Category: Digital Culture

The Anti-Vaxxer: A Cautionary Tale for the Digital Age

About two weeks ago, movie star Jim Carrey was in a libertarian lather over California Governor Brown’s signing the new state law mandating vaccinations for nearly all children. Carrey posted an indignant tweet accompanied by a photograph of a young boy with autism — a photo he used without permission. Carrey later apologized for his misappropriation of the child’s picture, but not for his irresponsible declaration about vaccines.  And this particular example, at least to this curmudgeon, is the folly of digital age in neon lights. I don’t mind that celebrities like Carrey have more Twitter followers than celebrity scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson; I mind that people can’t tell the difference.

The first measles vaccinations were made available in the U.S. in 1963, which means that my generation was the first to be nearly 100% immunized against the disease. As such, it is startling to realize that people from this same vanguard generation grew up to reject vaccinations for their own children in numbers sufficient enough to incubate a new outbreak of a once-dead disease. Based on my own observations, this particular brand of wrongheadedness began with social attitudes and economic forces that influenced us Gen-Xers as young adults, which then collided with the Internet to turn a minority attitude into a legitimate health hazard.

This blog is largely predicated on the thesis that information isn’t always information, that by expanding the populist idea that “everyone gets a voice” through technology, we have to accept the unfortunate side-effect that we cannot help but legitimize, brand, consolidate, and even monetize proposals so flawed that they can actually reintroduce a plague to the modern world. But as I say, I think the seeds that grew into the fully-formed anti-vaxxer were planted before we all got online. I also believe this is a middle-class or privileged-class phenomenon, so generalizations that follow apply accordingly.

GenX: The Helicopter Parents

For starters, we GenXers generally grew up to believe that our parents didn’t really know what they were doing. The Boomers were the first generation to divorce and remarry in large numbers, so straight away, their wisdom on relationships was questionable. But more than that, it seemed that we Xers approached parenthood distrustful of conventional wisdom, determined to lavish extraordinary attention on our children in ways that our parents had not. (Thus was born the phenomenon of the “helicopter parent,” who would raise the “snowflake” millennials.)

The market was there to meet us in our ambition to be different with a frenzy of new theories, new knowledge, new products, and new services, the volume of which validated our underlying assumption that we were right about what previous generations did not know. There were some well-founded innovations, like the proper way to lay an infant down in order to mitigate crib death or the need to use bike helmets and car seats. But there were also plenty of unproven ideas, like training a fetus in-utero how to one day master calculus by playing just the right amount of Bach in the general direction of the mother’s pregnant tummy.  Either way, there was a lot of “new” information out there, and a lot of it contradicted the body of knowledge previously referred to as common sense.

Unfortunately, information overload creates an anxiety that one might miss the opportunity to make a wiser choice about any matter. And although being a new parent is a special kind of madness under any circumstances, our particular anxiety about making “wise” choices for our kids was, I believe, symptomatic of a larger, economic apprehension. Whether we articulated it just this way or not, I think we instinctively wanted to make our kids competitive in the market, meaning intellectually competitive, but in an atmosphere in which we trusted very few of the foundations upon which we ourselves had been raised. As such, I have to say something truly unkind now about many Gen-X parents I have known—that one aspect of the narcissism within the privileged classes that produced anti-vaxxers is a sensibility that imagines the “perfect” child, most especially a child who does not have any kind of learning difficulties.

Thus, certain parents who had the financial freedom to indulge in the aforementioned bounty of contemporary wisdom on childcare were uniquely susceptible to the rumors that began to percolate in the early 1990s associating vaccines with autism.  Of course, the anti-vaxxer fallacy is a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc—confusing coincidence with causality—namely that symptoms of autism tend to present at the same time children are given certain inoculations.  Add to this the fact that autism spectrum disorders in general had only begun to be more acutely recognized and studied among the Millennial generation of children, and the number of cases can only have gone up in contrast to previous generations for whom no such studies existed.

Still, my wife and I certainly did ask our pediatrician in those days about the dangers of vaccines, to which he responded by emphatically describing the symptoms of mumps, pertussis, measles, etc. that often precede an early and entirely preventable death. We never openly doubted the decision again, but I won’t lie:  being a first-time parent is plain terrifying. My first kid was a preemie and small and used to spike terrible fevers with some of his vaccinations, and it was all scary.

But I began to realize that whatever paranoia I might subject myself to regarding these shots was nothing compared to the incalculable dangers the world had in store for him as he became increasingly independent –that of all the leaps of faith I would eventually take as a father, trusting this doctor’s 30+ years of experience was hardly a real test. We vaccinated, as did most other families, and we rarely gave much thought to the few holdouts whose paranoia, religion, or neo-hippie ideology firmly rejected inoculation.  You’d encounter one from time to time, either doe-eyed and daft or militant and rude, insisting that vaccines were a grand conspiracy; but these individuals seemed scattered and isolated, more likely to cause localized harm than to incubate a widespread crisis. Then, we got on the internet …

The Internet Multiplies Ignorance

Do a Google search with the term “Should I vaccinate?,” and the results are mixed. Do the same search using Bing, and the top results are a little more skewed toward advocating vaccination, but still mixed. When I did this search during the measles outbreak earlier this year, the top six articles were all suggesting or insisting that vaccinations are to be avoided. It stands to reason that when stories are “trending,” there will be more searches on related subjects; but because the search algorithms usually favor popularity with regard to prioritizing results, the apparent consensus on a given issue can have a profound effect on the individual doing the searching.  And because the default is pro-vaccination, it makes sense that more people —even those who will ultimately vaccinate—are going to review articles and sites providing them with rationales against vaccination. As a result, we see a situation in which people are doing exactly what they should do—use the Internet to educate themselves—but are inadvertently legitimizing a flawed proposal that, although it is a minority view, is still popular enough to foster a huge problem.

Education is no antidote. To the contrary, healthy skepticism is a cornerstone of education; it is right to seek information that may not jibe with prevailing wisdom. This blog critiques the prevailing wisdom that Web 2.0 is exclusively a boon to democracy and economic prosperity. We all have our biases and we look for information to support those biases. And having read some anti-vaxxer positions on the Internet, they are generally not hysterical and screaming like Jim Carrey’s dumb tweet. They are often thoughtful, well-argued, and frequently cite studies and research to support their positions. If I were a new father today reading all that, I would have doubts. As I say, I’ve been there.

But there is still the problem that the principles of immunization are proven science despite the fact that the “democratization of information” has, at times, moved the subject to the realm of “debate.”  And because the architecture of the Web tends to reward quantity (i.e. traffic) regardless of quality, this can entrench even the most disastrous beliefs to the extent that the very concept of expertise itself is frequently attacked as “mainstream” or “elitist” or the exclusive purview of “gatekeepers.”

The very real measles outbreak we witnessed in California in the winter of this year is a pretty good example as to how a false idea gains momentum, takes on the veneer of credibility when amplified through mass media, and then manifests in unintended consequences that ought to give rational people pause to consider a flaw in their hypothesis. Instead, the evidence of sick children only seemed to entrench the anti-vaxxer view, not unlike the way we saw the murders at Sandy Hook galvanize gun rights activists to shore up ideological defenses rather than participate in a conversation about gun violence in this country. As a result, for instance, democratic lawmakers in my state passed a reactionary and useless gun-control law that only serves to fuel the militancy of the opposing crowd. And we see this with issue after issue in what appears to be our increasingly hostile and self-righteous politics across the ideological and economic spectrum.

The word community is thematic among the inventors and promoters of social media, but there is no question that the purpose of community is often subverted by the democratization of information through these platforms.  The “everyone gets a voice” ethos nurtures the individual’s sense of civil liberty (i.e. narcissism) until it becomes entirely blind to any notion of community. The anti-vaxxer will assert his individual right to make the vaccine choice for his child while ignoring the communal responsibility implicit in the science of immunization. At the same time, the internet provides this narcissist with a new community–one that is naturally composed of fellow anti-vaxxers; and this same phenomenon will apply to any conspiracy theory.

In this context, I think about the men who first wrote our civil liberties into law and remember that every one of them witnessed firsthand the ravages and untimely deaths caused by small pox, measles, mumps, rubella, and a host of other maladies. So, I wonder if the Founding Fathers could visit us today, learn that our scientists had eradicated these terrible diseases, but that certain citizens viewed their participation in this immunology as an infringement on liberty, they might not request a copy of the Constitution and a red pen.

NOTE: Original post edited on 2/6/2021.

Photo by: Rabbits

Is Reddit Poised to Succeed?

This doesn’t happen often, but I’m glad to say that I feel compelled to counter-balance my last post about Reddit with a measure of praise for CEO and co-founder Steve Huffman, who announced yesterday that Reddit intends to adopt new policies for content that may be hosted on the site. That last post, largely based on commentary from Sam Biddle at Gawker, was predicated on the idea that if Reddit cannot take the risk of losing the worst elements of its user-base, that it may not be able ultimately to mature in to the profitable and relevant business it wants to be.  But as stated in this article on Recode, Reddit appears ready to risk angering, and perhaps even losing, some of its users on the assumption that the majority of its community will support common-sensical boundaries of decency and legality with regard to prohibited content.   From Huffman’s statement regarding these new policies:

“As Reddit has grown, we’ve seen additional examples of how unfettered free speech can make Reddit a less enjoyable place to visit, and can even cause people harm outside of Reddit. Earlier this year, Reddit took a stand and banned non-consensual pornography[1] . This was largely accepted by the community, and the world is a better place as a result (Google and Twitter have followed suit). Part of the reason this went over so well was because there was a very clear line of what was unacceptable.”

Among the verboten, says Huffman, will be “anything actually illegal,” citing copyright infringement as an example, but this does not include (and neither should it) discussion of activities that are illegal; and it is certainly refreshing to hear a firm acknowledgement from a leader of this community that such lines of distinction actually exist.  I encourage you to read Huffman’s entire statement.

Needless to say, this editorial role is not easy, and Reddit won’t always get it right in either direction.  And that’s okay.  Why should they be expected to be any more perfect than any other enterprise? But for the moment, I think Huffman and the organization deserve kudos for turning an important corner with regard to the larger discussion about reasonable boundaries and the ethics of profiting from a free-for-all.  Even in the real world, the right of free speech does not necessarily protect some of very same activities—like inciting violence toward an individual—Huffman identifies as now off-limits for Reddit. But above all, it is notable that, as a private enterprise, the company has come to recognize that it is in no way obligated to provide a platform for harassment, privacy infringement, criminal behavior, or incitement to any of these activities, but that it does have an obligation to at least try to make these distinctions.  I hope the majority of Reddit’s community supports these efforts.

Is Reddit Poised to Fail?

The site that calls itself “The Front Page of the Internet” may be about to collapse. Not because of censorship or any legislative act or any aggressive move by litigious corporations, but simply because serious people will abandon them. The recent ouster of CEO Ellen Pao in response to her efforts to clean up some of Reddit’s more puerile and offensive threads is a good thing. I don’t say this because I lack sympathy for whatever frustration Pao may be feeling but because I am glad to see Reddit as an organization reveal itself for what it is; and in that regard, I cannot in this moment articulate what it is any better than Sam Biddle writing for Gawker, thus:

“… an overwhelmingly male group of very vocal power-users whose understanding of progressive politics is limited to the idea that their pirated ecchi torrents have just as much a right to bandwidth as Netflix, few things are more offensive than being told what to do by a woman. And when harassment was banned and their fat-hating subreddit was shut down, they plugged their ears and screamed and stomped and spammed swastikas until they got their way. (It obviously didn’t hurt that their way also happened to align with the interests of the site’s founders.)”

As Biddle implies in his article, the adolescent mob rule that forced the resignation of Pao may be a sign that the site as a business—because it is a business—cannot afford to mature without losing a large portion of its user base. And it will soon become clear that the serious people who give Reddit the credibility it has earned as a platform for real discourse—advertisers, prominent guests for the Ask Me Anything forums, and of course the publishing conglomerate that currently owns the site—will come to view Reddit’s ruling mob as a liability rather than an asset. If this happens, the site could disappear altogether or simply disintegrate into another 4Chan. To quote Biddle again:

“For Reddit to become something resembling a viable business, it has to make money, and that means making the bigots and stalkers and imbeciles feel less welcome—how many firms will do business with the company that pays to keep /r/GasTheKikes running? Any outside CEO is therefore facing an impossible job: fumigate Reddit sufficiently for advertisers while placating a hostile militia of superusers that can’t seem to distinguish between mild rules and a prison sentence on Robben Island.”

Just a couple of posts ago, I wrote the following in regard to Reddit’s hosting hate forums like watchniggersdie and rapingwomen:

“…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.”

Reddit is a sad parable for the enlightenment we promised ourselves we would make of the digital age. Its founders—progressives like Alexis Ohanian—have presumed themselves to be relevant voices, speaking on behalf of the cybernetic phase in the evolution of civil liberty; yet they cannot seem to extricate themselves from the adolescent mob of trolls, racists, misogynists, anti-semites, and general goons whence their political clout is derived. Or maybe they don’t want to.

ADDENDUM: Thanks to regular reader John Warr for this update from The Register. Says current CEO Steve Huffman, “The overwhelming majority of content on Reddit comes from wonderful, creative, funny, smart, and silly communities. That is what makes Reddit great. There is also a dark side, communities whose purpose is reprehensible, and we don’t have any obligation to support them. And we also believe that some communities currently on the platform should not be here at all,”