Is A Like-Less World A Better One?

Recently, major social media companies have made moves to hide many of their platforms core engagement features. In March, it was revealed that a new Twitter prototype “twttr” might hide engagement mechanisms (likes and retweets) behind a single tap. In April, Instagram announced it would be experimentally hiding likes from posts in Canada, and now in May, YouTube is attempting to standardize subscriber counts by rounding them, hiding live subscriber counts. Although not all of these moves may not have the express intent to improve mental health on social media platforms (YouTube argues the recent move is not a response to “cancel culture” but an attempt to create more consistency across devices), they alter incentives for behavior, something that will change the social media environment.

Both psychologists and social media companies agree that the engagement features of social media are in some ways deleterious to mental health. Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, has been the most vocal, saying that likes and retweets encourage users to be outrageous and that he wouldn't create them if he were to make Twitter again. A 2016 psychological study found that the brain circuits that activate when teenagers receive chocolate or money also activate when teenagers receive a large number of likes on their photos or posts. Just as positive social media engagement increases pleasure, negative engagement decreases it. Comparing yourself to others, in particular, has been a problem on social media, and Instagram’s head, Adam Mosseri, framed the company’s Canadian trial as a way to make the platform less pressurized and competitive.

The hazardous effects of social media on one’s personal mental health is well-documented and known, but hiding engagement mechanisms doesn’t do anything to change that. Although YouTube live subscriber counts, Instagram hearts, or Twitter likes may be less publicly visible, in all of these reforms, users would still have access to the specific counts of likes, retweets, and subscribers for the content or material they post themselves. Still being able to see engagement (or lack of engagement) might continue to affect personal mental health adversely. Hiding engagement mechanisms also doesn’t lessen our impulse to compare ourselves with others. We’d be just as likely to see a beach body on our feed as before.

It’s not personal health but community health that social media companies are attempting to improve. In the same 2016 study, psychologists affirmed the influence that a post’s previous number of likes had when teenagers were deciding whether or not to like the post- bandwagoning. Bandwagoning weaponizes social media engagement and ruins conversation. In feuds, users will often discount their personal knowledge or skepticism about a topic to like the popular opinion because they see that others who have made similar content have benefited from it. Creators or users will make content that appeals to popular opinion, even if untrue, to capitalize on engagement. It is at this intersection where fake news and “subscriber wars” are so damaging because they are unchecked by mob mentality. However, hiding (at least temporarily) what other people think may force users to think for themselves when deciding to like or retweet a post to subscribe to a channel.

Although the target of these new engagement reforms is clear, the same is not true for their effectiveness. There has been a backlash against these new moves as potentially being counterproductive, as some users argue that in their effort to tackle mob mentality they limit the expression of collective opinion. Twitter users were concerned that hiding likes and retweets would make all voices on the platform equal, even those that are hateful or seek to harass, Many pointed to how the change would undermine the “ratio,” where disliked posts will get more comments than likes or retweets, as a way to express collective opinion. YouTube’s rounding of subscriber numbers would negatively affect channels like Social Blade with videos that track live subscriber counts and have launched subscriber wars like Pewdiepie vs. T-Series, a controversial rising trend on the platform.

There are also, non-community-related effects of hiding engagement statistics. Engagement statistics are often seen as a measure of success, whether that be personal like celebrating reaching subscriber milestones or public like bringing in potential sponsors or media coverage. A recent Wired article explained that both subscriber count and growth are important to companies seeking to partner with YouTubers, and if live statistics are no longer available to third parties, companies will have to look at likes, views, and comments to make sponsorship decisions. Even in media reporting, being able to access statistics on the growth of a channel or the popularity of a post is important in understanding its influence. Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube seem set to change this.

Actions in 2019 have shown that social media companies want to change the way their users interact, and they’re willing to alter core components of their interface to do it. Although social media use has been proven to have a number of mental health effects for the individual user. Engagement statistics reforms by YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter suggest that these companies are more concerned with the general community health of their platforms and that bandwagoning is a critical part of this. These moves are drastic and poised to change many more aspects of social media than mob mentality; however, they are efforts in the right direction– a social media landscape based more on content than the number of people who happen to like it.