A few years ago, a good friend of mine, who has since passed away, argued that the news media should limit its focus on death and destruction. He believed constant exposure to such news — carnage on the roads, murder and mayhem, riots and hate speech, wars and mindless politicians whipping up division — harms the soul and one’s mental health.
A point to note is that the news media and social media are now inextricably linked. According to a 2020 Pew Research Center survey, about half of US adults (53 per cent) get their news from social media “often” or “sometimes”. Moreover, a 2022 report by the American Psychological Association showed that teens and young adults are experiencing “stress that is directly related to news they have learned about through social media or more traditional outlets“.
This poses an important question: is media news truly in the public interest when it causes mental anguish? And, apart from the average age of users, is there a discernible difference between the anxiety and depression evoked by media news as opposed to the anxiety and depression evoked by social media? Living in a constant state of stress was never intended to be a lifestyle, but are we subliminally embracing it?
A crisis of the mind
People today are burdened by accumulating and interconnected crises, including pandemics, climate change, housing unaffordability, financial struggles, the demise of democracy, and ongoing conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian and Russo-Ukrainian wars. Seemingly unsolvable crises such as poverty, homelessness, rising inequality, and a mental health crisis weigh heavily on society.
These crises are further exacerbated by the rampant spread of misinformation and disinformation, making it increasingly difficult for individuals to discern truth from falsehood. This uncertainty can contribute to a crisis of the mind, which raises another important question: Which crisis can hold our attention long enough to focus on a “genuine solution”? Are there simply too many crises for any government to handle?
The idea of going off-grid and opting out grows increasingly appealing
It also prompts us to consider whether we should persist in our fight or succumb to the challenges we face, such as another four years of an emboldened Trump, the tragic loss of children in Gaza, and the reality of life on a planet facing temperatures of 50 °C. The idea of going off-grid and opting out grows increasingly appealing.
Furthermore, can we continue to rely on our political leaders for judicious decision making and inspirational guidance in addressing these pressing crises? Are we still capable of communicating truthfully and effectively?
How to slaughter a sentence
Dean Frenkel, an expert in vocal techniques, raised concerns about public speaking among Australian politicians in his 2014 article The Great Australian Speech Impediment. He noted that Australian politicians “surely rank as the poorest speakers in the English-speaking world” and described their use of the English language as “Mang-lish”.
Frenkel singled out former Australian Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott as an exemplar of how to mangle the English language: “Australian politicians are the leaders of the Mang-lish movement (speakers who mangle English), beginning with Tony Abbott — a leader with laboured speech skills.”
To be fair, members of the party of half-baked policies, the Australian Labour Party, like Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese, who believe “umm” and “ahh” are conjunctions, are rewriting Tony’s Handbook of How to Slaughter a Sentence with enough obsequiousness and prevarication to fry someone’s brain and a delivery that couldn’t cut through a sponge cake. Indeed, our illustrious politicos are leading the way in the utter annihilation of the English language.
Conspiring with our politico’s inarticulacy is communication technology, which has become more chaotic and unregulated, further distorting “the message”. This issue is compounded by artificial general intelligence (AGI), which transforms technology into something less personal, anonymous, and “plastic”, leading to unclear and impulsive online interactions.
As the renowned English linguist Derek Bickerton writes in Language and Species (1990): “Language had given us, not enough, but too much: not just the stewardship of Earth, but the capacity to destroy species weaker than ourselves, and features of the environment on which our survival might depend.” Explicitly, Bickerton contends that language not only carried with it the power to communicate intelligibly but also “the seeds of our destruction”.
When the machine stops
In his 1994 book The Seeds of Time, Fredric R Jameson posits that it is more challenging to imagine the end of capitalism than to contemplate the end of the world — a concept that has since become somewhat cliché. This idea underscores our tendency to visualise a dystopian future, especially during uncertain times. Concerns about authoritarianism and inequality simmer just beneath the surface, resonating deeply, especially with Gen Zs and millennials.
E M Forster gives an early account of a dystopian vision in his 1909 novella The Machine Stops. Humans live underground in a giant mechanised network of self sufficient, single occupancy life pods with instant visual and audio messaging to other pods. The entire system eventually falls over and can’t be fixed because no one is left with the knowledge to fix it.
Thus, the machine stops! A kind of “awkward AI moment” when the original code writers are long gone, and the automated self writing code machines have suffered a meltdown. The irony is, of course, that humans are forced to return to face to face interactions to solve the problem, and the technological advancement cycle starts all over again. As Einstein said: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
A digital dystopia
Online gossip can get similarly bleak about a dystopian future. Capitalism, globalisation, inequality, and the social networking behemoths that entangle users in a compulsion loop all have a dystopian air about them. Let’s face it, the digital space is the new Wild West of incivilities, lawlessness, and subterfuge.
Even more dystopian is the advent of AGI. Yet we cannot escape the fact that these nascent global technological communications and the sociopolitical infrastructures that power them are now integral to our existence. We can’t imagine life without them; if we try to, it’s also dystopian.
Besides, we need each other, on-demand 24/7, for a therapeutic gossip session or just a quick “wassup”? It keeps our social selves intact, lessens the boredom, and gives us some semblance of purpose. Moreover, do we ever seriously think of “permanently” logging out?
This is not to suggest that we should become “tech refuseniks” — people who avoid technology — and demonise social media. But something has gone awry with our world. On the one hand, we accept that social media’s controlling and intrusive presence that organises and arranges our informational and relational realities is a fact of life. On the other hand, we harbour misgivings about its inimical addictive qualities and the psychological harm it might cause.
Quitting is never easy
On 6 November, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese proposed legislation to ban social media use for individuals under 16, set to be introduced in parliament later in the month. While I support efforts to limit minors’ access to social media, I believe this legislation will be ineffective, as children will find ways to bypass restrictions, and the social media behemoths will help exploit any weaknesses by introducing loopholes in the system.
The ongoing conversation on social media is often just inane gossip, where sensationalism takes precedence over substance, and personal opinions overshadow factual news. This trend highlights a significant misunderstanding of language as just a means of communication. Genuine voices are drowned out by the tribal mindset that mass media fosters, allowing untrammelled worldviews to distort reality and create a new version of the truth.
This distortion fosters feelings of powerlessness and disconnection, but we can’t fully disconnect from the Internet of Things (IoT) as we see them as essential to our lives.
With this in mind, it is often said that only the privileged can truly afford to quit social media. And while technophiles advocate for embracing technological advancements, it is doubtful that a handful of celebrities who have quit social media and a growing cohort of clinical psychologists who repeatedly warn of its dangers will prompt a mass exodus.
Besides, a mass departure could also unintentionally silence the voices of the underprivileged and oppressed. And while quitting social media may initially feel liberating, going cold turkey could create enough anxiety to rival the anxiety that caused one to leave.
The practical use of social media often clashes with ethical concerns, like exposure to conspiracy theories, scams, and cyberattacks, as well as the darker aspects of surveillance capitalism. Although quitting social media may seem like a noble act of protest, achieving this without experiencing material or spiritual loss is likely impossible, given how indentured we are to its creators.
Jaron Lanier, a Microsoft researcher and author, argues that those in privileged positions should leave social media to aid the “rest.” He emphasises that staying contributes to the problem and entrenches the existing system. According to Lanier, if you can quit, you should do it now.
However, the internet is shaped by a capitalist framework focused on profit. For this reason, quitting will not dismantle digital communication technology and its troublesome dependents because of the massive amounts of money to be made. The internet and its problem child, social media, are here to stay.
Instead, the challenge lies in removing the stranglehold of malignant social media magnates like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk and building a safer, more equitable system. For now, however, although social media is great for instantly sharing your life with someone else, you will not find Nirvana on social media platforms. Change is of the essence.