Senator Josh Hawley’s just-published The Tyranny of Big Tech (Regnery, 2021) raises essential issues. Hawley asks, for instance, Do Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube censor views that their managers do not like? It seems clear that the answer is yes. Lots of people who have tried to post Facebook remarks that criticize the “main” line on covid-19 have actually had their posts gotten rid of and have been sentenced to “Facebook Prison.” YouTube removed a popular video by Tom Woods that argues lockdowns and masks are inadequate. What, if anything, should be done about this? Hawley notes also that these media giants typically count on federal government help to enhance their power. Hawley embeds his discussion in a larger argument about independence and self-government in the American custom, which I believe is incorrect however of considerable interest. I wish to attend to some of the book’s good points elsewhere. What I ‘d like to discuss in this week’s article is a typical fallacy that Hawley falls into.
He begins with an unassailable reality. People spend a great deal of time on Facebook and YouTube. He adds to this a property that is more disputable, however one I’m not going to concern, namely that individuals are investing “excessive” time on these media. Other uses of their time are “better.” He goes on to suggest that people are addicted to using these media, and this what I ‘d like to challenge.
“Dependency” recommends that individuals find it hard to stop a particular sort of behavior. In many cases, there may be discomforts from withdrawal, as, for instance, regular smokers who attempt to “quit” report. The addict, it is claimed, doesn’t really have totally free option over whether to continue. Perhaps in some sense he might stop (and in truth many individuals do quit cigarette smoking), however it takes extraordinary “self-control” to do this.
Hawley uses the addiction model to the media giants in this way. He says that their “algorithms”– a key word in the book– can utilize the vast quantities of information gathered by tracking consumers’ use of the internet to forecast what people are likely to acquire. On Facebook, these products will appear on the consumers’ pages, and– sure sufficient– individuals purchase them. On Google, you will see advertisements based on these algorithms when you key in a search. What much better proof of addiction do we require?
Hawley states this:
Google established a formula, a series of mathematical algorithms, for forecasting which consumers would click on which advertisements, which consumers would make purchases, and what they would buy … With its enormous and ever-growing store of user info, the business could direct customized advertisements to people that its data machine recommended would have a high likelihood of leading to a purchase. Which in turn resulted in a profit.” (p. 65)
This isn’t a case of “addictive America.” Contrary to cases of addiction, there has been no proof showing that if you do not purchase the items that the algorithms show you would, you will experience any unfortunate results. You will not have “withdrawal” signs; all that would take place is that the algorithm predicted incorrectly.
But perhaps this objection requires excessive of Hawley. Even if there is nothing akin to withdrawal signs if you do not purchase the items, isn’t it enough for Hawley’s case that something bad is occurring that the algorithm has a high rate of predictive success?
No, it isn’t. This response incorrectly assumes that a successful forecast about what you will do takes the matter out of your control. If I forecasted with extremely high probability that you would do something and you did it, then how can it be up to you whether you will do it?
We can see that something is wrong with this argument by taking a look at an example. I predict that when you read this post, you won’t respond by smashing your computer system screen, even if you don’t like the post. Does it follow that you had no option about the matter? If you had meant to smash the screen, would you have found your hand blocked? No– obviously, you didn’t smash the screen, because you didn’t wish to. This conjunction can’t be true: I properly predict that you will smash the screen and you do not smash the screen. If you smash the screen, then the forecast held true, and if you do not, then the forecast was incorrect. However it doesn’t follow that if you smashed the screen, you had to smash it, i.e., that the forecast had to end up real. It’s just that it did turn out true. Hawley is making a big offer about the tautology that an effective forecast isn’t false.
If Hawley has correctly explained the algorithms, they make it possible for advertisers to supply you with items that you want. Why is this an issue? Here it is necessary not to be sidetracked by another problem raised by Hawley, one that has more substance. Do social media can subject users to monitoring, in order to collect the data on which the algorithms are based? Have the customers granted this? There is a reasonable case that they haven’t, but this is a various concern that leaves unblemished the claim that successful forecasts about what you will purchase take away your flexibility.
There is another issue in what Hawley states. He says that “Huge Tech’s company design is based principally on information collection and advertising, which suggests designing ways to control people to alter their habits” (p. 5). What really occurs, according to Hawley’s own account, is that the marketers use consumers items they have great factor to believe they desire. This is not “controling” people, which recommends that the ads induce desires in people that they didn’t already have. To the contrary, the algorithms are based upon information about currently existing consumer preferences. The algorithms do not develop the information on which they are based. “Change their behavior” is also deceptive. If you purchase a product, your behavior has actually changed: you weren’t purchasing it before you purchased it. But simply as he performed in the prediction case, Hawley has actually turned a tautology– purchasing something is a change– into something that sounds ominous. I hope his readers aren’t deceived by his effort to control them.