I don't care about likes, comments, and shares. I don't care how many people subscribe to my blog.
Sounds pretty bold. Of course, it's a lie. We're all human. We all want to be liked.
I don't want those metrics to change my behavior, however. I don't want to be manipulated, however subtly, by algorithms and the faint praise of fake online friends. I'd rather be underappreciated than sell out. I'd rather be ignored than say things I don't believe.
In writing about the dangers of social media, I've encountered the objection that social media probably isn't worth worrying about because people said the same thing about the internet, television, radio, books, and so on. I think this objection is flawed for two reasons.
First, it suggests that these earlier technologies didn't cause very much harm. I disagree. The printed word continues to be an effective means of disseminating misinformation. Murderous dictators used radio to broadcast their propaganda into private homes. Television turned news into entertainment, with disastrous results that we're barely beginning to grapple with today. The internet has fostered deeply meaningful connections, but has also helped conspiracy theories flourish.
What is clickbait? Some people define clickbait as any headline, thumbnail, or similar (let's call them teasers) that is factually incorrect. I don't agree. I don't think correctness is the point. I think clickbait is any teaser that is psychologically manipulative, that uses our minds and our emotions against us to win engagement.
“It doesn't seem to conventional-minded people that they're conventional-minded. It just seems to them that they're right. Indeed, they tend to be particularly sure of it.”
—Paul Graham in Orthodox Privilege
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 or only reporting half-truths, then why are we not equally worried about social media filter bubbles, given that they are designed to do exactly the same thing?
TikTok, 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 signs in to be told they’re wrong. Nobody enjoys having their reality challenged. Validation is more fun, even when it's unjustified.
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 in our pockets. 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.
Is it any surprise the world is so divided?
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
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.
“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
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.)
“Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.”
—Sophocles