Disagree to agree š¤
During my Instagram hiatus, Iāve been thinking a lot about my relationship with networked technologies.
Donāt worry, Iām not about to rehash boring takes from The Social Dilemma. (Iām going to rehash boring Marxist ones!) When The Social Dilemma premiered, I was surprised at how revelatory it seemed to beāin 2020, mind youāthat Facebook and Google monetize attention, violate privacy, manipulate users, surveil them, on and on. It was no surprise to me, however, that conversations around this issue felt surface-level and depoliticized. The Social Dilemma did not frame this problem in terms of economic or political stakes, but personal ones: anxiety, depression, mental health.
These are important, of course, but itās also a neoliberal dissection of the problem. Neoliberalism distributes responsibility for structural problems to individuals in a āradical abstraction of self from social and material context.ā This is very convenient for industries and people hoping you wonāt notice their exploitive bullshit. 100 companies are responsible for 70% of the worldās greenhouse gas emissions, but instead of challenging the economic and political structures that abet this horrifying statistic, you should bring a reusable mug to Starbucks! š
Once upon a time, I wrote a proposal to win advertising business from the American Petroleum Institute. API wanted business-flavored sponsored content about how āenergyā (which is what lobbyists call oil) moves through global supply chains. As with all branded content on the web, my employer would meet campaign KPIs through paid social.
Let me draw this out: we, the publisher, would pay Facebook to drive traffic to an article we were paid to write for Big Oil. The more we paid Facebook for social impressions, the more we could happily report to API that ātheirā ācontentā āresonated.ā
When it comes to technology, social media, and neoliberalism, nothing will jade you quicker than paying Big Tech to pump oil propaganda to Davos bros and TED Talkers.
Jaded folks like me embrace the absurd. Thatās why I downloaded Yoāa social app that mocks all of the above. Or at least it would if it wasnāt defunct, which in a way feels like its own kind of performance art.
Yo reduces social media to āyo.ā Literally. Thatās all you can say and share. No, really. You can only send people āyoā back and forth until you die! No other words, or images, or gifs or links or videos.
I came across this app as I was reading about communicative capitalism. This is Jodi Deanās theory that networked technologies are not just profoundly exploitive, but antithetical to the democratic ideals they claim to engender.
For me, this is where it gets interesting (and itās where the The Social Network stopped short). My time spent working in the weird, niche nexus of media and digital advertising confirms a premise of Jodi Deanās theory: āYouā are not the product in social media. āYouā are not the commodity. Only circulation generates value for advertisers. What you have to sayāyour message, your behaviorādoesnāt matter.
The message is simply part of a circulating data stream. Its particular content is irrelevant. Who sent it is irrelevant. Who receives it is irrelevant. That it need be responded to is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is circulation, the addition to the pool. Any particular contribution remains secondary to the fact of circulation. (via)
Digital advertising is built on the assumption that there are predictable, useful patterns of behavior in this circulation. But evidence does not support this. When circulation is the sacred cow, any pattern or message is moot (mooāt lol). As we share and communicate across these technologies, we simply perform free laborāproducing commoditized data for technological capital. Goliath is wearing a helmet and selling the stones we throw.
This has undeniable economic and political ramifications. For example:
When the White House acknowledged the massive worldwide demonstrations of February 15, 2003, Bush simply reiterated the fact that a message was out there, circulatingāthe protestors had the right to express their opinions. He didnāt actually respond to their message. He didnāt treat the words and actions of the protestors as sending a message to him to which he was in some sense obligated to respond. Rather, he acknowledged that there existed views different from his own. There were his views and there were other views; all had the right to exist, to be expressedābut that in no way meant, or so Bush made it seem, that these views were involved with each other. (via)

Networked technologies certainly feel democratic. But they absolve high-level actors (politicians, institutions, corporations) of engaging in good faith. They have the luxury to hunker down and ride out momentary discontent because the speed and scale of circulation is on their side. Even for organized social movements, it is impossible to simultaneously fight oppression and the unrelenting force of 24-hour news and social media.
Those anti-war demonstrationsāand similar mass movements like BLM, Occupy Wall Street, the Arab Springādid not sprout up because social media mobilized people (although it certainly helped). And at their core, these movements are not ādemocracy in actionā or even about ideals like āfreedomā or ājustice.ā At their core, these are class struggles.
After a weekend in which protesters in the United States, Europe and much of the rest of the world urged giving diplomacy more time or ruling out war altogether, Mr. Bush said he welcomed the right of people in democracies to express their opinions.
''Size of protestāit's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group,'' Mr. Bush said. ''Evidently, some of the world don't view Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace. I respectfully disagree.''Ā (via)
āYou have the right to express your opinions.ā āI respectfully disagree.ā
Power in polite society hides behind clichĆ©s. What better way to diminish the stakes, occlude morality, and placate righteous anger than to say āThatās the great thing about America. Everyone can express their opinion.ā Oh gee, thanks. Iām glad I can express my opinion that you shouldnāt separate families and put children in cages.
Even if the technologies we use for expression didnāt exploit our time and labor and privacy, I think we valorize expression to an extent that can be dangerous. Expression is important to democracy, but it is not democracy itself.
Communicative capitalism breeds circulation so vast and incessant that I think itās natural to just check out. To crave clichĆ©s and positivity and harmony because damn, turns out a lot of people are mad. Itās depoliticizing and, if youāll allow me my tinfoil hat, I think thatās the point.
Iām wary of this impulse. Iām wary of how we justify harmony in a deeply unjust society. To me, āagree to disagreeā always feels less like harmony and more like a pat on the head. āNo!ā I always want to fire back. āI disagree to agree!ā
The only way Iāve ever moved myself forward is by disagreeing without compulsively trying to make people feel better about it. Iām sure people question the utility of my combative yammering online, especially vis-Ć -vis Mormonism. To which I say: itās trauma, dummies.
But in my more vulnerable moments, sometimes I think the dummies have a point. And I guess the smarties too, because Jodi Dean might say the same thing. What have been the fruits of my exploited online labor? I still donāt have the priesthood (lol). Rosie Card continues to sell temple dresses that gay people canāt wear. And when President Nelson dies, Elder Oaks will assume his post as guard of the Mormon panopticon.
Religion did not liberate me and neither will technology. I donāt even really know what liberation looks likeāonly that I feel more of it now than I did before. I really loved something my friend Courtney wrote the other day, which is that writing and fighting and fucking up online never changed much of anything, but it did change me. Thatās not for nothing, right?
For a long time, I gave away my spiritual power to the Mormon church. And in my leaving, I gave much of my creative, expressive power to networked technologies. What would it look like to move the force of myself to a place I control? I know the answer because Iāve done it before. It would look like art.
When I wrestle with the things that have exploited who I am, I reclaim my gifts. Like a nesting meadowlark with little twigs in her beak, and bunches of grass, and cottonwood fluff, and all the parts of me they tried to take away.
FURTHER LEARNINā
YouTube video of Jodi Dean. The top comment made me laugh out loud š
A solid primer on neoliberalism. This word gets thrown around a lot and can feel vague, but itās a very specific ideology with important history.
I mean, I canāt NOT include a drag on David Brooks on this list.
Subprime Attention Crisis. Just started this short book and itās good.
Communicative capitalism: Circulation and the foreclosure of politics (2005) Yo, Dean has been on about this since BEFORE TWITTER EXISTED.
Communicative Capitalism and Class Struggle (2014) Long as fuck and heavy on theory. Great section about big data and the conclusion of the article is šÆ
Predictive analytics: How capitalismās āknowledge economyā profiles us all. Again, this shit aināt new. The CIA and DoD used real-time data and IBM computers to decide which hamlets to bomb in South Vietnam.
The Anti-War Movement and the Class Struggle. A speech given just prior to the Persian Gulf War. Succinct, perfect.
Thanks for reading Gemini Mind! Elsewhere, you can find me as @yokizzi š«
Create your profile
Only paid subscribers can comment on this post
Check your email
For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.
Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.