Of all the data that Cyceon has analyzed in recent months about Brexit or Donald Trump, there is a repetitive and striking conclusion: the Internet – or rather the quick communication tools it provides – has significantly contributed to the spread of ideas and – a major development – to the crystallization of the vote.
Twitter as Facebook, the former in ongoing difficulty and the latter in full growth, are gradually replacing television and radio both in the reception and in the interpretation of information. Contrary to popular belief, even though it is true that many content posted on the Internet is either unnecessary or false or aggressive or the three simultaneously (the famous “fake news”), the virtual debate actually exists and is not so much of a quality inferior to that of the mainstream media.
Like the debates launched on Cyceon’s website, many valuable and reliable contents are being published every day on the internet. While in the mainstream media, a staff with a more or less assumed editorial line decides what will be broadcast, the popularity of the virtual content is made by the Internet users themselves, thus enabling analysts to deduce in part their interest in specific topics but also their general or majority sentiment on these topics.
In the midst of a debate on the need to better “control” virtual content, proponents of increased control should think more as analysts than as partisans. Not only will it be technically difficult and costly to introduce such control. But it could prove to be as inefficient as counterproductive, prompting users to create their own virtual vector and cutting controllers from valuable open sources.