Without getting into who should be speaking and who shouldn't, the fundamental issue with social media, as I have discussed elsewhere at length is that it is tied to engagement. Engagement is the only metric SM algorithms react to. The problem is that engagement begets visibility and visibility begets engagement. This means that nuanced posts often get hidden due to lack of engagement and that reduces the visibility of future content. The algorithm deems the content to be irrelevant on the basis of the engagement metric. It is because maximum engagement occurs at the extremes that polarising content becomes so prominent. When celebrity writers arrive on this platform they tend to bring a following that ensures engagement and that becomes self-perpetuating. This is why certain prominent writers have been courted to join. Those accounts cannot fail because even the most trivial content will serve to keep the engagement going because they have the keys to visibility. The polarisation on SM is not just on opinion but across the dimension of social status on any given platform.. It is an arms race and it seem inevitable that, unchecked, it will result in a content caste system where the only way to make content visible is to somehow slipstream those who are already visible. Now people talk about the quality of content but the impact of that is only indirect. The value proposition for many of those who do engage consists of how sharing that content will make them look. The currency of SM is validation and Substack is no exception. Thus sharing or liking content is not just about showing appreciation but also the acquisition of validation. If you share something that is already widely shared your visibility will improve. From a systems engineering perspective it is very interesting but it is not something I am willing to exploit. It could be fixed but there is no will to do so.
If a person arrives with no followers, doesn't monetise or doesn't pay for any subscriptions, from Substack's perspective they are dead weight. Their content will become invisible unless they can stimulate engagement in some other way. Ultimately, visibility is best served by bringing people to the platform who were not here before, that is what is incentivised. At first it seems absurd that Substack advise people to promote their content on other platforms when Substack has a massive local readership economy. The point is that they are already here and before a content creator proves themselves to the algorithm as being capable of getting engagement, the algorithm is not going to bother putting that content in front of many people.
Lack of engagement begets invisibility. The relevance to this post is that while content creation is solely a matter of validation trading it is difficult for more balanced narratives to get penetration. There is a kind of inverse polarisation going on. What do I mean by that? Pick any topic you want. To criticise the polar opposites of a debate is to alienate both sides. People who might share your views or agree with in part are likely to think that the bits they don't like will reflect badly and possibly damage their own social currency. Whereas to pick an extreme stance means you engage both support and opposition. This means that it is socially safer to engage with polarising content either as a supporter or detractor than it is a nuanced post that may be misinterpreted. That is the issue regardless of topic.
Cultural commentators aren't actually "commentators"... They are participants in the political narrative. Journalism and academia have both crossed the line between descriptive and prescriptive (this was drummed into me in my Phil major!). In other words they are activists - not all but most are cheering for a side. At least hustling an income stream from it.
And just as social media & citizen activism online has exploded (DT's win was strongly attributed to this) mainstream politics is turning to regulate that same media space... Public interest or self-interest?
But how to ppl who don't seek audiences and are sensitive souls get their opinions heard at all? It is already such a crowded market.
Without getting into who should be speaking and who shouldn't, the fundamental issue with social media, as I have discussed elsewhere at length is that it is tied to engagement. Engagement is the only metric SM algorithms react to. The problem is that engagement begets visibility and visibility begets engagement. This means that nuanced posts often get hidden due to lack of engagement and that reduces the visibility of future content. The algorithm deems the content to be irrelevant on the basis of the engagement metric. It is because maximum engagement occurs at the extremes that polarising content becomes so prominent. When celebrity writers arrive on this platform they tend to bring a following that ensures engagement and that becomes self-perpetuating. This is why certain prominent writers have been courted to join. Those accounts cannot fail because even the most trivial content will serve to keep the engagement going because they have the keys to visibility. The polarisation on SM is not just on opinion but across the dimension of social status on any given platform.. It is an arms race and it seem inevitable that, unchecked, it will result in a content caste system where the only way to make content visible is to somehow slipstream those who are already visible. Now people talk about the quality of content but the impact of that is only indirect. The value proposition for many of those who do engage consists of how sharing that content will make them look. The currency of SM is validation and Substack is no exception. Thus sharing or liking content is not just about showing appreciation but also the acquisition of validation. If you share something that is already widely shared your visibility will improve. From a systems engineering perspective it is very interesting but it is not something I am willing to exploit. It could be fixed but there is no will to do so.
If a person arrives with no followers, doesn't monetise or doesn't pay for any subscriptions, from Substack's perspective they are dead weight. Their content will become invisible unless they can stimulate engagement in some other way. Ultimately, visibility is best served by bringing people to the platform who were not here before, that is what is incentivised. At first it seems absurd that Substack advise people to promote their content on other platforms when Substack has a massive local readership economy. The point is that they are already here and before a content creator proves themselves to the algorithm as being capable of getting engagement, the algorithm is not going to bother putting that content in front of many people.
Lack of engagement begets invisibility. The relevance to this post is that while content creation is solely a matter of validation trading it is difficult for more balanced narratives to get penetration. There is a kind of inverse polarisation going on. What do I mean by that? Pick any topic you want. To criticise the polar opposites of a debate is to alienate both sides. People who might share your views or agree with in part are likely to think that the bits they don't like will reflect badly and possibly damage their own social currency. Whereas to pick an extreme stance means you engage both support and opposition. This means that it is socially safer to engage with polarising content either as a supporter or detractor than it is a nuanced post that may be misinterpreted. That is the issue regardless of topic.
Cultural commentators aren't actually "commentators"... They are participants in the political narrative. Journalism and academia have both crossed the line between descriptive and prescriptive (this was drummed into me in my Phil major!). In other words they are activists - not all but most are cheering for a side. At least hustling an income stream from it.
And just as social media & citizen activism online has exploded (DT's win was strongly attributed to this) mainstream politics is turning to regulate that same media space... Public interest or self-interest?
But how to ppl who don't seek audiences and are sensitive souls get their opinions heard at all? It is already such a crowded market.