Your Undivided Attention - Transcending the Internet Hate Game — with Dylan Marron

Episode Date: May 19, 2022

The game that social media sets us up to play is a game that rewards outrage. It's a game that we win by being better than other players at dunking on each other, straw-manning each other, and assuming the worst in each other. The game itself must be transformed.And, we can also decide to step out of the game, and do something different. On this week’s episode of Your Undivided Attention, we welcome Dylan Marron — who has been called by Jason Sudeikis "a modern Mr. Rogers for the digital age." Dylan is the creator and host of the podcast Conversations With People Who Hate Me. On the show, he calls up the people behind negative comments on the internet, and asks them a simple question: why did you write that? He just published a book by the same name, where he elaborates 12 lessons learned from talking with internet strangers. Together with Dylan, we explore how transforming the game and transforming ourselves can go hand-in-hand.RECOMMENDED MEDIA Conversations With People Who Hate Me (podcast)Dylan Marron’s podcast where he calls up the people behind negative comments on the internet, and talks to them. In this episode, we heard a clip of Episode 2: Hurt People Hurt People.Conversations With People Who Hate Me (book)Dylan’s book where he elaborates 12 lessons learned from talking with internet strangers.Won’t You Be My NeighborFeature documentary chronicling the work and legacy of Fred Rogers.RECOMMENDED YUA EPISODES A Conversation with Facebook Whistleblower Frances Haugen: https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/42-a-conversation-with-facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugenThe Cure for Hate. Guest: Tony McAleer: https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/11-the-cure-for-hateThe Fake News of Your Own Mind with Jack Kornfield and Trudy Goodman: https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/19-the-fake-news-of-your-own-mindYour Undivided Attention is produced by the Center for Humane Technology. Follow us on Twitter: @HumaneTech_

Hey everyone, it's Tristan. Real quick before we dive in, the Center for Humane Technology is hiring. And we've talked about the Foundations of Humane Technology course on this podcast before. Well, now we're looking for a Humane Innovation Lead. This is a product management role that will serve a range of stakeholders and help support the emerging humane technology ecosystem, primarily through this new online course, Foundations of Humane Technology. To learn more, visit HumaneTech.com slash careers. And with that, here we go. Elon Musk is a player of games. And he wins the games he plays.

But the game he's potentially about to buy, the Twitter game, is a game that rewards outrage. It's a game that we win by being better than the other players at dunking on each other and straw manning each other and assuming the worst in each other. It's quite a provocation to tell the winner of games that the game itself must be transformed. But we can also decide to step out of the game and to do something different. Our guest today, Dylan Marin, is doing something very different on social media.

I'm Tristan Harris. And I'm Azaraskin. And this is your invited attention, the podcast from the Center for Humane Technology. Dylan Marin has been called by Jason Sudakis, a modern Mr. Rogers. for the digital age. He's the creator and host of Conversations with People Who Hate Me. On the show, he steps out of the game by calling up people behind negative comments on the internet and asking them a simple question.

Why did you write that? Dylan recently published a book also called Conversations with People Who Hate Me, where he elaborates 12 lessons learned from talking with internet strangers. Dylan comes from the left and negative comments toward him usually come from the right, But online harassment is universal. Dylan, it's great to have you. Thank you so much for having me. Well, I thought I would open up just for many listeners who follow our podcast

during divided attention. We often talk about a lot of really seemingly intractable problems. We talk about climate change, the way civil war can emerge, the way social media drives polarization that can bring us toward these kinds of bigger risks. And it often feels like change is impossible. You look in the mirror of social media, and you see this addicted, outraged, polarized, petty, petulant society. And you thought that if that's who we are,

then I think we don't actually have hope. And I think the premise of your work and ours is that we're staring through this fun house mirror, and that's not who we are. We have the ability to be compassionate and open-minded and good to each other. And you are one of the real people on the front lines, developing and rediscovering how to do this

in the digital environment. And you're doing it in a very one-on-one way, and I really recommend people check out your podcast conversations with people who hate me. I thought it would be a good just to start with your origin story. Can you sort of take us back? I'll take you fully back. So I kind of cracked into this all because in 2015 I made a video series called Every Single Word that edited down popular films to only the words spoken by people of color. and it was a way to comment on the lack of racial representation on screen. And this blew up, like this project that I made in my bedroom off of DVDs that I took out from the library was this like zero dollar project that contributed to the international conversation about representation on screen.

And I was kind of blown away, right? Like this thing that you can make, you can say something about the world to the world and the world will listen. And it was very like I was wide-eyed, I believed in the future of talking about progressive issues online, bringing more people to the table. So I was able to engage with all of the new fans and supporters I was getting, and I could click on their profile picture and learn everything about them. This was, of course, a joy to do with my fans. when you blow up online and when you also are getting popular for making satirical videos that were from my perspective, which is to say progressive, you also get a lot of hate. And the detail of Facebook comes in because every time I got a piece of hate, whether it was a comment or a message, I kind of created this ritual for myself where I would click on the profile picture of the person who sent it. and unlike other platforms like YouTube or even Twitter,

I was often transported into a portal to every picture ever taken of this person for the last 10 years and a partial family tree and a resume. And so that was my coping mechanism. It was to convince myself that this person wasn't this like distant other but someone who I could potentially reach. But this was all in my head. These were backstories I was making in my head. And then one day, one thing led to another, and I found myself on the phone with someone who had sent me a homophobic message, and he was a teenager in high school.

And on this phone call, I felt as if I was piercing the echo chamber, transcending the echo chamber, and kind of doing this incredibly subversive act of having a conversation with someone. who the waves of the algorithms did not want me to actually have a conversation with. And it felt like this incredibly hopeful act that we were able to reach each other even though the beginning of our relationship was, I would say, a fraught one in that he sent me a homophobic message.

And we connected, and from there and from the success of that first call, I wondered how many other people might be willing to talk and have conversations like these. So maybe this is a good time to dive into that story And I really do want to like Get into your mind and into your eyes and into your fingers And feel what it's like to receive that much hate

So I'd love to hear that What was going through your nervous system What was going through your mind? Like really bring us through that process I can tell you it was horrible I think I can speak about it so in such a removed way now But I think I felt a few things

One was, I felt hurt that me developing a career and me finding success in making videos had to come with such a negative consequence so immediately. You know, there wasn't, it's like such a hyper-present consequence that comes with gaining popularity online. And I think, too, I also felt scared. And most honestly, the most honest thing I can say, is that I just didn't know how to process it. Like, no one is adequately prepared to deal with the onslaught of negativity online.

And we're seeing this with shame culture. We're seeing this with pylons. Like, our brains are not set up for this kind of volume. And I developed that habit of scanning their profile, constructing this fictional backstory for them, because I needed to know that they were human beings. I needed to feel like they weren't these digital online avatars, but that they were a human being. And then drop us into that very first conversation when you move beyond sort of like

they're doing the almost the inverse of stalking someone online to sort of showing up at their front door, even if their front door is the telephone. Yeah. Well, the first conversation I had with Josh, it came about because I had scrolled through a bunch of hate messages. got and made fun of their typos at a comedy show. I put that video online, and Josh recognized himself in the video. And so he messaged me directly, and he suggested, do you want to talk? Can we, here's my number. Can we hop on the phone? And, um, oh, he sent you this number. Yeah, it was Josh. Well, actually, I also want to just mark out what you just said, because your initial reaction was actually, you got all these hate messages and you started, I believe, screenshoting them. And then, like He said using them in your comedy starts.

So that was like the first reaction. I think a lot of people relate to that, right? Like someone says something hateful to you, and so you have a way of coping with that. You send it to a friend, but look what this person said to me, and you're kind of doing that in a public setting. And then he invited you to talk to him?

So there was kind of a twist in that performance that I uploaded where I scrolled through comments. I was kind of subverting the common practice at the time of calling a detractor's employer to get them fired. And basically I led the audience through the fact is like, this is something I got, here are all the typos, let's of course laugh at the typos, something I definitely no longer do.

And then I found his employer because it was listed on his profile. So he listed Best Buy as his employer. I called his employer. And just when everyone thought that I was going to ask him to be fired, I left a positive customer review as if I was his customer. As Dylan later found out, Josh never actually worked at Best Buyard. by, but the point is the audience thought Dylan was trying to get Josh fired. And instead, Dylan left him a glowing review. Anyway, Josh saw the video of me making fun of his typos, and he suggested

a phone call. And I remember feeling shocked that he even saw the video. I remember there was just a pit in my stomach. My stomach just drops. And he gives me his number. He asks to talk. And so we set a time to talk the very next day. And on this phone call, it felt like the logical next step of all the fictional backstories that I was creating. It felt like connecting with someone, and by connecting with him, I felt like I was looking the fear in the face and looking the negativity in the face and actively doing something to address it. And by connecting with him, I was no longer scared of him. He no longer became a distant other. He became a reachable person. This isn't our first conversation because that first conversation was, as you can imagine, off the record.

So this was when we recorded a conversation for my podcast. It's all to know that too, right? Your first conversation was like an off the record just like getting to know you. And then you asked him, hey, actually, could we, could I record a conversation between us? Just to sort of, yeah. And what was the instinct behind that? Well, I think I wanted to share it because it felt like I had stumbled on a bridge that wasn't on any maps. You know, like

no social media maps. No one told you that this bridge was possible. And I think the conversation felt so hopeful to me that I wanted more people to hear it and I think I was coming from such my content was so entrenched in the side of progressivism versus them

the other side and I felt like I was hungry to to try something new, to try something different, and connect with the people who I had been, quote, unquote, battling in my videos. So now we're going to hear a clip from episode two of conversations with people who hate me, where Dylan is having his second conversation with Josh, but this time on the record. Hey, is this Josh? Hey, yeah, it is.

How's your day going so far? It's good. How are you? Oh, I'm good. So, Josh, what inspired you to send that message to me? What sparked that first message? I was just angry about it all. It was just a lot of...

It was a build-up of all your multiple videos you made of stuff, and I just got mad. Can you remember what specific video I made that sparked that first message? Police brutality, unboxing. Unboxing police brutality. Okay. So, um, tell me a little about you. Well, my name is Josh. I'm 18 years old. I am currently a senior in high school graduating in two weeks. Congratulations.

Thank you very much. Yeah. How is high school for you? Am I allowed to use the H.E. Double Hockey stick word? Oh, yeah. You're allowed to. It was held. Really? And it's still hell right now, even though it's only two weeks left. How have the last four years been hell?

When you're different in any shape, form away, if you're not the quote-unquote popular girls, popular guys, football players, then you're not well-liked. And I'm a little bit tougher than a lot of people, and people seem to judge me before they get to know me. Yeah, and high school people seem to pick and choose who they like based on what you look like rather than who you are. Because when you're in high school, it's all about perfection.

If you get your clothes from Walmart, you're an outcast. If you don't have the hottest new clothes, you're an outcast. I'm a little bit bigger. I don't like to use the word fat, but I am a little bit bigger than a lot of my classmates. And they seem to judge me before they even got to know me. I've been called a sad ass. I don't know if I can say that. Yeah, you're allowed to.

Okay. I've been called stupid, idiotic. I've been told nobody cares about me. Just yesterday, someone told me I was ugly as hell. I don't exactly know how ugly hell is, but I don't think it's pretty. Well, I mean, that's awful of them. I mean, I also just want to let you know, Josh, I was bullied in high school, too. I think it's really good for people to just hear a flavor of the conversation.

It's especially that last part where he's talking about how hard it is for him being at high school and getting kind of picked on and being kind of a chubbier kid. And just what it struck me actually, Dylan, and listening to a lot of the episodes of your podcast is how much people who lash out are hurting. And there's this trite statement, you know, hurt people, hurt people. It's a cliche. but it just rang so true every episode of yours that I listen to

and then people would say maybe well then that's just human nature like if hurt people hurt people hurt people then the internet is just a mirror of people's hurt and so therefore the internet's not doing the hurting it's not doing the harassment it's just showing you

how many people in your society like a mirror a neutral mirror because we often you know we talk about how that's not true but you're on the front lines of really exploring this hate harassment machine that, you know, we keep talking about, but you're really, like, in the experiencing of it

and going in the backstory. Tell us about that. Yeah. You know, heard people, heard people is a concise, poetic phrase for a reason. I think you're right that it's true. But the Internet and how we interact with each other and the tools we use to interact with each other has exacerbated that so much.

And I think something that I've actually been expressing more and more recently is that hurt people, hurt people is only sometimes true. It's like not a fair catch-all for everyone. And what I'm realizing is that another big source of internet negativity is the gamification of online spaces and how often people are elevated to this platform to become punching bags, right? We call it Twitter's main character. And there is someone who you can establish your identity by opposing. There is someone who you can stake your claim in the public square by throwing a tomato at. And I think what's really scary about that is that it actually doesn't mean that you're

enduring existential pain and that that's why you express negativity to someone. It's that we're dealing with gamification and the fact that some people are saying something negative because they can score points in the game of the internet. And also, I think there's just the ease we have to express things to each other. I can DM either of you or mention you depending on the nuances of that platform if I have a fleeting thought about you. And I think what that means is like there isn't a lot of time that we can put into this. So that's why like I think hurt people, hurt people can be true. but it's not always an official diagnosis because I've spoken, listen to many guests

who weren't hurting, you know, people who were just like, you annoyed me and I wanted to message you, I honestly didn't think you were ever going to see it. Yeah, when I hear hurt people, heard people, there's almost a consequentialist view or stance that that can take. And a mantra that we often return to

on your undivided attention is that awareness brings the opportunity for choice. And that if you're aware of that pattern, that lets you transcend it and very much agree with what you're saying that social media, our online environments, are tuned for us to be as trigger-happy as possible, right? Maximize engagement, get the back and forth. It is robbing us in a way or taking away our ability to have that pause reflection space to be aware and to choose.

You know, like one of the things I think you do really well is that you find common ground with, you know, the people that you're talking to, the people that hate you. You're both bullied in high school. And all of a sudden you can connect and you're connecting over him feeling like an outsider. And your experience of being an outsider in different ways connect to. And we're thinking, imagine if Twitter, as it detects you're typing something hateful or angry, reactive,

it scans your Twitter profile, it scans their Twitter profile, and it finds all the places where you've liked the same thing or expressed a same interest. And it shows you actually how similar you are before you begin your attack. I'm just curious how you would respond. God, I mean, that would be great. I also think that common ground is a lovely thing when it happens, but I don't think it's necessary to connect with someone. You know, sometimes, or rather it is,

but I think we need to expand what we even define as common ground. Because sometimes I'll say that the only common ground that I have with someone is that we agreed to be on the same phone call at the same time. And sometimes we have no disagreement, but I can still acknowledge that they're a human being, and they're still acknowledging that I'm a human being, and we can still, like, I believe that curiosity can be common ground too. And so if I'm curious about you and you're curious about me, a crucial thing, that curiosity can't just go one way,

then I think that something really profound can happen, even if there's nothing that you disagree on. I love finding common ground with people when it's there. I don't think that's a prerequisite for success in a conversation. So if there were that tool that was able to do that, I think that would be. be amazing and I think it would perhaps train us away from this bad habit of finding community with people who hate a thing that we hate and instead finding community with people who love a thing that we love. That was actually my first thought in thinking about your idea is that well great so now it'll find all the shared pylons where we both piled on hate on the same people.

Oh look, you don't dislike each other. You just hate the same people. Completely. Right. Well, I mean, and that's why we have to look at the systemic nature of the game, as you said. It is the hate game. You are paid in more likes and followers. The more clever you are at outgrouping your fellow human being. And the better and more clever and cynical and snarky you are, you get paid in more likes and followers. And I heard multiple people on your podcast reflect on this. Like there's a self-awareness, especially like later as people talk about it on retrospect. But I think what A's is looking for is, okay, so we know the dynamics of this machine. Everybody knows. The outrage machine, sorting for the fault. lines of society, making it super efficient to see every inflammatory fault line at once. Fault line for profit machine equals doom scrolling for profit machine equals bad mental health for profit machine. And what we're interested in though is like, okay, how would you systematically turn this thing around into something that doesn't reward that thing?

You are identifying these like micro processes between people, just like at a human scale one at a time. And when you and I were at TED last week in Vancouver, you were talking about how you're swimming upstream, right? and that there's this huge force of gravity that's pulling in the opposite direction. And I think Aza bringing up this idea of like, okay, let's start thinking about it.

What would a computational nonviolent communication look like? I was like, well, I don't know. Let's see. What if we could find things where people have some shared background reference? I just want to mention quickly the work of Arturo Bahar at Facebook back in the early 2009, 2010 days. There was a team at Facebook called the Compassion Team.

When teenagers would tag another person in a photo and say like how bad they are or how awful, that kind of harassing someone by tagging them in a photo. And if you wanted to be untagged, when teenagers try to message someone else to be untagged from a photo, they would often be unsuccessful. And so what they created was this report photo button that then led to a flow that they designed

to start with the nonviolent communication practice. So first it would say, how did this photo make you feel? And the person would literally select, like, oh, like, it made me feel sad, maybe feel angry, maybe you feel embarrassed or ashamed. And then it would kind of construct a message to the person who posted the photo that was harassing that started with the feeling that your photo made me feel this way

and it helped augment for a more successful outcome of the person taking down that photo because they're basing it on these principles. I think what A's is getting at with that example of Twitter is, hey, what if we were to take the places where we have common ground or common curiosity or common openness and how do we just highlight that? What would it look like to sort of put you out of the job

where actually you're not needed to do the thing you're doing anymore because Twitter is like automatically healing every fault lines Instead of a fault line for profit machine, it's a bridge for profit machine. It's a healing for profit machine. What would that look like from your perspective? I just have to start with a visual metaphor. There's this golf range here in New York City at a place called Chelsea Peers, and I don't know if you're familiar with it.

Basically, it's a multi-story building. There's an entire wall missing. You go into your little pod, and you golf, and the golf ball hits a net probably a few hundred feet away. So you feel like you're golfing, but a lot of people can golf on top of each other. And the box creates these blinders. You don't see who's beneath you. You don't see who's next to you. You don't see who's above you.

So you have no idea how many people are golfing at that time. That, to me, is the psychology behind a pylon, right? Like a lot of times when people join a pylon, I know this sounds wild, but it's not necessarily out of malice. It's out of lack of awareness of how many other people are saying this thing. Because sometimes it's helpful to offer support to someone who needs help. The tides shift so quickly where suddenly someone is being piled onto way more than they deserved. And so if we want to talk about implementation, I would say one very helpful tool would be a form of awareness of how many other people are in this conversation. I question that too because then part of the allure of joining a pylon is to increase the ratio.

So I don't know, like, you know, Tristan, I was telling you that I feel like I'm so on the micro that I think why I'm so interested in your work and the whole Center for Humane Tech is like I've been so focused on relating on the micro, right? I've been so focused on creating a breakout room from the internet that in terms of implementation, it's, like, God, yeah, like, is it pylons? Is it creating a way that you can tell how many people are on this? Is there a way to cap a pylon before it gets too big? Is there a way to even, this is honestly a question to you guys? But like, would there be a way to make people aware of that? Well, so I have two follow up there.

And one is just there's a certain kind of naivity to the specific implementation that I had recommended. So to give an example of something that would completely slip through Riddle, like what do the most avid maskers

and the most avid anti-vaxxers share in common? They both just want the pandemic to be over and want to return to their lives. Right? And that little sorting thing that I was doing like let's find similar tweets

would never find that deeper value that unites them. And so it makes me wonder and this is a prompt really to all of our listeners, is from a technology side, is there a way of highlighting the shared underlying values, not just like the little bits and drabs that people post?

So that's sort of one. And the second is Francis Huggins, the Facebook whistleblower's disclosures. One of the things that the Facebook integrity team discovered was that there was one simple thing that they could do, that would do more to fight disinformation and hateful content, all the worst stuff, than the billions of dollars that they spend.

And that is limit the number of reshares to two. That is like there's a button when I reshare, there's a button when you reshare me. After that it goes away. You can still copy and paste to share. And the insight is, of course, that if something goes viral, it's likely to be a virus.

So it would be easy to start implementing sort of like viral limits, But, and now this is why I want to turn it back to you, you're a creator who's life-blood. And, in fact, the reason why you sort of like came up into popular consciousness is the fact that your work went viral. And I'm curious how you would grapple with these sort of like two truths at the same time. Yeah, the share button is interesting. I heard that episode that you guys had with her. And I don't think I ever thought of the share button in the way that she was,

it just launched into the philosophy of the share button. as a creator I only ever liked the share button because it just meant more people getting to see my work that is what word of mouth looks like in the digital sphere at the same time I hear you and I think there was something interesting that she also brought up in your conversation which was that she was talking about you have to click on a link before it's shared right so it's like that gets at this bigger question of knowledge of what you're sharing when you're sharing when you're you share it, so you're not just sharing it based on the headline. In fact,

in one of your episodes, I remember someone was one of the people who was hating on another person was hating on them from an article. I think it was about detransitioning, and how they wrote an article about it, and then they got this hate from someone who hadn't even read the article. And then you were talking about how, well,

I just wanted to mention that because it's how often even in the cases where you're talking about where someone's actually really hateful and you're inviting them onto a show that the hate came from place where they hadn't even read the article. And I think in that episode this person had empathy for anyone who was ever in the future, ever underneath the bottom of pile on, because you just know that so much it is based on people

not knowing the situation at all. I think so, because I think to be at the receiving end of a mass shaming, which I think is important to distinguish from hate, I'm beginning to articulate five years into this project. Shame is different from hate. Like the hate I was receiving that was homophobic, that doesn't threat. my position in my tribe. When I share a piece of homophobic hate, that is look at what I'm

dealing with. My work is so big now that I'm getting homophobic hate. And as I don't want to downplay it at all, it sucked. And there are people who don't have big platforms who get that and who get that every day. But getting homophobic hate is different from being at the bottom of a pile on from like-minded people who are piling on to you for not being the right kind of version of the like-minded person they wanted you to be. And that is the scariest because it threatens your position in your tribe. And I think that happens a lot. I think, listen, let's give empathy to the people who do that, right? Like, I think it's super important when we talk about this, that it's like, it's not some, like, disgusting, stupid human who shares an article without reading. And it's like,

I've done that before, you know, like, so maybe I'm disgusting and stupid. Or, it's the fact that we're dealing with such an onslaught of information all the time and so many prompts are telling us like belong by sharing this, belong by saying this, that oftentimes we're just going to be like, great, this person is saying it, this person is co-signing it, I'm going to reshare it. That's, of course, dangerous because then you trade nuance for simplicity and you lose anything that might have been said by simply taking the word of an influential person in your sphere.

I just wanted to say you hit on something that I think about a lot with cancel culture, and I know that term means something different to so many people. So I call it shame culture, just so it's like destigmatized in people's minds. But I think that is, I think about that with shame culture a lot, because when you get into the nitty-gritty of all of these stories of shamings, the so-called cancel people, you actually find that usually the story is so complicated, right? You're like, oh, she said this thing, sorry, wait,

can you just explain to me why that was offensive? Okay, now you've explained to me why that was offensive, and who did she offend with that? Okay, she offended this person. And so there are so many layers to the story that you just understandably are like, I do not have time for this. I cannot, you know, like, I don't want to get into this.

So just tell me, is she racist? Is she transphobic? Okay, great, done. that's all I need to know, that's what I'm going to plus one, because you are understandably not on the side of racism, not on the side of transphobia. And so it's like this really dangerous mix of our lack of time that we have, our lack of space to engage in a complicated story, and how many stories we're getting thrown at us all the time, that we just want to engage in the shorthand, and often the shorthand doesn't do justice to the nuances of the story.

I think there's even another dynamic going on, which sort of preconditions all of us towards this reactivity and seeing the worst or the simplest version of other people's stories. And that is, we all walk around the world with some kind of trauma. And on social media, whatever the worst thing you've ever clicked on becomes your world. So if you're like Asian American and you're scrolling online and you see a video of some. like harassing an Asian American, you're probably going to look at that, click on it, respond to it, and what does Twitter do? It shows you more of those things. And so you start to see like an infinite feed of examples of the thing that retramatizes you. And that's not just true for like Asian Americans. This is for every different type of trauma. So this is like a kind of trauma inflation. Like all of society is getting sort of inflamed because we're being shown. the worst thing we've ever clicked on, unique to each one of us, that thing that'll activate. And then it's even worse because we're coming from two different realities. Like, I have seen the thing that traumatizes me over and over again, but you haven't seen it

because you've been clicking on other things. So when I start talking about it being, this is the worst thing. Like this, I have an infinite amount of like first person experience showing me that this thing is happening. You're like, well, you're clearly an idiot because I've lived around the world and I'm getting this other thing, so I can't trust your reality. And now we end up in this increasingly schism fractioned global psychosis. And that's also on the left and the right, right? Like the right accuses the left of being oversensitive to homophobia, racism, or whatever. And first of all, those

things exist. And then second is, if you click on some of those things and you get this infinite reinforcement, you get this such a huge sort of overwhelming evidence of this thing that you know to be true. And you're also traumatized by it. So then when this person says, that's not a real issue or you're overreacting because they haven't seen that in their feed or they just think that you're overreacting. It's like even more offensive that they would even question it. But similarly on the right, when you're like, oh, people on the right are never harassed by people on the left because you haven't seen those examples of where there's people on the right. See infinite examples of people on the right who get harassed like violently by people on the left

and flipping tables and BLM rights or whatever the thing is, right? And so I think it's so critical what Aza said. There's two pieces of that. The first is that trauma inflation. The second is the deflation of empathy. So we have one line that's going up where we are tighter and tighter trigger, and the second is that we have less and less empathy or a reality check that that that thing is even happening for that other person. And that's why I think we haven't even appraised of this mass-dluding trance

that we have this spell that we have all been under. And until we can name collectively and hold that and stabilize and awareness of that thing, that trauma inflation, empathy deflation, is one of many effects that we've been kind of highlighting on this show broadly. I just think we can't get out of this. We need a immune system for these effects. I sound like I'm beating one single drum, but the best way I know how to do this

is to bring people into conversation with each other. This is one of those things that's funny. When I spoke at TED in 2018, the day after I spoke, someone was like, have you thought about how you're going to scale this up? And, you know, it's like the most tech-based question. And, you know, there are, of course, fantasies, but the only way to scale this up is simply to have conversations

and for more people to have conversations. And that doesn't mean that I like never stop producing episodes. That just means that like we need to create more of that. And I say that because it's this, it sounds like this incredibly simple thing. But Tristan, I completely agree with you that there is this dearth of empathy because we are all seeing different things and we don't see what someone else is seeing and what is true for us is not necessarily true for someone. else and we feel offended when they negate our truth. And of course we do. When someone

negates our truth, that's an offensive thing. When someone is saying what you experience isn't real, that hurts. When you bring people into conversation with each other, it's like a blossoming of empathy. And the empathy, this is not something you have to try for. It is a natural byproduct of conversation. So I think the more breakout rooms that we can create for people to connect with each other. In addition to all of the amazing tools that you guys are dreaming up and scheming and then actually implementing and asking people to implement. It's not one or the other. It's both. I think something I wanted to bring to you guys is like the tagline I say at the end of every episode is remember there's a human on the other side of the screen. And of course, the complicated

thing is that goes both ways. That is, of course, for the person who's about to send the negative thing, the recipient of your negative message is a human. They have feelings. You're going to hurt those feelings. And, complicatedly, the person who sent you that message is a human being, unless they're a bot, but of course there's a caveat. But the person who sent that message is a human being who had a reason for sending that to you. Even if that's not a particularly compelling reason, or one that you co-sign, that was a human being. What made that human being do that thing? And so the more ways we can infuse that idea into the public square, the more we can show not mirrors,

but windows of humanity to each other, the better. Technology is always putting choices on life's menu. The interface, the icons, the colors, there's a like button, there's a retweet button, there's a React button. You can choose an emotion or emoji you want to add to that message that the person sent.

There's a kind of menu that is orchestrated. by the technology and the screens that are put in front of us. And we're only as good as the choices that are on Life's menu. And Dylan, in your work, what I hear you doing is saying, hey, there's a missing choice from this menu. And it's the, why did you write that response? Because that's the way that you, as I understand it, you reach out to people as you ask,

why did you write me that message? Is that my phrasing that right? Yeah, for the most part, yeah. Well, and essentially, and I also hear using the language of breakout rooms, there's no, hey, can I call you, can I have a one-on-one conversation with you? that choice is not on life's menu as driven by the technology. You are adding that based on how you see the world and seeing there's a missing choice on life's menu.

And in our work, what we're trying to do is get technologists to think about the way that they design, not just the algorithms, but the actual interfaces, to say what are the menus that would be most empowering for orchestrating and deepening the connections of the social fabric? And in your book, conversations with people who hate me, you have all these lessons that you have learned. I'm just curious if there's any other lessons that you think

that we should be thinking about that are missing from the menus being provided by technology. You know, one of the first questions I always ask my guests is to just tell me about themselves, not related to the comment that they're there to discuss. And that is one of the most beautiful disarming tools that you can give someone, because giving someone the opportunity to define themselves on their own terms in a space that they are bravely coming to to own up to something that they've written, or in a space that they're bravely coming to, to face the person who wrote the negative thing to them. Like, everyone wants to define themselves.

Everyone wants to define themselves. That's one of the few generalizations I'm comfortable making. You know, like we like defining ourselves on our own terms, whether that means putting an American flag emoji in your bio or your pronouns in your bio or the activism that you support. Like, people want to plant their flag in the digital landscape and in the physical landscape too. The biggest takeaway, and I think the one that most people quote back to me,

maybe because it's alliterative, but perhaps because they resonate with it, is this idea that empathy is not endorsement. You know, this was actually a mantra I created for myself because I felt like I was walking this tightrope over a cultural canyon as I was empathizing with people who I really disagreed with, right? and this is something that my tribe says is like not that cool. This was 2017 when this started, so resist was the word in the public square, and I wasn't

sure if I was transgressing by not resisting well enough, but I found myself empathizing with my guests. I felt for them, and again, I said this earlier, but the empathy I felt for my guests was not something I tried for. It was a natural byproduct of speaking to someone. And so I created the mantra empathy as not endorsement for myself as a way to keep going, as a way to say like push towards that, walk towards the empathy. And that doesn't mean I'm co-signing the most harmful ideologies.

It just means I'm seeing someone as a human being. Another thing that I took away and I share this in the book is that debate is a sport. A lot of people mistake my show for a debate show. And I think what that betrays, because I've said many times that it's not a debate show, but I think what that betrays is the debate is the only word we have for conversation across difference. So we only know that to engage with someone that we disagree with, we must fight them. But I don't think debate works, and I think debate can be a really amazing practice to sharpen talking points, but it's really not about the beauty of listening.

And so I always try and steer my conversations away from debate. And, you know, the other thing I think is relevant is something I encountered over and over again, which I started to call like the makeover illusion. I think we are so deluded by thinking that change happens with a vicious clapback tweet, that change happens the nastier we are to someone, that change should happen fast, that if we demand an apology from someone, we should get it as soon as we demand. it. But change is this incredibly slow process that happens over time. It doesn't happen in the course of a single phone call. It just does not. It happens over time. I was able to see that once

in a two-part episode series I did that someone who was really resistant in one episode. I spoke to him again four months later and he really changed his tune. But it's like all we can ever hope for is to plant the seed in someone's mind, the seed of a new consideration, the seed of a new idea. And we also have to release ourselves from thinking that we are the ones that have to water it too.

You know, like, we can plant a seed and we can say, you've got to tend to it because I'm not going to be able to walk with you through it. So I think avoiding debate, walking towards empathy, and also accepting that change is a really long process, that doesn't happen as instantaneously as we'd like to believe it does. So, Dylan, I'd love to know from you what is one thing that you know that others don't, that gives you hope?

I can share with you something that I see from my vantage point of also being the producer of this podcast, which is that 95% of people that I enjoy. invite onto my show are incredibly resistant to engage in conversation and scared. And then the vast majority of them, I would almost hazard to say all of them at the end, say that wasn't as bad as I thought it was. I was so nervous and my nerves faded away. And I want to share that because I think we have a lot of tools at our disposal to mitigate awkwardness. We have a lot of tools at our disposal to distance ourselves from people. There is an app that I can log on to

and I can get food in 15 minutes. You know, you name it. The tech industry has created it so that I don't actually have to interact with someone. And so I think it's understandable that people are reticent to connect with each other because I don't think we're given as strong of tools to connect with each other.

But conversation and connection is this thing that is understandably scary and once you rip the Band-Aid off, it's just not as terrifying. Dylan Marin is the host and creator of Conversations with People Who Hate Me, with the book of the same name. His TED Talk, Empathy is Not Endorsement,

has been viewed over three and a half million times. Dylan is also the creator of various progressive theme videos, such as Every Single Word, a video series that edits down popular films to only feature the words spoken by. people of color. In the words of Jason Sudakis, Dylan Marin is like a modern Mr. Rogers for the digital age. Your undivided attention is produced by the Center for Humane Technology, a non-profit organization working to catalyze a humane future. Our executive producer is Stephanie Lepp. Our senior

producer is Julia Scott. Mixing on this episode by Jeff Sudakin. Original music and sound design by Ryan and Hayes Holiday and a special thanks to the whole Center for Humane Technology team for making this podcast possible. You can find show notes, transcripts, and much more at humanetech.com. A very special thanks to our generous lead supporters, including the Omidyar Network, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, and the Evolve Foundation, among many others. And if you've made it all the way here, let me give one more thank you to you for giving us your undivided attention.