Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: How do social media influence power dynamics in our society? That’s the question we explore in Room #928 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme of “Power & Violence.” Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…
Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.
A very warm good morning to you all. Today we’re continuing with the power of social media, and we want to look at the question: how do social media influence power dynamics in our society? And I’m really curious what all will come together here. Yesterday, with the book “Cyberfakt” and Dr. Mario Herger, we already touched on a few aspects in relation to violence. And now I’m really, really curious to see how the room continues. We can gladly pick up on yesterday too, if you like, and then also look specifically again at the concept of power, and how far influences, or acts of influencing, reach here through social media, in terms of power dynamics in our society. So, with that, you’re all very warmly invited to join us again today, to bring in various impulses and thoughts, so that through this exchange, further thoughts can develop together, and we can see what all comes together, which perspectives we can open up, which concrete examples get brought in, and how the room develops accordingly from there, so that after 60 minutes we can generate various insights from it for ourselves. Just a quick reminder again, the room is recorded the whole time, so that anyone who joins automatically agrees that it’ll be published too. We have three small room rules: a profile photo where you’re recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. If for whatever reason you don’t want that, or can’t speak right now because it’s too loud in the background or something like that, you’re of course also welcome to use the chat to join the exchange, and we’ll gladly pick up one thing or another over the course of the talk. So, with that, I’ll mute myself and see who’d like to kick off this morning together with me.
A very warm good morning, dear Marc. What are your first thoughts on the topic?
Good morning to the round, and I’m glad to start the week together with you all. So, fundamentally, I’ve come to think of all social media as, first and foremost, a platform used by companies and organizations to get people to change their opinions, or maybe to become interested in certain things. If I then look at the private sphere, these platforms and social networks get used to share experiences, special moments, or pictures too. And we actually touched on the topic of storytelling a while back. And for me, the techniques applied on these platforms are nothing other than an extended form of storytelling, and we all know that humans are emotional beings, and through the effect of, and the use of, images, text, sound, we create a mood, and we simply have to be aware of that. And the challenge for me, in this century — you’re the specialist for brains, dear Yasemin — is that we simply have to let go of the idea of guaranteed truths, because it makes it so much harder for my brain. I can form an opinion, but I know I’m being influenced. And if I can no longer equate images with what’s true or real, with reality, I have to question images, I have to question sounds, none of it necessarily has to correspond to reality. That makes it so much more difficult for my brain, and that’s why this is such an interesting topic today — that social networks are a power platform, because even what we see, and what we hear, and what we read, might have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with reality anymore.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. You’ve already touched on quite a few different aspects there. And actually, even in the past, there wasn’t always a guaranteed truth in that sense in many places, and in many places verification would certainly have been necessary, or would have been necessary, for those who didn’t do it. But through this flood of information now reaching us via social media, there’s a whole different challenge behind it, because I can’t verify every single message that reaches me somehow through social channels. That means some things I might just glance at, while for certain other aspects I should really consider where it makes sense to dig deeper and verify one thing or another. I find it interesting that you brought up this aspect of companies, among other things, and also touched on the private-versus-public distinction. In that context, the political angle occurred to me too, because you said it’s also about shaping opinion, for example. That’s used politically by now too, and quite classically, aspects come to mind here like influence on elections, decisions, and so on that are coming up. Brexit is maybe one example, but there are other examples we can think of here too. And I found that combination you brought up really exciting too, in connection with storytelling, and that text, sound, image are all part of it, and that this addresses our sensory channels accordingly, and generates emotions or feelings here too. Exactly, wonderful. Do you have further additions to that, and everyone else is warmly invited to join in and add further points too, so we can work our way through this step by step and see what all comes together, and what we can derive from it. Marc?
Yes, I actually have a completely different example now, going in a completely different direction, because I notice in myself, even in these rooms — we had this last week — that our thoughts immediately fixate on who’s using this, what’s happening there, what’s happening in the background. And I want to give an example where I’m just really grateful that we have social media, because when acquaintances of mine are on vacation and share their experiences, it’s like I’m accompanying them on their trip. There are really wonderful ideas on WhatsApp now, where instead of posting your cappuccino and what you ate, you see picture stories with text, because how else would I know where they are? I see, there’s water, I see, there are mountains, and if I follow that and get value out of it, that someone says, I’m now in this or that country. In the background you see this or that mountain, or this is happening there. That’s the reason I really want to share this photo with you. That gives me the chance to travel to so, so many places in the world that I’ve never seen before. And I noticed this a few times this year, where I thought, wow, that’s amazing. What images, what a beautiful planet, or what a beautiful little place — and I wouldn’t have come across these things if, in this case, I didn’t occasionally check the status updates on WhatsApp. A lot of it is of course uninteresting, but you can also use it deliberately, not to manipulate, but really to inform, and to be able to share value with your circle of friends.
Yes, absolutely. And we’ve actually opened up this aspect in one or several rooms too, that power isn’t per se something negative, for example, but that there are two sides here too — the positive and the negative side, in the sense of how it’s actually used. And that’s why this example is nice to show too — for example, taking someone along on a trip, or giving insights into a trip. The travel example is just one example, it can be really, really diverse. There are people who maybe share stories about their pets, or whatever else. So it can be very, very diverse, where this journey, so to speak, leads to. So “journey” here doesn’t necessarily just mean location-wise, but also in the sense of giving insight, taking someone along. And this giving insight and taking along, that’s where we’re back at storytelling too, to some extent — that’s also something that happens on the side of influence and manipulation too, just in a different dimension, a different perspective, a different level thought through. And here too, through certain stylistic devices and so on that get applied, the viewer or the consumer of the message gets taken along, so to speak, on maybe a train of thought, maybe experiences they’ve already had themselves before, which they can connect to. Emotions like fears — we touched on that here before too. And so, that’s one thing. The other thing you mentioned earlier was about these truths — maybe let’s look at that more concretely here too. We talked in at least one of these rooms about all these algorithms, and the reinforcement that happens here. And that’s maybe a really interesting aspect too, in connection with the power of social media, to look at again — that the algorithms working in the background mean that, on one hand, I have the technological challenge that I might not be able to properly distinguish fake from fact anymore, because it also happens too fast sometimes, but also the technological progress that, for example, makes it relatively difficult to distinguish a fake video from a real one, and so on. And on the other hand, the algorithms embedded in these systems in the background too, so that, for example, we’ve said this before, in one place or another I get shown more of what I consume, so that at some point, in quotation marks, I might develop the feeling that I’m moving within a certain bubble, and have the feeling that the whole world thinks like I do, when actually that might just be one very specific target group being shown certain content. And it gets interesting when you compare notes here or there. You might know this — it’s not social media in this case, but maybe you’ve experienced the situation where you type something into the Google search engine and find something, and you’re on the phone with someone and want them to be able to pull it up too, and instead of sending the link, you say, type in search term XY, and look, for me it shows up in third place. And the other person doesn’t find it at all, they don’t have it on their display. So that’s a nice example to demonstrate how these algorithms work in the background here too, and that really different things get shown, depending on our user behavior. Marc, would you like to follow up here?
Dear Yasemin, I’m laughing heartily right now, but not at you — it’s just spooky. I still read on my Kindle every evening to relax, and a few days ago, I actually got shown a book of yours, about artificial intelligence, that you wrote. That’s exactly what just happened. I don’t know how they figure that out, whether they access your contacts or whatever. But that’s exactly the case, that we get shown ads based on certain areas of interest. And I had to smile heartily that evening when I opened my Kindle and you basically greeted me visually, so to speak.
Yes, that’s how it goes sometimes. You were probably, at some point, on some link or through some search term, on some book page. Then you looked at something, and the connections get made accordingly, and, at certain intervals and so on, depending on usage behavior, one thing or another gets shown as advertising too. And that happens on social media too — so it’s not just the pure content we get to see here, but advertising gets played in here too, for example. There are postings, for instance, that count as advertising — usually it says “sponsored” above it, small, in the corner. So if you pay attention to that, you can actually differentiate, you can see the difference. Then you also have the various ads that get shown here too, and those are targeted based on user behavior. Maybe some of you aren’t quite aware of that — maybe pay attention specifically to this labeling, either “ads” or “sponsored,” depending on which platform you’re on. On social media this gets displayed differently, so that you have the feeling you’re seeing a video or a posting again, but basically, if you look in the top left corner, you can recognize that this is, for example, paid advertising.
Would you like to add something about this advertising on social media too?
Yes, I know advertising is used. Personally, as a private individual, this advertising annoys me, of course, and I’ve also tried to block all of it through various technical tools. But I’ve noticed that I then often — they’ve thought this through well — can’t access certain pages anymore. And what you might have noticed too, due to the new legislation, what annoys me even more, is that no matter which page I pull up, I always have to click through certain conditions first. So I can’t just pull up an article anymore, which used to go very quickly, and read it — instead I first get shown whether I agree to something. And what’s quite clever, which I’ve noticed more this year, is that I not only have to agree to the terms, but I have to pay really close attention, even when articles get sent to me by acquaintances, not to press the wrong button, because immediately — thank goodness I’m still interested — I’ve ended up with a subscription. I really have to pay extreme, hellish attention before reading, to distinguish, is the information still free, which is nice, but with advertising, so requiring my consent, or is the information ad-free and paid. And that’s the case by now with so, so many, not just platforms, but newspapers too, and it has nothing to do with the quality of the newspaper — it happens to me on almost every site I pull up now.
Yes, that’s a really exciting point you’re raising, because through all these cookies and so on, which we’re talking about right now, which, in terms of data protection, are allowed to be queried in the first place — on one hand we have these subscription models, where you keep getting asked, would you like a subscription or not? And at the same time it can also be that, if we’re not logged in yet, say, or we access a social media platform via a link from a different device, then, in terms of data protection, one thing or another gets queried again too. And we might tend, to some extent, because we suddenly get all these pop-ups everywhere, and you kind of feel overwhelmed by that, to no longer properly read through a lot of it, but just click through, or click ourselves free, so to speak, in order to then actually see the message we wanted to look at on this medium. And that can, as you just said, lead to me having signed up for a subscription without noticing. And on the other hand, it can be that, in terms of data protection regarding marketing, I’ve released or waved through aspects that I might not actually be comfortable with. So this is maybe also the power of social media in that sense — that because we’re already almost annoyed by all these pop-ups that keep coming, and want to click through quickly, and at a high speed, there’s again, in quotation marks, a profiteer in the background, so to speak — namely those who guide these various platforms with various links to certain platforms, and so on, and can accordingly capture data here that we might consciously not want to release at all. That’s an aspect that plays into this too, Marc.
Yes, and then I have another point that came to my mind this morning. At first I thought, well, social media, that’s done privately or by companies, and that’s not journalism. But they create the impression as if — some social media present themselves as if the images were journalistically produced, as if the posts, and the information, and the opinion were journalistically researched. And at first I felt like saying, okay, that’s why I don’t rate social media as strongly as when I look at a more journalistic site. And then I remembered, we’ve had this topic before, that journalism today doesn’t just have the mandate to inform us anymore, but they also make money with bad news and through click rates. And then I thought, okay, journalism works completely differently today too, so that the difference, for me, as a source of information, isn’t actually that big anymore, because journalism wants to influence me too. Maybe not necessarily pushing me in one direction opinion-wise, but at the very least, journalism wants me to look at their lines, because, as I said, what a company definitely has in mind is increasing its circulation, expanding its circulation, and then also winning new users and readers again.
Yes, thank you so much, and especially the first point you raised, I find that really exciting, because especially when we think of something like “XY TV” or something like that — by now, through the internet, we have the possibility to set up all kinds of shows ourselves and do whatever we want with them. And for someone sitting in a different country, because it’s international too — we then have access, for example, to various channels that we might see, because it’s German-language, and it gets shown in Austria or somewhere, for example via Austrian sites. There you suddenly have the real challenge of maybe not being able to directly classify one thing or another, or not quite knowing, is this a private or public broadcaster being aired in some form via television, in quotation marks, so, in this concrete example with “TV” — or is this maybe just something labeled “TV” that’s actually a website or similar. So this gets really, really exciting in this context too, I find that a really important aspect too. And TV is just one example — it could be exactly the same if something is labeled radio or something, and it’s actually a podcast or similar. So this is definitely getting more and more difficult to distinguish for the user too.
A very warm good morning, dear Jürgen. What do you have to say on the topic?
Good morning, dear Yasemin, good morning, Marc, and everyone else in the room. I’ll take a sentence from your introduction. Today’s topic is the power of social media. And you mentioned it, or touched on it, in the introduction — getting clear again on the term “power” itself. My question, as a basis for the discussion, has two parts: one is, which power position, or which manifestations of power — with power clearly defined — do we specifically see with social media? How does power specifically come to expression in social media? I ask this because — and here’s my second question — in connection with social media, we had a room a while back called, to what extent do mass media influence the understanding of power? There’s evidently a difference then between mass media and social media, and accordingly a difference in the possibilities and manifestations of these two specific constellations — information, communication, whatever we call media, since there are different terms for it. That would be my initial thought for now — again, specific power for social media, how does it come to expression, and who does it affect, in distinction to other media? Thank you for listening.
Yes, thank you so much. On your first question — that’s something I’d actually like to work out together in the room, so to speak, because how, through what, does this power then express itself in social media? And that’s why, from my point of view, it’s necessary to look at the various aspects, and then see how power establishes itself through social media, what it’s actually created by — and you’re welcome to bring in your definition with status again here too, as a result. And the other thing, with the distinction, I find really important too. From my point of view, mass media is simply a much broader term. Social media — there we’re looking at platforms, so to speak, we’re talking about channels like Facebook or Xing, which are actually understood as social media in this sense. Whereas mass media, for example, can also include print and things like that, and is much more broadly defined, and here we really want to look more specifically. Jürgen, can you build on these two answers, or would you like to follow up on that?
Yes, so, for me, the guiding criterion for differentiating between, let’s say, mass media, other media, and social media, this original form of the term, is that they’re platform-based, IT-platform based, so to speak — that on a platform, however it’s designed, a technological, TV-technical platform, data flows together, which then, A, can be used, and B, already on this platform — and I’ll get to this first point in a moment — gets condensed into information, because the one who, let’s say, the platform owner, has, as their essential resource — and we’ve already been clear on this — the new gold of our era, has an enormous trove of data, due to their reach and their access possibilities. And I see it as one, and question mark now, that the platform owner already has this possibility, yes, to bridge this distinction between data and information — meaning, to combine very specific connections between objectively traceable data states into a piece of information, and thereby also pass on a certain opinion, and, in its negative form, all the way to manipulation. So, at the source, there’s already a significant influence taking place. The question is just, again, and I’ll gladly pick this up, in quotation marks, my definition — I’ve drawn on it from many sources too. I see power as given, for me quite essentially, when it acts against the will of another, when one’s own will dominates another’s will, that other person has no possibility to object whatsoever, and this exercising or transporting of power isn’t legitimately backed either, as it would be, for example, with state power. We’ve already talked about that several times. And that’s my question now, whether this admittedly relatively narrow concept of power — meaning it must act against a counter-will — is essential for our topic today.
Thank you so much. Yes, a great question, and not at all easy to answer. Because, and here we connect exactly to the power of social media, the definition you brought in — here the question arises for me, in the context of, say, social media, when you say it acts against the will of another. And the question is, are we even really aware, in the context of social media for example, of what our will actually is? Because I don’t even fully know what’s happening in the background, or what happens with the data, and so on. So I actually find it really, really exciting to discuss this, and not just say, well, that’s the definition we’re looking through, but rather to really question this together, and consider whether we might even need to define it more broadly here. That’s my answer, my first take on it. Marc, maybe you have thoughts on this too, and then Jürgen can follow up again.
Yes, I have thoughts on this. It just became clear to me that the difference between information I get in a private setting, and information I get from a journalist I don’t know, is essentially that, for a person who’s managed to create sympathy with me, meaning who already has my trust, I’m more likely to follow up on that information. And that connects back to what you said at the start, dear Yasemin, that this showed up with Brexit — there was a really great documentary once, which I hope I’ll never forget in my life, about surveys. Data is the new gold of the future, and if I want to gain data through email addresses or phone numbers, it’s often not really about making my actual intention public right away, but rather I gain data by looking at what interests a certain large group of people might have. I could pick animals, or pollution, or whatever, and once I have that data, I can, maybe a year later, get to my actual concern, because I’ve built trust, meaning access to these people, and only then get to my actual concern. And just as an example, if Jürgen were to send me a message, a private message, saying, hey, I have this or that opinion about Europe, then I’m more likely to follow up on it, because I value Jürgen and think, interesting, dear Jürgen, I hadn’t thought of that, let me look into that. If I got the exact same message from someone on television that I don’t like, because maybe they belong to a political party I’m not sympathetic to, then social media, private media, have much, much greater power, because I get influenced there, but don’t have a defense mechanism ready as quickly, because the people are already familiar and likeable to me.
Yes, thank you so much, and before I pass the ball back to Jürgen, I’d like to pick up this idea of free will again, and expand on it with concrete examples. Marc, you just mentioned this aspect of surveys — online marketers use exactly this kind of knowledge, so to speak, to act very specifically with corresponding instruments that we, as users, might not even be aware of. So, surveys are one option. Then there’s maybe — I’ll open up a second example — quite classically, online conferences. The organizer of the online conference runs it, essentially, with one main intention — not to achieve direct sales or something, but through the participants’ registration, to get access to the participants’ data. Lots and lots of people join in because, for example, there’s a prize to win, or because it’s maybe a conference where I can consume content for free or something like that. And both the speakers — I count them in here too — and the participants are often not even aware of what the actual purpose is behind this endeavor, delivering content for free, seemingly out of goodwill. The provider of such a platform, and that could certainly be advertised via social media or something too, accordingly for free, so it doesn’t even have to be paid, uses this, so to speak, to get access to the speakers’ target audience too. Because they, in turn, inform their followers, their target audience, their newsletter subscribers, and so on, because they themselves are participating as speakers, for example, and this triggers a chain reaction. That’s one of the examples, and there are numerous examples of this, both with surveys that get conducted, and with events like this and so on — if you know what’s behind it, you can look closely at what kind of survey this is, where it might be leading, do I actually want to participate in this or not. But free will is, per se, initially given — yes, I’m giving my data voluntarily. But if I don’t know what the actual purpose is, namely data collection at this point, then I ask myself, is that will really still that free, because it’s no longer transparent. Jürgen, now you can follow up again.
Yes, that’s actually the crux of the matter for me. The last question you asked, are we even still talking about will — if I understood correctly, then the content of what you just said was, essentially, or the basis for it, a lack of knowledge. And a lack of knowledge in recognizing that someone is manipulating me, whereby manipulation is just one of the possible ways of influencing the will, which social media also have. We might get to the others, or we can maybe talk about them still. But again, put into a question, as I understood you, dear Yasemin — is a lack of knowledge, a complete inability to know how this information comes about, already a restriction of my will? And there I’d say, from my point of view, from my current point of view — though this is certainly a question worth considering further — I’d say, at first glance, no. Because the potential of my will, in my conviction, draws exactly from this pool of my knowledge and my insights, which I have, and for which I myself am responsible. And so, for me, that’s also the key criterion for making a distinction. Are we talking about the power of a medium, of social media, when I still have the option to say no, that I, for example, don’t click on this social medium, or don’t download the app — then, for me, that’s an expression of the will I still have, before I go into the danger of exposing myself to manipulation due to my lack of knowledge, my not-knowing. Meaning, then I’d rather turn the thing off, and even if I miss out on something as a result, I have the awareness that I’m not being manipulated. Thank you.
Yes, thank you so much. And here, from my point of view, we’re really in the realm of the crux of the matter. It really is the question — the moment I get a query, like with cookies, for example, where I have the option to read up on certain things, and consciously either agree or decline — I also have the option to decline afterward, meaning to opt out again afterward too. There, from my point of view, we’re in the realm of will. But then we also have the area of, well, I can theoretically say I have the possibility to find this out, but if it doesn’t even occur to me to research this, because it’s not, in quotation marks, “obvious” to me — and not everyone is an online marketer who knows exactly how the processes work in the background. That’s where it gets difficult. And that’s exactly why I find this question so exciting — and I wouldn’t want to steer it in one direction or another right away, but really want to discuss it in exchange. Go ahead, Jürgen.
Well, I think this is a really essential point for untangling this knot — that we don’t only have this fact of manipulation as a manifestation of power, essentially a manipulation of my will through unconscious channels, but that, on the other hand, there’s also a quite conscious power position, in that I’m in a situation, for personal or business reasons, where I’m dependent on very specific information, data, and inflows, and rely on their truthfulness, for example, their currency, their freedom from redundancy. That’s common practice in an entrepreneurial context, and that I then willingly surrender myself to the steering of a company, which simply has this power, based on this data, as a supplier, to consciously act on me. So for me, as I said, it’s a matter of distinguishing, especially in the way we understand power in relation to social media, between these two positions — namely power through manipulation, more or less unconscious, in parentheses, and power through uniqueness, through a monopoly position, through, how should I put it, essentially dominance behavior, which I then, however, willingly accept. Simply because I need it. Thank you.
Yes, a nice closing sentence, because that’s exactly where I wanted to pick up — the question, can I really still, today, consciously decide against it? We had, yesterday — I don’t think you were there, Jürgen — the author’s breakfast with Dr. Mario Herger, and that touched on arguments around this sexualized violence happening in the cyber realm too, that you can’t just tell those affected, along the lines of, well, then just stop using social media, then that won’t happen to you anymore — because, for example, and here we’re at the interconnections and chain reactions, in quotation marks, it also has an impact on business, for example. So, as a business owner, for example, I can hardly refuse today, in many places, and say, I don’t use the internet, I don’t use social media and so on, because I need it too, for example to stay competitive. And here the question arises, well, maybe I’ve willingly, in quotation marks, agreed, in order to also benefit from something. But is that then fully so? Does it really correspond to this same idea of free will here? Because dependencies, in quotation marks, arise here too. And the moment we have dependencies, we’re back at the concept of power here too. Now I’d like to give Marc the chance to follow up too, and then you’re welcome to follow up again too, Jürgen.
Yes, one more thing occurs to me, dear Jürgen — you said, if I understood you correctly, there’s social media, where I might get unconsciously influenced. And then there’s also state power, where I might personally decide to accept certain laws. And I’d like to open up a third thing here, because I’m observing, for example, in Israel right now, that for a lot of people, currently, it’s no longer really about whether I elect a state power and then accept laws. There’s nothing else left for me to do, because in Israel, if I understood correctly, the judiciary is supposed to be undermined, so that the actions of the state can no longer be questioned at all, like it used to be in France — “laissez-moi.” And that’s difficult. And then, on this voluntary decision — you mentioned this, with consciously deciding. We all decide, consciously, unconsciously. And that goes back to stored experiences, values, and memories. And that’s exactly why social media, and classical media too, hold such a big key, because I think we’ve all learned, or the people who use it have learned, what power exactly lies in this detail — that we don’t decide consciously, and deliberately, but that a lot of it is unconscious processes. And steering these unconscious processes, through language, images, text, and storytelling, has reached a level of perfection, or has already reached a level of perfection, that goes even further, which is what I said at the start, and gets changed again now, in that image material is added on top too, where our brain simply can no longer trust images that don’t actually exist, even though we see them. And that’s really the challenge, the upcoming challenge of this century, for me — when at some point it gets to the stage where my son might call me in an emergency, with the same voice, with the same face, and gets me to do things, even though I’m actually talking to an artificial intelligence.
Yes, thank you so much. Jürgen, would you like to respond directly again?
Yes, I think you asked the question at the end of your remarks, your last remarks, whether it’s still power if I, more or less forced, consent to something to a greater degree. And spontaneously — spontaneously I would have answered you in dialogue, yes. Namely, in ignorance of that — and here’s another point I’d like to bring up, regarding the definition of power — in acknowledgment of the fact that I can’t do anything, if I accept that I want to move within a certain environment, or want to keep running my business. Dear Marc, you know this situation from your business, you’ve described it often. Yes, that I have to choose, in quotation marks, the lesser evil. And for me — I admit I’m maybe somewhat, very consistently and maybe also stubbornly anchored in these terms — I say, yes, this is also, for me, an act of will, even if I recognize that I’m being manipulated, even if I recognize that there’s a risk I’m being deceived, it’s still my very own will to say, I consent to this situation, and it can’t be, for me, dear Yasemin, a clean-cut criterion to say, because I simply have to. That doesn’t undermine this free decision to express my will — yes, I’m nodding this through. It’s simply given by the situation. And now let me get to the second point, which, from my understanding, from my thesis, I’d immediately say in response — if someone contradicts me, then please tell me what I can do about it. What’s the alternative? Aside from, for example, withdrawing as an entrepreneur from a market that manipulates me through social media. What’s the solution approach? That would be my additional point. Thank you.
Yes, thank you so much. Let me come back to the first point — I think you rounded that off nicely, because that beautifully builds the bridge back to legitimization again. That means, against the background of acknowledging that I can’t do anything without consenting here, I also have this aspect of legitimization again at this point, which you used as a term earlier too. That means, I legitimize it, against the background of acknowledging that if I didn’t do this, I’d have certain disadvantages, or couldn’t guarantee myself the ability to keep up with the competition, and so on, and against this background I make a kind of, maybe, concession, in order to keep benefiting from various aspects myself too. That’s why I find that wonderful. The second question you asked, we could try to answer that hypothetically now. I don’t know if anyone in the room is here who says, I see this differently, and then we could respond to that, or say, we’ll approach it hypothetically. I don’t know how useful it is to think through this second path now, what the alternative could be. But I understood you more as saying, if someone sees this differently, to get back into exchange, to reflect on this other side too, what solution approaches might exist to give answers here. Marc, would you like to follow up here too?
Yes, I’d like to respond to that — that’s very philosophical, dear Jürgen. I know what you mean. No answer is fundamentally an answer too, just as no decision is also a decision. Then we’re back at the topic of responsibility. And since humans also — or at least I do, since I want to secure my existence, since I like living in a certain level of prosperity — then the question is, what risks am I willing to take on, in order to decide freely? And of course I always have a free decision, that’s beyond any question. I can refuse to acknowledge laws, but then I also have to expect to be imprisoned. I can disagree with a business model, and can look for a new business model, and can now go deliver newspapers in Cologne, or apply for something else entirely. I always have the option to step out of this system and take on responsibility, and not say, that’s just how it is and I can’t do anything. Yes, I can do something. And then your question is more the one that really hurts, which everyone can only answer for themselves. What am I willing to take on for myself, and how much, so — how much does this system really concern me? How much does it really occupy me? How much do I really wish to change something? And then we’re not back at fingerpointing again. My word of the year 2023 — the market itself has to ask, what is it willing to do? What changes, and what consequences, is it willing to take on? And every person has a different pain threshold there.
I’d like to use the last ten minutes to open up another point. Because if we now say, well, we’ve taken the definition, we’ve worked our way through it, and we’ve now established that, well, through this acknowledgment and so on, we arrive at the conclusion that it gets legitimized — so, now let me ask again, let me go back, and this brings me to another point we’re allowed to look at too. That would mean, in consequence, saying that, accordingly, social media has no power at all, according to this definition. And there’s an impulse that immediately comes up in me to say, stop, we need to look at this again, careful — we need to distinguish between levels here again. So far we were on the level of individual people. Individuals. But the original question was actually also about looking at this in relation to our society. So if we look at this on a societal level, and pick up this original thought that Marc brought in, for example with the surveys that get conducted or similar — especially if we think toward Brexit and elections again — then I’m no longer a “lone actor,” in quotation marks, but certain things happening on social media also have a societal influence, or impact, for example on election results. Can we still apply this definition then? Or does something change here, potentially? Marc, go ahead.
Behind social media, there are also individual people, organizations, and companies. And the best and most current example I’m noticing right now — I’d bet on this happening — our main topic this year, affecting every one of us, is the discussion about climate. And what I find really exciting is how social media gets used, in the sense of power, to say, this is right or this is wrong. And when there are special news segments about the climate, that it’s burning everywhere and that we’re having climate change, then I’d bet that within two or three days at the latest, from some direction, you get shown a picture — this happened two weeks ago — that somewhere in Germany, I think it was Oberstdorf, snow fell, and whoever sent that message says, see, see, there’s snow. Or the same thing with rain. Now the topic is again, Germany is drying out, we have water, we have water problems, and so on. Then certain organizations, people, or whoever, depending on personal attitude, use this — there are some who send pictures of forests burning and say, see, the environment matters. And others send pictures of rain and say, see, we’re right. And this power, used to trigger these feelings, is a massive power. There we’re back at elections — being able to move people in one direction or another, precisely through the power of images, language, and text, namely emotions and storytelling. And that means, then, that I’ve willingly agreed to that, and that’s why it’s power, but then, still, not power, Jürgen…
There, I admit, I’ve lost the thread of your question a bit, Yasemin, so I’d rather not respond to that now, sorry, I can’t quite place it right now. Let me start again from your definition, when you say it’s about, so to speak, “power is given when it acts against the will of another.” That was your definition. And if I have no possibility to object whatsoever, and so on. So, seen that way, you’d have to come to the conclusion that social media doesn’t have power status in that sense, because we, so to speak, agree that it’s fine, in order to use it to our advantage, for example, and so on. If we now pick up this aspect of surveys and polls again, and so on, which happens in the context of elections and things like that — I could now say, no, I don’t agree with that, and I don’t legitimize it, and I personally step out of social media. I could make that decision for myself, and let’s say I’ve now made it for myself. But I can’t influence, in quotation marks, whether others keep using social media or not. If the others keep using social media, and through surveys and polls that take place, get steered in a certain direction, generating public opinion — elections or decisions arise from that, in the context of elections. What effect does that have, or what does that mean, in relation to this classification of power for social media? That’s my question. I hope that’s comprehensible for you, Jürgen.
Yes, that’s maybe very little, a drop on a hot stone, but that someone has recognized these connections and stepped out, and, in relation to their own personal responsibility, maybe feels called to show what actually happens, in the context of, for example, elections, in the context of how Brexit played out. And I think that’s very closely connected to what Marc said. I find that point really important too. For me, social media is, per se, nothing different, in terms of manipulation or control or restriction of a certain will, than mass media. They’re a tool, a vehicle. The manipulation, the control, and the knowing, willful suppression of my will — that comes from people, at the moment still, comes from people acting on me. And I certainly see the enormous potential for danger due to the spread, the rapid transformation of representations, of data into information, in relation to social media. But again, it’s a vehicle, a tool, that a very specific clientele uses for their political, economic, or personal goals. And let me round this off. I asked earlier, show me what I can do. I answer this question for myself by saying there are two levels. As an individual, I can do something, for example by attending a room like today’s, and expanding my critical base, to question what’s actually going on, and whether I agree with it. And the second counter-power against something like this, I see coming from our community, if you will, all the way up to the state in its responsibility, to conduct a certain kind of enlightenment — nice term, conduct enlightenment — to raise awareness of what’s actually happening with us on an unconscious level, and what effects that can have. That would be the starting point for me. I hope I’ve answered your question, dear Yasemin.
Wonderful, thank you so much. And here, the knot actually gets untangled accordingly too. We’ve had this in other rooms before too, where we arrived at the insight that it’s ultimately not the technology, for example — we called it that in other rooms — or the technology, but the problem, or the solution, is the human being. And we’ve arrived at exactly this same conclusion again here now, through working our way through this. And that makes clear, exactly what Marc just said, that there are people, or enterprises, behind it, with various interests. You put it so nicely with the vehicle, that’s used here, so to speak. It’s not social media per se, but what stands behind it, who represents which interest, and how it’s used. And that can be steered in one direction or another. It can be countered too. And here it becomes clear again, how important gatherings like this, or similar things, are — like an ethics council, which, here too, on other levels as well, not just with social media, always has to think about what’s needed here, for example, to regulate one thing or another, to initiate legal provisions, and so on, so to lead these debates accordingly, in order to look at things against this background. We’ve opened up so many topics too, starting with discrimination, via social media, and all the algorithms working in the background there. So really taking a deep dive into this, and, in line with these discourses taking place, and considerations, to think this through too, without going into over-regulation, but also to look at what’s necessary, to be able to set the appropriate framework and guardrails.
I saw, Marc, you wanted to say something too. I haven’t taken any further hand-raises into account now — please forgive me, since we’ve reached the end of the room, so to speak. That’s why I’d like to give Marc the chance to follow up once more, and at the same time also underline the closing word for today’s room. Whatever was a highlight for you from the room. And then I’ll hand it back to Jürgen for the closing word too, and then I’ll gladly announce tomorrow’s room as well.
Marc.
I’ve just drawn a connection for myself personally with medication. Maybe at some point there’ll be a package insert for social media, before you open it, that says, warning, we take no responsibility for side effects and new thought patterns. Please consult your brain. I wish you all a good start to the week.
Wonderful, thank you, Jürgen. Don’t be upset, but I don’t want to add anything further to that. Thank you so much, dear Marc, for this closing word, and dear Yasemin, for your moderation. It was very refreshing, and a good start to the new week to you all, and until tomorrow.
Thank you so much. Ciao. Take care.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. And I think the room was a really, really nice example of how necessary it really is to keep picking up topics again and again, and opening them up from different perspectives. An insight you gain from one, or from various other rooms, isn’t automatically linked up, so to speak, in our brain, to other aspects. And that’s why I find it all the more important to actually open up the various aspects again, under different points of view or focal points, in order to be able to accordingly re-establish these connections, and create new networks in the brain too. I think we managed that quite well today. Thank you so much for these wonderful perspectives, for really digging into definitional aspects and so on — and I don’t mean that negatively at all, quite the opposite. Because that’s what lets us, through this juggling of the brain, in quotation marks, feel our way forward step by step, and think, and derive results and insights from it. And to create new connections again. So I found today’s room really, really valuable in that sense. And thank you both for participating, and for the diverse examples, and for always picking things up again. And I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s room together with you all, on violence against animals. Which forms of violence against animals are known to us? Can they be justified? Or rather, what can we do about it — that’s the question we want to explore tomorrow. So you’re all very warmly invited to join us again tomorrow. I’m looking forward to it. Until then.
