The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The First Amendment and the Social Media Dilemma
Social media poses problems far more serious than misinformation campaigns, but solutions consistent with the First Amendment are not clear.
We have heard much lately from folks like Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge regarding the harms of smartphones and social media. These include a rise in anxiety, suicidality, and depression among young people, especially girls. They also include addiction for most adults and an increased polarization of society generally. But many of the solutions offered for these problems are questionable under existing First Amendment doctrines. We need continued scholarly effort into finding solutions, and that requires fully understanding the problem. What follows is an excerpt from Chapter 2 of my book Habits of a Peacemaker, "Seek Real Learning," and it provides just a brief introduction into part of what all of us are up against in the smartphone and social media era:
When we encounter something that brings us stimulation, our brains release dopamine. The effect of dopamine is usually pleasure, euphoria, the thrill of anticipation, and the desire to want to pursue the stimulant. When we eat a sugary treat, or have sex, or drink alcohol, or take drugs, or do anything else that stimulates us, our brains create dopamine. As Stanford addiction researcher Doctor Anna Lembke explains, "The more dopamine a [particular stimulant] releases in the brain's reward pathway … , and the faster it releases dopamine, the more addictive the drug." And once our brains release dopamine, they immediately begin to rebalance themselves by reducing the amount of dopamine they are creating. This is why we often feel additional cravings for something after enjoying it. As soon as the effect of the dopamine wears off, we find ourselves in a dopamine deficit, which causes us to want to seek out another hit of dopamine.
This is an important component to addiction. We experience something, our brains release dopamine, we feel euphoric (high), we crash, then we seek it again. This process becomes even worse if what we are addicted to is easily available. Research has proven this again and again. From drugs, to digital addictions, to alcohol, to pornography—the easier we can access a high dopamine-producing substance, behavior, or content, the more likely we are to become addicted to it.
All of this relates to smartphones and social media and their interference with our ability to engage in real learning and to be peacemakers. Every time we see a notice—of a like, a text, a comment, some interesting piece of news, a million other things—our brains release a shot of dopamine. It feels good. So we look for the next one, and the next one, and the next one. Give anyone a smartphone, and within a short period of time, you will see them regularly grabbing and checking it. They are seeking, often subconsciously, that next hit of dopamine. So much so that many of us cannot go more than a few minutes without at least glancing at our phones to see if something is waiting for us. We see drivers do it at every red light. We see people do it during movies at the theater.…
The most important source of those hits, for the purposes of this book, are news and information that get us riled up about the hot topics of the day. Notices about something that has happened in the political landscape that interests us will trigger a dopamine release. If we have commented on a news story or someone's political post on social media, reactions to our comment will release dopamine.
Like rats in an experiment, we will continue to seek it out.
But unlike many addictive substances or practices, which must be done in private, smartphone use and reading and commenting on the news has yet to cause any social backlash. It is perfectly acceptable in our environment to pick up our phones and seek that latest dopamine hit, from a text, a like, an article, a video, a stock report. We can't do that with illicit drugs, but we do it all day long with our phones.
And it is in that milieu that every single one of us is operating. At a moment's notice, we can pick up a small device to keep our addictions going. As you will see, that destroys our ability to connect with others and engage in productive conversations with them. …
Every time you grab your smart phone, you should picture in your mind's eye teams of mathematicians, computer programmers, and psychologists whose entire job is to keep you hooked on that device. I do not mean that rhetorically. I am not using hyperbole. One of the major goals of many tech companies—the phone manufacturers … the app developers, the social media companies—is to keep you on your device for as long as possible. Their business model depends on keeping your attention.…
A sad irony is that if peacemakers become who they are based on their habits, technology companies are hoping to mold you into what they want you to become by forcing habits upon you.…
Long before smartphones, the gambling industry pioneered getting people addicted to gaming. Especially with computer-controlled games like slot machines, [says Professor Natasha Dow Schüll], their goal was to hook users, hold them with a series of expertly timed rewards (just enough wins or other dopamine-triggering events), until their interactions with the machine resulted in a "downward spiral … a continuous, rapid, responsive interaction with the machine, precluding pauses or spaces in which she might reflect or stop." In other words, the goal was for gamblers' play to become habitual, mindless.
Given how successful the gambling world was at snaring people, it is hardly surprising that other industries would want to follow the model. And they have. To give you a sense of what you're up against, consider what one mathematician … told researchers in Schüll's book Addicted by Design: "'Math is the sharp end of my spear,'" he said. He uses math to both hook people and catch them. "'Once you've hooked 'em in, you want to keep pulling money out of them until you have it all; the barb is in and you're yanking the hook.'" …
Picture rooms of mathematics geniuses and psychologists—not working to solve some disease or place human beings on the moon but focused solely on keeping you hooked.…
How does all of this relate to the ability to establish a habit of real learning that will allow you to be a peacemaker? One of the ways these various companies keep you addicted and keep triggering dopamine is through outrage.… In other words, fearful opinions, frightening news, stories of threats to you and your family—these create the same dopamine hits in our brains as much less nefarious things like "likes" to our photos. So, we return to them. We consume them more and more. In time, we come to see the world not as a complex system with equally complex problems in need of sophisticated solutions but as one in which threats and fools abound.…
Every time we pick up our phones … we need to remind ourselves what those teams of psychologists and mathematicians are doing. They are not trying to pass on real information. They are not interested in our learning anything or becoming better citizens or being peacemakers. Whether we like it or not, they are trying to manipulate us, from the moment we let our eyes fall upon any screen in our lives. They are a formidable opponent in our efforts to engage in real learning.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Every time we pick up our phones … we need to remind ourselves what those teams of psychologists and mathematicians are doing. They are not trying to pass on real information. They are not interested in our learning anything or becoming better citizens or being peacemakers. Whether we like it or not, they are trying to manipulate us, from the moment we let our eyes fall upon any screen in our lives. They are a formidable opponent in our efforts to engage in real learning."
Big deal. This has been going on for tens of thousands of years. It's called Persuasion.
The paragraph above is a nothing-burger—it's a fact of life. Everything is vying for our attention and everything is vying to dominate. This is something everyone in life deals with every day on various levels. All of the fucking pearl-clutching that it's now instantaneous and global is a distraction. The same people probably freaked out over the Gutenberg press.
I understand Religion has some experience with Persuasion too.
And they have the extra bonus of offering you Heaven and Virgins!
But the great religious teachers didn’t live to manipulate you for their own purposes. I think you misunderstand religion if you say that. And hangers-on who associate themselves with any philosophy or ideology can do that.
Indeed, Professor Collis’ point here is that the worst offenders, those who manipulated most systematically, are people associated not with religion but with science, who use science as a technology of manipulation.
There have long been human societies not dominated by people focused on manipulating others. It seems to only happen when population density reaches a critical mass. Only then do people tend to treat others as objects.
RE: “When we encounter something that brings us stimulation, our brains release dopamine. The effect of dopamine is usually pleasure, euphoria, the thrill of anticipation, and the desire to want to pursue the stimulant. When we eat a sugary treat, or have sex, or drink alcohol, or take drugs, or do anything else that stimulates us, our brains create dopamine.”
That is such an oversimplified non-explanation of what dopamine is and does that the author would be doing a better job if he had written “wibble-wobble fibble-fobble dopamine gooble-gobble”!
In real life, dopamine has more to do with calculation (and what we now call "muscle-memory") than with pleasure or stimulation. Specifically, the sub-circuitry in your brain which does the calculations you don’t think about – calculations required for balance; running; quick perception; graceful, fluid motion; touch-typing; swallowing; coordinating the pressure on your vocal cords with the air pressure from exhaling through them when you speak, or sing; responding to a loud noise, or to a punch thrown at your face (startle-reflex) – the neuro-sub-circuitry in your brain which performs these calculations, and coordinates the forces exerted by/on your various muscles and muscle groups, unbidden by your conscious will, that sub-circuitry uses dopamine as a neurotransmitter to conduct nerve-signals across the synapses between neurons (nerve-cells).
That is why patients who have Parkinson’s disease suffer the symptoms they suffer: the symptoms are caused by loss of the brain’s ability to make these calculations. You lose the ability to coordinate flexion of one set of muscles with relaxation of the muscles which oppose the flexing muscles, and this loss results in stiffness, weakness, slowness, and clumsiness of the affected muscles.
Pleasure and addiction are entirely secondary.
So...phone makers are very junior, very noob amateurs compared to the political arena?
C.S. Lewis put it very well:
“The old dealt with its pupils as grown birds deal with young birds when they teach them to fly; the new deals with them more as the poultry-keeper deals with young birds - making them thus or thus for purposes of which the birds know nothing. In a word, the old was a kind of propagation - men transmitting manhood to men; the new is merely propaganda.”
C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
And long before that, Plato talked about the doctor losing to the candy-maker before an audience of children. The problem is as old as philosophy. In many ways, philosophy was invented in an effort to seek a better way to live than what we see all around us.
I suspect that people today realize at some level that elites have increasingly been using science to manipulate others. And I suspect this has a great deal to do with the increasing mistrust of science and scientists in our society, and with a tendency towards backlash against “liberal” elites.
The academic left has noted this issue as a primary reason why the US Constitution needs to be snuffed. The “Democracies Die” theory says we need to accommodate or become an Autocracy. As though the alternative was better…