Long ago, to reshape society, one needed to enact a statute or launch a conflict. Nowadays, a hashtag is enough.
Ethan Zuckerman examines how individuals leverage social media and technology to influence society—or at least try. He directs MIT's Center for Civic Media and serves as an associate professor at the MIT Media Lab, guiding students to understand these dynamics. Additionally, Zuckerman is authoring a book on civic participation in an era marked by dwindling confidence in institutions like governments, corporations, and banks.
Perhaps such distrust is justified. Over the past ten-plus years, we have gradually surrendered our personal information to giants like Facebook and Google, often without full awareness.
Zuckerman is familiar with the experience of developing technology that infuriates many. In the 1990s, he invented one of the internet's most despised features: the pop-up advertisement. Its purpose was to display an ad on a webpage without implying that the advertiser endorsed the page's content. "Our intentions," he later wrote in a public apology, "were good."
In his home office, Zuckerman can exercise on a treadmill while using a laptop perched on a shelf. A hot tub also sits in the room, available for a relaxing soak.
Zuckerman discussed with MIT Technology Review how social platforms began to dictate our behavior instead of us controlling them.
In what ways are individuals employing technology—instead of, for instance, pushing for legislation—to drive change?
Historically, we relied primarily on law as our main tool for change. Today, we pull less on the legal lever and more on those of norms, markets, and technology. The #MeToo movement exemplifies a norms-driven campaign. It essentially declares, "We will reshape the way people discuss sexual assault and harassment." Once that norm shifts, legal and market elements will follow. Yet at its core, it aims to alter how we hold particular discussions.
The key takeaway is that when traditional civic models fail to achieve social change, an entirely new toolkit exists, and people are beginning to master its use.
However, platforms like Facebook and Twitter govern—or at least steer—the information we encounter by employing algorithms that curate our feeds. You collaborated with Chelsea Barabas from MIT's Center for Civic Media and Neha Narula at the Media Lab to create Gobo, a tool enabling users to aggregate and customize their own feeds. What motivated this?
The intention is to argue that entrusting one or two corporations with our digital public space is a grave error. We require competing platforms. Our goal is to demonstrate that diverse social networks are desirable because they grant you greater command over your filters—deciding what appears and what doesn't.
To have competing platforms, we need tools that allow us to utilize them. Gobo is such a tool. It functions as an aggregator, pulling together Twitter and the accessible portions of Facebook—namely, public pages.
Because Facebook is so enormous, it enjoys numerous advantages that make catching up extremely difficult. Consequently, when a meaningful competitor appears, Facebook is more inclined to acquire and absorb them rather than compete head-on.
Initially, we constructed the aggregator. Next, we developed the algorithms that decide which posts appear. Instead of keeping them as an opaque black box, we created an open one where users can adjust sliders, experiment, and say, "I like this setup; let me tweak it to see if it improves."
Our long-term vision is an even more transparent box; we designed Gobo so that others can create filters for it.
Following extensive criticism over its news feed filtering methods, Facebook has begun prioritizing posts from friends and family while reducing emphasis on brand content. Does this indicate a genuine shift in Facebook's priorities?
I remain unconvinced that this represents real change, and I will only believe it when I witness a viable business model not reliant on targeted advertising.
In my view, constructing an internet where everything was free because our attention became the traded commodity was among the most harmful and myopic choices we could have made. And I include myself in that "we," as I was deeply involved. Until Facebook states, "You will use this as a service and pay for it," rather than "We will capture your attention, repackage, and sell it," I will remain skeptical.
An increasing number of ex-Facebook executives and investors have publicly criticized the company, claiming that social media is "tearing apart the very fabric of society."
I believe that some individuals who have left the intense environment of building these platforms are now viewing them externally and realizing, "Wow, I can now see the politics from the outside, and I'm not pleased with what I was part of."
We must learn to initiate these discussions much sooner. They should involve employees at these companies who are making design choices. I aim to have these conversations with my students, as many of them join these firms and eventually have the chance to influence design decisions.
What makes it so difficult for any entity other than Facebook, Instagram (Facebook-owned), Twitter, or Snapchat to compete in the social media landscape?
Network effects dictate that people join Facebook because everyone they know is there. Facebook's immense size grants it numerous advantages—greater bandwidth, cheaper servers—making it extremely tough to overtake.
Thus, when a serious competitor emerges, Facebook tends to acquire and absorb them rather than engage in market competition.
You authored an article in The Atlantic proposing a publicly funded social network as a remedy for social media's echo-chamber problem. Is this feasible?
I consider it entirely impractical in the United States. However, it could be viable in Europe, where a public media culture exists that supports investing in people's basic knowledge of politics, the world, and their neighbors. I can envision an inventive European public broadcaster proposing, "Let's create a social network compatible with others, featuring algorithms that let you adjust whether you receive global news, local news, and make those controls visible and adjustable."
