You're listening to How to Be a Better Human.
I'm your host, Chris Duffy.
Today on the show, we're going to try and unpack something that I've been personally struggling with for a while now.
What does it mean to try to be a better human on social media?
Is it even possible?
Because so many of the lessons that I've learned from guests on this show feel especially challenging to put into place online.
How do you treat other people with respect?
How do you set boundaries?
How do you take care of yourself?
How do you attempt to improve the world we live in while you're on these platforms that have been such a big part of our daily lives?
For a long time, I would have told you that I just genuinely have no clue how to do that.
And I also would have struggled to articulate a reason about why it is so difficult.
But then I read a book by today's guest, Catherine Cross.
It's called Log Off, Why Posting and Politics Almost Never Mix.
And Log Off is a thoughtful, nuanced and provocative argument that we are going to talk to Catherine about today.
Here's a clip.
So for many years, I've been something of a techno-optimist.
I got into researching technology because I was overwhelmed with the sense of possibility of identity reinvention and possibility that emerged from places like online role-playing games, for instance, which is how I discovered a lot about myself.
And so I had this overriding sense that there was a lot about these emergent technologies that could be used for good, and I wanted to pursue that.
And then, by 2013-2014, we began to see these long, simmering harassment campaigns that have been like directed against women and people of color in the gaming space, explode from like seasonal storms into just an on-running, like radioactive event in the form of Gamergate, which seemed to presage something very dark that was moving, slowly but surely, to the center of our politics and civic life.
But I tried to maintain faith, looking particularly at the protest movements that also were proliferating around the world in the last decade.
All over the planet there seemed to be these leaderless, horizontalist protests that emerged almost sui generis from the internet, from the will of the people, manifesting without leaders or traditional hierarchies, and all of that and toppling long-standing established regimes.
And so I was trying to place my hopes in that.
And then 2020 happened, where there was, at last, the social media called to one last great charge on behalf of civil society.
On the one hand, helping the public understand the threat posed by COVID-19.
And, on the other, the 2020 George Floyd protests being the new sort of apotheosis of Black Lives Matter.
And in the aftermath of 2020, the sense I was left with was that these initiatives had very largely failed for a lot of reasons.
And having been extremely online during that period as many people who have been luxury of being able to work from home were extremely online more than ever I realized that there were a lot of patterns that I had been lying to myself about over the last several years, the last decade, about how bad things were getting, why they were getting so bad.
And a lot of it had to do with the fact that it wasn't just me being extremely online, but millions and millions of people, particularly in positions of power and influence, being extremely online.
And I began to realize that this was not the solution to our problems, but quite possibly the cause of them.
We're going to be right back with more from Catherine and her book Log Off in just a moment.
But first, a few ads.
So please stay logged into this show.
In today's fast-changing digital world, proving your company is trustworthy isn't just important for growth, it's essential.
That's why vanta is here.
Vanta helps companies of all sizes get compliant fast and stay that way, with industry-leading ai automation and continuous monitoring.
So whether you're a startup tackling your first SOC 2 or ISO 27001, or an enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta's trust management platform makes it quicker, easier and more scalable.
Vanta also helps you complete security questionnaires up to five times faster, so you can win bigger deals sooner.
The results?
According to a recent IDC study, Vanta customers slash over 500000 a year in costs and are three times more productive.
Establishing trust isn't optional.
Vanta makes it automatic.
10,000 global companies trust Vanta, including Atlassian, Cura, Chili Piper, and Factory.
Visit vanta.com slash tedaudio to sign up for a free demo today.
That's v-a-n-t-a dot com slash tedaudio.
Hi, I'm Doreena, co-founder of OpenPhone.
My dad is a business owner and growing up, I'll never forget his old ringtone.
He made it as loud as it could go because he could not afford to miss a single customer call.
That stuck with me.
When we started Open Phone, our mission was to help businesses not just stay in touch, but make every customer feel valued, no matter when they might call.
Open Phone gives your team business phone numbers to call and text customers, all through an app on your phone or computer.
Your calls, messages and contacts live in one workspace, so your team can stay fully aligned and reply faster.
And with our AI agent answering 24-7, you'll really never miss a customer.
Over 60,000 businesses use Open Phone.
Try it now and get 20 off your first six months at openphonecom slash tech, and we can port your existing numbers over for free.
Open phone, no missed calls, no missed customers.
This podcast is brought to you by Wise, the app for international people using money around the globe.
With Wise, you can send, spend and receive up to 40 currencies with only a few simple taps and save up to 55 compared to major banks.
Plus, Wise won't add hidden fees to your transfer.
Whether you're buying souvenirs with pesos in Puerto Vallarta or sending euros to a loved one in Paris, you know you're getting a fair exchange rate with no extra markups.
Be smart.
Join the 15 million customers who choose Wise.
Download the Wise app today or visit wise.com.
Learn more by visiting wise.com slash US slash compare.
T's and C's apply.
Today on the show, we are talking with Catherine Cross about the complicated, messy world of being a human online.
Hi, I'm Catherine Alejandra Cross, PhD candidate at the University of Washington, researching online harassment for my sins, and a widely published tech critic and assistant editor at Liberal Currents, also author of Log Off.
There's so many things that I loved about the book Log Off.
I think you are very clearly not a cynical pessimist.
You very clearly believe in the possibility of positive change.
And I think that that is not often paired the idea that social media is a problem and yet there are ways that we could make things better.
But I also see that you responded in a way of like, I don't know if I actually do believe in change.
No, no, I actually, I really genuinely do.
It's like I say at the end of the book, like it's not that I've lost faith in information technology or the internet.
It's just that the idea that social media is going to do the hard work for us, is going to organize us automatically in predictable and enduring ways that will lead not only to change but also take all of the difficult work, the busy work, the guesswork out of organizing around what comes after a big change event.
We have to dispense with those ideas.
For instance, a scholar at my university, Katie Pearce, did research on Azerbaijan and its civil society in the early 2010s, right at the apex of optimism about, like the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street and the fair protests that were burgeoning throughout South America and Chile and Brazil.
But she was pointing out that in Azerbaijan, authoritarians were already, you know, rather expertly manipulating social media memes and exposing people on the Internet, harassing investigative journalists.
And it was a clear warning sign that this idea that authoritarians were always going to be sort of these old fuddy-duddies who didn't know which way was up on a smartphone was not going to hold for very long, and the dam was already breaking.
But that's not pessimism.
That's recognising what has gone wrong, and that is the first step towards building something new.
Again, I'm curious if you would agree, but to me I read Log Off as in one part an argument against social media and in another, quite large part, an argument for the day to day hard work of politics and of community building.
You know, I love social media.
I think it's hilarious.
It can be very fun and funny.
But what it's not is a substitute for the hard work of politics.
And it never can be.
But we've often treated it that way, where we see social media metrics as equivalent to votes or even to polling data and things like that.
And that has, I think, led us woefully astray, led us all woefully astray.
You know I at the end of the book sort of tease a bit about my own dissertation inciting Hannah Arendt and her own work on what politics really means.
She's often misunderstood and not easy to claim by either the right or the left, and much criticized by both sides of the political spectrum, partially because of the way that she conceives of politics as this continuum of the individual and the collective and argues that you can't dispense with either.
What social media does is render us completely monadic individuals, pretending that we are part of the collective.
And so long as you and a thousand other people are staring at the same Rorschach inkblot, and seeing your private desires being met, you can act as a mass.
But the moment that illusion dissipates and it always does the whole thing falls apart, and then there's nothing holding you together, not even ideology.
Why is there, after all, so much leftist infighting on social media?
Which is not a new phenomenon, of course, but wildly and dramatically accelerated thanks to social media, to ever more destructive potential.
So that's where I'm coming at with all of this.
What is the simple, quick definition of politics when we talk about it?
Politics is the debate that you and I have about power and resources in our society.
And so that takes on any number of forms.
You think about how much falls under the heading of power and resources.
It's pretty much everything, right?
And it's therefore the air we breathe.
The discussions that we have about, you know, whether a park should be built in our neighborhood are political.
The discussions about how often does the recycling get picked up are political.
The discussions about you know whether you get to have pets in an apartment building are political.
But that also scales up to all of the issues that affect your life and mine in very profound ways.
People get together in that way to ban books about LGBT people from their local library, for instance.
But they also band together to defend those books or come together on behalf of a say, child who's being bullied at school for being different.
Politics is social at the end of the day.
Politics is always bigger than one person.
That is a huge part of politics.
And so, in order to achieve that, you can't just stand up and be your own little petty potentate on a street corner.
You have to negotiate and network with other people, your neighbors, members of your community.
That is the work.
It's always social work.
People sometimes talk about tech and everything as political.
You say that social media may be anti-political.
I'm just going to quote from the book here.
How could that be?
Because it demobilizes and scatters the polity.
It makes it harder to come together, deliberate and affect change in our communities.
Worse, social media tricks us into thinking that that's exactly what we're doing.
What results is a public square where real people can get hurt, but nothing ever changes.
You talk later in the book about how social media is a place where you can make hate speech and harass someone, but you can't come together to build a community center.
That's really what I mean when I say that it's anti-political.
And I use that provocative term very deliberately.
It comes from my work with Hannah Arendt and thinking about what she means by politics and then saying that social media is very antithetical to that, everything that I described earlier.
Social media... is a space that tricks you into thinking that you are engaged in collective action.
You're always together alone in social media.
You know, this idea of modernity making people feel alone in a crowd, it's not new, it's a part and parcel of philosophy and sociology and psychology as it has been discussed since the turn of the last century.
People turned social media as a quick and easy substitute for what used to happen through congregations and community organizations and activist groups and volunteer community groups and so on.
You've seen a decline in civil society organizations, or perhaps you know you are the only queer person in your town and a place like Blue Sky is the only place where you can talk to other queer and trans people on the regular and feel like you're a part of this larger community.
It's not that people are stupid, necessarily, it's that... they feel like they have no alternative.
But then, because they feel like they have no alternative and they become more dependent on space like this, they have to sort of retroactively justify why they're investing so much energy into it.
And it can't just be that I feel alone or lonely.
It has to be.
I'm helping to save the world by doing what I'm doing.
And that can lead to the more extreme manifestations of bad social media behavior in certain instances where people imbue their actions online with this righteous fury.
It has to be.
You know that I'm saving the world, I'm defending the whole of this marginalized group, or I'm defending democracy or opposing a tyrant.
And that is, you know, there are only so many hours in a day.
There are only so many, you know, things that you can do, only so much energy you have.
And at some point it does become a zero-sum game where you investing time into all of that is time you're not spending doing more meaningful, real political work.
So can we talk more about that for a second?
The ways in which it has pushed us away from sincerity caring, and drawn us towards a contempt for this kind of political day to day work.
Now I want to be very clear about this and say that yes, there are very good reasons that people have become more cynical about politics over the last 40 years.
There have been a lot of very real broken promises.
Liberal democracy, having been battered and, in some cases, stripped for parts on all sides, has led to, in some ways, a failure to deliver on certain critical promises.
But the flip side to that is that efforts to fight back, efforts to use the levers of politics to make real change have sometimes flown under the radar on left-of-center social media, where if a politician, say from the Democratic Party, makes a silly statement or appears to throw a minority group under the bus right, or throws their hands up and says well, we can't do anything about X, That gets a lot of attention.
That drives a narrative.
That gets a lot of rage clicks.
But when there are quiet successes, then sudden and very meaningful ones.
They remain quiet because they don't catch fire on social media, because they don't fit into the narrative of ironic detachment that allows people to make this really funny, dunking post on you know kind of Dick Durbin or Chuck Schumer type figure.
The Biden administration, for all of its sins, stopped the drone war in Yemen at least before October 7th 2023.
And so there was no credit given for any of that, nor any attempt made online to sort of build on successes, the rare successes that we could get out of government.
And it reinforced this sense of cynicism.
It made it seem, as I said, cringe to ever suggest that democracy was an unalloyed good, that liberal democracy was this cool thing worth defending.
And I even see some revisionist history percolating across social media about the first Trump administration where, You know, people were trying to argue that you know oh, no one protested.
Right, that liberals didn't protest.
All they did was make those stupid pink pussy hats.
And I'm just like how can you remember the hats and not remember the protests that they were famously associated with right?
It is easier to destroy than it is to build.
And that's part of the reason that it seems like, you know, the bad guys have more immediate successes than people trying to actually change the world for the better.
But to build something much more constructive takes time and effort.
And it's rare that it happens.
Like, one of the few examples of it is something like crowdfunding.
But even that is very transient and itself... a kind of rearguard action.
The most popular type of GoFundMe is a medical fundraiser.
And what does that say about our larger society, for instance?
That's not social media solving a problem.
It's maybe at best a tourniquet on an aspect of our society that's bleeding out.
We're going to take a quick break right now, but do not go anywhere.
We will be right back.
This podcast is sponsored by BetterHelp.
You know, we have all been there.
You call your best friend at 11 pm because you're spiraling about work stress, or you corner your coworker by the coffee machine to unpack relationship drama.
And look, while our friends are amazing listeners, they can be.
They're not trained therapists.
And even if your friend is a trained therapist, they shouldn't be your therapist.
I have learned that for me, having a licensed professional with clinical training and expertize, that is unbelievably valuable.
It is incredibly helpful at navigating my challenges in my life.
And that is where better help could come in for you.
Now I use an in-person therapist, but I know that in-person therapy Can be hard to find someone who is in your area, who you like, who you can afford.
And BetterHelp is a great option if you are having trouble finding someone.
BetterHelp has been helping people to find their perfect therapist match for over 10 years.
They have licensed therapists working under strict guidelines, and they do the matching work for you.
Plus, it's flexible, so you can switch therapists at any time with no extra cost.
As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health professionals with a diverse variety of expertise.
Find the one with BetterHelp.
Our listeners get 10% off their first month at betterhelp.com human.
That's betterhelp.com human.
This episode is sponsored by Bombas.
Fall is here, the kids are back in school, vacations are behind us and it's officially cozy season, which means it's the perfect time to slide into some bombas.
You probably know bombas for their socks.
They really are some of the most comfortable, but they also make slippers, tees and underwear, all crafted from premium materials that actually make sense for this time of year.
Think merino wool that keeps you warm when it's chilly, but cool when it's hot.
Supima cotton that's softer and stronger than the usual.
And my personal favorite, rag wool, the thick, classic cozy sock that just feels like fall.
And here's what makes bomba stand out for every item you buy, they donate one to someone experiencing homelessness over 150 million items donated so far.
Plus everything comes with their happiness guarantee.
So there's really no risk.
Head over to bombascom.
Slash human and use code human for 20 off your first purchase.
That's B-O-M-B-A-S dot com.
Slash human code human at checkout.
The old adage goes, it isn't what you say, it's how you say it.
Because to truly make an impact, you need to set an example.
You need to take the lead.
You need to adapt to whatever comes your way.
And when you're that driven, you drive an equally determined vehicle, the Range Rover Sport.
Blending power, poise, and performance, it was designed to make an impact.
With a dynamic drive, refined comfort and innovations like cabin air purification and active noise cancellation.
The Range Rover Sport is built to be as uncompromising as you.
And we are back.
Today we're talking with Catherine Alejandra Cross, a researcher on online harassment and the author of the book Log Off Why Posting and Politics Almost Never Mix.
You've talked also about how you're in your academic research.
You say that you tried to give analytic rigor to the idea of a harassment campaign and that, in some ways, social media is uniquely well designed to harass individuals because they have three qualities, these harassment campaigns?
What they are able to do is to have these, you call them third order harassment.
So maybe you can just talk about the three orders of harassment and how social media is so well situated to make that happen to an individual.
You have first order harassment, which is very extreme, harassment that bleeds over into the physical world.
So say you know dead animals in one's letterbox or people threatening your parents say, or showing up at your child's school, or sending in a bomb threat to where you work, right?
Second order harassment is what most people think of as online harassment.
People saying mean things to one another directly to the target on social media.
And third order harassment is sort of my innovation here, where I argue that it's sort of this indirect but widespread layer of discourse about the targets of harassment that doesn't necessarily exist, target them directly but provides the moral substrate for the harassment, the permission structure, the discourse that says it's okay to go after this target.
Even if I don't personally do it, I'm having the discussions in public that help reinforce the idea that this harassment target is a legitimate target.
You can think of first-order harassment as things done to the target, second-order harassment as things said to the target, and third-order harassment as things said about the target.
And that helps to you know.
It creates a sort of base layer that justifies and allows itself to be built on to these ever-escalating layers of harassment and abuse.
And these, these situations they arise so often online that there are.
In some ways it's hard to pick an example.
One example that you talk about in the book is a woman who.
She put something out into social media about how she has some college aged boys who live next door and they've been very quiet.
And so she likes them as neighbors.
She thinks that they're very sweet neighbors.
But she also notices that they've ordered in pizza five nights in a row.
And so she she writes something along the lines of like I kind of feel very caring towards these people.
Maybe I'm going to cook them a big pot of chili and bring it over.
And somehow that pretty innocuous message then becomes blown up online, with people saying that this embodies all the problems of sexism and patriarchy, that this embodies the problems of white privilege.
All these different pieces start getting blown up online.
And so there's direct attacks.
But then there's also this next level, which is people discussing like is it actually okay?
Is it not okay?
What does it mean?
What responsibilities do you have towards your neighbors?
And I think, something that I had never thought about before that you make the point with this third order harassment is that even when people are not directly criticizing this woman, just by discussing the idea of like, what does it mean to be a good neighbor?
They're circling the energy around her so that she is more and more and more in the field of discussion, which causes all this negative attention and hatred to come her way.
In my brief gloss on third order harassment, I focused on people sort of justifying the abuse in a very direct way to one another that they could then bring to the target.
But another critical point I make, and one that's morally difficult for me, never mind for other people, is recognizing that even if you try to defend the target or you try to have some sort of neutral discussion about the issues raised by the harassment campaign, you are putting fuel on the fire, that it is just all completely agnostic to intent.
In that particular incident with the Chile woman, there was even a Washington Post lifestyle piece about the ethics of making food for your neighbors.
And I say something in the book along the lines of just imagine how awful it must be to have this offhanded thing that you did out of kindness suddenly be debated in the pages of one of the nation's largest newspapers.
Another example that I can point to was from a couple of years ago, this major TikTok blow up.
It was this innocuous video of a bunch of young college-age men sitting on a couch like watching a movie or something.
And then one of their girlfriends comes in by surprise.
She'd been away on a trip or something and came back early unexpectedly.
And the young man seemed almost nonplussed.
It was just like he had a bit of a deer in headlights reaction.
It was fairly ambiguous, but that was the problem.
It was ambiguous and therefore everybody wanted to debate and have an opinion about it.
Oh, is he cheating on her?
Does he not really love her?
Are they about to break up?
Is he a serial killer?
This metastasized into this unbelievable, life-ruining discourse about this one poor guy.
He ended up writing a first-person perspective piece for Slate magazine about how much it had upended his life.
He was relatively sanguine about it and tried to be good-natured, but he didn't sugarcoat how incredibly disruptive and even violent that this had been by becoming this huge TikTok meme that was sort of dissecting this brief moment in time for him.
And that also is a clear example of like the sort of third order at work.
There were certainly a lot of people just talking about him, making videos and remixes about him that were not directed at him, right.
They didn't like personally send it to his inbox, but it kept the fire going.
It kept the meme going, which kept him at the center of all of this, kept him at the eye of the storm.
And that's sort of the dynamic that I try to pick apart here.
The difference between me and other people who've criticized social media is that they often dwell on issues of individual morality and ethics.
Like you are choosing to rot your brain.
Therefore you are a bad person, or there's something wrong with you, or you are an addict, and things like that.
And I don't want to say that there's never any salience for that kind of discussion.
I never want to say that individual responsibility is completely passe.
But I try, I'm sociologically trained, I try to shift the focus to the larger social questions.
Why do we do what we do?
What are the strings by which we have been moved?
And that has always fascinated me far more about social media that there is this structure there as much as the structure of a city or highway network.
This is also, I thought, such an for me, a really eye-opening insight about social media, the idea of affordances.
An affordance is basically you can think of it as a feature of a designed object that suggests how to use it.
So the example that I always use with my students is think about like how you open a door, right?
If you see a push bar, it suggests that you have to push it to open.
If you see a handle, it suggests that you have to pull it up or down in order to open the door.
And you see a knob, you twist it.
The shape, the way it looks suggests how it is meant to be used.
And that scales up varying degrees of complexity, right?
And up to and including social media.
So how social media is designed suggests how you use it.
And I use the analogy of road design.
So, for example, in many countries, there are raised crosswalks, right?
You know you think about how.
If you live in the US or Canada, you're used to like stepping down into the street to cross.
But in other countries the crosswalk is raised, so the level is the sidewalk and cars have to go over a speed bump, essentially whenever they cross a crosswalk, which incentivizes them to slow down.
And this is why you see, for example, a country like the Netherlands has a lower traffic fatality rate than the United States.
It's not because the Dutch are better, more moral people, or better drivers.
It's because the design of roads influences behavior that you can start to see scale up at the level of society.
And that's the thing that I've always thought about as a scholar of the internet is that you're never going to get very far just telling people to change individual behavior.
You're never going to get terribly far with that.
The real change, the structural change, comes from changing the structure, because it incentivizes and disincentivizes certain types of behaviors.
And a lot of it is because the spaces we participate in provide these incentives to behave in a certain way.
When you see a link preview that has a headline, you can click through it and see what the article actually says, but you're much more likely to just read the headline only and react to that.
And the thing is that's an incentive on your part, because of how the interface is designed, that incentivizes them to create maybe misleading or provocative headlines.
And so that's all social media affordances all the way down, right?
It's not about individual morality, right?
Resisting it as an individual is exceptionally difficult, because we all want to participate in society.
We all want to participate and have fun and be part of something.
And so it can be easy to let yourself get secondarily socialized into certain social media patterns, certain ways of behaving, ways of approaching things, ways of talking about certain issues and ways of interacting, just because you see everybody else doing it and because the designer, the platform itself, incentivizes it.
People are not more brutish or cruel or stupid than they were in centuries past.
If anything, I think frankly the opposite is true, but it's that we are being channeled into these series of structures that incentivize certain behaviors, and you have to swim upstream in the channels of those structures in order to avoid the direction that these affordances are kind of steering you into.
Do you believe that we would be better with no social media?
If social media was banned or somehow you could snap your fingers and social media could stop existing in its current form.
Do you think that would be better?
Yes.
I don't believe that there's a good way to do that that would not empower governments in the worst way.
But sort of mutatis mutandis, magic wand waved.
Yes, I think that we might actually be better off.
Let's kind of address some of the arguments that I think people would make against that.
So one of them is this argument that if I am a person from a minority community or a marginalized community and I live in a place where there are not people who I can directly connect with, say I am a trans person in a small town there's no one else who I know of who is trans in my neighborhood.
That that is like the quintessential argument for social media on the liberal side.
Well, then you get to connect with people out there in the world.
How do you respond to that if you think that social media as a whole should not exist, if it couldn't exist?
What I tell people is that obviously we're not going to be able to wave a magic wand to get rid of social media.
So working with the world as it is, which is very important to me as a political first principle.
I say you can use social media to meet people but then really find your people.
It is not a community.
It will eat you alive in ways that you can't even begin to imagine if something goes wrong.
The idea that social media has to be the only domain where you socialize has never been true.
There's nothing stopping you from having a chat room, from having a signal chat.
I mean, if it's good enough for the Secretary of Defense, it's good enough for you, right?
So it's like I'm not saying deny yourself, but I am saying that maybe the best way to use social media is as an index or as a phone book rather than as the place that you treat as a community center.
The old adage goes, it isn't what you say, it's how you say it.
Because to truly make an impact, you need to set an example.
You need to take the lead.
You need to adapt to whatever comes your way.
And when you're that driven, you drive an equally determined vehicle, the Range Rover Sport.
Blending power, poise, and performance, it was designed to make an impact.
With a dynamic drive, refined comfort and innovations like cabin air purification and active noise cancellation.
The Range Rover Sport is built to be as uncompromising as you.
Explore Range Rover Sport at rangerover.com.
Take a breath.
You're not alone.
Let's talk about what's going on.
Counseling helps you sort through the noise with qualified professionals, and online therapy makes it convenient.
See if it's for you.
Visit betterhelpcom slash random podcast for 10 off your first month of online therapy and let life feel better.
This podcast is brought to you by Wise, the app for international people using money around the globe.
With Wise, you can send, spend and receive up to 40 currencies with only a few simple taps and save up to 55 compared to major banks.
Plus, Wise won't add hidden fees to your transfer.
Whether you're buying souvenirs with pesos in Puerto Vallarta or sending euros to a loved one in Paris, you know you're getting a fair exchange rate with no extra markups.
Be smart.
Join the 15 million customers who choose Wise.
Download the Wise app today or visit wise.com.
Learn more by visiting wise.com slash US slash compare.
T's and C's apply.
So what about then?
What of someone who says I hear what you're saying, I understand, I agree with it.
The problem is the platforms that exist as they exist.
What we need is a better, different platform.
What do you say to that person?
I will say that I was that person for the better part of the 2010s, enthusiastically.
I pointed out earlier, for example, the whole thing about clickbait, right?
One of the last good things that Twitter did before Elon Musk took it over was that they put in a speed bump where, if you tried to retweet something that included an article link, you got a pop-up that asked you hey, did you read this?
Did you click through this?
Make sure you do that before sharing this around.
And that kind of thing can be very useful for providing what's called friction to slow down the worst aspects of virality.
There's lots of things you can do to improve, but I don't think you'll ever completely solve the problems, because the problems are baked into the fact that we just are not built to deal with situations staring into this vortex of the raw power of millions of people's ids screaming at you all at once.
This is where the power of your argument that it is not just log off from social media, but that it is also Get involved in politics, get involved in community building, like that doesn't have to be in person.
It can be on the Internet, but it is not a social media only thing.
And so, for example, it's not saying that I shouldn't post an Instagram story condemning the latest atrocity in whatever war it is.
That's not saying that I get to not do anything.
Far from it.
It's just saying that that isn't the most effective thing that I can do and that what I should be concerned with if I'm please critique me if I'm not getting this right.
But it's that what I should be concerned with is doing something that actually matters, not doing something period.
Yes, exactly.
But what I also say in the book very clearly is to say that you can even still use social media as long as you have a clear picture in mind with clear answers to critical questions.
What am I doing?
How is it connected to the movement?
What is the goal that I'm trying to achieve?
Is social media the best tool or a good tool to use to achieve that goal?
And if you can answer those questions with more than vague pablum appeals to personal morality or appeals to something vague like raising awareness, then you might be onto something right.
When I was writing the book.
One of the people that I cite extensively is the journalist and drone researcher Fane Greenwood.
And they were running a very successful fundraising campaign for a Palestinian man and his family.
You know was trying to get them out of Gaza right.
And it took a significant amount of money to do this.
This was well vetted.
Fein knew and had worked with this man before reporting on Israel Palestine, and it was a very worthy cause that They had been criticized by some keyboard warriors for some of the same things that perhaps you've been criticized for.
And they turned that harassment into attention for this fundraiser in a really successful act of social media jujitsu that raised goodness.
I forget the exact figure, but I think it was like 50,000 Canadian dollars or something like that.
It was quite a lot of money that ultimately got raised for this man and his family.
And you know, I think that that was a clear instance of I know what I'm doing and I'm going to use social media to to achieve a narrow but clear goal that social media can achieve.
I always say again that as long as you have a clear goal in mind and social media objectively is capable of helping you achieve that goal, then maybe you can do something political there.
But it's not just pissing into the wind, raising awareness.
But I will just say that...
When it comes to, for example, Gaza and the war there.
For me, it has been, I think, significantly more productive on my end to engage in longer form ways rather than in shorter form ways, to read articles, to write about it in a long form way, to have conversations on a podcast where we can talk for an hour rather than to try and summarize in sentence or two, because I still, to this day, struggle to summarize anything about any of these complex geopolitical situations in one sentence, because it seems like it's in some ways flattening and exploitative to me to try and say here's my one hashtag phrase about it.
And I think The other piece though, in addition to the length of the form, is social media seems to me to be, among many other problems, uniquely bad at saying I actually don't know enough.
I don't know all of the details it is.
You know, I come at this from the world of comedy.
And, as a comedian, the number one thing you're supposed to do on stage is have a strong opinion on anything right.
Like you don't bring something up unless you have a strong opinion.
It doesn't work.
And I think social media invites that same thing.
It's one of my first rules for interacting on social media, but that's because it's like such a nasty place.
Showing vulnerability is a very difficult thing to do on these platforms without taking an enormous risk.
I mean, honestly, that was part of what happened with, you know, the Chile woman, right?
There was a lot of vulnerability and kindness being expressed there and that was almost an invitation right.
And the irony, of course, being that vulnerability and kindness are the number one ways to, in face-to-face interactions, to build a connection, to build solidarity, to actually build a community.
Yes, exactly.
I think that these in-person interactions are indeed the way forward.
You're right certainly, that there's a lot to be said for the fact that we're not allowed to say, or at least not easily say oh, I don't know enough about this right.
And that longer form engagements or productions are generally just better for people And the thing is, sometimes when you say, oh, it's nuanced, people think that you're excusing, say, a war crime or something like that.
We can say that the morality of that is straightforward.
What's never straightforward in politics is what do you do next?
Yes, yes, yes.
How do you change the circumstances surrounding these immoral acts?
That is the complicated conversation.
I will never say that there's anything morally complicated about murdering a family of civilians.
What is complicated is how do you change the world for the better such that this stops happening reliably?
That is complicated and difficult work.
It is important that people like you get involved in these complex geopolitical discussions because it involves things that might be done in your name, done with your tax dollars, done under the color of your country's flag.
That matters.
And there is a certain collective responsibility that we all have to take there.
But you're not going to achieve that fullest bloom of citizenship on social media.
Well, Catherine, thank you so much for being on the show.
And thank you for writing this book.
It was such a pleasure talking to you.
Thank you so much for having me, Chris.
It's always a pleasure to talk about this.
That is it for today's episode of How to Be a Better Human.
Thank you so much to today's guest, Catherine Cross.
Her book is called Log Off, Why Posting and Politics Almost Never Mix.
I am your host, Chris Duffy, and you can find more from me, including my weekly newsletter and other projects, at chrisduffycomedycom.
How to Be a Better Human is put together by a team who mix quite well.
On the TED side, we've got face-to-face communicators Daniela Bellarezzo, Banban Cheng, Michelle Quint, Chloe Shasha Brooks, Valentina Bohannini, Laini Lott, Tanzika Sungmanivong, Antonia Le and Joseph DeBrine.
This episode was fact-checked by Julia Dickerson and Mateus Salas, who are a disinformation campaign's worst enemies.
On the PRX side we've got Long Form, Grace and Nuance in Human Form Morgan Flannery, Norgil Patrick Grant and Jocelyn Gonzalez.
Thanks again to you for listening.
Please share this episode with a person whose thoughts you particularly appreciate, someone you never want to log off from.
We will be back next week with even more How to Be a Better Human.
Until then, take care.
Progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates.
Potential savings will vary.
Not available in all states.
What's up?
Grace from The Working Hard Podcast here and I want to tell you about something exciting.
You're watching EveryDollar, and Walmart Business helps you stretch each one.
From office supplies to snacks and cleaning gear, you'll get everyday low prices, plus easy bulk ordering and fast delivery.
And with tools like spend tracking and multi-user accounts, staying organized is simple.
Save time, money, and hassle at business.walmart.com.
It's free to sign up.
