We Happy Few: Why Sanitizing the Web Isn't the Answer

The internet is a vast ocean of information. A digital agora teeming with voices and unfortunately, a breeding ground for negativity. From endless comment sections overflowing with vitriol to targeted harassment campaigns against politicians and private citizens alike the darker side of the web can be overwhelming. It’s tempting to dream of a solution, or at least it is for me. A filter that whisks away the negativity and only leaving behind a sanitized utopia of positivity. But before we dive headfirst into crafting a “happy web” (spoilers, I already have tried it) let’s consider the potential consequences.

On the surface, the allure of a truly positive web is undeniable. Imagine a world free of cyberbullying, hate speech and the constant barrage of negativity that can color our online experience and darken our days. This utopia would be a haven for respectful discourse, a platform for fostering connection and collaboration. Many would argue that such a web might promote mental well-being and encourage civil discussions as well as make our bleak world just a little brighter.

However, the road to a more positive web is paved with a lot of unintended consequences. The first, and perhaps most significant is the inevitable stifling of dissent and critical thinking. The internet thrives on the open exchange of ideas, it’s one of its characterizing features, and even for those ideas that challenge the status quo. Filtering out negativity would probably inadvertently silence important voices, hampering our ability to address societal issues and fostering an environment of uncritical acceptance.

Furthermore defining “negative” is a slippery slope. What one person considers negativity might be another’s honest critique. A political cartoon lampooning a leader might, although funny for some, be seen as a negative by supporters. But, for others it’s a vital form of political commentary and transcends the joke entirely. Filtering negativity could quickly and easily morph into censorship, silencing voices we simply disagree with.

But is it really that easy, surely a web without all does “negative” aspects must be a good thing?

Well, I tried it, and I did not like what I saw. To write a simple function to that curated the web for me was not as hard as one could imagine. In its first iteration it was just a list of words that were seen as negative and a list of words that were seen as positive. Each headline and ingress, or whole article for that matter, was quickly weighed and measured and if the results where overwhelming negativity it was promptly removed from my view before I even had a chance to see it.

The result was a world of overwhelming positivity. There are no wars, no conflicts, no starvation or people in need. At first this felt good. I had cured the internet of its affliction and saved the world. But it was not perfect. Some news articles stilled cleared the filter while others might use several “negative” words without the story as a whole being negative.

An article about a move containing words like warzone would be removed even though it’s just a fantasy or sci-fi epic. While the success in removing the opposition of a foreign dictator would be flagged as positive just because the reporter was professional and did not take sides while reporting. The lack of negativity directly flagging the article as a positive story.

Something needed to be fixed. And what could be the answer if not, AI. By integrating with OpenAI and ChatGPT articles could be read, analyzed and if negative flagged and reported back to me. I would then have a curated list of negative content to filter out not just for me but for the rest of the world as well.

It is at this point my enthusiasm started to wane. The result was horrible.

My trusted AI friend removed most of not all of the internet stating that some people might take offence and simply added it to the list. Articles about the economy, all party politics and global crisis were gone in the blink of an eye. Nothing that could be interpreted as upsetting was left.

Articles about all dictators where removed, which is a huge plus, but all things mentioning things that could be upsetting like divorces, fires and the climate was also left on the cutting room floor. Tougher with articles about inequality, immigration, lost football matches and more or less all media since films often revolved around some sort of conflict even if it’s just for comedic effect.

There was more or less nothing left of the internet. I tried to save it, but I suffocated it instead.

The internet, in all its messy glory, is a reflection of our world. It mirrors the spectrum of all human emotions, from joy, anger, frustration and everything in between. Removing negativity from this equation creates a distorted reality, a sanitized version of the world that ignores the very real challenges we face.

Imagine a world where news outlets only report positive stories, where social media platforms eliminate any post expressing discontent. That was my vision at first, but we would be lulled into a false sense of security, oblivious to the problems simmering beneath the surface. A positive web wouldn’t foster a utopia. It would breed complacency and hinder our ability to address important issues.

This isn’t to say we should simply accept negativity as an inevitable part of the online experience. There’s a huge difference between filtering negativity and fostering a more civil online discourse.

We should all encourage platforms to implement stricter policies against hate speech and harassment. We should choose to engage in respectful dialogue even when faced with opposing viewpoints. We can promote media literacy, empowering users to critically evaluate information they encounter online.

We all should and we all can do this. But it is hard, next to impossible, but we must try.

Ultimately, a healthy web is not one that’s devoid of negativity but one that fosters resilience and critical thinking. It’s a space where we learn to navigate disagreements, to engage with diverse perspectives and to use our voices responsibly instead of just adding to the vitriol by letting our inner demons out. The web a messy, dynamic environment that reflects the complexities of the real world and that is a good thing.

Perhaps the true answer lies not in creating a “happy few” online haven, but in empowering ourselves to be responsible citizens of the digital world. The web is a powerful tool, and the responsibility for shaping its future lies not with filters and sanitization, but with each and every one of us.