Will Senator 230 Reprise His Nicotine Addiction Hearings for Internet Addiction?

Wyden Internet Addiction

“Senator 230,” as Senator Ron Wyden known in some circles, refers to the very controversial Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that provided, among other things, a safe harbor for human trafficking thanks to Senator Wyden until he was resoundingly defeated on the Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act.

Senator 230 authored the original bill back in 1996 before we knew that the Internet would be run by a cabal of criminals and the soulless Silicon Valley privileged class engaged in the biggest income transfer of all time.

FOSTA

It’s worth realizing how low these people will go when you consider that their entire business is built on behavioral addiction to one degree or another.

Long-time followers of Senator Wyden’s career may remember him from the tobacco hearings when he was the Senator that got Big Tobacco to say that nicotine was not addictive.  This is a good example of how Senator 230 hides in plain sight.  He gets props for standing up for progressive causes in the sunlight, but what happens in the shadows?

maxresdefault

But we can be certain that he will not reprise those hearings to investigate Internet addiction–why?  Because he’s in the pocket of Big Tech.  Aside from the fact that Senator 230 is as close to Google as one is to two, we also know it’s not just Google.  Senator 230 also is beholden to a who’s who of Big Tech all of whom suck down Oregon’s hydroelectric power to run some of their massive data centers.

datacentermapjpg-5e927edbb4d1169cjpg-43a308caae6ba030

We’ve always said that there is a “Pinto memo” out there somewhere at Facebook and Google and that Big Tech is going to get taken down by a Jeffrey Wigand-style whistleblower.  (See Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal.App.3d 757 (1981) and the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (1998).)

For example, Buzzfeed reports on a memo written by Facebook senior manager Andrew Bosworth:

“We connect people. Period. That’s why all the work we do in growth is justified. All the questionable contact importing practices. All the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends. All of the work we do to bring more communication in. The work we will likely have to do in China some day. All of it,” VP Andrew “Boz” Bosworth wrote.

“So we connect more people,” he wrote in another section of the memo. “That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs someone a life by exposing someone to bullies.

“Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.”

The downfall will be over the addiction issue which is, of course, directly tied to the data issue which is tied to the indifference issue.  The amoral indifference to “maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.”  And no one has the street cred to hold hearings investigating Internet addiction than Senator 230 himself.

Yes, if Senator Wyden actually cared about treating Internet addiction, you would think he’d be interested in reprising his nicotine addiction hearings for Internet addiction.  Wouldn’t you love to see the FAANGS CEOs getting sworn in?

Wyden Alley

President Obama’s Farewell Address on Social Media’s Threat to Democracy

GARCIN: …So this is hell. I’d never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the “burning marl.” Old wives’ tales! There’s no need for red-hot pokers. Hell is—other people!

No Exit (Huis Clos), by Jean-Paul Sartre

In 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s prophetic farewell address famously warned of the growing “military industrial complex”:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Given Eisenhower’s history as a military officer of the highest rank, Ike knew of what he spoke only too well.

In 2017, President Barack Obama may well have given his own prophetic warning of a different unholy alliance between government and industry, but this time there won’t be a song written about it called “Masters of War,” except maybe “Masters of the Internet” (by Ceramic Dog/Marc Ribot) or “March of the Billionaires” by Cracker (written by Faragher-Hickman- Lowery-Urbano).

The President warned in his farewell address (“the great sorting”):

For too many of us, it has become safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods, or on college campuses, or places of worship, or especially our social media feeds. Surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions.  The rise of naked partisanship and increasing economic and regional stratification, the splitting of our media into a channel for every taste. All this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable. Increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we start only accepting information, whether its true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the information that is out there.

As Maya Kosoff reflects on President Obama’s warning in Vanity Fair:

Today, 62 percent of U.S. adults say they get their news from social media, often relying on news stories shared within their own self-selected digital bubbles. Facebook, which has finally accepted some culpability for its role in disseminating unchecked misinformation, is still experiencing growing pains as it evolves, whether willingly or not, from a social network into a media company. But the problem runs deeper. Studies in recent years suggest media fragmentation has increased partisanship—that is, paradoxically, the vast array of news outlets at our disposal today have given way to more explicitly ideological ones and have helped contribute to an increase in partisanship and polarized political opinion. [Emphasis mine]

Facebook’s own internal studies developed in Facebook’s “Core Data Science Team” as well as medical research into Internet addiction confirms what Sean Parker revealed this week–Facebook intentionally profits from addiction.  And as Professor Adam Alter teaches us about behavioral addictions, the addiction that Sean Parker tells the world was perfected by Facebook is every bit as addictive as substance addiction:

People have been addicted to substances for thousands of years, but for the past two decades, we’ve also been hooked on technologies, like Instagram, Netflix, Facebook, Fitbit, Twitter, and email—platforms we’ve adopted because we assume they’ll make our lives better. These inventions have profound upsides, but their appeal isn’t an accident. Technology companies and marketers have teams of engineers and researchers devoted to keeping us engaged. They know how to push our buttons, and how to coax us into using their products for hours, days, and weeks on end.

Mark Zuckerberg would have us believe that the true purpose of Facebook is to bring the world closer together.  I’m a skeptic, and here’s why.

The good thing about Facebook is that it brings people together in new communities.  The bad thing about Facebook is that some of those people previously only met on Death Row.  And as Sartre said, hell is other people.

 

 

 

 

@andreworlowski: Sean Parker: I helped destroy humanity with Facebook Sorry isn’t enough, Sean

The billionaire and former Facebook president Sean Parker now says he regrets helping turn the social network into a global phenomenon. The site grew by “exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology” with its greed for attention and the careful reward system it created to keep users addicted.

“We need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever… It’s a social-validation feedback loop… a vulnerability in human psychology,” he admitted to news site Axios.

Parker’s backing was instrumental in turning the Harvard campus-only software into a global phenomenon by introducing Zuckerberg to Silicon Valley venture capital. (Parker [“A million dollars isn’t cool. You know what’s cool? A billion dollars”] was played by Justin Timberlake in The Social Network.)

Read the post on The Register