Why doesn't the mainstream media talk about non-commercial social networks?
For some years now, it's been quite rare to read a newspaper or watch news on TV without coming across some news item about “social networks”. Two things are particularly striking about these stories.
Firstly, they are almost always bad news: “social networks” are associated with the global crisis of disinformation and fake news (strongly affecting the fields of politics and public health); with various financial scams (including social dating networks); with the impact on children's and teenagers' ability to concentrate and perform at school; with anxiety disorders, sleep disorders and depression in teenagers and adults; eating disorders and disorders related to the perception of their bodies, especially in teenage girls; perceptions of unsatisfactory use of personal time; lack of interest in their timelines, whose algorithms no longer show the posts of loved ones but favor the posts of “brands” (companies); the bizarre strategies of influencers in the pursuit of monetization; extravagant practices of exhibitionism and deaths due to selfies... (It's no coincidence that complaints about the quality of experiences on “social networks”, advertisements (made on the networks) for “digital detox” retreats (for a weekend, a week...), and the clear association between “social networks” and various compromises in the mental health of their users have become commonplace).
Secondly, despite the serious and chaotic scenario we have just mentioned, what we continue to see in the media are journalists always and only talking about “social networks”, as if they existed as a single set, homogeneous in their characteristics; when, in fact, they are always talking about “commercial social networks” – and almost never talking about “non-commercial social networks”, their very existence and their characteristics.
The question, then, is: what is going on? Why aren't these professionals, supposedly well-informed and knowledgeable about their “environment”, covering non-commercial social networks (and enthusiastically)? After all, couldn't they, by their very nature, solve the major problems, described above, caused by commercial social networks? Thus restoring a mental health context in society at least prior to the popularization of commercial social networks? (Yes, they could do that). Or should we imagine that these media professionals are unaware of the existence of non-commercial social networks?
So we remember a few things... Let's remember that a few years ago the cable TV news channels began to end their news editions by displaying their logos and the logos of the various commercial social networks together (what was the “cost” of this for the field of editorial choices of these companies?). Let's remember that newspapers (once print, now mainly online) depend on having their stories “go viral” on commercial social networks in order to monetize something with advertising (or with information they collect from readers). From time to time, even a good journalistic podcast critically addresses the current chaotic scenario of commercial social networks – but without mentioning non-commercial social networks (after all, they end their programs by asking for likes on the commercial video platform, asking for 5 stars on the commercial audio platform...). In this context of commercial arrangements and contracts, of media companies' attempts to survive in the current scenario of the dominance of commercial social networks, what are the chances of your favorite journalists telling you about non-commercial social networks? (Those social networks that don't operate with advertising, that don't have algorithms boosting posts, that don't pay for their users' posts?)
The result is that, to the detriment of the provision of good information and people's well-being, the pact of silence in the “media” about non-commercial social networks continues. And for most people, what doesn't appear in the “media” doesn't exist – and, if it somehow reaches their eyes or ears, it's not worth considering.
But non-commercial social networks are here – available for anyone to use, freely, without the impositions and barriers of “walled gardens”. And their use is already causing a major upgrade in the quality of life of those who choose them.
[January, 2024] Updated: Dec. 04, 2024