Indie social media has discovered a method to evade the algorithm. So, why aren’t we enrolling?
When discussing the social media environment that individuals yearn for, they often reminisce about their time on Tumblr. For millennials, Tumblr symbolizes a utopian space where they could discover captivating images and valuable insights. Personally, I too engaged in this pursuit. Like a diligent gatherer searching for resources, I would navigate through a plethora of content to collect film screenshots, modern art, political ideologies, fanfiction, and various other intriguing content. Each click of the reblog button helped me define my preferences and shape my identity. It was a nourishing experience. But alas, it eventually faded away.
What do we have now in its place? Platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok. These platforms, driven by algorithms, have been criticized for being addictive, politically divisive, and culturally desensitizing. This algorithmic shift in social media, as labeled by WIRED’s Cory Doctorow as “enshittification,” The New Yorker’s Kyle Chayka as “the flattening,” and The New York Times’s Jon Caramanica as a “junk drawer,” has left users questioning the future of these platforms.
For those seeking a platform devoid of algorithmic manipulation and influencer dominance, alternatives like Mastodon, Blue Sky, and Post offer varying approaches to content curation. Additionally, niche social media apps such as PI.FYI, studio, /chan, and ID by Amo, along with the broader concept of Web3, aim to provide users with a more decentralized and user-controlled online experience.
Even with a plethora of algorithm-free options available, widespread adoption remains a challenge. The emergence of a successful platform often appears effortless, drawing users into its endless scroll. While some platforms like PI.FYI and Blue Sky have garnered niche followings, a significant barrier impedes the anticipated mass exodus to these new social media havens. This raises the fundamental question: If users are dissatisfied, why aren’t they migrating to alternative platforms?
The concept of insecure attachment comes into play here. Similar to children attached to inconsistent caregivers, users tend to cling to familiar yet flawed platforms. The internet, a vast and ever-changing realm, is laden with memories of platform transitions and losses, shaping how individuals navigate online spaces. The ephemeral nature of online communities and content further complicates this dynamic, leaving users nostalgic for the past.
The continuous evolution and tweaking of platforms, coupled with the labor of users sustaining these spaces, underscore the intricate relationship between online engagement and platform vitality. As digital theorist Tiziana Terranova highlighted, users’ unpaid labor fuels the internet’s functioning, which is then leveraged for commercial gain by platform owners.
The shift from Web 1.0’s perceived non-capitalistic ethos to Web 2.0’s cultivation of personal branding reflects a neoliberal underpinning in online interactions. This neoliberal framework incentivizes users to invest in platforms where they have established a presence, reinforcing the cycle of engagement and platform sustainability.
While the allure of alternative, non-algorithmic platforms persists, the reluctance to transition is influenced by the labor-intensive process of building a new online identity, particularly for adults. In contrast, children and adolescents, the primary drivers of online engagement, exhibit a more fluid approach to platform adoption and content creation.
In a landscape where algorithmic culture dominates, the challenge lies in reconciling users’ desires for authentic online experiences with the passive consumption facilitated by current platforms. The internet’s evolution, marked by the rise of generative AI and algorithm-driven content, further complicates the quest for a more human-centric online environment.
As we navigate this digital terrain, oscillating between nostalgia for past platforms and the quest for a more genuine online experience, the onus is on users to shape the internet they desire. Embracing the imperfections of online spaces and actively participating in cultivating a more human internet may pave the way for a more fulfilling online experience.