Audio of the Week: Renee DiResta on Making Sense with Sam Harris
I’m catching up on episodes of the Making Sense podcast with Sam Harris. As always, the conversations are deeply insightful.
In August, Sam had Renée DiResta on the show. She is a writer and formerly led research at the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), a program dedicated to studying the abuse of information technologies with a focus on social media. She’s the author of Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality, which is on my reading list. Her work has focused on the spread of misinformation, including pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, terrorism, and state-sponsored information warfare.
Two interesting concepts come up in the podcast that are worth diving into.
The Two-Step Communication Flow Model
Renée talks about the two-step flow of communication model, which states that people form opinions through opinion leaders, who are themselves influenced by the media. This feels intuitively right to me and aligns with the recent rise in the influence of political KOLs, accelerated by increased internet use.
The two-step model contrasts with the hypodermic needle model, broadly accepted in the early 20th century. The hypodermic model assumed messages were directly and strategically planted to influence people.
These concepts reminded me of Edward Bernay’s book Propaganda, which I read in university and left a deep impression on me.
The Social Media “Public Square” Analogy
Social media, particularly X, is often depicted as an online public square where the open market of speech and opinions flows freely. Renée explains what is wrong with this analogy in the context of social media.
First, it assumes that a global public square is possible and desirable. She argues that in physical space, public squares because people are in a “shared presence” as members of a community or neighborhood. They want their community to flourish, and public spaces allow members to come together, draw strength, form bonds, and make collective decisions.
This is not happening on social platforms that did not evolve into the agora many promised. I think anonymity, herd mentality, and engagement incentives are to blame.
Secondly, physical public squares restrict certain types of speech and behavior. There are time, place, and manner norms that need to be followed. Furthermore, one cannot show up in a public square, violently insult a neighbor, or threaten someone with weapons without the police's intervention.
My sense is that in physical public squares, good behavior is enforced by a social contract. You’re unlikely to berate your baker for wanting to ban abortions because you’ll have to face her every time you buy a baguette. “Don’t shit where you eat,” as the saying goes.
The public square metaphor fails to capture its purpose. More than just a bunch of people in one space, public squares are about collective good and progress. Take that away, and you get what Renee describes as the “gladiator arena,” where the purpose is to “own your enemy or push them out of the arena entirely.”
The conversation covers many fascinating topics. Paradoxically, Renée has been the target of online conspiracy theories accusing her of deep state efforts to censor conservative opinions, particularly in the context of her work on election fraud. Her work at the SIO was even shut down following a lawsuit from right-wing politicians and conservative non-profits.
It's a sad reminder that in the so-called public square of the internet, you can get dragged into whatever fight happens within it, even if you’re watching from the sidelines.