culture

Social Media Is Not the Printing Press

If I read one more op/ed or article where social media is compared to the printing press, I’m going to barf. The latest one is in the NYT, and quotes a number of published important people about the inevitability of all of this. That it’s a fundamental technological change, like the printing press. And who would want the printing press stopped? Sure, it helped fuel hundreds of years of brutal religious wars, but look at where we are today. Mark Zuckerberg is on par with Johannes Gutenberg. We just have to accept the misinformation (also spread by the printing press), libelous material (also spread by the printing press), and the hundreds of years of brutal, bloody, and barbaric religious wars between illiberal regimes to get to something good.

First, let’s get some of the printing press mythology out of the way. Johannes Gutenberg did not invent the printing press. There were presses before Gutenberg, but they were based on techniques such as carving into wood to create images. To publish anything more than pictures with that technology was hard and expensive. Gutenberg’s innovation was to create type from cheap lead and make that type movable (settable) on the page. It was too expensive to make the lettering out of bronze or brass. Lead is plentiful, cheap, and easy to work. If the letters wear down, you melt the lead and stamp more letters using the bronze or brass stamps. It made publishing a book, using a press instead of monks and quills, a commercially viable project.

The internet itself may be the more correct printing press analog. But social media is not. Social media, unlike the invention of movable type, is a creation of law. Prior to the passage of section 230 in 1996, a site like X would have been effectively impossible. Why? Because X would have been held liable for the content of the posts, regardless of the author. Thanks to section 230, X can promote social media posts that libel, slander, threaten, defame, intimidate, or harass individuals with little or no legal exposure. If you want to go after the perpetrator, you have to go after an army of dimwits, hidden behind a degree of anonymity that makes prosecution difficult, if not practically impossible.

Yet many intelligent people confuse this legal loop-hole as a change in fundamental technology. What if the New York Times suddenly started printing non-factual, slanderous content? They would be sued. What if the Washington Post just printed screen shots from the Wall Street Journal as news? They would be sued. What if People magazine suddenly started telling teens that no one likes them and that suicide was a good thing? They would rightfully get sued and maybe criminally investigated. We dealt with this problem long ago with print publishers. It’s not insane to think a place publishing a piece of content or information is liable for that content or information.

But isn’t social media just the stuff regular people post? No, you ignorant fool, it is not. If you believe that lie, you are willfully ignorant of the reality around you. It is a mere fraction of what the rubes and the simpletons post. A large portion is the product of professionals who use features of the platforms to promote ideas. These range from intelligence agencies creating chaos to people trying to sell cosmetics. What you see as the product of ‘just regular folks,’ is a highly curated feed. Imagine a print publication that took submissions from anyone. Then those people vote on the submissions and the print publication goes forward with the issue. Their goal is to aggregate content that gets folks to pick up a copy and look at the ads. They don’t really care what’s in their published material. And the headline is something like ‘Donald Trump has Butt Baby with Satan.’ They would be sued. Because it’s print. If you print it on paper, you are a publisher.

But if you do it on social media, it’s not a problem. X or Facebook can run the exact same headlines. They can promote those same stories for the exact same reason, to push ads (and collect data to better target you in the future). Yet they have a pass. Intelligent people are confused by this, as if there is something inherent in some technology that makes X or Facebook incapable of being stopped. That whatever we do today, we would just wind up with new companies tomorrow. The internet would allow for the passage of information, but it’s the legal structures that have allowed for the creation of these massive, multi-trillion dollar companies that are poisoning democracy with the goal of shoving one more ad in front of your face.

If you took the stance that Facebook is acting as a publisher, with its algorithm to select and promote content, the same way the New York Times acts as a publisher, Facebook would cease. If they could get sued because your grandma re-posted a libelous story, they would not let your Nana do that. And if your rejoinder is that it’s not employees of Facebook that generate the content, well, not all the content in the NYT is a product of its employees. They may pay for Op/Ed pieces, where the person is not a staff writer. Okay, if you don’t pay for it, then it’s user contributed? Social media companies do compensate their “creatives” or “content providers.” X and YouTube, for example, have allowed people to build influence businesses by (in part) direct payments. So the social media companies are paying people for content, selecting which content to show, and collecting money through ad impressions. I really fail to see the legal difference between the NYT and Facebook from a liability perspective, except for the invented shield of section 230.

But revoking section 230 would throw a lot of baby out with the bathwater. What about a small, mom-and-pop site in the American Heartland just hosting Bible verses and some miscreant missuses it for nefarious purposes. You would shut them down? That’s the false choice we are presented. Either continue forward as is, or create legal quagmires on every main street between San Diego and Portland, Maine. We could amend section 230 to put the legal responsibility back on to what are essentially publishers. Or maybe we should amend other laws so genuine mistakes or oversights are not criminalized. We already don’t arrest UPS drivers and executives because they deliver illegal material or contraband. Nor do we throw the bank branch manager in jail because the money in their bank was used for criminal purposes (although they sometimes know – and in that case we do and should).

We act like we can’t possibly learn from the past with a new situation in the present. That we just have to repeat the same problems, over and over again, every time there’s a new change. This is a kind of powerlessness brought on by ignorance. It’s on a computer and it’s done by young, clever people who use words most people don’t understand. And it’s kind of magical, if the typewriter is the last writing instrument whose innards you still understood. Because it’s magic, and the magicians who benefit from it say it has to be this way, then it just has to be this way. Francis Fukuyama may be a genius in his area of expertise, but he bows to technology much the same way your grandma does.

There are other arguments, such as we wouldn’t have such a broad dissemination of information about the sciences, or social, or political events. But we do And with organizations that are subject to standard laws and norms for publishers. The internet drives down the cost of publishing and so opens the ability for smaller publishers to come forward. But they are still publishers. If Scientific American online publishes an article on their site threatening the city manager of Watkins, Illinois, they can be sued. It doesn’t matter if they paid for the article, or it was written by their staff, or it was freely handed to them. They are a publisher and chose to publish it. The same threat on X might go unnoticed as it may not even be in the top 10% of threats against people that day, promoted by the algorithm on X. If I set up a news outlet on the internet, and “publish,” I will be sued for the butt-baby thing. But if I’m “just a platform,” taking submissions from users, then I’m actively shielded. Even if it’s the same butt-babies, poorly veiled death threats, anti-vaccine fabrications and all else.

This collective delusion can’t continue in the context of a vibrant democracy. The more we delude ourselves into believing we are incapable of correcting our own creation, that the things the mind of man hath wrought are as unshakable as the strong nuclear force, and that it is as inevitable as the sun rising, the more we will seem like complete morons to future generations.

I often feel like the one guy point at the naked emperor, parading down the street, and wondering why no one else sees this for what it is. I think other people do. I think they’re afraid that if they do anything about the current situation, then their side gets hurt more. If we take away section 230’s protections, it will be the other side that runs amok. Or it will just be big publishers that squeeze out the little publishers. (As if we don’t already have a handful of social and traditional media companies, all owned by politically minded billionaires). But what if there’s a problem and we need to get our base out to protests? What if the other side comes to rule the information landscape?

So that’s where we are. Ignorance about the thing we created and fear its absence will leave our side worse off. And we have many, many instances in our history where fear and ignorance have ruled us, and maybe that’s the example from which we fail to learn.

Meditations On Infrastructure

I wonder what Charles, son of Pepin the Short, king of the Franks and Lombards, thought as he made his way through Rome to be crowned by Pope Leo. Once a city of over a million souls, Rome had dwindled to between 50,000 and 100,000. Still, Rome was twice as populated as Paris and larger than the (by comparison) hamlets in the Carolingian empire. Most of Rome’s elites and maybe 1 in 7 ancient Romans overall were literate. In Charlemagne’s retinue, only a handful were literate. Almost certainly none of his rank and file soldiers. The great city in the year 800, Constantinople, was roughly half the size Rome was at its peak.

People no longer care for the term “Dark Ages” for the period between the fall of Rome and the more orderly middle to late Medieval period. But it was a step backward. Art, literacy, trade, and culture became smaller, more rare, and simpler. When Rome was briefly re-invaded by the Eastern Roman armies, reestablishing Roman control, it might have seemed that things were on the mend. During those centuries there were good years and bad years. From the summit to the nadir, it would be surprising if people saw the fall of Rome for what it was. I imagine many could not spot the rot from within, and of those who did, some exploited it for their gain, others refused to believe it, and the rest failed to act.

What does this have to do with technology?

Everything.

An empire provides two benefits. The first is trade and the second is communication. Trade allows for greater well-being. You can sell your stuff in more places and you can buy stuff from other places. Your quality of life, including your diet, are much better as goods flow freely through trade networks. Second, is the flow of ideas. You have access to many more thoughts and ways of thinking. Your progress is no longer limited to the smartest person in your village. You have access to the thoughts of the smartest people as far as technological reach allows.

The modern micro-processor the product of vast trade and communication networks. Designers from California, fabricators in Asia, sand from North Carolina, machines from Europe, and tens of thousands of companies. Hundreds of thousands of individuals are necessary to provide you with one modern CPU. Millions more provide the support chips, mother boards, assemblies, designs, and software to make the chip do something useful. The collaboration is possible because of safe networks (ASML can ship a machine to Taiwan without worrying India will steal it on the way), and intellectual goods (you can speed the design of a chip by licensing parts of it from other vendors).

But wait, didn’t the United States make its own chips? Yes, it did. But it wasn’t necessarily cost-effective. When the micro-processor had tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even a few million transistors, they were fabricated in Texas, Washington, or California. But modern CPUs are at the very edge of physics, along with the much larger demand. Complexity and demand have made chip fabrication a highly refined and specialized industry. TSMC amortizes the insane costs of making a modern chip over many customers. Intel cannot amortize the cost of producing Intel chips just over Intel customers. Running a fab profitably means running it near capacity. Intel understands it’s competition is TSMC, not AMD. It is unlikely to succeed.

The modern world that produces an EPYC processor with 128 cores for a reasonable number of thousands (or hundreds) dollars may already be collapsing. We won’t know until we have the benefit of a few hundred years of hind-sight. The United States has been the guarantor of safe trade in goods. The US is stepping back from that role, focusing on a more narrow problem of one island in the Pacific. The Island that fabricates most processors. At the same time, the US has erected trade barriers and tariffs, slowing international trade. For the first time in a long time, there is a prospect the free flow of commerce may become less certain. It won’t be sudden. Like the fall of Rome, it will take decades. For example, the start may be increased insurance, or no insurance. But slowly routes will close.

The current administration is also attacking the free flow of information. This includes an assault on the statistics and information provided by the government itself. Data considered “DEI” related has been scrubbed, and the researchers and teams providing that information fired. We see an attempt to control Universities, which are parts of the flow of information. We even have the prospect that government statisticians will be fired if they announce unwelcome information. Information and research provides our modern life (electronics, medicine, arts, and culture), and freely disseminating that information makes us richer. Along with an attack on research, through lawsuits against news outlets, we are seeing private sector organizations self-edit if not self-censor. Over time, quality information will be more rare and more expensive.

But the current administration won’t live forever, right? Even if repudiated in the next series of elections (and putting aside the slim but credible notion of a coup to stay in power), the population supporting that administration is still there. They are cheering as the existing system is ripped apart. The breakdown of foreign trade and stifling information is a feature. For some it is because parochial, xenophobic, or tribal loyalty is more important than even their own well being. For some it is because the current chaos is hurting the parts of society they don’t like. For some, it will because they profit from the chaos. In that chaos they are free to pursue policies that make themselves richer.

After this administration the people who made it possible are not going away. Charlemagne rode into a long-defeated city not because the invading barbarians were superior to Rome in technology, society, economy, or government. Rome rotted from within. Because the rot was too profitable for some, or the cost of fixing the rot to great for others, or they preferred the rot for other reasons. Once it sets in, the rot may be ultimately irreversible. Nothing else I say will make sense unless these ideas are understood: that the fall is largely invisible to those falling; the fall results in a smaller, sicker, more parochial, less developed world; and that some are incentivized to participate in the fall. I’m not altogether sure any more than a handful (if any) of Charlemagne’s subjects understood how much poorer and smaller their world had become. Or that it would be hundreds of years more before real progress returns to Western Europe.