{width=”200px”}\setcounter{page}{6}
\pagebreak
\hypersetup{colorlinks=false, allbordercolors={0 0 0}, pdfborderstyle={/S/U/W 1}}
\fancyhead{}
\newgeometry{twoside,left=4.8cm,right=4.8cm}
\pagestyle{fancy} \addtolength{\topmargin}{40pt} \renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}
\fancyhead[CE,CO]{\textit{\small{Introduction}}} \fancyhead[LE]{\small{\thepage}} \fancyhead[RO]{\small{\thepage}} \fancyfoot{}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
To no one’s surprise, the internet has permeated all aspects of our
lives. All other means of communication have dwindled in comparison,
even though the technological behemoth is relatively young (around 50
years old as of 2021).
Worldwide, according to statistics from 2019, people spent an average
of 2 and a half hours a day on social media. The top place goes to The
Philippines with 3h53min per day.
This raises an iceberg of loaded questions.
At the top: How controlling is the internet today?
Or, asking in reverse: How does internet, as a new vector of
communication, let different actors control us? How is the internet
changing the way communication works and, indirectly, how we think?
These are broad questions and there are plenty of sub-questions
underneath. Indeed, we keep hearing in the news about social media,
extremism on the rise, and a salad of convoluted keywords thrown in
articles trying to rationalize all this.
Is there really an information war?
What are the elements of it?
Who are the actors?
What’s the relation with social media?
Is it related to all the conspiracy theories we keep hearing about?
Is journalism dying?
What is the attention and data economy?
Are we all part of a giant hypnosis experiment?
More importantly, can we, and should we, do something about this?
Like many of you, I’ve asked myself these questions countless times, got
buried in a mountain of headlines and news articles selling shock-value
pseudo-deciphering. I temporarily felt clear-headed but quickly got back
to a muddy state of comprehension.
Thus, I’ve set myself to consume all the literature I could find, peel
it, parse it, organize it, categorize it, hone it, filter it, etc.. So
that I could, at least partly, remove the haze surrounding the topic.
This is going to be my attempt at answering how the internet changes communication regarding narrative control. My own mini internet studies.
Here is the rough plan of our exploration.
Get ready because this is going to be a long ride!
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak \fancyhead{}
\vspace*{200pt}
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\small{\thepage}} \fancyhead[RO]{\small{\thepage}} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{The Artifacts and Spaces}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{Defining and Understanding Propaganda, Influence, and Persuasion}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
Our journey begins with three terms: propaganda, influence, and persuasion. To most, they sound like synonyms, but each convey a different concept. Like any form of communication the internet can be used as a channel for them. What does communication consist of?
The very broad domain of communication studies — with multiple sub-disciplines such as journalism, film critic, public relation, and political science — often use a simple reductionist model called the Shannon–Weaver model of communication\index{Shannon-Weaver communication}.
{width=”400px”}
The model has 7 different concepts: Information source, Encoder, Channel,
Decoder, Destination, and Noise. In our case, the internet is used as
the pipe that conducts the signal, the transmitter and receiver are the
chosen form of media (video, text, audio), and the information source
and destination are the people and algorithms at both ends.
This model is not complete as it does not take into consideration the
personalities of the persons involved, nor context, history, time, or any
other clues that make communication complex. Moreover, it is limited to
one-to-one scenarios and doesn’t cover one-to-many.
Regardless of these flaws, the model gives a generic picture of what
communication is: It is about sharing meaning — a message — through
the exchange of information via symbols that have perceived meanings on
both ends.
The Shannon-Weaver model is a great starting point to see what
needs to be done so that the conduct becomes more reliable, reducing
uncertainty. That is, we need to keep in mind the qualities of context,
sender, intent, message, channel, audience, and response. Concretely,
the more the exchange the less the ambiguity, both parties converging
towards a common point, common interest, or focus.
All this to say that the internet is a medium for transporting
information. Just like the printing press lead to novelties, change in
thoughts, and brought doctrines to the public like never before, the
internet has its own characteristics but can only be defined by what we
use it for.
For now, let’s pause and go back to what propaganda, influence, and
persuasion are.
Influence\index{influence} is a generic word to convey that someone’s decisions have
been affected by something. Influence is passive, the person makes the
decision themselves unconsciously. It can happen with or without any
direct communication (verbal or nonverbal). It is a spontaneous mix of
inner motivations and environment. Consequently, it is rarely, if
ever, controlled by another entity’s will unless this entity has full
control over the environment.
The nudge theory\index{nudge theory} argues that an entity can influence people through
positive or negative reinforcement, indirect suggestions. However, the
long term effects of these suggestions are highly contested as they get
mixed with other environmental factors like peer pressure and social
norms.
An example of influence is product placement\index{product placement}, where a product is desired
based on its indirect association with a portrayed lifestyle that the
viewer would, in theory, like to obtain.
Persuasion\index{persuasion}, on the other hand, is based on a two-way interaction. It is
often used in negotiation when one party or many parties want to take
over the other, imposing their point. The difference with negotiation
is that the core of the message never changes, it is not about resolving
a common conflict but gradually convincing someone.
Persuasion is thus transactional and voluntary. The party that wants their
message to come across has to bridge through the individual psychological
process, to exchange ideas freely and openly so that the other will be
convinced. In persuasion there is a back and forth between persuader
and persuadee, the persuader adapting, shaping, reinforcing, changing
the message at each iteration to make it more appealing depending on
the persuadee’s responses.
If the persuasion succeeds, it should result in a reaction such as
“I never saw it that way before”.
Persuasion can be verbal or nonverbal. It can either look like a
consensual dialogue to reach an understanding, or look like strategic
information or awareness campaigns that appear one-way but are still
using a feedback mechanism to hone the message. This former is called
Organized Persuasive Communication (OPC)\index{Organized Persuasive Communication}, and refers to all organized
persuasion activities (advertising, marketing, public relations,
organizational communication), but the term can also refer to more
manipulative means.
In both these cases there is a free flow of information and the persuadee
is fully aware of what is happening.
People are reluctant to change and so to convince them the persuader
has to shape the message in a relatable way to something the persuadee
already believes, or use lies and tactics morphing the facts.
This means persuasion can take a manipulative form, which may or may
not be consensual. For example when someone is persuaded under false
pretences, incentivized via promises, provided extra benefits, or coerced
through threats or actual infliction of costs (including withdrawal
of benefits).
Propaganda\index{propaganda} goes in that manipulative direction. It is exclusively a one-to-many massive persuasive strategy that is deliberately trying to shape perceptions, cognitions, and the direct behavior to achieve the desired intent of the propagandist.
Historically, propaganda didn’t have the same meaning it has today. It
meant “to propagate” or “to disseminate”, but the term has changed
over time as it got attached with the dissemination of information by
governments for particular purposes.
Purpose is what differentiate propaganda. It is always meant to be
targeted at a specific group, category of people, or society with the
goal to push them in the desired direction. This objective is often
linked to institutional ideologies, that is why we call propaganda
activated ideology\index{activated ideology|see {propaganda}}.
This means it is inherently advantageous to the propagandists, and their
ideological fellows, but not necessarily the recipients. In some cases,
it is arguable, and depends on the viewer, if the message is propaganda
or education.
Propaganda doesn’t shy away from using whatever means available
to inculcate the message. It isn’t based on mutual understanding,
omits or hides information, uses deception, uses manipulation, frames
issues, coerces or deceptively coerces, distorts, lies, overemphasizes,
and misdirects. Anything goes, as long as the goal is reached.
The message is crafted in a deliberate way to support a viewpoint,
a narrative, a goal of an ideology.
This is why propagandist consultants are often called “spin doctors”\index{spin doctors|see {propaganda}} or
“spinmeisters”\index{spinmeisters|see {propaganda}}, reinterpreting the events under a particular perspective.
The corollary of propaganda is censorship\index{censure}. The entity that wants to control the perception of its ideology silences any message that doesn’t fit. It achieves the same purpose by, not filing people’s mind with approved information, but preventing them from being confronted with opposing points of view.
That is why propagandists require control of information flow so
that they can manufacture it. This allows them to select the current
agenda — telling the public what is important and what isn’t. Or
to frame problems, influencing how the public pictures a situation,
creating the images and opinions that go along the ideological goal. The
propagandists try to control the media as a source of information
distribution and to present distorted information from what appears to
be credible sources.
Indeed, it is also imperative that the message should be packaged in ways
that conceal its manipulative persuasive purpose, as we’ll see later.
Another interesting typical aspect of propaganda as communication is
its heavy use of symbols and association. That is in direct relation to
its institutional and ideological root. For instance: justice, liberty,
devotion to a country, etc..
Symbolism\index{symbolism|see {semiotic}} is also heavily employed in advertising propaganda to sell
products as ideologies and ways of living.
Wherever you look and ask, all domains of research and work that touch propaganda dismiss their association with it. Public relation dismisses it as consensual and not manipulative, and the same in the advertising industry. The studies of propaganda are filled with euphemism, diverting attention, using the techniques they are themselves describing.
The historian Zbyněk Zeman\index{Zeman, Zbyněk} categorizes propaganda as either white, grey or black, but there are other categorizations too.
White propaganda\index{propaganda!white propaganda} is when the message is sent from an official source and the intent is more or less clear. For example, a message on TV by the president of a country.
Black propaganda\index{propaganda!black propaganda} is when the message conceals the source and intent by
making it seem as if it emerged from the same people, group, or organization
it is targeting. Obscuring the identity of the originator is done to
make the message more credible, giving the impression it comes from
the people it’s trying to discredit or manipulate. It is also used for
diplomatic reasons to hide government involvement.
For the propagandist, this is the type that is safer and has greater
persuasiveness.
Grey propaganda\index{propaganda!grey propaganda} lives in between, it is a message coming from an ambiguous or non-disclosed source, and the intent isn’t known. This could be a rumor or a message based on unnamed insider’s info.
Counter-propaganda\index{propaganda!counter-propaganda} is the reaction to propaganda. It differs from it
in how it is defensive, based on facts and truth, clear (understood by
everyone), calling out logical fallacies. It is most often administered
as a white propaganda.
Propaganda can only be countered effectively if the counter-propaganda
acts quickly to overcome its damage. Propaganda uses an anchor, as we’ll
see, and it needs to be dismantled as soon as possible. That means the
older the propaganda the more it will be deeply rooted in people’s mind.
Self-propaganda\index{propaganda!self-propaganda} is a type of propaganda where someone deliberately tries to convince themselves of something, even if irrational. This is akin to a Stockholm syndrome in some cases.
Sub-propaganda\index{propaganda!sub-propaganda} refers to anything that isn’t direct propaganda but to
ways to keep the door open for future opportunities of propaganda.
Within this category we find promotional culture\index{promotional culture|see {sub-propaganda}} that is used in
marketing and other domains. It consists of promoting commodities,
celebrities, politics, civil society, social cultural traditions, economic
ways, etc.. It is the salesmanship of a culture and thus cobbled with
direct and indirect marketing means.
Computational propaganda\index{propaganda!computational propaganda} is, according to Phil Howard, “the assemblage
of social media platforms, autonomous agents, and big data tasked with
the manipulation of public opinion.”
Computational propaganda can be directed by agendas or not. It could
passively happen because of the incentive of the algorithms on the
platforms — usually social media and thus views and clicks as we’ll
see in other sections.
Propaganda, like any other type of communication, depends heavily on
the environment and context in which it is moving.
Another related concept is persuasive technology\index{persuasive technology}, whenever a digital platform has full control of the environment of a user and attempts to change their attitudes through social influence and persuasion techniques. This consists in creating an environment that guides the person to perform certain actions and not others, inciting them through different means like social feedback, extrinsic or intrinsic motivations, and positive and negative reinforcement..
When it comes to administering persuasion and propaganda, the process
is intuitive: Choose the target group and message to transmit. Choose
the media form, the media shell, depending on how easily it can
spread. Pack the message material in the shell, and send it towards either
the mass/group, or towards specific individuals that could spread it
further. If an opinion leader spread it then their credibility, expertise,
trustworthiness, and attractiveness with respect to the target group
should be analyzed to match the message.
Then ensues a series of iterations to polish the message through
reinforcement, repetition, targeting opinion leaders through
indoctrination, and the addition of new psychological techniques,
manipulation of the message, emotions, and logical fallacies appropriate
to the target audience.
If the propagandists’ or persuaders’ goal go to the contrary of the
habits of the audience, it will be difficult to achieve and will require
awareness and information related to behavioral change and predictors
of behavior of the target audience.
That is, the message, to have its effect, will need to be adapted and
employ tactics to resonate with the audience.
The message shouldn’t be imposed, instead the recipient should feel it
flow effortlessly within themselves. Any propaganda shouldn’t look like
propaganda to the target audience. “Propaganda is most effective when
it is least noticeable”. The change will need to be self-imposed. This
is similar to the nudge theory of reinforcement, it should appear as
influence and not propaganda.
For that, the message should seem to give expression to the recipient’s
own concerns, tensions, aspirations, and hopes. It must identify with
them, this is what we call the anchor\index{propaganda!anchor}.
This anchor activates the ideology of the propagandist by tying down new attitudes or behaviors along with existing ones. It is the starting point for change because it represents something already widely accepted by potential persuadees — it is the path of least resistance.
These anchors can be categorized as either belief, value, attitude,
behavior, and group norms.
An anchor of belief is one of the best anchor, and the stronger the belief
of a receiver, the more likely they will attach to the propaganda goal.
A value is a kind of long-term belief that is not likely to change. It is
hard to use as anchor because these are unwavering and so might conflict
with the propagandist goal.
An attitude is the readiness to respond to an idea, object, or course
of action. It is a predisposition that already resides within the
receiver. The propagandist can activate the predisposition to further
achieve the goal.
A behavior or behavioral pattern is a clear indication of how receivers
are currently acting and often predicts future behaviors.
Group norms are beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors derived from
the membership of the receiver in a group. The propagandist can use this
tendency to conformity to make the message organically move laterally
within the group.
A concept similar to the anchor is called the hook\index{propaganda!hook}. It differs from the
anchor in that it is based on a unique event or idea that is constantly
repeated to amplify its effect.
The hook is generally a story which central element makes it newsworthy
and evokes strong emotional responses, making it stick to memory. It
could be fabricated (such as deep fake\index{deep fake}), misleading and creating doubts, or real, but most
importantly it should spread quickly and inundate all conversations on
a topic. The hook is then attached with whatever piece of information
it was packed with.
Hooks and anchors regularly use typical imagery\index{propaganda!imagery} to reach the ideological
goal. For example, portraying the enemy as a baby killer.
The compaction of big ideas into small packages that can be distributed
effortlessly is a must. This can be done through emotional wording,
hook-like stories, symbolic images, and impactful videos. This is a form
of portable philosophy created through repetition, emotions, and stories
that lead to new meanings.
Notably, when using symbols, words, and images, that already live in the
collective imagination, they will bring with them a baggage of feelings,
concepts, and ideas. Think of all the recently rehashed tropes in media
like movies, songs, images, and news. The use of strong wording will color
the message, creating an association in the collective memory: genocide,
patriotism, invader, victim, democracy, anarchy, enemy, confrontation,
massacre, coup, radicalization, etc..
To spread further and faster, the anchors, hooks, and imageries must
all interpolate and abuse our own confused cultural code\index{cultural confusion}. They work by
exploiting issues we haven’t adequately addressed as a society. That is
why people show strong responses to messages that are linked to injustice,
outrage, partisanship à la we-vs-them, and controversies. We are more
likely to react to things we don’t agree with.
From economic inequalities, race, nationalism, gender roles, sexual
norms, etc.. It doesn’t matter which side of the issue people are on,
the message will be spread and will provoke a reaction — if this is
the goal of the propagandist. It could also be fabricated controversies,
seeding doubt on purpose, making it seem like we’re still on the fence,
ignorant (the domain of agnotology\index{agnotology}). The propagandist expertly triggers
hope, satisfaction, pride, enthusiasm, but also fear, anxiety, anger,
outrage, and disgust.
Let’s take a look at how Robert Cialdini\index{Cialdini, Robert} details 6 principles of persuasion:
These go hand in hand with what we described so far and also reminds us
of the conveyor of the packed message. We should pay attention to the
credibility of the source, if the source is revealed.
Yet, a trick in propaganda is to keep confirming what you said, to never
argue and assume the truth. Our mind is wired to accept and believe what
others say as true, especially if not contradicting with any prior belief
or value.
The rule of thumb is that the message shouldn’t create any cognitive
dissonance\index{cognitive dissonance} but instead build a world that feels real to the recipient. To
create a cohesive cosmology of meanings, to sell a coherent memorable
story.
However, propaganda still denies the distance between the source and
audience because it puts the ideology first.
We’ll dive in the psychological aspects in another part. For now, this should have created a strong foundation to understand influence, persuasion, and propaganda.
The exact identification of what can and should be considered propaganda is debatable and extremely hard to do. Some researchers have attempted to create a framework to discern manipulative persuasion from consensual informational and dialogical ones, but this is hardly applicable to the real world. And, as we said, propaganda could be considered education in the eye of some people.
When it comes to ethics, the subject of children indoctrination comes to mind. Children are the most vulnerable targets of propaganda as they haven’t built strong defenses against them. They are the least prepared for critical reasoning and contextual comprehension and thus are impressionable. Their mental world is in the process of being built and is easier to mold. There is no strong forces to oppose the propagandist goal.
On that note, it is subjective whether certain types of persuasions and
propagandas are ethical or not\index{propaganda!ethics}. Propagandists are driven by ideologies,
and consequently strongly believe that all means are necessary. As with
anything related to ethics and moral, it differs based on personal
judgement of the actions. For some people, it is ethically wrong to employ
any subterfuge or tactics to reach a goal. For others, it is not about
the tactics but whether the goal itself is right or wrong.
There’s a lot to be said on the black and white division of ethics,
but we’ll leave it at that because the world is inherently nebulous.
This concludes our review of propaganda, influence, and persuasion. We’ve taken a look at the basic idea of communication, the packing of a message. We’ve then defined influence, persuasion, and propaganda, with propaganda being a type of persuasion that is one-to-many, manipulative, and driven by ideology. We’ve seen different types of propaganda and their definitions such as black, white, grey, self-, and others. Then we’ve seen how this package can be administered effectively through the person or channel carrying it and the actual shell of the message. This message will be successful if it doesn’t conflict with the receiver, if it is reinforced, uses an anchor, a hook, or strong imagery. The message will spread further and faster if it triggers strong emotional responses, especially something people feel they have to stand against. Finally, we’ve glanced at the issue of identification and the ethics concerning propaganda and the most vulnerable.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{The Artifacts and Spaces}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{Social Media and the Democratization of Speech}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
With the advent of smartphones, social media platforms are on the rise. Let’s step back and try to understand what social media are, not by citing events and instances happening on the different platforms, nor the countless consequences but by describing the characteristics of this new informational channel. We’ll go over the rest later but let’s take some distance for now.
A media\index{media} is an outlet or tool used to deliver information. Before social
media, this term most often referred to mass media communication such as
newspaper, cinema, advertising, political speech, printing press, etc..
In contrast, social media are platforms hosted on the internet that
facilitate the creation, engagement, and sharing of information between
the average person and virtual communities. It relies on simulating
aspects of social interactions.
Social media is the mix of media space and social space.
As a media, it stands out for its efficiency. This is characterized by numerous people on the platforms, high spreading speed, massive amount of information available, and the long-lasting lifetime of this information.
According to a Facebook’s statistics, there are 2.8 billion monthly
active users on the platform. Pew research also shows that, in 2019 in
the USA, Facebook was used by 69% of adults, while YouTube was used
by 73% of them. Additionally, Worldwide statistics of the same year
(2019) show that people spend on average 2 and a half hours a day on
social media. These massive penetration rates are clear indicators of
how social media have taken part in the lives of many\index{social media}.
The platforms rely on a network effect to attract and create social
hubs — The more the people on a platform, the more others will want to
join it. This is the inherent social aspect, that’s why we also call them
“social networks”.
Consequently, any information circulating on the popular social media
could benefit from exposure that no other medium has.
The exposure is complemented with an instantaneous spread, a fast pass-it on effect. The engagement of users allowing the fast sharing of information. Quickly creating an amplification of the message, letting it travel through social circles that would’ve never been reached before — a wider transmission that breaks distances.
Another fitness criteria is how enduring and suitable the storage media is. The internet has a long-lasting memory, by the time the message is out it will have been copied and stored in multiple places. It will be almost impossible to erase.
These three criteria: exposure, speed, and memory, break previous
media standards. However, to exploit this new medium successfully the
information sent through it needs to adapt symbiotically to the ecosystem
and niche in which it exists. If it is hostile, the information won’t
be transmitted.
For example, the message will need to take in consideration the augmented
Chinese Whisper effect taking place due to the speed and social aspects.
Another component that needs to be considered in the social media
space, is the infobesity\index{infobesity}, also known as the infoxication\index{infoxication|see {infobesity}} phenomenon. The
information is long-lasting, as we said, and accumulates over time. The
users of the social media are overloaded with them.
The senders of mass messages will have to keep this in mind and craft
their messages appropriately to penetrate social media. Indeed, the people
on the platforms will never be able to consume all that is presented to
them, and have to be picky with what they choose to process.
These are all indicators of the scale that the internet platforms,
particularly social platforms, have and their potential use.
Most importantly, they have dethroned traditional mainstream media
gatekeepers\index{gatekeepers} and allowed the common people to reach a wide audience,
bypassing filters and safeguards.
In the past, there were two main ways to get information: through peers
or through traditional media.
With peers, we’d learn about the world events through their stories,
rumors, and anecdotes.
Traditional media, as the only other source, were subject to different
types of manipulation. To protect the public and stand as gatekeepers
of truth they erected journalism standards, free press, fact checking,
and other types of regulation present in multiple countries.
At least that’s the theory. It remains ambiguous if traditional media
are still influenced, controlled, and driven by ideological stances or
corporate incentives.
Nowadays, we are presented with an alternative: the ordinary person as
a media producer and filter. On social media, we aren’t subject to the
standards and safeguards that mainstream media have.
People democratically filter and promote the news, ideas, and information
that they consider important. The majority decides what is relevant
and what isn’t. The phenomenon is similar to conversations with friends
being converted from one-to-one into one-to-many, an amplification of
decentralized voices. These voices are driven by an appeal to emotions and
popularity, and not by reason, deliberations, qualifications, backgrounds,
incentives, history, or others.
These are the messages that pierce through.
It is now frequent that mainstream media accentuate the legitimacy and credibility of social media by regurgitating their news from the different platforms. This can be interpreted as a confirmation and encouragement for participating on them.
The generation and distribution of media has been made effortless. Anyone
can easily take part in it. This is the will of the actors owning the
platforms, which we’ll see in another section.
The availability of digital equipment makes it a breeze to edit, write,
capture, record, and film content.
The public is socially rewarded for their engagement, be it sharing,
commenting, producing, or distributing. The usual social rules are
in places such as wishing for fame or conforming and belonging to a
community. We’ll also discuss in depth the psychological aspects in
another section\index{social media engagement}.
In sum, the public discourse on social media is a new place where
the creation of narratives about events happens, and where they are
discovered.
The digital platforms are also social places used for cultural, personal, and intimate relationships. This combines senses of trust and familiarity along with individualization and personality.
People maintain profiles on social media\index{social media!profiles}, facades of their personality
that they mold with the aim of displaying it to an audience. The platforms
normally allow for the customization and individualization of what can
be interacted with, is recommended, and the style and types of messages
received. It goes both ways: the person forms the virtual persona they
want, and the digital platform assists in surrounding that persona with
an environment that will foster it within boundaries.
Practically, that means the social media user will have personalized
news and media, and interact with others, according to how they portray
themselves.
Furthermore, the individualization, along with the fact that other users
on the platform might already have social bonds with the person outside
the digital space, induce feelings of trust and familiarity. However,
this is complemented with an inability to establish new organic social
bonds through social media — we aren’t able to connect deeply. We feel
closer, yet further.
Familiarity is also felt through the repetition of the customized messages
targeted for the particular persona.
As with any type of social place where communication happens, conversations
will touch topics that conflict across cultures\index{cultural confusion}.
Just like mainstream media newspapers could be leaning toward
different points of view, now everyone on social media reiterate their
ideologies. An outer expression and clash of the inner confused and
unaddressed stances of our societies and cultures.
Unquestionably, the most favored topic, the one driving the most engagement, is politics\index{social media!politics}. Social media are the hubs for political discussions. According to Pew Research Center, 39% of adults in the USA used social media solely for political purposes. Interacting with media that has political meaning, which translates into “liking”, sharing, reposting, discussing, creating political posts.
Interestingly, social media are positioned between socialization, entertainment, and information consumption. For a vast majority of users political interaction has turned into infotainment, information sharing as entertainment. A caricaturization of politics, reducing political acts to quick and easy bona fide participation on social platforms — What is called hashtag activism or slacktivism\index{slacktivism}.
Along with the overload of information and the democratic filter,
users will indirectly encounter all types of conflicting ideas while
browsing to entertain themselves. These having spread exactly because
they interpolated the engagement of so many others.
The types of information that usually stand out are the ones that challenge
our ideologies and culture, as we said. These types of messages can
pierce through.
Some theory implies that because divergent views exists at the same time
on social media, this latter is akin to low-context societies\index{society!low-context society}.
High-context mode are the communications that happen with an inner-group,
including the subtle codes, traditions, and meanings. While low-context
mode are the communications that are straight forward, reducing ambiguity,
flat, and global.
This can be what some call an information society\index{society!information society}, a society in which creating, manipulating, and sharing of information is central. The people being part of this society would then be digital citizens.
We are having an incredibly difficult time adapting to this new
medium, now that everyone has an equal voice.
We still refuge ourselves in different cocoons that collide in parody-like
confrontations with one another. Again, a reflection of our own cultural
weaknesses, our cultural insecurities\index{cultural confusion}.
These bubbles then can only be pierced through by more extreme content and ideas that will travel further. That means we are moving the Overton window\index{Overton window|see {fringe ideas}} — the ideas tolerated in public discourse. Fringe ideas on social media are the ones that are heard the most and might be accepted as normal. The medium having voted democratically that this was what the majority voted as relevant\index{fringe ideas}.
Obviously, the votes are not all done by real human beings, the platforms
have their share of responsibilities and reasons to promote certain types of
discourse that drive engagement, as we’ll see soon.
This reminds us of the nudge theory\index{nudge theory} and persuasive tech we’ve learned
about in the previous section and how it could only be achieved when an
actor has full control of the environment; This is the case with most
social media. They can, and do, deliberately create digital environments
that users feel fulfill their basic human drives.
Hiding the actors affect the messages greatly, this is done in two ways:
anonymity and automation.
The use of persona that aren’t attached to real individuals let people
express themselves without restraints. This attracts bitter views and
clashes, as people can now break the accepted cultural codes\index{anonymity}.
These anonymized profiles can then be automated by algorithms, what
we call bots, and exchange with other social media users to promote a
message. Consequentially, cheating the democratization of speech and
artificially creating a public opinion by giving importance to selected
ideas.
We referred to these autonomous agents\index{automous agents|see {computational propaganda}} as computational propaganda\index{computational propagandat} in
the previous section. Statistics show that around 40% of the traffic
on social media is composed of these autonomous agents. We’ll explore
later the incentives of the actors.
Let’s finally mention that there are different types of social media
platforms. Some have specific rules, some are only used to share a
single type of media, some are centralized, some are decentralized,
some are anonymous, some require identification, some are more fringe
than others, etc..
Social media have all the essential components we’ve described, but they
are mainly guided by the platforms themselves. They are new instruments, new
tools in our hands.
That is why some persons start to see social media as public utilities, even though they are far from it.\index{social media!public utility} A public utility being “an infrastructural necessity for the general public where the supply conditions are such that the public may not be provided with a reasonable service at reasonable prices because of monopoly in the area.” For that, a governing body will need to be erected and have monopoly over the social media in place and justify them being a necessity.
Overall, the medium reveals more about the people than about itself. It is how we use it that matters and the confusion we feel could be a manifestation of our own confusion. Or is it?
This concludes our review of what social media are as new communication channels. We’ve first seen its efficiency characteristics: huge reach, high speed, reliability. Then we’ve contemplated how it has broken the walls of the mainstream media gatekeepers and putting the keys of the castle in the hands of the common person. Later we’ve seen how it intertwines a social space with a media space, including al our cultural issues and how we want constant entertainment. Next, we’ve described how hard it is for the information to pierce through and how that increases extremeness in the messages to actually reach us. And finally, we’ve discussed anonymity and automation as ways to cheat the pseudo-democratic process that is supposed to happen on social media to elect what is important and what isn’t.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{The Artifacts and Spaces}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{Data and Metadata: Personal Data and Models}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
The internet is littered with nuggets of information, some made of gold and some worthless. From this mine we can extract meta-information, inferences that can lead to more lucrative valleys.
Two of the most talked about are personal data and models, also known
as statistical trends visualizations, big data analysis\index{big data}, and predictive
studies. Let’s take a look at what is personal data, where and why people
share them, why they’re valuable, and how they can be used with different
types of models.
In another part we’ll focus on the actors and consequences.
Personal data\index{personal data} is any information that can be used to directly or
indirectly identify a person, an attribute currently attached to them,
a behavior, a preference or interest, personal history, anything.
These include things such as name, phone number, address, email,
schoolbook, credit scores, geolocation, travel logs, interests,
information about past purchases, health records, insurance records,
online behavior, etc..
We call the person to which the personal data belongs a data subject.
Information gathering is omnipresent, we are deliberately, or not, leaving
trails in the digital space. On a daily basis, in modern society, through
our regular actions, it is inevitable that our activities will generate
data that is collected, which may or may not require our permission
or knowledge.
As we’ll see later, the online services and their sub-contractors benefit
from this exchange process, relying on the brokerage of big data about
their consumers.
The digital world is interwoven with our physical world, we
are incentivized to enter information to access services and
utilities. Everything is being datafied, anything that can be turned
digital will be, including us from birth till death. Are we an
information society?
Data collection\index{data collection} has been normalized, and we will see the general effects
of this in another section. This is justified by the advantages this
can convey such as having an optimized service.
There are five places where data gathering happens: casual online browsing and searches, social media, third party marketing, smart widgets, and traditional data repositories.
The biggest collectors are internet-based navigation sites like Google,
Yahoo, and Bing. Apart from the data source coming from their search
engine services, these companies have a broader business model where they
offer tools such as emails, document editors, file storage facilities,
and others in which they gather information about users.
These are used for targeted ads. For example, Gmail, a Google owned
email service, will direct their marketing campaigns based on the type
of mails a user has exchanged.
Likewise, massive amount of data is collected via social networking
websites and mobile applications like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc..
Users on these platforms either voluntarily communicate information
with a public audience by messaging them, or indirectly share their
behavioral patterns and preferences by filling a persona — The persona
having meta-information stored and used by the platforms and advertising
partners\index{social media!profiles}.
The data subjects might be lead to believe they own the data they
generate through their activities on the platforms, however depending
on the legal policy of the services and the legislation in which they
reside, it is often not the case.
Third-party marketing\index{third-party marketing} providers are good source of consumer data. This
includes companies such as KBM, Acxiom, and Equifax which have built
consumer databases with information including wage data, occupations, past
purchases, transactions, etc.. It is frequent that these third-parties
partner or sell their information database to other entities.
In this category we also find credit card companies that might share
processing data.
Yet another source of data are all the connected widgets. That include devices such as smart watches, smart doorbells, facial recognition cameras, fingerprint scanners, toys, and others. These could connect to smartphone applications, or directly to the internet, and the data might be forwarded to a third-party by the parent company.
Finally, the classical places where we find data collections are the traditional repositories. These are the ones that have been used since forever by insurance companies and that contain information such as credit scores, vehicle registration records, medical records, and other official and non-official knowledge.
Each piece of information in itself might not be valuable but the aggregation and processing makes it so. It’s quantity over quality, and the more data the more the approximate improvement.
This data confers a huge advantage to companies that use it compared
to competitors that don’t. Like a GPS using multiple points to find a
spot, the data allows for finely grained personalization of services and
data-driven decisions. Companies can understand customers needs and wants,
and have better marketing, products, and services.
Some argue that the companies might even know more about you than you
know yourself.
Most companies and industries already used similar knowledge base in
the past for marketing, as a result they only supplement their existing
internal source with the external ones they can buy.
This gives rise to a business model, a new type of economy, in which
personal data is commodified, gathered at all costs to be resold
later to these companies. We’ll get back to this in the next part.
This type of business is lucrative, there is a lot of money
involved. Simply taking a look at names such as Alphabet, Amazon, Apple,
Facebook, and Microsoft that have insane profits racking up over $25B
each year should give an idea. Or even looking at commercial consumer
database owners such as Acxiom that makes sales of $1.13 billions and
have customers such as big banks, investment services, department stores,
and automakers.
This data is pieced together, shared, aggregated, and monetized, fueling a $227 billion-a-year industry. This occurs every day, as people go about their daily lives, often without their knowledge or permission.
There is so much money involved because the return-on-investment for firms
that have embraced it shows that it works. In an ever-moving world, it is
always a leverage to know about your consumer target and predict trends.
The data isn’t available to everyone though, and the companies owning
them aren’t keen on letting go of their business. Moreover, there are
moral, ethical, and legal regulatory concerns that are starting to
develop around the topic.
Practically, this gathered data needs to be processed to be used by companies or other entities. That amounts to collecting, structuring, organizing, storing, sharing, and modeling the information.
The digitalization allows not only to deduce direct information from the data (such as personal interests in a topic), but also indirect ones like the flow of information. For example, it can allow knowing which persons are more prone to interact together. How data moves is information in itself.
This can help to know via clear metrics if a message was received by the community or group it was intended to target. The message could then be honed or sent through different more adapted means for the audience. Essentially letting the message sender influence a group without interacting directly with them, while still receiving feedback response.
Seeing how a message propagates can also be used to identify which hubs
or communities are more influential than others, if information is more
likely to originates from certain bubbles.
We can examine what are the criteria of these messages originating from
the influential communities. For example, some studies have noticed
that more fringe and extreme communities can influence other ecosystems
on the internet.\index{fringe ideas}
The flow of ideas between these interconnected networks is likely why
the mainstream media now gets some of their news from social media.
Indirectly, the collection of information and the visualization of silos can be used to categorized people belonging to them. We could attribute certain characteristics and qualities to persons frequenting a group.\index{meta-data}
Epidemiological model such as the SIR spread model can be used to see the propagation of messages through time and space. Similarly, percolation models can be used to see which variety of information can reach a tipping point and spread virally: its qualitative attributes or the ones of the network it’s spreading on.
Another information we can get is whether applying different reproductive
strategies for messages work better. Answering questions such as: Does
quality or quantity matters? Which works best an R vs K selection
strategies? What makes a message good, is it the high-volume, frequent
repetition or high quality and low-volume?
Some studies have shown that on the internet it’s a game of volume and
brute force and not specifically intent and design to be able to reach
a large audience.
Theoretically, all this data can be used to see trends, the spirit of the time, the zeitgeist. Having insights into the architecture and dynamics of the networks and the information that lives on them open many possibilities. The related field of big data, consisting of extracting value out of a humongous amount of data, is booming.
Unfortunately, as with anything on the internet, a considerable
quantity of the data generated doesn’t come from real humans but from
algorithms. Studies approximate that 40% of the internet consists of
non-human users. Consequently, the visualization of flow, the insights,
the models, and the refining of messages are partly based on information
given by bots.
Thus, a company’s decisions based on such data might be indirectly based
on the will of algorithms, hence leading them to deceitful conclusions.
Furthermore, the knowledge and visualization of the flow of information can
be abused by actors wanting to spread a narrative.
For instance, they might rely on side channels such as citizen journalists
and fake news portals to then have their message be regurgitated by
mainstream media. Effectively, they would have traded up the chain by
using their insight of the connection between different networks.
Lastly, there are still questions regarding personal data and data
gathering in general. Who is responsible when there is a breach? What
type of processing is allowed on the data? Is the data subject allowed to
update or correct their data? Who is the actual owner of the data? Can the
data be transferred freely without authorization from the data subject?
These are all important questions we’ll tackle in the last part
when we’ll discuss the solutions to the issues brought by the
internet.
This concludes our review of what personal data is and how data on the internet is collected to be used in models. We’ve first seen what personal data consists of. Then we’ve looked at all the places personal data is generated and collected. We’ve seen the normalization of this process in societies. Later, we’ve examined how this data is useful for marketers, and how it creates a lucrative business to gather the data to resell it to them. Next we’ve pondered about different types of models and ways to use the data apart from direct marketing. And lastly, we’ve considered how this model could lead to misleading insights if it is based on algorithms and not human behaviors.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{The Artifacts and Spaces}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{Memes and Cults}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{height=”230px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
In this last section of our first part about artifacts and places, we’ll explore memes, internet memes, and cults, their definitions, how they have transformed and crisscrossed, their relationship, their role as communication vectors, and the extreme forms that they can take.
Meme is a word that comes up in many conversations. It can refer to two related definitions, the classic one and the internet-related one.
Let’s start with the classic definition.\index{meme}
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a meme as “an element
of culture that may be considered to be passed on by non-genetic means,
especially imitation”.
Keith Henson defines memes as “replicating information patterns: ways
to do things, learned elements of culture, beliefs or ideas.”
A meme is a unit of culture, it is copied from other individuals, and
propagates by being actively shared. It encompasses constituents of
culture within itself. A mix of narrative, ideas, behaviors, and tropes.
The meme information has not only to propagate but also to have an impact
and persist.
The memotype\index{meme!memotype}, the actual information-content of a meme, its semantic core,
can have direct or indirect meaning. It can use figurative language that
resonates within a culture such as commonly recurring images, rhetorics,
motifs, and clichés.
In its physical form, its appearance, a meme can be contained in any
media shell: verbal, visual, textual, auditory, gustatory, sensory,
or anything the senses can allow.
These definitions are enticing but don’t include the essential novelty
that the concept of meme has brought: a parallel with genes. The name
comes from a mix of gene and mimetes, from the Greek mimetes, the
imitator or pretender. It was initially supposed to be called Mimeme
but got abbreviated to meme.
Thus, memes also add the notion that the transmitted information is
granular and can be studied from an evolutionary standpoint. Memes are
transported in their media package, the copies are subject to variation,
and they compete for space in our memories and for the chance to be
copied again. Only successful variants can survive.
Susan Blackmore\index{Blackmore, Susan} re-stated the definition of memes as: “whatever is copied from one person to another person, whether habits, skills, songs, stories, or any other kind of information. Memes, like genes, are replicators in the sense as defined by Dawkins.”
Memetics\index{meme!memetics} is the study of the analogy between the elements moving in an “information society” and Darwinian evolution. This is done in multiple ways, one of them is to apply models to visualize the transfer of information, to see the criteria that makes them stick, to analyze what makes them successful and reproduce. We’ve done a great overview in the previous sections on big data and models of information flow.
There are two movements that argue different definitions of what memes are.
Some people think memes have a physical nature in the brain and others
think that they only exist within society and not as observable entities
in the brain. Essentially, one group defines memes as internal and
another defines them as external to oneself.
The first group argues that in the future we could obtain technologies
that would allow us to find such observable meme.
Due to these separate definitions, it’s better to differentiate and
study memes using two words.
Like any scientific endeavor, it’s important that things be quantifiable
and well-defined, otherwise it’s a show-stopper. Research on memes
always precisely do that, for example let’s quote a paper: “A meme is
information (using Shannon’s definition as that which reduces uncertainty)
transmitted by one or more primary sources to recipients who, as secondary
sources, retransmit the information to at least an order of magnitude more
recipients than primary sources, where propagation or the information
persist at least ten hours and the information has observable impact in
addition to its transmission.”
Most research focus on e-memes.
It’s also good to be aware that there are skeptics about the
terminology used when comparing memes to genes as they don’t equate to
one another. The critics call memetics a pseudoscience because memes do
not follow the same selection criteria as genes. Namely, the definition
of a meme is still vague, there is no scientific demonstration of the
replication happening, the encoding of a meme isn’t known, and the
mechanisms of replication aren’t stable.
Memes can thus be placed in between the science fiction ideas of
brainwashing, viral marketing, and Darwinian evolution.
Regardless, playing with the notion that cultural information moves like
genes is interesting in and of itself as a tool for thoughts.
In common parlance when someone says meme they can mean “internet meme,”\index{meme!internet meme}
usually a photograph with a clever caption that is shared around the
Web. Often created anonymously, remixed endlessly, and shared constantly,
the most viral memes seem to materialize out of nowhere.
The term has seen a rebirth with the internet, even the Merriam-Webster
notes that a meme is now popularly defined as “an amusing or interesting
item or genre of items that is spread widely online especially through
social media.”
Limor Shifman\index{Limor Shifman} characterizes these internet memes as:
The author of the original meme idea, Dawkins\index{Dawkins, Richard}, noted in 2013 that it “has itself mutated and evolved in a new direction. An internet meme is a hijacking of the original idea. Instead of mutating by random chance, before spreading by a form of Darwinian selection, internet memes are altered deliberately by human creativity. In the hijacked version, mutations are designed — not random — with the full knowledge of the person doing the mutating”
However, even though internet memes are associated with creative medium
like funny image macros, this perception is limiting. Internet memes are
“culturally resonant items easily shared and spread online”, and as with
anything on this communication channel they have to follow its rules
to succeed.
As a consequence, the sharing and virality aspects are self-explanatory,
these criteria are required of social media messages for them to pierce
through bubbles. In that case, it isn’t surprising that the concept of
memes, when applied to the internet, will have to be deliberately designed
using attention grabbers such as visual content. In that sense, internet
memes are only instances of memes and not a brand-new definition.
However, unlike generic memes, the appearance of internet memes is limited to what can be transported on the internet. This can be textual, audio, or visual.
Internet memes are culturally relevant, broadly resonant, organically
developed, and voluntarily spread.
On the internet they have become a new shared cultural language, a way
to convey meaning. It’s a new type of vehicle for communication, packing
ideas into transportable containers that can evoke meaning, emotions,
memories and more.
The sentence “a picture is worth a thousand words” applies well to
internet memes.
Memes are convenient and accessible mental model creators. They offer a
quick way to construct a mental representation of a situation, event,
or object and allow to process, organize, comprehend, explain, judge,
and formulate predictions and inferences about these former.
They provide a narrative in a condensed package, and so are tools for
analysis. They are media rhetoric, deconstructing complex ideas using
compressed symbolic images/text/audio.
As you can see, it makes memes excellent persuasion and propaganda anchors
and hooks, you can revisit the section on propaganda and persuasion for
more info\index{propaganda!meme|see {meme}}.
Even if some memes weren’t created with a purpose, they will sooner or
later be appropriated by political or business elites for leverage. Many
memes, because of their symbiosis with social media, have to frequently
show strong emotions that is with or against ideologies, show humor,
parody, be snarky, silly, witty, angry, and most predominantly be
poignant.
As was said in the social media section, it is our own confused cultural\index{cultural confusion}
codes that are abused to make messages spread. That is why successful
memes take stances, either as meme-aggressor — discrediting an idea,
political program, politics, or media person or authority — or as
meme-protector — a message to keep the status quo, enhance a person’s
profile or authority, or protect a state ideology.
Memes frame the attention on a single aspect of an issue and cannot
confer enough nuances due to their condensed form. They are filtered
views of the world.
However, in the eye of the average person, internet memes are looked at as entertainment content, more precisely infotainment\index{meme!infotainment} — like anything that is on social media. It is easy to overlook their power as they do not appear to have substantive content and can take the form of hastily constructed cartoons. Nevertheless, after the 2016 USA elections, the media outlets of the world started crowning memes as “the new king of political communications”.
Unlike TV, printed media, and most other forms of communication,
internet memes are built for speedy consumption on smartphones and are
prioritized because of the visual aspect of social networking. They
provide a quick emotional hit in comparison with long-winded articles,
and thus an instant payoff.
Studies have shown that people perceive internet memes via a peripheral
route in their brain, according to Richard Petty’s{Petty, Richard} elaboration likelihood
model of persuasion (ELM)\index{elaboration likelihood model}. This means that they rely on a general
impression, the mood, and early part of the message contained in the
meme and not on any significant cognitive efforts.
This goes together with the notion that internet memes are perceived
as infotainment.
This peripheral route isn’t effective when it comes to long-term changes
in attitudes but can have some influence on the short-term. However,
as you can imagine, this can be countered with repetition, more units
of the same message.
More than anything, memes are a way for individuals to express themselves,
to show who they are and what they believe in. Consuming and sharing
memes is an act of identification.
It has been found that there is a close relation between belonging to a
sub-culture or having affinity to a group and the propagation of related
internet memes. They are used as a form of commentary, or even rebellion
against or for official discourse.
People might even seek out memes as a type of emotional release.
This creates a constellation of memes, a meme pool. In it, there are
organizations of large groups that are copied and passed together,
co-adapted for their survival. We call them meme complexes, or memeplexes\index{meme!memeplexe}.
The memes are aware of each others, like cross-breeding, sometimes
cross-referencing the format, appearance, message, or semantic core of
other memes.
This symbiosis reinforces individual memes.
The memeplex, like an ecosystem, balances itself with different memes,
creating a memetic equilibrium. Similar to how propaganda sells a coherent
world of cohesive meaning. Some people like to talk of memes as the new
urban legends medium, the modern hermetism or mysticism, others as an
ecological forest.
Experts in the domain of semiotic\index{semiotic} are getting interested in memes for
this reason. Semiotic being the study of signs and symbols with an
emphasis on their interpretation, context, and meaning. It covers many
of the things we’ve seen and we’ll see, such as: ideologies, persistent
beliefs, commonly held views, cultural anxieties, dominant mindsets,
received wisdoms, expectations, preconceived notions, assumptions,
widespread preoccupations, historical facts, principles, ideals, supposed
eternal truths, unspoken tensions, shared hopes, master narratives,
public opinions, prevalent attitudes, considerations of what is normal,
outlook, established power structures, and more.
Through different means, such as the gathering of big data, it is possible to track the propagation of the memes across multiple communities and measure their influence, discover who influences others the most and which variants are best.
A research analyzing memes generation on online platforms has showed that
fringe communities such as 4chan and reddit r/The_Donald (defunct) were
big generators of memes, which then were influential on more frequented
social networks such as Twitter. Their messages were mainly political
ones, imbued with emotional and hateful content.
Nothing surprising here either.
Even though we can track the spread of memes, the real origin of them
is often unknown. Some have come to call this phenomenon crowd-sourced
democratic expression, and others an intellectual apocalypse. That
reminds us of what social media are about.
This means that there is no accountability for the creation of the
message. It makes it harder for political groups to blame or retaliate
against the memotype, or even criticise the creator, as they could with
mainstream media reporters or journalists.
Indirectly, that’s also an advantage for the propagandist, they can use
memes as tools of black propaganda, hiding their identity.
We’ve seen that emotions and shock-value make a meme spread. What other criteria make a meme successful?
Let’s state something from the get go: Memes do not have to be true to replicate. Memes aren’t about their creation but about their spreading. The constant production of new content leads to a fight for the survival of the fittest.
Like genes, meme survival is measured along 3 axis fecundity,
fidelity, and longevity\index{meme!survival}. They also spread like viruses. There are
studies quantifying the analogy with evolutionary pressure, showing
the selection process and the movement between different communities,
moving from fringe ones to more mainstream ones. Prosperous memes have to
bridge cultures to live on. Being restricted to silos is a disadvantage
and can lead to extinction.
Other studies show how the SIR\index{SIR} (Susceptible - Infected - Resistant)
model of disease applies perfectly to memes. Susceptible people being the
ones who hadn’t seen the meme, infected people those who were actively
interested in its content and to spread it further, and the recovered
were those who had seen the meme and lost interest.
These research and models confirm that memes can be studied like
infections. Consequently, they can be treated or have their propagation
hindered by quarantine for example.
This is a topic that the author of the concept of memes, Richard Dawkins, directly tackles in the essay entitled “Viruses of the Mind”. Though the essay dives into the parallel with religious doctrines, it still puts down criteria that viruses have to fulfill to survive:
The essay then extracts and applies this to memes with two conditions:
When it comes to the shell of the message, the visual nature of internet
memes adds to their potential persuasive power on social media, making
them more attractive. They are comparable to editorial cartoons in
newspapers.
An image has the advantage of stickiness and brevity, communicating
concepts quickly. This is something that has been studied. Our brain
interprets images faster than text, thus reducing the likelihood of
thinking deeply about the content, as we said earlier. 70% of our neurons
are in our eyes, and we process images 60 thousand times faster than
any other media type.
Rational discussion is less effective than a visual campaign. Images
are more emotionally evocative, and emotional cues have a preferential
path in the brain. We do not even need to be aware that these emotions
are elicited, they could be subliminal.
As far as metrics go, research in the field of marketing clearly show
that visual content is more shared than anything else, help retain
information, and make following instructions easier.
When it comes to the memotype, the semantic core of the message, we’ve
already mentioned that successful memes are reflections of us. It is
worth reiterating.
A meme is an expression of our culture, our beliefs, behaviors, and
values. The ones that go viral are unleashing our repressed cultural
agenda, they don’t use novelty but use a potential that was already
there. They exploit our latent, yet intrinsic, gaps in our cultural
code, using our cultural vulnerabilities\index{cultural confusion}, the ones we aren’t immune
to. Therefore, memes don’t compete for dominance by appealing to our
intellect, our compassion, or anything related, but they compete on
triggering our automatic impulses.
Logic and truth have nothing to do with memes, but they rely on our
flight-or-flight reactions, the fastest reactions. From that perspective,
memes aren’t really pro-social but anti-social.
Like viruses, memes reveal less about themselves than about their
hosts. We wouldn’t be sick if we had an immune system capable of
recognizing the shell and then neutralizing the code it contains.
Thus, memetic material that is provocative, sensational, making news
headlines, and shocking will be more successful. Studies show that
people are more willing to share memes that evoke stronger disgusts
(Heath et al.).
Another study conducted in 2017 related to an analysis of the keywords
used in memes shows that the most popular memes were politically
related. From USA MAGA movement, to the USA libertarian, to the president
of the USA at the time (This study was USA-centric).
That means the content often acts like a propaganda anchor or hook,
and is receptive to the current paradigms and belief systems.
Then this all manifests through real consequences such as media confusions, lack of trusts, protests on the streets. It’s all viral memetics in action. We’ll dive into consequences in another part.
Another criteria that helps survival is whether a meme can create
a symbiotic relationship with other memes, what we referred to as
memeplex. The meme could already fit properly with others, cooperating,
or it could develop progressively a real or artificial compatibility.
Ganging up helps the meme flourish, and the longer they are attached
together, the more they’ll merge into a single package, a co-evolution.
Additionally, memes can have defensive systems, reject other memes
that would hurt it. Consequently, creating an intolerance within the
meme complex.
The content and the medium aren’t sufficient alone, the context is extremely important too. We need to take into account the external factors such as:
Let’s now review some of the results of research related to meme success.
The University of Memphis\index{University of Memphis} research shows that for an image macro to be successful the predictor variables were:
A research on military memetics by Dr.Robert Finkelstein\index{Finkelstein, Robert} digs into the measurement of the fitness of memes. It calculates the memetic fitness unit as the number of person-hours transformed. The most fit memes correlated with:
That means, according to this research, that the most important factor to fitness are propagation and persistence, and impact of a meme, but mostly propagation.
The research also summarizes some criteria that should be applied to the information content of the meme, such as:
The computer scientists at the Hebrew University\index{Hebrew University} tried to use an algorithm to predict the spread of certain hashtags on Twitter using a dataset of more than 400 million Tweets. Their findings were that successful memes factors were based on:
Another paper on the military application of memes proposes the following:
Some papers even go as far as to say that it’s not really about the meme criteria but the network criteria. That’s what the Indiana University’s\index{Indiana University} Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research found: memes that went viral were no different from those that didn’t, the success was due to the structure of the social network.
These research all go in a direction that echoes what we said earlier:
memes are a reflection of us. These memes do not necessarily have to be
malicious, they could have beneficial purposes. Today memes have surpassed
genes as the dominant driver in human behavior and we have to understand
their importance. For that we have to develop a healthy cultural immune
response to hostile ones. We should learn to quarantine, distance
ourselves, and apply immune attacks to neutralize them when necessary.
These are requirements in an information society.
Two concepts come to mind in relation to our society: memocides — the
deliberate eradication of a memeplex from a population, by either killing
the host or by censorship — and eunemics — inspired by eugenics but
applied to memes, deliberately improving the quality of the meme pool
by selective breeding. Eunemics\index{meme!eunemics} is done through memetic engineering,
using engineering principles to mold them.
This means memes can also be informational weapons, propaganda tools.
When meme and memeplex are brought to their extreme, a person is overtaken
by them, letting go of their own survival instinct and favoring the meme
instead. In the symbiotic relationship, the meme has won and consumed
its host. The people affected by this phenomenon are called memeoid\index{meme!memeoid}.
Examples of this include kamikazes, suicide bombers, cult members,
and others. Keeping in mind that the previous criteria for reproduction
still applies, namely that the meme should keep their host alive long
enough to spread properly.
This is a trading between genetic reproductivity and memetic reproductivity, which might not coincide. Promoting the memeplex might not be correlated with promoting a gene pools. Replacing the purpose of one’s existence with the spread of the meme.
Richard Dawkins cites the following when it comes to memeplex consuming individuals, it becomes a sort of narrative.
Strong memeplex are thus similar to cults\index{meme!cult}, people being mind controlled
by ideologies and its members turning into puppets of the memes.
Singer’s six conditions of mind control reverberate this idea:
These are all things that we’ve seen in the mix of social media space
and the usage of memes in their memeplex.
This is especially true of the attention-reward system of social media. As
social primates, attention is a measure of status. When we get attention
our brain releases chemicals such as dopamine and endorphins, creating
an addiction (AAR: Action - Attention - Reward)\index{AAR}. This system can be
shortcut with memes. The memeplex, and the ones carrying it, requires
intense social interactions and behaviors such as sharing the meme or
reenacting its content.
The members then create their own isolated bubbles of coherent meaning. Some of them opposed, clashing, and creating the rise of many of the things we’ve seen so far.
Clearly, as with propaganda, children are more vulnerable to subversion and are easy pray for memeplex. Children are pre-programmed to absorb useful information at thigh rate. It is harder as adults to remove the pernicious and damaging information that have been introduced early.
Deprogramming studies, used to get people out of cults, can be applied to memeoids too. They rely on invoking new capture-bonding social reorientation mechanisms.
Similar to our conclusion on propaganda, we have to say that some
memeplex can be considered pathogenic but others can be beneficial or
relatively harmless. The judgement is subjective.
In a strict sense, everyone, including you and I, are memeoids, carriers
of memeplexes. We are all hosts, one way or another, but not everyone
reaches a degenerative state, even though we have the potential.
A skill that should be developed is metamemetic thinking\index{meme!metamemetic thinking}: being able to
recognize and acknowledge the content of memeplexes, the illogicality in
them, and anything related to their attributes.
The metamemetic can also be used to understand the people associated with
them. Coming back to our data and metadata section, memes are information
and thus can be used to characterize, analyze, and classify people.
This concludes our review of what memes are and their relation with the internet. We’ve first seen their definitions, one is based on a comparison with genes applied to cultural information, and the other to internet image macros and tropes. We’ve then made the parallel to how these two aren’t dissimilar and how internet memes are only instances of memes adapted to social media. We’ve taken a look at how people perceive these memes, how they are used as a way to communicate and express one’s identity. Then we’ve dived into the memeplex, how memes associate themselves to create a world, to better survive. Next, we’ve inspected what makes some memeplex successful by summarizing some research. Finally, we’ve investigated the close relation between the extreme form that memeplex can take, turning people into memoids, and cults.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak \fancyhead{}
\vspace*{200pt}
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\small{\thepage}} \fancyhead[RO]{\small{\thepage}} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{The Actors and Incentives}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{New Economies: Information Economy, Attention Economy, Data Economy, Surveillance Economy}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
The artifacts we’ve previously seen have given rise to new types of
economies, tools, and arsenals that can be used by different actors for
different incentives.
Let’s start by focusing on the economic aspects by looking at actors such
as social media platforms, newspapers, and advertisement companies.
Life in an information society is about moving data, the new raw material,
around our manufacturing pipelines. This data is then consumed by either
paying with attention or money.
Data and attention are the two assets of the digital economies that emerged.
Whoever holds the means of productions, by centralizing and monopolizing them, has a tremendous advantage in any economy. In a data economy\index{economy!data economy} these are the data brokers who figuratively data mine the raw material, store it, and keep it well guarded — as is required in any intangible economy to succeed (See Capitalism Without Capital: The Rise of the Intangible Economy\index{Capitalism Without Capital}).
The other new asset is attention\index{economy!attention economy}. In an environment where it is at the
same time so hard to reach an audience and, once reaching a threshold,
so easy to spread virally, having the skills to capture attention is
valuable.
This is due to multiple factors such as the rise of social media,
the average users becoming generator of content, and the ever-growing
infobesity.
Davenport & Beck (2001)\index{Davenport}\index{Beck} define attention as “focused mental engagement
on a particular item of information. Items come into our awareness,
we attend to a particular item, and then we decide whether to act.
Its scarcity turns it into a prized resource, constructing an attention
economy. Attention is exchanged as a commodity, either by giving it or
taking it — an intangible good on one side, money and physical goods
on the other.
There is a fight for this resource, the corporate entities need it
because the digital economy is in sync with advertising. The drivers and
generators of money are buyers of attention and data, namely marketers
and advertisers. Just like traditional media advertising, the online
world follows a model that uses a linear process called AIDA: Attention,
Interest, Desire, and Action\index{AIDA}.
Hence, social media platforms, online newspapers, and others make money by
selling ad spaces, selling targeting information using the data gathered,
and giving access to or selling the data itself.
Marketers\index{marketing} have two choices when it comes to social media: either passive
marketing — gathering data from their consumers posts and public
information — or active — engaging with users, creating polls,
paying influencers to advertise a product, etc..
Both parts are facilitated by platforms that allow tracking and analyzing
the results of their campaigns. Advertisement is only a sub-section
of marketing.
As for online newspapers, and many others, they have chosen to either
sell ad space, thus attention, or switched to a subscription model in
which the customer pays to get access.
Some argue that the centralization of ad services forces companies
to offer paid services, leading to an overall more expensive online
experience. There are big questions regarding the value of the content
we consume online and how much should be paid for it. The concept of
micro-transactions and micro-payments comes to mind, we’ll come back to
them in the solutions part.
The internet conundrum is that users have developed a habit of expecting online services to be free. So, to make the services offered profitable, the owners have to extract valuable things from their users, namely their attention and generated data.
The digital culture expert Kevin Kelly\index{Kelly, Kevin} describes the expected attributes of this economic space as:
In direct relation with the data economy, a sub-type of economy has
appeared that specializes in a particularly profitable data type: personal
data. The surveillance economy\index{economy!surveillance economy}, as it came to be called, centers itself
around making profit from gathering personal information, commodifying it.
This data is obviously more valuable and can be sold for reasons other
than precise targeted marketing, such as creating a voters profiles
database to be sold to state actors. This was the case of Cambridge
Analytica\index{Cambridge Analytica}, who used Facebook as a tool to gather information. Allowing
them to join up to 7 thousand data points on 240M people. We’ll see more
of that later.
This grants companies access to information that can be used to tailor
their products to their customers’ needs, and customize their marketing
campaigns to specific categories of people, to what we call “buyer
personas”. This is good for passive marketing.
For example, a job ad can be sent precisely to men between 25 and 36
that are single and have interests in cars.
When so many data points are involved in identifying an audience, this
is referred to as microtargeting\index{marketing!microtargeting}.
In the past, advertising was used with the goal to inform consumer choices, today it is predominantly used to persuade them, going back to our section on persuasion and propaganda. It steers consumers toward the brands which invest more in advertising, rather than those that are sustainable and responsible but less competitive. Thus, driving global consumption artificially.
Active marketing, engaging with users, works well in a surveillance
economy too. Companies can perform direct continual experiments on their
customers without them being aware of it nor giving consent.
An A/B or Wizard of
Oz testing phase
that would’ve taken months to perform can be done in a matter of hours
on social media, an almost instantaneous feedback.
In the past, marketing used to be more of a one-to-many type of
communication, with the internet it now appears more intimate, a
one-to-one customized experience with the brand. The company can build
a relationship with their customers for long-term success.
This relationship can then work in their favor through the viral nature of
social media. The consumers who find what they are looking for will share
their positive experience, while those who didn’t will also communicate
it. The opinions will proliferate and increase in number.
From the data gathering side of the equation, big tech companies are then justified in amassing data at all costs, tracking and analyzing. This affects privacy and control over our lives, we’ll see some of the deleterious consequences later. The data includes location history, preferences, age, name, and other things we’ve seen in the previous data and metadata section\index{personal data}.
These three or four types of economies, digital, data, attention, and
surveillance, clash together. The first one generates a mountain of
advertisements and content that floods people, making them more picky
about what they pay attention to. Accordingly, the value of attention
rises, it being more scarce, creating additional incentives to invest
into specific targeted advertisement, hence more surveillance.
A true arms race driven by a contamination of the supply that is often
filled with irrelevant, redundant, unsolicited, low-value information. An
adverse effect of this information revolution.
One of the many consequences, which we’ll see later, is something called
continuous partial attention, a phenomenon where someone’s attention
is constantly divided. It can lead to increase stress and an inability
to reflect or make thoughtful decisions, sometimes related to analysis
paralysis.
This consequence is convenient to some actors, especially in relation
to what we’ve seen in the propaganda and persuasion section.
There’s a lot of money involved and many reasons to secure a position in these new economies. As with any new commodity that spawns, is lucrative, and fast growing, it attracts regulators and policymakers that want to restrain its control and flow.
Every year, companies worldwide spend more than 1.3 trillion dollars on commercial communication and 600 billion dollars on advertising. The titans of the internet, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft look unstoppable. They are part of the most valuable listed firms in the world. Their profits keep surging: they collectively racked up over 25 billion dollars in net profit in the first quarter of 2017.
This is compounded with the feedback effect that more data encourages
more data. This confers an enormous advantage to already large incumbents,
the ad technology suppliers that have amassed a wall of well guarded data.
In this economy it is quantity over quality.
The giants span different fields, Google can see what people search for, Facebook what they share, Amazon what they buy. There’s no room for small players such as online newspapers, or any other SMEs, they can’t compete. This means the biggest players have a strong grip on the supply chain, both the data, attention, and the ad tech.
Size isn’t the issue here but the danger it can have on the consumers
in these economies. It impacts everyone along the supply chain, from
publishers, to advertisers buying ads, and the consumers.
This can create conflicts of interests, giving a self-preferenciation
to specific suppliers of ad technology. These later can then control
the price of access to it, its quality of service, and the transparency
going along with it.
With such control, these companies can thwart competitors, either by
hoarding more data and making it impossible for others to rival them,
or by acquiring or destroying contenders.
For instance, many think that Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp for
$22 billion falls in that category, namely creating a barrier of entry
and stifling competition.
Unquestionably, these data brokers\index{data brokers} are nothing without their network of
buyers, the advertising companies and other entities interested in getting
access to mined data and attention. While there are many small players,
the bigger ones will often sign partnership deals with the data brokers,
so-called third-party partnership (or sub-contractors), to exchange and
interoperate data laterally.
There are countless examples of these generally non-transparent deals,
at least non-transparent with regard to the data subjects which have
their information exchanged without their consent.
For example, AT&T may use third-party data to categorize subscribers without using their real names to show them ads. In practice, that means AT&T can find out which subscribers have which health issues — or which ones bought over-the-counter drugs to treat it. The companies extracted this kind of information from the databases accessed through third parties which contained subscribers’ spending.
An investigation by the New York Times from 2018 detailed how Facebook had made special agreements to share/give access to personal user information and private chats to 150 tech firms, including Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Spotify, and Yandex. The list also included online retailers, car-makers, banks, phone manufacturers, and media organizations.
Facebook distinguished between two types of relationships: integration
and instant personalization partnerships.
The first one is about offering Facebook’s features outside its own app
or website, the users having to sign in to their account to allow it.
The second one, “instant personalization”, is about allowing other apps
to interact with Facebook private messages to customize them.
Facebook noted that it ended “nearly all” of the integration partnership
and most of its personalization partnerships.
Facebook is a gargantuan player, but only one among many like Google
and Twitter. They all have such deals and act as data brokers.
The most interesting type of partnership relying on these gigantic
databases of personal information are the ones with state actors. For now,
let’s only note that the USA government requires would-be immigrants
and visa applicants to submit five years of social media handles for
specific platforms identified by them, mainly Facebook. We’ll see how
lucrative social media are for states later.
With lots of money and people involved, many aggressive tactics are used to get the attention and personal data of people, any legal means are allowed. That is why they rely on persuasive technology\index{persuasive technology}, a term used to refer to any technology designed to change attitudes or behaviors through persuasion and social influence. In our case, they are used to persuade to act based on ads, pay attention, and give personal data.
The use of persuasive design is custom-fit to the receiver, for example
it can be based on age-appropriate desires.
The preliminary information can be gathered from all the sources we
mentioned in our data and metadata section such as smart utilities, and
our daily ubiquitous online activities. This is all possible because the user
inadvertently agreed to a hidden privacy policy, in most cases without
reading it. In so far as this is the argument used by these platforms
to allow this, while making it as cumbersome as possible to understand
what the policies imply.
Then, once the target is set, the software platform algorithms will
explicitly or implicitly attempt to win the attention of the users
through interface and psychological tricks based on the interests and
personalizations from the data extracted earlier.
This includes mundane things such as catchy click-bait titles of news
articles, and visual tricks such as using shocking pictures, impactful
fonts, and attractive colors. The usual in marketing and other types
of media (TV, newspapers, radio).
The new nefarious techniques rely on dark patterns\index{persuasive technology!dark patterns}, user interfaces that
are designed to mislead and direct users into acting a certain
way. This includes hiding parts of the interface that are supposed to
be there for legal reasons, encouraging users to sign up or buy services
or items they didn’t intend to, and more
Additionally, the platforms will create an environment that nurtures
attention, shaping it using the data acquired. This ranges from benign
things such as showing users what they are looking for, to turning the
digital environment into a casino-like environment.
Social media are especially known to employ this stratagem, relying on
the craving for social feedback that people want and mixing it with a
reward system, be it “like”, “views”, or “shares”. Overall, this is a
vicious cycle made up of a classical conditioning scheme that creates
a drug-like addiction for the users participating on social media.
These techniques work well on adults but even better on
kids. Perniciously, the different platforms involved have used them to
target younger and younger people. The typical age when kids get their
first smartphone has fallen to 10yo.
There’s more profit to be made out of a blank mind than an already
filled one. This manipulation for profit is a reminder of our section
on propaganda and how having full control of an environment allows for
indoctrination.
The children are then caught in a virtual environment replacing their
real-world needs and basic human drives: to be social and obtain goals.
To reiterate clichés, for teenage girls it could be wanting
to be socially successful, and for teenage boys to want to earn
competences. Meanwhile, they can easily fall victim to the internet’s
attention and surveillance economies — an endless pursuit of
stimulating virtual points which they believe will make them happy
and successful.
I digress, we’ll have a full part with consequences.
Strikingly, the tracking and fight for attention starts earlier than childhood, the digitalization of our lives starts before birth. This is why data on pregnant women is the most valuable. We are the very first generation to be datafied before birth, this is a historical transformation.
On social networks, people most of the time want to entertain themselves, and entertainment is what makes them stay. One type of very popular entertainment is political infotainment, a sort of caricature of politics. A large portion of end users visit social media only for politics, and so the platforms will be incentivized in promoting this type of content. They give what people are looking for.
Many of these digital spaces rely on something called a “feed” or “home” page that will be generated and presented by default. This page will be optimized and curated by algorithms for the goal of the platforms. It is highly individualized, the news and information are selected by engagement value, intentionally designed to isolate end users from information that will make them leave, and creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop of confirmation, thus satisfaction.
From recommendation engines\index{recommendation engines}, search results, trends, autocomplete forms,
it all happens through the mediation of algorithms. Whatever content is
able to satisfy the criteria of the algorithms will be promoted, be it
through clickbait titles, paying for fake views, fake reviews of products,
bots interaction, and outrage-related and emotion inducing content.
The objective is to predict what we are more likely to interact with:
click, view, engage.
The algorithms themselves are impartial, they do not know what the actual content
is, and cannot discern between what is true and what isn’t. They
are simply good at what they were programmed to do.
The algorithms are trade secrets of the platforms, opaque tools that
influences millions of people each day. The data brokers and networks
use this as a justification of non-accountability for the consequences,
something we call mathwashing\index{mathwashing}. Hiding behind the algorithm and pleading
free speech.
Algorithm amplification\index{algorithm amplification} is the phenomenon we are experiencing, the
automatic radicalization of views and disinformation as an instrument
for more views and spiraling out of control. It is a business choice
made in pursuit of profit.
Social media will reward, through the point systems, extreme stances
on subjects, these serve as the lubricant for these businesses, making
them more profitable and influential. Studies have shown how users feel
satisfied when finding a niche to cater to that generates a lot of these
points (likes/shares).
This is an effect that is comparable with TV long-term media effects theory. It states that the more an individual watches television, the more they believe social reality matches what they see on it.
These have ramification in the real world, the consequences can be dire, as we’ll see later. For example, hate speech amplification can thrive and fuel genocide. Internet platforms play a dominant role in our conversation, extremism cultivated online has real world ramifications.
Evidently, they are now under public scrutiny and lawmakers want to intervene but social network, ad tech service providers, and others in the loop will fight to defend their castle of data.
The most common argument is that users have consented to what is happening by agreeing to the privacy policy and EULA\index{EULA} they were presented with when signing up to the service. It is ok because it is the inevitable conclusion of our online activity. In other words, asking companies whose business models revolve around exploiting personal data for consumer-influence techniques to explain their privacy policies is like asking someone to shoot themselves in the foot.
The companies are now tweaking their tactics, using a patch-like approach rather than tackling the real issue, which is the core of their business. We’ll see in the last part some real solutions.
For example, AT&T recently said they would stop sharing users’ location
details with data brokers, Facebook said it stopped allowing advertisers
to use sensitive categories for targeting, Google said it’s now allowing
users to download masses of their data.
Recently Google is also going to remove third-party cookies, to then
allow third-parties to have access to the data only through them and
getting information about groups and not individuals. They also get
information directly from other sources such as their analytics and AMP
service. A sort of differential privacy. Arguably, these give Google
even more power over this type of data and drives away competitors.
In some countries, like the USA, the companies hide behind laws related
to free speech to justify their policies. They are claiming that they do
not want to be arbiters of truth\index{legal!free speech}.
That helps in taking the blame away from them, leaving them unaccountable
as no USA critics want any platform to act as a censor.
As a last resort, like in any industry big enough, these companies don’t
shy away from using their money to convince the lawmakers anywhere in
the world.
Between 2005 and 2018, the big five tech in the USA have spent more
than half a billion dollars lobbying the USA Congress, and donating to
parties. Literally purchasing power\index{lobbying}.
Moreover, other databrokers also spend as much, companies such as
CoreLogic spent as much as $215,000 on lobbying in 2020; and Acxiom,
which spent $360,000 on lobbying in 2020 for issues related to data
security and privacy.
Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft have collectively thrown $582 million at legislators in an attempt to influence the lawmaking process and make sure their voices (and interests) are taken into account.
All of the firms have taken a position on privacy policy, with the issue coming up 3,240 times in all reports files—by far the most talked about topic. Last year alone, $66.4 million was spent on privacy issues by the tech giants. That includes $16.6 million from Google, $15.1 million from Amazon and $13 million from Facebook.
Whatever legality they deal with, like anything legal, depends on the country where the law is applied. Thus, any solutions will be localized, as we’ll see later.
This concludes our review of the emergence of new economies in the digital space with regards to social networks and ad tech providers. We’ve first seen the two new assets: data and attention. Then we’ve looked at their worth and which actors had incentives to capture them. Next, we’ve seen how a few are owning the pipeline in this new infrastructure and how they have agreements with third parties. After that we’ve dived into some of the manipulation tactics used to gain such assets. Finally, we’ve listed a few of the defenses some of these companies have used against policymakers.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{The Actors and Incentives}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{Internet, in Between the Corporate, Private, and Public Spheres}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
The internet is a new resource and when introduced in our social
structures it has fueled the construction of utilities around it. Like
any tool it has no effects on its own but only through its usages. In
particular, it has altered our capacity of communication making it
interactive, multimodal, asynchronous or synchronous, global or local,
many-to-many, one-to-many, one-to-object, object-to-object.
In this section we’ll go over some of the things the internet allows
to do through the platforms and services hosted on it. We can’t go over
everything because that would be equivalent to describing what modern
life is about. Instead, we’ll paint a rough picture of the internet in
between the corporate, private, and public sphere.
We can describe ourselves as an information society, an
internet-everywhere society. Calling ourselves digital natives, digital
citizens, digital cosmopolitans, and netizens\index{netizen}.
Everything that can be digitized gets digitized. According to a study
published by Martin Hilbert\index{Hilbert Martin} in Science in 2011, 95% of all information
in existence on the planet is already digitized and accessible through
the internet.
This has shrunk the globe, brought knowledge to everyone, altered the
way we communicate and connect, changed the way we make money, and changed
the way we think.
The internet reflects us, it can convey the best and worst of
humankind. It is an open-ended system, like our societies, with the
inter-relations mapped in the digital space, with all the same logics
that exist between cultures, organizations, and technologies.
Similarly, the internet is networked and so are our societies:
constructed around personal and organizational networks, without clear
boundaries. Thus, the same paradigms and dynamics that apply in our real
world are echoed online. Studying the internet is studying anthropology.
Previously we’ve seen how this bridging of cultures online makes us
shift from high-context cultures to low-context ones, or informational
ones\index{society!information society}. Because of this, we are forced to learn to communicate in a
different way, with an emphasis on collaboration, learning to negotiate,
to accept disagreement as normal.
Paradoxically, this has made us more socially conscious, and social
in general, on the internet than in the physical world. There is less
distance, it feels like the globe has shrunk, and that has intensified
social interactions, for better or worse.
Some studies have observed that overall, there is a correlation between
sociability and internet usage. This applies to civic engagements and
other types of relationships. This is a new kind of sociability, one
that is driven by permanent connectivity, especially on social media.
When bridging cultures a common language has to be chosen, and on the internet it is often English that dominates. It composes around 30% of the internet according to estimates, but isn’t the native tongue of most users. This can limit the spread of information from one cluster to another, create boundaries for communities, an inequality of information, an inequality of representation, and shape the digital experience and views of people on the internet. The language, and indirectly culture, barriers can direct the flow of information, tending in the direction where it is sometimes more domestic. We’ll get back to this in the consequences part\index{language barrier}.
The apparent reduction in distance also creates networking
opportunities. In the past, interactions were limited to the personal
networks; people being favored for whether they went to a prestigious
school, university, or worked at a well-known company. These days we can
be exposed to a diverse range of networks that are much more accessible,
increasing the employment prospect.
This applies to creativity too, being exposed to so many diverse
ideas, different ways to see a problem. Creativity is an import-export
business. Taking things that are ordinary from multiple places and putting
them in totally different settings. What is called cognitive diversity\index{cognitive diversity}.
Additionally, widespread connectivity brings the possibility of working
from almost anywhere in the world, at any time of the day, if the job
doesn’t require to be on-place — that is if it is an information
related job. This unlocks tremendous freedom and autonomy.
The concept of autonomy\index{autonomy} is an important one, as it relates to another
one: individuation\index{individuation}. When moving from high-context society to low-context
information society, the process of individuation takes place. Some
ironically calls it the “ME-centered” society, or the “selfie
generation”\index{selfie generation}. This isn’t something new, it’s been happening for a couple
of years, but it is more widely spread and the internet is a catalyst.
Concretely, this translates into the decline of the definition of the
self based on organizations and organizational roles, such as work,
nation, and family. The individual is now in the center and doesn’t find
meaning in these classical system, sometimes leading to a cross culture
frustration\index{cultural confusion}.
Nevertheless, this is not the end of the concept of community but the end
of having it based on places of interactions. Instead, it has shifted
toward the self-authorship\index{self-authorship} of the community, one based on personal ties,
social relationships, individual interests, values, and projects. As a
matter of fact, the individual is not isolated, nor less sociable, but
redefined as a networked individual with a quest for like-minded people.
The information society is a network of self-authored individuals.
The transformation and evolution in culture bring with them a reorganization of economic, communication, and political activities. According to some research, it is correlated with a sense of empowerment, increased feelings of security, personal freedom, and influence — all in relation with overall happiness and well-being.
Whole communities join together and participate in their own identity
development, as a choice. In this model, people replace blind reverence
for authority with authenticity\index{authenticity}.
In the past, information were shaped and based on hype, now people crave
what is genuine and transparent. This is a change in perception with
a focus on raw emotions and connections.
This authenticity is an essential aspect for identity development, it is
how we identify ourselves and create our stories. Our narratives are based
on our interactions in this participatory network. We are the creators,
refining our persona with the help of the individuals that surround
us, to whom we tell our story.
McAdams (1993)\index{McAdams} asserts, “Once an individual realizes that he or she is
responsible for defining the self, the issue of self definition remains
a preoccupation through most of the adult years”.
Being the subject, the individual, in the process of creation is what
is meant by autonomy. This is accompanied by an urge to not submit to
institutions, especially for minorities. This switch in mindset is highly
correlated with social autonomy, independent-minded citizen able to
participate in self-generated networks.
This autonomy materializes itself in society through entrepreneurship\index{entrepreneurship},
creative works, proactive consumers, self-informed critical thinkers,
pedagogical platforms that allow self-learning, e-governments, grassroots
movements, etc..
The paper entitled “The Social Media Mindset” lists six major types
of autonomy:
More than anything, to be autonomous means mastering our tools,
grasping how to make algorithms work for us. They are ubiquitous,
we are surrounded by them, the internet is mediated by them. Hence,
we need to muster their strength.
To be internet literate implies understanding the technology that
drives it. The customization and recommendation engines can be used to
facilitate our daily routine, letting the users create their own personal
optimized environments.
Social networks are used to create our own constructed world, which
includes everything from e-commerce, education, entertainment, to
sociopolitical activism. The users group together according to their
interests and tailor it to their needs. A self-constructed society with
people yearning for honesty, genuineness, transparency, common interests,
and connections.
Many of the real world has migrated to the internet, from web marketers,
work organizations, service agencies, governments, and civil societies.
Technology, being material, is based on products made by people based on
their ideas, values, and knowledge. We adapt the technology to fit us,
rather than adopting it. It is built into our society and thus it has
to follow its constraints. Obviously, social media platforms are trying
to monetize the process, turning it into a business.
Collectively, this has brought us to an era of creativity. Where
everything is a remix and shared. We aren’t bound by the mainstream
media gatekeepers like TV, radio, newspapers, and academia. Information
is now freely available on the internet, accessible by anyone, from
the worst atrocities to the most awe-inspiring instances of human kindness.
In the internet society we are forced to broaden our collective
perspective, a perspective that is more global.
The informational freedom carries with it transformations in the
sociopolitical realm. There’s a widespread availability of tools
for creating and distributing content across the globe. Most often,
there is no need for training nor expertise to participate, everyone is
empowered to mass media — A direct access to million of other people
in an expanded community.
We bypass traditional media, letting us challenge the assertions of
powerful corporations, government officials, news reports, and television
advertisements. We do it through blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and others\index{media}.
Everyone is an author and can express their thoughts to the world and this
undoubtedly means that some people are going to spread disinformation,
misinformation, and other types of erroneous information\index{disinformation}.
Our new distrust\index{trust} in authority\index{authority} and increasing doubts, can be abused
through our cognitive biases. The attention economy, with the never
ending competition between all actors, is filled with manipulation.
This is something the netizens are slowly learning. We’ll come back to
biases later.
The constant connectivity has given rise to a more democratic and participatory form of journalism: citizen journalists\index{journalism!citizen journalist}. The audience employs the press tools to inform one another. The public now plays the role of collecting, reporting, analyzing, and disseminating news and information.
There are upsides and downsides to this new development. As we said,
these are amateurs, people without journalism training, and so the
quality of the reports and coverage can vary, is subjective, heavily
opinionated, unregulated, and can be abused by malicious actors — such
as spin doctors.
However, it can also promote human rights and democratic values to have
the people join together and collaborate in this endeavor.
Social network websites, accessible to everyone, have provided an
alternative for activists to report on their activities. Social media
also allow real time participation and messages can be sent quickly in
reaction to events.
This is particularly helpful during an earthquake, street movements,
and protests.
Lots of things are now shaped and decided on the internet, it is tightly linked to political changes in the process. Citizen journalists now surround all the protests and movements these days. These movements, rejecting authority, are often without leaders, more spontaneous, and full of emotional outbursts.
The media of choice to express feelings about a situation are internet memes\index{meme!caricature}. They act like the modern era version of caricatures found in traditional newspapers.
Some memes have been put forward in democratic campaigns such as sharing
messages about climate change. Though arguably, the research hasn’t found
their impact in altering mindsets that impressive. In that study only 5%
of participants changed their minds.
Memes, like caricatures, can also act as a power and counterpower,
a battle of communication. Humor has always been a tool for people to
express feelings and thoughts that were repressed, to fight against
oppression.
This is the case in countries where people have to bypass censorship
and rhetoric by reusing the semantic meaning of the slogans, ideas, and
terminology. They reuse the language, twist it, satire it, to reinterpret
it in their own way. They use the official language in reverse by applying
it with humor.
Still, we have to remember that citizen reporting is full of biases, doubts, lies, polarization, conspiracy theories, and subjectivities. These can also obviously be manipulated by other actors, as we said.
Similar to citizen journalists we are seeing the rise of citizen science, which we won’t dive into here.
Let’s now jump a bit into some of the effects that being constantly online
can have on our cognitive abilities. In a place of never-ending multitasking,
attention economy, infobesity, and new social concepts.
This will be reviewed again in the consequences part.
Our attention\index{cognitive!attention} is now always divided between multiple media sources at
the expense of sustained concentration. Everything tries to attract our
attention in this hyperlinked addictive environment and we got used to it.
Education providers can already see the effects this has on children
attention span: their attention is more shallow.
Studies show a significant effect on cognitive performance, where even
short term engagement reduces attention scope for a sustained duration
after coming offline.
Memory-wise\index{cognitive!memory}, the vast array of information has changed the way we
retrieve, store, and even value knowledge. The internet is now acting
like a transactive memory, externalizing our thoughts — a helper,
a memo, a memento.
We have most of the factual information in existence at our fingertips,
introducing the possibility that the internet could ultimately negate
or replace certain parts of our memory system, especially the semantic
memory — memory of facts.
Multiple research show that people searching online were more likely to
remember where they found the facts rather than the facts themselves. We
are more reliant on the internet for information retrieval.
I’ve dived into this topic previously here and here.
At the group level this can be efficient but at the individual level it
can hinder how we recall the actual information. The internet sometimes
even bypasses the ability to retain where we found the information
when it gives us the opportunity to search for it. We don’t have to
remember the exact information anymore, nor where its located, just that
it can be searched and that it’ll be available.
This cognitive offloading using an external long term storage
can be beneficial to focus, not on facts, but on aspects that are
not retrievable like meta information, conclusions, and emergent
hypothesis. It frees some space to think about other things than plain
facts.
Though other research show that analytical thinkers are less likely to
rely on such means in their day-to-day than other people.
Cognitively, the internet also creates new ways to learn. Any new skills and information are available in this space. People now have more breadth of knowledge instead of depth of knowledge\index{knowledge depth}.
When it comes to social cognition\index{cognitive!social cognition}, there are a lot of debates regarding
whether the internet provokes the same effects as real interactions
would. So far, the studies and evidences show that it does indeed reflect
real things like self-concepts and self-esteem. We clearly see this through
the neurocognitive responses to online social interactions.
These online social relationships, like any relationships, are connected
to feelings of happiness, and mental and physical well-being. Thus
being accepted or rejected online feels the same way in the brain, an
interpretation, which we’d like to remember, in the offline world is
often ambiguous and left to self-interpretation.
However, on social media, unlike the real world, we are presented with
clear metrics which give us an indication of whether we fit in or not.
They take the form of “followers”, “shares”, “likes”, “friends”. The
potential can be painful, or addictive because of the immediacy. There
is a direct feedback on our self-esteem.
Additionally, the public life on these social media also means that
upward social comparisons are omnipresent. People take part in artificial
environments manufactured to picture hyper-successful persona. Obviously,
this is what the platforms capitalize on. You can go back to the previous
section to get an idea.
On social media we aren’t anonymous\index{anonymity} but often create persona, a self-presentation of a real person. One that we mold to be perfect. Everyone has the ability to become an orator, a super-star in front of a gigantic crowd. An online life is like being followed by a million paparazzi.
We know that the medium is quick, indelible, and that a misstep can make us victim of the internet outrage machine\index{outrage machine}. Be it positive, or not, because of private justice or vigilantism\index{private justice}, or any other reasons. We are intimately aware of how extreme views proliferate and how ideas are hard to separate — always coming as blocks, hooks, and anchors.
With social media our personal life and work life are intertwined, they
come as a package that can’t be separated. Our views in one field can
propagate and affect other aspects of our lives.
Personal life is now public life, and not only for celebrities.
This is compounded with the feeling of always being scored and tracked. According to the Pew Research Center, 72% of people feel that almost all of what they do online is being tracked by advertisers, technology firms or other companies.
Having private personal details online and our digital reputation can
have repercussions in the real world affecting our relationships, job
opportunities, bank loans, visa applications, and more.
It is hard to erase something once it is on the internet, and so we apply
self-surveillance between ourselves. Indeed, we know our weaknesses
are mapped and become increasingly transparent and this leads to
self-censorship, conformity, risk-aversion, and social rigidity.
This is a phenomenon called “social cooling”\index{social cooling}. “You feel you
are being watched, you change your behavior.” Isn’t this a form of
censorship? Privacy is the right to be imperfect and not judged. We’ll
come back to this in the last section of the article when discussing
some of the solutions.
I was told that I couldn’t be trusted since people can’t check online what I’m doing when I’m not around.
On the good side, the ability to easily get exposure, the appetite for
authenticity, and the itch for autonomy have given birth to the passion
economy.
The passion economy\index{economy!passion economy} consists of taking the cliché of “following your
passion” to the extreme. While it didn’t work properly in the past,
it is now increasingly easier to achieve, either through an online
patronage system or simply because of the new exposure.
The individual is empowered and liberated from previous notions of fixed
career path.
The passion economy is centered around purposeful creators that are motivated and driven by their passion, displaying their expertise and experiences with the world.
The audience is as passionate and niche as the creator, influenced
and transported through the craft. This is in stark contrast with the
apathetic consumers of previous years that made price-focused decision
about trinkets of mass productions.
People want to be involved in the making process, they want the whole
experience, to engage with the services and ideas they like, to associate
with their stories, to build a relationship with the authors. They want
to find individuality in their products.
Along with an always public life comes the idolization of hyper-successful
individuals. There is a rise in unrealistic expectations of oneself.
Individuation puts the weight on people to find who they are, and it is
easy to go back to role models for escapism\index{escapism}. These people might in turn
use their influence to create a monetizable audience.
The gold rush for scores and fame, the new cult of personality, the new
promotional culture going viral.
This is the rise of the “influencers”\index{social media!influencers} who’ll sell their authenticity
for paid product placements and advertisements.
Lastly, these coalesce — individuation, influencers, passion
economy, private life becoming public life, and social media — into
neoliberalization\index{neoliberalization}.
We’ll see more of this later, as it also depends on culture and how
people perceive and use the internet in different ways.
This is the ailment of modern society in general, and the internet makes
society more “modern”. A shift in motivations to be goal-oriented and
efficient, instead of being based on the more traditional values.
The individuals, with the help of the internet, are now accustomed to
marketing themselves as products. This is the modern rule of the game:
corporate life merging with private life.
Many products are sold to fill this “need”. I’ll digress, as I have discussed this in other articles, and here. We’ll come back to this later.
This concludes our review of the person’s life on the internet in between the corporate, private, and public spheres. We started by seeing how the availability of information is now everywhere and shrinks distances. Then we’ve taken a look at the relationship between networks in societies being mapped online and the effects on cultures. Next we’ve discussed the switch to the information society which creates a need for individuation, networks of people grouping based on their interests. Then we’ve seen how this allows self-generated societies and making our own mind about things. Later we’ve discussed the empowerment of the average person through citizen journalism. After that we’ve glanced at some of the cognitive effects in the realm of attention, memory, and social cognition. Following this we’ve concluded with three subjects: the private life becoming public, the passion economy, and a new extreme form of neoliberalisation that is normalized.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{The Actors and Incentives}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{State Actors: PSYOP, Narrative Warfare, and Weaponized Tech}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{height=”230px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
Since ancient times, nations have tried to write history from their own point of view. As they say, history is written by the victors. Today, the speed of the internet allows rewriting the narrative in real-time, and state actors will certainly take advantage of this. Namely, there are two ways, or generations, of state information-control practices: an information scarcity approach, aka censorship, and an embracing of information approach, speech itself as a censorial weapon. Both require monitoring of the population to properly adapt the tactic in use.
State surveillance is nothing new either, but the era of information abundance gives the capability of amassing data on a colossal scale.
Historically, nations have used propaganda\index{propaganda!state} and surveillance campaigns
internally, to control their population, and externally, to sway
the opinion of other countries, direct revolts, and other favorable
incentives.
Today, these dynamics have moved to the cyberspace. The internet has
been part of all contemporary conflicts as a force acting on the public
opinion. Ultimately, the entity that is able to control the media, the
discussion environment, the social networking sites, is in control of
the narrative.
Before diving into the new era war, let’s review how psychology can be used as a weapon.
Psychology has always been used for military gain but got more
traction with the concept of total war. This type of warfare includes
civilian-associated resources and infrastructure as legitimate targets,
mobilizing all resources of society to fight the war, prioritizing it
over other needs — an unrestricted war. Thus, having a way to sway
civilians in this type of war is a must-have in the fighting arsenal.
Although alone it isn’t sufficient and needs to be complemented with
simultaneous diplomatic, military, and political tactics. Psychological
war takes into consideration the full environmental scope.
A psychological war consists of psychological operations, also known
in the contracted form as PSYOPs\index{PSYOP}, which consist of planning psychological
activities designed to influence the attitudes and behavior for a
political or military objective — to evoke a planned reaction from
the people.
This is a vague definition that includes anything we’ve seen from the
previous influence, propaganda, and persuasion section. These tactics,
when used as weapons, will be backed up by important state incentives
making them more powerful, and arguably more successful, than when they
are employed by other entities.
In a total war\index{total war} the target can be individuals, civilians, organizations, groups, or governments. The audience needs to be well delineated and studied so that the message is appropriately formed, as we’ve discussed beforehand. There are four audiences to a message:
The receptivity, as we’ve kept saying, depends on many cultural and
environment factors. However, in a military setting and with government
sponsorship, vulnerabilities can be artificially created through means
such as kinetic (bombs and guns), non-lethal biological weapons affecting
human psyche and mood, and physical threats. The full environmental
scope comes into play.
These operations will employ the schemes we’ve seen such as anchors,
hooks, and imageries. They will be delivered through different methods,
and will have a clear aim. The objective is either a positive one —
to reinforce the behaviour and feelings of friendliness —, a negative
one — to destroy morale, weaken the adversary, create dissonance and
disaffection —, or to gain support from the uncommitted and undecided.
When faced with a new weapon, states have to develop defensive systems. These include doing PSYOPs on their own population, censorship, and counterpropaganda. Although some countries have laws that forbid applying psychological operations on domestic grounds and on their own citizens.
Nonetheless, most countries have integrated in their military structure
distinctive branches that are specialized in the type of operations
related to the information and psychological sector.
Here is a generic definition of the role of such unit:
The integrated employment of the core capabilities of electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision-making while protecting our own.
When deployed these well-trained units can apply these tactics at multiple levels.
What’s important for these units is to be able to measure the effectiveness of their operations (MOE)\index{MOE}. In military, if it can’t be measured then it’s no good. The internet offers clear metrics and is the perfect ground for that.
The ethics of these methods is arguable. Some say that it’s an arms race and that they are forced to apply them, that the development is unavoidable. Others say they offer a way to reduce the “significant loss of life”. As with anything, there’s a lot of subjectivity when it comes to these.
In an information society, information is the center of the new-generation
war and thus these operational units are put to the forefront.
Information superiority is a must to win. Everyone fights for their
narrative.
This new generation war is often referred to as the 6th one\index{6th generation war}, where the aim
is to destroy economic potential, not take part in physical battlespace,
and be the dominant information holder.
Like the information society, this type of war is network-centric,
taking into consideration the inter-relations between bubbles and how
affecting one could lead to a quick victory. This requires information
superiority to be able to plan in advance, conceal, and prepare the
multiple aspects that will jointly create a favorable ground for the
goal of the operation — to easily make a nation ply to your intentions.
From information, moral, psychological, ideological, diplomatic, economic,
and so on, these are all required. Practically, this means using mass
media, religious organizations, cultural institutions, NGOs, scholars,
etc.. In today’s world this translates into using the right influential
methods, and influencers on social media.
The data that is available on the internet, and particularly social media, can be gathered, stored, and linked, to finally become an armor or weapon in the hands of a state entity. It is a tool that can be used both defensively and offensively.
This intelligence gathering\index{intelligence gathering} often take the form of social media surveillance. The information can be used to identify possible bad actors or individuals vulnerable for a PSYOPs campaign.
On the defensive side, a prominent explicit example of intel gathering
is how the USA is now asking VISA applicants to submit five years of
social media handles for some selected platforms.
However, the intel gathering probably happens most of the time
unbeknownst to the data subjects. This is what has been revealed by
internal whistle-blowers, and by more explicit state requirements like ISP
keeping internet connection logs for at least 2 months in some countries.
Additionally, we need to remember that social media platforms are
“independent” businesses. As such, they are bound by the legalities
of the geographic areas in which they want to operate. Consequentially,
governments can pressure them by taking the legal route and force them
to act a certain way to operate on their legislature. Or they can simply
buy access to that data from data brokers.
For example, it’s not uncommon that the platforms will have to obey
when receiving an order to censure certain messages\index{censure}. Sometimes notifying
users, sometimes not notifying them, according to the transparency rules
of the platforms and the legislation in which it is operating. This
is the simplest method to get rid of dissidents and keep order in a
country. However, for the citizen of information societies, censure isn’t
looked at too well. The people are craving honesty and individuality,
while rejecting authority or association to greater organizations like
nations and their wealth, as we’ve seen in the previous section.
On the offensive side, microtargeting\index{marketing!microtargeting} — that is using a conjunction of very specific attributes such as political leaning and interests to target individuals — can be used to amplify a message and have measurable metrics when performing a psychological operation. We’ll come back to this topic in a bit.
No need to use forceful actions when speech itself can be used as a
weapon\index{speech as a censorial weapon}. This is what computational propaganda is about, using social
media political discussions to sway opinions. Especially that this is
the go-to place to discuss these things. This is known as platform
weaponization. It can be used internally, to thwart opposition, or
externally, to influence the decision-making of other states.
The act itself could either be state-executed, by the related military
branch, state-coordinated, state-incited, or state-leveraged or endorsed.
Computational propaganda\index{propaganda!computational propaganda} relies on the anonymity provided by the platforms
which favors black propaganda and gives more credibility, making it seem
more genuine. This means that states can deny involvement while inciting
or leveraging activities happening on social media for their gain.
Without this knowledge, it is hard to know whether an opponent is
attacking or not and how to defend against such attacks.
The attacks can be conducted with bots\index{bots}, automated scripts to scrap and spread data, with trolls, online accounts that deliberately target individuals to trigger and harass them, PR, public relation through news outlets and others, and with memes, which we’ve covered previously.
Bots, and in particular social-bots\index{bots!social-bots}, give the ability to create fake online voices, and so to fabricate a public opinion. They are one of the weapon of choice in the cyber warfare of who can shout their narrative the loudest. Online, popularity is measured with “likes”, “votes”, “friends”, “followers”, and others which can all be faked.
The advantage that algorithmic campaigns provide is the ability to manipulate what people see, to temporarily boost the visibility of a message, to bypass the social media “democratic” process.
Social bots are accounts that impersonate people of a certain demographic,
mimicking social interactions on the platforms. These can be used to
create a sense of consensus where there is none, or generate doubt on
a subject that is supposed to be widely accepted in the target audience.
With the visibility also comes awareness. This can be used by political
parties to obtain votes, and to look more popular than others, to look
more seductive and attractive.
Another use for such bot is something called astroturfing\index{astroturfing}, fighting for a “turf”. This is about creating the impression of grassroots movements in favor or against something, be it an event, person, or idea.
This visibility can be used to choke off debates, smothering adversaries by making it seem like issues are one-sided, controlling the bulk of the conversation. A sort of artificially created social censorship. Trolls can be used for such effect too as we’ll see.
Alternatively, algorithmic amplification\index{algorithm amplification} can be used to muddy political
issues, create chaos and instability in the discourse (local or another
country), to generate uncertainty, distrust, and divisions.
This is absolutely destructive if combined with on-the-ground actions
when discord and confusion reigns in the population, and devastating
when combined with economic pressure.
Not all types of content prosper on social media, we’ve seen that
before. We’ve learned that outrage and politics resonate well, the things
that clash with our cultural insecurities. That is why the bot-led
political campaigns tend to come from the most radical parties, it is
the most appropriate medium for them.
Apart from these, any type of negative content spreads like wild-fire. This
is useful to amplify a sentiment of dissatisfaction and disagreement.
In retrospect, social media certainly has some part to play in the process of radicalization\index{radicalization}, however none of the messages there would resonate if they didn’t reflect some issues that were already present in us. As usual, it’s an exaggeration of our own ambiguous cultural code.
This is exactly what some state entities use to attempt to influence
elections in other countries. Like bots generating discord and chaos
regarding a certain topic, microtargeting can be used to personalize
messages towards hyper-partisans\index{hyper-partisans}. In turn, these selected partisans will
be pushed into their narrative, radicalized, polarized, and moving the
Overton window. Furthermore, this radicalization gives them a bigger
exposure and sets the ground for instability in a population.
This can be an attractive outcome in coordination with other types
of actions.
These hyper-partisans can be converted into trolls\index{troll}, online accounts that
deliberately target and harass particular individuals. They can either
be paid/sponsored real people or bots, either aware or unaware of the
tacit agenda, with or without explicit instructions, and either real
partisans or fabricated ones.
This is frequently used along with black PR that are campaigns to
deliberately engage in disinformation and harassment against a perceived
opponent. It is used to intimidate and silence individuals.
There are countless examples of this tactic being used by states, either
deliberately launched by them, or the states harnessing an already
ongoing attack. These include, but are not limited to, making death
and rape threats, amplifying vitriolic attacks, making accusations of
treason or collusion, disseminating libelous disinformation, spreading
doctored images and memes, and sowing acrimonious sexism.
The target of these attacks are usually journalists, activists, human
rights defenders, and vocal members of an opposite ideology. These types
of attacks are used everywhere in the world, some for capitalistic gains,
and others for state gains.
Yet another efficient way for states to impose their ideas on the minds
is through the news networks, all the headlines. They can employ the
typical colored language, the emotive stories, imageries, hooks, and
anchors we’ve seen before to shape the narrative\index{propaganda!imagery}.
Promotional culture is also an important aspect of pushing a narrative
through the headlines.
Aside from these, nations can rely on the visibility principle, once
again, to promote the stories they want. This could be by voting on
social media with bots, or by infiltrating the news network and trading
up the chain. News websites can be constructed from scratch and filled
with bogus content, to then rely on the spreading mechanism and citizen
journalism to gain credibility and attention. It might finally emerge
on the mainstream news media consumed by the desired target audience.
Moreover, trading up the chain can be achieved by using fringe social
media platforms which are prone to influence other online ecosystems. This
works very well when the message is based on a kernel of truth but with
a spin. Even when more reputable outlets are only debunking them, it’s
giving the content a position in mainstream news.
All these are extremely hard to defend against, a David vs Goliath affair, and so states prefer to defend through a good offense. Counterpropaganda, part of counter-insurgency (COIN)\index{COIN}, is hard to practice on social media. However, one particular vector of information that can be used as COIN are memes, the new favorite shell for political messages.
Governments are getting more and more interested in memes, especially
as a useful method to compact narrative and culture in a transportable
container.
All modern, arguably post-modern, PSYOPs involve the propagation of
memes on social media. Meme wars are an inherent part of political life.
We’ve amply discussed them in a previous section.
They are the embodiment of the competition over narrative, creating
coherent constellations of meanings and stories. We know it’s easy to
overlook them because they are a common way of expression and often use
humor, but that makes them the perfect craft for information warfare.
What appears like a prank or trope, soon turns into an influential narrative
campaign spread by bots and trolls. Remember that memes aren’t limited
to their internet format but that they go beyond, that this is only the
appropriate envelope they take to move on that medium.
As such, like all that we’ve seen in this section, they can be used
defensively, offensively, and to sway people on the fence, to recruit them
or drive them away. They are used both for local and international
sentiments.
Many countries employ, or discuss employing, memetics in their military
sector\index{meme!military}. It consists of having separate units in a specialized center
for these type of operations, which would be a sub-branch of the usual
information and psychological operations but tailored to social media.
These meme warfare centers, or referred to as meme farms when described
by opponents, would include interdisciplinary experts such as cultural
anthropologists, computer scientists, economists, and linguists.
There are many open discussions about which countries actually employ these units, knowing their associations would reduce their power, but we find implicit indicators in the wild. Most countries and international associations have them in sight, take them seriously, or are actually armed with them already. Nowadays, any side of a conflict will use them, that includes all NATO nations, Russia, Hong Kong, China, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Palestine, Israel, India, Pakistan, etc..
However, it is an unconventional mean and so it is tricky to be put in
place, or to let the citizens know it is in place. It is hard to include
in a military structure. Memes are abstract concepts and they might
sound unconvincing and bring obstacles related to finance — a lack
of investments —, culture — the mindset to grasp the new generation
warfare —, legalities — to encompass the ethics around using them —,
and bureaucracies — who should be in command.
Additionally, there needs to be scientific proofs of their efficiency to
justify the investment. Efficiency should be tested and measurable, and
this isn’t straight forward when a change in attitude doesn’t necessarily
correlate with a change in behavior.
If a nation lacks the framework, mindset, resources, knowledge, and tools, they’ll leave the advantage to others that can embrace this new paradigm. Nonetheless, it’s apparent that this is a threat but it wasn’t until 2017 that the EU and NATO established together a center to counter “hybrid threats”. Though its purpose is more analytical than proactive, for them, at least in the public eye, the best form of defence is awareness.
Theoretically, a meme, like a virus, can be categorized in infect,
inoculate, and treat. To transmit, prevent or minimize, and contain
a message.
A quarantine doesn’t really work in the virtual world though and combining
this with the neutralization of the infected memeoids by killing them
in the real world might have the opposite effect. History has shown that
it is likely it will instead validate the ideology of the meme.
Detection plays an important role in the defence mechanism, to then be
able to launch a counter-message. In practice, it has been attempted for
counter-radicalization, a form of counter-insurgency, with mixed effects.
An invisible enemy is and invincible enemy, that is why identifying,
cataloguing, and tracing should be done beforehand. Which can be almost
impossible when the opponent, be it foreign or local, hides within the
civilian population, netizens. Thus, the focus on “hybrid treats” center.
In all cases, displacing and overwriting dangerous pathogenic memes
is normally done by replacing them with more benign ones. These
reactionary memes have different degrees of applicability, actionability,
operationalization, and success.
The fruitful reactionary memes have one thing in common: they use
humor, irony, and sarcasm to deligitimize the message of an opponent by
ridiculing and mocking it. This is similar to WWII propaganda techniques
used in cartoons.
“No one is above satire.”
This concludes our review of how state actors are employing the internet narrative as part of their overall information and psychological operations. We’ve first seen how this is nothing new, how psychology has been used as a weapon for quite a while now, both on the defensive and offensive. Then we’ve looked at how data is at the center of wars, now that we’ve moved to an information society. Next, we’ve seen how this data can be part of the surveillance campaign of states. Later we’ve examined computational propaganda, how algorithm dictates our world and how consequently they can be used by nations. Finally, we’ve dived into social media, bots, trolls, news control, and memes, all communication vectors that rely on gaining visibility and credibility. Speech as a method of censorship, speech as a method of propaganda, speech as a weapon.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak \fancyhead{}
\vspace*{200pt}
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\small{\thepage}} \fancyhead[RO]{\small{\thepage}} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{Biases and self}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{Cognitive Biases}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
Humans are prone to manipulations by their own experiences and
biases. Let’s review what are some of the cognitive biases and cultural
weaknesses that make us fall for all sort of things on the internet.
We’ve already looked at coercion, deception, and other types of persuasion
principles in a previous section. In the following two we’ll emphasize
on ourselves instead of external factors.
There are many cognitive biases that have been documented over the years,
this is nothing new. However, it’s interesting to see them under the
light of this medium, how they come into play on the internet.
I’ll try to list the ones that are the most prominent in my opinion.
In general, biases can affect us when it comes to beliefs,
decision-making, reasoning, economic decisions, and behavior. Yet,
biases don’t have a significant influence on the long run, at least the
ones that aren’t inherently connected to our cultures. We’ll dive into
culture in the next section.
Cognitive biases\index{cognitive bias} are temporary tricks, temporary stimulations that hack
our brain. When someone is aware that another person has used such bias
against them, they know they have been cheated. Regardless, studies show
that even when trying to influence subliminally, without the audience
realising, these types of stimulations only have negligible effects.
In most cases, a bias isn’t something that someone creates but something we all naturally have and that is exposed. As such, we can all have them, different persons having different ones under different circumstances. Kids in particular are more vulnerable to them.
Before diving into cognitive biases, let’s stop to mention some physical
reactions.
In part 2, section 2, we’ve mentioned social cognition and how
communicating on the internet had the same bodily-effects and cognitive
responses\index{cognitive response} as other types of social interactions. This implies, as research
shows, the same status-to-hormone correlation\index{hormone}: stress with cortisol and
social confirmation/success with oxytocin, endorphin, and dopamine.
Practically, in the social media environment, which works with interfaces
showing quick metrics of social success or failure, that means people’s
Action-Attention-Reward\index{AAR} system will lead them towards addiction. Social
media acting like slot-machines — classic conditioning — and keep us hooked.
We all react similarly to these hormones; biased to associate pleasant and positive feelings with what triggers some, and associate negative feelings with others. Hence, we are incentivized to repeat the same behaviors that once got us a dopamine hit — be it finding a niche of expertise we cater to, or posting and finding something shocking.
A market in which everybody has the right to speak comes with the biases of everyone in it.
Some of the biases we can have on social media are in relation to the
control over visibility. Biases such as attentional bias\index{cognitive bias!attentional bias}, salience bias\index{cognitive bias!salience bias},
framing effect, mere exposure effect, anchoring effect, and others.
Attentional bias is the tendency to pay attention to what is more recent
in memory. Similarly, salience bias is about paying attention to what is
more remarkable and emotionally striking. The anchor bias is a similar
bias, fixating on a single part of a story. In the attention economy
we definitely pay attention to what is more extraordinary and recent,
and we’ll be shown these stories more often.
Mere exposure effect is about being influenced to like something because
we are familiar with them, just by being exposed more frequently. Framing
is similar, it’s about extracting different conclusions from the same
story depending on how it’s presented. What we are exposed to on the
internet is selected by the best buyers, and by our personal interests
and stubbornness.
These are compounded into something called continued influence effect\index{cognitive bias!continued influence effect},
which is a bias related to how hard it is to correct misinformation in
our memory after having seen it the first time.
Moreover, our visibility is also affected by biases that make us seek
certain things more than others. The automation bias\index{cognitive bias!automation bias}, on the internet, is
a tendency to rely too much on the algorithms for recommendations. We know
these algorithms are not impartial and can be biased.
While the well-known confirmation bias\index{cognitive bias!confirmation bias}, illusion of validity, optimism
and pessimism biases, are all related to how much we chase, interpret,
remember, and focus on information that is consistent and related to
what we already believe. We like to stay in our bubble, we are our own
filters of visibility with our biases. We are especially interested in
reading and sharing content that connects to our own experiences and
senses. These are biases that play a major role with what we’ll see in
the next section, namely cultural insecurities\index{cultural confusion}.
Other biases are in relation to the over-availability of information
and how it relates to our memory.
One such bias is the information bias\index{cognitive bias!information bias}, which is a tendency to look and
search for information even though this information is meaningless to us,
and cannot affect our actions.
The quest for information is also related to something we’ve seen in
a previous section regarding the extension of our memory. The Google
effect is a bias in which we are more likely to forget information if
we know that it is readily available online.
Additionally, another popular bias under the name of Dunning-Kruger
effect is the tendency of unskilled people to overestimate their own
skills. With the whole internet acting as an external memory, it seems
like more people are having this bias.
A bias that goes in the opposite direction is the imposter syndrome
in which someone with enough experience feels they aren’t adequately
qualified and fraudulent. With the whole internet pushing forward images
of successful and perfect individuals, it seems like some people are
more prone to this bias.
The over-availability of information itself can also lead to biases that makes it bypass certain of our defenses. As far as this is concerned, internet memes are an interesting case to examine\index{meme!cognitive bias|see {information bias}}.
The humor effect\index{cognitive bias!humor effect} is a tendency to more easily remember things that are
funny because they both capture our attention, stand out in a flood
of information, and make us feel good. Humorous content also takes less
time to process cognitively.
The picture superiority effect\index{cognitive bias!picture superiority effect} is the notion that pictures are remembered
more easily and frequently than any other format. We’ve seen that one in
the meme section and also said that pictures are processed more rapidly,
60 thousand times faster than text.
There are two ways to process information, through fast thinking or slow
thinking, and memes harness speed to skip any form of slow thinking.
These effects, along with content that somewhat goes along with our preconceived views of the world, mean that visual internet memes will bypass criticism, go straight through a peripheral route, and lodge themselves in the brain, to be memorable.
Let’s now go briefly over some social biases\index{social bias}, which will be helpful for
us when tackling the cultural perspective in the next section.
Some of them are related to conformity and others to individuality in a
social context. Online, as we now know, social interactions are mostly
the same as in the real world, plus instant feedback, big exposure,
and a sprinkle of anonymity and fabricated opinions.
When it comes to individuality, the biases of people on the internet
are due to the constant exposure they have. For example, the spotlight
effect\index{social bias!spotlight effect} is the tendency to overestimate the amount that others will pay
attention to us.
Another bias, in relation, is the reactance\index{social bias!reactance}: the urge to do the opposite
of what others would want us to do, feeling a need to stand out and
to assert freedom. It’s very common to see this contrarian behavior on
social media.
The social comparison bias\index{social bias!social comparison bias}, yet again related, is about favoring
candidates for a position that don’t compete with our own. We always
compete on the internet, social media profiles are like public CVs and
so this bias comes into play.
Other social biases tend to be linked to conformity such as the authority
bias, the bandwagon effect, groupthink\index{social bias!grouptink}, and
in-group and out-group biases.
Authority bias\index{social bias!authority bias} is the tendency to trust and be more influenced by
something or someone based on their origin and perception. We’ve seen
earlier how state actors can abuse this to trade-up-the-chain to reach
trusted mainstream media.
The bandwagon effect, groupthink, herd behavior, and in-group biases are all
linked to preferential treatment to our own group, and keeping harmony,
consensus, and conformity in it.
On the other side, there’s out-group homogeneity bias where we see members
of an outside group as relatively similar. Confusingly, this bias
also implies that the members of our own group are dissimilar.
Some people are more inclined to social biases than others. Some will recall images better than others. Distinctive people develop or react to biases in their own ways, be it because of their gender, sex, context, environment, geographical location, professional experiences, life experiences, education, etc..
This concludes our review of cognitive biases and how they get reflected on the internet. We’ve first seen some of the physical aspects of online addiction. Then we’ve covered three broad categories of biases: some related to the visibility, others to the information availability, and finally some related to social pressure. The biases related to visibility are about our fixation on what we see more frequently. The biases related to information availability are about what information we seek and how it affects our memory or confidence. Finally, the social biases are about how we conform to a group while still seeking individuality. On the internet these can be used to frame our views, bought or selected by algorithms, decide how information is accessible, and how social interactions get mapped unto social media with an instant feedback.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{Biases and self}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{Cultural Ambiguities and Insecurities}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
To be a netizen means to be part of the online social sphere. There’s
no way around it, to have a voice and participate people have to join
a platform, which comes with its own limitations.
The rules of the platforms are the rules of the information society
but the platforms adapt more to fit us than we adapt to them. Anything
happening on them is directly because of real people interacting
together. People that have their own hopes, emotions, values, prejudices,
and beliefs. Consequently, through our own cultural differences,
ambiguities, and insecurities, we are indirectly manipulating ourselves.\index{cultural confusion}
We look for confirmations of our own experiences, as we said in the
previous section, confirmation bias. We want to share and search for
things that relate to our local lives, to make us look smart, empathic,
cast us in a positive light, or that is useful in our day-to-day lives.
On the internet this is proved through many experiments.
Emily Falk\index{Falk,Emily}’s Lab, Director of the University of Pennsylvania\index{University of Pennsylvania}’s Communication Neuroscience Lab,
has demonstrated how the expectation of social confirmation\index{social confirmation} and reward
influence the likelihood of someone sharing a meme with someone else. We
share for social comparison, to look favorable to other group members,
for “virtue signalling”\index{virtue signalling}.
Similarly, according to research, on average people visit a maximum
of 30 websites before making their mind about something. The bulk of
these websites are part of the top results of the search engines of
which 70% will always support the view portrayed by how the query was
formulated. This is what we refer to as an echo chamber and filter bubble,
it echoes back what we think\index{filter bubble}.
We seek information sources that support and reinforce existing attitudes
or beliefs, as well as process them. “All else [being] equal, people
seem to prefer not changing their opinions to changing them” (Lebo &
Cassino, 2007, p. 722).
We increasingly, inadvertently through selective exposure by our own
judgement, are localized, not only geographically but also through our
language, ideologies, time, and cultures. As we said earlier, the internet
is made of networked separated individuals, linked by their interests
and similarities.
This isn’t only about filter bubbles created through algorithms, but
it’s our natural tendency to pay attention to those who have a lot in
common with us. We lack cognitive diversity\index{cognitive diversity}.
We call this phenomenon homophily\index{homophily}, “birds of feather flock
together”. We’re really good at it, we have this inner urge to find
people similar to us, and this is confirmed by over 100 studies.
This isn’t necessarily negative, this allows us to create communities
based on niches, on interests, be more democratic, etc.. All things
we’ve seen in part 2 section 2.
We all think that the way we live is the best way to live. We all think that we see the world as it is, that we’ve come to the best possible conclusion about our direction in life. However, that’s just our definition of normality. And this normality isn’t even ours as most of it happens without us being there. We often can’t justify why we do what we do or why we like what we like.
This is as much as about externalities as internalities. We associate
ourselves with others like us, as a way of expressing our own
individuality\index{individuation} by proxy.
We said people spent more time viewing and sharing memes that confirmed
their views with others, not only because it confirms them, but also
because it’s a way of expressing one-self and indirectly promoting who
we are. We went over this in the meme section, memes are a representation
of our mental models, how we comprehend and make sense of the world.
Ideologies are never force-fed, we are deliberately looking for
them. Nobody can be persuaded if they don’t want to be persuaded.
That is why when we discussed propaganda we said that the best messages
are those that resonate with the audience, that aren’t perceived as
propaganda. Not imposed, but emerging from themselves and expressing
the concerns, tensions, aspirations, and hopes of the persons.
We live through our media, they define us, we identify with them. That
is why the interactions on the internet are a reflection of our different
cultures.
Everyone has an opinion, however, what is worrying is when they give
rise to consequential beliefs. When they manifest in the real world.
On social media, these opinions are now all expressed and openly visible. The pristine walls protecting us have fallen and we are faced with a messy world full of ambiguities\index{cultural confusion}.
This is increasingly true when netizens use persona\index{social media!profiles}, and even more when they use hide under an anonymous pseudonym\index{anonymity}. People are then free to express themselves without restraints, breaking accepted cultural codes, expectations, unspoken tensions, and preconceived notions. They aren’t burdened by what their peers think of them.
However, we are all biased, as we saw in the previous section, and this
confluence of voices brings uncertainty to our own. Doubt sets in when
many claim the contrary of something widely accepted. It’s also hard
for us to accept coincidence as an explanation, which gives rise to some
shouting their conspiratorial thinking. Trust is easy to lose and hard
to gain.
A trust\index{trust} crisis is setting in.
On social media everyone has an equal voice and different views. We
said this was moving us towards a low-context society or informational
society\index{society!information society}. We’ve also just seen the tendency to regroup in bubbles
with people and content that is in agreement with our current views.
Yet, research tells us that social media users have a more diverse
news diet than non-users. It shows how much we are bound to encounter
opinions and information that might upset us because they go in the
opposite direction of our preconceived notions. The bubbles are bursting
against each others, and this implicitly creates hostility.
As humans, we tend to connect ideas in a coherent way, to make sense of the
world around us based on our culture and routine. We have expectations
of what is true, know historical facts set by our institutions, build
a narrative from the events we are told, hold public opinions, have
pictures of what is normal or not, assumptions about how structures
fall into place, and which established powers we think is better.
Yet, again, reality isn’t sterile and spotless, these preconceptions\index{preconception} are
but a thin layer holding a story, and it only covers an infinitely small
portion of the existence on this planet. Cultures often have unspoken
tensions, anxieties, weaknesses — no story is perfect\index{cultural confusion}. This is felt even
more heavily when they clash on the internet.
A truth crisis setting in.
These contradictions need to be accepted and that might generate cognitive dissonance\index{cognitive dissonance} in some people. Cognitive dissonance is a word used to describe the effects someone feels when holding contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values and it’s denoted by psychological stress. The human-psyche wants to be consistent, otherwise it creates discomfort. We feel an urge to resolve these contradictions.
Then it’s no wonder that some content go viral, it’s because they’re
unleashing a repressed cultural agenda. Online discourse promotes outrage
because we feel the need to defend or attack our positions so that our
world view doesn’t shatter — to keep our own consistency or to find
it again.
If we didn’t have issues in our societies, these extreme forms of
discussions wouldn’t materialize. Thus, it is reductive to point the
finger at just the social media platforms, that’s why we’re pointing it
at ourselves here.
When facing an unclear situation, a tension, a question, or decision, we
instinctively take stances. Naturally we either are with or against.
We put ourselves in camps. At least, the most prominent and
outspoken people take sides, so on the internet these are the ones
whose voice break through the noise.
That person will be exposed to a disproportionately large amount of
info similar to their view and a small amount of info against their view.
Naturally, they’ll want to react the contrarian viewpoints to defend
what they think is right.
After that dance, opinions will be polarized and the diversity of point
of views and nuances will disappear — the system will have reached
its equilibrium.
Absolutist thinking\index{absolutist thinking} is in human nature when there is an absence of
certainty. We want to grasp for reassurance.
The researcher Cass Sunstein\index{Sunstein, Cass} has shown that this is even more apparent
when putting people that have similar mindsets in the same room. They
divide themselves according to more polarized\index{polarization} version of the same mindset.
Initially the group shows a lot of internal disagreement over issues but
then, again, fall unto an equilibrium. People held more-extreme positions
after speaking with like-minded individuals and were more homogeneous,
squelching diversity. Either an all or nothing, a black and white vision,
highly moralistic, with expectations on us and others.
Similar studies show the same results and adds that people have a less
negative perception of opposite views if they get exposed to them more
often, instead of mainly the ones confirming their own.
We’ve seen that people self-sort and seek confirmating views online, this widens the rifts between different points. The internet makes it exceedingly easy for people to move into extreme absolute positions and versions of whatever is discussed.
The internet, and particularly social media, also fills the voids that our societies cannot. Gaps in our primal needs: the need for certainty, the need for identity, the need for belonging, the need for accomplishment, competency, and approval, or higher spiritual and moral callings. All things that are missing in contemporary civilizations according to Charles Taylor\index{Taylor, Charles}.
Our lack of certainty about fundamental assumptions and loss of control
inclines us to the middle but opinions on extremes look steady and we
slowly move towards them — a need for closure, narrowing our perception.
We generally adopt the first belief that fills the gap, which is given
to us by the flashy promotional culture\index{promotional culture} or fringe ones\index{fringe ideas}.
These fillings do not have to be understood but believable, to look
consistent and absolutely certain. The quality of the ideas themselves
play a minor role but the meaning and confidence that they bring matters.
The persons the most sensitive are the ones who are bored, feel
powerless, have insecurities in their culture, feel uneasy about the
ambiguity of the world, and are frustrated. A feeling of anomie.
They are driven primarily by hope for a coherent future, their gaps
filled by the ideology, being consoled and rewarded for taking part in it.
They go under the name of fanatics, highly motivated individuals,
defenders of culture, true believers\index{true believers| see {hyper-partisans}}, memeoids\index{meme!memeoid}, or hyper partisans\index{hyper-partisans}.
The transformation or indoctrination\index{cult} can happen slowly over time, through repetition and a slippery slope, as we said, reaching a target level of saturation creating a full universe of meanings. Then stuck in a feedback-loop.
Undeniably, microtargeting\index{marketing!microtargeting} can be used to find these individuals
which needs aren’t filled by society, to then turn them into true
believers. Monitoring posts can give us insights on whether someone feels
stressed, defeated, overwhelmed, anxious, nervous, stupid, useless,
and a failure.
It’s not surprising that this is going to be used because hyper
partisans are the most motivated, they are driven by their ideology
and occupy a bigger space in the information market. This is a sort of
tyranny of the minority, which drags people that are undecided.
Sarah Golding\index{Golding, Sarah}, the president of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, says “It has essentially weaponized ad technology designed for consumer products and services. There is a danger that every single person can get their own concerns played back to them”.
Cognitive dissonance and uncertainty open a window of opportunity to hack
the mind and bring these individuals in.
The memeoids are known to self-isolate into fringe
communities\index{fringe ideas}. Ironically, statistically these communities, with their
extreme viewpoints, are the most influential on the internet.
This is all unsurprising because they offer certainty and answers for the
lost netizens.
Additionally, these communities always have gatekeepers and look enticing. They isolate the members and shun anyone that has a different opinion. The stories are reinforced through time. This reminds us that certain communities on the internet are no different from cults, and of the reasons why people join them.
This concludes our review of cultural angst and how they are reflected on the internet. First of all, we’ve talked about how the internet has its limitations but is more shaped by us than we are shaped by it. We’ve then dabbled with the concepts of beliefs and values which always get confirmed through the results given by recommendation/curation engines and other algorithms. Next, we’ve seen how when cultures clash they make us feel discomfort and bring to the surface cultural anxieties and weaknesses, thus we react. After that, we’ve talked about how polarization is natural, how we instinctively take sides to become more homogeneous. On the internet this creates rifts between ideas, people want to take sides. Later, we’ve covered how the internet can fill needs that aren’t filled by societies, be it a need for closure, accomplishment, belonging, or approval. Finally, we’ve looked at hyper partisanship, how people get stuck in these communities, and why they are the most vociferous online.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak \fancyhead{}
\vspace*{200pt}
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\small{\thepage}} \fancyhead[RO]{\small{\thepage}} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{The Big Picture}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{The Formatted Individual}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
In this part, we’ll explore the bigger picture and the generic issues and “ill effects” on societies that are brought by the emergence of the internet or accelerated by it. We’ll begin with a look at three inter-related subjects: a general social paralysis, an apparent sentiment of homogeneity, and the relation with the widespread neoliberal mindset.
Paralysis is experienced at many levels and in different ways. The first of these are cognitives, which we’ve brushed in part 2 section 2.
One of the cognitive effect of the internet, proven by studies, is how
much it affects our attention on the short term and long term. It is
more divided and we’re less able to sustain concentration, it is more
shallow and guided by attraction\index{cognitive!attention}.
Research has shown the effect is clear on children, and long term studies
have also shown that, contrary to popular belief, constant multi-tasking
actually impedes the very act of task switching and does not improve
it. This last one is due to how frequent exposure to this environment
increases our susceptibility to distraction from irrelevant environmental
stimuli.
Overall, multi-tasking\index{cognitive!multi-tasking} in an internet environment has been associated
with significantly poorer overall cognitive performance, it trains us to pay
attention to what is flashier. We then feel frustrated and hindered when
we have to perform tasks that require concentration. We feel obstructed
and paralyzed, as if we’ve been robbed of our concentration.
Another effect we’ve looked at before is how the internet changed the
way we retrieve information and value knowledge, acting as a transactive
memory — an externalized memory\index{cognitive!memory}.
The result is that we remember more where to find the information rather
than the information itself. We know less about factual information because
we’ve offloaded it to this new medium.
Hence, when we have decisions that rely on facts it makes us dependent
on the internet. This can be both beneficial and harmful, as we said,
giving us the opportunity to focus on conclusions, emergent hypothesis,
overall aspect rather than facts. However, it also makes us focus more
on opinions, trust the first results to our query (usually confirming
our thoughts), ask fewer questions related to facts but questions related
to individuals and society, and put an emphasis on fads and trends.
Our decisions are thus slower, having to consult online resources to make
them, and hampered by what someone else has written about the subject
we’re looking for.
We’ve previously also seen that social media had the same neurocognitive
effects as real life social interactions but with an instant feedback
through clear metrics\index{cognitive!social cognition}. Time is now objective, not subjective, anything to
turn us into machines. This has a direct impact on the concept of the self
and self-esteem, making us pay attention to social judgement and social
comparison. We’ve talked about influencers, hyper-successful individuals,
and the unrealistic expectations these can create.
These can make us feel inadequate, especially for people that can’t
manage properly their emotions.
Another aspect that gives us cold feet is the over-reliability of the
medium. We’re deeply aware that nothing disappears on the internet,
that any faux pas will be remembered.
Yet, we’ve also never been as uncertain about anything. We’re constantly
the spectators of theatrical clashes of opinions and it makes us doubt
our own.
Moreover, we’re constantly overthinking, overanalysing things, we are
submerged in information and can’t take decisions fearing we’ll make
the wrong ones. An analysis paralysis due to the infobesity.\index{infobesity}
Joining these ideas related to judgement makes us stay on the bench. These are compounded in phenomena like social cooling, the 1% rule, and lurking.
Social cooling\index{social cooling} is the self-censure that people exert on themselves
because of social pressure. The tension between always feeling watched by
surveillance algorithms, knowing our personal data is gathered against
our will, understanding that our weaknesses and flaws could be exposed
and used against us, and fearing how we’ll be scored based on the whims
of the internet crowd. We’re intimately aware that our digital reputation
is now serious business and can impact our real life.
For these reasons, people change their behavior and adapt to whatever
makes them look better on the platforms, have better scores or avoid
doing anything that could add a negative side to their reputation. We
hesitate before making a move. All over, it makes an environment socially
rigid with risk-averse people that conform.
A chilling effect on society and a powerful form of control.
This is in direct relation with the notion of lurkers\index{lurkers}, a silent majority
of passive users that is said to constitute 99% of the internet, according
to the 1% rule\index{1 percent rule}, and that doesn’t participate in the creative aspect.
The vast majority of people only consumes and doesn’t contribute any
content. This participation inequality has been researched, verified,
and shown to be consistent on different online forums and wiki pages
such as Wikipedia and others.
There are multiple reasons why most stay on the periphery as read-only
users. Social cooling plays a big part in it and the studies make
it clear.
When asked why people only observed and did not participate, the common
reply is that they were gathering cultural capital: the knowledge that
enables an individual to interpret various cultural codes. We take the
time to evaluate the implicit and explicit norms of the group, to learn if
we can fit, to understand the preferred method of interaction without making
mistakes and avoid being rejected, to see the topics of conversations
that are allowed, and to learn the conventions of the community. This is
commonly done by finding the typical figures representing the community,
the models to adopt, templates that exhibit the kind of dialogues we
can have.
People also lurk because they fear being redundant or that their
contribution would not be worthy. By lurking they can glimpse at
what has already been said and done.
We want to copy, belong, but also be unique, that’s something we’ve
already seen in the biases section. Maybe it’s because our human
experience is so similar and yet distinct.
Lastly, people stay afar because they feel that browsing is enough for them. That could be simply because they are looking to find particular content from a place and nothing else.
On the psychological side, lurking is associated with loneliness\index{loneliness} and
apathy, a sense of not belonging. Lurkers are found to be less satisfied
and experience more distractions, they are distant.
In the case of social networking, they experience less intimacy and
feeling of personal well-being, and an overwhelming loneliness as they
watch others participate in the community.
Social media does indeed feel cognitively similar to amplified real
life interaction.
This is akin to a TV audience but with the sense that what we see is
real and not a fabricated reality.
What makes someone de-lurk is situational and depends on both the individual’s personality, the environment, and the community. What remains is that only a handful of superusers\index{superusers} generate the vast majority of content.
Research shows that these contributors are highly motivated, feel a
sense of duty, attachment, and belonging to their online community. Other
research show that active participants seemed to be more extroverted and
open, felt they were more empowered and in control of their environment,
had confidence in their ability to influence, had higher self-efficacy,
and a greater need for gratification.
That is in sync with what we’ve seen regarding frustrated individuals that
had their cultural malaise and gaps filled by the internet. Participants
need a place to express themselves and that is relevant to them.\index{hyper-partisans}
Statistics show that the people contributing the most are out of the
ordinary, they exhibit extraordinary behavior\index{fringe ideas}. That means that when we
consume any content on the internet, we’re mostly consuming content
created by people who, for some reason, spend most of their time and
energy creating this content. These people clearly differ from the
general population in important ways. The kind of people that move the
Overton window, which we talked about.
This is worth keeping in mind when on the internet.
Knapp, had been submitting an average of 385 edits per day since signing up in 2005 as of 2012. Assuming he doesn’t sleep or eat or anything else (currently my favored prediction), that’s still one edit every four minutes. He hasn’t slowed down either; he hit his one millionth edit after seven years of editing and is nearing his two millionth now at 13 years. This man has been editing a Wikipedia article every four minutes for 13 years. He is insane, and he has had a huge impact on what you and I read every day when we need more information about literally anything. And there are more like him; there is one user with 2.7 million edits and many others with more than one million.
These days the 1% rule has been more or less debunked as the barrier to engagement has decreased. However, it hasn’t decrease enough, the number of lurkers is still relatively high and social cooling adds to the equation.
This paradoxical balance between lurkers, conformity, social cooling, and out-of-the-norm influencers and contributors in different communities, makes us feel a sense of normalcy and lack of innovation.
Normalcy\index{normalcy} is the consequence of adherence and conformity. We lurk because
we want to adhere to the norm, not stand out, to fit in. We’re also
interested in participating because of the homophily\index{homophily} phenomenon we’ve
discussed before, “birds of feather flock together”.
This all keeps the status quo and homogeneity in the community.
This creates a situation in which we’re offered templatized\index{templatized}, cookie-cutter
identities which we can choose from, and indirectly coerced to fit
into them by the persuasive technology. It’s easier to market to persons
that fit into well-separated categories, to “buyer personas”\index{buyer personas| see {templatized}}. One
could even call these memeplexes and memeoids\index{meme!memeoid}, honed through eunemics.
This is all decided by fads, opinions, and interests, a sort of “choose
your character/future” mode of identity building. With these templates
there’s an emphasis on attitude rather than facts, truth, or
moral. Sometime called “Hypernormalization”\index{hypernormalization}.
“How can you have a personality if you have no knowledge to base it upon,
and if you merely have opinions that have been given to you through
slogans or clichés.”
It is hard to get out of a template, these mass one-sided
personalities, because of all that we’ve seen before especially the social
judgement, social cooling, the action-attention-reward\index{AAR} addictive
mechanism, and others. We need privacy as a right to not fit in, a right
not to be perfectly molded, well-behaved, docile, and conformed humans.
We are guided by biased algorithms that are mathwashed\index{mathwashing}, believing they
are impartial.
This has detrimental effects on kids that are in the process of finding
themselves, in the process of building their personality. They feel
enormous social pressure to be perfect. Self-inflicted injuries\index{self-inflicted injuries}, such
as cuttings that are serious enough to require treatment in an emergency
room, in the USA, have increased dramatically in 10- to 14-year-old girls,
up 19% per year since 2009.
Less physically harmful, is the effect on young boys that are looking
for achievements and get addicted to “competency porn”\index{competency porn}, any type of
media that fulfills the need for recognition, achievement, and control
over the environment — Be it video games or animated movies. The epic
tales and escapist fantasies of today’s world.
It is astonishing because different persons are part of different internet realms, with different templates, and are given skewed pictures of reality — it’s as if everyone lived in alternate universes that sometimes, but rarely, cross.
Indeed, even though the UN considers the right to internet access\index{right to internet access} a
human right, the effect of the globalisation of the internet are unclear.
Already we’ve seen filter bubbles, homophily, and confirmation bias
that keep people within the same realms. Additionally, we have to add
to this the privileges associated with the internet. Not everyone can
access the internet, not everyone can use it powerfully, not everyone
can participate in community content creation, and not everyone has the
language skills to participate in these various communities.
The content is still subject to being part of a hierarchy, still based on
the same social and international hierarchies that exist today. Minority
views in the real world are still minority views online, the same
people facing discriminations\index{discrimination} offline also tend to face them on the
internet.
And yet, it also fosters the democratization of speech if used properly,
but the content we are given somehow reinforces the status quo.
It’s a global and local presence, we could say a glocalization\index{glocalization}. Everyone
that has internet uses it in their own way, and the way they use it
affects their perception. Some use the internet for research, some for
hobbies, some to socialize, some to learn, some as a tool for work,
etc.. Internet usage is shaped by the myriads of ways that we access it
for our needs and values.
Yet, this exact habit of usage is shaped by the local culture and thus
also creates a divide as the internet is inherently based on connecting
networks together.
For example, even though we can use the internet for different things,
the language we speak will only give us a narrow view of the whole
spectrum. If we search using a language that is more “popular”, let’s say
English, we’re prone to be given the templatized identities related to
the most vociferous online English speakers (USA).
Language then is part of the dynamic of who defines and who is defined.
There are other imbalances that exist based on geolocal preferences. For
instance, speakers of a certain language will prefer domestic issues.
Moreover, advertisers, the main source of revenue online, will prioritize specific consumers that fit a template from a certain culture and geographical area, and not others. This will incentivize content creation for that specific audience, as this is where more money is made. This in turn will widen the cultural gap, now a digital advertising gap, thus a media content quantity and quality gap\index{digital divide}.
There are many factors that make the internet both global and local at the
same time. Again, it depends on our usage of it but when we default to the
average person, there’s no room around being presented only narrow views.
The question remains whether internet truly makes people conform, what’s
the state of creativity and counterculture, and how much propaganda
comes into play.
The literature shows that a small subset of the population, around
2 to 3%, have international ties and act as bridge figures\index{bridge figures| see {cognitive diversity}} between
cultures. These persons show a higher creativity than their peers because
of their exposure to different views.
From this we can imagine that it’s the same thing on the internet.
When using a service you become part of its ecosystem, there are many platforms and the big ones, the FAANG, have a tech hegemony. Internet in itself didn’t kill counterculture\index{counterculture}, it is just not present on these platforms as they encompass a sort of new overarching powerful entity, sometimes more organized than governments.
This means that counterculture today isn’t any more about a war of
ideologies but about going against the trends of the internet. The
counterculture of the past, which rotated around personal expressions
and identity are now used by platforms to drive engagement and profit,
it’s part of their lucrative business. Social media in particular have
been catering to the “demands” of a generation by filling the gap that the
culture couldn’t — self-fulfillment\index{self-fulfillment} as a product, as we’ve seen earlier.
This means that these types of old countercultures are still part of
the system, but by embodying them we’re not in charge. We pull ourselves
together by gathering pieces of templatized subcultures. Then, this
collection becomes our niche personal branding, our personal expressions
and ideologies.
As we went over in part 2 section 2, we are now seeking individuation\index{individuation},
we are networked individuals connected by interests. This is in stark
contrast with counterculture which requires a group to thrive, an
“us against the world” mindset. The internet does allow regrouping
but only on a shallow level, particularly for collective dissent and
unsatisfaction, turning the groups to absurdities and cult-like behavior\index{cult}.
Directly opposing the system will only make the system stronger.
True counter-culture can either be found by embracing the algorithms, understanding their inner-working and warping them to our needs, or by signing-off and rejecting the whole system for an alternative one. Both of these are difficult in the era of like-and-share.
So we are bound to use the internet, and the internet to project our
anthropological nature, its current state and flaws, be it conformity,
homogeneity, or others.
We’ll be given a reflection according to the function it has for us,
our lifestyle, current society, culture, and time. For a big part of
the world that means the internet is becoming inherently neoliberal\index{neoliberalization},
used for neoliberal ends, and encourages neoliberal behaviors.
This isn’t surprising considering the origin of the internet, who are
the biggest internet companies, and who are the most vocal online. The
internet embodies the “American mindset”, a mindset of personal brands
and marketing, the self-made man\index{marketing}.
A considerable amount of people are driven by this, with different subset
cultural bubbles living outside the hegemony of these giants because of
different environmental constraints.
The internet is the perfect tool for the workings and reinforcement of neoliberalism values. It is a perfect display of how this way of viewing the world, which was heavily questioned during the Cold War, has taken over.
It focuses on a certain flavor of democracy, individualism, and a
laissez-faire absolutism of the marketplace. The belief and undeserved
faith in the efficiency of markets. It centers around deregulation,
free trade, privatization\index{privatization}, and puts the individual at the center of
everything. Any other attitude, and especially government intervention,
is frowned upon.
We can clearly see how this has unfolded on the internet, with Facebook’s
many scandals clarifying the limits of corporate self-regulation.
There’s an over-emphasis on economic efficiency\index{economy!economic efficiency} and growth at all costs. Political theorist Wendy Brown\index{Brown, Wendy} has gone even further and asserted that the overriding objective of neoliberalism is “the economization of all features of life”.
The self becomes a product, a personified capital\index{personified capital} that needs to accumulate
symbols of status, a storyline, and advertise itself. With regards to
the internet, and because the money is where advertisers and the audience
put their interests, a personal-brand will only be profitable if it fits
the mold of the popular culture.
We have to partner with the brands and products that make us shine. We
own things that reflect our personal meaning. We calculate the benefits,
efficiency, and productivity of each action. We had a look at this in the
new economies section, this is in relation to this. The commodification
of personal data and attention for profit.
This unfettered exploitation puts gains before anything and it doesn’t only apply to individuals but especially to corporations. That is why marketing is prioritized on the internet, an optimization of products and surveillance. We de-emphasize public goods to turn our eyes towards the market idolization, a corporatocracy\index{corporatocracy}.
Everything has a monetary incentive rather than a social objective. Anything needs a metric, an indicator, to be tracked and quantifiable. This focus on economic efficiency can compromise other, perhaps more important, factors, or promote exploitation and social injustice. We see this on the personal level on social media through likes, shares, and subscribers.
It’s arguable if neoliberalism, the advent and rise of this way
of life, are bi-products of the internet or if it’s the opposite. It’s
arguable if individuation is the product of neoliberalisation or
vice-versa, and if they are accelerated by the internet.
It’s probably a mix of everything, societal changes with the private
enterprises reflecting the will of individuation of private individuals,
which are also projected on their internet — the internet driven by
the big players.
We’ll see later how these societal change and acceleration bring social unrest.
The individuals are at the heart, all the responsibility and weight are
on them, that’s why they focus so much on identity politics and individual
gains, while dismissing broader identities and class consciousness.
A mix of looking for authenticity\index{authenticity}, as it seems to be the gap in cultures\index{cultural confusion}
that have embraced neoliberalism, and an overwhelming majority of
narcissistic individuals.
A mix of losing political freedom because of apathy, and looking
for self-fulfillment as withdrawal from moral concerns. Are lurkers
neoliberal? Are counter-culture and creativity now anti-neoliberalism?
Globalisation doesn’t necessary mean homogenisation, but it’s undeniable
that the neoliberal mindset has spread further than any other and can’t
be dismissed. Its acceptance, normalization, the incentives, indirect
influences on the internet and its dynamics are apparent.
Isn’t this the best propaganda, one we don’t even notice unless we’re
someone in the middle, someone cross-cultural?
Nonetheless, what happens online is only a function of the offline status
quo, the offline paralysis. The internet does not exist in a vacuum. It is
made with the purpose of letting people connect with their own networks,
assuming that users are individuals, and inherently individualising them.
The online world recreates and accelerates — there is nothing inherent
within the technology that makes it neoliberal, it’s only a tool. Each
can have their own different internet experience depending on how they
use it, as we kept saying.
We’re both formatted and free individuals — freedom as a menu.
This concludes our review of how the internet has consequences in the
acceleration of cultural evolution, formatting individuals, paralyzing
them, imposing an overwhelming homogenisation while letting fringe people
contribute, and fostering and spreading the neoliberal mindset.
At first, we’ve examined the cognitive effects: attention, memory, and
social cognition. Our attention is divided, our memory externalized,
and our social fear amplified. Then we’ve seen how the internet makes
us constantly anxious of making indelible mistakes, embodied in the
concept of social cooling and self-censorship.
Next, we’ve observed the link with the notion of lurkers, read-only users,
the 1% rule, and the out-of-the-ordinary users that actually contribute
the content. These contributors do so because the internet has filled
something they were missing, a cultural gap.
After this we’ve questioned conformity and homogeneity, how the internet
offers template we select from, and puts pressure on individuals to
fit perfectly. Yet, we’ve also observed that these templates, these
experiences, and the internet function as a whole, differ and are divided
per culture, environment, language, and others — the glocalization
of the internet.
Later, we’ve added to this the fact that the internet is driven by
monetary incentives and that it will create a dynamic in which more
content is targeted at people that fit certain templates and others will
be enticed to fill the templates of other cultures, an indirect cultural
assimilation.
Following this we’ve discussed what it would mean to stand
out of these templates, of all these memeplexes, to be more creative or
counter-cultural and we’ve concluded it means either embracing the tech or
going against it. Finally, we’ve linked the topic with neoliberalisation
and how it exemplifies the phenomenon we’re seeing, both by emphasizing
the market, efficiency, and the individual.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{The Big Picture}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{Truth and Trust Crises}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
Nobody likes to be put in a box, nobody likes to be paralyzed. In a world
where the individual is put first, we want to feel in control\index{templatized}. Yet, we are
lost in a whirlpool of chaotic and clashing ideologies, memeplexes and
absolutist templates\index{absolutist thinking}. Who are we, how should we define ourselves? This
makes us distrust\index{trust!distrust} any form of authority and renounce classical forms of
media. As individuals, we’re looking for authenticity, whatever form
it can take even if disingenuous, so that we can find our new roots,
our new base. Then, there’s nobody better suited to affirm justice than
internet mobs.
It feels like the internet is the new far-west, a lawless land of
incessant doubt, lacking meaning and trust, where gurus, inspirational
influencers, and vigilantes reign and data, personal data, and metrics
of reputation are the currency held by the banks of social media.
Or it may also feel like eunemics\index{meme!eunemics} in action — the deliberate improvement
of the meme pool — and people wanting to take part in the cultural
meme wars and genocides.
A lot of this can be attributed to the wide spread of neoliberalism values and mindset, which as we’ve seen in the previous section are the most prevalent online. Particularly, we’re faced with individualism, relativism, and inequalities all justified by the protection of personal rights.
If you see a world full of individuals then you’ll want a morality that protects those individuals and their individual rights.
You’ll emphasize concerns about harm and fairness.
But if you live in a society in which people are more likely to see relationships, context, groups, and institutions. Then you won’t be so focus on satisfying individuals, you’ll have a more sociocentric morality.
Which means that you place the needs of groups and institutions first, often ahead of the needs of individuals.
If you do that then a morality based on harm and fairness won’t be sufficient. You’ll have additional concerns. And you’ll need additional virtues to bind people together.
The Righteous Mind
The individual\index{individuation} becomes reason in and of itself, and not only a figurant in
their own life. We are expected, in the neoliberal theory, to develop our
own opinions, outlook, stances through a considerable amount of solitary
reflection. However, most important issues, such as the definition of our
identity, happen over dialogue. We can’t define ourselves or recognize
ourselves, in a void.
We’ve discovered how this can be beneficial in part 2 section 2, as
networked individuals connected by interests. Interests become part of
our identity and how we generate meaning.
On the internet, however, this leads to struggles as we’re incessantly
exposed to a wide range of ideas, some of which may be breaking our local
taboos. The Overton window\index{Overton window|see {fringe ideas}} keeps moving, for the better or the worst.
Isolated societies, communities, and ways of living may be forcedly
assailed by ideas outside their comfort zone. We’ve touched this
topic in the cultural malaise section.
I went a bit over this in my article entitled cross culture frustration.
The new mentality appears different and frightening — different acting, different social dynamics, different manner of building the “self”, different definition of who we are within the society. In addition, we hate being wrong, and we like confirmation. We create a cocoon and hide ourselves in it repeating the hokum over and over again. And we are afraid of the unknown — afraid that the stable self we’ve built to be part of a society is not a self that could partake and feel comfortable in the activities of another society.
In this mindset, the individual always comes before the large collective
forces and needs to be protected against them. Personal life choices
can’t be criticised as this would be tantamount to an assault on
personal dignity. Inherently, this carries the acceptance of a soft
moral relativism, any opinion should be respected and nobody should
impede on others.
This translates on the social plane into political acts for individual
rights, recognition, and equality. Anything else is understood as
inflicting damage and being a form of oppression. We are more interested
in dignity, universals, innate attributes, and equality.
Additionally, this requires the breaking of hierarchies\index{hierarchies} and a loss of
a grand sense of meaning. The perception is now centered on the self
to find these, rejecting, and even erasing from awareness, issues and
concerns that transcend the self.
We aren’t recognized through honors, distinctions, or any rare
achievements, but by our self-generated worth. We’ve replaced these forms
of recognition, the need for belonging and authenticity for example,
by other things.
Personal and intimate relationships\index{relationships} are now the definition and
emphasis of life. We now expect to find the greater meaning, which was
previously found in institutions and traditional structures, in these
relationships. The domestic becomes the loci of “the good life”.
This is the core of what social media are about. They are filling a
cultural gap as we said before.
Self-fulfillment\index{self-fulfillment} and worth is also found through the instrumental reasoning
of neoliberalism\index{neoliberalization} — actions driven by profit, optimization, market,
and metrics. Meaning lies in efficiency, success is found in numbers,
tangible assets, products, and money. In a way, it has replaced grand
narratives and sense with short-term narcissistic, selfish, pleasures
and pains, with little regard for others or society as a whole.
Similarly, the intimate relationships are also seen as tools for
self-development and so are also serving an end.
It permeates every aspect of life. Even simple things such as food have
become an individual matter, for personal consumption, rather than a
convivial mean of regrouping and conversations.
Old social orders are shattered and replaced with resources for projects, economic growth, and prestige in technological progress.
No empathy. No loyalty. No forgiveness. Thanks to the market, the old-fashioned virtues have been rendered obsolete.
Common goods\index{common goods} and social objectives are de-emphasized. The protection of the individual is only an extension of the protection of their private economic rights. The new morals are the morals of protecting the individual and their economic rights, the sanctity of the individual and the pursuit of self-interest as the highest moral ideal.
However, this system generates a lot of inequalities\index{digital divide}, there’s a wide
distribution of wealth and income. It is hard to keep competition
open and fair — a competitive attitude that also fosters more
individualism. Corporations are free to self-regulate.
Comparativeness and cooperation are both part of human nature, but the
one that is valued and promoted by the culture will thrive.
On the internet we’re presented with the myth of individual geniuses working in their garages without any investment, self-made success stories. Yet, this is only a myth.
And because worth is found in such success, it is then displayed
in clear light for everyone to admire. Social media make this even
more apparent.
These inequalities will undeniably boil into social unrest. Individual
persons will demand their individual rights and feel entitled to do so.
Overall, there’s a sentiment of being stranded on an island\index{loneliness}, lost,
afraid, and missing something vital. Many societies embracing or exposed
directly or indirectly through the internet (or other political pressures)
to neoliberalism have a hard time coping with this. The competitive and
instrumental mindset encourages a fear of the other. The moral relativism
destroys grand narratives, old societies heroes, and replaces them with
ambiguity and an identity crisis. The cultural malaise, the feeling of
anomie, we’ve discussed earlier\index{cultural confusion}.
We’re left with defining ourselves through interests, intimate
relationships, metrics, economic activities, and a moral that only has
one thing to say: “everyone is on their own, let them be”.
We are like islands in the sea, separate on the surface but connected in the deep — William James
More than anything, this damages and erodes our trust\index{trust} in any form of authority, this makes us doubt what we know and what others are telling us. We’ve seen how this is abused on social media in a previous section.
When reality doesn’t reflect our projections, it will backfire. Turning
things upside down, changing love into hate, or any other ways of
rebalancing our perceptions.
We project on people, ideologies, cultures, and politics, wanting to
put our trust in something, to see them as extensions of us, to feel
that our conception of reality is stable and secure.
When it doesn’t match the people revolt.
On social networks we are torn between different narratives that
threaten each others. There’s no accountability or regulation for this
user-generated content and it is often published under aliases that
can’t be traced to any source.
Truth and trust are bent to their extreme. The digital revolution
undermines mainly the control that governments used to have on them,
replacing it with a technological alternative of wild-west, open,
democratic, and sometimes manipulated discussions.
Infobesity and infoxication\index{infobesity} don’t help either, we’re inundated and can’t
keep track of what is important, nor absorb it, nor understand it, nor
know who said it. It makes it hard to effectively grasp issues and make
decisions, as we’ve discussed in the paralysis section.
We’ve also previously seen how state entities are trying to get back
the control by using speech itself as a censorial weapon.
The biggest consequence of this is that there has never been as much
political discussion happening\index{political discussion}. It’s everywhere on the internet and it
is what thrives.
However, the memetic material, the content, is always provocative,
conflicting, shocking, and sensational because, as we keep repeating,
this is exactly what thrives in the internet environment, namely: what
touches our cultural sensitivities.
Consequentially, in relation to what we said before, this content
will be about identity politics and identity in general, personal
definitions. Discussions will rotate around recognitions of who some
people are, the gaps they have in their cultures, how they patch them,
the oppressions and damages they feel are being done to their previous
or new-found identities.
Some discussions and content are more powerful and dangerous than
others, activated ideologies that have real world consequences. This
can lead to warranted or unwarranted protests, extreme ideologies,
discriminations, assaults, suicides, acts of violence, and others.
In a previous section we’ve dabbled into how this can be used and initiated
as part of PSYOPs.
This becomes alarming when doubt engenders the creation of an alternative
reality that contests well-accepted scientific truth and facts, turning
virtue into a vice. The lack of trust in authority being replaced by a
trust in narratives that claim pseudo-authenticity and certainty. Sometimes
coming from ill-informed people or from nations or entities that have
an agenda — misinformation and disinformation\index{disinformation}.
This is what we’ve talked about when discussing memeoids, propaganda, and
cults: a memetic equilibrium, a coherent world of cohesive meaning. The
grand sense of meaning that was broken with neoliberalism but that
couldn’t be recovered through anything else. The modern hermetism,
or return of mysticism.
Doesn’t memetics\index{meme!neoliberalism} itself reflect the concept of neoliberalism, all selfish
memes fighting for their individual survival?
The word “truth” is often semantically associated with some religious or moral doctrines. This confusion also occurred in psychological literature.
In practice, this is embodied through conspiracy theories\index{conspiracy theories}, built over time on the accumulation of confirmation biases and wishful thinking, and also through polarized and absolutist memetic wars that carry new narratives.
The side effect of these is the collapse of the classical form of
journalism\index{journalism}. Traditional media in its original shape is dead and along
with it any form of “official narrative”.
There exists some media that are government owned, publicly funded,
but the netizens do not trust them.
The online economy has ravage journalism. For example, in the USA, about a
fifth of newspapers have closed and the survivors are shadows of what they
were. The ones that are left rely on shock value to drive revenue from
ads, the new business model, or have switched to subscriptions. Many
geographical regions are now news deserts leaving people to rely on
social media instead.
This results in the dramatic decline of professional reporting, yet a
majority of people have not, and will not, notice any significant change.
The dominating ad networks, Google and Facebook, have their own alternative news channels and also decide on the internet dynamics: promoting or demoting a newspaper based on its popularity and how much revenue it attracts.
Citizen journalism\index{journalism!citizen journalist} is now king and the traditional media are following their footstep, redefining themselves as intermediates. Social media platforms have replaced the gatekeepers, as we’ve seen earlier, and the “democratic” curatorial systems\index{recommendation engines} decide which news are important and how they get framed.
While in the past the news were responsible for what they said, regulated, limited by their journalistic values, now it’s fully unregulated.
There are upsides and downsides to this new development. As we said, these are amateurs, people without journalism training, and so the quality of the reports and coverage can vary, is subjective, heavily opinionated, unregulated, and can be abused by malicious actors — such as spin doctors.
However, it can also promote human rights and democratic values to have the people join together and collaborate in this endeavor.
We’ve tackled before how the engines reinforce what people already
believe, amplifying their narrative through their self-generated (and often fabricated) news.
It’s even more distressing when heads of nations publicly attack
the press, calling them “enemy of the people”, inflaming opinions,
polarization, and partisanships. Politicians have learned how to play
the game on the internet.
Along with the self-generated meaning and self-generated news and facts,
we see the rise of self-justice, private justice\index{private justice}.
Ironically, this is in stark contrast with what neoliberalism is about,
it is the large collective that fights individuals, the return of the
battle of the collectivist narratives.
The polarization with its absolute us vs them mentality. A return of a
sort of absolute moral rigidity with categorical imperatives\index{absolutist thinking}.
Laws should be there to protect minorities, not lead to mob violence,
and vigilantism, the kind of fast justice, with total impunity, and
auto-defence that is justified by militias around the world — the
wild-west and absence of authority that favors the creation of these
dynamics.
This lack of trust in institutions and truth makes us want to create
our own. We substituted the old gatekeepers\index{gatekeepers}, so we can also redefine the
social contract.
Corporations and multinationals have been doing this for some time now, pushing their own justice, influencing legislations, spying, and thwarting competitors using any means. This has definitely been facilitated by social media.
On the individual side, it’s understandable, we’re presented a world,
through the lenses of the news and social media, of constant chaos,
clashes, and protests everywhere. It seems to be the only logical
conclusion, when doubting all authorities, that we should fight for our
own rights and that no one else will do it.
The offline consequences of this are apparent so let’s talk about the
online ones.
The collectivists narrative\index{collectivists narrative}, one that sees each person as a member of
group and not an individual, a kind of “social tribalism”\index{social tribalism}, is the way
people bring back order from the chaos of getting exposed to different
ideas — a pre-neoliberal view within a neoliberal mindset.
It is associated with a make-belief of simple dichotomies, groups at
war, enemies, activism and counter-activism. Societies then become a
struggle for power, a zero-sum war of ideologies. These ideologies are,
within neoliberalism, related to identities.
Some of these are hijacked or pushed by political actors for gain. This is
by various kind of parties that adhere to different political ideologies
on the political spectrum.
This forcing of homogeneity, is the same force that drives indoctrination, cults, and memeoids. On themselves, these distorted worldviews and conflicts are wars of memeplexes, each side carrying their package of culture.
The combatants fight to annihilate the other memeplexe, to achieve
eunemics\index{meme!eunemics} — essentially trying to deliberately control the meme pool.
The war of memeoids is fought by quarantining other memes, restricting
their speech/thoughts through censorship, and also done by executing
attacks that ridicule memes to detach them from the enemy’s memeplex.
“Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance.” – Albert Maysles\index{Maysles, Albert}
Only one reality must survive!
When it comes to these attacks, they are filled with derogatory terms,
loaded words that carry with them cultural ideas, politicized insults:
essentially memes in the form of words. As we said, ridicule and satire
are the best tools to fight narratives and drive discussions\index{satire}.
Creating a new language is also creating new ideas. Satiric words are
thus both attacking memes toward the enemy memeplex, and new memes to be
incorporated in the memeplex of the generator. A memetic warfare. Benjamin
Lee Whorf said: “Language shapes the way we think, and determines what
we can think about.”\index{meme!caricature}
A lot of the popular words are taken from the USA politics, so we’ll extract some examples from there, any reader should be familiar with the terms considering their invasiveness in the online sphere.
One of these words is SJW, “Social Justice Warrior”\index{SJW}, a pejorative term
used to describe someone who promotes “socially progressive views” for
personal validation rather than conviction. This word carries a political
meaning in the USA politics, is a satire thus a meme.
The term itself is used by the opposite ideologists to refer to
the internet combatants of the other groups. These SJWs rely on
victimhood talk, a twist on the oppressor narrative along with emotions,
to silence/censor their opponents. Absurdingly, the groups using the
words are themselves portraying the world in a similar way, the back to
the collectivist narrative.
The personal validation is described as “virtue signalling”\index{virtue signalling}, a way
to show your virtues and allegiance to a group. Virtue signalling is
the common phenomenon we’ve seen happening when people share memes on
social media: informing and showing others that they belong, that they
know what is right, following what they think is prestigious, along with
a sense of superiority.
It is most often used to point out “fake outrage”, “political
correctness”, “microaggression”, “microinvalidations”, and
“self-righteousness” (also meme terms), but it can also be applied
more generally to anything used to get social karma/points.
Indeed, this is related to the neoliberalism narcissism coming from
finding meaning through metrics. Obviously, and contrary to popular
beliefs, this noisemaking is done by anybody on the political spectrum
and not only by a single political camp. Only the association and its
cultural reference that packages it in the name makes it a novel meme.
“In a democracy, recognition matters. Everyone wants to be seen as
they are. If they are not, then it’s impossible for them to enjoy the
experience of being full citizens.” — Melissa Harris-Perry\index{Harris-Perry, Melissa}
The term is also associated with slacktivism\index{slacktivism}, hashtag activism, and
pathological altruism. These are ways of supporting causes on social media
while not involved in the on-the-ground activities and the messiness. These
are terms used, and mostly prevalent, by Western netizens to describe how
they are distanced from reality and act from the clean pristine coccoons
of their sofa.
They are pejorative because they imply that these actions have little
effects, might even be ineffective, are low-cost efforts, and can’t
substitute more substantive actions. However, as we’ve seen over the
past sections, we know that online political talks do indeed have an
effect on mindsets and allow for more discussions around a topic —
temporarily getting attention, selecting what is important.
One technique that is extensively used today by all groups, political
parties, or association as a defense mechanism is a sort of deliberate
social cooling of others, a self-surveillance that goes by the name of
call-out culture and cancel culture\index{cancel culture}.
The names are normally used by a specific political side in USA politics
as a derogatory term describing another side, but the techniques
themselves are applied by everyone anywhere in the world. It’s about
using the online-outrage machine\index{outrage machine} we talked about earlier to attempt to
defame and vilify characters that go against the memeplex of the group.
This public lynching type of censorship should be a reminder of the
propaganda we’ve seen earlier. Speech as a censorial weapon.
A perfect way to achieve eunemics through the suffocation of memeplexes.
This concludes our review of the truth and trust crises accelerated by the
internet. In a first part we’ve seen how neoliberalism and individualism
have shaken our notions of stability and broken our vision of authorities
and hierarchies. The individual is favored before the collective, and
they now find meaning through metrics, economic activities, and moral as
a protection of new personal identities. Next, we’ve looked at how this
unbalance can backfire if projections don’t match reality, especially
when presented with so many worldviews on social networks.
Then we went over how this generates an enormous amount of political
discussions, especially related to identity, and how this generates
alternative universes of meanings that live on social media, some of it
conspiratorial or based on novel narratives. A kind of self-generated
meaning.
After that we’ve observed the collapse of traditional journalism and all
that it implies, especially that now people can generate their own news,
their own facts.
Finally, we’ve concluded with a glanced at a self-generated justice, a
private justice created through the return of a collectivist narrative,
fights between groups. These groups being memeoids, that fight eunemics
wars on the internet trying to anhilate other memeplexes using some
techniques we’ve encountered in previous sections such as speech as a
censorial weapon.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{The Big Picture}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{Mass Hypnosis or Mass Psychosis}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
The internet brings with it technological advancements that remind us of dystopia\index{dystopia} that sci-fi writers have talked about. So let’s go beyond what we’ve tackled so far and project ourselves in hypothetical futures to posit bigger consequences.
The two archetypical stories of dystopian futures are Brave New World\index{Brave New World} by Aldous Huxley\index{Huxley, Aldous} and 1984\index{1984} by George Orwell\index{Orwell, George}.
In Brave New World, Huxley presents a hedonistic future that is governed by techno-science and eugenics. The people conform and adhere to the societies rules for the following reasons:
We can see some parallel with neoliberalism, consumerism, and the passivity or paralysis we’ve seen earlier. However, we’ve also seen how people can’t deal with such world of templatized lives\index{templatized}, even when pushed by the internet.
Mass production, homogeneity, predictability, and consumption of disposable consumer goods.
In 1984, Orwell presents a world of constant surveillance by Big
Brother\index{Big Brother}. This surveillance is extended through self-surveillance
between individuals with a thought police. The world described is
believed to be in perpetual war (forever war), historical facts and news
are rewritten or negated to fit the accepted narrative, and language is
used in a powerful way to accompany it.
The fictitious world employs many of the propaganda techniques\index{propaganda} and the
eunemics we’ve encountered.
We can see some parallel with the previous sections related to the surveillance economy, the return of the collectivist narrative, and the internet wars of memeplexes that use censorship, call-out, canceling,\index{cancel culture} and social cooling to keep everyone in check.
In one of these worlds facts are eliminated and in the other facts don’t matter. Today we see both of them, censorship and speech itself as a censorial weapon\index{censure}. Two techniques used to make people docile and well-behaved, two techniques that are omnipresent on any communication channel but even more on the internet. We’re in the center of an information warfare.
Beyond dystopian worlds, the attention economy on the internet carries with it questions related to the very nature of consciousness.
When we talk of attention we also indirectly refer to themes such as
awareness and awakening\index{cognitive!awareness}. These are then tied to spiritual practices. For
instance, how we pay attention is an inherent part of Buddhist practices.
Hence, attention can be said to be the outermost expression of our
consciousness. Losing control of it would be the equivalent of losing
oneself or being detached from reality and be brought into a fabricated
universe.
Some have come to call this the hyperpresent\index{hyperpresent}.
In an attention economy\index{economy!attention economy}, we would then live in memeplexes\index{meme!memeplexe} of ideas,
packaged, wrapped, and opened effortlessly to let us access these
collapsible concepts, these portable philosophical ideas, stories,
emotions, narratives, and meanings.
We are what we focus on, we live what we are aware of. Our reality is
limited by our perception of it.
We all think that the way we live is the best way to live. We all think that we see the world as it is, that we’ve come to the best possible conclusion about our direction in life. However, that’s just our definition of normality. And this normality isn’t even ours as most of it happens without us being there. We often can’t justify why we do what we do or why we like what we like.
When we spend so much time on the internet, and will possibly spend much
more in the future, we’re indirectly unaware that it is defining us.
Looking around us, for some it might appear more explicit than others
as they get caught in apparent internet cults or are memeoids combatant
of their memeplex, but aren’t we all?\index{cult}
Isn’t most of the content that is fed back to us a reflection of who
we already are? And as the internet takes a bigger part of our lives,
will everyone get stuck in loops of paralysis like we’ve seen before?
One question we can ask is whether it’s possible to engineer these wants, to use mind control or hypnosis to make people more inclined to give their attention or perform specific actions.
A far-fetched, or not so far-fetched, concept from sci-fi\index{sci-fi} is a
psychotronic weapon\index{psychotronic weapon} or electronic harassment. This abstract weapon is
a representation of the totality of all possible methods and means,
be them suggestive, pharmacological, paranormal, technogenic, or others
that influence the psyche of a person for the purpose of modifying their
consciousness, behavior, or health.
While this idea is often associated with lunatic conspiracy theories,
it’s interesting to tinker about the possibility that the internet could
indirectly be used in the future, or now, for such ends.
One way to be able to achieve this would be to get a direct interface to the brain. The neurotechnology for brain scanning\index{brain scan}, which used to be limited to laboratories, is slowly getting more accessible, transportable, and less invasive. There are instances using electrical activity circuits, rhythmic sound or flashing light, ultrasonic or magnetic simulation, all to modify brain waves and patterns of electrical activities in the brain. These can work both as reading devices or output devices.
Today, these are still used mainly in labs to treat neurological and mental illness, and improve mood and cognition. The USA FDA has approved in 2008 transcranial magnetic stimulation to treat depression, pain, and migraine.
However, we can imagine that when this becomes more mainstream, when
brain-related data starts to be common on the internet, that ad-tech
companies will jump on the opportunity to access whatever comes out of
these new body sensors.
There is nothing more private than thoughts. This can give the ability
to know and predict what someone’s mental dispositions are, with whatever
this implies: from knowing their cognition style, to identifying cognitive
strengths and weaknesses, to perceiving personality traits, and to determine
their aptitudes or likeliness for certain information\index{personal data}.
When in the wrong hands this could be called a neuroweapon.
Having this type of information in the wild would be the most advanced
form of social cooling, full-on paralysis, a forced “psychocivilized”\index{psychocivilized}
society, not far from Huxley’s brainwashing dreams.
This is why researchers and human rights activists are starting to
think about adding new rights: cognitive liberty, mental privacy, mental
integrity, and psychological continuity.
Another method to alter minds that has been tried in the past is by using chemicals and pharmaceuticals drugs. The research has shown, at least as far as the public knows, that they aren’t very effective and their applicability comes with a lot of technical difficulties.
Some mind-altering and stimulating chemicals\index{mind-altering chemicals} are already readily available
on the market of most countries. Others such as hallucinogenic mushrooms,
marijuana, heroin, LSD, and truth serums aren’t as available everywhere
but the intelligence community showed that they weren’t effective when
it comes to applying a particular military objective or operational
deployment. This is because their effects isn’t reliable nor the
information that people give when under them — people could become
drowsy and spurt out fictitious stories.
Yet, we can imagine that these can be used without a particular goal
but with a more generic approach. This is why some of these are now
being introduced and tested as psychiatric drugs to treat anxiety,
depression, or mania. They force people to enter new states of minds
and emotions. Many of them work by returning overactive or underactive
neural networks and signal to more “normal” levels — a reset button
on the brain.
These drugs can also engender the opposite effect and actually increase
confusion, anxiety, and depression. Some military have been using them
for torture to force the person to cooperate or surrender.
An additional topic in relation to mind control is hypnosis\index{hypnosis}.
Hypnosis is a state of awareness where someone detaches their of attention
from their environment and get absorbed by their inner experience, their
feelings, imagery, and cognition. These inner experiences and imageries
are induced by a clinician that will guide the process.
The imagined feels real in that state, bridging the gap between the left
and right hemispheres, the hypnotic reality. Similar to a trance state
or meditative state, an obliteration of the ego.
Three things happen in the brain of the hypnotized person:
As we said, this can be seen abstractly as a link — by using imagery — between the left-intentional brain (logical, rational, abstract, critical), and right-involuntary-state brain (emotions, feelings, instinctive, intuitive).
In practice hypnosis is studied and used along other forms of therapy such as CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) to fix misbehavior\index{CBT}. It is used to increase the effectiveness of suggestion, give access to the mind-body link and unconscious processing. Alone it is not very useful, but it facilitates other kinds of therapies.
Hypnosis can be self-taught but it is most often administered by a clinician. It starts with a relaxing phase where the patient focuses their attention, giving it away, an induction step. This could be done in multiple ways, be it a visual focus or auditory one. The next step is a suggestion phase which consists of the clinician guiding the patient by helping them create a visualization of events and scenarios, be it verbally or using imagery, to help them address or counteract unhelpful behaviors and emotions.
In a sense, this is very like guided meditation where someone sits in
a relaxing position, calmed by a mantra or sound, and is guided by a
master that will help them address their inner woes.
“In hypnosis, you’re so absorbed that you’re not worrying about
anything else.”
However, studies show that only a minority of the population is hypnotisable, about 10-20% are highly receptive to it. It has been shown that hypnotisability is a genetic trait and follows a Gaussian or bell-shaped distribution. So most research related to hypnosis focuses on this part of the population.
Now, related to our main topic, this doesn’t seem like mass hypnosis
would be possible, nor very actionable either. Yet, we can imagine a world
in which daily activities, wandering online, becomes a trance state and
where imageries are transmitted using compacted packages such as memes.
Still, that is far from the truth as most studies show that it is almost
impossible to make someone do something against their will. Moreover,
only an extremely small part of the population would be both willing to do
“evil” biddings and also be susceptible to hypnosis. But wouldn’t these
fringe people be easily findable on the internet and band together anyway?
Homo homini lupus.
Men is a wolf to men.
When the psychology of a whole population changes it can create a deleterious unstoppable snow-ball effect.
Indeed, it is becoming ever more obvious that it is not famine, not earthquakes, not microbes, not cancer but man himself who is man’s greatest danger to man, for the simple reason that there is no adequate protection against psychic epidemics, which are infinitely more devastating than the worst of natural catastrophes. — Carl Jung
When a society loses the grip on reality, becomes driven by uncontrollable fear, when mental illness becomes the norm rather than the exception, social alienation\index{social alienation|see {psychic epidemic}} takes over, a psychic epidemic.\index{psychic epidemic}
All one’s neighbours are in the grip of some uncontrolled and uncontrollable fear… In lunatic asylums it is a well-known fact that patients are far more dangerous when suffering from fear than when moved by rage or hatred. — Psychology and Religion
Mass psychosis\index{mass psychosis} happens when a large portion of society descends into
delusion, similar to what happened during the European witch hunt.
It is a paranoia taken to the extreme caused by a rise in anomie,
societal stress, and a flood of negative emotions.
“A mysterious, contagious insanity”.
We can already see how this can be amplified on the internet where these types of emotions, ambiguity, confusion, fear, and doubts thrive. We’ve discussed amply the cultural insecurities and cognitive dissonance in the previous sections.
We can also wonder if these can deliberately be induced in another
population through PSYOPs\index{PSYOP}.
Don’t we also see the rise of this phenomenon through the memeoids and
their memeplexes, taken over by ideas so powerful that they possess
them, consume them, even destroy them? Mobs and self-justice carnage
and destruction.
Moral absolutism\index{absolutist thinking}, and categorical imperatives are cognitive distortions
because most of reality and the living of everyday life takes place in
the gray area, between the extremes.
Those who control the flow of information in a society, the ideas we accept as true or false exert a great power over the course of civilization.
This concludes our review of future societal meltdown, be them hypothetical sci-fi scenarios or realistic ones. We’ve started by taking a look at the relation with well-known dystopian stories such as Brave New World and 1984. We discussed the parallel with today’s internet, censorship and speech itself as a censorial weapon. Then we’ve talked about the deep inter-relation between attention, awareness, and consciousness. We’ve said that a control of attention is a control of reality but that online we’re often only given back what we already want. Next, we’ve wondered about different ways to engineer the “wants” of a person, from mind-control weapons, to getting access to data taken directly from the brain, to drugs and chemicals, to hypnosis. Finally, we’ve discusses mass-psychosis, the state of a society where mental illness becomes the norm and reality is distorted to fit an invented narrative.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak \fancyhead{}
\vspace*{200pt}
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\small{\thepage}} \fancyhead[RO]{\small{\thepage}} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{Adapting}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{Free Market, Let it Solve Itself}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
In this last part, we’ll go over the adaptations we are undergoing to remove the frictions we have with the internet — anything to make it better suited for us. We’ll take multiple perspectives, primarily the ones of users, societies, and others that are encountering the issues we’ve seen related to this new communication channel.
Let’s start by taking the point of view of the market and economy as
ways, in themselves, to provide solutions to problems we’ve had.
Keep in mind that these heavily depend on the locality, culture, and
practices of the tech companies at the epicenter of the internet drastic
changes that are taking over the world. Most of these giants embody a
neoliberal mindset and originate from the USA.
A market solution\index{economy!market solution} is a solution based on trusting\index{trust} the free market before
all else. It hinges on not having to intervene with regulations\index{economy!regulation} and laws
but to believe the behavior of consumers, their choices and decisions,
will eventually lead to an ethical and moral balance.
This laissez-faire attitude is anchored in what we’ve seen in the
cultural ambiguity and truth and trust crises sections. They rely on the
assumption that individuals understand the dynamics, are well-educated
on the subject matter, and will always make the best (economic) decisions
overall.
This line of thinking is contested, but let’s consider the adjustments
and innovations that can be driven by users.
Market solutions are hardly international as they can only work by relying on fair competition\index{economy!fair competition} and transparency between actors. Non-intuitively, at least in the eye of some, this can only be achieved through some regulations that keep the market in checks, and such regulations are geographically bound.
When it comes to the online world, because a lot of the money is made from ads and tracking, it means regulating the whole digital advertising tech supply chain, and data brokers along with their partnerships.
If this isn’t done properly, there could be conflicts of interests\index{conflicts of interests}, some companies self-preferencing advertisements for the services they themselves provide. This is relevant because many of the ad-tech providers also offer other services, which they can promote through their ads to compete with other players.
This problem is exacerbated when only a few entities, which as we know
is the case today, have the upper hand (hear by that almost monopoly) in
the ad tech sector and data broker space. These companies can then thwart
competitors by buying them or competing directly with their services.
The companies will then accrue larger datasets and it’ll be harder
to compete with them. This is what we’ve seen in the new economies
section. They can control the pricing and quality of services on this
digital supply chain.
To promote fair competition, to make it a free market, many things
can be done.
One of them is to break the large datasets into subsets to allow new
smaller entities to compete instead of having systems of interlocking
monopolies\index{interlocking monopolies}.
Another thing that can be done is to manage conflicts of interests, which
is what some lawmakers are doing these days. This includes institutions
such as the European commission, the Competition and Markets Authority
in the UK, the Australian government, and the USA Congress that are
now checking for risks of collusions\index{collusion|see {conflicts of interests}}, antitrust, and what can be done for
fair competition. We’ll see more of the law and regulatory concerns next.
Additionally, one thing that can foster good competition is to have
open standards\index{open standards} describing what can be done with ad tech, the format
of the data traveling on the pipeline. This includes implementing a
common transaction and user ID for consumer and making them portable
and interoperable across ad providers.
It would then be easier to port the data between rivals and might even
allow consumers to regain control over their data, selecting with whom
they’d like to share it. We’ll see more of that when discussing digital
identity.
Apple uses something called IDFA, Google uses an analytics and advertising
tracking ID, Facebook uses a Pixel ID and others.
Standardization also goes along openness such as the right to repair, to allow products to be repairable to last longer, and decentralization.
However, openness can also be abused for profit. We’ve seen countless
times that standards that are initially open can be hijacked. The big
players will in turn drive the standard towards more complexity and
growth, consequentially kicking out any small player that can’t follow.
This is arguably what happened in the “browser war”, and is still
happening today with web standards. The ones contributing the most will
control and subdue them, while defending their actions on the basis of
openness, improvement, and progress.
History also shows that the same companies that emerged thanks to
openness tend to reject these principles when they undermine their
strategic position. After gaining a substantial amount of users, after
being rooted deep enough, they’ll use the network effect to justify
changing their tactic and stance.
A too big to fail scenario.
Obviously, companies can also spend money to defend their interests, for example by lobbying the USA Congress, as we’ve seen in the new economies section.
There are many ways to make money online, on the internet market\index{marketing}.
To make profit, as we’ve seen in the new economies section, the most
popular models are the ones that go along with what users expect, namely
zero-price models where data is exchanged instead of money. This goes
under different names such as “free model”, “data-as-payment model”,
“online advertisement-based business model”, “ad-supported model”,
“freemium model”, etc..
There are other models that are possible, as we’ll see, such as a
flat-rate model with unlimited or limited usage, a bundle-like model,
and a per-usage or subscription based model where users are enrolled
and charged recurrently.
The names for the free models actually have separate particular meanings
that reflect how each view and make money from the data, personal data,
or attention, which become the currencies of exchange. These models also
provide insights into manners of approaching privacy.
The consumers are then free to select the model that they find the most
suited to their needs, interests, and ethical concerns.
The ad-supported model\index{economy!economic model!ad-supported}, one in which companies make money from selling ads or from gathering data for ad-tech providers, poses the most privacy concerns. It is either targeted advertising, such as microtargeting, or context-based advertising.
A freemium model\index{economy!economic model!freemium} is one in which the product is offered free of charge and
money, a premium, can be paid to access additional features or services.
The free of charge part can be combined as a hybrid with advertisement.
A data-as-payment model\index{economy!economic model!PDE}, aka PDE or Personal Data Economy, is a model in
which individuals deliberately sell their personal data as an asset to
pay for services and products. This model turns the surveillance economy
upside down.
Similarly, a privacy-discount model\index{economy!economic model!privacy-discount} is a model in which the users relinquish
their privacy to obtain a discount on a product or service.
These two models are user-centric, letting the consumers take back a
semblance of control over their data: with whom they share or disclose
it, the price for it, and on which terms.
Each model has a different perception of what privacy is, either as
a commodity/product/feature, as a luxury/premium, as a right, or as
a utility.
In the market view it is primarily a feature or premium that can be
transacted.
What we described as data-as-a-payment or privacy-discount are instances of perceiving privacy as a commodity. In these scenarios neither citizens nor governments care about privacy regulations but freely exchange and trade it. In this case, people are powerless about what information is being transferred, while tech companies can make huge profits by selling the data.
Privacy can also be seen as a luxury or something you get for a premium,
aka PFP or pay-for-privacy\index{economy!economic model!primium}, aka primium aka privacy-as-a-premium. In
this scenario, consumers are encouraged to pay extra to gain back their
privacy, or to acquire new products that will fill their desire for more
privacy and security.
This is a case where companies profit from privacy by charging users
for it. Transparency, awareness, and privacy have become competitive
features delivered at a premium.
We’ll see that awareness and transparency are two things that can be
enforced through laws in the next section.
On the other side, privacy can also be seen as a utility or universal right\index{privacy!privacy as a utility}. Either something the governments regulate, control, and monitor, just like water, a tool — this is what we’ll see later with digital identity. Either as a universal right that needs to be protected by law, which is something we’ll see next too.
The debate over privacy can be confusing for consumers, they may feel
torn between all these options. Some of them wanting to disengage
with the virtual world to maintain their anonymity\index{anonymity} instead of putting
themselves at risks. Without privacy, we are subject to social cooling,
feeling tracked, caught in the polarization, as we’ve seen before.
This confusion is indeed what sparked the whole branch of privacy as a
luxury, companies are capitalizing on it, for them it’s a new business
opportunity.
Privacy is not only a feature in itself but also a stand, a brand,
a show of force for publicity and marketing differentiation.
Many companies sole existence rely on this need: selling something at a
higher price mark because of this or having products, devices,
services, and tools, that will offer control back to users.
The market size of this type of business, according to Arthur D. Little\index{Little, Arthur},
is estimated to be, as of 2020, around $5 to $6 billion.
VPN providers\index{VPN} are one category of these flourishing businesses. They sell
a service to avoid the continuous online tracking and data collection. A
VPN being a proxy to internet requests, essentially hiding where
they are originating from. Some commentators have suggested that all
consumers should use a VPN.
In general, their model is based on offering a subscription, a
pay-for-privacy product with recurrent payment. Though, ironically, some
VPN companies also provide their services for free through the hybrid
“ad-supported” freemium model.
Another company profiting from privacy is the device and OS manufacturer
called Apple that sells products at a premium. It has recently (2021) stirred
uproar from American companies that make money from the ad tech
infrastructure and pipeline when it announced a recent update to their
phone, tablet, and TV OS. Apple is a popular product in the USA among
high earners, thus good ad targets.
The recent update would notify users when applications want to access
location, track them across apps and websites, or others. The user would
have the choice to allow or disallow such action.
The move is arguable, as Apple makes a lot of money from the ~30% cut (the Apple tax) it takes from in-app purchases, disallowing any other type of external purchases linked to apps. Such a change would force app developers relying on the ad model to switch to another model such as subscription or in-app purchases, which they’d take a percentage of.
As can be seen, the free market and laissez-faire approach brings with
it a lot of conflicts. When big players can enforce business models
on their platforms, after using the network-effect to acquire users,
it enrages other players.
The dynamics at play are interesting.
When privacy is offered at a premium it raises concern about the
inequality\index{digital divide} of acquiring it, a socioeconomic digital divide. “Advertising
is a tax on the poor”, as Scott Galloway\index{Galloway, Scott} said. It creates incentives
for the companies offering privacy and security-centered products to
keep the status-quo, to make more money from it.
There’s also the lack of consumer knowledge and understanding on these
issues and their implications. They could either be unaware that these
are issues, or be misled by marketing schemes portraying products as
privacy-aware while not providing any proof to back it up.
Privacy can be advertised on the front while in the back tracking
is done. The tracking, the telemetric gathering, is not limited to
advertisement purposes but could also be used for partnerships with
other entities that would allow companies to gain an edge. For example,
a partnership with state actors, internet providers, or mobile operators.
Let’s remember that companies are not moral agents, nor arbiters of
truth\index{truth}, and that their decisions are both restricted by, on one side,
the legislative geography they are operating on, and on the other
side, the profit made from the appearance and satisfaction they offer
customers. Ethics is only a cosmetic feature.
This can be hard to grasp for the neoliberal mind that tries to find
their meaning through the purchase of products, as an extension of
themselves. Especially when these products only provide that in return
of profit.
One solution for consumers is to go toward models that remove data from the equation, thus changing the economic incentives for online businesses. These alternative models rely on putting real value on what we consume and use online, going back to transacting money for intangible assets.
While the free models were disruptive when they came out, it turns out,
unsurprisingly, that consumers don’t like being harassed by constant ads.
Tech aware users will often install ad blockers\index{ad blocker} on their machines, rely
on one of the above paid solutions to not be tracked, use browsers that
block third-party cookies, and other mechanisms. We’ll dive more into
the tech solutions later. Statistics show that in the USA 47% of users
use ad blockers.
This kills companies that rely mainly on the ad model. Either because
they aren’t able to attract enough users to generate revenue, or because
it damages the brand image.
Additionally, companies don’t want to be at the mercy of the ad tech
monopoly, which puts them at risks when they decide on the budget and
price they allocate for specific ads and on which platforms they’ll run
them. They could demonitize them at any time or disallow them on the
ad platform for arbitrary reasons.
Furthermore, even companies paying for ads are starting to see the
limits of this model because of the lack of good insights, bots, and fake
information that return to them.
For these reasons, we’re seeing the rise on the internet of the subscription economy\index{economy!economic model!subscription}, micro-transaction economy\index{economy!economic model!micro-transaction}, passion economy\index{economy!passion economy}, and the economy of patronage.
We already discussed the passion and patronage economy in part 2 section 2 so let’s focus on the others. All these are about putting the consumers in power, letting them make decisions through their wallet. In this case we’ll have a consumer-controlled world, thus a working free-market solution.
There are different types of subscription models, either based on usage
volume, or based on time via a billing cycle. It stands in contrast with
a pay-per-product model where users would pay only once, in subscription
the payment is recurrent.
Consequentially, this works well for products that either perish quickly,
need to be replaced, e-commerce loyalty programs, or intangible goods
such as the ones provided by SaaS (Software as a Service) companies.
These include Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, YouTube, Spotify, SirusXM,
Pandora, VPN services, among others.
The subscription model has been estimated in 2017 to have 28k companies worldwide and had more than a 100% yearly growth. The largest retailers in the category generated more than $2.6 billion in sales in 2016, up from $57 million in 2011.
The model has the advantage that it is flexible and provides customer
satisfaction. Buyers aren’t burdened by large fees and can stop the
subscription at any time.
The companies providing the services are then forced to innovate, improve,
and provide quality to be able to attract and keep customers. There
are many instances that show that switching from an ad-based model to
a subscription model has helped increase revenue.
Here the customer is at the center and their expectations are king. For this model to work the company has to build a long-term relationship with them, often focusing on the relationship more than the product or the transaction.
Nonetheless, it isn’t an easy task. A minimum number of subscribers is
needed for the business to subsist, and it’s not easy to attract them
when netizens are used to getting things for free.
This has especially been hard for newspapers, as we’ve said in the
past. Statistics show that in the USA in 2017, only 11% of consumers
were paying for online news. The rest of the world isn’t as generous
either, the statistics have been replicated in other places with an
average of 10% paying for news.
Yet, recently we are now seeing an unexpected resurgence, a new growth. It
has been reported that in 2017 the American newspapers The New York Times
gained 130k subscribers and the WSJ gained 300%, the British newspaper
the Guardian has also announced that it had seen profits for the first
time after 20 years with more than 300k people making contributions\index{journalism}.
The most successful stories of subscription based businesses are those
that relied heavily on partnerships — between brands, consumers,
affiliates, and others.
Despite all this, companies relying on the subscription model can still
rely on product placement and advertisements, which puts us back at
square one.
Another method to increase the number of customers, to persuade them of contributing, is to lower the barrier of entry. This could mean making it more affordable, or even to change the value of the product based on the purchasing power of the individuals or their locality.
The new disruptive approach is to make the payment infinitesimally small,
a micro-payment, a micro-transaction\index{micro-payment}, which can be fractions of cents,
there’s almost no line of demarcation.
This can create a dynamic in which ads and trackers are unnecessary
because users would pay directly with these monetary tokens the online
content creators. The tokens essentially being the monetary form of the
attention of users.
The word micro-transaction refers to purchasing virtual goods through
micro-payments, however it also has a historical meaning attached to
the gaming world.
Initially micro-payments acted as a sort of virtual currency that existed
only within games.
Later on, some game developers used a model in which they provide
virtual desirable assets, such as loot boxes, in exchange for
micro-payments. Micro-transactions have thus gained a connotation with
gambling and addiction, which brings some countries’ legal matters and
regulations in the mix especially when it involves kids.
The main issue with micro-transactions is that they can only be possible
if there is a monetary technology that allows real-time transfer, no fees,
and privacy.
Cryptocurrencies\index{cryptocurrencies} on a blockchain seem to be the go-to solutions for
this. They are far away from the traditional pipeline that is also linked
to data brokers, as we’ve previously seen.
Unfortunately, some of the cryptocurrencies have issues regarding
scalability and volatility, which makes them ill-suited for such
endeavor. Cryptocurrencies are now more attached to investment and
gambling than an internet free of ads.
Recently, payment gateways and banks have taken a particular interest
in trying to gain power in this space. Namely, VISA and PayPal are now
allowing certain cryptocurrencies to be used and converted on their
processing platform. This would then bring information related to
cryptocurrency to data brokers, removing the privacy aspect.
Still, the applications for micro-payments open avenues and unlock an
entire economy between subscriptions and ads.
We’re slowly starting to see this appear in specialized browsers that
allow to distribute attention tokens to websites and content creator,
and newspaper that want to allow micro-transactions along with their
other revenue streams.
This concludes our review of how the free market can be used as a method to adapt to the internet. First we’ve seen what this idea implies: well-informed customers making the right choices to balance the status and set things right. Then we’ve explored how this cannot be true if there aren’t regulations set in place for fair competition to happen between companies. Next, we’ve discussed some of the possible regulations and things that could be put in place to achieve this such as collusion checks and open standards. After that we’ve set ourselves on looking at different business practices, ways of making money online. Some of them are related to the ad business, others subscriptions. We’ve tackled how these models offer a glimpse into what privacy is considered: product, luxury, tool, universal right. When privacy is a product it’s traded freely. When privacy is offered at a premium, which we called primium, it’s done because of a need and not because of moral or ethical standards. We’ve listed some businesses that base their marketing or product around privacy. Finally, we’ve seen what removing data from the equation implies: having customers pay again to be able to choose, either through subscriptions or micro-payments.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{Adapting}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{Legality, Transparency, Accountability, the Nations Intervene}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
The market and corporate self-regulation have their limits. They cannot
in themselves be sources of morals and ethics. This is the realm of laws,
the legislations that governments make are the real arbiters of duties
and rights.
The governments, as state entities, can impose the rules that should be
followed to be able to act on their territories. However, laws are bound
by geographical areas and as such cannot be international. They can only
be inter-governmental if treaties and partnerships are in place. Companies
can decide to comply to different regulations in different areas to be
able to operate on these markets\index{glocalization}.
The best defensive tactic for nations is always legislations, instead
of leaving it as a free-for-all medley. This is what we’ll dive into:
when governments intervene on the internet.
The neoliberal\index{neoliberalization} mindset abhors this return to authorities because of the
general lack of truth we’ve seen earlier. Yet, who do we trust more
and want to grant more authority to: private for-profit entities on
not-so-free markets or our governments and their legal systems?
In this section we’ll focus on rights and not regulations related to the
private sector. Things related to transparency, accountability, consent,
ownership, utility, and identity.
We’ve already seen market regulations for fair competition, conflicts of
interests, collusions, antitrust, and others that are currently discussed
or getting in place around the world.
Despite these new market regulations, many of the internet giants and their partners still stand tall and confident that their business model isn’t going to fall. Either because of nifty bypassing techniques, or because of lobbying. That’s why such regulations don’t coincide with what most of the netizens actually want.
For example, many recognize and want privacy to be a basic human right,
part of human dignity. The “right to be let alone”\index{privacy!right}.
Similarly, we’ve previously seen how researchers and human right
activists are now thinking, when it comes to brain data privacy, of new
rights such as: cognitive liberty, mental privacy, mental integrity,
and psychological continuity.
On the surface, these will only be fancy words of wisdom and
considerations if they aren’t written in laws, legally binding. Otherwise,
companies could lie. Governments have to ensure the spirit of the laws
are applied and not mere market regulations. It would be catastrophic
if no such basic rights are in place and sensitive personal information
such as brain data become common place on the internet.
The question today are related to who’s in charge of the privacy and what kind of balance we can have. Can our information be both a currency for some and protected as a right for others?
The actual implementation is a hard problem when it comes to privacy
guidelines as there is a balance between sociality and privacy: sociality
has always required the voluntary abandonment of privacy\index{privacy!sociality}. In order to be
social we must give up some of our private time and space to share it
with others.
This takes new forms online where sociality is taken at the expense
of privacy and social autonomy. Today, it rests mostly upon digital
records and archives in the hands of private companies that track our
social behavior. As we’ll see, it could be more attractive to have these
records switch hands from the corporate world to the public sector.
The legal world is a tricky one, the laws need to be written so that they cannot be abused, covering as many aspects of an issue as possible to not leave room for ambiguity.
The first clarification that needs to be made is about defining what is meant by personal data and who is the actual owner of such data. We already gave our definition in the data and personal data section in part 1\index{personal data}.
Personal data is any information that can be used to directly or indirectly identify a person, an attribute currently attached to them, a behavior, a preference or interest, personal history, anything.
These include things such as name, phone number, address, email, schoolbook, credit scores, geolocation, travel logs, interests, information about past purchases, health records, insurance records, online behavior, etc..
We call the person to which the personal data belongs a data subject.
Having this definition in a text law is the starting point.
Then, comes the issue of ownership of the data. As you might remember,
we called the person which data was extracted from the data subjects.
Hence, we need to specify what are the rights of ownership they have
over their data, and in which cases they need to give consent to allow
others to access it.
The consent\index{legal!informed consent} itself needs to be delineated properly. We need to know what can be done with the data, for what purpose, for how long the retention can be, and most importantly, if consent is transferable. One company getting approval to access data could share this data with other entities, the transitive consent and transitive propagation of data.
Ownership\index{legal!ownership} also rhymes with control. Laws might want to spell out if a data subject should or should not be able to perform corrections, updates, or erasures of the data they have generated.
Yet, consent makes no sense if people can be coerced into giving it, if it
isn’t informed consent. This is the case online with the use of persuasive
technology\index{persuasive technology}, both to extract data and be subject to advertisements. They go
hand in hand. Thus, the legal domain has to take this into consideration
and posit whether such technology is allowed or not.
Additionally, it could make the parallel with gambling, alcohol,
cigarettes, or other questionable products, basically limiting
advertisements on mainstream channels.
Furthermore, when it comes to consent, the law has to deliberate if
persuasive algorithms and designs should be allowed on children or not
— age is often a factor when it comes to consent. Persuasive design
and dark patterns could be made illegal altogether.
When it comes to advertisements, it has to be decided if consent needs to
be given even before receiving them, or whether the person can at a later
time refuse to receive them, retracting it.
The right of non-reception\index{legal!right of non-reception}, is the right of someone not wanting to be the
recipient of ads. If such right is in place, companies could be pursued
in court and fined if they advertise to people who have opted-out of them,
or to those who haven’t opted-in depending on how the law is phrased.
Such right is generally associated with online cookies, the right to
not be traced online.
Offline, it is associated with not receiving ads in mailboxes, or at
city-scale, to not have or limit billboards. This is also a method to
avoid material waste.
Still, these can easily be bypassed with an ingenuous use of product placement and sponsoring instead of direct ads. Or even turning customers into brand evangelists, which is the norm with neoliberalism as we’ve seen earlier.
Once the personal data is stored, it could and is expected to be subject
to access restriction and accountability\index{legal!accountability}. The companies and entities
we have trusted with our data should be responsible for their safety so
that nobody else retrieves them.
Thus, governments could create bodies and processes to verify the
security, integrity, and confidentiality of the data storage in companies
and entities that choose to host it. With the increase in quantity
and types of consumer data, it is imperative to have such measures in
place. We’ve heard too many data leaks stories in the news lately,
either from hacking or rogue employees.\index{legal!security}
Arguably, even standards like the PCI-DSS, if applied to personal data,
might not be enough without real-time checks.
Along with the responsibility of storing the data, laws could dive into
the accountability related to the content of the data itself. Should
platforms be accountable for the content it hosts, or should it be the
data subjects themselves, or both?
This would in turn create new gatekeepers\index{gatekeepers}: a monitoring and reviewing of
the content published and hosted. This could also include the algorithms
that are used to promote content.
These algorithms\index{recommendation engines} have acted as amplifiers of extremism, enlarging dangerous fringe communities\index{fringe ideas}, and pushing biases (racial or others). Currently, the entities that are using them have been hiding behind the fact that these are algorithms, and thus “mathwashed”\index{mathwashing} removing their responsibility because “they have no conscience of their own”. The myth of the impartial machine.
Many of the social network platforms, in the USA, have been avoiding
monitoring the content posted on them by referring to the USA first
amendment of free speech\index{legal!free speech} and the 1996 USA Communications Decency Act,
shielding them from liability for content posted by their users.
However, this only applies to the USA and the different branches of the
same platforms are able to monitor content in other countries.
To thwart this, governments need to either consider social media as news
platforms, or find methods to strengthen the institutions that create and
distribute reliable information: mainstream media, academia, nonpartisan
government agencies, etc..\index{journalism}
Once social media are part of the mainstream news system, the gatekeepers
are back in place, they’ll have to uphold journalism standards for the
content posted on them.
Governments can also enforce social networks to pay news that get
published and distributed there, indirectly re-strengthening the local
media publishers.
Apart from news, the platforms can be held liable for the undesirable
content that is shared there.
This is most important when this content is shared in a public space
that children can access. Laws can ensure children won’t be subject
to neither surveillance, tracking, and be protected from predatory and
dangerous content.
Contrary to popular belief, in the USA the COPPA\index{COPPA} (Children’s Online
Privacy Protection Act) only takes the advertisement and tracking of
children, but not whether the platforms are responsible for the content
to which they are subject to. The Child Online Protection Act of 1998
(COPA\index{COPA}, yes similar name) is the one that has the intent of preventing
minors from accessing obscene material on commercial websites in the USA.
Most countries already protect their children against being subject to
harmful material on public commercial channels.
India’s new intermediary liability and digital media regulations\index{legal!media regulation} takes
a step further and forces content to be traceable to its source, to be
able to verify social media users, and rapidly take down non-consensual
sexually explicit content and morphed/impersonated content within 24h
of being notified.
With the same mindset, some countries have laws specifically to take
down online hate speech and incitations of violence or terrorism.
If we can’t blame the hosts of the content, we might want to hold
the people that generated it accountable. This, in turn, should make
black propaganda\index{propaganda!black propaganda} ineffective. However, because most online-interactions are
anonymous, it is very hard to do.
A solution to this would be to attach a real identity to whoever uses,
posts, and creates online content, this is what the concept of digital
identity is about.
Online platforms that allow bots could also be forced to tag them as such,
making it clear to everyone that these aren’t real humans.
We’ll discuss this later, but as you can expect, while it does bring
back gatekeepers, it also could create more social cooling.
Agreeing that the personal data should only be used for specific purposes is fine, but there needs to be some guarantee behind the agreement. For trust to set in, transparency is mandatory.
One type of transparency\index{legal!transparency} is about understanding why and how the recommendation engines, the curation systems of the internet, work. From advertisements, to news feeds and other algorithms. Having a clear picture of their inner-workings would help us make better decisions and responsibilities instead of overly relying and trusting them.
With the recommendation engines\index{recommendation engines} come the analytics, the categorizing,
ranking, rating, and scoring of data: how data is processed
internally. Transparency is about knowing where and how our data will
be used, in what process.
It could be hard for companies to accept transparency at this level
because that would mean opening their valuable extracted data storage
to the world.
The transitive propagation\index{personal data!transitive propagation} of data needs also to be transparent if it
happens. That includes disclosing who are the third parties that will
access the data, for which reasons, what data points they used, the
target audience, and who paid for the ads campaigns.
This type of financial accountability, full transparency regarding the
amount spent by companies on ads, also applies to political campaigns
sponsorship. Ad political campaigns, which on the internet were often
overlooked, would now have their layer of anonymity removed. Yet again
removing black propaganda and state-linked accounts from the equation
and making microtargeting less obvious.
Many legislatures, regions, states, governments, authorities, and countries have erected or proposed laws to tackle the things we’ve seen, let’s mention some of them.
Related to the financial accountability, the Honest Ads Act\index{Honest Ads Act}, is a bill
in the USA that was proposed such that online services would be required
to reveal the description of the target audience of ads campaigns.
However, this bill wasn’t passed yet in favor of self-regulation. The
USA, in general, is a laggard on the domain of privacy as it feels more
threatened by the intervention of the state than the market.
Still, in 2018, the California Consumer Privacy Protection\index{California Consumer Privacy Protection}, a legislature
passed in California (a USA state) would guarantee users in that region
the right to know what data is being collected, and opting out of the
sale of their data.
This opt-out approach isn’t the best but it’s a start.
Others might find that there needs to be a stronger data protection, that it’s part of human dignity and that it shouldn’t be threatened by any kind of intrusions. In that view, privacy and ownership over our private data is a default and not an opt-out.
The European Union was the first in 2016 to spear-head this change by
rolling out the largest attempt at protecting user data with the General
Data Protection Regulation\index{GDPR}.
Privacy laws\index{legal!privacy laws} are not new, for example France’s data protection law dates
back to 1978, and the EU already had Data Protection Directive\index{Data Protection Directive} law
about the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in the processing
of personal data, dating from 1995. However, the GDPR is an extension of
all this with modernization, clarification, and making it actionable. It
is a move that has spurred other states to enforce similar laws. It also
gives them more confidence in intervening against the internet behemoths,
which they wouldn’t dare attack before.
The French data protection law ensures the following rights:
Personal data must be collected and processed fairly and lawfully for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes, and with the consent of the data subject. In addition to the right to consent, data subjects have been given the following rights: right to be informed, right to object, right of access, right to correct and delete information, and right to be forgotten.
These have been mapped unto GDPR to hold data processors accountable
when manipulating data that isn’t mandatory for the functioning of the
service. It defines clearly what is meant by personal data, what it means
to process it, and what is required of organizations and entities that
process it.
The organizations are expected to have a management procedure in place
to keep the data safe and secure from breach. That means specific
roles need to be in place, such as a Data Protection Officer\index{Data Protection Officer}, and the
risk management assured. They are held accountable for the privacy and
protection of the data, and data protection assessment can be performed to
ensure this is properly applied.
The data subjects keep their rights over their data. They should be
informed about the processing activities taking place, the data not being
used for any non-legitimate purpose. Their explicit consent needs to be
requested for its usage and collection. That means the data subjects
have the right to update/correct and erase their data. Additionally,
the data subject can ask to see which data is held about them and control
whether its transfer can happen between third parties or not.
Most importantly, regulators can ask for demonstrations of accountability and impose fines for the entities that aren’t complying. This is the clause that makes the difference with any previous laws.
After it was passed, the internet has been shaken. Most websites have
chosen to display annoying pop-ups/notification banners asking if users
want to allow their information to be shared with third parties. It
defaults to no but it is sometimes hard to manipulate and very intrusive.
Moreover, some companies are also allowing their users residing in
the EU to download the personal data that has been gathered, and give
them the possibility to delist it, essentially erasing it.
The way the GDPR has been applied by companies has given rise to more dark
patterns, persuasive technologies trying to trick users into accepting
to give their personal info.
Research has shown that only around 11.8% of consent forms in 2019 met
the minimal requirements based on the European law.
Multiple countries have their own privacy laws and acts, and many today
are modernizing and reforming them to add actionability like GDPR.
Some even include the right to data portability and the right to object
to marketing, the right of non-reception which we mentioned earlier.
Let’s take some examples.
Canada has the Privacy Act from 1983, which it is modernizing to be
similar to the GDPR in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic
Data Act. China’s Personal Information Security Specification\index{China’s Personal Security Specification} that
took effect in 2018, and ratified in 2020 in the Personal Information
Protection Law, has more strenuous and far-reaching requirements than GDPR
applying to any personal data and not only sensitive personal data. The
UK has its UK Data Protection Act from 1998, which has been updated in
2018 to follow and supplement the GDPR, and is being updated today to
follow its own standards. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC)
upholds the same fundamental privacy standards as the EU. Similarly,
Australia has updated its 1988 Privacy Act and Australian Privacy
Principles to be like the GDPR. Russia Federal Law on Personal Data\index{Russia Federal Law on Personal Data} of
2006 regulates data processors to protect the defined sensitive personal
data against unlawful and accidental access. India’s PDP Bill of 2019
goes in the same direction as GDPR but is more integrated with Aadhaar
portability which we’ll see in a bit. Argentina is going the same way,
currently amending their laws to be like the GDPR. etc..
It’s apparent that most of the world is moving in the direction of edifying laws to protect the privacy of the citizen from the private corporate data brokers. Market regulations aren’t seen as enough.
Some nations take it a step further, considering the protection, privacy,
standardization\index{open standards}, digitalization, and usage of identity to be the role
of the state and not corporations. The state should have a monopoly on
identity, just like it should, in theory, have a monopoly on violence
because it has the same destructive power.
As we said, sociality requires giving up a bit of privacy, and
the digitalization of identity\index{digital identity} is a requirement for the information
society. Some people are uncomfortable with the idea of making it the
job of the state and would rather have centralized private entities do
that. Yet we know that corporate incentives are only for-profit and not
the shared good, which could hinder the transformation of the society
into this new era.
Thus, some governments force the private sector to strictly follow
their privacy rules, while the public sector uses identity as a utility,
a part of public infrastructure for the public services.
This requires standardization, definition, transparency, and data
portability of digital identity. We’ll come back to this in a bit but
first let’s imagine social media as one of these services.
We already discussed social media as utilities in the social media
section of part 1\index{social media!public utility}. We said back then that for it to be a utility,
it should change from a want to a need, an essential infrastructure,
a necessity like electricity.
Social media could be said to be an integral part of information society,
in order to adequately take part in the 21st century as an individual,
and thus would be important to have the government provide it to remove
any profit incentives from it.
Some believe that current popular social media already act, feel, and
are considered by people like utilities. So they push forward the idea
of making them as such, just like the telecom sector or electricity
sector: a public service that is regulated by the government.
It would make it easier to ensure the protection of the
constitutional rights of users, such as freedom of speech in some
countries. Additionally, the government could enforce search neutrality,
modeled after net neutrality regulations — essentially assure equal
access for everyone.
Yet, others argue that making social media similar to telecom regulations
would be bad for the market, reduce innovation and growth because of
the lack of competition. This is a market view of the subject.
Moreover, it can be said that social media haven’t gained the status
of utility because countries don’t go haywire when they go down, that
there is always an alternative, they are still new and replaced every
couple of years.
Furthermore, from the neoliberal perspective, one that dreads authorities
and prefers seeing things as a free flowing market, not catching nuances,
this is the equivalent of the chilling rise of “authoritarianism”
and “fascism”. Words that are used as emphasis to display the attack
they feel towards their world view.
Still, there might indeed be a new kind of social cooling\index{social cooling} taking place
when we become owners of our social media, instead of having them
as private companies. State actors were already requesting personal
data from these companies and using them for their gain, as we’ve seen
before. Making them public utilities would instead force the general
public to keep it in check, as it would be something they would be
indirectly paying to keep running.
Another trend is the one of the digitalization of identity by
governments. This is the standardization of identification and identity
systems\index{identity management} and management that become part of the public infrastructure.
In practice, this is more of a re-definition of national identity cards by
making them digital, interoperable, and accessible by all citizens. Having
it as an infrastructure means that all kinds of public and private
services can rely on it to verify reliably the identity of people.
This comes with a lot of challenges for governments as they have to
set in place the legal framework around the infrastructure, its usage,
regulations, auditability, traceability, transparency, and obviously
actually create a technology that is secure, confidential, keeps the
integrity, is scalable, and respectful of all individuals.
The capability of the identity system needs to be well-defined, from
authentication, authorization, roles, and delegations available. Some
government bodies and international standards have been created for
these identity management systems such as ISO, the EU eIDAS\index{eIDAS}, European
Self-Sovereign Identity Framework, European Blockchain Services
Infrastructure (EBSI), and the GSMA Identity programme\index{GSMA Identity programme} and Mobile Connect.
Like with social media as a utility, this comes with the same perception from those who’d rather be surveilled by private companies than their government. But with enough transparency and preparation, the most digitally-skeptic can get on board, especially if the solutions are free and open source as we’ll see in the next section.
So far, the implementations of digital identities by governments have only
been applied when it comes to accessing public services and KYC processes
when signing up for services such as telcos, energy, and banks.
Estonia, India, and China are countries that are leading the way. The
upside is convenience and an economic boost. According to McKinsey Global
Institute, countries that implement a digital ID scheme can boost their
gross domestic product by 3 to 13 percent by 2030.
Estonia has been rolling its digital identity program for the past
20 years. Technically, it is a mandatory 11-digit unique identifier
assigned to all citizens above the age of 15 that is stored along with
a public-private key pair in a PKI (Public-Key Infrastructure).
The default format of this digital ID is a physical card, an i-card,
similar to a credit card, passports, and sim cards: an embedded chip
(UICC)\index{UICC} protected by PIN codes. Internally these circuit cards use secure
elements (SE) as a root of trust to store the sensitive information. We
generally refer to this type of technology as hardware security modules
(HSM)\index{HSM}. Other formats exist such as a mobile application that inspired
China’s version of it, I am not currently aware if the Chinese solution
additionally requires an UICC to be inserted in the phones.
The data is stored in a decentralized blockchain that is scalable and secure. Protected against cyber threats, which they’ve been subject to in the past, and are obviously continuously facing and tackling newer security challenges. Additionally, the data is also backed up in Estonia’s e-embassy in Luxembourg.
Practically, this allows someone to be verified during a KYC process
(Know Your Customer), login to private or public services, to encrypt
or decrypt files securely, and to legally digitally sign documents.
Note that e-signatures\index{e-signature} are allowed in the EU, through the eSignature
Directive\index{eSignature Directive}, to replace handwritten ones.
Users of such system are thus in the center, practicing self-sovereign
identity (SSI)\index{self-sovereign identity}, personal autonomy, in full control of who has access to
their data. The system allows for traceability and auditability. Citizens
can transparently see what data is collected about them, when, why,
who has accessed to them, revoke or keep this information, and more. That
is unless law enforcement requests access, but they’ll still be notified
once the investigation wraps up.
This can be abused but the country has shown a strong legal stance
whenever law enforcement or doctors took advantage of their
positions. The traceability\index{traceability} of each access also makes it harder for
someone to touch the data without anyone else noticing — unlike
traditional physical cabinet storages. This enables more privacy and
empowerment that when a private company has control over personal data.
The advantages are obvious: designers of systems save time by relying
on the government infrastructure, and citizens too by carrying their
life activities online.
This includes banking, e-residency, accessing health records, medical
prescriptions, voting, paying taxes, and more. One thing they are
considering integrating is their own cryptocurrency.
Estonia also teaches cyber hygiene\index{cyber hygiene} in elementary school. Education is an important factor that we’ll dive into next.
The EU is considering implementing a similar system, but leaving each national authority the choice. However, it is still being discussed and argued if it should be mandated across all nations. They have agreed on eSignature Directive, allowing electronic signatures to be the equivalent of handwritten ones, and took a few steps with encouraging national digital IDs in 2018 through the Electronic Identification And Trust Services (eIDAS) regulation. The implementation of digital ID in Europe would allow cross-border electronic transactions and electronic signatures, but only 14 out of 27 member countries have introduced online authentication systems, such as DigiD\index{DigiD} in the Netherlands, Belgium’s eID card, and Spain’s DNIe\index{DNIe}.
Another large implementation of digital identity is India’s Aadhaar\index{Aadhaar}. Technically, it is a non-compulsory 12-digit unique identifier, termed Aadhaar, that also comes with a public-private key infrastructure that stores biometric information.
Due to the non-mandatory nature, the government has to ensure that no
service can be denied if the person hasn’t signed up for Aadhaar. However,
in practice, many services are now using it for KYC as a replacement
for paper proof of identification.
Moreover, because it isn’t mandatory, Aadhaar isn’t a proof of
citizenship or residence: it doesn’t replace other IDs like passports
or driver’s licenses.
Aadhar practical form is as a biometric ID system\index{biometric ID}, allowing citizens
to prove their identity by simply providing a fingerprint or iris scan
for example. There is also an ID card that can be issued.
On top of Aadhar, the government has rolled out a Unified Payment
Interface (UPI) allowing banks to interoperate with Aadhaar. UPI is
designed to make person-to-person (p2p) and e-commerce transactions swifter
and easier.
For India, this has been a game changer, enabling access to bank
accounts and services that most couldn’t access before, making them
more inclusive. Figures are not robust, but it can be assured that most
(4 out of 5) Indian citizens have the ID card.
This saves a lot of overhead, someone can transfer money simply by
showing their Aadhaar card, or paying with their fingerprint.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of criticism, calling it a
“tech-solutionism” and saying the roll-out has been discriminatory.
Besides, there have been emerging reports regarding the security concerns
of the personal data associated with Aadhaar ID being sold in alternate
markets.
These flaws in privacy and security need to be addressed with
accountability, traceability, and a strong legal framework, similar to
what Estonia is doing. So far, Aadhaar doesn’t yet seem to put the person
in control of their own information, self-sovereign identity. Plus, the
document could be upgraded to be considered a true proof of citizenship.
Additionally, only basic biometrics is not enough, but adding a smart
card with a pin to the mix was the way to go. It fulfills: something
you know, something you have, something you are.
The development possibilities are there and the outcomes would be
interesting.
China has slowly been pushing for its virtual/electronic ID card,
a digital ID. Practically, it is a valid national ID that contains
biometric information such as face and fingerprints.
The solution takes a mobile-first approach, as an app with QR codes,
and would integrate well with all services, both online and offline. It
is still in its pilot/trial phase, but would be a true replacement for
official ID cards and could be used within popular applications such
as WeChat and Alipay. For example, WeChat Payment is already extremely
popular for making digital payments.
China’s implementation would be directly inspired by Estonia’s one, very similar. At China’s scale, like India, it would open a lot of future possibilities as 67 percent of Chinese residents do not currently have a credit record. The system would also be linked to a generic credit score database.
China is also eyeing entering the digitalization of the supply chain. Their Standardization Administration describes it neatly: “First-class companies do standards. Second-tier companies do technology. Third-tier companies do products.”
This means being able to associate identity and traceability of all
the supply chain\index{traceability!supply chain} and trade processes across multiple geographies and
organizations. A true verifiable life-cycle where you could identify
compliance and transparency.
For that, they’ve partnered with international standard organizations
such as ISO and ITU, and started designing and implementing the next
wave of standardization in cyber-physical trade with its ambitious
China 2035 Standards strategy\index{China 2035}. This initiative is also driven by other
organizations such as UN/CEFACT, the ICC, World Customs Organization,
the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), and International
Air Transport Association (IATA).
This type of digital meta-platform, this platform-of-plaforms, would
empower individual actors by giving them the power of traceability and
identity for supply chain and trade. This applies to both people within
it and outside it.
For the consumer, that would mean being able to reliably see the
origin of a product, including its materials, legal, geographical,
intellectual-property, its origins, and more. This is essential for many
of us, and would make it easy to see the quality of intangible goods.
Consumers, governments, and companies are demanding details about the systems, enterprises, and sources that delivered and transformed the goods along their value chain. They worry most about quality, safety, ethics, and environmental impact, to name just a few.
This would ensure the transparency when buying products from big platforms
that contain sub-markets such as Alibaba, Amazon, and Wal-Mart. This
adds a lot of trust and transparency with consumers, they can verify the
digital twin of their physical good, along with its history.
Now, that is going digital!
A path towards societal digitalization through internet technologies.
Other countries such as Argentina, Afghanistan, Denmark, Pakistan,
Kazakhstan, and more have or are introducing national ID cards\index{national ID} with
embedded chips used for services and are considering or in the progress
of integrating with biometrics, payment, and the online world just like
Estonia, India, and China are doing.
This seems like a global trend and is expected to increase with new
types of root of trust that can be shared over the wire such as IoT SAFE.
This concludes our review of how governments can bring back order, morals, and ethics on the internet. In a first place, we’ve dabbled with how the market isn’t enough and how there’s a need for laws that would consider privacy as a human rights. Then we’ve seen the balance between sociality and privacy, to whom we’d prefer giving it. Next we went over three topics applied to legality: consent, accountability, and transparency. After that we’ve looked at some examples, how the world is moving in that direction. Finally, we’ve tackled identity and social media as utilities and infrastructures, and what that would imply, along with some of today’s examples.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{Adapting}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{Technical Solutions, Wars and Patches}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
When free market and regulations fail, when the laws of rights can’t properly protect anyone and trust has eroded, we’re left only with ourselves. In that scenario, tech is seen as the savior of the internet, the weapon and armor of choice for everyone, building and selecting software that resolve issues.
For social media platforms and other big entities such as governments, algorithms can be used for detection, categorization, and remedial. The first step of an issue is to know: without knowledge it’s hard to defend.
Platforms could employ algorithms that would automatically flag posts
containing hate-speech or other sensitive content\index{flag posts}, and either remove
them or let a person take further actions from there. There could also
be automatic detection systems\index{automatic detection systems} that would find bot accounts, satiric
content (including deep fake\index{deep fake}), and state-linked accounts, then label them as such. As we said
earlier, if there are laws to tag such accounts, it makes their activities
transparent and reduces the chances of black propaganda\index{propaganda!black propaganda}.
Some even talk of contextualization engines that could bring up the context
behind any piece of media posted.
Facebook has recently been experimenting with labeling bot accounts,
adding an official stamp on state related and celebrity accounts, and
labeling satiric and other types of posts as such. Other platforms are
applying comparable labeling, at least for official accounts.
Algorithms could then be countered with algorithms. After detecting malicious intents some actors — be it the platforms to protect their own policies, or states entities — could launch offensive “pro-social” bots themselves\index{pro-social bots}, or other means of automatic counter-propaganda as a defense.
However, algorithmic solutions are problematic because they create an arms race. Moreover, the over-reliance on algorithms can have consequential results as they can be reflective of inner-biases. We’ve seen that before.\index{mathwashing}
Another technical solution, in between internet platforms and their
users, could be to change criteria that make the internet what it
is: speed, exposure, and long-lasting.
There has been some arguable success with platforms that make messages
ephemeral, for example. However, these are hard to control because these
are innate attributes of the medium.
Rethinking the current way we communicate online and providing means
to better communicate without toxicity, filter bubbles, addiction,
and extremism is what a lot of people are thinking about today. It’s a
question that remains unanswered\index{filter bubble}.
Some have attempted to create platforms around, not only communicating,
but also organizing ideas, increasing the efforts to partake in the
activities, adding a positive creative gatekeeping\index{gatekeepers}.
Some have played with new recommendation algorithms that would increase
cognitive diversity, pushing people out of filter bubbles by exposing
them to different ideas, cultures, geographies, and anything unfamiliar.
Others are trying to build systems that would be able to put metrics
on our biases, on our tendencies to associate with similar people, of
clustering. Essentially, creating a self-monitoring to add serendipity,
inclusiveness, and diversity in our own lives.
Some have tried a topic-based internet where people are randomly connected
based on common interests, instead of vote metrics and shock-value.
Another way is to not put all the facets of our lives in the same place,
to distinguish between different activities, hobbies, and interests,
to keep them separate. This helps avoid social cooling and facades.
Others are trying to see if the micro-transactions and micro-payments\index{micro-payment}
we discussed in a previous section, would work to make an internet of
the passion economy and drive away other incentives, leaving only pure
human creativity and interests.
Technologically, internet giants are trying to win back the trust\index{trust} of
the netizens by talking of differential privacy and privacy first tech.
Like we said before, this is similar to privacy as a product, privacy
as market value. However, big techs are selling these words not only
for the users but to protect themselves from the law.
Some of these companies are now disabling third-party cookies by
default in their products, notifying users of tracking, providing privacy
sandboxes, enabling end-to-end and other types of encryptions by default,
using differential privacy or cohort-based analysis or context-based
ads instead of micro-targeting\index{encryption}.
Yet, these all make no sense without transparency and when these entities
are for-profit.
Digital citizens still don’t trust them and would rather rely on defensive
tools and products to feel safer online and avoid being tracked.
They use tools such as VPN\index{VPN}, which we discussed earlier, proxies, and
ad blockers\index{ad blocker}. According to statistics 47% of USA internet users now utilize
ad blocking software.
Additionally, many are now using attention management and informational
management tools to get back the control over their attention. We’ve
seen earlier how the internet can affect us long-term cognitively and
how we are inundated with information\index{attention management}.
Attention management tools are software that are used to warn people
when they get inadvertently absorbed into activities or media. To be
proactive instead of reactive.
Informational management tools are database systems used to organize
in a clear and concise way the information we find important. They help
to deliberately decide what should be in our memory extension, which we
discussed when we saw the cognitive changes the internet brings\index{information management}.
One great thing about the internet, is that even though it’s convenient,
people don’t have to use pre-existing platforms, they can be empowered
to create their own.
The edification of standards that allow for decentralization and keeping
platforms open are good technological ways to avoid bait-and-switch
tactics, data leaks, privacy concerns, loss of access, being locked out
of accounts, etc..\index{open standards}
Avoiding monoliths is avoiding putting all eggs in one basket. Users
can choose to spread their internet usage across different services and
favor decentralized ones.
On top of this, if netizens have enough patience, expertise, and time,
one of the best solution is to own the data and tools by hosting them,
self-hosting\index{self-hosting}. This is more than having backup copies of the digital
assets, it’s also about regaining control, trust, and privacy.
This is what some popular YouTubers and others are doing by building
their own site, to not be victims of the market and keep platforms
decentralized and open.
Sometimes openness isn’t enough, we can host services ourselves but if the software is proprietary then we might still not trust it. What is needed in that case is transparency.
Transparency\index{transparency} can be achieved in different ways, self-sovereign identity
is one that we’ve seen in the previous section.
Another way is to use so-called “zero-data” applications\index{zero-data applications}, software that
let us be in control of our data from the start, doesn’t access it,
or doesn’t do any type of tracking.
Users can rely on feedbacks and recommendations from non-profit
organizations that try to defend digital privacy such as the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF)\index{EFF} to be up-to-date with the best practices and
events in the online sphere. We’ll tackle the education part in the
next section.
Yet, that can be limiting and not transparent enough. The most transparency we can have from software is when it is open source and when the licenses enforce the respect of freedom and liberty, what we call free software\index{free software}.
Certain non-profit organizations and projects have as mission to promote
such kind of user freedom, namely the Free Software Foundation (FSF)
and the GNU Project\index{FSF}.
Technically savvy netizens could still rely on their own instinct and
replace their tools and services with the open sources projects they
deem deserve more trust.
Open source\index{open source} and free software licenses can enhance and create value
for the public sector too. They can be used within the ICT framework in
infrastructure and services offered by the institutions, all publicly
funded developments.
Through the use of free software, the citizens and government will
feel more in control over information technology. It would grant them
digital independence\index{digital independence}, sovereignty, and security ensuring that citizen’s
data is handled in a trustworthy manner.
The use of free formats and protocol will also influence the way
development is done, increase trust and reduce distance between government
software and the citizen involvement. Open source is collaborative and
encourages collaboration by nature.
Having everything done in the open, open access (OA)\index{open access}, would also reduce
waste, avoiding non-replaceable software, and offering technological
neutrality. This reminds us of the current trendy discussion rotating
around the subject of electronic right to repair.
These could be applied to any government services, especially if they involve social media as a utility and digital identity. The possibilities are interesting.
Practically, this can be implemented at the state or institution
level either through the legal system, regulations, policies, or
encouragements or promotion (or non-encouragement).
Multiple nation-wide entities and bodies are transitioning to open source
or free-software solutions through different measures. For example:
…And countless other examples that show how government entities are promoting or using open source and free software to bring back trust and transparency. As we said earlier, this is a must during the trust and truth crises we are facing.
This concludes our review of technical and software solutions that can be used to avoid issues we’ve seen such as filter bubbles, toxicity, truth and trust crises, attention and information management, and others. In a first time, we’ve seen how big entities can use algorithms to fight online content through detection and remedial, either removal or tagging/labeling of content. However, we’ve also seen that this would give rise to an arms race of bots. Then we’ve looked at ways internet platforms could change their approach to make communication less toxic and increase cognitive diversity. Next, we’ve mentioned how internet giants are patching themselves by introducing more privacy and security features in their products. After that, we’ve said netizens would still lack trust because of the lack of transparency, thus would rely on defensive privacy tools such as VPN, proxies, and ad blockers. Users could also use software tools to help them manage their attention and information. Lastly, we’ve explored finding transparency and trust by decentralizing services and the usage of free and open source software. This can also be applied at the national level to tackle the trust issue with governments.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} \fancyhead[CE]{\textit{\small{Adapting}}} \fancyhead[CO]{\textit{\small{Education, Literacy, and Reality}}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\bigskip
We can attempt to patch things, use tools and software as countermeasures, to add laws and regulations, or to let the market decide, but in the end we are at the center of everything. If we are facing difficulties with the medium it’s because we haven’t matured enough to handle it properly. Right now we’re still in the process of trying to grasp how it works, in an apprenticeship stage.
Knowing our tools, how to use the internet medium properly, is a foundational skill, as important as any other in our information society. This goes under the name of digital, internet, or web literacy\index{web literacy}: the ability to read, write, and participate properly on the medium, in its full extent. It’s an application of the broader information literacy\index{information literacy}.
Literacy is important because it shapes societies. The degree of literacy of people affects directly what they’re able to imagine doing and actually do on a medium. By providing these skills to more people, teaching them how to use the internet, it would make the access to participation more equitable\index{digital divide}. It would ensure that there would be more representation of diverse ideas, geographies, languages, and cultures. Consequently, it would reduce the digital divide and increase the cognitive diversity\index{cognitive diversity} of the netizens.
At the moment, as we’ve seen before, some topics are reserved to the
elites. For example, we’ve dived into privacy as a luxury\index{economy!economic model!primium} in one of the
previous sections. Bringing internet-literacy to everyone, as a human
right, would bridge the class gaps.
In 2016 the UN started considering the right to connect as a human right\index{legal!right to connect}
and some countries have adopted it in their laws. However, education on how
to use the medium is as important but often dismissed.
Different organizations have thought this through and came up with
pedagogical curriculums for the digital literacy core skills needed.
These are skills that are part of information literacy in general but
applied to the internet medium. They fall in these categories:
The Mozilla foundation has created a web literacy curriculum that sets the base for the creation of courses that educators can give. They have three broad sections: write, read, and participate. These are subdivided into particular digital skills such as: designing, coding, composing, revising, remixing, connecting, protecting, open practices, contributing, sharing, evaluating, synthesizing, navigating, and searching.
Instead of jumping without knowing — letting users discover everything
by themselves — this curriculum could be taught in schools\index{schools}, or as part of
trainings easily available to everyone willing to learn.
Such digital citizenship curriculum\index{digital citizenship curriculum} would help everyone navigate the
internet effectively, communicate on it using a variety of methods and
tools to a range of different audiences, and have the adequate critical
thinking to be able to evaluate information and arguments, identify
patterns and connections, and construct meaningful knowledge that can
be applied online and in the real world.
Additionally, this curriculum could have an emphasis on understanding
the dynamics of the environment, namely: the actors, economies, and
algorithms we’ve seen throughout the sections.
Awareness is key to empower us against the influential algorithms, the
curation engines of the internet, so that we can use them to our advantage.
Inherently part of this dynamic are the last point above of security and protection, which rhyme with anonymity, lack of trust, and the truth crisis we’ve seen before.
Security also goes along with privacy, implying tackling social cooling problems. Teaching people about cyberbullying, digital footprints, e-safety, and cyber hygiene\index{cyber hygiene} as soon as possible is a must to protect ourselves online. As we said, people can, after getting a basic overview of the topics, follow recommendations and news from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)\index{EFF} and other non-profit organizations.
One of the most important aspect of information literacy on the internet is
making sure of the veracity of what we are consuming. Some organizations
and institutions related to libraries, scholars, and media literacy as
a whole have put forward good practices that can be taught to everyone
to critically assess and navigate the internet space.
The IFLA\index{IFLA} (International Federation of Library Associations
and Institutions) has redacted a document on how to spot fake
news and published it
initially on factcheck.org, to later translate it into
45 languages for accessibility\index{fact check}.
Similarly, the Center For Media Literacy has also put forward key
questions
to ask every time we encounter dubious messages.
A critical part of fact checking is to know our own biases, to understand
our own vulnerabilities\index{cognitive bias}.
Being aware\index{awareness} of the existence and inner workings of the techniques that
can be used to abuse our biases is the best defence against them. It
provides the basis to quickly notice when we’re being tricked by messages
and take some distance. Be it propaganda or marketing schemes, an intimate
knowledge of our automatic impulses, training to be primed to know the
coercive nature of these messages, make us proactive instead of reactive.
Outrage\index{outrage machine} and shock are two emotional reactions that are employed to get us caught in the tornado of rampage. Noticing how anger doesn’t make our opinion valid, nor more righteous, is essential. Our emotions and opinions shouldn’t always mix.
Many of these biases are temporal and only work for a short period
of time, this is why they often seek immediacy, scarcity, and
speed. Slowing down media sharing and consumption practices is a good
method to avoid falling for them.
The slow thinking way of processing information, compared with fast
thinking, would also counter the speed property of the internet medium.
The author Hans Rossling\index{Rossling, Hans} has written about the declinism\index{declinism} mindset, how
the media change our perceptions, and how to fight these biases in his
book Factfulness\index{Factfulness}. The book takes three sides: realization that we do
not see the world as is, awareness and identification of our instincts,
and how to fight and control them by changing the way we see things.
Documents and teaching materials for educators can be found on the
gapminder’s website.
Biases and instincts are short-term, on the long-term we should consider habits related to our surroundings, how we participate online and create communities. Just like it’s essential to learn the dynamics of the environment, it’s also essential to understand and learn how social interactions work on the internet.
This includes grasping what social biases we are prone to — the influence of our virtual surroundings — a good calibration of what this surrounding consists of, and how they are linked.
To calibrate, we can deliberately determine and examine the gatekeeping\index{gatekeepers} level of the community we are part of, or the ones we intend on joining or creating. This can be used to bring back a certain quality and trust.
The calibration can come in the form of segregation or separation of our
online interactions and profiles. Instead of partaking on platforms that
force us to integrate all of our lives, we have to select the ones that
help us distinguish between the multiple facets and activities we do.
In the real world we go to different places with different people to do
different things, we can do the same virtually. This would help mitigate
the phenomena of private life becoming public life, social cooling,
and overall paralysis\index{social cooling}.
The influence of our digital surrounding comes from various sides, all of them wanting to put us in a box, as a well-defined templatized individual. This could be because of marketing, the recommendation and curation engines, or simply the influencers\index{influencers} and people we keep up-to-date with.
As with most of what we’ve mentioned so far, knowledge is the best way
to avoid being manipulated to fit a narrative. We could train ourselves
in metamemetics\index{meme!metamemetic thinking} thinking to be able to recognize the content of the
memeplexes, take some distance to criticise them. This would include
stopping seeing memes as infotainment and to see them in their real light.
Above all, we need to learn to separate our definition of self from what
we consume and share.
We could take this further and distance ourselves completely, to disconnect as a way of reconnecting.
Many are seeking interactions on the internet as an escapism\index{escapism} from the
difficulties of their lives. To feel safe between the walls of filter
bubbles.
Some of these malaises emerge from the cultural insecurities and lacuna
we’ve dived into in other sections\index{cultural confusion}.
Yet, some studies have found that these insecurities are reduced, along with fewer biases and reaction to outrage, and better communication, when we pull the plug for a while to do offline activities.
In particular, the most effective studies have looked at performing offline pro-social\index{pro-social} activities such as helping NGOs. Keep in mind that this should be sustained long enough so that it isn’t linked to any online social justice, mob-justice, internet karma points, or the virtual signalling\index{virtue signalling} we discussed earlier\index{private justice}.
On one side, it works because we get far away from outrage and the negativity that is prominent online. It brings a more positive balance to what we feel instead of being consumed by our screens and their constantly urgent and pressing issues that we sense we are forced to react to.
On another side, it works because it takes us back to raw reality, with
its sense of community away from neoliberalism and individualism\index{neoliberalization}. Maybe
it shows how real human connection cannot be replicated online, but only
the chemical reactions.
Nearly everything distinctive about human nature can be seen as a form
of cooperation, and taking part in offline activities brings back our
humanity.
Ironically, this is the same mechanism that is used to deprogram people from cults or addictive habits. To create a support group around them, with real connection, bonding, support, and orientation.
It could also be because taking time offline and doing non-profit work changes our neoliberal views, if our societies are inundated with them. We can think again of society as an organism which we are part of, with its flaws, and accepting each member with their minute differences.
This last point is probably what triggers our issues on the internet,
the malaise and cultural gaps we talked about but that are not addressed.
Learning to live in the information era and the societies shaped around
it needs the acceptance of multi-culturality and ambiguity. It requires
a post-modern\index{post-modern} mindset, or even meta-modern mindset, while most are equipped with a modern one.
For that, we have to make peace with post-modernism and what it implies,
without reverting, because of our insecurities, to a cozy pre-modern
mindset of tribalism. Some call this transition meta-modernism\index{meta-modern}, or neo-modernism and post-postmodernism.
This means mitigating absolutist thinking, mitigating our inner urge
to grasp for reassurances that would reinforce our beliefs when we find
ourselves in the absence of certainty. The post-modern world doesn’t owe
us certainty, on the contrary, it disintegrates absolutisms\index{absolutist thinking}, annihilate
dichotomy thinking (black-and-white mindset), removes categorical
imperatives, and all the expectations on oneself and others. For
post-modernity and meta-modernity, these are obstacle to our growth, they are our immunity
to change and it makes us uncomfortable when we have to let go.
Absolutist thinking can significantly contribute to disorders of
mood and affect, which can, in turn, negatively impact our quality of
life because the world itself isn’t absolute and doesn’t bend to our
preconceived notions. They are considered cognitive distortions in modern
psychology since most of reality and everyday life takes place in the
gray area, in between extremes.
This also applies to the trend of over-rationality\index{over-rationality} and over-objectivism, where everything has metrics and is calculated. This over-emphasis on clear definitions and delineations, with no in-betweens, is another kind of absolutist thinking.
Navigating risk and uncertainty is a never ending endeavor. No amount of reassurance will ever quell all of the anxieties we have in our lifetimes.
This transition from modernity isn’t new, it’s been happening for almost
a hundred years now and is only accelerated by the new attributes the
internet brings.
This is clearly seen through some Western and Eastern art movements.
Modernism was about individualism\index{individuation}, the conquest of the single person
against the world, independence, personal ownership, but also a general
malaise about our place in the world, nihilism, existentialism, fordism,
seeing humans as tools, consumption, the psychoanalysts such as Freud\index{Freud, Sigmund},
and the marketers such as Bernays\index{Bernays, Edward}.
In this transition, initially out of the absurdity of consumption,
sprung art movements such as Dada\index{Dada}. It had objects at its center and
rejected all logic and reasons, the non-sense of all the machineries.
This extended into movements such as surrealism\index{surrealism}, shinkankakuha\index{shinkankakuha}, and abstract expressionism\index{abstract expressionism} that now had in the center the internal human experience and its reflection on the world. It portrayed a space between dreams and reality, using psychic automatism as a tool to extract thoughts, an inner discovery of our own senses and connection with our environment. The Surrealists and the shinkankakuha movement were fascinated by dreams, desire, magic, sexuality, and the revolutionary power of artworks to transform how we understand the world.
All of these movements were prequels to today’s post-modernism and meta-modernism. Our
malaise was put unto art that expressed our infinite smallness,
squeezing out our unconscious thought for us to admire and discover
new visions, always reinterpreting, always breaking assumptions.
They express the tension we have between structure and non-structure,
in any domain, even vis-à-vis language with topics such semiotics\index{semiotic}.
Presently, we have neural networks dreaming, algorithms that go into
inceptions called deep dreams\index{deep dreams}. We are the spectators of this space,
the guides which gets back the reflection of their own dreams through
a machine.
Yet, dreams rely on associations, even if unthinkable. They learn from
these templatized, memeplexes, absolutist thinking.
Again, we should learn to distance our definition of self from what we
consume, or offered to consume.
To tackle this we have to fix our cultural gaps, to get our act together. Do everything we can to increase our cognitive diversity\index{cognitive diversity}, to have more global voices, to look for bridge figures, to search for in-betweens be it geographical, ideological, cultural, or others.
We can build internet realities that take into consideration our
complexity, our diversity, our various and myriads of ways of expression
who and what we are, and how we want to live. To accept the multiple
facets of human ingenuity and creativity.
We can deliberately dabble with this way of thinking, this
“meaningness”\index{meaningness}. The acceptance of nebulosity and fluidity, to learn to find meaning
in uncertainty, to learn inter-sectional, cross-cultural connectivity. We
can find our gaps and fix our weaknesses within this space, in others,
creating a collage of humanness.
However, this poses multiples forms of challenges to move out of our comfort zones and expand our world views. Societies move the burden on the individuals and ask them to provide the structure and system for themselves instead of delegating it to some absolute authority\index{authority}.
Yet as the meme trickled into other online spaces, the line “we live in a society” – originally intended to be an enlightened statement which denounced the many flaws and contradictions of society – instead turned into a piece of satire.
The online world and discussions that bridge cultures make issues more apparent. These controversial topics need to be addressed openly, not through mobs, but maturely. Each on their own.
Some authors and psychologists have written endlessly on the individual’s
effort to make sense of experiences, the meaning-making process,
metaperception, neo-perception, and self-transformation.
From the “Mental demands of modern society” from Kegan\index{Kegan, Robert}, to Piaget\index{Piaget, Jean}
subject-object relations, to Erik Erikson\index{Erikson, Erik} “ego identities”, to Abraham
Maslow\index{Maslow, Abraham} “self-actualization”\index{self-actualization}.
Learning to live in the informational society is being deliberately
open and motivated to possibilities from the intersectionality of all
the experiences and ways of seeing the world.
We’re learning to communicate on a global scale while coexisting with
algorithms.
This concludes our review of how we can mature to better adapt to the internet medium. We’ve started by exploring educational curriculum such as web and internet literacy, so that we can be properly prepared. We’ve said this includes reading, writing, and participating. Next, we’ve said this curriculum should also take into consideration awareness to biases, knowledge being the best way to tackle them. Later, we’ve mentioned long-term adaptation, social adaptation to the internet, which include learning to manage our connections online by segregating them properly and not being put in templatized boxes. After that, we’ve examined completely disconnecting as a way to better reconnect. We’ve seen some studies about helping NGOs and how it reduced biases and our reaction to online outrage. Finally, we’ve dived into what it means to be a netizen of the information era and societies, to live in post-modernity reaching meta-modernity. We’ve discussed some of the artistic transitions and how they reflect our malaise and continuous improvement at including ourselves in this intersectional and cross-cultural world that has never been as connected as today.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak \fancyhead{}
\fancyhead[CE,CO]{\textit{\small{Conclusion}}} \fancyhead[LE]{\small{\thepage}} \fancyhead[RO]{\small{\thepage}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
{width=”200px”}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
Our mini internet study has come to an end.
In this book, we’ve seen the new artifacts and spaces introduced by the
internet, the actors using them, from the new economies, to netizens
in between, to state actors. We also reflected and tried
to understand why we can be susceptible to biases and why we have so
many difficulties with online interactions. Next we’ve looked at the
big picture by diving into subjects such as paralysis, neoliberalism,
the truth and trust crises, and a future glance at mass hypnosis and
psychosis. Finally, in the last part, we’ve seen four
type of solutions: market and economy or laissez-faire, legal path with
governments being involved for transparency and accountability, technical
software solutions, and web literacy as education and maturity to
learn to live in the information society — a post-modern or meta-modern
society.
I hope you’ve learned as much as I did. We’ve broadly covered quite a lot of topics, from sociology, psychology, computer science, art, memetics, history, warfare studies, politics, and more.
Let me know if it has been as helpful as it has been for me.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip \bigskip \bigskip \bigskip \bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak \fancyhead{}
\fancyhead[CE,CO]{\textit{\small{Bibliography}}} \fancyhead[LE]{\small{\thepage}} \fancyhead[RO]{\small{\thepage}}
\thispagestyle{FooBar}
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\hypersetup{colorlinks=black, allbordercolors={0 0 0}, pdfborderstyle={}}
\footnotesize
“1% Rule (Internet Culture).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Jan. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture).
“1957 High School Debate. Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ghana and S.Africa. Subject: Prejudice Part 1.” YouTube, YouTube, 26 Dec. 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=840XWjnt9wc.
David Egts (Lead Contributor) July 23, et al. “4 Myths about Open Source in Government.” The Enterprisers Project, 23 July 2020, https://enterprisersproject.com/article/2020/7/open-source-government-myths.
Holmes, Aaron. “533 Million Facebook Users’ Phone Numbers and Personal Data Have Been Leaked Online.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 3 Apr. 2021, https://www.businessinsider.com/stolen-data-of-533-million-facebook-users-leaked-online-2021-4.
Adam Henderson, et al. “6 Ways Technology Has Changed the Mindset of Modern Employees Forever!” LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/6-ways-technology-has-changed-mindset-modern-forever-adam-henderson.
Tali Gazit, Jenny Bronstein. “Active Participants and Lurkers in Online Discussion Groups: an Exploratory Analysis of Focus Group Interviews and Observation.” Active Participants and Lurkers in Online Discussion Groups: an Exploratory Analysis of Focus Group Interviews, University of Borås, https://www.informationr.net/ir/23-2/paper791.html.
A Day in the Life of Your Data, Apple, https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/A_Day_in_the_Life_of_Your_Data.pdf.
“Adoption of Free and Open-Source Software by Public Institutions.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Mar. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_of_free_and_open-source_software_by_public_institutions.
Kokemuller, Neil. “Advertising Models vs. Subscription Models.” Small Business - Chron.com, Chron.com, 26 Oct. 2016, https://smallbusiness.chron.com/advertising-models-vs-subscription-models-70238.html.
Whittaker, Zack. “A Huge Database of Facebook Users’ Phone Numbers Found Online.” TechCrunch, TechCrunch, 4 Sept. 2019, https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/04/facebook-phone-numbers-exposed/.
“Algorithms, Bots, and Political Communication in the US 2016 Election: The Challenge of Automated Political Communication for Election Law and Administration.” Taylor & Francis, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19331681.2018.1448735.
Robb, John. “All Hail the Meme, The New King of Political Communication.” Medium, Medium, 17 Aug. 2016, https://medium.com/@johnrobb/all-hail-the-mediaglyph-the-king-of-modern-political-communication-26dd2902847d.
Ko, Amy J. “UW Faculty Web Server.” Foundations of Information, https://faculty.washington.edu/ajko/books/foundations-of-information/.
“Analysis Paralysis.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis.
Ball, Matthew. “Apple, Its Control Over the IPhone, The Internet, And The Metaverse.” MatthewBall.vc, MatthewBall.vc, 9 Apr. 2021, https://www.matthewball.vc/all/applemetaverse.
Miller, Chance, and Chance Miller @ChanceHMiller Chance is an editor for the entire 9to5 network and covers the latest Apple news for 9to5Mac.Tips. “Apple Says App Tracking Transparency Feature Will Launch in ‘Early Spring’ with IOS 14 Update.” 9to5Mac, 28 Jan. 2021, https://9to5mac.com/2021/01/27/app-tracking-transparency-spring/.
Jesse Squires. “Apple’s Cooperation with Authoritarian Governments.” Jesse Squires, 30 Mar. 2021, https://www.jessesquires.com/blog/2021/03/30/apple-cooperation-with-authoritarian-governments/.
i-Sight. “A Practical Guide to Data Privacy Laws by Country.”, https://i-sight.com/resources/a-practical-guide-to-data-privacy-laws-by-country/.
voxdotcom. “Are We Automating Racism?” YouTube, YouTube, 31 Mar. 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok5sKLXqynQ.
“Attention Economy.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy.
“Attention Management.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 1 Feb. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_management.
“Australia Passes Law Making Facebook, Google Pay for News”, Bloomberg, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-24/australia-passes-law-forcing-facebook-google-to-pay-for-news.
Gwern. “Banner Ads Considered Harmful.” Gwern.net, 8 Jan. 2017, https://www.gwern.net/Ads.
“BBC Internet Blog: BBC Online Briefing Spring 2012: The Participation Choice.” BBC, BBC, https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/05/bbc_online_briefing_spring_201_1.html.
Nosta, John. “Thought As Currency.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 16 Apr. 2021, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-digital-self/202104/thought-currency.
“Mass Surveillance in the United Kingdom.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 5 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom.
Ferris, Andy, et al. “Big Data What Is It, How Is It Collected and How Might Life Insurers Use It.” The Actuary Magazine (2013): 28-32, https://www.soa.org/globalassets/assets/Library/Newsletters/The-Actuary-Magazine/2013/december/act-2013-vol10-iss6-srivastava.pdf.
“Black Propaganda.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 Mar. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda.
“Booking.com Fined €475,000 for Reporting Data Breach Too Late.” The Record by Recorded Future, 31 Mar. 2021, https://therecord.media/booking-com-fined-e475000-for-reporting-data-breach-too-late/.
Huxley, Aldous. “Brave New World (1932).” London: Vintage (1998).
“Brave New World.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World.
“Bringing It All Together.” Neoliberalism and the Internet, 23 Oct. 2010, https://anth2128.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/bringing-it-all-together/.
Lomas, Natasha. “Cambridge Analytica’s Parent Pleads Guilty to Breaking UK Data Law.” TechCrunch, TechCrunch, 9 Jan. 2019, https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/09/cambridge-analyticas-parent-pleads-guilty-to-breaking-uk-data-law/.
“Cancel Culture.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture.
Five Key Questions of Media Literacy, Center for Media Literacy, 2005. http://www.medialit.org/sites/default/files/14B_CCKQPoster+5essays.pdf
Kgspencer. “Charles Taylor’s The Ethics of Authenticity (Chapters 1-5).” Seoul Philosophy Club, 30 Aug. 2015, https://seoulphilosophy.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/charles-taylors-the-ethics-of-authenticity-chapters-1-5/.
laozi200. “The Malaise of Modernity (3/5) - Charles Taylor.” YouTube, YouTube, 21 May 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxcin_pZIRQ.
Temkin, David. “Charting a Course towards a More Privacy-First Web.” Google, Google, 3 Mar. 2021, https://blog.google/products/ads-commerce/a-more-privacy-first-web/.
“Citizen Journalism.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Mar. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism.
“Communication Studies.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_studies.
“Countering Disinformation: Russia’s Infowar in Ukraine.” The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, 15 Mar. 2021, https://jsis.washington.edu/news/russia-disinformation-ukraine/.
“Counterpropaganda.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 22 Dec. 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpropaganda.
Patrick Louis aka venam. “Cross Culture Frustration.” Venam’s Blog, Patrick Louis Aka Venam, 4 July 2017, https://venam.nixers.net/blog/psychology/2017/07/05/culture-frustration.html.
“Culture War.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war.
“Cyberpolitics.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Sept. 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpolitics.
Dark Patterns, https://darkpatterns.org/.
Nouwens, Midas, et al. “Dark patterns after the GDPR: Scraping consent pop-ups and demonstrating their influence.” Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2020. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3313831.3376321
“Dark Pattern.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern.
“Data Protection Act 2018.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_2018.
“Data Protection Commissioner.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Commissioner.
Giesea, Jeff. “It’s time to embrace memetic warfare.” Defence Strategic Communications 1.1 (2015): 67-75, https://www.stratcomcoe.org/academic-journal-defence-strategic-communications-vol1.
(www.dw.com), Deutsche Welle. “The Democracy of the Gullible: DW: 29.05.2020.” DW.COM, https://www.dw.com/en/the-democracy-of-the-gullible/a-53614771.
dhcolman. “Despotism 1946.” YouTube, YouTube, 22 Nov. 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIwXdOvEPXE.
“Different People Use the Internet Differently.” Neoliberalism and the Internet, 20 Oct. 2010, https://anth2128.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/different-people-use-the-internet-differently/.
“DigiD.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 12 July 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigiD.
Zuckerman, Ethan. Digital cosmopolitans: Why we think the Internet connects us, why it doesn’t, and how to rewire it. WW Norton & Company, 2013.
Ethan Zuckerman. “Digital Cosmopolitans: Talks at Google.” YouTube, 1 Dec. 2014, https://youtu.be/6sQ9Yhh3wY8.
“Digital Identity.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_identity.
“Digital Identity in China: Today & Tomorrow.” Https://Www.trulioo.com, https://www.trulioo.com/blog/digital-identity-china.
GSMA, World Bank Group, and Security Identity Alliance. Digital Identity: Towards Shared Principles for Public and Private Sector Cooperation. World Bank, 2016, https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Towards-Shared-Principles-for-Public-and-Private-Sector-Cooperation.pdf.
Promethean. “Digital Literacy in the Classroom. How Important Is It?” Promethean Blog, 1 Apr. 2021, https://resourced.prometheanworld.com/digital-literacy-classroom-important/.
Cjr. “Digital News Consumers Unlikely to Pay for Content and Increasingly Block Ads.” Columbia Journalism Review, https://www.cjr.org/analysis/reuters_digital_news_report.php.
“Disinformation and ‘Fake News’: Interim Report.” Disinformation and ‘Fake News’: Interim Report - Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee - House of Commons, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/363/36303.htm.
“DoD Open Source Software (OSS) FAQ.” Open Source Software FAQ, https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/.
Hancock, Alexis, et al. Electronic Frontier Foundation, https://www.eff.org/.
“Electronic Identity Card.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 6 May 2017, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_identity_card.
“Electronics Right to Repair.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 30 Mar. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair.
Parsovs, Arnis. Estonian Electronic Identity Card and its Security Challenges. Diss. PhD thesis (to be completed). University of Tartu, 2020, https://dspace.ut.ee/bitstream/handle/10062/71481/parsovs_arnis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
“Ethical Anti-Design, or Designing Products That People Can’t Get Addicted to.” Njms, https://njms.ca/posts/ethical-anti-design.html.
Bhargava, Vikram R., and Manuel Velasquez. “Ethics of the Attention Economy: The Problem of Social Media Addiction.” Business Ethics Quarterly (2020): 1-39, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly/article/ethics-of-the-attention-economy-the-problem-of-social-media-addiction/1CC67609A12E9A912BB8A291FDFFE799.
Irrera, Anna. “Exclusive: PayPal Launches Crypto Checkout Service.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 30 Mar. 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-crypto-currency-paypal-exclusive-idUSKBN2BM10N.
Hussain, Noor Zainab. “Exclusive: Visa Moves to Allow Payment Settlements Using Cryptocurrency.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 29 Mar. 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-crypto-currency-visa-exclusive/exclusive-visa-moves-to-allow-payment-settlements-using-cryptocurrency-idUSKBN2BL0X9.
Zakem, Vera, Megan K. McBride, and Kate Hammerberg. Exploring the utility of memes for US government influence campaigns. Center for Naval Analyses Arlington United States, 2018, https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/DRM-2018-U-017433-Final.pdf.
Vincent, James. “Facebook Hopes Tiny Labels on Posts Will Stop Users Confusing Satire with Reality.” The Verge, The Verge, 8 Apr. 2021, https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/8/22373291/facebook-label-news-feed-page-posts-fan-satire-public-official.
“Facebook’s Data-Sharing Deals Exposed.” BBC News, BBC, 19 Dec. 2018, https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46618582.
“Facebook’s GDPR Bypass Reaches Austrian Supreme Court.” Noyb.eu, 14 Mar. 2021, https://noyb.eu/en/facebooks-gdpr-bypass-reaches-austrian-supreme-court.
Moon, Mariella. “Facebook Test Adds Contextual ‘Labels’ to Popular Pages.” Engadget, 8 Apr. 2021, https://www.engadget.com/facebook-experiment-label-pages-090724411.html.
“Facebook v Apple: the Looming Showdown over Data Tracking and Privacy.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 13 Feb. 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/14/facebook-v-apple-the-looming-showdown-over-data-tracking-and-privacy.
FactCheck.org,
“Factfulness.” Gapminder, https://www.gapminder.org/factfulness/.
Ahmad, Irfan. “Find Out Where Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Other Tech Giants Are Sending Your Data.” Digital Information World, 9 Aug. 2019, https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/08/find-out-where-facebook-google-apple-airbnb-others-are-sending-your-data.html.
Flarum, https://flarum.org/.
Grothaus, Michael. “Forget the New IPhones: Apple’s Best Product Is Now Privacy.” Fast Company, Fast Company, 14 Sept. 2018, https://www.fastcompany.com/90236195/forget-the-new-iphones-apples-best-product-is-now-privacy.
DiResta, Renee. “Free Speech Is Not the Same As Free Reach.” Wired, Conde Nast, https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-as-free-reach/.
Free Software Foundation - Working Together for Free Software, https://www.fsf.org/.
Dreamseeker, Soatok. “Gatekeeping in Online Communities.” Medium, Medium, 6 Mar. 2021, https://medium.com/@soatok/gatekeeping-in-online-communities-48dec7f97f6a.
“An Overview of the General Data Protection Act.” GDPR Summary, 6 Dec. 2020, https://www.gdprsummary.com/gdpr-summary/.
“General Data Protection Regulation.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation.
GlobalPlatform Root of Trust, NIST, https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Presentations/GlobalPlatform-Root-of-Trust/images-media/day2_trusted-computing_100-150.pdf.
Glue Comic, https://a9.io/glue-comic/.
“The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement.” A GNU Head, https://www.gnu.org/.
Cyphers, Bennett. “Google Is Testing Its Controversial New Ad Targeting Tech in Millions of Browsers. Here’s What We Know.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 9 Apr. 2021, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/google-testing-its-controversial-new-ad-targeting-tech-millions-browsers-heres.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. “Google Misled Consumers about the Collection and Use of Location Data.” Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, 16 Apr. 2021, https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/google-misled-consumers-about-the-collection-and-use-of-location-data.
Ikeda, Scott. “Google Phases Out Use of Apple IDFA as New IOS 14 Ad Tracking Notifications Are Set for Early Spring.” CPO Magazine, 31 Jan. 2021, https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-privacy/google-phases-out-use-of-apple-idfa-as-new-ios-14-ad-tracking-notifications-are-set-for-early-spring.
graham, Megan c. “Google Says It’s Confident about Alternatives to Browser Cookies That Track You for Ads.” CNBC, CNBC, 25 Jan. 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/24/google-extremely-confident-about-third-party-cookie-alternatives-.html.
O’Neill, Patrick Howell. “Google’s Unusual Move to Shut down an Active Counterterrorism Operation Being Conducted by a Western Democracy.” MIT Technology Review, MIT Technology Review, 28 Mar. 2021, https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/26/1021318/google-security-shut-down-counter-terrorist-us-ally/.
Schechner, Sam, and Keach Hagey. “Google to Stop Selling Ads Based on Your Specific Web Browsing.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 3 Mar. 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-to-stop-selling-ads-based-on-your-specific-web-browsing-11614780021.
GSMA: Identity, 8 Mar. 2021, https://www.gsma.com/identity/.
“IoT SAFE.” Internet of Things, 9 Dec. 2019, https://www.gsma.com/iot/iot-safe/.
“Hardware Security Module.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Feb. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_security_module.
“Hashtag Activism.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 26 Mar. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashtag_activism.
“The Transparent Supply Chain.” Harvard Business Review, 7 Sept. 2017, https://hbr.org/2010/10/the-transparent-supply-chain.
Patrick Louis aka venam. “Hidden Hope For Control.” Venam’s Blog, Patrick Louis Aka Venam, 27 Oct. 2017, https://venam.nixers.net/blog/psychology/2017/10/28/will-for-control.html.
“Hitting the Books: How Biased AI Can Hurt Users or Boost a Business’s Bottom Line.” Engadget, https://www.engadget.com/hitting-the-books-a-citizens-guide-to-artificial-intelligence-john-zerilli-mit-press-153035570.html.
“Homophily.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 Feb. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily.
Klobuchar, Amy. “Text - S.1989 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Honest Ads Act.” Congress.gov, 26 June 2018, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1989/text.
Metadium. “How Estonia Is Pioneering the Digital Identity Space.” Medium, Metadium, 16 July 2019, https://medium.com/metadium/how-estonia-is-pioneering-the-digital-identity-space-4008c709fbb8.
Thompson, Stuart A., and Charlie Warzel. “They Used to Post Selfies. Now They’re Trying to Reverse the Election.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 Jan. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/facebook-far-right.html.
Ascott, Tom, et al. “How Memes Are Becoming the New Frontier of Information Warfare.” The Strategist, 19 Feb. 2020, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/how-memes-are-becoming-the-new-frontier-of-information-warfare/.
Donovan, Joan. “How Memes Got Weaponized: A Short History.” MIT Technology Review, MIT Technology Review, 2 Apr. 2020, https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/24/132228/political-war-memes-disinformation/.
Read, Max. “How Much of the Internet Is Fake?” Intelligencer, Intelligencer, 26 Dec. 2018, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/how-much-of-the-internet-is-fake.html.
Starr, Paul. “How Neoliberal Policy Shaped the Internet-and What to Do About It Now.” The American Prospect, 2 Oct. 2019, https://prospect.org/power/how-neoliberal-policy-shaped-internet-surveillance-monopoly/.
“How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf.” PR Watch, 5 June 2013, https://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html.
Fumo, Nicola. “The Best MLK Day Furniture Sales To Shop Before They’re Over.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 18 Jan. 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes-personal-shopper/2021/01/18/best-mlk-furniture-sales/.
Whitler, Kimberly A. “How The Subscription Economy Is Disrupting The Traditional Business Model.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 19 Jan. 2016, https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimberlywhitler/2016/01/17/a-new-business-trend-shifting-from-a-service-model-to-a-subscription-based-model/.
“How to Control People’s Thoughts with Words.” Bekindrewrite, 24 Aug. 2013, https://bekindrewrite.com/2011/12/10/how-to-control-peoples-thoughts-with-words/.
“How to Have Better Arguments Online.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 16 Feb. 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/16/how-to-have-better-arguments-social-media-politics-conflict.
Shukla, Aditya, and Aditya ShuklaHey “How to Overcome Phone Addiction Solutions + Research.” Cognition Today, 3 Jan. 2021, https://cognitiontoday.com/phone-addiction-coping-solutions-research-statistics/.
“How To Spot Fake News.” IFLA, https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/11174.
Stauffer, Bri. “How to Teach Digital Literacy Skills.” Digital Curriculum for CTE & Elective Teachers, https://www.aeseducation.com/blog/teach-digital-literacy-skills.
“How U.S. Media Lost the Trust of the Public” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 28 Mar. 2021, https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/media-distrust-big-news-1.5965622.
Programmer, WeChat Mini. “HOW WILL WECHAT ELECTRONIC ID SYSTEM WORK?” Medium, Medium, 24 May 2019, https://medium.com/@wechatminiprogrammer/how-will-wechat-electronic-id-system-work-26b35f09f83f.
Stöcker, Carsten. “Identity in a Multi-Polar World and China’s 2035 Standards.” Medium, Spherity, 6 Jan. 2021, https://medium.com/spherity/identity-in-a-multi-polar-world-and-chinas-2035-standards-66f14865b800.
“Identity Management.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_management.
Wilson, David Sloan. “I Have Come to Bury Ayn Rand - Issue 98: Mind.” Nautilus, 24 Mar. 2021, https://nautil.us/issue/98/mind/i-have-come-to-bury-ayn-rand.
Trotter, Shane. “I’m Offended: How The Social Justice Warriors Made Thinking Dangerous.” Inspired Human Development, Inspired Human Development, 18 Nov. 2020, https://inspiredhumandevelopment.com/blog/social-justice-warriors.
“Inceptionism: Going Deeper into Neural Networks.” Google AI Blog, 17 June 2015, https://ai.googleblog.com/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neural.html.
Robinson, Nathan J. “In Defense Of Social Justice.” Current Affairs, https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/in-defense-of-social-justice.
Skinner, Chris M. “India’s Billion Digital Identities.” Chris Skinner’s Blog, 6 Sept. 2016, https://thefinanser.com/2016/09/indias-billion-people-digital-identities.html/.
“India’s New Intermediary Liability and Digital Media Regulations Will Harm the Open Internet.” Open Policy & Advocacy, 2 Mar. 2021, https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2021/03/02/indias-new-intermediary-liability-and-digital-media-regulations-will-harm-the-open-internet/.
Klein, Naomi. “India Targets Climate Activists With the Help of Big Tech.” The Intercept, 27 Feb. 2021, https://theintercept.com/2021/02/27/india-climate-activists-twitter-google-facebook/.
Tomoriová, Františka. “Information ethics in the context of information Literacy.” ProInflow 8.2 (2016), https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/135937/2_ProInflow_8-2016-2_8.pdf?sequence=1
“Information Overload.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 5 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_overload.
“Information Pollution.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Feb. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_pollution.
“Information Revolution.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Dec. 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_revolution.
“Information Society.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 Feb. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_society.
Kegan, Robert. In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Harvard University Press, 1994.
“Inside Aadhaar, India’s Massive Digital Identity Program.” Tearsheet, https://tearsheet.co/data/inside-aadhaar-indias-massive-digital-identity-program/.
Tom. “Inside a Viral Website.” Not Fun at Parties, Not Fun at Parties, 31 Mar. 2021, https://notfunatparties.substack.com/p/inside-a-viral-website.
“Intellectual Dark Web.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dark_web.
“Internet Culture.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 29 Mar. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_culture.
Kulkarni, Anushka. “Internet meme and Political Discourse: A study on the impact of internet meme as a tool in communicating political satire.” Journal of Content, Community & Communication Amity School of Communication 6 (2017), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3501366.
“Introduction to Secure Elements” GlobalPlatform, https://globalplatform.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Introduction-to-Secure-Element-15May2018.pdf.
academyofideas. “Is a Mass Psychosis the Greatest Threat to Humanity?” YouTube, YouTube, 26 Feb. 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojPcF-oLABE.
| “The Manufacturing of a Mass Psychosis – Can Sanity Return to an Insane World?” _Academy of Ideas | Free Minds for a Free Society_, 24 Apr. 2021, https://academyofideas.com/2021/04/manufacturing-of-a-mass-psychosis-can-sanity-return-to-an-insane-world/. |
PYMNTS.com. “Is China Roadmap For Digital ID Verification?” PYMNTS.com, 18 July 2019, https://www.pymnts.com/authentication/2019/china-roadmap-red-flag-digital-identity-verification/.
Heid, Markham. “Is Hypnosis Real? Here’s What Science Says.” Time, Time, 4 Sept. 2018, https://time.com/5380312/is-hypnosis-real-science/.
“Is India’s Digital ID System, Aadhaar, a Tech Solution for a Socio-Economic Problem?” Global Voices, 17 Aug. 2020, https://globalvoices.org/2020/08/16/is-indias-digital-id-system-aadhaar-a-tech-solution-for-a-socio-economic-problem/.
Ryder, John. “Is Total Mind Control Possible?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 24 Sept. 2015, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hypnosis-the-power-trance/201509/is-total-mind-control-possible.
“Is Your Government Requesting User Data from Tech Giants?” AddictiveTips, 4 May 2020, https://www.addictivetips.com/news/government-requests-for-user-data-from-tech-giants/.
Warzel, Charlie. “‘It’s Not Cancel Culture - It’s A Platform Failure.”.” Galaxy Brain, Galaxy Brain, 13 Apr. 2021, https://warzel.substack.com/p/its-not-cancel-culture-its-a-platform.
Giesea, Jeff. “It’s time to embrace memetic warfare.” Defence Strategic Communications 1.1 (2015): 67-75, https://www.act.nato.int/images/stories/media/doclibrary/open201705-memetic1.pdf.
Singer, Natasha. “Just Don’t Call It Privacy.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Sept. 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/22/sunday-review/privacy-hearing-amazon-google.html.
“Keeping Track of Your Things.” Nixers, https://nixers.net/Thread-Keeping-Track-of-Your-Things.
BBF Digital. “KEY DRIVERS OF SUBSCRIPTION-BASED ECONOMY.” BBF Digital, 3 Oct. 2018, https://bbf.digital/key-drivers-of-subscription-based-economy.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. “Lack of Competition in Ad Tech Affecting Publishers, Advertisers and Consumers.” Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, 28 Jan. 2021, https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/lack-of-competition-in-ad-tech-affecting-publishers-advertisers-and-consumers.
“La Fabrique De L’ignorance.” IMDb, IMDb.com, 23 Feb. 2021, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14113576/.
Paris, R.A.P. “Liberté De Réception.” Résistance à L’Agression Publicitaire, Résistance à L’Agression Publicitaire, 6 June 2020, https://antipub.org/glossaire/liberte-de-reception/.
“List of Cognitive Biases.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases.
“Living Like It’s 99: No Social Media, No Smartphone.” Gregory Alvarez, 19 Feb. 2021, https://www.alvarez.io/posts/living-like-its99/.
“Loot Boxes Linked to Problem Gambling in New Research.” BBC News, BBC, 2 Apr. 2021, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56614281.
“Lurker.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Jan. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker.
“Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs.
“Mass Psychogenic Illness.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 6 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness.
“What Is Meaningness?” Meaningness, 8 May 2013, https://meaningness.com/what-is-meaningness.
“A Gigantic Chart That Explains Absolutely Everything.” Meaningness, 7 Sept. 2016, meaningness.com/modes-chart.
“Metamodernism.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamodernism.
“Measures Governments Can Use to Promote Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation.” A GNU Head, https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/government-free-software.en.html.
Pinchevski, Amit, and Or Graur. “Memes in Digital Culture.” The MIT Press, The MIT Press, https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/memes-digital-culture.
Abd Kadir, Shamsiah, and Anitawati Mohd Lokman. “Persuasive Political Warfare.”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332471418_Memes_Persuasive_Political_Warfare.
“Memetic Engineering.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetic_engineering.
Benitez-Bribiesca, Luis. “Memetics: a dangerous idea.” Interciencia 26.1 (2001): 29-31, https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/339/33905206.pdf.
Prosser, Michael B. Memetics–A Growth Industry in US Military Operations. MARINE CORPS UNIV QUANTICO VA SCHOOL OF ADVANCED WARFIGHTING (SAW), 2006, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a507172.pdf.
“Memetics.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 30 Mar. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics.
“Memetic Warfare.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 5 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetic_warfare.
Wnip. “Micropayments Can Unlock ‘an Entire Economy’ between Ads and Subscriptions” Digital Publishing News, 6 May 2019, https://whatsnewinpublishing.com/micropayments-can-unlock-an-entire-economy-between-ads-and-subscriptions/.
“Microtransaction.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 25 Feb. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtransaction.
Fields, R. Douglas. “Mind Reading and Mind Control Technologies Are Coming.” Scientific American Blog Network, Scientific American, 10 Mar. 2020, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/mind-reading-and-mind-control-technologies-are-coming/.
2021, Michael Cross8 March. “Minister Hints at UK Departure from GDPR.” Law Gazette, 8 Mar. 2021, https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/uk-to-depart-from-gdpr/5107685.article.
Hancock, Brian J. “Memetic warfare: The future of war.” Military Intelligence PB 36.2 (2010): 41-46, https://fas.org/irp/agency/army/mipb/2010_02.pdf.
Prange-Morgan, Chris. “Mitigating Absolutist Thinking.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 26 Mar. 2021, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/full-catastrophe-parenting/202103/mitigating-absolutist-thinking.
Government of Canada, Department of Justice. “Modernizing Canada’s Privacy Act.” Government of Canada, Department of Justice, Electronic Communications, 15 Feb. 2021, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pa-lprp/modern.html.
“r/Slatestarcodex - Most of What You Read on the Internet Is Written by Insane People.” Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most_of_what_you_read_on_the_internet_is_written/.
Gundersen, Skrevet av Martin, et al. “My Phone Was Spying on Me, so I Tracked Down the Surveillants.” NRKbeta, https://nrkbeta.no/2020/12/03/my-phone-was-spying-on-me-so-i-tracked-down-the-surveillants/.
“Neoliberalism.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism.
“Neuroscience-and the New Weapons of the Mind.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 26 July 2018, https://thebulletin.org/2017/10/neuroscience-and-the-new-weapons-of-the-mind/.
New China Data Privacy Standard Looks More Far-Reaching than GDPR, Center for Strategic and International Studies, https://www.csis.org/analysis/new-china-data-privacy-standard-looks-more-far-reaching-gdpr.
“New Human Rights to Protect against ‘Mind Hacking’ and Brain Data Theft Proposed.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 26 Apr. 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/26/new-human-rights-to-protect-against-mind-hacking-and-brain-data-theft-proposed.
“Neuro-Marketing : Influencés Pour Consommer ?” YouTube, Universcience, 13 Aug. 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwfcfaY0S0.
“New Media.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_media.
George, Orwell. 1984. Pandora’s Box, 2017.
Mittal, Pardeep, and Jatinderpal Singh. “A Survey on Open Source Software using Questionnaire.” International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) 4.4 (2013): 833-838.
Pandya, Jayshree. “Nuances Of Aadhaar: India’s Digital Identity, Identification System And ID.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 16 July 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/07/16/nuances-of-aadhaar-indias-digital-identity-identification-system-and-id/.
“NZGOAL Software Extension.” Data.govt.nz, https://www.ict.govt.nz/guidance-and-resources/open-government/new-zealand-government-open-access-and-licensing-nzgoal-framework/nzgoal-se/.
Atwill, Nicole. Online Privacy Law: France, 1 June 2012, https://www.loc.gov/law/help/online-privacy-law/2012/france.php.
“On Mob Justice in the Tech Industry.” Odysee, https://odysee.com/@Lunduke:e/MobJustice:6.
Daigle, Leslie. “On the Nature of the Internet.” (2015), https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/gcig_paper_no7.pdf.
Zannettou, Savvas, et al. “On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities.” Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018. 2018, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3278532.3278550.
“Open Access.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access.
“Open Source for Government.” Open Source for Government, https://opensource.org/personas/government.
Bakir, Vian, et al. “Organized persuasive communication: A new conceptual framework for research on public relations, propaganda and promotional culture.” Critical Sociology 45.3 (2019): 311-328, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0896920518764586.
Rochat, Philippe. Others in mind: Social origins of self-consciousness. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
“Passion Economy Definition – What Is a Passion Economy?” Mighty Networks, 17 Mar. 2021, https://www.mightynetworks.com/encyclopedia/passion-economy.
Columbia Law Review. “PAYING FOR PRIVACY AND THE PERSONAL DATA ECONOMY.” Columbia Law Review, 27 Oct. 2017, https://columbialawreview.org/content/paying-for-privacy-and-the-personal-data-economy/.
“Percolation Theory.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 Jan. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percolation_theory.
“Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 Feb. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Data_Protection_Bill,_2019.
“Persuasion.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/persuasion.
“Persuasive Technology.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_technology.
McNamee, Roger. “Platforms Must Pay for Their Role in the Insurrection.” Wired, Conde Nast, https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-platforms-must-pay-for-their-role-in-the-insurrection/.
Kuznetsov, I. S. “Political media memes’ persuasion and functioning in social media.” 22.2 (2017).
Anderson, Tim. “Privacy Activist Max Schrems Claims Google Advertising ID on Android Is Unlawful, Files Complaint in France.” The Register, The Register, 7 Apr. 2021, https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/07/max_schrems_google_complaint/.
“View of Privacy as a Luxury Commodity: First Monday.” View of Privacy as a Luxury Commodity, https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3075/2581.
Holley, Peter. “Privacy as a Product: The Argument for Trading Your Personal Data to Get a Discount on a Car.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 17 Apr. 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2018/06/26/privacy-as-a-product-the-argument-for-trading-your-personal-data-for-a-cheaper-car.
Walsh, Diana, James M. Parisi, and Katia Passerini. “Privacy as a right or as a commodity in the online world: the limits of regulatory reform and self-regulation.” Electronic Commerce Research 17.2 (2017): 185-203.
“Product Placement.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement.
bens6110. “What Is Promotional Culture?” Promotional Culture - Critical Outlook, 30 Nov. 2012, https://promotionalcult.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/what-is-promotional-culture/.
Jowett, Garth S., and Victoria O’donnell. Propaganda & persuasion. Sage publications, 2018, http://www.ffri.hr/~ibrdar/komunikacija/seminari/Propaganda%20&%20persuasion%20-%20difference%20(Chapter1).pdf.
Cna. “Propaganda, Disinformation, & Other Influence Efforts: The Modern Information Environment.” CNA, https://www.cna.org/centers/cna/cip/information-environment.
“Propaganda.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 17 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda.
Murphy, Elliot. “Psychic Life and the Power of Words.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 2 Apr. 2021, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/language-and-its-place-in-nature/202104/psychic-life-and-the-power-words.
Clow, Ryan. “Psychological Operations: The need to understand the psychological plane of warfare.” (2008).
“Psychological Warfare.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare.
Anna, et al. “Racial Discrimination in Face Recognition Technology.” Science in the News, 26 Oct. 2020, https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/racial-discrimination-in-face-recognition-technology/.
Staid, Mairead Small. “Reading in the Age of Constant Distraction.” The Paris Review, 10 Dec. 2019, https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/02/08/reading-in-the-age-of-constant-distraction/.
Zhang, Ruichen. “Re-directing socialist persuasion through affective reiteration: a discourse analysis of ‘Socialist Memes’ on the Chinese internet.” AI & SOCIETY (2020): 1-12.
Google Transparency Report, Google, https://transparencyreport.google.com/eu-privacy?hl=en.
“Right to Internet Access.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access.
Right to Repair Europe, 1 Mar. 2021, https://repair.eu/.
Gilbreath, Bob. “Rise of Subscriptions and the Fall of Advertising.” Medium, The Graph, 24 Dec. 2020, https://medium.com/the-graph/rise-of-subscriptions-and-the-fall-of-advertising-d5e4d8800a49.
Schwartz, Sarah. “Schools Teach ‘Cyber Hygiene’ to Combat Phishing, Identity Theft.” Education Week, Education Week, 10 Dec. 2020, https://www.edweek.org/technology/schools-teach-cyber-hygiene-to-combat-phishing-identity-theft/2018/03.
“Screw It, I’ll Host It Myself.” Marko Zivanovic, 16 Apr. 2021, https://www.markozivanovic.com/screw-it-ill-host-it-myself/.
Scutti, Susan. “Self-Inflicted Injuries Surge among Tween and Early Teen Girls.” CNN, Cable News Network, 21 Nov. 2017, https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/21/health/self-inflicted-injury-cdc-study/index.html.
“Self-Sovereign Identity.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Mar. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sovereign_identity.
Henson, H. Keith. “Sex, Drugs, and Cults. An evolutionary psychology perspective on why and how cult memes get a drug-like hold on people, and what might be done to mitigate the effects.” The Human Nature Review 2 (2002): 343-355.
Perrin, Andrew, and Monica Anderson. “Share of U.S. Adults Using Social Media, Including Facebook, Is Mostly Unchanged since 2018.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 7 Apr. 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-s-adults-using-social-media-including-facebook-is-mostly-unchanged-since-2018/.
Jack Gillum, Justin Elliott. “Sheryl Sandberg and Top Facebook Execs Silenced an Enemy of Turkey to Prevent a Hit to the Company’s Business.” ProPublica, https://www.propublica.org/article/sheryl-sandberg-and-top-facebook-execs-silenced-an-enemy-of-turkey-to-prevent-a-hit-to-their-business.
“SIM, ESIM and Secure Elements.” Thales Group, https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/markets/digital-identity-and-security/mobile/secure-elements.
Singer’s Six Conditions - PAS Intervention. https://www.pas-intervention.org/uploads/2/2/5/4/22545256/singers_stages_of_mind_control.pdf.
“Slacktivism.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism.
“Smart Doorbell.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 Jan. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_doorbell.
Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/.
“Snowflake (Slang).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 6 Mar. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang).
“Social Justice Warrior.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Mar. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior.
“Social Justice Warriors and Narcissism-What Is the Connection?” Viva, https://vocal.media/viva/social-justice-warriors-and-narcissism-what-is-the-connection.
“Social Media and Social Problems: A Complex Link.” RUSI, 14 Nov. 2018, https://rusi.org/commentary/Social_Media_and_Social_Problems_A_Complex_Link.
“Social Media as a Public Utility.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 Feb. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utility.
(FSFE), Free Software Foundation Europe. Public Money, Public Code, https://publiccode.eu/.
“Social Media Marketing.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 30 Mar. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_marketing.
Levy, Ro’ee. “Social media, news consumption, and polarization: Evidence from a field experiment.” American economic review 111.3 (2021): 831-70, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3653388.
“Spin (Propaganda).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(propaganda).
Nyst, C., and N. Monaco. “How governments are deploying disinformation as part of broader digital harassment campaigns.” Institute for the Future, https://www.iftf.org/statesponsoredtrolling/.
Waller, J. Michael. Strategic influence: Public diplomacy, counterpropaganda, and political warfare, https://jmw.typepad.com/files/strategicinfluenceclass_copy.pdf.
Whitepaper: Subscription Economy – Business Perspective, https://www.nets.eu/perspectives/Pages/Whitepaper-Subscription-economy-business-perspective.aspx.
Leslie, Alex. “Subscription Economy to Get a Real Boost from Advertising Fiasco.” Disruptive.Asia, 21 Aug. 2019, https://disruptive.asia/subscription-economy-boost-advertising-fiasco/.
Cass R. Sunstein, et al. Sunstein on the Internet and Political Polarization, University of Chicago Law School, https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/sunstein-internet-and-political-polarization.
“Surveillance Capitalism.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism.
Barassi, By: Veronica. “Tech Companies Are Profiling Us From Before Birth.” The MIT Press Reader, 14 Jan. 2021, https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/tech-companies-are-profiling-us-from-before-birth/.
Lieber, Chavie. “Tech Companies Use ‘Persuasive Design’ to Get Us Hooked. Psychologists Say It’s Unethical.” Vox, Vox, 8 Aug. 2018, https://www.vox.com/2018/8/8/17664580/persuasive-technology-psychology.
“Ted Chiang: Fears of Technology Are Fears of Capitalism.” Kottke.org, https://kottke.org/21/04/ted-chiang-fears-of-technology-are-fears-of-capitalism.
Huntington, Heidi E. Affect and effect of Internet memes: assessing perceptions and influence of online user-generated political discourse as media, The. Diss. Colorado State University, 2017, https://mountainscholar.org/handle/10217/183936.
THE BIG POTENTIAL OF BIG DATA, Forbes Magazine, https://www.forbes.com/forbesinsights/big_data/.
Rushkoff, D., D. Pescovitz, and J. Dunagan. “The biology of disinformation: memes, media viruses, and cultural inoculation.” Institute for the Future [= INSTITUTE FOR THE FUTURE «IFTF»] available at: www. iftf. com.-Access mode: http://www.iftf.org/fileadmin/user_upload/images/DigIntel/SR-2002_IFTF_Biology_of_disinformation_tk_042618.pdf (accessed 08.09. 2018) (2018).
Cortez, Meghan Bogardus. “The Digital Citizenship Curriculum: Digital Literacy, Cyber Hygiene and More.” Technology Solutions That Drive Education, 15 Sept. 2020, https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2018/04/digital-citizenship-curriculum-digital-literacy-cyber-hygiene-and-more-perfcon.
“The Digital Language Divide.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, http://labs.theguardian.com/digital-language-divide/.
Blog, Unsupervised. “The Dream of Neural Networks.” Medium, Balabit Unsupervised, 10 July 2018, https://medium.com/balabit-unsupervised/the-dream-of-neural-networks-6af1b6de704.
Taylor, Charles. The ethics of authenticity. Harvard University Press, 1992, https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674987692.
Horrocks, Jarren. The Future of Group Messaging, https://thejarren.com/group-messaging/.
Chercoles, Maria. “The Future of Your Privacy: Universal Right, Luxury, Commodity or Utility?” Medium, Matters, 1 July 2019, https://medium.designit.com/the-future-of-your-privacy-universal-right-luxury-commodity-or-utility-a02b63f6afd6?gi=c45ef584c7a8.
AnonymousPlanet. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Online Anonymity, https://anonymousplanet.org/guide.html.
Castells, Manuel. “The impact of the internet on society: a global perspective.” Change 19 (2014): 127-148, https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/the-impact-of-the-internet-on-society-a-global-perspective/.
Busta, Caroline. “The Internet Didn’t Kill Counterculture-You Just Won’t Find It on Instagram.” Document Journal, 16 Jan. 2021, https://www.documentjournal.com/2021/01/the-internet-didnt-kill-counterculture-you-just-wont-find-it-on-instagram/.
“The Internet Way of Networking: Defining the Critical Properties of the Internet.” Internet Society, 18 Dec. 2020, https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/internet-impact-assessment-toolkit/critical-properties-of-the-internet/.
Stansberry, Kathleen, et al. “The Internet Will Continue to Make Life Better.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, Pew Research Center, 9 July 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/10/28/4-the-internet-will-continue-to-make-life-better/.
Ng, Alfred, and Maddy Varner. “The Little-Known Data Broker Industry Is Spending Big Bucks Lobbying Congress.” The Little-Known Data Broker Industry Is Spending Big Bucks Lobbying Congress – The Markup, https://themarkup.org/privacy/2021/04/01/the-little-known-data-broker-industry-is-spending-big-bucks-lobbying-congress.
Blackmore, Susan, and Susan J. Blackmore. The meme machine. Vol. 25. Oxford Paperbacks, 2000, https://www.susanblackmore.uk/the-meme-machine/.
“The Micropayment Economy: What It Is, and Why It Matters.” RSS, https://coinmarketcap.com/alexandria/article/the-micropayment-economy-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters.
Chekinov, Sergey G., and Sergey A. Bogdanov. “The nature and content of a new-generation war.” Military thought 4 (2013): 12-23.
Laufer, Daniel. “Russian Disinformation - The Network of Fake Foreign Media.” Netzpolitik.org, 9 Dec. 2020, https://netzpolitik.org/2020/russian-disinformation-the-network-of-fake-foreign-media/.
Moneyweek. “The Ongoing Rise of Big Tech.” MoneyWeek, MoneyWeek, 21 July 2020, https://moneyweek.com/investments/stockmarkets/601687/the-ongoing-rise-of-big-tech.
Firth, Joseph, et al. “The “online brain”: how the Internet may be changing our cognition.” World Psychiatry 18.2 (2019): 119-129.
Scheff, Sue. “The People Behind Online Hate.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 31 Mar. 2021, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shame-nation/202103/the-people-behind-online-trolling-shaming-cancel-culture.
Tyrrell, Mark. “The Dark Side of Your Emotional Needs – Connection.” Mark Tyrrell’s Therapy Skills, 4 Aug. 2019, https://www.unk.com/blog/the-dark-side-of-your-emotional-needs-part-five/.
Tyrrell, Mark. “The Dark Side of Your Emotional Needs – Attention.” Mark Tyrrell’s Therapy Skills, 4 Aug. 2019, https://www.unk.com/blog/the-dark-side-of-your-emotional-needs-part-one/.
Abbasi, Azad. “The Psychology Behind Social Media Lurkers.” Ignite Social Media Agency, 19 Apr. 2016, https://www.ignitesocialmedia.com/social-media-marketing/psychology-behind-social-media-lurkers/.
Haidt, Jonathan. The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage, 2012.
Louis, Patrick. “The Self, Metaperceptions, and Self-Transformation.” Venam’s Blog, Patrick Louis Aka Venam, 24 Mar. 2020, https://venam.nixers.net/blog/psychology/2020/03/25/self-perception-transformation.html.
“The Social Media Mindset.” Media Psychology Review, 21 June 2008, https://mprcenter.org/review/frenchsocialmediamindset/.
Young, Cathy, and 2015 June 18. “The Strange World of Social Justice Warriors.” Minding The Campus, 29 June 2015, https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2015/06/18/the-strange-world-of-social-justice-warriors/.
“The Booming Subscription Economy: A Win-Win for Brands and Affiliates.” TUNE, 22 Feb. 2021, https://www.tune.com/blog/subscription-economy-win-brands-affiliates/.
“The Subscription Economy: How to Focus Your Business Model on Subscribers, Not Just Products.” YourStory, https://yourstory.com/2018/12/subscription-economy-business-model/.
Freed, Richard. “The Tech Industry’s Psychological War on Kids.” Medium, Medium, 27 Apr. 2018, https://medium.com/@richardnfreed/the-tech-industrys-psychological-war-on-kids-c452870464ce.
“The Trivium and “The Semiotic Iceberg”: A Paradigm for Reading and Responding to Texts”, https://www.westga.edu/academics/coah/writing/assets/docs/uwc-handouts/semioticiceberg.pdf.
Madden, Jenae. “The ‘We Live in a Society’ Meme, Explained.” Happy Mag, 16 Feb. 2021, https://happymag.tv/we-live-in-a-society-meme-explained/.
The Whole Web Pays For Google And Facebook To Be Free, Bloomberg, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-03/pay-for-twitter-super-follows-you-can-thank-google-and-facebook.
“The World’s Most Valuable Resource Is No Longer Oil, but Data.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/05/06/the-worlds-most-valuable-resource-is-no-longer-oil-but-data.
“This Is What Happens When ICE Asks Google for Your User Information.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 24 Mar. 2021, https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-03-24/federal-agencies-subpoena-google-personal-information.
Crawford, Kate. “Time to regulate AI that interprets human emotions.” Nature 592.7853 (2021): 167.
“Total War.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war.
“REPORT Towards a More Sustainable Single Market for Business and Consumers.” Europarl.europa.eu, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0209_EN.html.
Finkelstein, Robert. “Tutorial: Military memetics.” Social Media for Defense Summit 24 (2011).
“Universal Integrated Circuit Card.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Jan. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_integrated_circuit_card.
“Choosing Technology: an Introduction.” GOV.UK, https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/making-software/open-source.html.
Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D. “What Does Weber’s Iron Cage Have to Do With Climate Change?” ThoughtCo, https://www.thoughtco.com/understanding-max-webers-iron-cage-3026373.
Schiller, Ben. “Using Memes To Improve Climate Change Communication.” Fast Company, Fast Company, 8 May 2013, https://www.fastcompany.com/1681526/using-memes-to-improve-climate-change-communication.
Chung, Andrew. “U.S. Supreme Court Rebuffs Facebook Appeal in User Tracking Lawsuit.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 22 Mar. 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-facebook/u-s-supreme-court-rebuffs-facebook-appeal-in-user-tracking-lawsuit-idUSKBN2BE1TX.
Kopan, Tal. “US to Require Would-Be Immigrants to Turn over Social Media Handles.” CNN, Cable News Network, 29 Mar. 2018, https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/immigrants-social-media-information/index.html.
“Virtue Signalling.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling.
Dawkins, Richard. “Viruses of the mind.” Dennett and his critics: Demystifying mind 13 (1993): e27.
Singer, Natasha. “’Weaponized Ad Technology’: Facebook’s Moneymaker Gets a Critical Eye.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Aug. 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/technology/facebook-microtargeting-advertising.html.
“Web Literacy.” Mozilla Foundation, https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/web-literacy/.
Giridharadas, Anand. “We Can Have Democracy or We Can Have Facebook, but We Can’t Have Both.” The.Ink, The.Ink, 10 Dec. 2020, https://the.ink/p/we-can-have-democracy-or-we-can-have.
Toresson, Gustav Lundberg. “Welcome To The Passion Economy.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 18 Feb. 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/gustavlundbergtoresson/2021/02/17/welcome-to-the-passion-economy/.
Austin, Drew. “Paid in Full.” Real Life, 19 Apr. 2021, https://reallifemag.com/paid-in-full/.
Véliz, Carissa. “What Does Privacy Really Mean Under Surveillance Capitalism?” Literary Hub, 20 Sept. 2020, https://lithub.com/what-does-privacy-really-mean-under-surveillance-capitalism/.
Cater, Leonie. “What Estonia’s Digital ID Scheme Can Teach Europe.” POLITICO, POLITICO, 13 Mar. 2021, https://www.politico.eu/article/estonia-digital-id-scheme-europe/.
“What Is China’s Social Credit System and What Does It Mean for Online Identity?” SelfKey, 25 Mar. 2020, https://selfkey.org/chinas-social-credit-system/.
Williamson, Ann. “What is hypnosis and how might it work?.” (2019): 1178224219826581, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6357291/.
What Is Propaganda, and How Does It Differ From Persuasion? Propaganda and Persuasion (Fourth Edition), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0896920518764586.
Messerly, John, et al. “What Is Social Cooling?” Reason and Meaning, 15 Jan. 2021, https://reasonandmeaning.com/2017/10/31/what-is-social-cooling/.
Kumar, Rohan. “WhatsApp and the Domestication of Users.” Seirdy’s Home, 10 Mar. 2021, https://seirdy.one/2021/01/27/whatsapp-and-the-domestication-of-users.html.
“What’s Data Privacy Law In Your Country?” Privacy Policies, https://www.privacypolicies.com/blog/privacy-law-by-country/.
“What’s Going on With France’s Online Hate Speech Law?” Lawfare, 24 June 2020, https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-going-frances-online-hate-speech-law.
Prijatel, Patricia. “Who Controls the Media? You’d Be Surprised.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 8 Apr. 2021, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-is-well/202104/who-controls-the-media-you-d-be-surprised.
“Who Runs the World… Big Tech?” Global Witness, https://www.globalwitness.org/en/blog/who-runs-world-big-tech/.
Allyn, Bobby. “Why Is Facebook Launching An All-Out War On Apple’s Upcoming IPhone Update?” NPR, NPR, 26 Feb. 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/02/26/971367875/why-is-facebook-launching-an-all-out-war-on-apples-upcoming-iphone-update?t=1614351654558.
Molloy, David. “Why Popular YouTubers Are Building Their Own Sites.” BBC News, BBC, 6 Mar. 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55349255.
Elvy, Stacy-Ann. “Paying for privacy and the personal data economy.” Colum. L. Rev. 117 (2017): 1369.
“Woke.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Apr. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke.
Falkovich, Jacob. “The Narrative and Its Discontents.” Quillette, Quillette Magazine, 17 Feb. 2021, https://quillette.com/2021/02/16/the-narrative-and-its-discontents/.
“Above the Narrative.” Put A Number On It!, 17 Mar. 2021, https://putanumonit.com/2021/02/22/above-the-narrative/.
“Confirmation Bias in Action.” Put A Number On It!, 6 Feb. 2021, https://putanumonit.com/2021/01/23/confirmation-bias-in-action/.
“Shinkankakuha.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 22 Nov. 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkankakuha.
Schreckinger, Ben, et al. “World War Meme.” POLITICO Magazine, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/memes-4chan-trump-supporters-trolls-internet-214856/.
Freddie deBoer. “You Can’t Censor Away Extremism (or Any Other Problem).” Freddie DeBoer, Freddie DeBoer, 11 Mar. 2021, https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-cant-censor-away-extremism-or.
Ross, Pete. “Your Addiction to Outrage Is Ruining Your Life.” Medium, The Bad Influence, 9 Aug. 2020, https://medium.com/the-bad-influence/your-addiction-to-outrage-is-ruining-your-life-9effebdfeaca.
Zero Data App, https://0data.app/.
Kumar, Manish, and Anwesha Mondal. “A study on Internet addiction and its relation to psychopathology and self-esteem among college students.” Industrial psychiatry journal 27.1 (2018): 61.
“A Brief Introduction about New IP Research Initiative.” Huawei, 13 Apr. 2020, https://www.huawei.com/us/industry-insights/innovation/new-ip.
“Discussion Paper: An Analysis of the ‘New IP’ Proposal to the ITU-T.” Internet Society, 3 June 2020, https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussion-paper-an-analysis-of-the-new-ip-proposal-to-the-itu-t/.
O’Donnell, Matthew Brook, Emily B. Falk, and Sara H. Konrath. “Big data in the new media environment.” (2014).
Rilling, James K., and Alan G. Sanfey. “The neuroscience of social decision-making.” Annual review of psychology 62 (2011): 23-48.
Rossling, Hans. “Anna Rossling (2018) Factfulness. Ten Reasons we’re Wrong About the World-and Why Things Are Better Than You Think.”
Ovadya, Aviv. “’Contextualization Engines’ Can Fight Misinformation without Censorship.” Medium, Medium, 15 Apr. 2021, https://aviv.medium.com/contextualization-engines-can-fight-misinformation-without-censorship-c5c47222a3b7.
Halpern, Sue. “Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance.” The New Yorker, https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/facebook-and-the-normalization-of-deviance.
Kegan, Robert, Lisa Laskow Lahey Robert Kegan, and Lisa Laskow Lahey. Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press, 2009.
Kegan, Robert. In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Harvard University Press, 1994.
Rochat, Philippe. Others in mind: Social origins of self-consciousness. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Serrano‐Cinca, C., J. F. Muñoz‐Soro, and I. Brusca. “A multivariate study of internet use and the digital divide.” Social Science Quarterly 99.4 (2018): 1409-1425.
Stavropoulos, Vasileios, et al. “Flow on the Internet: a longitudinal study of Internet addiction symptoms during adolescence.” Behaviour & Information Technology 37.2 (2018): 159-172.
Enagandula, Rupesh, et al. “Study of internet addiction in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and normal control.” Industrial psychiatry journal 27.1 (2018): 110.
“Infographic: What Is Good Digital ID?” McKinsey & Company, McKinsey & Company, 13 Feb. 2020, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/infographic-what-is-good-digital-id.
Haidt, Jonathan. The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage, 2012.
Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan, 2011.
Brunton, Finn. “Constitutive interference: Spam and online communities.” Representations 117.1 (2012): 30-58.
Floridi, Luciano. The onlife manifesto: Being human in a hyperconnected era. Springer Nature, 2015.
Metanomad. “The Battle Against the Hyperpresent.” Meta-Nomad, 30 Nov. 2020, https://www.meta-nomad.net/the-battle-against-the-hyperpresent/.
The Economist. “Social media are turbocharging the export of America’s political culture.” The Economist Newspaper, Jun. 2021, https://www.economist.com/international/2021/06/12/social-media-are-turbocharging-the-export-of-americas-political-culture.
Paul Skallas. “Refinement Culture (PT 1).” Refinement Culture (PT 1), Aug. 2021, https://paulskallas.substack.com/p/refinement-culture.
\bigskip \bigskip \bigskip
\pagebreak \fancyhead{}
\printindex
\begin{titlepage} \centering \small End. \end{titlepage}