The Social Dilemma
Assignment Objective:
Critically analyze messages
Assignment Description:
Directed by Jeff Orlowski, The Social Dilemma is a 2020 Netflix original documentary that attempts to persuade and inform viewers about the dangers of media use. This assignment required that students watch the documentary and evaluate the use of specific persuasion tactics, ultimately determining how persuasive the film was. I determined that the film was very persuasive, incorporating the use of ethos, pathos logos, and credible sources.
View the Essay below or as a PDF:
Our Social Dilemma
Directed by Jeff Orlowski, The Social Dilemma is a 2020 Netflix original documentary that attempts to persuade and inform viewers about the dangers of media use in our lives, impacting mental health, democracy and a rise in discrimination. This film calls for action, encouraging open eyes and conversation on this difficult subject. The Social Dilemma persuades through a variety of tactics. These include the use of ethos, pathos and logos, the source, targeting central and peripheral routes of communication, and triggering involvement with the source. Evaluating the use of the above tactics, alongside social judgement theory, this film can be considered a persuasive piece of media.
Developed by Aristotle in the 4th century B.C., ethos, pathos and logos are defined as the three ingredients of persuasion” (Perloff, 2014, p. 42). Ethos, the “nature of the communicator” or, in other words, the use of credible or authority figures to persuade, is common in The Social Dilemma (Perloff, 2014, p. 42). The beginning of the film introduced each of the interviewees, many of whom were employed or key players in major media organizations. These included, but were not limited to, Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube, Apple, Twitter, Firefox, Pinterest and Uber. These people provided, better than anyone else could, a first hand account of what is going on inside their company. Other officials on this subject matter included interviewees with P.hD’s and doctorates who could provide a scientific, unbiased perspective. Pathos is the “emotional state of the audience” or the emotional appeal (Perloff, 2014, p. 42). Between the three ingredients, pathos was the most often used. A variety of emotions were targeted throughout the documentary. Oftentimes remarks were meant to shock viewers such as at 9:23 in the film when Tristan Harris stated that “two billion people will have thoughts they didn’t intend to have” all thanks to a room full of 50 designers, specifically 20-35 year old white men (Orlowski, 2020). They accompanied this statement with the visual of a puppet, allowing viewers to make the connection that we as media users are the puppet. They not only refer to us as puppets, but later as products at 14:16 when Tim Kendall explains “we are the product … being sold to advertisers” (Orlowski, 2020). Professor emeritus of Harvard Business School, Shoshana Zuboff adds to this, reducing us down to the same level as pork belly trade. We are no different, she says. Aside from the feeling of shock, fear was another emotion targeted throughout the film. At 6:49, it was discussed that the media tracks everything about your usage, from what video you stopped scrolling at, to exactly how long you watched it. This is used to determine your future media intake. Everything you view is precalculated. Humans have an intense desire and need for control. The idea of not having control often triggers a fear response. Logos was used sparingly throughout the film. Logos is a logic appeal, in this case using facts and figures to establish a point. One point at which logos was used was at 40:26 when they revealed the U.S. hospital admissions for non fatal self harm. Rates for girls age 15-19 were shown to have increased by 62% while the rate for girls age 10-14 increased 185%. The same pattern was displayed in suicide rates. Girls 15-19 years old displayed a 70% rate increase while girls 10-14 years old displayed a 151% rate increase. This emphasizes the urgency in changing the ways people allow the media to dictate their lives before it ultimately consumes them. All three, ethos, pathos and logos, are used in The Social Dilemma, increasing the film's persuasive strength.
Determining whether sources are persuasive is determined by their authority, credibility and social attractiveness. Authority “emanates from a person’s position in a social structure” and “involves the ability to dispense rewards and punishments” (Perloff, 2014, p. 237). As mentioned previously, a large number of people were consulted for interviews, many of whom have held high ranking positions in mass media organizations. To name a few, Jeff Siebert was formerly senior director of product at Twitter. Sandy Parakilas was previously operations manager for Facebook and product manager at Uber. Tim Kendall was the president of Pinterest. Other authoritative figures were included in this documentary including Jaron Lanier, computer scientist and founding father of virtual reality; Dr. Anna Lembke, the medical director of addition medicine at Stanford University; Shoshana Zuboff, Professor Emeritus at Harvard; and Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University. Interviewees often cautioned viewers with the threat of punishment, identifying the dangerous effects of high media usage including addiction, suicide, social unrest, among others. Credibility is built upon a respect and trust that must be earned from the audience. Official news clippings were what I deemed the most credible sources within the film. The news is both a trusted and respected source that is relied upon day in and day out for information, especially during these times of unrest. Social attractiveness refers to the likeability or similarity one has to a source. The beginning of the documentary felt very raw. The interviewees clearly felt discomfort about being on screen, as anyone would have. They are portrayed as the common person, showing similarities to you or I. Interviewees also displayed likability. Bailey Richardson, for example, introduced herself at 00:51 by saying “hello world” (Orlowski, 2020). This displays that she has personality, and, therefore, becomes more likable. Another instance was when Tristan Harris showed off some magic tricks. This gives Tristan greater depth, proving he’s more than just a Google big-wig. Through the evaluation of authority, credibility and social attractiveness, the sources can be deemed persuasive.
The elaboration likelihood model or ELM “provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the effects of a host of source, message and receiver factors on persuasion” (Perloff, 2014, p. 189). Components of this model include peripheral routes, central routes, involvement and ego. When examining peripheral routes, “people examine the message quickly or focus on simple cues to help them decide whether to accept the position advocated” (Perloff, 2014, p. 190) Simple cues include “a communicator’s physical appeal, gib speaking style, or pleasant association between the message and music playing in the background” (Perloff, 2014, p. 190). In terms of speaking style, despite being nervous in the beginning of the film, all spoke clearly, confidently and with assertiveness. They knew what they needed to say, and they said it despite the risk of speaking out against the major mass media organization. Music played an essential, persuasive role throughout the film. Oftentimes, a solemn, eerie music was played, most notably at 29:10 when Chamath Palihpaitiya states “We want to figure out how to manipulate you as fast as possible” (Orlowski, 2020). Partnering this phrase with this music creates an unsettling feeling, knowing that the former vice president of Facebook admits that their only goal is to control you. The song “I Put a Spell on You” is later integrated into the documentary, which creates a spooky tone, as is a popular Halloween tune, and reinforces the trend of control. The central route of the ELM is “characterized by considerable cognitive elaboration … When people process information centrally, they carefully evaluate message arguments, ponder implications of the communicator’s idea and relate information to their own knowledge and values” (Perloff, 2014, pp. 189-190). The movie continually provided evidence for the harm brought on by the media, proving the damage had on three separate categories including mental health, democracy and the fight to end discrimination. Relating this information to my own knowledge and values, I couldn’t help but accept their arguments without question, as I already understand the dire situation that the media has presented us and the need to stop it. This film verified my beliefs and forced me to think more critically about the catastrophic effects of media usage, not only affecting the individual, but society at large. Finally, “individuals are high in involvement” when an “issue is personally relevant or bears directly on their own lives” (Perloff, 2014, p. 191). This is ego-involvement. Oftentimes the film displayed reenactments following a family and their experiences with media usage, many which I’m sure we can relate to, whether it be having our phone taken away at dinner time, to scrolling through social media for hours at a time. These reenactments are meant to trigger relatability so as to increase our involvement with the text, or how much we consider and think about the text. Personally, I was very engaged with the film, actually taking notes and pausing to discuss it with my mother, who watched it with me. Targeting elements of the elaboration likelihood model, the filmmakers were able to catch our attention and force us to think critically about this subject, increasing the likelihood of persuading us.
The Social Dilemma is not exactly what the title implies. A dilemma is defined as making a choice between two alternatives. While this film suggests that two sides exist, evidence is not presented equally. At 2:22, Tim Kendall points out that “these tools have created some wonderful things in the world” but is simultaneously a utopia and dystopia (Orlowski, 2020). For example, the ‘like’ button was meant to spread positivity, but today has become a source of depression when a post doesn’t get enough likes. The remainder of the film primarily focuses on the negative effect of media usage, creating a more one-sided documentary. This structure leaves less room for people to make their own calculated decisions. This one-sided message is received through a combination of interviews, news clips and reenactments, all building off one another. The reenactments show ‘real-life’ proof of the harm that media has on the individual and family bond. The news clips demonstrate the current effects that the media has on society. The exact message that this film hopes to convey is not quite clear until the end. The beginning of the documentary identifies a number of problems, including fake news, technology addiction, etc. As Tristan Harris states at 6:29, “there’s a cacophony of grievances and scandals … But is there something that is beneath all these problems that’s causing all these things to happen at once?” (Orlowski, 2020). That underlying problem is the control that we allow the media to have over the real world, dictating the way we think, act and live. By the end, viewers are called to action, asking them to open their eyes and outsmart the mass media companies.
Social judgment theory helps a person determine whether something is worthy of their time or worth believing in. The theory “emphasizes that receivers do not evaluate a message purely on the merits of the arguments. Instead, the theory stipulates that people compare the advocated position with their attitude and then determine whether they should accept the position” (Perloff, 2014, p. 95). The position advocated for in this film is the idea that the media is dangerous and controls every aspect of not just our digital lives, but our real lives. I believe that the media is, indeed, dangerous, but only controls as much of our lives as we let it. Now, there are three latitudes that the film’s perspective might fall into upon comparing it to my own. This includes the latitude of acceptance, rejection and non-commitment. The latitude of acceptance are “all those positions on an issue that an individual finds acceptable, including the most acceptable position,” while the latitude or rejection “includes those positions that the individual finds questionable, including the most objectionable position” (Perloff, 2014, pp. 96-97). The latitude of non-commitment is in the middle, with which you are still willing to occasionally engage, but there is no telling whether you will accept or reject. Comparing my perspective to that of the film’s, I would accept the film’s perspective. While I believe that we ourselves determine the extent to which the media controls us, I believe that it is more likely than not that users get manipulated into letting the media control our external acts and feelings. Using social judgment theory, I believe I am persuaded by The Social Dilemma.
The Social Dilemma was directed by Jeff Orlowski, who believes that the media dangerously dictates our lives. This ranges from controlling an individual’s mental health to the entire social system. Orlowski asserts that viewers must choose change. A number of different tactics are integrated so as to persuade viewers including pathos, ethos, logos, the choice in source, central and peripheral routes of communication and triggering audience involvement with the text. Considering these tactics as well as the social judgement theory, I believe that this film can be persuasive, as it has personally persuaded me to accept their perspective.
References
Perloff, R. (2014) The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st
Century. Routledge.
Rhodes, L. (Producer), & Orlowski, J. (Director). (2020). The Social DIlemma [Motion picture].
USA: Exposure Labs.