPUU/v0/-1x-1.jpg |
Hi Ayush! I feel that your discussion on the dangers of the Internet is an extremely relevant, serious, and uncertain topic. You are right that online social media provides a platform for widespread, immediate misinformation that can limit the effectiveness of our democracy. I agree that the solution is a “fine line,” as the first amendment of the USA is the freedom of speech. How is it possible to deal with misinformation without staining one of the most revered rights in the USA? The hypothetical situation you mentioned of unity is very unlikely. The two-party system stems back to the late 1700s and early 1800s, and its structure invites polarization of the American people. To combat the spread of misinformation, another solution would be to enforce the spread of accurate information. This solution still needs to be done with caution, as it could easily turn into government-controlled propaganda. Still, an objective entity could raise awareness of accurate events or the presence of misinformation online. While the nation may maintain its political division, each side would be forced to run on facts and evidence. Less irrational, reactionary hate crimes would occur, like the wave of anti-Asian hate that persecuted any American who looked Chinese. The US could then become more resilient to the dangers of the Internet.
ReplyDelete