Social Media's Threat to our Culture

The news of Donald Trump getting banned by Twitter has reverberated all across the various media outlets and internet ether.  It has created interesting discussions and arguments regarding the freedom of speech along with growing concerns of the ability of so few to control so much (I won't get into that here...maybe later). The decision to ban Trump for his role in inciting an insurrection was followed by Apple's and Amazon's suspension of Parler on similar grounds.  To many on the Left, these are largely applauded and welcome actions.  Conversely, many on the right see this as an existential threat to democracy.  To be fair, there are also many who cast a weary eye towards such actions, but think this particular case was warranted.  

Regardless of where you stand on the banning of Trump and the suspension Parler, those incidents reveal a deeper, much more complicated issue regarding the role social media plays in our democracy and culture.  In the early days of the internet, there was a youthful and idealistic optimism about the fruits such technology would bare.  There is no doubt that the internet and technology have made much of our lives better, but it has also come with substantial costs.  Many did not see how the democratization of information would be used, or how it would be manipulated by bad actors.  By democratization, I mean the ability of everyone to have a platform from which they can be heard.   Nor did we see how a monetized social media ecosystem would incentivize various adverse behaviors.  And by monetized, I reference the fact that social media provides an avenue for people to directly make money from their social media footprint, along with indirect methods as well   It is amazing how man (and women,...calm down Karen) can corrupt everything he touches.  

Social media for all it positive possibilities rarely acts as a mechanism for the good. Oh sure, on a micro level the ability to interact with friends and families is a nice contribution.  Additionally, it is nice to use to pass the time.  But at the macro level, what one often witnesses is place where combatants are gathered in a space to spar, often without rules, decorum, or accountability. Many either live in a self contained echo chamber where they are fed a steady diet of their moral and intellectual superiority and why their adversaries are awful.  Twitter reminds me of middle school, where a bunch of insecure people, hypersensitive to their social status, jockey for position and popularity, using meanness as a way to climb the social ladder.  Needles to say, it is clear that social media provides the necessary requirements to divide people and sow seeds of anger, wrath, and retribution. It does this by providing an immediacy of opportunity to engage in confrontation and over simplifying and decontextualizing issues. Moreover, social media provides a deceptive view of the rightness of one's beliefs. It erodes the truth and provides a marketplace for false narratives.  And perhaps, most important is that the monetization of most platforms incentivizes  more deplorable behaviors.

Before social media, getting engaged in discourse regarding current affairs took effort,  time, and opportunity. If, say,  I was upset at an article written in the paper, I would have to compose a rebuttal, send it to the paper , and hope it gets published. There was no guarantee that my effort and time would yield my rebuttal being published. Now, I can spout off the first thing that comes to mind with relative anonymity, and it is published for all to see. This immediacy of opportunity is prompted by an emotional response that has not had the time to think deeply about the matter at hand and consider the the issue thoroughly.  It is a visceral response that often is done in haste.  It makes assumptions, snap judgments, and gut feelings the currency of exchange.  Now multiply that by millions, and you have a cesspool of emotional responses that reverberate across the internet and the emotion exponentially grows.  Inversely, logical, reasoned, and nuanced response diminish.

Immediacy also promotes a very simple view of complex issues. This is one of the most corrosive aspect of social media because people are lured into believing that problems are a result of a single variable. Most often this variable is the stupidity of the other side. But, when one is left with 240 characters to make a point, it makes simple generalizations and decontextualization.  Rather, it promotes snarky, sarcastic, and quick hits that will elicit emotional reactions, likes, and ultimately followers. Oversimplification is not only a symptom of social media but is also an effect.  Because providing context can take up much of the character allotment and requires some skill, it is usually vacated.  Essentially, the lack of context diminishes the dialogue regarding the substance of the issue.  Ignoring context also alleviates the problematic issue that your side may not be so right.  It pushes important factors to the periphery and centers on emotional responses.

Simplified explanations, especially those that target an adversary, are received by itching ears that do not want to examine the bias and prejudice that lives in the claim. In actuality, it strengthens the position and belief.   Our tendency towards confirmation bias dulls our senses to the bull sh*% of our own side.  Ironically, we always seem to notice the other side's all to transparent confirmation bias.  Funny how that works!  The echo chamber provides resolution to those who so earnestly want to believe that their side is right and the other side is wrong.  It makes more certain their position.  Certainty leads to arrogance and indignation, and combined, those traits lead to unpleasant endings. It callouses the mind to dissenting views and makes misers of the intellect. There is no need to address a different opinion in a good faith manner because it is wrong. And it is not just that they are wrong, it is because they are bad people.  They become caricatures of evil that don't deserve the decency of human dignity, or time of day.

Social media's most glaring problem is that it has too often become a marketplace for mischaracterizations, distortions, and lies.  The cacophony of voices makes it hard to discern the truth.  Granted, some the stuff is such utter BS, I am astonished at that people believe any of it.  However, the way the human mind processes information makes this task really difficult. For example, have you ever heard an accusation regarding someone and found it difficult not to hold that accusation against that person, or at least sow some seeds of doubt about their innocence?  This is why high profile criminal cases are much hard to find objective jurors because the potential jurors have all been exposed to claims that might impede their objectivity.  When people are able to make claims about events or other people, it shapes our perspective and leads us to distorted view.  Donald Trump was guilty of this behavior so often.  He would throw out claims to eagerly accepting ears and they too often accepted what he gave them.

Compounding all of these problems with social media is the fact that monetization incentivizes people to attract as many followers as they can.  The amount of followers one has provides them with the means to make money, either directly or indirectly.  Many use social media to market themselves, their persona, or their brand.  In fact, social media has allowed people the audacity to label themselves as "thought leaders" and "influencers" or at the very least pursue such a moniker.  Regardless, people are after followers and just like in any business, to make money you have to supply what the market wants.  But competition leads to people trying to find a niche, and increasingly this leads to people willing to sacrifice integrity, the common good, and decency for a buck.

All this leads to the major threat that social media poses to our culture and democracy.  It has thoroughly corrupted the system of developing, processing and exchanging ideas.  It has increased the quantity of information with no real mechanism to address its quality.  It has made bad information more readily available to more people, for malicious intents.  It deceives people into believing things about themselves and the world that are just not true.  And at the end of the day, the inability to distinguish truth from lie, will be the end of a culture.

I am not sure that there are any solutions that are not worse than the problem itself.  Unfortunately, it is one of the downsides to freedom is that people are willing and able to make poor choices.  I would much rather deal with that, than have an intrusive and authoritarian government getting involved.  However, I do have one bad idea.  Limiting people to three posts a day.  At least they might have to think about their posts with a little more thought.