How social media makes us antisocial

Podcast Summary

• Understanding Complex Systems: Finance, Social Media, and Beyond: Recognizing the interconnectedness and potential for manipulation in complex systems, we can work towards creating more equitable and transparent solutions in finance and social media.

  The way we manage and understand complex systems, whether they be financial transactions or online speech, requires a thoughtful and intentional approach. Mercury's mission to simplify financial workflows and Wise's solution to manage money across currencies demonstrate the power of making complex processes accessible and efficient. In the realm of social media, Andrew Marantz's exploration of online communities and the algorithms that govern them reveals the importance of questioning the status quo and understanding the underlying structures. The ongoing debate about free speech should be reframed as a discussion about how speech should be structured online. Marantz's book, "Antisocial," offers a deep dive into this topic, highlighting the influence of online communities and the role of those who build and manage platforms. By recognizing the interconnectedness of these systems and the potential for manipulation, we can work towards creating more equitable and transparent solutions.

• Understanding Power Dynamics on Social Media Platforms: Facebook's role in free speech goes beyond giving people a voice, requiring examination of power dynamics and beneficiaries.

  While the public debate around social media platforms like Facebook focuses on their role in protecting free speech and giving everyone a voice, journalist Andrew Marantz argues that it's important to understand the systems at play and who they are actually benefiting. Mark Zuckerberg's recent speech at Georgetown defending Facebook's approach to free speech was criticized by Marantz for being one-sided and disingenuous. Marantz argues that while Facebook has created a platform for expression, it's not as simple as saying they have given people a voice. Instead, it's essential to examine the power dynamics at play and consider who is truly being advantaged by these platforms. This discussion touches on the role of tech companies in politics, the importance of nuanced understanding, and the need to move beyond simplistic judgments.

• The role of social media companies in shaping public discourse: Social media companies are not neutral entities; they make decisions that influence which voices are heard and which are silenced, and the debate should focus on addressing the negative consequences and amplifying quiet voices.

  The debate around free speech and social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit, is not just about the First Amendment, but about how these companies choose to amplify certain voices and reduce others. The argument is not about whether free expression is good or bad, but about the role these platforms play in shaping public discourse. Social media companies are not neutral entities; they make decisions that influence which voices are heard and which are silenced. The idea that critiquing these companies equates to hating free speech is a mischaracterization. The First Amendment applies to government actions, not private companies like Facebook. The debate should focus on how to constructively address the negative consequences of amplified speech and ensure that nuanced, quiet voices are not drowned out.

• Narrow focus on specific types of speech overlooks real threats: The debate on free speech should expand beyond specific offenses to include workers' rights, political protests, and complexities of expression.

  The current free speech debate often overlooks the real threats to free expression, focusing instead on specific types of speech that offend certain groups. The speaker argues that this narrow focus ignores more significant violations of free speech, such as workers being fired for organizing unions or political protesters being jailed. He also points out that the line between free speech and other forms of expression, like marching or printing words, is blurred, and that the argument for free speech is often used as a political weapon. The speaker calls for a more nuanced conversation about free speech that acknowledges these complexities and prioritizes protecting all forms of expression. He also suggests that private social media companies should reduce their algorithmic manipulation rather than exerting editorial control.

• Social Media's Disrupted Landscape and the Power of Norms: Social media platforms have disrupted traditional media, leading to a power vacuum filled by norms rather than laws. Extremist groups have hijacked algorithms for emotional engagement, spreading divisive content, and fueling virality of emotions, positive or negative.

  The current state of information and communication on social media platforms is far from ideal and requires significant improvement. The speakers in this discussion argue that these platforms, such as Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter, have disrupted traditional media and created a power vacuum, which has been filled by norms rather than laws. The people who run extremist groups, like Nazi podcasts and alt-right websites, have understood this and have successfully hijacked the algorithms built around emotional engagement to spread divisive content. This engagement, whether positive or negative, fuels the virality of emotions on the internet, which can be prosocial or antisocial. The speakers suggest that we need to focus on enhancing our informational landscape and marketplace of ideas to move beyond the current state of chaos and misunderstanding, without infringing on speech rights. The book "Cult of the Dead Cow" serves as a case study of how things have gone wrong and what these extremist groups have come to understand that the rest of us don't.

• The power of small coordinated groups on social media: Small groups of people can significantly influence social media discourse, even on large platforms, through coordinated efforts.

  Small coordinated groups of people can significantly influence the discourse on social media, even on large platforms where the number of users seems overwhelming. This was evident in the case of Mike Cernovich, who was able to spread controversial messages and manipulate media cycles with a dedicated band of followers. Despite his controversial ideologies and questionable methods, defining Cernovich proved to be a challenge due to the complexity of his persona. Cernovich, who was a peddler of nutritional supplements and spreader of divisive memes, was also a lawyer and a family man. When the speaker met him, he was intrigued by Cernovich's ability to manipulate media cycles from his kitchen table using a live streaming app, despite having a relatively small following. This insight from the book highlights the power of coordinated efforts on social media and the potential for individuals to shape public discourse.

• Manipulating Media and Public Opinion through Social Media: The art of manipulating media and public opinion through social media lies in exploiting the attention-grabbing nature of conflict. This strategy, used by figures like Mike Cernovich, has become a core dynamic in politics and media, despite being uncomfortable to acknowledge. Ignoring this fact can lead to serious consequences.

  Mike Cernovich and others like him have mastered the art of manipulating media and public opinion through social media. They leverage the attention-grabbing nature of conflict and turn it into influence. This strategy, which goes against interpersonal norms, has become a core dynamic in our politics and media landscape. It's uncomfortable to acknowledge, but ignoring this fact can lead to serious consequences. The alt-right and far-right have been exploiting this information asymmetry for some time. Cernovich's tactics, as disturbing as they may be, have proven effective in getting their messages trending and eventually reaching mainstream media outlets. Conflict is attention, and attention is influence. This insight, reductive as it may be, is deeply insightful and worth acknowledging. It's essential to remain informed and not turn a blind eye to these manipulation tactics.

• Disrupting Traditional Industries with Technology and Innovation: Mint Mobile and Wise are examples of companies disrupting industries by cutting out intermediaries, leveraging technology, and passing savings to consumers. The rise of confrontational labeling and social media dynamics also influences consumer behavior and market trends.

  Companies like Mint Mobile and Wise are disrupting traditional industries by cutting out retail stores and intermediaries, passing savings to consumers, and leveraging technology to make services more accessible and convenient. For Mint Mobile, this means offering affordable wireless plans by selling online, while Wise simplifies international money transfers with real-time exchange rates and no hidden fees. Another intriguing observation is the growing trend of confrontational labeling and social media dynamics, where people rally around labels and generate energy through conflict. Examples include the rise of "neoliberal" and "okay, boomer" as labels, which have little to do with deep-seated policy analysis but instead reflect the incentives of social media platforms. In summary, these companies and trends illustrate the power of innovation, technology, and social dynamics in shaping consumer behavior and the market landscape. By embracing change and adapting to new realities, businesses can create value and thrive in an increasingly interconnected world.

• The harmful incentives of digital media: Recognizing the need for balance between freedom of expression and restraining impulses for healthier digital media ecosystems, while acknowledging the importance of gatekeepers and accountability in the tech industry.

  The current state of digital media, driven by clickbait and social media, is creating harmful incentives that exacerbate human tendencies towards conflict and sensationalism. This isn't just about people's natural inclinations, but rather the systems we have built that amplify these tendencies. The idea that social media is a utopian force that will naturally lead to freedom and openness is a relic of the past. Instead, we need to recognize that there are better ways to build these systems that don't censor human conflict or naively ignore the fact that people are drawn to sensational content. The challenge is finding a balance between allowing for freedom of expression and restraining the impulses that can lead to harmful outcomes. The tech industry's reliance on market logic and the idea that users make their own choices has led to a lack of oversight and accountability. We need to reconsider the role of gatekeepers and the importance of restraining some of our natural tendencies towards conflict and sensationalism in order to build healthier digital media ecosystems.

• The belief in market infallibility can be dangerous for regulating social media: Recognizing the complexity and potential dangers of social media is crucial for addressing issues, not just relying on the market to correct them.

  The belief in the infallibility of the market and the marketplace of ideas, often masked as neutrality, can be dangerous when it comes to regulating and shaping large-scale systems like social media. This belief, which is deeply ingrained in American culture, lets creators of such systems off the hook by allowing them to believe that the market will naturally correct any issues, and it can lead to the marginalization of certain groups and the promotion of harmful values. The speaker argues that recognizing the complexity and potential dangers of these systems is the first step towards addressing these issues. It's important to remember that gatekeepers and regulations are not always the solution, but a nuanced and critical approach is necessary to ensure that these systems serve the greater good. The speaker's critique is not about nostalgia for the past, but about the need for ongoing reflection and adaptation in the face of the ever-evolving media landscape.

• Perceived bias and censorship on social media: Bias and censorship perceptions on social media exist, regardless of actual violations, and it's crucial to maintain a balance between free speech and neutrality while considering real-world consequences.

  The current debate surrounding censorship and free speech on social media is fueled by a perceived sense of bias and censorship, even if there's no actual violation of First Amendment rights. This feeling resonates with people on both sides of the political spectrum, but it's more pronounced among those who feel underrepresented or silenced. The desire for social media platforms to favor one side over the other is a flawed perspective, as it overlooks the importance of empirical observations and the potential harm caused by privileging abstract principles. The idea of one person having significant control over a social media platform is concerning, and it's essential to maintain a balance between various values, including neutrality and free speech, while also considering the real-world consequences of our actions.

• Setting boundaries in online communities: Balancing free speech and safety: Social media platforms must establish rules to maintain a safe and inclusive online community, but drawing clear lines and applying them fairly is challenging due to subjectivity and potential for unfair application.

  Setting boundaries and enforcing rules in online communities, such as social media platforms, is a complex issue. While some argue that these companies should allow free speech without interference, others believe that active harassment and threats should not be tolerated. However, drawing clear lines and applying them fairly is challenging. The analogy of a party with dress codes was used to illustrate this concept. Just as a party host cannot let everyone wear whatever they want without causing chaos, social media platforms must establish rules to maintain a safe and inclusive environment. However, these rules can be subjective and open to interpretation, potentially leading to unfair application. The ongoing debate between Facebook and Twitter over political ads is an example of this dilemma. Ultimately, it's essential to strike a balance between free speech and creating a safe and welcoming online community.

• The openness of digital platforms has led to the spread of harmful content: The virality and infectious nature of social media can facilitate the spread of extremist views, bringing the fringe closer to the mainstream. Thoughtful regulation is necessary to mitigate risks and ensure positive societal impact.

  While the openness of digital platforms like social media has connected people in unprecedented ways, the lack of clear rules and uneven enforcement of policies has led to the proliferation of harmful content and the potential for tragic consequences. The idea that these issues are new or that the marketplace of ideas will automatically sort things out is dangerous and misguided. The history of humanity shows that intolerance and bigotry have always existed, but social media's virality and infectious nature can facilitate the spread of extremist views and bring the fringe closer to the mainstream. It's important to acknowledge the complexity of the issue and the need for thoughtful regulation to mitigate the risks and ensure that digital platforms contribute positively to society.

• The power of harmful ideologies and misinformation lies in emotional reactions, not popularity: Be mindful of the attention we give to harmful content, even if it's through condemnation, as it can still generate engagement and boost its reach.

  The power of harmful ideologies and misinformation doesn't necessarily lie in their popularity, but in their ability to generate strong emotional reactions and attention, even if that attention comes in the form of condemnation. This is a key insight from the book and the strategy used by groups like a podcast full of Nazis. Instead of focusing solely on whether we condemn or support such content, we should consider whether we are inadvertently giving it attention through our reactions and retweets. This is a particularly important consideration for those in the media. The idea that we are doing the right thing by condemning everything that seems condemnation worthy may be misguided, and we should be more mindful of the attention we give to such content.

• The Complexity of Engaging with Online Hate: Understanding the motivations behind ideological conversion and the role of contrarianism and rebellion is crucial when dealing with online hate, but there's no easy solution.

  Engaging with trolls and hate groups online can be a complex issue. Ignoring them is one option, but it's not always the best solution. Sometimes, it's necessary to challenge their harmful narratives. The case of The Daily Showa podcast illustrates this complexity. The podcast's founder, who grew up in a progressive environment, underwent a deep psychological conversion process that led him to become a Nazi. His family was shocked when they saw him at the Charlottesville rally, standing next to David Duke. This story raises questions about the motivations behind ideological conversion and the role of contrarianism and rebellion. Ultimately, there's no easy solution to dealing with hate online. It requires a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between psychological, social, and attentional factors.

• The Internet's role in radicalization: The Internet makes it easier for radicalized individuals to propagate extreme views and be part of like-minded communities, complicating societal issues. Engage and build coalitions for real activism and material change.

  The Internet has made it easier for radicalized individuals to propagate their extreme views and be part of like-minded communities, increasing the complexity and depth of societal issues. The case of a Neo-Nazi with a Jewish wife illustrates this, as the Internet's attentional mechanics kept him frozen in place despite opportunities to return to reality. Former President Barack Obama's comments on woke culture online echo this idea, emphasizing the importance of engaging and building coalitions rather than simply condemning. The online left, like any group, has a mix of productive and unproductive elements. While there are valid criticisms of performative antics, the core of Obama's message - focusing on real activism and material issues - remains relevant. Ultimately, the question of whether to engage or condemn individuals with extreme views is a complex one, requiring a nuanced understanding of the role of the Internet in shaping societal dynamics.

• Understanding Complex Human Relationships in Politics: Recognize the complexity of human relationships in politics, respect everyone's dignity, and distinguish between ideological enemies and those deserving compassion.

  While it's important to engage with people who hold different political views, it's also crucial to recognize the complexity of human relationships and the limitations of social media. The speaker emphasizes that everyone deserves respect and redemption, even those with extreme views. However, it's essential to distinguish between ideological enemies and those who deserve compassion and understanding. The speaker also acknowledges that people's political beliefs are often shaped by their identities and desires for dignity and respect. Furthermore, there is a concern that some individuals feel excluded or written off by certain political groups, which can push them towards extremist ideologies. The speaker encourages a nuanced approach to politics, allowing for the coexistence of both material and identity-based concerns. Ultimately, effective communication and understanding require active engagement, not just shouting across rooms or performing on social media.

• Exploring positive modes of engagement in online politics: To effectively engage in online politics, focus on proactive values, meaningful dialogue, and pushing for social justice, rather than causing discomfort and contributing to harmful structures.

  While online politics can involve shouting and conflict on social media, it's essential to consider positive modes of engagement that can be effective in the attention-hungry, conflict-oriented discourse. The danger lies in only making people feel written out and attacked, particularly those who can be radicalized and may benefit from understanding and empathy. It's not enough to just be nice and quiet, but instead, people should try to have proactive values and find ways to engage in meaningful dialogue without causing maximum discomfort. The goal should be to push the Overton window towards social justice, dismantling harmful structures, and creating a more inclusive society. The book, in recognizing the power of online forces, raises the question of what works in this environment and encourages the exploration of positive examples and lessons.

• Exploring adaptability in navigating societal issues: Philosopher Rorty's 'Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity' emphasizes the importance of flexibility and skepticism towards beliefs. Miłosz's 'The Captive Mind' offers insights on ideological transformations, while Wiener's 'Uncanny Valley' explores the implications of unchecked capitalism.

  While it's important to hold onto our social and policy goals, we should also be open to reassessing our tactics and communication strategies to effectively move towards a world where those goals are realized. This idea is explored in depth by philosopher Richard Rorty in his book "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity." Rorty argues that due to the contingency of human history and society, we must approach our beliefs with skepticism and flexibility. Another book that offers insights on this topic is "The Captive Mind" by Czesław Miłosz, which chronicles the ideological transformations of Miłosz's friends under Stalinist rule. Lastly, "Uncanny Valley" by Anna Wiener provides a fascinating account of life in Silicon Valley and the implications of unchecked capitalism. These books offer valuable perspectives on navigating complex societal issues while remaining adaptable in our approach.