The advent of the Internet has caused a significant, if not dramatic, social and political revolution. By providing an open-access platform for all, it has facilitated both instant communication and easy access to information. Although the Internet has been around for only 60 years, the American Community Survey states that over 63% of children aged 3 to 18 have access to it today. Considering the far-reaching psychological and physiological risks that Internet users face, it is important to ask ourselves: Are the risks worth it? Does the internet, despite its negative effects, provide us with a voice to freely express ourselves?

The Internet allows its users a veil of anonymity, the effects of which have been heavily debated. However, one that has been repeatedly proven is deindividuation, described by the American Psychological Association as a state characterised by reduced self-awareness, altered perceptions and a reduction of inner restraints. Many theorists believe that deindividuation, rather than causing a loss of identity, results in a switch from personal identity to social identity, thus enhancing the salience of group identities. Consequently, this switch to social identity may increase suggestibility and responsiveness to social and group norms.

Additionally, the suppression and exclusion of dissenting views and thus, the expression of one’s identity, is brought about by ‘echo chambers’ that selectively expose users to information aligning with their pre-existing beliefs. Such algorithms on online platforms amplify popular beliefs while silencing unpopular ones.

Social influences: Online too?

The Internet, especially social media, has given rise to a new concept: social media influencers. Described as Internet users with a far-reaching audience, influencers today have the ability to sway the behaviour, thoughts and actions of their followers. When one comes across an influencer that they may feel similar to, they may develop a liking toward them; thus, influencers use the Principles of Persuasion such as Liking as tools to persuade users into adopting their ideologies, beliefs, and opinions. In recent years, influencers have been commercialised, with influencer marketing becoming a rapidly growing tactic used by industries. Interestingly, influencers affect consumers’ purchase decisions much more than celebrities do, owing to their portrayal of themselves as relatively more credible, authentic, and humble.

Another important trigger for social influence, be it offline or online, is the diminished awareness of personal traits brought about by deindividuation in group settings. Individuals in online groups have been found to conform to group norms under two conditions: when they strongly identify with the group and when they take on an alternative identity, such as a pseudonym. Personality traits have also been found to affect online social influence, with those scoring high in the personality dimensions of conscientiousness and neuroticism displaying increased levels of conformity with fellow netizens.

The Ugly Side of Cancel Culture:

Within the past few years, the idea that a person can be ‘cancelled’ online— in other words, publicly ostracized and shamed for possibly offensive words or actions— has become one of intense debate. Although the Cancel Culture movement has, in many cases, been used as a tool to combat social injustice, its power to defame and publicly degrade individuals sometimes does more harm than good. It completely disregards the fact that all internet users, though hidden behind a screen, are ultimately human and liable to make mistakes. Thus, it leaves no space for the consideration of situational ethics and understanding for those with opposing views.

As Gregory Weiner stated in his article Cancel Culture Is Not the Problem, Conformity Culture Is, “Cancellation is a cudgel for conformity. Its influence as a condition cannot be denied.” For many, the intention behind cancelling another online has begun to shift away from social justice and righteousness. The increasing pressure from online communities to conform to widely accepted ideologies and opinions has stifled the opposing, but possibly constructive opinions of minorities. Any attempts to go against the majority often result in backlash and defamation.

Political Conformity and ‘Woke-ism’ Online:

Political conformity is another form of conformity which occurs both offline and online. Due to a reduced sense of accountability and a lack of social cues, individuals display higher levels of conformity in online settings as compared to offline, face-to-face interactions. Described as a behavioural response stemming from the avoidance of political disagreement, political conformity is abundant on the internet today. Though researchers have argued that individuals are immune to political conformity if their opinions are socially invisible, the overlap between political and social preferences —and the advent of social networking and media— has left limited opportunities to keep one’s political opinions private.

With its origins in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE), the term ‘woke’ has become politically and culturally significant today. It is defined as being aware and actively informed of important facts and issues, especially those concerning social and racial justice. Though woke-ism continues to play its part in deconstructing hidden discrimination in a multitude of communities, the consequence of not being woke, i.e. being ‘cancelled’, has placed an immense amount of pressure on netizens to continuously stay informed on all possible topics of politics and social value. Chrissie Hodges, a certified peer support specialist for OCD, explains that this pressure can be even worse for OCD sufferers due to extreme self-scrutiny and constant obsessive thoughts. Thus, for many, the pressure to be informed or ‘woke’ is fuelled more by a fear of ostracism than a desire for social justice.

In conclusion, the role of the internet in determining the nature and extent of the expression of our opinions and beliefs is undeniable. The debate on whether the internet provides us with a voice or takes it away is, therefore, highly relevant in this digital age. Although the disadvantage of having one’s voice taken away does not disregard the positive experiences of majority-opinion communities, the right to freely express oneself without anticipation and fear of ostracization should be universal. Above all, considering the recent surge in political and social discourses, it is vital for the Internet community to actively listen to and integrate opposing viewpoints to create a platform where users feel safe voicing their opinions—even unpopular ones. After all, isn’t that what community is all about?

References:

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (n.d.-b). https://dictionary.apa.org/deindividuation

“Cancel Culture Is Not the Problem; Conformity Culture Is.” American Enterprise Institute - AEI, 10 Sept. 2020, www.aei.org/op-eds/cancel-culture-is-not-the-problem-conformity-culture-is.

Cummins, E. (2022, January 30). The Internet Gave Rise to “Cancel Culture OCD.” WIRED. https://www.wired.com/story/cancel-culture-ocd-politics-mental-health-activism/

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Percentage of children ages 3 to 18 who use the Internet from home, by selected child and family characteristics: Selected years, 2010 through 2019. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_702.15.asp?current=yes

Masumi Pradhan