The prompt that was given by the professor is the following: Drawing on what you’ve read in Off the Edge, the other assigned readings and discussions, and your own research, explore whether social media is harming our ability to think critically. There are many problem with responding to this. The two main problems with this prompt are that it fails to define exactly what social media is, as well in making clear whether this “our” is referring to the impact of social media on a personal or societal level. Third, this book and sources are terrible. Fourth, there are no solutions anywhere to be found. You could take this prompt in so many different ways. For the purpose of this essay, the writer will assume that the professor meant effect on an individual and that social media includes all forms of digital communication where one can interact and network with other individuals over the internet. If that is so, then it really depends on your consuming habits of social media. In chapter 7 we saw a rather extreme example of how an individual can end up if not using social media critically: “Whatever he privately believed in the moments before his rocket launched, he died in Flat Earth’s name." (Weill) Affirming or negating this prompt would be as useful as stating that movies are bad—an utterly meaningless statement. Even if they were inherently bad (despite of the wide variety), it doesn’t matter because they exist and won’t be going away any time soon.
Generally, we can separate social media into two different categories, which will be called open and proprietary. Open platforms allow you to download the source code and create your own instance on your own computer. Open platforms include the internet itself (websites), IRC, Email, LBRY, etc. You can buy a computer, install a web server, and expose the port its running on to the internet. You can have your own domain name. Nobody has the right to tell you to take it down. In every step of the process, the individual controls every step of it. Anybody can create their own Email server or IRC server if they so desired. In contrast, proprietary platforms are the likes of YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Discord, etc. On all these platforms, one is merely a guest. It is ultimately the company behind Google that decides whether you get to use their service or not (and in what way). It is not possible to create a second instance of YouTube because it is ultimately controlled by Google. This distinction might not seem terribly important in the context of whether social media is good for us or not, but it is the difference between growing your own food and buying it at the grocery store. If the powers that be decide that the grocery grocery is no longer going to be there or no longer able to sell you groceries, then you’ll wish you grew your own food.
There are distinctions we can make between the different kinds of social media platforms. In general, the most popular are chat platforms, forums, video platforms, and “post”-oriented platforms. Post-oriented platforms is a name to be used for the convenience of this paper, but it is used for platforms where an individual have their own space on the website and puts up posts. This includes the likes of Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, etc. This differs from a forum because in forums you don’t have your own space and the main purpose is for discussion. Among these categories we can further sub-divide them. For forums we have centralized forums (Reddit), focused forum (Blizzard’s forum), and anonymous forums (4chan). Among chat platforms, the main divide is between open (IRC) and proprietary (WhatsApp) platforms. With video platforms, we have short-form (TikTok), long-form (YouTube), and proprietary-short/long (again, YouTube) and open-short/long (LBRY). With post-oriented platforms, again, the divide is largely between open (Mastrodon) and propriety (Instagram).
The reason why it’s important to make these distinctions is because all of them are different. IRC has a different culture than Slack. LBRY has a different culture than YouTube. Video and post-oriented platforms rely on algorithms while forum and chat platforms largely do not. 4Chan offers a lot more freedom for the individual than does Reddit. Users of specialized forums are generally older than users of Discord. The differences are inumerable. We can’t talk about the effects of social media without addressing each one individually. To not address them individually is ignorance. In addition, there are ways to make the experience of using social media less manipulative for the user. One can simply not use the recommended feed on Twitter. You could download an adblocker. You can install an extension in your web browser that disables recommended videos on YouTube. There are an infinite number of ways that the user could go about achieving this. The effects on each one have to be measured individually. We can’t just be allowed to generalize about social media because user habits differ so widely.
Open platforms are better than proprietary platforms. Open platforms allow for a great amount of competition. If one gets to be too abusive of their dominance of the market, then it is relatively trivial for another to start their own competing service. Two very good examples are web hosting and email. No one company controls either of them. Oh course, there are dominant players like AWS or Gmail, but both have plenty of competition. There exists an email provider suited for each individual under the sun. Email isn’t subservient to one country, but each country domestic alternatives. Providers and users are allowed to curtail their platforms to their tastes. Open platforms are better for privacy. Open platforms allow it to be where the rules for the overall platform can’t be simply dictated by one party. Open platforms allow for greater freedom of speech. Open platforms lead to less conflict and friction because people are mostly left alone to do what they please. Open platforms aren’t vulnerable to buyouts. In every case, open is better than proprietary.
If one had to order them, from best to worst, the order would likely be: forums, chat platforms, video platforms, and then post-oriented platforms.We’re assuming how the average person would use the platform. It’s very much possible to only use YouTube to watch supplementary math instruction videos and recorded sermons, but realistically that’s not how the majority of people use YouTube. Forums are the least offensive because largely they don’t rely on an algorithm and don’t rely on dopamine hits that post-oriented platforms do. Forums encourage long-form discussion. Generally, forum responses aren’t immediate. Depending on how active the particular forum is, responses can come within minutes or they can come within days. Usually, you say your piece and then check back in on it after some time has passed. Immediate responses aren’t an expectation on forums.
Chat programs also don’t rely on algorithms. The problem is that they’re much more addicting than forums because usually there are instant replies. High quality discussions aren’t valued as much in chat platforms as compared to forums. The demographic of chat platforms tends to skew younger. You will receive notifications and feel a constant need to chat back in. This form of social media is very prone to drama. In forums one usually doesn’t develop a personal connection with the username of the post you’re looking at. This isn’t how chat programs work. People will develop closer relationships. Some take this to an extent where they spend more time talking with friends on Discord than friends in real life. There really is not much of an intellectual culture on Discord because the format doesn’t favor it. Disinformation is likely to spread when there’s no culture of honoring searching for truth. One instance of this was with COVID-19, for misinformation “… about the virus was spreading quickly, creating a public health risk and drumming up anti-Asian sentiment in online hate groups.” (Weill Chp. 5) You can take your time and write a nice reply, but somebody can just spam something and your post will be buried. A positive about chat programs though is that you generally get to pick what spaces to be in. People can create their own Discord servers and create their own rules.
Video platforms aren’t great because they rely on an algorithm to constantly feed the viewer new videos. Algorithms take advantage of our biases and feed us information we want to hear. One example given in Off the Edge is that of Muslims in Indonesia: “In a 2015 study, for example, Indonesian students were more likely to believe conspiracy theories about Western countries staging terror attacks if researchers first emphasized the students’ Muslim faith and described the West as a threat to Muslims.” (Weill) The algorithm is simply going to recommend videos that it thinks you will enjoy based on your viewing history. Everybody knows what it feels like to be sucked into the recommended videos on YouTube and, before you know it, you’re watching something mostly unrelated to what you had originally searched up. YouTube videos are catered to what gets the most views. YouTubers will use clickbait thumbnails to get you to click on the video. The thumbnails are often intentionally created to be deceptive. YouTube works in such a way where more recent content is pushed to the top, so there is a constant treadmill that YouTubers have to be on if they want to stay with the job. Tik Tok is simply a worse version of YouTube. It’s impossible to convey any real, meaningful information in videos that are under 1 minute. Tik Tok relies on music to further get you to turn off your brain while scrolling. People who create Tik Tok videos are also aware of techniques to keep the viewers’ attention (like filming yourself pointing at text).
Post-oriented platforms are the worst of the four. While there are some redeeming qualities of the three above this, it is rather difficult to find redeeming qualities about post-oriented platforms. Post-oriented platforms usually rely on an algorithm to keep your attention. There are some who might qualify this classification. They might say that algorithms can be made more ethical with “… transparency in targeting. This means requiring platforms to clearly disclose the demographic characteristics of the exposed population when targeting us with any piece of content that is not distributed broadly. That way, if I am targeted with news, ads, messaging, or other content that is going to a narrow slice of the population, I can at least assess that I am in an artificial echo chamber created by sharing algorithms, targeting algorithms, and other social media practices." (Rosenberg) For the time being, this information isn’t available. With YouTube at least, you could be recommended videos that contain information that is helpful. Unfortunately, it’s more often the case that the “… PRIME information becomes amplified by algorithms and some people exploit algorithm amplification to promote themselves? Prestige becomes a poor signal of success because people can fake prestige on social media. Newsfeeds become oversaturated with negative and moral information so that there is conflict rather than cooperation.” (Brady) With Instagram posts, it is almost never information worth knowing. Instagram creates a parasocial relationship with the people you follow. You will end up following people who you hardly talk to. You will follow the lives of individuals who moved away long ago. Snapchat is even worse because of its ephemerality and its streaks. All of the content is short-form and, for the most part, rather vapid. These platforms are doubly so because they target the phone. Phone apps are more harmful than individual websites because phones encourage more lazy habits than do desktop browsers.
We can see from the information here that the ideal for a social media platform is for it to be an open platform and for it to take the form of a forum. Platforms like Vichan exist. It was stated that to philosophize on whether social media is overall something good or overall something bad is rather pointless because social media exists and continues to exist. Open platforms are superior to proprietary platforms. Platforms that don’t rely on algorithms are superior to those that do. Platforms that are mainly targeted towards a phone app demographic are inferior to the ones that prioritize a desktop browser. Steps can be taken by the individual to make the experience of social media less of a time-sync. Whether any individual likes it or not, social media is a vital component of modern day life. Social media is as positive or as detrimental as an individual decides to use it.
Works Cited Weill, Kelly. Off the Edge Kelly Weill. Algonquin Books, 2022.
“The Problem with Social Media Is Not Content but Its Distortion of Reality.” Big Think, 20 May 2022, bigthink.com/the-present/social-media-distorts-reality/.
Brady, William, et al. “Social Media Algorithms Warp How People Learn from Each Other.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 20 Feb. 2024, www.scientificamerican.com/article/social- media-algorithms-warp-how-people-learn-from-each-other/.
*I didn’t want to use these sources. Ignore the quotes from the works cited sources.