Bettering Social Media
Users are hooked on to the benefits of social media despite the data abuses of the social media companies. Here are some issues with the current social media platforms.
Oh boy! Where do I start?
Data Ownership
The users are the owners of their personal data, and should have full authority over what is done with it. And if they choose to monetise it, they must profit from it. However, social media companies today are the first beneficiaries of data monetisation, for which they return to the user only a mere free social media account. Personal data is worth much more than that. An ideal social network must offer 100% data ownership to users.
Credibility
Social media platforms facilitate the creation and propagation of fake news, fake narratives, misinformation and disinformation in a massive scale, such that it can influence elections. This pandemic of falsity can be addressed by ensuring the genuineness of user accounts, the factuality of posts and accountability of users who posted. How this can be exercised in the platform is outside of the scope of this document.
Feeds
Chronological feeds limit user engagement since users, due to timing, often miss some interesting posts. From business perspective, chronological feed also results in users missing posts has the potential to rouse social engagement or virality. Algorithm solves this by learning what users like, what they want to see and hear, what makes them happy and feed them such content irrespective of the time of posting. In other words, the algorithms feed users selectively.
Such implementation, in domains where ideology plays a role, creates an echo chamber and locks users into it, thus forming a tribe. The solution is to use algorithms to push content of opposite views too, not just views agreeable to the user's ideology. But to do this, the business model of social media companies has to change, which I discuss next.
Business Model
The business model of most social media companies is to sell or exploit user data. The designers know how human psychology works — that we tend to listen more and watch more content that agrees with us and feed our emotions. So, they design algorithms to learn what users like, and suggest content that will keep users glued to their platform. The more they are glued, the more data they can collect data; the more data they collect, the more they can exploit it and the more profit they can make.
So, what is wrong with this design? Leaving aside the humongous data they have collected about users which will be used to predict their behaviour, users fall deeper into the fake world of social media loosing real world social skills. Think of it this way: the financial goals of social media companies is aligned with social decadence of users. That is some cringe business model. An alternate model is imminent.
Even if you are to continue using the same business model, designing their products not to be so addictive and injurious to the social skill of users would still make social media companies better.
Censorship and Suspensions
While it is understandable to censor posts inferring the recruitment for children pornography, human trafficking, sex slavery, terrorism, and other such abhorsome evils, censorships and suspensions in the name of hate speech and protecting communities with no tangible proof of harm cannot be justified. Such actions are against the principle of free speech.
Most often, the so called hate speeches and harmful content are nothing but socio-political commentary the management does not agree with. Curbing dissent in the name of hate will only turn the community into an echo chamber for a particular ideology.
Even if it is truly hate speech, there is a reason behind its utterance. There is a premise to it. Cancelling or censoring such speech without investigating and addressing that premise is nothing short of ignoring a problem. They grow and consume you.
However, note that while misinformation (saying or sharing false things without the knowledge that it is false) can be brought under the purview of free speech, disinformation (saying or sharing false things with the knowledge that it is false) cannot be brought under free speech because of the wilful violation involved.
There are two reason why social media companies engage in censorship and suspension of users. First, key people of the company share a particular ideology and uses company assets to advance their views. Second, all political parties in power force social media companies to eliminate content that is unconducive to their narrative. A social media company must not heed to both these forces.