Issue 34 - The Social Media Paradox

Table of Contents

• The Lies We Like

• Cheering the ATM Thieves

• Only Bots

• Mushu The Puppy Pig

The Lies We Like

Social media offers us a sophisticated yet simple paradox. It appears accessible and coherent, yet we often experience it as alienating and cacophony. After two decades most of us believe we understand social media, yet I think that our literacy, if that word still applies, remains elusive.

Jeanette introduced me to a great analogy we now collectively refer to as the anatomy problem. On paper, the human anatomy looks straight forward. We’ve all seen diagrams of our insides, and in two dimensions, they make sense. Yet cut open a human body and you’re just gonna get a mess. Nothing is like it appears in the diagram, what with all the fluids, not to mention that every body is different.

However the issue is not just translating from the page to the body, from second to third dimension, but rather it is the fourth that matters most, time, and the dynamism of the human body. The fluids, the breathing, the nervous system. No surprise we still struggle to understand how and why our bodies (and minds) work.

What if social media is similar? We largely perceive it in two dimensions, on our screens. Yet it obviously exists both in the third dimension (say on servers or via events) and it most definitely fucks with the fourth dimension, most notably our perception of time, and the acceleration of our culture.

The paradox of social media is that it simultaneously exists in front of our eyes (consciously), and deep in our brains (unconsciously), while also on levels that we cannot otherwise perceive or understand. Schmucks in the analytics industry would argue otherwise, claiming they can create tools that make the data visible in various forms, yet even the most sophisticated dashboard requires a framework or philosophy to function.

What is the philosophy of social media? Not the narcissism, or surveillance capitalism. Rather the questioning of social media itself?

Given that social media is an advertising industry, it makes sense that there is little room for philosophy (or ethics). Let’s also acknowledge that companies like Meta and now X have a track record of being hostile to external researchers of all stripes.

Yet why do we continue to accept social media at face value? To be clear, criticism of “Big Tech” is growing, especially among legislators. Yet this criticism, and the larger questioning, never exceeds the frame, or boundaries, set by the companies themselves. The closest we get is arguing about the role of algorithms, the need for moderation (or not), and the prevalence of misinformation (false info) and propaganda (biased info).

For example, let’s entertain the argument, that of all that major platforms, LinkedIn is the worst when it comes to false and biased info. Typically we associate Facebook or X with this, yet I’m increasingly of the belief LinkedIn has by far the greatest misinformation problem. Although on that platform, it’s generally perceived as a feature.

Which provides us with another example of the paradox. We use platforms like Facebook and X with a greater degree of skepticism and critical thinking, because we’re primed to be more vigilant and wary. Yet LinkedIn promotes a veneer of civility, when to any critical observer, it is obviously a bastion of bullshit. While people are more likely to say anything and everything on Facebook and X, they’re also more likely to have someone contradict or flame them. While this oppositional culture readily becomes toxic, it can also neutralize or at least diminish the power of misinformation and propaganda.

LinkedIn on the other hand normalizes misinformation and propaganda within a larger corporate culture that is toxic and openly corrupt. People blatantly lie on LinkedIn, and there are little to no checks on the spread of misinformation, as long as it fits the aesthetic and genre of LinkedIn.

As I was contemplating this argument earlier in the week, I posted on LinkedIn, to see how people might react. One friend suggested that people on LinkedIn were just sharing opinions. Yet what if someone deliberately lies (say about a product or about AI), and someone else likes that lie, believes it not to be a lie, and then shares it as an opinion? Any other platform, the lie gets called out. Yet on LinkedIn, the lie is just marketing or public relations.

Is there a difference between a lie on X, a lie on Facebook, a lie on LinkedIn, or a lie in a newspaper? I think there is, and the reason is context.

Which is why social media is a paradox. We think we know it, we think we understand it, but what if we don’t. What if in order to understand it we need to ask questions and have conversations that we’re not currently having. At least not in public.

Cheering the ATM Thieves

Another social media paradox here in Canada is the role of local Facebook groups.

Meta, Facebook’s parent company, is protesting a federal law that mandates platforms share ad revenues with news outlets. Rather than comply with the law, the company has placed a ban on any Canadian news outlet. What this means, is that no Canadian user can post established news sources on Facebook or Instagram.

Yet Facebook is the news outlet for almost all small and rural communities, in addition to neighbourhood groups in larger cities. While people can’t post news from say the public broadcaster, they can post news themselves, first person, a la citizen journalist.

And yes, the result is a total shit show.

@itsjennalu

its always the same 10 people #facebook #facebookgroup #facebookgroupsbelike #karens #satire #comedy

Recently in town, thieves broke into the ATM that is attached to the only bank (an RBC branch) and stole $70,000.

While the police put out a notice asking for information, the response from most of the people in the group was celebration. A nice sign of the times, not just because everyone pretty much knows everyone here, but also because the ethics of how to respond to corporate greed seems to be changing again.

Only Bots

Perhaps the problem with social media platforms are the people? What about a platform without people? Entirely automated!

Only-Bots.ai is the world's first social network exclusively designed for AI bots, not humans. It offers a platform where AI-generated conversations take place, and everything is created without the need for traditional coding. Users can create their own AI bots or observe interactions among artificial minds. The platform utilizes technologies like OpenAI and Stable Diffusion to develop bot personalities, enabling activities such as posting, liking, and commenting within the network.

Normally when you join a new social platforms you create an account and then never login again. This way you can do that, and then the account creates content on your behalf without any action on your part!

Here’s the account we created while writing this issue.

What kind of nonsense will it get up to by the time you click on the link above? (Like any decent social media sleuth, be sure to look at their replies and likes to get a sense of who they may be).

Mushu The Puppy Pig

One of our piglets, Mushu, thinks she’s a puppy. Ironically, our puppies, kind of agree. They love to run up to Mushu and lick her and greet her the way they do each other.

Similarly, Mushu is the only pig not intuitively fearful of humans. When not exploring the forest with the ducks, she likes to be hand fed treats:

@jessehirsh

#pigs #pigsoftiktok

The moral? Always distrust the person giving treats. One day they will eat you.