#124 Douglas Rushkoff: The Perils of Modern Media
01:05:09 Share

We contaminated Twitter, the internet, we contaminated the internet. These were play spaces. They built the internet, yeah, for scientists to be able to communicate with each other. What did the scientists do with it? They ended up telling fantasy Star Trek episodes and sharing recipes and took a network where every node is going, hello, who are you? Let's play. Hello, let's play.

Let's play. It was that. It was a cultural explosion. And my advice to the regular listener, reader, person, the person like me, is honestly, go to real media for your information. Go to social media for your play. Welcome to the Knowledge Project Podcast. I'm your host, Shane Parrish.

The goal of this show is to master the best of what other people have already figured out so you can unlock your potential. We interview world-class doers and thinkers so you can better analyze problems, seize opportunities, and master decision-making. Every episode is packed with lessons and insights that never expire. If you're listening to this, you're missing out. If you'd like special member-only episodes, access before anyone else, transcripts, and other member-only content, you can join at fs.blog.com. Check out the show notes for a link.

Douglas Rushkoff is here today. Dr. Rushkoff is an author, teacher, and documentarian who focuses on the ways that people, cultures, and institutions create, share, and influence each other's values. He's the professor of media theory and digital economics at CUNY, Queens, where he founded the Laboratory for Digital Humanism. Rushkoff was named one of the 10 most influential intellectuals by MIT.

I wanted to talk to him because I wanted to explore some of the ways that we are shaped by technology and also the ways that we're shaping technology. As you can imagine, we talk about media, culture, misinformation, and technology. I don't always agree with him, but we have a pretty good conversation. It's time to listen and learn. ♪

The IKEA Business Network is now open for small businesses and entrepreneurs. Join for free today to get access to interior design services to help you make the most of your workspace, employee well-being benefits to help you and your people grow, and amazing discounts on travel, insurance, and IKEA purchases, deliveries, and more. Take your small business to the next level when you sign up for the IKEA Business Network for free today by searching IKEA Business Network.

Well, first I want to start with what are you obsessed with right now? I'm obsessed with what feels like

a totalizing, polarizing, fascistic environment. Politics aside, whatever people's views, I feel like they're getting so bizarrely entrenched. Everyone has this sort of, almost this might makes right view

enforcement of values and ideologies. There's a stiffness to everybody's approaches and whether it's their business plans or their social agendas or...

I used to think, oh, you know, when I'm kind of on this side of things, I look at, oh, look at that other side. They're being all stiff. Or if I'm on that side, then I look at this side and go, oh, they're being all stiff. Then when I get kind of more McLuhan-esque about it, you know, McLuhan used to write a lot about media environments that we kind of live. Neil Postman did too. The idea that culture is like the medium on which the bacteria grows, that somehow we're in an atmosphere of

of this kind of extremism and polarization. And then I'm obsessed with how do we engender a more human, softer, more flexible, empathetic approach to living when we're in an environment that's this rigid and whether or not we'll be able to do that or whether humanity itself is just going to succumb to this kind of bizarre operating system. Yeah.

Talk to me about that extreme polarization. Like, is technology creating that or is it amplifying something already within us? Or how is that happening? You know, it's hard to know whether the media and technologies that emerge are

emerge and are successful because of a pre-existing cultural affordance for that thing, or whether the new technology or medium comes and then makes us all like that. So you could say the printing press and the book led to all the sorts of

individual perspectives and individualism that then characterized the Renaissance. Or you could say people were kind of getting into the idea of being individuals and they made things like the book and the printing press and perspective painting popular because that's what they were ready for.

Or you could say television was a global medium and brought everyone together. And that's why we got that kind of Oprah Winfrey-like hands across the world crashing of the Berlin Wall. Or today, you could say digital technology is a one, zero, yes, no, right, wrong, choose one of the above cookie cutter medium. So people's lives and politics and approaches end up getting that way.

Or were we already kind of in a technocratic, scientistic culture that had killed God since Nietzsche and the computer comes along? And of course, there we are. There's the realization of that worldview. So I would say it's like both kind of affect each other. But what you have to do then is like, so you get, we get what we asked for.

We got our post-God Nietzschean computer automated soul-killing auto-tuning technology, and now we're, okay, how do we mitigate some of that? How do we retrieve that which is being left behind in this new environment?

Talk to me a little bit about that. How do we do that? How do we use these tools to not only have autonomy, but also create a better empathetic understanding of alternative points of views and an interdependency with other people? Well, I would say first by not insisting that we find the answer to these tools in these tools.

Every conference I go to now is about how are we going to kind of retrofit the blockchain to solve the problems of the internet? Or what wellness apps can we create to help people manage their screen time? And it might be that technologies, digital technologies are not the solution for digital technologies. It may really be as simple as Sabbath, you know, having a day when you're not plugged in. Not to be anti-tech.

but we can bring our technologies along with us in certain ways, but not in other things. I was, I was just watching, you know, my daughter got home from this party and all people were doing at the party was

was typing into their phones and taking Instagram pictures and all that. And it used to be you'd go to a party, I mean, in the old days, even a big important party, and there might be some press there or a photographer there. And that was like they were working. They were working the party. They had to cover the party.

for their medium, you know, because Madonna showed up or, you know, whoever, some person. So they're there, you know. But now I look and I say, wow, all these kids are working journalists in their life. They're reporting. And I get it. And then you go to your device because you want to know what's happening, I guess. But you're not in touch with what's happening. You're reading reports from amateur journalists, right?

on their day, on what's going on. I'm talking about obsession, this obsession with recording everything, but they're not even, and I wrote about this, you're not even living in the present. So I'm really looking forward to a day when people start

appreciating their experiences for their own sake again and realizing that if you're reporting on the party, you're not at the party. If you're reading about the party, you're not wherever you really are. And no one thinks of it this way, but it's like everyone's become a

journalist, either when they're in an experience, they're writing about it as a journalist. And when they're not somewhere, they're reading the journalism, the diaries of everybody else. And that's, it's fine. I mean, spend an hour reading people's diaries, but then, you know, what do you want to do?

I want to go to that comment you made on journalism and everybody sort of being a journalist and how that relates to the information we're consuming about misinformation and facts and our perception into the world. Like if we're consuming information by amateur journalists or people who believe that they're journalists, I

And they're all reporting something and they're reporting through their lens, you know, without sort of any training and obviously bias. And we're existing in this world of sort of, I would say, misinformation, which is intentionally possibly misleading. But there's also all of this information out there that is sort of

generally irrelevant or high noise to signal? How do we filter that? How do we think through that? One way to filter it is to filter ourselves and our own expression. I remember when Blogger came out and Blogger was one of the first web blogging platforms. Evan Williams, later of Twitter, did it. And I was at a conference talking to Evan about it. It was just a baby platform. And he was like, oh, are you going to use this? And I was like, well...

I don't think I should use it. I'm already a journalist. I've got, you know, I'm on the New York Times Syndicate. It wouldn't be fair for me to go in there. This is a play space. You know, it's for, it's for, you know, amateurs in the best sense of the word for them to do it and talk. It's a social network. It's not for some professional journalist to be, you know, I have a platform. It's not right. Right.

And he was like, no, no, it's for everybody. It's for everybody. You could use it the way you use it. And, you know, I played around with it some. And I mean, I ended up with a blog somewhere on my website, I guess. But what I started to feel like was, yes, it's great for everyone to be able to type what they're feeling and stuff. But just because you can type doesn't mean you can write, right? And just because you can write doesn't mean you should write. It was like,

In the old days, in the old days of the late 80s, early 90s, the only people who could write a book were the people who were willing to sit and type a whole book, you know, when it was hard, when you couldn't just cut and paste things. It was a whole big thing. Or even on a Commodore 64, it was still a whole big thing. And it's like the tools made it really easy for people to type lots of words, but that didn't necessarily make them real.

writers any more than, you know, Adobe Photoshop makes somebody into a graphic designer. Yeah. You know, an amateur can now do some cool effects. But when you look at something that's really done by a real artist, you can see, oh, that's design. When you read something by a real writer, you can go, oh, well, that person knows how to write. The same thing is true of journalism. There's this stuff that you learn either in a journalism class or in journalism school about sourcing and what does it mean to have two sources for everything and what is off

the record and what is on the record? How does all that work? And I remember in the early days of the net, I would go and talk at high schools and colleges. And the question I would always get was, you know,

What makes your journalism any better than my journalism? Why should you have all these readers and I don't? And I'm like, because you're a fucking sophomore in college just spouting off. You know what I mean? And I've worked at this. I didn't answer it like that, but that's –

And the tools create the illusion that what we say matters or that because our text can look all like it's in a sub stack, that means it has equal value to everything else that's up there. And it just doesn't. The thing that's going to happen, I guess, is as deep fakes and other.

Other kinds of media come out that make it really impossible to distinguish between what is being said and what is not. We're going to, again, just as we did before any video existed, we're going to rely on the integrity of a journalist and the integrity of a publication.

to measure the reality level of something. And we're not there yet. We're still just looking for the opinion that makes us feel the most delightfully angry than we are, whatever the hard truth might be. Well, it used to be that we held up organizations like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal as arbiters of sort of fact from fiction. And that seems to be becoming increasingly hard now.

as the media landscape for how we tell stories and the attention culture sort of pervades. How do you think about that? I mean, as someone who's been traditionally progressive, I get really upset when I see

The way MSNBC or CNN will even slightly slant or misrepresent a story in order to get the most impact, because once they or the Times are doing it, then.

Where are you supposed to turn? You know, so when I see a piece in The New York Times that, you know, the headline and the first few paragraphs are arguing that, oh, you know, when Israel opened up its schools, its elementary schools, COVID rates went up.

And then you finally read all the way down and you go to the links and find the studies. And it's like, okay, when Israel opened its bars, its restaurants, its theaters, and its public schools, COVID rates went up.

Like, because they're playing into the schools open, schools closed, schools mask, schools not. That's a bigger headline. It gets more clicks. But you've ended up for whatever reason, whether it's your politics or your need to get clicks, you've misrepresented a story. And once you do that once...

How do I trust them? No. Does it mean that I'm going to go to Rand Paul or whoever's his, you know, or Alex Jones site about, you know, and I can read about there's one website that was talking about these doctors were talking about how the COVID vaccines have these

eggs in them that hatch aluminum parasites that replicate and they held up a model of what the aluminum parasite looks like and how it swims and it's not really alive but it's kind of alive and it was like, man,

And people, you know, there's people are sending me this. They're like, like, look, look, oh, my God, you've got to talk to them on your podcast. This is really important. You know, don't get the vaccine. It's hard to then have. Actually, you should be reading this instead. So now it's like I'm telling people to watch NewsHour with Judy Woodruff.

They're pretty normal. NPR stays kind of as centrist as it can right now. There's some places. BBC is pretty straightforward, but

If I'm telling people, don't look at the Times. That's a scary moment. So what's the argument on behalf of the Times? We have to exist as a business in a changing environment. And in order to compete, we have to be more sensationalized than we used to be and maybe sort of like take advantage.

positions or slants that we never had to. Otherwise, we'll go out of business. I don't know that that's... I think their argument... The only valid argument is, look, we got really big and we're throwing so many articles into the fire in order to keep this going. That the New York Times used to be able to write one paper a day, and now we're writing the equivalent of five papers a day because of how much we have to update the site in order to get stuff. That we have less adequate...

uh monitoring and control over stuff and just like anybody our journalists get whipped up into a frenzy by covid denialism and vaccine rumors that they end up trying to promote whatever it is the cdc is trying to say and the cdc has its own problems because the cdc is not thinking in terms of

giving the public accurate information. The CDC is like our doctor trying to tell us the things that they need to tell us to get us to take our medicine. And that's different than journalism. You know, when I look at Fauci, he's looking for patient compliance. So that's what he's saying. He's not a journalist. Go deeper on that about the CDC and sort of like their sort of maybe institutional bias in terms of how they're communicating.

And they were wrong at the start, right? Like they were quick and wrong. Well, they were right. What they were right about was they looked. So the CDC's job is to reduce the transmission of a virus through a community by whatever means necessary. And they looked at the situation at the early moments of COVID and thought, you know, masks may or may not be of some minimal help in the general population, but

who may or may not be even coming into contact with any COVID. There's like, you know, 300 cases or a thousand cases in the whole country where meanwhile, there are healthcare workers who can't get

the equipment that they need. So if health workers are exposed, they have a higher likelihood of getting the thing. If they get the thing, then our hospitals are crippled and can't take care of people and the virus becomes more rampant. What we have to do is let people know, look, the general public right now, you don't need masks.

who does need masks right now are these healthcare providers. So don't use masks. You should be okay. And these people will use masks. They're managing the disease. It is true. If you're wealthy, if you're Steve Jobs and you've got all the money in the world and you could live an ideal life,

Wear a mask, of course, right now, you know, because who are you going to trust them after that? Like, how do you as an average citizen, how do you trust them to give you proper information based on what you just said? I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying it was proper. It was how do I do it? What they should have said was right now we're in a mask triage situation.

And just like you're running to the store for toilet paper, you could be running to the hardware store and taking all the masks. But that would be a really bad thing to do. That would be really bad for the community. You've got to right now think of this disease and the whole country rather than this disease and you right now.

We want you to have resilience and have water in your house and food and be able to live for a week or two. But we really need these masks. If you've got them, get them to the hospitals. We're going to produce more. And hopefully by the time this disease is rampant in the country, if it gets that way, we'll have upped the production on masks. So then you can have them when you need them.

And what do you think would have happened if they did that? Do you think everyone would have panicked and run out and bought the masks? Of course. So what are they looking at? So then they have to think, all right, we have to manage this.

This disease, it goes all the way back to the first public relations people. It was like Walter Lippmann and Ed Bernays and those folks around World War I. And when they came up with the idea of public relations, basically of in some ways manufacturing consent for certain things using whatever means and stories you have, what they believed was

You know, there's they their ideal government was there would be this kind of council of experts and scientists who would be in a big building next to the White House somewhere. And they would figure out what is it that we need America to do?

And they would say, okay, the scientists go, look, we've only got 30,000 masks and we've got 30 million people. We've got to make Americans give the masks to the hospitals because that's, and we know that's what's right right now. How do we do that? Then they hire Bernays or Lipman or public relations people to come up with what's the very best way to do that. The CDC, uh,

didn't have the very best people, right? They were thinking like a doctor. How does the doctor talk to the patient? What do we have to say? And, you know, what do you do if you miss a dose? And why do you have to take this? Why do you have to take all the antibiotic and all those things that doctors tell you? And they try to treat the American population as the patient. And

you know, that you can kind of not lie to, but, but do what you have to, to manufacture their, their, their compliance. And, and,

You know, in this environment, when you have a political faction whose strength and power is based on delegitimizing anything to do with organized government, that's a really difficult environment in which to play fast and loose with facts. Right.

Keep going down that path in terms of delegitimizing when you have one party that

sort of interested in that perhaps, but you also have organizations that are, you know, arguably making that a bit easier too with what you just talked about, right? Not giving accurate information because you're trying to create a behavior. So maybe you're withholding some information that you shouldn't be withholding, which feeds into this sort of like delegitimization. Right. I mean, the question is, does fake news genuinely derive more traction from

each error made by government or major news media. In other words, when there are real gotchas,

Does it work or would they still, I mean, would it still be that the COVID vaccine put something in you that then 5G towers activates and that's why you can't see it when you look in the vaccine, but once it's in you and they put a spoon on your head and everything's going to get magnetic. Do we stop paying attention basically to the... Right. Once they're doing that, does that story gain more power because the New York Times has...

slightly misrepresented the real takeaway of an Israel COVID study? Ultimately, yes. Once you start playing that game, you're going to lose to whoever plays that game more ruthlessly.

If you're going to be on the side of supposedly factual evidence-based reality, you've got to stick with that. And it doesn't mean you can't believe in the soul and astrology and everything else that you want to. I'm not saying you've got to be a staunch atheist, scientistic extremist, but you're reporting something.

You know, it has to be news that's fit to print. You know, if you're the paper of record and you want to stay the paper of record, you

You got to be careful about that. You know, shit happens, right? The Gulf War and bad reporting or whatever name was that said the wrong things about the Gulf War and got us in. That happens. But you want that to happen, you know, once a decade, not, you know, not daily. And if you're going to play that game on cable news, if MSNBC and CNN and whatever are going to put on, you know, newscasters who are opining throughout these, you know,

you know, broadcasts, then they're going to be seen as opinion news. What's the, like, how do we get out of this? I don't see a legitimate path to sort of like how we return to a more centrist, fact-based, you know, not left or right leaning in any sort of way, let alone the extremes. How do we? Oh, well, 99% of us really don't need to know about any of this stuff.

Honestly, you know, the I don't consume the news. I got to be honest. Like, I don't follow a lot of it. I don't. I mean, a lot of people were asking me a few weeks ago, you know, what I was thinking about Joe Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal strategy. Right. So for people who don't know, U.S. had been in a war in Afghanistan for like decades. And then Biden said, enough, we're just going to just take him out. And.

And basically I left and then everything went nuts and everybody was running to the airport. And it was this whole big, horrible scene with Taliban and and and the people who helped America and all that. It was just awful. And it's like, I don't know. I honestly I've got so I've got very little training.

in Middle East withdrawal strategies, whether you bring planes or boats. Do you tell the enemy you're going to do it? Do you not? Do you bring generals? And I just don't know about that. Not only do I not know about that, but I don't even know whose story about what is happening there is true or

And I don't even know where they get their information from. It's like something happens, right? Something happens in Israel, say some bomb happens and then some other bomb happens. And then Netanyahu says this and then Biden says that. And it's like it could be anything.

I don't mean like false flag, crazy attacks or whatever, but it could be that, you know, Netanyahu says whoever's in charge there now says they want to go and bulldoze the West Bank. But they don't really want to. They're saying that. So they get votes in support of some horrible faction in the Knesset that wants to do that. And they've already called Biden before they announced that. And they say, look, I'm going to say this. I want you to say we're not allowed to do it or you'll pull support. OK. All right. We'll do that.

So they set this thing up and then you report on it. And then I read about it in the Times. Oh, look, Netanyahu is really bad. Thank God we've got Biden holding him down. It may be that. It may not be that. I'm not there. I don't know. And frankly, what I think about this does not matter. It doesn't matter. Instead, if I took all that time that...

That I'm spending trying to understand these giant issues that are operating at a scale and behind closed doors that I have no access to. If I rolled up my sleeves and helped my neighbor figure out how the old lady is going to get her food now that she broke her frigging hip and no one else is going down there to deal with it. Or the people who just moved in who's got a differently abled family.

child who needs community support. You know, all of these things that we could be doing for each other in our communities with all that time we want to spend screaming about shit on Twitter. If we spent that time helping other people in our communities, it would relieve the central governments and the state governments of so much stress.

You know, you don't need as much welfare. You don't need as much planning. You don't need as many programs when you have neighbors taking care of neighbors. You don't need as much climate change remediation. If people are doing less crazy stuff, if they're sharing lawnmowers rather than everyone buying their own lawnmower, if they're playing with each other and doing local entertainment rather than flying around the world to do all sorts of crazy stuff, it's like

If you engage locally with the people around you and actually help real people, which I got to do now, we got flooded terribly in the last hurricane Ida. When you do that,

You don't need as much FEMA. It's like federal emergency management money. You don't need as much of that stuff. And it's easy. Become less dependent on central government, central news, national stories and all that, and more self-sufficient. It's more sustainable. It's more resilient. It's less brittle.

And it makes you less enemies. I mean, I'm side by side with Trumpies digging people out of the mud, having a discussion where I'm saying this is what's going to start happening a lot. They're saying, don't be crazy. This happens once every 10,000 years. I mean, let's see. Let's you know, but we're actually talking about it arm in arm, handing buckets to each other rather than through Twitter.

There's sort of three thoughts I have out of that. One is a question, I guess, about why we think what we think about foreign policy matters. Is it just because we have access to platforms now?

I think we always cared about these foreign matters, but we weren't as immersed in them and we weren't expected to have something to say about them. At least Walter Cronkite was like, he was this journalist guy. He went all the way over there and saw the war and talked to the soldiers and they had people talking to the generals. And then this whole sort of news agency kind of went, ah,

this is really awful. And their approach to it did seep out to America, but there were others. There was NBC News. There was ABC News. There was the New York Times. There was a lot. But yeah, Cronkite might have had influence, but yes, it was a different media environment, but one in which we weren't being trained to respond in a moment-to-moment way to every element

ebb and flow in the news to everything that was happening. That's not just the internet. I remember I wrote this piece back when, when, um, remember Britney Spears? I mean, there's the current story with her now, but I remember there was this moment when she had some kind of a breakdown and like shaved her head and they took her to the hospital and all.

And all the news channels had it. Everyone had it. You know, even the tiny little TMZ kind of news channels, whatever they were. But I saw this picture from far of her mansion.

And I counted, and this is just in what I could count, there were 20 different satellite dishes around her house. 20 satellite dishes beaming the thing, you know, those vans that the news people use. And I was thinking, could that story have been covered with just three satellite dishes? Would three live satellite feeds of the ambulance outside Britney's house be enough to

to somehow feed the news, the global news media? And then what if we took the other 17 of them and like put one in Rwanda, maybe, you know, one in Iraq, you

in places where there's actual stuff, places where there's 800,000 people dying in a genocide in Rwanda. I mean, the answer to that, though, is people generally, I mean, despite what we would state as our preferences when it comes down to it, we care a lot more about what Britney Spears is doing than what's happening in Rwanda. Yes, but we can still see it with just three satellite dishes. It would still have worked. Right.

Even if it was the most popular story in the world, it was still a misapplication of precious technology resources. I mean, and this happened, you know, really in the 90s. We shifted news from, in the United States anyway, news was a requirement to have an FCC television or radio license. You had to do a certain number of hours of news as part of your public affairs obligation, right?

When we took that away, then news was no longer a mandatory obligation. And it turned into if you're going to keep any news, it's for money. It's for profit. That's when you start hearing all the music and all the coverage. That's when news became so much more sensationalist because now it was part of the competitive enterprise rather than the public service mission of these companies. Right.

Going back just to orient people, I said I sort of had three follow-ups. The second one was around how would we teach someone to sort out what's relevant from irrelevant? How would you go about teaching somebody how to sort out essential from non-essential information? Honestly, I would say only go on social media to socialize and think of it as socializing.

If you really like it, make it part of your entertainment day, you know, and look at it for that. I mean, it's so funny. People used to joke that on Twitter, you know, I go on Twitter and someone tell me, you know, what they just ate for breakfast or where their favorite pecan pie is located.

That's what Twitter is for. Sorry. That's what Twitter is for. It's not for the president of the United States to communicate policy to the American people. That's not where you do it. Wait, why? Why? Go deeper on that. Why is that not the forum for? Because the president of the United States has access to real media like television and newspapers and press conferences and real things. But that's saying Twitter's not real media. Is that?

No, we contaminated Twitter, the internet. We contaminated the internet. We shouldn't have put banking on the internet either. These were fun places. These were social media. These were play spaces. This is where a guy could pretend he's a girl and a girl could pretend she's a robot. And these were play spaces. They built the internet, yeah, for scientists to be able to communicate with each other. What did the scientists do with it? They ended up telling like

fantasy Star Trek episodes and sharing recipes and telling what we used to call blonde jokes and like people did with fax machines. It was not, and it's not even secure for business. That's why all these companies are getting hacked and frozen and ransomware and all that. He took a network where every node is going, hello, who are you? Let's play. Hello, let's play. Let's play. It was that. It was a

cultural explosion. And sure, so you've got Blogger and Twitter and Facebook. Oh, look at Grandma. Grandma wants to look at the pictures of baby Norman. Oh, we want to play a game. Oh, let's do a survey. Who likes astrology? I like astrology. Now it's in that same space. Who really has authority over the West Bank? What are you doing? And now everyone, Cousin Louie and this and that, are going to argue on an international platform about who has ownership of the West Bank.

now let's have our senators and our presidents and prime ministers go down into that bizarre random public square and and delegitimize themselves and the authority they have as our representatives in washington by going into a generic no you want to you go to your district go home to your district and talk to the people there you do that live you know that's

you know, it's not a three days carriage ride away from DC anymore. You can get hop on a plane and go back and talk to people, go on your local PBS channel, go on your, your cable, go on C-SPAN. You know, you have the platform, the social media are for people without the platform. So my, my advice to the regular listener reader person, the person like me is, you

honestly, go to real media for your information. Go to social media for your play. Yeah.

So doesn't social media in a way allow us to filter out people who know what they're talking about from people who don't as well? Because now it gives credible people a platform that they can sort of put their ideas out there and then get feedback on them in a way that was difficult before without running for office or being an elected official or sort of working your way up through the bureaucracy. Yeah.

I don't see it. I mean... Like, doesn't it act as a check and balance in a way? Or is that the promise of technology that doesn't fully mute itself? You can, if you're really tough-skinned, you can post something

to the public knowing there are hundreds of thousands of people and bots on there who are going to use your inquiry to hurt you. That's their intent, right? To make you feel bad about yourself, to undermine your sense of authority, to get you to join something that's terrible, to militarize you, to make you more cynical. As long as you understand that, right? That the vast majority

of people replying to you and looking at you and using the information you're putting out are using it to hurt you, to reduce your autonomy, to make you feel bad about yourself, to create mental illnesses, to distort your perception of reality. And as long as you know that, then sure. So, you know, I got invited this week to be on Steve Bannon's podcast.

Well, everyone, even the publicist who sent it to me said, look at this for a laugh. Of course you won't do it. Part of me was thinking, well, my whole thing, my whole team, human motto, everything is find the others. Right. And here's one of the others asking me to engage.

Right. So there was a pros and cons of it. Of course, I'm going on his podcast adds legitimacy to Marjorie Taylor Greene and everybody else going there. And I'm not going to have control. And he could edit me to say anything he wants. And, you know, is the fact that I went on it going to outweigh anything good that comes about, you know, from am I really going to take him down in like a Jon Stewart way to when Jon Stewart went on Fox and, you know, expose what they are? Can I maybe turn him and help him see what's going on?

how some of what he sees about the Catholic Church and subsidiarity and distributism is good, but his approach is too violent and destructive. Can I get through to him? So I was debating it in my head, and I thought, maybe I should tweet. I just got invited to go on Steve Bannon's podcast. Should I do it? And then I realized going and me tweeting that would just create

It was just not because it's not there. There's there's so such a small percentage of people would engage with that in good faith that it would be too. It's not the forum to have that argument. Luckily, I have friends. I have students. I have faculty. I have a world of people I do trust that I could ask about that, that I do not need to ask that question. The only reason to ask that question on Twitter would be to show off.

Hey, everybody. I got invited on Steve Bannon. That means I've arrived. I'm not going to do it. So this way I can still leverage the fame value of having gotten invited without taking any of the risk of actually going on. Or what? Or I want to socially signal that I'm too –

SJW to go on those bad people show and look at me. I get some, what is that called? Signaling. I get some of that social signaling value from it. Now these ones are going to love me instead of hate me. And it's like, it's all a fucking game on there. So it's like, no, I don't use it. I, all I use Twitter for is I post links on,

to my articles. That's it. Figuring that people who do follow me on there, I don't want to get in conversations on there. It's just when the people say the really mean things or when something is intentionally misconstrued and then people start piling on without even reading the article that they think they hate because someone has said something totally wrong about it.

It feels bad in my body. It makes me not sleep as well. It makes me not right as well. It's not good for my metabolism, my system, my psyche, my soul. There's definitely a ton of signaling on social media from all sorts of people. I want to sort of go to the third point that I had as we were talking, and you were talking about sandbags and sort of being beside

your fellow humans in a way. And I think one of the things that we miss with technology is that we get so pigeonholed in a way to get reinforced with what we think that we don't get exposed to the community in the way that we used to get exposed. And I think part of living a meaningful life is actually that exposure and that exposure to other people being a sense of something larger than yourselves that is a community or a tribe of people that you may or may not

agree with, but you're a part of a bigger tribe than just your particular view of the world is what we're missing. And I think that that's one of the ways that we learn to empathize with other people and learn to see their view. I'm curious as to your take on that. I remember when AOL was just emerging and it had these various...

kinds of groups so that you could find your tribe of people and be in conversations with them and chat rooms and things like that. They divided it all up into what looked to me like consumer categories. Like, are you a car lover? Are you a book reader? Are you a this? Are you a that? And I got worried. And people kept calling these, oh, those are my online communities.

And I was always careful to say, that's not your online community. It's your online affinity group. And there's a real, there's a difference, you know, and of course the internet is going to want me engaging with people.

other middle-aged, Mini Cooper driving people. Because if the Mini Cooper is what we have in common, that could be monetized, as opposed to people who like sunny days or something. That's like, wait a minute, how do we advertise to them? It's like everything falls into those kind of categories. And the

The technology is really good. Obviously, it's a database technology, the whole internet. So it's really good at breaking us. It's optimized for breaking us down that way. And it's not optimized for the heterogeneous community thing that you're talking about. The heterogeneous community really only works in real life where you have a broad enough bandwidth to engage with people who are really different from you.

Online, it works really better to go find that group of people that you can't find in real life. So I live in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, where there's really only two people I would consider legitimate people.

anime fans here. Right. Right? And I could talk to the two of them, but if I want to really engage with the manga anime crowd who knows my kind of manga and anime, the real shit, I gotta go online and find the, you know, make a Gundam Evangelion subgroup, subreddit, you know, and find that. There's my others. There's my... That's...

what the internet is really good at, or if I've got a rare disease, I mean, people always use that example. You know, if I've got a rare disease or a rare handicap or something that there's not other people in my community that really get it, I could engage with those people and they understand what I'm going through in a way that, that other people don't. But

But it's not good, as we see on Twitter. It's not good for creating communities of people with diverse perspectives. In order to engage with people that have diverse or diametrically opposed perspectives, you have to be live next to them. When I'm next to the volunteer firemen from my town who believe...

who voted for Trump and believes that this won't happen again for another thousand years. And it became funny. He looked at me like, oh my God, you really think the world is ending, don't you, Doug? And I'm like, oh my God, you really think it's not? You know, and it was just...

But we drink together. We lift. Like you say, we carry sandbags together. I think at the end of the day, if you get down to a level where you can see humanity, we all have more in common than we think. We all want to be loved. A mentor of mine told me this. We all want to be loved. We all want to be respected. We all want to be listened to. We all want to contribute to something.

larger than ourselves. And that avoids sort of political issues. And there's nobody that can really disagree with that. We all want those things. And so if we can offer them to other people, it's a way to connect to them. You would think, you know, you would think. And then you look at if they didn't believe in stuff, churches and synagogues and stuff would be such...

For me, such great places to go. I just don't like believing things and worshiping and stuff. Talk to me a little bit about that. What do you think the role of religion and culture has been in curbing human behavior? I mean, it depends. I feel like most religions have these...

It's almost like most bands. They have this period after their emergence, shortly after their emergence, where they're trying to really do the right thing.

I mean, I know Judaism better than most of the others, but Judaism really emerged as a system of thought and behavior for the recovering cult addicts of the Egyptian death cults. They come out in the desert, they're like, oh, shoot, that didn't work. What?

What do we do? And say, okay, let's not worry about so much about believing in God and having an idol and all that. Let's focus on community and law and labor and have a Sabbath and let's try that, you know, and it kind of worked for a while. And then, you know, eventually, you know, they get

persecuted, they get a piece of land and they're fighting for survival and they go, okay, you know, and it all deteriorates and then people become, you know, worshiping at a wall and one God and one God alone and God gave us this piece of land and we're special and all this stuff happens and it's like,

Oh, no, you became a religion, too. You know, and it wasn't it wasn't Judaism until way late in its career. And I feel like, you know, and Christianity had that to this sort of insight of, all right, there's all these laws and you're getting ever more granular, trying to code reality, trying to optimize reality with all this law. And it's like you're getting so granular, you're never going to get there.

In the end, the law is just kind of training wheels for something more. You just got to be nice. Just be fucking nice. And the law can support you in that. And again, then that loses itself too. And it becomes about this Messiah guy and becomes this other religion. And it keeps having Muhammad tried. Everybody keeps trying. Buddha even. Even that many sects of it became this thing. And that's partly because people have this.

longing to believe in something that, you know, mommy and daddy failed me. And this new mommy, daddy thing is going to be the thing, you know, it's going to be what mommy and daddy really couldn't be. They couldn't anticipate my needs. They couldn't see inside my soul. And right now, oddly enough, I feel like our technologists, they're looking at technology to be that.

You know, I had this great experience with Timothy Leary when he had just read, he had just read Media Lab by Stuart Brand. It was the book about Nicholas Negroponte's lab. It just opened at MIT. And he, you know, we used to just sit and read together. And then he had been reading this book for like two days and circling things and felt a pen. And then I thought, oh my God, he must love this thing. You know, Stuart must have written a great book. And he closes it at the end and he flings it across the room like in horror.

And he said, only 3% of the people in the index are women. That goes to show you something. And I'm like, what? What does it show? He says, these are all men trying to use technology to recreate the womb. You know, their mothers couldn't anticipate their every little desire. So now they want to build technologies that are going to bring them, you know, whatever it is, to create a little bubble around themselves and bring them everything they want before they even know they want it.

And he was really right on a certain level. That's what, you know, with anticipatory algorithms and all that. But it struck me as so sad, too, that I get it. The world is scary and wet and dark and female and unknown and unpredictable and all that. But you don't want to compensate for that with more...

predictability and insulation. What you want to do is enhance your resilience and your wonder and your ability to tolerate and metabolize

A wealth of novel experiences, which is what makes life so much more fun. You know, it's fun and alive. But technology became, all I mean here is technology became that other religion. You know, oh, the blockchain that will solve for, you know, as I went to this conference, they were building a blockchain, they're calling it Project Liberty. And it's going to solve for multiracial liquid democracy. Right?

You know, good luck with that. Good luck with that. In an email to me before this, you said you were sort of in an anti-business, anti-self-optimization mood these days. Why? Because I feel like we're trying to auto-tune ourselves. You know, we're living in a digital media environment where everything is quantized.

You know, it's either here or there. You're on this node or that node. And our value system accordingly is to get people either, you know, up to the C or down to the B, but not

in that weird squishy place in between. You know, fuzzy logic is about reducing. It's not about maintaining the fuzziness. You know, it's about you're here or you're there and you've got, you need more granularity. Okay. We'll give you a half step. You're here, here or here, here, here or here. All right. You don't like that. We'll give you six. We'll give you eights, but you're still always on the mark. And what we do by doing that is, is

We make a judgment as to what is signal and what is noise. You know, if you're going to auto-tune James Brown, right? James Brown reaching up for the note or coming down in over the note. No, no, you're going to auto-tune him. He's not reaching. He's on the note, on the note. What have you done? You filed off the soul, the signal in a James Brown recording. The actual signal is his soul recording.

reaching up for that note. That's why they call it soul. It's that reaching that we're hearing. That's what makes his interpretation of the song different than Britney's, different than Ariana's. We auto-tune everybody in our music. We're tending toward auto-tuning everybody in their lives. The metric, and this is all, the metric you put on the wall is the metric that you're going to get.

And it may not be an ideal single focus for more than just some provisional fun experiment. I want to switch gears a little bit and ask you some more personal questions. This was pretty personal. When do you feel the greatest sense of peace in your life? Honestly, on a daily basis, when my wife and daughter have gone to bed. And it's like,

That's like on a daily basis. That's sort of my moment of peace. Peace is particular, though, I guess. You know, I feel then or when anything's been put to bed, you know, like an article or a book is finally approved. Yeah.

It's done now. There, there, no more comments, no more, no more drafts. It's in to the press, you know, because I'm writing, I mean, it's what I do. I'm writing all the time. So it's like, Oh shoot. Is there another email coming back from that editor on that thing? That for me is, is, is peaceful, you know, or after, after the talk or the panel or the thing, you know, especially if it was a risky one or in front of a new kind of audience, like, ah,

When do you tend to get emotional? I get most emotional now at small acts of kindness, the smallest things. I saw this Broadway show, it must've been over a year ago now because it was pre-pandemic, called Come From Away. It's about the Canadian island where a lot of the planes had to land for 9-11. And it's about this town that then sort of...

takes in, right? Yeah. They take in all those people who are on the planes and whatever. And Canadian of us, very peace order, good government. I love you guys. You know, and there's all these very touching scenes and all that and people crying or whatever, and I'm watching it. And then this woman's like, Oh, we've got to find, we're going to have to find sanitary napkins and pampers for these people. And I started crying.

From that. So what's, how does that make you cry? It's the small considerations when people do, when they, when they do that, it's the little, it's the littlest things that move me the most, the person who will get up in the subway for someone else to sit down. The, the,

neighbor who knows that my wife went in for a surgery and comes, can I bring you a chicken or something? It's that. Very human scaled acts of kindness, particularly in the face of adversity that brings it out. What habits are you trying to break right now? I'm trying to break email.

Which is a hard habit. Um, cause I get like a thousand of these things a day and what am I supposed to do? You know? And I'm, I feel really guilty if I don't answer them all. And I feel like some kind of an asshole that it's like, Oh, I get a thousand. So I don't have to, um, because they're real human beings who read, maybe read something or spend time and, and, um,

On the other hand, a lot of the emails will be like, oh, I'm in high school and they assigned me your book, Team Human, for a book report. Please tell me, what is your book about? I'm like, oh, fuck you, kid. No, you don't. You don't get that. I've decided I'm entitled to food and drink before anything.

email. You know, I'm aware and I'm not, you know, all Tim Ferriss-y about stuff, but I know that like when someone says something bad or there's more stress in an email, I know it's activating hormones and endocrine systems and all that that need calories and food and water and buffers. There's probably not enough oxygen or hydrogen or molybdenum or whatever it is that I need in my bloodstream to absorb all that. So I'm

Trying to limit that. Email is my bad thing. I have no problem with the social media. You know what I mean? It's not like, oh, I got to check my thing. I don't have those kind of habits. So it's that. And then sort of deeper, overdetermined sense of responsibility for others. I have a habit of not establishing any boundaries at all.

which served me well as an unpopular person before the internet, but doesn't work well as a slightly popular writer in an internet world. You know, people will not, if you don't put up boundaries, people aren't going to put them up for you. Talk to me about those boundaries that you've put up. Well, I haven't. That's what I'm trying to figure out. The boundary, it's going to have to come from, I'm going to have to develop boundaries.

a, an underlying assumption that I don't necessarily owe everything to everybody all the time, you know? And right now I kind of feel I do. I feel, I don't know. I kind of feel like I arrived here in this dimension, like with a deficit that I've got to somehow pay back. I don't know if there's other people walking around like that, but it's like, Oh, like I didn't pay the price of admission or something. Um,

And, and certainly to the extent which like people have bought my books and paid attention. Now I owe them, I owe the world a payback for all that, you know, as if, oh, you read my book. So now I owe you the equivalent hours of time that you just spent with my book. And that's tricky because if like a thousand people read a book and that took them four hours each, there's 4,000 hours I have to find somewhere. And that's,

you know, 10 hours a day for more than a year. When you're stressed, what's the most important thing for you to keep in mind? You know, I mean, this sounds so stupid, but it's new to me, so it's true. Breathing is like really important.

If you don't breathe, you fall down and die really quickly. But I tend, when there's a stressful thing, I've noticed I stop breathing. And then it gets worse and worse the less air there is. And then I almost have to remember, oh, right, you breathe a little bit and

At least my body feels like it's a little bit better. I feel a little bit armed. But yeah, that's my big one is learning, is breathing and understanding that I don't have to react to everything. That immediate reaction is not necessarily better than a considered response. What are you most optimistic about?

young people's ability to pass through the fame-obsessed decades into things mattering to them on a local and felt level. I think that there's... I mean, they still do it, obviously, but I feel like there's growing dissatisfaction among them for...

this, you know, influencer culture, you know, that living your life as some sort of an infomercial is not

satisfying and that they're going to move on. And as they do, like I was saying before, as they return to a locally scaled level and start looking in their towns and cities for the stuff that excites them, it's going to take such a burden off this giant planetary brands and all that stuff.

You know, I'm optimistic when I see the ports failing in Los Angeles and the boat getting stuck in the Suez Canal and of people saying, you know,

Is it really genuinely long-term cost effective to have slaves in China making all our stuff? You know, we fish for shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico. We transport those shrimp all the way to China and Vietnam where they get deshelled and then put them on other boats and ship them all the way back to us. Could that possibly be better?

In the big sense, could it be? Or is it just some business hack? Yeah, it's a business hack. So I've got faith that these kinds of...

Scaled foolishness, these very non-commonsensical approaches to civilizational stewardship will become apparent. So I guess I have faith in a new era of common sense shepherded by young people who get nauseous

of everything being done to scale and more interested. I sound like Bannon here, but in subsidiarity and distributism and the commons and local, small local business.

What do you know about decision-making that most people miss? I took Est in the 70s. Remember Est? It was like Werner Erhardt did this thing. They call it Landmark Forum now. It was one of the first kind of culty self-help things that came out of California. And you do these long seminars and whatever, like Tony Robbins kind of stuff. And what they said in it that stuck, the only thing that I remembered from it was they –

distinguish between a decision and a choice. And I realized that like a decision is the process of

I have this decision to make. It's the unresolved thing. The decision is more like the question, the weighing for this decision. But choice is what you autonomously choose to do. Without sort of an evaluation or a rigorous process. Well, there can be. You can do the evaluation and then make a choice. But once I make the choice, what I've learned now is to stop

Second guess is to stop going back to decision. You know, what a, what a, coulda, shoulda. What about that one? What about that? I chose this one. This is what's what I chose. I chose the froca mappa cheapo macanina from, you know, whatever the thing is at Starbucks. You know, I just choose black coffee, but whatever. I chose that one. Oh, I could have got the decaf latte. Yeah, you coulda.

You could have. But this is... You're here now. This is your house. This is your car. This is your wife. This is your shirt. You know, that's it. And I feel like...

It benefits advertisers and certain companies to get people second-guessing all their choices, so put them back in decision mode so they buy more stuff. And it's like, you know, you really don't need it. It's really fine. I think we're wasting a lot of time and energy re-choosing things that don't

It really doesn't matter which shirt you're wearing. It's which, you know, get out of the house already. And final question that I want to end with. What do you want other people to say about you when you're gone? Really? Isn't it great that we live in the world that Rushkoff predicted where, you

We got over all these tragedies and started just getting along with each other. You know, I'm so much less concerned that they talk about me than that they talk at all. I much prefer to influence their bearing, their comportment than the content. You know, whatever they're saying, I'd rather them be saying it in the way that I would

try to speak, you know, which is in a, in a loving, open, engaged, responsible, responsible way. I want them to engage with each other, feeling responsible for one another and whether or not they credit me with that by, by, by name, it doesn't matter. Thank you so much for taking the time for this engaging conversation, Declan. Thank you, Shane. It's good to meet you.

Thanks for listening and learning with us.

Till next time.