the fragmentation of the internet

+ what is the perfect balance between community and content?

TLDR; The internet has evolved in a cyclical pattern: starting as a decentralized network with niche communities, transforming into a centralized platform dominated by big tech algorithms, and now shifting back to a fragmented landscape with diverse, smaller digital spaces. This evolution raises critical questions about finding a balance between community engagement and maintaining individual tastes in an increasingly personalized digital world.

In the early days, the internet felt like a digital frontier, vast and uncharted. It was a place where you could stumble into forums filled with people sharing your niche interests – be it in science fiction, vegetable gardening, queer music, or anything in between. The internet's original magic was based on one simple fact: communities don't need geographic closeness; they need shared interests and ideas!

The rise of platforms like Twitter marked a new era. These platforms gathered everyone into a single space, a digital 'town square' of sorts. From a business standpoint, this centralization was a logical extension of the nascent internet. As people became increasingly interconnected, the idea was to facilitate even greater connectivity! Instead of each person creating their own website, it seemed more efficient for everyone to have their homepage on platforms like Facebook. The centralization of global social interaction on a handful of platforms promised not only significant financial gains but also the potential for a more interconnected and contented world. (Spoiler: it certainly achieved the former) Conversations weren't just between friends or interest groups anymore; they were suddenly on a global stage. This change had its perks, like the ability to reach way more people, but also its downsides (maybe in another Substack post, I’ll sermonize about the study that anger surges through social networks, whereas joyful posts tend to find their limits within the confines of our friend groups).

In this shift towards centralization, the internet moved away from its earlier freedom and self-regulation. Users, much like town bulletin board moderators, controlled the content and discussions. This self-governing aspect contrasted sharply with the later centralized internet models.

In reaction to this centralized, algorithm-driven landscape, dissatisfaction with platforms like Facebook and Twitter intensified, leading to a discernible trend: users steering towards smaller, more fragmented digital spaces. This shift can be observed in the rising popularity of platforms such as Discord, WhatsApp, and Signal, each offering a distinct flavor of digital interaction and community building.

With the advent of personalized content feeds, today's internet experience is intricately tailored to individual preferences, creating a personalized media landscape that says "hey you, this is for you." While this might seem convenient, it significantly contributes to the formation of echo chambers and polarization. We're often caught in a feedback loop of similar ideas and viewpoints, which also leads to the "what about me?" effect, where the focus turns intensely personal and self-referential. This hyper-personalization can also lead to a loss of individuality as we no longer explore and dissect our desires independently. Instead, we tend to mirror the preferences and behaviors of our online subcultures. This phenomenon causes homogenization of thought and taste, flattening culture, as diverse perspectives get filtered out by algorithms that prioritize content based on our past interactions. The internet, once a vast expanse of varied ideas and discussions, now risks becoming a series of insulated bubbles, each echoing a similar chorus, reducing the rich tapestry of human thought into a more uniform and predictable pattern.

As we navigate this landscape of fragmented digital spaces due to algorithmically personalized content feeds, it's essential to recognize the dichotomy of the internet's evolution. While personalization offers unparalleled convenience (sometimes the satisfaction of our devices intuitively curating our content can be quite gratifying… cue The Fleabag Confession Monologue), it also comes with the risk of narrowing our perspectives and reinforcing our existing beliefs. In contrast, the shift towards smaller, diverse digital communities allows for more tailored interactions, yet it can potentially isolate us from differing viewpoints.

All of this makes me think about Twitter, Facebook (and now, Reddit, Quora, Tiktok, etc.) being called a “town square”. Really, in the actual world, there's not just one square for everyone. There are many!

The internet works best when you can move around, when you can find a new place if you don't like the rules or vibe somewhere else. This doesn't mean cutting ourselves off from different opinions. What we need are spaces that let ideas flow but also keep our communities intact. A semi-fragmented internet (we need a better name, perhaps), where we can jump from one group to another, is great for this. It's through trust and shared interests that we can have constructive conversations, even when we disagree.

In this context, I wonder:

1. What is the perfect balance between community and content, between being part of a collective and retaining our unique tastes and perspectives?

2. How do we navigate this fragmented digital landscape without losing sight of the diverse and dynamic range of human thought and interaction that makes the internet so cool?