Guest column: Important steps needed to address the ugliness of social media

Article content

Lush Cosmetics recently announced its removal from four of the major social media platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok.

Article content

They claim that they are protesting the “serious effects” that social media has on the mental health and well-being of users. Ironically, their ad provided them with a lot of free publicity in the traditional sense.

“We wouldn’t ask our customers to meet us in a dark and dangerous alley, but some social media platforms are starting to feel like they are places that no one should dare to go,” the retailer wrote.

Lush, which has 240 stores in Canada and the United States, said it will stay off the shelves until they ensure a more secure environment for users. They are calling their “boycott” their Global Anti-Social Media Policy.

However, they stay on Pinterest, Twitter, and YouTube, so 100 percent of having a social media presence is not taken away.

Article content

Lush timing is suspect. Sticking with Twitter makes me wonder if their Global Anti-Social Media Policy was just a PR stunt before the holidays. Twitter literally has no filter. People can easily share misinformation, misinformation, hate speech, inappropriate content, etc., which remains on the platform until reported.

On the surface, Lush’s decision is principled and courageous. However, I’m sure Lush questioned the ROI of his social media spending versus his bottom line results before “taking a stand” against the damaging effects of social media.

I suppose the company must have decided that the ROI of Pinterest, Twitter, and YouTube outweighed taking a stance against all social media platforms that tolerate toxic behavior.

Article content

I believe that as long as a platform serves the results of Lush, they will stick with them. Am I suggesting that Lush selectively “ditching social media” is an entrepreneurial move? Of course. Why else would they stay on some social platforms and not others when all platforms are toxic to some degree?

It is always business profit before taking an ethical stance.

Unless you’re a hardcore e-commerce site like Amazon, eBay, and Walmart (estimated monthly visitors: 468.96 million), social media isn’t usually an efficient sales channel. Social media is great for increasing brand awareness.

However, accurately tracking new sales from social media platforms is next to impossible. Vanity metrics like ‘likes’ and ‘comments’ don’t necessarily drive sales.

Article content

Without a doubt, social media has proven not good for our collective mental health.

People don’t flock to social media for brands. They do this often because of their need to be accepted or admired. People use social media in the least healthy way possible; trying to assess whether their peers and the community accept or reject them. Tribalism is often the nature of social media.

Lush selectively avoiding specific social media platforms is not a significant step towards lessening the toxic nature of social media platforms. All social media platforms tolerate toxic behavior.

Lush also hasn’t offered any concrete solutions on how to mitigate the toxicity that appears on social media sites.

Addressing the problem will require a collective effort among legislators, associations, sociologists, social media companies, and those with the money that social media companies depend on: brands.

Article content

Like climate change, it is too late for minor acts. Major action is needed.

I offer these suggestions on how social media companies can reduce toxic behavior on their platforms. One solution is to require credit card and / or phone number authentication to create a social media account.

This would prevent the creation of anonymous accounts. Social media users, knowing that they can be easily tracked, will curb their toxic behavior.

All social media platforms depend on ad revenue to survive and be profitable. The eyes are what keep social networks free for you and me. Having as many eyes as possible is the reason why social media companies accept toxicity within their respective “user guidelines” to exist on their platform.

Article content

Toxic behavior is a profitable way for social media companies to attract and retain our attention. Many of us like aggressive theater to turn into a war of insults and accusations, all in a futile attempt to prove the other person wrong.

Then there’s the lack of discussion regarding algorithms designed to prioritize sensational content over mundane content, so anything that encourages debate is presented to the masses.

Why? Because this type of content creates arguments that count as “participation”.

What is the probability that more companies leave social networks? I’m not holding my breath.

We cannot unite to confront obvious dangers like climate change. Social media companies and brands have selfish financial agendas worth unimaginable billions.

But what is rarely talked about is that the use of social networks is a choice and a responsibility of the user. Attention and reaction are a choice.

Too many of us continue to choose to chase thrills on digital platforms, giving social media companies the attention they need to attract those lucrative advertisers.

Nick Kossovan is an online corporate support advisor based in Toro nto.