Technology Debates
Table of Contents
How to use this research package ................................................................................................................ 2
Key concepts related to Media and Technology........................................................................................... 2
Role of the media and the 5th estate in a democracy............................................................................ 2
The Internet .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Copyright ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Technologies ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Video Games and Multi-media ................................................................................................................. 3
Prepping for Impromptu ............................................................................................................................... 4
Sample articles .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Social Media Does More Harm than Good ............................................................................................... 5
Social media is blinding us to other points of view .................................................................................. 6
Gaming and Gamers.................................................................................................................................. 9
Public debates about gaming and gamers .......................................................................................... 11
The Internet
Copyright
Technologies
Actor
Actor
Actor
Topic
Actor
Actor
Actor
Sample articles
This section contains sample articles about three common media and technology debates. The
arguments you might generate practicing these topics would help you preparing for many topics about
media and technology.
It costs money and it going to start costing much more as sites find new ways to monetize.
All the social media sites started out free to users. Now that users have been enticed and hooked,
Facebook has started to monetize its business pages. LinkedIn also has an upgraded plan. Before long,
all will be charging except for the very basic features. In addition to the monetization by the social media
sites (who can blame them; every business needs to make money), many individuals and businesses
now even hire marketing teams to participate for them online.
That is, the marketing team posts and responds for them online and becomes their online presence
another cost of social media. This is not to mention those sites that even extort money from businesses
to remove bad reviews from complaining customers (sometimes even up to $100k!) without allowing
the business to respond to the complainer.
It has become noise and clutter, not communication.
Individuals and small businesses used to say that the internet and social media leveled the playing field
that they could occasionally toss in a mention about their product or service on their personal pages
or blog and no one would mind. But now, everyone uses social media for that purpose. Every day, you
get messages about free webinars, free teleseminars, free BlogTalkRadio shows, free reports, free white
papers, and free downloadable ebooks. People beg you to take their giveaways. Its all noise and clutter.
It reduces creativity.
Thinking creatively with all the social media noise around you is the equivalent of writing a dissertation
in the middle of speeding traffic on a super highway. You may get the stimulation of new ideas, but
executing them becomes another matter.
Its no longer real.
Do you really have 87,000 followers on Twitter who respond when you suggest they take action? Do
you even have 500 close connections on LinkedIn who would take your call tomorrow? How many of
your 18,237 friends on Facebook would recognize your name if they saw it on a billboard?
Dont get me wrong: Im a social person. Its just that social media is fast evolving into a cacophony that
drowns out communication and drains productivity.
This was the first U.S. presidential election in which the majority of voting adults got their news from
social media. In North America, an estimated 170 milllion users log onto Facebook each day, and 44 per
cent of U.S. adults get their news from the site.
But as Facebook keeps reminding us, it's not in the news business. Facebook and Twitter are in the
business of clicks and data. Their mandate isn't to deliver balanced news or information that is
representative of what is really happening in the world.
The recent slew of fake news stories suggests they're not even all that concerned with how accurate or
truthful stories are. Their priority is to give users access to the media they want. It turns out the stories
people want are the ones that align with their beliefs.
Often, a catchy headline is enough. According to a recent study from Columbia University, 59 per cent
of links shared on the internet have never actually been read.
Users tend to click links that affirm their existing opinions. "Facebook is designed to prevent you from
hearing others," says media scholar Douglas Rushkoff. "It creates a false sense of agreement, a
'confirmation bias' when you are only seeing stuff that agrees with you or makes the other side look
completely stupid."
The trouble is, when your pre-existing opinions shape the news you see, you're not getting an accurate
picture of what is really happening.
Two nights before the election, on the CBS program 60 Minutes, Republican pollster Frank Luntz said
the election was about people wanting to be heard. Unfortunately, while everyone wanted to be heard,
no one wanted to listen. Thanks to social media, those who previously felt unheard now had a platform
to share their views, but more often than not, the only ones listening were those who already agreed.
'A soapbox culture'
"We've developed a soapbox culture," says Elamin Abdelmahmoud, editor of news curation for
BuzzFeed News. "We get to share what we want to share, and have the desire to be heard while
forgetting that everyone else has that desire."
By design, platforms like Facebook and Twitter promote this kind of soapbox behaviour. As we
encounter news and media through the self-selected group of friends that make up our social networks,
we subject ourselves to what's become known as the filter bubble, whereby we come across
information from people who think like us and more often than not vote like us.
As a result, despite having more access to information than ever, we're not engaging with points of view
that differ from our own. In a recent Pew Research study, 79 per cent of social media users said they
have never changed their views on a social or political issue because of something they saw on social
media.
It's not just self-selected social network that creates this echo chamber. Facebook filters the news we
see on the site, by suggesting media like the ads we see that is tailored to our preferences. If
you're curious to know what Facebook thinks you'll like (or what your political learnings are) you can go
into the ad preferences and see how they tailor content to you based on your interests and opinions.
In the election, filters blinded half the population to what was hidden in plain sight.
All the major U.S. newspapers endorsed Hillary Clinton, and that confirmed the world view of her
supporters. But the comments under the articles in all those news outlets were full of opposing views.
'Don't read the comments'
Many of these comments were vile and hateful, and "don't read the comments" has become a coping
mantra for dealing with online toxicity. But by doing so, we choose not to see what is right in front of us.
No doubt, the polls and predictions contributed to the election result surprise, too. Social media users
were cushioned in their own world views, and got solace and confidence knowing their perspective was
backed up with data. But data is not infallible. Ask the wrong question, and you get the wrong answers.
So, instead of the discomfort of breaking out of bubbles, we opted for the comfort of agreement, of
sameness, even if what we were hoping for, fighting for, was the preservation of diversity.
How do we begin to reconcile what Harvard Neiman Lab's Joshua Benton calls "segregated social
universes"?
A researcher of technology and society at Microsoft Research, danah boyd, who spells her name
without capital letters, says that while many critics think that the answer is to get rid of social media,
"we need to actively work to understand complexity, respectfully engage people where they're at, and
build the infrastructure to enable people to hear and appreciate different perspectives. This is what it
means to be truly informed."
Let's shape our tools
The xenophobic, racist and sexist voices that some found disturbing during the U.S. election
campaign didn't come out of nowhere. They were there all along, but perhaps confined to someone
else's bubble. If some people were surprised by them, it was probably because the filters and data
designed to please us had weeded them out.
Even Mark Zuckerberg, who has adamantly maintained that Facebook is not a news provider, responded
to the election saying he is deeply concerned about how Facebook could affect democracy, and the
company could do a better job of distributing news.
"There's a real weight to the idea of letting people who are programmers and coders and engineers
design how we interact with each other," says Abdelmahmoud. "They will do it with a painful attention
to strict logic that defies, at least to some extent, the social norms of being in person."
He suggests that we remember what a big role listening plays in the way we engage offline.
"We can listen to understand, not listen to respond. That's really difficult behaviour to encourage, since
platforms do better when you contribute and respond, so of course they'll encourage the responding."
However, men are more than twice as likely as women to call themselves gamers (15% vs. 6%). And
among those ages 18 to 29, 33% of men say the term gamer describes them well, more than three
times the proportion of young women (9%) who say the same.
Four-in-ten adults believe that violence in video games is related to violent behavior
Americans are relatively divided over whether there is a possible link between violent games and actual
violence. A slight majority of the public (53%) disagree with the statement people who play violent
video games are more likely to be violent themselves. But 40% agree that there is a relationship
between video game violence and violent behavior. Some 32% of those who play video games
themselves see a connection between games and violence, along with 26% of self-identified gamers.
Women are more likely than men to agree (by a 47% to 31% margin) that people who play violent
games are more likely to be violent themselves.
Among the general public, attitudes toward games are complex and often uncertain
25% of those who play games (and 39% of self-identified gamers) think most video games help develop
good problem solving and strategic thinking skills, compared with just 8% of those who do not play
games.
17% of those who play video games (and 34% of those who call themselves gamers) think most games
are a better form of entertainment than TV. This compares with just 5% of those who do not play games.
15% of video game players (and 28% of self-described gamers) think most games promote teamwork
and communication. Just 6% of those without gaming experience agree.
Game players are also particularly likely to disagree with negative portrayals of video games:
35% of those who play video games (and 53% of those who identify as gamers) think most games
are not a waste of time. This compares with just 13% of those who do not play video games.
33% of those who play video games (and 46% of self-described gamers) do not think minorities are
portrayed poorly in most games. At the same time, 9% of game players (and 10% of gamers) think most
games do portray minorities poorly. Fully 61% of those who do not play video games are unsure what to
think on this issue.
26% of those who play video games (and 35% of self-identified gamers) do not think women are
portrayed poorly in most games. Meanwhile, 16% of game players (and 24% of self-identified gamers)
think most games do portray women poorly. A majority of those who do not play video games (55%) are
unsure what to think on this topic.
play them. The former drew extensive attention during the ongoing Gamergate controversy, a debate
centered on the identity politics of the gaming community. The latter is a recurring conversation in the
aftermath of violent events in which the perpetrator was known to play violent video games.
Most Americans including a majority of female game players believe that most video game players
are men
Fully 60% of American adults agree with the statement most people who play video games are men.
Just 31% disagree with this statement, while another 9% dont know if it is true or not. Contextually,
men and women are equally likely to say they ever play video games, while men are twice as likely as
women to consider themselves gamers.
12
A substantial minority believe that those who play violent video games are more likely to be violent
themselves
13
educational attainment and household income are also more likely to see a connection between violent
games and actual violence.
Most people who play video games do not believe violent games are related to violent behavior 64%
disagree that people who play violent video games are more likely to be violent themselves. But about a
third of game players (32%) agree with this statement, including 26% of self-identified gamers.
Much like in the general population, men and women who play video games differ in their opinions on
the link between violent play and violent behavior. Female game players are almost twice as likely as
male game players to agree that people who play violent video games are more likely to be violent
themselves, 42% vs. 22%. On the other hand, fully 76% of male game players disagree with this notion.
This compares with 52% of female game players who disagree, a proportion that is substantially lower
than their male counterparts, but still a majority.
As gaming has gained exposure to a wider audience and increasingly become part of the cultural
mainstream, the content of games themselves has come under increased scrutiny. To test public
attitudes toward some of these ongoing arguments, the survey presented Americans with some
potential impacts of games and asked whether they consider these attributes to be true of most
games, not true of most games, or whether they apply to some games but not others.
Overall, the public has mixed feelings about certain aspects of video games and their relative benefits
and drawbacks. The results show:
14
Video games help develop good problem solving and strategic thinking skills Some 17% of adults
think most video games promote problem solving and strategic thinking skills, but a roughly equal
proportion, 16%, thinks this is not true for most games. Meanwhile, 47% say some games develop these
skills while others do not, and 20% are unsure. Those under age 50 are more than twice as likely as
those 50 or older to think most game develops problem solving and strategic thinking skills (22% vs.
10%), while men are slightly more likely than women to think so (19% vs. 14%).
Video games promote teamwork and communication Almost a quarter of all adults (23%) think
most video games do not promote teamwork and communication, more than double the 10% who think
most games do promote these qualities. However, a plurality (37%) thinks this is true of some games but
not others, and 28% are unsure. Men and younger adults are more likely than women and older adults
to believe most video games promote these qualities. Some 17% of those ages 18 to 29 think teamwork
and communication are promoted by games (compared with 9% of those 30 and older), along with 12%
of men (vs. 9% of women).
Video games are a better form of entertainment than watching TV Three-in-ten adults do not think
video games are a better form of entertainment than television, almost triple the 11% who think most
video games are indeed a better form of entertainment than TV. Still, a third of all adults (34%) think this
is true of some video games but not others, while 24% are not sure. Almost a quarter of those ages 18 to
29 say most video games are a better form of entertainment than TV (24% vs. 7% of those 30 and older),
as do 14% of men vs. 8% of women.
For some aspects of gaming such as the portrayal of minorities and women in video games the public
is much less certain:
but not others. Notably, the responses to this question show no differences by gender. Young adults are
split on the portrayal of women 24% each of those 18 to 29 think most video games do and do
not portray women poorly.
Compared with those who do not play video games, game players tend to agree with more positive
depictions of gaming
While the public is largely uncertain what to think about video games, within the gaming community
there is more consensus. Put simply, people who play video games are more likely to respond to the
positive aspects of their pastime while they disagree with certain negative portrayals. And certain
groups of game players namely men and young adults hold particularly strong and affirming beliefs
about gaming.
16
games. Again, men and those ages 18 to 29 who play video games are more likely than their
counterparts to think most games promote teamwork and communication. Some 19% of male game
players think so (compared with 12% of female game players), as do 21% of game players ages 18 to 29
(compared with 11% of those 50 and older).
blacks who play games feel that most games do not portray minorities poorly. And once again, men are
particularly likely to disagree with negative views of games: 36% of men who play say most games
do not portray minorities poorly, compared with 30% of women.
One-quarter (26%) of video game players (and 35% of self-described gamers) disagree that most video
games portray women poorly. Still, 16% of game players (and 24% of gamers) think most video
games do portray women in a negative light. Some 34% of those who play video games (and 30% of selfidentified gamers) say this is true of some games but not others. Interestingly, there are few gender
differences among those who play video games women who play games are somewhat more likely to
be unsure than men (27% vs. 21%).
Despite their relatively positive views toward video games compared with non-game players, a
substantial portion of game players have mixed feelings on many of these issues. For instance, 55% of
video game players think some games develop good problem solving and strategic thinking skills, while
other games do not. Similarly, 37% of game players feel that some video games are a waste of time,
even while others are not. Finally, even people who play games are not always sure what to think for
example, 31% of game players say they are unsure whether or not most games portray minority groups
poorly.
More state power, not free speech, the likeliest we-are-Charlie result
Ukraine, mired in a territorial conflict with Russia, and Libya also experienced sharp drops.
The report highlighted China as the country with the most severe restrictions on internet freedom,
followed by Syria and Iran. Sri Lanka and Zambia, both of which recently underwent changes in
government leadership, were credited with making the biggest improvements in overall online freedom.
New laws expand surveillance
Overall, 14 countries adopted laws in the past year to expand government surveillance, the report
found.
19
Bucking that trend, the United States passed legislation in June that effectively terminates the National
Security Agency's controversial bulk collection of U.S. phone metadata, a program exposed in 2013 by
former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
The new law was an "incremental step" toward digital surveillance reform, according to the report's
authors.
The report also found that critical comments about government authorities were most likely to prompt
censorship, and that private companies in 42 of the 65 countries were forced to delete or restrict online
content.
In addition, many governments took more aggressive stances against encryption and online anonymity
technologies this year.
20
Spencer's thoughts can still be found all over social media, YouTube and even the established media. But
now, we should presume he's also happily reveling in his new status as a victim of what he calls
"corporate Stalinism."
"There is a great purge going on, and they are purging people based on their views," he says in a video
posted after the Twitter ousting.
It's no coincidence this has happened in the wake of Trump's election. The alt-right is skilled at social
media; social media had a role in Trump's victory, so some of its owners see Trump's success as their
failure.
But to members of the alt-right, Twitter's attack on their voices only proves the argument that big
corporate media always act to stifle dissent.
When media move in a different direction and try to unpack what the alt-right means to understand
and explain it the result can be just as unsatisfying.
This week, NPR invited Breitbart.com senior editor Joel Pollak onto its morning program to share some
of his insights about his former boss. When the host asked why Bannon made Breitbart.com, in
Bannon's own words "the platform for the alt-right," Pollak seemed to deny the premise.
"The only alt-right article we have is a single article out of tens of thousands of articles, which is a
journalistic article about the alt-right," he said. "[The article] basically went into this movement and
tried to figure out what it was about. That's not racist. That's journalism."
Bannon has acknowledged that the alt-right may attract some racists, homophobes and anti-Semites,
but says he does not share those opinions. (Carlo Allegri/Reuters)
That answer is disingenuous in every respect.
The journalistic article he refers to, An establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right, is a smug
and flattering defence of the movement and a worthwhile read.
In a self-aggrandizing way (co-author Milo Yiannopoulos is one of the alt-right movement's most
prominent proponents), the piece shines light on what it calls a "dangerously bright" and "fearsomely
intelligent" mix of renegades, mostly white males, who object to "the established political consensus in
some form or another."
Juvenile pranksters?
It's worth reading to understand why the alt-right can't be ignored and what the terms of engaging in
battle with it are.
21
Its authors concede there are Nazi elements to the alt-right, but they argue Nazis are an unpopular
minority in an amorphous group and aren't taken seriously by the vast majority of the movement.
What should be taken seriously, they say, are the intellectual arguments behind the alt-right that are a
pushback against decades of what they consider to be the left's smothering of legitimate conversations
about race, immigration and gender.
Some of those ideas come from familiar oldsters (H.L. Mencken, Pat Buchanan), but most of the alt-right
seems to be youngsters.
The alt-right includes a loose collection of juvenile pranksters out for a lark online, Yiannopoulos and his
co-author, Allum Bokhari, argue. The little scamps like to provoke, and when they see boundaries
around social and political taboos, their instinct is to cross those boundaries and strike a blow against
political correctness. They might make jokes about the Holocaust, for instance.
Probably the article's most chilling insight is that the young people of the alt-right are not sincerely racist
but they do think racism can be fun. Yes, fun.
"Millennials aren't old enough to remember the Second World War or the horrors of the Holocaust," the
authors write. "They are barely old enough to remember Rwanda or 9/11. Racism for them is a monster
under the bed, a story told by their parents to frighten them into being good little children."
Can that really be true?
If it is, then those who fear the alt-right is a slippery slope back to the worst horrors of the 20th century
are only fooling themselves if they believe naming the threat makes any difference.
It can't be censored, ignored or wished away.
22