I

n today’s age of ubiquitous social media influence, The Social Dilemma remains a chilling reminder of the strong impact of big social media companies on society. It paints a simultaneous picture of dystopia and utopia. The documentary adeptly highlights the addictive nature of social media and the profit-driven motives of giants like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, even at the expense of promoting questionable content. This raises significant ethical concerns, especially for vulnerable young users.

Through interviews with tech industry insiders, engineers, ethicists, and psychologists, the documentary exposes the algorithms and design choices responsible for turning social media into an addictive and polarizing force. These insiders provide firsthand accounts of how tech giants prioritize engagement and profit over user well-being and societal harmony.

The Social Dilemma raises vital ethical questions about tech companies’ power and responsibility. It underscores how the race for user attention and ad revenue has fueled the spread of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and divisive content on these platforms. Now, the burden falls on individuals, companies, and governments to chart a path forward.

Greatest Risk of Social Media: Imperceptible Change

There is an ironic transition from the information age to the disinformation age, even though we have greater access now to information than ever before, we still find it difficult to reach the truth. “Imperceptible change” is planted within us, obstructing our intellectual defense as to whether an information that we get is true or not.

In The Social Dilemma, “imperceptible change” refers to the gradual and often subtle ways in which social media platforms and their algorithms manipulate and influence user behavior without the users themselves being fully aware of it. This concept highlights how these platforms are designed to keep users engaged and addicted by making subtle, unnoticeable adjustments to what content is shown and when it’s shown to maximize user interaction and time spent on the platform.

For example, the algorithms might show you certain posts or ads at specific times when they predict you are most likely to engage with them, or they might prioritize content that aligns with your existing beliefs and interests. Over time, these imperceptible changes can have a significant impact on how users perceive the world, reinforcing their existing beliefs and preferences and keeping them hooked on the platform.

The documentary introduces the concept of “imperceptible change,” illustrating how social media subtly manipulates user behavior through algorithmic adjustments. These alterations, like showing content at specific times or prioritizing like-minded content, shape users’ perceptions over time. It serves as a warning about these platforms’ power and the need for users to be more aware of their online experiences.

Social media companies will soon have to go further 

For a really long time, the users’ only real weapon against the detrimental effects of social media was their willpower and media literacy. Basically, they were on their own.

In 2018, when Mark Zuckerberg testified in the congress over the Cambridge Analytica scandal, he stated, “It’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy.” Has anything changed since then?

Succumbing to pressure, platforms are beginning to pay attention to their users’ experience. Instagram, YouTube and TikTok have introduced various tools that alert users of their extended usage and even put parental controls. YouTube and Instagram remind teens to take breaks since 2021. Meanwhile, TikTok announced a passcode entry regulation for minors after an hour on the app.

The documentary’s interviews with experts and industry insiders emphasize the urgent need for more substantial regulation and responsible use of technology. The exploration of the addictive pull of social media, akin to the stimulating effects of slot machines on our brains, mirrors the concerns that various countries are now addressing.

China’s has taken measures to limit screen time for children under eight and Utah’s imposition of a digital curfew for minors are just two examples of this growing trend. France’s requirement for manufacturers to install parental control systems also underscores the global recognition that action is needed. In June, France passed a law that prohibits the promotion of certain practices – such as cosmetic surgery and smoking. The penalties for non-compliance can go up to two years in prison and a fine of €300,000.

However, the most recent and thorough move yet comes from the European Union. The EU is leading the charge with its Digital Services Act —overseen by the European Commission. The EU’s Digital Services Act, which became effective on August 25, imposes new rules on platforms, including assessments of societal impact and measures to prevent addictive behavior and targeting of vulnerable groups. The Act aims to make platforms more responsible and protect minors.

The new EU rules will allow researchers to access data inside company servers. The platforms will undergo a yearly assessment of the impact of their design, algorithms, advertising and terms of services on a range of societal issues. Then, according to the findings of the assessment, propose and implement measures inspected by the European Commission, researchers and an audit company.

The EU is actively teaming up with tech firms, industry groups, and organizations focused on children to figure out how to create platforms that better protect minors. They’re working towards a set of guidelines by 2024 called the Code of Conduct on Age-Appropriate Design. This code would lay out a list of steps that the European Commission wants big social media companies to take in line with the new laws.

However, as The Social Dilemma suggests, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the complex problems posed by social media. A nuanced approach is crucial, focusing on specific people, platforms, and features that are most risky. Additionally, the call for more data and a precautionary principle when it comes to minors is both reasonable and responsible.

Only time will reveal the effectiveness of these measures and potential loopholes, but the Act open a chapter of thorough examination of social media companies’ practices.

Reviewed by Batuhan Aça, Şeymanur Melayim, Muhammet Ali Oruç, Shahd Qaid, and Ezgi Yaramanoğlu.

Written by Dilara Özer

Astudy conducted by Dr. Noa Lavi in 2016, found Israeli youth to be “the most right-wing compared to countries in Western Europe.” A 2018 Israeli Democracy Institute survey showed that “approximately 64 percent of Israeli Jews aged 18-34 identify as right-wing, compared to 47 percent of those 35 and older.” Israeli Jewish radicalization did not start in the 21st century. Its antecedents are critical to understanding this moment. For more information, see here (link to other article above).

The underlying beliefs of the Israeli right-wing are: Territorial expansion into all of Eretz Yisrael (historic Palestine), prioritizing Jewish identity over democracy, focus on security and Israel’s existential threat, distrust of Palestinians and foreigners, and centrality of Nationalism/Patriotism.

Israeli Jews have been misled by being told repeatedly there was a ‘failed peace process’ without a Palestinian partner. Neither government officials nor educational institutions say that two decades of the Oslo process was never about peace, instead, entrenching Israeli control over more of historic Palestine. Israeli youth grew up during the Second Palestinian Intifada. Suicide bombings and missiles from Gaza were the vehicles that allowed Israel to justify itself as the victim.

Israelis were trained to believe Palestinians were terrorists and wanted to wipe Israel off the map, while Israel besieged and assaulted Gaza and occupation continued. Young Jewish Israelis have no contact with Palestinians unless in a military uniform as occupier or as illegal settlers: they live in different communities while the apartheid wall separates Israeli Jews (and other Palestinians) from Palestinians.

The Netanyahu Era 

Since 2009, Israeli Jewish youth only know Netanyahu as Prime Minister, and right-wing fascist leaders including Avigdor Lieberman, Naftali Bennet, and Ayelet Shaked. They have seen Netanyahu: expand settlements; illegally annex Palestinian lands; pass the nation-state law; neglect Palestinian communities; ignore organized crime; tell Palestinians in Israel to go live in the West Bank and Gaza; say that a coalition with Arab political parties “would be an existential threat to Israel”; incite violence toward Palestinians; condone police collaboration with Israeli Jewish settlers and other extremist groups attacking Palestinians in Israel; and again pursue a policy of intensified military aggression on Gaza with disregard for killing civilians.

Netanyahu’s right-wing government also advocates for: territorial expansion; Palestinian transfer; mowing down Gaza; stripping Palestinians of citizenship; passing half of the 65 discriminatory laws in Israel. These actions give settlers and nationalists justification for violence against Palestinians. Amos, a 17-year old Israeli, was quoted in 2019 saying: “killing Arabs is a religious duty.”

Under Netanyahu, Social justice demonstrations in 2011 demanded solutions to lack of housing, the rise in cost-of-living, corruption, and government accountability for social welfare. As African asylum seekers sought refuge, the government demonized and blamed them for societal ills, detaining and forcibly deporting them because of xenophobia and anti-black racism. Add to this, recent police provocations blocking the Damascus Gate during Ramadan, escorting Israeli settlers to the Temple Mount, and decades of forced displacement of Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah and all over Palestine.

The Palestinian civil society’s call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions on Israel became a focus for the Netanyahu government after globally gaining traction. The government started funding public relations strategies, pouring resources into misinformation campaigns calling BDS antisemitic, banning its Jewish and non-Jewish supporters from Israel, and supporting the International Holocaust Remembrance definition of antisemitism to include critiques of Israel.

Settlements in Mixed Cities

In 2005, Gush Katif settlers in Gaza were removed. And the betrayed settlers founded new settlement projects in mixed cities all over Israel. In the last decade, the Israeli settler movement focused on creating a presence in mixed cities such as  Jaffa, Lyd, Ramle, and Acre, to keep land in Jewish hands and a Jewish majority,  cities ethnically cleansed of many Palestinian inhabitants in 1948. Settlers build West Bank-like settlement enclaves, where Palestinians are kept under surveillance and settlers are protected by police, showing no interest in coexistence.

Mobs/Lynchings/Incitement

Recent incidents show clearly this extremist violence. In Jerusalem, Lehava, a violent Israeli Jewish anti-miscegenation, anti-Arab organization, organized a demonstration at Damascus Gate during Ramadan chanting “Your village should be burnt down” and “Death to the Arabs.” Over 100 Palestinian were injured and others detained. Police used “stun grenades, tear gas and water cannons” against Palestinians. Besides police protection, a 2011 investigation exposed that the Israeli government had funded over half of Lehava’s budget. Lehava, Ateret Cohanim, Yad L’achim, and other extremist groups are sheltered from accountability for the violent crimes they commit and are funded from abroad.

In Bat Yam, fascism spread to the Mizrahi-majority city. Three Israeli Jews pulled Palestinian Said Musa of Ramle from his car and brutally beat him while being filmed by Israeli TV. Fascist groups also roamed Tiberius and Acre attacking Palestinians and their businesses.

Palestinian journalist Rami Younis of Lydd points to incitement by Israeli media to “shoot and kill Palestinians,” while also describing the Jewish mob attacks in Ramle and Lydd, with special unit police collaboration. Though there were curfews for residents in the mixed cities, the settlers were “escorted by Israeli police and allowed to roam free.” The groups marked Palestinian homes to attack later. The legal system also colludes with police and settler violence. Younis explains that only 2 of 162 indictments were brought against Jewish supremacists, while all others were against Palestinian protesters.

Tamr Nafar of Lydd, Palestinian rapper and activist, co-founder of DAM, speaks about Jewish settler violence against Palestinians in Lydd being “armed and protected by police”, while setting the context of structural inequality in mixed cities.

At the same time, West Bank Palestinians are detained and shot, and families are evicted from their homes. The aerial bombardment of Gaza over 11 days is evidence of the Israeli demonization of Palestinians there. Israel targeted civilians and media and health centers. Whole buildings collapsed in a matter of seconds, decimating entire families, and leaving tens of thousands of Palestinians without homes.

There are endless stories showing the web of connections between the Israeli government, police and military, settlers, and other extremist groups. To address the radicalization of youth, one must recognize that the majority of Israeli Jews accept this status quo. However, there are a minority of Israeli Jews calling for an end to apartheid and for decolonization.

God is dead, said Nietzsche long ago. Since then the phrase has been interpreted in many different ways. One is an observation of the collapse of order, the dissolution of hierarchies of power between leaders and followers, teachers and students, parents and children, employers and employees, men and women, news producers and newsreaders—An exponential surge in student protests, and social media interactions of once-newsreaders-now-turned-news-producers, among others, substantiates the argument.

Some call this state of affairs the chaos of postmodernism, an era dominated by a loss of trust in authority, a questioning of power, followed by the belief that with no order, no right and wrong, that every value is necessarily right, every concern as equal as any other; others identify it as the phenomenon of moral and cultural relativism. But dissidents react by saying, ‘Stop! We have to draw the line somewhere! There must be standards!’

The ingenuity of Nietzsche’s statement lies in its prescience. Made at the turn of the twentieth century, it foretells the news headlines we are now privy to, more than one hundred years later. Through the mouthpiece of Zarathustra, Nietzsche warned posterity about the imminent danger of a world that found no merit in hierarchies and dividing lines. Through Zarathustra, Nietzsche reproduced the trope of the quintessential madman in literature. Thus Spake Zarathustra is the story of an unpopular prophet, castigated and excoriated for his cryptic statements, who broaches matters we now know were ahead of his time.

Nietzsche foresaw the eradication of order, systems, and hierarchies as a preliminary to nihilism; a negation of the individual rather than a longed-for affirmation of the self, which has ironically dominated the political forefront of countries with liberalist agendas. Such an agenda has sought to celebrate individualism, exalt every trait and concern of the individual, in order to allow him/her to grow to be healthy, wholesome, unique. Rather than that, these steps in the direction of caring for individualism, of pushing the liberalist agenda forward by recognizing every trait (and hence creating labels for everything) is fostering a culture of hypersensitivity, drowning the individual in a bucket of labels so that he/she is beginning to matter less and less.

African-Americans feel their identity to be threatened, especially by their White, American counterparts.

These labels do not manifest the ‘Who am I?’, but instead emphasize ‘What am I sensitive about?’ (Interestingly, and quite tellingly, as an indication of how labels are also relative, in Western and Central Europe this aspect of the liberalist agenda that exalts the individual is embraced by right-wing economic liberals and heavily criticized by left-wing radicals, whereas in the US it is resonant with what is seen as the progressive left.)

The growing trend of associating the label of ‘Ethnocide’ on the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in the United States has encouraged people from other cultures to wonder whether they are victims of the same phenomenon. Ethnocide it must be recalled, is the practice of destroying the soul of a people, as opposed to genocide which aims at decimating a whole genus or race. Ethnocide is the cultural assimilation of a non-dominant group by a dominant one, and the BLM movement has waved this card because African-Americans feel their identity to be threatened, especially by their White, American counterparts.

Yet, the distinction between pain and trauma slowly disintegrated. About twenty years ago, ‘trauma’ began to include experiences that were both physical and emotional, roping in a subjective element to is determination.  The label of ‘trauma’, or for that matter, ‘PTSD’ is now widely used, furthering the culture of ‘antifragility’, ‘safetysim’, or hypersensitivity that are weakening us.

One point must be stressed upon at the outset: the United States has for a long time been the ‘trend-setter’; the originator of most labels that have in no time, gained currency in other parts of the world. Raphael Lemkin for instance, knew that he had to come to the United States for his cause to gain legitimacy; for the label of ‘genocide’ to be recognized as a punishable crime.

Naturally if this country is where labels usually originate, there is a lot to say about how this process can and has gone wrong, for one of the insights one gains in a thorough study of anything, is that no system, no phenomenon, no process can be perfect.

So for example, the sensitivity we have developed to every remotely negative experience/reaction/feeling to external stimulus (of whatever form), and following that, our decision of affixing ourselves with an associative label (among the myriad of those to choose from) has made labelling—or self-labelling for that matter—rather effortless. Many of us now feel that in respecting the sensitivities of the other (to avoid the other from being ‘triggered’), we’re constantly having to walk on eggshells.

These practices of self-censure place barriers on communication, on the freedom of expressing ourselves, and while some groups may feel liberated by being given the chance to speak up, others feel threatened to express themselves in case their speech, or any part of it should encroach upon the sensitivities of an interlocutor.

The result: a constant atmosphere of tension and apprehension in which no speaker is at ease, and where one must necessarily begin with a barrage of disclaimers. (In the past few months, it has now become a requirement on several websites accepting submissions for novels, short stories, and other art work, to insert one or more disclaimers in case content may hurt the sensitivities of the reviewer/s).

Overall, a feeling of malaise seems to have crept in, especially (and ironically) in forums that are meant to foster creative thought and writing, and in the context of free speech, one of the pinnacles of liberalist constitutions, young writers, as validated by Sir Kazuo Ishiguro, seem to be intimidated and silenced.

It is justifiable that certain words should be used carefully, because of their meaning and purport, and the reactions they may stir up in marginalized groups suffering centuries of torture, oppression, and abuse, but the matter is quite another when one has to question whether it is legitimate for a writer from a dominant group to create characters in his/her novel who hail from a non-dominant one.

Questionable when one can no longer feel free to express a violent experience one has endured because it may expose a reader/listener/viewer to violence. If we don’t arm ourselves with our interior defences, or to put it a different way, develop and strengthen our immunity against external attacks, even the slightest, then all these labels, these shields, or the sources of distress they denote, would drown us, weaken us, and expose us to harsher threats later in life.

The end of the Cold War in the 1990s and the emergence of religiously motivated political groups on the international scene, made us aware of the role of religion in international conflicts. The Clash of Civilizations written by Samuel Huntington around this time, became central to decipher the political role of religion. Although it has been invalidated by numerous surveys that show that actually clashes occur mostly within civilizations (which are far from operating as homogenous monoliths), the thesis nevertheless remains politically influential.

In the current international context, this simplified vision of religion on the international scene has led to the exclusive focus on Islam and terrorism. This contributes to the misleading perception, that the scope and reach of terrorism in the name of God has grown out of control, that this violence is inspired by the specifics of the Islamic tradition and resilient to usual forms of compromise or negotiation. The reality is that all religious traditions can partake into political violence and challenge democracy.

Case in point: in the 1960s, the Catholic Church was seen as a major obstacle to democratization because of its support to authoritarian and military regimes from Franco in Spain to Pinochet in Chile. The ongoing radicalization of Buddhism in Myanmar or Hinduism in India are highlighting that shift to radicalism that can affect all traditions, not to mention the rise of global Orthodoxy that pursues international projects in contradiction with the international order. Regretfully, the systematic comparison of these modes of radicalization has yet to be undertaken.

I have repeatedly shown that the relevance of religion is not in the content of the religious  tradition per se but in the interactions between religious and political actors, institutions, and ideas. From this perspective, limiting Islam or any other religious tradition to beliefs or texts proves to be a dead end as the text can lead to opposite interpretations and mobilizations.

Instead, looking at the ways religious belonging and behaving intersect with political identities and behaviors solve the puzzle of apparently very secular projects leading to political battles over Islamically correct social behaviors, which are currently happening not only in Egypt, Iraq, Sudan to name a few but also India, Myanmar or Israel.

In other words, the social and political visibility of religion is not caused by an increase in personal beliefs or religiosity. People are not more fervent believers than they used to be, but their identification to religion has certainly shifted, creating a conjunction of religious and political identities that facilitate political mobilization and sometimes radical actions.

The politicization of religion in Muslim countries can be traced back to the building of the nation-state and the active role of “secular rulers” in reshaping the Islamic tradition.

Such a perspective requires a “longue durée”, historicized analysis that drastically challenges the rational choice centered theories that still dominate the field of radicalization and security studies.

To be more specific, the radicalization of religion is related to its nationalization. To be clear, most of religions within nations operate peacefully but to understand how and when religious identities or practices become radicalized, the starting point is the establishment of the modern political community a.k.a.  the nation.

Religion and National Community

For example, the politicization of religion in Muslim countries can be traced back to the building of the nation-state and the active role of “secular rulers” in reshaping the Islamic tradition. Nation-building put an end to the political  autonomy of religious institutions  that dominated the caliphal periods. It also went hand-in-hand with the homogenization of the populations inhabiting the nation’s territory.

That is why nation-building systematically omitted and sometimes eradicated particular ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups in order to create one nation defined by one religion and one language. This homogenization led to a politicized narrative of religion, that I have called political Islam.

With the rise of the nation-state, a congruence was created between Muslims of a certain religious obedience (for example, in the Sunni groups, Maleki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, and Hanafi schools) and bounded territory. Although the westernized elites were not always pious, they understood that they could not build a nation without including the belonging to Islam. To be clear, this readjustment to the national territory happened to all religious traditions but with different outcomes.

For example, Christianity in Europe at the time of the Reformation, saw its societal influence reordered by the nation-state, but also its doctrinal content redefined to make room for the state sovereignty over mundane matters. In the case of Islam, what I have called hegemonic forms of religion appeared.

Religious hegemony is not reflected in whether a state has an official religion but in a wide range of government religion policies found in many states without official religions.

It entails three main features:

– Absorption of the institutions and personnel of the religion into the state system while the other religions at best do not benefit from the same status or at worst lack legal recognition

– Inclusion of some of religious prescriptions within the legal system (family law, blasphemy)

– Shaping of the national narrative by making the belonging to the hegemonic religion the by default civic and national identity of all citizens.

In other words, religious hegemony refers to exclusive legal and political privileges granted to a specific religious group, and the association of this religion with citizenship and national belonging, while all other religious groups are marginalized. This nationalization of religion also happened in Buddhist countries like Thailand, Myanmar or Butan. Surveys show that states with hegemonic religions tend to be less democratic, independently of the specificity of the religious tradition.

Judaism, along the same line, has become a hegemonic religion in Israel, hence fueling discrimination against other religious minorities as well as uncompromising positions vis-à-vis the Palestinian claims. That is a sharp departure from the status of Jewish minorities in Europe where they had adapted to the secular national contexts by disconnecting their religious belonging from allegiance to the European political communities. We see the same trend of hegemonic Hinduism expressed in Hinduist movements that now dominate the political scene in the originally secular Indian democracy.

Additionally, global radical groups like Al Quaida or ISIS do not represent a return to pre-national forms of Islam. Quite the contrary: They are the result of dissemination of concepts that were originally framed within nations but now have spread beyond national boundaries. In other words, the existing forms of global Jihad are the transnational versions s of the interpretations of Sayyid Qutb (initially aimed at fighting against the national unjust ruler), combined with the Wahhabi doctrine which is also a modern (albeit not a modernist) religious interpretation.

Unlike the forms of national Jihad, the transnational dimension of the global Jihad appeals to young Muslims across countries because it offers and idealized and imagined Community of Believers all united in one single goal. In other words, to understand the radical forms of Islam today, it is more relevant to look into the political and cultural socialization of the activists than into their level of piety or the content of the Islamic tradition.

This nationalization and globalization of religion is also visible in Christian majority countries. Although religious diversity and pluralism in the U.S. has increased over recent decades, Christians remain the largest religious group in the country. Seemingly paradoxically, this increase in religious diversity has also been accompanied by an increase in the view of America as a Christian country. Like in Muslim countries, such a perspective remains for most Christian citizens symbolic without becoming intolerant or radical.