We've All Felt It!
That sense of being trapped by the giant social media platforms we use every day. We see their flaws—the algorithmic manipulation, the privacy scandals, the sheer noise—but feel powerless to leave.
Why? Because "everyone is there." Our friends, family, professional networks, and favorite creators are all locked inside the same digital walls, and walking away feels like choosing social isolation.
When we talk about fixing these giants, the conversation usually turns to government intervention. Pundits and politicians propose breaking them up or forcing them to follow new regulations. But these solutions miss the point entirely.
👉 The real path forward isn't about fixing their broken world—it's about making it irrelevant.
1. Their Greatest Strength is a Competitive Weapon: The "Network Effect" Moat
The power of platforms like Facebook isn't just their technology; it's their user base. This is the network effect in action: the service becomes exponentially more valuable as more people use it.
- A phone is useless if you're the only one who has one.
- A social network is essential when it connects you to billions.
But this isn't just a passive feature—it’s an actively defended competitive moat that makes it nearly impossible for new, innovative alternatives to gain a foothold.
Case study: Vine (2013)
- Vine was a cultural phenomenon.
- Facebook identified it as a threat.
- Mark Zuckerberg approved a plan to block Vine from accessing Facebook’s social graph.
- Result: Vine users couldn’t find or invite their Facebook friends.
- Meanwhile, Instagram (owned by Facebook) enjoyed full access to that same network.
This wasn’t free-market competition—it was calculated strangulation.
Dominant platforms don’t just benefit from network effects; they weaponize them to preserve monopoly power.
2. The Obvious Solution—Making Platforms Talk to Each Other—Could Backfire Horribly
An obvious solution to the network-effect moat: force interoperability.
- Idea: Let users on small networks message friends on Facebook.
- Theory: Level the playing field so new services compete on features, not size.
But the CERRE report warns: this “common-sense fix” could be harmful.
Key distinction:
- Horizontal interoperability = connecting similar services (e.g., WhatsApp ↔ new app).
- Vertical interoperability = connecting services at different levels (e.g., iOS ↔ alternative app stores).
The report argues:
- Mandating horizontal interoperability would never be perfect.
- It reduces incentives to "multi-home" (use multiple platforms).
- Paradoxically, this could entrench dominance instead of breaking it.
“Policymakers must be very precise when defining interoperability… Horizontal and vertical interoperability are structurally very different, and their economic assessment is very different. They should not be confused in the policy debate.”
In short:
Forcing platforms to talk might not just fail—it could make the giants even stronger.
3. We Don't Actually Want One Giant Network for Everything
The interoperability debate assumes that one interconnected social space is the ultimate goal. But evidence suggests otherwise.
- 2018 WIK survey: Many users like using multiple services (“multi-homing”).
- Why? Because it lets them keep distinct groups separate.
Think about it:
- You don’t want your family chat colliding with your LinkedIn persona.
- You don’t want your hobby forum overrun by distant relatives.
We naturally compartmentalize our lives. The best digital tools should respect that.
👉 People don’t want one chaotic digital room.
They want distinct digital spaces for distinct communities.
This points to a future of specialized, purpose-driven networks—not one monolithic behemoth.
4. The Decentralized Dream Is Still Too Complicated for Most People
The desire for smaller, user-controlled spaces has fueled excitement around Mastodon and the broader Fediverse.
- Promise: autonomy, no corporate control, no ads.
- Reality: complexity.
Findings from research (via arXiv):
- User experience is confusing and clunky.
- Moderation is inconsistent and inefficient.
- The “illusion of autonomy”: Users have choices but lack the expertise to act on them.
This is like the privacy paradox—you’re given control, but can’t realistically use it.
👉 While decentralization is noble, it’s still too difficult for the mainstream.
We need a solution that’s both empowering and simple.
Conclusion: We Don't Need to Fix Theirs, We Need to Build Ours
The monopoly power of big social media is real—but the popular fixes are flawed:
- Forced interoperability = risky and may backfire.
- Decentralized alternatives = not ready for mass adoption.
- User desires = smaller, meaningful, purpose-driven communities.
So what’s left?
The answer: democratize the creation of social networks themselves.
This is no longer futuristic.
It exists today.
With tools from web4.community, anyone can build their own fully featured social network with just a few clicks using Linkspreed—no coding required.
This is digital empowerment:
- Own your space.
- Set your rules.
- Cultivate your community.
Final Thought
The question is no longer how to fix their broken platforms.
The real question is:
What will you build on yours?
Top comments (0)