Author: Sanna Bo
Maintaining an independent online presence has become increasingly paradoxical for organisations striving to stay free from external control. Drawing on Isaiah Berlin’s distinction between negative and positive liberty, independence entails both freedom from monopolistic powers and the resources to pursue one’s goals. However, in the digital age, achieving true independence is fraught with challenges—especially for those relying on platforms like Meta for audience engagement. While these platforms help organisations reach their followers, they also reinforce echo chambers, fuel anxiety, and compromise privacy, creating a difficult balancing act between visibility and values.
A still from the video clip titled More Data, part of Negativland's concept album The World Will Decide, which explores themes of surveillance, technology, and reality
Drawing on Isaiah Berlin’s Two Concepts of Liberty, independence can be understood as both freedom from external control (negative liberty), such as not being dominated by autocratic public powers or monopolistic private groups, and the power and resources to pursue one's goals (positive liberty), such as having financial resources, space, and freedom of expression.
Anyone who runs an independent organisation knows that maintaining independence is quite challenging, and in some countries, it can be nearly impossible. The usual issues discussed are economic pressures and political censorship.
These are significant challenges to address, and fortunately, there are actions being taken beyond just discussions. However, a neglected area in addressing threats to independence is the reliance on problematic tech companies, whether for running an organisation or communicating with its audience. It is now feasible to move away from platforms run by such companies when it comes to virtual workplaces, it requires a concerted effort to adopt alternative tools and practices that truly support independent values and protect against undue influence or control. What remains nearly impossible is abandoning them when it comes to reaching out to and maintaining online engagement with an audience.
Below, I will focus on the currently most used platforms for audience engagement, such as Instagram and Facebook, and refer to them as Meta platforms to highlight the often unavoidable paradoxes independent organisations fall into. However, these arguments can generally be applied to other corporations that are morally or legally questionable, such as X, Alphabet Inc. (formerly Google), Microsoft, Reddit, and thanks to the lack of effective efforts taken to democratise the internet, many others.
The Paradox of Sharing Your Message with People Who Already Agree with It
There are two major forces that limit users of Meta platforms from expanding their knowledge and, consequently, their views: the echo chamber effect and the filter bubble effect. The echo chamber effect is a phenomenon where users selectively engage with content that aligns with their existing beliefs, leading to a reinforcement of their views and a narrow perspective. This effect is driven by factors such as familiarity, nostalgia, and shock, which influence what makes people click. On the other hand, the filter bubble effect occurs due to algorithmic curation, which prioritises familiar and engaging material based on user behaviour, thus reinforcing the echo chamber effect and further limiting exposure to diverse viewpoints.
Independent organisations often focus on specific causes or social issues, engaging in activism to promote change, raise awareness, and mobilise support. Using Meta platforms as standalone or primary communication channels are nearly ineffective when trying to reach people who are not already engaged with the message. Conversely, it can become counterproductive, as exposing already engaged individuals to excessive information may lead to desensitisation and apathy.
A still from the documentary The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom by Adam Curtis, which explores the themes of freedom, control, and neoliberalism
The Paradox of Building a Community Fuelled by Anxiety and Hostility
A key aspect of many independent organisations is their focus on community-building, which creates a foundation of support, engagement, and shared purpose. However, social relations within a community are complex, as feelings of disapproval, rejection, and jealousy are inherent in group dynamics. Meta platforms capitalise on these emotions, using anxiety to keep users engaged for longer periods. Notably, the expression of hostility towards political out-groups is particularly effective at sustaining this engagement. Even when a virtual "safe space" is created on these platforms, users struggle to control constant distractions, fragmented attention, and the overpowering appeal of entertainment—factors that are beyond the moderator's control and become part of the user’s community experience. Erving Goffman's well-known Interaction Ritual Theory explains how excessive negative emotions within a group can harm the community's cohesion and functionality, potentially leading to its disintegration. However, even without delving into social sciences, it is clear that a community cannot be sustained by fuelling it with anxiety and hostility.
The Paradox of Promoting Freedom While Being Watched
When it comes to data collection and surveillance, it is well-known that a complex array of data—such as basic demographics, chat logs, and even eye-tracking and emotion detection—is collected about each individual to “personalise their experience.” Scandalous cases of misuse of such data are numerous, ranging from unethical practices, like BetterHelp’s sale of users’ mental health profiles to Facebook, to those contributing to hyper-surveillance, such as Clearview AI's scraping of billions of images from Facebook, Instagram, X, and LinkedIn without users' consent to create a massive database, which it then sold to law enforcement and government agencies in the US, UK, Italy, Finland, and Norway among other countries. The subject of privacy and surveillance is a controversial one. George W. Bush famously said, “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.” More recently, many politicians across the political spectrum have echoed this ideology in the name of national security. The problem lies in the fact that legislation to protect the fair use of data is often weak or non-existent, despite the development of best practices in theory, such as data minimisation, purpose limitation, and informed consent. This lack of robust protection allows for abuses, such as the Belarusian government tracking, identifying, and arresting protestors.
When an organisation aims to operate independently of external control, but relies on platforms that exert unethical control, it creates a paradox.
Image from the ArticReady campaign run by The Yes Men. The campaign involved creating a fake website that mimicked Shell's official site, featuring a satirical "Let's Go" ad generator that allowed users to create mock advertisements
The Paradox of Promoting Free Speech on Platforms that Spread Misinformation
This paradox primarily highlights an ethical dilemma and raises questions about whether an organisation falls into hypocrisy when it aims to promote media literacy and freedom of speech on platforms with a history of censorship and misinformation that have led to serious consequences. High-profile cases such as the Myanmar crisis, the Christchurch mosque shootings, and the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal—all marked by uncontrolled misinformation and severe outcomes—underscore the gravity of this issue. Additionally, Meta’s “f*ck it, ship it” approach, which emphasises rapid deployment over careful consideration, exacerbates the problem. It is likely that most organisations using Meta platforms to promote media literacy and free speech are aware of this controversy, and some may even be able to use it to their advantage. Like The Paradox of Promoting Freedom While Being Watched, this phenomenon reflects Meta’s monopolistic power over audience engagement.
Ok. Meta Is Evil—Now What?
I assume many organisations that don’t necessarily need to be on social media are there only because of the idea of “pics or it didn’t happen,” implying that if something isn’t on social media, it’s as if it doesn’t exist. This creates a trap: they’ve trained their audience to follow them there, but to remain visible, they need to constantly post and interact, while following specific rules. Some organisations fall even deeper into this trap, such as a Hungarian organisation aimed at fighting domestic abuse, which maintains online engagement by posting stories that trigger negative feelings and provoke outrage.
This situation illustrates the tension between the negative liberty of organisations—the freedom from being controlled or coerced by social media algorithms and expectations—and the positive liberty to engage with their audience in meaningful, authentic ways that align with their values. I think it’s crucial to evaluate whether our organisation truly needs a social media presence and whether it’s possible to engage with our audience in other ways, such as running newsletters, using socially engaged platforms like Mastodon, or creating websites, even if it requires more time-consuming and creative effort.
In cases where avoiding social media isn’t possible, steps should be taken to minimise negative effects, such as avoiding the spread of misinformation, triggering unsettling feelings, using people for views, or promoting fake online personas. The best solution would, of course, be a collective effort to democratise the internet, but one can only dream.
References
The Paradox of Sharing Your Message with People Who are Already Agree with It
Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2009). Information Overload: Causes, Symptoms and Solutions.
Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., & Benkler, Y. (2018). Echo Chambers on Social Media: A Review of the Evidence and Directions for Future Research.
The Paradox of Building a Community Fuelled by Anxiety and Hostility
Pariser, E. (2011). The Role of Social Media in the Erosion of Civil Discours.
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media.
The Paradox of Promoting Free Speech on Platforms that Censor Content
Frenkel, S., & Kang, C. (2021). An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook's Battle for Domination. New York: Harper.
O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
Published on September 17th, 2024
About the author:
Sanna Bo is a freelance artist, cultural worker and facilitator who–among may other things–coordinates PAIKKA, a Budapest-based independent collective.