Once a month, The duty challenges philosophy enthusiasts to decipher a current issue based on the theses of a notable thinker.
The setbacks of Twitter (X), purchased at a high price by Elon Musk then shaken by successive transformations intended to make the platform more profitable (and more in line with the ideals of its controversial owner), marked the beginning of a difficult year for social networks and the companies that manage them.
The mixed success of the metaverse as well as the numerous layoffs at Twitter, Meta and Google illustrate the merciless struggle these platforms are waging to monopolize revenue and make their businesses profitable. This affects the user experience, as anyone who frequently uses the social networks Facebook and Instagram has noticed the increased ubiquity of ads and sponsored content, which seems to be at an all-time high of late. Even Google, the most used search engine, sees its primary function almost threatened as it is difficult to distinguish relevant results from sponsored content when a search is carried out.
More recently, the open war that Meta is waging against Bill C-18 — which forces Web giants to negotiate revenue-sharing agreements allowing compensation to be paid to Canadian media for the publication of their content — eloquently demonstrates that financial imperatives have long taken precedence over the initial ideals which, according to their founders, guided the creation of these platforms.
For example, Instagram promised “a fast, beautiful and fun way to share your life with friends through a series of photos.” Facebook presented itself as “a directory that connects people”. Today, in the publication in which the social network explains its opposition to Bill C-18, it reiterates these principles: “Canadians will always be able to stay in touch with their friends and family, develop their businesses and support their communities. »
However, this vocation of sharing and connecting between friends, to form a community, seems drowned out in commercial content, influencer videos, “suggested” content and advertisements of all kinds.
Has the golden age of social networks passed? How can we explain the apparent indifference of these platforms towards the social disruptions they have helped to create, for better or for worse?
To reflect on these questions, we suggest drawing on the thoughts of Thierry Bardini, sociologist of science and technology and professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Montreal. In a text published in 2000, just after the great fear of the “year 2000 bug” and before the generalization of social networks, Bardini analyzes the “virtual revolution” associated with the advent of personal computing, by assimilating the initial premises which guided the designers, namely conviviality, universal access and interactivity, to the three principles of the French revolutionary ideal: liberty, equality and fraternity.
In this text, Bardini shows that if a paradigm shift has indeed taken place, the social and political promises which guided this revolution have been transformed by the commercial aims which have also fueled the advent of digital technology on a large scale. In the same way, we would like to show that the exacerbated capitalism that affects social networks acts as a counterpoint to the revolutionary ideals that underpinned their creation, explaining the current problems that affect them.
The first principle that Bardini identifies is freedom. At the basis of the creation of social networks lies the possibility for the user to create their own content, thus freeing themselves from the mediation of press organizations and cultural organizations. Without the costs associated at the time to benefit from a platform (financial, technical and in terms of knowledge), and without ethical principles or standards to respect, social networks left room for “in-house” content that could be relayed widely. scale thanks to the possibilities of resharing and hashtags (hashtags). Although some believe that the ideal of freedom is worth it, the downsides are multiple: proliferation of hateful, erroneous, misleading, poor quality content, echo chambers that lock people into perpetual confirmation bias , and, more recently, online radicalization amplified by the pandemic.
The second principle is equality: initially, the promise was that everyone would have the same voice as others, without hierarchy and without the platform deciding who has the right to speak. This equality was facilitated by a user-friendly design, but also by the free nature which characterizes all social networks. This free service, however, came with a cost, that of advertisements and the collection of personal data, which made the operation profitable. Here again, however, at first, these more discreet advertisements seemed a lesser inconvenience to achieving the revolutionary ideal.
Finally comes brotherhood. As we have seen, the platforms initially promised to offer a way to connect with friends, to “share your life”. The revolution had to concern the very way in which we form a community. You could keep in touch with your childhood friends even after changing cities, or find people who have the same passions as you. This new fraternity was making a major shift, as it moved from an era where the main attraction of the Internet was anonymity (and therefore the ability to be whoever you want online) to one where so much information was provided as possible to find friends and professional contacts. Here too, however, it seemed that the game was worth the effort.
Essentials
It is clear that the combination of these three promises — those of liberty, equality and fraternity — was popular. Social networks have become so essential that today, the media, cultural organizations, but also businesses must use these platforms to reach their audiences, devoting the majority of their advertising budget to them. In doing so, they also place themselves at their mercy, suffering the torments of their algorithms, but also of their decisions and mood swings (as demonstrated by the Twitter saga and its designation of Radio-Canada as “state media”). which forced the latter to temporarily withdraw from the platform).
For users, the “wild west” spirit of the beginnings has gradually softened to appeal to a wider range of users and advertisers, putting forward censorship policies with obvious biases, often to the detriment of women. and artists. In short, freedom has lost ground as social networks have become essential and have been able to impose their own commercial interests, but also their whims, on both advertisers and users.
Equality also took a hit. First of all, if social networks initially presented each user with all the messages from their friends, the algorithms have become more complex to prioritize certain types of content, so much so that certain voices are now louder than others. Professionals today offer their services to “optimize” the place of content despite algorithms. In addition, capitalist logic has taken over the creation of content with the advent of influencers, who also become vectors for the transmission of sponsored content, with varying degrees of transparency. Thus, equality of voice has given way to increased professionalization of the creation and distribution of content on social networks.
Finally, the promised brotherhood takes place today on the basis of common interests and beliefs, in particular because of the echo chamber phenomenon cited above, but especially because of algorithms which suggest similar content (including, sometimes, disinformation content) and keep people captive on platforms for longer. The development of short video formats that capture people’s attention is also another recent development, explaining the popularity of TikTok and the integration of short videos (named real) to Instagram and Facebook. Rather than getting in touch with our friends, neighbors and colleagues, we watch cat videos, influencers promoting mascara and, above all, numerous targeted and “optimized” advertisements to seduce us.
If Bardini had already emphasized, in 2000, that technology was losing its “revolutionary” character by compromising its ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity, it is clear that social networks have followed a similar path, promising to first to revive these principles, only to sacrifice them once their popularity was well established. It is perhaps the lot of any revolution to lead, in the end, only to a new form of bourgeoisie, as capitalist logic seems irresistible.
Perhaps it’s because we understand this better that we are more cautious about revolutionary new promises, as is the case with Mastodon, Threads and others supposed to replace Twitter.
Suggestions ? Write to Paul Cauchon: [email protected]. To read or reread old texts from Le Devoir de philo, go to our website.