ch 7 reading response

I’m reflecting on Artful Design’s Principle 7.4, and its claim that usefulness, fullness of expression, authenticity, and transparency of use make a valuable social tool. While these four tenets make sense on the surface level, I wonder how individual users can ascribe their own usages onto a social tool. Take, for example, Facebook. Ignoring the glaring elephant in the room about transparency, one could argue that Facebook is an incredibly valuable social tool because it allows you to connect with other people more effectively, you can post anything you want, and we can authentically engage with others on the platform. However, as is the case for social media today, the authenticity factor starts to dwindle as more and more importance is placed on external validation. People stop posting to post, and instead start strategizing how to maximize likes, engagement, ad revenue, popularity, and so many other surface-level attributes to social media usage. On the other hand, plenty of people have decided to keep their social media usage as authentic as possible, and choose to not care about likes and comments, and instead post authentically. In this situation, can we say that Facebook does or does not promote authenticity? Where do we draw the line between the role a social tool plays in setting user norms, and the development over time of voluntary behaviors that emerge? It makes me wonder whether or not social tools should have an obligation to force authenticity, but that just leads to even more confusion on what it even means to be authentic, and if people want to use a tool as heavy-handed as that. While invisibility of a social tool is useful in keeping the focus on human-human interaction, I also posit that intervention of technology is crucial in maintaining norms and a positive experience for all users. Consider 8chan, which had zero moderation, therefore fostering a community of complete transparency and fullness of expression. It is hard to claim that 8chan has done more good than bad in this world, when it has become a canonical case for the necessity of effective and responsible moderation by social tool developers. The platform quickly devolved into the darker parts of the internet -- one could claim that this behaviour is truly authentic, because nothing is truer than pure human interaction, but that very authenticity is what brought the platform down and made it one of the worst social tools in history. It was good at doing what it wanted to do, but that end was incredibly harmful and objectively should not exist.