In the last decade and a half we have seen the rise of many tech companies. The stated goal of these companies is often some sort of common good, which is to be reached by means of emerging technologies. Certainly there is something to be said for the value that these companies provide; it’s unquestionable that the free availability of information and global communication is a societal good and that’s something which is often facilitated by these companies. Google’s internal motto famously stated “Don’t be evil”, while their public mission is supposedly to “organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible…”. Similarly Facebook strives to connect people and “to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together”.

Good Intentions⌗

If these companies, their stated goals and their founders are to be believed, then I believe that they have been led astray. Certainly if their goals are to drive humanity forward, then they seem to have misjudged the best vessel for that stated goal. Companies, by definition, are an entity with the main goal to create value with the purpose of enriching their investors; often that is the only goal.

The business model of most, if not all of the major tech companies is to collect their users’ data and either sell it or use it to advertise to them, if not both. It is, therefore, in their commercial interests to do anything they can to keep their users on their platforms for as long as possible in order to make as much money as possible. The longer that you have your eyeballs on the screen, the more datas they collect and advertisements they serve. If the founders or executives of these companies wished for their organisation to be a good force in society, then perhaps their best move would not be to continue to rob their users of their attention but instead to serve them as quickly and efficiently as possible and subsequently to direct them to leave their platform.

In order to serve their users in this way they would have to either rid themselves of the commercial interests entirely or to adopt a more sustainable business model, perhaps through something like becoming a “B Corp”. This would legally bind them to not only make money; but also to evaluate their impact on people, such as their employees and users, on the environment and on society as a whole. Ultimately though I do not believe that these organisations, or at least some of them, should have making money as a goal at all.

Why change is necessary⌗

Companies such as Twitter, Facebook and Google have an outsized influence on public discourse and on society more generally. Technology has the power to massively disrupt existing sectors and to create entirely new ones. This power can be exercised for public good or for the purpose of making money, but usually not both. It is always in the interests of advertisers, and by extension social media companies, to hold your attention for as long as possible. If this means serving you content that is explicitly bad for your mental or physical health, serving you content that gives you radical views or allowing people to harass you; then more often than not they will do that. Obviously these companies have put policies in place to avoid the worst of these outcomes so they can avoid bad PR but until their incentives lie on the side of caution, they’re unlikely to do anything meaningful.

There is now more and more legislation being introduced to make sure that social media will tackle harmful content and that their policies reflect their responsibility, as well as that they apply these fairly. This, however, is much like the bandaids that have been applied to other industries and will in no way change the underlying reward mechanisms that make companies behave in this way. A better way of making sure that these platforms work in the interest of their users, not their shareholders, would be to involve users, employees and other stakeholders in the decision-making process.

How we could do better⌗

One way in which we could remedy this is the use of a structure such as a B Corp or other legal pledges that involve the triple bottom line. These make sure that there are consquences when the company doesn’t abide by the promises that it made; that when it neglects any stakeholders or damages the environment, it has to requite the damages. This sets up consequences but doesn’t necessarily stop the company from doing wrong to begin with. To create a system wherein a company may be less likely to commit any act of wrongdoing, it has to operate in a way that takes into account more than just the way that a small group of individuals want to run the company. Something like a cooperative, or team-oriented organisation would require much compromise; creating a system that is much more considerate and consequently much more fair for all within it.

Even this, however, is not quite satisfactory. Social Media platforms have influence all over the world; even on people who don’t use it. So to fully understand the best action that an organisation should take, it should seek some form of direct input from its users. I believe that the best way for a social media platform, which will always have such a large societal impact, to operate, is for it to be owned and run by the people who use it. A fully decentralised and trust-based social media platform which is self-governing and self-moderating solves many but not all of the issues that modern platforms have.

I have in recent weeks, been keenly observing the social experiment that has been unfolding on Twitter. No, I don’t mean the Billionaire child’s incessant tweets and childish obsession with his own statistics. I mean Twitter’s “Community Notes” program, which has been churning out context and corrections to conspiracy theories and bullshit from left and right alike. I think that the ultimate proof that this has been a success, is the complete lack of news coverage since its release, there have been no real controversies over the validity or usefulness of any high-profile notes.

I think ultimately, if more of the content moderation on content platforms could be handled in this way, if brand risks, advertisers and money got in the way less and the community could reasonably decide for itself what should be allowed and what should not, then we might actually get a much better platform for all.

The original sin⌗

Twitter should never have been a company. That was the original sin. That’s why I left.

This is what Jack Dorsey admitted himself, to Elon Musk before the massive deal to take the company private last year. Other structures, such as non-profits, co-operatives and B-Corps should be explored in every sector but especially tech. In this way, the digital lives we lead, and the services we interact with, might be designed in a fair way that takes the user and all stakeholders into account.

Musk has also courted with the idea of “an everything app” which would take over much of the functions of our digital lives. The question that I have is “Why should this be Elon Musk’s app?”.

It shouldn’t; it should be user owned, user operated.

– Chico Demmenie.