Op-Ed: Why Hitler Would Have Loved Twitter
Marketing pioneer Scott Bedbury says that every brand has a conscience but somewhere along the way Twitter's got lost in the clicks, tweets and retweets
The Cambridge Analytica revelations have exposed how easy it is to push disinformation, hate and propaganda into the bloodstream of a loosely guarded media platform. By itself, that’s not a revelation. Every media innovation since the Gutenberg Press has eventually served the demons of propagandists and the Holy See alike, but social media is not just another innovation. Not since we split the atom have we created something so capable of tearing at the fabric of humanity so quickly. And, like the Bomb, we did so with little initial foresight to how we would harness or direct it, and whether the institutions of our time could even grasp what it all meant.
But unlike the dusk that followed the dawn of the Nuclear Age, there has been very little Oppenheimer’s remorse for what amounts to the most lethal attack on truth, trust and democracy in history.
In Mark Zuckerberg’s first interview following the alleged privacy breach by Cambridge Analytica, he tried to deflect some responsibility by suggesting he could not have anticipated this scenario in 2004 when he started Facebook. That is true. No one could have. But when he crossed the 500 million user mark in 2010, as Facebook’s Newsfeed began crippling the business models for traditional media and journalism outlets, and as it began filtering how users saw the world and how they received their messages, he should have realized he had created something far more powerful than an app to compare the relative hotness of Harvard co-eds.
Some say we’re at a tipping point and that things may get worse before they get better. The thought of an even more weaponized web fueled by advances in machine learning could bring one of the darker chapters in human history with the exception of a few global pandemics and perhaps reality TV. A world run by dictators, clicktators, kleptocrats and super PACs that harness the web to rape and pillage the emotional vulnerabilities of the masses would make for a great movie, worse than a Zombie Apocalypse. Fincher and Sorkin could reprise The Social Network and give it some real edge.
Sadly, we already see what happens when an emerging technology is weaponized and its power consolidated to an evil few. It didn’t end well.
Adolf Hitler is well remembered for his racist, genocidal ways, but what is less known about humanity’s most heinous human is how he weaponized radio, a relatively new technology, to exploit 80 million anxious minds that were losing trust in their government, increasingly uncertain about their future and looking for fictional enemies to blame.
Where Twitter might fit in the hands of some, radio was a perfect fit for Hitler’s fiery, hate-laced speeches in the 30’s. It amplified his bile-filled conspiracy theories of Bolshevik-Jewish slavery. Unlike any medium before it, radio was direct, unfiltered and real time. But radio wasn’t enough by itself. Once elected Chancellor in 1933, Hitler quickly began taking control of Germany’s independent press. The Third Reich ensured that all publishers and broadcasters would echo Hitler’s views. Those that refused ceased to exist.
Hitler spoke freely to his nation through Volksempfanger VE301 radios and speakers, each one stamped with an eagle and swastika and limited to three frequencies controlled by the Third Reich. By the time a thousand Luftwaffe pilots began bombing Poland the morning of September 1, 1939, Hitler’s radio network was complete. Beer halls, government buildings, bakeries, town squares and more than 75% of German households had a radio and speaker. He had achieved near-total control of how Germany saw itself and the world around it.
It was not hard to see what Hitler’s intentions were. In his autobiography Mein Kampf, written from prison in the early ’20s and published more than a decade before the war, Hitler revealed his vision for how Germany could be made great again, and how he would design propaganda that could control hearts and minds. Albert Speer, Hitler’s head of armaments and also responsible for the design, manufacture and deployment of the radios, saw firsthand the power of these weapons of mass distortion in the hands of Hitler. During his final testimony at the Nuremberg trials after the war Speer summed it up this way:
“Hitler’s dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in history. His was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical development, a dictatorship which made the complete use of all technical means for domination of its own country. Through technical devices like the radio and loudspeaker, 80 million people were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man…”
The ability to speak to millions at once was impressive, but it was what Hitler said and how he delivered it that convinced Germans he could restore the Fatherland. Alfons Heck, one of five million members of the Hitler Youth Brigade, described his first Hitler rally, at age ten, this way:
“We erupted into a frenzy of nationalistic pride that bordered on hysteria. For minutes on end, we shouted at the top of our lungs, with tears streaming down our faces: ‘Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil!’ From that moment on, I belonged to Adolf Hitler body and soul.”
In Mein Kampf Hitler explained the importance of communicating only to those who would not challenge his views; the simpler and less educated ones with malleable minds that he could easily influence and control:
“The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another.”
And given the apparent diminished intelligence of his intended followers, Hitler believed it essential to design and deliver simple, memorable slogans that would appeal to emotions rather than any logical argument:
“The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.”
Hitler wrote a lot of sick but eerily familiar slogans in Mein Kampf. One of them is as relevant today as then. This bit of advice from the Fuhrer about propaganda could have fit within Twitter’s original 140-character format — in German, no less.
Translated into English:
For an aspiring 21st century autocrat or dictator to overthrow a democracy like the U.S., France, the U.K. or Germany, they wouldn’t need to remove the free press by force as Hitler did. They would only need to cripple public trust in the most important avatars of truth — free and independent media, academics and scientists. They would need to attack them by name, brand them as liars and fakes, bully them at every turn, and intimidate anyone that stood in their way. They would need to relentlessly attack truth and fact wherever it threatened them and create enough disinformation, noise and distraction to make the pursuit of truth so hard most of the Republic would give up the hunt. And just listen to them.
And if the drool for populist, repressive rule was really strong they might even say, “Don’t trust them. Trust me. They’re all liars.”
This is how democracies die in the 21st century.
Many of the world’s great innovators — Gutenberg, Nobel, Einstein, Pasteur, Shockley, Morse, Bell, Oppenheimer and Fermi — faced real ethical challenges because of what they created. But each of them left valuable fingerprints on humanity. Oppenheimer’s remorse was real. He refused to participate in the creation of the hydrogen bomb and Fermi shifted his work to enable nuclear energy to drive electrical grids. What fingerprints will Page, Brin, Dorsey and Zuckerberg leave?
In this war against the truth a billion rounds of ammunition can now fly near the speed of light at their assigned targets with bomblets to impersonate, replicate and accelerate social media content. In both campaigns to help elect a US President — one in Russia and one in the US — fake social media accounts served as remote weapons depots with the means to create, distribute, share and retweet ordinance faster than a thousand fast-fingered millennials. Perhaps most cunning is the way Cambridge Analytica, armed with deep Facebook user data that violated privacy protections, could target individual users and their friends with propaganda designed expressly for them, informed by their own online behaviors. AI is very good at determining what message, words, images, designs and videos will get your attention or make you mad.
But don’t be shocked. You’re really not that hard to read.
The digital genies created by artificial intelligence are out of their bottles, fully uncorked, unbounded by ethics and unfazed in their mission to distort how humanity sees the world every day. But the damage to truth and reality doesn’t stop there. Mainstream media now follows this carnival ride like the tail of a mad dog running to who-knows-where, even if it’s a tweet from an enraged, intolerant old man on a golden toilet with a cell phone and a fragile ego. In a matter of seconds, the world can be sent racing to interpret, analyze and opine the meaning — or insanity — of words chosen by some modern day evil twin of Chauncey the Gardner.
For too long social media has been exploited by forces for the willful destruction of truth and trust as a means to profit, power or politics. For too long some of the most influential companies on earth have elected to behave like technologies, utilities or private surveillance platforms rather than the brands they should be. A truly great brand is built on core values and beliefs. They declare what they do and don’t do, what they say and don’t say, the principles they stand for and who they stand with. A responsible brand tells its story often, shares its intentions and recommits to its purpose and promise, rather than let others tell their story for them. It seems that Facebook only speaks up when there is a privacy breech.
Perhaps most important, every brand has a conscience. Somewhere along the way that got lost in the clicks, tweets, retweets, posts, shares, likes and thumbs up.
If we fail to find a way to begin controlling this incredible power, if the great innovators of our time ignore their responsibilities for what they’ve created, if our government fails in its role and the roar of these weapons of mass distortion and distraction prove too much, we may be left with only one option:
Make the truth big, make it simple, keep saying it, and pray to God they eventually believe it.
Scott Bedbury is an author, founder and CEO of Brandstream, and former marketing executive for Nike and Starbucks. This is an excerpt from his new book on the war against truth, trust and transparency to be released in summer 2018.
PSFK’s CXI 2018 conference brings to life key trends in customer experience through talks and activations by pioneers at well known and new companies.
Evan is the co-founder and CEO of Snapchat, a platform for people to maintain the spontaneity of social messaging without having to worry about managing a persistent and constant online identity. Released in 2011, the app lets users take photos, record short videos, add text and drawings and send them to a controlled list of recipients. The content is permanently deleted after being viewed. According to Snapchat, in May 2014 the app's users were sending 700 million photos and videos per day, while Snapchat Stories content was viewed 500 million times per day. Prior to founding Snapchat, Evan worked as a software developer at Intuit and attended Stanford University.
Wearable X CEO Billie Whitehouse spoke to PSFK 2017 about designing wearables for all five senses and maintaining a sense of humor