Reading Time: 2 minutes

Over the past few years we’ve seen a slow decline in the value of having “followers” on social media, as the algorithms continue to shift to show content to all users as they see fit.

YouTube, while it’s changing quickly, is an example of the old model. More often than not, videos are shown to users that have specifically subscribed to a channel and not to as many other users on the platform. For example, look at the videos from WIRED; they have over 11M subscribers, but very few videos get even 1M views. That’s the case almost every time on YouTube and other traditional social media — a subset of your subscribers will see your content, that’s it.

On the other hand, look at TikTok. In pulling it up right now, here are stats on the first three videos that were shown to me:

• 9.6M video likes from a person that has 33.5K followers
• 575K video likes from a person that has 119K followers
• 1.9M video likes from a person that has 192K followers

That’s certainly not always the case. There are creators on TikTok that have millions of followers with videos that only get a small percentage of that many views, but that’s kind of the point — followers and views are quite disconnected.

Instagram and Twitch are moving to the TikTok model

As shared in a great article on NBC News, Instagram and Twitch are moving to the “followers don’t matter” model that TikTok has. Of note, they say:

“In the coming months, the platform will start recommending every reel that follows its rules to a small pool of users whom Instagram deems likely to be interested. The more those initial users engage with that reel, the more likely it is to be shown to a slightly bigger batch, and the process repeats.”

As Rand Fishkin summarized on Threads:

TikTok was the beginning of the end of “followers” having serious value. Soon each piece of content will stand on its own.

Is this a bad thing?

While this is potentially troublesome for those that have huge followings, this is seemingly a good move in terms of quality content for viewers. Rather than be limited to those that you follow, they can show you all of the very best content from around the site that they think you would like the most. At a high level, this is precisely why TikTok has become so popular.

Regardless of our opinion on it, being able to say “I have xx followers on that platform” will certainly become less valuable, with great content (with “great” simply meaning “engaging”) always rising to the top.

I encourage you to read the full article on NBC to learn more. Do you like the direction that this is going?

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Bluesky is a relatively new social media platform, and at first glance it looks a lot like Twitter. As laid out by Mike Masnick in a great article on Techdirt, Bluesky is doing some excellent things to solve some of the major problems with social media.

Moderation

First, their moderation system is incredibly customizable. They have a team to help moderate things at a high level, but you can adjust a ton of settings and even pull in a completely different moderation system on top of theirs if you’d prefer.

Algorithms

Their algorithms are even more available for you to change. From Techdirt:

You can use any algorithm, and Bluesky might not even know what algorithms you’re using.
—
So, for example, someone could also set up a “fact-checking” moderation service. Or a moderation service to hide all political content. Or all sports content. Whatever people want. They don’t have to change instances to get it. They can pick and choose which labelers to subscribe to, or where to send reports.

If you’re mad at “the algorithm” on Facebook or whatever, this is the solution. It’s your algorithm, so make it do what you want. The details are admittedly complex, but the idea behind it (and the future of it) is amazing.

You can leave and take your account with you

Similar to Mastadon, but in a much easier to use package, Bluesky integrates with the Fediverse so that you can leave the service but take your account with you. Here’s how Techdirt explains it:

And it’s because Bluesky can be seen as something of the antidote to big tech, by enabling the freedom to exit, but without losing the benefits of the service you’re using. The main reason that we get these giant tech companies, and the ensuing enshittification, is that there’s no easy way to leave without losing access to the underlying services.

Some of this is still a bit complicated for the average user, but it’s improving. What’s important to know is that Bluesky is doing these things for the benefit of their users, and these are things that the other big tech companies are mostly intentionally avoiding.

I don’t know if Bluesky will pick up enough users to make it worthwhile, but I encourage you read the full article at Techdirt and then check it out and connect with me if you decide to join.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The last decade has seen a lot of concern over the effect of social media on teens. Most recently is the U.S. government attempting to pass KOSA (the “Kids Online Safety Act”), which is unlikely to actually help very much.

While there are certainly some concerns to be dealt with, social media by teens is generally a positive thing.

Here are some studies that unpack teen use of social media.

Pew Research says:
“Majorities of teens credit social media with strengthening their friendships and providing support while also noting the emotionally charged side of these platforms”

From the Surgeon General:
“Social media can provide benefits for some youth by providing positive community and connection with others who share identities, abilities, and interests. It can provide access to important information and create a space for self-expression. The ability to form and maintain friendships online and develop social connections are among the positive effects of social media use for youth. These relationships can afford opportunities to have positive interactions with more diverse peer groups than are available to them offline and can provide important social support to youth. The buffering effects against stress that online social support from peers may provide can be especially important for youth who are often marginalized, including racial, ethnic, and sexual and gender minorities.”

The American Psychological Association:
“Using social media is not inherently beneficial or harmful to young people. Adolescents’ lives online both reflect and impact their offline lives. In most cases, the effects of social media are dependent on adolescents’ own personal and psychological characteristics and social circumstances—intersecting with the specific content, features, or functions that are afforded within many social media platforms. In other words, the effects of social media likely depend on what teens can do and see online, teens’ preexisting strengths or vulnerabilities, and the contexts in which they grow up.”

A study from the University of Oxford, which covered nearly a million people from 72 countries across 12 years:
“The largest independent scientific study ever conducted investigating the spread of Facebook across the globe found no evidence that the social media platform’s worldwide penetration is linked to widespread psychological harm.”

It’s important to note that most of these studies showed things like “no evidence of harm”, and not that social media was necessarily good for everyone. Social media has some substantial problems for some people, and we shouldn’t just sit back and see how things shake out.

However, the idea of “we need to do something” is misplaced and is a foolish position to take. Bills like KOSA will only make things worse, even though they (seemingly) come from a place of good intent. It’s worth studying to see what the real issues are, and find effective ways to improve outcomes for everyone.

Fearmongering

The more we yell that “social media is bad for teens”, or things like “watch out for razor blades in Halloween candy”, or the completely made-up stats about sex trafficking (like this or this), the more the real work gets pushed aside. I’m not saying to ignore these issues (well, except for maybe the completely made-up Halloween candy stuff), but trying to scare people with made-up stats and stories only serves to make things worse.

Let’s focus on the real numbers and the real issues, and then we might finally get somewhere.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

As time continues to go by, and I learn more about what social media does to us, I get closer and closer to leaving all social platforms behind. I’m not there yet, as you might have seen wherever you came across this post, but I’m getting there.

I won’t get into the details of “why” here, as they’re different for every person, but the idea that “social media detox” has over 300,000 results on Google tells me that I’m not alone.

I’ve already started making some moves toward this, by making Readwise my default “I’m bored” app instead of social media, which has been fantastic. I’m going a step further now by focusing on unfollowing people as much as I possibly can.

My problem with giving up social media entirely is that I still enjoy keeping up with my friends and knowing what’s going on in their lives. That used to be the full extent of social media, and it was wonderful, but we’ve clearly fallen quite a distance from that.

My solution? To try to shape my feed to be more like that. I likely won’t disconnect completely from many folks, but I’ll “unfollow” a bunch. Going into an election year will create more of a mess on social media, and I’m hoping to be able to hide much of that. It’s tricky, though, because I still want to understand what friends on both sides of the political aisle are thinking.

I’m going to push hard over the next few weeks to unfollow unkind voices on social, and then continue to refine my approach from there. The balance between “hiding ugly stuff” and “understanding both sides” will be a real challenge, but I’ll give it a shot. If you’ve found a way to successfully pull that off, please leave a comment below and let me know!