The problem is not social networks … it’s human nature
In the wake of the latest Facebook scandal and the company’s efforts to improve its tarnished reputation, this editorial in The New York Times offers some interesting insights. “Facebook is not the problem. Lax privacy rules are”, argues the problem is not so much social networks as the use we make of them, and in particular, in the lack of a clear and well-defined consensus about privacy.
I’ve written extensively on privacy as the use of social networks and apps has grown over recent years: the problem is how we use, or misuse, them, particularly in these early stages. It seems impossible for a social network or application to attract more users without drastically losing its essence.
Instagram, for a long time considered the poster girl for social apps, thanks in large part to its healthier and less intrusive advertising model, and that some pundits predicted might solve many of the problems associated with Facebook. Instagram was created by photography enthusiasts, with effective filters (unlike its predecessors, which consisted of crude ways of raising parameters to absurd limits), that users applied, improving their photos and thus encouraging them to share the result. Adoption by a younger audience brought changes: photography, in many cases, became a pretext for interaction, using photography to create a wall or to post a selfie in the hope of attracting a thread of comments.
The problems began, when, as a result of its strong growth, Instagram entered a period of commercialization. I have not yet had the opportunity to meet Kevin Systrom, co-founder of Instagram, but I doubt he is comfortable with the results. In a relatively short space of time, Instagram launched business tools to try to offer companies proper adjustments for their activity, but also became, essentially, a place for people to boost their egos, as if corporate use were not compatible with a social environment. Buying followers became common, along with the use of the follow/unfollow schemes or the use of parasitic bots and tools such as Instagress or Archie to obtain more followers. Instagram became a toxic environment where the only goal was to reach the home page: collective accounts, comment pods, circles of supposed influencers who were little more than mercenaries…
By the time Instagram reacted to this misuse, it was too late, and it had become a parody of itself. Shutting down Instagress and Archie, which Instagram was forced to do following a scandal prompted by whistleblower Essena O’Neill, did little to help: other tools appeared, to help track down bots, but the idea of the social network had been perverted.
Instagram’s growth and profits came at an incalculable cost in terms of credibility, and has parallels with Twitter, which was unable to prevent certain behavior and that have impacted badly on its value proposition. In the world of social networks, it’s often a thin line between being part of something positive and informative or finding yourself in a toxic and distorted environment dominated by bots and other parasites. But at the end of the day, it’s up to companies to decide what they allow their platforms to be used for.
Without clear and action to eliminate fake followers from Instagram and to punish those who use them and expel repeat offenders, while at the same time preventing attempts to subvert the platform, the current dynamic, a process I call social corruption, will continue to spread like a cancer. As ever, the reason will be a failure by its owners to deal with the worst aspects of human nature, a force that unless restrained is capable of destroying even the strongest value proposition.
(En español, aquí)
