There are 30 social media platforms with more than 100.000.000 active users as of February 2nd, 2022 (when this post is originally written). Their features overlap and occasionally make each other technically redundant.
Redundancy is a good thing when you’re worried about the availability of a system.
Montesquieu used the phrase “trias politica” to describe the separation of powers in a state. Those are the legislative, executive, and judicial branches that (must) act independently of each other.
I am inclined to believe that in the next decade, “trias politica” will be replaced by social media.
Returning to system redundancy, having multiple social media platforms ensures that society can continue functioning if one becomes compromised.
As the author of Normal Accidents noted, redundancy can reduce reliability. We have over-expanded social media platforms, resulting in complex systems vulnerable to manipulation and extremism. This redundancy has led to a dilution of responsibility among users, creating a system that operates faster but with reduced safety.
Different social media platforms offer similar tools but cater to varying user preferences. Whether for foolishness, vanity, egomania, alt-right narratives or a facade of inspiration, each platform provides a space for every type of expression.
Yet, as these platforms increase in complexity and attempt to monetize their users’ participation, they tend to grow in complexity and size. And every complex system eventually decays.
If you want to fight social media, you should ask for more.