Carr’s Leaning Tower of Media

In the Spring of 2017, technology writer and author Nicholas Carr wrote a piece for the Boston Globe, in which he attempts to debunk the notion that “advances in communication technology… promote social harmony.” His argument is that, rather than helping us unite as a human species, modern communication has created a virtual world in which our differences become more apparent, leading to divisiveness and hatred amongst one another. While Carr accurately describes the detriment that rapid, global communication has had on society, he doesn’t include any of the benefits that such communication has had on the world, and thus fails to depict a comprehensive picture of the situation.

Carr begins by citing an incident where a man filmed himself murdering someone and then posting the video on Facebook. He uses this gruesome example as a juxtaposition against the claimed “social mission” of Facebook: not just to “[connect] friends and family,” but to build “a global community that works for everyone.” According to Carr, Facebook and other tech giants of the Silicon Valley are gravely mistaken. Digital networks don’t bring us closer; they separate us. This has been a widely held fallacy for over 100 years: advances in communication mean greater “social harmony.”

He continues by giving statistics to illustrate that “humanity is more connected than ever.” But our time, he says, is “defined not by concord but by conflict.” He supports this with research that shows humans are more likely to dislike one another on social media. The research also shows that close physical proximity to people increases the likelihood of people disliking one another; a phenomenon that he claims is magnified online. Also, overusing social media technology leads to antisocial behavior (“trolling”).

Carr concludes by citing Facebook’s new project of an artificial intelligence program that runs in the background as a kind of “social infrastructure.” This and other schemes of “geeky grandiosity” are not going to make us any better or happier as people. Rather, he asserts, the way to global cooperation must include socially intelligent methods of communication, such as “reasoned debate,” as well as “less self-expression and more self-examination.” Improving the way we relate to each other can only come from the work of individuals and groups, not from technology.

Carr’s ideas present a point of view that is not widely held among modern people. It’s true, technology has not strengthened our social connections; it has weakened them. Nonetheless, his argument is artificially potent, due to the lack of balance in his stance on communication technology.

When undercutting Facebook’s supposed mission by pointing to a snuff video that was posted, Carr paints some very broad brush strokes about the negative consequences of social media. In my almost 10 years of being connected to Facebook, I have experienced many meaningful connections with friends. I have had my awareness of human rights, spirituality, addiction recovery, and more increased as a result of the open and easy access to personally relevant content. Facebook is a tool. Like a chainsaw, it is extremely useful and accelerates social progress when properly used. Like a chainsaw, it is life-threateningly dangerous when it is misused or abused. From where Carr sits, it appears to be only the latter: a weapon of divisiveness.

We are, as Carr says, “more connected than ever.” However, the observation that we are “defined not by concord but by conflict” is only a sliver of the truth. Humanity is in a phase of painful growth which will inevitably blossom into a new age of civilization. Before the Renaissance, there were the Crusades. Before the Enlightenment Era, there was the church-sanctioned suppression of heretics. And before global peace becomes a reality, we must transcend the destructive forces of modern warfare, social and economic injustice, and the fallacy of infinite growth. Being so connected is a viable means to address and overcome these issues, through cooperation and mutual respect. Carr’s argument seems to suggest that we can reverse the effects of global communication. The reality is: there’s no turning back; we must work with things as they are.

It’s true that we can’t “offload on machines” the work of improving our attitudes about and outlooks on life and other humans. But a “social infrastructure” of artificial intelligence is, again, just a tool. Except for this time, the tools functions lie largely in the hands of programmers at Facebook, rather than in the hands of the end user. Does that mean we are offloading the job of “[making] us better people?” I think not. Consider this: all the data needed for this AI to function comes from the activity of the user. Just like a therapist can’t make you happy, but can provide helpful insight so that you can work on yourself, I see this new tool from Facebook as a friendly resource to point us in the right direction. It’s not a substitute for meaningful connections and fresh perspectives, but it could be a supplement.

So, despite the stark reality that Carr fleshes out, there is more to the story than what is provided by his narrow focus. With the advent of modern communication, we have provided powerful tools to a primitive society. We can’t abandon the tools; we can only learn to use them appropriately.

Works Cited