Interaction through the digital environment

If McLuhan's“ medium is a message„ applies, we are faced with two key points: the description of what the medium looks and works, but also the analysis of the specifics of its transmission. The answer to the first point can be simple or complex at the same time. The medium is a computer network based on the IP family protocols, specifically on IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, and ICMPv6. 

One necessary clarification needs to be made here. Sometimes the Internet is referred to as an extensive information system, which is a very problematic definition. If we define any information system so broadly that it would be possible to consider the Internet as such, then such a definition will cease to make sense. The second frequently used misconception of the Internet is defined by two protocols, IP and TCP. We agree with the first to the extent that we have included IP in our definition. However, this is problematic for TCP for two reasons - firstly, there are hundreds of TCP protocols. Secondly, UDP is often used for data transport and works with a completely different header. The overall idea of ​​data transfer (instead of the connected service, TCP protocol, there is an independent network).

There is also a particular problem in our definition. In addition to devices, such as computers, telephones, servers, more and more devices are connected to the Internet that does not work with their IP address. These are elements from the Internet of Things. However, the network includes devices and people who have a powerful influence on the form of communication. At the turn of the 1960s and 1970s, McLuhan could not imagine the richness of communication and interaction that the Internet would bring. Communication will be determined not only by one family of protocols but also by different end devices, applications, and services that form the communication itself.   

What is essential for communication in the online environment is that it is far from just between human and human, or between machine and machine, but is much more diverse. It involves an increasingly substantial interaction between human and software agents, which is one of the essential topics we will address. The second (closely related to the first) is connected with the nature of the interaction, or with its material form, for which we borrow from theology the term“eternal memory". Namely, the fact that any communication act in cyberspace can (and typically is) be recorded and stored potentially indefinitely (from the user's point of view) for a long time.        

In theology, the term eternal memory (pp. 98-106) is ascribed to God - things exist because God remembers them. If He forgot them, their existence would cease. With a certain amount of simplification or analogy, it can be said that technologies are a specific eternal memory of the whole of cyberspace. Whatever one says or writes can be - and often is - stored, analyzed, and further processed. What, on the one hand, will result in better services and more relevant content is at the same time, n essentially, a break into the privacy of everyone that moves in the online environment.      

There is a certain conceptual ambiguity between the digital track and the “common” tracks, but it is general information that can be assigned to a specific person. This information can, of course, be differently structured and differently available, but overall it helps to create a particular digital image of a person. 

That eternal memory has many effects is known only to a minimal extent from the environment of the physical world. First of all, a large part of communication occurs in written form, for example, through instant messengers. This means that we can find out exactly what we talked (or chatted) about with a specific person a long time ago. This traceability can sometimes be practical, but at the same time, it carries various risks. The first is semi - objectification - after a long time, we have an accurate record of the interview text, but no longer the context. We can easily say - then and there this and that man said this and that. This message will be accurate for a minute and a character. But it has no context or no emotional charge.      

At the same time, the things we say to others are subject to a certain forgetfulness, whether it is beautiful or painful. Nothing like this may be present in cyberspace. You can quickly return to photos sent between partners or to texts. If we share something in an online environment, we must consider that the information or documents may appear at any time. Even perhaps taken out of context or in a form that can be unflattering to a person.      

The fact that everything a person communicates in the online environment can exist forever should also be reflected in what he is willing to share about himself and how. It is necessary to emphasize that information is used not only by living people but also by machines. In their event, the analogy with eternal memory represents an exact metaphor.   

Another interesting psychological effect relates to semi-objectivity - if we have a material record of communication, we can dispute the idea that the“black on white" is accurate and objective. This distortion can then easily translate into various communication acts, which will be secondarily affected. 

In the online environment, it is possible to encounter two basic modes of communication, both of which may overlap in some respects. These modes are determined by whether the communication is time-synchronous or not. In the first case, it can be a model call via Skype. For example, an exchange of views in the form of blog posts.    

The asynchronous form of communication generally has a higher registration rate because it would not be possible without it. In addition to blogs, this area typically includes videos, many marketing activities, posts on social networks or discussion forums. However, it is already possible to see a certain tension here - the interaction on social networks can be highly synchronous when all the discussants simultaneously consume the same message and react to it in writing.  

Conversely, another traditional form of synchronous communication, i.e. chatting with someone, can have significant asynchronous effects. One or more communication participants do not fully engage in communication and are distracted by other activities. This ambiguity is an interesting characteristic feature of online communication. 

Another exciting feature is the reduction of the hierarchization of social stratification in the online environment. A person's social status is less pronounced (but still important) in online communication than in ordinary communication. Because such communication is also faster and less formal, one can encounter relatively frequent tapping or other less formalistic communication elements. This can have a positive effect in that the communication can focus more on the content than on the person of the speaker or the mutual social structure. Ladislav Kvasz, for example, emphasizes that this is one of the pillars of Hejný mathematics - arguments are essential, not authority.       

The question is whether communication in the online environment is this standard introduction to the secure environment of walls. In this case, it is necessary (more than in a normal situation) to assume a diversity of habits, narratives, social experiences, perceptions of the world. Communication must therefore be seen as the strength of a relationship that must respect the other. Liberality is one of the pillars of Internet communication.   

According to various estimates, approximately one-third of the population on social networks is comprised of robots, i.e. so-called software agents. These are applications that act like people, can serve as conversational robots, but can also engage in discussions on the site, liking content, etc., in the usual way. Their goals can be different, but in general, running a software agent that is not easily distinguishable from a living person in everyday communication is not costly, and is fairly standard. If we accept the mentioned third rule, it would be possible to say that talking to a robot is something more likely to occur than with a white man or a university student - white males make up less than 20% of the social media population, bots somewhere between 30-70%.  

Communication with a software agent raises some interesting questions, which are worth touching on at this point. It is a question of whether a person should have the right to know that he is communicating (for example, on a social network) with a machine or with a living person. A common difference based on experience is not enough here, and devices could be explicitly referred to as a solution. However, such a procedure raises further questions: Would it change the communication strategy? How? Does the safety risk increase with the presence of undetected unmarked machines? As software agents are widespread, we believe that labeling doesn't solve anything - the goal must be broader education that leads to people realizing the specifics and potential risks of communicating with robots and interacting with them in a different (more personal) manner.

Metaethics brought the idea of ​​language (and this was then expanded by pragmatic philosophy) as a tool for active behavior change and experience. With its speech acts and behavior on social networks, the software can significantly interfere with the knowledge and interaction of living people. However, the laws of robotics as described by Isaac Asimov, are challenging to apply. There is no definition of the general welfare that a machine can serve. Even the good intentions of individual members of human society can be (and often are) in direct conflict. The ethical aspect of the operation of robots can thus be perceived as a significant and so far open issue with a large number of potential problems.   

However, the fact that seems to be undeniable today is that these machines, which will have ever-improving artificial intelligence and data for learning, will play an increasingly important role in various communication situations. They will take on an increasingly complex and more extensive work plan and, towards developing human competencies, may soon open an interesting didactic topic - how to teach a person to communicate appropriately with a machine?