Jared Wadley:

Welcome to the Michigan Minds Podcast, where we delve into the vast expertise from faculty specialists at the University of Michigan. I’m Jared Wadley, a primary public relations spokesperson for Michigan News. Today, I’m engaging with Oliver Haimson about the evolving social media environment. He serves as an assistant professor in the School of Information and the Digital Studies Institute. Oliver’s investigations revolve around social media content regulation and marginalized groups, along with the evolving identities presented on social media amid life changes. Thanks for joining us, Oliver.

Oliver Haimson:

Absolutely. Thank you for having me, Jared.

Jared Wadley:

Before we dive into the subject, could you share a bit about how you developed an interest in social media research?

Oliver Haimson:

Sure. I suppose I began like many, as an avid social media user. It was around the early 2010s when I started investigating this field, and as a participant, I was captivated by how people utilized it to discuss more sensitive matters, how they approached disclosure, and how they showcased their identities online. So, my curiosity stemmed from a personal viewpoint. However, I have found that a lot of social media researchers, as they delve deeper into the subject, tend to engage less with social media themselves. Presently, I wouldn’t categorize myself as a heavy user, but my research interest persists.

Jared Wadley:

Is your focus on the entirety of social media, or do you concentrate on certain platforms specifically?

Oliver Haimson:

I generally track the platforms that are most widely used, especially since my research heavily emphasizes marginalized groups. About a decade ago, my attention was primarily on Facebook, given its prevalent usage. Nowadays, platforms like TikTok and Instagram have become more prominent, and I also explore various emerging platforms, including those users develop themselves.

Jared Wadley:

Reflecting on your research evolution, how has your focus shifted from the time you studied Facebook? What trends do you observe now compared to then?

Oliver Haimson:

One of the most significant changes I’ve noticed is that, back then, users actively contributed a lot; individuals shared updates about their daily lives with a limited audience, primarily acquaintances. Today, however, there’s a noticeable shift with shorter video formats replacing text or images. Most TikTok users mainly consume content rather than create it themselves. While we may refer to some creators as influencers, the more prevalent terminology now seems to be “content creators.” However, the majority of users are just observers instead of active contributors, which has substantially altered the landscape.

Jared Wadley:

Do you have any insights or statistics regarding the current social media user base? I’ve noted that while some friends actively use social media, others prefer to avoid it altogether. What data do you have on this?

Oliver Haimson:

Currently, the percentage is roughly in the high 70s, close to 80% of Americans engaging with social media. This figure is sourced from Pew Research, which conducts surveys every few years to assess how many Americans utilize social media, which platforms they frequent, their usage behaviors, and demographic differences.

Jared Wadley:

How do American user statistics compare globally? Is social media usage significantly higher outside the U.S.?

Oliver Haimson:

While I don’t have the exact figures on hand, I do know that in various regions around the globe, certain platforms are extremely popular. For example, Facebook remains dominant internationally, even if it has plateaued in the U.S. I wouldn’t say it has declined; rather, it simply is not expanding further in this country. Yet, in some nations, Facebook effectively represents the internet for many, as some users’ entire experience of the web is through Facebook.

Jared Wadley:

What are your views on individuals obtaining news solely from social media instead of traditional news sources or other mediums?

Oliver Haimson:

Indeed, there are positive aspects as it gives people access to news in an entertaining and engaging manner, with many preferring succinct videos over lengthy articles. This could enhance news accessibility. Nonetheless, it poses risks, particularly since companies like Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, wield substantial influence over the news ecosystem, and it is Meta’s choice as to how information is disseminated.

several years during which their intent was to downplay news and any political matters. Their emphasis was directed more towards personal narratives and observing events in friends’ lives or simply entertaining material. This could pose risks, as individuals might think, “Oh, there’s no significant political activity,” when, in reality, that’s not the case; they were merely sidelining such content.

However, they have recently implemented several policy modifications, reinstating news content and political discourse, which I believe is the correct decision in the end, as people do value that information. The issue lies in Meta’s latest policy alterations, where they have also opted to eliminate official fact checkers, substituting them with a system they refer to as community notes. This essentially constitutes a crowdsourced approach to fact-checking, assuming that with enough public input, a consensus can be reached regarding what is factual or misleading. Nevertheless, you can observe how this significantly differs from a professional fact checker who is dedicated to maintaining objectivity. Consequently, I harbor concerns regarding Meta’s overwhelming influence globally combined with a somewhat lax approach to fact-checking, as this could foment a proliferation of misinformation and detrimental content.

Jared Wadley:

How have users within society evaluated this new methodology, particularly concerning fact-checking?

Oliver Haimson:

That remains uncertain, actually. We have one instance, which is X, utilizing a community notes-style feature for quite some time, and the outcomes have been moderately favorable. However, we now observe that X has shifted significantly towards a specific political ideology, resulting in many who do not identify as conservative or right-leaning departing from X. Thus, we can only assess this within that particular user demographic on that platform, while we are aware that misinformation and perilous content have escalated there. Therefore, I anticipate that a similar trend will manifest on Meta’s platforms. Additionally, a complicating factor that isn’t widely discussed is that Meta has already removed fact checkers, yet the community notes feature has not yet been launched, leaving a gap of several months without either, which I believe is quite perilous.

Jared Wadley:

How probable do you think it is that they will implement something, given that they haven’t taken any steps thus far?

Oliver Haimson:

Certainly. I believe they will definitely proceed with that. Developing something like this simply requires time because, if you consider the necessary elements of the user interface and the algorithms required to weigh the various opinions and decide the narrative on a news item—where some are asserting, “Yes, that’s accurate,” and others, “No, that’s not accurate”—it’s a complex task.

Jared Wadley:

For those who left X, where have they migrated? Where are they obtaining their news, or how are they interacting with relatives and friends?

Oliver Haimson:

That is an excellent inquiry and something I’ve been monitoring carefully, as numerous alternatives have emerged for users. I would identify the top three as Blue Sky, Threads (a Meta entity), and Mastodon, which represents a very decentralized social media format. For a while, it was uncertain which of these platforms would ascend to dominance. Recently, Blue Sky appears to be rising as the alternative to Twitter or X, particularly appealing to individuals who lean more towards liberal or leftist viewpoints. Blue Sky has welcomed millions of new users; interestingly, this platform was created by the former CEO of Twitter, carrying over many similar features. Its interface resembles Twitter’s closely, yet its content moderation policies and methodologies differ significantly, offering users a greater sense of security against hate speech and similar issues.

Jared Wadley:

How have users responded to transitioning to Blue Sky? Has the experience been largely positive, or has there been a period of adjustment since they were accustomed to X and Twitter?

Oliver Haimson:

Overall, I believe the transition has been positive from a usability standpoint; users are already familiar with the features, where to click, and how everything operates due to their experience with X or Twitter. The more challenging aspect of launching a new social media platform lies in network effects—many have been reluctant to abandon X despite discontent with certain policies and content since their entire network resides there. It wasn’t until millions started migrating to Blue Sky that this began shifting. Personally, I was among the early adopters, and initially, very few from my network joined. However, now it seems to have attracted more people. There have been a few issues, particularly when you account for the influx of users—it initially had a small content moderation team, and the sudden surge attracted numerous bots and trolls, requiring rapid resolution on how to manage these challenges, causing some delays in adapting to their burgeoning user base.

Jared Wadley:

I also wanted to discuss TikTok, which has been widely reported on for several months. One common question from users is why the federal government has been involved. Many users believe that as long as they are willing to share their information with a social media platform, what’s the issue? How would you address that?

Oliver Haimson:

The government’s involvement primarily stems from national security concerns, a critical issue indeed. Many individuals struggle to make that connection because the information shared on TikTok generally doesn’t seem consequential for national security—it usually consists of personal insights, humor, or lighthearted content. They tend to feel that the Chinese government wouldn’t be interested in such matters. However, when considering the vast amount of user data and the varying types of content—not all of which is harmless—the national security implications become clearer. Most people don’t perceive it that way. Ultimately, this creates a conflict between two significant American values: free speech and national security. When legislating against TikTok and in the Supreme Court’s affirmation of that law, the conclusion was that national security takes precedence. However, it appears that the average American may not share the same perspective regarding this prioritization.

Jared Wadley:

Do you foresee similar circumstances arising with other social media platforms apart from TikTok, prompting government intervention due to security concerns?

Oliver Haimson:

Absolutely. It’s quite plausible that we will witness this occur. There has been another Chinese platform known as…

Red: It’s evident that numerous individuals were transitioning to alternatives when they learned of the TikTok prohibition, and they would encounter identical challenges there, as the U.S. government aims to restrict any platform that originates from China. The governance strategies differ significantly between China and the U.S. regarding the relationship that the government maintains with major technology firms. The Chinese Communist Party indeed exerts influence over numerous operations within enterprises like ByteDance or Red. While there are examples of current platforms, my greater concern lies with future platforms. If we proceed to outlaw TikTok due to legitimate national security apprehensions, what will occur if a future platform emerges from another country that the U.S. government disapproves of based on its content? The existing legislation, particularly after the Supreme Court upheld that law, could be applicable to any sites the U.S. government opts to prohibit, and I perceive this as especially perilous.

Jared Wadley:

In relation to TikTok, do you believe the company will truly be sold, or what do you think the eventual result will be? I know this resembles a speculative question, but what do you predict will transpire in the next three to six months?

Oliver Haimson:

Indeed. The Trump administration indicated a 90-day postponement on the ban, which occurred in January; therefore, this matter will resurface in April. Additionally, the Trump administration mentioned that they don’t necessitate a complete sale; a mere sale of 50% suffices. This reasoning is perplexing to me, as even if a Chinese entity owns 50% or even 1% of the company, the national security issues remain unchanged, since they could manipulate the data as they see fit. There are numerous potential purchasers among the bigger tech companies in the U.S. — you might consider Meta or Microsoft. Some have even speculated about Elon Musk potentially acquiring that 50% stake in TikTok.

However, I don’t genuinely believe TikTok feels compelled to sell. It seems they are toying with the Trump administration, feigning interest. They understand that Trump may never actually enforce a ban as it would be highly unpopular with the American populace, making the administration unlikely to pursue it. Thus, TikTok lacks a strong motivation to divest. I suspect they will act as though they are seeking a buyer, yet I believe a sale will ultimately not occur.

Jared Wadley:

If a sale doesn’t happen, what actions do you think the Trump administration will undertake? It appears they would aim to implement some type of action sooner rather than later. What do you anticipate will unfold in the end?

Oliver Haimson:

It’s challenging to predict, but I could foresee another delay occurring. It’s complicated to abolish the law since it’s a legitimate statute upheld by the Supreme Court, leaving them unable to eliminate it. They might attempt to shift the blame onto the Biden administration, as the law was technically enacted during Biden’s tenure. Hence, if a ban materializes, they may divert responsibility away from the current administration. Honestly, I remain uncertain. Observing the outcomes will be intriguing, and if it is indeed banned, it will be fascinating to witness where individuals migrate thereafter.

Jared Wadley:

What are some promising developments you observe regarding social media?

Oliver Haimson:

There has been considerable attention towards mainstream social media platforms, which is captivating, but what I find more uplifting is the emergence of individuals creating their own platforms and online communities. This includes establishing communities on existing platforms like Discord or Mastodon, for instance, or constructing entirely new social media platforms. A significant number of these initiatives arise from marginalized groups I study, including many in the LGBTQ community, who believe that mainstream platforms do not prioritize their interests, particularly following recent policy adjustments. Therefore, it’s truly encouraging when people take the initiative to form their own communities and platforms.

My research team has been focusing on what we refer to as community-generated online communities, which is a promising trend. It allows individuals to construct a safer environment where they can decide aspects like content moderation and speech allowances on the platform. Given the diverse opinions among users, dictating universal guidelines is incredibly challenging, but for a smaller community, such decisions can be made more easily in a way that addresses the community’s unique needs. Nonetheless, there are aspects that we might overlook, particularly concerning echo chambers — where diverse perspectives may be lacking if one is isolated within a small, like-minded community. However, the positive attributes of social media are related to social support, information sharing, and interpersonal communication, which could be quite difficult to achieve on the more extensive platforms. Hence, I find it exhilarating to contemplate how individuals are reclaiming control.

Jared Wadley:

As we conclude this podcast, can you provide our listeners with insights into your new book titled Trans Technologies that was released in February? Please share a bit more about its contents.

Oliver Haimson:

Absolutely! I’m thrilled about this new book. It stems from a prolonged study I’ve been conducting, wherein I’ve engaged with creators of trans technologies — defined as technologies specifically designed for transgender individuals and communities. Many of these are smaller-scale innovations, often birthed from personal challenges and necessities faced by creators who possess the technical ability to devise solutions for themselves and their communities. I’ve interviewed over a hundred creators of these technologies. Initially approaching this from a social media perspective, I soon recognized the multitude of technology types emanating from this realm, including virtual reality, augmented reality, diverse software, and of course, applications and websites. Exciting projects related to games and art also feature prominently. I’ve dedicated considerable time documenting this landscape, and this book represents the culmination of years of research, which I’m genuinely excited for others to finally access.

Jared Wadley:

Thanks for sharing! I’m eager to read it. I appreciate you taking the time to provide your insights, and I hope we can engage in another discussion in the future!

Oliver Haimson:

Thank you immensely, Jared.

Jared Wadley:

We appreciate your attention to this episode of Michigan Minds, produced by Michigan News, a segment of the university’s Office of the Vice President for Communications.