There is a great essay out by Lee Jussim on the Unsafe Science Substack. It’s on the subject of civic disalignment, and whether social media causes botification or acts like a beehive in attracting the disaffected and vulnerable to manipulation on key issues. It’s empirically driven, and uses a poll of 1,906 Americans to discover to how a general support for democracy can contrast starkly with support for anti-democratic measures when dealing with individuals or political movements they see as dangerous or threatening. I provide a link here.
Great essay- but you’re right, it is a little nerdy at times, and mainly of interest to those looking to diagnose what the f*** is happening to Western societies. But as to whether Social media use contributes to civic disalignment by causing botification or attracts beehives of people already prone to civic disalignment, it’s worth looking at the literature on Media Effects Theory or the rather more dubious Allport’s Scale (often used as an unfalsified claim to support the policing of ‘hate speech’, in the UK for example).
Legacy media often hosts experts willing to claim that media consumption changes behaviour. When challenged to provide evidence they always pivot to Motte and Bailey, claiming it’s theory which they strongly suspect is true, but for which it is extremely difficult to collect evidence. To date, despite decades of research on Media Effect Theory, evidence is yet to be forthcoming. At best, Media Effects can act as an imprimatur, a stamp of approval, to highly dangerous individuals, the ticking timebombs or loaded guns of our society, waiting for a target, and as post hoc justification for their actions, their desperate search for relevance in a society which judges them as decidedly subpar individuals.
My strong suspicion is that we are seeing three effects, not one. First, media consumption does influence political behaviour and voting patterns. This is actually a good thing, healthy for society. One doesn’t want a large segment of the public disenfranchised from the voting process, and feeling that nobody in media, the institutions or government cares about them. The lack of a feeling that societies institutions ‘have your back’ can lead to large segments of the workforce dropping out of labour participation. It can make the already socially vulnerable susceptible to mental health problems of the type generally treatable by cognitive behavioural therapy, or contribute to community level patterns of drug and alcohol abuse. It can even lead to periods of civil strife, unrest and violence we saw with both BLM and Jan 6th. I don’t mean to claim it’s a causative factor, but it can act as the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. For those still sceptical of the economic insecurity argument which the MSM is so keen to discredit as to why populism has become prevalent in almost every advanced economy prone to mass migration, the book Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism by Anne Case and Nobel Prize-winning economist Angus Deaton remains a pivotal read for anyone still struggling to make sense of what is happening in the West.
Second, there are the conspiracy theorists. Of course, some conspiracy theories are true, or at least have some basis in fact. The Cloward-Piven strategy may not be an outright deliberate intention, but there can be little doubt that the effects of certain types of policy produce an effect somewhat along the lines of government policy becoming the disease of which it pretends to be the cure, which also, incidentally, happens to help Left-leaning candidates at the ballot box. There are also lots of really alarming conspiracies which have been greatly amplified by social media usage, however, the evidence that media ecosystems are actually making people more dangerous is tenuous. Media Effects Theory has failed to produce evidence for decades, but sadly what it does produce is cheerleaders, which can act as a motive in and of itself. There is the very real and disturbing possibility that as society continues to publicly give individuals the social feedback they crave, these acts will become more commonplace. It certainly happened with school shootings, as low-empathy sociopathic narcissists and the mentally ill became intent on causing havoc with guns in schools and the phenomenon went from non-existent to epidemic social contagion.
Elias Rodriguez. Luigi Mangione. Payton Gendron. Thomas Matthew Crooks. These are the same types of people- all a danger to others long before they became radicalised. The FBI had developed a fairly in-depth profile of young people susceptible to radicalisation through online Islamic Extremism, and the research has been applied more broadly to encompass the thankfully extremely rare White Supremacist shooter/attacker, and the far more broad phenomenon of School shootings. We know the signals. Online engagement is almost always high, often obsessively so. Social isolation and alienation are almost a constant. In a startlingly high percentage of cases, fathers are absent from the home, as outlined in Warren Farrell’s book The Boy Crisis.
However, it’s a mistake to think that social media and online engagement are a loaded gun for these people, a more apt analogy would probably be a hairpin trigger in the wrong hands. Many show evidence of mental illness, not mental health problems. Often the medical prescriptions that come to light are indicative of physiological brain problems, not the generally more benign, but still deeply unpleasant conditions of anxiety, depression and associated disorders, although treatment protocols can often overlap. Dark Tetrad behaviours are often evident after the fact, particularly a tendency towards narcissism, which has obviously proven itself to be of deeply malignant kind. It’s the thinking which dominates the ‘No Notoriety’ campaign. Don’t give these evil and twisted individuals the oxygen they desire- they want media attention and sympathy for their cause, or if their actions tend more towards inciting uniform revulsion, the ‘relevance’ and remembrance which comes from committing heinous acts. Let’s not forget that whatever you may think of Donald Trump, Thomas Matthew Crooks was also highly interested in tracking the political events of a geriatric and befuddled old man, Joe Biden, for exactly the same purposes.
I guess what I'm saying is, don't be a cheerleader. You may hate the American Medical Industry, or the IDF’s ongoing war against Hamas, but don’t endorse the behaviour of deeply twisted and sick individuals who could have just easily become White Supremacist Shooters or School Shooters, given a slightly different online media diet. It’s a mistake to think these people care. The motive and modus operandi is unfailingly hate. Hatred for Corporate America. Hatred for Israel. Hatred of Black, Brown, White or Chinese people. The only thing that differs is their preferred victims, their prey. It’s what comes from the deeply malignant nihilistic belief that they have been wronged by society, by not being given the high status adulation and praise that they feel they are owed for the simple act of breathing. Don’t give them what they want. Stop and remember their innocent victims and then take a deep breath.
It’s not social media usage. It’s us. Don’t give them the imprimatur, your very own personal stamp of approval.
This is an interesting thought-provoking article. I think the problem is not adulation afterwards but beforehand. If you talk to a Columbia faculty member holding a sign that says: "By any Means Necessary" I am sure she will be shocked, SHOCKED by the murders of the Israeli staffers. When you ask what the sign she is holding means, you will get a long, convoluted discussion as to why it does not mean what it says.
Elias Rodrigeuz took her at her word. She should not be surprised but she is.
Did you see the cringe CNN interview with the eyewitness? Imagine being a ‘journalist’ so ideologically fixed on a particular narrative, you felt obliged to try and Tipp-Ex over the perspective of someone who has witnessed a violent traumatic event.
I broadly agree. The UK is little different. It wasn't so long ago that avid social media followers were taking up the case of Raoul Moat- a murderer on a killing spree, who wrongly believed and promoted the idea that the ex-girlfriend he was stalking was dating a police officer.
I would have agreed more with you if you had said Che Guevara. He's more the same type of ideological character.
I liked this essay man. But I would say, it's never been 'social media'. It's social media + smart phone technology. The addictive tech, plus the addictive platform that fuels polarization, is the problem.
The other thing is market incentives in media- plus, audience capture. We used to think that more choice in media would be a good thing. What it actually means is that all media, including MSM, actively tailors it’s content to their audiences.
Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow both had one thing in common- both had lawyers who argued in court that no reasonable person could possibly imagine that their content was news, but huge numbers of people did.
I knew a girl called Emma at uni- she was lovely. One time, she slated the Daily Sport. She couldn’t imagine why anyone would read such a rag, given the trash printed within. I said, some of us read it because it’s hilarious! She said what do you mean? Well, I said, I wonder how many people actually believe that a woman made the Olympics because she had three arms.
She couldn’t stop laughing. There were some stories which were plausible, but unlikely- like the Chinese lady called Mrs Lee, who called her children Surprising and Obvious…
Right, audience capture. These things are hugely addictive, on purpose.
I've been thinking a lot about Postman. I recently read "Amusing Ourselves to Death" and wonder what he'd call our latest era? He documented the switch from the age of 'typography' to the 'showbiz' age, something like that.
What is this new age? The age of the screen? What is the effect?
I think you were one of the first people to turn me onto Jonathan Haidt, and thanks! That new book of his, man.... I fear his results are simply the tip of the iceberg.
I was initially hopeful that the UK government would take Haidt’s advice and at least ban social media on smartphones for the under 16s. Instead they used to as an excuse to straightjacket the speech of adults with the Online Safety Act.
Good article. Shame about some of the grammar ("if there actions" instead of "their actions", "who could of just easily become", no no no, it may SOUND like that often, but it's "could have" not "could of").
I apologise profusely. I swear there must be two their actions in there (because I found one the other day), with one spelled incorrectly as there actions- which I have now corrected!
I need to learn how to use the inspect search bar...
Cheers, mate! I'm terrible at grammar, and the their and there is a particular problem when I'm in the flow. I ran it through Chat GPT 4.0 and it came up with numerous corrections, which I probably should have done in the first place. Although I happen to like my quirky use of the hyphen over the em dash or en dash. You'll probably tell me I'm wrong!
However, the computer says no! Their actions is correct, because in this case it's a possessive pronoun. You were definitely right about the phonetic 'of' vs. have. Generally, I'm rather fond of my occasional Norfolk English dialect, but it does cause trouble when writing. As kids, we were constantly being corrected to use 'our' rather than 'are'.
Just joining pedant's corner to say it still says "there actions" when it should be "their actions". There, their, they're are sent to try us, and do, whenever we write anything longer than a shopping list.
Believe it or not, there was one their actions, and another there actions. I couldn't understand what Graham was talking about! Thanks for joining pendants corner!
This is an interesting thought-provoking article. I think the problem is not adulation afterwards but beforehand. If you talk to a Columbia faculty member holding a sign that says: "By any Means Necessary" I am sure she will be shocked, SHOCKED by the murders of the Israeli staffers. When you ask what the sign she is holding means, you will get a long, convoluted discussion as to why it does not mean what it says.
Elias Rodrigeuz took her at her word. She should not be surprised but she is.
Did you see the cringe CNN interview with the eyewitness? Imagine being a ‘journalist’ so ideologically fixed on a particular narrative, you felt obliged to try and Tipp-Ex over the perspective of someone who has witnessed a violent traumatic event.
Just watched it after reading your comment. What an idiot that reporter is. But I am not surprised. It's CNN.
Lol.
The real question is, is she actually horrified by the murders, or does she simply understand that she must pretend to be?
After her vapors subside, she might well find herself on Reddit upvoting posts in support of the shooter.
I think it'll be something like why do people care so much about two Israelis staffers, when babies are dying in Gaza.
Bitch.
Americans have often lionized the wrong types... Billy the Kid, Baby Face Nelson, Bonnie and Clyde, etc... I don't think this is new.
This sort of thing has been going on since Pontius Pilate released Barabbas to the cheers of the crowd...
I broadly agree. The UK is little different. It wasn't so long ago that avid social media followers were taking up the case of Raoul Moat- a murderer on a killing spree, who wrongly believed and promoted the idea that the ex-girlfriend he was stalking was dating a police officer.
I would have agreed more with you if you had said Che Guevara. He's more the same type of ideological character.
I liked this essay man. But I would say, it's never been 'social media'. It's social media + smart phone technology. The addictive tech, plus the addictive platform that fuels polarization, is the problem.
The other thing is market incentives in media- plus, audience capture. We used to think that more choice in media would be a good thing. What it actually means is that all media, including MSM, actively tailors it’s content to their audiences.
Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow both had one thing in common- both had lawyers who argued in court that no reasonable person could possibly imagine that their content was news, but huge numbers of people did.
I knew a girl called Emma at uni- she was lovely. One time, she slated the Daily Sport. She couldn’t imagine why anyone would read such a rag, given the trash printed within. I said, some of us read it because it’s hilarious! She said what do you mean? Well, I said, I wonder how many people actually believe that a woman made the Olympics because she had three arms.
She couldn’t stop laughing. There were some stories which were plausible, but unlikely- like the Chinese lady called Mrs Lee, who called her children Surprising and Obvious…
Right, audience capture. These things are hugely addictive, on purpose.
I've been thinking a lot about Postman. I recently read "Amusing Ourselves to Death" and wonder what he'd call our latest era? He documented the switch from the age of 'typography' to the 'showbiz' age, something like that.
What is this new age? The age of the screen? What is the effect?
I think you were one of the first people to turn me onto Jonathan Haidt, and thanks! That new book of his, man.... I fear his results are simply the tip of the iceberg.
I was initially hopeful that the UK government would take Haidt’s advice and at least ban social media on smartphones for the under 16s. Instead they used to as an excuse to straightjacket the speech of adults with the Online Safety Act.
Good article. Shame about some of the grammar ("if there actions" instead of "their actions", "who could of just easily become", no no no, it may SOUND like that often, but it's "could have" not "could of").
I apologise profusely. I swear there must be two their actions in there (because I found one the other day), with one spelled incorrectly as there actions- which I have now corrected!
I need to learn how to use the inspect search bar...
Cheers, mate! I'm terrible at grammar, and the their and there is a particular problem when I'm in the flow. I ran it through Chat GPT 4.0 and it came up with numerous corrections, which I probably should have done in the first place. Although I happen to like my quirky use of the hyphen over the em dash or en dash. You'll probably tell me I'm wrong!
However, the computer says no! Their actions is correct, because in this case it's a possessive pronoun. You were definitely right about the phonetic 'of' vs. have. Generally, I'm rather fond of my occasional Norfolk English dialect, but it does cause trouble when writing. As kids, we were constantly being corrected to use 'our' rather than 'are'.
Just joining pedant's corner to say it still says "there actions" when it should be "their actions". There, their, they're are sent to try us, and do, whenever we write anything longer than a shopping list.
Believe it or not, there was one their actions, and another there actions. I couldn't understand what Graham was talking about! Thanks for joining pendants corner!