Being a contrarian I like reading people with whom I disagree. Particularly I like hearing their best argument, the reasonable thoughtful, considered idea that is different than my own. Worst case I learn to recognise the best reasons of another side of an issue, best case I change my mind.
I never fully trust my own opinions until I have been challenged by competent opponents. If there is a better place than Substack to have those discussions, I haven't found it.
I try to keep an open mind, and, except for Ruy Teixeira, I disagree with most of the positions put forth on this Substack, but it is always well worth reading. The comments section is always very good (sad how it only takes one or two “jerks” to ruin a comments section).
What the corporate news media has evolved into deserves to die, quickly. Watching Maddow is like watching a crime in progress.
I agree with you about Twitter/X and Bluesky - but I will probably share this article on Facebook. I was banned from X for reasons that were never explained to me (I am very pro Israel and I might have been flooded with Qatari bots - who knows?) but I am glad to have been banned. It's very toxic for my mental wellbeing.
On Facebook, I share articles but never read replies. I also don't engage with other people's political shares except to give a "like" once in a while.
Just as with smoking - which was everywhere when I was a kid in the 70's - I think people are realizing the harms of second hand social media, and it is becoming more and more stigmatized to spend time on it.
I think this will lead to fewer people using it, or admitting when they do. I also think people are learning to take it far less seriously.
Sorry about that and agree with your points. I don’t have any personal social media accounts except here on Substack which I like. Use Facebook and X moderately for TLP stuff but find them both kind of annoying now with all the forced content and mainly just follow bands I like or watch dog videos! I think you’re right that experience will lead people to dial it back in the future for their own health.
Here I am on social media, defending social media (which is what Substack is) from a practitioner of social media. I gravitated to Substack for reasons similar to what you have said about anger and insults in other media. It is actually possible to have intelligent discussions on Substack, or at least the platforms I subscribe to.
The reason social media has replaced corporate media as a news source is that corporate media has completely disgraced itself. The latest polling data shows they have dropped below Congress on the Trust-o-Meter. The only thing keeping it alive is inertia and as soon as enough old people (Full disclosure-I am old.) die off, they are finished. So that genie isn't going back in the bottle.
Attempts to censor social media will simply make things worse. The Founders understood that principle which is why we have the 1A in the first place. I am making an perhaps incorrect assumption that this essay was triggered by Musk's Euro-jihad. I would point out that the EU and UK have been in contention with him for some time over the censorship issue. I see this as his response.
Thanks, Richard. This was triggered by a conversation about restrictions and bans on phones in schools. The logic there is pretty solid and schools will definitely be better off without kids on their phones all day. Clearly you can’t and wouldn’t want to do that for adults or in politics. But the negative impacts are the same and if we’re going to preserve the full spirit of Jefferson ‘s commitment to free expression we need far better norms on social media use to complement 1st Amendment rights.
Ah, but who watches the watchers. Government and corporate media have abused power and the 1A in their attempt to do so. The Euros aren't encumbered by the 1A but if we believe it is a natural or God-given right, we should judge them by that standard. I suppose the platforms themselves could do it but after the last few years, there will be intense suspicion that government is the man behind the curtain.
As for disinformation on social media causing unrest, take a look at the Great Sepoy Revolt (1857). Although there were many simmering grievances, the trigger for the revolt was a rumor spread among Hindu soldiers that the cartridges for their rifles (which had to be bitten to load) were greased with fat from cows while Muslims believed it was from pigs. Obviously, someone spread these rumors but I am pretty sure it wasn't social media. The Taiping Rebellion (1850) was led by a man who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus. The Ghost Dance religion morphed from a gentle founding starting among the Paiutes to a much more confrontational version among the Lakota (1890) leading to the Wounded Knee massacre. The Tulip Mania (1634) is an illustration of a non-lethal but thoroughly crazy event.
The issue of children strikes me as different. It really is an issue for parents and since schools operate in loco parentis, for them. Some parents and schools have failed in their duty. Many parents who work in the industry restrict usage by their own children which should be a message for the rest of us. My own children were adults by the time social media came along but we did restrict TV usage.
Here's a good rule of thumb for posting comments on social media. Express yourself in writing with the same tone that you would express yourself face-to-face with other people. The physical distance and/or the anonymity of social media leads most people to be far more hostile toward other people than they would be if they were sitting across the table from them. Good manners is a lost art on social media.
It may not always be pretty, but the last election , likely would have ended differently, if not for social media. Nearly every large media and newspaper company, leans dramatically Left. If an American spends significant time in airports and traveling internationally, Far Left news is often the only available, except for social media.
Covid demonstrated, the overwhelmingly power of the Left leaning media and newspapers. People were not allowed to discuss Covid origins, treatments, or lockdowns. Even Right leaning publications like the WSJ, forbade columns and comments, that refuted the Dem Party line, that Covid originated in the Wet Markets, lockdowns were absolutely necessary and vaccination was the only way to address the virus.
Social media allowed those economically decimated by Biden/Harris, a forum to discuss, how their lives were affected by trillions in spending, Green and EV policy, and mass immigration. Rural flyover residents, whose schools were suddenly facing new students lacking any English skills, and sometimes, any previous formal education, had a forum to tell the rest of the US, how immigration changed their children's education opportunities.
Laken Riley's murder was covered by major sites, eventually, but in Texas, numerous girls and women have endured violence at the hands of new arrivals. Drunk or unlicensed migrant car crashes, that claim lives, are a regularity, but they are rarely covered by major news sites, only local news. Social media allows those in the area, to explain to the rest of the US, their experiences.
Better manners would be welcome, but social media allows those without a voice to tell their stories, a means to communicate, their experiences. That cannot be a bad thing.
I definitely agree with the positive notion that social media allows avenues for circumventing elite controlled media and broaching overlooked or ignored issues. Excellent point. The problem is that social media is dominated by extremists on the left and right who get all the attention and dominate all the discussions. It’s better to just stay off it in my opinion, and scan periodically with intent to learn something new that is actually true and interesting. Are Musk and Zuckerberg really men of the people? No, they’re billionaires trying to get their way in politics and business so people are right to view their platforms skeptically. From one form of mind control to another.
Musk and Zuckerberg are not the answer, but citizens informing each other, might be. We spent 25 years, on a street in the Silicon Valley, were my husband and I were the only US born adults. No one gave the composition of residents, a thought. We had the nicest neighbors in the world, and the best potlucks. It never occurred to me, there might be a downside, to any type of immigration.
When we relocated to Texas, a local news site, published a small photo of a pretty Hispanic teenager, in a cheerleading uniform. I assumed the local high school won a competition. If only. She was murdered, by a migrant that had crossed the border, mere months earlier. Housed, in her low income apartment complex, when she rebuffed his advances, he killed her. Her impoverished, but devoted single mother, found her only child, naked and strangled, in her bathtub.
As a mother, I waited for public outcry, that never came. No one cared. My native Texas neighbors weren't surprised. They began to pass along similar stories of violence and car crashes. I have a law degree. I trust nothing, I do not verify. The carnage, ignored by the rest of the US, was unbelievable. Victims, overwhelmingly, minority and poor, were ignored.
The plight of American citizens, residing at the border, was equally appalling. Forced to dwell in a quasi war zone, thanks to DC border policy, their stories, also went untold. It is probably more than a coincidence, they are also, poor and minority.
If border policy changes, as a result of the election, it will be at least partially, because social media informed the country of stories, large media outlets and major newspapers, had no interest in publishing, and which, DC, tried desperately to ignore.
No denying any of this. Jean Twenge's research on teens' self-esteem, body image, depression, and so on is heavily tied to social media. But railing against that is like railing against cars or microwave ovens. It's a reality.
American politics is never stagnant. I have made the point repeatedly that Abraham LIncoln, with his ugly face, his high screechy voice, could NEVER have won election in the age of radio. But FDR could---but FDR, in his wheelchair and with crutches, could never have won in the age of television. However wrong, Americans (indeed most world leaders) were NOT willing to accept a handicapped man as president in the 1980s. Reagan with his perfect television persona, despite the misty memories of many, could NOT win an election today. Too nice.
The fact is our politics always change, and always have since the 1790s, when George Washington didn't even blink when he delivered the state of the union by letter and wouldn't talk to congress personally. Remember, though, when slamming social media for "hate" and "anger," SENATORS used to carry pistols IN THE CHAMBER and more than once duels nearly broke out on the Senate floor. In Arkansas in the 1830s, a knife fight broke out and one rep gutted another. Preston Brooks nearly beat Charles Sumner to death with a cane right in the Senate.
Social media is now as much of us as Taco Bell. Figure out how to use it, control it when you can, but more important, start thinking about what is NEXT---cuz it will be just as colossal in its effect.
I'm a big fan of Liberal Patriot, but here you make the mistake that so many politically interested people do--assume that normal people are like you. In fact, the impact of social media on politics is minimal for the same reason that the impact of other media is minimal--regular Americans pay little attention to it. I've got a review paper that I'll send to anyone who is interested.
Many thanks, that would be great. Would love to read it. I don't doubt that most voters are tuned out of political debates in the media and on social media--and that elite social media obsessions on Twitter "aren't the real world." But the platforms have certainly shaped the way politics is practiced and which issues get attention and in what manner. Anyway thanks for reading TLP and responding--I remember your books and articles fondly from my poli sci grad school days and working on the APSR book review!
Bravo. I am relieved to find TLP finally producing an article focused more closely on this subject, no less by one of its major editors/authors. It is not a crowd-pleasing thing to do, and takes journalistic guts.
No analysis of our drift towards illiberal extremism on both sides of the political spectrum is complete without an acknowledgement and analysis of the driving force played by social media.
I think it would be even more beneficial to dig into the issue even further in the future, because it goes even deeper than this article acknowledges. A fuller analysis would look at the way the algorithms that govern the news people get from social media platforms prioritize and optimize for short-run engagement (number of clicks, number of views by different users, etc.) and in doing so naturally favor the quickest route to engagement, which is an appeal to the brain's negative 'fight-or-flight' responses--anger, paranoia, tribalism, and the like. They are disincentivized to appeal to the positive forms of human engagement that take longer to develop--long-run thinking about the future, trust, broad feelings of tolerance and fellowship.
This means that, in general, social media has the effect of augmenting content that frames the world in paranoid, angry, and tribalistic ways. However, it is a slow, subtle process--so many people fail to notice the drift. And as more and more people absorb information about current events and the world beyond their immediate environment through social media--a trend which COVID accelerated at a lightspeed pace--more and more of society will be driven to more and more extreme, paranoid, angry and tribalistic politics. Removing the last vestiges of informational guard rails--like Meta is--will only supercharge this process.
The common denominator between the extremism of the activist left and the extremism of the section of MAGA that rationalized breaking into the Capitol and shouting "Hang Mike Pence!" is social media. We would all be infinitely better off if we abandoned these platforms (whether it's X or BlueSky) altogether. But, if that proves impossible, there is another solution, which is to push Big Data and the owners of these platforms to change their business model.
That is the last--and most important--thing future articles should dig into: the way the business model of Big Data drives the negative dynamics of these platforms. I.e., users get access to the platforms for 'free', but then the owners of the platforms make money by selling those users' personal data to advertising consultancies and by agreeing to tweak their algorithms to modify user behavior to buy said ad companies' products. Most users don't realize that they are not the customers of these platforms--they are the product. Pushing Big Data to reform this business model, which is innately destructive, can help fix the issues with social media, and do so in a way that doesn't try to combat them purely by bans and punitive regulations.
Either way, good on TLP for broaching the subject.
The truest thing to say about the Trump era is that "it's easier to be angry than to be informed". Zuckerberg's recent act of cowardice will reinforce this. How do we dig out of all the disinfomation and misinformation that will result?
While in general I agree that social media can be destructive, I also have observed the capture of local newspapers by the progressive left. When reading my local paper I find myself questioning what slant is being promoted, what facts go unmentioned, and whose agenda is being pushed. Social media sources like those on Substack provide me with supplemental information that allows me to reach more informed conclusions on the issues.
As an aside, whenever I hear someone opining that I “should” exercise my individual rights for the general benefit of society, my hackles go up. Who defines the “general benefit” and to what purpose? When bureaucrats try to nudge my legal behavior in a direction they think is more appropriate, I dig in my heels. That’s not their job.
To be clear, the argument is a republican one from the Founding Fathers--citizens exercising their individual rights on behalf of common purposes and goals as outlined in the Constitution and state laws. Not the government or bureaucrats telling people what to do. Agree with you there. Thanks!
Thanks for the reply. I'm with you WRT the purposes and goals in the Preamble informing the exercise of our individual rights. You lost me when you added "state laws". Any state law that effects the exercise of my individual rights must be congruent with the Constitution, had best have a verdammt good reason for existing, and be narrowly tailored to address a specific issue.
My local paper has yet to cover the story going on in the UK (grooming gangs, i.e. rapists). It's mostly reprints of AP stories, completely anti-Israel. In a city of half a million, they don't publish on holidays any more.
I would suggest that maybe corrupt politicians ruined politics. Social Media just amplifies the already damaged process. The algorithms, not the posts are the problem.
Social Media algorithms need to be regulated or abolished. Now they just amplify the echo chambers and highlight the most toxic.
"A little down time from social media at the start of a new presidential term may be good for everyone,....". this would be great but how about the MSM also toning it down and start telling the truth, report the news and not opinionize it. I personally only use my phone for what it is named for 'tlephone'. Once in a while maybe need to resend to a text message I need to answer . There are sites to go to to get reasoned stories and news and be able to respond in a rational manner. Yes there always those abusers who love to pull chains, but those are easily ignored.
I believe social media simply gave a full look into what was already going on with the "educated left". I have a foot in both the red and blue tribes and there is a more profound percolating nastiness with the blues that just isn't as common with the reds. The blues spew as if they actually would prefer the reds to be dead. The reds spew as if they just want the blues out of power and off their neck. This difference is made so much more troubling for me noting that the blues have most of the socioeconomic benefits and privileges today. They have been the relative beneficiaries of modern "progress" and changes to our economy... and yet they are more angry, vile and, frankly, dangerous. It is primarily THEM attempting assassinations and burning down cities under the auspices of social justice.
Reds are less secular and their connection to God and religion I think provides some more moral grounding that at least provides a counter to wanting to harm others because of their political differences. But I debate these people on Substack sites and social media, and they are both articulate and informed, but the "conversation" generally aways degrades to a pile-on of invective that when I review is significantly hateful.
I guess my conclusion here is that I think the left side of politics is sick... and might have always been sick... but social media just amplifies the disease.
- ban advertising on social media and convert these platforms into subscription services.
- repeal the law that shields platforms from liability for defamation.
Why haven’t we taken these common sense steps? Duh, tech firms and their owners give massive campaign cash to candidates. Consequently, all reforms of social media are taboo.
Until we fix campaign finance, we’re spinning our wheels on everything we need to make a good life for our people. www.savedemocracyinamerica.org
If anybody wants my wife and I to take their comment really seriously, provide a link or several links to empirical studies on the topic. It's one of the reasons I like The Liberal Patriot.
Being a contrarian I like reading people with whom I disagree. Particularly I like hearing their best argument, the reasonable thoughtful, considered idea that is different than my own. Worst case I learn to recognise the best reasons of another side of an issue, best case I change my mind.
I never fully trust my own opinions until I have been challenged by competent opponents. If there is a better place than Substack to have those discussions, I haven't found it.
I try to keep an open mind, and, except for Ruy Teixeira, I disagree with most of the positions put forth on this Substack, but it is always well worth reading. The comments section is always very good (sad how it only takes one or two “jerks” to ruin a comments section).
What the corporate news media has evolved into deserves to die, quickly. Watching Maddow is like watching a crime in progress.
If posters use words like MAGA, cult, tRUMP then I put them in 'jerk' bin and never read anything they write.
I"ll suggest an additional one: Troll.
I agree with you about Twitter/X and Bluesky - but I will probably share this article on Facebook. I was banned from X for reasons that were never explained to me (I am very pro Israel and I might have been flooded with Qatari bots - who knows?) but I am glad to have been banned. It's very toxic for my mental wellbeing.
On Facebook, I share articles but never read replies. I also don't engage with other people's political shares except to give a "like" once in a while.
Just as with smoking - which was everywhere when I was a kid in the 70's - I think people are realizing the harms of second hand social media, and it is becoming more and more stigmatized to spend time on it.
I think this will lead to fewer people using it, or admitting when they do. I also think people are learning to take it far less seriously.
Sorry about that and agree with your points. I don’t have any personal social media accounts except here on Substack which I like. Use Facebook and X moderately for TLP stuff but find them both kind of annoying now with all the forced content and mainly just follow bands I like or watch dog videos! I think you’re right that experience will lead people to dial it back in the future for their own health.
Here I am on social media, defending social media (which is what Substack is) from a practitioner of social media. I gravitated to Substack for reasons similar to what you have said about anger and insults in other media. It is actually possible to have intelligent discussions on Substack, or at least the platforms I subscribe to.
The reason social media has replaced corporate media as a news source is that corporate media has completely disgraced itself. The latest polling data shows they have dropped below Congress on the Trust-o-Meter. The only thing keeping it alive is inertia and as soon as enough old people (Full disclosure-I am old.) die off, they are finished. So that genie isn't going back in the bottle.
Attempts to censor social media will simply make things worse. The Founders understood that principle which is why we have the 1A in the first place. I am making an perhaps incorrect assumption that this essay was triggered by Musk's Euro-jihad. I would point out that the EU and UK have been in contention with him for some time over the censorship issue. I see this as his response.
Thanks, Richard. This was triggered by a conversation about restrictions and bans on phones in schools. The logic there is pretty solid and schools will definitely be better off without kids on their phones all day. Clearly you can’t and wouldn’t want to do that for adults or in politics. But the negative impacts are the same and if we’re going to preserve the full spirit of Jefferson ‘s commitment to free expression we need far better norms on social media use to complement 1st Amendment rights.
Ah, but who watches the watchers. Government and corporate media have abused power and the 1A in their attempt to do so. The Euros aren't encumbered by the 1A but if we believe it is a natural or God-given right, we should judge them by that standard. I suppose the platforms themselves could do it but after the last few years, there will be intense suspicion that government is the man behind the curtain.
As for disinformation on social media causing unrest, take a look at the Great Sepoy Revolt (1857). Although there were many simmering grievances, the trigger for the revolt was a rumor spread among Hindu soldiers that the cartridges for their rifles (which had to be bitten to load) were greased with fat from cows while Muslims believed it was from pigs. Obviously, someone spread these rumors but I am pretty sure it wasn't social media. The Taiping Rebellion (1850) was led by a man who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus. The Ghost Dance religion morphed from a gentle founding starting among the Paiutes to a much more confrontational version among the Lakota (1890) leading to the Wounded Knee massacre. The Tulip Mania (1634) is an illustration of a non-lethal but thoroughly crazy event.
The issue of children strikes me as different. It really is an issue for parents and since schools operate in loco parentis, for them. Some parents and schools have failed in their duty. Many parents who work in the industry restrict usage by their own children which should be a message for the rest of us. My own children were adults by the time social media came along but we did restrict TV usage.
Here's a good rule of thumb for posting comments on social media. Express yourself in writing with the same tone that you would express yourself face-to-face with other people. The physical distance and/or the anonymity of social media leads most people to be far more hostile toward other people than they would be if they were sitting across the table from them. Good manners is a lost art on social media.
It may not always be pretty, but the last election , likely would have ended differently, if not for social media. Nearly every large media and newspaper company, leans dramatically Left. If an American spends significant time in airports and traveling internationally, Far Left news is often the only available, except for social media.
Covid demonstrated, the overwhelmingly power of the Left leaning media and newspapers. People were not allowed to discuss Covid origins, treatments, or lockdowns. Even Right leaning publications like the WSJ, forbade columns and comments, that refuted the Dem Party line, that Covid originated in the Wet Markets, lockdowns were absolutely necessary and vaccination was the only way to address the virus.
Social media allowed those economically decimated by Biden/Harris, a forum to discuss, how their lives were affected by trillions in spending, Green and EV policy, and mass immigration. Rural flyover residents, whose schools were suddenly facing new students lacking any English skills, and sometimes, any previous formal education, had a forum to tell the rest of the US, how immigration changed their children's education opportunities.
Laken Riley's murder was covered by major sites, eventually, but in Texas, numerous girls and women have endured violence at the hands of new arrivals. Drunk or unlicensed migrant car crashes, that claim lives, are a regularity, but they are rarely covered by major news sites, only local news. Social media allows those in the area, to explain to the rest of the US, their experiences.
Better manners would be welcome, but social media allows those without a voice to tell their stories, a means to communicate, their experiences. That cannot be a bad thing.
I definitely agree with the positive notion that social media allows avenues for circumventing elite controlled media and broaching overlooked or ignored issues. Excellent point. The problem is that social media is dominated by extremists on the left and right who get all the attention and dominate all the discussions. It’s better to just stay off it in my opinion, and scan periodically with intent to learn something new that is actually true and interesting. Are Musk and Zuckerberg really men of the people? No, they’re billionaires trying to get their way in politics and business so people are right to view their platforms skeptically. From one form of mind control to another.
Musk and Zuckerberg are not the answer, but citizens informing each other, might be. We spent 25 years, on a street in the Silicon Valley, were my husband and I were the only US born adults. No one gave the composition of residents, a thought. We had the nicest neighbors in the world, and the best potlucks. It never occurred to me, there might be a downside, to any type of immigration.
When we relocated to Texas, a local news site, published a small photo of a pretty Hispanic teenager, in a cheerleading uniform. I assumed the local high school won a competition. If only. She was murdered, by a migrant that had crossed the border, mere months earlier. Housed, in her low income apartment complex, when she rebuffed his advances, he killed her. Her impoverished, but devoted single mother, found her only child, naked and strangled, in her bathtub.
As a mother, I waited for public outcry, that never came. No one cared. My native Texas neighbors weren't surprised. They began to pass along similar stories of violence and car crashes. I have a law degree. I trust nothing, I do not verify. The carnage, ignored by the rest of the US, was unbelievable. Victims, overwhelmingly, minority and poor, were ignored.
The plight of American citizens, residing at the border, was equally appalling. Forced to dwell in a quasi war zone, thanks to DC border policy, their stories, also went untold. It is probably more than a coincidence, they are also, poor and minority.
If border policy changes, as a result of the election, it will be at least partially, because social media informed the country of stories, large media outlets and major newspapers, had no interest in publishing, and which, DC, tried desperately to ignore.
No denying any of this. Jean Twenge's research on teens' self-esteem, body image, depression, and so on is heavily tied to social media. But railing against that is like railing against cars or microwave ovens. It's a reality.
American politics is never stagnant. I have made the point repeatedly that Abraham LIncoln, with his ugly face, his high screechy voice, could NEVER have won election in the age of radio. But FDR could---but FDR, in his wheelchair and with crutches, could never have won in the age of television. However wrong, Americans (indeed most world leaders) were NOT willing to accept a handicapped man as president in the 1980s. Reagan with his perfect television persona, despite the misty memories of many, could NOT win an election today. Too nice.
The fact is our politics always change, and always have since the 1790s, when George Washington didn't even blink when he delivered the state of the union by letter and wouldn't talk to congress personally. Remember, though, when slamming social media for "hate" and "anger," SENATORS used to carry pistols IN THE CHAMBER and more than once duels nearly broke out on the Senate floor. In Arkansas in the 1830s, a knife fight broke out and one rep gutted another. Preston Brooks nearly beat Charles Sumner to death with a cane right in the Senate.
Social media is now as much of us as Taco Bell. Figure out how to use it, control it when you can, but more important, start thinking about what is NEXT---cuz it will be just as colossal in its effect.
Good historical perspective. You’re probably correct. Thanks, Larry!
I'm a big fan of Liberal Patriot, but here you make the mistake that so many politically interested people do--assume that normal people are like you. In fact, the impact of social media on politics is minimal for the same reason that the impact of other media is minimal--regular Americans pay little attention to it. I've got a review paper that I'll send to anyone who is interested.
Many thanks, that would be great. Would love to read it. I don't doubt that most voters are tuned out of political debates in the media and on social media--and that elite social media obsessions on Twitter "aren't the real world." But the platforms have certainly shaped the way politics is practiced and which issues get attention and in what manner. Anyway thanks for reading TLP and responding--I remember your books and articles fondly from my poli sci grad school days and working on the APSR book review!
Bravo. I am relieved to find TLP finally producing an article focused more closely on this subject, no less by one of its major editors/authors. It is not a crowd-pleasing thing to do, and takes journalistic guts.
No analysis of our drift towards illiberal extremism on both sides of the political spectrum is complete without an acknowledgement and analysis of the driving force played by social media.
I think it would be even more beneficial to dig into the issue even further in the future, because it goes even deeper than this article acknowledges. A fuller analysis would look at the way the algorithms that govern the news people get from social media platforms prioritize and optimize for short-run engagement (number of clicks, number of views by different users, etc.) and in doing so naturally favor the quickest route to engagement, which is an appeal to the brain's negative 'fight-or-flight' responses--anger, paranoia, tribalism, and the like. They are disincentivized to appeal to the positive forms of human engagement that take longer to develop--long-run thinking about the future, trust, broad feelings of tolerance and fellowship.
This means that, in general, social media has the effect of augmenting content that frames the world in paranoid, angry, and tribalistic ways. However, it is a slow, subtle process--so many people fail to notice the drift. And as more and more people absorb information about current events and the world beyond their immediate environment through social media--a trend which COVID accelerated at a lightspeed pace--more and more of society will be driven to more and more extreme, paranoid, angry and tribalistic politics. Removing the last vestiges of informational guard rails--like Meta is--will only supercharge this process.
The common denominator between the extremism of the activist left and the extremism of the section of MAGA that rationalized breaking into the Capitol and shouting "Hang Mike Pence!" is social media. We would all be infinitely better off if we abandoned these platforms (whether it's X or BlueSky) altogether. But, if that proves impossible, there is another solution, which is to push Big Data and the owners of these platforms to change their business model.
That is the last--and most important--thing future articles should dig into: the way the business model of Big Data drives the negative dynamics of these platforms. I.e., users get access to the platforms for 'free', but then the owners of the platforms make money by selling those users' personal data to advertising consultancies and by agreeing to tweak their algorithms to modify user behavior to buy said ad companies' products. Most users don't realize that they are not the customers of these platforms--they are the product. Pushing Big Data to reform this business model, which is innately destructive, can help fix the issues with social media, and do so in a way that doesn't try to combat them purely by bans and punitive regulations.
Either way, good on TLP for broaching the subject.
Interesting insights and points, thanks. Worth more examination as you say.
The truest thing to say about the Trump era is that "it's easier to be angry than to be informed". Zuckerberg's recent act of cowardice will reinforce this. How do we dig out of all the disinfomation and misinformation that will result?
While in general I agree that social media can be destructive, I also have observed the capture of local newspapers by the progressive left. When reading my local paper I find myself questioning what slant is being promoted, what facts go unmentioned, and whose agenda is being pushed. Social media sources like those on Substack provide me with supplemental information that allows me to reach more informed conclusions on the issues.
As an aside, whenever I hear someone opining that I “should” exercise my individual rights for the general benefit of society, my hackles go up. Who defines the “general benefit” and to what purpose? When bureaucrats try to nudge my legal behavior in a direction they think is more appropriate, I dig in my heels. That’s not their job.
To be clear, the argument is a republican one from the Founding Fathers--citizens exercising their individual rights on behalf of common purposes and goals as outlined in the Constitution and state laws. Not the government or bureaucrats telling people what to do. Agree with you there. Thanks!
Thanks for the reply. I'm with you WRT the purposes and goals in the Preamble informing the exercise of our individual rights. You lost me when you added "state laws". Any state law that effects the exercise of my individual rights must be congruent with the Constitution, had best have a verdammt good reason for existing, and be narrowly tailored to address a specific issue.
My local paper has yet to cover the story going on in the UK (grooming gangs, i.e. rapists). It's mostly reprints of AP stories, completely anti-Israel. In a city of half a million, they don't publish on holidays any more.
I would suggest that maybe corrupt politicians ruined politics. Social Media just amplifies the already damaged process. The algorithms, not the posts are the problem.
Social Media algorithms need to be regulated or abolished. Now they just amplify the echo chambers and highlight the most toxic.
"A little down time from social media at the start of a new presidential term may be good for everyone,....". this would be great but how about the MSM also toning it down and start telling the truth, report the news and not opinionize it. I personally only use my phone for what it is named for 'tlephone'. Once in a while maybe need to resend to a text message I need to answer . There are sites to go to to get reasoned stories and news and be able to respond in a rational manner. Yes there always those abusers who love to pull chains, but those are easily ignored.
I believe social media simply gave a full look into what was already going on with the "educated left". I have a foot in both the red and blue tribes and there is a more profound percolating nastiness with the blues that just isn't as common with the reds. The blues spew as if they actually would prefer the reds to be dead. The reds spew as if they just want the blues out of power and off their neck. This difference is made so much more troubling for me noting that the blues have most of the socioeconomic benefits and privileges today. They have been the relative beneficiaries of modern "progress" and changes to our economy... and yet they are more angry, vile and, frankly, dangerous. It is primarily THEM attempting assassinations and burning down cities under the auspices of social justice.
Reds are less secular and their connection to God and religion I think provides some more moral grounding that at least provides a counter to wanting to harm others because of their political differences. But I debate these people on Substack sites and social media, and they are both articulate and informed, but the "conversation" generally aways degrades to a pile-on of invective that when I review is significantly hateful.
I guess my conclusion here is that I think the left side of politics is sick... and might have always been sick... but social media just amplifies the disease.
Here are two reform ideas:
- ban advertising on social media and convert these platforms into subscription services.
- repeal the law that shields platforms from liability for defamation.
Why haven’t we taken these common sense steps? Duh, tech firms and their owners give massive campaign cash to candidates. Consequently, all reforms of social media are taboo.
Until we fix campaign finance, we’re spinning our wheels on everything we need to make a good life for our people. www.savedemocracyinamerica.org
I’ve also thought it was appropriate that a smartphone fits into a pocket about as easily as a pack of cigarettes.
If anybody wants my wife and I to take their comment really seriously, provide a link or several links to empirical studies on the topic. It's one of the reasons I like The Liberal Patriot.