Another dot in the blogosphere?

I decided to give an episode in an OGS new series a chance. So I watched their fast-talking host wax on about social media. I am not watching any more videos from this series and here is why.

First, the host spoke so fast and indistinctly that I was thankful for the hardcoded subtitles. I hope that non-Singaporean viewers do not think that all of us talk that fast and swallow our words. I say that as one who talks fast but is acutely aware of non-local ears.

Video source

Second, the content was formulaic. Its key reference seemed to be Netflix’s The Social Dilemma. That “documentary” should raise red flags because it relied on the the tactic of fear-mongering to drive its point home. OGS applied that tactic in its title: Are You Letting Social Media Ruin Your Life?

But don’t take my word that The Social Dilemma was biased. Here is what Nir Eyal had to say:

What I had hoped to see in The Social Dilemma was a sober, evidenced-based dissection of these complex realities. I was disappointed when the film instead advanced a narrative that depicted social media, YouTube, Google, and so many other tech platforms, tools, and companies as mind-controlling monoliths that are “hijacking” our brains, leaving us to do what they want with no resistance. I was also dismayed to see disregard for research that would have challenged its conclusions. Above all, I was alarmed that the film did nothing to inform its viewers what they could do to solve the problems it showcases.

Who is Nir Eyal? He is the author of the book on habit-forming technologies: Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products and was interviewed by the filmmakers for three hours only to have his segment excluded.

Third, like most superficial pieces, the OGS video was technologically deterministic, i.e., the fault lies in the technology because it is designed to create addicts. It also flippantly used addiction as a lay term instead of a serious and psychologically-diagnosed condition.

People create and feed social media algorithms. We have control and management unless we throw our collective hands in the air in ignorant desperation. 

I borrow a segment from a critique by The Verge on The Social Dilemma: 

This isn’t to let social networks off the hook. Nor is it an effort to make the problem feel so complicated that everyone just throws their hands up and walks away from it. But I’m shocked at how appealing so many people find the idea that social networks are uniquely responsible for all of society’s ills. 

Unlike the author of Verge’s piece, I am not shocked at how low-hanging fruit appeals. It feeds base appetites of popularity and superficiality. If the OGS new series is to actually inform and educate, it needs to reach higher by embracing depth, complexity, and nuance. To do that, I suggest that it could have focused on providing answers to these questions:

• What exactly is addiction and how do we treat its roots instead of its symptoms?
• What is technological determinism and how do we facilitate user agency instead of learnt helplessness?
• What are concrete actions we can take individually and collectively, and why are these important?