Chapter 1: The Philosophical Lens of Social Media

Richard Rorty, a notable American philosopher, viewed collective belief through a common metaphor. He suggested that what many refer to as ‘truth’ resembles a cliché that becomes ingrained in our daily language. This perspective becomes so alluring—whether through its beauty, intrigue, or excitement—that individuals often find themselves thinking along those lines, even when attempting to define themselves in opposition to it.

This leads me to approach new ideas as if trying on clothing in a fitting room. New concepts serve as keystones or, to further the clothing metaphor, accessories that can completely transform an outfit. They provide a lens through which we can actively reinterpret our surroundings and our roles within them. This lens is not merely a passive tool; it actively participates in the very act of perception.

Recently, I have found myself engrossed in a particular lens: the perception of inadequacy.

Modern society feels weighed down by inadequacy. We encounter barriers everywhere: we can't legislate change due to insufficient votes, liberate ourselves from student debt because of uncertain presidential authority, and combat climate change for fear of economic collapse. Solutions are evident, yet a collection of rigid systems developed over centuries prevents us from seizing them.

Often, the shortcomings of our systems are so glaringly close that we fail to recognize viable solutions. The very impossibility of certain fixes within our current framework is so apparent that it becomes overlooked.

This is particularly evident regarding the challenges posed by contemporary social media platforms. Time and again, we consciously choose to overlook straightforward solutions.

We are all aware of the dangers associated with social media. The algorithms tend to promote misinformation and sensationalist content over more constructive material. As users become the product, these platforms are specifically designed to be addictive; the more attention they capture, the more data they harvest. Most users contribute their intellectual labor, distracted by an endless stream of content, which fuels the platform's success.

Tech entrepreneurs have attempted to address these issues with the advent of Web 3.0. The proposal includes creating platforms that reward users with cryptocurrency.

However, let's not fool ourselves: the compensation would be minimal—almost negligible for most. Any potential value would likely stem from speculative interest. This not only serves as a weak incentive but may even exacerbate the issues tied to the algorithms. It could incentivize an increase in the addictive nature of the content feeds.

Beyond the Web 3.0 initiatives, proponents of market-based liberalism suggest stricter regulations. Yet, a significant challenge is that the older generation in power often lacks a clear understanding of social media's mechanics.

Even in Europe, where regulatory measures are finally taking shape, uncertainty remains regarding their effectiveness. While I believe new regulations can mitigate some of the most harmful aspects of social networks, legislation alone will not alter the fundamental business model.

What is evident is this: social media companies wield more power than many small nations, and their capacity to exploit that power is unprecedented. They have acquired this influence because their business models demand it. Controlling the content feed translates to controlling human behavior—on an individual basis, no less.

To dismantle this level of control, we must fundamentally rethink how social media companies operate. The most straightforward way to initiate such a transformation is to prohibit these platforms from functioning as traditional profit-driven entities.

There is no alternative. Social networks represent a Pandora's Box. Once opened, they will remain integral to our lives. This is not inherently negative; we should not adopt a simplistic, Luddite stance that views social media as universally harmful. In many respects, it serves as a valuable tool for holding power accountable and enlarging public discourse.

Yet, as a tool that expands the so-called “public square,” it is too risky to maintain under outdated profit-driven structures. We need to organize them as public entities.

The missing piece in the ongoing discussion is the most straightforward solution: democratize these platforms at the grassroots level. This entails making algorithms transparent and understandable for all users, ensuring accountability directly to the public (rather than shareholders), removing them from profit-driven frameworks, and replacing current algorithms with diverse, non-addictive alternatives.

The first step in this direction is the nationalization of social media companies. However, this doesn’t imply that platforms should be managed by unseen bureaucrats appointed through convoluted processes. In the digital era, we have the capacity to manage these platforms ourselves—directly.

We must transcend the inadequate systems hindering our ability to implement a smarter approach to social media. From that point onward, the possibilities could be limitless.

The first video titled "When does social media satisfy the need to belong? Loneliness and Digital Thriving" explores how social media can fulfill emotional needs and the paradox of online connection amid loneliness.

The second video titled "How Internet and Social Media Adoption Relate to Global Well-Being in the Digital Age" discusses the correlation between digital engagement and overall well-being, shedding light on the broader implications of social media use.