How social media became a 'debate-themed video game' and why the internet is destroying democracy

Justin E. H. Smith, author of “The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is: A History, a Philosophy, a Warning,” spoke with Protocol about his genealogy of the internet.

“The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is: A History, a Philosophy, a Warning,” by Justin E. H. Smith.

In his book, Smith argues that the internet as we know it is addictive, undemocratic and “shapes human lives algorithmically.”

Image: Princeton University Press; Protocol

“The internet is simultaneously our greatest affliction and our greatest hope; the present situation is intolerable, but there is also no going back,” Justin E. H. Smith writes in his new book, “The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is: A History, a Philosophy, a Warning.”

Smith, a professor of history and philosophy of science at the University of Paris, outlines the affliction of the internet in detail. He argues that the internet as we know it is addictive, undemocratic and “shapes human lives algorithmically, and human lives under the pressure of algorithms are not enhanced but rather warped and impoverished.”

How the internet can become the “greatest hope” of fixing our predicament is less clear, but that’s also not why Smith set out to write this book. “I'm doing genealogy and identifying problems, and then leaving it to brighter, younger people to find our way out of this,” Smith told me on a Zoom call from a café in Paris. His approach, which he said draws on Foucault and Leibniz, tries to place the internet in terms of “a vastly broader and deeper picture, both in time and in nature.”

In an interview with Protocol, Smith discussed how social media acts as a “debate-themed video game,” why dating apps often preclude “the deep mystery of love” and how the U.S. has quietly embraced a corporation-driven Chinese-style social credit system.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Your book supposes that any remedy to problems of the internet will have to come from the internet itself. Is there any resonance to the idea that an external belief system could bring about change?

I wouldn't describe my view as pessimistic, I would describe it as an aporia or aporistic. That is to say, I don't identify any obvious solutions to the current predicament. Not because I'm a pessimist, but just because I don't really see that as part of the purview of the project. I'm doing genealogy and identifying problems, and then leaving it to brighter younger people to find our way out of this. And in that respect also, I feel like I echo Foucault here — my job is to show problems and how we inherited them and leave it to other people to provide a positive program.

That said, I could give you a glimpse of what a positive program would look like, and it would be a total destruction of the current economic model on which what I call the phenomenological internet is based. We need a real digital public space. What we have right now is a digital pseudo-public space that is simply not a viable forum for the exchange of ideas or for rational deliberation of the sort that a democracy needs. It's a pseudo-public space in that it allows people to play as if they are exchanging ideas, when in fact, what they're doing is playing a video game — racking up points in the form of likes and followers, based on figuring out how to game the algorithm.

We need a real digital public space. What we have right now is a digital pseudo-public space that is simply not a viable forum for the exchange of ideas or for rational deliberation of the sort that a democracy needs.

As long as that's the only game in town for talking about things like freedom of speech — or critical race theory, or whatever it might be — we're all doomed. Whatever side you defend, we are all doomed because it's not actually a forum for debate: It's a debate-themed video game.

So how do you solve the problem? I don't know. Smash the system and start over again? Seize the social media companies? Well the truth is, I honestly don't think that's a good idea. I think, de facto, social media are a public utility like electricity or water. And it would be better if we recognized that and treated them that way. That said, I don't necessarily think things would work out all that well, if in light of that, the government were to seize Facebook and Twitter and to run them accordingly. However, I think, in some way or other, there will have to be democratic oversight over how the algorithms work in order for us to have any hope of ever using social media for the purposes of deliberative democracy.

In your book you use the term “normies.” Often the most vital areas of culture seem to come from these niche spheres of the internet. Why do you think that is?

It's a real problem, right? Because it is addictive [and] exploitative. It is a chronophage … it eats up your time. … Nonetheless, I really can't help but feel that it's also the vanguard of [our culture]. And it would have been absurd to try to write a book like this one without going deep inside. In that respect, it's like writing an ethnography of heroin addiction — you're probably going to have to get addicted yourself in order to write any kind of compelling account of it. It's very much the same.

Whatever I was before, I can pretty confidently say at this point that I'm not a normie. My departure from the normies was part of the idea that I have to understand Extremely Online culture in order to write about it. And what I understand about it now is both that it's harming me and destroying me and also that it’s way ahead of the curve of everything else that happens in society at this point.

Justin E. H. Smith Photo: Justin E. H. Smith

I go visit my mother, for example, and they've got MSNBC blasting 20 hours a day in their house and I can't avoid it. This is the only time I see television at this point. What strikes me about MSNBC for elderly normies of, say, my mother's generation is that all it really is is a social media filter. Like on MSNBC, you hear Rachel Maddow, or whoever else, talking a day or two later about what people were already talking about on Twitter. So I have this weird experience when I'm in the presence of normies of being like: “Yeah, I know. Yeah, I know. I know. I know.” And feeling like it's just coming with a sort of delay and in a filtered down and diluted form that's maybe easier to digest and to keep you sane.

I don't know how to deal with this. You can hear the conflict within me. I'm not, as I insisted in the book, a so-called neo-Luddite. I'm not on the same page as people like Jaron Lanier who think you need to shut down your social media accounts. But I'm also really, really worried about the deleterious effects of social media based on their current manifestation, which is to say: hidden-algorithm-driven, for-profit operations.

You mentioned the difficulty of unplugging from the internet. Was that intended to apply to the societal level? As an individual, what are the costs and benefits of reducing your time on social media?

What I want to say when people tell me they don't have social media is actually: Yes, you do — you just don't know it. Because you're living in a society that is at this point largely structured by algorithmic forces that have their paradigmatic expression in social media. And it's going to be increasingly so as, for example, logistics and health care and perhaps even the economy are increasingly modeled on the forms of information-processing exchange that have been tried out first of all in online forums. So trains won't run on concrete timetables anymore, they'll run on algorithmically determined, flexible timetables — just like, for example, Uber pricing is not a flat rate, but is determined by algorithms.

So you have this algorithmic creep from something that was honed on Facebook and Twitter that then extends into all sorts of gamified domains of life like car-sharing services — that ultimately has no limit to how far it can extend in shaping the way our society is. So when someone tells me they're not on social media, I want to say, “Who gives a shit? That's not the question.” Whether you are on social media or not has nothing to do with the way social media-like technologies are transforming our world.

What are some of the things that are lost when this gamification happens? You cite Foucault as a big influence, so I wonder what you think about the effects on dating, in particular.

Dating is a good example. I'm not familiar with that directly — I'm more familiar with listening to music, that's something I'm still able to do. But in both cases, we have the same thing, right? If you're browsing a record store — especially a used record store or a thrift shop, the kinds of places where stuff that doesn't belong together gets thrown together anyway — that’s where you can really cultivate a kind of musical aesthetic sensibility that the “You May Also Like” function of the sort you see on Spotify or YouTube takes away. [The algorithms] take away the responsibility for cultivating your own aesthetic sensibilities.

When it comes to dating, I would argue that the deep mystery of love is that you can end up loving someone who on paper or on a digital platform, like Tinder, you really ought not to love. The fact that now people are matching with profiles that include stuff like their political commitments — like, who cares about political commitments? Love is so much more deep than that! People are missing out on the potential to experience it because they're mistaking this for some kind of algorithmically plottable game. And indeed, that is extremely harmful to human thriving.

With politics as well, the algorithmization is hollowing out our idea of what it is to have political commitment.

With politics as well, the algorithmization is hollowing out our idea of what it is to have political commitment. People end up simply following the map, so to speak, of adjacencies that they know they want to adopt or to avoid for reasons of maintaining their social standing. So, you know, the whole thing about avoiding not only people who are, say, right-wing extremists, but avoiding people who are right-wing extremist adjacent, or people who are friends with people who are right-wing extremist adjacent … and soon enough, you've got a pretty tightly built fortress of people who share your political commitments. But those aren't actually political commitments — those are just your in-group. So social media is making it really hard to come by political commitments through, let’s say, rational reflection, rather than through algorithmic plotting.

When it comes to abstaining from technology, different nations are taking different approaches. China, for instance, has a video game ban. Could those national differences yield a way of reining in tech?

My own suspicion is that in one way or another, every country is converging on the same model, even if they're using different terminology to describe it. The dreariest way of putting that is: Like it or not, the U.S. is veering toward a Chinese-style social credit system. In spite of China's ban on video games, I think the social credit system remains like the big video game of life itself. That's how you have to understand what they're doing.

We call it by other names, and it's more in the hands of private companies than the government. But one way or another, we're moving towards a condition in which your social standing, and the range of possibilities open to you — and even perhaps, eventually, your economic standing — will be based on your digital record. I think that's emerging already.


Google is wooing a coalition of civil rights allies. It’s working.

The tech giant is adept at winning friends even when it’s not trying to immediately influence people.

A map display of Washington lines the floor next to the elevators at the Google office in Washington, D.C.

Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

As Google has faced intensifying pressure from policymakers in recent years, it’s founded trade associations, hired a roster of former top government officials and sometimes spent more than $20 million annually on federal lobbying.

But the company has also become famous in Washington for nurturing less clearly mercenary ties. It has long funded the work of laissez-faire economists who now defend it against antitrust charges, for instance. It’s making inroads with traditional business associations that once pummeled it on policy, and also supports think tanks and advocacy groups.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Sustainability. It can be a charged word in the context of blockchain and crypto – whether from outsiders with a limited view of the technology or from insiders using it for competitive advantage. But as a CEO in the industry, I don’t think either of those approaches helps us move forward. We should all be able to agree that using less energy to get a task done is a good thing and that there is room for improvement in the amount of energy that is consumed to power different blockchain technologies.

So, what if we put the enormous industry talent and minds that have created and developed blockchain to the task of building in a more energy-efficient manner? Can we not just solve the issues but also set the standard for other industries to develop technology in a future-proof way?

Keep Reading Show less
Denelle Dixon, CEO of SDF

Denelle Dixon is CEO and Executive Director of the Stellar Development Foundation, a non-profit using blockchain to unlock economic potential by making money more fluid, markets more open, and people more empowered. Previously, Dixon served as COO of Mozilla. Leading the business, revenue and policy teams, she fought for Net Neutrality and consumer privacy protections and was responsible for commercial partnerships. Denelle also served as general counsel and legal advisor in private equity and technology.


Everything you need to know about tech layoffs and hiring slowdowns

Will tech companies and startups continue to have layoffs?

It’s not just early-stage startups that are feeling the burn.

Photo: Kirsty O'Connor/PA Images via Getty Images

What goes up must come down.

High-flying startups with record valuations, huge hiring goals and ambitious expansion plans are now announcing hiring slowdowns, freezes and in some cases widespread layoffs. It’s the dot-com bust all over again — this time, without the cute sock puppet and in the midst of a global pandemic we just can’t seem to shake.

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.


Sink into ‘Love, Death & Robots’ and more weekend recs

Don’t know what to do this weekend? We’ve got you covered.

Our favorite picks for your weekend pleasure.

Image: A24; 11 bit studios; Getty Images

We could all use a bit of a break. This weekend we’re diving into Netflix’s beautifully animated sci-fi “Love, Death & Robots,” losing ourselves in surreal “Men” and loving Zelda-like Moonlighter.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt

Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.


This machine would like to interview you for a job

Companies are embracing automated video interviews to filter through floods of job applicants. But interviews with a computer screen raise big ethical questions and might scare off candidates.

Although automated interview companies claim to reduce bias in hiring, the researchers and advocates who study AI bias are these companies’ most frequent critics.

Photo: Johner Images via Getty Images

Applying for a job these days is starting to feel a lot like online dating. Job-seekers send their resume into portal after portal and a silent abyss waits on the other side.

That abyss is silent for a reason and it has little to do with the still-tight job market or the quality of your particular resume. On the other side of the portal, hiring managers watch the hundreds and even thousands of resumes pile up. It’s an infinite mountain of digital profiles, most of them from people completely unqualified. Going through them all would be a virtually fruitless task.

Keep Reading Show less
Anna Kramer

Anna Kramer is a reporter at Protocol (Twitter: @ anna_c_kramer, email: akramer@protocol.com), where she writes about labor and workplace issues. Prior to joining the team, she covered tech and small business for the San Francisco Chronicle and privacy for Bloomberg Law. She is a recent graduate of Brown University, where she studied International Relations and Arabic and wrote her senior thesis about surveillance tools and technological development in the Middle East.

Latest Stories