Office Hours this Friday, 1/21, 2-3pm EST. Check out Forum for dial-in info

The Medium is the Message


Source: AFP

As leaks of internal reports from Facebook and Instagram in recent months have made even more obvious, the processes whereby social media sites algorithmically determine the content in users’ feeds can have a tremendous impact on both the nature of content consumed and users’ experience with the site. In the same way that editorial decisions about what stories to publish and how to promote them allow traditional media outlets to influence the creation of narratives, newsfeed algorithms also play a powerful role in shaping the framing of major topics in the news. Newsfeed algorithms, or at the very least the humans who develop them, absolutely have the potential to influence what everybody knows everybody knows about our world.

Usually this influence is hidden, even if its effects are plain. In some cases, however, the desire to frame a topic in a certain way (and to drive engagement, of course) is too important to leave to the computers. For this reason, most social media sites have also developed somewhat more curated expressions of what users should be reading. On Twitter, that feature takes a few forms. One of them is the “What’s happening” sidebar, where trends the site’s algorithms think might drive engagement for a user of your profile are elevated alongside topics selected and escalated with human intervention, presumably with the same engagement aim in mind.

Twitter users who logged in from late last evening until this morning would very likely have seen the below entry as a top “What’s happening” update.

If it looks like a familiar kind of post, that’s because it is. But this one is a little bit different. You see, Parag Agrawal is the CEO of Twitter itself, installed this week following the abrupt departure of founder and unabomber-chic aficionado Jack Dorsey. This “What’s Happening” entry was manually placed at the top of a list of trending topics for users that Twitter felt needed to know how to think about some recent social media activity about Mr. Agrawal.

What’s the backdrop to all that activity? Agrawal did a mildly dumb tweet about eleven years ago.

The tweet is obviously a quotation from something, even if you didn’t know that it was plucked straight out of The Daily Show’s rich archives of weaponized smugness. Still, it was red meat for those who see Twitter as a censorious, left-leaning institution that overlooks the foibles of friendlies on Team Blue and is otherwise a blight on American society. (Which it is.) The resulting furor over the unearthed social media post was, in turn, red meat for those who found it deliciously ironic that the Team Red folks bringing up the old tweets were also those so often railing about cancel culture. (Which they are.)

It doesn’t really matter that both arguments are mostly correct or that everyone looks a bit foolish here. The rest of our present political dialogue basically boils down to different flavors of hypocrisy porn, anyway; this just happens to be the flavor of hypocrisy porn the studio is providing today.

So ignore all that.

Instead, look at the craftsmanship at play in the What’s Happening blurb above. Dearest news consumer, you need to know that it was an old tweet. You need to know that it was a quotation. You need to know that it was satirizing stereotypes. You need to know that it isn’t us at Twitter saying this – it was Journalists. You need to know that all of that isn’t an opinion. After all, they are reporting it.

Look, the tweet was dumb. Pretending that Agrawal’s tweet was scarring and hateful to anyone not feigning hurt to pick a fight on the internet was dumber. Using a “journalists say” construction as if this were a good faith synopsis of a news event bouncing around social media as opposed to a literal PR campaign was dumber still. Doing a bullet point rundown of what various news outlets are reporting in context of a heading entitled “What you need to know” as opposed to calling this the press release it was may have been the dumbest of all.

Source: Twitter

Still, it isn’t as if powerful media missionaries using their platforms to defend themselves and the interests of their employees when THEY are the news is new. It happens all the time. It’s happening right this minute at CNN with the Brothers Cuomo.

But there’s something different at work here from the usual media machinations, and it’s worth spending a moment thinking about.

All information we encounter we consume at some layer of abstraction. Our memory or experience of an event is an abstraction of the event, a noisy substitute for the thing itself that is immediately loaded with our interpretations, biases and tendencies toward the recognition of certain patterns. The story we tell is an abstraction of our experience, colored by the features we found most important, the details we felt most inclined to include and leave out, by the meaning and emotional response we hoped others might derive from it. Content is a story abstracted by a mass medium into a thing of meaning, a thing which must be contextualized, a thing which serves the political, social and commercial aims of its publisher.

Publicly shared content is not just a delivery mechanism – it is an abstraction of content.

That is, what we consume on social media is not just the words and sentences in the article we clicked on. The content we consume on social media includes the process whereby that content was presented and framed to us. It is every bit as much about the algorithm that told us it was an Important Thing or the curator who told us What We Need to Know about it.

A Marshall McLuhan famously said in his interview with Playboy Magazine (SFW link), “It is the medium itself that is the message, not the content.”

It isn’t a game of a telephone, either. Each layer of abstraction doesn’t just introduce another layer of noise to the signal of “what really happened.” It forces us to parse through multiple layers of why someone shared something, why an outlet chose to suggest it as the next story to read, why its arguments told us that certain things mattered and ignored certain other things, and why it was framed by someone quoted in the piece as being about some broader idea or topic

If you read anything about Parag Agrawal’s old tweets today – and I hope you were spared at least until I did the “Aw, that’s gross, look” routine – you did not consume information. You almost certainly did not consume news. You consumed a curated publicly shared abstraction of curated reactions to curated reactions to curated reactions to curated reactions to an eleven-year old reaction to a mediocre social commentary bit on The Daily Show.

When we ask ourselves “Why am I reading this now,” we must recognize an implicit second part to the question:

Why am I being nudged to read this on social media now?


To learn more about Epsilon Theory and be notified when we release new content sign up here. You’ll receive an email every week and your information will never be shared with anyone else.

Comments

  1. Today’s reminder of why we are better off deleting all social media. It’s fast, it’s easy, and I don’t miss any of it!

  2. Rusty

    But that’s really the idea isn’t it? People want their views the way they want them. We live in a world where processed realities are consumed for convenience just as processed foods are.

    The lunatic fringe are the ones trying to sort thru the B.S. and get to substance.

    When everything becomes commodity then what sells is what gets sold.

    And "“We the People” are being sold constantly and it comes from all directions. Especially via light emitting rectangles of all sizes,

  3. Rusty,

    Right on. Write on.

    We can not escape the tyranny of language.

    In the words of George Carlin:
    “Language is just a tool used to conceal the truth”.

    Marshall McLuhan: On politicians and voters 50 years ago.
    “What ever the sentiments they express most people will vote on the images they perceive”.

    “The medium is the massage,” controlled by the owners of the medium.

    Jim Handshaw

  4. Avatar for rguinn rguinn says:

    Thanks for joining us here, Michael. I have more or less done the same, although their influence on our world and people we have relationships with cannot be avoided.

  5. Avatar for rguinn rguinn says:

    Hah! I think you’re mostly right, although that would mean (probably correctly) that we are all the lunatic fringe. Still, I think that even we lunatics can get a bit too comfortable consuming content uncritically from time to time. I know I do. I benefit from having a kind of tick in my head about some of these things to remind me to back away when my engagement is being nudged.

  6. I’m going to tell you a secret, but you have to keep it to yourself.

    You ready?

    Twitter exists for journos, and nobody else. Twitter the company knows this. Twitter the developers know this. The only one who didn’t seem to know this was Jack Dorsey. Nobody on the planet has less understood their product than Dorsey.

    The entire point of Twitter–back in the golden era–was that you, a peasant, could interact with the celebrities and the special people. Now that very interaction has been stifled, with features like closing or deleting comments, all done at the behest of journalists and activists (but I repeat myself). Journos hate that the commoners can shout back at (and often times fact check) the gentry. Twitter’s latest rules about privacy and posting media–audio, video, or images–of non-public figures is a direct attack on the kind of citizen journalism that has grown on its platform. The carveout for Journalists :tm: will allow them to continue their activities while the rules will merely be for lowercase j journalists.

    For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.

  7. Avatar for 010101 010101 says:

    A historic precedent might be the transatlantic cable, Although it carried many messages the ones that mattered were the US$/GBP swap rate. So much so that the currency pair become known as The Cable.
    Information received from twitter is already known as tweets. Is there a tweet/useful info ratio, possibly in percent?
    A vernacular usage could perhaps be: That tweet has a UI rate of 13%.

    Almost completely arbitrary and not under the control of the platform itself, but set by the information market consumers, at various degrees of abstraction.

  8. Avatar for rguinn rguinn says:

    Definitely a logarithmic loss function, and both the cable and radio are comparables.

    Important thing is, I think, to think of social media as another layer of transmission removed from the internet as a medium, in the same way that cable news is another layer of transmission removed from “TV” as a medium.

  9. Avatar for FFWA FFWA says:

    Here’s an idea: Don’t look at social media.

    Bottom line: we get the narratives (and government) we deserve.

  10. Seems to my lay person mind that written word and spoken word go to different parts of the brain to be processed and spoken word processing had quite a bit more time to evolve. The transmission methods that incorporate a restriction on characters are new and again, lay person pondering here, our brains are trying to figure out processing of this new type of input and it may be these methods of transmissions are landing in a gray area.

    Douglas Adams had a fun take on this.

    Always bring your towel and thanks for all the fish!

Continue the discussion at the Epsilon Theory Forum

Participants

The Latest From Epsilon Theory

DISCLOSURES

This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.