Tag Archives: Internet

See, I’m right! The Internet and confirmation bias

· · 6 Comments

Not too long ago, I entered a discussion in the “off-topic” area of a motorcycle forum I’m a member of. The discussion was on evolution vs. creation. The original poster said he wanted to keep the discussion “civil and scientific” and wanted those who believed in evolution to explain what he thought were some discrepancies in evolutionary theory.

What followed was an extremely long discussion thread, which veered from dispassionate to emotional and back again many times. Not too surprising, I guess, given the subject matter. But a couple of things struck me. The first was the amount of (what appeared to be) scientific evidence cited by BOTH sides of the argument. Much of this evidence was frankly beyond my ability to assess, but there seemed no lack of it, for either side. The second was that no one, of the many tens of people who participated in the thread (myself included), was persuaded to change their view. You might think that all the evidence brought forth over literally hundreds of posts might make someone change their mind, but it did not seem to. Why not?

The question is not a simple one to answer fully. But one thing I observed, which appeared to be a major factor, was that people simply ignored contradictory evidence. A lot of the posts were simply restatements of previous arguments. Other posters seamlessly transitioned to a new argument when evidence against their old one was posted. And no one changed their mind. No one said, “Wow, I didn’t realize X. I guess I was wrong.”

Think about it for a second. Virtually all the information used as source material in this huge, long-running debate came from the Internet. Mountains of information and yet, to the posters on that topic, it only served to confirm what they believed all along.

This is known in psychology as confirmation bias and it rears its head often when information from outside sources is used to buttress arguments, especially on controversial subjects. Think the “Birthers” who question whether U.S. President Obama is a native-born American, or the “Truthers” who question who exactly perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. If you search, you can find lots of information to support their interpretations, and some of it sounds very persuasive, very scientific. But there are two sides to the confirmation bias coin. There’s the reliance on information that confirms your view, but equally important is the dismissing of information that contradicts it.

And it’s this second element that I find most sad. With all the information to be had on the Internet, so many people use it only to confirm what they already knew, instead of using it to challenge what they think they know. After all, (in the words often ascribed to Mark Twain) it ain’t what you don’t know that hurts you, it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so!

Comments, as always, are welcome.

Short Take: This transformative technology brought to you by Gaines-Burgers.

· · Leave a comment

Whenever I hear people complain about paywalls and having to pay for content on the Internet, I think of Gaines-Burgers. Because the advertiser-pay model is the only viable large-scale alternative to user-pay on the Internet. And my guess is that a lot of the people who prefer to see ads everywhere to paying for content don’t mind the ads because they ignore them. Um…not how the model works. If the advertisers don’t see increased sales as a result of their ads, do you think they will continue to pay to place ads and allow you to keep reading your favourite blogger for free? So not only do we have to accept advertising on the web, we also have to buy the stuff they’re advertising.

But look at the bright side – advertisers bring us lots of good stuff. Why, we owe nature itself to Mobil. Isn’t that what PBS tells us? “Nature is made possible by a grant from Mobil Corporation.”

What Internet Access as a Human Right DOESN’T Mean

· · Leave a comment

While I was doing some research for a recent post about digital locks, I came across this post by Dwayne Winseck on the Globe and Mail website. In it, he discusses the trend of countries adopting laws requiring ISPs to “block access to websites that facilitate illicit downloading and cut-off Internet service for those who use such sites.”

An interesting and controversial topic, indeed, but what really caught my attention was something near the end of the post. I’ll quote it verbatim:

“Supporters claim that the “graduated response” [e.g., three-strikes rules] and digital intermediary [ISP] strategy have a minimal impact on individual liberties, but a recent UN Internet & Human Rights minced no words when arguing exactly the opposite point of view:

. . . cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, is disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Article 19 sets out worldwide standards for freedom of opinion and expression rights.”

Let’s leave to one side for a moment the full implications of this quote; I want to focus on Mr. Winseck’s use of it in his discussion of graduated response. He seems to be implying that cutting off someone’s home Internet service is a violation of their “civil and political rights.”

What a load of hooey. (Yes, you heard me, hooey.) Cutting off your home Internet access is not in any way the same as “cutting off users from Internet access.” That latter implies banning someone from using any Internet access anywhere. A very different thing.

Let me use an analogy to illustrate. Imagine that you own a small grocery store and a guy is coming into your store and shoplifting regularly. Finally, you become fed up and ban him from the store. That is not the same as cutting off his access to food.

When you look at it that way, I think it changes the interpretation a bit. Imagine an alternate reality where ISPs  are private, unregulated businesses offering and pricing services based on market forces. Further imagine that you were the owner of such an ISP and you knew that someone to whom you were providing service was using their access to serially infringe copyright. This person was basically using the Internet only to illegally amass copyrighted materials. Wouldn’t it be reasonable for you, as the ISP owner, to want to do your part to prevent this person from breaking the law? I think it would be very reasonable for you, as the ISP owner, to say, “Hey, bub, if you want to break the law, do it over someone else’s Internet connection.”

Finally, I want to note that, even if you accept that Internet access is a human right (which I’m not yet prepared to say I do), that does not mean that access can never be denied under any circumstance. Liberty is a human right too, but it can be taken away if you commit a serious enough crime.

What do you think? Comments are welcome.