I’m no fan of social media companies, but lately the commentary about the social media trial and verdict has been sitting weirdly with me, an elder millennial.
I think the initial comparison to tobacco companies makes sense- both are selling a potentially harmful and addictive substance, and both marketed to at-risk audiences.
But I don’t think it’s so simple to say that social media companies “marketed” to kids the same way that Camel Cigarettes did with “Joe Cool” ads.
Why? One could argue social media companies weren’t marketing to kids, just to users, but the more important point is this: the “product” marketed by social media companies is that which we choose to focus on as a society.
In short: the things that we as a society deem “good” or aspirational, will thus become the things social media algorithms uphold.
If a society places a stigma on fatness, then that will be reflected in algorithms and in the controls of the platforms like beauty filters. If society favors whiteness, heteronormativity, non-disabled people, patriarchy, etc., THOSE are the things the algorithm will amplify, highlight, and further glorify.
Social media companies didn’t invent a fat phobic, transphobic, ableist world.
Don’t get me wrong, these companies exacerbate these things, and I’m not excusing them. But for those of us who grew up in a world prioritizing thinness and whiteness and “prettiness” above all else- which is pretty much everyone- it’s clear this was here long before social media. Is formally indicting social media going to fix that? Perhaps, but if so it will be because we are also willing to challenge the status quo.
