Tag Archive for: social media

Let All Voices be Heard (and Understood) by All


I just watched an interview with Noam Chomsky. He gave an hour to a podcaster with less than 500 followers on YouTube (disclaimer: he more than doubled his follower count after featuring such a big name). I think we agree that follower count does not always equal content quality. Still, we continue to use and support the platforms which snowball accounts with many followers and leave the rest unseen and unheard. This is just one of many major problems with current social media. In this article, I will look at where content we are connected to on social media is sub optimal and how it’s affecting us.

Why does social media push sub optimal content?

We are connected to people and content which we chose to follow or which algorithms see us reacting to, whether that’s positively or negatively. That means we love it or we hate it. We never even see the stuff in the middle — the ideas which we may not know enough about to follow or comment on which could open our minds and act as a bridge to understanding other perspectives.

On social media, people bash each other for whatever they are doing, even when they agree almost fully

After seeming to critique popular social media platforms through his actions, Chomsky continued to do so through his words.

Unfortunately, a large part of social media is just engaged in small scale squabbles: did this guy say a word wrong or say it right, and driving people into closed bubbles where they hear nothing but reinforcing their own views and don’t begin to engage in these general issues. And by cutting off access you lose a lot.

The follower system allows people to build their own safe ‘fortresses’ of ideology where they are constantly delighted by confirmation bias and are never challenged to understand other perspectives. See my last article on the need for this. Meaningless judgement is then placed on content that doesn’t meet our standards of ‘perfect’, and our good ideas are primed to be picked apart. All the things that followers agree with are often overshadowed by these little details. This is just a waste of time, and it doesn’t accurately represent opinions.

For instance, consider a post by a prominent AI leader at Google. The discussion will most likely consist of other AI-minded people in business and data science considering how well new techniques or technology will achieve business goals: in short, how well they will make money. No one will stop to question underlying assumptions which this bubble already agrees on like what roles AI should play in business or if our capitalist reality is limiting AI’s potential for humanity.

Short Attention Spans

Social media also rewards content designed for short attention spans. Short texts cannot possibly argue their points, let alone change someone’s mind through proper reasoning. We are left with short, unsupported, and highly opinionated blanket statements. Content creators may feel content with their short statements, assuming that all their followers. This just means that whenever someone does manage to wander into the conversation from an outside perspective, they will be met with extreme lack of context, misinterpretation, and most likely anger. The alternative is content of very little value at all, like, “doesn’t my avocado on toast on the beach look good?”

Disagreement is not just strengthened by misinterpretation. This form of disagreement is utterly unproductive, since people are caught arguing their points against nobody.

One way squabbling shows itself is through whataboutism

Chomsky refers to the emergent term whataboutism as a sin. It is defined as “the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.” It refers to when people point out other problems to draw the attention away from the issue at hand.

Whataboutism in practice

During the recent uproar against the overturning of Roe vs Wade in the US, I saw a few Instagram posts that said something like, “look, I think that is import and all, but what about all of the huge problems you are all ignoring?” This has been a repeating trend I’ve noticed for other major political events, truly belittling justified, honest, and productive thoughts from those affected.

We should not be discouraging good action, regardless of what other action is being neglected. There will always be neglected issues and more work to be done. The important thing is that something positive is being done. The alternative is not a social media that solves all world problems. Rather it is a social media where everyone is afraid to say what they think and zero progress is made.

He’s not criticizing disagreement

Chomsky is of course not saying that we should all just get along and ignore the problems we see. He is saying that social media is not doing a good job of facilitating productive discussion. There isn’t room to support ideas with reasoning, let alone to make any full argument. People only become more sure that they don’t agree with each other. I think you are starting to see the downhill spiral we find ourselves in.

And you wonder why we are so polarized?

In research paper Political Polarization During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Sebastian Jungkunz highlights some of the pressing results.

Affective polarization has increased substantially in the United States and countries of Europe over the last decades and the ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic have the potential to drastically reinforce such polarization.

While many factors are working together to brew the polarization we find ourselves in, social media is one of the key culprits.

But the internet has so much potential

People don’t just put out bad content. Social media pushes bad content. And many people want to be popular on social media. You can’t necessarily shame them for that, either. The ones who stay true to themselves are often the hardest to find.

Not only does this really suck, but the internet has huge potential for connecting different perspectives and opening minds. While our pre-social media social circles did not suffer from the problems mentioned above, they were still of course limited to our physical communities, industries, nationalities, etc. The internet and globalism eradicated all of this.

Today we can speak instantly and directly with anyone in the world who would like to. Each one of us could have access to more diversity than anyone who lived before us! If we make a huge but very possible (and I think inevitable) shift, we could be the least polarized, most open-minded generations yet!

Hunome is fighting narrow thinking by letting everyone be heard

Hunome is a thought network and social network. At Hunome, we aim both to pop your suffocating bubbles and give you access to high quality thinking from everyone. Forget follower count. Forget short, blanket statements that lead to misinterpretation, closed bubbles, squabbling, and polarization. Say hello to following organic trains of thought the way. To multidimensional and multidisciplinary perspectives. To serendipity, to creativity, to innovation, to understanding.

“How?”

is the question I really really hope you’re asking right now! Just because someone on the internet tells you something that supports the narrative you subscribe to (the bubble you’re living in), does not mean you should blindly listen!

Anyway, I’m happy you asked! You seem like someone who will fit right in at Hunome (asking good questions is a fantastic place to start).

The first part of the answer is pretty simple. Within the thematic spaces you search and show interest in, our algorithms and inherent structure will prioritize connecting you with new ideas and those from people with different profiles from you.

Next, the unique structure of Hunome ensures that even if you land on a thought that may live within your bubble, you will quickly find your way out. Anyone, regardless of their follower count, credentials, or bubble of thought, can ‘spark on’ their thoughts from any idea that inspired them. Thusly, when viewing a thought by someone with many followers, you are almost always just 1 click away from exploring thoughts written by someone with zero followers. As you follow trains of thought from one idea to the next, you will quickly find yourself far outside of your bubble, exploring new content from new perspectives but from a context you understand. Authors will be encouraged to write for all audiences, assuming that the only context a reader has are the ideas directly preceding their own.

A Spark Map

Lastly, popping your bubbles will remain our north star, so we will continue to innovate in this field. We will be using advanced AI techniques to lean from what makes you creative, reach understanding and connect you with the Sparks that will reach you the most.

The best way to answer all your burning questions is to try it out!

I want to know what you think!

  • What questions do you still have for me?
  • What do you value in a source over follower count?
  • How can the platforms of the future support quality content over fame?
  • With the powers of social media bubbles, globalisation, and others I haven’t mentioned pushing against one another, are we aimed at a more or less polarized future?
  • Help me pop my bubble! What did I get wrong?

Works Cited

Jungkunz S (2021) Political Polarization During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Polit. Sci. 3:622512. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2021.622512

Levy, Alex, director. Noam Chomsky: on the Russia-Ukraine War, Through Conversations Podcast, 16 Apr. 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Z5sNAr8qI.

People rush past each other ignoring each other's humanity

Social disparity: Is the world growing further apart?

Last year, we saw many issues that divided the world. The US presidential race, the world-wide Black Lives Matters movement, masks, to name a few.

Of course, this extreme polarization itself isn’t the issue. There will always be people at either the ends of the spectrum of any debate. Social disparity lies with the lack of nuance. The ‘you’re either with us or against us’ attitude. 

We find ourselves in a very black or white world without the many shades of grey that color any healthy debate. Complex issues are boiled down to simply ‘For’ or ‘Against’ and we find ourselves growing further away from those who have a different perspective.

But how have we got to this point, and how can we fix it?

Social media advertising breeds disparity

Mika Raulas talks about the social media advertising model in his blog. Social platforms package up data on users and sell super-targeted advertising to companies who want to reach their perfect customers. 

But these algorithms aren’t designed with the individuals using the platforms in mind, rather those who want to target them.

This is why you often see the same type of content that you’ve engaged with displayed over and over again. The results are an echo chamber where very specific views are played back to the individual, and amplified through their network

There becomes very little space for diversity of thought when it appears as though your particular brand of thinking is the main stance on a subject. 

Social disparity hinders problem-solving

Segmented perspectives are great for advertisers, but not so good for problem-solving.

When we consider wicked problems and the systems thinking needed to approach them, polarization makes it harder to come up with a solution. I talk about the future of humanity and how a holistic view helps us understand the full problem, but also how changes to one component affects other areas.

On the other hand, a narrower view removes our ability to address these types of problems. We become so focused on our own view without considering the big picture, and without exercising our curiosity or empathy.

For example, lack of fair access to education is a global issue, a wicked problem, and a symptom of social disparity. Improving access to education requires exploring every perspective to build a better understanding of the issue. 

Diversity in perspectives challenges our own thinking and encourages us to view the world in a different way. It can even make us smarter. It’s here where creativity and innovation are born.

Disparity in gathering information

But even gathering different perspectives to further our thinking, can promote social disparity.

In today’s world, information is fragmented or held in siloes. You might watch a video, or read an article and browse the relevant Wikipedia page to understand an issue. But you may never get access to academic research on the topic or have sight of someone’s private musings.  

Pulling together information to get a true picture of things takes time and money. Gaining understanding becomes about those who have the ability to do so, and those who have not. It also limits the scope of design, problem-solving and decision-making to be geared towards those who have, which widens the gulf further.

If we want to close the gap, we must stop wearing our differences as badges and start embracing our diverse points of views. Once people can be brought together around a theme, we can start building a better society, together.

Here are just some perspectives about social disparity. Come add your own to help build a multidimensional understanding of social disparity, and other themes.

 

A line of people looking at their individual phones

Deep social rifts – the negative impact of social media on society

Something is wrong with the social networks we’re using today. 

The news has been dominated in recent weeks by moves from the big platforms that have made us all question their role in facilitating constructive exchange of opinions and ideas in society. Facebook and Twitter banned President Donald Trump in the wake of civil unrest in Washington. A confusing message regarding WhatsApp’s privacy policy saw millions of users switching to rivals for fear of having their data shared, and resulted in the messaging app backtracking on that change attempt. 

The fact of the matter is that people feel uncomfortable with the far-reaching impact of social media platforms on society. Regardless of whether you agree with censorship, or see the necessity in data-sharing, the question remains – why do we feel so uneasy? 

The impact of the social media advertising model 

Well, social media platforms know everything about us with terrifying precision (for those who haven’t seen the Social Dilemma, what are you waiting for?!). These companies can share the intelligence they gather on users with companies, advertisers who want to target their perfect customers. While this segmentation has its purpose (and has revolutionized the world of sales and marketing), it’s a massive use of resources and these algorithms are not used to benefit the individual using those services but rather the business of the platforms and their clients, the advertisers. It’s also created a very ugly and unwanted byproduct- deep polarization. 

Huge cracks are forming in society. It’s plain to see everywhere, not just in US politics. Covid-19 alone has thrown up many points of contention: vaxxers/anti-vaxxers, mask/no masks, lockdown/herd-immunity, for example. And the impact of social media is speeding along this ‘you’re either with us or against us, there’s no in between’ attitude. For all the benefits we’ve gained from the rise of social media platforms, we’ve lost some quite crucial things: the art of discourse, empathy and understanding. We’ve lost what makes us human. 

Breaking away from the status quo

What can be done about this? Our lives are so entwined with these social media behemoths that it’s hard to see how to breakaway. But perhaps it’s not a question of breaking away, and more a case of putting humanness back in the mix. 

Expecting the platforms of today to change their business models to really serve their customers, the users of the content on their platforms, is difficult if not impossible. Nevertheless, there’s a need for more inclusivity, more of a focus on the collective experience and understanding. 

Platforms that  are truly customer-driven, encourage actual meaningful debate where members respect each other’s perspectives are going to stand out in a world where pontification is rewarded by likes (which gives no context and in itself is problematic, but that’s a topic for another day). By encouraging discussion, our differences become just as valid as our similarities, and we can begin to understand each other, and ourselves. 

Sucks for the advertisers though, right? After all, they’ve built sales pipelines on the data available from social media platforms. Well actually, no. 

Now is the time for change

Businesses are moving towards human-centricity (read my blog from WebSummit to see why some of the biggest names are putting humanness in the heart of their strategy). They want to understand their customers beyond the demographics that are readily available through social advertising. They want to know the human beings behind the buying decision – by understanding the real problems they face, their true desires and concerns, businesses can offer solutions that have a better impact on society as a whole.

We’ve hit a crunch moment. We have a chance to change the direction that humanity is heading in, away from the hostile and deeply divided world and towards something that offers comprehensive understanding. It’s time to fix the negative impact of social media on the fabric of society. Let’s seize the opportunity – individually and collectively. Let’s make sense of humanity together.