It's time to let go of the idea that the internet will provide some sort of public square.
The latest wake-up call came from Mark Zuckerberg, who announced that Meta's already barely-existent and largely ineffective moderation system would be scaled back to even less (best coverage of the day-- The Guardian researching the watch he was wearing). There are still some standards in place, sort of, but mostly Zuck has signaled that he wants to be part of the anti-fact MAGA world.
Mostly folks are missing that this flap is another sign of how far Facebook has strayed from its original promise. My Facebook days go all the way back to the era when you could only get an account as a student or parent of certain universities, so I can tell tales of the days when Facebook allowed you to stay in contact with friends and family. It was ingenious. You told Facebook whose posts you wanted to see, and Facebook showed them to you.
It was an internet public square of sorts, a place you could go and be assured you'd see people you knew and wanted to stay connected to. You could find old friends and, in the case of teachers, former students.
But that didn't last. Instead of simply showing you what you asked to see, Facebook started shoving other stuff at you, showing you what someone else wanted to see. The public square started to grow a thousand billboards and snake oil salesmen. Enshittification set in as Facebook tested its limits. How many people will leave if we tweak this feature? How much will people pay us to have their content shoved in front of everyone's eyeballs? How much violation of privacy will people tolerate as we mine their profiles in order to make our advertising sales better targeted?
And so now we have the Facebook that we only sort of use, a stream of spam and ads that can't be trusted because nobody vets them, interspersed every ten posts or so by the stuff we actually want to see. If you use Facebook much at all, your reaction to the Meta announcement is a bit meh, because chances are you've had a post taken down for no discernable reason even as you scroll past blatant lies.
Twitter, the other contender for a public square designation, has become President Musk's private playground. I love Bluesky, but it's not going to be the new Twitter, and it's the best in a long line of sad, failed attempts to create a new internet public square (Google Plus, anyone?). And let's not even start on social media accounts of people who are not actually people; AI is going to make us nostalgic for old-fashioned sock puppets; at least those fake people were real people.
It's hard to say how close we came to an internet public square. There were always limitations, the FOMO was always greater than what you were actually missing, and if twelve people sign up for an online community, the thirteenth person is going to be some kind of troll. But the dream is hard to release.
There may be real benefits. Social media often gives us the feeling that by engaging in an on line debate about an issue, we were really Doing Something. If the collapse of the public cyber-square gets more folks to log off and Do Something in their own communities, that's probably a net win.
Also, once the dream dies, we can make use of the tools we have. This is part of wearing your big boy and big girl pants in the grown up world-- most of the tools and services available to do your work involve dealing with sub-optimal people and companies. You have to make your choices and decide which compromises you can live with. Does the benefit you get outweigh the problematic nature of the tool you're using? Corporations will give us what they want to give us; it has always been up to us to sift through that for the things we can use.
I can scroll past the baloney on Facebook to keep in touch with people who matter to me. This blog is published on blogspot (owned by Google) and also on Substack, both of which are in some ways problematic. But it lets me do part of my work and be part of a network that, sitting here in a small town, I would never have otherwise connected with. On the other hand, I won't use AI images to spruce up the blog because the environmental, ethical, and reality-eroding costs are not worth making the blog marginally more pretty. Everyone has to do their own cost-benefit calculations, which is its own little pang, because those calculations will hasten the break-up of the public space as people peel off to their separate new places.
It sucks that enshittification has been accelerated by a second Trump administration. It can feel like community is breaking down just as we need it, that our ability to build a consensus reality based on, you know, reality, is being broken down at the exact same moment that people who want to attack it are coming to power. It sucks, but there it is. Sometimes you wake up in Interesting Times and there's nothing really for it except to suck it up and do the work.
Teachers are especially well-prepared to deal with these sorts of times. It's pretty standard operating procedure for classroom teachers to find ways to do their jobs despite a lack of support from the people who are supposed to support them. For most of my career, I called teaching a guerilla job, a job in which you have to work around your administration and, increasingly, around the state and federal bureaucrats and politicians who seem to devote far more energy to making your job harder than helping you do it.
Many states have been hostile territory for public education for years; now, the whole country will become more hostile. But there was never a golden age when national politics were noted for boosting and supporting public education.
So find your support network. I notice that many folks are patching one together out of several platforms, and that makes sense-- social media diversification protects you from the sudden collapse of any one platform (hasta la vista, Cafe Utne). But in the meantime, it's probably time to let go of the dream of some social media platform where everyone gets together, asshats are muted, and all the communicating you want to do can be done freely and safely at one URL. No corporation was ever going to be a reliable arbiter of the truth, and now they've at least said out loud that they don't intend to try. Let's get on with it.
I've been thinking about this so much lately. It's been dominating my curriculum.... Sorry, can't resist posting a bunch of thoughts but it's a bit of an impertinence, so please don't anyone feel obligated to read them. :)
This was always such a fantasy, wasn't it? I mean the idea of the "town square," where people could argue freely but constructively. Lots of cultures (not all) have spaces for open, public speech. But they're usually culturally homogenous, and so are policed by the shared values of the community. I mean, you *could* stand on a village green in Leicestershire in 1500 and declare that man-on-man love was totally fine and anyway God doesn't exist, but you'd be silenced pretty quick. Not just from your neighbors either; public speech is usually policed by actual police, and the penalties typically are a lot fiercer than shadow-banning, or "catpoop200" calling you names. So whatever "town square" Musk and the others thought they were recreating, it sure didn't exist in the real world, where public speech has always had ruthlessly enforced standards.
It's so sad because this opening up of public speech could have been such a good thing. Institutions often cut off good ideas as well as bad ones. And even great journalists are generalists, and not really supposed to be advocates. So your blog is an example of exactly the sort of thing we needed, and the internet made possible: a detailed, well-informed, real-life, highly focused chronicle of what is really happening on the ground in a particular world, provided by someone living in that world, accessible to anyone. It's not unpoliced, either; it's policed by your peers - if you got something wrong, they'd be right up here in the comments section correcting you. Wikipedia's another example: enthusiasts dedicated to specific topics collaborate, often crossly, to inform outsiders about those topics, and it works because they correct each other, and they have to show their work.
I think I first got the heeby-jeebies when I heard Zuckerberg blatting on about how he just wanted to let the people of the world talk to each other. Like, god almighty, does he not know the story of homo sapiens? We're a rather contentious bunch. It's like waving a wand and making everyone telepathic so they can read the thoughts of their neighbors, and thinking this would all end in group hugs. Then again, like Musk, he doesn't seem to know a lot about the real world.
Of course, what ruined it all was money. Greed is really the cancer of the culture, at this point. Not sure anything will get much better until we revive something of the old religious disapproval of financial gourmandizing. (Am revisiting Shakespeare for an upcoming class - great word). As a firmly non-religious person, I find myself thinking "The love of money is the root of all evil" and "If I have not charity, I am as a sounding brass" and other good bits of the Book.
Isn't that love of money over community fueling the drive to get rid of public schools, in the end? That feeling that - your kids aren't my kids. In fact, I need my kids to get *ahead* of your kids, that's the whole point, and we measure this success by my stupendous amounts of moolah, and your kids' irrelevance.
The Internet has no public community parks, just amusement parks and private parks, and private organizations trying to operate in private parks. There's not even a reasonable way to host private parties on private property really because everything's owned by tech giants controlled by tycoons and corporations. We have no homes of our own on the internet, just products and services, most of which are junky... and enshittified.