Stop carrying your smartphone. Leave it at home. If you must because your family/work depends on you, then delete every app. Use your laptop as your main driver. If you need to, get a laptop with better battery life.<p>Start developing a personal philosophy of internet usage. Here is mine:<p>Category 3 [Abstain from completely] Reddit (Yes, all of reddit), Facebook ... Category 2 [Check once every couple days ~15 min total] Serious news sites (NYT, WashPo, WSJ)
... Category 3 [Check daily ~30 min total] Twitter (Follow <i></i>helpful<i></i> people only), HN, Medium<p>This article makes some really good points. Our media is becoming adversarial. Developing a time management plan is essential. I can't let my time fall victim to the system. I don't have enough to throw away.
I've been coming to resent my smartphone more and more, essentially because of this.<p>I recently quit using tobacco. I remembered all the warnings from my school health classes about how hard it was to quit once you start, how there's a physical dependence and all that. It was uncomfortable at times, and there were plenty of cravings to get over, but I was ultimately successful.<p>I can compare this to the couple of times I've tried to "quit the Internet" (i.e. social media, reddit, etc.). The problem is that there's nowhere to run from the Internet. I can avoid tobacco stores, I can't avoid my iPhone. For what it's worth, I'd love to smash my phone and throw it in a ditch, but there are certain social and professional obligations that require me to hold onto it. I have to be able to check my work email on the go. I have to use Facebook to stay in the loop about social events because all my friends use Facebook to schedule those social events. I have to call my parents once in a while. One device is a tool for all of those, in addition to being an ultra-high-tech meme-box with which I can mainline information to make myself feel good. It is of course not all bad, but the wonderful connectivity of the Internet is inextricably wrapped up with the "DoS Attack on Your Free Will".<p>To get back to the analogy, I'd like to think I was successful at quitting tobacco because I can avoid it. If I were giving someone tips to quit something, that's the best advice I could think to offer: avoid it. If you want to quit smoking, wouldn't it be preposterous to buy a pack of cigarettes and carry it everywhere? The temptation would always be there.<p>So it is with smartphones. When the best minds in attention capitalism are trying to pull me in every time I send a text message, how can I quit that? It's always in my pocket, and I can't simply throw it away because there are now certain expectations that I carry that tool with me almost everywhere I go. There is nowhere to run from this modern media, and that terrifies me.
As someone who works in tech, I like the analogy of a DoS attack. The root of the issue is attention capitalism. Our attention is essentially a resource being exploited for profit. In that scenario, we're effectivley no longer in control of our own free will as long as someone else can profit by controlling it. On an individual scale, we can give it relatively benign labels like "distraction". But when you look at it from macro scale it's effectively a DDoS attack on our free will perpetrated by all of the companies trying to get a slice of the pie of our attention.
I personally haven't found the same effect in long-form media, such as:<p>- Non-fiction books<p>- University-centered online courses<p>- Documentaries<p>- Some of Netflix's original programs<p>- Wikipedia's monthly news summaries<p>- The "Great Courses" on Audible<p>These media aren't thoroughly monetized on a pay-per-attention-stolen model. They're more optimized around having good reviews from friends and online.<p>It makes me wonder if there might be the possibility of a Netflix for news, where a 3rd party curates and allows ratings of lengthier pieces on long-term issues, interviews with important figures, and 20-minute investigative reports (like I remember seeing on 60 minutes). Naturally, this wouldn't work for up-to-the minute news where everyone's attention is driven based on who's got the latest break, but it seems like it would work for these other things. It would still give the "lunch conversation" motivation, where people could talk about whatever was released in the last few days. Certainly it sounds like a less attention-assaulting place than the current state of news.
"The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it doesn’t necessarily protect freedom of attention."<p>Are you suggesting that people's free will is so easily lost that we needed to have, in the First Amendment, a clause stating "freedom from external thought influences"?<p>"Modern Media is a DoS Attack on Your Free Will"<p>Only if you allow it to be, just like with any other compulsive activity, if it starts affecting your life negatively, you should probably make some personal life changes.<p>This reads like a call for government regulation of advertising or how content is served to people because people cannot defend themselves from this media onslaught.<p>I believe something similar to China's regulation of the web may be what you're looking for, but I'm old enough to vote and go to war so I'm old enough to decide how often my "free will" is attacked.
> Choice is such a messy thing to dive deep into, because then you realize that nobody knows what it means to choose.<p>Actually, I think I do know what it means, but I have the feeling that many people do not like the idea, that their decisions are based on past experiences and that their free will is actually just the evaluation of their perceptions (of their truth) and therefore, it is nothing that comes from some spritual origin within them, but instead is something that happend to them.<p>While it feels a little incomfortable at first, it explains a lot of human behavior as for example the impact of advertiments. The important part is to also understand that it does not free you from your own responsibility as the fact that you have beeen tought ethics is also part of the evaluation.
One can argue that this isn't really anything new - look back at the media hype for war surrounding an explosion of a certain U.S. warship. In 1898. Amusing, how the most vaunted prize in journalism is named for one of the most famous perpetrators of yellow journalism.<p>Social media is merely a slimmer middle man in that frenzied feedback loop, and the legacy media is upset that their slice of the pie is shrinking.
Not to sound old school - because I am - but I believe that the medium effects the ability to comprehend the message (which happens before the wonky / faux message is received). That is, there is a difference between reading (e.g., newspaper or magazine) and watching.<p>Reading is proactive (so to speak). It engages the brain because the brain must be engaged in order to complete the activity. Furthermore, pausing to digest, or "rewind" to reread is completely natural. So much so, for a given read you probably do it more than you realize. (I know I do.)<p>On the other hand, watching is passive. The brain can step back / dial-down and still complete the activity. From that position, you're less likely (on average) to question what's presented you. Stoners don't pick up War & Peace, they turn on the TV, right :)<p>Note: Yes, these are generalization. Yes, there are always exceptions.<p>In addition - and there is some science that supports this - there is a difference between reading via paper and via a screen. My hunch is the brain gets conditioned to the medium. If your screen is mostly for junkfood (as it seems to be for so many of us) the brain is more likely to enter that relationship (so to speak) making certain presumptions. I suppose this could be similar to any learning. For example, they say that if you want maximum results for taking an exam you should study in the room where you'll take the example. Context effects learning / understanding.
Knowledge is the food of the soul. Problem is we are all binge eating.<p>Edit : Good TED talk on this topic <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/jp_rangaswami_information_is_food" rel="nofollow">https://www.ted.com/talks/jp_rangaswami_information_is_food</a> [2012]
Ofcourse all real hackers saw this coming already 25 years ago :)<p>I did not get a mobile phone because I wanted to be off when I wasn't working. When mobile internet came I kept only the nokia I was forced to have, just so I could not get email when I was off work. Still do not use twitter or anything else. Recently bought a tv but nothing on so seldom used. Kids friends visiting always says "oh, what a small tv!" (32 inch).
For anyone interested in further study of media's relationship to psychology and sociology, I cannot recommend enough Marshall Macluhan's writings and lectures. He may have been the first to argue that media is an extension of the human brain. Specifically, look up "The medium is the message" for videos of his central argument, or read "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man".
The biggest shocker is anyone actually believes in "free will" anymore. Although, the desire to limit a particular stimuli's influence over our actions seems valid.<p>In a way, the hyperbolic title seems to be an prime example of its own thesis..
Ironically, the first thing you're greeted with on this site is an attention-grabbing ad, if you choose to browse without protection.<p>If modern media a DoS attack, it's not very sophisticated since it can be easily avoided by non-participation. Install an Ad blocker. Browse the web in private mode. Turn off notifications. Treat everything you read with skepticism (assume it is trying to manipulate you). And never, ever interact with social media. Share your attention deliberately, mindfully, and voluntarily.<p>I don't buy into this victim mentality. Nobody is "stealing" my attention unless I agree to it.
Modern Media is definitely another addictive thing that one needs to manage.<p>As an older git, I try to remember what it was like in the 80's with no phone, no distractions. Even watching a movie is an event that needs planning in advance.<p>But how do I convey this to my kids, growing up with this?<p>The only way I can think is we do holidays where we go offline for the week, and maybe set an example at home by limiting the device usage.<p>I like the idea of a purpose-driven use of tech. You go on the computer and think 'I need to do a, b, c' then do it and turn it off. Usually Facebook won't be in that list. But it might be e.g. "I need to ask a question on this FB group, reply to a message ... then sign out immediately"<p>It is like have a list for the supermarket, which is trying to pedal sugary snacks to you as well as "special offers" that make you spend more money. The list (and going after a meal) is your defense against this.
Great article. I have a couple of thoughts.<p>One is that the reason humans can be so easily manipulated is our built-in neurological mechanisms for directing attention were designed by evolution for the very different environment of a hunter-gatherer existence.<p>The other thought has to do with what to do about the problem. A lot of people are talking about things that individuals can do, like limiting their time on their smart phone.<p>Well, that can work for them, but most people won't do that, so it doesn't solve the much larger problem of having a society that is becoming deeply dysfunctional in part because of media manipulation.<p>It seems to me that to solve this we need two things. One is web decentralization. The other is that people need to learn good critical thinking skills, and also skills for problem-solving discussion, as in Marshall Rosenberg's book <i>Nonviolent Communication</i>.
If you haven't seen it, watch The Century of the Self [1]. It's largely a documentary about the emergence of PR as an application of propaganda to control the population in times of peace, revolving around Edward Bernays. [2]<p>Viewing the modern situation through a lens informed by the history put forth in the documentary, there's nothing surprising in the least going on - it's the logical progression, and exactly what Bernays would aspire to do had the technology been available.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s</a>
[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays</a>
Media has always been a way to manipulate people. What’s different ? People love to reinforce their own beliefs on the world and what they read. They will select what to read and what to ignore. People read newspapers and would believe the things that appeal to them.
It's not just the distraction from media, it's also the many ways that people can get in touch with each other. I recently wrote down all the many ways a person can reach me and it was ridiculous.<p>Mobile: Voice calls, SMS<p>Email: Personal x 2, Work, Work shared inbox, Some shared inboxes for side projects<p>Apps: Facebook Commenting, Messenger chat, Messenger Calling, WhatsApp multiple group chats, Whats app Calling, Slack (Active in about 5 different Slack channels), Discord (Active in 2 discord channels), Google Hangouts, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Google’s Duo app<p>Sites: Reddit, Hacker News<p>I could probably go on. I turn off all main notifications for all apps. The only notifications I leave on are @ mentions in a couple apps because I know they won't come often.
I would gladly pay for something like what is advocated for in this article, but I'm not aware of anything like it. A news publication that:<p>* Has the goal of filtering rather than flooding<p>* No ads<p>* No pop-ins 3/4 of the way through the article telling me about four other articles I should read<p>* No endless scrolling<p>* Upfront about bias<p>* Cites sources
For anyone interested in diving deeper into this topic, I highly recommend the book "The World Beyond Your Head: On Becoming an Individual in an Age of Distraction" by Matthew Crawford. Of all the books I've read this year, this one has stuck with me the most--it's a fascinating study on the attention environment & its influence on our notions of identity.<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/World-Beyond-Your-Head-Distraction/dp/0374535914/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1511230579&sr=8-1&keywords=the+world+beyond+your+head" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/World-Beyond-Your-Head-Distraction/dp...</a>
People build a model of their world based on stimuli.<p>You cannot be present everywhere so you trust other people to perceive things for you.<p>That trust is often abused by injecting bias. And this is done to exert influence over people.<p>Same trust is abused to certain extent by historians through revisionism.<p>Same trust is abused by organized religion, where they control the rules of how you get favored by supreme beings. In some cases those rules are intrincated and arbitrary, like wasting your life building a pyramid, or entering a structure designated as temple every week, or believing other people belong to a better caste (where coincidentally the religious caste is usually at the top).
I liked this article. It makes me happy I am not really effected by what it is saying. I have no social media, I don't see the point, and I only use whatsapp for family because they won't use signal. WhatsApp has a throwaway number so it doesn't have my actual number and it's permissions are locked down.<p>ublock and umatrix make my browsing experience nice, and less dangerous.<p>Minimal apps on my phone, nearly all Google apps disabled.<p>I would move to a dumb phone if I could find one that allowed whatsapp and sharing it's internet.
Free will is a big subject, so I'll skip that one, but regardless, we can't escape our cognitive processes. Each new tech revolution has provided new choices and exposed systemic exploitation (printing press, translation of the bible, 30 years war). Often the result was the establishment of new forms of exploitation with more complexity and division while at the same time maintaining the previous form or forms of exploitation for as long as they were useful. For me, the larger problem is not the time associated with attention, nor the exploitation of that time, but exploitation itself. Our attention, wills and... are bound by common factors within separate groups of similar cognitive processes. These groups are formed and formative. I'll cut short here, because I don't want to exploit anyone :-), but it is up to us and them and the others to focus on common factors within different cognitive processes, rather then using the divisive factors in different cognitive processes as a form of control. It seems to me that the amount of time spent, the attention time, is less of a problem than the exploitation of that attention time in the sense that the problem of the shadows on the wall remains anyway, and there are always people who will reject the new shadows for the old ones, and people who will use dubious methods to keep one group staring at these shadows and another group staring at those shadows and another... And the collection plate has always existed, and it will always be passed around. Thing is, the shadows don't care, and the flame keepers, they seem, more often than not, to fall in love with their shadows. Time's up.
> The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it doesn’t necessarily protect freedom of attention.<p>Just to point out, it protects the freedom of speech in relation to what the government can do. Most of social and news platform are someone's property, and by default if they don't want users to talk about certain things they are free to ask them to leave. They might pay lip service and invoke a general desire for freedom of speech but are not legally bound to do any of that.
The irony is overwhelming: a screen-takeover modal advertisement for some "Black Friday" sale popped up over the article content as I attempted to start reading it.
My biggest question is: When are people going to stop spilling ink over this issue and actually fix it?<p>Here are some things that won't work:<p>1) Continue writing long thinkpieces about how bad big tech companies are and how they should feel bad<p>2) starting Yet Another Startup, raising $50 million in VC funding, and repeating all the same problems 5-10 years down the road.<p>3) Government regulation. Watch the recent Facebook/Google/Twitter congressional hearings if you want to hear the state of tech understanding in our government...<p>Here's what does work:<p>1) Pursue and promote technological standardization / decentralization efforts regarding social platforms. These problems would be <i>very easily fixable</i> if 1,000 developers agreed to build out a single web standards that encapsulated social data, discovery, and communication. I keep a small list at <a href="http://decentralize.tech" rel="nofollow">http://decentralize.tech</a>, but the list is only growing (Beaker/Rotonde, Mastodon/Gnusocial/Activitypub, Blockstack, IPFS, Urbit, Brave/BAT, IndieWebCamp, Scuttlebutt -- All groups with working software <i>today</i> you could work on that kills this and other problems overnight).<p>tldr; Stop complaining about things you got for free and build the dang alternative already.
Anyone know how to get the full text of his essay? I can find links to excerpts but I really don't want to read other people's summaries of his essay.
We'll we see similar to tobacco lawsuits - they knew it was addictive, used it for profit and even intentionally increased addictiveness, and didn't even put warning on. Cue similar contra argument about free will of consumer choice.<p>Uncanny similarity of Facebook and tobacco addiction is because they use the same dopamine biological machinery .
Blaming technology for our dysfunctional political system is all kinds of backwards. The political system is broken because of corruption within our financial/judicial/media institutions. If anything, technology is our best hope to fix those problems. For example, look at this discussion we are having right here.
This is a natural development in the evolution of advertising. The moment a company picks ads as a revenue model is the moment it pivots to become Media. I am building a company that aims to eliminate the need for advertising, and actually save time for its users, instead of making users pay with their time. I lived in an ads-free country for 10 years and saw the tremendous impact advertising had on society when it was finally allowed. I interned at the top Ad firm in the country and had management offers right after college to work in ad agencies, but decided to build things worth advertising instead. Proceeded to work in a top Media firm where advertisers wanted to buy space that was disruptive to users. The system is flawed, but it pays well, because instead of a cut of sales that quantify your performance as a seller, you are making a cut of every seller’s budget competing against other sellers - a reflection of their margin for selling a product. To top it off, you are greatly aided by your inability to sell your customers product to your users - it’s the advertisers fault for not knowing how to target properly, right?<p>That feels like a great gig until you realize that it is corrosive to you as well. Every site that has advertising as a business model, eventually has to de-prioritize user’s needs in favor of those of advertisers to grow bigger. Yahoo became useless; Google results are getting worse, because high placement requires lots of keywords padded with more words, instead of a succinct thorough answer; Facebook is losing the trust of its users who are clicking, not typing to communicate with friends anymore (anecdotal, not empirical);<p>The human brain needs dopamine from progress when it can be productive. Eventually when its productivity is drained it needs to escape with distraction and stories. In between is the need for empathy from other intelligent beings. Faking either of these leads to unhappiness. That is why there is always a solution better than advertising-funded companies of today and that will be the next wave. We are on it.
The same is true for TV and radio. Think of all the popular culture that's been created and paid for, not directly, but by merely <i>agreeing to have commercials on in your home</i> for a few minutes. This still boggles my mind. How can viewing advertisements be an adequate substitute for paying cash?
Are there any similar articles that are more simply written? I'd like to pass this kind of information on to the people in my life that aren't technically minded. At the moment when I try, I just sound like a conspiracy nut.
"One standard I use is GPS. If a GPS distracted us in physical space in the ways that other technologies distract us in informational space, no one would keep using that GPS."<p>Wow, that's a good way to bring the issue to light! How many times have I gone to the internet to look something up (Amazon, perhaps) and got distracted by other things? Although they are a big player in this space, this is why I really like google's homepage compared to (ugh) yahoo or MSN. Nothing trying to distract my attention from why I came there in the first place (initially anyway)
From this weekends NY Times...."Our Love Affair With Digital Is Over"
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/opinion/sunday/internet-digital-technology-return-to-analog.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=sectionfront" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/opinion/sunday/internet-d...</a>
I disagree. Like most things in this world it is a skill question.<p>There's more information of all kind. Good, bad, devilish, spam. And with more comes the requirement that the consumer learns to filter and interact more meaningful with it.<p>The same applies for instance to food as well. We have so much food now that we need to learn to manage eating by willpower, discipline and habits. It also applies to other luxuries.<p>What I can say is that I'm way more educated, way more skilled and way more able to grab a certain subset of knowledge exactly at the time and location that I need it.
Sorry if this is off topic, but Nautilus seems to really need support[0].<p>I received an email this morning from the editor asking "to make an end of year tax deductible contribution to keep the stories coming. Anything you could donate would be greatly appreciated".<p>If you enjoy their content, please consider subscribing.<p><i>I'm not affiliated with Nautilus in any way, just a concerned subscriber.</i><p>[0] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14227337" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14227337</a>
Highly recommend Moment for iOS for tracking phone usage. I feel like I've gamified how much time I spent on my phone and am shooting for <30 minutes / day.
Yes. Media has been dead since the Kuwaiti girl testimony in 1990. It's done, it's over, today's scandals are just aftershocks of that turning point.
How a handful of tech companies control billions of minds every day.<p><a href="https://goo.gl/K5xLSs" rel="nofollow">https://goo.gl/K5xLSs</a>
The problem is not journalism, the problem is platforms that encourage crap for their own monetary gains. <a href="https://www.recode.net/2017/11/20/16677194/tina-brown-vanity-fair-diaries-new-yorker-daily-beast-facebook-google-decode-kara-swisher-podcast" rel="nofollow">https://www.recode.net/2017/11/20/16677194/tina-brown-vanity...</a>
> Modern Media is a DoS Attack on Your Free Will<p>Being saturated by Modern Media is an <i>exercise</i> of Free Will.<p>An attack is an act of force that requires active defense. The Modern Media is not forcing me to ready anything, nor do I have to actively defend myself against the Modern Media.<p>If turning of your cell phone for a period seems like an unfathomable task to you, perhaps you didn't have that much Free Will in the first place.
I think that modern media is something that needs to be carefully regulated.<p>The degree of civil liberty one enjoys should be not only be considered as freedom from rules and regulations that limit our unreasonable actions and speech, but also freedom from being mentally assaulted and manipulated by those seeking to influence and control our thoughts, spending, votes, and opinions.
This reminds me of how easy it was in the early days of Hacker News to get on the front page with a project: In our new media world, the only way to get onto the Hacker News front page, or any other site, is to either have a post highly targeted for this site (with these sort of DoS elements) or blind chance.
All the time you spend on social networks, news sites and other junk food properties you should spend time reading tech docs of various techs you don't yet really understand. Just read their docs and blogs, etc instead of reading wasteful sites.<p>It's tough but it really feels good when you get a good streak going.
I now leave my laptop at home. I still do some Facebook on my iPhone, but not nearly as much as I did when I had my acer with me.<p>I heartily agree with the article's thesis.<p>If you agree with me, then you will also agree to copy and paste - do not just share - this post to your status.
Ah for the days of 100 million Americans passively accepting Cronkite’s “the way it is” — night after night trusting him to distill the “grand consensus” of the ruling class into a common mythology, a great uniting groupthink. What a comfort it was!
I suggest consuming media via channels like Blendle - <a href="http://blendle.com/" rel="nofollow">http://blendle.com/</a>
Hand picked articles, pay per view, no distractions.<p>Disclaimer: no affiliation to them, just a happy user.
Is there a way to see a history of notifications in both Android and iOS at all? It would be nice to be able to actually disable notifications permissions for apps that are more spammy than I expected them to be.
I would bet there's a market for a 'feature' phone that has the essentials for most people (voice, sms, gps maps), no apps. All branded under a premium lifestyle brand that makes you feel special.
"What information consumes is rather obvious. It consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention."<p>- Herbert Simon, Nobel Prize-winning economist, back in 1971.
I discovered that if I use grayscale or if I use darkroom mode, I can actually focus on content and not the bells abd whistles that are designed to hold our attention and keep us engaged longer.
"he co-founded Time Well Spent, a 'movement to stop technology platforms from hijacking our minds,'"<p>But I'm sure he isn't at all biased. :-/
Exactly!<p>As cognitive psychologists, this is what we are trying to fight with Lyra: a nonprofit conversation service which respects attention.<p>www.hellolyra.com/introduction
Billboards and all other public-space advertising out in the real world are so much worse than modern digital media. At least when it's confined to a device the user has the ability to turn it off.<p>That said, I do think the end of humanity will be via a primitive AI optimized to hold our attention at all costs. I just don't think we're there yet.
As AI get smarter and places like Google collect more data about you, they will eventually know all the right buttons to press to get you to look and not look away.
A meta comment on this article: I have posted this concept here, and on other social media platforms, and seen it posted as well... usually to the tune of a few upvotes...<p>It reminds me of Keyne's General Theory, where most of the ideas had already been floated for quite a while but were always derided as "crackpot," or basically heresy. It took a well-connected elite, combined with a failure to explain the current situation to really change the Groupthink of collective minds and institutions.<p>Here, it's similar: an idea which has been floated before, but taken in the hands of an academic is formalized, given a $100,000 prize, and published.<p>Which raises an interesting idea. If the problem with the radio--as the article showed, Hitler put one in every home--was that an authority could control a bombardment of information-assault on people--the same problem with tech today--should we not also be skeptical also of why authorities have now decided to grant credence to this idea?<p>And here's the concern: as the article also said, <i>the role of media and newspapers has been to be a "filter." I can imagine politicians and bureaucrats latching onto this as a power grab for authorities--as a means to further marginalize independent media and the social aspects of spreading information.</i>
Bullshit. The only attack on my free will is people telling me what is an attack on my free will and thus pushing their agenda.<p>I would NEVER EVER want to give up the incredible availability of information we have today. Even if most of it is nonsense, that still means there is a mountain of gems that's larger than the eye can see.
Take responsibility for your choices and your votes. You are not helpless.<p>Blaming Trump’s election (which this article insuates by equating his victory with the failure of democracy) on social media is incredibly disingenuous. Americans are not the helpless fools the author says we are.