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.

