The Difference from Traditional-Source Media
In part one of this series, I explored the definition of open source and what the concept of open-source social media means. In this second part, we ask the question: Can open source fix the problems social media is causing?
Dorsey’s big big worry is that, as well-intentioned as social media companies and leaders may be, the pressures of running a successful company pushes those intentions into a lot of compromises and mistakes.
These compromises, as we’ve seen in the last 10 years, turn a good idea (social media) into a polarized, fake-news-ridden, violent, tribal picture of humanity. The most dramatic, toxic content dominates the top, and there’s only so much that random acts of kindness, cat failures, and babies laughing can do for our well-being.
Traditional social is centralized. The code isn’t accessible. We can’t manipulate algorithms. The servers and the data—our data—are owned by the companies behind the platforms; think Meta, TikTok, YouTube, etc. We need the company’s permission to do anything.
Open-source social is the opposite. You run your own server (data), communicate with others, moderate, and curate content on your terms, not the company’s.
Traditional social competes. Instagram doesn’t want you on TikTok. X doesn’t want you on Threads. Open source doesn’t care. Platforms interact with each other. Whereas traditional social is like proud skyscrapers trying to be the tallest in the skyline, open source is a spacious room with small group discussions happening within it.
What about funding? Traditional social can sell data. That’s been a problem. And ads. Yep. A lot of them. Open source is community-funded. We pay for the experience.
So while WhatsApp, Slack, Discord, Facebook groups, Reddit threads, X communities, etc., are trying to give people better spaces online to interact without all the bad stuff, the corporate structure remains.
Can Open Source Fix Social Media?
More and more articles and opinions are sharing that social media is broken and can’t be fixed. It’s too toxic, profit-driven, and is literally killing us. Some go far as to say these outcomes are “structurally embedded in the very architecture of social media.”
Researchers explain that the challenges of fixing social media are incredibly complex because humans are. We’re talking about lightning reactions to what we see, the feelings and context that frame online habits. Throw in echo chambers, the inequality of opinions, and the “engagement algorithm” that feeds us the extremes, not what the majority of us believe.
Have you heard of the “Social Media Bill of Rights?” It’s a new initiative that lays out “fundamental” rights for anyone using social media.
- Privacy and security. Communicate without surveillance or exploitation.
- Ownership. You own your digital identity, including the right to be forgotten.
- Interoperability and the Right to Exit. Move your connections to another app.
- Algorithmic Transparency and Control. User-controlled curation and moderation. No algorithms that harm community well-being.
- Self-governance. The community sets the rules for behavior.
The man behind this is “Rabble,” real name Evan Henshaw-Plath. He describes himself as a far-left anarchist who hates Trump, but I think he’s on the right path here.
The internet lost its innocence quickly. Social media did, too. What began as sharing fun dances soon became the battleground for brands, lifestyles, religion, and politics.
The conflict between running the business of social networks and the average user’s experience of logging on intensified. Social media fragmented from a few apps to hundreds so that we could protect our echo chambers, have more say, or just save our sanity.
The Problem Goes Deeper
I have questions about how organizations use open-source social media. Should they? Can they? What about the Church? Do parishes and dioceses get involved, or is it up to the laity to evangelize?
I wonder about scale. Social networks are simply different when they have 1,000 users vs. when they have 100,00,000. Open source is fairly small now. Can these platforms handle more users? More attention? With more adoption come extremists, copycats, advertisers, and regulation.
Dorsey says they’re tamperproof. We’ll see. Look at Bitcoin.
Will open source just create more inward tribes? Will it further isolate us? Just because we can avoid ads, control our digital footprint, and interact with what we like doesn’t mean we are living more fulfilling lives.
Open-source social media still has the limitations of the internet. Ultimately, we need to reduce our time online. We also need to engage with a diversity of worldviews and not be afraid of encountering the truth.
While Dorsey, the founders of Nostr, Rabble, and other technologists, entrepreneurs, and activists might not all be followers of Christ, I think they’re onto something. I would encourage their efforts to solve the problems of toxic and greedy social media.
At the same time, the problem they are trying to solve has deeper roots.
Social media, first and fundamentally, reflects our culture’s proximity to Christ. It reveals the state of our society’s soul. More Christian teaching, attitudes, and practices are what will overcome the greediest, most toxic algorithms conceived.
If we truly want to deal with echo chambers, the inequality of attention, and the propensity of the system to keep us scrolling, we have to instill the virtues of Catholicism into ourselves and our children.
Do you use open source social platforms? Are they better or worse, or the same? Join the conversation! Shoot us an email at info@yellowlinedigital.com and follow us on LinkedIn.
