The trivialization of problems: the Evil of our time
The trivialization of problems: the Evil of our time
Reading online discussions, it occurs to you that we live in a society full of violent people, political extremists, racists, and activists for the absolute good. But is this really the case?
Contrary to what we read online, true Evil is usually silent and waiting for its chance. On the other hand, the authentic Good is quiet and acting. What we are witnessing in today's society is a simple trivialization of fundamental problems, which does not help solve these issues but instead covers them with a layer of fog.
In one article on my Czech blog, I wrote about how we downplay the real struggles of women, and especially violence against women, by comparing rapists with the rouges, teenagers, and ugly uncles catcalling on the streets.
But catcalling isn't the only topic that obscures the nature of real issues in this way.
To label every opponent of migration a xenophobe obscures the fact that prejudice against other religions and ethnicities is still deeply entrenched in society. When we reduce the environmental movement to a life-and-death struggle against plastic caps and straws, we lose other deadly components from our sight, like the plastic nets that fishermen simply cut off and send out to sea.
Why are we downplaying the problems?
One answer is that in the globalized world, the media often focus on the most significant problems of our time, overlooking the local ones that truly need our attention. Because we, as locals, are the ones who should solve them.
For example, in the comfortable central Europe of the 21st century, we don't have real pressing problems with plastic in the sea (as an inland state), but we can see the disturbing pictures on TV and be horrified by them. Here in the heart of Europe, we can take a canoe and clean up relatively clean rivers when closing the canoeing seasons. Still, we cannot save dolphins tangled in an island made of garbage. So we fight the plastic caps instead. Sure, we could pick up trash in the woods or help locate trees infested with bark beetles, but that is the actual work, not cool, comfortable activism.
Doing that would mean helping in nature preservation, but it would not get us publicity unless we are inventive enough to get the attention on social media. To become an influencer who cleans the local forest or stream would mean we would have to build our audience from scratch. It is much easier to do as everybody does: make war against plastic and carbon dioxide. That path has been paved; there are hashtags for that, and like-minded people will gladly share.
However, the battle would still be challenging because real problems do not get attention in today's digital landscape. Why? Because sharing a hashtag #cleanyourlocalforest would imply a question, why don't you get out and do it? While #savethewhales does not want anything from a Central European youth, the whale is far away, and all he or she has to do is buy a glass bottle instead of a plastic one. And share a selfie with the hashtag #savethewhale. Likes and shares will flow, unlike the #cleanyourlocalforest hashtag. That kind of hashtag wouldn't get any shares because it would make people feel guilty. They don't have time and will to do anything, so social media posts that make them face pressing problems would not be so popular.
Once again, I blame social media.
How social networks downplay the problems
Statements on social media need to be short, punchy, and controversial. Video posts must engage within a few microseconds and retain the viewer's attention for at least a few seconds. Otherwise, our ratings will drop, and the algorithm won't show further posts. Genuine challenges and searching for working solutions can rarely be compressed into a few seconds.
And a true respectful discussion would bore the hell out of the average social media user.
In my Czech article, I wrote about a Czech journalist, Linda Bartosova, who stirred up a Twitter storm with her complaints about men catcalling attractive women on the street.
Since there was a considerable amount of opinion in the responses, she said in an interview that she had "done a little sociological study" of this discussion. That makes me want to scream:
"No, a Twitter discussion is not a sociological study!"
And that's just it. The loudest voices are heard on social media, not because that's what people and society really think. The journalist herself admitted that she didn't read the entire discussion because there were too many posts. So, which posts did she probably read?
The ones that the algorithm picked out for her because:
1. They elicited the most significant number of responses.
2. They had the most tremendous reach.
How Algorithms Manipulate Social Media Content
In his book on the adverse effects of social networks, American programmer and author Jaron Lanier writes:
Negative emotions like fear and anger are easier to stir up and stay with us longer than positive ones. (...) This is true in real life, but it's doubly true in the flat world of algorithms.
The main purpose of algorithms is to increase 'engagement,' no one even notices that this is why they trigger negative emotions more often than positive ones. Engagement is not meant to serve a purpose other than itself, but the result is that the easily evoked emotions, the negative ones, are amplified globally.
The algorithm means no harm, it does not mean.
However, it automatically promotes comments and posts that evoke strong emotions—more often than not, the negative ones—because those negative emotions will trigger counteraction, more "engagement," sharing, and comments. And that's what the algorithm is all about. It aims to keep people in front of the screen so the network can stuff them with more advertising.
That's why every discussion escalates so quickly. The algorithm will show us the post that upsets us the most, and what's more, it will show us at the exact moment when we are most susceptible to being upset about it.
And it replaces the original context of the post with a different context. Today's network X is a masterful example of this context erasure. Suppose you've been writing about the issue of doping in sports for a long time. No single post on your wall will seem controversial since it is in context. Now imagine that someone "retweets" it, and that retweet appears in someone else's feed in the company of different posts. The very person who retweeted the post (and their comment) will affect how the new reader perceives your post. Let alone the other posts on the wall and the current state of mind of the reader.
The result is a downplaying of serious issues
If we have to cut every message down to 150 characters or less to get it read, it loses its depth. If every post has to be punchy and funny in the first place to be shared, it loses its substance. Suppose algorithms strip messages of context, which is already stripped down to a bare minimum in impersonal online communication. In that case, there is no point in any discussion. It is impossible to address the actual issues in such an arena.
Furthermore, if we want to get shares, we do not really want to address the truly controversial topics, those that unsettle people and provoke them to action. People don't like to talk about taboo topics. Talking about rape is not that comfortable; the discussion would probably be entirely one-sided, and hardly anyone could defend the rapist. No debate, no fighting, means less engagement.
Most active social media users aspire to be influencers to some extent, even if only in their little social bubble. Otherwise, they would not post, share, and discuss. Why would an aspiring influencer threaten his or her precious rating by talking about rape, making people uncomfortable in the process? It is safer to talk about sexist insinuations; that's comfortable enough, but thanks to algorithms, it's going to evoke the exact same passionate emotions as, e.g., child pornography.
Only those who genuinely want to communicate their message would open uncomfortable topics. Those few brave souls to whom the impact they leave matters more than the online fame social media can provide would do that. But then there are billions of regular users, those who do as others do.
In theory, we could say it's irrelevant. Let social media commenters tear each other apart on inconsequential topics, after all. Suppose you have ever done a proper digital detox (or, like me, left most social networks permanently). In that case, you probably notice that it does not harm you not to know what they fight about. It does not have a real-world impact. Or does it?
The problem is that politicians seem to listen. And they listen to the loudest voices instead of doing proper research concerning society's overall mood. Yet, contrary to what most politicians desire, that research actually happens once in a few years, and it is called the election. Usually, its results surprise everyone, especially those who believe that social media is where real life happens. But that is another topic. The trivialization of problems is harmful in yet another way.
No room for pressing topics
There is no room for discussion on pressing topics in such a society. People tap their opinions into their phones, issue a loud call to action in their comments, and see the problem as solved. They did their share to make the world a better place for women, for dolphins, and for discriminated people.
However, social media comments do nothing to help people who are really struggling. If the only thing bothering women today was catcalling, then there wouldn't be anything to worry about.
If the prohibition of plastic straws will save nature, then it probably does not need saving. If all racists do is put a monkey emoji next to a comment about an Afro-American football player, then I guess people of color don't have any real issues.
We reduce real issues to ridiculous internet discussions, we inflame activist passions, we argue, and rational people get a false sense that our society is perfect. It is not. Women of all social classes get raped and beaten, sometimes by their husbands. Czech forests are being destroyed by illegal felling and the bark beetle. Czech nature is drying out, and ecosystems worldwide are being disrupted by various human actions, not by the one action that is currently cool to fight against. And there are racists in every country; there is violent anti-semitism, latent xenophobia, and prejudiced teachers. Every problem the activist gets heated about in the online discussion exists but is actually more pressing. But as long as we downplay the issues to the size of catcalling, plastic straws, and monkey emojis, we are getting nowhere.
So please, let's not belittle the actual problems. Anyway, do not discuss real issues on social media; get out and talk to people. If you want to learn more about some issue, do not be discouraged by longer texts. If we want to do good, leave the hashtags and do our piece. It might be smaller but more substantial.
I end with my new Catonian addendum:
Ceterum autem censeo reticulum sociale esse delendam.
And
Thanks to all those amazing Substackers who inspired me to continue writing as I lost my drive and helped me discover new topics.
Thank you,
and , for making me aware that I am not alone in my suspicion that social media are destroying our society.To all those brave souls who are not afraid to address the actual problems and do not mind losing some audience when they make them feel uncomfortable like
, , and others whom I still discovering on this platform.Sources and further reading:
KVIFF.TV, Linda Bartos, "I don't feel safe when men shout at me." (published July 2, 2022, available HERE)
Jonathan Haidt: The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, Penguin Press, 2024.
Jaron Lanier: Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now, The Bodley Head Ltd, 2018.
Anna Lembke, Dopamine Nation: Finding Balance in the Age of Indulgence, Dutton Books, 2001.