• by Ted McConnell , Featured Contributor, June 4, 2020

To review, underlying all the peaceful and non-peaceful protests, and the associated,  adopted postures of political leaders, there is communication: stories, channels, narratives, eyeballs, and so on.  In the advertising industry, we specialize in building out these communications. So, whatever you think, this is our business and we do bear some responsibility.  

As an industry, we created electronic platforms, funded by advertisers, that did what advertisers wanted. That is, piggyback messages on any content that may be of interest to anyone. Add, now, with access to media democratized, and anonymized, anyone can insert messages to anyone else without really saying what their agenda is or who they are, or being accountable. Truth is not a factor, except in actual advertising.  

“Information anarchy” would seem to describe the current state. 

The inescapable irony is that we (advertising) created a monster in social media, and it is now deployed by parties (like government and Russian agitators) who are unconstrained by the rules of engagement for advertising.  Our Frankenstein is out of control.  

Those who would like to control it are helpless, and hapless in their pursuit of control.  Still, attempts at control may either be pointless, or unnecessary. Our ADD leadership (and most of Washington D.C., it seems) are so busy posturing that it hasn’t dawned on them that social media is a mirror (albeit imperfect) as much as a monster.  

We get misleading information all day long from news media. Usually, the facts are clarified with vetted reporting, and real journalism, but the spin is so deep that the truth evaporates in a sea of dyed blond hair and square-jawed, but impotent, passion.  No media have a monopoly on truth, and no message is received exactly as the sender intended. The vulnerabilities in social media are endemic to all communication. 

Our attempts to control social media seem only to underscore our failure of imagination. We keep looking for an analog. Yeah, social media is like standing in a crowd of people. Yeah, it’s like a publisher. Yeah, it’s media. Yeah, it’s like a megaphone. It may be like all of that, but it could also be that it’s like society itself: democracy manifest, warts and all. 

The lawyers can figure it out, but rather than force social media into an existing model, maybe we can welcome it into society, as another actor, with its own unique propensities. 

Our problem may simply be the problem of the blind man and the elephant. As individuals, we define it according to the part that touches us. Sadly, those who would regulate seem to be seeking a political outcome rather than a robust conceptual framework. That’s fraught with peril. 

With regard to how or whether to regulate, there is a huge difference, however, between obligation (to editorialize or not) and ability. The conversation usually  gets focused on that issue, but there is a bigger one: the difference between individuals and states. These are global platforms. What does any government matter? Twitter could be bought by a Chinese company. That would be interesting. Then what would Trump do? Stop all U.S. citizens from using it?

Nope. Frankenstein has stockholders.

Can a government control it without killing it? Likely not. A government could nationalize the assets, but software is too ephemeral to be nationalized. Twitter 2.0 would be up and running in Moldavia, ready for business in 24 hours. Then what? 

Any platform threatened because it would not serve some individual’s particular needs for posturing can simply cancel the offending person’s credentials. Trump’s tampering certainly seems like a violation of Twitter’s Terms of Service. So, cancel his ID. 

In that event, Twitter would lose ad revenue because all those presidential tweets build audience — but truth be told, the people viewing them can be contacted elsewhere in their predictable filter bubble. His tweets are probably awful context for most advertising, and he’s only #10 on Twitter anyway. Lady Gaga eats his lunch, and she’s halfway down the list!  

In any case, it’s not about him, or you, or me, or anyone. It’s about power. In the universe of big fat blind spots, none is more prevalent than the blind spot that powermongers have for asymmetrical power. There’s no head to cut off. No CEO to berate. No smoke-filled room, and no bunker. Social media is a reflection of ourselves, and old-school fat cats don’t know how to cope with collectivism.