Could Facebook be better?
How to improve the social network without it going broke
Pablo García Naveira
Nowadays, there seems to be a rising pushback against the fact that Facebook, as well as other platforms, own and use our data to maximize their revenue at our expense. However, when new proposals are introduced to take on a more human or ethical approach, the attempts always seem to leave out the economic side of the equation.
Hearing about the various drawbacks of using social networks is nothing new. Yes, they are inherently meant to be addictive. Yes, they can also negatively influence perspectives and behaviors, such as feeding into the irrational desire to receive surgery to look better for selfies; or, curating a fake feed that reflects photos of places that the user has never visited; or, they can also unfortunately serve as platforms that facilitate hideous acts such as the Rohingya genocide.
However, there are also many positive sides to social networks. We have seen them facilitate unprecedented viral fundraising campaigns, providing a platform where social movements can and have been organized, empowering entire societies to rise up against authoritarian regimes. It is also a way to stay on top of long-distance connections with friends and family, or just to disconnect from the world for a bit.
Regardless of the amount of advantages or disadvantages that we encounter on these platforms, at the end of the day, it is imperative that we recognize that behind the screen, there is a business model whose sole interest is to make money. We are now conscious of a few key facts: We know that their algorithms are specifically crafted to grasp and keep our attention; We also know that their business model revolves around promoting freakishly personalized ads that target the platforms’ users; And finally, we know that they use psychological cues and biases to make their platform more addictive and precise through tools like the “reactions” button, the infinite scroll, and random positive reinforcement.
In short: many of the negative consequences that come as a result of using platforms like Facebook are reinforced by the app’s own intelligent design. So, the question we should all ask ourselves is: Can Facebook be better? Not “better” in its functionality — but from a more humane perspective. Can it be a service that desires to not only increase its income, but also to improve its users’ quality of life?
What is the main problem?
There are hardly any economic incentives geared at changing the platform’s current business model for the sake of users’ well-being.
But if we think about it, we pay for most services, even for public ones: that is the reason for taxes. So, could a “premium service” option mitigate the negative effects of the current model while maximizing the positive effects? How would social media change if it did not depend solely on advertising revenue? Many claim that a premium service would not be profitable because Facebook needs ad revenue to exist.
What if we were given a say on what we need?
On the one hand, Facebook can present us with even better, more personalized ads. Some have argued that the perfect ad is the one that saves you the time spent on researching for something you want to buy. For example, if I had an algorithm that knew me so well that when I told it to find a new pair of sneakers, it knew the ones that I wanted at the best price available, that would be the optimal ad service. It would even feel like having a personal AI shopping assistant. In this sense, ads could really become a service, rather than a nuance.
Beyond that, it could recommend presents for your friends or loved ones. Imagine asking Facebook: “What does my mom want for Christmas?” And immediately receiving the perfect answer. Always getting the right present sounds like a superpower; maybe it could be programmed by an algorithm.
This would be a great service that Facebook could explicitly sell in order to help users and maximize their time. For the companies that want to advertise, Facebook ads become guaranteed sales. Most importantly, Facebook would shift their business model: The platform would stop maximizing attention and rely more on the user to ask — and consciously pay — when they want to see relevant ads.
What if timelines were improved?
On the other hand, Facebook could also improve the way timelines are constructed. The first step would be to work hard on the mitigation of fake news on their platforms and prioritize content by the positive effect it has on the users.
Since users in this hypothetical scenario are now paying for quality content, the incentive is higher to improve their well-being. Users are no longer the product but the client. Quality and purposeful content will be the priority instead of attention and engagement. A personalized timeline could be crafted according to the users’ desires. They could be given the chance to express their preferences by responding to a set of survey questions. For example, after manifesting their desires, a users’ responses could look something like this: “I want 20% of news on these topics, 50% on what my friends and family are doing and 30% on entertainment.”
Would you pay for Facebook?
With this model, the client becomes a key asset in the decision making process of what type of content is ultimately shown to him or her. This model also eliminates the necessity of creating an addictive model, because having clients on or off the screen generates roughly the same amount of money. This eliminates the obstacles for having the app give the client a wake-up call if they are spending too much time on it.
Finally, a last advantage to a paid Facebook account consists in the eradication of bots and a deeper trust that only humans are behind the popularity of certain content. This aspect works to resolve the issues of anonymity and non-traceability, making progressive steps to mitigate cyberbullying and other problematic trends. It would help to make social networking almost as secure as meeting people in real life.
This is just a personal proposal to show that Facebook, in fact, could and should be improved and that we should have a say on how it’s done. We should think more about the drawbacks of social media and how to try and fix them. This outline may be a terrible idea, or not good enough for the business, or have a million other flaws. The point is not to teach Facebook a lesson, but to acknowledge that social media can be better if we design it for the service of society and not for the benefit of a company. As something that affects billions of people every day, it is worth the time to try and improve its flaws. To dream of an ethical Facebook.
Pablo García Naveira studies Economics, Leadership & Governance at the University of Navarra | LinkedIn
