Are social media countercultural technologies? Lol, no.

“God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil.”

- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile (1762)

When John Dewey wrote in 1916, he was responding, in part, to the popular Rousseauian ideal of a return to nature as a prescription for education reform. Dewey felt this was incomplete, pointing out that “to leave everything to nature was, after all, [] to negate the very idea of education; it was to trust the accidents of circumstance” in our conjoined living experiment known as democracy.

In the post-industrial, internet age, we find ourselves in the same pickle. Only now, we have added the complications of internet technology. Tech entrepreneurs would have us trust the “natural” effects of the internet on democracy. We must disabuse ourselves, however, of the idea that tech entrepreneurship comes from an authentic desire to change the world for the better. They are far from countercultural actors. Ignoring the accidents of circumstance that are emerging from their laissez-faire approach to direct democracy is already having devastating, border-spanning consequences.

Counterculturalism, by definition, challenges the status quo, and the current economic structure of the internet — directed by their primary influencers as a neoliberal (market first, government intervention last) project—has failed to produce social transformation. The explicit acceptance of toxic behavior as protected by a libertarian ideal of free expression is a project of profit maximization, not societal progress. It’s not connecting people so much as it is ensuring their isolation.

While the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960’s — from which Silicon Valley emerged — carried forth challenges to the industrial production model with heterarchical order and commons-based production¹ (as well as some sexual and psychedelic experimentation, woo), a far more sweeping, capitalist ethos obstructs societal progress in these decades that followed. By the internet age, an emphasis on valorizing markets and profits ensured the strict adherence to “a project to strengthen… the power of economic elites”² instead of bringing diverse voices or any into the public sphere. After all, the post-industrial, so-called counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s itself was terrain explored almost exclusively by white, upper-middle-class “pioneers” who did far more to invade upon and benefit from communities of color than they did to elevate them.

In the decades that followed, these “countercultural” practitioners who became Silicon Valley’s elite have repeatedly fought against moving the needle on gender equality, racial integration, or gay rights… unless they knew it would positively affect the bottom line. This is not to say that technology doesn’t have a role in combating these issues now or in the future, but without intervention for the sake of the public interest, the profits of the few will continue to be funded with the social cost of the many.

The Problem: Cloistered Communities

Carmen Hermosillo, better known by her online handle “humdog”, was an early observer and theorist of our societal echoes in cyberspace. Her standpoint³ as a queer woman of color — in a space dominated by white, cisgendered men who extratextually identified her as male — gave her unique perspective with which to understand the emerging social space she inhabited.

With a better perspective on what was emerging, she wrote presciently on the internet before the turn of the century. In her most famous piece, , she noticed that “so-called electronic communities encourage participation in fragmented, mostly silent, microgroups who are primarily engaged in dialogues of self-congratulation. in other words, most people lurk; and the ones who post, are pleased with themselves.” While cloistering can have counter-hegemonic benefits for marginalized groups⁴, groups she was able to find for herself, the phenomenon occurs just as easily in spaces interested in preserving the status quo; there are two-tails to the distribution. And because of their fragmented, masturbatory nature, it breeds antagonistic contact between opposing groups as opposed to a liberating and diverse public sphere predicted by some academics⁵.

The Incentive: Hate for Profit

Many misogynistic and racist spaces emerge and reside in dark (and more recently, not dark at all) corners of the internet such as 4chan or deep sub-Reddit pages. There, the historically-grounded, classically-liberal stance towards individual expression undergirds discourse and, by extension, the economic engine of the internet. The affordances of internet technology allow for safer, counter-hegemonic spaces for #BlackLivesMatter but also coalitions of Nazis. The affordances of anonymity, too, are a double-edged sword: Where it on one hand can protect individuals from targeted harassment, on the other it allows individuals to perform targeted harassment without accountability. At scale, this same bifurcated, “natural” result can shape governments and swing elections, which in turn, again shape the affordances.

And these affordances are no accident. They are part and parcel of how expression is commodified on the internet. These social interactions do not happen in a vacuum but exist in a myriad of private, online spaces that accrue significant capital for companies that provide access with physical hardware, surreptitiously harvest personal data from user input for advertising⁶, or both. Humdog, still our prescient guide, points out that

The tech platforms have little desire to draw attention to themselves or become entangled with the communities themselves, whose actions they tacitly approve by eschewing accountability. While Twitter, Facebook and others might point to the inclusion of historically excluded voices or revolutionary activism under oppressive regimes, they remain culpable for the preservation of the status quo by adhering to the convenience of being a — a key legal category — and not a content provider like any media company that would otherwise have to regulate content to avoid liability. In the US, the privileged status as a platform comes from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It gives tech companies broad legal immunity from the content their users post on their platforms.

This has been the de facto protection that companies have employed and continue to employ, not just from Facebook and Twitter. Small-scale chat app Yik Yak has refused to police anonymous harassment on college campuses. Retail giant Amazon refuses to be responsible for dangerous products or misleading reviews on their site.

Amazon’s boiler-plate response to community policing of fake reviews is to threaten and ban community members.

A catastrophic recent example was how Twitter-alternative Gab provided a venue for the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter to develop a murderous, anti-Semitic ideology that resulted in the shooting of nearly a dozen Jews in their place of worship. Platforms are incentivized to avoid confronting these issues to keep users on their base for advertising or subscription, and the primary victims are going to be already marginalized groups.

The Result: Transcoding (misogyny, among other things) to Mainstream

Google engineer James D’amore, apparently upset by sensitivity training he had to participate in, penned a 10-page, misogynistic manifesto entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” that argued women are inferior engineers to men because they are excessively neurotic. He circulated it among his fellow employees on an internal message service and was quickly fired for what are odious, incorrect, and archaic views of gender. His piece cites studies whose authors come forward and explain he misrepresented or misinterpreted their findings and D’amore even links the Wikipedia page for neuroticism as evidence. He was fired.

Fellow Google engineer Yonatan Zunger, who departed the company shortly after this event for different reasons, wrote in his blog to D’amore, justifying his firing by pointing out that he

The popular reaction, however, was categorical in almost the complete opposite respect. Both right-wing and left-wing publications centered the issue around the question of censorship, as opposed to misogyny, as if the issue somehow wasn’t settled science or broadly understood.

Wired’s cover story platformed D’amore’s nonsensical views, positioning him as a champion of free speech instead of an idiot who put his foot in his mouth.

The irony of the historical record is that the very word “computer” was originally coined for the hundreds of who did ballistic missile calculations and perform programming operations on ENIAC, America’s first electronic computer. Jennifer Light’s 1999 piece,, points out that this machine would ultimately

The D’amore event demonstrated how the cultural effect would emerge from the economic values of the internet and move into real life; the popular reaction mirrored the libertarian ethos of the internet and censorship, the negative freedom (freedom “from” not freedom “to”) of the 1st amendment that values speakers over speech.

This is a larger case of what Lev Manovich (2001) coined as , a phenomenon of major conceptual transfer between media and culture. Media and culture are perpetually having influential two-way conversations: Media influences society, and society influences media. In speaking about contemporary, computer-created “new media,” Manovich explains that media and culture “are being composited together. The result of this composite is the new computer culture: a blend of human and computer meanings, of traditional ways human culture modeled the world and computer’s own ways to represent it.”

Businesses on social media have begun to assume personality traits to intentionally blur the line between human and for-profit organization.

With Manovich as a lens we can see how neoliberal internet platforms and their regressive cloisters have preserved “truths” about gender or for-profit companies instead of allowing clearer understandings.

The internet has become a capital production model that subsumes the social. It captures your daily life as well as your most private/personal understandings. They are being monitored by a system that is attached to commercial processes. But as Terranova (2000) points out that

With this understanding, we can better understand its impact on democracy. Returning to Dewey from over a century ago remind us that this problem existed before the internet and will persist through it.

The deeper penetration of the movement into the social consciousness hasn’t been a challenge to the status quo with greater freedoms for all, as Silicon Valley elites might suggest, but it has instead been a boon for capital and privileges only to the elites themselves. We are being overwhelmed by these changes; it’s past time that we hold those that have the fortunate position accountable.

is feminist theory inspired by Hegel’s work understanding standpoints between slaves and their owners in the early 19th century. It was first adopted for understanding gender by Harstock (1983).

⁴ Fraser (1990) theorizes an expansion of Habermas’s concept of the. She argues that the ability for marginalized individuals to find each other and form safe communities can serve to challenge the status quo. Habermas largely ignores the colonial reality of inequities due to race, gender, or class that can render his proposed market solutions of public debate inert. It is important to remember that actual revolution, historically, is led by the poor and disenfranchised and not the bourgeoisie elite. Fraser (1990) contested, among other things, that equality must not be ignored and brought in the idea of “rough equalities” that are more realistic than Habermas’s absolutes. She points to secretization from the point of the view of the subaltern as not necessarily detrimental to the nature of democracy. Marginalized groups that splinter partially away from a single, dominant public sphere can become “bases [or] training grounds for agitational activities directed toward wider publics” in interest of achieving greater power or equity.

Works Cited

Dewey, J. (1916). Macmillan.

⁵ Diamond, Larry. “Liberation technology.” Journal of Democracy 21, no. 3 (2010): 69–83.

⁴ Fraser, Nancy. “Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy.” Social text 25/26 (1990): 56–80.

⁷ Gillespie, Tarleton. “The politics of ‘platforms’.” 12, no. 3 (2010): 347–364.

Habermas, J., (1991). . MIT press.

Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Femi- nism and the Priviledge of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14:575–99.

² Harvey, David. . New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

humdog. “Pandora’s Vox: On Community in Cyberspace.” . Ed. Peter Ludlow. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996. 437–444.

⁵ Lessig, Lawrence. . Penguin, 2008.

Jennifer S. Light. “When Computers Were Women.” , Vol. 40, №3 (July, 1999), pp. 455–483

Terranova, Tiziana. “Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy.” 18, no. 2 (2000): 33–58.

¹ Turner, Fred. “Where the Counterculture Met the New Economy: The WELL and the Origins of Virtual Community.” , Vol.46, №3 (July, 2005), pp. 485–512.

¹ Turner, Fred. “Burning Man at Google: A Cultural Infrastructure for New Media Production.” , Vol.11, №1–2 (April, 2009), 145–66.

Lev Manovich, “Principles of New Media,” from Manovich, . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001. 27–48. (read manuscript on Canvas, pp.43–66)

⁶ ⁸ Zuboff, Shoshana. “Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization.” 30, no. 1 (2015): 75–89.

Zunger, Y. (2017). So, about this Googler’s manifesto. . Retrieved from: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

PhD candidate at Stanford's Graduate School of Education. @mcgrudis for everything online

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store