Can Social Media Be Saved?
I don’t need to tell you that something is wrong with social media.
You’ve probably experienced it yourself. Maybe it’s the way you feel while scrolling through your Twitter feed ― anxious, twitchy, a little world weary ― or your unease when you see a child watching YouTube videos, knowing she’s just a few algorithmic nudges away from a rabbit hole filled with lunatic conspiracies and gore. Or maybe it was this month’s Facebook privacy scandal, which reminded you that you’ve entrusted the most intimate parts of your digital life to a profit-maximizing surveillance machine.
Our growing discomfort with our largest social platforms is reflected in polls. One recently conducted by Axios and SurveyMonkey found that all three of the major social media companies ― Facebook, Twitter and Google, which shares a parent company with YouTube ― are significantly less popular with Americans than they were five months ago. (And Americans might be the lucky ones. Outside the United States, social media is fueling real-world violence and empowering autocrats, often with much less oversight.)
But it would be a mistake to throw up our hands and assume that it has to be this way. The original dream of social media ― producing healthy discussions, unlocking new forms of creativity, connecting people to others with similar interests ― shouldn’t be discarded because of the failures of the current market leaders. And lots of important things still happen on even the most flawed networks. The West Virginia teachers’ strike and last weekend’s March for Our Lives, for example, were largely organized on Facebook and Twitter.
但如果我们摊摊手，认为这是无可奈何的事，那就错了。社交媒体最初的梦想是制造健康的讨论，释放新的创意形式，把兴趣相似的人联系起来，这一切不应该因为当前市场上领先企业的失败而被抛弃。甚至在缺陷最多的网络上，仍有很多重要的事情在发生。例如西弗吉尼亚州的教师罢工，以及上周末的“为我们的生命游行”(March for Our Lives)，它们主要是在Facebook和Twitter上组织起来的。
The primary problem with today’s social networks is that they’re already too big, and are trapped inside a market-based system that forces them to keep growing. Facebook can’t stop monetizing our personal data for the same reason that Starbucks can’t stop selling coffee ― it’s the heart of the enterprise.
Here are three possible ways to rescue social media from the market-based pressures that got us here.
Give Power to the People
In their book “New Power,” which comes out next week, Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms write about the struggle between centralized, top-down institutions, which represent “old power,” and decentralized, bottom-up movements, which represent “new power.”
杰里米・海曼斯(Jeremy Heimans)和亨利・蒂姆斯(Henry Timms)在他们将于下周出版的《新势力》(New Power)一书中提到了集中的、自上而下的机构所代表的“旧势力”与分散的、自下而上的运动所代表的“新势力”之间的斗争。
Facebook, they write, is an example of a new power institution that serves old power interests. It harvests the creative output of billions of people and turns it into a giant, centralized enterprise, with most users sharing none of the economic value they create and getting no say in the platform’s governance.
Instead, the authors ask, what if a social network was truly run by its users?
“If you’re contributing economic value to something of this much social consequence, you should share in the value you’re creating,” Heimans told me.
Nathan Schneider, a professor of media studies at the University of Colorado, had a similar idea in 2016, when he proposed that Twitter users band together to buy the platform from its shareholders and convert it into a user-run collective, similar to the way a local credit union is run. People who made valuable contributions to the network, such as employees and power users, would receive bigger stakes and more voting power. And users would have a seat at the table for major decisions about the platform’s operations.
科罗拉多大学(University of Colorado)的媒体研究教授内森・施奈德(Nathan Schneider)在2016年也有过类似的想法，他建议Twitter用户联合起来，从股东手中买下该平台，把它转化为用户运营的集体企业，类似于地方信贷协会。那些对该网络做出巨大贡献的人，例如员工和有影响力的用户，将获得更大的利益和更多的投票权。用户将对该平台运营的重大决策拥有发言权。
Create a Social Federation
Another radical approach would be to make social networks work more like email ― so that independent apps could seamlessly work together with one another, across a common protocol.
Instead of one big Facebook, a federated social network would look like clusters of independent nodes ― Mombook and Athletebook and Gamerbook ― all of which could be plugged into the umbrella network when it made sense. Rather than requiring a one-size-fits-all set of policies that apply to billions of users, these nodes could be designed to reflect users’ priorities. (A network for privacy hawks and one for open-sharing maximalists could have different data-retention rules, and a network for LGBT users and one for evangelical pastors could have different hate speech rules.) If a node became too toxic, it could be removed without shutting down the entire network.
“Email is the most resilient social network on the internet,” Schneider said, “and the thing that allows it to adapt is that it’s an open protocol, and people build apps on top of it, and we evolve how we use it.”
Versions of this kind of network already exist. Mastodon, a decentralized Twitter-like social network, has gotten more than 140,000 registered users since its debut in 2016. And various social networks based on the blockchain ― the ledger system that underlies virtual currencies like bitcoin ― have sprung up in recent months.
Put Expiration Dates on Social Graphs
A single friend of mine once remarked that the major difference among dating apps like OKCupid, Tinder and Bumble wasn’t the way they were designed or the companies behind them ― it was how long they had existed.
New apps, she said, were more likely to attract interesting and smart people who were actually looking for dates. Older apps, by contrast, were eventually overrun with creeps and predators, no matter how well built they were.
A similar theory might apply to social networks. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat all had plenty of issues in their early years, but they were by and large cleaner, with fewer types of exploitation and malicious behavior. Today, the enormous size and influence of these platforms have made them irresistible honey pots for bad actors, and many of our “social graphs” ― Facebook’s term for the webs of digital connections we create ― are clogged with years’ worth of clutter.
类似的理论可能也适用于社交网络。 Facebook, Twitter、YouTube、Instagram和Snapchat早期都有很多问题，但它们总的来说都更干净，利用和恶意行为的类型更少。如今，这些平台巨大的规模和影响力让它们成了坏家伙无法抗拒的蜜罐，我们的很多“社交图谱”――Facebook创造的术语，指的是我们创建的数字连接网络――充斥着多年积累的杂乱。
In a blog post last year, venture capitalist Hunter Walk proposed an interesting idea: a legally mandated “start over” button that, when pressed, would allow users of social networks to delete all their data, clear out their feeds and friend lists, and begin with a fresh account.
I’d go even further, and suggest that social networks give their users an automatic “self-cleaning” option, which would regularly clear their profiles of apps they no longer used, friendships and followers they no longer interacted with, and data they no longer needed to store. If these tools were enabled, users would need to take affirmative action if they didn’t want their information to disappear after a certain number of months or years.
Making social graphs temporary, rather than preserving them forever by default, would undoubtedly be bad for most social networks’ business models. But it could create new and healthy norms around privacy and data hygiene, and it would keep problems from piling up as networks get older and more crowded. It might even recapture some of the magic of the original social networks, when things were fresh and fascinating, and not quite so scary.