In a July 2017 TED Talk, former Google “design ethicist” Tristan Harris pulled back the curtain on an aspect of social media (SM) that we suspect is there, but seem to dismiss. Social media companies have control rooms where dedicated experts work day and night to keep us online, clicking, liking, responding and interacting. Instead of material goods or cash, media giants compete for our attention. They invest heavily into stimulating our use of social media to keep us engaged with them. Like casinos with free drinks and no clocks or windows, social media spaces are psychologically engineered to keep us from pushing away from the table and walking away. They can be similarly unhealthy.
Since much of the content on SM is user-generated, Twitter and the like need us to feel inspired to respond via posts. It is possible to be a passive user of social media, viewing others’ Facebook posts and Instagram pages, but these sites are incentivized to spur us into action. Kitten videos are nice, but they don’t necessarily incite the level of emotion that causes one to voice a public response that will keep the user-to-user ping pong ball in play. Eliciting a heightened emotional state is effective in keeping users actively engaged. Not all of those emotions are positive, but they work.
“Outrage works really well at getting attention.”
Anger causes us to block out other emotions and stimuli. It dominates our consciousness until it is resolved. When it is directed at social media content, the emotion and the content can form a positive feedback loop of ever more consumption. The accessibility and availability of vast volumes of outrageous content have changed our relationship with social media.
I mentioned that Mr. Harris is an “ethicist.” His dire report on how we are being guided down a path of outrage was not delivered without a way out. His call to action boils down to media giants being better stewards of the world-wide conversation. Being the skeptic that I am, listening to Harris’ presentation, I put on my billionaire CEO hat.”Where do my advertising dollars come from if I dial down the outrage,” I asked.
I’m learning how to leverage the massive social media landscape in order to establish learning modes for my 21st century learners. Coming from a traditional teaching role, I’ve noted the transformative effect Sanpchat, et c. have had on attention spans and social lives. I’m concerned that learners will struggle to switch contexts from casual socializing to study or work. My lessons will not be “click bait” or shallow headlines, and I don’t want them to be treated as such just because they arrive via channels that deliver that sort of thing. Blogger Christopher Pappas agrees, and adds that frequent SM users risk “cognitive overload.” Will I need to have a control-room full of engineers helping me to compete for my learners’ attention amid a world full of chatter? Will they be hopelessly distracted by notifications on their phone if that is where my next learning module is accessed?
Mr. Harris asserts that to pull ourselves out of the outrage-loop and return to healthy levels of screen time a few changes are needed:
1. We users need to recognize how vulnerable we are to marketing and persuasion by manipulation-experts who don’t have our best interests at heart.
2. Media companies should be more transparent about how they manipulate the dialogues they host, and
3. A ‘design renaissance’ should occur in which social media spur us to a healthier kind of action, both online and off.
Can it be done?
The Center for Human Technology has some ideas to help us design ‘healthier’ online consumables, for lack of a better word. Check out their Humane Design Guide here.
What do you think? Pick one of Mr. Harris’ three changes above and make a realistic suggestion about how it can be achieved. We’d love to hear from you.