{"id":4836,"date":"2021-10-05T02:57:59","date_gmt":"2021-10-05T06:57:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dahlman.online\/?p=4836"},"modified":"2021-10-05T08:21:39","modified_gmt":"2021-10-05T12:21:39","slug":"on-the-square","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dahlman.online\/index.php\/2021\/10\/05\/on-the-square\/","title":{"rendered":"On the Square"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Hate and Division<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Facebook claims that are not the primary cause of \u201chate and division\u201d in America.  And the company is absolutely right.  The issues that divide us have been around for a lot longer than Mark Zuckerberg\u2019s algorithms.  Hate in America is nothing new.  It\u2019s been the dirty underside of American history since well before the signing of the Declaration of Independence (and if you think that describes \u201cCritical Race Theory\u201d, you are misinformed)<\/em>.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what Facebook has managed to do is individualize and amplify that hate and division.  We get a \u201ccustom made cocktail\u201d, delivered to our \u201cnewsfeed\u201d on a minute by minute basis.  And, like any good addictive activity, the more we click, the more we get.  Psychologist B.F. Skinner would be pleased.  We press the bar just like his mice did back in the 1940\u2019s, receiving our \u201crewards\u201d with our own version of his operant conditioning cage that fits in our pocket.  And the more we click, the more specific the information Facebook directs to us, and the more we want to press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Addiction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Why don\u2019t we turn it off?  Facebook\u2019s model is based on the same principal as any addiction \u2013 we have an emotional response to the information.  And that response is \u201cpleasurable\u201d, even if the emotion is anger.  So we click on, seeking even more emotion, more \u201cpleasure\u201d.  And Facebook provides a seemingly endless supply. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facebook will tell you that\u2019s why we love the puppy pictures, and the stories of our friend\u2019s young kids.  But if \u201cpleasure\u201d is measured by the level of emotional response, then the biggest emotion isn\u2019t positive, it\u2019s negative.  Anger is more powerful, and anger makes you click even more.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

None of this is rocket science.  But the not so hidden \u201cdirty secret\u201d of Facebook, is that they have developed mathematical equations to \u201cfeed\u201d emotional response.  Facebook makes money by clicks, so it is in their specific economic interest to get more people to click more.  And since negative emotions are the most powerful, it is best for Facebook profits to generate those emotions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Profit from All Sides<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Facebook doesn\u2019t necessarily take a side in the controversy.  The equation doesn\u2019t care who wins or whose right or wrong.  It\u2019s the controversy itself that makes Facebook money.  There are 221.6 million Facebook users in the United States, fully two-thirds of the nation.  Not every user is \u201caddicted\u201d.  But every user is influenced by targeted controversy, and those who are more vulnerable; the young, the disaffected, the lonely \u2013 they keep clicking, and keep getting angrier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The deeper they go, the more their emotions are validated.  They find companions in their anger, who then feed each other.  Facebook claims they are just a platform, a \u201ctown square\u201d where people of all ideologies can meet.  But the Facebook equations do more than just lead you into the square, they direct you to those in the square who agree with you.  And like that mythical square, divided into ideologies and cliques, emotions run high.  And the Facebook cash register keeps ringing up profits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regulation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

When television first came out in the 1940\u2019s, the government took control of what was allowed.  This was because there was a limited amount of bandwidth on the airways.  Put simply, there were only so many TV channels, and the government licensed who could broadcast on any given channel.  To keep a license, stations were required to regulate what went on the air.  Break those rules, and the government could take the license and give it to someone else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those rules changed when cable television arrived in the 1970\u2019s. Unlike the \u201cpublic airways\u201d, cable television used privately owned cables to reach their subscribers homes.  The cable providers, Time Warner (now Spectrum) and the like, were originally simple conduits for other programming.  If a program was \u201cinappropriate\u201d, then the cable viewer should simply choose not to watch it.  Don\u2019t want what cable TV delivered, then go back to broadcast.  The government had little control over the programming, or the literal wires bringing it into homes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the 1990\u2019s, media became more than just a one-way interaction.  With the arrival of the \u201cinternet\u201d, people could inter-connect across all kinds of boundaries.  It was virtually uncontrolled by governments; the \u201cwires\u201d were still privately owned, and the \u201cweb\u201d regulated by non-governmental entities.  So when Friendster and MySpace replaced AOL chatrooms, there wasn\u2019t much worry about government intervention.  And when Mark Zuckerberg developed the key equations to empower Facebook, it\u2019s growth and development was unrestricted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Price to Pay<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

We govern automobile safety because the vehicles use public roads.  We still govern television stations because they use the public airways.  But social media comes to use through privately owned sources and methods.  And like the cable providers, Facebook claims to only be a \u201cplatform\u201d, not responsible for the content or actions of those using it.  But we now know that Facebook (and Instagram and What\u2019s App, also owned by Facebook) are manipulating their platform to generate emotion and gain more profit.  And so does Twitter and TikTok and the other social media giants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Government can\u2019t use the broadcast model to regulate social media.  But there is a whole different product that governments regularly control \u2013 alcohol and drugs.  Facebook (and the rest) mathematically manipulate their users, similar to what drugs and alcohol do chemically. That manipulation creates societal discord \u2013 and we should regulate their actions.  Ask the public schools who paid millions of dollars for damage to restrooms created by a TikTok trend, or the US government itself for damage to the Capitol during the Insurrection.  There are very real costs from social media, costs our entire society is paying in dollars, and in discord.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We need to get it under control.  It\u2019s already too late.<\/p>\n\n\n\n