The Guardian's long-running 'Notes & Queries' series has ignited a fierce debate with a provocative question from a reader in Groningen, the Netherlands: should we turn the internet off? Prompted by concerns that the web has turned fringe beliefs into mainstream politics and threatens democracy, the question has drawn hundreds of responses, painting a complex picture of our digital dependency.
A Lifeline for the Marginalised
For many, the idea of switching off the internet is unthinkable, representing a catastrophic loss of connection and freedom. Readers highlighted its indispensable role for disabled and marginalised communities. One contributor noted how the internet allows someone with severe speech difficulties to communicate fluently and be 'properly listened to at last.'
Another reader, identifying as queer and trans, described the web as a lifeline: 'Without the internet I would be isolated and alone... I learned about myself and became happy and at peace.' For those in conservative environments or with mobility issues, the digital world offers education, community, and practical solutions like online shopping and telehealth services, exemplified by the NHS app.
The Dark Side of Connectivity
Conversely, many respondents lamented the internet's corrosive effects on society. They argue it has fuelled misinformation, degraded public discourse, and eroded real-world social cohesion. 'The problem isn’t the internet, it’s the people,' argued one reader, while others pointed the finger squarely at the platforms themselves.
A recurring theme was the toxic influence of social media algorithms. One reader astutely observed: 'The problem is not “the internet” so much as the concentration of power in a handful of social media platforms that algorithmically amplify outrage, misinformation and fringe belief.' Several called for these companies to be held accountable as publishers, not treated as neutral conduits.
Nostalgia for a pre-digital era was palpable. Some reminisced about longer attention spans, easier person-to-person contact, and a time when 'people had time for each other.' One contributor from Devon stated plainly: 'I can’t think of anything about life that the internet has made better except for free international calling.'
Practicalities and Proposed Solutions
The discussion quickly turned to the sheer impracticality of 'turning it off.' As one reader pointed out, the internet is now woven into critical infrastructure, from aviation and power grids to banking and food supply chains. 'Chaos' would be the inevitable result.
Instead of a full shutdown, readers proposed a range of reforms. Popular suggestions included ending online anonymity, making social media directors personally liable for content amplified by their algorithms, and taxing advertisements. Others advocated for personal responsibility and digital moderation, with one reader sharing their liberating experience of deleting social media apps.
Some yearned for a middle ground—a return to the pre-smartphone era when the internet was confined to a desktop computer. 'We’d be able to turn our backs on it whenever we left the house,' they mused, suggesting this would preserve the web's benefits while mitigating its intrusion into daily life.
The Verdict: Civilise It, Don't Abandon It
The overwhelming consensus among respondents was a resounding 'no' to switching off the internet. The debate underscored that the tool itself is not the disease. As one reader concluded: 'The internet is a magnificent technological achievement, not a moral failure.'
The real challenge, as framed by the discussion, is not to abandon the online world but to civilise it. This means robust regulation, corporate accountability, and individual discernment. The internet's role in democratising knowledge, connecting global communities, and enabling movements for social justice was deemed too valuable to lose. The answer, it seems, lies not in pulling the plug, but in demanding—and building—a better, healthier web.
