“Zuckerberg Poisons the World — Selling Digital Opioid” – CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

---

Social media often seems minor and harmless, just an app or two on the side for entertainment and learning. Originally, it was supposed to be a wonderful thing that brought the world together. World peace was finally at our fingertips, or at least fun cat videos.

Unfortunately, we have learned that it’s a massive misinformation machine, it increases anxiety and self-consciousness (including the more extreme effects of that), it is rife with bullying, and it’s sometimes depressing to see what has become of old childhood classmates and friends.

Also, to increase time and engagement on the app, executives at social media companies discovered that rage-inducing posts were “good content” that should be highlighted more. While there may be thousands of posts at any given time that could logically be put in front of your eyes, not much can beat posts that wind you up and get your blood boiling — in terms of generating better stats and more revenue for the social media company.

One of our core behind-the-scenes guys, Benni, recently noted in our team chat, “Social media is the wrong name — it’s digital opioids.” It’s a good point. I’ve seen similar metaphors from various social media experts and psychologists, but this was an especially catchy and apt line. He also recommended and shared instructions on how to delete your Facebook, Instagram, and Threads accounts. He was particularly disappointed with recent decisions by Mark Zuckerberg, and added, “quick article idea: Zuckerberg poisons the world — selling digital opioid.” Hence the title….

Increasingly, even here on CleanTechnica, it feels like we need to address the social poison of “social media” — which, again, has far too innocuous a name, at least for what it has evolved into. Warped social media is increasing the spread of clean energy misinformation, climate misinformation, all sorts of political misinformation, and hate.

But there’s another angle to it as well. Wealth is concentrating more and more among a few hundred people, while hundreds of millions struggle more and more. Whether, like Zuckerberg, they became super-billionaires, or, like Elon Musk, they bought a giant social media platform to have dramatic influence over society, it’s the 0.01% who control the social media apps we live on.

Just looking at the US, Benni also pointed us in the direction of an op-ed from the New York Times, “Is America an Oligarchy Yet?” Beyond the article, he highlighted some comments:

• “It is an oligarchy already. The difference now is that we will get less and less crumbs of the wealth as it gets ever concentrated among the few.”
• “Justice Louis Brandeis said that we could have a democracy or vast wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but not both.”

Several things are distracting the US from better self-governance and are leading to a growing divide between the super-rich and the masses. We are getting misled and misinformed, and our attention is being pointed obsessively toward matters that are truly nothing more than a distraction. As Benni notes, we’re on digital opioids — and the world is going to s*** around us in the meantime.

We probably need to disconnect. But it’s highly unlikely most of us will. So, we at least need to be more discriminant. Also, though, if we want to stop losing our grip on society and the economy, more is needed. In terms of how to deal with it, Benni asked AI, and got the following response:

---

Given the contradiction between democracy and the concentration of wealth, the ideal wealth tax would be one that effectively addresses inequality, ensures a fairer distribution of resources, and reduces the outsized influence that the ultra-wealthy have over political and economic systems.

In light of this, I would advocate for a progressive wealth tax, which increases as the wealthier individuals accumulate more assets. Here’s how I’d frame it:

1. A Progressive Wealth Tax Starting at 2%

• Initial Rate (2%): A 2% tax on wealth over a certain threshold (e.g., $1 billion) could be a reasonable starting point. This would begin to curb the excessive accumulation of wealth while not immediately destabilizing the global economy or triggering mass capital flight.
• Escalating Over Wealth Tiers: The tax rate could increase progressively as the amount of wealth grows. For example:
  • 2% on wealth over $1 billion
  • 4% on wealth over $5 billion
  • 6% on wealth over $10 billion
  • 10% or more on wealth over $50 billion

This would create a more equitable system, where the wealthiest individuals contribute proportionally more to society without crushing incentives for investment or innovation.

2. International Cooperation to Avoid Loopholes

• Global Coordination: A critical aspect of this plan would be global coordination to prevent tax avoidance, evasion, and capital flight. The tax would need to be implemented by multiple nations, with strong measures to enforce it across borders. This could be done through international agreements, much like efforts to close tax havens or combat money laundering.
• Asset Valuation: Wealth should include all assets—stocks, real estate, private businesses, and other investments—not just liquid wealth. To avoid evasion, regular audits and assessments would be necessary.

3. Addressing the Root Causes of Wealth Inequality

• The revenue generated from this wealth tax should be directed towards social programs that reduce inequality and increase opportunity. This includes funding for universal healthcare, education, affordable housing, and addressing climate change. Additionally, the government could invest in programs that support small businesses and innovation in underserved areas, ensuring that wealth creation is spread more widely.”

Conclusion: To address the glaring imbalance of wealth, the combination of breaking up monopolies, confiscating certain unproductive or harmful assets, and a more progressive wealth tax could help restore democratic equity and curb the power of the ultra-wealthy. The current status quo, where billionaires exert such outsized influence, is unsustainable for democracy and social justice. The wealth tax should indeed be more progressive, especially as we’ve grown accustomed to the extreme imbalances of power and wealth that have never been greater in history. Only through these bold steps can we begin to rectify the economic distortions that keep wealth in the hands of a few and return to a system that serves the many, not the few.”

---

Hmm … we have a lot of work to do.