The Word-of-Mouth Algorithm.
Like old movies, disorganized algorithms mean you’ll see what’s endured, not what’s newest.
The default social algorithm, older than computers, older than the printing press, is good old word-of-mouth. It works like this: “Did you hear about the frog? No?! Ask Sarah about the frog next time you see her.” The friends-family-and-neighbors algorithm. It is disorganized, and it is repetitive—you might hear the same news a dozen times in as many conversations.
Centralized social media has its own social algorithms. They try to stocking-stuff your feed with the right mixture to keep you spending time. They are the modern-day one-armed-bandits, except you’re paying in time, and there is no jackpot for you to hit.
Lying in word-of-mouth reduces trust, and people keep some kind of general idea of how reliable their real-world sources have been. Lying on centralized social media is just a drop in the ocean. It is widespread, coming from bots and other fake accounts, but also from agenda-addled people who care more about pushing a view than getting to truth.
Word-of-mouth communication is two-way or more in real-time. You can push back, ask questions, shape the discussion. On social media (including blogs) it is turn-based at best, and in most cases it is one-directional. You are being told, with limited opportunity to ask for clarification.
But word-of-mouth is time-consuming. It requires the parties to be able to spend time, it is slow, and it is hard on people with fewer social connections to begin with.
It still has a huge advantage: word-of-mouth can be implemented anywhere that people are. It is very difficult to break down, and it can be restarted easily. If a social platform’s algorithm breaks down, it does not easily recover. It needs lots of data to operate, so it can say if-they-liked-this-they’ll-like-that.
Leaders.
With the cruelties and abuses of Musk–Trump–Vance (“MTV”), there have been calls for Democrats to show more leadership. MTV has lots of opportunities to spread their lies, their wastes, their frauds, and their abuses across the media. The Democrats have only a few prominent officials to speak out regularly.
But the Democrats are better off having their decentralized system over MTV’s centralized noise machine. The Democrats are harder to shut-up or shut-off than MTV is. And their pushback is much more distributed. While there are states’ attorneys general, Senators and Representatives, there are also non-partisan organizations like unions and non-profits, most of which are not controlled and not affiliated with any Democratic leadership.
Would having some more mouthpieces help? Sure. But they won’t be able to cover the whole board from one microphone. The media can do better to aggregate the different voices, and it already seems like they are trying to. There are several litigation trackers, for example, to cover what is approaching and will no doubt surpass 100 lawsuits against the unlawful orders of MTV.
Like word-of-mouth, having many leaders is more important than a single figurehead. The calls coming from many quarters are contagious, where a single daily speaker is of limited value.
It’s also worth noting that not all the pushback gets published by the mainstream outlets. Some of it is behind-the-scenes (especially from Republican legislators and state Republicans), but other bits stay within particular trade publications. It’s always been impossible to be comprehensive, but that’s even harder in a media environment dealing with a government hostile to truth.
Everyone a Leader.
Looking over the blogosphere, one thing that has struck me is how each writer and artist is the leader of their own little slice of the web. They paint the walls as they please, they style it to their liking. But they also direct the kind of content, decide whether and how to allow comment, all the leadership choices are theirs.
In that sense, everyone is a leader in their own right, at least in their own castle. And we have to be, these days. In the mists of my mind I still recall the idea of headman from anthropology. It isn’t a leader in a band tribe, but rather someone who has influence by doing. That if the headman goes on a walk, others will follow. Now, some of those might not be following the headman. They might follow their buddy who follows the headman. Like that.
This kind of many-hands approach feels stronger, more robust. When you go on Mastodon or the like, you can find a diverse set of people, and depending on the issue or area, you can focus-in on those who can speak to it. That’s the same kind of diversity that makes America and the free world greater than any MTV could ever hope to. And while social media have that ability, blogs and independent websites can do it even more.
The disorganized algorithm is a lossy algorithm. It doesn’t deliver everything instantly. It gives you time to breathe. It makes you get up and look out the window if you want to know what made that noise down the street. It’s better suited for people who turn off notifications on their mobiles, people who are willing to be fashionably late to the party.
Fear-of-missing-out was better suited for a time when it felt like the things you might miss mattered more. I’m sure it still applies to some people, but these days it feels like if you’re not missing some things, you’re spending too much time wading through the muck to find everything out. I’d rather wait and ask Sarah about that frog the next time I see her.
Some of that is having something to look forward to. If it’s worth not missing, it’s worth walking-not-running to get there, right?