Bon's Final

    For our final, I decided to make a mediocre poem along with a blog post, so, here it is.

 

 

And so it was done

once pure and beautiful, and for all the best intentions

It continues to break the bones of the pure and beautiful things that once thrived

And the more they watch

The more vindicated

Sanguinary impetus grows manufacturing imperative imperceptible impulses

Keeping them blank faced

So utterly droll 

Malleable

And they can see it tearing sinews from bone and tendon

But its looking at them too

And they cant see that its looking at them too

It will not spare you

It can see you

Marks every move, notes blood flows, crinkles of the face

You again,

    How nice it’s been seeing you,

    Not seeing me,

     And as I elude you,

           I will use you.

a violence so utterly white collar and clean

Injected into the veins

Coiling the mother and the young.

 

 

 

  

    To think of the vast majority of time in which humanity has not been constantly plugged into the internet is a sobering, and surreal thought. Much of the world relies on the net for everyday tasks, work, and leisure. With the increase of AI’s prevalence, and seeming necessity of having access to the net nowadays, I think it is vital to interrogate our relationships with technology, acknowledging how they affect people at scale, and determining how pronounced these things should be in life. In this blog post I hope to remind and compel others of the powerful force for negativity that social media as a whole has become, drawing on works such as personal anecdotes, scholarly research and the documentary, “The Social Dilemma” to further the point that time, experience, and perspective away from the net is better for society as a whole.
 

   My focus here was brought on by memories of high school, memes were a big point of social cohesion, and much of our interactions as students and friends were filtered by what the internet showed us. I think this is the root of my worries around extraneous internet usage, and was a main point in “The Social Dilemma”, that being the molding of the mind through internet exposure. I think back to how the idea of feminism was an object of ridicule, with those ideas circling the web with a now iconic still of a woman in a debate, looking particularly angered. This would become a mascot of sorts for the wave of memes and rhetoric around the “triggered” feminist or liberal or whatever group of disfavor. I note this as an example of many in which inflammatory, divisive, and misleading content is spread. Its important to know that the woman in the photo was actually one of the most calm people in the debate and interacted in good faith, with the “angered” expression being a part of a half second moment in which she was speaking loudly because she was in the middle of a large crowd. Blatant misrepresentation of a moment in time cemented her as the “triggered feminazi”. And this spread of misinformation is the norm, a function of the whole of social media and its strategies for engagement. At this point I feel it's safe to say that the amplification of divisive and hateful content for further engagement is well established. Upon searching related keywords in open access scholarly archives, there are reports on youtube, instagram and tiktok, whistleblowers from facebook, alongside the multiple whistleblowers and experts belaboring this point at length within “The Social Dilemma". 
    With this framing of social media in a macro context, it is viewed as one method of social control. With addictive nature, never ending novel stimulus, and interpersonal interaction keeping people hooked. With the youngest populations, notably young boys, being the ones that I have looked into most. Given that I fell prey to these things at one point, how much further is it taking other young people? An article out of Australia notes the damning effect that has been had on young boys through exposure to redpill influencers such as Andrew Tate, whose platform and voice peddles male supremacy and reductive thinking about men and women's places in society, all while putting a premium on the idea of sex in regards to men's worth. Teachers describe how boys young as nine years old have seen dramatic and negative shifts in mindset due to this exposure. The same is felt in America, both with the likes of Tate, as well as the outcome of the recent presidential election creating a vicious online misogyny filled response that has been felt nationwide. The phrase, “Your body, my choice” spread through twitter the day of the election of Trump, its ripples were felt in the comments of social media profiles, and seeped into the hallways of schools. There is an existential dread that arises from the thought of groups of young men finding enjoyment and laughs in such a phrase, and it necessarily begs the question of how that came to be. Tristan Harris remarks in the social dilemma of the fluid saliency to be found when one questions how tech such as phones can be thought of as an existential threat to humanity. I feel that more and more that saliency is being shown through the negatively evolving landscape of media, and its shaping of the perceptions and actions of the people.                    This research has informed within me a total skepticism of much of the things presented to us on the web, and a desire to engage more with things outside the net, being more conscious of how I engage with it. There are machines built into these platforms, personalization to keep people in their bubbles, tracking every move, confirming bias. AI video and image that is becoming indiscernible from reality. An algorithm favoring the bold, hateful, and ill informed. I think regulations to the way that social media operates in this regard would be beneficial, classes on digital literacy for the youth may also be necessary. Ultimately a lesser reliance on these digital monopolies would steer the world in a better direction. This post has been but one aspect of undue pain sparked from these things, and I can only hope for more awareness and dialogue to better grapple with our relationship with technology and the unethical practices used by social media giants.








Works Cited


Frances-Wright, Isabelle, and Moustafa Ayad. ““Your Body, My Choice:” Hate and Harassment towards Women Spreads Online.” ISD, 8 Nov. 2024, www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/your-body-my-choice-hate-and-harassment-towards-women-spreads-online/.

Kornbluh, Karen. “Disinformation, Radicalization, and Algorithmic Amplification: What Steps Can Congress Take?” Just Security, 7 Feb. 2022, www.justsecurity.org/79995/disinformation-radicalization-and-algorithmic-amplification-what-steps-can-congress-take/.

Regehr, Kaitlyn, et al. Safer Scrolling: How Algorithms Popularise and Gamify Online Hate and Misogyny for Young People. Jan. 2024.

Ribeiro, Manoel, et al. Auditing Radicalization Pathways on YouTube. 21 Oct. 2021.

Wescott, Stephanie, et al. “The Problem of Anti-Feminist “Manfluencer” Andrew Tate in Australian Schools: Women Teachers’ Experiences of Resurgent Male Supremacy.” Gender and Education, vol. 36, no. 2, 17 Dec. 2024, pp. 167–182, www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09540253.2023.2292622, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2023.2292622.


RooseRoose, Kevin. “The Making of a YouTube Radical.” The New York Times, 8 June 2019, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.html.