Social media, once heralded as a tool for connection and empowerment, has increasingly become a source of division, anxiety, and polarization. Platforms designed to maximize user engagement have inadvertently amplified humanity’s worst impulses—rewarding sensationalism, fostering echo chambers, and leaving many users feeling isolated. Yet, amid these challenges, a group of leading thinkers has proposed an innovative solution: redesigning social media to prioritize societal well-being over profit-driven algorithms. Their vision, outlined in a new paper titled Prosocial Media , offers a blueprint for transforming digital spaces into platforms that strengthen communities, foster collective meaning, and bolster democratic health.
At the heart of this proposal is a call to reclaim context—a concept lost in today’s fragmented online ecosystems. Current platforms exploit detailed user data to serve targeted content, yet they withhold critical information about how widely endorsed or divisive that content may be. This opacity creates what the authors describe as a “false consensus,” where users mistakenly believe their views are more mainstream than they truly are. The infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal demonstrated the dangers of such asymmetry, as improperly obtained Facebook data was used to manipulate voter perceptions during electoral campaigns.
To counteract this, the authors advocate for labeling content with explicit indicators of its origin and reception across different communities. Audrey Tang, Taiwan’s former minister of digital affairs and one of the paper’s co-authors, emphasizes the importance of exposing this information back to users. For instance, a post discussing U.S. politics might be widely accepted within one subcommunity but provoke heated debate among others. Labels tailored to each user’s affiliations would clarify whether the content represents consensus or controversy, enabling individuals to explore diverse perspectives by following links that reveal broader community reactions. While the exact user interface remains flexible, the goal is clear: empower users with transparency so they can navigate their digital environments with greater agency.
Bridging Divides Through Content Design
The paper distinguishes between two types of content essential for fostering healthier online interactions: “bridging” and “balancing.” Bridging content highlights areas of agreement across communities, creating opportunities for unity amidst diversity. Balancing content, on the other hand, surfaces differing viewpoints, including those that challenge prevailing narratives or represent underrepresented voices. By prioritizing these forms of content, platforms can encourage constructive dialogue rather than divisive rhetoric.
Glen Weyl, an economist and Microsoft researcher who collaborated on the paper, explains that the ultimate aim is to give users insight into the social structures shaping their experiences. “We want people to understand how the algorithm is pushing them in a particular direction,” he says, “so they have the choice to move differently if they wish.” Drawing inspiration from enduring principles of press freedom and responsibility, the authors envision a system where algorithms no longer reinforce extremes but instead promote nuanced understanding.
A New Business Model Rooted in Community
Central to the proposed redesign is a shift away from advertising-driven revenue models toward one centered on community sponsorship. In this framework, users—not advertisers—would play a pivotal role in shaping discourse. Individuals could pay to boost bridging and balancing content, increasing its visibility within their communities. However, payments aimed solely at amplifying divisive material would be restricted. Instead, the algorithm would enforce balance by surfacing counterarguments alongside any boosted content.
Weyl likens this approach to traditional newspaper or magazine subscriptions. “You don’t ever have to see anything you don’t want to see,” he notes. “But if you want to engage with broader communities, you’ll encounter a wider range of perspectives.” This model could even benefit contentious groups, such as white supremacists, by clarifying internal beliefs and disagreements. While some may find this controversial, Weyl argues it’s both reasonable and desirable. Understanding a community’s values, controversies, and boundaries provides society with valuable insights into its dynamics.
Advertising still plays a role in this vision, albeit reimagined. Brands could target entire communities rather than individuals, mirroring the shared viewing experiences of live television. This approach allows advertisers to define themselves collectively, offering a refreshing alternative to hyper-personalized ads that often feel invasive.
Building Coherence in a Fragmented World
Community coherence, according to Tang, is not just a technical challenge but a deeply human aspiration. People crave moments of togetherness, whether sparked by sports events, concerts, or cultural phenomena like Super Bowl ads. At a time when identities are increasingly multifaceted and sometimes conflicting, content that bridges disparate aspects of our lives holds immense value. Tang suggests that individuals would willingly invest in such unifying experiences, sponsoring content that aligns their spiritual, professional, and personal sides.
Platforms already experimenting with similar ideas demonstrate the feasibility of this vision. X (formerly Twitter) features “community notes,” allowing select users to annotate potentially misleading posts. Only annotations receiving upvotes from politically diverse audiences gain prominence—a step toward balanced moderation. While financial incentives drive platform adoption, Weyl believes companies are motivated by more than profits. “What really influences them,” he says, “is their vision of the future and their desire to shape it.”
Toward a Healthier Digital Ecosystem
Implementing these changes won’t happen overnight, nor will it be without resistance. Critics may argue that altering algorithms risks stifling free expression or favoring certain ideologies. However, the authors stress that their proposal isn’t about censorship but empowerment—giving users tools to navigate complexity and fostering environments conducive to meaningful interaction.
As discussions continue with platforms like BlueSky, the potential impact of Prosocial Media grows clearer. Imagine a world where social media strengthens civic muscles instead of tearing them apart. Where algorithms elevate thoughtful discourse over outrage. And where communities, however diverse, find common ground through shared understanding. It’s a grand vision, but one worth striving for—one conversation, one label, and one algorithmic tweak at a time.
Add Comment