Has the Internet made it easier or harder to indoctrinate people?

[Reeve]

So I was just listening to a podcast that was talking about doubters in a particular church and how podcasts started springing up and online communities of people willing to talk to each other about their doubts started forming, and it got me thinking.

Has the Internet made it easier or harder to indoctrinate people?

The argument for harder is simple. Before the Internet, parents could tell their kids any bullshit they wanted, and the kids would have no way of verifying whether or not what they're told is true. It's very easy to make someone believe something if they're never exposed to an opposing view or actual evidence until they've solidified their beliefs into their sense of identity, after which they're likely to engage in any amount of cognitive dissonance necessary to maintain that identity.

The Internet doesn't eliminate this entirely, but it does mean that when a parent or community tells a kid that, for example, the Holocaust wasn't real, the kid is likely to encounter actual evidence online that disproves what their parents say. After that, it seems like they'll be more likely to question what their parents and their community say in general.

The other side of the argument, though, is that the Internet is exceptionally good at creating niche communities and echo chambers. If you're a conservative, you're likely to read conservative news sites, and likely to only expose yourself to conservative opinions. Without seeing the other side of the story, it's very easy to develop monolithic viewpoints.

Anyone have any thoughts?

[Gib Lover]

I'd say both. There will be videos/communities challenging your beliefs that could change them, and there are videos/communities that will prey upon the uninformed/uneducated/straight up stupid to indoctrinate them.
Overall I believe it has made it harder though.

[Dug]

The other side of the argument, though, is that the Internet is exceptionally good at creating niche communities and echo chambers. If you're a conservative, you're likely to read conservative news sites, and likely to only expose yourself to conservative opinions. Without seeing the other side of the story, it's very easy to develop monolithic viewpoints.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Bingo. Overall I think it makes it harder but if people are too scared to leave their bubble they'll remain "indoctrinated". That would have been there with or without the internet imo.

[BuckSparkles]

Easier.

Much, much easier. It's easier to push your agenda due to more vast forms of media. More outlets for these agendas to jump out of. And easier to set "cool kid norms" with such technology.

[Deleted]

Easier by far.

[Holtzmann]

Easier. Way easier.

It's not only easier to find yourself a nice echo chamber to let your vague feelings percolate into a rock-hard pillar of pure concentrated ideology over time, it's also a lot easier to feel "brave" when throwing insults at people you disagree with online. There is no threat of retribution, so it's easier to just go overboard with questionable things.

[Reeve]

Maybe it's easier to find justification for believing whatever it is you WANT to believe, but harder to force views upon others who don't necessarily have strong motivations to believe those views?

[Vyxn]

So I was just listening to a podcast that was talking about doubters in a particular church and how podcasts started springing up and online communities of people willing to talk to each other about their doubts started forming, and it got me thinking.

Has the Internet made it easier or harder to indoctrinate people?

The argument for harder is simple. Before the Internet, parents could tell their kids any bullshit they wanted, and the kids would have no way of verifying whether or not what they're told is true. It's very easy to make someone believe something if they're never exposed to an opposing view or actual evidence until they've solidified their beliefs into their sense of identity, after which they're likely to engage in any amount of cognitive dissonance necessary to maintain that identity.

The Internet doesn't eliminate this entirely, but it does mean that when a parent or community tells a kid that, for example, the Holocaust wasn't real, the kid is likely to encounter actual evidence online that disproves what their parents say. After that, it seems like they'll be more likely to question what their parents and their community say in general.

The other side of the argument, though, is that the Internet is exceptionally good at creating niche communities and echo chambers. If you're a conservative, you're likely to read conservative news sites, and likely to only expose yourself to conservative opinions. Without seeing the other side of the story, it's very easy to develop monolithic viewpoints.

Anyone have any thoughts?

depends on the person if that person is looking for an echo chamber, will only read, and believe what reinforces their beliefs, ideology, and bias then yes it makes it easier
if that person wants to broaden their horizon, educate them selves on different points of view, different beliefs, different ideology with a open mind then no it makes it harder

[RapBreon]

I'm leaning with easier.

There is just so many outlets of dissemination now. I'd say the amount of beliefs has widened though and there might be more traversal between those beliefs.

The argument for harder doesn't hold much water in my view. In some cases maybe. But on the whole people don't act as perfectly rational beings, it's not as if the consistency of the belief is its primary power to begin with anyway.

[Steelangel]

Incredibly easier.

The internet's communities are highly segregated and are prone to become echo chambers for particular viewpoints; Tumblr is a perfect example of this, and Twitter is getting there. Many, -many- smaller communities have already become so entrenched, we're starting to see ideas like a flat Earth, or an illusionary Moon break out of the insane fringes and reach the mainstream consciousness. Groups like Islamic State use the internet for brainwashing, seeking out the disaffected and plying them with visions of valor and salvation through righteous genocide.

Far from the intellectual anarchy and increasingly educated populace that many of us old cybercitizens expected from the internet, it's become more of an intellectual cesspool where the stupidest, most ill-informed and most extreme forms of humanity scream the loudest and get the most hype and followers.

[Wezmon]

I'd say much harder. Indoctrination begins in the home or at school. Pre internet you only knew what you were told and by what you saw in your locale. Theres a reason muslim parents have muslim children etc. Nowadays there's so much more readily available information that some of these people start to doubt what they have been told.

Yes, there is a flip side that those of a persuasion can find likeminded communities online, but most of the time their local community will be like minded.. due to my previous paragraph. Where I live people are catholic. Everyone is catholic. You get brought up catholic, you get told by the school, the church, TV. You don't need to go online to find more catholics, you only need to walk outside.

[Narwal]

I don't think the internet affects it at all. If you question what your parents, teacher, preacher, anyone of authority tells you, you are not a person who can be indoctrinated. If you accept whatever you are told or read by a single source without doing your own investigation, then you are indoctrinated. The internet is a tool to communicate with others and look up information. It doesn't not change whether you are able to be indoctrinated or not.

[Gheld]

At first it made it harder. Because anybody who wanted the knowledge simply had to go online and find it out. But I mean, look at anything now. Sponsored content has basically taken over the internet. Which means that the easiest content to find is that which is put out there for people who don't want to bother questioning what they've been told.

You can confirm your biases at the speed of light. But if you want real distilled information you have to dig for it.

Also before, when the internet was more of a niche phenomenon you were basically fixed in who you could actually communicate with on the internet (i.e. other people with the internet). Now that people are on the internet you can just choose who you associate with based on sharing common biases.

So yeah... Knowledge is dead. Only dogma remains.

[Anonymous1038853]

Both. Neither. The Internet is effectively just an open library of ideas and information (and porn, ohyis). What's relevant is how people engage with the platform, and that's going to vary significantly between individuals.

[Steelangel]

So yeah... Knowledge is dead. Only dogma remains.

This thread is over. Long live Gheld.

[Theodarzna]

Its made it easier to indoctrinate oneself.

It has made it over all harder for the State to have total information control however.

[Reeve]

This thread is over. Long live Gheld.

Did you know that Gheld slayed the Beast of Gibraltar barehanded, but in the fight, one of his balls was cut free, and became what we know as the Rock of Gibraltar today? Spain and England continue to fight over Gheld's right testicle.

It's true. The Internet has decreed it.

[Wezmon]

You can confirm your biases at the speed of light. But if you want real distilled information you have to dig for it.

This is true, but pre internet there wasn't even a need to confirm biases as you probably weren't even aware of other religions/practices/philosophies.

I know statistics can be used to prove anything, but there is a strong correlation between the rise of the internet and the rise of atheist populations, even in the USA which is pretty strongly religious the atheist population doubled from 1995 t0 2011

Of course there will always be people with "outsider" views that find like minded people on the internet and in these cases will cement any ideas they had.

[RapBreon]

This is true, but pre internet there wasn't even a need to confirm biases as you probably weren't even aware of other religions/practices/philosophies.

I know statistics can be used to prove anything, but there is a strong correlation between the rise of the internet and the rise of atheist populations, even in the USA which is pretty strongly religious the atheist population doubled from 1995 t0 2011

Of course there will always be people with "outsider" views that find like minded people on the internet and in these cases will cement any ideas they had.

A lot of internet atheism is just its own brand of relentless dogma.

Attitudes haven't shifted much, though the specifics have (the beliefs themselves).

[Dug]

I know statistics can be used to prove anything, but there is a strong correlation between the rise of the internet and the rise of atheist populations, even in the USA which is pretty strongly religious the atheist population doubled from 1995 t0 2011

Anecdotal but I attribute my atheism to the internet. Before that it was Catholicism because its all I knew.