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

[Malachi256]

I think it's easier to indoctrinate, but it's also easier for the curious to seek their own answers.

So as with most technologies, it has simply made things more efficient.

[Reeve]

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

I went towards practical atheism when I was a young teenager, before the worldwide web was really a thing. I think I got there just by asking myself, "Who the fuck wrote this Bible thing anyway?" and "What evidence to Catholics have to show that their religion is any more true than any other religion?"

Didn't even need the Internet. But my parents also weren't hardcore Catholic, and they always encouraged me to come to my own conclusions on everything.

[Gheld]

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.

It's funny you should mention that. Because it seems that most of those people have just traded wizardry for politics and economics. But if either of those things had any more intrinsic power than a fictional deity then they should have started to cure our societies ills by now. But instead they give us the same old circus side show.

[Reeve]

It's funny you should mention that. Because it seems that most of those people have just traded wizardry for politics and economics. But if either of those things had any more intrinsic power than a fictional deity then they should have started to cure our societies ills by now. But instead they give us the same old circus side show.

I think it's better that people argue over ideologies that affect the world than fantasies that affect the world.

[Gheld]

I think it's better that people argue over ideologies that affect the world than fantasies that affect the world.

Economics and Politics are just a fantasy. They only work because if you disobey them the zealots will launch the inquisition on your ass.

[Anonymous1038853]

Its made it easier to indoctrinate oneself.

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

I think this is a very good point, actually. There's a reason why authoritarian regimes tend to carefully censor and restrict access to the Internet, after all. As Wezmon pointed out, the Internet does seem to introduce people to the existence of contrary stances, simply by virtue of its nature. In its absence, individuals may more often be ignorant to the existence of any opposing stance. So even if one is a rational actor, it doesn't actually matter, because one is never made aware of the relevant unknowns.

[Reeve]

Economics and Politics are just a fantasy. They only work because if you disobey them the zealots will launch the inquisition on your ass.

The difference is that if I sin, nothing happens. If I break the law, I get thrown in prison.

If I don't think enough holy thoughts, nothing happens. If I don't earn enough money, I lose my house.

- - - Updated - - -

I think this is a very good point, actually. There's a reason why authoritarian regimes tend to carefully censor and restrict access to the Internet, after all. As Wezmon pointed out, the Internet does seem to introduce people to the existence of contrary stances, simply by virtue of its nature. In its absence, individuals may more often be ignorant to the existence of any opposing stance. So even if one is a rational actor, it doesn't actually matter, because one is never made aware of the relevant unknowns.

Yeah, if it weren't for the Internet, I never would have encountered actual people who think Trump's campaign is more than an elaborate joke, that he would actually make a great president.

[Xada]

Indoctrinate? Maybe, Narcissistic? Definitely.

[BuckSparkles]

Indoctrinate? Maybe, Narcissistic? Definitely.

Why not both? :P

[Deleted]

both

on one hand it's far easier to educate yourself now

on the other hand it's also far easier to feed people bullshit now

[Sci Fi Samurai]

I think it's set up to occur 'naturally'. You go to youtube to look up a certain subject and before long they'll populate your front page with suggestions that basically echo the same things you heard, rather than give you challenges. I remember when I first heard MIGTOW mentioned in a video (I thought it was micktoe, or some variance). When I finally found a video explaining what it was, youtube had spread a bunch of suggestions on my page of videos in support of it.

That said, it gives you a lot of tools to challenge yourself if you actually want to do that. Most people don't though, cognitive dissonance affects the brain in ways similar to physical pain. It's stressful and takes effort to get use to, and most people won't. The allure of confirmation bias with sites like tumble/twitter/youtube/whatever is way too comforting, and the alternative deters you with stress.

For the philosopher and critical thinker, it's great. For everyone else, it only exacerbates the problems that already exist with school and pop media.

[Xada]

Why not both? :P

Possible, it's this way with many of the hot button topics such as social justice. That's why anything "noteworthy" happens on social media. The people involved don't care about any issues, they just want to be at the center of something popular. Look up the society of spectacle, dude may be a marxist, but he seems to nail western culture.

[Independent voter]

Much harder. After the second or third time people are caught up in some internet hoax, they rarely believe anything they see, at least not without a lot of background info to support the claim.

[May90]

I don't think Internet has made any difference at all, it is just that methods of indoctrination changed to account for its existence.

[fengosa]

I think it's harder, but it's still a slow process. The amount of people who believe in creationism and are against climate change are dwindling. There's plenty of BS out there to disprove and it will be an ongoing issue.

There are cases of ISIS sympathizers becoming lone wolves but I don't think it's sustainable. There are only so many people willing to commit to the cause.

[Kurioxan]

Depends, mostly a LOT easier, its very easy to filter information and spread propaganda, to spread panic, to spread ideas and misconceptions, best example being current migrant crisis, where both sides use heavy amounts of propaganda.

In a way its harder, in rare cases, due to access to information, some people will analyse things a lot more, but those are rare, and while there are genuine wackos and crazies, sadly this sort of thing is used to dismiss real information and people who found out shit.
Also makes it easier to whistleblow and spread that information, wikileaks is a godsend, sadly the population neither knows, cares, reads about it, when it blows it rapidly goes away and no one does shit. But most importantly, it allows lawmakers and politicians who were in the dark, to know and understand new hidden shit (TTIP for example) and start campaigning against it or inquiring, delaying changes (ACTA was mostly politicians doing, public pressure was horribly small).

[PC2]

Yes, Internet indoctrination combined with low information citizens lead to people like Hillary getting so much support.

[Arril]

I'd say both.

I think it's easier to indoctrinate willing persons due to so much online material that is just downright wrong and the ability to find so many people that share those same beliefs - but also easier for a curious or disenchanted person to get out of a bad group because they can more easily find others that were in the exact same situation if they are looking for that.

[Daelak]

Yes, Internet indoctrination combined with low information citizens lead to people like Hillary getting so much support.

It has also given people who ascribe to crackpot economic and political ideologies (revision to gold standard, balanced budgets, "small"? government, low taxation, taxation is theft, etc.) false equivalence to real, effective, proven economic and public policies.

[Aeula]

Both. You can find out information, but some times it's wrong or biased.