Technological
innovation represents the central source of society’s problems in Fahrenheit 451. Throughout the book, Bradbury treats technology as
inherently anesthetizing and destructive. In the prehistory of the novel,
technology played an important role in the social decline of reading. As
technology improved, it gave rise to new forms of media, like television and
in-ear radios. But how does the digital age alter the laws we already have set in place??
https://www.govtech.com/data/Can-the-First-Amendment-Survive-the-Digital-Age.html
https://www.govtech.com/data/Can-the-First-Amendment-Survive-the-Digital-Age.html
Technology has expanded
the number of tools in the contemporary activist’s toolbelt. Fundraisers are
created, and petitions are distributed online, giving new speed and power to
advocates. Thanks to Facebook, you can now donate on your birthday for a cause
and raise money in order to advocate for it. Change.org has brought petitioning
to a whole new level by bringing your cause to every newsfeed in your network.
As the reach of what you share grows, the cause begins attracting attention
from larger organizations and media outlets.
If a message is displayed to the
world just right, it might even “go viral” and be the catalyst for an
ideological shift in an entire community. Now armed with both tools to spread
awareness and garner support online and off, activists are utilizing both means
to maximize their ideological imprint in the world.
However, elements of social media
can also contribute to hostility towards certain ideas that some may disagree
with. Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter facilitate the unfortunate convenience
of filtering the messages we want to hear. If you do not like something, you
can simply remove it from your newsfeed or report it. We now have the ability
to control not only who we connect with online but also opt to only hear the
ideas we care to. Ultimately, this leads to a
moment of decision, a call to action in which we decide whether we want to live
in virtual echo chambers or engage in healthy discourse with those who can
challenge and expand our ideas.
YAL ( Young Americans for Liberty) has steadfastly elected to
engage in conversations instead of violence, constructive discourse instead of
hasty Facebook arguments. Our National Fight for Free Speech has overturned 28
unconstitutional speech codes and restored rights to 590,202 students. Those
achievements would not have been possible without the dedication of our
activists or the network of mutual support and activity easily seen online.
We have every resource at our disposal to
advance our ideas, and we should take advantage of them by engaging in
respectful conversations and working to advance our ideas. What does you think we can do together with the resources we have??
Technology is becoming everything humans are, aren't, and can't be. That's a really loaded statement. I think what Bradbury is saying when he depicts this world with copious amounts of technology and wars going on in the background and the banning of books is that technology is has taken from us our need to think.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same kind of philosophy that Socrates had when he aimed his disdain toward writing. Socrates claimed that writing will cause men to never have to remember anything and that the art of remembering and thinking will be lost. The same concept can apply here in Bradbury's world and the real world. Beatty claims that the state of the world is where people are pumped full of nothing but answers and no questions. Seriously all of the people are given all of the information in the world at their disposal. This is similar to how we have Google providing us with the answer to almost everything.
The problem is, with the way that algorithms work, Google is showing us what to think now and many people will just believe what they are shown without questioning it first. We are in the age of misinformation. Most people in the world are aware that we are putting plastic in our water and cutting down our forests and being manipulated by companies to get us addicted to their products, but we don't think about it. Instead we mask that by getting immediate gratification. I think that the algorithims now are showing us what we WANT to see rather than what we NEED to see. Contrary to what people might say, thinking is not outlawed in Fahrenheit, but rather CRITICAL thinking. Nobody is allowed to question the systems that are put into place, or why the world is the way it is. The reason why Millie's friend got so sad when Montague read some of the book to her is that the book was a critical analysis of the world. If critical analysis is not taught and practiced repeatedly, when it happens, we are not ready for the emotional response that it brings.
The benefits and drawbacks of technology, specifically social media, is something that I often think about on a daily basis. Social media and the ease of relaying information across the globe is something that is so valuable, yet it comes with an overwhelming amount of downfalls. It's a shame that we have to make the decision to allow all information onto our feeds at the expense of our sanity, or edit what is allowed to be seen, which can definitely result in an echo chamber effect. I haven't really come to a solid decision as to the best form of action in this case, but it definitely highlights the difference in problems the people of this century face and how we almost need to begin at square-one in order to find ways to handle these new and challenging problems connected to technology and social media.
ReplyDeleteIt is astonishing how much can be done with technology today compared to when Fahrenheit 451 was first published. I understand social media can seem like an echo chamber at times with everyone sharing similar or the same views as you, but how likely is a person to intentionally "follow" or "like" a news page on any platform that publishes news they strongly disagree with? What are the chances a person who supports abortion with follow a page that is against abortion or any other kind of important difference? I do not think it would be very likely, because then the person would just be infuriated every time they come across that page's postings and that is not the emotion we want to feel when going through any social media or at least that is rarely how I want to feel. I understand how it is good to listen to more than one perspective of opinions, but on social medias I do not see a huge problem in following similar reliable views. Where a person to be interested in opposing views, then they can search them out, but I think that most people use social media to learn about other people and the news with little interest in getting angry most every time they get on a social media. However, of course, a person could follow multiple different voices and merely scroll past the pages they know will infuriate them when they do not wish to be angered. Perhaps that is the best solution, but at the end of the day, it is the person's decision on what and when to take in information that they agree or disagree with.
ReplyDelete