After painting a dark picture for three hundred pages , Martin Moore lands his book in the final sentence: "Democracy can be hacked back, but only if there is a will to do so." Talk about open ended.
Nor do I feel particularly hopeful after reading his excellent book on how the net has undermined democracy. However, enlightened, and strengthened. Not so bad.
Moore's main point is that the stuff that really works in the Internet environment is incompatible with the way democracy works. And the deeper into the web we move, with ever-greater and more basic social functions, the weaker the ability of democracy to affect society. The deeper into our personal lives we allow the smartphone and social media to penetrate, the less we will be the enlightened and rational citizens the democratic model requires.
Democracy requires some measure of uniformity - in information, in agitation, scrutiny, influence.
What thrives on the web is the opposite: separation, sorting, individualization - and in the typical, paradoxical way of the network, something is done in colossal format, individualization in mass circulation.
The fact that Facebook, Google and Twitter have become the most important news and political channels means that no two citizens are reached by the same information or appeals. Not even the same journalism because news on its way from the editorial to the readership passes through the active, prioritizing space of social media.
Tools developed by social media giants to become more effective advertising media have proven to be phenomenal even as political influencing mechanisms - which by their own way favors drastic, one-sided, conflict-creating messages at the expense of the moderate and reasoning. Respect for the opponent's opinions is not a virtue of flying online.
As online giants have evolved into such effective advertising media, advertising revenue has been completely avalanche-shifted from journalistic news media to Google and Facebook - for further distribution to web pages and individual recipients selected by the huge amount of behavioral data the companies consume.
This has depleted journalism coverage worldwide, especially at the local level. When the Grenfell Tower in London burned, it was reported in all the world's media. Shocking images of a residential building that burned as if it were soaked in sparkling liquid - quite obviously - dominated the news reporting on the network.
At that time, the residents of the house had protested for a long time against poor maintenance, called up politicians and authorities, made lists of names and letters - thus acted in the democratic system - but there are no journalists left who monitor the district policy in London so it was not noticed.
Yes, although it was reported in the local newspaper, it had not otherwise received attention. The everyday process of democracy is too gray. A flaming high-rise building - with enclosed housing that sends its last moments in life - on the other hand, is a thing of global caliber. Typical top news for the restless, unfocused viewfinder that the news journalism developed into, as well as against their will.
The fact that the world has become radically stranger in the 10s is an experience shared by many. Much of the bad that has happened is related to the weakening of the democratic system, and the consequent lack of popular confidence. Much of it seems to have happened and continue to happen even though no one wants it.
Martin Moore, a media researcher at Kings College in London, makes the connection with social media growth to world domination (Facebook, Youtube and Twitter all started in 2006!) And their increasingly strong focus on big-data, tailor-made advertising sales. A worldwide communication system that does not work the way democracy requires.
With deep knowledge and quick clarity and quite fun, he talks about the basics of the power shift from democracy to online companies. How Cambridge Analytica started and sought its business model, why Russia has become the world leader in opinion manipulation, why network companies are so interested in users' health and how it can be monitored. And not least: how does individualized, big data-based advertising really work?
It is indeed a dark picture. But the uplifting thing is that I understand better how it could be this way.