How Big Tech has exploited our craving for reality escape

In a world now enjoyed artificially through screens of various shapes and sizes, Big Tech has masterfully exploited some of the deepest and most disturbing aspects of human frailty. Behind the promise of new forms of interaction or entertainment, they capitalise on a state of deep unease: the inability to cope with our limitations and the isolation that often accompanies modern life by Andrea Monti – Initially published in Italian by La Repubblica – Italian Tech

What is particularly worrying is how these companies pursue this goal, encouraging an escape from reality and blurring the line between having desires and insisting that these desires be fulfilled as a right.

The rise of digital platforms has coincided with, and perhaps exacerbated, a widespread sense of loneliness that is channeled into the search for ‘new worlds’ where one can start over or, more modestly, live a ‘separate reality’. Although these platforms claim to bring people together, they often do the opposite, fostering a culture in which superficial interactions replace meaningful relationships. The tools provided by social platforms, photo filters, but also communication ‘styles’ based on empty self-praise, envy or presenting oneself as what one is not, encourage users to construct idealised or even non-existent versions of themselves, offering others a completely altered perception.

This more or less artificial online presence may attract likes and comments, but it rarely leads to a human connection of any solidity. On the contrary, it increases the sense of empty loneliness: it shows people the irrelevance of their existence and can have very unpleasant consequences when, precisely because of this fake image, one is called into a confrontation not mediated by a keyboard and a monitor.

Big Tech has not only recognised the importance of this loneliness, but has turned it into an industrial model, the “capitalism of loneliness”, a concept I dealth with in The Digital Rights Delusion. They offer platforms that promote artificial values (not only the ubiquitous ‘likes’, but also the useless ‘badges’ or other patches that can be added to one’s profile), where people can seek recognition and connections.

However, these platforms are designed in such a way that, like slot machines, users practically always lose, only to return for more, in constant search of what they will rarely find: to be ‘certified’ as existing in life by the fact that someone notices them. And when this does not happen, or when they discover that the ‘nod of approval’ they thought they had is meaningless, they do not resign themselves to the fact that for the most part they will pass through this earth without anyone noticing. But instead of striving to better themselves and create socially healthy interactions, they rely on the algorithms that drive these platforms, which are instead designed to keep users engaged in chasing illusions, creating a vicious cycle in which the more isolated people feel, the more they turn to digital interactions for solace, and the more disconnected they become from reality.

This condition is exacerbated by another worrying trend: the erosion of the boundary between desire and entitlement.

Traditionally, desires have been seen as aspirations that cannot always be fulfilled. The denial or impossibility of doing what we want or would like is part of the human experience and something we learn to cope with, making a pact between ourselves and reality. In the context of Big Tech, however, these desires are increasingly presented to users as demands that must be met immediately and completely.

This shift is evident in the way social interaction platforms operate.

The guiding idea is that each of our desires must be immediately accessible and achievable. Whether it is the desire for attention, the need to feel powerful, or the urge to escape life’s challenges, these platforms are designed to satisfy these urges without delay. All you have to pay for it is money – or, more often, personal data and time spent in front of a screen, thanks, once again, to the promise of ‘superpowers’ and ‘magic’.

It is no coincidence that the marketing of gadgets that revolve around this dystopian system misuses these very concepts in order to transfer the desire to escape reality to non-technological interactions, as demonstrated by the increasing number of cases of ‘recreational surgery’ that, without any medical reason, transforms the appearance of people into that of demonic or animal-like beings, or those that implant chips and sensors of various kinds in the human body.

However, this instant gratification comes at a price. By removing the natural barriers that exist between desires and their fulfilment – or rather, the right to their fulfilment – Big Tech promotes a distorted perception of what is a right. Users begin to expect that their wants and needs will always be met, and become frustrated when reality does not conform to their dictates. This applies not only to rights, but also to other areas of life, affecting the way individuals perceive their relationships, their careers and even their identity.

The result is a society in which people are not only more isolated but also more dissatisfied, constantly searching for something that seems out of reach, driven by platforms that promise the moon at the bottom of the well but rarely allow you to reach it, while the person who has dived headlong can only drown in the murky, muddy waters that have taken the place of the bright satellite reflected on the surface.

This dynamic also affects the way individuals relate to others. The constant reinforcement of entitlement can undermine the ability to be patient, empathetic and able to cope with difficulties, which are essential qualities for civilised living. When desires are treated as rights, the approach shifts from mutual understanding and the ability to mediate to the desire to realise one’s individual claim at all costs, regardless of the rest.

In a wider social context, the emphasis on instant gratification and the removal of boundaries creates a culture in which self-centredness becomes the norm, leading to a decline in social cohesion and an increase in conflict. The emphasis on personal desires, unchecked by the objective constraints of reality, can undermine the foundations of community and cooperation that are essential for an acceptable functioning society.

The role of Big Tech in this cultural shift is obvious. They have created and continue to promote systems that exploit and contradict human loneliness and the natural desire for relationships, while encouraging the desire to overwhelm others and escape reality.
In doing so, they not only profit from the widespread sense of isolation and discontent, but also help to perpetuate it, with little concern for what they are doing to the lives of each and every one of us.

Pandemic, War and the (il)logic of ‘methink’

Polarisation of positions, opinions formulated by ‘experts’ with no real qualifications or by people who have never dealt with a particular subject but who speak out anyway, the need to generate traffic to support the monetisation of content, a paroxysmal search for visibility at any cost, influencers’ self-referentiality pushed to the extreme, ‘moral’ indignation that prevails over the law and the principles of law… It sounds like the umpteenth indictment against the destabilising effects caused by social networks. However, in reality, it concerns the world of so-called ‘professional information, which has demonstrated macroscopically and definitively that it is affected by the same ills. By Andrea Monti – Abridged version of an article initially published in Italian by Strategikon – an Italian Tech Blog

Continue reading “Pandemic, War and the (il)logic of ‘methink’”

Privacy for Sale. Just call it ‘Right to Personal Image’

On 16 June 2009, the Italian Supreme Court made public a ruling recognising the right of the well-known plaintiff Cgt to obtain compensation for damages to his privacy and his right to image caused by the publication of photographs that had portrayed him in August 2009, in an intimate relationship with his partner Ca.El. in the park of (omissis), in the Municipality of (omissis).  The ruling does not say whom Cgt and (although not a party to the proceedings) Ca. El. are because the protagonists of the affair had asked that their respective personal details not be disclosed. However, with patience, the mystery will be revealed at the end of the text, the (understandable) curiosity satisfied and the paradox of privacy revealed by Andrea Monti – Originally published in Italian on Strategikon – an Italian Tech Blog.

Continue reading “Privacy for Sale. Just call it ‘Right to Personal Image’”

Corona Virus infection’s growth is not “exponential”

Yesterday night, Roberto Speranza, the Italian Health Minister, said to TG4 (the news programme of a National broadcaster) that the Coronavirus spreading in Italy is – or it has been -? “exponential”. As a matter of fact, this is not correct, as “exponential” has a specific mathematical meaning that does not match with the data provided by the Italian Government itself. Moreover, talking about “exponential growth” without indicating the exponent and specifying whether it is whole or fractional, does not allow the listener to understand what is the real “steepness” of the curve to which we are referring. Finally, at most, we can speak of an exponential trend in relation to a stretch of the curve, certainly not in relation to the curve itself. Unlike a mathematical function, in fact, the data on contagion are conditioned by variables? that vary (how many probes I did yesterday, how many I do today and how many I will do tomorrow, on which population I perform the analysis etc. etc.). In other words, the trend of the contagion curves (net of all the questions about the composition of the sample) has a (limited) descriptive capacity of the past, but it can hardly give indications about the future.

Raising this issue with a fellow journalist I got this answer: “stop being a semantic prick! People are not read in mathematics and they know that when we use “exponential” we do it as a synonym for “very quick and fast grow”.

Well, maybe I am a “semantic prick” – aren’t we, lawyers?  – but when hard decisions such as putting the whole Italy in quarantine have to be taken, I would expect the decision-makers to ground their assessment on solid basis rather than on a sloppy use (and understanding?) of data and information.

This is not to say that the decision to quarantine Italy is wrong (I neither have the knowledge nor the competence to judge it.) I only point out that there might not be a cause-effect relationship with a (good) decision and the reasons that backed it.