Antisocial Media. Jak Facebook oddala nas od siebie i zagraża demokracji

by Siva Vaidhyanathan, Weronika Mincer (Translator), Katarzyna Sosnowska (Translator)

Antisocial Media, książka poświęcona hegemonii Facebooka, ukazuje się w najlepszym możliwym momencie, wpisując się w debatę o roli mediów społecznościowych w zachodnim modelu demokracji.

Antisocial Media to atak na obecny model biznesowy Facebooka wszystkich frontach. Autor opisuje manipulacje, jakim poddawany jest użytkownik po to, aby uzależnić go od Facebooka. Ten "największy na świecie system inwigilacji" gromadzi dane o dwóch miliardach użytkowników. Żaden inny nośnik reklam nie może się równać z tym, co oferuje serwis Zuckerberga. Oferta gazet, magazynów i telewizji wypada przy tym bardzo blado. W systemie Zuckerberga produktem jesteśmy my – i nasza uwaga.

Vaidhyanathan odnosi się również do gorącego tematu spłycenia debaty publicznej w zachodnich demokracjach, antagonizacji i radykalizacji różnych grup społecznych, tworzenia zamkniętych baniek informacyjnych, wyboru Donalda Trumpa na prezydenta USA, wyjścia Wielkiej Brytanii z Unii Europejskiej i wpływu obcych państw (głównie Rosji) na wiele z tych procesów. Antisocial Media to bardzo aktualna znakomita próba ujęcia zjawiska współczesnego w solidnych ramach koncepcyjnych.

Genres: Nonfiction, Technology, Politics, Social Media, Business, Sociology, Psychology

352 pages, Paperback

First published May 15, 2018

About the author

Robertson Family Professor of Media Studies at the University of Virginia.

Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin.

B.A., University of Texas at Austin.

Siva Vaidhyanathan is a cultural historian and media scholar, and is currently a professor of media studies at the University of Virginia. From 1999 through the summer of 2007 he worked in the Department of Culture and Communication at New York University. Vaidhyanathan is a frequent contributor on media and cultural issues in various periodicals including The Chronicle of Higher Education, New York Times Magazine, The Nation, and Salon.com, and he maintains a blog, www.googlizationofeverything.com. He is a frequent contributor to National Public Radio and to MSNBC.COM and has appeared in a segment of "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart. Vaidhyanathan is a fellow of the New York Institute for the Humanities and the Institute for the Future of the Book.

In March 2002, Library Journal cited Vaidhyanathan among its "Movers & Shakers" in the library field. In the feature story, Vaidhyanathan lauded librarians for being "on the front lines of copyright battles" and for being "the custodians of our information and cultural commons." In November 2004 the Chronicle of Higher Education called Vaidhyanathan "one of academe's best-known scholars of intellectual property and its role in contemporary culture." He has testified as an expert before the U.S. Copyright Office on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Reviews

[Uroš Đurković · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pazite šta želite, možda se i ostvari.

Tako ide, otprilike, priča o društvenim mrežama. A, ovom prilikom, gotovo sva pažnja je usmerena prema Fejsbuku. Nešto što je, makar deklarativno, osmišljeno kako bi povezalo ljude i demokratizovalo društvo, postaje najmoćniji i najuspešniji reklamni sistem u istoriji sveta (109), idealan za manipulacije, nadzor i autokratske režime. I, nažalost, društvene mreže ne podstiču na razgovor, nego izjašnjavanje (148) i njihova je primamljivost u iluziji da se daje doprinos, dok samo ispunjavamo sistem koji je neko drugi već uspostavio i čija koristoljubivost nema kraja. 

Vajdijanatan navodi kako je Fejsbuk imao značajnu ulogu u donošenju niza nepromišljenih odluka – od Bregzita do Trampovog prvog mandata, a ne zaobilazi ni primere iz drugih krajeva sveta, iz Egipta ili Mjanmara. Zabavan mi je bio podatak na koje su sve načine ruski agenti 2016. godine organizovali kampanje protiv kontrole vatrenog oružja, protiv imigracija, kao i za otcepljenje Teksasa (95). Ipak, ovo je samo delić problema – a hipermediji (društvene mreže) za razliku od tradicionalnih medija, poseduju jednu neobičnu osobinu, koja ih čini idealnim za političke manipulacije: daju iluziju celine, a izbor im je krajnje personalizovan. Vajdijanatan piše tako i o metodama psihografije – skupljanje podataka i pronalaženje prave poruke za kolebljive može doslovce da promeni tok izbora.

Ipak, šta je rešenje? Napustiti sve? Sumnjam. To je, zapravo, možda ideal – ali svako koga iole zanima društvo, treba na neki način da bude makar upoznat sa društvenim mrežama. Način upotrebe je nešto drugo, ali upućenost je neophodna. A uz nju i drukčiji pristup znanju, opreznost i nova pismenost. Toliko toga nam se pred očima dešava, a nismo to osvestili. Skrolovanje postaje obrazac mišljenja, a granice između nametnutog i pronađenog se gube. Bez obzira na to, biramo da učestvujemo u onome što je, zapravo, rasadnik problema. To i sam autor priznaje – ne veruje da može promeniti svet – ali i same opservacije o tome koji problemi postoje, utiče na sve. Pa malo po malo. Neka se klin klinom izbija.

I da, svestan sam da je ova knjiga, iako objavljena pre manje od deset godina, po mnogo čemu zastarela i da su danas neke druge mreže uzele primat, ali ono što je bilo aktuelno, traje i dalje i to, nažalost, često u još uznemirujućim vidovima. Propaganda je neočekivano žilava i to najviše kod onih ljudi koji misle da ne mogu nasesti.

A kako volim da obratim pažnju na prevod, neverovatno mi je da Rolan Bart preveden kao Roland Barts (38) ili da je reka Kajahoga preimenovana u Kujahoga (123). Recenzenti bi mogli da provere i ovakve momente, loš utisak stvaraju ovakva iskliznuća, naročito kod opštepoznatih teoretičara.

[Marco · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book reads like a draft. Maybe if it had gone through some heavy editing it could be more readable, or maybe they'd find out that it has 10 or maybe 15 pages worth of actual relevant and original content.

I have the feeling that since there are only a few reviews of this book here on Goodreads many of them come from the author's colleagues or students. This is not by a long shot a 4.38 book.

I suggest you use your time with something better and maybe wait to see if they chop this book down to 10% its current size.

[Александра · Rating 4 out of 5]

RTC

Покушала сам да напишем, све ми се обрисало офццц, као и увек. Не могу, немам снаге, ова апликација ме редовно саботира кад напишем рецензију. Скроз антидруштвена мрежа.

[Gamespacenl · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to have an informed opinion about the role of Facebook within the wider ecosystem of social media platforms, do yourself a favour and read this book. Even for the well informed (academics studying Facebook like me), there is a lot to learn. Facebook is so big and complex, and its business practice are so opaque, you need books like this to make sense of it.

Vaidhyanathan doesn't mince words. It's clear where he stands and that's a good thing. His profiling of Zuckerberg is devastating (rightfully so in my mind) but still fair. Much of this book is written before Cambridge Analytica and before Zuckerberg testifying before Congress. It speaks to the relevance of this book that even after some much "new news" coming out, there is still so much about Facebook that is NOT discussed.

Vaidhyanathan offers a solid roadmap to engage in conversations about Facebook: with friends, with students, with colleagues, and with politicians. It helps that the book is very well written and structured.

Facebook will not go away anytime soon. That's fore sure. As Vaidhyanathan notes at the end of his book, we therefore need more critical perspectives and informed critiques, like his, to chart out a way forward without deleting profiles or opting out.

[Jim Rossi · Rating 2 out of 5]

As someone who's been writing and warning about FB for years, I eagerly grabbed a copy of Antisocial Media. He covers many important topics but his predictable elitist partisanship really contaminates the analysis. Example 1: He rightly worries about ads being used to manipulate politics, including by foreign elements (mostly specifically Russians & Trump in 2016); but he makes zero mention of the pervasive political bias in editorial decisions and donations by FB's executives, presumably because they favor his political ideology. Example 2: We see the same bias in describing the mainstream news media: left-wing news media like the NY Times, Wired, Washington Post & New Yorker are considered reliable and he relies on them massively for sourcing, while Fox, Breitbart, etc. are "propaganda." Many, many more examples.

[Brooke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written by cultural historian and media scholar, Siva Vaidhyanathan, Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy is a thought-provoking and well-argued exploration of how an innocent social media platform built with good intentions has transformed into a force that polarizes groups of individuals, limits deliberation, and ultimately undermines democracy around the world. With accessible language and clearly explained concepts, this book will appeal to anyone interested in social media, regardless of whether they are students or researchers in media-related fields or just members of the general public. I read this book for my Information Ethics course and thoroughly enjoyed it.

[Klaudia_p · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pierwsze 100 stron było całkiem odkrywcze i zajmujące, a potem nastał moment, w którym autor zaczął wylewać wiadro pomyj na Marka Zuckerberga. "Niestety, prezes Facebooka wszystko robi źle". A któż z nas robi wszystko dobrze? Będąc zupełnie obiektywną, przyznam, że w kilku kwestiach miał rację, ale nie podoba mi się ten agresywny ton. Gdyby hejt na Zuckerberga zamienić na więcej merytorycznych dywagacji i analiz, książka Sivy Vaidhyanathana byłaby naprawdę warta poznania. Zuckerberg stworzył Facebooka, ale to nie czyni go odpowiedzialnym za całe zło tego świata.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

A timely and well-researched book. Vaidhyanathan writes clearly, personably, and often wittily. His basic argument is that the large-scale, negative effects of Facebook more than offset the pleasures and conveniences it offers each of us as individual users.

And yet . . . I do feel he goes on a bit long. His book is structured as a series of seven different views of Facebook as a "machine" producing certain social effects: pleasure, surveillance, attention, etc. A result is that Vaidhyanathan's argument tends to repeat itself rather than build or develop. I grew a little tired of the book before it was done, as much as I agreed with what he had to say.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Impeccably researched analysis of how Facebook not only foments confusion, division, and disinformation, but is actually perfectly designed to do so. The take-down of Zuckerberg is made all the more devastating by the gentle, careful hand with which it is done, like being dressed down by your high school principal. I appreciate that the author does not rely on click-bait-y warnings about addiction and deleterious effects of technology but rather carefully considers how the technology could be built differently or regulated in the future.

[Kent Winward · Rating 4 out of 5]

The problems with Facebook -- overall a very good dissection of the problems created by the social media empire, particularly in relation to politics. Probably would have been five stars, but needed some more meat on ways to address the problem, rather than pulling a Jaron Lanier or Douglas Rushkoff.

[Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

I felt tired going into this book, expecting another book urgently seeking to point out the many dangers of Facebook, and mobilising a movement against it. And on one level, that is exactly what this book is. But most importantly, Vaidhyanathan knows what the book is, and is utterly charming in his delivery. He is under no illusions, he rapidly reassures the reader, that the book is going to do more than make us more aware - it won't change or stop the course of history, or derail one of the world's largest corporations.
It was much more global in scope than I had been expecting (and, if I may be slightly snide, unusually so for an American academic). Vaidhyanathan looks at Facebook's intervention in countries where the compressed content makes it the easiest way to share information. There is some good analysis of how Facebook exploits desires to define and get approval for a sense of identity - even one founded on hate.
He points out the stupidity of early naive views that somehow the internet would be a paradise of unfiltered information leading to wisdom, that anathema of early campaigners to government regulation came from a solid evidence base but failed to consider the possibilities of power:
"Every New Yorker reader loves remembering the courage of civil rights activists. Every Foreign Affairs reader dreams of secular democracy in Iran. Neither considered the possibility that Facebook could be used by Buddhist nationalists to spark genocide against a Muslim minority in Myanmar. Neither considered that corrupt leaders such as Ilham Aliyev in Azerbaijan would deftly exploit Facebook and Instagram to promote propaganda and monitor citizens. Neither considered that Facebook does much more than connect Friends: it manages and massages what passes through it."
There is little new here if you follow this stuff, but the book is engaging enough not to notice.

[Josh Keirsey · Rating 1 out of 5]

This author worries about social media “controlling” the flow of information while disregarding the fact that 6 corporations own all US media.

The book itself tends to be misleading especially chapter 6 where he spends half the chapter talking up the “threat” Cambridge Analytica represents then admitting they are just blowing smoke and the psychographic stuff is all bs. He speaks of “filter bubbles” while failing to recognize his own blind faith in broadcast and print media being arbiters of truth. He talks of surveillance while ignoring China’s iron grip on its own digital realm TODAY, choosing instead to use cold war east Germany as an example of information control.

What this book is really about is old school media and new school media fighting over who “deserves” the power to decide what truth is. No one platform or group should have that power.

[M.T. Karthik · Rating 5 out of 5]

S. Vaidhyanathan has comprehended and elucidated what two billion of us vaguely understood when we joined (hit 'agree' quickly without reading the TOS) and couldn't express ourselves to resist. Users of Facebook should be OBLIGED to read this book. It isn't about reform at the corporate level, after all. Users have to take responsibility for what FB has become.

PLEASE read this book

mtk

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought this book because I'm interested in social media, however this book is exclusively about Facebook (I should have paid more attention to the subtitle). I think if you're interested in this topic already the book just tells you things that you already know. Also it drags on too much.

[Mel · Rating 1 out of 5]

While the take home message was a good one, the book was waaaay too long. It could have been a lot more concise.

[Walter Ullon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read: 5 solid stars.

Took me a while to finish this one as I found myself repeatedly going over chapters, re-analyzing the content, going over the references and giving myself ample time to digest the commentary.

But before we go any further you'd probably want to know, "will this book make me want to delete my facebook account?" That depends on what you ultimately value. I myself did it many years ago at a time when FB was perhaps 1/10th as influential as it is today. If anything, these pages should give you enough cause to re-evaluate the role that not only FB but all social media plays in your life.

Early on the author points out, "Facebook likely has been—on balance—good for individuals. But Facebook has been—on balance—bad for all of us collectively." Sure, we can share photos and funny status updates and comment on our friends pages, but the overall effect of all this has been a gradual conditioning of the users to welcome exposure to influence outside their immediate social sphere, all of which is mediated and amplified by a commercial platform that just about perfected the practice of turning people into distracted data cattle. It may not be you, but it is us:

"In his 1985 bestseller, Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil had argued that Americans should not have been paying so much attention to the foreboding picture of totalitarianism in Orwell’s novel. The prospect of that sort of social control—by centralized brute force and fear—was unlikely to spread or find purchase in societies so committed to consumerism, expression, and choice. Instead, Neil argued, we should be heeding the warnings issued by Aldous Huxley in his 1932 futuristic novel Brave New World. “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books,” Neil wrote in 1985. “What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.” Huxley, Neil explained, described a culture deadened by feelings, bored by stimulation, distracted by empty pleasures. What threatens those of us who live rather comfortably is not so much brutality as entertainment. I would only add a coda to Neil’s invocation of Brave New World: our collective inability to think through our problems and our ability to ignore our problems invite brutality—or at least make it that much harder to confront brutality when it arrives and is aimed at the least visible or vocal among us."

According to Vaidhyanathan, the mechanics through which FB markets its special brand of subtle "brutality" is deliciously simple and taught in behavioral-psych courses everywhere:

"Facebook, as novelist and internet freedom advocate Cory Doctorow has explained, is like a Skinner box. It conditions us by intermittent reinforcement. “You give a rat a lever that dispenses a food pellet every time and he’ll just get one when he’s hungry,” Doctorow told an audience in 2011. “But you give him a lever that only sometimes dispenses a food pellet, he’ll just hit it until he runs out of steam because he’s not sure what the trick is and he thinks he’s going to get it if he just keeps on banging on that lever."

This is the essence of FB, Vaidhyanathan argues, whose algorithms are finely tuned to favor content that elicits strong emotional responses from its users thereby shortchanging any possibility of measured, rational debate. Moreover, the type of content displayed to the user has been shown to be highly effective at transforming the user's mood, which can then be leveraged as demand-capital for selling certain kinds of ads (see: Weapons of Math Destruction.).

At face value, FB is in the business of selling ads, though its mission statement claims to want to "to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together". Regardless, neither of these goals could be accomplished without some mechanism that generates highly charged content of social import, even if mired in falsehoods. FB wants to know you to your core, segment you for the sake of targeting you with highly specific ads, collect its coin and let you fend for yourself:

"By posting a story that solidifies membership in a group, the act generates social value. If the veracity of that post is questioned, sticking by it, defending it, and criticizing the critic further demonstrate group loyalty. This, again, has social value, even if it has many other costs. Even when we post and share demonstrably false stories and claims we do so to declare our affiliation, to assert that our social bonds mean more to us than the question of truth. This fact should give us pause. How can we train billions of people to value truth over their cultural membership when the question of truth holds little at stake for them and the question of social membership holds so much?

Some time ago, I remember hearing about "Delete Facebook Day" movement. After the election debacle and all the issues related to user's identities being stolen, trolling, Cambridge Analytica, etc., people were rightly fed up with Zuck's antics. And it worked! In the period of time from March 14th to March 21st ("delete" day), people quit Facebook in droves. Now, would you like to know when was it that Facebook had the most downloads on the Android app store, ever? The day immediately after "Delete day". It is so well embedded into our society and daily mode of operation that it is just too hard to extricate ourselves from its influence. As Chaos Monkeys author Antonio Garcia Martinez put it, "Facebook is basically a digital simulacrum of real community...it is to real community what online porn is to sex. It's this sort of cheap digital copy that no one would use if they had access to the real thing."

[Lauren Flores · Rating 3 out of 5]

Insightful, informative, and alarming!

I choose books based on their titles and thought this book would be your run of the mill “Facebook can lead to depression” books, but it’s so much more than that and makes the alarming connections between Facebook and the carving away at democracy.

At times the book can get a bit monotonous (I was listening to an audiobook version and also did not love the narrator’s voice), but overall very digestible.

[Ashley Scroggins]

"We have become data producing farm animals, domesticated and dependent. We are the cows. Facebook clicks on us. That data is woven into an invisible lattice of coercion and control, not to mention a source of enormous profit when sold to advertisers or other interested parties. The success of Facebook feeds itself. "

Mark Zuckerberg is slime.
But you already knew that.

[Romulus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Doskonała, analityczna książka, której tytuł wystarczy za streszczenie. Czegoś takiego oczekiwałem i nie zawiodłem się. Powinien przeczytać ją każdy użytkownik Facebooka. Nie po to, aby go bojkotować, ale by nabrać odpowiedniej perspektywy czy świadomości odnośnie tego jak jesteśmy manipulowani. I jak bardzo mamy to gdzieś. Po lekturze tej książki nie zlikwiduję profilu, zresztą nie taki jest jej cel. Autor też nie zamierza zawracać kijem Wisły. Warto wiedzieć jak bardzo jest się manipulowanym i jakie wiążą się z tym zagrożenia. Nie tylko dla prywatności (a co to jest?), ale i dla więzi międzyludzkich, społecznych czy dla demokracji. Po tej książce jestem przekonany bardziej niż wcześniej, że korporacje powinny być trzymane na krótkiej smyczy regulacji. I bezlitośnie.

[Jud Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

If this review had a subtitle, it would be "The problem with subtitles." The problem is that subtitles try to squeeze all the meaning of an entire book into a few words. Functionally, it's stupid. Nobody goes around saying, "Have you read the latest subtitle?" But maybe they should. After all, it's essentially a headline, and how often do we know anything about anything beyond the headlines that parade before us on our "wall" or in our "feed"?

Feed. Good word, that, for us human informational bovines. Here is a book with a perfectly good title -- Anti-Social Media -- whose subtitle goes on to tell us what the title means -- How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy -- so that we can have something to add to the coffeehouse chatter: "Hey, did you know that Facebook disconnects us and undermines democracy? Terrible, innit? Hey, look what just popped up on my feed: Ronaldo and Neymar, and they're not playing soccer, they're boxing! Hahaha!"

I think I prefer the quaint, old-timey way that publishers used to provide a seemingly alternative title: Anti-Social Media -- Or How Facebook Primarily (But Also Google, Not to Mention a Host of Others) Profits by Providing a 'Free' Service that Tickles Our Inner Compulsion to Use the Cotton Gin to Generate Profits and Other Glib Excuses for Enslaving Others.

In fact, this book doesn't mention the cotton gin. But if you will allow yourself to go beyond the subtitle and actually read the entire book, you'll learn that author Vaidhynathan is onto something much deeper than the manner in which the architecture of Facebook willy-nilly acts on the human spirit like a steady diet of Coca-Cola acts on a set of teeth.

(I said "spirit." I meant "brain." But I couldn't use that word, because it connotes "rational," which as Seth Godin says, no one is. And everybody knows that Seth Godin must be right because Seth Godin is a Marketer and we are all Brands and Brands don't use rationality because it isn't sticky and lacks the potential for virality, which autocorrect wants to change to "virility," but that was another time.)

So, anyway: spirit. Why do people drink so much Coke? There's like 9.75 teaspoons of sugar in one 12 oz. can. Imagine putting that much sugar on a bowl of cereal. It's total crap, and it funds an EMPIRE. Full disclosure: part of the empire is a university I got a degree from, so totally worth it, right? Just like slavery, except rotten teeth and obesity! That's the spirit!

And then there's Facebook, and not only is it FREE, but it doesn't rot your teeth or make you fat, and it comes complete with an afterlife by keeping you friends with people after they (or you) die! Who wouldn't want it? So, it's completely neutral, right?

If you think that, you've never concerned yourself with advertising. Back in the graybeard days of advertising -- all of 15 years ago -- they used to say that 20% of your advertising budget worked, but you didn't know which 20%, so you had to go ahead and spend the other 80% on stuff that didn't work. Now, with Facebook sucking up all kinds of personal and browsing data that its users give up for FREE and fire-hosing it to advertisers, anybody with any kind of advertising budget can customize many messages to many audiences and gauge the responses. With that kind of feedback, no wonder the traditional "Waste 80% of Your Advertising Budget With Us" newspapers are struggling.

And guess who have massive advertising budgets to saturate an atomized market with targeted messages? Political marketers, with dictators like Vladimir Putin showing the way. Here's Vaidhyanathan: "By segmenting an electorate into distinct sets, candidates move resources toward efforts to pander to small issues with high emotional appeal instead of those that can affect broad swaths of the electorate and perhaps cross over presumed rifts among voters. It's not necessary -- and may be counterproductive -- for a campaign to issue a general vision of government or society or to articulate a unifying vision. It's still done, but it's not the essence of the game anymore. Voter targeting … encourages narrow-gauge interventions that can operate below the sight of journalists or regulators. A campaign like Trump's can issue small, cheap advertisements via platforms like Facebook and Instagram that disappear after a day or get locked forever in Facebook's servers." (p. 162)

"High emotional appeal": your brain on Coca-Cola. We love it, we can't get enough of it, and we are powerless to resist, and the first three letters of Seth Godin's last name are G-O-D. Sweet.

Even if Mark Zuckerberg has good intentions, and even if his company makes occasional interventions, they manifest the naiveté of the libertarian Silicon Valley mindset. His creation is a Frankenstein monster, out of his control: "Facebook is simply too large and the variety of human depravity too vast for the company to deploy enough people or computer code to anticipate and regulate the misbehavior of millions." (p. 204)

The broader value of the book -- beyond the narrowness of its title and subtitle -- is that Vaidhynathan transcends his own characterization that "Facebook is itself the problem" with the larger problem of people and how they respond to technological innovation: "[N]ot for the first time, market and political forces have turned products of the Enlightenment against enlightenment. … When we make a cult of technology and welcome its immediate rewards and conveniences into our lives without consideration of the long-term costs, we make fools of ourselves." (pp. 202-3)

As to what should be done, the author argues both for the application of more accountability and transparency to the lesser problem of Facebook, e.g. by extending Federal Election Commission oversight of political advertising to web-based platforms (presently not the case). As to the larger problem of the human response to technological innovation, at one level he says resistance is futile -- he himself is not leaving Facebook, and it would be a mere "blip" for readers of his book to do so -- but on the other he counsels that we "reinvest and strengthen institutions that generate deep, meaningful knowledge," (p. 215) e.g. universities, museums, libraries, science, responsible journalism. He also says that we must get political. The libertarian mindset of Silicon Valley has produced at the corporate level "the hubris of self-righteousness" that threatens the very notion of democratic self-government. "Only the threat and force of stern state regulation can push companies to straighten up," concludes Vaidhynathan. "That's both how it is and how it should be." (p. 219)

So uh who won the boxing match? Neymar or Ronaldo? Wait, wait, don't tell me, it no longer matters, cuz it looks like Scaramucci and Omarosa are gonna tangle, but mostly I can't wait til five years from now when they will be gone. Trump will be gone, the US will have a Green New Deal, Medicare for all, a well-regulated militia armed with flintlocks, Facebook and Google will be public utilities, and the EU will move its capital from Brussels to London. Also, people will have actually read this book, gone beyond its publisher's marketing crapshoot of a subtitle, and brought policy back into fashion. Because yes we can … think.

And I will have written a book called 9.75 Teaspoons and the Truth: Drink the Kool-Aid. No, no, no. Listen to my inner Seth Godin; pack it with virality; then go all virile and kick him to the curb: Think the Kool-Aid.

[Syd Botz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Vaidhyanathan argues that Facebook impairs our collective ability to actively think and deliberate about the issues that we are all struggling against. Vaidhyanathan points to how Facebook is designed (News Feeds that do not encourage engagement with more than a headline, likes and comments all act as measures of both positive/negative engagement with content, etc) in combination with market forces (Facebook profits from data-driven marketing) and scale (billions of people in unique locals around the world have accounts) leads to an information ecosystem that rewards immediate gratification. This information ecosystem is quite rapidly becoming synonymous with our political lives which is where Vaidhyanathan locates the real danger of Facebook.

This is an incredibly nuanced take on the consequences of Facebook, tying together issues of filter bubbles, disinformation, fake news, social/political engineering, hypermedia, revolution and people power on social media, corporate social responsibility, digital advertising, and surveillance, without—thankfully—ever suggesting a real solution is for us to all delete our Facebook pages.

In the cacophony of technology pundits and reporters trying to keep up with Big Data, the attention economy, surveillance capitalism, and the growing number of new terms for our quickly changing world, the most unique and rewarding part of Vaidhyanathan’s work is that he offers a framework for thinking about the consequences of rapid technological change. This makes his work stick, even as the details of 2018 Facebook quickly become obsolete. Reading Vaidhyanathan taught me how to ask important questions of technology. What are the stories we tell ourselves about technology? What makes our stories of the power and fears of technology so powerful and important? Why does it matter that Facebook sought to connect the whole world?

Best summarized, Vaidhyanathan says, “The problem does not lie in the application of technology per se. And the problem certainly does not lie with pure science or the scientific method. It lies in the irrational ways we think about science and technology. When we make a cult of technology and welcome its immediate rewards and conveniences into our lives without consideration of the long-term costs, we make fools of ourselves” (203). Because Vaidhyanathan is a cultural studies scholar, Vaidhyanathan uses the frameworks of techno-fundamentalism and technopoly to describe the phenomenon of relying on technology to solve fundamentally social problems.

If you have any interest in critically thinking about digital media and technology, Vaidhyanathan is required reading.

[Mark Valentine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading Vaidhyanathan's book has made me very cynical about FacePlant. I don't think I will delete my account soon but I will use it much more gingerly since I have come to learn of its enormous power to stifle democracy and deliberative process that is foundational for a republic like ours.

In graphic detail, he documents how FB has become the largest advertising machine in the history of the world. It does this by allowing customers "free" access to let our personal information be mined, packaged, and sold to corporations and causes. He shows how it entices us to the dopamine rush, how it watches us better than any Panopticon (he uses the term, cryptopticon), how it captures our attention by seizing micro time frames of our attention, how it deceives us into thinking that we can become casual philanthropists, how it provides the illusion that we protest politics inside an echo chamber of interest, how it warps our sense for reliability, credibility, and transparency in politics and journalism. When we join up to be one of the 2.2 billion FB users, we, to quote Shakespeare, become "wedded to calamity."

Zuckerberg's naive optimism about FB connecting us and being a platform for our free expression deludes himself and others who know what it really is--it is, in reality, a gift to any authoritarian ruler who wants to surveil, close down opposition, and ferret out those who speak freely. Journalists have even more work to do to undo what FB's damage has been in less than a generation.

[Lili · Rating 4 out of 5]

Listened to this on audio from my library and bought the hardcover to highlight all the awesome information. Author did a great job in the first half of the book really delving into how FB has structured our social interactions with the closest people to us as well as those we haven't spoken to in decades. The biggest takeaway and one the author touches on multiple times in the segmented narrative, is that Zuckerberg's hubris in striving to create a more connected society has accomplished quite the opposite and instead made it easier for us to divide ourselves into FB Groups that only reinforce our thoughts and beliefs. There should be a better way to foster constructive commentary without it being a free-for-all without any consequence or distinction between actual fact and conspiratorial narratives.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

I no longer think Mark Zuckerberg is evil, but he is astoundingly stupid.

I'm very much of the same mind as this author. If it wasn't the only way I keep in touch with many people, or if it wouldn't feel so socially isolating (most people we knew here in town moved away), I would probably delete my account at this point.

[Christine Gustin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not my favorite book on this topic. It’s got a condescending vibe and is filled with opinion monologues masquerading as facts. If you’re looking for a more thorough and less bias perspective on this important topic, I recommend reading “Digital Minimalism” by Cal New Port and the book “The Coddling of the American Mind”.

[Gulshan B. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Somewhere along the way, this erudite treatise on the ills and evils of Social Media, euphemistically represented by Facebook, devolves into a series of tirades - against a lot of things, way beyond Social Media. While there are blisteringly accurate portrayals aplenty, there are also tiresome diversions and what can at best be described as opinionated reporting.

To give credit where it is due, however, one must first concur with a majority of Mr. Vaidhyanathan's fusillade against Facebook, and against its founder, the arrogant and pretentious Mark Z. Facebook has brought out some of the worst communal behavior in mankind and in countries, and has not just enabled but actively encouraged and fostered totalitarianism around the world. The interventions Zuckerberg offered and was welcomed for, in Philippines as especially eye-opening. Having to chase ever-evolving and cutting-edge tools and technologies is perhaps a pernicious but unavoidable side effect of progress, but when the technology takes sides and offers to habituate (with a clear intent to enslave) its user populace, it is likely to invite not just criticism but harsh judgment. With all due respect to Zuckerberg, Mr. Vaidhyanathan points out - many times - that Facebook was never meant to be a worldwide phenomenon, worth billions of dollars. It was envisioned and created in that most classic of tech-incubator settings - the dorm room, and its initial audience was supposed to be peers within the hallowed walls of Harvard. That it has become, with the possible exception of Apple, Microsoft and Google, the most ubiquitous consumer technology brand is largely a serendipitous happenstance, as it rode the wave of technological enfranchisement driven first by Microsoft, then by Google and then by Apple.

The book, however, doesn't pull any punches, even if in doing so it ends up hammering a point repeatedly, over and over again. Too many times, a metaphor is rephrased and repeated, too many times a social ill is described in more than enough words, and ultimately that blunts - rather than sharpens - many of the arguments contained here.

It shouldn't take too much convincing for any reader of this book that FB today is an unprincipled and exploitative capitalist venture, that serves only its founder's naive vision of world unification (while blithely dividing it), and its shareholders' unquenchable thirst for value and returns. Yet, a lot of real estate is spent presenting and then repeating similar arguments about what FB does, and how is that bad. The role FB played in the 2016 US Presidential elections is by now canon, and while the author presents many pieces of a story - all the way from Cambridge Analytica to Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon, perhaps in his urge to come across as equanimous and just, refrains from outright blaming FB for subverting democracy in the US. However, in later chapters, when it comes to other countries and the role FB ostensibly played in subverting democracy in those countries, the judgment is fairly loud and extremely clear. Perhaps he wants to distinguish US from other democracies, by showing it has some innate resilience in the face of such machinations. If only that were true!

While placing the responsibility, if not blame, on FB for many of our societal problems, there is only lip service - in the absolute last handful of pages - when the author pause to consider the fact that ultimately, FB is just a business, and Zuckerberg is in it for the money - irrespective of all his supposed lofty intentions, and one must at least acknowledge and question the expectation that a Business has to be ethical in its pursuit of profit. As long as profit is the driver of commerce, ethics is largely going to be enforceable by regulation. The blatant lack of regulation in the tech sector, and the spineless and blind-as-a-bat oversight that Congress imposes on companies like FB could have gotten more coverage as being a catalyst in this devolving situation.

The rather copious endnotes are ample proof of the hard work and deep research that has gone into getting this content printed, and it shows.

Ultimately, however, there are no straightforward solutions. This is not a physical or even a merely moral problem. This is a problem that is intrinsically human - our mob mentality, our baser instincts and our worst proclivities, and curing it is essentially as easy as curing greed or hatred or bigotry. There is a callout to The Matrix, and more than a few callouts to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. If there's one lesson we've learnt from those paeans, it is that as a species, humanity is incorrigible. Removing FB or deleting the app is surely neither an answer nor is it even going to be enough. This book, then, is at best a very good first step in the right direction - in glimpsing at the kind of future our technology-driven lives are hurtling towards. It is an acknowledgement of what all we're doing wrong, and how is it hurting people.

If we're grieving for humanity, surely we're past denial and we're done being angry. We must now begin bargaining, while avoiding depression.

[Mike Falconer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Warning: This book may alter your perceptions on how the world currently works and your part in democracy’s downfall.
Anti-Social Media is actually misnamed.
This book is an indictment of Facebook and to a lessor extent the other social media sites that seek to emulate its success. What initially seems to be the book’s raison d’être; an examination of the overreach, and dubious business practices, that led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, is actually far more wide spread, nuanced, and ultimately damning. With possibly its most revealing allegation being that Cambridge Analytica were never anything more than Snake Oil Salesmen; while Facebook’s own employees worked directly for political campaigns in multiple countries with almost universal damage to democracy and the pollical process in the countries in which they worked.
Mr. Vaidhyanthan’s case is that Facebook is on its way to becoming, or indeed has already become, the operating system of our lives. While it has been beneficial in general terms for individuals; improving communication with friends and relatives, and even people who we would never have hoped to keep in touch with before its arrival, Facebook has done significant damage to society as a whole.
Facebook’s success, Mr. Vaidhyantha argues, is based on two elements. The first being that Facebook is deliberately engineered to be addictive; rewarding interactions likes, and shares, in similar ways to how casinos keep their guests playing. The second element of Facebook’s success being that it has become “one of the most effective advertising machines in history.” Facebook knows so much about us, and offers advertisers such levels of targeting that were never before dreamed of, that it is unparalleled as a sales tool.
If Facebook was just an engine for kitten & puppy pictures, along with family updates, and the odd attempt to sell us things, it could quite possibly be the force for good it sincerely believes that it is. However, Facebook has become a major factor in the political world. Facebook encourages weak ties between people, and is great for declaration and reaction. It undoubtedly helps political activists, activism, hyperbole, and alarm. Facebook; however, is useless for political discourse and deliberation. Posts which do not create strong reactions one way of the other fall foul of Facebook’s algorithm and are just not delivered in news feeds.
Although the tone of Anti-Social Media, is one of alarm, and it makes a strong case for the damage that Facebook and its ilk do to the world; the author does have some interesting suggestions as to possible ways to close the pandora’s box that Mark Zuckerberg has opened. If fact, Mr. Vaidhyanthan’s historical comparison of Facebook with the East India Company, and their “shared zeal for making the world a better place,” should give us all pause for thought. Facebook’s users are currently its product – Facebook sells highly targeted, and therefore highly effective advertising. Facebook could be forced to treat its users like clients; much like lawyers or financial consultants. If Facebook was to become an informational fiduciary, the argument goes, an only use data in ways that do not harm us, it may finally understand the difference between advertising that tries to sell us products, and political propaganda.
The Anti-Social Media is more than an inditement of the social medial filter bubble and Facebook creating more divides while its intentions are to bring us together. The book asks us to look at the changes in society, and in ourselves, as we have been using Facebook as an operating system. It asks us if the kitten and puppy pictures are worth it? Interestingly it does not ask us to give up on Facebook or Social Media; but to understand its societal dangers and the recognize our responsibilities in doing something about it.
This is the book that did not make me give up Facebook.
It did make me delete Facebook off my phone.
And renew a year’s subscription to a highly reputable news organization.
It’s that good.

[Eman Aboubaker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Intro: In the book Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy, talks about the impact of Facebook on our society, democracy, and information consumption is looked at. Siva Vaidhyanathan, the author, and a media professor, discusses Facebook's shortcomings. I'll give you an overview of the book, discuss how it relates to our investigation of information, and then let you know what I think of it.

Summary: The main idea of Vaidhyanathan's book is that despite Facebook's claims to promote community, it instead creates isolation and threatens democracy. He discusses how Facebook's computer programs, which are made to generate revenue and keep us active on the platform, might limit us to only seeing items we agree with. As a result, we are less likely to hear opposing views. Additionally, he discusses how myths and false news can spread on Facebook more quickly than actual, in-depth news. Concerns regarding our privacy and the morality of Facebook's business operations are also raised while discussing Facebook's advertising and data collection activities. Vaidhyanathan also discusses the difficulties that institutions and those who work with data face in the current digital age. He advises that rather than blindly believing everything we see online, we need to be experts at determining whether sources are trustworthy.

In our class research and information topic, "Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy" is a useful book. It tells us that in today's social media age, we really need to be smart about the information we see, as Vaidhyanathan says, "Being careful about what we see online is super important" (Vaidhyanathan, p. 87). The book also talks about how Facebook's tech shapes the stuff we see every day, like, "Facebook's computer stuff really affects what we see" (Vaidhyanathan, p. 123). It discusses the issues researchers and info pros face in our digital world, like, "Libraries and teachers are dealing with lots of changes in how we get information" (Vaidhyanathan, p. 165). It also looks at how social media connects with our politics, with Vaidhyanathan saying, "Facebook's role in politics is super important" (Vaidhyanathan, p. 211). Adding our course experts' ideas will help us understand these big topics better and show how "Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy," fits with what we're studying.

Evaluation: Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy is a thorough and interesting book about the social effects of Facebook. The author, Vaidhyanathan, presents a compelling case and supports it with numerous data and illustrations. The book demonstrates how Facebook damages our democratic values and disseminates incorrect information. The book particularly resonates with me when I consider it from the viewpoint of information research. It discusses the significance of talking points when utilizing online information. It also shows the challenges that educators, librarians, and academics face in guiding individuals toward responsible internet use, particularly in an age where social media is so influential.

Discussion and Conclusion: The book analyzes how Facebook influences our democracy and the information we receive, and it is really essential. It raises difficult issues regarding what social media businesses should do and why they require regulations. The book also discusses the potential cultural consequences of Facebook's computer systems and data gathering. We are in need of this book right now. If you care about how social media affects our lives, democracy, and the information we see, you should read this book. It explains the issues with social media sites like Facebook and the need for us to exercise caution when expressing our opinions online. This book encourages us to improve and be more responsible in the internet world rather than just criticizing.

Vaidhyanathan, Siva. Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2018, 289 pages.

[Stephanie Shaver · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, the author argues the impacts of social media, more specifically Facebook— has on societies economies, politics, controversial matters, and democracy. Anyone interested in social media effects (good and bad), political debates, or even just to gain insights from other perspectives, can enjoy this book. The debatable purpose of this book is to inform/educate we the people about Facebook and other social media platforms’ presence in society.

The main ideas presented in this book consist of social media’s contributions to propaganda, the spread of “fake news” or disinformation, manipulation of user’s private/personal data, and the effects it has on Democracy. Not just in America, but across the globe. Author, Siva Vaidhyanathan, presents his main argument entailing ideologies that social media— predominately Facebook— has and will continue to threaten societies’ trust in democracy, politicians, journalists, government(s), but most of all trust within one another. Furthermore, diminishing the amount of reliable and accredited information. In this generation of vast technological outlets, just about anyone can be a “journalist” depending on how convincingly they portray their information, argument, opinion, etc. Rarely do people fact check an article they’ve shared in their news feed for others to see.

I found this book to be fascinating as I share a lot of commonalities with the author’s ideas and/or points of view. As for the book’s ability to meet my expectations there were a few criteria I used to judge that. First, the level of engagement. Second, the depth of information/explanations. Third, expansion on relevant topics and current events that piqued my interest.
In my personal experience, I felt an elevated level of engagement while reading this book. I found every chapter to reach a new level of my excitement. Although, some of the chapters began to drag on and feel a little redundant. In some paragraphs it seems as if the author may have a vendetta against Mark Zuckerberg as he relentlessly attacks him (not that Zuckerberg isn’t a piece of work himself).
The depth of information and elaboration used by the author to support his arguments were substantial to say the least. Maybe a tad too much depth and elaboration? I did, however, enjoy some of his lengthy examples and explanations. For instance, Siva said “The distortions that Facebook users experience when they view the world through Facebook are ideal for fooling people into thinking there is more support for their positions and wishes than there might otherwise be” (134). This statement resonated with me because I was not always so anti-social media. Over the years, I was able to get an outside perspective on the damages social media does to our self-esteems, perceptions of the world, values, beliefs, and relationships.

My overall impression of this book is that it’s got great personal stories, copious amounts of credible data, and the author wasn’t afraid to express his beliefs and ideologies. Which is something I respect in a person. Although, I do find Siva’s borderline obsession with Zuckerberg to be uncanny. But overall, I was mostly impressed with this author’s work.

[Myles · Rating 2 out of 5]

It didn’t occur to me in the early 1980’s when I was in business school doing an MBA that an intellectual battle was brewing between the profit maximizers and those who believed corporations owed a social responsibility to its stakeholders.

The old orthodoxy, championed by Milton Friedman, said that corporations were their most helpful when they pursued profit to the exclusion of everything else.

The new orthodoxy, developed by Edward Freeman, said that corporations had a social responsibility to its stakeholders, a term I remember learning about that time in business school.

Funny, I don’t recall any actual debate on the subject in the business school itself. But of course business school is more like a technical college than an Athenian school on deep moral and ethical concerns. Or at least it was then.

It seems the social responsibility folks got a little carried away in the US, with some corporations taking sides on the abortion debate and refused to fund public healthcare that had any relation to medical abortion or family planning for that matter.

That is how they interpreted their social responsibility.

Today we have a new debate on the social responsibility of tech firms like facebook, Twitter, and YouTube toward free speech in the US and elsewhere. The European Union now has strict regulations on managing the privacy of data collected by these firms and stiff fines for non-compliance.

In “Antisocial Media” Siva Vaidhyanathan argues that argues that US regulators need to get on board quickly. Since this book was published three years ago the chorus has only grown louder.

And as with other areas when business gets involved in social responsibility — or social engineering as some call it — there will be plenty of controversy.

When Twitter banned Donald Trump from the airwaves for ostensibly fomenting rebellion, Conservatives complained that Twitter had breached Donald Trump’s freedom of speech, notwithstanding the fact that the First Amendment of the US Constitution does not include protecting lunatics on social media. It’s a wholly private affair.

(You can tell that times have changed when getting banned from social media is a fate worse than impeachment.)

In the US, one always has to take the Conservatives with a grain of salt. They want the long hand of government out of the marketplace until it affects their sacred cows: free speech, abortion, etc., etc.

Which leads to ask the question: what exactly do Conservatives believe in? No Federal Government? States rights/government but not Federal Government? Libertarian ideals a la Peter Thiel? A “thought police”?

Why would people so enamoured with dismembering government put so much money into manipulating it for their own ends? And why wouldn’t the profit maximizers simply cede obvious public services to government that they really don’t want to manage themselves?

The answer is pretty obvious: pouring money into the political system helps the profit maximizers protect their interests. For them it’s just business.

It’s no wonder that some on the left confuse “conservative” and “capitalist” with “hypocrites.”

Conservatism is in a muddle.

And for those us expecting business to show more social responsibility, be careful what you wish for.