The Distorted Mirror

I'm often intrigued by the FiveThirtyEight podcasts on their YouTube channel, but was really enthralled with one of their recent videos, where the topic was Why Misinformation Spreads So Quickly on Social Media. Host Galen Druke interviewed guest Max Fisher for nearly an hour. Fisher has written a book called The Chaos Machine, and listening to them talk about the subject of social media's psychological effects on people was, at least to me, quite fascinating.

Of course, the notion that platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram can influence our thoughts and even our behavior isn't something radical. A lot of folks will go on what is sometimes termed a 'phone diet, or an 'online diet,' attempting to wean themselves off of the addictive nature of checking our phones or laptops for texts, notifications, or updates that will provide just the right amount of dopamine. It's a strong lure, to be sure. I've been in public restrooms before where a guy will be standing at a urinal, using one hand to conduct his business, and the other hand is holding their smartphone.

So, we spend a lot of time with our devices, much of it playing games, reading the news, or, quite often, doom scrolling through our social media feeds. Like most things, a little of the bird app, or the Meta conglomeration, are fine. Everything in moderation. Unfortunately, as Fisher talks about in the 538 interview, algorithms on these apps are designed to suck us down a rabbit hole where we spend far more time than we should. And, perhaps more importantly, we are exposed to potentially inaccurate information that could do harm to our psyche.

Misinformation comes in many forms, some of it fairly innocuous. Who hasn't had friends share a post, or a meme, where the information whiffs of falsehood? It could be about how [x] month has five Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, and how this only happens once every eight centuries. The person sharing it (or something like it) may include a disclaimer along the lines of, 'I don't know if this is true, but thought I'd share!' A quick, 30 second scroll through our smartphone calendar - on the very device we're using to share the misinformation - will reveal that the occurrence actually happens every few months. But people don't take the time to check.

There are other examples, of course. One of the major culprits is the picture-quote. You know, someone will share a photo of a famous person and, next to their face will be some sort of quote - attributed to them - that is supposed to convey either a political opinion or some sort of deep meaning. I guess we're supposed to nod our heads approvingly at the message, perhaps pausing before doing so as we take it all in. The fact that [insert celebrity here] uttered, or wrote, the words is supposed to lend credence to their authority. Except, of course, at least half the time the quote is misattributed. Or, sometimes just as often, it was completely made-up by some random person. Whenever this is pointed-out to a friend who has shared it, they will often retort with a defensive, 'Well, I think it's a good quote, regardless. It doesn't matter who said it.'

That's the sort of argument that is difficult to contend with, as it puts more emphasis on substance than on truth. It reminds me of a conversation I once had a conversation with a friend (who I respect). It was regarding the James Frey book A Million Little Pieces (remember that?). It was initially sold as a memoir - as truth. Oprah added it to her book club. Then, it came out that much of it was fabricated. My friend said that, ultimately, it wasn't important. If what was in the book moved people, helped them in some way, then it shouldn't matter if what was contained therein was real or invented. And, yes, fictional stories have long been able to challenge and comfort us in both emotional and intellectual ways, but they've usually been notated as fiction from the jump.

As we've become more casual regarding the veracity of smaller things, it's not terribly surprising that our capacity to consume untruths about bigger things has grown. Whether it's politics, or vaccines, or your garden variety conspiracy theory, the Internet and, specifically, social media, has provided a pretty good bullhorn for the untruths of the world to permeate our identity. An analogy Fisher used in the interview is that cancer was around long before cigarettes, but that doesn't mean cigarettes can't contribute to developing cancer.

Indeed, stubbornness, tribalism, and gullibility have been around long before online platforms, but that doesn't mean that spending too much time in the wrong corners of social media doesn't bring out and nurture some of those traits amongst us. And, so often, what ends up warping people's minds isn't even accurate. It kind of ties-in to what I wrote about earlier this month, in that we are far more persuaded by emotion than by fact. If something we read, or watch, massages something primal in us, and plays into a belief system we may already have, then that can be good enough for a lot of people.

If we've already trained ourselves not to bother verifying if that seemingly harmless meme, or story, we shared is valid, then it can be an easy next step to swallowing the lies being peddled by your friendly online snake oil salesperson. And that can, alas, lead to pitting neighbor against neighbor, and the breaking of our fragile democracy. You know - the important stuff.