Dark Side of Social Media & What Can We Do About It
Business models that rely on social media and user-generated content have shifted from the more traditional business model, where value for the organization is derived from the one-way delivery of products and services to the provision of intangible value based on user engagement.
Indeed, continued work on increasing user engagement is now at the core of the largest social media businesses such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. Engagement tells you a number of times and rates a piece of content is seen and shared on the particular platform. Essentially, there are numerous teams of brilliant intelligent people, working for one of the world’s most influential companies, aiming to maximize the time spent on the particular platform (i.e., making one more addicted to “engaging”).
It appears to be a big race aiming to gather as much users’ attention as possible by implementing new algorithms and functions that mess with one’s neurotransmitters (e.g. dopamine) and psychology (e.g. slow and graduate shift in one’s behavioral patterns and habits).
Thinking from this perspective, it doesn’t seem like the most appropriate measure of the company’s business success. Furthermore, several arguments are suggesting this business model implies several negative consequences. I have several arguments on my mind, but within this article’s scope, I’d like to focus on the topic of manipulation.
This particular topic and the idea of writing the article has been inspired after watching “The Social Dilemma” documentary on Netflix. One of the main characters in the film, Jaron Lanier, shares his views on manipulation and ultimately suggests a radical approach to quitting social media accounts. In fact, he also wrote “Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now” book in 2018. However, this approach seems unreasonably extreme for me, and I think would be for most of people.
At least, this would be a huge missing-out on the benefits that social media have got to offer. I believe the issue is complex, and in this article, I will investigate two negative consequences of the user engagement business model. And hopefully, offer possible solutions to change in your life to become more aware and avoid manipulations.
First, I want to talk about political manipulation.
Within the existing business model framework, the idea of micro-targeting for effective advertising purposes may imply a directed shift in political views.
As a result, a substantial part of the population may be inclined to change their voting preferences, resulting in a significant change in the country’s political system. One example is the role of targeted Facebook ads in the Brexit referendum. Apparently, Cambridge Analytica had profiled people politically to understand their individual fears for the most effective and tailored targeting of Facebook ads.
A notable case illustrating the issue happened in a Welsh town Ebbw Vale, which recorded the highest “leave” votes in the UK of 62% of the population. Remarkably, a relatively small population of 33,000 people has benefited from the EU investments in local infrastructure. For instance, a college for higher education worth £33 million and a new regeneration sports center worth £350 million funded mainly by the EU.
Despite actual proof of benefits being a part of the EU, most people were inclined to make their decision based on the targeted Facebooks ads, particularly on the adverse effects of immigration from Turkey. Notably, the town has one of the lowest immigration rates in the country.
So, coming back to the argument of manipulation. It turns out the majority of the population was manipulated (and misinformed) by seeing false information in their feeds promoting to leave. The campaign banners got eventually released by Facebook, where we can confirm their fallacy.
My takeaway from this story is that of the ways to increase ‘engagement’ part is through the spread of hate, fear and fallacy manipulating people’s decisions affecting the present and future generations.
If we don’t want to have such values at core of political decisions and the way the society works in general, it’s important to have ethical requirements in the way the user engagement model operates.
Essentially, what’s been happening now is the model functioning to increase engagement “at all costs”.
The second part of the argument is the correlation between essence of the business model and the spread of fake news.
Setting no boundaries to the way user engagement works, the model itself implies the spread of false information.
An MIT study conducted in 2018 found that false news stories are 70% more likely to be retweeted than true stories. It also concluded that true stories spread about six times slower compared to fake ones.
In addition, it’s important to note that it is people who make things go viral, not algorithms. I think it’s another point contributing to the manipulative behavior being accelerated in people by the business model’s nature. Another highlight includes the topic of politics that comprised the biggest news category, ahead the likes of business, science, and natural disasters.
A recent study at New York University found that far-right sources of misinformation have the highest engagement levels per follower compared to any other news source category.
The news organizations that regularly publish false material get up to 65% more engagement than those who don’t.
The analysis used nearly 3,000 Facebook pages, while news sources had been analyzed for partisanship and accuracy by two independent organizations.
Results revealed that far-right sources, which comprise misinformation, recorded 426 interactions per thousand followers on average weekly, compared to only 259 far-right sources with no misinformation. In contrast, far left no misinformation sources reached less than 150 interactions.
This is another example that illustrates a clear correlation between the user engagement business model and the widespread of fake news.
Certainly, as highlighted by one of the researchers, the industry leaders and governments need to take action. However, the business model itself implies a constant increase in user engagement at all costs. And I believe it would be naive to expect the industry leaders themselves to bite the hand that feeds them. Governments, on the other side, are too slow trying to catch up with technology and relevant regulations. So far, we’ve witnessed intentions to regulate Big Tech in both the U.S. and Europe; however, they have been concerned primarily with the antitrust law and fair competition.
It seems there is a huge lack of addressing the actual business model issue, not regulating a number of companies monopolizing the market.
I think that dealing with the issue is primarily is up to us, the ultimate users. At some point, I’ve realized how often I take my phone and go on social media unintentionally, but rather as a matter of my daily habit. I didn’t want to look up something in particular but instead went scrolling and wanted to see what the world’s got to offer for me. Realizing this made me feel less in control of what I see and interact with the content.
In this way, I’d be more inclined to be influenced by any kind of manipulation and false information that instantly occupies such a wandering mind.
Therefore, I’ve outlined a few points that can help to reduce the negative impact of social media use:
- Cut off on pointless surfing or even take a break from the most attention distractive networks
I personally realized that I can’t remember the last day I didn’t check on Instagram. So decided to challenge myself and quit for two weeks. What I’ve learned is that such practices allow me to control my intentions and develop a more conscious attitude towards social media use.
Even taking two weeks off was insightful for me to stop “diving into” endless scrolling so often and lose myself in “explore” sections. Even if you’re going on such adventures only for 15 minutes, it adds up during the day and squeezes you out emotionally.
- Improve your critical thinking and fact-checking skills (even from sources you’re used to trust)
It may be super hard to do it regularly until it becomes a habit. Especially it makes sense for politically related ads and banners. A simple lookup and check on the source’s origin may be very helpful, especially if your decision would contribute to future generations.
- Avoid making impulsive decisions to share unchecked information with your friends and family
This is part of the reason false content spread so fast, as it triggers us emotionally. Even some mind-blowing news would not have an immediate impact on us, and it’s important to take some extra time before expressing both positive or negative reactions.
The ultimate goal of this article way primarily to draw one’s attention to the negative sides of social media use. Also, I’ve decided to include a few points at the end, inspired by my personal experience.
If you feel like you want to add more points to the issue or share your personal experience, feel free to leave a comment :) It would be great to have a community of curious individuals sharing their thoughts on particular topics.
