There is nothing wrong with social media; if anything, we need more social media.

What we need less of are the attention-maximizing, eldritch-horror things that have stolen social media and now walk around wearing the skins of the entity that summoned it.

Facebook is not social media — if you don't believe me, go on Facebook and count how many posts are from people you had mutual interactions with and actively choosen to follow and how many are everything else (not including native ads, I understand the platforms have to make moeny).

It's the same issue, if not worse, on X/Twitter.

I wouldn't know the status of TikTok for the same reason I don't know what the current status of street drugs, but as I understand it you can't even meaningfully follow people on TikTok — it's just mindless consumption from people you don't know.

How can it be social media if there's no social component?

Email is social media; chatting with your guild members in World of Warcraft is social media. Until at least a few months ago, commenting on a pull request on GitHub was more social media than Twitter was.

The first step in dealing with the world is to look at things as they actually are, not as they were twenty years ago.

Well we live in a global informational network. Instagram actually did try to not fully attentionmaxx their reels algos back in 2014 when TikTok came up, and this led to them losing 60% of the market to this.

You can't regulate the whole world, if you won't make something addictive, someone in China will and you will lose the market to them.

Next best thing is ban because regulations in software are stale the day they get released due to legal processes being slower than technological ones.

The profit motive turns social media into an opium machine gun, the maintenance of a global scale consumer social media without a profit motive impossible, and the existence of a consumer global scale social media makes both smaller scale and protocol-based forms obsolete

I can agree with this. And I’m not sure how these bans are scoped but maybe they should be scoped specifically around algorithmic feeds.

The biggest problem to me isn’t the content or posting on a friends timeline. It’s that choices are pushed to the user rather than pulled. Change that one dynamic and I may not care as much that YouTube has content I consider toxic. Add a little friction my teen has to go actively discover content he’s curious about, not pushed an algorithmic feed.

I think the problem is though - the tech companies are incentivized to make this about _content_ “ I can’t ban Andrew Tate because it’s not my job to tell people what they can and can’t watch, first amendment, blah blah blah.

And Zuckerberg isn’t wrong here exactly, but per above the real argument I think is less about content and more about form.

But the reality is these companies don’t actually make their money from the content they make it from the form.

So Zuckerberg can’t concede “oh you’re right, making the newsfeed less adddictive doesn’t violate first amendment rights, at least we’re not banning Trump, because he doesn’t care about banning Trump except for the heat he gets from republicans, he cares about you messing with the money printer.

The thing we may all be able to agree they should do is the thing they’ll push back much harder against doing.