(C) Alec Muffett's DropSafe blog.
Author Name: Alec Muffett
This story was originally published on allecmuffett.com. [1]
License: CC-BY-SA 3.0.[2]
“I think it’s because us tech reporters live in a bubble” — I love this exchange, and I feel that @WilliamTurton is correct; cc: @daveyalba
2021-11-01 22:01:20+00:00
I feel that this a fascinating little exchange:
We have Davey Alba at NYT asking why engagement on the Facebook Papers is light; and William at Bloomberg chimes in with an observation that I consider a deep and obvious truth, but which Davey finds perhaps disheartening.
Narrator: Perhaps you could explain your thinking in a clearer way?
My belief is that the observed public disinterest[1] is due to:
story complexity “rapidly switching storytelling” — i.e. there are only so many “X” which the public care to remember in a barrage of “Facebook are harming X” headlines, and an extant cultural prejudice (amongst the chosen readership) that the terrible harms being described are either or both of inevitable or far away
This decade’s “Instagram & TikTok enable self-harm” is much the same as last decade’s “unrealistic body-image photoshop”, the previous decade’s “airbrushed teen-magazine covers” or that decade’s previous decade’s “bulimia and heroin chic“ — for one cynical but practical example.
Hindu-Muslim riots in India? In 1998 they were caused by pamphlets. Religious violence, sadly, is also a long-term thing.
With such a mental framework it’s only a short step to dismissing wall-to-wall Haugen coverage as privileged western journalists beating up rich nerds and capitalism — which is less entertaining and less constructive than helping teens address their self-esteem issues, and/or unpicking the longstanding bigoted religious and political jingoism in which some populations swim.
“But we hold the powerful to account! We punch up! We speak truth to power!” — yes, perhaps you do, but maybe that’s not the best way to make change regarding decades-old issues, dressed-up in this decade’s costume?
This is not to say that the Facebook Papers will have no impact – not least, I am having to spend a lot of my free time between my infant daughter’s nappy changes trying to document all the ways that it plays into attempts by various governments to (e.g.) assure themselves a backdoor into all online private conversation. I would rather not be having to hold back the illiberal tide which is being unleashed in the hope of making some kind of impact, any kind of impact against Mark Zuckerberg.
My suspicion is that the “Facebook Papers” team thought they were doing an Edward Snowden exposé: documenting new and shocking over-reach, with stories that would resonate first and most effectively in the western media.
But they weren’t. There’s little new here, at least amongst the ostensible social harms, and that which seems new is pitched to the wrong audience. A lot of people being told the stories (via the anointed forums) simply lack motivation to worry on behalf of people in (e.g.) India, however much the Daily Mail might weirdly and suddenly try to educate their readership in empathy.
If the Facebook Papers team seek a “win” they would do better to chase a single, clear story like the Google-Facebook advertising monopoly, which with consolidated storytelling behind it could feel genuinely new and threatening irrespective of non-impact on individuals — a strategy which worked well for “Cambridge Analytica”.
Instead they’ve opened up an entire multi-skirmish battlefront against Facebook.
It’s too big.
[1] NOT the political interest/disinterest, of course — the Haugen-bubble-internal phenomenon is something else entirely, founded upon a small community of people who do genuinely care, far outnumbered by others who live to monetise outrage against Facebook, Social Media, the Internet, and indeed all forms of change and modernity.
[END]
[1] URL:
https://alecmuffett.com/article/15220
[2] URL:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
BoingBoing via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/alecmuffett/
