Cyberspace raises the question 'What is true?' in lots of different guises. Here we focus on two. First, cyberspace can mislead us into a limited view of reality, something we call 'the stage effect'. Secondly, cyberspace makes possible new sorts of misrepresentation and impersonation, so things presented as real are not real.
When we watch a play, whether Hamlet or Star Trek, we become immersed in the drama. As it feels real, we suspend disbelief, and to the extent we do this we enjoy or become more deeply engaged in the drama. It becomes quite difficult to ask and think about questions, say, about the actors themselves, or about what goes on beyond the edge of the stage, or beyond the edge of the screen. For beyond the edge of the stage, the play does not exist - yet for our imaginations to work the play is real, and we forget it is only a view into a world, the whole of which does not exist. If it did exist, we could ask real questions, like 'Where are Captain Kirk's descendants today?' The stage effect suggests that something that is not complete can seem to be complete, so that we become largely unaware of its edges and limitations.
Cyberspace can very easily fill a person's whole awareness, and if you are
not there, it is hard to be considered by those involved. Nearly all the authors
of this report exchanged files by email - any who were not on email had difficulty
keeping up with the rapidly unfolding drama of debate, edits and decisions.
Academics searching computer library catalogues often find fewer than 40 per
cent of the relevant articles, yet are unaware of missing the rest of the world.
Many students do not investigate paper catalogues, preferring the online versions,
and think that anything done 10 years ago must be superseded. As we look into
cyberspace, we can get caught up in the drama of everything that is happening
there and we can ignore the fact that the stage is limited.
It is hard to remember that some are excluded from cyberspace - cyberspace seems
so overwhelming as it is. In cyberspace, we simply don't see them in the first
place.
Thus cyberspace can seem more complete than it is. One result is that people 'in' cyberspace and deeply experienced with it tend to overrate it. Their success in it requires a practised competence; at the same time, the people outside cyberspace are like the people who do not understand why Star Trek (or even Shakespeare) is worth watching and suspending disbelief for! The overrating by users and underappreciation by non-users leads to polarization and difficult entrenched debate.
Interestingly, this same stage effect can be seen in scientific research using computers to analyse data automatically. The computers recording measurements of the thickness of the ozone layer over the Antarctic were systematically throwing away data that indicated a growing hole. Why? Because all the scientists had assumed that the ozone layer would thin evenly and the computer had been programmed to identify any strange measurements as errors and throw them away. The computer programmers had got caught looking only at one 'stage'.
Once we understand how easy it is to manipulate a digital object, we begin to distrust what we see. For example, if we know that any photograph, TV sequence or other recording could have been manipulated, this can lead to distrust. Similarly, because computer programs can be written to change certain words routinely (on the basis of some rule), people may be unsure whether the email they receive is the same as that which the sender wrote. Such concerns are the basis of much new cryptography, so that people can be (more) certain that what was sent is what was received.
Another source of distrust is the way that individuals can disguise who they really are through the Internet. For anyone who wants to be devious, the flexibility cyberspace provides is seductive. An adult might pretend to be a child, and use this role to gain the (misplaced) confidence of a real child. A person may pretend to want to enter into a sexual relationship with someone else, but mislead them as to their own sex. These possibilities can lead to something extraordinarily hurtful and damaging.
For some people, however, role-playing is entirely straightforward, and perhaps helps them free themselves of inhibitions or provides a lifeline release from prejudice. People sometimes shunned in real life can interact on equal terms with everyone else in cyberspace; using email, nobody need ever be aware that you can only walk, talk or write excruciatingly slowly, for instance.
Where deliberate concealment is practised or contemplated, we need to ask what the motive for it might be. The motive may be, amongst others, playful or educational, helpful or dishonest. The possibility of dishonest and maliciously deceptive uses of concealment cannot be ignored, though the anonymity of cyberspace may be the only condition under which some people may find the courage to seek counselling or to find help, so we cannot automatically assume the possibility of concealment to be a negative thing; in the practical context of daily living it may have its limited but positive uses.