Three thinkers I believe everyone should read if they want to understand how social media works:

* Mel Conway
* Harry G. Frankfurt
* José Ortega y Gasset

Yes, I say this knowing fully that the bulk of their work pre-dates social media.

Believe it or not, Mel Conway is active on social media. We used to follow each other on Twitter.

An interesting insight that Mel has: social networks, if left alone, trend towards unfairness.

The reason: The solutions you can find to the problems you have depend on who is talking to whom.

And the solutions we need right now require a synthesis of understandings that lie in multiple disciplines that don’t talk to each other.

This creates the conditions for unfairness.

Harry G. Frankfurt's key social media insights can be found in his book "On Bullshit".

This is highly readable!

What is bullshit? What makes it bullshit? And why is there a rise in bullshit?

He concludes that whenever new forms of communications increase, so does bullshit. And the more social this social technology is, there's higher peer pressure to participate in bullshit.

The reason: despite lack of knowledge, people on social media feel pressure to form and share opinions.

The third thinker I recommend, José Ortega y Gasset, wrote a key insight on social media 93 years ago: Revolt of the Masses

This book details why conflict happens on social media, and why this gives rise to Fascism.

He examines two participants in this conflict

1. Specialists who believe their expertise should extend to command above others
2. Mass-men contemptuous of expertise, care little for facts, and see the world in terms of winning or losing

Generally, I think three things are inevitable about all social media platforms:

1. Unfairness on social media means there will power users with privilege
2. The desire for social status results in the spread of bullshit, outrage, and misinformation
3. Especially when people feel disempowered, they see social media as a game that's about winning or losing—not as a means to create and nurture human connection

I've mentioned previously why I was against Blue Checks, why I believe this "feature" created unfairness on Twitter, and why certain migrants here are wrong for trying to push for Blue Check status on the Fediverse.

I hope that here on the Fediverse, the desire for fairness overrides the desire for status.

@atomicpoet Realistically, wouldn’t verification be served by orgs running their own instances? Nobody can impersonate an New York Times reporter (for instance) if we expect NYT reporters to have their official accounts on mastadon.nytimes.com. I’m not really sure why we would need anything beyond that.
@helpfulnerd The main purpose of Twitter Blue Checks was for claiming social status, not account verification.
@atomicpoet I think you’re right about that. But I think that part of them that’s worth preserving is the verification only.