Author: David Newhoff

David is an author, communications professional, and copyright advocate. After more than 20 years providing creative services and consulting in corporate communications, he shifted his attention to law and policy, beginning with advocacy of copyright and the value of creative professionals to America’s economy, core principles, and culture.

Do Solidarity Profile Pics Mean Anything?

Did you rainbow yourself on the day the Supreme Court upheld marriage rights for same-sex couples?  I did. Though I assumed Facebook had only provided the filter in order to conduct one of its studies in online behavior.  According to this story by J. Nathan Matias, writing for The Atlantic, data scientists at Facebook have not analyzed the trends in the rainbowing of millions of profile pictures, but it might at some point in the future in the ongoing attempt to understand how online behaviors reflect (or don’t) substantive political action.

I admit to being a bit of a skeptic about the value of some of these studies and the conclusions that might be drawn from them; but I also wonder how any relevant data might ultimately be used.  If we can learn anything at all about ourselves from behavioral analyses by social media companies, will the information be used to empower people with an awareness of their own vulnerabilities to manipulation, to group-think, to disinformation campaigns; or will the data simply be organized into play books for marketers, corporate PR teams, and political campaign professionals? Matias cites a study done by Stanford PhD Bogdan State and Facebook data scientist Lana Adamic, who researched data from the 2013 campaign in which many of us showed solidarity with the LGBT community by turning our profile pictures into some variation of the red equal sign.  Based on my own experience, and what I believe I can presume about many of my friends and family, I am dubious about the initial hypotheses proposed in that study, described by Matias thus:

In their study, State and Adamic asked the question: how many times do you need to see a friend change their profile picture before deciding to change your own? They set up two competing hypotheses. The first possibility was that profile changes spread like funny pictures and other online memes, falling off in influence as more people share them. The second possibility they considered was that people need to see others make the change before they follow suit, that “multiple exposures are most effective in determining the adoption of… [costly] behaviors.”

This line of inquiry is based on the assumption that the individual is taking some measure of risk by publicly stating a position on a controversial issue. This line of inquiry seems to be based on the assumption that the Facebook user bears some measure of risk by publicly taking a stance on a controversial issue. Thus, the study seeks to quantify the bandwagon effect looking by looking at profile picture data.  And while the bandwagon effect is not to be underestimated — I have criticized it throughout this blog with regard to far more complex decisions than changing one’s profile picture — I am suspicious of the initial assumption that there is much social risk at all for most individuals in this case. To the contrary, it is widely observed that, if anything, social media platforms tend to break down even ordinary barriers of common courtesy when it comes to expressing opinions and views any subject we can name. Yet, according to Matias, the data reviewed in the study of the equal sign campaign is interpreted as follows:

While users are quick to share funny pictures and text, the influence of a typical meme on individuals doesn’t build over time. But with the marriage-equality profile images in March 2013, users apparently needed “social proof”—they needed to see that others also supported marriage equality—before joining in. As more people changed their profiles, individuals who had seen their friends change their photos were more likely to do the same themselves.

No doubt the data do reveal that individuals change their profile pictures to these images of solidarity only after seeing several friends doing so, but this may reflect thought processes more mundane than the initial hypotheses imply.  Speaking for myself in the case of the rainbow example,I simply didn’t notice that Facebook had created the filter until I saw at least 4-5 friends had changed their existing profile pictures in a consistent way.  Additionally, I suspect that if there is any psychology at play in the decision to change a profile pic in these instances, it may have more to do with not wanting to be left out than any hesitation about going first.  If dozens of friends are showing solidarity with some cause that we also support, we may not want to appear opposed; and this motivation would produce the same data the researchers are studying but reveals a different decision-making process.  Finally, there is an element of innocuous bullshit that should not be ignored when it comes to this kind of “activism,” as was summed up by one of my gay friends when he wrote, “How come it’s only my straight friends who have changed their images to rainbow?”  Answer:  Because people are very comfortable wearing their beliefs on their sleeves, especially when there is absolutely no risk involved whatsoever.  Yet, Matias asks rhetorically:

“…Facebook’s past research on marriage equality has helped answer a question we all face when deciding to act politically: Does the courage to visibly—if virtually—stand up for what a person believes in have an effect on that person’s social network, or is it just cheap, harmless posturing?”

But why does it have to be either one?  A word like courage is probably overstating the significance of declaring a position on Facebook, while words like cheap and posturing may be too dismissive.  In his article, Matias cites research by Stanford sociologist Doug McAdam on the effects of peer involvement in Freedom Summer, the 1964 civil rights initiative that sent mostly white college kids from the North into the South to help get out the black vote.  While McAdam’s methodologies may be useful guides for data scientists looking at social media activism, it seems more than a stretch to employ the language we use to describe political action that gets people killed as we might use to describe the changing of a profile picture — even if it might result in a summary un-friending!

Still, I do believe the bandwagon effect in the age of social media is a critical and interesting area of study. And I think Matias is correct when he refers to data like profile pic changes providing insight akin to a super-poll. The sudden shift to the equal sign, for instance, does reveal something about how many people already supported same-sex marriage rights at that time; but there was also plenty of other evidence that provided the same information.  More intriguing — as I referenced in my last post — is the way in which social media very rapidly and tangibly revealed a latent disdain for the confederate battle flag the moment an act of violence catalyzed those emotions into action. That event, I think, is more representative of digital-age “activism” because the issue wasn’t even on the table 24 hours before it went viral.  And those of us who feel we’re right about the flag can enjoy the rapid turnaround of a previously intractable issue; but we should also be mindful of the hazardous volatility of high-speed bandwagons.

I started writing this blog in part because I saw my progressive, well-meaning, well-educated friends jumping on a rather cacophonous bandwagon to stop a bill (SOPA) that they grossly misunderstood.  More importantly, my friends bought into implausible, fear-mongering claims that had been handcrafted by an industry protecting its own interests; and this reflected a failure of epistemology that I found worth examining. Or at least trying to.  Today, many of those same friends have, for instance, boarded the anti-TPP wagon, not necessarily because they can say with certainty why they’re against it — and in fact many of the claims about its dangers are false — but because there appears to be broad consensus among progressives that it is a bad thing.  As a result, I noticed several friends inject criticism into Obama’s recent political victories, suggesting that while we were celebrating SCOTUS decisions on same-sex marriage and the ACA, we didn’t notice that the President “rammed” Trade Promotion Authority through Congress.

But global trade agreements aren’t binary the way flag up v flag down is; or same-sex marriage, yes v no; or the decision to rainbow or not to rainbow one’s face.  Some policy — in fact most policy — has less to do with how we feel about things than it does with weighing the imperfect pros and cons of proceeding or not with practical initiatives.  And it is in this regard that I think social media often fails us because it seems to foster and thrive on binary perspectives in contradiction of a geo-political reality that historically functions on compromise.  In this New York Times Op-Ed, David Brooks raises concerns that ought to at least provide food for thought with regard to the humanitarian costs of not entering into foreign trade deals. But such considerations appear almost entirely drowned out by the sheer volume of comments, quotes, memes, and headlines — the illusion of consensus among political peers — that validate the absolute certainty that this trade deal must be killed without further ado.  When it comes to complex decisions, I’m in favor of more ado rather than more corroboration that my friends and I just generally agree with one another.

Flags & the Tyranny of Quantum Liberty

It has been fascinating to watch the power of social media rapidly catalyze a latent disdain for the confederate battle flag as a byproduct of our outrage over the hate-filled, random murder of nine defenseless people.  I say it’s interesting because I have long-believed that there are perfectly unemotional arguments against any official flying of these battle flags, even if they did not connote racism.  Slavery, Dixiecrats, and the KKK aside, those flags were carried by regiments who fought to sever allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, and so do not belong flown over any institution that now derives its authority, liberty, and security from the power of that same body of law. As such, I have never been able to fathom why any conservative would defend the flag’s use in an official context, let alone anyone who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution.

Of course, these battle flags do connote racism and slavery and hate. In fact, the Stars & Bars may well have become one of the symbols of the early KKK because that group’s first members were supposedly veterans of the Army of Northern Virginia, whose banner that was. And I suspect these flags will soon come down in their official contexts, while private sales of rebel merch will continue to skyrocket, despite mainstream retailers like Walmart and Amazon discontinuing the sale of confederate-themed items. Some citizens who purchase these emblems are, of course, racists and haters, who were doubly-appalled last week by the concurrent hoisting of the rainbow flag with the Supreme Court’s affirmation of marriage rights for gay couples.  (No doubt, It sucks to be on the wrong side of history. Just ask Robert E. Lee.)

But many who will suddenly crave rebel hats, mugs, tees, shot glasses, etc. will do so as a reaction to the feeling that this sudden anti-flag “tyranny” represents another example of federal government overreach. And it is this narrative, often expressed by both the left and the right, that I believe is being overlooked, particularly as it plays out in cyberspace. As Jacob Siegel explains in this excellent article for The Daily Beast, it is a narrative that has been seething in the underbelly of the Internet for years.  And most interestingly, Siegel describes a confluence in which the anarchic sensibilities of the left swim in the same ideological pool that nourishes hate-crimes destined to manifest in people like Dylann Roof. Siegel writes…

“A reactionary, defiantly anti-social politics has been emerging for the last decade. It was well known under the auspices of “trolling” and well hidden by its pretense of trickstersism. It was actually juvenile fascism and vitriolic racism but, because it grinned and operated in cyberspace, it was a sensation when it first appeared less than a decade ago. Excitable theorists, bored journalists and naive political activists looked at its strange, adolescent face and pronounced on its revolutionary potential.”

My fellow progressives look at Dylann Roof, see a racist with a gun and want to go after the racism and the guns.  This is understandable. But it has thus far been anathema to the progressive agenda to look critically at the role of social media itself in helping to foster the seemingly relentless increase in these localized massacres.  Siegel provides insight into the evolution of hate groups, first on 4Chan and now on Reddit, and he describes the split within the “community” of trolls that produced the vigilante-style hacktivism of Anonymous. From Siegel again …

“In 2008 when The Church of Scientology began suing websites, forcing them to remove videos the Church considered private or defamatory, 4chan turned its attention to trolling the Scientologists. Eventually that produced a schism on 4chan. Some members, inspired by their success going after Scientology and the attention it brought, wanted to take a more activist role. The dedicated trolls rebelled. The activists splintered off and became the collective represented by a Guy Fawkes mask, known as Anonymous.” 

Although it is presently a progressive or liberal position to champion an “open” Internet bordering on a lawless internet with an absolutist approach to speech and a professed intolerance for infiltration by intelligence services, we might want to reconsider a more sober and balanced approach to these matters.  Because we can remove all the flags we want and scream for all the gun control we’re never going to get (or isn’t going to work), but what does work from time to time is intelligence gathering and, dare I say it, public demand that owners of businesses not support or profit from hateful, offensive, or criminal behavior. Siegel writes …

“Reddit defends the existence of communities like r/gasthekikes, r/watchniggersdie, and r/rapingwomen on free-speech grounds. That atmosphere has attracted right-wing extremists who left or were booted from other more established sites like Stormfront, where moderators, aware of scrutiny from law enforcement, have stricter posting rules.”

If Arkansas-based Walmart believes it’s time to remove a half-innocuous symbol from its merchandise, does it really make sense that San Francisco-based Reddit can defend hosting platforms that support the encouragement of racists, misogynists, and anti-semites to commit acts of violence?  Even if 99% of the idiots in the rapingwomen “community” on Reddit are not prospective assailants, and their speech is technically protected, that does not mean Reddit can claim this forum serves any social value whatsoever. And when the owner of a site or a publication makes a judgment call to moderate or even delete material that is both offensive and useless, it’s called editing, not censorship. It is the difference between a mature grasp of the contours of freedom and an adolescent penchant for anarchy. Anarchy is an illusion of freedom in which nobody is free except the monsters. Perhaps the most compelling statement Siegel makes is this one:

“What’s long been clear to the fascists has eluded the rest of us for a few reasons. The self-serving deceptions embedded in the idea of trolling, for one. And our persistent difficulty in grasping, despite all evidence to the contrary offered by governments and Silicon Valley plutocrats, that the Internet was not built to liberate us.”

Yes, I’ll be happy to see confederate flags placed in their proper historic context despite the fact that doing so is already amping up racist reaction.  As such, it may be time, while we rebuke the symbols of hate, that we also look more critically at the new mechanisms through which hate preaches, recruits, radicalizes, and activates its soldiers and lone-wolf terrorists. Because many progressive “digital rights” proponents have bought into what I’ll call a quantum view of civil liberty in which the infinite, micro-universe of cyberspace creates infinite opportunities for micro-infringements against an infinite sense of liberty. This mindset cannot help but redefine ordinary boundaries of fairness and decency as censorship. It assumes naively that people left to work things out in the cage-match of cyberspace will naturally produce a collective morality that is somehow more pure than the morality we shape in the physical world and express through the antiquated “rule of law.” Call me a cynic, but as black churches burn once again in the South, I struggle to see evidence of this new, cybernetic enlightenment expressed in the Reddit forum watchniggersdie.

Meanwhile, progressives who buy into the quantum view of civil liberty inadvertently provide aid to domestic terrorists like Roof by demanding policy, which actually makes the job of intelligence services more difficult.  As recently posted, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) stated that Internet-industry funded fears, exaggerating the role of public vs private surveillance of cyberspace has made rational debate in Congress over the proper role of intelligence nearly impossible.  So, while we insist upon the removal of hateful symbols, accepting that this will inspire more hate crimes, perhaps we progressives should also allow for the possibility that there are well-intentioned intelligence experts crawling through threads and chat rooms, who are in fact looking for the next son of a bitch planning another lynching.

When it comes to flags, corny as it may sound, I think about Aaron Sorkin’s fictional President Bartlett from The West Wing, who concluded many stump speeches with the declaration, “This is a time for American heroes, and we reach for the stars.”  The reference to stars is both literal and metaphoric.  Literally, the nation born in science and the enlightenment, and blessed with so many resources, has both the capacity and responsibility to lead the world in grasping the actual stars.  As a metaphor, I think “reaching for the stars” broadly refers to looking with hope toward the future.  The U.S. flag is grounded in heritage, it’s composition a derivative of the British colonial flags, but in place of the Union Jack that once adorned the corner, is the field of stars.  The stripes represent history, but the stars are about the future — about the capacity for the collective states to continually transcend the past, even to defy gravity, as when MIT nerds and good-old-boy pilots once reached for the stars together. Surely anything we call progress must be held to that standard.

Have a safe and happy Fourth of July.

Adapt to What? – An Open Letter

Dear Millennials:

Once upon a time (in the 1970s), the actor you might know as Steve Martin was a rising star in stand-up comedy.  One of his jokes began with the premise that he would tell you how to earn a million dollars and never pay taxes.  The real laugh in the bit came when Martin would say, “Ok, first get a million dollars….”  See? That’s funny.  And the reason I mention the joke here is that it seems to me quite a few peppy pundits out there are telling you a version of this joke, only they’re not kidding. They’re not saying “First, get a million dollars.”  Instead, they’re saying things like “Adapt to the market you’re inheriting,” which, in many cases, is an unfortunate euphemism for “Just become a star.”  Because if you don’t become a star in the market presently being transformed as you’re trying to enter it, you might be basically screwed.

No question it was very cool of Taylor Swift, who is obviously a superstar, to stand up to Apple on behalf of professional musicians, who will never be superstars. But as this indie artist points out, all the non-superstars (who, by the way, make most of the music you probably love) are still hosed because the streaming model is not yet sustainable, no matter whose service leads the market. And these music professionals are likely to remain hosed because we may have devalued work (not just music, but work) past the tipping point of sustainability. And you should be angry about this, even if you helped feed the problem.  This article by Rebecca Smith for Fortune explains why, for instance, the Uber business model can be a universal job killer.

“Today, as the super-rich have amassed ever greater shares of wealth, the connection between working for a living and being able to earn a decent living from work has disintegrated. Perhaps nowhere is this disparity more evident than in the growing “on-demand” economy. Companies like Uber, Lyft, Crowdflower, Homejoy, and others in transportation, delivery, hospitality, home improvement, domestic service, technology and elsewhere have adopted business models that pass the costs of doing business onto workers themselves and move the wealth their service provides upwards. The on-demand economy has already created its share of billionaires – Uber’s co-founders are worth around $5 billion each, while those who drive for Uber receive meager pay.”

So, what the “adapt” mandate implies here — again echoing Steve Martin — is “First, go invent Uber.” But there’s like 80 million of you millennials in America, and the digital-age market only has room for one or two (usually one) major player in any category at a time.  So, in terms of realistic ratios, even if a million of you might invent killer apps or become YouTube stars, neither of those enterprises will create and sustain real jobs for the  the other 79 million.  As Smith points out, and as supported in this essay by Umair Haque entitled The Servitude Bubble, the devaluation of labor and general shift toward a market of ad hoc pieceworkers, livery drivers, servants, and craftspeople all working too cheaply for a wealthy minority is not limited to any particular business sector.  As many of of my colleagues have been saying for some time, what the tech industry and free-culture consumers did to music is now manifest in other areas of the market. Smith projects your future as follows:

“Our new grad might sit down to her computer every day, wondering whether she will get enough work to make it through to tomorrow, doing mind-numbing tasks like matching names to photographs and matching the word “blue” with the color “blue,” and she’ll compete with 500,000 workers across the world who are hungry for the same micro-jobs. One researcher has found that 70% of the tasks on [Amazon’s] Mechanical Turk are worth 5 cents or less, yielding an hourly wage of less than $5.”

Maybe that prediction is more dire than necessary. I hope so.  But read between the lines in any number of trends and we see a hyper-efficient, data-centric view of the world, of culture, and of market value that appears to be fueling the growth of monopsonies empowered to dictate terms to every kind of worker from book authors to carpenters to truck drivers. And it occurs to me that for all its fluffy futility, OWS demonstrated that many of you were on the right track. You should be pissed off at the 1% and angry as hell at Wall Street.  But I’m sorry to say that the business models of the digital age are not the antidote to Wall Street; they are its worst intentions on speed.  It is insane that a company like Uber, which has yet to prove itself, which creates no real jobs, which functions like a pyramid scheme, and which could evaporate overnight is valued in the tens of billions by “the market.”  This should piss you off, not only on its own terms, but because major business owners in many sectors seem to be learning from these tech-based models how to take advantage of your talent, your time, and your costly educations for pennies on the dollar. They know the more that labor is devalued across multiple sectors and the more desperate your circumstances become, the more bargaining power they have. And it doesn’t even have to be malicious. If these economic forces drive the value of work down and the global market is flooded with millions of talented, educated people, it becomes untenable for even the most generous, well-intentioned employer to offer more than a meager going rate for your services.

But here’s a solution, at least part of a solution, as I see it:  you are the market. Right now, you’re the consumer everybody wants. Of course, because the big players figured out how to monetize your attention without asking you for any money, you won’t notice right away that you’re actually paying for the present with your own future value. (And how ironic is it that your time has been turned into a commodity pegged to advertising when studies show you will avoid advertising at all costs?)  It may not occur to you that it is contradictory to hate on Wall Street and then order up an Uber car or pirate a movie or a book, and the VCs whose names you don’t know are counting on you not to notice. You get the concept that “buying local” is an economic driver for your community, but the studies and the pundits all say you won’t even buy a digital download from your favorite band because when you were kids, some adult told you that you shouldn’t pay for music.  But that adult is a billionaire now, and he hasn’t even bothered to build a company where you might get a decent job.

Here’s an experiment I am sure won’t catch on, but what the hell:  stop pirating media; if you can, buy one extra album or video or book or something each month in a local, retail environment; get a subscription to a legal streaming service; and most of all, refuse to patronize or work for a businesses that wants people to work for free or is looking to turn valued labor into freelance, micro-tasks. Then, watch what happens. You’re the market. Let the damn billionaires adapt.