I suppose it’s good for the dental profession, but the teeth gnashing about the influence of social media over our politics is deafening. The preponderance of worry seems focused on Facebook, although Twitter, Instagram and other services are not exempt from scrutiny.
From congressional hearings to daily op-eds from within and without the tech industry, the angst is near constant. The concerns were heightened, to be sure, by the inarguable use of social media by Russian operatives to try to influence the 2016 election. I don’t mean to minimize the assault on our democracy, and I believe President Donald Trump should be impeached for his indifference or complicity, but I am not convinced their efforts changed the outcome. It seems from intelligence reports that the insidious behavior is unabated as we approach 2020.
Most of the proposed remedies fall near the category of “solutions in desperate search of a problem.” This is not to suggest that there is no “problem,” but the possible solutions present a much graver danger than the “problem” merits.
First, I suggest that the influence of social media is dramatically overstated. While there has been some documentation of the extent of Russian and other propaganda, I’ve seen no reliable indication of the effect. Most examples of Russian propaganda I’ve seen are indistinguishable from what is available every night on Fox News or other right wing outlets. Viewers of either these Facebook messages or Fox News are exemplars of confirmation bias and would find their “evidence” in tarot cards if not on Facebook.
Another example of the exaggerated effect of social media is the constant allusion to Trump’s 60 million Twitter followers, suggesting that 60 million sheep are having their minds bent to his ignorant, impulsive stream of semi-consciousness. With some mild shame I admit to a daily review of Trump’s Twitter activity. Aside from the astonishing, never-diminishing amazement that this man is president, the time is well spent for reasons you may not suspect.
For every dishonest, self-indulgent, narcissistic, childish tweet, there are scores of witty, often profane, usually intelligent rejoinders from others who “follow” the thread. He has his supporters, of course, but their responses are generally what you would expect: Misspelled, substance-free, flag-adorned, bellicose admonitions to Keep America Great.
He does not have 60 million adoring followers. My best estimate is 10,000 enthusiastic followers and 59.99 million mischievous trolls.
The influence of Facebook, whatever it may be, is well into the process of imploding under its own increasingly irrelevant weight. Most youngish folks — my former students and others with whom I am Facebook “friends” — use Facebook sparingly, often posting nothing at all. There is so much unmitigated nonsense on Facebook, especially advertising, that Russian propaganda or other “fake news” is just noise. I suspect that we long ago left the realm of “believe everything on Facebook” to the general realization that you might well believe nothing on Facebook.
So, earnest members of Congress hold hearings to decide what to do about a problem that doesn’t really exist, at least in the way they think. Facebook and Twitter executives are grilled and excoriated. They act humble and contrite and cite the complexity of controlling content on their sites. The humility and contrition may be insincere, but the complexity is real.
But even if the use of social media to distort information or distribute propaganda is more of a problem than I contend, the solution is far more dangerous. Neither the government nor the individuals who vet content on social media should engage in censorship. I suppose the general guidance of First Amendment jurisprudence applies. “Yelling fire” or directly inciting violent action might be prohibited — if that’s even possible — but any subjective judgments beyond those direct violations are fraught with peril.
I don’t want government officials, an algorithm or Mark Zuckerberg’s staff deciding what’s real and what’s not. I don’t want to delegate my critical capacities to others. The risks associated with millions of unexamined claims and provocations are trivial compared with the risks of curated information, subject to the opinions, biases, financial interests or political powers of those who curate.
It is beyond ironic that we have deep concerns about what’s on Facebook at a time when our president has uttered 12,000 lies and counting. Let Congress do something about that and let Facebook collapse under its own inevitable obsolescence.
Steve Nelson lives in Boulder, Colo., and Sharon. He can be reached at stevehutnelson@gmail.com.