Abstract
Online networks have had and continue to have an irrefutable impact upon the way humans interact with knowledge and information. The question is raised- how have online networks altered the way society perceives information? Applying a postmodernist lens and using the 2016 US Presidential Election as a case study, this conference paper shall investigate this notion, arguing that social media has actively weakened objective standards of truth, adding to post-truth discourse.
Introduction
In the age of technology and mass media, society has become increasingly saturated with information. Amongst the most significant contributors to this phenomenon have been digital media and, in recent times, social media. As of 2021, over half of the world’s population have access to some form of online network (Tankovska, 2021). Initially forming a niche to bolster human connectivity, social media has expanded to become one of the primary modes for distributing facts and information.
Humans are inherently curious creatures, and online networks allow us to access information at an unprecedented level. With the continued connectivity and reliance on the internet and social media, new forms of persuasive media have emerged, such as biased coverage and ‘fake news’ (Gavin, 2018). Therefore, social media provides an unregulated distribution network, which has caused unprecedented effects on global events. Resultantly, online networks have had and continue to have an irrefutable impact on the way humans interact with knowledge and information.
This conference paper shall investigate how online networks have weakened objective standards of truth, exacerbating post-truth discourse. Hence the name of this conference paper – Post Truth. In Colour! To investigate this, I shall draw from luminary philosopher Jean-François Lyotard and his work The Postmodern Condition, applying a postmodernist lens to contextualise the impacts of online networks upon society. In doing so, this essay will depict how the current degradation of truth follows an observable trend.
To support these findings, I will employ the 2016 US Presidential Election as a case study, exploring how online networks provided the ideal platform to disseminate misinformation surrounding the election. Furthermore, I shall focus on the way in which Donald Trump manipulated online networks to further his electoral campaign. To begin this conference paper, however, I shall first set about establishing a framework that will support my argument, focusing on postmodernism’s arguments on technology.
Postmodernism: an ideal lens
Postmodernism emerges as the most suitable theory to investigate the impact of online networks on broader society. In the opening of his work The Postmodern Condition Jean-François Lyotard (1979, xxiv) defines postmodernity “as incredulity towards metanarratives”. For Lyotard, the modern period of ‘grand’ narratives, or overriding central themes that had underpinned society had now ended.
Instead, a postmodern era was burgeoning, whereby narratives were now small, fragmented and localised. He attributed this occurrence to the advancement in science and technology- citing the computerisation of society as the driving force behind the breakdown of knowledge and truth (Lyotard 1979, 5-6). Specifically, he suggests computerisation is fragmenting the communicative structures of society, in turn, affecting society’s ability to denote a single objective standard of truth.
From this, a conceivable trend emerges. Whereby, postmodern society is typified by people whose notions of truth and objectivity are constructed from many different mediums and sources (Bauman, 1992). Thus so, online networks can be perceived as a tangible continuation of Lyotard’s arguments concerning computerised societies. Postmodernism, therefore, avails itself to investigating the effects of online networks upon objective standards of truth.
Online Networks: the new normal
Online networks, primarily social media, have become so ingrained within our daily lives that we now rely on them to socialise, keep up to date with news, purchase goods and services, be educated and work. As of January 2021, over 4.66 billion humans used the internet, and of that, a staggering 4.2 billion frequently log in and use social media platforms (Tankovska, 2021). With technology now seemingly integrated into our lives, humans have begun to adapt and change within these new settings. Fellow postmodern theorist Martin Heidegger stated as far back as the 1960s “a new era of culture and sense of self were emerging, and the ‘modern way-of-being’ was gradually being replaced by the ‘technological way-of-being’ (Kop and Walters 2009:280)”. Again, we see a common thread emerging, in which postmodernists posit technology as being a key determinant upon the change in society.
As engagement with online networks increases, so does their profitability. With capitalist forces impressing their influence upon online networks, interactions with media and information have begun to shift accordingly (Hirshberg 2021, 9). Now conglomerates like Facebook and Instagram enjoy the majority share of social media markets, they now can influence millions of consumers via their online networks. Utilising algorithms that track and target consumer behaviour, these companies can actively increase their viewership by manipulating streams of information (Hirshberg 2021, 9). In doing so, knowledge itself has been commoditised, further adding to the breakdown in objective standards of truth.
In fact, Lyotard alludes to this process, stating “transformation in the nature of knowledge, then, could well have repercussions on the existing public powers, forcing them to reconsider their relations (both de jure and de facto) with the large corporations and, more generally, with civil society (1979, 6).” Despite, mass media being an existing force upon society, online networks have rapidly expedited the process of information dissemination. Combine this with an aggressive profit-led business model and truth becomes secondary to consumer product. This was shown in 2016 during the US Presidential election, when the power of online networks in breaking down standards of truth, became fully realised.
2016 US Presidential Election: an unprecedented spectacle
The election between Donald John Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton stands as a defining moment in the complex relationship between knowledge and online networks. Trump reprising his role as a showman embodied the notion “the only ‘truth’ is that you can’t be boring (Jordan, 2016)”. By maintaining a robust media presence, he was able to disseminate propaganda to the masses. It was here where Hilary Clinton gravely miscalculated. Relying on traditional forms of media and dismissing both Trump and online networks, she allowed her opponent to dictate the narrative of the election campaign. Upon careful reflection, the election results no longer seem like the doings of an incensed madman.
Instead, they reflect the actions of a master manipulator who demoted truth and incited dissent to bolster his electoral campaign. Evaluating political spectacles from a postmodernist perspective, Murray Edelman (1988) comments:
The critical element in a political manoeuvre for advantage is creating meaning: the construction of beliefs about events, policies, leaders, problems, and crises that rationalise or challenge existing inequalities… The key tactic must always be the evocation of interpretations that legitimise favoured courses of action.
In 2016, Trump was able to seed discontent in the body politic of both democrat and republican parties by reconfiguring meaning.
He did this by centring himself as the ultimate reference for truth and perpetuating harmful, often baseless propaganda outward via media outlets and online networks. Matthew Jordan (2016) comments Trump “beguiled old and new media into covering him by saying outrageous things – truth be dammed – knowing that controversial statements draw immediate overage.” In doing this, he broke down objective standards of truth in order to confuse and mislead the public, thus beginning the world’s descent into a truly post-truth era.
Post-truth. In Colour!
Post-truth is a term that aptly summarises the surreal events of the 2016 Presidential Election. So much so, the Oxford dictionary deemed it 2016’s word of the year, defining it as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief (2016)”. From this summation, it is evident why Donald Trump and post-truth are synonymous with each other. Relying heavily on emotional communication in lieu of objective facts, he aimed to distract public attention and interrupt conventional politics (Keane, 2018). This fact was only heightened due to online networks providing an instantaneous platform for Trump’s emotive messaging to be distributed.
If post-truth had not yet experienced a better medium in online networks, then nor had it found a better vessel in Donald Trump. With the latter existing as the personification of profit led digital media, whereby profits and consumption outweigh the importance of reporting truth (Jordan, 2016). As a business man and reality T.V show host, Trump was well positioned to capitalise on the environment online networks provided him. In turn, recognising the selling power of a chaotic political environment with Trump at its epicentre, Facebook deployed algorithms to increase views that added to their bottom line (Jordan, 2016). Thus so, both Trump and online media were engaged in a mutualistic relationship throughout the election period.
When Donald Trump first uttered the now-infamous words ‘fake’-news, he did so in retort to a journalist’s line of questioning towards him. By co-opting the term fake news, Donald Trump dismissed the legitimacy of mainstream media and, in so doing, removed the standard of truth (Keane, 2018). In turn, he forced his voter base to seek alternative sources of information, again centring himself as the centre for truth, or alternately within online communities of likeminded supporters.
These communities, at times drifted beyond the realms of reality, with some even espousing radical conspiracy theories. As Brendon O’Connor (2019) comments “new information technologies have not just fuelled greater understanding in the world – as some of the utopian founders of the internet had hoped – they have also given more power to the obnoxious and ill-informed”. Within these partisan echo-chambers, standards of truth were no longer maintained. Instead, dissatisfaction in the mainstream media and government led topics of often toxic debate.
Both post-truth and fake-news are a symptom of a particular postmodernist process Lyotard describes as ‘language games’. Referring again to metanarratives, the issue arises from a fundamental breakdown in the communication of knowledge, in which, meaning is fragmented, created and adheres to localised sets of rules (Lyotard 1979, 65). Put simply, objective standards of truth are relative to communities they are created, circulated and sustained in. The 2016 Presidential election is yet evidence of this process. With Trump establishing himself as the basis for truth, his supporters unwittingly participated in the distribution of misinformation.
Furthermore, the addition of technology serves to hasten the effects of language games. As (Harms and Dickens 1996, 211) attest, pluralistic media saturation causes one to become disoriented. In online networks, the rate of disorientation is heightened, severely altering people’s ability to form objective opinions. The industry norm of 24-hour news cycle only adds to this issue, causing standards of truth to be no longer fixed.
Conclusion: horizon scanning for an online future
With all this information set before us, there can be little doubt of the immense impact of online networks within our lives. In particular, how these networks have directly attributed to the breakdown of objective standards of truth. By utilising the studies of Jean-François Lyotard and fellow postmodernists, I was able to frame these affects within a conceptual base. In particular, I hoped to depict how the convergence of science, technology and society adheres to a specific postmodernist schema.
Postmodernists present compelling arguments framing the effects of technology upon standards of knowledge and truth within society. Central to the validity of this conference paper, were the notions of localised narratives and language games. If we refer back to the case study of the 2016 Presidential election, Donald Trump’s actions were synonymous with both categories. In particular, the emergence of post-truth was a key indicator of how Trump exploited localised narratives to seed discontent in his voter base. Additionally, language games reflected how he was able to fabricate truth, with no broad repercussions, as truth was created and sustained within his community of proponents.
This essay has shown the demonstrative dangers the forces of online networks forces play upon the pillars of our civilisation – knowledge and truth. This being so, with technology ever advancing, postmodernists’ predictions will become increasingly more relevant to our society. And with that, the ability to define truth will become increasingly difficult. With standards of truth no longer set in stone and shifting within localised environments, online networks will come to play a pivotal role in the way humans conceive and consume truth in the future.
References
Bauman, Z. (1993), Postmodern Ethics, Blackwell, New Jersey
Edelman, M (1988), Constructing the Spectacle, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Gavin, N. (2018). Media definitely do matter: Brexit, immigration, climate change and beyond. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 20(4), 827–845. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118799260
Hirshberg, P (2021), First the Media, Then Us: How the Internet Changed the Fundamental Nature of the Communication and Its Relationship with the Audience, https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BBVA-OpenMind-First-the-Media-Then-Us-How-Internet-Changed-Fundamental-Nature-of-Communication-and-its-relationship-whit-audience-Peter-Hirsberg.pdf.pdf
Insil, Significant Increase in Social Media Usage Under Covid-19: Here’s What That Means For Businesses, https://www.insil.com.au/post/significant-increase-in-social-media-usage-under-covid-19-heres-what-that-means-for-businesses/
John B. Harms & David R. Dickens (1996) Postmodern media studies: Analysis or symptom?, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 13:3, 210-227, DOI: 10.1080/15295039609366976
Jordan, M (2016), In a post-truth election, clicks trump facts, https://theconversation.com/in-a-post-truth-election-clicks-trump-facts-67274
Keane, J. (2018), Post-truth politics and why the antidote isn’t simply ‘fact-checking’ and truth, https://theconversation.com/post-truth-politics-and-why-the-antidote-isnt-simply-fact-checking-and-truth-87364
Lyotard, JF (1979), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, (Bennington. G and Massumi. B, Trans.) and (Jameson. F, Fore.), Manchester University Press, Manchester.
O’Connor, B. (2019) The Trump presidency should not be shocking. It’s a symptom of our cultural malaise, https://theconversation.com/the-trump-presidency-should-not-be-shocking-its-a-symptom-of-our-cultural-malaise-125054
Oxford Languages, Word of the Year: 2016, https://languages.oup.com/word-of-the-year/2016/#:~:text=Post%2Dtruth%20is%20an%20adjective,to%20emotion%20and%20personal%20belief‘.
Paul DiMaggio, Eszter Hargittai, W. Russell Neuman, & John P. Robinson. (2001).Social Implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 307–336. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.307
Tankovska, H (2021) Social media – Statistics & Facts, https://www.statista.com/topics/1164/social-networks/
Walters, P., & Kop, R. (2009). Heidegger, Digital Technology, and Postmodern Education: From Being in Cyberspace to Meeting on MySpace. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29(4), 278–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467609336305
Thanks, Daniel for your contribution to this paper. I agree with you on how social networks have a strong influence on a large scale in regards to the news. This is quite clear as you said the manipulation of information from Donald Trump where there was inaccurate information being thrown around by the media. I believe it is a large percentage of this false information that circulates in these networks, also the manipulation of any government, such as the covid pandemic, many governments do not tell the truth, and hide a lot of important and truthful information. This is seen not only with the covid pandemic but also in political, economic relevant areas as well as in many issues that I would not be able to finish mentioning today. The worst thing about this is that the information is multiplied, in seconds, by the same people who share and agree with the ‘fake news’ outlets.
Due to this, there have been many people affected, and their entities, businesses, etc. We should look carefully to see if the information is accurate and ask ourselves, what are we being told? What purpose does it serve? Is it convincing or informing us in a negative or positive influence? Also before sharing, ask yourself, is this from a serious and credible source?
Hey Daniel! This was a fantastic read! Well thought out and presented! I’m now on a search for a copy of The Postmodern Condition. Your paper has really got me thinking more about the long-term effects of social networks. I thought it very poignant considering much of our social lives at present, not just the political front, are continually being impacted by them. the likes of Antivaxxers and Qanon, not just Trump, have utilised these points in their favour. There is a section of society that happily take the advice of people who are by no means experts in these sorts of fields. Trump seemed to have that charismatic personality that drew them in and so quickly was it disseminated across social media networks. It makes me question how quickly we have come to disregard mainstream media as a standard of truth. Is this something we need to be more focused on? I think you are correct in saying knowledge and truth are the pillars of our civilisation.
I also agree with you that technology is the key to social change. It will come down to how we utilise these changing technologies and recognise their dangers just as much as we already use these networks for the betterment of society.
Hi Emma!
Thank you for the feedback, I am glad you received my paper well! I really encourage you to read The Post Modern Condition, despite the fact it is dated it eerily predicts the current trend of how technology is affecting our society. I also like that you referenced Qanon and Antivaxxers, as I was going to initially utilise them as extreme examples of the breakdown of truth and how Trump manipulated specific ideologies to swing their vote.
In terms of technology affecting our ability to establish or perhaps ‘re’-establish a standard of truth, I believe that we are at a crossroads. As technology develops it will continue to get far more difficult to distinguish between real and fake. Take for example ‘deep fakes’. As humans are so reliant on our audio-visual senses to establish our reality, seeing footage that may be fabricated yet convinced it is real further affects our ability to establish any standard of truth. Yet, like you, I agree at the end of the day it comes down to how we are prepared to use technology to better our society rather than hinder it.
Hi Daniel!
I really enjoyed reading this! It seems as though you’ve really delved into this topic and you’ve provided a range of well-researched and evidence to back up your arguments. This was also a very easy read as it flowed very well so well done!
Your paper highlights the downside of social media through examples such as Donald Trump’s campaign election against Hilary Clinton and it is evident that Trump had fabricated his own version of the truth in order to influence the public into voting for him despite misinformation. This is certainly scary and goes to show how people in power can use social media for propaganda and how they are able to manipulate users through their influences.
I find the saying ‘with great power comes great responsibility very relevant here as it is clearly evident in Trump’s election campaign. He used his power to manipulate and provide his own narratives to win votes for himself. I feel like not only presidents and governments have the ability to manipulate and influence a large number of people. Influencers online have certainly influenced their followers through social media and through building a community that trusts them. I’ve seen a lot of influencers use their platform for the greater good and have used it to speak up on contemporary issues and have certainly made a small difference. With that being said, the thought of knowing how social media helps people in power influence communities to further their own agendas is a scary one.
What a great read. A scary one, too. You expressed how Donald Trump managed to use his power to manipulate the truth so clearly. During the 2016 and 2020 elections, and throughout his actual presidency, he constantly fabricated his own versions of the truth, and such a large portion of the United States believed his chosen narratives. Goes to show how effectively we can be manipulated, and how social media aids this process. I feel this is also so applicable to anybody who has a large following on social media- from politicians to celebrities to influencers. Anybody with an audience has the capacity to use their online presence to spread misinformation and lies, and it feels like people as a whole aren’t too interested in fact checking if the words are coming out of the mouth of someone they’ve put on a pedestal.
Hey Daniel,
I thoroughly enjoyed the elaboration and the great use of contrast between your definitions and your example featuring the 2016 US election between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton! Due to the rapid innovation of social media within modern society, social media has become a tool of broadcast and collaboration. I have explored these mechanisms within my conference if you are interested, I will provide the link below.
It comes as no new news that Donald Trump strategically employed the use of social media within his election and throughout his presidential run, apparently, he runs his career by “any publicity is good publicity”. For a few years he has been capturing the attention of a global audience with his shocking statements and press reviews, those who not academic are subjected to his fake facts and allegations believing his speech to be nothing but the truth. Unfortunately, this gained Trump an online audience, this had severe repercussions on those trying to properly educate others. Integrity and honest broadcasting is the bar in which society is educated and informed on, if in charge of broadcast and social media, what is a tactic you would employ to assure that only accountable and appropriate news is presented online?
LINK: https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2021/2021/04/27/facebook-as-a-construct-of-social-change-and-collaboration-for-activists/
Interesting, I hadn’t considered Ms Clinton’s loss in the context of ignoring social media networks before, but of course, it rings true.
I wonder if post Trump, politics might swing back more towards truth over fabrication?
Hi Sonia.
Thanks for stopping by to read my paper, and for your comments.
Whiles, I am hopeful of that occurring, I think the likelihood is slim. Despite my paper being heavily focused on Trump, I only did so because he was the perfect case study. The issue is, however, post-truth itself is impartial. Meaning, members of both the left and right are equal participants in the dissemination of misinformation. Because it is profitable to fabricate truth large companies will continue to do just that, to keep people from all political persuasions online and engaged. Resultantly, despite best efforts, a definite standard of truth will remain blurred because of the amount of media we are exposed to.
This was one of the sources I drew from. IT prompted some interesting thoughts for me throughout the writing of my paper. https://theconversation.com/post-truth-politics-and-why-the-antidote-isnt-simply-fact-checking-and-truth-87364
Thanks again! Danny.
Hi Daniel! Thank you for a great read! I especially find this part to be especially resonating “objective standards of truth are relative to communities they are created, circulated and sustained in.” – and that what is currently taking place has taken place before and will continue to occur, unfortunately causing delays in societal progress for the sake of profit. It reminds me of the story of how the electric car could have been widely distributed in 1907, a full century ahead of Tesla, simply because at the time the objective truth was that it didn’t cause environmental damage, and the industry was too big to abort as people would lose work and money etc. There were more negatives from switching to the electric car. It makes me wonder then how ‘the standard of objective truth’ could be truly achieved without bias, and whether we could really say that the standards were truly ‘broken’ if it couldn’t be objectively true for everybody. Does social network then with it’s capacity to provide platform to a wider pool of the society not a good way of balancing the relativity of communal ideas? I hope the question doesn’t sound like a gibberish ramble. Thanks again! Roosdy.
Hi Roosdy!
I love the analogy of the electric car and resonate with it highly. Building on your point, science is definitely unanimous on the adverse impacts of fossil fuels, yet, power largely still remains in the control of large corporations because of their profitability.
Indeed, there is merit in your point of online networks providing a space for information to be freely shared to balancing ideas. However, the issue resides in who controls these networks. Businesses like Facebook being conglomerates will undoubtedly have vested interests within certain industries, and therefore, will promote some and not others, albeit subversively.
Something I had wish I had included in my paper was the Cambridge-Analytica scandal, where Facebook user data was collected for Republican nominee Ted Cruz to psychoanalyse potential voter habits and tailor his campaign. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/11/senator-ted-cruz-president-campaign-facebook-user-data
Thanks for stopping by
Danny!
Hi Danny! I’m actually glad that you bring up Cambridge Analytica as I think it’s a good example of big tech exploring the boundaries of the law alongside the governing body, which I’d like to think is something of a benefit to the progress of both society and the government that the objective truth is then established by/in consideration of a wider range of audience. Then we see other times where big tech chooses to skirt around an issue in fear of inciting international fisticuffs, like when Google redraws their map borders depending on where the map is viewed from:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/02/14/google-maps-political-borders/
As in this case the objective truth is literally kept within the limited boundaries of political borders. In your opinion in terms of the best presentation/ preservation of objective truth what would be the ideal action that the governments of the world could do to progress without resorting to exacerbating post-truth and fake news?
Hope your week is going well! Roosdy