For the past year or so, I've been active on social media. I've posted at least one tweet everyday (which automatically posts on FaceBook), and I've been following people, soliciting and accepting friend requests and followers, and checking Twitter and Facebook frequently. It's Phase I of an experiment I've been running in which I'm the only subject. I've been questioning the utility of social media for a long time, and I've often wondered if, as a society, we would be better off just not using it at all. Of course, this is not an original thought -- there have been countless think pieces written over the past decade (at least) about how things would be different (better) without social media. And of course, there is no way to really test it. We can't just make everybody stop using social media and see how it goes. However, I can do that for myself -- so, I'm doing it. I went "all in" on social media, and now the time has come for me to take a break. I'm not going to use Twitter or Facebook or any other form of social media for an extended period of time -- at least several months. I'll see if I notice a difference in quality of life and report back to you.
The timing of this is not totally arbitrary. I never set a firm stopping date for my social media use when I began this little experiment. It's been precipitated by a few current events. One is Mark Zuckerberg's testimony before Congress on the Cambridge Analytica fiasco. Honestly, the sale of personal data, in and of itself, doesn't bother me that much -- maybe it should, but it doesn't. What bothers me is Zuckerberg himself -- not in his personally life (about which I obviously know next to nothing), but in his business life. Zuckerberg qua Facebook CEO is one of the least impressive people in public life. He's either coldly mendacious or incredibly naive or, most likely, some combination thereof. He runs a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and so he makes decisions that are in the best interest of this corporation's bottom line, but then he acts as if he's just this nerdy tech guy trying to make the world a better place with his amazing algorithms. He's just trying to connect people -- how many times does he say that? -- and if it so happens that he amasses more wealth and power than any one person should have while he's connect people, that, I guess, is just an fortunate side effect.
Again, it's unclear to me whether or not Zuckerberg believes his own BS, but it doesn't really matter. My favorite quote ever is by Upton Sinclair -- "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it" -- and it's particularly apt in this instance. There are things Zuckerberg could do that would make Facebook better -- better for the user and better for society. Here are three:
The timing of this is not totally arbitrary. I never set a firm stopping date for my social media use when I began this little experiment. It's been precipitated by a few current events. One is Mark Zuckerberg's testimony before Congress on the Cambridge Analytica fiasco. Honestly, the sale of personal data, in and of itself, doesn't bother me that much -- maybe it should, but it doesn't. What bothers me is Zuckerberg himself -- not in his personally life (about which I obviously know next to nothing), but in his business life. Zuckerberg qua Facebook CEO is one of the least impressive people in public life. He's either coldly mendacious or incredibly naive or, most likely, some combination thereof. He runs a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and so he makes decisions that are in the best interest of this corporation's bottom line, but then he acts as if he's just this nerdy tech guy trying to make the world a better place with his amazing algorithms. He's just trying to connect people -- how many times does he say that? -- and if it so happens that he amasses more wealth and power than any one person should have while he's connect people, that, I guess, is just an fortunate side effect.
Again, it's unclear to me whether or not Zuckerberg believes his own BS, but it doesn't really matter. My favorite quote ever is by Upton Sinclair -- "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it" -- and it's particularly apt in this instance. There are things Zuckerberg could do that would make Facebook better -- better for the user and better for society. Here are three:
- Be more upfront about how personal data is being used and what is given to advertisers. If users want to trade personal data for free use of Facebook's platforms, fine. But make sure everybody knows what the agreement is. Don't hide it in user agreements nobody reads or make users adjust a bunch of settings. Put it out there explicitly: "We are going to manipulate your shit as follows... Click here to continue."
- Offer a subscription model so that users can opt out of advertisements and not have their data be shared.
- Adopt a set of journalistic standards and vet websites before allowing their articles to be shared on Facebook. Suspend users' accounts if they are posting a bunch of untrue things.
These are unlikely to happen, of course, because they are not in Facebook's best financial interest. With 1, this is obvious -- explicit warnings would scare away some users. With 2, people are generally averse to paying for social media platforms, which, honestly, is more of a problem with us than it is with these products. It never ceases to amaze me how little people value their time, privacy, and peace of mind (not being bombarded by ads) when it comes to "free" online content and services. Also, a subscription model might create a tiered system in Facebook -- the haves and the have-nots -- which is contrary to Zuckerberg's stated kumbaya mission of connecting people of all walks of life. With 3, you would have a total revolt by Trumpists and other trolls -- a nontrivial faction of Facebook's users -- who like the platform explicitly because it allows them to proliferate disinformation. They can read and share "news" that isn't filtered by the "liberal media" (i.e., that isn't fact checked or authenticated in anyway). Matt Iglesias of The Weeds podcast once said something to the effect of, "Facebook could do a bunch of things to drastically reduce the spread of fake news, but it would piss off conservatives, so they don't."
In fact, we saw this in action during Zuckerberg's testimony, when he was being questioned by Ted Cruz about liberal bias on the platform. Cruz went through a laundry list of "conservative" groups that Facebook had shut down, for unstated reasons, and then he pressed Zuckerberg if any "liberal" groups, like Planned Parenthood, had been shut down. If Zuckerberg wanted to, he really could have stuck it to Cruz here. He could have said something like, "Congressman, we do not discriminate at Facebook based on political views. However, we do have an objective standard of conduct for our users groups that includes no bullying, racism, or misogyny. If conservative groups are being shut down on Facebook, might I suggest the problem is not with Facebook?" But, of course, he said nothing like that. He totaled weaseled it, acquiescing to Cruz, admitting mistakes were made, and then vowing to do better -- his standard line.
In my opinion, the fundamental flaw with Zuckerberg is that he doesn't understand (or doesn't want to understand) that you can't be the head of a zillion-dollar, for-profit corporation and be an altruistic force of good in the world. That's not how capitalism works. No matter how much somebody like Zuckerberg personally donates to worthy causes, and no matter how useful their product seems to be to the public, at some point the profit motives of their company are going to come into conflict with the greater good of society, and their profit motives are going to win. (Perhaps that's why Bill Gates got of the game before going full-fledged humanitarian.) I think there is some serious cognitive dissonance with Zuckerberg on this point. It seems as if this is not something he really wants to acknowledge or deal with, which is why, as somebody on a podcast pointed out (I can't remember who or which podcast), he's so quick to hearken back to his early days, when he was just a geeky college kid, doing innocent geeky college things... like publicly rating which sorority girls are the hottest without their knowledge or permission.
This brings me to another one of my favorite quotes: "To me, one of the patterns we see that makes the world go wrong is when somebody acts as if they aren’t powerful when they actually are powerful." This is a recent quote by Jaron Lanier from this fascinating interview. And this article is another big reason why I'm choosing to get off social media now. Lanier makes the anti-social media case better than I can, and I highly recommend you read what he has to say. Although, I must confess, I don't totally get his final, grand point about social media as a religion. But I've never really understood religious (or spiritual) arguments in general. It's probably why I'm not religious (or spiritual). To me, there is a much more compelling, earthly reason against social media: It's a terrible time suck. It's something you do, for little satisfaction, that prevents you from doing other more satisfying things.
Over the past year, as I've ramped up my social media use, I've developed many bad habits that are going to be legitimately difficult to break. I constantly feel the need to check my phone, no matter what else I'm doing -- playing with the kids, check the phone; stopped at a red light, check the phone; can't sleep, check the phone; break at work, check the phone. It's gotten to the point where I found myself holding in my piss until I could get to my phone, because I wanted to look at it while I was peeing. Heaven forbid I relieve myself without checking if anybody commented on my post about Nic Cage movies. And for what? What do I get out of it? A fleeting shot of dopamine, triggered by a little thumbs up icon? A split-second high? I want a new drug.
Of course, there are things I'm going to miss about social media -- there are good things about it. (Although, as Lanier lays out, some of things we think are good about it, might not actually be good overall. His point about positive online political movements causing more powerful, negative backlashes is particularly interesting... and disconcerting.) Being able to stay connected with old friends, with whom I would otherwise lose touch, and being able to easily see pictures of my friends and family and their kids are things I will miss. However, "I like to see pics of my friends' kids" is a total lie we tell ourselves to justify using Facebook. Because if all you cared about is keeping tabs on friends and family and seeing pics of their kids grow up, your total time on Facebook would be about a half an hour a month. Kids don't grow that fast. Also, there is the issue that you aren't seeing your friends and family, as they are; you are seeing them as they wish to present themselves on social media. But that's an entirely different topic.
Anyway, I think I've spilled enough virtually ink on this topic. I'll keep you posted on my social media-less life.
Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment