I wonder how much of the negative aspects of social media are due to the gamification of it as well as the algorithms that boost certain types of content.
For example, if Twitter had no algorithm, didn't show you the number of views on your post, didn't show you the number of likes on your posts or retweets, and you just used it to post funny memes, interesting articles, and life updates to your followers if it would still have the same negative impacts that it does today.
I also wonder what a social media site would look like if the only way to follow someone, was if they gave you a QR code that was generated on their phone. That way most of the people that followed you would only be people you've met in real life. The QR code could expire in like 5 minutes to prevent people from just posting it somewhere to get follows. It would be much more private, and much slower paced, and people couldn't see any of your posts without following you.
this gets brought up a lot, often paired with GPS/other sensor matching and with a flavor of PGP-first thinking, web of trust, etc.
The protocol only allows interaction with other people that have swapped keys or been "vouched", depending on the multi-sig requirements baked into the protocol.
With the correct marketing scheme, this could take off, ironically being fueled by FOMO/exclusionary social pressure and meme pressure.
what made the original facebook so great is that it was
1) semi-exclusive (ei. your parents weren't on it)
2) The content you saw on your feed was 100% things that your direct friends manually typed or shared with you. No recommended posts from strangers, no corporate pages, no ads, no games, no articles from groups that you follow to keep up with the local news (eg. HOAs, local politicians, news station), no posts from extended family members that you accepted as friends out of peer pressure, etc.
Trying to grow and become that one-stop-shop for everything the internet has to offer is what ruined it. Having your mom, your 7 yr old cousin and the local shops on the same platform as young adults is more profitable for facebook, but it doesn't make it better for the users.
The only platforms that have kept their reputations over the years are those with leaders that knew how to say no to ideas that compromises the great/unique aspects of the platform in exchange for a larger quarterly profit.
An IRL-only social media site could actually make the problem worse, especially for teen girls.
One common hypothesis for why social media are bad for mental health of teens is that there is no escape. All the terrible things kids do at school (like bullying) now happen 24/7, with little oversight. Forcing people to meet in real life to engage with each other can actually make the problem worse by making it harder for outcasts to find a more supporting network.
For example, if Twitter had no algorithm, didn't show you the number of views on your post, didn't show you the number of likes on your posts or retweets, and you just used it to post funny memes, interesting articles, and life updates to your followers if it would still have the same negative impacts that it does today.
I also wonder what a social media site would look like if the only way to follow someone, was if they gave you a QR code that was generated on their phone. That way most of the people that followed you would only be people you've met in real life. The QR code could expire in like 5 minutes to prevent people from just posting it somewhere to get follows. It would be much more private, and much slower paced, and people couldn't see any of your posts without following you.