Internet Stranger Danger: A think piece on the oversimplification of global and social issues online

I was sitting there – throat parched, legs numb against the leather of my chair and overhead lights blinding my retinas like interrogation lamps.

The cause? Another political debate had ensued as an extension to dinner and the conversation was now entering its third hour.

My mother wanted me to know of the corruptive propaganda of the West. I refused to entertain it. “But at least America has freedom. China doesn’t even allow gay marriage!” Oh right, this is about the power struggle between China and America.

My assimilation into Australian culture has, to my mother’s disdain, influenced my westernised upbringing. She’s since made it her mission to convince me of America’s evil. Of course, my shallow understanding of the matter was that America’s capitalism would be its downfall, but ultimately, at least gay people were allowed to marry there.

I’ll leave it to you to guess which side each of us were on.

“I’m not saying that China is bad and America is good. All I’m saying is that, if China were to take over America in being the leading country and a superpower, would they not devolve into America’s same corruption?”

“No, China is not like that. America is at fault for all wars.” She insisted, “China would never do something like that.”

“So, it’s America’s fault Russia declared war on Ukraine?” I shot back, becoming lazy with my rhetoric.

“Who do you think benefited from that war?” I turn my head. My father emerges from his home office, as if he had always been a part of the conversation, “America was raining in it when Ukraine declared war on Russia.”

I was none the wiser. My only source of information for the Russia-Ukraine conflict was my TikTok ‘for you’ page and comment sections flooded with pleas to Daddy Putin. I certainly was not aware of the political and economic undertones of a war, I believed, to be based on territorial greed.

Call me gullible or ignorant, but this speaks to a larger issue of the internet’s oversimplified, biassed interpretation of complex global issues. Online, where there is no barrier of entry for content creation, credibility is irrelevant. The simple purpose of spreading news and awareness has led to the exploitation of buzzwords for more clicks.

 The TikTok ‘for you’ page

The age of the internet has come with its trials and tribulations; the spreading of misinformation is merely a small price to pay for its pervasive presence.

Gen Z’ers are taking to TikTok to explain worldly issues with the pizazz of internet slang, acclimatised to the starkly liberal brand of the youths.

It sounds rather bizarre that as a Generation Z member myself, I mock the coping mechanisms of my peers. Maybe I take pleasure in self-critique, as if being aware of it exempts me from the embarrassment of ignorance or conformity.  

We often give high praise to ourselves for being quick to fluctuate between extremes of criticism, hilarity and detachment. Fun euphemisms for war are one of its manifestations.

This is all emblematic of a generation shrouded in nihilism.

Take the ‘bimbofication’ phenomenon wherein young, ambitious and educated women feel the urge to abandon academia in the pursuit of pure happiness, or as some would argue, hedonism. In this economy -I say sarcastically- there is ‘no hope left’. From the baby boomers and millennials that have sucked the soul and oil out of the very earth that we stand on, there will be no tomorrow for our children’s children.

This habitual numbness to the world inherently influences our consumption of news and media. We would rather listen to a friend’s silly explanation than look for credible sources to inform our opinions on global issues. Unsurprisingly, this causes a shocking degree of misinformation and generalisation.

Anti-feminism and Andrew Tate

One such internet phenomenon that relies on controversy and clickbait is the infamous misogynist Andrew Tate.

Tate leads a subculture on the internet that supports extremist views on gender roles, cultivating an echo chamber of hate and resentment for his demographic of pre-pubescent boys. Much like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro that thrive on controversial takes, he frames his arguments as logical by employing baseless statistics in primarily hypothetical scenarios.

His goal is to maximise engagement and viewership. How he does so, is by enlisting an army of obedient followers to spam his problematic contents across multiple platforms. The shock and awe of ‘tea’ and ‘drama’ is prioritised above reasonability and thoughtful debate. After all, a 15 second clip is easier to view than a long form, philosophically stimulating discussion.

Short-form content is convenient and has somewhat become necessary for our shortening attention span: the result of constant media consumption and dopamine hits, for which Forbes dubs as ‘digital crack cocaine’. Professor and author, Dr Julie Albright, states that the ‘random reinforcement’ of seeing good versus bad content online causes an addiction from craving more ‘good’ content. Hence, ‘cocaine’.

This content addiction coupled with internet personalities like Andrew Tate spreading misinformation results in the indoctrination of especially impressionable minors.

COVID-19 and xenophobia

On a broader scale, internet misinformation takes an ugly turn.

The mass racism that ensued as a result of falsehoods about the origins of the coronavirus captures an unfiltered look of society’s regression.

Asian popularity was at an all-time low. Not even a Marvel diversity token could have saved it at the time. The circulating ‘bat soup’ theory was a circus and a half in hindsight. Being of the conviction that this is the sole cause for a dangerously viral disease is beyond bizarre.

Fear mongering was at the centre of this misinformation – that and, American news sources, of course. Oh, I only hope to remain neutral in an internal conflict where my mother is in one ear, and beloved TikTok star Charli D’Amelio is in the other, whispering seductive mantras of the ‘American dream’ to me.

Time and time again, we humans prove that we are weak and vulnerable to the unknown. Apparently, we also lack the mental fortitude to persist in the face of a pandemic. The hysteria born from the toilet paper shortage attests to this.

It is tragic: America’s track record with racial biases and white supremacy. But it would be irresponsible of me to not introduce the other countries who were also at the party – the party being anti-Chinese rhetoric. Indeed, the accusation of tolerating or even encouraging mass xenophobia is a large burden that one nation should not bear on its own. Coincidentally, it is this exact principle that escaped news sources when reporting on China’s diet of unusual delicacies. Though I digress.

Education for all

Where is the light at the end of the tunnel then? Will there ever be an end to this heaping dumpster fire of conspiracy theories and fake news?

The solution points in one direction. If we (humanity) were just a tad bit smarter, maybe we would be less agreeable to bias. Although, this wouldn’t be nipping the problem in the bud.

I believe that the ‘bud’ is unreliable news sources. Then, it begs the question, ‘Should all forms of education be institutionalised and governed?’ 

There might be merit in investigating this solution. For example, kids under a certain age in China have regulations on the content they can consume on TikTok, or for them: Douyin. Their algorithm has to consist of a ratio of educational videos in science, maths, geography and so on. Interestingly, China has embraced Douyin as an inevitability, making efforts to integrate it into everyday life. It’s much like blending up the greens to be invisible in a child’s meal so they would eat their vegetables. Is this form of deception bad? A betrayal even? It’s certainly not evil, or diabolical.

While our brains are rotting and decaying over here in the West, China is tuning the minds of their future engineers and scientists; they are capitalising on technology, rather than suppressing its potential. Tristan Harris, former Google employee calls our TikTok, the ‘opium version’. 

Our social media ethics need to be built upon. The sham of a ‘free’ country makes us stubborn and resigned to the detrimental effects of social media. Maybe Donald Trump’s attempt to outlaw the app was not just a power trip or early signs of dementia.

But then, here comes the slippery slope: how much regulation is too much?

In 2020, Mark Zuckerberg was under fire for the data sharing of Facebook users enabling targeted advertisement. More importantly, Facebook was enabling advertisements to “subvert and undermine” elections in multiple countries. America has seemingly overlooked any regulation at all. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questions “So you won’t take down lies or you will take down lies?” on Zuckerberg’s company fact-checking policies.

Clearly, misinformation online is not a new or novel issue.

You only see what you want to see on the internet – and that is what makes it so addictive and entertaining. It’s validating to imagine faceless netizens nodding along to all your values, ideas, opinions and experiences.

However, every news outlet and social media has an agenda. We learn this in the Australian curriculum when bored and uninspired English teachers tell you to analyse the tone of an author when they use the word ‘outrageous’ in an article about child obesity. We don't see the importance of this lesson then because ironically, we as students were caught up in the argument that what we learn in class does not apply to ‘real life’ the way taxes and utility bills do.

But bias, tone and connotation all affect our perception of the news and the world. Should topical controversy be introduced into the curriculum? Should more highly contentious debates be commonplace in the classroom? I ponder this because I believe it is important for my generation to be more familiar and comfortable with disagreement. It allows us to form our own opinions with a stronger foundation of knowledge and certainty.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict and American media

Back to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

On one side of the screen, American news is villainising Russia’s attack on Ukraine and delivering the shocking news of *gasp* white people turned into refugees fleeing their war-torn country. On the other, the US government is arming Ukraine with truckloads of guns and ammo. Contrary to reports, Ukraine is more on the offensive than the defensive in this ‘attack’. This all sprung from Ukraine’s betrayal of their contractual promise to Russia to remain neutral, especially from NATO.

I learnt all this from my father’s animated monologue of Ukraine’s deep and heartless betrayal. This was an invaluable insight, because I knew that in my heart of hearts, I would not go investigating beyond the first google link article on the topic – despite understanding it scarcely.

But is there good in all this chaos? Yes, the possibility of virality when spreading awareness on important social issues makes for a good reason to rely on the internet. Yet, the threat of misinformation, misinterpretation, or oversimplification overwhelms the potential benefits. A start is to enforce regulations for this intrusion of new media. 

Yet alas, just like the Will Smith slap and Selena vs Hailey kerfuffle of our times, the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a wave that comes and goes. Long gone were the comments begging Vladdy Daddy to calm his nerves - and how relieving it was, that I didn’t have to rack my brain to form some uninformed opinion on the topic of international war, now that I wasn’t bombarded by this particular news story. 

Much like the rest of us Gen Z’ers, everything that I know and am, seems to be right in front of me: my TikTok ‘for you’ page.