Dear Friends,
I watched an eye-opening Netflix documentary entitled The Social Dilemma. You should watch it. If you have teenagers, you definitely must watch it. I’ll give you the gist without entirely spoiling it for you.
It’s a hybrid documentary with some dramatic fictional sequences about the dangers of social media technology. The interviewees are almost all veterans of Silicon Valley, the very people responsible for creating platforms like Google, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, and so forth. While they certainly appreciate the many, many blessings such technology has brought to the world, they are also very alarmed at the unintended downsides—things like addiction, teen depression/suicide, and hyper-polarization in society.
Some of it is a bit alarmist and hysterical. It seems to me that many of these problems exist more at the cultural margins than at the center, and there’s plenty of debate about how quickly the problems are becoming the “center.” And the film falls very flat when it comes to offering “solutions” to the problems. But it is worth watching for, at the very least, the sake of self-awareness. I want to remember, and I want my kids to know, that every single time the phone chimes or vibrates somebody is trying to manipulate me. No joke. Listen to these engineers talk about the human psychology built in to these platforms. When you scroll down and the screen refreshes, and something new pops up on top, do you know where that comes from? Slot-machines. Time-tested methods of keeping you glued to your screen.
And they need you glued to your screen. And they know exactly how long they have you glued to your screen, and when you aren’t glued to your screen they have ways of enticing you back. Why do they need you glued to your screen? Not because you’re their customer and they want you to be happy and satisfied with their platform.
Because you are their product.
They are selling you. To advertisers. They harvest incredible amounts of information about you so that they can pinpoint and target advertising with precision. They make oceans of money doing this. Now, don’t misunderstand: this is a feature of any market that involves advertising, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with bringing a producer and consumer together to make an advantageous economic transaction. But the technologies available today, with the amount of data and cross-referencing and pure computing power through artificially intelligent algorithms, is something the world has never seen before. It has tremendous benefits and yet tremendous downsides, and it’s worth making yourself self-aware of how you are being used.
One of the most alarming things is how social media contributes to our polarization and social discord. Have you ever wondered, How in the world can ‘they’ not see this? Don’t ‘they’ know that isn’t true? More often than not, “they” don’t see it. “They” don’t know that it isn’t true. Because your Facebook and Twitter feeds are nothing like “their” feeds. The computer algorithms are designed to feed you exactly what it knows you want to be fed. There is an inherent feedback loop. The more you linger over one kind of content, the more that kind of content finds you. Ever wonder how people can take “flat earth” theories seriously? Because once you start down that rabbit hole, it very quickly becomes the only thing you see. The computers want to keep you glued to the screen, remember? So they show you what scratches whatever itch you have. This is a recipe for the creation of social “bubbles” that literally cannot even communicate with other bubbles anymore. It’s the Tower of Babel all over again. You think your social media feed is a portal to the outside world when actually it’s just projecting your own worldview back to you. A self-reinforcing prison.
And this is important: by and large there is no person behind the curtain pulling levers on these platforms. It’s programmed artificial intelligence. When you do find stories of Facebook or Google tinkering with things—de-platforming so-and-so or throttling this or that video—to their minds, rightly or wrongly, they are not causing problems, they are trying to compensate for or fix an already existing problem. In other words, their tinkering isn’t the problem; it’s a symptom of the problem.
It really is the stuff of science fiction novels. We’ve created technologies that we cannot really control. And to some extent (even if not the hysterical apocalyptic extent the movie veers into) it can’t be denied that those technologies are influencing and shaping us in sometimes very unhealthy ways.
As Christians we ought to listen to a higher and transcendent voice over and above the vendors in the public marketplace. In Isaiah 55, God even takes on the role of a street vendor yelling and shouting over the roar of the market:
Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy, and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. Why spend your money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.
You see, God condescends to advertise to us, too. He promises to supply what we truly need instead of ever-increasing amounts of what we think we want. And his satisfaction is guaranteed.
The SCOTUS Dilemma
All this brings me to the matter at hand. Last Friday after The Square Inch went to “press” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, paving the way for nothing short of a political war as the President and Senate seek to replace her.
All the smart money has the President choosing former Notre Dame law professor and now 7th Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett. For some reason—actually, for only one reason—this terrifies the political left. She is what I would call an “evangelical” Catholic, and mother of seven (two adopted). Naturally, she is pro-life, and since preserving the Court’s ruling in the landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade is the highest priority for the left, Barrett represents a clear and present danger. Hit pieces have emerged by the dozens already about what a terrible and terrifying person Judge Barrett is. They are all (with all due respect) idiotic, but millions of people will believe them because they reinforce what they want to believe. Feedback loops, remember.
Here’s a random example, a Tweet with over a thousand re-Tweets:
I guess in this day and age belonging to a Bible Study where women pray for and encourage one another might seem “radical” and “extreme,” but it isn’t. And, also, Margaret Atwood “said” no such thing.
Check this one out:
Ooh. Scary stuff, right? You know what? Why don’t you click here and read her delightful commencement address for yourself and see if it says anything that resembles that Tweet. It’s mind-boggling that people would be threatened by this: “[I]f you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.” Pretty ordinary stuff on Christian vocation. But they’re not threatened by that: they are threatened by the grotesquely untrue Tweet, which most people will not bother to investigate. If you want a good fact check on it, click here.
Anyway, here is an excellent essay on why all the “Theocracy!” hyperventilating is wildly misplaced. A money quote:
There’s a final irony to concerns about how Barrett’s faith will affect her decision-making on the bench. Her judicial philosophy (unlike Ginsburg’s) is one of ideological restraint, in which the judge’s personal vision of the good (including the judge’s religious vision) is put to the side as much as possible.
Look, I don’t want to write you a book on all this. I could, trust me. And this newsletter is probably already feeling like a book. What I want to do is point you to some resources that I have found very valuable in thinking through and interpreting these current events. I would encourage you to take the time this weekend to watch and read through these materials. You might notice that some of the articles disagree with each other. That’s a very good thing. It means you’re getting outside of the Matrix.
Priority Number One: During the Senate hearings for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska gave a brief speech on why Supreme Court nominations have become so ugly. It is a master class education in basic American civics, and in my opinion every single citizen of this country should watch it.
Next, you need to form a clear picture on why this woman (or, indeed, anyone the President is likely to nominate) is so threatening to people? For that, you need to read this thread from Princeton professor Robert P. George:
It is all about abortion. Period. That’s it. And, as Professor George makes clear, even if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade (something I give a 50-50 chance even with Barrett confirmed), abortion would not thereby be outlawed. It would be thrown back into the democratic process, and citizens and state legislators would have to, you know, discuss and argue and debate the merits of their views. That would be welcome and healthy thing for our Republic.
Next, there is the question of whether to confirm the President’s nominee, given that we are on the cusp of a Presidential election. Four years ago, Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the seat vacated by Antonin Scalia, and the Republican-controlled Senate declined to consider that nomination (which is their Constitutional prerogative). Many people are noticing the seeming (and, for some, very real) hypocrisy in now “ramming through” a nominee right before an election. But let’s be clear: every politician has reversed the view they held in 2016. Every single one (with the possible exception of Mitch McConnell, who seemed to make clear that the issue was the issue of divided government, not the election year per se). Sure, you can make a video of Republicans saying something like, “It would be wrong to confirm a nominee so close to the election!” But then you could also do this:
Got it? These are politicians, and politicians change their minds based on ideological self-interest. In other news, the sun rises in the east.
The real question is, so what? What do we do when the hypocrisies are in complete, zero-sum equipoise, both parties having switched 180 degrees? My view, after sympathetically reading arguments back and forth (see below) is that the only real thing to be done is to go back to following the rules. And the rules are set out by the Constitution. The President nominates, the Senate confirms if it wants. The difference between 2016 and 2020 is that back then the Senate didn’t want Merrick Garland, but now it does want Amy Coney Barrett (or another nominee). It is simply the case that the Republican party has a majority in the Senate, and there is nothing unfair about it. They won their elections fair and square.
David French (here) and Jonah Goldberg (here and here) disagree. They worry that this kind of flagrant hypocrisy helps to erode public trust in our institutions. I’m sympathetic to this concern. These optics are not healthy, at all, and polarization is a massive problem. But their “solution,” a unilateral disarmament by Republicans based on no Constitutional principle whatsoever, just a good faith gesture to the opposing party, strikes me as folly. It will not bring about the end they seek—less polarization and more bipartisanship. It will bring about the further destruction of the Republican party because their electoral base will simply abandon them. Understand this: this is why millions of voters elect Republicans in the first place. Supreme Court nominations. I get that to some the Republicans moving ahead seems unseemly, something like Boromir wanting to use the One Ring for good. But following the Constitution is not using the One Ring, no matter how the optics might look.
Anyway, if you want more analysis on all that, in addition to reading French and Goldberg, I recommend Matt Franck, Ramesh Ponnuru, Kyle Smith, and especially Dan McLaughlin. They all have the better of the argument.
Tomorrow at 5p.m. Eastern Standard Time we will find out who the nominee is, and then you best buckle up for the mudslinging circus of the century. Then go back and watch that Ben Sasse speech to learn how we can and must do better.
Miscellany
I guess now is when I say, get off your screen. Ignore the notifications on your phone. Better yet, turn them off. Go outside and do something worthwhile.
I live in Montana, so I’ve got plenty of scope to do just that:
@dandarling It’s horrible. And we’re full. Complete capacity. No room. You’d have a terrible time. You’re welcome.Heh, heh.
Bethany Bordeaux is a wonderful violinist in Nashville, Tennessee. Throughout the COVID lockdowns she did a series of videos in which she resurrected old hymns. I was delighted to see that she’s turned some of them into an album. Enjoy her rendition of “Be Thou My Vision.”