1

HowTwitterGamifiesCommunication

C.ThiNguyen

ForthcominginAppliedEpistemology,ed.JenniferLackey(OUP)

Twitterisnowoneofourprimaryvenuesforpublicdiscourse.Butitisnotaneutralor

transparentmedium.Twittershapeshowweinteract,whoweinteractwith,and—perhaps

mostimportantly—itsuggestsspecificgoalsforthoseinteractions.Twitterdoesn’tjustpro-

videaspeakingplatform,norareitseffectsconfinedtoalgorithmicfiltering.Twittershapes

ourgoalsfordiscoursebymakingconversationsomethinglikeagame.Twitterscoresour

conversation.Anditdoesso,notintermsofourownparticularandrichpurposesforcom-

munication,butintermsofitsownpre-loaded,painfullythinmetrics:Likes,Retweets,and

Followercounts.AndifwetakeupTwitter’sinvitationandinternalizethoseevaluations,we

willbethinningoutandsimplifyingourowngoalsforcommunication.

Let’stakeastepback.Twitterisatoncepluralisticinitsscopeandmonolithicinitstech-

nologicalform.Twitterispluralisticbecauseitoffersrelativelyopenaccesstopowerfulre-

sourcesforpublicdiscourse.Anybodycanformanaccount,andanybodywiththerightfeel

forthemedium,itseems,cangatherenormousnumbersoffollowers.Twitterdemocratizes

accesstolarge-scalecommunication,whichoncehadbeenheldbyarelativelysmallnumber

ofmediacompanies.1Atthesametime,Twitterismonolithic,becauseeverybodywhouses

1MyunderstandingofTwitterherehasbeenparticularlyinformedbyZeynepTufekci’s(2017)thought-

fulanalysisoftheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthispluralism.

2

Twittermustcommunicatethroughthesameinterfaces,andbesubjecttothesamealgo-

rithms.2Whatistheimpactofsomuchpublicdiscoursebeingshoveledthroughoneplat-

form?

OtherdiscussionsofTwitterhavefocusedontheenforcedshortnessoftweets,theinflu-

enceofhiddenalgorithmicfiltering,thepromotionofgrouppolarization,thelackofaccount-

abilitymechanisms,andthecollapseofconversationalcontexts(Sunstein,2009,46-96;Mar-

wickandboyd,2011;MillerandRecord,2013;Frost-Arnold,2014;Rini,2017).Iwouldlike

tofocusonanotherbasicfeatureofTwitter—onewhoseimportanceandimpacts,Ithink,

hasnotbeenadequatelyappreciated.Twittergamifiescommunicationbyofferingimmedi-

ate,vivid,andquantifiedevaluationsofone’sconversationalsuccess.Twitteroffersuspoints

fordiscourse;itscoresourcommunication.Andthesegame-likefeaturesareresponsiblefor

muchofTwitter’spsychologicalwallop.Twitterisaddictive,inpart,becauseitfeelssogood

towatchthosenumbersgoupandup.Infact,thedesignofTwitteranditsscoringmecha-

nismshavebeensignificantlyinformedbydesignstrategiesfosteredintheLasVegasgam-

blingindustry—strategieswhichovertlyseektoincreasetheaddictivenessoftheirprod-

ucts.3

Theclearscoringsystembringswithitanotherverygame-likeaspect:aclearandunam-

biguousranking.Weusuallydon’temergefromthepartywitharankedlistofwhothebest

2ThispatternofthoughthasbeenparticularlyinfluencedbyTufekci’s(2018)discussionofhowtheIn-

terneterahasdemocratizedcommunication,butatthesametimesubjectedallonlinecommunicationtoafewverysmallportals.TheInternetisdemocraticbecauseanybodycanputupaweb-page,butitismono-lithicbecauseweallfindweb-pagesusingGoogleSearch-soGoogleSearch’salgorithmbecomesanall-pow-erfulcontrolonourcollectiveattention.Obviously,inthebackground,isMarshallMcLuhan’s(McLuhan,1964)discussionoftheimpactofmediumovercontent.

3NatashaDowSchull’sAddictionbyDesign(2012)offersathoroughlookatthetechnologicalinnovationsofthegamblingindustrytooptimizetheaddictivenessoftheirproducts.Sincethatbook,Schullhasbeenvo-calabouthowthosetechnologieshavebeenadoptedbygamingandsocialmediacompanies(Madrigal,2013;NationalPublicRadio,2014;Seymour,2019).

3

conversationalistswere.Twitter,ontheotherhand,offersbothshort-termrankings(Likes

andRetweetnumbersforeachtweet)andlong-termrankings(Followercounts).Mostim-

portantly, the rankings are entirely unambiguous. Unlike conversation in thewild, I can

knowexactlyhowwelleachtweetdid,andIcaninstantlycomparemyoverallpopularity

withthatofanyotheruser.Thiscanprovideallsortsofpleasures:thethrillofvictory,when

weseethosenumberstickup;andthesenseoflong-termachievement,presentedinprecise

andunquestionablequantitativeform.

Supportersofgamificationsaythatitisatechnologyforincreasingmotivation.Gamifi-

cationcansupposedlyimbueeverydayactivitieswithallthefunandexcitementofagame.4

Here,then,isanoptimisticviewofTwitter:bygamifyingpublicdiscourse,Twitterincreases

overallparticipation,andsohelpsustoreaptherewardsofpublicdiscourse—suchasa

morefullypoliticallyengagedpopulace.

Idonotaccepttheoptimisticview.Crucially,Idon’tthinkthatgamificationmerelyin-

creasesourmotivationtoperformanactivitywhilepreservingalltheoriginalgoodsofthat

activity.Gamificationincreasesourmotivationbychangingthenatureoftheactivity.Often,

thegoalsofordinaryactivityarerichandsubtle.Whenwegamifytheseactivities,wechange

thosegoalstomakethemartificiallyclear.Gamesaremoresatisfyingthanordinarylifepre-

ciselybecausegame-goalsaresimpler,clearer,andeasier toapply. Ingamesproper, this

simplificationisn’tparticularlyproblematic,becausethegoalsarepeculiarlyartificial.Game

activities,andtheirassociatedgoals,areusuallykeptsecludedfromordinarylife.Butthere

4ThispointwasputmostinfluentiallybyJaneMcGonigal(2011).Forcriticaldiscussion,anexcellent

startingplaceis(Walzet.al.,2015).

4

isnosuchprotectiveseparationwhenwegamifyordinaryactivities.Toreapthemotiva-

tionalbenefitsofgamification,wemustre-shapetheendswhichgovernourreal-lifeactivi-

ties.

Pre-gamification,theaimsofdiscoursearecomplexandmany.Someofuswanttotrans-

mitinformationortopersuade;someofuswantfriendship.Someofuswanttojointogether

inthepursuitoftruthandunderstanding.Twittergamifiesdiscourseand,insodoing,offers

us re-engineeredgoals forour communicative acts.Twitter invitesus to shift ourvalues

along its pre-fabricated lines.We start to chasehigherLikes andRetweets andFollower

counts—andthoseareverydifferenttargets.

OthersofusmaycometoTwitteralreadyinterestedinpopularityandstatus.Forthose,

thegamificationofTwittermaynotrepresentsucharadicalchangeinthebasiccontentof

theirgoals.Butevenforthosealreadyinterestedinpopularity,Twittercanchangetheway

inwhichtheyconceiveofpopularity–bymakinghighlysalientahandfulofspecificmetrics

forpopularity.LikeandFollowercountsarenottheonlywaytoconceiveofpopularity,but

theythemeasurethatTwitterhighlights.

What’smore,theeffectofTwitter’sgamification,acrossthecommunityTwitterusers,

willtendtowardslevellingandflatteningthediversityofvalues.InsofarasTwitter’sgamifi-

cationmotivatesitsusers,thenitwilldragallofitsusers’communicativevaluesinthesame

direction– towardsthesamemetric.Gamificationhomogenizesthevalue landscape.And

thisphenomenonwillhelpexplainsomeofthemoresociallytoxicaspectsofTwitter.The

technologyinvitesustofocusourcaresonthenarrowtaskofgettingpointsandgoingviral.

Andthatgoal is intensionwithour interest inhavingmorallysensitiveandopenhearted

communication.Thisgamification invitesus, instead, toviewcommunicationthroughthe

5

lensofcompetition,victory,andsuccessonTwitter’sveryspecificterms.

LetmeemphasizethefactthatTwitteroffersusaninvitationtochangeourvalues.Twit-

terwillnotchangeourvaluesforus.Itisasystemdesignedtoofferuspleasureinreturnfor

simplifyingourvalues–butwestillhavetotakeupthatoffer.Butitdoeseasethewayforus

considerably,byofferingapre-preparedandseductivelydesignedpathway.

Ofcourse,Twitterisn’ttheonlyplacewheregamificationinfluencescommunication,dis-

course, and collective understanding. We can see similar effects with Facebook’s Likes,

YouTube’sclickthroughandwatchthroughcounts,5academiccitationrates,andmore.But

hereIwishtoexplore,indetails,howgamificationimpactsdiscourseandknowledge-pro-

ductioninoneparticularinstantiation,asanopeningsteptowardsunderstandinglifeinthe

timeofquantification.

GamesandGamification

Whygamify?IfthereisaBibletothecontemporarygamificationmovement, it isJane

McGonigal’sbook,RealityisBroken:HowGamesMakeUsBetterandHowTheyCanChange

theWorld.6McGonigalprovidesaclear—andveryinfluential—argumentforgamification.

Ordinarylife,shesays,isquitepainful.Everydayactivities,likework,education,andchores,

aredullandrepetitive.Butluckily,shesays,wealreadyhaveanextremelyeffectivetechnol-

ogyforeliminatingdrudgery:computergames.Byimportingkeydesignfeaturesfrommod-

5TheYouTubeexamplesweresuggestedbyMarkAlfano.6Foramoretechnique-orienteddesignmanualforgamification,seeChou(2015).

6

erngamingintoordinaryactivities,wecantransformdailylifeintosomethingfarmoreen-

joyable(McGonigal,2011).

Insomanymoderncomputergames,wevoluntarilyengageinwhatlooks,fromtheout-

side, like pure drudgery.Many games, particularly computer role-playing games, involve

what’sknownas“grinding”—performingsimple,repetitiveactivitiestoslowlybuildupvar-

iousin-gamepointsandcurrency.Grindingcaninvolvekillingeasyenemies,overandover

again,forexperiencepointsandgold—orlaboriouslygatheringpilesofingredientsinorder

tocraftequipment.Whyarepeoplewillingtoengageinsuchdrudgeryintheirsparetime

whentheyavoidsuchactivitiesliketheplagueinreallife?Theanswerseemstolieinthe

powerful feedback and rewardmechanisms available in games, especially contemporary

computergames.Insuchgames,wearegivenimmediaterewardsforourachievementsin

theformofpoints,levelingup,achievementbadges,andthelike.Gamesquantizeoursuc-

cesses,makingourprogressclearandvivid.McGonigalemphasizes,inparticular,howgames

offerusasteadysenseofprogressandvictory,throughaconstantstreamofclearfeedback,

inthetermsoftheaccumulationofpoints(52-63).7Sowhycan’tweborrowthosefeedback

andrewardmechanisms,andslatherthemoverreal-lifeactivities?

We’veseen,inrecentyears,manyeffortstogamifytheworkplaceandtheschool.Busi-

nessentrepreneursseemparticularlyinterestedingamification’sabilitytoincreaseworker

productivity by increasing worker motivation. Disney famously gamified its hospitality

7Themechanismsforthisarecomplex.McGonigalprovidesasurveyoftheempiricalliterature;fora

morepessimisticcounterpoint,seeSchull’sworkongameaddictionanditsrelationshiptopoints.Schull’saccountstressesthewayinwhichtheexacttimingofthequantizedrewardincertaingamedesignstriggersaddictivesurgesofserotonin.

7

workforce,providingleaderboardsandrankingsforspeedyperformance.Notably,thesys-

temincreasedproductivity,attheexpenseofalsoincreasingtheinjuryrate.Andworkers

hatedthesystem,callingitthe“electronicwhip”—andsayingthattheycouldn’thelpbeing

motivatedbyit,eventhoughtheydetestedtheintrusion(Gabrielle,2018).We’veseenthe

introductionof gamification into fitness,with technologies likeFitBit andStravaoffering

game-likestructuresofpoints,rankings,andleaderboardsforexercise.We’veseengamified

educationinschools,andinvariousapps.ThepopularlanguagelearningappDuoLingogam-

ifieslanguagelearningbyofferingitsuserspointsandvirtualmedalsforachievingvarious

dailygoals,likelearningnewvocabularywords.

McGonigalandherfellowgamificationadvocatesareoptimisticabouttheutopianpoten-

tialofgamification.InMcGonigal’spicture,gamificationisanunalloyedgood:itsimplyre-

movesdrudgeryandaddspleasure.Butheroptimismdependsonbelievingthatgamification

canachievethesepsychologicalgoodswhileadequatelypreservingthevalueoftheactivity.

Whenweunderstandthesourceofgamification’smotivationalpower,wewillseethe

problemwithMcGonigal’soptimism.Gamificationinvolvesatrade:itincreasesourmotiva-

tioninanactivitybynarrowingandsimplifyingthetargetofthatactivity—which,inturn,

changes thenatureof theactivity.Andthismaybe finewhentheactivityhasanaturally

simpletarget,asispossiblythecasewithlanguagelearning.Butthegoalsofdiscourseare

manyandsubtle,andgamificationthreatenstodestroymuchofthatdiversityandsubtlety.

The usual view among gamification advocates is to treat games and gamification as

providingthesamesortofvalue.Insofarasgamesaregood,thestorygoes,thengamification

mustalsobegood,sinceitmakeslifemorelikeagame.Butthisviewconcealstheprofound

8

differencesbetweengamesproperandthegamificationofreal-worldactivities.Tounder-

standthat,we’llneedacleareraccountofthenatureandvalueofgames.

Letmesummarizemyaccountofgames,whichIhavedevelopedinexcruciatingdetail

elsewhere.8Games,I’veargued,aretheartformthatworksinthemediumofagency.The

gamedesignerdoesn’tjustcreatecharacters,stories,andenvironments.Thegamedesigner

sculptsthetemporaryagencythattheplayerwilloccupyduringthegame.Theydesign,not

onlyaworld,butwhotheplayerwillbeinthatworld.Idonotjustmeanthatthegamede-

signerprovidesafictionalbackstoryforacharacter.Theydesigntheessentialagentialstruc-

tureofthein-gameactor.Theydesignatewhatthein-gameagent’sabilitiesandaffordances

willbe—whethertheywillbeajumper,ashooter,abuilderoraninformationgatherer.

And,mostimportantly,thegamedesignersetsthein-gameagent’smotivationsbysettingthe

goalsofthegame.

Andthegameplayersubmergesthemselvesinthissculptedagency,temporarily.Game-

playinginvolvesthetemporaryadoptionofanalternatesetofgoals.Whydoallthis?Forone

thing,ourgoalsingame-lifearesomuchclearerthaninordinarylife.Inordinarylife,our

goalsareoftenobscure.Weoftendon’tknowexactlywhatwe’redoing—orwefindour

reasonshardtoarticulateanddifficulttoapply.Andwearebesetwithaconfusingwelterof

values–bothfromwithinourownvaluesystem,andfromthebruisingvaluecomplexityof

thesocialworld.Butgamesofferarelieffromallthat.Whileplayingagame,weknowexactly

whatwearetryingtodo—andafterwards,weknowexactlyhowwellwehavedone.Success

inagameisclearandunmistakable.Therearepoints.

Andgamevaluesusuallyfitneatlywithoneanother.Inordinarylife,ourvaluesarehard

8ThepresentaccountreliesonmaterialdrawnfromNguyen(2017;2018;2020).

9

tobalance.Icareaboutspendingtimewithmylovedones,raisingmychildrenright,writing

goodphilosophy,enjoyingmyselfinrockclimbing,stayinghealthy,andeatingdeliciousfood.

Notonlyaremyvaluesoftenintension,butthereisusuallynowaytopreciselycompare

them.HowdoIcompareachievementsunderoneofthesegoalsagainstsacrificesinanother?

What,exactly,isthecost-benefitanalysisforchoosingbetweenworkingtodayortakingmy

childrentotheaquarium?Butwithgames,thereisusuallyaclearcentralcurrencyofvalue.

Agametellsmetoachievevictorypointsandthentellsmeexactlyhowmanyvictorypoints

thingsareworth.9Thegoodsofagamearereadilycommensurable,bydesign.

Inordinarylife,valuesareofteninchoate,subtle,anddifficulttoapply.Butingames,val-

uesareeasy.Gamesofferusamomentaryexperienceofvalueclarity.Theyareabalmforthe

existentialpainsofreallife.Ingames,weknowexactlywhatwearedoingandwhyweare

doingit.Andwhenwearedone,weknowexactlyhowwellwehavedone.Gamesofferusa

momentaryrespitefromthevalueconfusionoftheworld.

Itisrelativelyeasyforthegamedesignertocreatevalueclarity,becausethevaluesin

gamesareentirelyartificial.Thegamedesignercanjusttelluswhattocareabout,andplay-

erssimplycareaboutitforawhile.Thisispartofwhatitmeanstosaythatagencyisthe

mediumofgames.Thein-gameagencies—theirabilities,theirmotivations—aretheplastic

mediumwhichthegameartistmanipulates toachievetheireffects.Butwhenweseekto

gamifyordinarylife,wearetryingtoimposevalueclarityonapre-existingthicketofvalues.

ThisistheworrywithTwitter.Twittercangrantustheemotionalsecurityandexistential

9Someothergamesofferafewdifferentcurrenciesofsuccess,buteventhen,thosevariouscurrencies

areusuallycompatible.Inmanycomputerrole-playinggames,forexample,Iamofferedbothexperiencepointsandgold,withnoclearexplanationofwhichIamtopursue.Thoughthereisnodirectexchangeratebetweenthetwocurrencies,theygohand-in-hand.Usuallythepathtomoreexperiencepointsisthroughmoregold,andviceversa.SoforsuccessIcanaimtomaximizeboth.

10

reliefofvalueclarity,butwemustadoptTwitter’snarrowedtargetsinexchange.

HowTwitterchangesdiscourse

McGonigalviewsgamificationasprovidingnothingbutamotivationalboost.Theanaly-

sisI’veofferedshowstheproblemwiththatview.Wegetthoseextramotivationalelements

—pleasure,fun,engagement—inexchangeforsubstantivelychangingthegoalsoftheac-

tivity,andsochangingtheactivityitself.ThegamifieddesignofTwitterinfluencesdiscourse

byinvitingitsuserstochangethegoalsoftheirparticipationindiscourse—tosimplifythose

goalsinexchangeforpleasure.10

Letmestipulateabitofterminology.Letuscallthedesignedtechnologywhichoffers

pointsandscores“designforgamification”.Andletususe“gamification”torefertothose

caseswhenaplayerinteractswithdesignforgamificationandactuallyadoptsthosepoints

andscoresasprimarymotivatorsduringtheactivity—whentheactivityactuallydoesbe-

comesomethinglikeagameforthem.Noticethatyoucanneedtoactuallyadopttheseclear

goals,atleastforthemoment,togetthepleasuresonoffer.

Consider someofourordinarygoals for communication.Wemaywish to collectively

10MyviewhereismuchopposedtoIanBogost’sfamousargumentthat“gamificationisbullshit”.Bogost’s

argumenthereisthatgamificationisbullshitbecausetheterm‘gamification’wasusedsoflexiblyandvaria-blybycorporateprofiteersthatthetermwasessentiallyuseless—thatitwasapurebuzzword,withnocon-tent(Bogost,2011).Asmydiscussionshows,gamificationisaspecificphenomenonwithcleartechniquesandidentifiableconsequences.Thefactthatsalespeoplehaveusedthetermpoorlydoesnotunderminetheusefulnessofthetermitself.Interestingly,Idothinkthatgamificationisbullshit,butinadifferentsense.HarryFrankfurt’sdiscussionofbullshitcanbereadinthefollowingway:bullshitisanactivitythathasbeendivertedfromitsusualgoal(Frankfurt,2005).Inthatspecificsense,Idothinkgamificationisbullshit.(Bo-gostcitesFrankfurt’sdiscussionofbullshit,butBogostmissesmuchofthespecificityofFrankfurt’sanalysis.)

11

pursuetruthandunderstanding,ortopromoteempathyforoneanother.ButTwitter’sscor-

ingmechanisminvitesustoreplacethosevalueswithanother,muchsimplergoal:thatof

maximizingone’sLikes,Retweets,andFollowercounts.Twitter’smeasuresarearadically

simplified—andquiteimpoverished—renditionofthewidepluralityofvaluesforcommu-

nicationwemighthopetofindacrossacommunityofconversers.Foronething,wehave

evidenceaplentythatwhatmakessomethinggoviralisnotitstruth,orthedegreetowhich

itpromotesunderstanding.Recentstudieshaveshownthattweetsloadedwithstrongmoral

emotions,likeoutrage,arefarmorelikelytogoviral,viaaneffectthatresearcherscall“moral

contagion”(Bradyet.al.,2017).

Butagamificationboostermightresistthisportrayal.TheymightsuggestthatTwitter’s

scoringmechanismdoesanadequatelygood jobofreflecting the truepluralityofvalues.

PerhapsindividualshavetheirownvaluesforwhichtheycometoTwitter.Butthosevalues

guidewheneachindividualuserdecidestoLike,Retweet,orFollow.ThusLikes,Retweets,

andFollowercountsserveasusefulmeasuresofoverallsuccessagainstapluralityofvalues,

sincetheyfunctiontoaggregateindividualapproval.

Butbeingguidedbyanaggregatemeasureoftheaudience’sapprovalisafarcryfrom

beingguidedbyone’sowninternalsenseofvalue.First,pressingLikeisaquickreaction.It

typicallyrecordsauser’spositivefirst-impressionresponsetoatweet.Soifweevaluated

ourcommunicativeattemptsbytheirLikecounts,wewouldbeeffectivelybiasedinfavorof

tweetsthatusersimmediatelyenjoy.Wewouldbeeffectivelybiasedagainstslow-burncon-

tent—againstthoseideasthatlingeredinthememoryandrevealedtheirdepthsslowly.It

seemsfarmorelikelythatauserwillLikeatweetifit,say,expressesaviewthattheyalready

agreewith, thanonethatpresentsachallengingorsubtleviewthattheuserwillhaveto

12

wrestlewithforawhile.Thisisnotbecausetweetssomehowcan’tbeprofoundbytheirvery

nature.Rather,itisafeatureofhowTwitter’sinterfacecapturesthedatatofeeditsmetrics.

Ausermighteventuallycometoappreciateachallengingtweet,buttheyarefarlesslikely

togobackandfindthattweet,weekslater,topressLike.Slowappreciationisfarlesslikely

tobecapturedbythesystemandbecountedtowardsthattweet’sscore.Andinsofaraswe

havebecomegamified,thenwewilljudgeourowncommunicativesuccessintermsofthat

recordedscore.

Second,TwitterscoringemphasizesthetotalnumberofLikes,ratherthan,say,thedepth

ofengagementorlastingeffectofaparticularcommunication.Thissortofproblemplagues

allsortsoflarge-scalevalueaggregations.ConsiderMattStrohl’scriticismofthemovie-re-

view aggregator siteRottenTomatoes. RottenTomatoes surveys the online reviews of a

movieandreducesthemeachtoasimplebinary:wasitapositiveornegativereview?And

thenRottenTomatoesproducesanaggregatepercentageofpositivereviews.Notice,says

Strohl,howthisinfluencestheresults.Amoviewhichstrikeseverycriticasalittlebitabove

averagewillscore100%onRottenTomatoesandshowupatthetopoftheheap.Amovie

whichdivides thecritics—whichsomecritics findutterlybrilliantandothercritics find

baffling—willshowupwitha50%score,andappear,numericallyatleast,asamediocrity.

Butgreatmovies,saysStrohl,rarelypleaseeverybody.Muchofthemostimportantart is

difficultandutterlydivisive.ButthefilteringandaggregatingmechanismofRottenToma-

toes ends up expressing amathematical preference formore blandly agreeablematerial

(Strohl,2017).

Twitter’saggregationmethodproducesasimilareffect.Sometimes,whenI’mteaching,I

13

saysomethingtoawholeclassthatIdoubtwillreachmoststudents,butthatIstronglysus-

pectwillresonatewithoneortwostudents.Andoften,that’sgoodenoughforme.ButTwit-

terscoreseachtweetwithasimplebinarymeasurement:eitherweLikeatweet,orwedon’t;

eitherweRetweet,orwedon’t.Thisbinarydatacollectionscreensoff,attheinputstage,any

considerationsofdepthofimpactorprofundityofconnection.ThenTwitterautomatically,

andveryvisibly,aggregatestheresultsof thatbinary input.Twitter’sscoresmakehighly

salientthenumberofuserswithpositivereactions,whilede-emphasizingthequalityofany

particularinteraction.InsofaraswecometobemotivatedbyTwitter’sscores,thentheaim

ofourcommunicationwillbesubjecttoasimilarbiasingeffectaswithRottenTomatoes.We

willpreferthosecommunicationsthatappealtothegreatestnumber—evenifthatappeal

ismarginallypositive—ratherthanthosecommunicationsthatmightreachasmallernum-

bermoredeeply.

Third,Twitterscoringaggregatesuserinterestsintoasinglemonolithicstatistic,which

threatenstodiminishthepluralityofvaluesforwhichwecollectivelycommunicate.Let’s

assume,forthemoment,thateveryTwitteruserLikesthosetweetswhichinawaythatac-

curatelyreflectstheirparticularinterestsincommunication.(Inotherwords,assumethat

thelasttwoproblemsdon’tapply.)Evenso,gamificationwillresultinahomogenizationof

thevaluesforwhichvariousactorscommunicate.Pre-gamification,eachtweetinguserwill

bemotivatedbytheirownparticularvaluesincommunicating,givingusadiversityofcom-

municators with different and distinctive motives. Such a diversity of interests is quite

healthy,epistemicallyspeaking.Cognitivelydiversecommunitiesdobetteratfiguringthings

14

out.11Suppose,now,thattheentirecommunitysuccumbstogamificationandstartchasing

popularitybyTwitter’smetric.Post-gamification,wehaveabodyofcommunicatorsidenti-

callymotivatedtosatisfythesamemixedpopulace.We’vereplacedadiversityofmotivations

withamotivationalmonolith.(Here’sonewaytomakethedamageapparent:imaginethe

differencebetweenaworldofartistseachmotivatedbytheirownaestheticsensibility,ver-

susaworldofartistseachmotivatedtosatisfythelargestnumberoftheirfellowartists.12)

Thesethreeargumentsapproach,fromdifferentangles,thesamecentralidea:thatTwit-

ter’sscoringmechanismsofferasimplifiedrenditionoftherichpluralityofourvalues.They

refractourintereststhroughtheparticularprismofTwitter’sinformationcollectionsystem,

andthenaveragetheresult.And, insofarasthissimplificationcomesinanattempttore-

optimizetheactivityforpleasure,weshouldexpectitreducethatactivity’scapacitiestoper-

formitsotherfunctions.Atmost,wemighthavehopedforacompromisebetweenpleasure

andtheoriginalgoalsoftheactivity;butsuchacompromisewouldrequireacareful,inten-

tionaldesigneffort.AndwehavelittleevidencethatTwitter’sdesignforgamificationarose

fromanysuchcarefulattempttosupportthepluralityofcommunicativevalues.Wehave,

instead,plentyofreasontothinkthatitsdesignfeatureswereheavilydrivenbyaninterest

inincreasinguserengagementforthesakeofprofit.

Here’sananalogy.Productsthatseemgoodandexcitinginthestoreoftenturnouttobe

quitepoorinquality.Thissuperficialityisnoaccident;itistheresultofsystematicpressures.

Thefunctionoftheseobjectshasdriftedduetomarketforces.Whereoncethefunctionofa

11 Lu Hong and Scott Page (2004, 2007) have famously demonstrated that cognitive diversity trumps cognitive abil-ity in groups of deliberating individuals. For a rich application of these results to political communities, see Hélène Landemore’s (2013, 89-117) discussion of inclusive deliberation. 12 For a further discussion of the relationship between loyalty to personal aesthetic sensibility and a resulting land-scape of creative diversity, see Nguyen (forthcoming).

15

shoewastohelpuswalk,now,sooften,thefunctionoftheshoeistogetbought.13Andwhat

getsashoeboughtisnotitsactuallong-termquality,buttheshort-termappearanceofqual-

ity. I am suggesting that something similar happenswith gamified discourse onTwitter.

Gamificationchangesdiscoursefromservingthelong-termvaluesofcommunicationtoserv-

ingthefunctionofgatheringthemostLikesandRetweets.

Ofcourse,gamificationmightnotbedangerousifitismanagedproperly.Here,then,isa

moresophisticateddefenseforthegamificationoptimist.Perhapsthesimplified,gamified

valueisn’tactuallyreplacingouroriginalvalue,butsimplyfunctioningasashort-termheu-

ristic forthatvalue.Cognitivelylimitedbeingslikeusoftenneedtofocusonashort-term

proxyforacomplexvalue–like,say,usingone’sincreasedrunningmileageasaproxyfor

health,orusingone’sgradesasaproxyforeducationalsuccess.Managedproperly,suchheu-

risticscanserveasanefficientandmotivatingproxyforsomedeeperandmorecomplex

value.It’smucheasier,onaday-to-daybasis,toaimatincreasingmileagethanitistothink

aboutmyhealthasawhole.

Butpropermanagementiskey.Heuristics,afterall,aresimplificationsoftherealthing.

Theyaregoodheuristicsinsofartheyremainproperlytetheredtoourdeepervalues.The

successfuluseofaheuristic involvesacomplexprocessofmanagement.Weneedtostep

backandreflectonwhetherusingtheheuristicisactuallyhelpingtoachievetheunderlying

values.Increasingyourrunningmileagemightsometimesbeagoodproxyforfitness,but

notwhenitbringsirreversiblekneedamage.Weneedtoadjustourheuristicswhenthey

drift.

ButTwitter’sdesignforgamificationdiscourageappropriatemanagement.First,Twitter

13ThisexcellentformulationsuggestedbyAlisonRieheld.

16

makesthescoringsystempervasiveandhighlysalientthroughitsuserinterface.Theready

availabilityofthispre-fabricated,neatlypackagedevaluationsystemmay,byitself,discour-

agefurtherreflectiononone’svalues.Moreimportantly,Twitter’smetricishard-wiredinto

thesystem.Evenifwemanagedtodiscoverthatwedid,infact,wanttoadjusttheheuristic,

thatadjustmentishardtodoonourown–becausethescoringsystemisembeddedinan

externally-controlled technology.Gamificationworksonus, inpart, becauseof the ready

availabilityofthosequantifiedevaluations.14 Inordertogetthefullpleasureonoffer,we

mustassenttotheparticularmeasuresthathavebeenbakedintothesystem.So,unlessTwit-

ter’sgamifiedmetricsjusthappentotherightheuristicstoachieveourparticularvaluesin

communication–andtodosoinperpetuity–thentakingonthosemetricswillimpedeour

capacitytomanageourproxytargetsinlightofourrealvalues.Andeverybodywhouses

Twitterispressuredtotakeonpreciselythesameheuristic,withlittleroomforpersonal

tailoring.Twitter’sinterfacecomeswithapre-fabricated,hard-wiredmeasure,whichpoints

itsusersfirmlyinthedirectionofpopularity–ratherthanallowingtheusertosearchout

theheuristicthatbestmatchestheirowninterests.Ofcourse,ausercould,conceivably,re-

sistthepullofTwitter’sdesignforgamificationandimposetheirownself-createdandself-

managedheuristicsontheirtweeting.Twitterisn’tactuallyforcingavaluechangeonus.The

systemdesignisseductive,butnotcompulsory.ButTwitteroffersusanintoxicatinghedonic

rewardforchangingourvaluesalongitspre-arrangedlines.

Thesethoughtsaboutpre-fabricationpointsthewaytoanotherworry.Toprovidethe

kindofcarefullyengineered,automated,steadyfeedbackthatMcGonigalpraises,weusually

14 See McGonigal’s (2011, especially 52-63) discussion of World of Warcraft, and the importance of the visible and steady trickle of points and rewards.

17

needhelpfromlargeinstitutions–likecorporationsandgovernments.Ourchoiceofactivi-

ties–andthewayweengageinthoseactivities–willthendependdeeplyonthefabrication

effortsoflarge-scaleinstitutions.Supposethatyoufindyourselfwithastrongpreferencefor

gamifiedactivitiesoverungamifiedones.Whenyouengageinaparticulargamifiedactivity,

youwill,indeed,findyourselfmoremotivatedandmoreengaged.Butyouwillalsobere-

strictedtochoosingfromthelistofactivitiesthatinstitutionshavechosentogamifyforyou.

Rightnow,forexample,therearepopulargamificationsavailableforlanguagelearning,in-

creasingyourstepcounts,andtrackingyourweightloss.Buttherearen’tgoodgamifications

for learningtoappreciatecomplexpoetryorbecomingabetterandmoreempathetic lis-

tener.Andevenifwethinkthatthechoiceofgamificationsisn’tinsidiousormanipulative–

eveniftheinstitutionsarewell-intentionedandjusttryingtohelpusleadourbestlives–we

willstillfindthattherangeofactivitiesavailabletouswillbesharplycurtailed.Institutions

willtendtoproducegamificationsofactivitiesthatmoreeasilyadmitoftechnologizedmeas-

urement.Itiseasiertogamifyweight-lossthanitistogamifydeepaestheticappreciation,

becausetheformeriseasiertomeasureinanautomatedway.Andwheninstitutionsgamify

activitieswithmoresubtleandcomplexaims–likecommunication–thentheywilltendto

tendtochangethoseactivitiestomaketheaimsmoreamenabletoautomatedmeasurement.

Soa lifeof gamificationwill tend todrawus towards thoseactivitieswhichhave clearly

measurable goals, or can be transformed into something with clearlymeasurable goals.

Whenwedemandthepleasuresofgamificationinouractivities,thentherangeofactivities

availabletousdiminishes–andthedegreesoffreedomwehavewithintheactivityalsodi-

minishes.Ironically,ifwetookthespiritofplaytoinvolvesomethinglikesomekindoffree-

domorspontaneitywithrespecttoone’svaluesandactivities,thengamificationturnsout

18

tobetheoppositeofplay.15

Howgamificationchangesus

So far,we’ve discussed how gamification can change the goals of the activity and so

changehowweconducttheactivity.Thereisnowafurtherquestion:howmightgamification

changetheusersthemselves?Howmighttheytransformtheusers’lastingvalues?

Muchdependshereonhowtheusersmotivationallyinteractwiththescores.Thereare

several differentways that interaction could go. First, users can treat Twitter as a game

proper,takingonitsgoalstemporarilyforthesakeofthepleasureduringtheactivity.Sec-

ond,theycaninternalizethosescoresandtransformtheirlong-termgoalsforcommunica-

tion.Third,theycouldkeepthescoresatmotivationalarm’slength,treatingthemonlyasa

measureofsomeusefulresource,butnotpermittingthescorestofunctiondirectlyintheir

motivationinanyway.Let’slookatthesevariouspossibilitiesonebyone.

First,supposeonetreatsTwitterasagameproper.Let’scallsuchapersonagame-play-

inguser.SuchausertemporarilyadoptsTwitter’sscoresastheirgoalwhiletheyplayTwit-

ter,andthenputsthosegoalsawayafterwards. Inthatcase, their localadoptionofthose

game-goalswouldn’tcountasalong-termchangeintheirvalue.Andthispracticewouldbe

perfectlyharmless,ifTwitterwerereallyagamethroughandthrough—butTwitterisnot.

Realgameshavespecialproperties.AsJohannHuizingafamouslyputit,agameoccursin

aseparatedplace—aplacehecalled“themagiccircle”—wherewetakeonalternateroles,

andouractionstookonalternatemeanings(Huizinga,1971).Or,asAnnikaWaernputsit,

gamestakeplaceinsideaninterpretiveframe,whereweagreetoreinterpretthemeanings

15 This view of play is fairly common in the literature, but this precise articulation is from Maria Lugones (1987).

19

oftheactsinsidethegame(Waern,2012).Thesearephilosophicallyrichdescriptionsofa

familiarphenomenon.Actionsingamesarescreenedoff,inimportantways,fromordinary

life.Whenweareplayingbasketball,andyoublockmypass,Idonottakethistobeasignof

yourlong-termhostilitytowardsme.Whenweareplayingathavinganinsultcontest,we

don’ttakeeachother’sspeechtobeindicativeofouractualattitudesorbeliefsaboutthe

world.16

And there are, in fact, conversational practices that are games, through and through.

Theseareexplicit,temporarypracticeswhereweconductconversationwhiletakingonspe-

cificgoals,obeyingspecificobstructions,andtakingonspecificroles.Therearestructured

gamesofdeceit,intendedtobeplayedatpartiesorastabletopgames,likeMafia,Werewolf,

TheResistance:Avalon,andSpyfall.Therearealsoinformalconversationalgames,likewhen

wesit aroundand try to comeupwith thebest insult abouteachother’smothers.What

makesthedeceitintruegamesmorallypermissibleisthatweallknow,goingin,nottotake

thein-gamespeechseriously.17Idon’tactuallytakeyour“Yomama”insultstobepresented

asreliable testimonyabout thestateof theworld.Suchgames involve thevoluntaryand

consensualentrance,byalltheplayers,intoanalternativegame-space,wheretheplayers

knowtointerprettheactionsandcommunicationsinsidethegameunderaspeciallight–to

nottreatthemasordinary,real-worldactions.

16The“magiccircle”notionhascomeundersignificantfire,whichIbelievecanbelocatedinafamously

overstatedversionpresentedinRulesofPlay,aninfluentialearlygame-designtextbook.Accordingtothattextbook—atleast,accordingtosomereaders—magiccircleswereimpermeablemembranesformeaning,acrosswhichnomoraljudgmentorconsequencecouldcross(SalenandZimmerman,95-97).IamrelyinghereonwhatItaketobeamoreminimalanddefensibleversionofthemagiccircle.Forvariousdefensesofmorereasonableaccountingsofthemagiccircle,see(Stenros,2012;Waern,2012;Nguyen2020,177-180).

17Forfurtherdiscussionofthemoraltransitionintogame-life,see(Weimer,2012;Kretchmar,2012;Nguyen,2017).

20

Butthosearen’tthenormativeconventionsaroundmostofTwitter.ThemajorityofTwit-

terpresentsitselfas,andistakentobe,ordinarydiscourse.Forthemostpart,wethinkthat

peopleonTwitterarerepresentingtheirrealbeliefsandtryingtomakeclaimsaboutthe

actualworld.18AuserwhoapproachesTwitterasaliteralgame,then,runstheriskofunder-

miningtheepistemicgoodsavailabletotheotherusers.SupposeI’monTwittertoactually

communicate about ideas, andyou’replayinga gamewithTwitter—sayingwhatever it

takestogetthemostLikesandRetweetsforthesheerfunofit.IfIdon’trealizeyou’replaying

agame,thenIwillbeprofoundlymisinformedbyyourtweets.ThosewhoapproachTwitter

explicitlyasagame,butdon’tclearlymarkthemselvesasgame-players,areconversingin

bad faith.Theyarepresenting themselvesasengaging inadiscursive, epistemicpractice

whileactuallybeingguidedbynon-epistemicmotives.And,insofarasotherTwitterusers

takegame-playingusersasseriousparticipantsinsincerediscourse,thentheseotherswill

bemistakinggamingtalkforserioustestimony.19

Second, users could internalize the scoresofTwitter, permitting their enduring goals

withtobeinfluencedbyTwitter’sscoringmechanism.Twittermakesthiseasy,bymaking

thosescoressoprominentandsopervasive.

18Anexceptionisso-calledWeirdTwitter,whichisasub-networkdevotedtoironyandverbalgame-

playing,largelyitsown,largelysegregatednetwork.Butthatis,ofcourse,aspecificexception—andnotaparticularlyriskyone,sinceWeirdTwittertweetsaresobizarreandincomprehensible,thattheyarenotlikelytobemistakenforordinarydiscourse.WeirdTwitterisagameproper,withclearindicatorsthattheusersasjustplayingaround.ButthingsaredifferentelsewhereTwitter.IsuspectthatmanyotherpeopleareplayingagamewithTwitterwithpoliticalspeech,onthemainstageofTwitter,whichisafarmoredangerousaffair.

19Toputthisintothetechnicallanguageoftheepistemologyoftestimony:ItakeTwittertobeacontextinwhichmosttweetsaretreatedas“assertions”.TouseElizabethFricker’saccount:whenSassertsthatPtoanaudienceH,theytherebyvouchforthetruthofPtoH,presentingPasbeingso,suchthatHcanformbeliefthatPonS’ssay-so.AnassertionthatPrepresentstheasserterasknowingP(Fricker,2006).Game-playingusers,then,arepresentingnon-assertionsintoanassertoriccontext,whereotherscanbereasonablyex-pectedtotreatthemasassertions.

21

Twitterisapartofalargerphenomenonhere,whichwecancallvaluecapture.20Value

captureoccurswhen:

1.Ournaturalvaluesarerich,subtle,andhard-to-express.

2.Weareplacedinasocialorinstitutionalsettingwhichpresentssimplified,typically

quantified,versionsofourvaluesbacktoourselves.

3.Thesimplifiedversionstakeoverinourmotivationanddeliberation.

Someexamples:startingtoexerciseforthesakeofyourhealth,thengettingcapturedby

FitBitandcomingtojustcareaboutyourdailystep-counts.Goingtoschoolforthesakeofa

goodeducationandcomingoutobsessedyourGPA.Becomingapre-lawforthesakeofpublic

interestandlegalactivism,andthencomingtocaremoreaboutgettingadmittedtothebest

lawschoolaccordingtheUSNews&WorldReport’s lawschoolrankings.21And,ofcourse,

goingontoTwitterforthesakeofcommunication,connection,andsharedunderstanding—

andcomingoutobsessedwithmaximizingLikes,Retweets,andFollowercounts.And,obvi-

ously,ahighstep-countisn’tthesameasgoodhealth;ahighGPAisn’tthesameasagood

education;andhighTwitterLikesaren’tthesameasconnectionorcollectiveunderstanding.

Valuecaptureoccurswhenourvaluesundergoalong-termandenduringsimplification,

asguidedbytheexternalmetricsprovidedbyinstitutionsandtechnologies.Theworryhere

isn’tthatourvaluescouldn’teverbeexpressedinquantifiedform,inprinciple.Rather,it’s

20Iintroducedthenotionofvaluecapturein(Nguyen,2020,189-215),thoughmyviewshave,Ithink,

maturedsincethatearliersketch.21WendyEspelandandMichaelSauder’sEnginesofAnxietyisathorough-anddeeplyalarming-account

ofhowtheUSN&WR’slawschoolrankingshaveprofoundlychangedstudentmotivations(EspelandandSauder,2016).

22

thatthekindofmetrics,measures,andgamifiedscoringthatwetypicallyencounterinour

lifewithbureaucracies,institutions,andcorporationsarealmostalwaysradicalsimplifica-

tionsofthevaluestheyclaimtobemeasuring.Thosesimplificationsmayhavecertainuses

in administration,management, or large-scale scientific data-collection. But whatmakes

themusefulforthosefunctionsis,infact,theirverysimplification.

It’susefulheretoborrowfromanearbydiscussion:thatofthesimplificationsinvolved

in bureaucratic quantifications.AsTheodorePorter puts it, institutional quantification is

drivenbyaninterestinmakinginformationhighlyportable.Rich,nuancedqualitativeinfor-

mationisdifficulttomanagefromanysortofinformationalcenter.Weneedtostripoutthe

context-sensitivedetailsandnuanceinordertotransmititeasilybetweencontexts(Porter,

1996).Thisiswhysuchquantificationisbelovedofcentralizedbureaucracies,whichneed

topassinformationtodistantmanagers,andupmanylevelsinthehierarchyofadministra-

tion(Scott,1998).22

Thiscontext-strippingstandardizationalsoallowsustoaggregatetheinformationarith-

metically.Think, forexample,ofhowteachersassessstudents.Teacherscouldoffereach

studentrichandindividualizedcommentaryaboutthestrengthsandweaknessesoftheir

academicwork.Suchindividualizedcommentarywouldbevastlyusefultothestudents.But

suchindividualizedcommentaryisincrediblyhardtoaggregateandmanagebyupperlevel

administrators.Howisanadministratorsupposedtocomparetheportfolioevaluationsof

theartdepartmentwiththemathematicalperformanceofthestatisticsstudents?Soteach-

ersareaskedtoprovidequantifiedgradesfortheirstudents,whichcantheneasilybeaver-

agedacrossclassesforonestudents,andacrossallthestudentsinadepartment,university,

22Iamalsoinfluencedhereby(Perrow,2014;Merry,2016).

23

orschooldistrict.Quantifiedgradesstripoutmuchofthemostimportantinformation.But

thatcontext-strippingrenders informationintoastandardizedformthatcanbeoperated

uponarithmetically.Thisallowsmanagersofmassive,sprawlinginstitutionstobringtheir

entiredomainintoview—byputtinginformationinstandardizedformandthenaggregat-

ingit.Institutionallifeexertsapressureoninformation,pushingittowardsquantified,ag-

gregableform.Noticethattheseforcesdonottypicallyarisetosupportourindividualinter-

ests,butinsteadtheinterestsofmanagementandlarge-scaleadministration.But,problem-

atically,thosequantificationsappealtoourmotivationspreciselybecauseoftheirapparent

clarity.Andonceweoffersimple,quantifiedmetricsforsuccess,thosemetricstakeoverin

themotivationsofsomanypeople.23

Asimilarpressureoccurswithovertgamifications,especiallyonesinanautomated,tech-

nologicalcontext—thoughthemotivationsforsimplifyingmaybeslightlydifferent.Inorder

tocreatethemotivationalrewardsofgamification,weneedtoprovideascore.Inorderto

providethatscore,weneedtoofferreliablescoringmechanism.Andinalarge-scale,tech-

nologized context like Twitter, that scoringmechanism needs to function automatically.

Twittercan’tofferascorebasedonqualityofengagement,empathy,ordepthofthought.It

canonlyscoreusonwhatiseasilylegibletoitssystems:likewhetherornotsomebodyclicks

onLike.

Suchscorespresentagame-likemotivational lure.Butbecausetheycanalsobe inte-

23Forexcellentcasestudiesintothemotivationalpullofquantifications,seeSallyEngleMerry’s(2016)

studyoftheuseofsimplifiedmetricsandindicatorsinmotivatingpoliticalaction;andEspelandandSauder’s(2016)studyoftheeffectsoflawschoolrankingsonthemotivationsofstudentsanddonors.Thisbriefsketchofvaluecapture,quantifiedbureaucracy,andseductiveclarityherewillbedevelopedinfuturework.

24

gratedarithmetically,theycanbeusedtogeneratemoregamificationsdowntheline.Con-

sider, forexample,howFitBit’s scoresnest.FitBitprovidesmewithadaily score formy

walking.Butthatscorecanbeaveraged,soIcanalsogetascoreformywalkingsuccesseach

week,andeachmonth.Sinceotherpeople’sscorescanalsobeaveraged,thesystemcanau-

tomaticallygeneraterankingsandleaderboards,eachofwhichprovidesanothergame-like

motivationalboost.Similarly,Twitter’sscores,oncerenderedintoquantifiedform,canbe

extractedandused togenerateotherscores.24Forexample, theexplicitlygamifiedsocial

networkEmpire.kredcreatesasecond-ordergameoutofsocialmediascores.Empire.kred

isavirtualstockmarket,where individualsare thestocks. Individualscan invest ineach

otherusingthegame’svirtualcurrency,$Eaves.Theirstockvalueisbasedontheirsocial

mediapower,asmodifiedthroughinvestments.Empire.kredharvestsvariousscoresfrom

othersocialmedianetworks—likeTwitterandFacebook,andthenaggregatesthosescores

todriveitsvirtualstockmarket.25Thisispossiblebecausethosesocialmedianetworkshave

alreadydigestedevaluationsofusersuccessintoastandardizedandportableformat:anu-

mericalscore.

Theproblemwithvaluecapturecanbeputmostclearlyifwehelpourselvestoanas-

sumption.Thereis,itisoftenthought,anaturalaimtobelief.Beliefaimsatthetruth.26We

canbetemptedbyothermotivationstoabandonthataim:tobelievewhatwillfeelpleasant

ormakethingseasyforus.Buttodosoistoabandonthenaturalaimofbelief;itistosubvert

24LuptonandSmith’s(2017)recentstudyofquantifiedself-trackingshowthatmanyself-trackersare

extremelyinterestedintheexportabilityofself-trackingdata—oftheabilitytosendFitBitstep-countstoaspreadsheetormoremacroscopichealth-trackingprogram.Theirapproach,however,ismoretunedtothedata-gatheringside,andpayslessattentiontothemotivationalpossibilitiesofgamification.

25https://play.empire.kred26ThisideahasitsmostinfluentialstatementwithWilliams(1970).Formorerecentdiscussion,see(Vel-

leman,2000;Wedgewood,2002).

25

theactivityofbelieving.Theactivityofearnestdiscoursealsoseemstohaveanaturalaim,

whichisthecollectivepursuitoftruth.Weaimtoexpresswhatwethinkofastrue,andto

question and challenge each other’s expressions, as part of our quest to understand the

world.Butgamificationtemptsustochangeourgoals—toaimatexpressionswhichmax-

imizeourscore,ratherthanthosewhichaidourcollectiveunderstanding.Anditpromises

torewardusforthatchangewithpleasure.Twittertemptsustosubverttheactivityofear-

nestconversationforhedonisticreasons.

Besidesgame-playingusersandvalue-capturedusers, there isa thirdpossibility: that

userscouldtreatthescoresofTwitterassimplereportsofsomeinstrumentalresource,use-

fulforthepursuitoffurtherends.TheytreatTwitter’snumbers,notassettingagoal,but

merelyasusefuldata.Let’scallsuchpersonavalue-independentuser.Suchauserhasavoided

internalizingthescoresofTwitterinanyway.Theyhaveavoidedgamification.

Here’swhatthatmightlooklike.Supposeonewantedpublicinfluence.Aresourcefor

publicinfluenceishavingaTwitteraccountwithawidenumberoffollowers—andtweets

whichareheavilyretweetedwillreachalargenumberofpeople.Soonecouldaimforhigh

scoressimplyasanapproximatemeasureofthatinstrumentalresource.Suchavalue-inde-

pendentuserwouldn’thaveanyformofchangeofvalueorgoals,eithershort-term,orlong-

term.Theyalsowouldn’tbesubjecttothemotivationalbooststhatarise frommorefully

inhabitingthescoresofTwitter.Theywouldbeholdingthosescoresatphenomenalarm’s

length.Suchauser,then,wouldbefreeofthemoreperniciouseffectsofvaluecaptureand

game-playing.TheyhaveresistedTwitter’sinvitationtogamification.

Thinkingaboutthevalue-independentuserhelpsusgetcleareronwhat’swrongwiththe

26

value-captureduser.Thevalue-independentusermanagesthescores,wherethevalue-cap-

tureduserisdrivenbythescores.Consider,bywayofanalogy,tworelationshipsyoucould

havewithmoney.First,youcouldviewitasaninstrumentalresource,tobecollectedinpur-

suitofsomeothervalue.Second,youcouldtreatitasanenduringend,tobepursuedforits

ownsake.Somebodywhosoughtmoneyasaninstrumentalresourcewouldmanagetheir

pursuitofmoneyinviewoftheirlargerends.Somebodywhopursuedmoneyasaninstru-

mentalresourcetohappiness,wouldn’ttakethathigh-payingjobthatwoulddestroytheir

happiness.Theywouldmanagetheirpursuitofmoney,makingsuretopursuemoneyonly

totheextentthatitactuallyhelpedtheirhappiness.Thepersonwhopursuesmoneyforits

ownsake,however,hasnosuchguidingpurposewithwhichtomanagetheirpursuitofthe

greatestpile.27

Similarly,considerauserwhocomestoTwitterforthesakeof,say,socialprogress,and

soughtFollowersandRetweetssimplyasaninstrumentalresourcefortheirmission.They

haveanexternalstandpointfromwhichtomanagetheirpursuitofFollowersandRetweets.

Theywouldn’tsayanythinginordertogoviral,formanysuchthingstheycouldsaywould

likelyunderminetheirlargerpurpose.Butthepersonwhohasbeenfullyvalue-capturedby

Twitter’sscoreshasnosuchlimitation.Theywillbedriventosaywhateverittakestogo

viralandgetthosepoints.

Forthevalue-independentuser,Twitter’sscoresaremerelyameans.Butforthevalue-

captureduser,Twitter’sscoreshavebecometheend.Theactofcommunicationitselfhas

beeninstrumentalizedtotheendofTwitterscores.RatherthanusingTwitterscorestoad-

vance their independentvalues incommunication, theyhavechanged thenatureof their

27ThisparagrapharisesfromdiscussionswithAaronJames.

27

communicationtoadvancetheirpursuitofTwitterscores.

Changingvalues

Thekeynotionhere is the ideathatgamificationproblematically instrumentalizesour

goals.Thenotionofinstrumentalizationwillbeusefulunderstandingsomeofthesocially

toxicbehaviorwhichseemstobloomonTwitter.Butfirst,we’llneedaclearerpictureofthe

notionofinstrumentalization.Forthat,we’llneedtolook,ingreaterdepth,athowandwhy

wefashionnewgoalsforourselvesingamesandgamification.

Myaccountofgamesshowsthattheplayerhasaratherextraordinaryformofagential

fluidity. During a game, a player takes on an alternate agencywith alternate goals. That

agencyhasbeenengineeredtoprovidesatisfactionfortheplayerwhoadoptsit.Gamification

worksinasimilarway—itoffersusvarioussatisfactions,inexchangeforshiftingourgoals

alongitsengineeredlines.Bothgamesandgamificationinvolveinstrumentalizingourgoals.

This is unproblematic in games, but deeply problematic in gamification. Why? Because

gamesareaverypeculiaranddistinctivesortofactivity,andgamificationdoesn’tsharein

someofthemostimportantfeatures.

ThebestaccountofthespecialnatureofgamescomesfromBernardSuits’marvelous

attempttodefine‘game’.Suitssaysthattoplayagameistovoluntarilytakeonobstaclesto

makepossibletheactivityofstrugglingtoovercomethem.Inotherwords, inagame,the

obstaclesaremuchofthepoint.Wetrytorunamarathon,andwhatitistorunamarathon

istotrytogettoacertainplacewhilesubmittingtovariousrestrictions.Wemustrunbyour

ownpoweronly–noshort-cuts,notaxis.Thoserestrictionshelpconstitutevariousobstacles

28

forourefforts.But,saysSuits,ourdevotiontotheserestrictionsshowsthatwearenotmo-

tivatedsimplybytheindependentvalueofcrossingthefinishline. Ifwejustcaredabout

beingatthatparticularpointinspace,inandofitself,wewouldtakethemostefficientmeans

tothatend—likeataxi.Thefactthatwearewillingtoplaceextra,unnecessaryinefficiencies

inourwayindicatesthatourinterestisnotinactuallyachievingthegoalinandofitself,but

inachievingitinsidecertainspecifiedrestrictions.Ourinterestistoachievethegoalbyway

ofaparticular,constructedformofactivity.AsSuitsputsit,inagame,therestrictionshelp

constitutetheveryactivityweareinterestedinperforming.Whatitistorunamarathon,is

torunacertaindistanceunderone’sownpower.Ifwetookataxi,wewouldn’tberunninga

marathonatall(Suits,2014).28

AsIhavearguedelsewhere,Suits’accountrevealsthepossibilityofaverypeculiarmoti-

vationalstructure.29Therearetwodifferentmotivationalstructuresforplayingagame.One

couldbeanachievementplayer,whoplaysthegameforthevalueofwinning.Oronecould

beastrivingplayer,whotakesonatemporaryinterestinwinningforthesakeofengagement

inastruggle.(Onecouldalsoplayforbothmotivations,invaryingproportions.)Strivingplay

isaveryspecialmotivationalstructure;itinvolvesamotivationalinversionfromordinary

life.Inordinarylife,wetakethemeansforthesakeofachievingtheends.Butingamelife,

weselecttheendsforthesakeofthemeans.Wetakeonatemporaryend,andwesubmerge

28Idon’tthinkgamifiedactivitiescountasgamesproperforreasonsthataretangentialtothetopicsfor

thispaper.Briefly,accordingtoSuits’definition,whichIlargelyendorse,gamesareactivitieswherethegoalofthegameispartiallyconstitutedbythedesignatedrestrictionsonthatgoal.Whatitistomakeabasketinbasketballis,inpart,constitutedbytheplayer’shavingobeyedthedribblingrestriction.Forafurtherdiscus-sionofthispoint,seeNguyen(2020,27-73).Thegoalsingamifiedactivitiesarenotrestriction-constitutedinthisway.

29Thisisaverybriefpresentationofoneargumentfortheexistenceofstrivingplay,amongseveralIhaveofferedelsewhere.Themostdetailedversionofthisanalysisoccursin(Nguyen,2020,27-73).

29

ourselvesinit.30

WhenmyspouseandIplaygames,wewanttobothhaveagoodtime,sowelookfor

gamesthatwe’rebothrelativelygoodat.Wecanseethefactthatwe’rebothstrivingplayers

byhowwemanipulateourcapacitytowininthelong-term.Supposethatwehavefounda

gameatwhichweareperfectlymatchedandarehavingalovelysetofintensegamingses-

sionswith.Supposeoneofusfindsastrategyguidetothatgame.Ifthatpersonweretoread

itbythemselves,theywouldpullaheadandstartwinning.Ifwewereachievementplayers,

thenweeachshouldwanttoreadthatguide.Butwedon’t,anditisperfectlyreasonablethat

wedon’t.Wearewillingtosuppressourcapacitytowininthelong-term—eventhoughwe

try,withallourmight, towinduringthegame.Ourextra-gamebehaviorreveals thatwe

aren’tactuallyinterestedinwinninginanyenduringsense.Ourinterestinwinningismerely

somethingwetemporarilyadopt,inordertocreatetheexperienceofthatdeliciousstruggle.

Andthegoalwepursueinthegameisoftendisconnectedfromourenduringgoalsand

ends—atleast,disconnectedintheusuallinearsense.Inmanygames,ourrealpurposeis

tohavefun,butwecanonlyhavefunbytryingtowin.Butwedon’treallycareaboutwinning;

wejustadoptatemporaryinterestinwinningsothatwecanengageinthefunactivityof

trying.Butafterthegameisthrough,wecandispensewiththatinterestinwinning.Forex-

ample:IcanstartagameofCharadesatapartyforfun.Inordertohavefun,Ihavetogenu-

inely try toachieve thegoalsof thegame—to communicate concepts throughgestures,

withoutspeech.Butafterthegame,Idiscardthatdesire.Afterall,ifIlostatCharades,but

weallhadagoodtimetogether,thenIachievedmytruepurpose.Onlyanespeciallypoor

30SomephilosophersmayprotestthatIhavepositedtheimpossible:thatwecandesireatwill.Pleasesee

Nguyen(2019,451-455)formyargumentthatstrivingplayrevealsthatwecan,infact,desireatwill.

30

sportwouldthinkthewholeenterpriseafailurebecausetheyhadlostatCharades.

So,whenwejustifyourgamegoalsinstrivingplay,wedonotdosoinreferencetothe

valueofthegoalitself,ortowhatfollowsfromit.Wejustifythegame’sgoalsbypointingto

the value of the activity of pursuing those goals. Thus, strivingplay instrumentalizesour

adoptionofgoals.Instrivingplay,weadoptagoal,notforitsownvalue.Ouradoptionofa

game-goalisjustifiedintermsoftheactivityofpursuitthatgoalstructures.

Here,then,isakeydifferencebetweengamesproperandthegamificationofnon-game

life.Instrivinggames,thegoalsofgamesaretemporary.Moreimportantly,theyarediscon-

nectedfromthenetworkofourenduringends.Instrivingplay,myin-gamegoaliswinning,

butIdon’tactuallycareaboutwinninginthe long-term.Iachievemyrealpurpose–fun,

satisfaction,exercise–bypursuingthewin,andnotbyactuallywinning.Andthisiswhyitis

perfectlypermissibleforgamedesignerstochangethegoalsofgame-activity.Game-goals

canbemadeassimpleandnarrowedasisconvenientbecausetheyaren’tdirectlyattached

toourenduringends.Gamedesignersarechanging theplay-goals thatguideanartificial

activity,whichhasbeenscreenedofffrommanyreal-worldconsequences.

Butgamificationisanentirelydifferentmatter.Ingamification,thedesignersareinstru-

mentalizing thegoalsofour real-lifeactivities.FitBit,bygamifyingexercise, invitesus to

changeourgoalsforourhealthandfitness.AndTwitter,bygamifyingdiscourse,invitesus

to change our goals for conversation, communication, anddeclaration. Instrumentalizing

one’sgoalsisfineinstrivinggames,becausethegoalsingameswerenevervaluable,inand

ofthemselves, inthefirstplace.Butinreal lifeactivity,thegoalsareoftenindependently

valuable.Sowhenwegamifythoseactivitiesandinstrumentalizethoseendsforthesakeof

pleasure,werisklosingsightofthereal importanceoftheactivity.Twitter’sgamification

31

changesourcommunicativegoalsawayfromunderstanding,connection,andthecollective

pursuitoftruth,andbendsthemtowardssomethingmuchmoreimpoverished.

Twitterandtoxicity

I’vediscussedelsewheretwoproblematicsocialphenomenaassociatedwithpolarized

discourse:echochambersandmoraloutrageporn.Bothofthesephenomenaseemtoflour-

ishonsocialmedia.Wearenowinthepositiontoofferthebeginningsofanexplanationfor

thisrelationship.Gamification,echochambers,andmoraloutragepornallshareacommon

centralthread:awillingnesstoinstrumentalizewhatoughtnotbeinstrumentalized.

Let’s firstgetclearerontheseotherphenomena.First:as I’vearguedelsewhere,echo

chambersarebestunderstoodasstructuresofmanipulatedtrust.Echochambermembers

havebeensystematicallytaughttodistrusteverybodyontheoutside(Nguyen,2018).

Toputitmoreformally:anechochamberisasocialstructureinwhich:

1.Onemustsubscribetoacertainbeliefsystemtobeamember.

2.Thatbeliefsystemincludesthebeliefthatallnon-membersareuntrustworthy,and

allmemberstrustworthy.

Thus,echochambers inculcatearadical trustdisparitybetweenmembersandnon-mem-

bers.Thebeliefsystemincludessomeexplanationforwhyeverybodyontheoutsideisun-

trustworthy.Inthemodernlandscape,thoseexplanationsoftentaketheformofconspiracy

theories—like,“TheliberalmediaisinthegripofGeorgeSorosandtotallycorrupt.”And

32

thetrustdisparityisself-reinforcing.Themoreyoutrustyourfellowechochambermem-

bers,themoretheiragreementwillconfirmyoursharedbeliefsystem.Andthemoreyou

confirmthatbeliefsystem,themoreyouwilltrustyourfellowmembersanddistrustoutsid-

ers.

Compareechochamberstoanearbyphenomenon:thatofepistemicbubbles.Anepis-

temicbubbleisasocialstructurewhereinsidersaren’texposedtoviewsontheoutside.De-

spitethesuperficialsimilarity,epistemicbubblesandechochambersworkthroughentirely

differentmechanisms.Inanechochamber,insidemembersmayhaveplentyofexposureto

outsideviews,butoutsidevoiceshavebeenundermined.Epistemicbubblesarestructures

ofbadconnectivity;echochambersarestructuresofmanipulatedcredence.Inanepistemic

bubble,outsidevoicesaren’theard;inanechochamber,outsidevoiceshavebeensystemat-

icallydiscredited.

Importantly,I’veargued,manyproblematicbeliefcommunitieshavebeenmisdiagnosed

asepistemicbubbles.Butactually,theyaremostlytheresultofechochambers.Itisn’tthat

climatechangedeniers,forexample,aresimplyunawareofwhatclimatechangescientist

think,orthestandardpubliclyavailableargumentsforclimatechange.Theyare,forthemost

part,quitewellacquaintedwiththoseargumentsandconclusions.Itisthattheythinkthat

theinstitutionsofclimatechangesciencehavebeensystematicallycorruptedandareun-

trustworthy.Thishelpsexplainstheintractabilityofclimatechangedenialists.Sinceanep-

istemicbubbleworksthroughsimplyomittingoutsidevoices,weshouldbeabletoshatter

onesimplybyexposinganinsidertomorevoicesandmoreviewpoints.Weshouldexpect

epistemicbubblestogodownwiththefirstcontacttothemissingevidence.Butechocham-

33

bermembersarepre-preparedforencounterswithexternalviewpointsandarmedwithex-

planatorymechanismstodismissthoseothervoices.Echochambersarefarmorerobust.

Whymightoneenterintoanechochamber?Inmyearlierdiscussion,Ifocusedonthe

possibilitythatonemightberaisedinanechochamber,and,throughnofaultofone’sown,

beentrappedinanerrantsystemoftrust.ButhereIwouldliketofocusonanotherpossibil-

ity:thatsomepeoplechoosetoenterechochambersbecausebeinginanechochamberis

morecomfortableandmorepleasurable.

Lifeoutsideofanechochambersisfullofallkindsofcognitivedifficulties.Wemustcon-

stantly strugglewith conflicting evidence and unexplained phenomena. Andwe are con-

fronted,overandoveragain,withevidenceofourowncognitivefallibility.Theseconfronta-

tionshumbleus—whichisgoodforus,butalsoquitepainful.

Echochambersbanishall thatepistemicfriction.31Theyremove, throughdistrust, the

impactofdisagreeingvoices.Insteadofhavingtocopewithnewevidence,echochambers

typicallypresenttheirmemberswithclear,coherentstoriesabouttheworld.Insteadofthe

humblingconfrontationwiththeevidenceofone’serrors,echochambersoffertheirmem-

bersthejoysofunanimityanduninterruptedconfidence.

Andnotice:thesejoysareverymuchakintothejoysofvalueclaritythatwefoundin

games.Andbothformsofjoyemergefromsimilarengineeredconditions.Gamesinvolvere-

designingtheagent’sgoalsandabilitiesforpleasure.Echochambersinvolvere-engineering

theirmembers’beliefsystemandtrustsettingsforpleasure.Andechochambersaredanger-

ousbecausetheyre-engineer,notsometemporaryandsegregatedbeliefsystem,butreal-

31IaminfluencedherebyJoseMedina’s(2012)accountofepistemicresistance,thoughIemphasizethe

ideathattheexperienceofandtheprocessingofepistemicresistanceiscomfortable,andsyntheticepistemicenvironmentsengineeredtoberesistance-lessarequitepleasurable.

34

lifebeliefsystemswhichgovernreal-lifeaction.

Wecannowseethehigher-levelsimilaritybetweengamificationandechochambers.In

gamification,weinstrumentalizeourreal-lifegoals.Inparticular,thegamificationofTwitter

involvesinstrumentalizingthegoalsassociatedwithdiscourse.Gamificationinvolves,toa

significantdegree,abandoningtheaimoftruthandunderstanding,andtakingonasimpler

goal—wherethatgoalwasengineeredforthesakeofpleasuresofvalueclarity.Echocham-

bersalsoinvolveinstrumentalizingourbeliefsystems,abandoningtheaimsofhavingthe

beliefsthataretrue,andtrustingthepeoplethatarereliable.And,inexchangeforabandon-

ingtheseepistemicaims,echochambersoffertheirmembersthepleasuresofconfidence,

simplecoherence,andunity.

Thereisaninterestingcomplexityintheinstrumentalizationhere.Therearetwolevels

ofexplanationforthesesimplifyingre-designs.Itseemsplausible,forbothTwitterandfor

manyreal-worldechochambers,thattheyareintentionallydesignedbyanexternalagent.

There-engineeringinvolvesinstrumentalizationattwodifferentlevels:atthelevelofdesign,

andatthelevelofadoption.Plausibly,Twitter’smakersconsciouslydesigneditforpleasure

andaddictiveness,forthesakeofprofit.Sotherearetwoinstrumentalizationshere.First,

Twitter’smakersaredesigningforgamificationforthesakeofprofit,whichtheypursueby

makingtheirdesignseductivelypleasurableto itsend-users.Andsecond,thoseusersare

acceptingtheseduction,andgamifyingtheirdiscourseforthesakeofpleasure.Atbothlev-

els,wefindpeoplewillingtoforsaketheoriginalgoalsofdiscourseforsomeotherend.

Similarly,manyechochambersareplausiblydesignedforpoliticalcontrol.32Tothatend,

32Thisviewmightstrikesomeascynical.Thisis,however,thepictureofferedbyKathleenHallJamieson

andJosephCappella(2010)intheirmeticulouslyresearchedaccountofRushLimbuaghandFoxNews’inten-

35

designershaveareasontoengineertheirbeliefsystemtobeaspleasurableaspossible.Once

again,therearetwoinstrumentalizations:designerscreateabeliefsystemforthesakeof

politicalcontrol,whichinvolvesdesigningthemtobepleasurabletotheirusers.Thenusers

acceptthosebeliefsystemsforthesakeofthatengineeredpleasure.And,onceagain,atboth

levels,wefindpeoplewillingtocreateoradoptbeliefsystemsforreasonsthatbear,noton

theirrelationshiptotruth,buttosomeotherend.

Let’s turnnowto thesecondtoxicphenomenon:moraloutrageporn. Inearlierwork,

BekkaWilliamsandIofferanaccountof“porn”inthegenericsense.Wemeantodescribe

thenew,modernusage,whichincludesthingslike“foodporn”,“realestateporn”,and“closet

porn”.Weproposethatarepresentationisusedasgenericpornwhenitisengagedwithfor

thesakeofagratifyingreaction,freedfromtheusualcostsandconsequencesofengaging

withtherepresentedcontent.Forexample:foodpornispicturesoffoodwhichpeoplelook

attogetimmediategratification,whileavoidingthecalories,cost,andhassleofeatingthe

depictedfood.Realestatepornispicturesofexpensive,well-maintainedhomes,whichpeo-

ple lookat for immediategratification,whileavoiding thecostsandhassleofbuyingand

maintainingthoseactualhomes.

Thisaccounthelpsusgetagriponanimportantphenomenon:moraloutrageporn.Moral

outragepornisrepresentationsofmoraloutrage,whichpeopleengagewithfortheimmedi-

ategratificationsoffeelingsofmoraloutrage—forthepleasuresoffeelingsmug,secure,

andconfidentinthetotalwrongnessoftheotherside.Andtheydosowhileavoidingthe

tionalconstructionofanechochamber.Theirbook,EchoChamber:RushLimbaughandtheConservativeMe-diaEstablishment,isoneofthebestearlyanalysesofechochamberstructures,andisthesourceformyownaccountofechochambers.

36

costsandconsequencesofgenuinemoralengagement:likethepainsofstrugglingtobemor-

allysensitive,theeffortsofseekingtherightmoralbeliefs,andtheexhaustionofrealmoral

action.Wethinkitquiteclearthatsocialmedia issuffusedwithmoraloutrageporn.And

moraloutragepornisquitedangerous.Ifoneisinterestedinusingmoraloutragepornfor

pleasure,onewillhaveanincentivetoadopt,nottherightmoralsystem,buttheonethatis

easiesttocrankforpleasure.Onewilllikelybetemptedto,say,adoptasimpleandabsolute

moralsystem,thatwillgiveonetheeasiestaccesstothepleasuresofsmugcondemnation.

Crucially,ourclaimisn’tthatmoraloutrageisbad.Realmoraloutrageiscrucial.Moral

outrage,whenitemergesfromawell-tunedmoralsensibility,helpsustoregisterinjustice

andmotivatesustoendit.Theveryproblemisthatmoraloutragepornthreatenstocorrupt

therealthing.Thepropertargetofmoraloutrageisthegenuinelyoutrageous.Butwhenwe

usemoraloutrageporn,weuseourownmoraloutrageforpleasure.Andsoweareincentiv-

izedtochangeourmoralbeliefsystem—toignorethetruth,andadoptthosebeliefsthat

willgiveusthemostpleasurableoutrage.Moraloutrageporninvitesustoinstrumentalize

ourmoralbeliefs(NguyenandWilliams,2020).

So:moraloutragepornandechochambersoftenoccurtogether,andtheybothseemto

flourishonsocialmedia.Whymightthatbe?Wenowhavethebeginningsofanexplanation.

Allofthesephenomenainvolvehedonisticinstrumentalization,wherewetakeanattitude

ormentalstateandmodifyitawayfromitsappropriatetargetinexchangeforpleasure.

Whymightasimilarityofmotivationalstructureleadtofrequentco-occurrence?Isug-

gestthatthesevarioushedonisticinstrumentalizationsoccurtogetherbecausetheyappeal

tothesamesortsofmotives.Inotherwords,theco-occurrenceofgamification,echocham-

bers,andmoraloutragepornarenotbestexplainedbyfeaturesoftheindividualphenomena

37

themselves,butintermsofthecharacteroftheirlikelyadopters.Inallofthesecases,main-

tainingtheattitudestowardstheirappropriateaimtakeswork.Somebodywillingtoaban-

donanattitude’sappropriateaimandinstrumentalizeitforpleasureinoneplace,islikely

todoitanother.

Anotherwaytoputit:gamification,echochambers,andmoraloutrageporngotogether

likejunkfood.Differentkindsofjunkfoodareunhealthyindifferentways—somearetoo

highinsalt,sometoohighinfat,sometoohighinsugar.Butthereasontheyareoftencon-

sumedtogetheristhattheyarealllikelytobeconsumedbysomebodywhoiswillingtotrade

offhealthandnutritioninreturnforacertainkindofquickpleasure.Thesameistrueof

gamification,moraloutrageporn,andechochambers.Theyareallreadilyavailablesources

ofacertainquickandeasypleasure,availabletoanybodywillingtorelaxwiththeirmoral

andepistemicstandards.

Next,thinkaboutthingsfromthepointofviewofthesystemdesigner.Imagineyourself

intotheshoesofahostilemanipulator.Let’ssayyouwantedtogetpeopleunderyourpolit-

icalsway.You’dwanttodesignabeliefsystemthatwasasmaximallycatchyandstickyas

possible.Here’sonewayyoucoulddoit.First,youcoulddesignabeliefsystemthatincluded

provisionstodistrustalloutsiderswhodidn’tsharethebeliefsystem.Youcouldmakethat

beliefsystemutterlyclearandcoherent,allthebettertopleaseitsadopters.Inotherwords,

you’ddesignanechochamber.Second,youcouldrigthebeliefsystemwiththeappropriate

amountofmoralcertaintyandsuperiorityoveroutsiders,soastoprovideallthepleasures

ofmoralcondemnation.Inotherwords,you’dfillitwithmoraloutrageporn.Third,ifitwere

available, you’d want to entrench that belief system in a communication platform that

awardeditsusersplentyofclear,directaffirmationforagreeingwitheachother.Forthat,

38

thegamifiedsettingofTwitterwilldoquitenicely.Echochambersinstrumentalizeourtrust;

moraloutrageporn instrumentalizesourmorality;andgamification instrumentalizesour

goals.33

Bibliography

Schull,NatashaDow.2012.AddictionbyDesign.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Bogost,Ian.2011.“‘GamificationIsBullshit.’”TheAtlantic.August9,2011.https://www.theatlan-

tic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/gamification-is-bullshit/243338/.Chou,Yu-kai.2015.ActionableGamification:BeyondPoints,BadgesandLeaderboards.Fremont,CA:

CreateSpaceIndependentPublishingPlatform.Espeland,WendyNelson,andMichaelSauder.2016.EnginesofAnxiety:AcademicRankings,Repu-

tation,andAccountability.NewYork,NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.Frankfurt,HarryG.2005.OnBullshit.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Fricker,Elizabeth.2006.“Second-HandKnowledge.”PhilosophyandPhenomenologicalResearch73

(3):592–618.Frost-Arnold,Karen.2014.“TrustworthinessandTruth:TheEpistemicPitfallsofInternetAccount-

ability.”Episteme11(1):63–81.Gabrielle,Vincent.2018.“HowEmployersHaveGamifiedWorkforMaximumProfit.”AeonMaga-

zine, October 10, 2018. https://aeon.co/essays/how-employers-have-gamified-work-for-maximum-profit.

Hong,LuandScottPage.2001.“ProblemSolvingbyHeterogenousAgents.”JournalofEconomicThe-ory97(1)123-63.

---.2004.“GroupsofDiverseProblemSolversCanOutperformGroupsofHigh-AbilityProblemSolv-ers.”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcdaemyofSciencesoftheUnitedStates101(46):16385-89.

Huizinga,Johan.1971.HomoLudens:AStudyofthePlay-ElementinCulture.Reprintedition.BeaconPress.

Jamieson,KathleenHall,and JosephCappella.2010.EchoChamber:RushLimbaughandtheCon-servativeMediaEstablishment.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Kretchmar,Scott.2012.“Competition,Redemption,andHope.”JournalofthePhilosophyofSport39(1):101–16.

Landemore,Hélène. 2013. Democratic Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Lugones, Maria. 1987. “Playfulness, ‘World’-travelling, and Loving Attention.”Hypatia 2 (2): 3-19.

33I’dliketothankMarkAlfano,MatthewCarlson,HelenDaly,JonEllis,MaxHayward,AaronJames,Jen-

niferLackey,MichaelLynch,ElijahMillgram,AlisonRieheld,AdrielTrott,andMattStrohlfortheirhelpwiththispaper.KeyideasforthispaperemergedfrommyworkwithBekkaWilliamsmoraloutrageporn—in-cludingthenotionofinstrumentalization.

39

Lupton,Deborah,andGavinJDSmith.2017.“‘AMuchBetterPerson’:TheAgentialCapacitiesofSelf-TrackingPractices.” SSRNScholarlyPaper ID3085751.Rochester,NY:Social ScienceRe-searchNetwork.https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3085751.

Madrigal,AlexisC.2013.“TheMachineZone:ThisIsWhereYouGoWhenYouJustCan’tStopLook-ingatPicturesonFacebook.”TheAtlantic.July31,2013.https://www.theatlantic.com/tech-nology/archive/2013/07/the-machine-zone-this-is-where-you-go-when-you-just-cant-stop-looking-at-pictures-on-facebook/278185/.

McGonigal,Jane.2011.RealityIsBroken:WhyGamesMakeUsBetterandHowTheyCanChangetheWorld.NewYork:PenguinBooks.

McLuhan,Marshall.1964.UnderstandingMedia:TheExtensionsofMan.SignetBooks.Medina,Jose.2012.TheEpistemologyofResistance:GenderandRacialOppression,EpistemicInjus-

tice,andResistantImaginations.Oxford,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Merry,SallyEngle.2016.TheSeductionsofQuantification:MeasuringHumanRights,GenderViolence,

andSexTrafficking.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Miller,Boaz,andIsaacRecord.2013.“JustifiedBeliefinaDigitalAge:OntheEpistemicImplications

ofSecretInternetTechnologies.”Episteme10(2):117–134.NationalPublicRadio.2014. “Stuck inTheMachineZone:YourSweetToothFor ‘CandyCrush.’”

NPR.Org, 2014. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsid-ered/2014/06/07/319560646/stuck-in-the-machine-zone-your-sweet-tooth-for-candy-crush.

Nguyen,C.Thi.2017.“CompetitionasCooperation.”JournalofthePhilosophyofSport44(1):123–137.

———. 2018. “Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles.” Episteme, 1–21.https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.32.

———.2019.“GamesandtheArtofAgency.”PhilosophicalReview128(4):423-462.———.2020.Games:AgencyasArt.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.---------.Forthcoming.“TrustandSincerityinArt”.Ergo.Nguyen,C.Thi,andMatthewStrohl.2019. “CulturalAppropriationand the IntimacyofGroups.”

PhilosophicalStudies176(4):981–1002.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1223-3.Nguyen,C.Thi,andBekkaWilliams.2020.“MoralOutragePorn.”JournalofEthicsandSocialPhilos-

ophy.Perrow,Charles.2014.ComplexOrganizations:ACriticalEssay.Brattleboro,Vermont:EchoPoint

Books&Media.Porter, Theodore. 1996. Trust in Numbers. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/5653.html.Rini,Regina.2017.“FakeNewsandPartisanEpistemology.”KennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal27

(S2):43–64.https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2017.0025.Schull,NatashaDow.2012.AddictionbyDesign.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Scott,JamesC.1998.SeeingLikeaState:HowCertainSchemestoImprovetheHumanConditionHave

Failed.NewHaven;:YaleUniversityPress.Seymour,Richard.2019.“TheMachineAlwaysWins:WhatDrivesOurAddictiontoSocialMedia.”

The Guardian, August 23, 2019, sec. Technology. https://www.theguardian.com/technol-ogy/2019/aug/23/social-media-addiction-gambling.

Stenros, Jaakko.2012. “InDefenceofaMagicCircle:TheSocialandMentalBoundariesofPlay.”http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/12168.43543.pdf.

40

Strohl, Matt. 2017. “Against Rotten Tomatoes.” Aesthetics for Birsd. September 21, 2017.https://aestheticsforbirds.com/2017/09/21/against-rotten-tomatoes/.

Suits,Bernard,andThomasHurka.2014.TheGrasshopper-ThirdEdition:Games,LifeandUtopia.Peterborough,Ontario:BroadviewPress.

Sunstein,CassR.2009.Republic.Com2.0.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.Tufekci,Zeynep.2017.TwitterandTearGas:ThePowerandFragilityofNetworkedProtest.New

Haven,CT,USA:YaleUniversityPress.———. 2018. “It’s the (Democracy-Poisoning) Golden Age of Free Speech.” Wired.

https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-tech-turmoil-new-censorship/.Velleman,David.2000.“OntheAimofBelief.”InThePossibilityofPracticalReason,244–81.Oxford:

OxfordUniversityPress.Waern,Annika.2012.“FramingGames.”DiGRANordic’12:Proceedingsof2012InternationalDiGRA

Nordic Conference 10. http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-li-brary/12168.20295.pdf.

Wedgwood,Ralph.2002.“TheAimofBelief.”PhilosophicalPerspectives16:267–97.Weimer,Steven.2012.“ConsentandRightActioninSport.”JournalofthePhilosophyofSport39(1):

11–31.Williams,Bernard.1970.“DecidingtoBelieve.”InProblemsoftheSelf,136–51.CambridgeUniversityPress.