In a recent edition of The Ethicist, a letter to the editor style publication from the New York Times, Kwame Anthony Appiah responds beautifully to a difficult question a reader asked about whether they should cut off an acquaintance who has committed racist acts.

Like you, I favor a bit of grace in a world full of sinners. And cutting off everyone who is morally flawed would leave you with a very small coterie of friends — who might then be tempted by the flaw of moral vanity. (In which case you’d have to get rid of them, too.)

You say you’re an equality-minded liberal. The way to live your creed isn’t by curating a spotless feed of spotless minds but by helping people do better. Hew to the norm; judge the person by what he does next; show grace where it stands a chance to help someone grow. That’s the difference between moral vanity and moral work.

This dovetails nicely with my last post, Counterproductive activism. I would never defend racist acts, obviously, but I agree that moral work demands helping others to be better, if at all possible. The rest, as he says, is moral vanity. Gosh, what a great term.

By the way, helping others to be better means approaching their wrongdoings with kindness, curiosity, compassion, understanding, and forgiveness. It's a slow and painful process, but that's how change happens. This approach is needed even when others cause severe harm. In fact, it's needed especially when others cause extreme harm. Just ask Megan Phelps-Roper, who left the incomparably hateful Westboro Baptist Church only after others had the idea to challenge her with patience and curiosity. Telling someone off in the form of “advice,” when you know the message won't be heard, because it makes you feel better about yourself? That's not moral work, in my opinion. That's moral vanity.

Am I guilty of moral vanity? Yep, in ways I both do and don't notice. Even this post might convey a kind of moral vanity. If you notice times when I'm guilty of it, though, let's talk about it.

#Communication #PersonalDevelopment #Philosophy #Politics #SocialMedia #Technology

I have some stickers that say, “Nobody cares about your fake life on social media.” I don't think anything sums that up better than this collection of people looking ridiculous, desperate for likes, as they pose for Instagram photos. The collection is focused on men who take photographs of their girlfriends, but men pose like this, too.

Likes aren't worth much. You just look ridiculous.

#SocialMedia #Technology

The ad-based web has failed.

#SocialMedia #Technology

What if we made all advertising illegal?

[…]

The financial incentives to create addictive digital content would instantly disappear, and so would the mechanisms that allow both commercial and political actors to create personalized, reality-distorting bubbles.

Clickbait, listicles, and affiliate marketing schemes would become worthless overnight. Algorithm-driven platforms like Instagram and TikTok that harvest and monetize attention, destroying youth, would lose their economic foundation.

[…]

Removing these advanced manipulation tools would force everyone—politicians included—to snap back into reality. By outlawing advertising, the machinery of mass delusion would lose its most addictive and toxic fuel.

—Kōdō Simone in What If We Made Advertising Illegal?

#SocialMedia #Technology #Communication #Politics #Philosophy

Mark Zuckerberg is a villain.

Again, this is not simply partisan. He was a villain ten years ago, and he's a villain today.

Yes, he's been philanthropic, and he's pledged to donate 99% of his Facebook shares to charity. That is genuinely amazing, and it deserves genuine praise. To be sure, it's a hell of a lot more money than I'll ever donate to charity. Still, what does it matter if he destroys the world in the process? Will his philanthropy even begin to clean up the mess he's created? Surely not. He's done far more than $200 billion worth of harm to society. Try putting a dollar amount on political extremism, a problem his company has massively exacerbated.

Mark Zuckerberg is a villain, and like all villains, he thinks he's doing good for the world. He's not.

#Business #Philosophy #Politics #SocialMedia #Technology

What's wrong with hyperpartisan media? (Pick your favorite example of a one-sided TV channel, YouTube channel, website, radio show, podcast, or magazine.) If the problem is that these outlets promote overly simplistic, slanted perspectives, never reporting the other side of the story, then why are we not equally worried about social media filter bubbles, given that they are designed to do the same thing?

Facebook and other social media platforms show us what we want to see. They reinforce our existing worldviews. One doesn’t need to think hard to understand why; anything else would be bad for business. Nobody logs on to be told they’re wrong. Nobody enjoys having their reality challenged.

I’m concerned about old-style hyperpartisan media, but this new, “social” version is much worse. Many of us walk around with personalized, digital propagandists close by. They push our buttons and beg for our limited attention—buzz, buzz! Sometimes, we spend more time with them than with real human beings, with their nuanced and thoughtful perspectives.

Should we be surprised the world is so divided?

#Belief #Business #Communication #Favorites #Politics #SocialMedia #Technology

In the past, I wrote that we may need a digital equivalent to the awkward pause. At the time, I couldn't find the blog post where I first encountered that idea, but now, almost exactly one year later, I've found it. It really stood the test of time. I couldn't agree more!

Imagine you're at a dinner party, and you're getting into a heated argument. As you start yelling, the other people quickly hush their voices and start glaring at you. None of the onlookers have to take further action—it's clear from their facial expressions that you're being a jerk.

In digital conversations, giving feedback requires more conscious effort. Silence is the default. Participants only get feedback from people who join the fray. They receive no signal about how the silent onlookers perceive their dialogue. In fact, they don't receive much signal that onlookers observed the conversation at all.

As a result, the feedback you do receive in digital conversations is more polarized, because the only people who will engage are those who are willing to take that extra step and bear that cost of wading into a messy conversation.

—Devon Zuegel in The silence is deafening

#Belief #Communication #Politics #SocialMedia #Technology #Wellbeing

Politics has become a means of self-realization rather than a tool for solving practical problems. Views on enlightenment differ, of course, causing intense conflict and distrust. To restore our trust in each other and the political process, now may be a good time to focus on common-sense legislation with broad appeal. Let's eliminate daylight saving time, outlaw deceptive resort fees, and begin to regulate social media. Let's stop tech support scammers, strengthen online privacy, and standardize on one charging connector for electric cars. Let's make browser vendors work together to prevent identity theft. These things may seem inconsequential, but getting along couldn't be more important. Along the way, we might discover that politics doesn't always have to be so acrimonious.

#Belief #Business #Communication #Favorites #Philosophy #Politics #SocialMedia #SoftwareDevelopment #Technology #UserExperience #Wellbeing

“If our goal is to live in a shared reality with our neighbors, what if our current approach isn't bringing us any closer to that?”

—Peter McIndoe in a TED talk about his satirical conspiracy theory, Birds Aren't Real

#Belief #Communication #Philosophy #Politics #SocialMedia #Technology #Wellbeing

Social media is dead. At least, that's the conclusion of a recent Business Insider article.

The premise is that young people aren't posting on social media nearly as often as people used to, partly because they're sick of being judged, partly because they're sick of looking at ads. Fine by me! The article also suggests that young people are sending more private messages, leading app makers to prioritize those features.

It's hard to see a downside, as imperfect as this improvement is. Why not go a step further by using Signal? It's a truly private messaging app from a non-profit that doesn't want to spy on you. In fact, Signal pretty much couldn't spy on you if it tried. The app is painstakingly designed to use end-to-end encryption, so that nobody, not even Signal, can see what you and your friends are talking about. How many apps can make that claim? (Spoiler alert: almost none.)

#Business #Communication #SocialMedia #Technology