Twitter (sorry, X), is a toxic cesspit were every interaction has the potential to spiral into a name-calling, label-attaching spat of half-truths, outright lies and seemingly ideologically-driven, hate-tinged, trolling. Facebook is without fact-checkers. Instagram posts are notable for their ability to attract ‘the haters’ and Reddit is that half-way zone where what you experience very much depends in which community you post. 

Social networks, it would appear, are in ruins because of our all too-human flaws. Tempting as it may be to ascribe their failure to become a field of timezone-agnostic, borderless, ‘town square’; where humans gather to exchange stories, share experiences and benefit from the free flow of information – a promise which, briefly, was delivered by Google’s now sundowned, Google Plus the fault, really lies elsewhere. 

To understand this better we need to backtrack a little. From a 30,000ft POV each human is a system: a biochemical, carbon-based system that’s motivated by the fundamental need to survive. This need leads each of these individual systems to behave in specific ways that impact the other biochemical, carbon-based systems around them which then lead to collective behaviors that have to be controlled in some way for the greater system to function. In this way we get communities, towns, cities, countries and federal unions.  

The smooth function of such systems is ensured by the creation of specific rules that guide their operation and safeguard the system as a whole. These rules come in multiple layers of rigidity and they have labels such as ‘tradition’, ‘convention’, ‘social contract’, ‘culture’, ‘regulations’, and ‘the law’. The complexity of each layer and their inevitable overlap ensures that the system functions as it should despite the temptation by some of its components not to follow the rules and do what they want purely for their own benefit. 

If you use your own direct experience of community, society, culture and convention you will more or less understand both the vast complexity of each system and its capability to enforce even unwritten rules and regulations through an array of potential consequences for those who do not follow them. 

Now back to social networks. 

Socio-technical Platforms

What we popularly call “social media” is the result of the merging of two systems that, in the past, would never have met each other: A technical system (as in the creation of a number of technical attributes that interact with each other to enable specific technical functions to take place, like in a gas turbine or an elevator) and a social one that is driven by the same core concepts that drive the creation of communities, societies, countries and nations. 

Make no mistake. This is new, and how we go about creating equitable, regulated spaces on socio-technic platforms involves a lot of experimentation and a lot of guesswork. The socio-technical systems theory that has risen around them suggests that they are, indeed, complex systems that need to take into account both technical and social elements and seek to optimize both in order to get optimum performance that benefits those who use them. 

The problem here is that in our world social networks belong to corporations. Unlike societies, town squares and water-coolers, all of which have been used to euphemistically describe their function and quantify their effect, which either belong to the entirety of the group that uses them or are constrained by the very nature of their ownership, social networks give the appearance of belonging to everyone while, in reality, they are products of corporate entities that invest enormous amounts of money to create, run and maintain them which, then, needs to be recapped. 

Toxicity Is A Feature, Not A Bug

We believe that anti-social, polarizing and possibly toxic online behavior is an outlier. Something that can be successfully excised through a rule or two or a regulation and that its emergence is incidental and not truly reflective of the system it appears in. 

Not so. Humans are relatively chaotic. For sure our behavior can be predicted when we factor in personal benefits (in their many guises from monetary to reputational) and the environment we operate in but we also have a complex inner world that is impossible to calculate from the outside in and which is quite capable of leading us to behave in entirely unexpected ways. 

If toxicity was not part of the system (hence a bug), eliminating humans (and their unpredictability) from it should allow a social network to be run in a virtual utopian way where the flow of information and useful interactions would be the norm. 

That’s exactly the experiment ran by University of Amsterdam researchers who ran a small social network populated only by bots. The results were surprising only to those who believe that a social network system needs only an algorithm tweak to improve. 

The bots ran wild. The echo chamber effect where individuals are exposed only to views that amplify and reinforce their own beliefs appeared the norm. Rage-posting was rife. Polarization and the rise of disinformation went hand-in-hand. Without an inner life to guide them the bots behaved much like most people do on X, or Instagram, or Reddit. 

Even AI, it would appear, needs moral guardrails to behave properly in a system where accountability is lacking and repercussions are minimal, if any at all. 

Take Charge Of Your Actions

In The Social Media Mind (and subsequent books on search and marketing) I’ve often stressed the fact that on the web everyone has an agenda. We don’t have to be there. We choose to. That changes everything. 

While it can be true that we have not analyzed the ‘why’ of our digital presence, it’s also true that should we wish to do so it is easier to understand than the ‘why’ of our corporeal one. Over time complexity rises. Behavior becomes more nuanced. Thinking about things becomes harder. Life itself becomes more complicated. 

Navigating this kind of word requires a degree of intentionality in what we do and how we do it and a clearer understanding of why we do it. 

It’s not rocket science. I too, would love to go back to the simplicity of my childhood. Here’s the thing though. Growing up in my time things were not clearer or easier and they did not appear to me simpler. The nostalgia for that time is valid but only in retrospect. The fact that I am here now (and so are you) argues for an incremental improvement of life in that temporal transition. 

Going back then is not an option. Moving forward is difficult. And standing still is a non-starter by nature. So, faced with the only choice that is available to us, it is on us to seek to build the world we want out of the actions we engage in. 

The private companies that run the social media networks we are part of are responsive to us. The pressure we may want to apply. The use we make of what they have. The demands we make of the lawmakers around us who have the power to ask for and enforce specific safeguards. 

Outrage is a luxury. We vent because it makes us feel good afterwards. But venting also creates a negative effect that can easily become self-reinforcing. 

Can all this be regulated better through improved oversight, better education, the creation of a stronger digital culture and decidedly better real-world examples from our leaders than we are seeing to date? For sure. But until that happens it’s up to us. The moral compass we employ that guides our behavior and interactions is a construct. It comes about, mostly, from our understanding of expectations and our hope for the future. 

Your life (and mine) are not lived by permission. We make choices that lead to actions that help us navigate our reality. And a social media network is no different. Expecting it to be is unrealistic. It constitutes a conscious abdication of responsibility in the hope that someone, somewhere will solve the problem for us. I don’t live my life that way. I suspect you don’t either.