Steve Trotter

A friend sent me a name, asking if I had heard of the person. I hadn’t.

But I sniffed around, curious and trusting my friend’s judgment. I soon discovered my friend showed me a treasure.

I read some articles the person in question had written. YouTube let me watch a few videos of him offering ideas and providing evidence and examples which supported his theories. He was articulate and knew how to laugh. He was generous and not cynical. He brought up disturbing things, demonstrating consequences of choices many of us have made, most consequences of the unintended variety. Unintended or not, the consequences are disturbing.

He is what’s called a “social psychologist,” a term which stopped me. “What the heck is that?” I thought. I know what a psychologist is; so do you. I know what “social” means, as do you. Hmm. A social psychologist is sorting out how and why we, as a society, think and act the way we do.

I confess: I’ve always been suspicious of such disciplines. The social sciences seem to produce a lot of ideas which lack much evidence, a “soft” science for sure.

But this guy provided data. Hard data. Data that can only be ignored by willful ignorance or deliberate deceit.

His name is Jonathan Haidt (he pronounces it “hite”), a professor of ethical leadership at the New York University Stern School of Business.

“Ethical leadership,” I thought. “We could use more of that.”

Watching a video on YouTube I was caught by his first statement and example.

He said social media took off in the early 2010s. Almost simultaneously, there was a rapid and numerous increase in teenage depression and suicide. Only the most detached and unaware individuals would say that’s a coincidence.

Our politics reveal similar patterns. Not depression and suicide, but ignorance and a refusal to think. Lies, proven and demonstrated, accepted as truth. Issues of character, things like honesty and kindness, paying your bills and getting along, cast aside as unimportant.

Haidt offers a simple solution in one of his videos (I haven’t got my hands on any of his books, only articles. I’ll get them and settle in with a cup of good coffee.)

His solution? Social media companies must require that each user account show that the user exists, has identification, so her or his location is known, and is over 18 years of age.

That will stop the “viral” nature of much of social media, the usually false and almost always crazy “news” that spreads like, well, a virus, aided and enabled by software robots. Those robots are often created and supported by foreign parties. And, in our present political climate, harmful to the common good.

Would such a requirement violate the First Amendment? Of course not! No one’s free speech would be hindered or restricted. (Remember the First Amendment is about government restricting free speech. A private company is not the focus of the amendment.)

May the government require registration as Haidt suggests? Of course. No one’s speech is being restricted (and anyone may use a pseudonym if he or she wants.)

Our nation is fragile; it’s in a risky place. It takes little imagination to see America as a totalitarian state. Social media is partly to blame for the many divisions we see most days. Poor thinking is also blame-worthy. Haidt’s ideas have merit.

Now: How do we get social media companies to do The Right Thing?