Chris Cuomo (51:25)
So a couple of the hashtags on that video were like, hashtag viral. Follow me. And he's not wrong. I mean, I'm completely sympathetic to the economic and cultural argument that he makes in the video. What I think is worth pausing and considering when we view that video through the lens of these numbers. Younger people declining or rising in neuroticism, declining in agreeableness, declining in extroversion. That young man is talking to the Internet. And that's frightening because we on this show cover a lot the Marshall McLuhan quote about how the medium is the message, right? And how that's often used in a much flatter, simpler way than people realize. What it means is that these new vehicles of communication and McLuhan did not live to see TikTok, thank God for him. But the mediums themselves change what's being said. They're not just different vehicles. It's not like, oh, the message is getting out to the people faster. That's not it. I mean, that may be true and it definitely is in the case of Twitter or X whatever were calling it. It's definitely true. But the medium is fundamentally changing the way that we talk about these things. So if you are a young person who feels like you don't have a lot of male friends, male loneliness is on the rise. Great example. There are stats on how now male college grads have just about the same unemployment level as male men without four year degrees. There's a new story on that recently, actually. So you feel like the playing field is not fair. It's not. I hear it. And it should be changed. Absolutely. No question about it. We need policy changes, we need cultural changes. What we probably don't need is more young men complaining about their personal financial circumstances on the Internet. Now. I don't know him And I don't know how his story, all of that is true, but what I do think about a lot is how big tech isolates us so much that people then feel like their only option is to give big tech more engagement because these algorithms prize strong emotions. And the more isolated you are, the more alienated you are, the more lonely you are in a lot of cases because of these technologies, which I think it's pretty hard to disagree with the correlation. I mean, we'll get more and more science on this. We're playing out this experiment in real time. But looking at spiking levels of neuroticism among people who are younger, people who are more exposed to these technologies over the last decade. Declines in agreeableness, declines in extroversion, declines in making plans of following through. And perseverance rises in distraction, easily distractedness, carelessness. I mean, that's what this is doing to us. And the more more that we use these mediums as mediators for our politics and personal lives, the more power that we're actually giving to TikTok and Big Tech. I mean, the hashtag on that video gutted me when I saw that it apparently was uploaded with the hashtag viral and hashtag follow me. That's incredibly depressing. That's incredibly depressing. I don't know if this young man is like many other young men and feels like he doesn't have someone to talk to. We've discussed on the show a couple of times, recent New York Times op eds talking about how women feel like they're now shouldering more of an emotional burden of having to listen to their boyfriends and husbands, which is obviously just part of being in a relationship or a marriage. Think of what that's doing to men on top of the difficult circumstances that they already find themselves in socioeconomically. So I'm not obsessive over bootstraps philosophy, like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. I think there do need to be. I think that's absolutely virtuous. I don't think it's virtuous as a public policy. I think that we should shape our economy and our culture consciously to enable prosperity and to give people the best shot that they possibly can, thriving in this country and making this country strong. I don't think complaining about things being unfair on social media is a particularly constructive way if it's the only way that we go about it. I'm one of the few people who gets paid to do it, which is slightly different. I think journalists are mentally unwell for A reason, and that's because you do actually, if you're an opinion journalist, opine and complaints, complain in public often. So I would say take a lesson from the misery of your average journalist and don't treat your life the same way by publishing opinions that you're not getting paid for. Unless you feel like you're getting paid for the false affirmation that comes through likes, retweets, clicks. And just remember that the algorithm is set up to make you play the game where the stronger your emotion or the more your emotion is poured into a mold. Right? The algorithm is the mold. Right. It's like you're making a soap, or I guess jello, let's stick with soap. Less disgusting. It's like you're making a soap. Right? And the algorithm is the mold. You're just pouring the emotion into it because you've been told what is going to be hashtag viral, to use the example of that video again. So all the empathy in the world for this young man, I'm not blaming him for anything in particular, but I do worry that these algorithms seem to increasingly be rewarding for good reason, because it resonates with people and it creates engagement. But rewarding something that's very unhealthy, which is, I think, the most empowering thing that people can do is to stop trying to change the world by starting globally and trying to take the shortcut to changing the world. Because these technologies also trick us into thinking it's very easy to have global power. It's easy to reach people on a global basis. To actually have power and to make change is different. And one of the most empowering things, I think there's social science that backs it up too, is for. Is just to start in your own community. Start with your family, start with your friends, start with your church. You know, you don't have to go volunteer at the Boys and Girls Club, although that's probably a lovely thing to do. Start by caring more about your family than yourself to the extent that you can. Start by just getting out of your own head and trying to make the tiny little world around you a better place. And that's more empowering. I mean, not only do I think it's. It's probably more constructive in many cases, but it's also more empowering. Empowering. And that's the building block to keep going further and further out. So, yeah, I don't like when I say those things because I think that there's also social science on this, by the way, there's Studies that back this up, that the more that we see ourselves as victims, and I think these algorithms incentivize seeing ourselves as victims, the more powerless we feel and the more miserable we are. And so if you feel like the incentive on the algorithm is ever pushing you to into victim mentality, it can be true that you are a victim of an unfair system, and also true that it's deeply unhealthy to focus on your victimhood rather than empowering yourself. You don't have to deny your victimhood. You don't have to deny that the system is unfair. In fact, it's important to acknowledge that the system is unfair, but it's probably not making you happier to dwell on it. So lead with that in your communications. If you must make TikTok videos about all of this, I would just say it's better for your health to lead with that, it's better for the world to lead with that, and it's better for your community, it's better for your family and your friends, if you can start reframing it, to think about empowering yourself and not sort of dwelling in that realm of victimhood that is just giving Big Tech more engagement and more clicks and more reason to alienate and isolate us. And, boy, do I have a fun example of brain rot. The brain rot of social media. So excited about this one, guys. We gotta roll, we gotta roll. First of all, let's put on the screen F4. This is Chris Cuomo, newsman, America's sweetheart, many have said he is over at News Nation fell for an incredible deep fake that looked nothing. We're gonna play it in just a second. But the idea that this was actually Alexandria Ocasio, correct, Cortez. As much as you may think Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is clownish or silly, this deepfake was incredible. And Chris Cuomo responded to it by criticizing AOC for not mentioning a condemnation of Hamas in this fake video. AOC responded, this is a deep fake, dude. Please use your critical thinking skills. And momentarily, briefly, fleetingly, the entire entire country was cheering on Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her skirmish with one Christopher Cuomo. So to get a flavor of how profoundly stupid this was, let's go ahead and roll the clip that Chris Cuomo thought he was reacting to. S9. Sydney Sweeney looks like an Aryan goddess, and the American Eagle jeans campaign is blatant Nazi propaganda. I mean, fuck watching that sultry little temptress. This is unhealthy. Into a Canadian Texan three sizes too small with her bouncy little fun bags on the screen staring at you, piercing through the core of your soul with those ocean blue eyes that could resurrect the furor from his grave in Argentina. That was my favorite part. Instead of simping for the Sydneys, we should be celebrating the Shaniquas instead of worshiping the hot straight blonde. What about the obese Alphabet people with blue hair? They need love, too. And to all the haters who say companies that go woke go broke. I'd rather be poor than a Nazi. I don't even know what to say. If you were watching it, you could visually see that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was. Looked cartoonish, exactly like a deep fake. Cuomo responded, I was wrong, but it did sound like something you would say. I'm paraphrasing him, but that's basically verbatim how he responded. And I'd like to know which part of that he thought was something that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez would say. Was it resurrecting the furor from his Argentinian grave? Was it the part about Shaniqua, the fun bags? Was it that part that sounded like something Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, because feminist, would say on the floor of the House of Representatives? What must have happened to, again, this man's brain to get from point A to point B? We can barely begin to comprehend. This is a man that CNN was putting millions of dollars behind not long ago, during Trump won, this was one of CNN's stars. He was a bona fide media heavyweight, and he fell for something most people's grandmothers would know was fake. Not only did he fall for it, he posted, he proudly, confidently published a response implying that he fell for it, showing everyone that he fell for it. That's how badly he fell for it. And I don't think we should lose sight of that. It wasn't as though you were at a coffee bar with Chris Cuomo scrolling and. And he saw that and he was like, oh, sounds like something she would say. Wow. No, no, no. This man saw the video and then he posted about the video because he was so convinced that it was real, he needed to respond. This is your brain on social media. I don't know. Maybe it was always this way. Maybe Chris Cuomo is. Is a bad example. Maybe it's. This is a. The sample is off. I'm no social scientist, but I'm open to that idea. This is not a fair experiment because our sample is tainted, in this case by Chris Cuomo being Chris Cuomo always being Chris Cuomo. But again, I don't think most people's grandmothers would be fooled by that deepfake. Some would. Most people's would not. I mean, just incredible stuff. It's breaking all of our brains. Even I don't think Chris Cuomo has always been. People are probably going to correct me. Maybe people who have known Chris Cuomo for years are going to say, yeah, he would have fallen for that in 1994. I don't know, though. This is breaking our brains. But it's an interesting example of how the Sweeney discourse in particular reflected some of our brokenness. The New York Times had a wash, wild look. I'm gonna put this on the screen. And a wild look where it tried to kind of do an autopsy of how this story became viral. If you read the New York Times story, this is Tom Bevin, our friend. He says New York Times goes with the blatantly false podbro narrative, referring to Pod Save America, that the Sydney Sweeney controversy was all a concoction of the right. And he talked about it with Megan on her show last week. And if you read the new New York Times story, it's wild. I posted about this, too. It uses a study that shows the discourse was totally streisanded on Twitter on X, meaning that the criticism to the response made that response go viral in itself. So the right's criticism of the left's criticism of the ad, we're getting real meta here. But the rights criticism of the lefts taking offense at that ad is what made the people who took offense at that ad go viral on X. Well, guess what? X is not TikTok. And guess what else? TikTok is much more popular. So if you scroll down in the New York Times story, you realize they say there were a few very viral posts on TikTok from liberals who took offense at what was going on with Sydney Sweeney in the ad. This is in the New York Times story that is framed as a rebuttal to the conservative narrative that legitimately, people on the left were offended by the Sydney Sweeney ad. Do I think some of it was overstated? Absolutely. But were viral posts actually making their way around social media suggesting people on the left were legitimately angry? The types of people who post on TikTok, not again, not a representative sample size of the public, but of the capital O, capital L online left. That was absolutely happening. And the New York Times rebuts it in their own story on sweeneygate. And it's just incredible that no editor took the time to Be like, whoa, this is what editors are for, by the way. You get over your skis, you think you've really nailed it, and you have all the evidence and your ducks in a row. And the editor's like, this doesn't say what you're saying that it says. And we're talking about the New York Times, Times that's now trying to fundamentally change itself and transform back into the paper of record that will fairly cover power, hold power to account, and the like. I mean, in their own story, they're rebutting the part of their headline, how the right shaped the debate over the Sydney Sweeney ads. The debate was shaped out of the gate. I mean, this is semantics. Technically, you can say the. The story is about how the right shaped the Sydney Sweeney debate. The implication of the entire story is that it was all Streisanded, right? This was mostly the right being upset about a tiny, tiny amount. Like, the right created the controversy over the Sydney Sweeney ad and is overstating the degree to which people were really offended by this. I think it's true that because the right latched onto this, realizing it was good. I mean, J.D. vance was talking about it, realizing that it was sort of a political winner for the right to look like they were standing up for a popular young celebrity like Sydney Sweeney. Because of that, there was more attention that probably needed to be given to the Sydney Sweeney story, but they were responding to actually real outrage and offense on the left. And this brings me to a series of viral clips. So we have one here that's gone really viral on the left from Marc Maron, comedian Marc Maron, super popular podcast, very successful. And also this conversation between Bill Maher and Drew Barrymore, because why wouldn't Bill Maher be talking to Drew Barrymore on a podcast called Club Random? It's all in the name. Let's start with Marc Maron, though. Let's roll. S7. This was him on Howie Mandel's podcast. It was published on August 5, and he had some thoughts on it. Sounds like what he's talking about is the podcast bros, like the Joe Rogans and the Andrew Schultz's. You can kind of decide for yourself. Fill in the blank here, but this is Marc Maron, you know, to be.