To say that today there is a phenomenon of mistrust towards social networks is an understatement. They frighten, worry, and even make people feel rejected, whether rightly or wrongly inspired by their owners ([FR]One in two French people want a world without social networks).
Without wanting to play the embittered veteran, I won’t hide the fact that I am one of those who are largely convinced that “things were better before”, but without believing in the explanations put forward.
I don’t think that at a certain point something happened that made them cross over to the dark side of the force where lawless spaces were created, but rather something organic, almost biological, that means a social network can only end badly.
Social networks and the theory of the bump in the road
To begin with, I don’t agree with those who say that social networks were uninteresting from the start.
I think that in its early days, Twitter was a place of unparalleled richness and kindness, and it was also where I met some remarkable people from a professional point of view. After that, everything went wrong.
Facebook was also a nice place in its early days, especially since it allowed many people who had lost touch with each other before the so-called social web era to reconnect.
But I also remember that the predecessor of Facebook, Facemash, launched in 2003 by Mark Zuckerberg before being shut down by Harvard University, had the additional purpose of allowing students to vote on the physical appearance of their classmates based on photos stolen from the university directory. Ethically speaking, it says a lot, but we’re not talking about the network itself, but the ethics of the founder.
Today we are told that Twitter has become a place of bad behavior because of Musk and his moderation policy, which is false: it had already been a trash can for a long time.
It is also said that Twitter has become what it is because too many people who don’t know how to behave have joined it. False. By becoming mainstream, Twitter has become a reflection of society.
What can be said about Facebook? In the end, nothing has changed since the beginning, apart from behavior and a certain disenchantment that has set in over time. But the network has nothing to do with it, it’s just life.
And what about Linkedin, which is also becoming an open-air dump (Hey LinkedIn, didn’t you get lost along the way? and My new Linkedin hygiene? Microsoft isn’t doing anything to improve things, granted (LinkedIn is broken, but fixing it wouldn’t be that complicated), but it hasn’t done anything to make it worse.
My theory on the life cycle of social networks
I launched this blog in 2005, it will be 20 years in two weeks and I have seen the birth, the heyday and the decline of blogs. Mind you, when I say decline, I’m thinking more of a return to reason and by losing authors whose thoughts fit into 280 characters, we have certainly gained in quality and serenity.
I was one of the first to sign up for Twitter, for Facebook when it opened up to the general public and I was one of the first French users of LinkedIn. And I saw pretty much the same story repeating itself.
A story that I ended up theorizing, even if I have since found something even more relevant.
For me, social networks follow this life cycle:
1°) The beginnings, few people, more of a pioneering nature, it’s just us and we’re happy.
2°) The pioneers bring in their friends, people who are similar to them and we gain in engagement without losing quality.
3°) All of this is great fun, but it doesn’t help the network make money. But as it starts to get busy, brands start to get involved and, as the saying goes, the user becomes the product.
4°) As there are brands, we start to see influencers arrive who don’t come for others but for themselves. This is where the network becomes a medium.
5°) You have the brands, up-and-coming celebrities, they’re talked about more and more, it’s going mainstream, everyone wants to be a part of it and the network is becoming like society: not brilliant.
My theory is based on the fact that at some point the platform has to monetize itself and that the arrival of brands is to the detriment of the essence of the network.
But I have since read something much more accomplished and thoughtful on the subject.
The enshittification of social platforms
This concept, which we owe to Cory Doctorow, is based more on economic and technological choices, and I discovered it in Tritan Nitot (The enshittification of Twitter and Platforms in General).
The enshittification follows 5 stages:
1°) The attention economy: adopts a model based on advertising and maximum engagement, which favors polarizing and divisive content.
2°) Algorithms: it’s the end of the chronological feed, the rise of filter bubbles that make the user lose control of what they see and the beginning of disinformation.
3°) The race for likes: social validation and narcissism replace authentic communication.
4°) Bots, trolls and manipulation: we arrive at the amplification of conflicts and the instrumentalization of platforms for political or economic ends.
5°) Desertion or fragmentation: users get tired and bored, alternatives emerge.
It starts out as a welcoming and friendly platform that attracts people, but over time and as the number of members grows, choices are made in the interest of the platform, advertisers or even certain lobbies, and to the detriment of users.
Bottom line
Choose the option you prefer, but the result is the same: social networks become what they become not because at some point a mistake is made or an accident happens, but because it is in their nature to evolve that way. It is in their DNA from day one.
As users, we have only one guarantee: we will be disappointed in the long run.
We can of course dream of a better world “where software works for the people who use it, not against them” ((What We’re Fighting For) but unless there is a global awakening and almost a global rebellion, I doubt it will happen because although users complain a lot, they also indulge in this situation (The digital Stockholm syndrome).
Will Mastodon or BlueSky change the situation? At some point the question of monetization will arise and I have doubts about the economic viability of alternative models, except for charging users the true price of the service, which is hardly acceptable except in the context of paying professional communities with high added value.
Image: disappointment from social networks by Song_about_summer via Shutterstock
