In the Dead Center, Looking Around

Justin Mulligan / Spring 2020

“I'm not on the outside looking in. I'm not on the inside looking out. I'm in the dead fucking center, looking around” (Lamar 2011). My generation is unique. We were born just in time to witness the early stages of a new defining era in human history - the information age. The coming of new technology would allow virtually anyone to be connected to each other at all times, no matter where you were. For the generations that came shortly before us, this idea was both exciting and frightening. We’ve seen the effects of rapid information spread and the paradigm shifts they’ve caused before, whether it be the creation of the printing press, the establishment of the United States Postal Service, or the boom of radio and television. All examples echo a truth that we as a species have come to realize: information is power. That raises the question: if the internet spreads information and information is power, who gets to control it? What are the pitfalls that we have to look out for, given this huge responsibility? What will happen to future generations if we ignore these pitfalls?

My dad taught me how to use computers and browse the internet as early as some of my first memories. As an early adopter of the tech industry, as well as a diehard fan of science fiction novels of the 80s, my dad was one of those who held unimaginable excitement towards the onset of the modern internet. Now, when I ask him why he was so eager to get me started early, he responds that he knew the internet would become a mainstay in modern society. He wasn’t just forcing his hobbies on his son - he’s read countless cautionary tales detailing each and every way the internet could bring dystopia. He was paranoid. He wanted his son to be able to navigate the internet in the same way he navigated his life as the youngest of 9 children in poverty. He knew the value of information, because it brought him his dream job and career, and with that, his livelihood.

And so, I grew up with the internet as the internet matured beside me. I was able to experience the old era of the internet and all the starry-eyed optimists of its rapid widespread adoption. I’ve seen thousands of different outlandish and inspiring ideas through freely moderated forums and the early days of content sharing websites like YouTube. I saw that despite its disconnected nature, it brought people together, as humans, sharing the same experiences around the world. I was able to experience the so-called “golden age” of the internet, though I wasn’t aware of it at the time. As reflected in history, with every golden age comes an implied end, and this couldn’t be more self-evident today.

The internet that I and the vast majority of my fellow dreamers use today has become a privatized shadow of what it once was. I see it as nothing short of a tragedy as to what we’ve allowed to happen. I can’t get through a single page of discussion without aggressive marketing in my face. Public platforms that the general public use - sites like YouTube and Reddit - are heavily censored, where anything deemed “controversial” and non-advertiser friendly is taken down or penalized with the precision of a hawk. The overwhelming influence of “the algorithm” controls every aspect and source of where people get their information, creating communities more akin to radical bubbles rather than open discussions. In my peers, I find it difficult to find anyone who uses more than just 1 or 2 sources for all their information. What happened?

If we think of sharing information as a collaborative process, it effectively becomes an exchange in which both parties leave with something new to take away, representative of progress. Take this to a macro level, and Rome is built one brick per hour. Digitalize the process, and Rome is built in a day. Here lies one of my main points: the internet acts only as a catalyst to processes that have already been set in motion hundreds of years back. It takes our current construct of “progress” and accelerates it, with any flaws or ill-conceived notions that come with it. The internet acts as a vignette of our story as a society, drawing parallels with what we’ve already experienced. The most egregious offender is something that we are intimately familiar with - neoliberalism.

One of the main facets of the neoliberalism ideology is that “It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency”(Monbiot). In short, it basically links identity to consumerism. Those who are influenced by this system are forced to act in a way that follows this definition. Because of this, we are more susceptible to attacks made on our character by means of criticizing our wealth as a symbol of success. This has given birth to the mass industrialization of marketing and advertising.

There is a huge financial sector in our economy that isn’t even in charge of the production of actual products, but just the advertisement of products alone. The ANA, a leading source of national trends for economic statistics conducted a study, in which they found that “Advertising expenditures generated $5.8 trillion in overall consumer sales including direct, indirect and induced expenditures; The expenditures represent 16 percent of all sales activity in the U.S.” (Levesque 4). Yes, you read that correctly. This is damning evidence of where we sit as a consumerist society oppressed by the overwhelming grasp of neoliberalism. The worst part is that this force is invisible to the majority of us. It is difficult to grasp the meaning of success in America without immediately attributing success with material wealth. After all, when we discussed the American Dream in high school, I noticed that we were given assignments to discuss whether it was still alive or not. We never thought to discuss whether it was even what we wanted in the first place.

With the advertisement sector’s amount of national influence (and the idea that economy is a true harbinger of change and power in this country), it was only a matter of time before companies acted to control the internet. A tool that was created with the notions of inter-human connectivity and the desire to seek knowledge would slowly transform into the corporate wonderland we see today. I don’t blame them; it's a wonderful business strategy to form a monopoly on the tools we use to progress as a society. In that sense, there have already been obvious instances of controlling entire institutions for the benefit of the consumer existence. I speak about my participation as a student, and the implications with which that brings.

If we wish to uncover the deeply embedded notions of consumerism in our society, we must take a look at the developments in our own education system. I can observe many similarities when comparing the franchising of education to the loss of the free internet.

Wendy Brown states, “... education is increasingly contoured toward the question of return on investment. That is, very few students of working (sic) class, or let alone poor, or even middle class means, can look at a college education - as we did in my time, your time - as something that has to do with expanding your capacities as a human being and your capacities as a citizen”(3:34). As a firsthand witness to the early era of the internet, I draw deeply intimate parallels between Brown’s observations and what has happened to the free web. I’ve discussed how at its core, the internet was created with good intentions, but is inherently flawed in its design, being easily susceptible to manipulation and control. Ironically, this flaw was placing the individual on equal terms with the corporation, which speaks volumes for itself. The tragedy that befell the internet has already occurred in the institutions that are meant to guide us - our very own schools - so that we are blind to the injustice being committed. We are stuck in this hegemony.

This is not a new idea by any means. As far back as 1962, under the onset of impending nuclear doom birthed from the conflict of ideologies that were capitalism and communism, the Students for a Democratic Society wrote “Loneliness, estrangement, isolation describe the vast distance between man and man today. These dominant tendencies cannot be overcome by better personnel management, nor by improved gadgets, but only when a love of man overcomes the idolatrous worship of things by man”(17). Keep in mind that this was still a time where a college tuition cost up to a measly three figures, in stark contrast to today’s life altering costs. I find it hard to imagine that today’s average college student - the one that works towards a life of material success - can honestly utter these same words today and truly mean it. Although that sounds harsh, I don’t mean any bitterness by it.  Rather, I see the importance of understanding why we ended up here. The concerns that have been echoed so long ago seem to have been bulldozed over in the name of the bottom line.

Although the ever-looming march of corporate control of the internet has been largely ignored to a point, you may remember the recent controversy in regards to net neutrality. Net neutrality is the concept that internet service providers (ISP’s) shouldn’t be allowed to “throttle” access to certain websites. The idea being, that if given this throttling power, they could effectively control what websites/services you could visit by slowing down or speeding up your connection to them. The ramifications this issue brings are immediately obvious: total corporate domination of the internet. Unfortunately, in 2017, The FCC ruled that ISP’s should be given the right to throttle the internet on the federal level. Thankfully, because states hold more power than the federal power, “California passed one of the most comprehensive net neutrality laws of all, but the rules are currently on hold amidst a legal challenge from the federal government”(Finley). We have to proceed with the foresight of what previous inaction has done to the internet, and act on our chance to defend it, today.

With all that being said, I’d like to draw attention to a fascinating and unavoidable development that has been forming in the past few years: with the basic tenets of neoliberalism permeating through the internet, we are witnessing a shockingly fast descent into the effects of long-sustained neoliberalism. What does this mean? Well, aside from the clear observation that the internet is owned by the rich now, we see a powerful creature stirring in the depths of the average, present-day internet user: atomization. The concept of atomization stems first and foremost from the idea that material wealth equates to success. When placed in an environment where resources are limited, infighting becomes necessary. Competition is paramount to survival in our economic climate. And if you aren’t willing to play the game, a heavy burden is placed on the individual: “In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers” (Monbiot). Of course, we must acknowledge that atomization has existed far before the internet. I am instead drawing attention to how prevalent a problem it has become on the internet today.

Herein lies the main problem that I see plaguing the internet today: we are so unaware of what neoliberalism has done to our socio political climate, that it is so easy to become a victim of atomization. We are now very quick to incorrectly label our fellow countrymen as enemies. Although the internet allows for complete connection to any person at any time, it is still a platform of indirect, virtual communication. Eventually, people will discuss topics that are radical and taboo to their actual geographical communities, because the threat of character damaging rhetoric doesn't exist on the internet, unlike in real life. The internet provides them this platform. With this in mind, you must also acknowledge that the corporate owned internet wants to stray away from topics that seem radical or controversial. After all, they only care about the bottom line, so why cater to the small bubbles of ideological outcasts when they could appeal to the majority, earning a fatter paycheck. With those mainstream outlets of discussion sanctioned to a very specific type of person, any lines of alternative thought are forced to create communities of their own if they feel particularly strong about a subject. In fact, the alienation from their community might be that driving factor.

That brings us to the present. On the internet, if atomization is the product of neoliberalism, then what is the product of atomization? In short: a complete descent into radicalization. Wait … what? My statement seems reductive and radical in its own right, so in order to understand, we must examine a modern day technology that the corporate-owned internet dubs “the algorithm.” Proceeding with the understanding that advertising now owns the internet, it makes sense for corporations to develop technologies that make people consume more advertisements (along with the general reinforcement of the ideals of neoliberalism). If we look at the most famous advertising company, Google, they have perfected the art of marketing. If you have ever used YouTube in the modern day, you are no stranger to the recommended videos feature the website has. The videos that appear in this section are curated by Google’s advanced algorithms so that you as a consumer are drawn to click it, thereby increasing potential time spent on their website looking at advertisements (which by the way, are also chosen for you by the algorithm). It's the perfect illusion of free choice and free content, and an absolute achievement in the subtle reinforcement of neoliberalism.

In a fantastic article written by Zeynep Tufekci, she writes, “What keeps people glued to YouTube? Its algorithm seems to have concluded that people are drawn to content that is more extreme than what they started with — or to incendiary content in general.” Finally, we have reached the explanation as to why radical ideologies and dangerous rhetoric has pervaded more and more in the past few years. Our hegemony not only births the radicalization of individuals through the fragmentation of the internet, but it reinforces closed arguments and flawed logic to those that feel betrayed by our current system. In an era where people are so untrustworthy of each other’s word, people are free to choose what they believe is true; “free” from the confinements of logic.

The effects of this realization are in no way trivial. With the significant financial hurdle that education presents itself with today, more and more people turn to the internet as a platform of information and discussion. We have seen how the internet has deeply mirrored our history as a nation, serving as a miniature vignette of the story so far, and a reminder of the unfair system that we endure. However, the true realization of the information era has taken flight and now feels uncontrollable. The internet ceases to be merely a reflection of the past, and is quickly becoming an intimate reflection of our present and future. Currently, there are very few people in America who can avoid this insurmountable barrage of info. Every day, I have to juggle between news about COVID-19, police brutality, civil unrest, and a general barrage of extremist and divisive rhetoric. I feel what is happening to our nation, through the internet.

With the cautionary tales my dad has passed to me, and my unique view of what the internet was like in a more peaceful era, I am extremely concerned with how the next generation of our society will use the internet as a tool. I owe it to my life experiences in how I can identify senseless fear mongering and outrage journalism. I cannot imagine how different I would perceive our world if I were to be born today. In recent times, the maddening speed of the internet’s ability to transfer information is a display of its terrific potential. I want to address this as the one of the most urgent problems I believe we will be facing after our generation’s paradigm shift fades away. Just how deep will neoliberalism root itself in our people? In 1994, one of consumerism’s harshest critics said this: “We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning.” (Baudrillard 79).

The scariest result that we have witnessed as a result of the bastardization of the internet is the overwhelming sense of apathy that is almost era defining. Thankfully, we are not completely consumed by that apathy, at least at the moment. Political activism and an unyielding battle for justice are how one can describe what has taken place in the past couple of months. Despite this, we should not ignore what message we are subjecting to those that will take the reins after us. Despite all the insurmountable factors of hegemony that feel out of our control, we cannot become apathetic knowing that these factors exist. The problems of our nation are being laid bare to the eyes of the youngest generation today. We must not let them believe that what they are seeing is normal. I now recognize that it is up to our generation to lead the charge, and to educate those that come after us about the power of the internet and the caveats that come with it.

Although the internet is riddled with radical bubbles, echo chambers, public outrage, misplaced anger, lies, confusion, and corporate greed - despite all that - there are still those of us that are willing to communicate, organize, argue, agree, disagree, and discuss with each other as fellow humans. They are the small communities of those starry-eyed dreamers and thinkers that I was swept away with all those years ago. You just have to look in the right places.

“We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity. Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here” (Barlow).

Works Cited

Barlow, J.P. (1996). A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Davos: Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved January 26, 2012 from https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html

Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994. Print.

Finley, Klint. “Net Neutrality: Here's Everything You Need To Know.” Wired, Conde Nast, 5 May 2020, 7:00.

Friedersdorf, Conor. “YouTube Extremism and the Long Tail.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 12 Mar. 2018.

Kendrick Lamar. "Ab-Soul's Outro." Section.80, TDE, 2011.

Levesque, Leslie, et al. “Ad Coalition - Economic Impact of Advertising Study.” ANA, Mar. 2015.

Monbiot, George. “Neoliberalism Promised Freedom – Instead It Delivers Stifling Control | George Monbiot.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 10 Apr. 2019.

Monbiot, George. “Neoliberalism – the Ideology at the Root of All Our Problems.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 15 Apr. 2016.

Students for a Democratic Society (U.S.). The Port Huron Statement (1962). Chicago, Ill. :C.H. Kerr, 1990.

Tufekci, Zeynep. “YouTube, the Great Radicalizer.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Mar. 2018.

“Wendy Brown on Education.” Performance by Wendy Brown, and Rob Johnson, YouTube, Google, 6 June 2016.