I had Covid for a while, a virus in the 21st century that reminds humanity that we're not invincible. Lying in bed for a few days, listening to the autumn rain, a friend suggested that I mix a vitamin C tablet and an orange in water. I drank this concoction using a 1-liter bottle for a few days and felt better. It's amazing that such a miracle remedy exists in the world. However, first and foremost, we must know and confirm what kind of disease we have.
Today, let's discuss the "information disease". I originally thought it was a condition I had conjured up in my mind. Surprisingly, it's also defined on Wikipedia. "Infodemic", or "information epidemic", refers to the rapid and widespread dissemination of both accurate and inaccurate information about something (such as a disease) on the internet. Due to the mix of fact and rumor, people find it difficult to truly understand accurate information about a subject. This can lead to misinformation, resulting in lapses in disease prevention, social unrest, and worsening of the situation.
Of course, the definition of "Infodemic" is somewhat one-sided, focusing mainly on the truth of the information. But is that all we care about?
What is information? Information is something that can eliminate uncertainty. The emergence of human information has a directionality, a convergence, which is quite simple: to eliminate uncertainty. We should thank [Claude] Shannon for quantifying this uncertainty more clearly with the entropy formula. Or, we can simply start from the premise that our intention is to eliminate uncertainty. Anything that deviates from this direction might inherently have issues.
Let's take a closer look: Over the past few decades, has the internet been poisoning our waters? The physical problem the internet solves is simple: it improves the efficiency of information transfer from point A to point B. The internet has given rise to what we colloquially call the attention economy or the eyeball economy. From a socio-cultural perspective, it's clear that we've entered a more fragmented pluralistic society. We can look at this from three angles: efficiency, attention, and connection.
First, we are likely trapped in a single-dimensional, linear efficiency-first learning mode. Both Eastern and Western internet problem-solving methods are filled with pursuits of efficiency, often overlooking whether the solutions truly eliminate uncertainties or if they're just wasteful energy expenditures. A classic debate is: Do we want flying cars or 140-character messages? We lack these kinds of discussions, leading to repetitive low-dimensional efforts driven by high efficiency, resulting in overall wasteful energy consumption. Take the ESG issue as an example; it's probably a wasteful proposition in an efficiency-first mode. To some extent, we lack a discussion about the cost of energy consumption.
Rapid iteration means quick trial and error. If the legitimacy of a problem isn't thoroughly discussed, this rapid iteration can compound mistakes. We might be in an era of making compounded errors with the internet. And this speed-focused approach can lead to a bricklaying mindset, where if you're faster than others, you'll naturally get ahead. This naturally leads to competition and less discussion about positivity. I recently read an article by a DeFi innovator named AC about trial and error, highlighting a glaring issue: why don't we ask what's right from the beginning? Especially if the cost is community assets, would we still iterate quickly?
Of course, this efficiency-first approach is done under the guise of putting users first. It's like impulsive young parents who, under the pretext of "it's for your own good," lose their way in constant trial and error, probably forgetting why they're iterating in the first place. For our era, this not only results in various low-dimensional wastes but also lowers the threshold for ideological manipulation. In our efficiency-first information world, we become accustomed to being spoon-fed information, even subliminally. We discuss less about the truth, trustworthiness, or overall motives of this information. Chances are, what we consume is like transparent-tinted water that we unknowingly drink.
In reality, we were the creators and users of information. But under this efficiency-first mindset, we've become mere ants in the vast world of information. We become tunnel-visioned, moving in a set direction. Going in circles becomes a habit, and we lose our sense of direction.
Next is the attention hyperactivity and performative distortion under the spotlight effect. As we mentioned earlier, the Internet is an attention economy, where content is like being spotlighted for the sole purpose of attracting our attention. Emotion accounts for sixty to seventy percent while rationality takes up the remaining thirty to forty percent. As long as it can stimulate our attention, it's considered a successful performance. This assumption is based on the scarcity of our attention, which then leads to the birth of a commodity economy. The problem is that our attention is constantly being stimulated, much like an elderly man with a weak physique being continuously injected with sex hormones. We feel like our thoughts are always active, but they are actually in a state of hyperactivity. In this state, deep thinking is inevitably missing because depth requires a certain quietness and time.
Furthermore, it's evident that we easily fall into information anxiety, precisely because of this attention hyperactivity. Especially with short videos, social media, and group chats - it's like we're always consuming candy, thinking it's beneficial for our health. Sometimes, we lose our focus, and then, anxiety sets in. We fear we might be losing too much control over the world. In all probability, we've already surpassed the point of diminishing returns in the attention economy. On the contrary, due to our lack of focus, we struggle to face an inherently uncertain world calmly. I'm currently unsure of the PTSD statistics, but from my observations, modern anxiety, information overload, and attention hyperactivity might be correlated.
Of course, under the spotlight, there is inevitably some exaggerated performance, and even we cannot avoid it. For example, how many of the online hosts genuinely use the products they promote? Isn't it common sense to recommend something only after finding it beneficial yourself? How many of them truly believe in what they're promoting? How many social media posts genuinely express one's self rather than just showing off under the spotlight? What we see and express is likely overly distorted to appease the audience for cheap applause. The genuine, simple state we once knew gets forgotten, and as the curtains rise, deceit and vulgarity take the stage, making the authenticity of information or content highly dubious. To see the truth, we need to strip away layers of pretense. Naturally, what we possess often becomes more about form than substance.
Pretense, appeasement, and performance are indeed the core elements of this attention economy. Even we can't help but don the costume, strike a pose, and play a part in this grand spectacle. It's all a show; why take it seriously? It's become a typical attitude in this economy.
Lastly, let's look at excessive connections. We can think of it as being in a network of passive and active connections. The first is a platform-driven passive connection. It's like we're living in a preference cocoon where platforms continuously suggest content based on our preferences, reinforcing our past views and creating an echo chamber. This strengthens our preferences and can hamper our openness.
The second type is group-oriented. Group dynamics play a significant role in our connections. This enhanced weak relationship can influence our value judgments, especially whether we decide based on our personal beliefs or group consensus. Observations indicate that this weak individuality might be taking up too much weight in our decisions, potentially weakening our unique personas.
The third type is ineffective communication. Fragmented communication has become the norm. Whether it's Twitter in English or WeChat in Chinese, the absence of serious communication is evident. While fragmented communication can be efficient, it challenges whether we are genuinely expressing our thoughts. The precision of our language and depth of understanding have been diluted. It seems there are more jokers, but fewer genuine communicators, leading to a potential lack of real understanding and empathy.
We might be like crows looking for water, mistakenly believing that there's strength in numbers. But excessive connections can darken the horizon. There's a potential societal fragmentation and group assimilation, causing divisions and misunderstandings when facing significant issues.
In conclusion, we can redefine "Infodemic" as a societal side effect brought by the internet due to information overload. Because of the internet's efficiency, spotlight effect, and excessive connections, we face societal directionlessness, reality distortions, and social order fragmentation.
Clearly, we might be the patients, and this epidemic might be more challenging than Covid. The painful part is that we can't identify the ultimate antidote. Fortunately, some might have lit small lanterns in the dark night, searching for a cure. Perhaps, the decentralized torch raised by Satoshi Nakamoto might be enough to illuminate the long night ahead.