Jul 20, 2023·edited Jul 20, 2023Liked by Theo Horesh
I wonder if there might be other factors to consider in what you diagnose as the depoliticization of social media. When I hear this, I think it must reflect a perception that the volume and intensity of political discussion on social media has reduced. I think you say in one of the Facebook comments that this observation seems to date from after the mid-terms.
I imagine one data point you might rely on is the level of reaction you get on your own Facebook posts. This could be a true read of overall salience of political posts, or a hint that overtly political posts are de-ranked in your friend's feeds because of either a top-down algorithmic adjustment (e.g., a strategy by Facebook to depoliticize) or "learning" by the algorithm that political posts aren't as popular *at the moment*. Or it could be an anomalous condition based on some other unrelated factors about you or your content. In any case, I'd love to hear more about the data you are using to assess the prevalence of political discussion on social media.
I certainly think Twitter is a little easier to understand. Musk reflects the same basic misunderstanding of social media that has led to the rise, and inevitable demise, of multiple pockets of "conservative" social media sites like Gab, Parlor, Truth Social, etc. What highly active MAGA folks and influencers want is social media warfare where they can antagonize and infuriate their opponents. What Musk and fake first amendment absolutist warriors mistakenly *think* they want is freedom to say whatever they want without blowback. What Musk has activated is defensive behavior by anyone that's not a right wing culture warrior to either retreat from Twitter, or wall themselves off from an onslaught of fascist shitposting. I almost never see these (fascist troll) posts unless I go looking for them or someone on my curated list retweets (or now, usually, screen captures) some egregious post. It's not hard to avoid the toxic soup, and so I think most people do; or else they just stop using Twitter.
I really love the thesis advanced here, and in The Holocausts We All Deny, that the global response against the rise of fascism arose from the bottom up. That the leaders joined the fight after "the people" made it clear that they were willing to fight for Democracy. But I wonder if we might overinterpret that phenomenon, especially when we're looking at such recent history. I wonder if there is a genuine "withdrawal" from the battle by "the people", if that's really reflected in the data about social media activism, and if there's a causal connection between that and what you fear might be a return to a mere "power struggle" among the great powers?
For one thing, we are, as you point out, in an interregnum. And we've trained people to GEAR UP TO 11 for each election. There's definitely fatigue (I think we share a view of a group we work with that exhibits that fatigue). I also think the last war WAS fought largely on social media, perhaps because our institutions did not know how to respond and we felt visceral fear that they would fail. It's only now - almost 3 years later - that we're seeing law enforcement and our jurisprudence system really meting out justice. It might just be the right time to "take a break" and see how that plays out (if, in fact, it does play out before the next election, which we must hope for).
You mentioned a flagging of enthusiasm on the part of Trump supporters (e.g., when he calls them to arms at his arraignments) -- to me, this might well reflect that the justice system has achieved one of its main goals: deterrence. Going forward, I would not be surprised to see a bunch of angry boomers thinking three times before being summoned to a mob that might very well land them with a life-changing engagement with the law. I'm hopeful this plays out at a higher level as well. For example, the recent indictments of 16 fake electors in Michigan might well signal to the lieutenants in Trump's army that the gig is up. Similarly, Fox is still digesting the outcome of the Dominion lawsuit (and faces several more of similar magnitude), and we may well have seen that accelerant of MAGA extremism tamped down a bit (e.g., Tucker firing). And Facebook faces a very angry bipartisan Congress that probably has it seriously thinking about how to tamp down on mis/disinformation (I'm not convinced they'll succeed; we should not underestimate that the bad guys have learned a LOT from prior iterations of this warfare), and that might be reflected in a temporary reduction in the material that most inflames a response from both sides.
All that to say that -- on "both sides" -- we're in an interesting interregnum and it feels to me too soon to really judge what the grassroots (and astroturf) level of energy is going to be going forward. Whatever it is, I'm pretty confident that social media -- at least Facebook -- will remain a primary target for misinformation and that we'll see that continue to ramp up. In fact, I go hunting for toxic MAGA related content nearly every day, and I find it readily. I think -- as the GOP is increasingly cornered by Trumpism -- the activity level will likely accelerate and become ever more vicious. I anticipate a great battle on social media. I'm hoping that we've created antibodies that will rise in proportion to that threat.
I wonder if there might be other factors to consider in what you diagnose as the depoliticization of social media. When I hear this, I think it must reflect a perception that the volume and intensity of political discussion on social media has reduced. I think you say in one of the Facebook comments that this observation seems to date from after the mid-terms.
I imagine one data point you might rely on is the level of reaction you get on your own Facebook posts. This could be a true read of overall salience of political posts, or a hint that overtly political posts are de-ranked in your friend's feeds because of either a top-down algorithmic adjustment (e.g., a strategy by Facebook to depoliticize) or "learning" by the algorithm that political posts aren't as popular *at the moment*. Or it could be an anomalous condition based on some other unrelated factors about you or your content. In any case, I'd love to hear more about the data you are using to assess the prevalence of political discussion on social media.
I certainly think Twitter is a little easier to understand. Musk reflects the same basic misunderstanding of social media that has led to the rise, and inevitable demise, of multiple pockets of "conservative" social media sites like Gab, Parlor, Truth Social, etc. What highly active MAGA folks and influencers want is social media warfare where they can antagonize and infuriate their opponents. What Musk and fake first amendment absolutist warriors mistakenly *think* they want is freedom to say whatever they want without blowback. What Musk has activated is defensive behavior by anyone that's not a right wing culture warrior to either retreat from Twitter, or wall themselves off from an onslaught of fascist shitposting. I almost never see these (fascist troll) posts unless I go looking for them or someone on my curated list retweets (or now, usually, screen captures) some egregious post. It's not hard to avoid the toxic soup, and so I think most people do; or else they just stop using Twitter.
I really love the thesis advanced here, and in The Holocausts We All Deny, that the global response against the rise of fascism arose from the bottom up. That the leaders joined the fight after "the people" made it clear that they were willing to fight for Democracy. But I wonder if we might overinterpret that phenomenon, especially when we're looking at such recent history. I wonder if there is a genuine "withdrawal" from the battle by "the people", if that's really reflected in the data about social media activism, and if there's a causal connection between that and what you fear might be a return to a mere "power struggle" among the great powers?
For one thing, we are, as you point out, in an interregnum. And we've trained people to GEAR UP TO 11 for each election. There's definitely fatigue (I think we share a view of a group we work with that exhibits that fatigue). I also think the last war WAS fought largely on social media, perhaps because our institutions did not know how to respond and we felt visceral fear that they would fail. It's only now - almost 3 years later - that we're seeing law enforcement and our jurisprudence system really meting out justice. It might just be the right time to "take a break" and see how that plays out (if, in fact, it does play out before the next election, which we must hope for).
You mentioned a flagging of enthusiasm on the part of Trump supporters (e.g., when he calls them to arms at his arraignments) -- to me, this might well reflect that the justice system has achieved one of its main goals: deterrence. Going forward, I would not be surprised to see a bunch of angry boomers thinking three times before being summoned to a mob that might very well land them with a life-changing engagement with the law. I'm hopeful this plays out at a higher level as well. For example, the recent indictments of 16 fake electors in Michigan might well signal to the lieutenants in Trump's army that the gig is up. Similarly, Fox is still digesting the outcome of the Dominion lawsuit (and faces several more of similar magnitude), and we may well have seen that accelerant of MAGA extremism tamped down a bit (e.g., Tucker firing). And Facebook faces a very angry bipartisan Congress that probably has it seriously thinking about how to tamp down on mis/disinformation (I'm not convinced they'll succeed; we should not underestimate that the bad guys have learned a LOT from prior iterations of this warfare), and that might be reflected in a temporary reduction in the material that most inflames a response from both sides.
All that to say that -- on "both sides" -- we're in an interesting interregnum and it feels to me too soon to really judge what the grassroots (and astroturf) level of energy is going to be going forward. Whatever it is, I'm pretty confident that social media -- at least Facebook -- will remain a primary target for misinformation and that we'll see that continue to ramp up. In fact, I go hunting for toxic MAGA related content nearly every day, and I find it readily. I think -- as the GOP is increasingly cornered by Trumpism -- the activity level will likely accelerate and become ever more vicious. I anticipate a great battle on social media. I'm hoping that we've created antibodies that will rise in proportion to that threat.