“As anyone who has actually gone outside to touch grass will attest, what you see in social media is typically so exaggerated and distorted that it may as well be entirely fictional.”
—Viktor in Are you okay?
“As anyone who has actually gone outside to touch grass will attest, what you see in social media is typically so exaggerated and distorted that it may as well be entirely fictional.”
—Viktor in Are you okay?
I've been listening to The Attention Merchants, my first foray into the world of audiobooks, having begrudgingly ceded more freedom to DRM. I was struck by this passage, discussing the disillusionment of Walter Lippmann, a journalist and media critic:
“Any communication, Lippmann came to see, is potentially propagandistic, in the sense of propagating a view. For it presents one set of facts, or one perspective, fostering or weakening some 'stereotype' held by the mind. It is fair to say, then, that any and all information that one consumes—pays attention to—will have some influence, even if just forcing a reaction.”
—Tim Wu in The Attention Merchants
It's easy to notice this happening today. So many memes, videos, and tweets advance ludicrously simplistic perspectives. Fake news spreads 6 times more quickly than true news. Whether we agree or disagree with the content we see, we react, and antisocial media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok monetize those reactions.
If Lippmann is correct that “any and all information that one consumes… forces a reaction,” and if the information we consume today is vast, simplistic, and even wrong, then perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by the extreme reactions we witness.
#Belief #Communication #Philosophy #Politics #SocialMedia #Technology
I tweeted the following on April 2nd, 2019, about one month before deleting my account:
Our technology is evolving faster than we are. We have built ourselves a twenty-first century library when we possess stone-age critical thinking skills. What did we think was going to happen?
I later learned that Dr. E.O. Wilson once made a similar point, in a statement often quoted by the Center for Humane Technology:
The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology.
His version may be better than mine. I'm just glad I'm not alone.
“[When social media makes us behave like pack animals], we become obsessed with and controlled by a pecking order. We pounce on those below us, lest we be demoted, and we do our best to flatter and snipe at those above us at the same time. Our peers flicker between ‘ally’ and ‘enemy’ so quickly that we cease to perceive them as individuals… The only constant basis of friendship is shared antagonism toward other packs.”
—Jaron Lanier in Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now
I'm afraid I've seen this happen often in Facebook groups. Pleasing the in-group and attacking the out-group are primary objectives. To hell with learning from the other side and bettering ourselves; it's better to ascend the ranks by espousing ever-more extreme views and by demonstrating allegiance through performative discourse. The results are unsurprising, with hostility, righteous indignation, closed-mindedness, and emotional and intellectual fragility on display for all to see.
I'm sorry to say this, but of the two people in my life who are most misinformed about current events, one is addicted to cable news and the other is addicted to TikTok. I think they would despise each other, yet they're more alike than they realize.
I endeavor not to be a conformist nonconformist.
Every day, there's a new story about how social media inspired someone to commit mass murder, engage in political violence, withhold healthcare from their children, or steal a car. That's in addition to the division and envy these platforms create between friends and family every day.
It's important to remember that these aren't neutral platforms. They decide what we see. The shape our reality. Even worse, as Jaron Lanier explains, they manipulate us. They intentionally make us angry.
It begs the question: when will we finally start calling it antisocial media?
I’ve been an ideologue at times. I’m sure I still am in certain ways, in ways I don’t even notice. Perhaps we all are. Still, I find ideology exhausting and uninteresting. I rarely enjoy talking to people about meaningful issues when I can predict their beliefs. For this reason and others, I’m frequently saddened that our current environment has made so many of my peers so closed-minded. Of course, it wouldn’t be right for me to end this post without blaming social media, and true to form, I do believe the filter bubbles of social media play no small part in this phenomenon.
When we talk to others one-on-one, especially about difficult topics, we have a responsibility to ensure that our message is heard. However, if it becomes clear that the message won't be heard, because the listener isn't genuinely curious and open-minded, we owe it to the listener and to ourselves to move on. This fact seems obvious, yet we seem to continually forget it.
I think of science as a verb, a process for discovering what's true, rather than a body of knowledge. Some people might say it's a process for discovering what's not true; that might be more accurate. In either case, when I run into people who distrust science, I wonder if they see it the same way.