Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Fixing online discourse means starting from scratch

Opinion

social media
oatawa/Getty Images

Repova, who worked in investment banking and consulting, founded the new social media platform Iris.

Everyone is aware of the broken state of online discourse — people operating in echo chambers, misinformation proliferating the social media space, endless arguments over basic facts, polarization reaching record highs, people hating others who disagree with them, cancel culture and many other issues that have been amplified due to the existing social media platforms.

Despite the general recognition of social media’s immense problems, few people have tried to solve them. Unsurprisingly, going against Facebook or Twitter is no small task and the chances of failure are – let’s be honest – close to 100 percent. But if we let fear dominate us, how are we supposed to get out of this mess?


Many of my friends who are talented engineers and designers, public intellectuals and businessmen, have tried implementing solutions within the existing platforms, namely Facebook. They started enthusiastically only to be shut down a few months later for reasons as ambiguous as “we are refocusing our resources to more mission-critical projects.” It seems obvious that Facebook’s mission-critical projects were aimed at maximizing profits over public good. Its business model uses our attention and data to extract value, which is reflected in the flawed design of its products and services.

Facebook definitely stuck to its early motto of “moving fast and breaking things,” where “things” has had multiple meanings over the years: “our mental health,” “way of living,” “jobs,” “connections,” “democracy,” “political system” and many others.

Bad values lead to bad business models that lead to bad design. This is a chain reaction. The reality is Facebook cannot change its design, which harnesses people’s attention and makes them angrier and more outraged, without changing its business model, which relies on high engagement to maximize profits. The company also cannot change its business model without changing its values and finding the proper balance between profits and the health of society and our political system.

Simply put, the damage is irreversible. Shareholders rely on the current business model, employees in positions of power subscribe to their values and culture, and users’ negative perspective and distrust of the brand cannot be repaired with a simple design change.

The solution is to start from scratch. It will be long, hard and painful but I do not see any other way out of this.

So how do we do this?

Let’s start with the bedrock of every company — its values. I started Iris (my new social platform) because I wanted to help improve our democracy through civil discourse with the intent to find common ground and achieve societal progress. This important part of our political system vanished and I wanted to get it back on track. I was also concerned about the degraded user experience. It is frankly very difficult to get good conversations started. Having fewer than 100 followers on Twitter makes me look like a bot or a weirdo, and makes it difficult for me to engage in fruitful conversations with people who have different perspectives. There is no easy way to build up my credibility. A new social platform should focus on users first and should work to optimize their experience and the quality of their interactions.

That’s how we improve both the health of the political system and the health of the individuals within the system.

Targeted advertising is the evil of all evils. Yes, it makes a lot of money but, no, it does not align with our values. We have to find something else. The answer is in freemium — either a business-to-business or business-to-consumer model where you charge organizations or individual users a monthly fee for extra features. This allows the new platform to optimize for quality of conversations and user experience, not quantity of engagement.

Last but not least, the basic design of social platforms has failed to evolve in 20 years. It’s always the post and the comment sections, the follows, the upvotes. Every Twitter or Facebook competitor has copied its features to the tiniest detail. Are people too lazy to try new things? Are they afraid to innovate and fail many times before finding what works well?

I believe that in order to design a successful new platform, one has to look at real-world interactions. Most of our conversations happen in small private groups. Whether you go to a networking event, dinner party or a conference, you gather with four or five other people and have one private conversation. Occasionally, you have public discussions in the form of panel events and interviews where experts share the best insights. Why does this not happen online?

Imagine a new platform where anyone can participate in civil discussions and be heard. Imagine a platform where anyone can build relationships with the people in their discussion groups and discuss a topic at a much more granular level than in large public comment sections. Imagine a platform where number of followers is not the determinant of credibility. If that sounds good to you, sign up for Iris and see it for yourself.

We are doing things differently. By emulating the format of our real-world interactions, we can create an online space that is more civil, produces higher quality content, makes people more fulfilled and connected, and leads to a healthier society in general.

I look forward to seeing you onboard.

Read More

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less