社交媒体对社会和安全的威胁

Feb 14, 2018 George Soros

发自慕尼黑——如果世界历史的视角上看，当前这一段时间应该属于苦痛的时期。开放社会处于危机之中，以普京俄罗斯为代表的各类独裁政权和黑手党国家纷纷崛起。在美国，特朗普也试图建立自己的黑手党式国家，幸好宪法，其他机构体系以及充满活力的民间社会把他按住了。

不仅开放社会的存续状况堪忧，我们整个文明的生存都受到了威胁。像朝鲜的金正恩以及美国的特朗普这类领导人的崛起与此有很大关系。为了维护自己的权力，两国似乎都愿意去冒一场核战争的风险。其实还存在着更深层次的根本原因：人类为建设性和破坏性目的利用自然力量的能力在不断增长，而我们管理自身的能力却依然时高时低，并且目前处于低水平状态。

美国巨型互联网平台企业的崛起和垄断行为正在对美国政府的无能产生巨大影响。这些公司经常承担着创新和开放者的角色。但随着脸书和谷歌的日益发展壮大，它们已经成为了创新的障碍，并导致了种种我们如今才开始意识到的问题。

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world’s leading thinkers, including long reads, book reviews, topical collections, short-form analysis and predictions, and exclusive interviews; every new issue of the PS Quarterly magazine (print and digital); the complete PS archive; and more. Subscribe now to PS Premium.

George Soros

Writing for PS since 1997
121 Commentaries

George Soros is Chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Foundations. A pioneer of the hedge-fund industry, he is the author of many books, including The Alchemy of Finance, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What it Means, and The Tragedy of the European Union: Disintegration or Revival? His most recent book is In Defense of Open Society (Public Affairs, 2019).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 70 Comments on this article

Sadi Yumuşak Jan 2, 2019

If I didn't misunderstand the main message here, Mr. Chairman of the Open Society Foundations demands more regulation and less openness!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sadi Yumuşak Jan 2, 2019

Some may also argue that Mr. Soros "have neither the will nor the inclination to protect society against the consequences of their actions." And with this logic that turns Mr. Soros into "a public menace". ;-)
Anyway, how do you know that Facebook has "neither the will nor the inclination to protect society against the consequences of their actions"? And specifically what sort of Facebook actions do you have in mind?
Above all, what are you trying to get in terms of having a more "open society"? A strong censorhip on social media???
Mr. Soros should have been more open and clearer. ;-)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sadi Yumuşak Jan 2, 2019

"The rise of leaders such as Kim Jong-un in North Korea"? The red terror dynasty of Kim family has been there since when??? ;-) Why do you have to twist the facts to suit your distorted perspective?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Sweeney Jan 2, 2019

The social networks are an outburst of what the population actually thinks. They are not public menaces; they are essential expressions of popular thought.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Sweeney Jan 2, 2019

George Soros, the mind reader!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rosie Darko Jun 1, 2018

That strange doctrine sounds not too different from China's tech for market.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
midhilesh momidi Apr 21, 2018

This is a logical misinterpretation because Facebook have to compete with rivals which are going to come in future as well as have to face rivals from other companies and should not lose its integrity.
All these factors will come into picture for the rise of any comapany
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Wolff Feb 24, 2018

In the US siloed institutions propagandize and politicize issue for their own gain and dominance. The success of an institution is measured in money and power. Owners and workers for those institutions act aggressively in the service of their own institution, in combat with other institutions, wittingly or unwittingly.
The Nordic concept that what is good for 'The People' supersedes what is good for the siloed institution and its supporters is a socialist concept, not a free market concept, and means government regulation of institutions to ensure their disparate activities support an agreeable and successful 'community of all'.
Needless to say, US siloed institutional culture is in combat with government regulatory efforts to create an agreeable society in America that is good for 'The People'.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kevin Parlon Feb 24, 2018

Lest anyone be confused about what Guy is *really* asking for, you should know that what he is really saying is that Brussels should have control over the internet.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew (Andy) Crow Feb 19, 2018

"In the United States, President Donald Trump would like to establish his own mafia-style state but cannot, because the Constitution, other institutions, and a vibrant civil society won’t allow it."

If that's where you start you aren't going anywhere interesting , George. I'll not waste my time.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Douglas Leyendecker Feb 19, 2018

Maybe the choices of individuals will be their undoing while regulation and taxation will just perpetuate them.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Douglas Leyendecker Feb 19, 2018

Outside of Germany, Europe also has a slower economy and larger sovereign debt to GDP than the United States.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Douglas Leyendecker Feb 19, 2018

Nordic countries are homogeneous. There is no way we can use them as a template for the United States, the least homogeneous country in the world. This isn't apples to apples. This is apples to snails.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Douglas Leyendecker Feb 19, 2018

Driver less cars are the Segway idea of this generation.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Douglas Leyendecker Feb 19, 2018

It's not just social media that exploits society it's traditional media as well. The "news" is also totally beholden to advertising. The more minds they capture the more advertising revenue they earn, the more salaries they are paid and the more profits they make. "Free speech" today isn't free, it's beholden to advertisers and the strategies needed to capture their dollars.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Douglas Leyendecker Feb 19, 2018

My freshman in high school abhors social media and he's pretty sure government is trying to control everything, so he has become skeptical of all institutions. Thank goodness.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
tom bergerson Feb 18, 2018

The idea that we must protect people because we cannot trust them to think critically on their own is a very dangerous one. The idea we must use government to decide what can get published into the marketplace of ideas is even more dangerous. Somehow Soros has twisted his own philosophical learnings into the opposite of what he professes to value. Great trader, dangerous and misguided thinker.
- Mark Dallas Feb 18, 2018
  
  I think you need to re-read his writing. Please point out the sentence where he says "we must use gov't to decide what can get published"? I don't see that anywhere. He wants to OPEN things further and not put all information TRANSMISSION (as opposed to CONTENT) in the hands of multiple players so it is not monopolized by a few corporations. It seemed pretty clear to me....
  - Steve Hurst Feb 18, 2018
    
    M Dallas, Soros has no mandate so is simply a lobbyist. Furthermore he appears a petulant lobbyist. For example when his recent 400K GBP funding of a anti brexit group was criticised he added another 100K because he was being criticised. That sort of maturity is not welcome with anything important. Soros does not change the number of multinational players on the internet
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tim Morgan Feb 18, 2018

We need to get away from the idea that fake news was invented by "populists", or by Russia, for that matter. "Spin" and "spin doctors" long pre-date Trump or Farage. The establishment has always used "spin" and fake news. The establishment only objects to it when it's being done by someone else.

A solution to social media might be found through market principles. The same logic which broke up Standard Oil and AT&T applies to the tech giants, but today's politicians lack the guts (or the integrity?) to act.
- Mark Dallas Feb 18, 2018
  
  Interesting, but there is a difference between "spin" and "fake news." Spin is agreeing on the same basic facts (let's say what journalists have found through interviews, data, etc), but INTERPRETING it through a different "frame" or lens. Fake news is claiming that journalists are just making up stories and information and data (like fiction writers). Such as when Trump said that there were more people at his Inauguration than ever before, ignoring the EVIDENCE of two pictures of Obama and Trump put side-to-side.
  - Tim Morgan Feb 18, 2018
    
    Understood. But, when Tony Blair stated that Iraq could strike with WMDs in 45 minutes, was that spin - or fake news?
    
    My view was, and is, that the Bush and Blair governments matched anything Trump could do when it comes to "fake" news.
    - Mark Dallas Feb 18, 2018
      
      That is fake news of the most dangerous type -- created by our elected leaders (perhaps fed to them by their advisers with their own interests) with the power over life and death. IF HOWEVER, when the US Intelligence agencies later declared that there was no evidence of WMD in Irag AND Bush/Blair STILL insisted that the pictures were falsified or somehow undermined the integrity of the intelligence agencies by claiming "fake news" (think: Trump), then you've got a much more dangerous leader. Bush/Blair did not go there, as far as I remember.
      - Steve Hurst Feb 18, 2018
        
        M Dallas, I'm not interested in excuses or 'we got it wrong' type messaging re war from Blair or Bush just that it went ahead against democratic opposition, certainly in the UK. The 'not in my name' protest was ignored. Blair still argues what he did was justified when it wasnt
        
        Mark Dallas Feb 18, 2018
        
        Steve, the original debate is about what is "spin" and what is "fake news" so your comment is a non sequitor. Blair/Bush is just an example. But, regardless, your memory seems short. During the war 54% of Brits SUPPORTED the war -- unfortunately, democracy is sometimes wrong. (I was in the streets in San Francisco protesting the war, so I'm not pro-war....I am simply trying to define terms and use evidence to examine issues). Here is the UK opinion polls (I would guess that the US numbers were even higher):
        
        https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/03/remembering-iraq/
        
        Steve Hurst Feb 19, 2018
        
        M Dallas. I dont think a 54% support for war is that surprising when a charismatic leader who believes he is guided by god is pounding the desk and propounding there are WMD. The point is substantial concern about the war prospect and the 'not in my name' opposition was never even discussed. There was no debate. Somewhere recently I posted the Scott Adams article about how Trump works but here it is again -
        http://uk.businessinsider.com/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-explains-trumps-persuasion-style-2017-10
        Focus as shown in this article on commercial aka social media manipulation whilst the antics of Trump and Blair are a background without any mention of that is just a joke
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alex Aslanidis Feb 18, 2018

Soros' article represents a smokescreen. While I agree that social media are a mural of idiocy, the real problem is the dire economic consequences of liberal trade and free capital flows. It is these which are causing the turn towards less liberal behaviors, simply because it is understood that once the nation-state is freed of the burden of depressing it's economy out of fear that benefits will be spent on imports (or make it's exports less competitive), then it will take care of it's citizens.

Also, like others, I have to agree that Soros' applaud of the European Union (and the miserable Eurozone) are inexplicable.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Feb 18, 2018

"Freedom" is great when it allows the Gated Community crowd to attack and destroy society, but "freedom" is bad when it enables the people to rebel. Soros has no use for freedom, much less democracy. His goal is anti-democratic neoliberalism, nothing more, nothing less. That's his idea of paradise for the sheltered elites. A grim world for everyone else.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lasse Laine Feb 18, 2018

I tried to chat my answer to a new,social contact won on a social forum chat in USA.
Here is the part of my message:
"...
Holistic kind of Real Change- a new level of cultural evolution if gone thr.-publicly. Probably an kind of social-economic-political-cultural process which takes some generations. Power people find propably a suitable person as a public hero so such ..within their own network,thus controllable..
Never mind,soul powers are working even behind- in spite of discrimination,blackmailing,marginalization and such.Good even to be an authentic man,not a historic puppy-dictator,living as a SocialSelf-focused personality,not as a soul-conscious individual.

Good luck to your business xxx
Your friend Lasse T L Uppsala,Sweden

#uskottavuusloikka in Twitter with my native language,in Swedish and English too
(translated in English: what is needed to make me trustworthy or step by step forward to the social status and getting through with my Real Change-message- difficult to translate word by word)"

I did't got through with my sending. Facebook answered that the link leaded to a third party website.I wonder if this was the whole content of motivation,as found that some of my F-comments were followed,or that some third party groups- using F-book, categorized my factual descriptions what had happened to me in my alternative thinker-career (read: non-career) when trying to develope my new paradigm of science or manydimensional view (theory) of Reality and Man. When they (that network defined my facta/experienced data based story-comment to another person's life-experiences as an immigrant from Latin America in Austria as spam,I answer with criticism of that and then shut of my contact with them.

Thus,back to Soros and his criticism. Facebook and Google follow in their business the mostly the current values of their societies and current views of reality and man. I have yet found that they have not closed my alternative thinker stories or trying to make business about my alternative thinking,as nowadays science,media,political and cultural circles in Northern countries have been silent and totally tried to marginalize my effort to come through with my proposals and new theories to explain anomalous psi-data and other anomalous,empirical data questioning our current views of Space,Time and ourselves. Soros surely don´t know about my new value theory,with which I have made proposal for a new kind of economic theory which is different from current NeoClassical theory. Nor about my proposal for a new kind of "relativized market-theory"-maybe a new level of market- with the help of computerization.Thus as those "basic organisations" in science-world,other media,politics have already silenced the new message. Or my proposal/model/ for a new kind of project-payment form M.O. (Management Option) which can even be used as a threefold secure derivate instrument,and help social equality policies if used in public projects too.

Then anather perspective: suppose that psi-forces and abilities are much better than those of computers and/or A I . Thus, if the computerized world becames hinder for global evolution,the intellectuals abandon internet,use more psi and personal meetings.Much depends how those,owning these big companies,see themselves as a human being: through the current view of Man through Personality criterias- social roles,statuses,wealth,ethnicity etc- or as a authentic Individuals- soul conscious beings who see other people valueable too,even if not as rich as they themselves. In my new,manydimensional view Mind-Soul entities are real and survive the death of physical body and reincarnate in new bodies,according to their mental-ethical evolution.
In summary,I like Soros' writings as a good and interesting article,quite in the spirit of J.S.Mill and myself and hope good effects of this conversation too.
Lasse T Laine
philosopher-social scientist,writer,entrepreneur
Uppsala,Sweden
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christine Constable Feb 18, 2018

Mr Soros, I can't believe your article is decrying the very mechanisms through which you amassed your vast wealth, not least of all you trying to bankrupt the British people following the Black Wednesday collapse (read it if you missed it!)

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-bank-of-england.asp.

Much of what you argue against you, and people like you created it! Equally, your rabid defence of the EU is inexplicable - when many of the same dysfunctional issues are present in the EU: corruption; lying; false truths; deception; bullying and harassment etc this makes your blind support of the EU all the more puzzling???

Constitutions - the EU had a new Constitution which was renamed the Lisbon Treaty because the EU knew few if any Parliaments in the EU would pass it - the EU eradicated involvement by the people in the setting of their new European Constitution, it was made by appointees and steam rollered through Europe as a new Treaty when in fact it was a massive theft of national sovereignty.

The Internet - you complain about the Internet, but actually this is the most free medium the peoples of the world have had for generations. In Germany newspapers refuse to carry anti EU messages or allow people to speak, in fact much of the EU media is owned and controlled by pro EU views, even the BBC was captured by the EU through funding grants and their dirty tricks department and rebuttal offices have been working overtime to savage the democratic decision of the UK to leave the failing bloc. The internet is probably the only place people can find others who are as concerned about the death of democracy as they are and are stile (for the time being) allowed to speak freely.

Rich and successful people dominating the debate - I hope you are also including yourself Mr Soros, your unwelcome intereference in a democratic vote of the British people to leave the EU is a matter for us, not for you and certainly it is none of your business to try and turn a democratic vote or to give succour to those who would shun democracy. Please don't lecture us about people like Putin setting up Mafia States, the UK is one of the few countries where we can still think for ourselves and can see a danger coming when we see it, we saw that with the EUSSR! And sadly Mr Soros despite any good intentions you may have, all we can see (in you) is a very rich person, grown fat on the suffering of others telling us how our democracy should be run and that it should be run in a way that pleases you - if that is not terrifying I really don't know what is?

The Brexit issue, is a well founded fear of being subsumed by an unaccountable European Superstate masquerading as a benign bridge to prosperity and co-operation. However, when you look closely, you can see it was created to fool and entrap Europe and for the people of Britain, who would NEVER have voted to throw their sovereignty away to a German dominated Europe, a process of stripping away our rights; freedoms; control and sovereignty over our country has been a dastardly act perpetrated by all the political elites against their peoples and aided and abetted by questionable powerful people such as yourself.

One would like to imagine as you come to the end of your life how people will view your legacy Mr Soros? Have you helped to create employment in Africa? Have you sought to expose corruption and exploitation of the weak against the strong - or have you profited from the exploitation of others? And now lecture those you have stripped of their wealth that your way is the right way??

Apart from Bill Gates, there are very few extremely rich people I admire, being able to buy your view of the world is a whole different ball game to persuading people that you are right, and sadly Mr Soros, you and the EU because of the explotation; the lack of democracy and the lies are very wrong indeed.

Let the British leave in peace and get on with their choice to leave the EU - if you care anything for freedom and democracy you surely can see that the EU is very very far from that with absolutely no chance of every changing. Why would oyu want to condemn millions to another authoritarian regime, having just thrown off the chains of Communism - I find your logic alarming.
- Luis A. Guerra Mar 6, 2018
  
  Oh dear!!! This coming from a "subject" of a Crown and once empire that has a long track record of breaking up anything that doesn't benefit its own interests... - India/Pakistan, China/Hong Kong, Israel/Palestine, Ireland North/Ireland South - and so forth.
  So, do not try to cover up the British historic lack of commitment to partnerships and the common good with a tailor-made and self-serving “freedom” excuse.
  England was never committed to the European Union… so much so that it never embraced the Euro and certainly it did nothing to make the European union better and feasible.
  Further, do not satanize others such as Mr. Soros in an attempt to justify your own country’s shortcomings and try to re-direct the attention to the messenger instead of the message.
  Mr. Soros is not my cup of tea and I am certainly critical of some of his business dealings as I am of the dealings and on going market manipulation of many mayor banks as well as government and official economic institutions.
  That though has no bearing on the quality and propriety of Mr. Soros analysis and the concepts expressed in his article.
  I think Mr. Soros analysis of the potential social and economic dangers of the current state of social media in most parts of the world is absolutely valid and even accurate. Further, I am deeply concerned with the uncertainties on the impact that the ever faster deployment of communications technology - we are months away from the deployment of 5G - as well as the roll out of AI will have in the evolution of social media as well as the life of people across the globe and hence on the social, economic and political fabric of the current human existence paradigm.
  My concern about Mr. Soros most valid comments has taken me to read again a book written in the 1940’s by a the Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset - “The Rebellion of the Masses” - in search of some light to try and figure out what to expect if social media sponsored “Ochlocracy” ends up displacing liberal democracy.
  I believe though that the impact of whatever social-media and technology sponsored new paradigm is forged, it will hit developed economies and countries harder than less developed societies. Initially under-developed societies might have some chance of fast adapting to the new paradigm because they come from further back. In the long run though I can not bring myself to even imagine what will happen but I am weary of the harsh and violent image of the future being sponsored by Hollywood’s futuristic films and of modern video games.
  I do not agree though with Mr. Soros proposed formula to avoid the risks that the current social media has brought on. I think it is too late to try and control this unexpected phenomenon that has already become sort of a “force of nature”. I believe we would be better off trying to figure out a way to adapt and guide it as opposed to stop it.
  My duty though is not figuring out what will developed societies do since they have great thinkers that I am sure are trying to figure this one out.
  My duty is with under-developed countries such as Peru, with a long and rich social history that dates back to 4500 year BC, to find a way, and more important, to create the conditions, that guarantee that it will continue to be socially and culturally relevant in the uncertain new paradigm to come.
  In short, my duty today is to answer the call in the Toyota television ad of the Winter Olympics... “START YOUR IMPOSSIBLE!”; which I am doing.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Douglas Leyendecker Feb 19, 2018
  
  BRAVO!!!!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
francisco hofle Feb 18, 2018

Mr. Soros is an optimist. Every child owns a smartphone or can access one. Nobody has the attraction like the one a smartphone exert over a child. The mind develops through social interaction. Through the use of smartphones social interaction shrinks to zero.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mirek Fatyga Feb 17, 2018

I do respect George Soros but, in this case ,really, he ought to know better.

Would we blame the printing press for Der Sturmer?

We are finding out all over again that the threat of fascism appears to be a constant of human condition. Homo (barely) Sapiens is a bundle of animalistic emotion with a thin veneer of reason wrapped around it. His societies can be ruled by reason or by emotion. The former is colloquially known as democracy, the latter is colloquially known as fascism. Alas, the rule by reason requires constant work and vigilance. When the vigilance slips, as it does periodically, rule by emotion rares its ugly head.

There are many reasons for the current predicament. Sad to say, George Soros, or rather his chosen profession, is part of this reason. Generational forgetting is another.

There were real, underlying social reasons for the rise of fascism in the interwar Europe. Printing press or the radio were not the leading causes, and neither is the internet the leading cause today.
- Mark Dallas Feb 18, 2018
  
  No single company controlled "the printing press" which is a MACHINE which took on myriad permutations and distributed through myriad companies used in myriad ways. He would love the multiplicity of the printing press. Now imagine a single company owned all printing presses, owned the technology of how to adapt and change and innovate on the original printing press. We'd still be using Guttenberg's original perhaps! FB, Google are MONOPOLIZING the printing press -- that is his point
  - Justin Templemore-Finlayson Mar 29, 2018
    
    Also, the printing press monopoly's economic model was to sell books to people, not people to companies or governments. By washing their hands of responsibility for content (both incoming form an outgoing to companies), the social media companies are able to get away with selling people... which in other forms is mostly outlawed.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  - Mirek Fatyga Feb 24, 2018
    
    does "single company" control Breitbart, Daily Caller, Zerohedge, Washington Times?
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Feb 16, 2018

Robert. You appear to see this as a power game where one lobby group is anesthetized by an opposing lobby group. That is not the way it works. A substantial voter bloc often have a predetermined position which is typically opposed by another substantial voter bloc. When neither bloc can dominate the outcome is determined by floating voters who are often bribed economically. Soros cannot change this, he has no economic input and his effort broadly falls under the propaganda banner. As far as Brexiteers go - the vote appears to be due to genuine economic disenfranchisement due to the collapse of trad industry and I very much doubt newspapers had much to do with it. Beneficiaries of the status quo voted Remain, losers voted Leave. Nothing Soros says will change that economic environment and critically hard core losers will not be bothered about general economic pain because they have nothing to lose. Rather than complaining about lobbyists you need to look hard at the long term policies that created localised industrial collapse without compensation. In particular you need, I suggest, to look at the Thatcher policy with N Sea Oil revenues which were used decade on decade to buy votes for short term political opportunity for Thatcher, in direct contrast to the policy in Norway where Oil revenues were used to build a sovereign fund whereby Norwegians are effectively individual millionaires through that fund. Europe is now facing its own industrial base collapse, other than Germany which is a beneficiary of euro imbalance. France and Italy both have recorded 10% deindustrialisation in the last decade. Greece is worse. Poland is an example of a beneficiary entirely due to EU handouts. I voted remain, but believe me Europe has its own storm coming because it does not have Oil revenues to buffer it like the UK did
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Feb 14, 2018

Hi George,

So the EU has a better internet regulatory environment than the USA.

Either America will catch up to the Europeans on this issue, or they won't.

And what will be the great harm if they don't? Extremely tiny numbers of people may purchase things they can't afford, while the vast majority will simply skip past the ads and infomercial style posts without stopping.

Any of the negatives you mention would simply manifest themselves in other ways in those very same people in the absence of the internet and social media.

The problem isn't the internet or social media, it's a lack of a proper education and self-esteem building in their younger years that would inoculate people from the traps of life -- of which, social media advertising is an infinitesimally small problem.

Nevertheless, it serves to illustrate that education and building self-esteem in young minds is the best way to prevent every social ill.

As always, best regards, JBS
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Feb 14, 2018

It is a "Free World", people can live on the top of the Hymalias, not read newspapers or utilise any of the social media tools and platforms. Or they can choose to stay up all night and tweet everybody and anybody. It is a matter of choice and "self determination". Can the author confirm with full confidence that none of his investments is associated directly or indirectly with any social media outlet?
- Robert Coleman Feb 16, 2018
  
  It isn't a free world and never has been. It is always about balance. By that I mean who holds the balance of power. The power I prefer is held by a plurality of many actors which should result in a benign application and more choice for those who are subjected to its influence. When power becomes concentrated, it presents ever greater threat and loss of choice to those subjected to it. As for donations to fight Brexit, more power to Mr. Soros' elbow. Power in Britain has too long been resident in right-wing nationalists who regard themselves as inherently superior and fund sneering newspapers to hoodwink the population by appealing to prejudice, to use their votes against their own interests. The same thing happens in the US. Mr. Soros can see the imbalance and has a track record of trying to improve the balance. Bless the man.
  - M M Feb 16, 2018
    
    Robert, the term "Free World" is clearly defined, and there are many sources that one can seek to obtain a clear definition of it. To simplify matters however, if it was not for the "Free World" neither you, nor I nor anybody else for this matter would have been able to communicate freely and more especially, Mr Soros or the Author would not have been able to publish this article or express their views on this or any other forum. Surely, you and Mr Soros are not trying to stop or to sanction freedom of expression, are you?
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Feb 14, 2018
  
  M M it is indeed a 'free world' for a lot of the world. Chomsky has an interesting definition of freedom, basically it is freedom to comply with the controlled environment which is why the word is so popular and permitted. By extension I would suggest that is also why the word populist with its negative image is used and permitted, it certainly is not allowed to be used in the same way as the word freedom. As Orwell said - control of what word means is control of everything. Soros appears to be complaining that social media freedom is not his definition of freedom; yet at the same time he is openly funding a 500K media campaign against Brexit which is simply an attempt to control an environment. Its no different to the sort of commercial activity he is complaining about on the internet because the objective is influence - but in this case it is justified as a matter of freedom. It really comes back to what the word means. Orwell would be laughing I suspect
  - M M Feb 15, 2018
    
    Steve, my dear fellow, exactly my points, in short it is called "hypocrisy" on the part of the author!
    - Steve Hurst Feb 15, 2018
      
      MM No, it is Soros using freedom to subvert individual democratically enabled action which is exactly Chomsky's point - Freedom is strictly defined and limited by the elites and establishment - and not democracy. Soros is right that social media has its dangers. However social media also has its advantages precisely because it is immediate and difficult to control, even with AI censorship control is difficult simply because of the difficulty of controlling what a word means (Orwells hypothesis was the control of words to control language and control reality, but words morph continually). Although Soros claims to want democracy he wants his version of democracy which is fair enough as an individual but not as a funded lobbyist. However he is not alone in trying to influence, there are many agent provocateurs about. The principal of democracy is all are equal. Soros appears out of his depth in this arena and he doesnt help himself by the people he employs or funds because they just mirror which does not resolve his problem. He needs to sack them
      - Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Feb 19, 2018
        
        Hello STEVE HURST
        
        I have read 29 comments looking for "Who else has been developing and pushing the way to revive politics?“ That insight, emerged a few week after my Medium response "Politics is dead, long live politics!" to umair haque’s story “How Democracy Dies.”
        
        Most philosophers in practice, for example, Zygmunt Bauman, Yanis Varoufakis, and recently Byung-Chul Han, have given great accounts that show politics is dead, but I am trying to find others than me that are trying to revive it.
        
        Politics of The Wealth of Nations is dead. To revive politics I adapted one of Victor Hugo’s quote as: “There is nothing so powerful as #TheWealthOfGlobalization whose time has come.” The Twitter’s hashtag is one of many knowledge flows that have been emerging through me. So to revive politics we need to help emerge #TheWealthOfGlobalization.
        
        Now, those knowledge flows that’s in line with your quotes “As Orwell said - control of what word means is control of everything” and “Orwells hypothesis was the control of words to control language and control reality, but words morph continually.”
        
        I have read most of what's written in Mr. Soros' artcle from the article ‘How George Soros Upstaged Donald Trump at Davos,’ by John Cassidy, The New Yorker, January 25, 2018.”
        
        Based on that article I wrote "Based on the above, I wrote the Medium story “Making sure large high tech companies have visible #CharacterEthic #ProSystem CEOs.”
        
        Steve Hurst Feb 19, 2018
        
        Jose A
        Both Orwell and Chomsky (a linguist) talk about the power of language and how words are used and abused. Chomsky is quite left wing. Orwell's writing is now from sometime ago but still remains fresh. Both raise as many questions as they answer. Politics is not dead, in the West it has become more bipolar due to inequality and restricted social mobility. The problem then is society has no central policy ground and an enormous amount of effort goes into defending a position or attacking a position eg US current domestic politics, UK also. The danger becomes that what is demanded is action, any action. Hence Brexit and Trump, and Le Pen. Le Pen is interesting because she lost due to selling fear - a negative, not hope - a positive. Brexit was marketed as hope, as was Trump. European politics is due to be interesting with 2 important democracies Germany and Italy having mish mash policies due to having coalitions. If Trump cannot deliver he will walk into trouble with voters and he is running out of time, it typically takes about 3 years for policy to deliver something on the ground. In the bipolar politics the floating voter is more important than ever before and fickle by definition
        
        ferdinand van Dieten Feb 20, 2018
        
        Steve , with all sympathy for your effort to analyse politics: don't generalise the USA bipolarity to "The west" The USA has a horrible "winner takes all" voting system. Except the UK, European countries have multi-party systems. So their dynamics are different. keep that in mind.
        
        Steve Hurst Feb 20, 2018
        
        Ferdinand, Thanks. You are quite correct it was written with the US and UK in mind. Its always a problem with generalising and trying to send out a response quickly. The winner takes all system with two large parties leads to yo-yo administrations where the opposition waits for the incumbents to fall out of favour - primarily with the floating voter. You have the situation where it is not about winning, its about letting somebody else lose
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Feb 20, 2018
        
        Thank you FERDINAND VAN DIETEN,
        
        Words can be powerful. By saying “don't generalise the USA bipolarity to ‘The west’“ seems to me related to the assumption that globalization is a bad thing. Please consider a different understanding of win lose bipolarity.
        
        In my framework there is #DarkGlobalization and #BrightGlobalization, the former as a result of the #ComputingBigShift by remaining under #TheWealthOfNations and the latter as a result of the #ComputingBigShift by letting direct democracy politics help emerge #TheWealthOfGlobalization.
        
        Both the UK and USA voters without being aware of the #BrightGlobalization elected #DeGlobalization against the low trust #DarkGlobalization of Europe and Hillary Clinton representative democracy.
        
        Can I say that representative democracy politics was bipolar stable for quite some time with the left and the right under #TheWealthOfNations until the emergence of the #ComputingBigShift when it became increasingly bipolar unstable under the #DarkGlobalization? To end instability and dissolve bipolarity, we need the emergence of the win win #BrightGlobalization of #TheWealthOfGlobalization in order to be able to create what I coined as the #SystemicCivilization.
        
        Steve Hurst Feb 20, 2018
        
        Jose - 'bipolar stable' for food for thought I refer you to Chinese philosophy where the concept is stability does not exist other than a transition between growth or stagnation - or stagnation and growth. It is somewhat alarming because if it is a transition to look at the last state tells you where you might be heading
        
        Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Feb 20, 2018
        
        You are right Steve from the pure sense of stability that doesn't exist. Social things move all the time.
        
        As can be seen in a graph of my March 2016 post "Elections in USA, Germany, Spain, DR are under unstable equilibrium, as they were in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain," that now has four updates, stability for me is different. I see a ball moving back and forth to a center, like getting the left in power and maybe then the right in power.
        
        In instability I see a ball moving to one extreme position away from the center, like #Brexit, #Trump, and the no so talk about first round of the French election.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Feb 20, 2018
        
        Hello again Steve Hurst,
        
        Thank you very much for your response.
        
        I have a lot to say to respond what you wrote, but I will try to complement what I meant so that we get to the same page. My Medium response "Politics is dead, long live politics!" starts as follows:
        
        "Synthesis: most believe politics — the rules of the game of government — will not change. But now, once in 500 years, the people must be prepared to change those rules that have become far away from reality."
        
        That response is a shortcut to my response that has the following introduction.
        
        "Representative democracy is dead, long live representative democracy! This response to the story “How Democracy Dies: The Collapse of Trust and the Loss of Faith in Human Possibility,” written by umair haque can be said to have started with the following post at the end of July 2014..."
        
        As you can see, Soros' says that "The EU is better positioned, because it doesn’t have any platform giants of its own.“ Reframing that quote, today I wrote a tweet whose principal image says "As the #EU doesn’t have yet platform giants of its own, Should it be a #SocialBusiness3DoC pioneer?“
        
        Then amplifying what you said, I wrote a tweet without an image that says:
        
        "Might #SocialBusiness3DoC of #TheWealthOfGlobalization help #CharacterEthic people avoid Orwell's 1984 #SocialMedia of #TheWealthOfNations' manipulation of reality by the manipulation of words, like independence, #IndustrialCivilization, that control #PersonalityEthic people?"
        
        Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Feb 21, 2018
        
        Hello STEVE HURST and FERDINAND VAN DIETEN.
        
        This comment is based on Peter Senge’s finding "Structure influences behavior: different people in the same structure tend to produce qualitatively similar results."
        
        That’s the dead representative democracy politics is the result of the structure of #TheWealthOfNations that in the past decades induces wrong behavior. This is the time for global direct democracy #GlobalDebout politics to act to representative democracy revive politics.
        
        To do it, #CharacterEthic #GlobalDebout citizens must act on the Medium narrative "Will #GlobalDebout (effective people) create the #SystemicCivilization?, whose summary says: "this narrative is for citizens all over the world to follow Peter #Drucker’s suggestions about how to become effective individual and global citizens that avoid distractions.“
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      - Christine Constable Feb 18, 2018
        
        Steve absolutely right, freedom is great if Soros gets to be free, if like the UK we decide to use democracy to throw off the chains of the EU we are misguided and don't know what is good for us. Intelligent peoples with the facts in front of them can make that decision without the "help" of Soros manipulating the system.
        
        John Brian Shannon Feb 18, 2018
        
        Yes, Christine. Freedom is great *if* it allows people get to be free (and I agree with you wholeheartedly on the democracy/Brexit issue) and freedom is great *when* people are allowed to earn money and enjoy the rewards thereof.
        
        I posit that when *if* and *when* doesn't happen, then it isn't freedom nor a democracy we're describing -- it's a kleptocracy or something worse -- and is such a person, organization, country or bloc worth saving? Even from themselves?
        
        Like you and many others, I find Soros' assertions to be hypocritical and self-serving -- or, rather more likely, the utterances of a person who doesn't yet see the whole picture for what it really is -- due to spending far too much time living a gilded life.
        
        As always, best regards, JBS
        
        Steve Hurst Feb 18, 2018
        
        JBS there always is an 'if' ; ) Regards
        
        John Brian Shannon Feb 18, 2018
        
        +100 Steve!
        
        Cheers -- always, JBS
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P I Feb 14, 2018

I keep thinking of this excerpt from Lyotard's (controversial) Postmodern Condition: "a person is always located at ‘nodal points’ of specific communication circuits, however tiny these may be." While not prepared to claim that postmodernism is a fertile subject, or as worthy as Mill, the above piece on social media might be described as discursive. Social media can be detrimental, and avoidable, but the point of the piece does not seem to involve things such as a postmodern cacophony when order is needed--or an "Opium for the masses?" Societies could benefit from regulation of monopoly media entities; perhaps it would be a sort of 'redistribution' of power to the populace. So, whether participation on such platforms is perhaps consistent with postmodernism asserting itself could be a weaker viewpoint. However, if you would like access to The Postmodern Condition in its entirety, you might need to have the resources of the Project-Syndicate contributor above. Everyone must know of Mill--even if no one goes to a bookstore to obtain his work anymore.
- Steve Hurst Feb 14, 2018
  
  Narcissism and low self esteem are both linked and displayed on social media, its got nothing to do with nodal points in communication, its behavioural with an overlay of automated conditioning by software. Its Andy Warhol's "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes" made actual, or a moth to the flame depending on your point of view
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Feb 14, 2018

Good old George is trying to save us all from the medical condition 'status dramaticus' by suggesting media normale saline, whether is is based on first hand experience I dont know
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/LM0L0Lwzh

社交媒体对社会和安全的威胁

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

社交媒体对社会和安全的威胁

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification