Has Facebook really devalued knowledge?

Recently I watched a video seminar with  Mark Pagel, a professor of evolutionary biology, titled ‘Infinite Stupidity’. The video is well worth a watch, although there was one point that I found particularly dangerous : the idea that Facebook is ultimately devaluing knowledge and that the internet has signalled a ‘cut and paste’ culture where those that copy are now doing better than those who innovate. Sure, the internet may have lead to a significant increase in the amount of information that is out there to copy, but can it really be justified that fewer of us need to be innovative in order to succeed, or do we instead need to rethink the parameters in which we position innovation?

Pagel backs up his comments with a cogent observation of the role of innovation and copying in societies. He notes that humans are by nature, good at copying, as a result of our herd mentality. We like to do what everyone else is doing! But what he also notes is that as social groups get larger, you don’t necessarily need more innovators than you would have in a smaller group, as the potential for copying remains the same, from the originators or innovators. He argues that now we need to be more innovative, as the internet is domesticating individuals, making copying more prevalent than innovation.

This is backed up by his claim that knowledge and new ideas are cheap, as we can go straight to Google or Facebook, find what others are doing, and in some way copy this.

Copying, or innovation?

What this idea hinges on is that copying is not a form of innovation itself, and here the argument begins to fall down. There is a new skill emerging, where the innovators are those that are able to take existing ideas, examine them, find the problems and implement a new solution. Take Instagram for example. Sharing photos with a community? Hardly an original idea. Yet what Instagram came along and did was to find a way to improve this, focusing first on a single platform (iOs) and then by adding a quirk (image filters). The quality of the service or the validity of the idea is not diluted because it’s not a truly original idea. And while Pragel himself doesn’t distinguish between what he calls innovation or copying, the fact that there is such an argument circulating shows that we need to rethink these concepts.

The internet has lead above all, to increased collaboration. It was the very reason the internet was introduced in the first place, as network connections allowed academics to share papers and opinions. It is very difficult to argue that collaboration has essentially devalued knowledge, as surely it means that we not only have more access to channels to absorb information, as well as improved functionality to produce and distribute our own content?

Can you get away with copying?

What’s interesting is to invert Pagel’s arguments and consider that the internet, or social media is allowing us to clamp down on true ‘copying’. That is, outright plagiarism of ideas. As well as Google picking up on duplicate content, we also have quirky sites such as Churnalism, which allow you to find which sites are simply copying the same chunks of text :

And outside of technology, individuals themselves are helping to clamp down on true ‘copying’ as we have increased networks through which to detect copying and also call it out publicly, allowing awareness to spread quickly.

Ideas and implementation

Furthermore, we need to consider what we really value more. Do we value those who may have innovative ideas, or those that are willing to take a risk and implement them? Original ideas are one thing. Anyone can really have an original idea ; it doesn’t necessarily provide any value to society though. But what about the person that spots a great idea germinating in some way, whether through conversation, an evolution of an existing idea etc.. The person that comes along and has the courage to formulate that idea into something solid, turn it into a business, website, whatever. They’re the people that we should value in society. As long as we’re not talking outright plagiarism, I’m not really too bothered about where the idea originated from. What I care about is that by sheer implementation they are innovating.

And the fact is that those ideas are likely to be gleaned from social media. As we’re being exposed to more ideas, we’re being exposed to more great ideas, which in turn is exposing us to more great companies and services. A medium that is facilitating circulation of knowledge cannot also be accused of devaluing knowledge. Unless you are to take an arbitrary view of what constitutes ‘good’ ‘bad’ or ‘useful’ knowledge, then the argument just doesn’t stand.

And for a little bit of context on the role of copying vs innovation, check out this video from Daft Punk, showing where tracks have been sampled from. Copying has always played a role in music, right back to the classics. Not necessarily a bad thing, just smart innovation that stems from copying :