The Revolution will not be on Social Media

by Hugh Knowles, Co-Director of Friends of the Earth

In the past decade, social media has become our lens to the world, a role amplified by
Covid-19. Yet, in 2023, the effectiveness of these platforms in driving societal change is
debatable.

Once a Twitter enthusiast, my departure in 2021 stemmed from the belief that its current
business model hinders rather than helps efforts to tackle major challenges like climate
change.

The urgent conversations we need shouldn’t take place in the flawed ‘public square’ of
social media and we should be far more mindful of the impacts of many other digital
tools, including AI.

  1. Social media was not built for us
    Despite their lofty and inspiring mission statements, social media is designed not to
    empower us, but to create profit for companies through advertising.
    This ‘attention economy’ rewards content that fuels bias and evokes strong emotional
    responses. Our attention is commercial and political real estate, to be exploited by a
    range of actors – from those who want to sell you something to those who want to
    change your mind or even your election results.
    Unlike traditional public squares, which fostered responsible interactions, social media
    platforms lack transparency and accountability, leaving us at the mercy of corporate and
    sometimes authoritarian interests.
    These platforms aren’t engineered for societal change but for their own gain, often
    undermining nuanced discourse.

  2. The medium is the message, and the message is wrong
    No matter what you say, it’s where you say it that dictates what is heard and what
    happens next.
    When we choose social media, we choose a medium where ‘attention wins’. In this
    ‘attention wins’ environment, any engagement – whether it is a click, like, or retweet – is
    feeding the attention machine. Actions intended to counter a message, like retweeting
    something controversial to argue against it, just fan the flames.
    This medium fosters individualism and personal branding at the expense of societal
    change, creating a toxic cycle of affirmation and outrage. It has turned politicians into
    influencers, favouring reductive, polarised communication over substantive debate.

  3. The illusion of immediacy
    Social media’s allure of instant action can be a trap, that substitutes for and often
    undermines the effort required for lasting change.
    While rapid mobilisation via hashtags can gather large crowds, these movements usually
    lack the consensus-building necessary for lasting impact. The platforms foster
    impatience and offer the illusion of progress, diluting the focus and strategies required for
    real change. Additionally, the immediacy of social media can prematurely expose radical
    ideas to opposition, stifling their development.

Patience remains an undervalued but vital tool in activism, one that leads to well-founded
and lasting change.

  1. Your agenda is not your own
    Digital platforms are increasingly weaponised for geopolitical agendas.
    A significant volume of social media message is from bots, and it is well known that
    Russia has targeted divisive issues online, not only creating and amplifying content, but
    even manufacturing organisations on both sides of debates to sow division. The goal is
    often not direct influence but the subtle disassembling of values and societal cohesion in
    ways that erode trust.

    Nor is it only malevolent state actors that have this divisive impact. It is also a side effect
    of the algorithms trained to push you in the direction that is most likely to hold your
    attention. It is increasingly hard to discern genuine discourse from manipulative noise.

  2. The centre cannot hold
    Social media platforms are dominated by extremes which only represent a tiny fraction of
    the general population and overshadow the moderate majority. Mainstream media
    magnify this imbalance, intensifying polarised debates.

    These extreme factions exhibit a strong in-group mentality, viewing dissent as a threat
    and fostering outrage which can then be manipulated by external forces. Such divisive
    dynamics risk escalating online culture wars. Radical positions can deter potential
    supporters who may need to make a journey to the outcome rather than being dropped
    straight in the deep end.

    The rules baked into social media platforms inherently favour a minority — a few
    influencers amass massive followings, while the majority remain voiceless, a trend visible
    across various digital platforms. This digital landscape, which promised democratic
    engagement, ironically creates a hierarchy where only a select few really have a voice
    and power.

  3. Our digital future risks baking in the past
    The problem with the algorithms that underpin much of the digital world is that they are
    trained on the past, not on the world we would like to see. Researchers have found
    evidence of systemic bias built into everything from image sets to large language
    models. It is hard to create a new world if the old one is constantly reinforced by software
    in ways we may not see.

  4. Everyone is here but not in a good way
    Social media’s widespread use is often justified by claiming “everyone is there”. As
    discussed above this reach is largely an illusion and the conditions for change are often
    absent.

    Pivotal global challenges are overshadowed by a sea of trivial content, and rather than
    broadening horizons, these platforms often cocoon users in ideological bubbles, causing
    shock or disdain when confronted with differing opinions offline.

Additionally, the nature of these platforms promotes attention-seeking behaviour above
the nuanced and complex art of dialogue and persuasion.


  1. Our brains are not evolved for this
    Our brains, evolved for our ancestral environment, are overwhelmed by the unceasing
    novelty of modern digital platforms, hindering focus and deep thinking. The ceaseless
    influx of content deprives us of reflective moments vital for creativity.
    By capitalising on our primal brain mechanisms, these platforms render smartphones
    almost as extensions of our nervous system. This continuous interaction, even when
    offline, affects our real-world behaviour, escalating anxiety, suspicion, and anger.
    Consequently, our ability to connect compassionately and understand others diminishes
    just when humanity most needs unity.

  2. There is no shared reality for us to act from
    Despite the need for healthy debate, a functioning democracy still needs a rough
    consensus about reality. However, digital tribalism and evolving news consumption are
    eroding this consensus. Information is increasingly filtered through tribal biases rather
    than objective truths.

    This polarisation, most evident in nations like the US, generates disparate realities,
    undermining cohesive actions and diminishing the role of genuine expertise. As Hannah
    Arendt highlighted, only by sharing diverse perspectives can we form a common
    understanding; currently, we risk isolating ourselves within self-reinforcing views.

  3. Nothing is real
    There is plenty of concern about George Orwell’s big brother and ‘surveillance capitalism’
    but perhaps we should be more worried about Aldous Huxley’s prediction that the truth
    will be “drowned in a sea of irrelevance”. The deluge of information we face, much of it
    misleading or false, is erasing the distinction between truth and fiction.

    Already an estimated 99% of new Facebook accounts are fake, and manipulators from
    Putin to Bannon want erode belief in consensus reality to the point where no-one knows
    what is true. With the revolution in generative AI, the cost of producing convincing bullshit
    has almost dropped to zero, and the targeting will be order of magnitude more
    sophisticated.

    If most of what you come across is fake and designed to manipulate, how useful can
    online platforms be?


    What next
    I am convinced that, for all the reasons laid out above, the current engagement business
    model means social media is a net negative and a major barrier to societal
    transformation. There is a bigger conversation to have, but here are some principles for
    how we might go forward:


    Invest in Offline: Prioritising human interactions over digital is crucial. Embracing
    community work and real connections can build lasting power and reduce polarisation.
    It’s about long-term impact rather than immediate reach.

Have an Information Hierarchy: Being constantly updated doesn’t equate to being
informed. In the deluge of online information, deeper sources, like books, offer reflection
and understanding, acting as anchors in a storm of fleeting news.


Just Enough of the Right Technology: While digital tools are invaluable, they
must be designed to enhance our best human traits. Tools like vTaiwan show potential,
but we must be cautious of platforms that amplify extremes and monopolise power.


Know Yourself Better Than the Algorithms: Awareness of online nudges and
manipulation is key. Approach online content with scepticism and understand the motives
behind them. Resist the allure of personal brand building in favour of genuine collective
efforts.


Final Word: To paraphrase Katherine Rundell – attention is the thing we owe most to
this precious world. Campaigning and activism, and your mind, have been co-opted by
the attention-based business model. We cannot build the future where the aim is to
monetise your attention no matter what good things happen there. So, delete your social
media accounts, put down the phone – and go and start a real-life conversation about
what we do next.

Read more posts

Scroll to Top