how twitter gamifies communication - philpapers
TRANSCRIPT
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.