Top 10 Maddening Things About The Social Dilemma

As society comes to better understand just how influential and powerful tech platforms have become, it’s also clear that those we entrust to define the rules - politicians - have no clue whatsoever. Just look at the questions that Congress had for Zuckerberg! And it doesn’t stop there.

Ah, the more things change. The Social Dilemma raises some very valid arguments. For example, the tactics amplified by social media resemble dictatorship propaganda of WWII. But ultimately, this is what happens when you produce a documentary at a conference with like-minded people - you get a fairly one-dimensional view that omits many other details. For one, this is nothing new. A century ago, William Randolph Hearst used his own newspaper to lead America into the Spanish-American War. Remember that line to his photographer: “You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." More recently, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox was a key voice in pushing for the Iraq War. The only difference is that these technology tools are used by others, and not the owners. Same racket, different name.

You may have heard of Murphy’s Law, and of network effects. Ultimately tech’s growth has proven to be exponential and compounded by how much the tools have been optimized for you. Your feed’s refresh nature is built to give you a dopamine hit each time, like a slot machine. What was sorely lacking in the documentary, though, was execs at these firms who refuse to let their kids use these tools. Indeed, it’s not like child psychologists are designing these tools; rather, they’re designed by tech designers. The repercussions of a bunch of white guys aged 20-35 building products that affect two billion people are severe. As data scientist Cathy O’Neil puts it ...

It’s easy to blame “others” for building these tools, but in theory this is also on us, the users . After all, we’re the ones using the tools. The computer, internet, mobile devices - they are good and bad, they have pros and cons. With such levels of personalization, should people be surprised that what they see is catered to them? Really? If it looks and feels like your own private Truman Show, that’s because it is. If mobile phones and 24/7 world wide web access is addictive, it should be because you have the world in the palm of your hand. And you don’t want to pay for it, or at least, not much. Enter advertising. That’s how media and communications has always worked. As parents and individuals, it’s also up to us to control ourselves and not just blame Big Tech. Or … should we? You might not realize this, but even if you don’t use Google or Facebook, they still track you all through the web. So there’s no real way to opt out.

What makes this debate really frustrating is the lack of awareness on all sides. For one, some of the criticism stems from envy/jealousy. Google - a west coast technology company founded in Stanford - mastered the greatest ad platform in the history of media. It then took over New York’s Madison Ave, then Hollywood. It’s efficient as hell, and that’s annoying to some: systems at work, with few people. It’s true that effectively, since Google and Facebook’s mastery of advertising systems, the most brilliant people have been recruited to figure out why users click on ads - and not solve the climate crisis, pandemics, world hunger, or any other notable cause. Now granted, as the documentary states: the only industries that refer to clients as users are drugs and software... and those who built and profited from the systems are suddenly displaying some millionaire’s remorse.

Equally annoying is the fact that those who built and profited are now crying foul. Case in point? Chamath Palihapitiya was a notable “growth hacker” at Facebook who’s now an influential investor - even though this kind of testing happens in all sectors and industries. Roger McNamee was an early supporter and investor in Facebook. He’s since penned “Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe”, a book trashing Mark Zuckerberg, and Facebook. Sean Parker - portrayed by Justin Timberlake in “The Social Network” - went from bad boy to benevolent sage with a conscience. I guess it’s better late than never …?

Sure, with power comes responsibility. Google started off with a motto of “Do No Evil” which begged the question: how evil do you have to be to need to remind yourself to do no evil in your motto? But that aside, to diagnose the problem you need to follow the money, and indeed, the rise of ad supported business models has shifted the balance to views, engagement, watch time… attention. When asking “Why don’t notifications include the photos they’re notifying you about”, well that’s for the same reason a mall would make you go around to take the next escalator to go one floor higher: your attention is their currency.

The Social Dilemma brushes by the main issue at these firms: you have to wonder if the right people are at the helm. Zuckerberg started FB to rate women at Harvard, ripped off the concept from the Winklevoss and then parlayed that into his empire today, clearly not foreseeing what he would unleash. But it’s not just the leaders at the top, even the soldiers who execute on the field appear to be in the dark about the massive stakes. $20B? We’re talking multiple TRILLIONS.

Ultimately, it’s true that “50 designers, 20-35 year old white guys in California” building products that affect two billion people is far and away problematic, especially given America’s lack of interest in foreign affairs and other countries’ internal dynamics. When the smartest people have been recruited by tech giants to figure out how to get users to click on ads, it may lead to a less than desirable outcome. We get it.

America’s embrace of laissez-faire economics means that when things go to the extreme, they really go to the extreme. Much of the country’s interpretation of monopolies traces back to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. The previous times the US went after companies on monopolistic grounds were when they broke up John Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the big telco AT&T, and more recently Microsoft. MSFT’s antitrust lawsuit paved the way for Google’s emergence. While government may not have the answers, indeed regulation is needed because corporations don’t act in the best interest of all stakeholders… and you do need to give them a disincentive that discourages them from acting badly.

A popular saying in the Valley is that if you are not paying for the product, you are the product. It sounds great, and hints at impending doom. You ARE followed. But it also speaks to the Web’s ultimate benefit, which is the democratization of the Web and the disintermediation of industries that also, oh lookie, accumulated massive power due to inefficiencies in the marketplace.

Data may indeed be the new oil; it’s valuable. Algorithms can predict what you will want or like in the future. Time spent in front of each image stared at is logged. Full psychological profiles of you are stored at each social platform. They control your social habits more than you do. And… you are sold to the highest bidder. True, true, true and true. But throughout history, laissez faire capitalism tragically rewards bad behavior: remember Honore de Balzac’s “behind every great fortune is a crime,” maybe not literal crime at the time, but an exploitation of a loophole. You can hate the player, or the game.

Ultimately, there’s no scenario where things get better before they get worse. Fake news is creating chaos more than ever. And yes, social media amplifies that. Fake news travels six times faster on Twitter than real news. While we’ve seen first hand meddling in the elections and actual violence in far off places like Myanmar, it’s not inconceivable for civil war in America and the end of civilization here in the USA as well. It’s easy to blame social media for destabilizing foreign governments, but that’s been happening for centuries. The only difference is that technology has replaced more conventional weapons.

If you liked “The Social Dilemma”, make sure to check out our documentary about capitalism, “Fox in the Henhouse”.