Social Media and the Public Interest by Philip M. Napoli

SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST by Philip M. Napoli is an important contribution and essential reference to the ongoing debate about the role and regulation of social media platforms. Praised by dana boyd and others, this work focuses on how social media platforms (like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, and WhatsApp) have “unexpectedly become key platforms for how journalism (and disinformation posing as journalism) is produced, disseminated, and consumed.”  Napoli explores their “gatekeeping” roles, noting, for example, “that Facebook went from accounting for 16 percent of referrals to online news sites in 2013 to more than 40 percent in 2017” although he also later questions whether we have seen the peak. Napoli provides historical context, too, in that he contrasts the “unprecedented level of regulatory oversight” for radio broadcasting technology (e.g., federal licensing, indecency rules, and public affairs programming requirements) with less dramatic changes for other technologies like cable and the “pinballing … between the imposition and elimination of net neutrality regulations.” This work is written by an academic and while therefore somewhat wordy and jargon-laden, it should be viewed by more than policy wonks and be of concern to all. Napoli is writing “about a problem related to the effective functioning of the democratic process, …the very nature of the problem undermines the means for developing and adopting solutions.” Napoli is a Duke University Professor and thorough researcher; roughly a third of SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST contains extensive source notes and additional commentary.

Because Internet by Gretchen McCulloch

BECAUSE INTERNET by Gretchen McCulloch is a unique text that deals with fluidity of language and changes in meaning, especially as we continue to produce more informal, internet-based writing. I am looking forward to sending more time with this text, reflecting, for example, on McCulloch’s comments about differences in users: “your experience of the internet and the language therein is shaped by who you were and who else was around at the time that you joined.” After a discussion of the founding population (often more “techy” and users of topic-based tools like Bulletin Board Systems, forums, or listservs), she describes the next wave as split between “Full Internet People” and “Semi Internet People,” differentiated by what they were doing on the internet (daily instant messaging and eventual Facebook users vs. forwarding funny emails). She describes a third wave, calling some “Post Internet People” who are “socially influenced by the internet regardless of their own level of use.” Much more to think about here; subsequent chapters cover emojis and memes. With roughly twenty percent of this text devoted to notes and index, McCulloch also references many researchers like dana boyd (speaker and author of It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens) and states that the purpose of this new book is “to provide a snapshot of a particular era and a lens that we can use to look at future changes.” 

As a linguist and pattern-seeker, McCulloch would undoubtedly be interested in the graphic detail shown about “Ageing on Facebook” and “Teenage Wasteland” recently in The Economist. Taking that a step further, she (and our students) might want to look at the NPR video on how moods spread and other non-verbal clues.  BECAUSE INTERNET was just named a Wired magazine "must read" and also reviewed in The Economist and by in Jennifer Szalai in the New York Times.  

Zucked by Roger McNamee

ZUCKED by Roger McNamee is subtitled “Waking up to the Facebook Catastrophe” and is certainly a timely text. McNamee was an early investor and consultant to Facebook and although he has not been very involved with the company in the last decade, he is not shy about calling its actions “an unmitigated disaster.” He offers background on the early days of the company and eventually devotes an entire chapter to “Cambridge Analytica Changes Everything.”  McNamee writes about Facebook’s original mission: “to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.” He notes that there were “negative side effects on far too many users,” particularly the easy manipulation of massive automation and artificial intelligence, “leaving citizens ever less capable of thinking for themselves, knowing who to trust, or acting in their own interest.” McNamee labels Facebook a “threat to democracy” and outlines both direct and indirect effects on the four pillars of democracy (free and fair elections, active citizenship, equal rights for all, and rule of law). He continues with comments about Facebook’s threat to the powerless, to privacy, and to innovation, arguing that it (and other tech companies like Google) have not done enough to protect us and our children.  Unfortunately, McNamee “see[s] no easy solution to the problems posed.” ZUCKED is a thought-provoking tirade which will hopefully prompt more discussion and coverage like the recent Wall Street Journal article “Why Facebook Still Seems to Spy on You” by Katherine Bindley.  Those interested in more info will also want to watch the PBS Frontline documentary on Facebook which originally aired last November; here are links for part 1 and part 2.