Fleeting Institutions: The Rise of Online Communities
The concept of online communities has evolved over the last few years. Since the lockdown in 2020, online communication has become a vital part of everyday life, evolving into something riskier. While online communities were beneficial during the lockdown and recovery period, maintaining this habitual form of communication and using it as a primary source of connection is now dangerous for humankind. We must make a shift and return to in-person communities. Online communities must not become a permanent substitute for human connection.
As many of us have been reminded in biology, psychology, and anthropology courses, humans are social creatures. As social beings, we try to engage in social behavior whenever we can. In the digital age, there are even more possibilities for social interaction, especially since online communication increased during the lockdown in 2020. While this can be beneficial for obvious reasons, such as the need for social distancing at the time and increased accessibility, it raises questions and concerns about engagement with traditional institutions and places of community, as well as whether people can obtain the same benefits from an online community as an in-person one.
When Communities Went Digital
When the world shut down, many people struggled to adapt to the new normal. People could not leave their homes, so going to school or church and spending time with friends and family came to a halt. The church is an interesting example of adaptation during the lockdown. Heidi Campbell writes about her experience with this shift in her publication, The Distanced Church. While religious officials were hesitant to establish an online presence, “many churches had been caught off guard by the effects of the pandemic and were forced to make a quick digital transition due to lockdowns, quarantines, and shelter-in-place orders.” Although many religious officials did not want to hold online services, it seemed they had no other choice. They either had to adapt to the lockdown and host an online version of the service or refuse to fulfill their duties. Even after the lockdown, people continued to engage with online services for other reasons that benefited them. The pros and cons can be debated, including religious norms, whether an online service is sufficient, the lack of in-person human interaction, accessibility, and many other factors. While it may be increasingly popular to engage with traditional institutions like these online, their physical presence is not being erased, especially since many young people still enjoy the traditional, in-person experience when it is available.
The Communities Born Online
While traditional institutions adapt to an online presence, there has also been room for entirely new communities to form. For example, people can come together to discuss their opinions on niche topics or hobbies, such as in a fan community for Marvel comics. This can create connections for individuals who have interests that they cannot share with others in their geographical area. However, the internet has also allowed harmful communities to emerge. A prominent example is the “incel” community, whose members are known as involuntary celibates. “Incels” are a group of men online whose behavior is characterized by hatred toward women because they cannot have romantic or sexual relationships with them. Their behavior is usually associated with misogyny, rape culture, and violence. Based on the stereotype of social isolation and spending their days playing video games while living in their mothers’ basements, they would not leave the house often, so an in-person version of this community would be highly unlikely. Not to mention, this community originated online. While it was established with innocent intentions, it was, of course, blown out of proportion on the internet.
The Risks Behind the Screen
What would happen if online communities replaced in-person ones? Online communities are not only potentially harmful because of extremism, but they also carry the risk of further isolation and inadequate social interaction, which could be detrimental to human psychology. Addressing both human psychology and internet extremism, scientists from Tampere University inform us that when we communicate online, we do not receive the same social cues, such as eye contact. This can lead to behavioral disinhibition due to perceived anonymity. Essentially, the lack of in-person interaction makes us more likely to behave however we wish because we believe the impact will be smaller. In other words, we think we can hide behind the screen. This is problematic because it makes us more comfortable spreading hate speech, oversharing, and generally behaving in ways we would not if we were standing before someone in the flesh.
Privacy in the Age of AI
Additionally, this replacement would pose privacy risks. Maintaining privacy on the internet is already tricky, but with the rise of artificial intelligence, there are even greater risks. For instance, many people struggling with mental health issues, such as addiction or grief, seek support through group therapy or other community-focused sessions. The “you’re not alone” approach can be extremely impactful. In person, these sessions can be anonymous and confidential, which is crucial when discussing sensitive information. With the rise of digital communication, people may have discovered online versions of these communities that appear more accessible, private, or anonymous. However, that is not always the case.
Those who are struggling with sensitive issues and cannot feel comfortable in an in-person or online community often turn to AI chatbots. For instance, teens have increasingly turned to AI for advice and companionship. This may seem beneficial if a teen is isolated, bullied, or feels misunderstood, but there are issues with sharing vulnerabilities with an AI chatbot. Online communication, especially in the modern world, where artificial intelligence is increasingly prominent, makes sharing sensitive information especially dangerous. Online data, including personal information, can be used to train AI models. This data is sometimes retained in the system, and some companies even allow humans to analyze the information for model training. This is dangerous because it gives real people access to information that, in certain cases, should remain private or confidential.
Even if companies anonymize the data, as some claim to do, it is still problematic because many consumers are not fully consenting to this use, as they may not understand the legal implications. AI not only poses these privacy risks, but it is also user-directed, meaning that what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. This is not the same as receiving an authentic and genuine response from a human. In other words, it can simply tell you what you want to hear, which is ineffective for building strong relationships or seeking meaningful advice.
Returning to Human Connection
I would argue that we are in a liminal space, approaching the replacement of in-person communities with online ones. However, there are ways we can reverse this trend, perhaps not entirely, but at least partially. The internet is not going away, so we must enhance digital literacy. Digital literacy allows us to employ critical-thinking skills to evaluate when and how to use technology safely. This should be a priority, as it can create a ripple effect in which young people understand the risks and benefits of online communication and then slowly shift toward in-person communities, restoring stronger relationships with friends, family members, mental health professionals, and others. If we understand these risks and benefits, we can begin to appreciate the beauty of human connection and in-person communication, reintegrating into a society that values the connections we had before the pandemic.