Letters to My Friends: Social Media Users

The Election is in 100 Days and American Democracy is Under Attack — Time to Take Online Speech Back.

Dear Social Media Users,

In posting this letter, I exercise a fundamental right. It is a right we all cherish; a right America protects more expansively than other countries; a right enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution. In the first modern democracy, freedom of speech, without abridgment by government or restriction based on thought, belief, or opinion, is essential to an American citizen’s participation in the political process.

Picture in your mind the early days after America’s founding. Farmers throughout the 13 states converge, by horse and buggy, on the nearest town. They flock to churches and town halls, to the proverbial public square, to hear speeches by politicians and local leaders and to express their views on the issues of the day. When crowds gather to listen to history’s great orators, speakers like Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln, those at the back strain to hear words emanating from a three-foot-high platform 200 yards away. We can all picture that public square—but that is not what speech is today.

Speech today is both more powerful and more vulnerable than ever before. It has the ability to reach millions of people and influence us in ways we might not realize. It can be abused to manipulate our discourse, pervert our ideals, and undermine processes at the heart of our democracy. As such, it carries with it a pressing imperative we must recognize. If you value constructive dialogue, verifiable fact, and reasoned opinion and believe they are foundational to the democratic process; if you consider yourself an engaged citizen, a thoughtful advocate, or a patriotic American; if you care about freedom of speech; then you and I share a responsibility to understand the nature of speech today, to learn the risks it poses, and to employ it wisely to strengthen our divided nation.

What makes speech persuasive? When people feel attacked, they become defensive. When told we are wrong, it is natural to respond by arguing we are right. Contentious debates rarely change opinions, particularly those of the participants. Over six decades, numerous studies have demonstrated the determinative effect of confirmation bias—our tendency to embrace evidence that supports our existing view and dismiss contrary facts and reasoning.[1] It is worth noting the diametric clash between this well-known tendency and our prevailing self-conception as rational, evidence-based thinkers. Our societal belief is that unfettered speech permits logical, factual positions to rise to the top in a meritocracy of ideas. However, that is not how persuasion works.

Since Plato described Socrates’ dialogues around 375 BC, great influencers have employed the Socratic method to persuade others by first establishing common ground, then delicately but deliberately leading them toward a desired policy position. In his autobiography, Benjamin Franklin describes his transformation from a debater—a person who argues he is correct—to a persuader—a person who actually changes opinions and spurs action: 

"For, if you would inform, a positive and dogmatical manner in advancing your sentiments may provoke contradiction and prevent a candid attention… And by such a manner you can seldom hope to recommend yourself in pleasing your hearers, or to persuade those whose concurrence you desire."

Whether based on common values, shared experiences, or communal traditions, the first principle of effective persuasion is to connect with the intended audience.

Having established a connection, effective persuaders advance their aims using appeals to emotion. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream…” is so powerful not because of the logic of his policy demands, but thanks to the deeply emotional imagery he evokes within listeners. Words, oral and written, can educe emotion. However, speech today also includes photos, video, and combinations of media that more easily leverage emotion to influence our beliefs and behavior. Advertisers spent approximately $240 billion in the United States last year, half of which was on internet media.[2] That massive allocation of spending only makes sense because advertisers know they can influence our consumption through appeals to our desire for status, our insecurities, and other inherently emotional determinants of behavior.

Unfortunately, American heroes and U.S. corporations are not the only ones who know how persuasion works. Russia has been systematically targeting social media users on both sides of emotionally charged issues, such as immigration, abortion, civil rights, police brutality, and the Second Amendment. Russia’s anti-democratic, anti-American objectives are not new, but social media provides a new and highly effective tool by which Russia can infiltrate the heart of our nation and covertly attack us.[3]

In October 2019, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report titled, Russia’s Use of Social Media.[4] Committee Chairman Richard Burr’s press release stated:

"Russia is waging an information warfare campaign against the U.S.… Their goal is… to sow societal discord and erode public confidence in the machinery of government. By flooding social media with false reports, conspiracy theories, and trolls, and by exploiting existing divisions, Russia is trying to breed distrust of our democratic institutions and our fellow Americans."[5]

Like any competent influencer, Russian operatives begin by establishing a connection. Whereas companies direct ads to the demographic most likely to purchase, Russia deliberately targets social media users predisposed to support a particular message. For example, men over age 45 were targeted with pro-police advertisements, with the Facebook page “Back the Badge” receiving at least 110,912 followers.[6] To understand the breadth of Americans targeted, here are a few more examples of heavily-trafficked Russian Facebook pages: Being Patriotic, Stop All Immigrants, Heart of Texas, Black Matters, United Muslims of America, Defend the 2nd, Born Liberal, Army of Jesus, LGBT United, and Veterans Come First.[7] Clearly, Americans of any political persuasion are at risk of being targeted by foreign agents. And Russia is connecting. From 2015-2017, Russian Facebook content targeting Americans generated approximately 39 million likes, 31 million shares, and 3.5 million comments.[8] There is a significant chance that Russian propaganda agents successfully connected with you.

Once connected, Russian operatives exploit the power of emotion to push us toward extreme views, foment distrust, and encourage actions that advance Russia’s agenda. We are vulnerable to manipulation because our strongest ideological beliefs are highly susceptible to emotional triggers. In this instance, passion is a weakness. Counter-intelligence investigations revealed that Russia has sought to stoke racial divisions, convincing Black Americans to sign petitions and divulge personal information.[9] Posing as conservative activists, Russian operatives recruited unsuspecting Americans to support the Trump Campaign by gathering campaign materials and organizing and promoting rallies.[10] They attacked politicians who advocated a hard line against the Kremlin, including Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Lindsay Graham, and John McCain, often by inflaming preconceptions with false or misleading information.[11] Russia instigated voter suppression initiatives by attempting to convince Americans not to vote or to vote for third party candidates unlikely to win.[12] The meme that hailed your patriotism—and the post that outraged your humanity—may both have come from Russia.

Facilitating Russia’s deliberate targeting, social media platforms amplify our confirmation bias by surrounding us with the most “engaging” content. They tailor the posts and stories we see to increase our online activity and maximize revenue. Clicking on a shocking headline will cause Facebook’s algorithm to show you more articles from that source, so irresponsible outlets push provocative stories to increase traffic. Friends forward you the latest outrage because people are drawn to the sensational, and sharing that friend’s post will cause their Instagram views to rise. We have come to implicitly trust social media platforms because “we create the content.” However, half of Russian Twitter conversations involve automated accounts designed to skew online discourse.[13] Far from being able to see Honest Abe across the square, today we often cannot discern whether a video has been altered, audio is AI-generated, or the assertions we read were written by the person a profile purports to be. Moreover, micro-targeting prevents sober, contrasting views from entering our news feeds. Your social media feed is not a flow of unfettered ideas and expression—it is not the free speech envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Fortunately, we have the power to fight back. We have the ability to amend our use of social media to mitigate polarized rhetoric and repel foreign attacks on our democracy. “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” Alvin Toffler’s statement accurately describes modern media literacy as an active process requiring critical thinking and deep inquiry. Media literacy takes effort. My hope in outlining the detrimental effects of Russia’s ongoing information warfare is to inspire social media users to care enough about the integrity of speech and success of our democracy to make the necessary effort.

There are two sides of online speech that social media users must reform: how we assess incoming speech and what speech we choose to promulgate ourselves. First, media literacy means questioning what you see on social media, particularly the posts and articles advocating a view you support (we critique contrary views naturally). Ask yourself three questions every time you see a post:

1. Who created this speech? Identify the source so you can assess credibility and determine how to approach the piece. Non-experts often have smart ideas and analysis, but you should confirm their facts and conclusions with other sources. On the other hand, notice when an author relies too heavily on credentials; an impressive title or degree might not represent expertise in the specific topic at issue. A quick Google search can alert you to illegitimate or obviously biased publications. I recommend the media bias chart as a starting point. If you cannot identify the source of a post or story, that should be a red flag.
2. What is the purpose of this speech? Factual reporting, professional analysis, thoughtful opinion, and malicious propaganda each have an objective, and you should identify that aim as you assess the speech. Knowing the source helps with this assessment, as does understanding the substance and tone of the message. The piece may seek to inform, to convince, or to motivate action—or like this letter, it might for aim for all three. If a social media post lacks substance to support its assertion and you cannot verify the message, be suspicious and guard against manipulation.
3. What emotional triggers lace this speech? A genuine factual report should not be heavily emotional; the author should state the facts, not suggest how you should feel about them. With persuasive speech, differentiate between legitimate argumentation and dishonest manipulation. The extreme case is easy to identify; we have all seen ridiculous memes with accusatory headlines and unflattering photos. But also look for adjectives and adverbs whose purpose is to trigger emotion rather than usefully describe the object or action. Notice when authors frame complex issues as dichotomous truth and falsehood, rather than acknowledge the spectrum of possibilities in between. Recognize when speakers assert knowledge about another person’s state of mind that they cannot possibly know, or when they raise derogatory but logically irrelevant information about the other side. These are common persuasive techniques that prey on emotion and are intellectually problematic. Train yourself to identify them.

Second, be disciplined and intentional with your own speech on social media. The ease with which we can spread modern forms of speech is not commensurate with the potential impact. There are far too many posts, shares, and retweets that begin, “Not sure if this is true, but if it is…” Why are you not sure? It is irresponsible to spread messages or information that you do not know to be honest and accurate based on simple diligence. It is not sufficient to merely agree with the view espoused when we know malicious actors seek to leverage our existing views against us. Being patriotic is not following a Russian Facebook page bearing that name; it is actively routing foreign propaganda by using social media responsibly.

You should be able to articulate the purpose of each communication you post to social media. For example, I will have my profile picture blacked out through November to remind myself and others to do more in pursuit of racial equity. It is a simple form of speech, but it has a purpose. You should explain in detail the policy position you plan to promote, and if you are hesitant about the quality of your explanation, consider whether you understand the issue sufficiently well to justify the intensity of your view.[14] Be confident that every post advances the ideal of productive free expression, whether it involves sharing photos from your weekend with family or publishing a white paper. There are countless categories of productive speech—be certain your post falls into one of them.

The technology underlying social media and online speech is advancing more rapidly than we can comprehend. Snippets and summaries abound, causing us to believe we know more about difficult, multifaceted issues than we actually do. This challenging landscape allows malicious actors to pry our words and actions away from our values and ideals. Covert foreign interference undermines freedom of speech and our democratic institutions. For social media users, the effective response is to enhance our own information literacy—more listening, more thought, more inquiry. Speak with a purpose and with confidence that your speech can withstand scrutiny. The primal American ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness assumes and stands on a foundation of personal responsibility. Today, our individual efforts are needed to defend core elements of our society. Start by demanding and promoting responsible speech.

Sincerely yours,

Isaac

This is the second in a series of public letters addressed to those with whom I share a common identity or experience. The purpose is to engage our awareness and spark action among individuals with the power to influence a better America in these consequential times. I value sincere discussion, and am happy to continue the conversation on the phone or hopefully soon, in person. For my thoughts on the present need for action by America’s guardians, see Letters to My Friends: Veterans & Service Members.

Sources and Additional Information

[1] Kolbert, E. “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds.” The New Yorker, Feb. 20, 2017, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds.

[2] Guttmann, A. “Advertising spending in the U.S. 2015-2022.” Statista, Mar. 28, 2019, www.statista.com/statistics/272314/advertising-spending-in-the-us/#:~:text=Advertising%20spending%20in%20the%20U.S.%202015%2D2022&text=The%20timeline%20presents%20advertising%20spending,223.7%20billion%20recorded%20in%202018.

[3] Morell, M. “100 Years of Russian Electoral Interference: Author David Shimer.” Intelligence Matters, Jul. 1, 2020, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/intelligence-matters/id1286906615?i=1000480879431.

[4] Select Committee on Intelligence, “Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election—Volume 2: Russia’s Use of Social Media with Additional Views.” U.S. Senate Report 116-XX, Oct. 8, 2019, www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf.

[5] Burr, R. “Senate Intel Committee Releases Bipartisan Report on Russia’s Use of Social Media.” Oct. 8, 2019, www.burr.senate.gov/press/releases/senate-intel-committee-releases-bipartisan-report-on-russias-use-of-social-media-.

[6] DiResta, R., et al. “The Tactics and Tropes of the Internet Research Agency.” New Knowledge, Dec. 18, 2018, https://disinformationreport.blob.core.windows.net/disinformation-report/NewKnowledge-Disinformation-Report-Whitepaper.pdf.

[7] Howard, P. et al. “The IRA, Social Media and Political Polarization in the United States, 2012-2018.” Computational Propaganda Research Project, Dec. 21, 2018, https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/12/The-IRA-Social-Media-and-Political-Polarization.pdf.

[8] Id.

[9] Intelligence Committee Report.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] The Tactics and Tropes of the Internet Research Agency.

[13] The IRA, Social Media and Political Polarization in the United States, 2012-2018.

[14] Waytz, A. “The Illusion of Explanatory Depth.” Edge, 2017, https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27117.