Recently, a small “storm” arose in the world of anti-social media. Meta announced that it would introduce “artificial characters” on Facebook and Instagram – profiles generated by AI with which users could interact. When these profiles actually appeared at the end of December, they were met with a very negative reaction and are supposedly going to be withdrawn. But personally, I believe they won’t be withdrawn – they’ll be quietly replaced with better versions, creating more convincing content that won’t be so easily recognized.

Because already, independent app developers have “connected the dots” and created software that automatically generates content for anti-social media. Under my posts on LinkedIn, AI-generated comments have appeared several times, and looking at posts, I’m convinced that at least 50%-60% of content on that platform is already created with significant AI assistance if not completely autonomously. And I think it’s similar on Facebook and increasingly – as tools for creating convincing video become more widespread – on Instagram and TikTok too. So I understand the thinking of Meta’s leadership – if external players are using it, why shouldn’t they use it themselves?

But has the fact that more and more posts are created by AI really drastically lowered the quality of content on LinkedIn or other anti-social media? I don’t think so, but others do. I’ve noticed that some users are starting to complain that the content is repetitive, boring, that posts are similar to each other, blending into one mush. And they blame AI for this. Meanwhile, they’re missing one important thing: AI is not the source of the problem. The source is the very essence and structure of anti-social media.

Let me explain.

Anti-social media has a fundamental structural flaw (?): it forces users to constantly publish new content. Content older than a week, or maybe two, even if exceptionally good and popular, practically disappears. So if you’re an influencer, salesperson, consultant, entrepreneur, or anyone whose sales – that is, livelihood – depends on visibility, then you need reach. And to have reach, you must publish. And not just occasionally, when you really have something to say, but regularly, daily, and preferably several times a day. Only then will the algorithms “notice” you and show your content to others, which will result in likes and followers, which will result in even more promotion – and ultimately sales, which is what everyone playing this game is ultimately after.

It’s nicely called “content marketing.”

The problem is that no one – not even the most brilliant mind in the world – can create truly valuable, deep content twice a day, every day, throughout the year. It’s simply impossible. So what happens? People have to write anything, repeat the same observations, arguments, present the same stories as “new,” and so on. If you have to create hundreds of posts, the quality of the average post must decrease. At best, one can hope for “creative” rehashing, that is, garnishing an age-old story with a personal introduction or a paradoxical (generated) graphic. Or reporting the same news as hundreds of thousands of other accounts.

At the same time, anti-social media promotes short content. Longer content gets truncated (notice that you have to click “read more”) and is less promoted. Why? Because the goal of the anti-social media operator is also sales, specifically showing ads to users. If a user spends too much time on a single post or video, they’re not seeing ads during that time. So reading longer texts – like this one – carefully is the worst thing in the world for LinkedIn or Facebook, because it means you won’t see any ads for 10 minutes! You’re supposed to see something short that you’ll either like or that will annoy you – be sure to click that icon! – and then scroll on, where another – short! – ad awaits. And so on, round and round, for as long as possible, because the longer you scroll, the more ads the anti-social service will show you, increasing the chance of a sale (“conversion”), for which their customers, the advertisers, pay.

So it has to be short, and it has to be frequent, a lot, as much as possible! Because only then you do exist.

The effect is that shallow, repetitive in essence but colorful, engaging mush MUST be created. That’s simply the logic of how anti-social media works.

And there’s no doubt that AI will do this better than a human. Of course, it won’t write anything groundbreaking and deeply wise – and not because AI as such is inherently incapable of it, but because in media like LinkedIn or Facebook, that’s completely not the point, as I’ve shown above. AI is able to calmly (it has no emotions, after all) and methodically adapt to this, generating exactly the kind of content that anti-social media algorithms expect – and that average users fitting a given profile, a given “niche,” like to “like.” Even more: AI, especially when fed with a stream of current news and posts from other profiles (to understand trends), has a chance to generate content objectively better than a human forced by the necessity of “what to post today, I have to post something.” And to generate it as often as needed for the LinkedIn system to start showing this content to more users.

What’s sad is that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to live without these media, without participating in this intellectual slippery slope that they create. You have no choice, you can’t write on LinkedIn or X only when you feel you have something smart and interesting to share, you can’t, say, share some longer and well-thought-out text once a month, because then you lose to the “noise” generated by those better adapted to this reality. I know this from my own experience. So isn’t entrusting the creation of daily “posts” necessary for survival in today’s world to artificial intelligence a great solution? Especially if most LinkedIn “consumers” won’t notice the difference?

AI is therefore not the cause of the problem – it is its solution that can free us from this necessary but intellectually degrading work of creating a constant stream of shallow content on one narrow topic. Perhaps an imperfect solution, but in a sense inevitable, a kind of “buffer” between people and the toxic system of anti-social media, which is the real source of the problem.

Want deeper and wiser content? Well, that requires time and effort – including from the reader. So where to look for it? Read books – especially old ones, certainly still written by humans. Read those blogs that are still functioning and that convey some thought, some reflection, or value. The only question is who will be able to afford this luxury – both the luxury of creating this content, which may be valuable but few will see, and the luxury of reading it.

Because the situation where you don’t have to be present on anti-social media is already a true luxury that only a few can afford.

Tags: , ,