Defeating the "Baptist and Bootlegger" Coalitions of Social Media: A Proposal

The Social Contract Has Been Breached.

The way we interact with social media networks has to change. How many times have we- to our friends- exclaimed how much or how little we've been in certain social media networks? How much more do we need to hear about how 'good' or 'evil' certain social media networks are?

Enough is enough. When I refer to the "social contract", in this context, I refer to the implicit relationship regular people agreed to when they joined a social media network. The social contract implied that "if I join this network and provide 'X', I get to connect with friends, family, co-workers, etc., and get that dopaminergic rush, 'Y' ".

In return, the social network says that "if we provide no walls for people to connect & enjoy connecting, 'X', then we have the right to receive and use the data they provide to prove value to our network and services, 'Y'."

But are we, as consumers, getting that 'Y'? Maybe, but not much. Are social networks free to use the data they receive as seem fit because they are providing a "free" service? Hmm, not quite. Why? Because 'Baptists and bootleggers' have hijacked social media.

So, in order to continue this conversation and understand my proposal, let's define some terms and parties*.

Baptists: The fans of free-flowing information and the advocates who demand social media leadership to monitor conversation and activity, regulate what's on their networks, while providing a service free-for-all.

Bootleggers: The people and organizations profiting off free data, profiting off censorship, and other mishandling of data.

Consumers: The actual people (humans, not institutions) using social media.

There are also some key statements that we need to agree on before you continue to read:

• Social networks are businesses and therefore have the ability to render services to people as they see fit.
• There's no such thing as a "free" social network, because data and activity have value.
• Sometimes, implementing market forces like pricing and feature-gating can do a better job modifying behavior than legislation.

Proposal #1: Paying for Social Media

It might be time for consumers to pay for social media. Why? Both the brand and the consumer have forgotten the value in the hidden social contract the parties have abided by. Social media isn't inherently free; the cost of it is subsidized by the data these social networks mine and then provide to companies in exchange for advertising dollars, sponsorship services, and the like. But, if people want control of their data and privacy, then the subsidy should be taken away - let people pay for the service.

It's not rocket science, it is just hard to replace 'passive payment' (i.e. data) with something a little more concrete- money. But for people to respect the value of the service being provided, and for social networks to maintain a stream of revenue, that's exactly the proposal I'm offering.

At what cost? That's unclear. Twitter Blue is a fascinating example and a test that will be worth evaluating as the service is rolled out. And, it even goes beyond what I am proposing and provides even more options and features than what a free Twitter user receives.

Initially, I'm thinking of three tiers, or pricing structures:

1) Free. The social network remains that social network you know and love. Still ad-supported in exchange for your data. However, some options and features are removed, and discovery outside of your friends/connection circle is limited.

2) Low-price subscription. Social network provides more capabilities and options than the free, and you have more power to decide what to do with your data. Discovery is still limited and curated.

3) High-price subscription. The social network universe is yours. Complete control of your feed, the type of advertising (or none at all, because your subscription is worth more per person), discovery, and additional features that the other two subscriptions don't receive.

There are other models to consider, without going into much detail:

• A 'Superfree' model- Basically it's a 'view-only', account. You can connect, but you cannot interact (post, like, comment, share, etc)
• Pay-per-post- Users can either pay on an ad-hoc basis or, more interestingly, upload funds prior to the activity, and there's is a deduction after every interaction (Interactions with brands, stores, businesses, etc., of course, wouldn't be counted).

How does this solve the 'Baptist and Bootlegger' problem?

• People now have control of their destiny. Consumer advocates can no longer demand social networks to freely release data or be regulated because the social network have given them options. Don't like the options? Don't get on the platform.
• Social networks shift ownership to the consumer. Companies trying to mine data or 'spray and pray' bad advertising now lose out on those consumers willing to pay to avoid those ill-informed marketing practices.

Naturally, the conversation about 'accessibility' will come up. Would this model put the lower-income population at a disadvantage? In the world we live in now, yes. As free WiFi and internet as a 'public good' gain more traction, more will be able to join the free model. While I would agree that the right to the internet has moved more to a utility, I think that the "right" to social media is still worth a healthy debate.

Of course, there would be pushback. But, at least in the beginning, change and reform is always uncomfortable.

Proposal #2: Have Social Media Pay You

If you think that Proposal #1 is far-fetched, hold on- things are going to get weird.

With my current position at Schell Games, I have the pleasure of regularly working with content creators (others call them influencers) in order for them to play our games and experiences and post about them across different social networks. We have found this type of marketing to be far more effective than digital advertising (though still important), and have plans to expand this program.

So, when I think about ways to improve the user/social network relationship, I think about a game studio's relationship with a content creator.

In short and in this mindset, everyone on a social network is an uncompensated content creator. We should fix that.

If social networks want our data and information in order to attract brands and advertising dollars, let's force them to pay us for it.

This can go two ways- one method is more palatable (for users) than the other.

1) Users Name Their Price. When joining a social network, users can declare how much they think their data is worth. From filling out entire profile, likes, dislikes, employment, education, interests, shopping habits, brands you like, brands you hate, and so on. Users would have the option to tag and include different brands and people in posts, and likes shares, and reposts build value and more revenue for each user.

Brands can encourage users to tag their pages or shopping carts in order to get 'boosts' which equate to payment on top of the value agreed on by the social network.

To be fair, a lot of this is already done, just not at the universal scale that I am proposing. And again, I know that there are different variables, use cases and circumstances that might not be applicable to this kind of model, but I am sure it is still better than where we are today.

2) Social Networks Determine A User's Worth. What if you asked a particular social network to look over your profile, connections, posts, shares, likes, photos, activities, and interests, and asked that network to declare the value of your data? That's exactly what I'm proposing. In this world, users can ask social networks to declare their worth in order to continue to share and be compensated.

Seller beware: If it's true that social networks like Facebook have between 98-52,000 data points on you, your worth might not be as valuable as you think.

Let's go through some scenarios:

Little to no value- Tough evaluation, right? Social network A deems your data of no to little worth. What access to the platform do you get? Beyond your friend of friends' circle, probably not much. The social network has no incentive to make your experience on the site worthwhile.

Some value- The social network decided that yes, you should be compensated for your data. Not only do you get a stipend for regular activity, but brands and partners reward you with bonuses, promotional items, and the surprise vacation.

High value- Now we're talking. Not only do you post regularly, but everyone notices that you do. You'll get rewarded nicely by the social network by bringing people to its services. And more than that, businesses regularly send you and your friends on vacations, you get a chance to try out different cars, and your entire family's wardrobe is taken care of because of how engaging your videos are your following.

It might sound a little 'Black Mirror', but we're closer to that reality than you think.

How do these options solve the 'Baptist and Bootlegger' issue?

• Again, consumers are given concrete options on how their data is used. In both situations, the user requests compensation. In both cases, a value is decided and the consumer can move on.
• In both situations, there is no incentive for brands and social networks to engage in misleading practices to get particular pieces of data. With people being paid by brands and social networks, those parties have even more in the game of making sure the environments on their platforms are safe, comfortable, and inviting. The regulation will take care of itself.

Proposal #3: Create a Government-Sponsored Social Media

This one is probably the most difficult and hardest to implement solution. Imagine a CSPAN-like social media network: no fuss, no gimmicks, you just get online, find people, post text, images, and videos, and that's it. You can follow all sorts of media, but you can't share it- but you can talk about it.

And all of it is free. And, it's open-source, so other countries can copy it and adapt it, and open the possibility for foreign users to connect to others- for free- from other nations.

Oh, and zero advertising or funds from private organizations. No politically-driven organizations either.

For the people, provided by the government. Like Wikipedia, Medicare, and Google+ took their DNA, mixed them together, and launched this odd creation.

Would this solve the 'Baptist and Bootlegger' issue? Sure, because it provides a public option free of commercial and consumer advocacy.

Would people use it? Probably not.

Conclusion: We Gotta Figure Something Out

The current model of social networks is no longer sustainable. It had a good run, and now it is time for the maturing media to take that next logical step and remove the passive paying option and force consumers to consciously consider what they are willing to pay for these services.

This won't be easy. In fact, some networks may lose considerable chunks of their audience when and if any of the mentioned proposals are implemented. People will grumble, investors will rattle their fists, and neither brands nor advocacy groups will be happy.

But, after the noise stops, and the dust settles, it will be better for us all.

*As always, these comments and opinions in this article are my own and do not express the will and opinion of my employer, or my employer's partners and clients. So don't @ them.