XXXXIV. Chaos and the Future of Human Dialogue

From a standpoint of civic engagement, this could be another cultural crossroads, where the time we communicate with each other through technology is higher than the actual time we speak face to face. While more linkage with each other isn’t necessarily bad, there is a tendency to do and say things we normally wouldn’t when there is a bit of a curtain between us. Trained to hear and see anything possible via social media, shocking our systems becomes even more difficult to do. Who would’ve thought that a presidential debate would have devolved into talking points with outright racism, crowd-size conniption fits, and consuming canines for dinner?

While this entertains a part of us, our psyche takes a beating. Our brains, probably as unique as our fingerprints, struggle with how to define success, what is fact or fiction, and how many lies are too many lies. I can’t tell whether we are more influenced by what our leaders are doing, or whether our leaders are simply mimicking what we are doing with each other.

via GIPHY

As someone who has run for office, I am naturally attracted to political discourse, though I can attest to the frustration of navigating these quasi-journalistic efforts and over-orchestrated public forums. The rigid time constraints and formulaic structure leave little room for genuine engagement, so it becomes even more important to say something memorable, not necessarily truthful. If this is the goal, I would much rather engage in some zesty exchanges like those witnessed in the British Parliament, where ideas clash and policies are scrutinized in real time. It’s entertaining and somewhat rehearsed, but it at least doesn’t make me feel dumber.

But the problem extends far beyond the debate stage. Our entire culture appears angry, greedy, and selfish. While these less savory aspects of human nature have always existed, the digital age just keeps feeding it, as the algorithms are known to be built to magnify more negative interactions.

So, what is true?

Authorities recently arrested Telegram's creator for providing a platform that facilitated all sorts of illicit trade. Elon Musk's standoff with Brazilian authorities over X is really about him giving access to right-wing provocateurs intent on attacking the government. Discord and Facebook say they constantly struggle to curb the spread of hate speech and disinformation.

But these incidents are not isolated; they are symptoms of a deeper malaise affecting our digital public square. Our lack of ensuring regulation against uncivil speech may level a competition that does not need to exist. There are irrational people among us, and the claim that these tech giants lack the means to control the content on their platforms rings hollow. Though I am loath to use them as an example, we've seen authoritarian regimes like China and Russia exert iron-fisted control over their citizens' online activities, throttling access and blocking dissent with alarming efficiency. If such restrictive measures are possible, surely more nuanced and ethically sound content moderation is within reach of our own Silicon Valley.

But that’s only part of the solution.

We should be able to police ourselves. We used to know an idiot when we heard one. The crux of the matter lies not only in technological access. We should have enough grit to not let the haters control the forum. We expect a civilized society to act civilly, relying on our education systems and familial structures to instill values of respect and empathy. When it doesn’t occur, we shouldn’t be so willing to give them a platform.

So, what is to be done? How can we reclaim our digital public square and, by extension, elevate ourselves and our political discourse?

First, we must recognize that the onus of change is on us. For every negative interaction online, strive to create three positive ones. For every lie, speak three truths. Always remember that others are reading.

Second, we need to demand more from our educational institutions. Digital literacy and critical thinking skills should be as fundamental to curriculum as reading and arithmetic. There is way too much of just getting it done without things taking root. Discerning fact from fiction and engaging in respectful debate are a necessity to a healthy society, lest we be led astray by nuts with too much money.

Third, social media companies must be held accountable for the ecosystems they've created. While respecting free speech principles, these platforms must invest more heavily in sophisticated content moderation systems that can distinguish between reasonable debate and harmful rhetoric. That’s what public regulation is intended to do, and it needs to be much more aggressive.

Fourth, our political leaders must lead by example. The theatrics of debate stages should give way to more substantive, authentic, less scripted exchanges. Town halls, extended interviews, and cross-party dialogues should be encouraged and given prime-time slots. Part of the rise of a candidate like Trump is a lack of engagement in ad hoc non-scripted public meetings and a lack of accountability demanded by real journalistic establishments.

Lastly, as citizens, we do have a civic responsibility to stay engaged and informed, without so much focus on being right or getting the last word. It's easy to retreat into the comfort of like-minded communities, both online and off. But the health of our democracy depends on our willingness to engage with diverse perspectives and to challenge our own assumptions, or the assumptions the nuts would have us believe.

In the end, the digital public square is a reflection of us all, and it's high time we expect better of our collective selves.

• A reminder that these issues are entirely made up. 

• Here’s an ER doctor’s take on gun laws.

• Speaking of communication, a new book out next week says democracy can be saved by voting with our phones.

• I know Chelsea, the mother of the cause below. Help this working-class public servant get a health care service for her son.

You're going to keep hearing about this because they have turned it into a political issue with tariffs. This article is less balanced than it should be. The Chinese and US auto markets are different in at least two regards. One difference is that the Chinese government heavily subsidizes the industry. The US industry relies heavily on a private market that has promoted great inequities. Don’t buy into any solutions that include lowering the pay of frontline workers. While the American home-grown industry needs to be protected (or subsidized) the same as other countries do, the solution is going to be in much more fair pay approaches that don’t rely on the “vision” of some of these so-called visionaries. It is also going to be reliant on lower prices, probably through tax write-offs. I’m not sure what will ultimately occur, but the future is not in large, expensive gas vehicles. It does not take an overpaid CEO to see that.

Cuban is from the billionaire crowd, but he has done a couple of things I admire. One, he uses his money where profit is not the endgame, and two, he’s not afraid to be his authentic self. This is a great read because it covers so much ground. He’s right on several aspects that public service and health care need improvement, though he believes AI and entrepreneurs will do the improving. Here’s a small snip of the interview:

What’s your biggest concern about Donald Trump?

When I talk to Trumpers, I’m like, “Look, the guy rips off hard-working Americans and takes pride in it. Is that who you want? The guy doesn’t believe in climate change. Are you 100 percent certain about climate change? No? Well maybe there’s a 1 percent chance. Are you willing to take a 1 percent chance that your kids are fucked, your grandkids are fucked?”

Long read alert on this one, but it is a good read indeed. There are a lot of questions about what AI is accomplishing and where it is headed. AI will ironically offer a “human touch” such as in senior centers where real human interaction is limited (moreso because of the longterm care private business model, but that’s another discussion). I am on the optimistic side for what AI can bring, but I’m not naive enough to miss how it can be abused. A rise in unions, wages, and quality jobs must accompany the rise of AI or we are going to cause unnecessary economic turmoil.

In this essay, Preston the author encounters new digital avatars and AI tools designed to analyze, assist, and even replace human communication, for example, to address senior loneliness and enhance healthcare. Yet, as Preston observes, this hyper abundance of artificial companionship raises profound questions about human connection and the value we place on authentic experiences. The battle to come is whether we pay humans to be human or AI to be human for us.

This is beautiful and the genuine type of leadership we need to see more of. There’s been so much negativity masquerading as leadership, we forget what it is to do something hard and be proud of it. Let’s take a moment to appreciate the good side of sports. Northern Illinois, unranked in a David & Goliath competition, knocked off #5 ranked Notre Dame, which may go down as the biggest upset this year with most of the college football year still left. Here’s what authenticity looks like. Pride in your work. Pride in your people. I felt this way with every team I've been a part of. You want the best out of them, and for them. When you get to my age, the dad or coach age, you want to give something back, to share your experiences, and prove that things have been worth the battle. This coach feels it, and he lets it show. This is authentic leadership. You don’t need to know football to know this. 

And Now….

Instead of the usual music, this time I’ll share a little music with a bit of dance to finish off. There is plenty to be happy about and proud of. Negative campaigning serves a certain purpose. Be aware of it.

Keep up your reading habits, remember to be grateful, and keep sewing good seeds.