This is one I periodically ask myself. To quote Hilary Mantel (I think?) talking about something else entirely, social media and its knock-on effects seem “more discussed than understood” these days and accordingly I try not to engage too strongly with throwaway descriptions on the subject. Nonetheless, I sometimes come across pieces that seem to touch on the essence, so I’m going to start collecting them here. Full disclosure, I hope to write my own piece on this at some point, most likely from a critical angle, but I’ll try to keep an open mind!
4/16/18 – Alex Clark, The Times Literary Supplement, “The Best British and Irish Novelists Today” (4/6/18)
“Box sets, streaming, all-episodes-available; attention spans smashed by social media; the rise of narcissism in the face of a culture obsessed with the perfectibility of daily life via a constantly rotating slew of life hacks and photographed lunches. Content.”
This one nailed it for me because even as someone who doesn’t use social media, I feel this daily. I hate binge-watching TV shows, but I do it. I hate refreshing my favorite website multiple times a day when I’m a believer in long-form pieces, deep analysis, and the reflection that both call for, but I do it. Life hacks and food photography might be among the most asinine things in the world. And the escalation to that last word: content. One word that summarizes an ever-growing world behind our screens, one that consists mostly of non-information and trash, but we are still willing to binge through it, keep hitting refresh, swipe away from the obviously awful, in search of that next little hit of something good enough to keep our attention.
The whole article is worth checking out, by the way – beautifully composed, and most likely chock full of authors you didn’t know about who you’ll be eager to pick up.
5/9/18 – Jennifer Cobbe, New York Review of Books Daily, “Reining In Big Data’s Robber Barons” (4/12/18)
“These days, virtually every aspect of day-to-day life is fed into corporate databases and used to predict and influence all kinds of behavior. Surveillance corporations don’t just respond to consumer wants; they also shape and drive those wants toward their own ends. Usually, that means a click on an advertisement, a visit to a website, or, ultimately, a purchase. To do this, they attempt to take advantage of known shortcuts and biases in human decision-making, called “heuristics.” Often, this means presenting links and other content in such a way as to generate interest, but sometimes, as in the case of so-called “dark patterns”—misselling techniques and tricks to game attention or gain private data—it involves a choice architecture that is patently deceptive.”
Cobbe’s is perhaps the best piece I’ve yet read to succinctly describe the fundamental conflict within the business models of companies like Facebook and Google. More to the point, she backs her argument with copious research and empirical findings rather than sticking simply with a moral stance. I at once fell in with her use of the term ‘surveillance capitalism’ (which she acknowledges taking from HBS professor Shoshana Zuboff) to describe the system behind these companies. Her follow-on points about behavior modification struck a chord with me as well, given that professional investors are similarly motivated to profit from behavior biases rather than acting to correct them. Particularly valuable, I thought, was her effort to separate data from privacy. Merely gathering my data is distinct from violating my privacy by using that data in an ongoing attempt to influence me – not an average approximation of ‘me’ across a large data set in a contextual circumstance, but me! As Cobbe mentions, computers are – given the right data – now better than your close friends and family at accurately describing your psychological profile. That these companies are using my data to build a profile of me in order to manipulate me on behalf of advertisers would almost be flattering (me? of all the billions of citizens?) if it wasn’t so scary. In my mind it’s also a violation of the spirit in which these companies so often claim to act. All of a sudden, “don’t be evil” seems like a remarkably low standard for a corporate motto.
smq.world 