The Burning Question is a column that tackles some of the biggest questions in the intersection of science, technology, geopolitics and culture that shape the world as we know it. The column will soon be expanded into a newsletter, and you can subscribe here. Subscribers will receive updates via email, Telegram. Write to editor@theweek.in with comments, suggestions and questions.
On April 26, the world woke up to the news that Tesla CEO and billionaire Elon Musk had acquired social media giant Twitter in a reported $44 billion deal. In the weeks of high corporate drama and negotiations revolving around board membership with equity caps, poison pills, tender offers, and a former CEO publicly trashing the company, Musk's gambit had ushered into the spotlight a discussion surrounding the future of social media organisations. It was an open secret that user trust in these platforms was eroding at a fast pace—a Gallup poll from November 2021 had found that a median of just 17 per cent of young adults globally trusted these platforms.
Musk openly highlighted a lot of these concerns, including the opacity of social media algorithms, and the censorious manner in which giants like Facebook and Twitter conducted their business. He has spoken about open-sourcing the Twitter algorithms, which would transparently inform the public why they were seeing the content that they were seeing, and opening up avenues like self-verification for users. According to multiple media reports, the Musk administration will also focus on features like 'Super Follow', which will open up avenues for users and influencers to monetise the time and effort spent on the app.
Across the world, social media giants like Facebook and Twitter are under fire from politicians from across the ideological spectrum. In India, there was an extended tiff between the Centre and Twitter over social media norms enforced by the Centre. Now, after almost one decade of status quo stagnation and regulatory firestorms, is it now time for social media platforms to reinvent their business models and their operational paradigms?
In India, Twitter-rival Koo has been making some big moves. The platform has already launched a self-verification feature, which general users can opt into on a voluntary basis. On April 20, Koo announced that it became the first big social media platform to make public its core algorithms—showing how hashtags are trended, how people are recommended, and how the feed looks. Koo said in a statement that the move "establishes Koo as transparent and safe". "This move reiterates Koo's commitment to platform transparency and neutrality, while keeping user interests at the core. It empowers users to know why they are seeing the content that they do," they said. Koo will continue to keep users informed about how it operates, and how it is building a safe, unbiased and reliable social media platform for the future, the company said in the statement.
In conversation with THE WEEK, Koo co-founder and CEO Aprameya Radhakrishna delves into the future of social media and what Koo has in store for the future.
How has Koo done so far?
We started two years ago. We started at a time the coronavirus pandemic hit. In the last two years, we grew from zero to 30 million downloads. That is quite a bit of love we received from India. We launched in not just one language, but 10. We have 7,000 verified handles, [hosting] people of social eminence across cricket, kabaddi, Bollywood, spirituality, politics and media.
Globally, trust in established social networks all-time low. Is the time ripe for disruption?
If you look at self-expression on the internet [which is the modern form of self-expression], it is not available for those who don't know English. There are two types of social media networks: open and closed. The closed networks are where you connect with known entities. It could be WhatsApp, where you need to have someone’s [phone] number, or it could be LinkedIn, a professional network where your voice reaches professional connections. Open networks [on the other hand] are avenues to explore and connect based on interests, and based on the discussions that you would like to have. When it comes to thoughts and opinions in the English-speaking world, [the biggest name] would be Twitter. Go one level deeper. For folks who speak other languages, and wish to express their thoughts and opinions, or reach out to anybody they want [maybe their local police or chief minister, or favourite actor, or cricketer], there are no real options. That is what we have solved with Koo. We have given freedom of expression on the internet to those who have not experienced it so far.
So, what is Koo’s gameplan?
I think we operate around three pillars. The first: Localised for local language and content. The second: Localised for local policy and law of land. The third pillar, which we will work on, is to help creators and users who are a dominant part of our platform to be able to benefit from the monetary exchange happening between the platform and the advertisers. These are three things I think global social networks have failed to address.
You spoke about social media getting localised for local policy and law of land. We saw in the Ukraine war how diplomats were visibly uncomfortable with the ‘overreach’ of private social media platforms. Do you think it will usher in national legal frameworks under which all social platforms have to operate, and will this level out the playing field for native platforms?
Absolutely. In India, we democratically elect our leader. The leader represents what India needs, and will take decisions based on what is best for the country. Now, enabling that, and preventing external influence, is up to the government and not global tech. [But], global tech is starting to interfere. In critical cases, there is definitely an increase in interference. So, we see that there is a need for country-based social media networks, which can then talk to each other internationally. This means: It is not one rule and many countries, but many countries and many ways of handling social networks. That freedom needs to be in the hands of the countries, who will then decide what freedom of speech [for their jurisdiction] is. If you bring a very mature view of freedom of speech ideal to a country that is still developing or underdeveloped, then it creates chaos in the real world. They are not yet ready for it. In a country where there is very less unemployment, and everybody is earning a lot, freedom of expression will be defined in a different way from a country where a large section of the population is still figuring out employment. Their problems are very different. Their [primary concern with] freedom of expression might not be to fight for personal data rights or other mature problems, it would be basic as employment, food and health. It is very important for social media to be designed around countries rather than one global rule.
In the three pillars, you mentioned helping creators and users monetise their content. That is predominantly the stated mission of a lot of Web3 and blockchain-based tech. What are Koo’s views on it?
I think decentralised internet is a good thing. It doesn’t give ownership to one global tech giant, and they don’t get decide what is good and what is not. Technology, or at least the basic aspects of it, is a public good. The ability to communicate is a public good. The ability to search for information is a public good. The ability to express is a public good. Heavy influence on that is not right [way to go]. And, creators and users at the beginning of social media era were very happy to just be connected and be able to express. Now, there are many networks catering to different needs of expression and connection. Now, there is a need to go beyond just the likes and comments, and what people usually get on social media. They would like to monetise that as well, Today, they [the users and the creators] need parallel monetisation mechanisms, as they are not a part of the engine running between advertisers and the social media network. It is a great opportunity for us, as new entrants, to undo some of these misaligned incentives in the system.
Is there a specific game plan?
We have a philosophy, and we are still growing the network. When we decide to monetise, we will make sure it is inclusive.
For a social media network, what does ‘trust’ mean in an Indian ecosystem?
Having a platform that is transparent and consistent is important. That is what is missing. We [at Koo] have allowed users to voluntarily self-verify on the platform because we want a real network. In most networks, it is hard to know which handle is a bot and which is not. We [at Koo] want to make sure that, right from the beginning, we come in with the right thoughts. If a person posts something, and there are 20 comments, out of which five or six are from users with self-verified ticks, the person will obviously give more weightage to the ones from the verified handles. That is a feeling that other social media platforms aren’t able to replicate.
