The Fantastic Narrative of The Social Dilemma — and How it Misfires
It is a widely accepted reality that within our modern world, computer technology is an essential aspect with our daily lives. From entertainment to work, we are surrounded by it — likely far more than we even realize. The Social Dilemma is a documentary focused primarily on the negative aspects of technology, ethical concerns that everyone should closely observe and react accordingly.
The organization of the documentary is very important to understand. It alternates between two modes, the first being interviews with experienced social media workers, individuals from the likes of Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Instagram. The second mode is a fictional story involving a family of five, with two parents, their son, and two daughters. As the social media experts narrate and explain the issues arising from social media usage, their warnings are reflected upon this family unit.
Much of the argument within the documentary stems from how manipulative social media is for our views on what is true in society, and how easily individuals can be sucked into following ideologies they may be vulnerable to. Some of the images shown during these sections include terrorist groups and white supremacists. Most notably, the argument explains that it is not warning about how social media itself is a threat, but it’s ability to catalyze the worst within society.
The Social Dilemma does not consciously address a particular political group or social belief; instead, it appeals to essentially all of adult society, petitioning adults and parents to demand that social media platforms use greater care with the way they interact with human life. I do, however, believe that Transformative Justice can be invoked here, which seems even more apparent when considering the lack of a specific belief group, as TJ means to make positive impacts for — and asks involvement from — all members of the community.
The argument for TJ’s presence here involves the experts within the documentary, who warn of societal degradation that will lead to violence. The most clear cut example is their explanation of the situation in Myanmar, in which Facebook was utilized by the military and government to encourage violence against Rohingya Muslims in the area. The concern raised is that, while many governments in history have been able to easily manipulate public opinion, never in history has that manipulation been so omnipresent. Similar arguments are made regarding conspiracy theorists groups within the United States, which have led to shootings and protests.
Ultimately, The Social Dilemma’s thesis is clear; social media use is very effective for manipulation, and can lead to radicalization where it would not otherwise exist. Though not directly stated, it’s certainly fair to say that the experts speaking within the documentary wish for civility and societal stability. Near the end of the documentary, the son of the family is in the early stages of becoming radicalized into a domestic terrorist group, and as the experts transition into the potential for positive change for social media, his social media bubble disintegrates. Though he appears confused, he is no longer isolated to the sphere of violence that was entrapping him.
Certain parts of the documentary are effective at encouraging the understanding of how social media affects us, as well as motivating viewers to demand change. It will likely spur parents into action, as appeals are made logically and emotionally to closely watch the social media use of children. Whether it be risk of depression, suicide, or hatred, there are plenty of threats to be found within the social media sphere, and the arguments for taking them seriously seem rational.
However, there are also some weak aspects. The most prominent issue of the documentary seems to be that, despite the apparent focus towards parents at various points, as well as the calls to action from all individuals within free-thinking societies, there are no references towards groups advocating for action regarding social media change. From the introduction to the ending statements, the only clear advocates for change in social media are the aforementioned experts and human rights professionals, without an organizational name to band them together.
The best assumption I can make is that the documentary is attempting to be self-aware, and making an effort to avoid grouping viewers together in a thought bubble. However, even this doesn’t seem to offer much explanation, as the documentary already has a clear exigence and motive towards minimizing social media manipulation; therefore, offering groups that directly support the documentary’s views seems perfectly natural. Unfortunately, without awareness being raised for advocacy groups in this area, the call to action falls flat, abandoned without any effective place for viewers to output any new found inspiration.
Even without the specific context of Transformative Justice, this immediately causes a great weakness for the documentary. Nonetheless, it’s important to further understand why support is so important for TJ. TJ’s goals are to reform or entirely rebuild aspects of society to support the goals of TJ — those being non-violence and greater social treatment, as effectively explained by the Barnard Center for Research on Women. As TJ advocates for change from the government, The Social Dilemma advocates for change from wealthy social media giants, forces which in today’s world are becoming more and more inseparable from government itself. In fact, the documentary even references how social media corporations influence things like elections and the economy.
However, large-scale change naturally becomes exponentially more difficult as the number of involved individuals lowers. This is especially the case for marginalized peoples, in which even greater numbers are required to attract serious attention. It’s difficult to put a number on how many individuals are needed for a movement to be effective, but we can at least start somewhere. Erica Chenoweth, professor of public policy at Harvard University, claims that 3.5% of a population must advocate for change before it can dependably make a great difference. Ultimately, the final goal is going to have an effect on how many people are needed — but regardless, with any movement, the more individuals that are participating, the better.
It’s a disappointment that The Social Dilemma forgets such a major component. Neglecting to call support for and to advocacy groups leads the viewer with a great deal of new knowledge, and much less use for it than they might otherwise have. On that front, it’s unfortunate to say that it fails to push forward the ideals within Transformative Justice, as well as some of the potential for any social media change, period.