In his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman describes the rising position and role of the entertainment industry in the lives of a commoner; stripping us of our independent thinking over time by engrossing ourselves in so-called idiot boxes, programming the viewers with how and what to think of the world. Neil Postman’s book comments on what we now call the traditional media: TV, print, and radio. His criticism also applies today by simply replacing the word “TV” in his book with “social media”.
Currently, the technological industry is filled with critiques. They discuss the ethics of current tech companies, providing a platform to shed light on how the tech giants turn a blind eye to the negative consequences, and ultimately condemn the companies’ business models. At the forefront is Jaron Lanier who wrote a book entitled 10 Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now, and Tristan Harris’ The Social Network documentary. Both are formerly heavily involved in the industry. Jaron Lanier became the father of virtual reality after he established several programs leading to the foundation of the technology, and Tristan Harris as the former Global Tech Ethicist of Google. Both are also at the forefront in battling the tech giants, representing the “whole” world of users—who, in their chosen conscious ignorance or by happenstance, do not mind the consequences of their social media use.
We cannot simply argue against the advocacy leaders’ claims. How could one plainly argue against the evidence of how social media undermines the truth, how the platform makes what we say meaningless in scale, and how Instagram tangentially promotes self-harm—ultimately suicide—to teenagers? A simple argument is that these tech giants only create what is demanded by society. There is no product if the demand is non-existent. Having this in mind, what if social media is only a reflection of what society values at large? In this sense, social media states that, when given the chance, humans market themselves to increase their reputation; while at the same time connecting and sharing scripts, stories, and current events with their friends and family.
But, who dictates what should influence our society in the first place? This is where the argument from the previous paragraph weakens. Given an immensely prominent platform that has almost half of the world as users, tech companies should have a responsibility in putting forth a healthier platform for all. Probably by consulting with anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers, and economists, a wild consensus for the general direction of social media will arise. The true “influencers” in society are not the models and entertainment stars popular on Instagram and TikTok, but those unheard teams that strategize and program which specific type of content is incentivized for the users to see. The real problem is how these teams are influenced to make each decision, what business pressures they’re in, and how their conclusions are finalized before rolling it out.
In Johan Monaghan and Peter Just’s introductory book Social and Cultural Anthropology, they describe that primary functions performed by a custom or institution are not restricted to the official purpose assigned to them in the society’s ideology. Simply, a primary and secondary purpose exists in a given custom or institution. If the official and primary purpose of social media is to connect and share stories on command, then its secondary purpose may be to provide an opportunity for their users to imprint themselves in the digital realm; marking their own territory to increase their digital identity, ultimately providing better chances to pursue their ambitions. Regardless of the reason, one take stays true: we are what we consume and what we make of ourselves regardless of the cards we are dealt with.
