IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2020 - 62

dimensions of sustainability challenges. The authors -
who include the late Robert Kates, social scientist and
leading sustainability scientist - envision a "values-led
shift toward an alternative global vision," including "lifestyle changes and greater social solidarity" [12, p. 47].
Similar to Sachs et al. and innumerable other analysts
[13]-[18], they place their hope in civil society, saying that
it needs to overcome fragmentation and unite to push for
change. They mention knowledge and value change as
key levers for transformation but are silent on how people
will absorb the science, perceive an imperative to act, and
successfully press public officials to also act. Raskin et al.
mention the media only a few fleeting times, and exclusively as a source of problematic consumerism and corporate power, rather than an essential part of the solution:
"The values of consumerism, materialism and possessive
individualism spread rapidly, reinforced by communications media," they write, or "The market jubilation emanating from the media and the public relations machines
of multinational corporations." (pp. 77-78).
Updating the framework twelve years later in a 2014
single-authored publication, Raskin does not mention
communications technologies at all, new or old, despite
the rapid rise in the latter since his co-authored book.
Recognizing that "[t]he principal characters now on the
global stage - intergovernmental institutions, transnational corporations, and big civil society organizations -
are unlikely candidates" for the role of change agents, he
hints at a "global citizens movement ... stirring in the
wings ... the missing actor in the drama of transition
[who] could move toward center stage as crises intensify
and consciousness shifts" [17, p. 6]. Raskin is silent on
how that consciousness shift is to be achieved, just as
the 2002 book was unspecific about the conditions that
would engender an empowered and informed public.
If such mass mobilization has not been sufficiently
forceful for decades (if ever), and if mass media are
offering countervailing messages, how are large-scale
shifts in values and lifestyles to come about? On what is
their hope based? Why do they so conspicuously end
their analyses where they do? Their silence shows a
complete silo between earth system science and critical
communications scholars, who have longed stressed
the crucial importance of reforming mass media to
achieve progressive change [19], because the profound,
constitutive effects of current, corporate media landscapes obstruct such change [9] and are strengthened
with the adaption of AI [20].

Misinformation in Turbo-Mode: A Growing
Communication and Education Challenge
Misinformation is a growing problem for environmental
action, and mass communications media and more
recently artificial intelligence are its tools. AI-boosted

social media platforms spread climate change disinformation at scale [21]. Whereas "snail mail" and "robocall" telemarketing were used to spread climate
denialism in the 1990s [22], [23], today's social media
micro-targeting reaches many more people [22], [23].
Techniques such as "dark posts" are even less transparent and accountable [24]. The impact of these new technologies inspire Lewandowsky et al.'s provocative
suggestion that we are seeing the emergence of "an
alternative epistemology that does not conform to conventional standards of evidentiary support" [25, p. 356].
They plausibly suggest that we are at risk of moving
towards a socio-political order in which expertise matters little ("experts are derided as untrustworthy or elitist whenever their reported facts threaten the rule of the
well-financed or the prejudices of the uninformed") [25,
p. 356] because "power lies with those most vocal and
influential on social media: from celebrities and big corporations to botnet puppeteers who can mobilize millions of tweet bots or sock puppets - that is, fake
online personas through which a small group of operatives can create an illusion of a widespread opinion"
[25, p. 356]. Optimism that Covid-19 may have strengthened public acceptance of science and expertise is tempered by recognition of the deluge of misinformation
circulating about it online [26].
This new, dizzying information environment has
helped climate-change deniers (including political leaders) utilize social media to manipulate voters and election processes by mining personal microdata from
platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
Besides legitimate, human users, online social media
platforms host automated agents called social bots -
computer algorithms that automatically produce content and interact with humans on social media. Bots
can be entertaining and helpful, but they can also serve
sinister motives. They can imitate humans to manipulate discussions, alter the apparent popularity of users,
post incendiary messages that obstruct constructive
debate, and spread misinformation. Such nefarious
uses of social bots abound. By harvesting our own data
from platforms such as Facebook, bots are increasingly
lifelike, making their artifice hard to detect. Multiplication of bot accounts in coordinated fashion can amplify
the power of individuals and small groups by means of
orchestrated "astroturf" campaigns that simulate grassroots support for political agendas [27].
As narrow-AI bots grow ever more intelligent and
lifelike, their influence grows as they harness data
about our own proclivities to better tailor their messages. Bots can produce false appearances of authenticity, accuracy, popularity, and consensus [28], using
these amplified powers of persuasion to prey on alltoo-human tendencies to align our attitudes, beliefs

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

∕

JUNE 2020

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2020