Hayden Pilkinton:
The Social Dilemma Rhetorical Analysis
In his film “The Social Dilemma”, director Jeff Orlowski warns the viewers of how the tools of today, like Facebook and Twitter, are eroding the fabric of society, and states that the companies behind them need to value people first, fixing the problem by remaking these tools for good, not for profit. This creates an ominous undertone throughout the film, which is accentuated by statements from people like Tristan Harris, a former Design Ethicist at Google, and Jeff Seibert, a former Executive at Twitter. All of this pervades the film with a sense of urgency, fear, and danger, telling and showing the viewers just how serious of a problem this really is.
Orlowski opens the film on a more uplifting note, explaining to the viewers how social media was made with good intentions through interviews with former CEOs, executives, and department heads of companies like Google, Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter. To conclude this though, he causes the viewer to grow suspicious through the intro’s final line of “I always felt that it was a force for good. I don’t know if I feel that way anymore.” Statements like these coming from people who once worked for, or even founded these Social Media companies helps give the film credibility, and creates a sense of tension and anxiety off the bat, capturing the audience’s attention. The scene then shifts to further show and demonstrate to the audience how problematic social media can be by introducing the viewers to a seemingly happy and connected family, but with a catch; they’re on their phones. As the film progresses and more chilling statements are made by former tech company workers, Orlowski supports them through cutting back to clips of what this seemingly happy family is going through. The viewers see the lives of teenagers Ben, Isla, and Cassandra through the point-of-view of an onlooker and the point-of-view of the tech companies trying to make money off of them. Ben and Isla are always on their phones, and as the interviewees tell the audience that social media platforms are designed to be addicting, the film shows Isla’s phone being locked in a box that can’t be opened for an hour so that the family can socialize at dinner. As the other four family members sit down to eat, Isla is shown trying to open the box. After failing to do so, the parents and the audience alike think that’s the end of it, but, soon after, a loud smash is heard in the background as the camera pans to Isla with a hammer in her hand, having smashed to box just to see a notification. Orlowski continues to support statements and statistics presented throughout the film in this way, and the audience sees how Isla is depressed because one person insulted her on social media, and has unrealistic views of herself because of filters and advertisements.
Ben, Isla’s brother, is also used to argue another big point- “If you’re not paying for the product, then you ARE the product.” The audience is shown how AI sells Ben’s time and personal information to advertising companies. This lifts a veil of ignorance rom the viewers’ eyes, and leaves the viewers shocked and angry, furthering the idea that the misuse of AI with social media is wrong. Now that the audience is really listening, and even beginning to ponder what can be done with social media, Orlowski plays on a deep fear and recent and controversial topic; AI, combined with social media, COULD be used to influence the results of something like…an election. The audience is told of how some of the most used tools in society, while
intended to create a utopia, are pushing us towards a dystopia, and can be used to incite violence, mess with other countries’ politics, and create cultural rifts.
All of this rather thoroughly scares the audience, but it’s Orlowski’s way of trying to communicate just how serious of a problem this is can could grow to be, and he urges the companies responsible to step up and fix it. Whilst they were founded with good intent, meaning to unite people, companies like Facebook, WeChat, Snapchat, Instagram, and more have been eroding the fabric of society. They need to re-make the tools that are being used to destroy humanity for the short-term goal of profit. Driving the point home, Orlowski closes with Justin Rosenstein, co-founder and former head of Asana, saying “We live in a world in which a tree is worth more, financially, dead than alive, in a world in which a whale is worth more dead than alive. What’s frightening, and what hopefully is the last straw that will make us wake up as a civilization to how flawed this theory has been in the first place is to see that now we’re the tree, we’re the whale.”
The Social Dilemma Rhetorical Analysis
In his film “The Social Dilemma”, director Jeff Orlowski warns the viewers of how the tools of today, like Facebook and Twitter, are eroding the fabric of society, and states that the companies behind them need to value people first, fixing the problem by remaking these tools for good, not for profit. This creates an ominous undertone throughout the film, which is accentuated by statements from people like Tristan Harris, a former Design Ethicist at Google, and Jeff Seibert, a former Executive at Twitter. All of this pervades the film with a sense of urgency, fear, and danger, telling and showing the viewers just how serious of a problem this really is.
Orlowski opens the film on a more uplifting note, explaining to the viewers how social media was made with good intentions through interviews with former CEOs, executives, and department heads of companies like Google, Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter. To conclude this though, he causes the viewer to grow suspicious through the intro’s final line of “I always felt that it was a force for good. I don’t know if I feel that way anymore.” Statements like these coming from people who once worked for, or even founded these Social Media companies helps give the film credibility, and creates a sense of tension and anxiety off the bat, capturing the audience’s attention. The scene then shifts to further show and demonstrate to the audience how problematic social media can be by introducing the viewers to a seemingly happy and connected family, but with a catch; they’re on their phones. As the film progresses and more chilling statements are made by former tech company workers, Orlowski supports them through cutting back to clips of what this seemingly happy family is going through. The viewers see the lives of teenagers Ben, Isla, and Cassandra through the point-of-view of an onlooker and the point-of-view of the tech companies trying to make money off of them. Ben and Isla are always on their phones, and as the interviewees tell the audience that social media platforms are designed to be addicting, the film shows Isla’s phone being locked in a box that can’t be opened for an hour so that the family can socialize at dinner. As the other four family members sit down to eat, Isla is shown trying to open the box. After failing to do so, the parents and the audience alike think that’s the end of it, but, soon after, a loud smash is heard in the background as the camera pans to Isla with a hammer in her hand, having smashed to box just to see a notification. Orlowski continues to support statements and statistics presented throughout the film in this way, and the audience sees how Isla is depressed because one person insulted her on social media, and has unrealistic views of herself because of filters and advertisements.
Ben, Isla’s brother, is also used to argue another big point- “If you’re not paying for the product, then you ARE the product.” The audience is shown how AI sells Ben’s time and personal information to advertising companies. This lifts a veil of ignorance rom the viewers’ eyes, and leaves the viewers shocked and angry, furthering the idea that the misuse of AI with social media is wrong. Now that the audience is really listening, and even beginning to ponder what can be done with social media, Orlowski plays on a deep fear and recent and controversial topic; AI, combined with social media, COULD be used to influence the results of something like…an election. The audience is told of how some of the most used tools in society, while
intended to create a utopia, are pushing us towards a dystopia, and can be used to incite violence, mess with other countries’ politics, and create cultural rifts.
All of this rather thoroughly scares the audience, but it’s Orlowski’s way of trying to communicate just how serious of a problem this is can could grow to be, and he urges the companies responsible to step up and fix it. Whilst they were founded with good intent, meaning to unite people, companies like Facebook, WeChat, Snapchat, Instagram, and more have been eroding the fabric of society. They need to re-make the tools that are being used to destroy humanity for the short-term goal of profit. Driving the point home, Orlowski closes with Justin Rosenstein, co-founder and former head of Asana, saying “We live in a world in which a tree is worth more, financially, dead than alive, in a world in which a whale is worth more dead than alive. What’s frightening, and what hopefully is the last straw that will make us wake up as a civilization to how flawed this theory has been in the first place is to see that now we’re the tree, we’re the whale.”