
Social Media Is Warping Democracy: Why It Feels Like Everything Is Going Haywire - pseudolus
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/social-media-democracy/600763/
======
jfengel
I'm still on the fence about how much correlation is causation here.

There was another key development in the early 1990s, with the development
first of the 24-hour news cycle, then the partisan divisiveness of it. At the
same time, political consultants began to focus on divisive language and coded
name-calling, continuing a notion that dated back to the late 1960s -- a
notable divisive time in American history.

So I can't tell whether this is just the natural growth of partisanship as
reflected in new media, or whether there is an actual inflection point. There
is a feedback causing an exponential growth, and it can be hard to tell the
difference between an apparent sharp, sudden increase in an exponential curve,
and a real external effect.

~~~
woodandsteel
The article does say there are other causes. But social media took the
previously invented 24-hour news cycle and all its ills, and put it on
steroids.

~~~
jfengel
Absolutely. It's just that one of my main concerns is that we've been
partially blaming foreign agitators on social media for that amplification,
and I believe we need to recognize that we've done it to ourselves. Rather
than look outside, I want us to start looking inwards... and I've believed
that since before social media.

I'm trying to remain neutral here, though I suspect you can guess that I blame
some specific individuals and groups for that. To my knowledge, they have
shown no signs of letting up. They should be the easiest point of failure to
fix, and if they won't, I don't know if any amount of analysis and
understanding will help.

------
helen___keller
A cathartic article, but it might be worth examining this as a gradual process
that has ramped up with social media. The newspaper, the radio, and the
television all brought us further down the line to where we are now.

I think the big question is how do we move on and adapt from here. Do we add
social media controls, like you might see in China? Perhaps do we try and pass
constitutional amendments that fundamentally change our democracy in a way
that jives better with the modern flow of information?

edit: of course, it's also possible the next generation will simply learn to
live better with the barrage of information than we handled it, and our
current highly volatile state of politics will reach some kind of status quo
once again (for better or for worse)

~~~
smbowner
This is a great point. We've been building to this for a long time. Social
media and the modern internet is just the tip (a big tip though!) of this
problem.

I imagine navigating this problem space will be very difficult. Small changes
are likely to have major impacts down the line.

The re-tweet button is a great example.

------
papito
Social media seems to drag everything down to the lowest common denominator.
The only barrier of entry to express your opinion is to register on Twitter,
which is not a barrier of entry.

In the past, one had to be published in a magazine, a paper, or show up on TV
- not an easy task, just to say something.

Then we had blogs, which was a vast improvement in giving people voice, but at
the same time a very good center ground. Setting up a blog, and then writing
an entry is not that enjoyable. You need to really have something to say to go
cross that bridge.

Now, however, you just open up your app and go "LOLZ LOLZ STUPID LIBS R SO
TRIGGERED MAGA". Done.

Social media is where social conscience goes to die, so yes, I believe it.

There is a very good reason why the tornado of lies we hear from the VERY top
of our government, and in fact, governments, is because social media brought
down the attention span to zero. It's not that they became better liars -
people just no longer critically process information, and move on to the next
thing.

~~~
errantspark
> social media brought down the attention span to zero

> people just no longer critically process information, and move on to the
> next thing

Sadly I don't even think this is true. I think "people" in general have always
been like this, and social media hasn't really changed that. You mentioned the
barrier to entry dropping to zero. I think most of these issues are almost
solely a result of that. The intellectual bias that used to be present in "the
discourse" has been erased. The politicians/CEOs no longer have doubts,
there's no reason to hedge. They __know __exactly how easy it is to manipulate
the populace.

~~~
papito
While I see your point, I also believe the sheer shameless lies were not
possible before 2007, pre-mobile and pre-twitter. People would consume the
info, slowly, and have time to process it. Now, the you know who says
something like, "you know, that seems shady, someone should look into it", and
leave it there. And then just burry that under another never-ending stream of
lies.

I think both are really interlocked. Low barrier of entry = a flood of info =
low attention spans as a defense mechanism to deal with it.

~~~
smbowner
This is a really good point. The pace of shameless lying is so fast it's
impossible to keep up.

Even if you're paying attention you can't keep it all straight in your head.
You have to be a real time BS processing machine these days. And that simply
isn't possible.

------
mindgam3
> The problem may not be connectivity itself but rather the way social media
> turns so much communication into a public performance.

This is a key insight. The performance aspect is what is killing social media
and getting us addicted to Like and karma points. And of course these metrics
are directly related to engagement and ad-based revenue models. It will be
interesting to see how far these companies dare to go undoing the damage by
hiding Like counts etc.

------
bn7t
Very insightful article. Explains a lot that is happening currently.

------
uwydr
It's really a shame that we are all forced by law to sign up to
Facebook/Twitter/etc and check the feed constantly

~~~
jeoeo9jrkr
I don’t use any of them.

Every one I know is being bombarded by their paid speech though.

So even non-users have a legit argument to regulation.

I can politically assert my right to a world that isn’t bent towards paid
speech.

The most important bias we don’t discuss in our algorithms: they’re all
designed by paid workers. They’re designing to improve their pay.

I don’t owe Facebook, Zuckerberg, or anyone on this forum my deference to the
economic ideas of dead men next November :shrug:

~~~
smbowner
When you say you don't use any of them, I think you're being fairly narrow
with your definition.

It's pretty hard to dodge Amazon and Google on today's internet. Are you
prepared to shut yourself off entirely from those services?

Would you be willing to block the Amazon and Google blocks of IPs? You're free
to do this. Is it really a choice though?

~~~
jeoeo9jrkr
No because I don’t have to take ownership for choices I have no control over.

I don’t have to block them because some site will still funnel it to them as a
middle man. All blocking indirect access to my data will achieve is me wasting
time thinking I can.

I can directly avoid their services and personally generate no emotional buy
in, staying indifferent to their literal existence, and politically flexible
then on Sanders or whoever taxing them billions.

The only framework that has social merit/weight, IMO is the legislative one.
Not a corporations interest in gaming our agency for their feudal trade
schemes.

I don’t believe in any of this or whatever obligations others say I have. I’ll
politically support ones that seem sensible: m4a, education, engineering at
scale to support those initiatives.

Outside that the reasons for providing institutional support of trade seem
contrived. The ideology of long dead men exported into the limbic systems of
the living.

~~~
smbowner
You're making my point for me when you say this.

> I don’t have to block them because some site will still funnel it to them as
> a middle man. All blocking indirect access to my data will achieve is me
> wasting time thinking I can.

These tools and services are _everywhere_. It's simply not true that you can
live outside of them in a _modern_ internet.

If you do somehow _escape_ entirely, the people in your life still haven't.

In what sense have you made a choice here? Or are you living outside of the
zeitgeist entirely? The conversations and politics of the day are happening on
Twitter with or without you. Very real policy is happening in 240 characters.

> I don’t believe in any of this or whatever obligations others say I have.

Ok... But the culture is shifting. POTUS has Tweeted every single day since
announcing that he'll be running for office. Twitter has an effect on your
life.

Not having a twitter account doesn't change that. Not using Facebook directly
doesn't change the fact that their tracking pixels are all over the internet.
Not using gmail doesn't mean your email isn't being mined on the back end.

Putting your head in the sand and saying "it doesn't effect me" isn't true.

>The only framework that has social merit/weight, IMO is the legislative one.
Not a corporations interest in gaming our agency for their feudal trade
schemes.

Ok?

>I don’t believe in any of this or whatever obligations others say I have.
I’ll politically support ones that seem sensible: m4a, education, engineering
at scale to support those initiatives.

Ok.. But you are still playing in the same sandbox as the rest of us. And this
sandbox is very influenced by FAANG companies and the policies they offer.

> Outside that the reasons for providing institutional support of trade seem
> contrived. The ideology of long dead men exported into the limbic systems of
> the living.

Ok?

