Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman

Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin

Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White

FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

E

very time I open my laptop
to write, do homework or do
anything productive, I am
always faced with a difficult choice.
Can I complete the task at hand,
or will I get distracted by the likes
of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or
Reddit? These sites, and others, are
what I have deemed the “horsemen
of the productivity apocalypse”
simply because they are always
there in the distance, ready to kill
whatever productive momentum I
have at any given moment.
In all seriousness, social media
has become a major problem in
today’s day and age. Not simply just
for issues of productivity but also
for problems such as raising risks
of anxiety and depression, massive
privacy faults and the spread of
disinformation, to name a few. Sites
such as Facebook at one point were
revered for their innovation and
impressive growth; now people
scorn them for selling off data and
spreading misinformation. How
have we come so far in such little
time, and what is to be done?
These problems generated by
social media are not by accident;
in fact, they are quite by design.
Depending on what kinds of people
populate your feed, you may have
heard of the term “the attention
economy” before. The essential
idea is that digital companies, such
as Facebook and YouTube, are all
competing for your time, i.e. your
attention. Every minute you spend
on their site generates revenue by
way of selling ad space or tracking
data to sell. Because social media
platforms have a direct incentive to
keep you on the site, one of their
primary objectives is to design
algorithms that accomplish just
that. This is why we see features
such as endless feeds instead
of pages to click through, or
constant notifications to draw
us back in. However, these
intentional design features have
also brought more insidious
consequences.

These
types
of
algorithms
are literal addiction machines.
Every time we get a like, mention,
comment or follow request, our
brains get a quick shot of dopamine
—
the
chemical
responsible
for
sensations
of
pleasure.
The problem is, over time, our
dopamine receptors can build up
a tolerance, and all of sudden we
need more stimulus to reach the
same “high” — this is the basic
science of addiction. In a business
model that values only attention
and time, social media platforms
want people addicted to their site
so they log in more frequently and
stay on longer. The consequences of
operating this machine are serious.
A 2017 study published by the
Journal of Affective Disorders
found that “more time spent using
social media was associated with
greater symptoms of dispositional
anxiety” in adults aged 18-22.
It also found that more daily
social media use was linked
to greater odds of having an
anxiety disorder. Furthermore,
in another study published in the
University of Chicago Journal
of the Association for Consumer
Research,
smartphones
may
“impair
cognitive
performance
by affecting the allocation of
attentional resources, even when
consumers successfully resist the
urge to multitask, mind-wander,
or otherwise (consciously) attend
to their phones—that is, when their
phones are merely present.”
In
even
more
grave
circumstances,
sites
such
as
YouTube have come under fire
for promoting hateful or shocking
content
in
the
recommended
sections as a way to keep users
watching. YouTube has said this
is a flaw in an ever-changing
algorithm, but the logic is intuitive:
People are curious and are more
willing to click on shocking or
controversial
videos,
which
become more popular, and thus
the algorithm shows it to more

people. YouTube has an incentive
to promote these videos, as our
attention via watchtime translates
to ad revenue for the platform.
To be fair, this type of attention
based business model is not unique
to modern times. In the past,
newspapers would often print
attention-grabbing
front
page
headlines to increase sales. The
birth of 24-hour cable news in the
’80s also brought a flair for the
dramatic to keep consumers from
changing the channel. The main
difference here is that these other
examples didn’t follow people
around wherever they went, and
didn’t see the same negative effects
that we are seeing now in such a
magnitude.
So how do we fix the problem?
Personal choice and responsibility are
ultimately important considerations.
Meditation, scheduling no-screen
times and setting other app limits
are a great way to reduce the negative
impacts of the attention economy.
For me, deleting social apps from
my smartphone in order to take
away the temptation has proven
to be an effective, albeit imperfect,
way to combat the system. But as
with any addictive substance, there
needs to be greater accountability.
Limiting features such as endless
scrolling, pervasive notifications and
demonetizing hateful or shocking
content are all possible solutions that
these companies ought to take to
help curb the issue.
Many of these design flaws
result from an era of the internet
that is now rapidly changing. We
can no longer let an entire industry
profit from products that cause
addiction and anxiety. When many
of these companies were founded,
the internet was a brand new
frontier without rules or precedent.
It was a digital Wild West. But just
like the Wild West of old, its time
may be coming to an end.

Pay attention to the economy

VARNA KODOTH | COLUMN

Doing more than an Instagram story

TIMOTHY SPURLIN | COLUMN

H

ow often do you stop and
evaluate what we, as
University of Michigan
students working to
better
the
climate,
are doing to create a
space for marginalized
communities, minority
groups and people of
color to share their
truth? To an individual
who
fits
within
those categories, this
isn’t
a
far-fetched
question. Perhaps a
better question would
be: How often do your social
identities pervade your thoughts
or influence the work you do? Of
these core identities, which ones
affect you most often and which
ones affect you least often?
For the sake of real-world
application,
let’s
deconstruct
these
questions
by
using
a
nationwide
issue:
women’s
health care. It’s truly ironic how
women’s health care isn’t that at
all, since women aren’t even the
primary
decision-makers.
It’s
more accurately described as the
domain of elite policymakers,
the majority of which do not
hold an education rooted in
public health or medicine yet
make large-scale decisions for
women about their bodies and
their health. According to the
American College of Healthcare
Executives, less than 20 percent
of executives in leadership at
hospitals or public health systems
are women. Paradoxically, this is
a stark contrast to the 80 percent
of mothers who are the primary
health
care
decision-makers
in their homes and for their
families, as per U.S. Department
of Labor data. One then wonders
why men in higher places act
entitled to controlling the health
care policies set forth at the
federal, state and local levels.
That
being
said,
on
the
flip side, the Association of
American
Medical
Colleges
now report a female majority
class profile and the percentage
of female physicians is steadily
on the rise as per a 2016 census
study. It’s happening: Women
are making cracks in the glass
ceiling. However, the crux of the
situation is that this is absolutely
not the time for us to sit back and
let this phase run its course as we,
unfortunately, quite often have.
I am exhausted and disturbed
to see the continual “short-term

memory loss” that the greater
majority of millennial Americans
actively choose to subscribe to,
directly
following
every
important
catastrophic
event.
Women and health
care
have
become
collateral
damage
in
the
process.
For
example,
the
abortion restrictions
received a lot of heat
in early 2019 and the
passionate
voices
that took a stance
have since then quieted or
subsided entirely. Why is it that
especially when the social justice
issues at hand are centered upon
marginalized
communities
or
minority groups, the problem is
discussed nonstop for, say, two
weeks while all of us post and
share stories of it on Snapchat
and Instagram? And why, at the
moment it stops being “trendy,”
is it all of a sudden like nothing
happened? The only individuals
who
continue
to
remember
cases like Trayvon Martin are
the families and the African-
American community members

that are affected by it.
I agree that there is a benefit
to posting on your stories and
spreading
awareness,
but
I
urge these posters to commit to
educating themselves on the issue
as a whole. Don’t post about the
worsening environmental state
of the Earth and then continue
to use straws, print single-sided
and waste water. Don’t post about
female empowerment and then go
talk negatively about the women
in your own circle behind their
backs. Don’t post about a global
humanitarian crisis and then not
take the initiative to seek out all
other unbiased media and news
articles. Remember when all your
Instagram followers turned their
Instagram profile pictures blue?
Do you recall what that was for?

It’s a sign of solidarity with the
people of Sudan. But solidarity
isn’t only applicable at certain
points of the year. It’s a year-
round effort, day in and day
out, 24/7 until justice for all is
achieved. This isn’t to say that
you’re not allowed to switch out
your profile picture, but don’t
halt the educational process
happening behind the scenes.
The reality is this: currently,
progress
in
women’s
health
care is driven by women who
are
advocating
for
fellow
women.
LGBTQ+
individuals
are primarily involved in the
fight for LGBTQ+ pride. We
need to do better. We need to
show up for each other. When
a social justice issue arises or
a humanitarian crisis is taking
place halfway across the globe,
that is an opportunity for you
to selflessly be involved and
support those around you. The
change we need will not result
from
women
advocating
for
themselves. Instead, it will result
from a shift in perception such
that all health care professionals,
of all genders, recognize and
respond to inequalities and lack
of diversity in leadership roles and
senior positions. Please note that
this does not require you to be in
a position to “solve” the problem.
Instead, pursue options in which
you help to create a safe space for
that community to discuss the
problem at hand.
Recently, during an interview
for the South Asian Awareness
Network,
a
social
justice
organization
at
Michigan,
I
was asked to respond to the
following question: “What does
POC solidarity mean to you?”
That’s when I started to see the
University community in a more
static state rather than a growth
state. We’re lucky because POC
solidarity is achievable here in Ann
Arbor, where diverse communities
and multicultural organizations
exist and put on a wide variety of
cultural events. There is potential
that
within
the
University
community, we can bridge the gap
between the privileges we hold
and underserved communities in
our backyards and internationally.
We can do this simply by allowing
the voices of those who deserve
to be heard to take charge of their
narrative.

Varna Kodoth can be reached at

vkodoth@umich.edu.

Timothy Spurlin can be reached at

timrspur@umich.edu.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the
editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than
300 words while op-eds should be 550 to 850
words. Send the writer’s full name and University
affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN

Impeachment is risky but necessary
A

fter
a
whirlwind
week
in
which
records
emerged
that
President
Donald
Trump pressured Ukrainian
President
Volodymyr
Zelensky
to
investigate
former Vice President Joe
Biden, the leading Democratic
presidential candidate, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened
a formal impeachment inquiry
against the president. Given
the severity of this abuse of
power, it seems likely that
Trump will become the third
president in U.S. history to
be impeached. Impeachment
will be divisive, politically
risky and unlikely to lead
to conviction in the Senate.
Impeachment is also wholly
justified
and
urgently
needed.
Efforts to impeach Trump
have swirled since the early
months of his presidency,
but never gained significant
traction. Early impeachment
votes in 2017 were deemed
premature
by
Democratic
leadership
and
easily
defeated. In 2018, Trump
was criminally implicated
in lawyer Michael Cohen’s
trial for breaking campaign
finance laws, but was never
charged
due
to
existing
Justice
Department
guidelines against indicting
sitting presidents, and the
matter was overshadowed by
the impending release of the
Mueller report. The report
did not exonerate Trump, but
failed to provide smoking-
gun
proof
of
collusion
or
obstruction
of
justice
as
many
had
predicted,
and
public
support
for
impeachment ebbed.
Now,
with
this
latest
scandal,
impeachment
is
fully
warranted
and
critically needed to defend
democratic
rule
of
law.
Trump’s closest allies have
rushed to his defense, but
make no mistake, the details
of the scandal are absolutely
damning. To recap: In May,
Rudy
Giuliani,
Trump’s
personal lawyer, planned to
travel to Ukraine and meddle
“in (the) investigation” against
Biden’s son. Giuliani canceled
his trip after backlash over
the clear impropriety of his
objectives.
Giuliani
later
spoke to Ukrainian diplomats
in Paris, but Ukraine found
“no
wrongdoing”
after
conducting the investigation.
On July 18, Trump delayed
$400
million
worth
of
military
aid
to
Ukraine,
which is currently in a proxy
war against Russia. On July
25, Trump spoke with the
Zelensky
over
the
phone.
A reconstructed record of
the call shows that Trump
told Zelensky the U.S. is
“very good” to Ukraine, but
said he “wouldn’t say that
it’s
reciprocal
necessarily.”
Zelensky then brought up

military aid and a desire
to
“buy
more
Javelin
(missiles),” to which Trump
immediately
responded,
“I would like you to do us
a
favor
though.”
Trump
went on to ask Zelensky to
investigate “Crowdstrike” (a
debunked conspiracy theory
that Russia was not behind
2016 election interference)
and “look into” the Biden
investigation.
Zelensky
promised
to
“look
into
the situation” and Trump
responded that both Giuliani
and
Attorney
General
William Barr will be in
touch.
In
August,
Giuliani
met
with
Ukrainian
officials
again.
On
Aug.
12,
a
whistleblower
filed
a
complaint
about
the
incident, detailing the call
and an apparent effort by
the White House to cover it
up by hiding the records in
a system reserved for ultra-
classified documents. The
law requires whistleblower
complaints to be reported
to Congress, but both the
White House and the Justice
Department
advised
the
Office of the Director of
National Intelligence against
releasing
the
complaint,
and the complaint was not
reported to Congress until
Sept. 9 — almost a full
month after the complaint
was filed. That day, Trump
lifted the hold on military
aid, but the backlash was
already
growing
and
the

impeachment
inquiry
was
announced on Sept. 11.
Summarized
briefly,
Trump
withheld
military
aid to Ukraine to pressure
Ukraine’s
president
into
investigating
Biden,
his
potential
2020
opponent,
and the White House then
tried to bury the evidence.
In other words, Trump used
the powers of his office to
attack a political rival and
then further used his powers
to cover it up. This is what
dictators do. Trump’s actions
constitute a clear threat to the
integrity of our democratic
institutions,
and
the
impropriety of the situation
cannot be overstated.
Abuse of power was the
second article of impeachment
against
President
Richard
Nixon. Experts say extortion,

bribery, breaking campaign
finance laws and obstruction
of justice are among the
crimes Trump and his aides
may have committed during
the
affair.
Impeachment
is
absolutely
warranted
in response to this latest
scandal.
Many
of
Trump’s
defenders
and
some
of
his
critics
have
pointed
to the political impacts of
impeachment as an argument
against it. As the argument
goes, the public is against
impeachment,
and
some
speculate the impeachment
will backfire on Democrats
in 2020. Public opinion on
impeachment is malleable
and will largely depend on
how well each side sells their
case, but there is plenty of
evidence that the public will
back impeachment.
Support for impeachment
jumped
dramatically
after news of the Ukraine
scandal broke. As of now,
by a ten-point margin, a
majority
of
Americans
support the impeachment
inquiry. Notably, support
for
impeachment
is
growing among Democrats,
independents
and
Republicans. Furthermore,
when
pollsters
ask
whether it is appropriate
for a president to ask a
foreign
government
to
investigate
a
political
rival or withhold aid to
a country for personally
beneficial purposes, voters
say no by a 30 and 48-point
margin, respectively. These
numbers
show
that
the
public
overwhelmingly
disapproves
of
what
Trump did, and support for
impeachment could quickly
grow
as
more
details
emerge.
The
chances
that
impeachment removes Trump
from office are low but not
zero. While many Republicans
like Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa,
and
Mike
Braun,
R-Ind.,
have
rushed
to
Trump’s
defense (while simultaneously
admitting
they
haven’t
even
read
the
complaint),
other
Republicans
have
acknowledged
the
severity
of the situation. Moreover,
former Republican senator Jeff
Flake, R-Ariz., speculated 35
of his GOP colleagues would
vote for impeachment if the
vote were secret, suggesting
that Republicans could be open
to impeachment if the political
winds shift.
But even if impeachment is
destined for acquittal in the
Senate, Democrats have a duty
to impeach. The Ukraine scandal
reveals the president believes
himself to be beyond reproach,
acting with reckless disregard
for the law.

Noah Harrison can be reached at

noahharr@umich.edu.

The change we need
will not result from
women advocating
for themselves.

VARNA
KODOTH

Impeachment is
fully warranted
and critically
needed to defend
the democratic rule
of law.