Faith and the Concrete

My immediate reaction to Trippi was not to trust him. He gushes about the new age of democratization, grass-roots movements, and corporate accountability. The way he frames it, it sounds too good to be true. But I could only poke so many holes in his beaming praise for the internet. Really, a lot of what he says is true…or at least on its way to being true.

Up until now, we have been discussing the nature of online communities. Does the internet create fake connections while alienating users in the real world? Does community require embodiment or real-life proximity, or can it be achieved in virtuality? Trippi’s story in some ways showed how virtuality and real life can remain connected. The Howard Dean Meetup group, and the ‘meetup’ concept in general, is the perfect example. The group’s connection existed outside of the internet. The actual people met in Starbuckses and restaurants everywhere, and the online activists showed up in Vermont ready to propel their online cause into a reality.

I had to, once again, think about the connection between virtuality and reality. For this reason, the ‘Having Faith in Strangers’ idea was a particularly interesting part of his evaluation of the ‘new era’ of internet communities. First, do we value the voices of the public more as a result of the internet? Second, if we do, is it wise? Ideas can exist in the virtual world without having real life value. Howard Dean had tons of supporters online, but it doesn't matter unless he's in the White House. If we don't value public opinion more, why? Is it because people have no 'cumulative intelligence,' and are, in fact, less productive and useful in large groups? Or are people unproductive and useless because the TV era has accustomed them to passivity and idiocy? Third, and most importantly, does it even matter whether or not we value public opinion? Can opinions, expressed in the virtual world of the internet, really affect the concrete world? In some ways, no. You can want a flying pink Toyota Camry with all your might, but there's a limit to what a company can do with steel and rubber. But in another way, the internet IS connected to reality, and Trippi shows how it increases accountability in some ways, especially in business and politics. Because it is less controlled than top-down structured media, such as television, it is difficult for corporations or political candidates to hide secrets or ‘get away with’ substandard ethics or products. But does the public have real power in the virtual world? How can we, as disembodied voices in internet communities, force businesses to “stop polluting and start taking care of their employees” (204)? Those are real life things. Does cyberspace hold sway over concrete things like wages, medical care, and smog? Can we trust businesses? Even if this is true, can we trust people in general? Are they capable of dictating their demands through the medium of the internet in a way that can actually create concrete change? 
Furthermore, are companies really using our 'cumulative intelligence' to serve our needs? Was Trippi right when he wrote "we're not just consumers. We're citizens again" (209)? Is it grass roots really, or have corporations and politicians just gotten really good at making their operations seem democratic? I think the examples he offers contest his point. Ford's website allows buyers to pick the color of the new Mustang, and add a design feature. But Ford gives you the colors and design features, and just lets you put a little checkmark by your favorite. There is no forum where Ford-lovers suggest ways to improve the company. The website still limits your options to 'fastback or not?,' 'red or blue?'. This is not cumulative intelligence. It's just like offering more channels on television. You can choose, but the choices are predetermined. You are not really contributing any ideas, but are given the illusion of having a voice. This might increase sales by creating a community with an 'investment' in the product, but it is not the beautifully progressive and communal     innovation that Trippi paints it to be. Is this enough choice to truly be democracy, or does it still have elements of TV's 'top-down' structure? Will companies continue to progress until their ideas truly come from the public?