Two Truths and an Alternative Fact
My grandparents gave me a Coleco Electronic Quarterback Handheld Game for Christmas 1978. Outside of an N-gauge electric train kit and later an Apple 2E computer, it was probably one of the only digital games I owned as a kid. Playing it was exhilarating; sometimes, I couldn’t put the game down. At night, I would lie in bed and play, memorizing the combinations of moves to score touchdowns. The screen was a small football field with yard markers, and you “moved” your little player (a dash) across the screen to avoid would-be tacklers and advance down the field. After a few weeks of off-and-on play, I figured out all the moves and could score at will. Instead of scoring, the game transitioned to how fast I could score, but nothing beyond that. There was no level-up, prizes, rewards, lures, or hooks to play further. It sat in my room idle for a few weeks, and then my neighbor borrowed it. I don’t remember seeing it again.
Today, the technological device of choice performs incredible and beautiful operations. What was initially a phone, email, and calendar device is now a platform for multiple applications and is inseparable from most individuals’ daily routines. But with every benefit comes a cost. This device can be easily weaponized, and in the hands of specific individuals, it might cause irreparable damage.
This week’s Atlantic articles were incredibly troubling, concerning, and sobering. As I pondered the key learnings during my long walk on Sunday morning, I suddenly returned to an uncomfortable and very dark space. During COVID, I was President of a non-profit athletic club when one of our board members attempted to change the course of the entire organization. Initially, he began with subtle inquiries and became comfortable with the overall operational workings of our club. Very methodically, his inquiries morphed into insinuations about board members, followed by false statements about the club to the online community. He also used an alias on a public forum website to disseminate his messages. His actions and statements were articulate and extremely believable because of his immediate knowledge of the club’s operations combined with his ability to harness the fear of parents who were club members. What started as a minor concern quickly became a roaring inferno. As a team of volunteer board members, we went on the defense to stabilize the message and sought legal counsel. We were labeled as a series of “bad actors.” Almost two years later, the journey ended after thousands of hours of research, depositions, and legal fees. The truth won out.
Technology is a multiplier. It can effectively communicate across time zones, send images, and help save lives. However, today’s technology has crossed a new threshold through social media, eroding our sense of community and creating heightened anxiety.
Nicholas Smyth distinguishes between a tool using culture and a technopoly.[1] He cites the example of the samurai warriors’ use of swords and how their disciplined and controlled use of the powerful tool was appropriate for their culture.[2] Our culture has transitioned over recent years. He explains how, within a technopoly, the tool has become the master and cannot be held up by more convictions or constraints.[3]
This technolopy concerns me because of the capability of AI to appear and feel like the truth when it is not the truth. Combining this with the speed of mobilization leads to dire consequences. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist, states, “The first and most obvious threat is that AI-enhanced social media will wash ever-larger torrents of garbage into our public conversation.”[4] The influx of general information, misinformation, and disinformation into social media channels is designed to be overwhelming. When people are forced to question the legitimacy of a fundamental truth, it erodes confidence in self, community, and leaders. The results are catastrophic because not only does it undermine individual health, but it has the potential for chronic illness. It fractionalizes communities and prompts questions like, “Who do I trust?” “Why do I trust them?” “Where do I seek and find voices that speak or write the truth?” and ultimately, “Is it real?” With trust fractured, anxiety levels rise as the perception of unsteady foundations exists.
I’ve witnessed similar questions attached to videos on social media. These forms of AI on social media are so “real” that the person reviewing the post cannot distinguish the difference, thus driving uncertainty and further questioning. This made me pause to consider how many readers receive these messages at face value, don’t ask questions, and move on to their daily business.
Next Steps
Nicholas Smyth encourages us to remain resilient and steadfast despite the perceived uphill battle. All is not lost. Smith extends a radical message and an open invitation to smash the technopoly![5] He does not recommend destroying our devices but instead “reacquire the moral resources to constrain and direct our technology.”[6] While we all can influence, I am not confident that influence alone will produce lasting results. However, I have not given up hope yet.
[1] Nicholas Smyth. “Smash The Technopoly!” Substack Babel, March 9, 2023. https://www.afterbabel.com/p/smash-the-technopoly?
[2] Smyth. “Smash The Technopoly!”
[3] Smyth. “Smash The Technopoly!”
[4] Jonathan Haidt and Eric Schmidt. “AI Is About to Make Social Media (Much) More Toxic.” The Atlantic, May 5, 2023. https://www.theatlantic.com/search/?q=%E2%80%9CAI+Is+About+to+Make+Social+Media+%28Much%29+More+Toxic
[5] Smyth. “Smash The Technopoly!”
[6] Smyth. “Smash The Technopoly!”
About the Author
Michael Hansen
8 responses to “Two Truths and an Alternative Fact”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Michael,
I am sorry to hear of the attack on the club and its subsequent legal issues and financial costs. My heart goes out to your organization, as that is a difficult road to walk.
At the end of your post, you mention Smyth’s comment about moral resources. How do you see this moral concept engaging with today’s society? Through legislation, grassroots, personal conviction…I want to stay hopeful, but it seems like a big mountain to climb.
Darren,
Thanks for the kind words. It was challenging and time-consuming. I had a few takeaways from this, but one of the major lessons was how one individual can create collateral damage in such a short amount of time. It was astonishing. We went from quarterly BOD meetings to monthly (with COVID) and then moved that to weekly and ad hoc to diffuse situations that were out of control. The multiplying effect was extraordinary—and again, it was a single individual.
We may not have the correct systems to address today’s issues. What is the catalyst or need for change? Usually, some external force or enough pain is needed to bring about a change. I estimate more success on a grassroots level or through personal conviction than legislation. Legislation would be too slow (my estimation), and we would have difficulty identifying the actual need. By the time specific changes roll out, there will be many more new ones to address. The change must be more immediate to address the need.
Michael, at the end of your post you commented about the need for moral resources. Do you have any ideas about what this could look like? You also commented that you didn’t believe that influence would be enough. Can you elaborate? What could we pair with influence to make an impact?
Mika,
That is extremely tough for moral resources. My personal example while on the club board was almost debilitating. It showed the influence a single person can have against a structure and the power it can yield. The method that worked in our favor was removing the air or oxygen from the room. We collectively decided that we would not address his concerns with us. We went silent, and it began to cast a different light, but it took time.
We can all influence personally by writing our congressmen or through simple grassroots efforts. I have met folks in their 20s who have reverted to a flip phone. They have decided not to stick with the mainstream and don’t miss the social media at all.
Hi Michael,
I’m thoroughly impressed with your expertise of the Coleco Electronic Quarterback handheld game! I can almost feel that childhood excitement. A great example of how technology brought pure joy to many young children. The landscape has changed and become much more challenging.
I agree with your thoughts of how sobering all the articles were yet I want to hold onto a hopefulness of bringing the collective people together to try to curate a possibility of hope in response to this challenge. I wonder if there might be some thoughtfully written information out there, a framework in response to all this technological chaos.
Do you have one or two creative ways to allow us to be the Master this dilemma on a personal level?
Judith,
My first thought is to stop using it. That takes both discipline and accountability. I don’t have any social media accounts on my personal computer, and most of the functions on my phone can be replicated on my laptop. One of my prior CEOs was masterful at this. He biked to work, and his cell phone was in a ziploc bag to keep it dry. It just sat in his desk drawer all day, and he picked it up only in case of an emergency, which was very infrequent. He was unwilling to budge, and his “no” was a “no” as a respectful answer. I don’t have my teams bring their phones to my group meetings. I respect that community with them and can help set an example for them about keeping our meeting space and time sacred. But again, it requires discipline and accountability.
Michael,
I love how you ended your blog, with hope. “All is not lost”, is such a powerful notion. I completely agree with you that “technology is a multiplier that erodes our sense of community”. It is like a double edge sword, we depend on it for so much, yet it’s also causing so much harm. For a lot of people, it’s becoming an addiction and a master of their lives. When you process all that and confront the reality of its damage to our current culture and the effects it will have on the ones to come, how do we not lose ourselves and become overwhelmed? How do we not lose hope? How do we become bearers of change in a culture that would rather embrace the technology culture rather than stand up against all of it? Those are some of the questions I am struggling with after our read, do you have any ideas?
Michael,
I really enjoyed reading your post. Although what happened to you regarding the online posts is unfortunate, I’m glad that the truth prevailed! I appreciate how the author provided an example of samurai warriors and their use of swords. Why do you think that in our culture, the tool has shifted so much toward technopoly and has become the master? Do you think we prefer an easier lifestyle, or is it because we want to be number one on the world stage?