There's a problem with the recent concerns surrounding silicon valley.

While I was reading my assigned Long Read, "Why Silicon Valley can't fix itself", I could not help but think about, what I personally thought to be, the contradicting statements within it. Personally I don't believe Silicon Valley is entirely at fault for the problems that were listed in the article, like media usage and the supposed decrease in genuine human interaction, but there are select claims within the article that get no backing from actual experts.

First of all, yes, at face value social media is highly addictive, but the tech humanists within the article explicitly state that it "damages our psychologically well-being and conditions us to behave in ways that diminish our humanity", which sounds all well and good until it's to be considered that these are self-proclaimed tech humanists and not trained psychologists, who are supposed to be trained in that field. It shouldn't expected that Justin Rosenstein, a software programmer, has any deep insight into how the human psyche reacts to the like button he so vocally regrets making. The only mentioned psychological study, in regards to the tech humanists' hypothesis, was conducted over twenty years ago, and it should be noted that the internet of 1998 is vastly different from the internet of 2019. Using such an outdated study for the only legitimate psychological aspect of the article renders all claims about how social media is "psychologically damaging" feel empty.

Also, why should Silicon Valley be the epitome of all the problems surrounding media usage and human interaction? Why is it that when they eventually put efforts into fixing these problems, critics brush them off as just a way to retain their power over the industry? It seems like these critics are projecting the unbalanced power they so desperately want Silicon Valley to not have onto Silicon Valley anyway. The article's solutions to strip away power from the economic powerhouse involves bringing in the government to tax and then put regulations on them, which suffice it to say, is easier said than done.

It could be that I just don't quite understand the general message the Long Read is trying to get across, though I'm curious to read how some of you guys who read it interpreted it.

- Jaeden Sahilan