A few months ago, I conducted my first French workshop on social media and social justice. It was a fascinating experience, especially when we kicked off with an icebreaker asking participants about their average screen time and their relationship with social media. One teenage girl candidly shared how social media exacerbated her difficult times, as the platforms kept recommending depressing content. This sentiment resonated with many participants, who admitted that excessive social media use led to anxiety, self-hatred, loss of confidence, and forgetfulness. Conversely, those who had managed to reduce their screen time were praised, highlighting a growing awareness of the detrimental effects of social media on mental health.
Given this consensus on the negative impact of social media, it begs the question: why don’t we just ban it? Let’s explore this by examining the gap between how social media is marketed and its reality, the implications of banning it, and what alternatives we have.
Firstly, social media platforms are marketed as tools for connecting people and promoting democracy. However, the reality is starkly different. These platforms are designed to keep users engaged at all costs, often by promoting sensational and provocative content over analytical and complex material. This is similar to corporate TV, which relies heavily on advertisements and maximising viewership. My mother often told us that corporate TV was meant to numb our brains to sell us junk food. This sentiment was echoed by Patrick Le Lay, former CEO of TF1, who famously said, “We sell available human brain capacity to Coca-Cola.”
The introduction of advertisements on TV in the 1970s shifted the landscape, with private channels like Berlusconi’s in Italy creating a consumer-driven national identity. These channels avoided politics and focused on entertainment to maximise ad revenue. Similarly, social media platforms like Meta are now moving towards a “friends and family” model, removing political content to focus on feel-good content that keeps users engaged and happy, albeit ignorantly so.
This approach raises questions about what “good vibes only” really means. It often translates to a conformist, consumerist lifestyle that alienates rather than fulfils. Social media promotes a way of life with significant political and personal consequences, much like corporate TV did in the past.
So, should we ban social media? The answer isn’t straightforward. Banning social media can lead to authoritarian measures and restrict civil liberties. For instance, during the Arab Spring, Egypt and Tunisia shut down the internet to stifle protests. Similarly, India, Russia, Turkey, and other countries have used internet shutdowns to suppress dissent. These actions show that banning social media often serves authoritarian purposes rather than protecting public welfare.
Instead of banning social media, we should look for ways to create alternative platforms that offer meaningful content without the pitfalls of corporate-driven models. Independent media channels and creators can provide bridges to alternative ways of living and thinking. While these alternatives may not be revolutionary, they offer a way out of the path to alienation.
In conclusion, while social media has its flaws, banning it is not the solution. Instead, we should focus on creating and supporting independent media that challenges the conformist, consumerist model. By doing so, we can foster a more democratic and fulfilling digital landscape. The conversation continues, and it’s up to us to shape the future of media in a way that truly benefits society.