Rate Limit Exceeded
CoT Announcements
2023 Annual Conference Registration still open… spread the word!: The 2nd Annual Civics of Technology annual conference will be held online from 10-3pm EST on both August 3rd and 4th, 2023! You can learn more and register for the conference on the 2023 conference page. The conference schedule will be posted soon.
Next Book Club on 07/27/23: We are reading Meredith Broussard’s 2023 book, More than a Glitch: Confronting Race, Gender, and Ability Bias in Tech. We will meet to discuss the book at 8pm EDT on Thursday, July27th, 2023. You can register to join on our Events page.
No Monthly Tech Talk in August: Due to the conference being the same week, we will not hold a monthly tech talk in August. Our next one will be on Tuesday, September 5th, 2023 at 8-9pm EST/7-8pm CST/6-7pm MST/5-6pm PST. Learn more and register on our Events page.
by Dan Krutka and Marie Heath
Elon Musk’s tenure over Twitter has served as just another reminder of the precarity of relying on unregulated capitalism to decide how people communicate online. In line with his other failing efforts to turn profits at Twitter, Musk has made tweet viewing a luxury surveillance (Gilliard & Golumbia, 2021) by setting up pay hierarchies: limited verified accounts to 6,000 tweets a day, unverified accounts to 600 tweets a day, and new unverified accounts to 300 tweets a day. We are intrigued by the accidental benefit of a rate limit on Twitter.
First, I can’t help but think what Neil Postman might say about anyone viewing even 300 tweets a day, but this line from his 1992 book Technopoly probably covers it:
…information has become a form of garbage… in which the tie between information and human purpose has been severed, i.e., information appears indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, in enormous volume and at high speeds, and disconnected from theory, meaning, or purpose… (p. 69)
Does viewing hundreds or thousands of social media posts make our individual and collective lives better? While there are undoubtedly benefits, there seem to be two principles that color our thinking about how we use social media.
1. We tend to focus narrowly on the benefits of technologies to justify their uses. We ignore summative, collateral, or harmful effects.
2. We tend to focus narrowly on individual freedom to use technology as each person sees fit. Again, we ignore summative, collateral, or harmful effects.
Technosolutionism and rugged individualism. It’s of little surprise that U.S. companies run these platforms and dominate these industries. They serve as an extension of the settler colonialism of U.S. history where white settlers were framed simply as individuals seeking fortune “out west” instead of settlers invading Indigenous homelands.
While the rate limit threatens established practices such as hour-long teacher Twitter chats, I wonder if we couldn’t all benefit from rate limits.
I (Dan) have been visiting friends in Portugal this week. I can’t help but compare it to the U.S. The urban (but unfortunately not accessible; the U.S. got ADA right) design of cities makes for a healthier, more sustainable walkability. People seem to be less rushed, less stressed as in the U.S. where our digital work culture often extracts until we’re burned out. But, I have enjoyed something else just as much: the digital quietness of mornings. Since Portugal is 6 hours ahead of Central Standard Time, I see no new tweets, no new emails, no new text messages until around 2 or 3pm in my day. Stillness is the move.
Some people might say, “Dan, why don’t you just turn off all digital notifications in the mornings then?” I’ve tried. As you might remember, I wrote a blog post about all my efforts to change the digital culture in my department once I was appointed chair (Krutka, 2022). While some efforts worked and my colleagues were largely receptive, barriers remained. Many colleagues initially adhered to efforts to reign in our digital communications, but their (and my) habits slowly returned to the hive-mind email impulsivity habits which digital culture demands. Auto replies that indicated an email break on Fridays and weekends was not always appreciated. When Marie’s professional email auto reply stated she was off contract in summer, people asked for her personal email so they could send her business. Technosolutionism means that if technology affords something then we must acquiesce. Resistance is futile. Don’t try to change the culture. The culture is rugged individualism.
The Rugged Individualism of Technology
U.S. Americans tend to resent being told their individual freedom is limited even if it benefits the common good and makes a better world. In the U.S., the theoretical right for individuals’ to own guns of war is more important than stopping the mass killing of fellow community citizens. In 2010, Michelle Obama’s mere suggestion that maybe children should eat healthier options than French fries at lunch was met with the rage of the right-media media machine, which quickly manufactures crises of individual freedom while ignoring societal ones. This is also the time of year that Americans exercise the individual right (if you can afford it) to unlimited air conditioning to not be at all inconvenienced by the climate crisis which AC makes worse. I am troubled by the irony that I have to bring a jacket to the university and other businesses because the AC is set to 64 degrees while there is a 114 degree real feel outside.
And, as always, who gets to choose or benefit from these decisions? Social media design and policies rarely benefit those who are already minoritized or oppressed in society. Content moderation, which Musk has all but abandoned, doesn’t stop online harassment. These companies don’t know how to design for the common good, for justice.
Americans would hardly believe that countries such as France have “right to disconnect” laws that actually outlaw after work emails. Out-lawed. An affront to technology and individual freedom. Don’t we have a right to work (and amuse) ourselves to death?
The Folly of Technological Choice
So much of what is framed as individual choice is really the byproduct of technology design that is manipulative, grounded in behaviorist theory, or techno-centricism. With design and algorithms, are we really choosing? Choosing to use email or social media well is like trying to choose walkability in Texas. You can theoretically try it, but there’s nowhere worth walking to in your neighborhood and you might get killed (yes, pedestrian and bike deaths hit their highest numbers in 41 years, but Americans value commute times over safe transportation design). Is it fair or just or ethical to ask an individual to “will power” their way out of social media overuse? Is it less fair or just or ethical to set limits? What we get with Twitter and work email are too often not choices, but cages. We often get short-term choices with reduced long-term possibilities.
The Technological Crisis of Perception
In his 1996 book, Physicist Fritjof Capra said that humanity suffers from a “crisis of perception” (p. 4). In short, we fail to see the interconnected nature of our problems. We focus on the trees, but miss the forest. While Twitter’s accidental rate limit exceeded blip won’t fix systems, it may be a clumsy reminder that viewing hundreds of tweets may not be in our individual or societal best interests. In a highly technologized society we need limits. And we’re only likely to find them together in communities dedicated to justice and the common good. We can’t wait for technology developers or lawmakers to create new cultures.
Gathering for nightly sunset in Porto, Portugal.
While my mornings were quiet because of the time zone difference from my networks, I observed a peaceful practice that provided me some hope this week. In the city of Porto, the people of the town climb up a hill and watch the sunset together every night. I went two nights in a row. People sat on blankets, sang songs, and clapped when the sun set behind the horizon. Aside from some group pictures, you could hardly see a cell phone in sight. I suspect no one there exceeded their rate limit. They were present for something much better.
References
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. Anchor.
Gilliard, C. & Golumbia, D. (2021, July 6). Luxury surveillance. Real Life. https://reallifemag.com/luxury-surveillance/
Krutka, D. G. Maybe don’t send that email. Civics of Technology. https://www.civicsoftechnology.org/blog/maybe-dont-send-that-email
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. Alfred A. Knopf.