Last updated on January 26th, 2026
Social media continues to be, well, a mess. The major social networks are largely owned by Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook, Instagram, Threads), Elon Musk (Twitter’s now-bigotry-driven corpse), and Google (if YouTube counts as a social network). The only major one not owned by these three, TikTok, is under attack by the US government, mostly for hypocritical, xenophobic, and Cold War-esque reasons. There are a few newer social networks via the Fediverse (Mastodon, Pixelfed) and Bluesky, but they don’t have the usage levels of even Twitter. All of these social networks have flaws, some much worse than others (again, Twitter’s current state).
Ars Technica ran an article about social media researchers that concluded social media can’t be fixed. While their study made questionable use of AI (*sigh*), it doesn’t leave much optimism. And between the ownership state I listed above and no meaningful regulations (that aren’t driven by corruption or bigotry) coming from the current US government anytime soon, don’t expect any change for the better, barring something unforeseen happening. While there’s the option to just not use social media, the sheer volume of users means it still has a lopsided impact on the current world.
Still, it did make me wonder: what should an ideal social network look like?
Features of an ideal social network
Similar to the problems with the world at large, I assume social media’s main problems basically boil down to bigotry, greed, and abuse of power. As such, an ideal social network should minimize or avoid all of these as much as possible.
Below I list what I think an ideal social network should offer. All of this is based on my own observations and personal views, of course.
1. Open standards
Any social network should be based on open standards, instead of the proprietary natures of Facebook or Twitter. Examples include ActivityPub (Mastodon, Pixelfed) and AT Protocol (Bluesky). Basically, social media should operate like email: if you don’t like Gmail, you can switch to Outlook or any other email provider, but still communicate with Gmail users.
This alone might go a long ways toward fixing many of social media’s problems. If a racist billionaire buys a conventional social network, there’s not much one can do but leave. (Yet again, see Twitter.) The same thing couldn’t happen for a social network using open standards. If Elon Musk somehow took control of a major Mastodon server, users could migrate to another Mastodon server and keep going (with the same followers, etc.), or set up their own fork if technically inclined.
2. Moderation
Contrary to “free speech” absolutists, moderation does matter for social media; a lack of such reduces things to a chaotic, unusable state. In other words, “nobody likes a Nazi bar.” Case in point: the current state of Twitter (overrun with bigots and bots of all stripes) and Substack (whose owners are doing nothing about its Nazi newsletters).
Never mind most of those insisting on a lack of moderation seem to just want an unfiltered and unavoidable bullhorn for views that are problematic. As the webcomic xkcd notes, one doesn’t have an absolute right to be listened to online. As for the idea of users being in an “echo chamber,” those like me (and other people of color) don’t want to spend our time dealing with a barrage of racist rhetoric. I’m on social media to chat with others, promote my blog, read interesting and informative posts, and have fun… not to listen to or “debate” people who hate my existence.
Admittedly, moderation is difficult, especially on a service with tens or hundreds of millions of users versus smaller online venues (forums, blogs, etc.). Still, some form of moderation is better than letting your social network become a “Nazi bar.”
3. General public friendly
Any social network needs to be something the typical non-techie average person can or will use. That means it needs to be:
- Easy to use.
- Free.
- Convenient.
As Mastodon learned the hard way, the average person doesn’t exactly have stellar tech skills, or care about things like servers, federation, etc. They just want to post memes, share videos, follow their favorite sports team/celebrity/cousin, etc. Basically, nothing should be more complicated than “picking a password that isn’t ‘12345’”; any advanced features or techie aspects/phrases should be hidden behind an “advanced” tab or something. I’ve seen on social media people treat even the mention or suggestion of “Linux” or “open source” like an offensive four-letter word (or a block-worthy threat). Said people won’t be won over to a new social network where the first thing they see is a promotion of the merits of ActivityPub, or asked to choose a server.
Similarly, onboarding and using the Android/iOS app should be easy. (And yes, it does need to have an app; given the prevalence of smartphones, lacking such is an automatic non-starter.) Picking an avatar and finding/following users online needs to be as easy as it is on Instagram.
4. A chronological feed by default
Algorithms have been the cause of many of social media’s woes. While algorithms can have uses, such as suggesting accounts for users to follow, in current practice, algorithms exist to try to keep users on a social network as long as possible (and see more paid content/ads). Algorithms also can be prone to surfacing unwanted content. Finally, they make it hard to follow accounts users actually want, and in a timely fashion.
As such, a chronological feed should be the default, or even only, option. Users should pick their own accounts to follow, and be able to read such posts in a timely fashion. The first post one sees shouldn’t be from hours or even days ago. A chronological feed also hopefully would reduce the “need” to stay on a social network longer than necessary.
5. A sustainable (and ideally nonprofit) business model
Finally, any social network should have an actual business model, and one that’s sustainable. Ideally, it’d also be a nonprofit.
Keeping the worst aspects of modern capitalism out of a social network is a good idea at this point. Crass billionaires, private equity vampires, lemming-like Wall Street demands, etc. definitely don’t benefit social networks’ actual users. A social network shouldn’t be hard pressed for cash and should demonstrate some way of paying bills. (While I like Bluesky, its business model currently feels unclear.) That said, social networks also shouldn’t be treated as a license to print money, with the result of undermining their good aspects; see Cory Doctorow’s blog posts about “ensh*ttification” (or “platform decay” in less expletive-laden terms).
Thus, I suspect a nonprofit model would be ideal. It’d fend off the worst money-grubbing aspects of the modern tech industry, and hopefully avoid consumer-hostile behavior, such as feeding users’ posts into problematic AI bots.
Conclusion
At this point, achieving even a fraction of the above feels like a long shot. It certainly won’t come from the current major Silicon Valley or Wall Street players, or the US government (even if Democrats get back in power). Barring the points I listed above coming to pass, the only way anything will change in social media at this point:
- A) A sudden massive shift in user behavior;
- B) Non-US government regulations (likely the European Union) force a change in Facebook, Twitter, etc.; and/or
- C) Something new is invented or emerges that renders current social media obsolete or passe.
Still, it’s nice to keep in mind that a better internet is possible.
Image by Thomas Ulrich from Pixabay
