It doesn’t take a lot of convincing to believe that humans today are consuming more information than ever before.

With the rise of the internet, smart phones, mass media and advertising in the last few decades, there aren’t many who would object to the notion that we are exposed to more data than our ancestors.

But just how much more (and which ancestors) may surprise you…

Certainly, when comparing our data consumption today to, let’s say, colonial America, it’s obvious that we take in more info now. In a time period like that, when many people couldn’t read or write and technology to disseminate information to the masses was limited, people weren’t exactly learned.

However, when you compare our access to information now to a time period that wasn’t that long ago, like the 1980s, we begin to see just how steep the data consumption slope really is.

For example, in 2020, on average, we are processing nearly 100,000 words in a single day. But, back in 1980, when life didn’t look that different from today’s — with near universal literacy and comparable TV, radio and mass advertising stats — we were only consuming around 28,000 words a day. That’s nearly a 350% increase in 40 years. Or, roughly, a 3.5% compounded annual growth rate. And that CAGR is increasing; by 2030 it will be a 5% annual increase.

Obviously, the difference between the 1980’s and today is the advent of the internet.

What’s peculiar about this, though, is that we generally believe access to more information makes for a more culturally advanced and educated society. At least that’s what most people say when arguing for things like universal education or fair access for all.

But if this were true, then why does it feel like we are moving backwards? With the entire world at our fingertips, why aren’t we more cultured or accepting of others?

It’s tough to say. One idea is that, although it is difficult to measure, our brains probably aren’t evolving at a rate of 3.5% per year… much less 5%.

This explanation cites “information overload” and how it leads to a collective decision paralysis, effectively neutering our ability to process new information other than that which is associated with data already stored in our brains.

For example, there are thousands of titles available to stream every time we turn on Netflix, yet we spend hours scrolling through options looking for the one that is just perfect for us. Our brains can’t process all of the possible options, so we just settle on something familiar or something close to what we know we like.

The Netflix syndrome can be extrapolated to all aspects of information consumption, not just picking a show. We are taking in more and more information every year, but we are not becoming equally more learned or accepting; we’re just settling for what we already know. We have instant access to almost all of the information in the world (literally), yet our Google searches, news alerts and what we expose ourselves to on social media are mostly echoes of our already established thoughts and beliefs.

The fact of the matter is that the correlation we always assumed was there – that access to information breeds cultural advancement – might not be as strong as we once believed.

If anything, information access is making us more entrenched in our own beliefs and more threatened by those who are different. It is putting us all into silos, and the only time we leave our silo is when we tell somebody in another one that they’re wrong.

We are all becoming “trolls.”

Data and the Manly Men

He seemed like such a nice guy.

Perpetually the family man, he always supported and encouraged his wife and children. He was at every baseball game, dance recital and parent teacher conference. He would pick up the slack when his wife was slammed with work; happily taking over her familial duties in addition to his own.

He didn’t limit this good nature to his family, either. He would always ask people how their day was going and would be the first to offer assistance to friends, neighbors or really anybody in need. It didn’t seem like there was a bad bone in his body.

That is, until I found his Twitter feed.

Somehow, when this seemingly kind and caring man gets on the Twitter-verse, he becomes a different person. He is an agitator. Snarky. Even hateful. His tweets are almost exclusively sarcastic responses to other tweets too, hardly ever generating his own original content.

The most peculiar thing about this dark side to our friendly neighbor is who he targets on Twitter. He seems to only go after women, particularly those with either good looks or strong opinions. And if there is a woman who was both friendly on the eyes and strong minded, well, she had no chance.

He is a reply guy.

Most of us have seen reply guys but weren’t aware that such a label existed. A reply guy is exactly what it sounds like: a male on social media who constantly replies to tweets or posts, mostly made by women.

Although no two reply guys are the same, there are some common threads: they tend to be white males in their 30s or 40s, have very few social media followers, and aren’t the most elegant of internet users. As stated, they most often reply to women. Particularly targeting the same woman over and over until she either responds or blocks him. But they don’t just save themselves for the ladies… reply guys can also be seen hovering around the timelines of gay men, transgendered people, or even straight men that appear to perpetuate women’s rights. Their replies are overly familiar, too, as if they know the person they are responding to.

This isn’t just some loosely defined internet term either. There are levels and subgroups to this thing.

There are the reply guys that probably mean well but don’t know how to let others (especially women) control a conversation. Those that have bad intentions and either gaslight or harass women altogether. And a group in the middle that appears to focus on the “real problem” but is actually just espousing paternalistic pseudo-concern.

For the most part, though, reply guys are harmless and more of an annoyance than anything. They normally don’t pose an immediate threat to any of the people they reply to. This is especially true with my neighbor. He probably wouldn’t harm a fly.

But, still, as I scrolled through the pages and pages of his hate posts, I couldn’t help but wonder why I was so used to seeing people like my neighbor on Twitter. Why are there so many reply guys?

They don’t coordinate. They don’t have an agenda and are not part of some larger organization directing their actions. There is no reply guy convention or constitution. It’s just individuals acting on their own, but all acting the same.

So, what is going on?

Surprisingly, there’s a decent amount of content out there on this topic. Most are either tongue-in-cheek humor pieces or “You get ‘em, girl” clickbait from wannabe Huff Post writers. But there are some insightful takes. I remember one line in particular when reading up on reply guys…

“The internet will come at you with the fury of a middle-aged man who understands his own mediocrity.”

And then it made sense. The reply guys have an origin story…

Now, the trope of a disgruntled and slightly horny middle-aged man grappling with his own mediocrity is nothing new. We’ve probably all experienced someone like this and hundreds of films, TV shows, and books have portrayed this archetypical character for years. But the modern version of this person (the reply guy) is uniquely “internet.”

Internet companies (and really the tech industry as a whole) have an embattled history with gender issues. For the longest time, the web was developed and consumed almost exclusively by men. Particularly, “nerdy” men. Almost all classic web companies like Microsoft, Google and Facebook were started by the geeks. And, apart from Sheryl Sandberg, almost all of them were male.  

Most of the content on the web – at least in the early days – was created by men, too. The first coders were nearly 99% male, a percentage that hasn’t gone down much in the years since. The first message boards and chat rooms were littered with pictures of “hot” and often nude women. The first kings of the internet were creators of porn sites (not to say that women don’t like pornography, but the numbers speak for themselves and men consume it more).

The internet was a very masculine place.

However, all the geeks who were trying to build cyber empires in the 80s and 90s, didn’t make it in Silicon Valley. Every coder who worked on a website in between getting teased at school or turned down for a date didn’t create Google. Most of them never got the Zuckerberg redemption story. They didn’t go from dorm rooms to red carpets. They never got to tell the frat boys to go fuck themselves.

Worse yet, the internet started maturing as we moved into the new millennium. It wasn’t just for the nerds anymore; it became a place for everyone. Suddenly, the geeks’ internet playground was infested with the people from which they sought reprieve in the first place.

So, they got angry.

And throughout the early 2000’s that anger spilled onto the internet in the form of trolling, hacking, doxing, and harassment. They even organized into factions like Anonymous, and for-profit organizations like WikiLeaks. This was a logical course of action though as the internet was still in its infancy and there wasn’t any real recourse for actions like these at the time.

They weren’t risking much to be assholes on the internet.

Sure, some of the really bad actors like Julien Assange and Bradley Manning were prosecuted or made examples of, but the actions of most trolls didn’t have any real legal or social consequences.

But the Assange’s and Manning’s only strengthened the resolve of the common troll. Their prosecution established a perceived risk and created a notion of nobility or bravery to what they were doing, when in fact there wasn’t much risk at all.

They created the myth of the manly man…

A man who is tired of the progressive waves sweeping through society and his internet. One who would stand up to anyone telling him what to do or think, especially a woman (while also being the desire of every woman… somehow). The manly man is an “alpha” and he doesn’t get treaded on. He is everything that the nerds who never made it to Silicon Valley wanted to be.   

Today, the internet is consumed by almost everyone on earth and there is no “type” of person that spends their time on it anymore, because we all do.

The “every man” is now fully plugged into the web. And even though he might not know how to hack or even use the right memes, like his trolling predecessors, he does know that the internet is still a place where he can let his frustrations fly without much recourse. He knows the web is where he can show his deepest insecurities and proselytize his darkest thoughts without fear of retribution.

Although things like doxing, hacking or trolling have some light consequences today, people still don’t have to act on the internet how they do in real life. Because of the example that was set for them, disgruntled, middle-aged men can mindlessly act out without ever considering the risks.

They can still be the manly men they always wanted to be.

01001101 01100101 01101110

Good or evil. Night or day. Male or female.

0 or 1.

As complex, dynamic and integrated as today’s world may be, we still live mostly binary lives.

We tend to pick sides; labeling what we consume as healthy or not, denoting our “vibes” as good or bad, and characterizing people with agreeable views as “allies.” Likewise, most of our thoughts and actions are borne out of a desire for one of two outcomes – or, to avoid one of two outcomes.

“I probably shouldn’t do that because of X.”

We often make decisions based on which option will cause us the least harm; which has the lowest amount of risk associated with it.  

0 or 1

But it’s not just the decision that is reduced to two possibilities, we also approximate the ensuing collateral effects of each decision to be binary… We internally estimate that if we go in one direction certain things will happen, and if we go in another they won’t.

The whole shooting match is played out in our minds before we even get to the range.

“If I make that choice, Y won’t happen.”

It’s not just simplifying our decisions down to two options of risk, we further reduce the effects of those risks based only on what’s right in front of us at the time. In our minds, when a decision is made now, future risks are binary as well.

0 or 1.

This is nothing new. Humans are a species that have always bucketed and predicted. Probably as an evolutionary means for survival, our brains have been programed to quickly interpret people, places or things – often without conscious effort – then categorize them and predict outcomes.

Most other species will do this at the subconscious level (i.e. horses are naturally afraid of fire and instinctually run from it), but humans are unique in that we introduce the element of reason. We can contextually place indicators of risk before the danger itself even comes to fruition… Unlike the horse who categorizes and reacts to fire once it is burning, humans can deduce that something like a sparking light socket means a fire will start soon. And we address the situation before the room is engulfed in flames.  

This ability to reason potential risks away before they are realized doesn’t make us less binary, though. Recalling past experiences (like maybe the fire from several years ago that started from a faulty socket) and using them as predictors for the choices we make now, really just means that we just see situations as either similar or dissimilar to ones we’ve experienced in the past. We don’t take them for what they are; as unique and autonomous.

“Because Z happened in the past, Z will happen now.”

Reasoning itself, at the fundamental level, is just how we respond to a series yes or no decisions of risk.

Have I seen this risk before? Is it risky in the future? Is it risky now?

0 or 1.