Lewis (2010) wrote, “If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold” (para. 3). This is the case for social media. Major corporations do not altruistically provide us with social media to help us connect. Rather, they do so to make money off of our attention and data.
It is a clever scheme. Create a platform that encourages people to share as much about themselves as possible. Tell people the platform’s purpose is to stay in touch with friends and family and make new connections. Make it free to join and have your user base create its content. Include features such as “likes” and “follows” that are designed to give people hits of dopamine and make posting feel competitive. Create an endless news feed that users can “pull to refresh… like a slot machine” and other features designed to maximize its addictive potential (Winans et al., 2020, 00:15:58). Then, in between photos of friends and funny videos, slip in advertisements.
Social media is an ideal marketing tool. Unlike billboard, magazine, or television ads, social media ads are tailored to individual users. Major social media corporations feed on your data and sell it to the highest bidders. These corporations claim it is for networking and building connections, but that is not its primary purpose. Social media exists to generate profit.
On the other hand, I cannot deny that social media can connect people in ways never seen before its creation. People from all over the world can find each other and stay in touch. Entire communities can flourish online. Marginalized people who are otherwise isolated from physical, offline communities can connect over social media. When a pandemic shuts the world down and people are unable to visit their friends and family, social media can help them feel less alone. Genuine friendships and meaningful connections can be made through these platforms.
Social media can be an effective tool for networking and community-building. However, at the end of the day, regardless of what the people running the major platforms claim, their bottom line is revenue generation. We cannot forget that this is the mandate they design their platforms around. We cannot let our guard down when we use them. As it stands, social media is not neutral and does not exist for our benefit, even if we may find ways to benefit from it.
Recently, I have seen alternatives to the major social media platforms springing up. These are smaller companies claiming that they want to do things differently, like Bluesky and Gander. I have been moving away from the megacorporations and towards these smaller ventures that promise something more community-based and less exploitative and profit-driven. Is that truly possible in today’s neoliberal, capitalist landscape? I am skeptical but hopeful that these alternatives will deliver on their promises and that we will see social media designed for networking and connecting rather than increasing market shares.
References
Bluesky. (n.d.). Home. Retrieved February 3, 2026, from https://bsky.app/
Gander. (n.d.). Home. Retrieved February 3, 2026, from https://gandersocial.ca/
Lewis, A. [@blue_beetle]. (2010, August 26). If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold [Comment]. MetaFilter. https://www.metafilter.com/95152/Userdriven-discontent#3256046
*Different versions of this quote come from various sources. Lewis (2010) is one.
Winans, K. K., Muratore, R., & Winans, J. (Directors). (2020). Childhood 2.0 [Film]. Double Edge Films, Co.
