Tag Archives: social media

Our New Digital Reality

Transparency can be so inconvenient.

Elon Musk’s X recently added a new feature that–among other things– allowed users to see where an individual poster was located. Guess what? A huge number of those supposedly “real Americans” turned out to be what we might delicately call “foreign agitators.”

As Lincoln Square (among many others) has reported,

MAGA is not just a political movement of goateed, 50-ish white dudes who all rock that same avatar of them copping what they imagine is an expression of manly vigor in the front seat of their behind-on-the-payments Ford F-350.

It’s a delivery system.

A supply chain for chaos that starts in Moscow and Tehran and Beijing, runs through bot farms in industrial parks outside St. Petersburg or the Pardis Technology Park north of Tehran, or some Nigerian click farm, or a Chinese-criminal-owned social media and tech scam prison in the wilds of Burma, bounces off a rage-merchant influencer “from Ohio” who has never set foot in America, and ends up in your pissed off MAGA uncle’s Facebook feed as a “patriotic truth.”

What conclusions can we draw-should we draw–from the revelation that, as the linked article says, “a bunch of ‘red-blooded American MAGA patriots’ were not American at all. Why would posters from places like Russia, Nigeria, Iran, India, Thailand, and Eastern Europe be cosplaying as neighbors and “real Americans” who were patriotic MAGA partisans?”

It turns out that a significant percentage of MAGA’s online “grassroots” is AstroTurf shipped from overseas. The multiple accounts that make a fringe movement feel much bigger isn’t composed of real people exchanging real attitudes and beliefs. Instead, it’s thousands of fake ones, formed to promote divisive and polarizing content and turn Americans against each other.

Researchers have been documenting this fake MAGA ecosystem for years: foreign accounts that become amplifiers of actual American MAGA propagandists, plus engagement farms, plus MAGA-centric media outlets who either don’t know or don’t care they’re serving as useful idiots. This Twitter reveal was just the icing on the cake.

These aren’t random trolls freelancing for clicks. The U.S. government (until Trump’s second term, of course) has repeatedly disrupted Russian-directed influence networks aimed at American politics, including domain seizures and sanctions for coordinated malign-influence campaigns.

It turns out that our “techie” world has changed the nature of warfare. In the Ukraine war, battles are fought with drones; in today’s version of the Cold War, Russia and other countries with grievances against America don’t need to fire bullets or endanger their soldiers. Instead, they can use tweets to set one American against others, to disrupt the political environment, to encourage enmity. They can turn Americans against each other, with a minimal financial investment and no need to buy weapons of war. As the article quite accurately points out, “social media is a perfect asymmetric weapon; nations that could never take on America in hard power use the addiction of social media that defines our entire culture to hack our politics, our society, and our brains.”

And why does this work? Why do their domestic American targets fall for the tactic?

Because MAGA’s media ecosystem is already pre-programmed for foreign capture, give it a big, loud, dumb narrative that says American liberals eat babies, the U.S. is a decadent and failing experiment, democracy is fake, all the most lurid conspiracies are real, liberalism is a disease, and strongmen should rule. The whole machine lights up like a Christmas tree….

The Kremlin doesn’t need to invade America to build a Ministry of Propaganda; it buys it cheap, drop-ships it here, and MAGA sells it in bulk.

And the foreign architecture of amplification is at its very center. Every time a MAGA influencer runs a pro-Russia theme, or anything else that deepens the engineered political and social divides in America, these foreign engagement networks show up like a flash mob.

The posts spike. The replies swarm. A million clicks and likes make the MAGA faithful feel like they’re in the biggest, baddest tribe.

What’s most infuriating is that the tech bros could stop this, but they’ve chosen not to.

Independent reporting has documented this activity, and Meta, YouTube, and the others have promised to address it. They haven’t. As we know, the social media business model is engagement, and engagement comes from outrage. If that outrage is manufactured by foreign propaganda, well…it still works. So, as the article concludes, “MAGA gets a firehose of artificial oxygen from abroad, and Silicon Valley stands there with its hands in its pockets.”

Once Trump is gone, we have our work cut out for us.

Comments

The Continuing War On Science

AP had a recent headline warning that the numerous anti-science bills hitting America’s statehouses are stripping away public health protections that have taken over a century to pass. The headline triggered my recollection of the MAGA “freedom” folks who refused to get vaccines or wear masks during the pandemic. Subsequent research tells us they died in far greater numbers than those who listened to their doctors.

According to the AP, more than 420 anti-science bills have been introduced across the U.S. just this year, attacking longstanding public health protections. Primary targets have been vaccines, milk safety and fluoride. The publication notes that the bills are part of an “organized, politically savvy campaign to enshrine a conspiracy theory-driven agenda into law.”The proponents of these bills like to portray the MAHA movement as a grassroots uprising, but it turns out that it is being fueled by a “web of well-funded national groups led by people who’ve profited from sowing distrust of medicine and science.”

Data confirms that globally, vaccines have saved more than 150 million lives since 1974, that cavities have declined dramatically since community water fluoridation began, and that milk pasteurization has saved millions from foodborne illness, but data and logic–not to mention those “elitist” doctors and dentists and scientists–are dismissed by the gullible targets of those “well-founded” groups as evidence of some sort of global conspiracy.

History tells us that science denial–especially in the field of medicine– has been a constant, especially among fundamentalist religious believers. (When smallpox vaccines first came on the scene, religious figures who embraced the new science, like Cotton Mather, were accused of being “ungodly,” since smallpox was obviously God’s punishment for sin, and man had no business interfering with God’s judgment.)

Science denial isn’t limited to medical interventions, of course. The Trump administration and its MAGA base firmly deny the reality of climate change, despite what should be the evidence of their own eyes. (As I type these words into a computer–a product of technology that is based upon science–it is nearly 70 degrees outside. In NOVEMBER. Not to mention the increasing intensity of storms, rising ocean levels…). The administration has withdrawn from international efforts to ameliorate the greenhouse gases that science tells us are responsible, and as I reported yesterday, has bullied other nations in order to keep others from doing so.

When the administration announced it would refuse to send representatives to the United Nations’ climate conference in Brazil, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that he would attend to represent the country–demonstrating that some American politicians understand what’s at stake. Newsom pointed to the insanity of America doubling down on hydrocarbons while the rest of the world is “sprinting ahead on low-carbon green growth. For me, it is about our economic competitiveness, period, full stop.”

Newsom is right that science denial harms the country’s economic competitiveness, but it’s a lot worse than that. It’s evidence of unwillingness to accept–and deal with–reality.

When people reject well-supported scientific consensus, whether for social, political, or emotional reasons, the damage isn’t limited to public health, although that may be where the damage is most visible. Denial of facts makes for harmful (and stupid) public policies and makes productive political debate impossible.

In a recent book, “Science Denial: Why it Happens and What to Do About it,” two psychology professors explored the subject. In an interview, both noted the enormous effect of social media on the phenomenon–science denial is immensely amplified by social media algorithms, spreading disinformation globally.

And of course, denialism is exacerbated by widespread scientific illiteracy. Most people have no idea what the term “scientific theory” means.

In normal conversation, we use the term theory to mean “an educated guess.” But in science, the word has a very different meaning; a scientific theory is anything but a guess. The scientific method involves summarizing a group of hypotheses that have been successfully and repeatedly tested. Once enough empirical evidence accumulates to support those hypotheses, a theory is developed that can explain that particular phenomenon. Scientific theories begin with and are based on careful examination of observed–and observable– facts. Furthermore–unlike religious dogma–scientific theories are always open to revision based upon new observations or newly discovered facts.

People who don’t understand the way the scientific method works or the extent to which it relies on demonstrable facts are easy prey for disinformation and conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them–and a country governed by and populated with people who reject science is a country rapidly going in the wrong direction.

Comments

Can We Talk?

It’s a new year, and Americans need to talk. But communication is hard. It has always been hard, even between people who speak the same language.

It isn’t just the crazy, although in the era of Trump, crazy seems to dominate. A recent article in the Atlantic,  titled “Let’s Talk About Trump’s Gibberish,” noted the insane stuff that comes out of his mouth and then becomes subject to the media’s “sane-washing.”

For too long, Trump has gotten away with pretending that his emotional issues are just part of some offbeat New York charm or an expression of his enthusiasm for public performance. But Trump is obviously unfit—and something is profoundly wrong with a political environment in which he can now say almost anything, no matter how weird, and his comments will get a couple of days of coverage and then a shrug, as if to say: Another day, another Trump rant about sharks.

The article quoted one of Trump’s frequent departures from rationality. In a campaign speech, his digression focused on a fanciful encounter with a shark. “I say, ‘What would happen if the boat sank from its weight and you’re in the boat, and you have this tremendously powerful battery, and the battery’s now underwater, and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there?’”This bizzare detour from the ostensible subject of the speech went on–and on– with Trump clarifying that–assuming he had his choice, he’d rather be zapped than eaten. 

Evidently, people who voted for Trump simply discount his looney-tunes digressions (along with yesterday’s list of appalling behaviors). More to the point, the proliferation of disinformation, distortion and click-bait has desensitized us to “communication” that ought to alarm us–or at least signal that the speaker is mentally ill.

What, if anything, can we do about an information environment rife with intentional lies and propaganda and the purposeful “flooding of the zone”? (I believe it was Hannah Arendt who observed that propaganda isn’t intended to make us believe X rather than Y–it’s meant to destroy our ability to believe anything.)

Countering the ocean of disinformation we swim in was the subject of a December article in Common Dreams.

It’s a crisis. America is now among 11 nations deemed most threatened by both mis-and disinformation.

Little wonder that almost 90% of us fear our country is on the “wrong track.” And, President-elect Trump has led the way with 492 suspect claims in just the first hundred days of his first presidency. Then, before the 2020 vote, in a single day he made 503 false or misleading claims. By term’s end he’d uttered 30,573 lies, reports The Washington Post.

Now, he is joined by his promoter Elon Musk who is flooding his own platform X with disinformation—for example, about the bipartisan end-of-year funding deal.

Irish philosopher Vittorio Bufacchi distinguishes between lies, which are about a particular event, and “post -truth,” which is a “shift to another reality” –one where facts simply don’t matter anymore. 

The article tackles the important question: what can we do to restore the centrality of fact to our discourse? 

One key will be more independent and public journalism, including PBS and NPR, driven not by narrow profit or partisan agendas. As local journalism—perhaps easiest to hold accountable—has suffered a sharp decline in the past decades, state and local governments can step up with financial support and incentives. Here, many peer nations can inspire us.

The article points to an experiment from New Zealand, which it calls a “unique approach.”

Since 1989, its Broadcast Standards Authority has offered an easily accessible, transparent online platform for any citizen to call out disinformation. The authority is tasked with investigating and requiring removal of what is both false and harmful material.

The BSA seems to have been both cautious and effective.

In the early years, complaints were upheld in 30% of cases. But by 2021-22, those upheld had shrunk to just under 5%. That’s a big change. And, a possible implication? Knowing one can be exposed for harmful lies can discourage perpetrators.

Such a mechanism would help the ordinary citizens who cannot afford the financial cost of a lawsuit for defamation, which is our (expensive) remedy for such harms. Requiring courses in media literacy in the schools is a longer-term but important effort.

The problem–as I have repeatedly noted–is our very human proclivity for confirmation bias. People who share Trump’s hatred for “others” and don’t want to believe he is unfit for public office will gravitate to sites that characterize his “shark” episodes as humor and his ugly attacks as “locker-room jokes.”

If “post truth” is “pre fascism,” as Timothy Snyder asserts, we’re in a lot of trouble.

Comments

America: The Tower Of Babel

An article I read recently in the Atlantic compared today’s United States to Babel. 

The Genesis story of the Tower of Babel is a tale about a mythical time when all people on Earth spoke the same language. They decided to build a great tower reaching up to the heavens. God, seeing their project as evidence of pride, confused their languages so they could no longer understand each other. That lack of ability to communicate caused them to abandon the unfinished tower and disperse across the Earth.

“Babel”  means “confusion” in Hebrew, and references to the “Tower of Babel” are often used as a shorthand for our very human miscommunications and misunderstandings.

Trump did not destroy the tower, but he exploited its fall.

He was the first politician to master the new dynamics of the post-Babel era, in which outrage is the key to virality, stage performance crushes competence, Twitter can overpower all the newspapers in the country, and stories cannot be shared (or at least trusted) across more than a few adjacent fragments—so truth cannot achieve widespread adherence.

So much of our current dysfunction as a society is a result of the current, fragmented state of an information environment that encourages people to indulge confirmation bias and reject inconvenient realities–an environment in which propaganda and conspiracy theories thrive. (Not that what we call “legacy media” is exactly covering itself with glory…) The result is that people live in alternate realities and are increasingly unable to communicate.

That mutual incomprehension doesn’t just infect our political life.

It’s been clear for quite a while now that red America and blue America are becoming like two different countries claiming the same territory, with two different versions of the Constitution, economics, and American history. But Babel is not a story about tribalism; it’s a story about the fragmentation of everything. It’s about the shattering of all that had seemed solid, the scattering of people who had been a community. It’s a metaphor for what is happening not only between red and blue, but within the left and within the right, as well as within universities, companies, professional associations, museums, and even families.

Babel is a metaphor for what some forms of social media have done to nearly all of the groups and institutions most important to the country’s future—and to us as a people.

The article notes that initially–in the 1990s–the Internet, with its chat rooms, message boards, and then its first wave social-media platforms (launched in 2003) were hailed as boons to democracy.

Myspace, Friendster, and Facebook made it easy to connect with friends and strangers to talk about common interests, for free, and at a scale never before imaginable. By 2008, Facebook had emerged as the dominant platform, with more than 100 million monthly users, on its way to roughly 3 billion today. In the first decade of the new century, social media was widely believed to be a boon to democracy. What dictator could impose his will on an interconnected citizenry? What regime could build a wall to keep out the internet?

What holds large and diverse secular democracies such as the United States together? Research has identified three major forces that collectively bind together successful democracies: “social capital (extensive social networks with high levels of trust), strong institutions, and shared stories.”

Social media has weakened all three.

The article explains how social media has changed over time—and especially since 2009–with the introduction of algorithms that encourage dishonesty and what the author calls “mob dynamics.” The lengthy article is well worth reading in its entirety, but the following observation is at the crux of the (very persuasive) analysis:

The newly tweaked platforms were almost perfectly designed to bring out our most moralistic and least reflective selves. The volume of outrage was shocking.

It was just this kind of twitchy and explosive spread of anger that James Madison had tried to protect us from as he was drafting the U.S. Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution were excellent social psychologists. They knew that democracy had an Achilles’ heel because it depended on the collective judgment of the people, and democratic communities are subject to “the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions.” The key to designing a sustainable republic, therefore, was to build in mechanisms to slow things down, cool passions, require compromise, and give leaders some insulation from the mania of the moment while still holding them accountable to the people periodically, on Election Day.

Thanks to social media–our very own “tower”–we’re in a fragmented world of hurt, and I don’t see us emerging any time soon.

Comments

The Politics Of Lying

When I was teaching, Free Speech discussions would frequently evoke a question from students appalled by the massive amounts of disinformation enabled by the Internet and social media: “Can’t we at least outlaw lying?” I would have to explain that courts would have great difficulty determining the difference between what is a lie and what is a mistake, etc. The practical problems of such an effort would be insurmountable.

More to the point, the First Amendment rests on reliance upon the “marketplace of ideas.” Bad ideas and lies are to be countered by better ideas and facts. It is a theory that depends upon the participation of We the People.

It isn’t working very well right now, and I see no simple solutions. Neither does Bill Adair, who founded Politifact. In a recent essay for the Atlantic, he explored the failure of that fact-checking site to combat the firehose of propaganda and lies that  distort our political lives.

For American politicians, this is a golden age of lying. Social media allows them to spread mendacity with speed and efficiency, while supporters amplify any falsehood that serves their cause. When I launched PolitiFact in 2007, I thought we were going to raise the cost of lying. I didn’t expect to change people’s votes just by calling out candidates, but I was hopeful that our journalism would at least nudge them to be more truthful.

I was wrong. More than 15 years of fact-checking has done little or nothing to stem the flow of lies. I underestimated the strength of the partisan media on both sides, particularly conservative outlets, which relentlessly smeared our work. (A typical insult: “The fact-checkers are basically just a P.R. arm of the Democrats at this point.”) PolitiFact and other media organizations published thousands of checks, but as time went on, Republican representatives and voters alike ignored our journalism more and more, or dismissed it. Democrats sometimes did too, of course, but they were more often mindful of our work and occasionally issued corrections when they were caught in a falsehood.

After exploring some theories about why politicians lie–the calculus that they apparently apply to determine the ratio of risk to reward– Adair notes that today’s extreme political polarization encourages them to do little else.

Now that many politicians speak primarily to their supporters, lying has become both less dangerous and more rewarding. “They gain political favor or, ultimately, they gain election,” said Mike McCurry, who served as White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton. As former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey told me, “It’s human nature to want to get a standing ovation.” Lies also provide easy ammunition for attacking opponents—no opposition research required. They “take points off the board for other candidates,” said Damon Circosta, a Democrat who recently served as the chair of North Carolina’s Board of Elections.

Adair notes that partisan media, especially on the right, fosters lying by degrading our shared sense of what’s real. These outlets expect politicians to repeat favored falsehoods as the price of admission. If you’re not willing to participate in the twisting of facts, you simply won’t get to speak to the echo chamber.

Tim Miller, a former Republican operative who left the party in 2020, pointed out that gerrymandering, particularly in red states, has made it so “most of the voters in your district are getting their information from Fox, conservative talk radio … and so you just have this whole bubble of protection around your lies in a way that wouldn’t have been true before, 15 years ago.”

Adair uses Mike Pence as an example of the way today’s political incentives change people. They had been neighbors when Pence was in Congress, and Adair saw him then as “a typical politician who would occasionally shade the truth.” When he was Indiana governor, Adair watched his lies grow. “By the time he became Donald Trump’s vice president, he was almost unrecognizable to me.”

The question, of course, is “what can we do?” Here are Adair’s closing paragraphs:

If politicians lie because they believe they’ll score more points than they’ll lose, we have to change the calculus. Tech and media companies need to create incentives for truth-telling and deterrents for lying. Platforms of all kinds could charge higher ad rates to candidates who have the worst records among fact-checkers. Television networks could take away candidates’ talking time during debates if they’re caught lying.

But these reforms will demand more than just benign corporate intervention. They’ll need broad, sustained public support. Voters may not be willing to place truthfulness over partisan preference in every case. But more will have to start caring about lies, even when their candidate is the culprit.

Amen.

Comments