remember reading in college John Stuart Mill's On Liberty,1 and how compelling his argument for an open exchange of ideas is. In what has since been christened "The Marketplace of Ideas," Mill passionately and convincingly argues for frank, sometimes impolite airing of opinions in society's collective pursuit of truth. For all of the internet's informational wealth and potential to be this Marketplace's most efficient exchange, the popular, often-anonymous mechanism by which most of us online exchange information and ideas, forums and chat rooms, sets a potentially perfect Marketplace up for mob-rule-fueled failure. A recent appearance by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg at a South by Southwest (SXSW) Interactive Festival panel serves as a reminder that, for all of our technological prowess and modernity, an ugly element of human incivility percolates just below the surface of modern society. This is hardly what Mill intended.
Mill advocates for a completely open marketplace and emphasizes that minority opinions must not be marginalized. He characterizes the valuable qualities such opinions may possess. Opinions "compelled to silence [may]...be true." Silenced opinions, even in error, usually "contain a portion of truth." Moreover, silenced opinions are not intellectually engaged but, "held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds," which finally leads to a silenced opinion being dismissed as dogma. While acknowledging that the delivery of an opinion affects its reception, Mill also notes that such reception and response is subjective; regardless, a delivery style itself should never warrant silencing an opinion.
Suffice it to say that a Marketplace of Ideas demands all voices be heard. Quite similar to an open-air market or stock exchange, for example, a Marketplace of Ideas is only successful and economically efficient when information, ideas and, putatively, the producers of the intellectual wares themselves, trade freely. Mill accents how crucial an open marketplace is: "If an opinion is right [yet silenced, the market is] deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, [the market loses], what is almost as great a benefit, the clear perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
Gloves off, then, right? Let all voices be heard!
Austin-based SXSW has delivered "conference and festival events for entertainment and related media industry professionals" since 1987, and in 1994, expanded its repertoire to include conferences and festivals for film and interactive media. 2 Last Sunday, Zuckerburg's hour-long friendly interview was derailed by interruptions from the audience that, in the end, halted it entirely and morphed into a question-and-answer session moderated by the erstwhile interviewer, BusinessWeek's Sarah Lacy. "Talk about something interesting," one attendee yelled, sparking the downward spiral3.
What intrigues me is the simultaneous online behavior of the panel's attendees. Chronicled on Twitter as a train wreck, with Lacy described as "flirtatiously awful," the observations descended into mock drinking games and suggestions to leave the interview en masse early4. This online behavior is pervasive in SXSW, and plans for hijacking panels are openly discussed in Meebo-sponsored chat rooms.5 The "flirtatiously awful" Lacy had a most poignant observation regarding the meltdown. "The sad thing is, a core group of people in the back of the room got so angry, they basically ruined SXSW for getting people that high-profile again."6
In most markets, the identities of those involved in a transaction, especially the suppliers, are crucial to the market's success. As consumers, we must trust a supplier's brand, product, and ultimately, reputation. We research the games and systems we buy. We are wary of low feedback ratings for eBay sellers of high-ticket items. Similarly, in the Marketplace of Ideas, an idea disconnected from its author is hardly one to be taken seriously; who is to trust an unknown vendor? What I personally take seriously, however, is irresponsible, anonymous ideas — in a market that can only be successful in an environment of transparency — derailing the system entirely. The marketplace failed when credentialed vendors Zuckerburg and Lacy could no longer peddle their wares. While some may view this rebellion as speaking truth to power, this is hardly what Mill intended. Opinions, after all, were silenced.
Make no mistake, I do not object to panelist involvement at SXSW, incorporating online features, or even overhauling the panel's format entirely. I cannot phrase my unease as eloquently as one of my dear friends, G&P's own Gabe McElwain, so I conclude with his words, quoted from an e-mail discussion.
"My gut reaction to that stuff is, 'Get off my lawn.' I suppose it is possible that a member of the audience might have a question or point of view that might be worth injecting into a panel discussion. It's not the principle of the thing that bothers me the most, it's the loss of structure, the degradation of the rules of order that fill me with dread. I'm disturbed by a culture that's so self-absorbed and so anxious to hear itself talk that it can't wait until the end of the panel it's attending to make its ignorant opinions known."
1 Mill, John Stuart. 1859. On Liberty. Oxford: University of Oxford.
2 South by Southwest Festivals.
3 Wallace, Lewis. 2008. "SXSW: Zuckerberg Keynote Descends Into Chaos as Audience Takes Over." Wired. San Francisco: Condé Nast Publications.
4 Wortham, Jenna. 2008. "SXSW: Recapping the Keynote Roast With Bitstrips." Wired. San Francisco: Condé Nast Publications.
5 Wallace, Lewis. 2008. "SXSW: Meebo Users Plot Revolt During Dull Panels." Wired. San Francisco: Condé Nast Publications.
6 Wortham, Jenna. 2008. "SXSW: Sarah Lacy Laughs Off Zuckerberg Keynote Debacle." Wired. San Francisco: Condé Nast Publications.
Image from the Chicago Daily News negatives collection. Courtesy of the Chicago Historical Society.
