The patron saint of Wired Magazine1, Nicolas Negroponte, wrote in his book Being Digital in 1995 that the Internet "was about to flatten organisations, globalize society, decentralize control and help harmonize people".
While the first three claims are at least partially true, many people, myself included, think that the last is flat-out wrong. When I posted this on Mastodon this week I was asked by Dean Eckles what the evidence was that the Internet did not in fact help harmonize people.
…the Internet "was about to flatten organisations, globalize society, decentralize control and help harmonize people".
You could point to the increased polarisation is most western countries, to networked authoritarianism in China, to the use of social media in undermine anti-corruption efforts in South Africa, to ethnic tensions stoked on Facebook in Mayanmar / Burma, to ethic violence organised on WhatApp in India, and that’s just off the top of my head.
But Eckels is right, it does not prove causality. His excellent written testimony to US Senate points out that there is no evidence that algorithmic ranking (other than the baseline of reverse chronological) on social media has contributed to more anger and bitterness. On the contrary, he points to WhatApp, which was used to mobilise violence in India, and it only does baseline ranking.
But could we ever prove direct causal mechanisms?
On this site I have agreed that algorithms primed for engagement (to increase advertising revenue) could not take all the blame. And I have expounded before on why social media might be leading to more antagonism in societies, and will list them - and new theories - in a follow-up post. And when you go through these possible explanations, it is clear they will be hard to prove causally.
Ezra Klein thinks we do not have to prove the causality of the mechanics to recognise we have a problem. He says social media has become a “civilisational fact”. And we don’t see the positive fruits of harmony, or anything else, but lots to the contrary. And, although he concedes other factors could be at play, that’s enough for him.
I think it is worth people really reflecting on this idea that in a matter of roughly two decades, social media has gone from being barely a thing at all to something used by billions and billions of people around the world. I mean, it has become a civilizational fact faster than almost anything in human history. And something operating that macro of a scale should show some civilizational effect.
If it is good, we should be able to say, well, this is what has gotten better. GDP is growing faster because we’re sharing so many more ideas, and so innovation is sped up. Or we’re more humane and gentle and compassionate towards one another because we’re able to see each other across boundary and faction and country and generation. We’re kinder because we’re sharing so much more. We’re happier because we’re so much more connected.
Something, something should have gotten better. And I would say — and I think the evidence is very clear — nothing has. You cannot point to one macro indicator that has gotten substantially better, faster, anything, in the time since social media came on the scene. And I’m not saying that is 100 percent the fault of social media, but I am saying that it implies, at least, there is not some gigantic value here, that before it was offered to us, we were really struggling.
Yet we seem to be on the cusp of the operationalising of several scientific breakthroughs, which has lead economist Tyler Cowen and The Economist to muse that the so-called great stagnation in productivity (that he coined), may be over.
But in the big picture, Klein’s a compelling point. Not much is much better, and a lot is worse in many places right now. The Internet could yet prove to be a boon for economic growth, but so far, we do not see that in an increase in peace and harmony around us.
In a follow-up post, I will set out possible reasons why this may be so.
Though not so influential now, Wired Magazine was founded by Stuart Brand and was the heir to Brand’s important Whole Earth set of publications. It was key in its own right in setting the tone for digital culture.