Image courtesy of

If you heard that more than 89 million households worldwide had watched a particular film on Netflix during the first week after its release, you’d think something monumental was occurring, wouldn’t you?

The Social Dilemma, a documentary-drama about the role of technology in our lives, garnered all those viewers.

If you have access to Netflix, I strongly recommend The Social Dilemma. It’s a powerful film (some say sensationalistic and misleading) that begins with a quotation from Sophocles:

“Nothing vast enters the world of mortals without a curse.”

I also watched a webinar inspired by both the film and efforts to use it to come to grips with the impact it describes. I’ve concluded that even if the film is somewhat sensational, it has uncovered areas that critically need examination, discussion, and action.

This is a time when both nationally and internationally, we’re facing issues that require at least a good majority of us to operate with the same basic factual evidence on big issues: the continuation of our democracy, climate change, the pandemic are examples of these essentials.

I’m not advocating “group-think”; disagreement based on facts is always invaluable—never more so than when we are pondering these huge issues with vast ramifications.

I’m talking about what one webinar participant described as a “shared reality.” We can’t really approach our big problems without it.

Yet on a daily basis, we are confronted with technology that’s designed to atomize us—to cater to our individual wants, perceptions, and beliefs. We are much more financially valuable to these social media companies apart, as discrete individuals, than we would be together.

And so the social media companies exaggerate our separateness by providing us with tailor-made “news,” events, products.

A stark example in the film is what happens when two individuals in different places search Google for “climate change.” One may be referred to a list of resources claiming it’s a hoax. The other may receive studies and recommendations about how to combat it.

When you consider other technological advances, such as the telephone, you see the emphasis on connectivity. That was one of the great gifts of these tech companies at the outset—and it still is.

One of the interviewees in the film said he focused on such positives as locating organ donors and reuniting families. But then he—and others in the film—became aware of the down side: the terrible destruction wrought by social media to both individuals—especially young people—and society, worldwide.

The riveting fact about these revelations is that The Social Dilemma, directed by filmmaker Jeff Orlowski after hearing the concerns of his techie friends, features several of the people who created those very algorithms and systems: people who worked at Google, Facebook, and Twitter.

Over the past decade, they’ve become deeply regretful of the results of their work and are now seeking ways to redress the wrongs they’ve unleashed.

The Social Dilemma covers the ways the algorithms and systems on social media are designed to appeal to our subconscious needs, thereby directing our thinking.

The film’s participants trace all the harm to the monetizing model these companies employ: using these increasingly sophisticated algorithms, they learn all they can about us—essentially, to capture our attention and hold it for the benefit of the advertisers who reimburse them.

For a bit of pleasure, we give up a great deal—unknowingly. In fact, more than one of the film’s interviewees suggested that the algorithms are even getting away from their own designers.

As bloggers, we are voracious online communicators. We all use emails. Many of us are also users of social media—Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube. We are well aware of the benefits of these social networks. We are probably also aware to varying degrees of their drawbacks.

The negatives to us personally include encouraging our individual obsessiveness to check sites whenever notified of some activity—and to check our own “likes” specifically—a repetitive activity that purportedly affects our attention spans. (I found there’s no research to date indicating a permanent effect, but I do know that I’m better off since I removed from my phone the beep notifications that were clearly distracting me.)

The negatives also include forcing us to eyeball ads for goods and services that we may have briefly, perhaps even accidentally, touched on in an online search, but are now sure we can’t live without. (I pay no attention to the ads, so I guess that one’s lost on me.)

That’s just a sampling.

The film reveals the extent to which our brains are mere putty being manipulated by these giant companies as marketing tools for the advertisers that have fed their phenomenal growth.

Facebook As a Tool for War?

Then there’s the vast societal harm due to the alarming proliferation of sites bearing blatant misinformation, conspiracy theories, and hate mongering. Social media has had an enormous impact on our personal and societal lives worldwide—exacerbating our differences by directing us to messages tailor-made to our preconceived notions and beliefs.

The film shows violence in various countries, such as the Philippines, that was promoted via messages directed by Facebook to individuals who, Facebook’s algorithms told them, were susceptible to specific viewpoints.

It reveals the dark implications of a technology run wild that it suggests is threatening our democracy, the world’s economic stability, and our very existence.

Not surprisingly, Facebook responded with a detailed rebuttal, which you can find here. “You are not the product,” it seeks to reassure us, insisting that it’s made many changes since the film’s interviewees worked there. (Facebook and others have made some changes of late to identify blatant misinformation on their sites.)

But while we’re discussing Facebook, I’ll note that I also just came across an Atlantic article titled “Facebook Is a Doomsday Machine,” which says much of what The Social Dilemma says about Facebook and the others (without mentioning the film).

Impact on Young People?

Great concern in the film is placed on the effect on young people. Social media became prominent around 2010. Generation Z, one of the speakers points out, began using social media in middle school.

These kids have shown increasing incidence of depression, opioid addiction, self-harm, suicides, and other dysfunction as they measure themselves by their appearances compared to that of their peers and assess their online likability.

Is there a quid pro quo with all the dysfunction? This has also been a time of great economic and social instability. So I’m not sure how much social media has contributed, but I do know that many kids’ lives are consumed by these social networks.

The Mayo Clinic, after citing the positives involved in teen social media use, observes that

“social media use can also negatively affect teens, distracting them, disrupting their sleep, and exposing them to bullying, rumor spreading, unrealistic views of other people’s lives and peer pressure.”

What Can Be Done? The Beginning of a Movement for Change

Suppose there were a movement designed to teach us how to be alert to the manipulation instead of surrendering to it, and to build a community consisting of those who want to see our technological advances help us find our commonality and work and live together in peace?

Picture a society that values each individual, seeks to help us agree upon facts so that we can work toward solutions to the problems of economic and racial inequality, protect our planet, and replace anger with compassion. Do you think a movement to create such a society is viable? Would you be interested in joining?

I figure though it may sound far-fetched, it’s worth a try. I am now a cardless-carrying member of the Center for Humane Technology, whose mission “is to drive a comprehensive shift toward human technology that supports our well-being, democracy, and shared information environment.“ 

There’s no membership fee and no request for a commitment to join. You just sign up. The website provides a trailer for The Social Dilemma and a podcast that I haven’t yet listened to.

I learned about it by watching the webinar I mentioned earlier: “Beyond the Dilemma: Unpacking Solutions to The Social Dilemma.” The webinar featured two of these techies-turned-community (world) organizers—Tristan Harris and Randima (Randy) Fernando—who are founders of the Center.

Fernando introduced the webinar by observing that when he and his colleagues saw the remarkable response to the film, they envisioned the beginnings of a worldwide movement devoted to reversing what I think of as the Frankenstein’s monster they created with this powerful technology—and reshaping it for societal good.

Fernando stressed that technology is never neutral. He and his colleagues see this movement as narrowing the gap between the powerful and marginal, helping build a “shared truth,” and helping to prepare us to deal with unforeseen side effects of tech innovations.

That shared truth, though worthy and essential, seems elusive to me now, but certainly has its appeal.

Part of the effort involves regulating technology’s societal harms while still allowing its financial functioning in a healthier world—via a different business model that doesn’t sell us to advertisers as its product.

Harris pointed to what may be a realistic alternate monetization approach: There are utility companies that used to make higher profits whenever we left more of our lights on for longer periods. But then they switched their model and charged a specified amount.

Those users who stayed within that limit saved money. Those who exceeded it had to pay for the excess usage. BUT the surplus funds were put into a pool that was invested in solar and wind energy, thereby benefiting both the forward-looking companies and the broader society. 

Can what works for a public utility be feasible in the tech world? I wonder.

The Necessity of Awareness

Harris and Fernando appeared on the webiner with Trudy Goodman, PhD, founder of Insight LA, a California meditation center that organized the webinar, and Jack Kornfield, PhD, an author and leading meditation teacher who trained as a Buddhist monk in Thailand, India, and elsewhere.

I found the webinar to be an ideal pairing of people and perspectives. Fernando and Harris spoke about the technology and their post-documentary efforts.

Goodman and Kornfield provided the messages for a critical skill we’ll all need as a first step toward comprehending the technology’s impact on our lives: heightened awareness.

If we are to appreciate the extent to which we’re being manipulated, we must be able to step outside ourselves and view our role in the larger picture.

Kornfield praised the film for providing an “understanding of how the system structurally went out of control. We have enormous creative capacities, but they’re not always connected to our hearts, values, and what really matters.”

He compared our current situation to Henry Ford’s inventing the automobile, giving people mobility, creating jobs, heightening connectivity.

But without anyone’s considering the consequences, next came traffic jams, where everyone was just stuck (and, I note, increasing use of fossil fuel to the detriment of our environment).

To Kornfield, the film is a conversation starter to help people understand “we’re being led.” Goodman said the documentary-drama fueled her rebelliousness because it showed her vulnerability in having less free choice in decision-making than she’d thought.

An Insider Takes Us Inside

Harris has been called the conscience of Silicon Valley because he began raising questions about the societal harms years ago. Working at Google, he asked why no one was involved in making Gmail less addictive.

He said in the film that “about 50 designers—25- to 35-year-old white guys—had an impact on 2 billion people.” We have a moral responsibility at Google to solve this problem, he insisted then. But that didn’t happen.

He seems to be well versed in just about everything. In the webinar, he dropped in a reference to biologist EO Wilson’s view: we have paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like accelerating technologies.

Harris pointed out that social media have led us to conflate what’s good and true with what’s popular. We’re rewarded when what we say goes viral, reaching tens of millions of people.

But the quote, idea, or observation that achieves that status is invariably what’s black or white, certain rather than uncertain, attacking the other side as wrong rather than starting a conversation and listening.

He likened us to the yellow journalists who stressed sensationalism instead of facts, and in the late 1800s, actually led the US into war with Spain over Cuba and the Philippines. In the world of social media, more followers translates into fame and money (and ego gratification).

Since the social media algorithms are so closely targeted to each of us, Harris suggests a “reality swap”: exchanging phones—even with someone close to you—and scrolling through that person’s feeds.

You’ll get a different hyperreality (the consciousness’s inability to discern reality from a simulation of it.) You can then ask yourself: “How would I be seeing the world if these were the messages I was receiving?” The climate change Google search mentioned in the film is a prime example.

According to Harris, the challenge is that our short term memory can hold about 7 items (+/-2) before we feel overloaded. And the “rewards” of more likes, etc, fuel the dopamine in our brains, which can be addictive. Add to those cerebral tendencies the one for “confirmation bias” in which fake news travels 6 times faster than other information.

The result is that technology knows more about our own weaknesses than we do. And all that opens us up to exploitation by those using the technology for profit or their own political or even nefarious ends.

Both Harris and Fernando said we have to envision the world we want. Our goal, Harris stressed, is to follow Wayne Gretzky’s guidance: You skate to where the puck is going to be.

To continue as we’re going, he believes, is unsustainable. If we can’t agree on facts and reality, we can’t get beyond our current dilemma and achieve any progress toward a viable world.

The Way Out?

I think it’s fair to sum up this effort as Conversation…Education…Regulation…Shared Problem-solving.

We must try to diagnose the influences and how they affect us. If we are aware that infinite new messages are exploiting the biases in our brains, we can escape our bubbles.

Kornfield stressed that the Buddha asked,

“‘Why do we need society?’ If people come together with respect and care for one another, society will prosper and not decline. Buddhists follow precepts of not stealing, not killing, and not speaking what’s hurtful. We have laws for the first two, but we don’t have a consensus on speech. To get beyond the echo chambers of false truth, we need to do this together.”

As all four participants are meditators, they agreed that mindfulness is a key aspect of our awareness and our finding the path forward.

The best news: We’re the only species trapped in our own society that has the capacity to see that we’re being hijacked by our own weaknesses.

Harris said he’s had conversations with people in the Biden administration who are interested in the efforts espoused by the Center for Humane Technology.

Can they be implemented?

He quoted President Lyndon Johnson: “Here’s something we really need to do. This is really important. Now make me do it.”

What do you think? This technology is so ingrained in us now that even cutting back seems difficult. Some of the techies in the film described limiting their personal use (and their children’s) or leaving these social media altogether.

Do you see the need to reduce your dependence on them generally and on your smartphone and all it brings you, particularly? Are you tempted to try? And do you find the arguments about the extent of the harms persuasive? And the proposed movement to redress them feasible?

Lots of questions, I know, but this is a topic that affects us all. I’m eager to hear your thoughts.





    1. mm: Aha! For sure. One of the signs that Twitter is cognizant of its image, at least, is that the powers that be announced right after Biden’s victory that as of Jan 20, the Twitter handle @POTUS would be transferred from trump to Biden. No alternate reality there!

      So one might say:
      In a move that the world will surely notice,
      On Twitter he ‘ll no longer be @POTUS;
      Come Jan 20, the day he’ll dread
      Twitter will off his official head!

      Liked by 4 people

  1. Hey, Annie. Great write up. I’m going to check out the Center for Humane Technology and continue my fledgling meditation practice. The issues you raise here are so very critical. But what I especially love about your work is that you always tuck in some possible solutions, some bright spots, and/or some challenges to promote a change in our thinking or behavior. Really appreciate that. Thank you.

    PS Biden/Harris are busy filling their key positions (and doing a great job, best as I can tell) but I think we need to create some new Secretary positions such as Secretary of Humane Technology. and Secretary of Food Security (an idea of Jose Andres of World Kitchen).

    PS Have you seen Coded Bias? it’s on facial recognition and the bias it’s capable of promoting. A much more narrow topic than the larger landscape you have taken on here, but given your interest in how tech is running our world, think you might like it.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Denise: Thanks so much for your meaty response and for your support.

    I agree with those recommendations concerning food security and humane technology. I’m really pleased with nearly all Biden’s appointments and his clear emphasis on long term problem solving, so such moves may very well get consideration.

    Thanks for the link; I’ll be sure to watch
    And so glad you’re continuing your meditation!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Social media are junk and promote junk. I’m not on Facebook or Twitter and I almost never look at them. I don’t have a “smartphone” and refuse to get one. So at least I’m not actively contributing to the problem.

    But it’s very noticeable that, although the reach of social media is global, mass delusional beliefs like global-warming denialism, covid-19 being a “hoax”, etc are far more pervasive in the US than in other developed countries. Social media help sustain those delusions, but didn’t create them. The basic problem remains that (a) we have a whole ecosystem of traditional-media propaganda (Fox, talk radio, etc) which has been fomenting paranoid delusions in the wingnut population for at least two decades to an extent unmatched elsewhere, and (b) we have a lot more ignorant and stupid people than other developed countries do.

    Social media are the ants in the kitchen. The traditional-media propaganda machine is the nest in the wall. No matter how many ants you get rid of, as long as the nest is still there, the problem won’t go away.

    attacking the other side as wrong rather than starting a conversation and listening.

    Yes, but the other side is wrong and they have nothing to say that’s worth listening to. The election was not stolen. Global warming is real. Covid-19 is real. Evolution is real. These are facts, not opinions. People who deny them don’t have a different perspective, they’re simply wrong. Trying to pretend there’s any kind of symmetry between two “sides” here is just kowtowing to another lie. Any effort to address the problem which starts by doing that is doomed from the outset.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Infidel: If you go back to reread the early portion of this post, you’ll see that my entire rationale for writing it was to stress the centrality of our needing to share the same set of facts in confronting the major issues of our day—democracy, climate change, the pandemic are examples. I repeatedly stress the urgency of a “shared reality” and “shared truths,” though I recognize that this essential need is not easily obtained.

      It’s very healthy that you eschew all these forms of technology in your own life, but to me the fact that 89 million households watched The Social Dilemma in its first week is quite telling. You are aware, I’m sure, that social media has been justly criticized for fomenting conspiracy theories and even violence. I think to simply attribute all this to ignorance and not acknowledge these tech companies’ responsibilities in exacerbating and expanding the reach of these dark forces is to dismiss a huge barrier to progress toward goals that I know you and I share. I was pointing out people who are seeking ways to overcome this barrier and rein in its serious negative influences on both individuals and society.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. Let me start by talking about Facebook. It is simply a tool, like the telephone. With advertising. It has allowed me to renew contacts with high school and childhood friends. And make new “Facebook” friends. Also allowed me to discuss politics with people with whom I disagree. And to block those who become nasty. I am amazed at a technology that sends me unsolicited ads for a product I just happen to search an hour earlier! I am not sure where I stand on Facebook and it’s policies about the “truth”. A sticky issue.

    That said, I think the key issue with all social media and the internet is anonymity.

    If I were king I would demand that every social media platform be required to verify the identity of the user. That would include real name and physical location the Earth. For example: Joe Urban,age 70, Naples, NY, US citizen.
    Anonymity is the enemy the people.

    After all, to drive on a public highway you need a license identifying exactly who you are. Same for voting. Same for banking. Same for receiving medical care. Why not impose the same restriction for using the internet? Then you would know exactly who was putting out information. This is something that Facebook, twitter, etc could easily impose as a condition of service.

    I taught high school for over 30 years and I hate to admit it, but many people are not capable of critical thinking. It is work. It takes effort. So, I don’t see any way to challenge misinformation on the internet. However, demanding a clear exposition of the source of a post or website may help.

    In the 2106 election, a number of websites claiming to be American African-American in origin were actually of Russian origin. Would knowing this have influenced how black people thought about the information?If they could click on a “site origin” link and see it was from Russia? Anonymity, like “Non Disclosure Agreements” are simply ways for the unscrupulous to remain undetected.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Joseph: I suggest that your seeing FB as “simply a tool” means you are negating the power of these social networks to channel and shape thinking in ways that range from the benign to the highly dangerous.

      And when the designers themselves acknowledge that the technology, ie the algorithms, are moving faster than they are, it seems to me that “Houston: we’ve got a problem!”

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Not at all. A tool , like a gun, can be used for good or evil. Shooting a deer for food or shooting a person out of anger. I simply meant that in and of itself this technology does not automatically lead to negative outcomes. The user is what matters. And how society regulates the user. (Again, the gun analogy).

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Joseph: “The user is what matters” is the sticking point with all the designers in the film and webinar I watched. To them “it’s the algorithms that matter!” People are being manipulated in ways they don’t realize. And it’s far more for ill than for good.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. A topic that fascinates and horrifies me in equal measure. I’m on WP and Twitter only, and whilst I often see a measured and thoughtful exchange of ideas on blogs like yours, I rarely see anything other than trenchant views on Twitter. It’s a good thing that people can ‘get involved’ on issues, but I sometimes think that just because we can comment on an issue doesn’t mean we necessarily should. There’s a reason that academic journal articles take so long to be published – their findings and methods are peer-reviewed and tested to see if they withstand scrutiny (and even this doesn’t always work). Shared reality is so important as you say – it is the bedrock upon which all other arguments sit.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. This is such a great comment, Matthew! Both the “doesn’t mean we should” part and the comparison to academic papers.
      I’m on Twitter too, but I seek out people like Michael Beschloss, the historian, and Michael McFaul, the former American diplomat in Russia. I appreciate the opportunity to hear their views—and Beschloss adds historic photos.

      The shared reality is the conundrum: if we can find a way to coalesce around problems, we’re much more likely to reach solutions.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. An interesting blog Annie. I had heard about the documentary but don’t have Netflix. I’m not much of a social media junkie, and those ads are wasted on me, most of the time I don’t even notice them and seldom click on anything if I do. I am well aware of the manipulation though, as I have relatives who rely on Fox news as their media bible, and we agree on nothing. The problem with a “shared reality” as I see it, is if the other side as Joseph Urban points out above is not capable of critical thinking and doesn’t even acknowledge that their thoughts are even possibly being manipulated to a non-reality world, then how can you possibly bridge/correct the situation by meaningful dialogue. Sorry if this does not make sense, it’s late.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks, Joni. What you say makes perfect sense. As I’ve noted, the conundrum of how to achieve that shared reality is THE biggest stumbling block.

      But I do think the point Tristan Harris makes about the way social media exaggerates the extremes is valuable. And I like Matthew Richardson’s observation that just because we can say something doesn’t mean we should.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. An interesting topic, and an important one. I am becoming concerned that we are approaching Orwell’s 1984 but are discovering that Big Brother is not government, but an amalgamation of government, big tech, and global business/finance. Social media is making it all not just possible, but easy.

    I agree that it is a good thing to work towards counteracting social media’s power and control. However, the civil libertarian in me worries that we might trade one sort of control for another. Any solution that does not have room for viewpoints that make both of us uncomfortable is trading one kind of control for another. If history shows us anything it shows us two things: 1) we humans suffer from terrible flaws and 2) the crackpots are not always wrong.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. JP. It is always a balancing act between rights and responsibilities. Should media outlets have the “right to lie” under the umbrella of “freedom of the press”? Should Facebook or other platforms be considered simply conduits of speech with no responsibility regarding the vetting of facts? (see my Dec 20, 8:31 AM post for details).

      I hate the idea of censorship. But when certain websites and even networks intentionally lie or distort the facts , how do we deal with that? Look what is happening today with all the false claims concerning the Biden victory. The very idea that evidence exists is attacked. The “alternate facts” become real for some people. Not sure how to deal with corporations that make massive profits by misinforming their viewers? It’s big business.

      In some European countries I think it is illegal to deny the Holocaust. I find that idea disturbing. Then again, denying facts and evidence is dangerous. Lies and misinformation can cause people to take actions which they would not otherwise take. We see this in our own nation today.

      In our society we depend on the courts, which takes a long time to resolve. we tolerate a lot of nonsense to protect this freedom. Devin Nunes of California has sued the Washington Post a number of times. He has never prevailed and never will. A free press has the right to criticize and report facts. On the other hand, when Tucker Carlson was sued for his disinformation his lawyers tried to avoid responsibility. They claimed his show was “entertainment” and not “news” so he could misinform his audience and not be sued. An odd, but accurate distinction.

      The court case , won by Fox, made the claim that you can’t take Carlson seriously.

      “….. “US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed with Fox’s premise, adding that the network “persuasively argues” that “given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statements he makes.”

      “This ‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary,'” the ruling said….”

      Liked by 1 person

  9. I agree with much of what you’ve stated here. I think social media is dangerous and have toyed with closing my accounts on several occasions. Yet, Facebook keeps me in touch with friends that live far away while Twitter’s lists help me build information channels where I can limit what I read to sources that I value. So much on both platforms amounts to pointless noise, yet when used prudently, they can provide value. However, as you point out, the islands of one-sided rhetoric are truly problematic.

    My initial complaint with social media was simply that I felt I wasted too much time there. Like you, life improved when I took the apps off of my phone. Now I access through my laptop and only a couple times per week. I limit my time. But all of that is simply in the self-interest of not letting social media distract me from other goals that I value more.

    Some people have a harder time keeping away. They spend hours a day in these environments and I find that horrifying. I don’t like the idea of making them pay more for their access based on their usage. That’s akin to punishing the addict.

    These are complicated but important problems. I’m glad to know about the Center for Humane Technology. I’ll be checking them out. Thanks for another thorough and thought-provoking write-up.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you, Carol.

      These are all difficult issues that I continue to grapple with. Shortly after writing this piece, I had an experience on Twitter that affected me profoundly.(I wrote about that in “Love, Loss, and Community via Twitter.”) So I can’t entirely negate the positives that social media provide.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. I’m interested in your angle – which seems to be a “bottoms up approach”. In my writing I have taken quite different, albeit entirely complementary (?) approaches. You might check out:

    Split up Facebook? No! Enforce Open Social Media Interoperability Standards to enable real competition.

    Two years ago I wrote, It’s time to Fix Facebook. What do we have to do to get the attention of legislators?

    I am still of the opinion that introducing open interfaces is better than breaking up. However I would take WhatsApp away from Facebook

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Hi Annie, Good post; I’m with you on most. In my writings over the years I have suggested various solutions for fixing FB and other SM platforms. I don’t believe breaking up the companies would actually deliver benefit. The one solution that I believe will work is to open up all SM platforms by giving the individual ownership of their own data AND implementing open interfaces between the platforms. So the user is at the centre of their network and controls who can see what. I suggest that governments must threaten to throttle/strangle Facebook and Twitter particularly UNLESS they agree to open up. As you say, there are various financial models that would work; we need to delink the profit motive from our personal data (static and dynamic). This post refers. I will get around to expanding on the open platform in upcoming posts. Best wishes, David

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I would say at this point in time of not for MBC and the need to connect globally – I’ve chosen Twitter as my least of all evils – and dumped the rest. Sadly, as a minor player and as a part of the rise of the internet and in creating jobs at the upper echelons for women, I don’t know how to feel besides I did my best to point to the audiences and ask that they create responsible best practices to not lure people into the heroine of modern day technology. Big fail there. But when there’s so few voices amid so much money you’ll be drowned. Money back guarantee on that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s