I recently watched the Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma. It was extremely interesting, and I definitely recommend watching it. However, ultimately I found that it represents a point of view that I consider problematic. What could be wrong with recommending that people turn off Facebook notifications? I’m glad you asked.
The documentary presents a number of issues with social media, but I think the main thing they find problematic is that social media presents everyone with a different, carefully curated reality. Because the reality is different for everyone, we as a society will never be able to agree on anything. Ultimately this could lead to unrest, inability to deal with big problems like climate change, and potentially, civil war.
Think that last bit sounds outlandish? I don’t. I believe that previous advances in communication technology have led to massive disruptions in society. The printing press led to the protestant reformation, which resulted in centuries of war. Advances in communication technology in the early 20th century enabled the rise of great ideologies like communism and fascism that ultimately led to world war. So, yeah, the problem is real. If anything can lead to civil war, it is new forms of communication technology.
Will social media be as disruptive as books, newspapers, and radio? I’m not sure. I view social media as one part of the greater internet revolution. The internet is just beginning to transform society. There is really no stopping it, so hang on to your hats.
So one critique of The Social Dilemma is simply that there is simply no stopping the changes that the internet will bring. Probably so. But that is not the main point I want to make. The main point is that if you read between the lines, this documentary represents a point of view that is positively harmful.
So what is that point of view? Here is my interpretation:
Social media is bad because it encourages people to self-segregate into groups that have fundamentally different worldviews. The solution is to ensure that all people have access to the same objective set of facts.
Basically, they fear social media because it is a threat to progressive ideology. Progressive ideology seeks to coordinate larger and larger groups of people, and social media causes fragmentation.
Now, let me be clear that I don’t think this point of view is completely wrong. It’s just dangerous. We can really turn back the clock on technology. It has already made the world a smaller place, and in many ways, we have no choice but to try and coordinate human behavior on a larger scale. But there are two basic ways of doing this.
The first way is to get everyone to agree with a common ideology. The second way is to ensure that no single ideological group obtains too much power (kind of like the balance of power model of international politics). In my reading of The Social Dilemma, they seem to favor the first approach. This is problematic for two reasons.
The first problem with trying to achieve ideological unity is that it is politically dangerous. When you try to coordinate larger and larger groups of people under a common ideology, you open up the risk of large scale coordinated violence. So, Leninism is more dangerous than, say, Mugabeism. Making sure that everyone agrees with a common set of facts might sound like a harmless thing that can only lead to positive outcomes like fighting climate change, but this isn’t how things tend to play out. Historically, when a large group of people coordinate around a common ideology it usually isn’t too long before they try to violently impose their views on their neighbors.
The real problem with social media isn’t that it fragments people, but that it is too effective at coordinating people. It used to be that political coordination on a large scale was difficult. It was hard to identify all the people who could identify with some particular view of the world and put them in touch with each other. Now it is easy. The algorithms do it for us.
This is certainly something to be aware of. But suppressing this coordination is really only possible under an authoritarian regime. Our nation was founded on the idea that we need to let people gather and express their views. When people do that, it can be messy. But government intervention in that process is very dangerous indeed.
The second reason why fighting fragmentation with a common ideology is problematic is more personal. Basically, the belief that your role in society is to enforce some kind of global ideology creates some weird psychological effects. The most common issue is infantilization. If the world you live in is too big, your power in that world will be small. And when people sense that their power is too small, they can’t grow up. They can only dream of acquiring the super powers that will allow them to have a significant impact.
Our brain is literally a neural network that is trained based on a bunch of feedback loops. We have certain sensory abilities, and a certain capability for action. If you get too caught up in an ideological worldview, your actions won’t cause the kind of reactions your brain is designed to look for. Your ideology might be incubated in the context of a modest sized group like-minded fellows. But as soon as you try to influence the world at large you will realize that it is too big. Your internet arguments will not change anything, and you will become deeply frustrated.
Wait, you say, isn’t social media making this problem worse? Yes, yes it is. My problem with The Social Dilemma isn’t that I think social media isn’t a problem. Changes in communication technology enable people to coordinate at great scales with less friction. This is inherently disruptive.
But to deal with the situation wisely we need to be clear about the problem. The problem is NOT that social media prevents people from agreeing about a common set of facts and coordinating globally to address big issues.
The problem is that people are coordinating much more than they used to, and this is inherently disruptive. So we don’t want to react by encouraging people to think that the only solution is greater political agreement. Politically, what we want to strive for is to balance power among the emerging super-coordinated ideological groups. On an individual level, the key is to try to remain at least somewhat ideologically neutral.
If you see some kind of disagreement trending on Facebook, DONT TAKE A SIDE! Don’t repeat the slogans. Political memes are no longer harmless (if they ever were). They are mind-viruses that will focus your energy on things you can’t control and drain you of the real power you have to exert power and influence your community as an adult human being.
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have any political opinions at all. I have toyed with the idea of complete political neutrality, but at the end of the day I think there is value in talking with your friends about politics and voting your conscience. Among friends, finding some common truth is a worthy goal.
Just don’t get caught up in thinking that the best way to fight political fragmentation (which will probably be a fixture of post-modern democracy) is to make sure the whole world shares a common truth.
