How did social networks gain as much influence on society as they have? Why do some seemingly large networks suddenly disappear overnight and become obsolete? How do some niche networks (think instagram in the early days) make bank while others struggle to compete with the giants?
I believe this mainly ties back to humans being inherently driven by status and social hierarchy. How? Let me explain.
Social media success tends to be a game of modalities, a labyrinth for finding the niche that might just magically click with people. While for Snapchat it was one-time pictures, for Vine the 6-second limit and for BeReal the requirement to post in order to view, it necessitated a mechanism that made the users hooked on it. More importantly, they had to work for it.
This vital revelation links closely to the theory of humans being the ‘status seeking monkeys’ as they are. If we were to believe in the thousands of econ scholars defining how free markets respond to scarcity, we can infer that the more scarce a resource is, the higher it is valued. The more scarce we can make the relative success of the social game of these networks, the higher it will be valued by the people using them.
As social success is a game of different skills, it can only be achieved by understanding what truly works.
By structuring networks to be high-intensity and relentlessly driven—or what some might even call toxic—we’re effectively creating an environment that signals the need for increased effort and commitment. Buy this product, go to that trendy new cafe, pursue that next best thing. You’d rarely see a viral post that conveys something more ordinary otherwise. It is no coincidence that teenage girls are at an all time high w.r.t suicide rates or that these trendy new cafes with over the top saffron topped hazelnut acai’s are abandoned after a couple months.
This collateral is fueled by the designed trickery, the illusion of perfection. The disguise of ordinariness. The unattainable ideals taken on by the artificially famous, the users with the most social capital.
This smart architecture locks the common folk in the lower ranks and keeps them there, struggling to want more, working their way towards the higher end of the ladder, for this have worked for thousands of years to keep whole civilizations in check.
Without this constant reminder that there is a more perfect version of you out there that is only attainable via the CTA of the platform, the network could not succeed in retaining its user base and keeping them engaged.
Let’s consider an example like Prisma, a photo filter app that attempted to transition into a social networking platform. Prisma gained rapid popularity after its release by offering an effortless way to transform your photos into stunning artworks using its state of the art filters.
All was well, until virtually any image could be turned into an impressive painting with a single tap. Consequently, individual photos lost their uniqueness. The real highlight was the filter itself, not the user.
As a result, there was little incentive to follow one user over another. Without an element of skill or differentiation, the foundation for a skill-based or status-driven network didn’t materialize. In essence, it remained a tool but fell short in its attempt to evolve into a successful platform that leverages status.
Now on to the giant. Facebook, in its early days, introduced one of the most well-known ‘proof of work’ barriers: being a Harvard student. Access was limited to those with a harvard.edu email address, leveraging one of the most prestigious cultural filters imaginable. Few examples of exclusivity are as potent a catalyst for status and appeal.
Why did TikTok emerge as the biggest growth network of them all? Its more tight and instant feedback loop plays perfectly into gen Zs impatience when it comes to digital goods (think 1 day deliveries on amazon).
If you are new to TikTok and have just uploaded a great video, the selection algorithm promises to distribute your post much more quickly than if you were on sharing it on a network that relies on the size of your following, which most people have to build up over a long period of time.
Conversely, if you come up with one great video but the rest of your work is mediocre, you can’t count on continued distribution on TikTok since your followers live mostly in a feed driven by the TikTok algorithm, not their follow graph. The result is a feedback loop that is much more tightly wound that that of other social networks, both in the positive and negative direction.
Let us look at the early days of Twitter. Before the days of the 140 characters or less punchline comedians, this network consisted mostly of more dull life updates, more ‘is this thing on?’ kind of energy. No real value added for users to keep engaged, especially with its initial user segment.
After the launch of leaderboards of the most upvoted tweets (Favstar) this sentiment suddenly bursted the next chapter for this network, surging its popularity and engagement as well as entertainment factor. People suddenly had a concrete carrot and stick scenario laid in front of them, and they loved it.
As initially stated, it should always be a social game that consists of some degree of skill, it should not be something every single individual should be capable of doing. This creates the scarcity it needs in order for people to struggle their way to climb the ladder and to keep engaged.
Fast forward today when every post is about maximizing its tweets or upvotes, when everybody is indeed a trained comedian of sorts. This late stage performative twitter has come its way, being synonymous with how businesses are run. Back in the pre-pubertic days when it was not much of a business, when users had authentic, real, bland tweets about their lives vs. the most carefully crafted tweet to feed the algorithm that in turns reaches the most people and generates the most traffic to the OPs profile.
One could dare to ask, where are we heading with this? Whats the post late stage performative version of networks going to look like? when are we going to be satisfied with our status?
So how can one leverage the ‘Status as a Service’ and build the ultimate new social network? Why not just copy an established competitor and throw in a little spice in the form of an extra feature and be done with it?
If the proof of work remains unchanged, a new status ladder isn’t truly being created. This gives people little incentive to switch, especially when the new network lacks a substantial user base.
For example rather than one global messaging app, different apps prevail in different regions because the best option is simply the one most people in that area already use. Capturing the very same market with a new product prevails as a risky option.
In China, Tencent was eager to curb Bytedance’s growth in the short video market. When Tencent introduced a feature in its competing app that enabled users to create side-by-side video reactions, it didn’t take long for Bytedance to integrate the same functionality into Douyin. Today, this feature is widely popular on TikTok worldwide.
This demonstrates how strategically leveraging a competitor’s innovation can be a powerful tactic and how vital it is to come up with creative new ways to capture new markets.
In today’s digital landscape, any community based company aiming for success must recognize that users are inherently driven by the pursuit of status and social capital. By designing platforms that offer unique avenues for users to earn and display status through distinctive ‘proof of work’ mechanisms—such as creating compelling content or engaging in meaningful interactions—companies can foster vibrant communities.
However, in the ever so algorithmic based consumption of mass content and the increasing usage of AI-powered avatars to fill up emptying social networks are increasing barriers for new players in the field.
The dead internet theory suggests that much of the web is now populated by bots, AI-generated content, and algorithmically optimized engagement rather than genuine human interaction.
This phenomenon creates a paradox for community-based companies. While automation can enhance engagement metrics, it risks eroding the authenticity that makes communities valuable in the first place.
If status within a network can be gamed by bots or diluted by AI-driven interactions, the incentive structures that drive organic participation start to collapse.
As a result, platforms must find ways to verify and reward genuine contributions while resisting the temptation to artificially inflate engagement. Companies that can balance these forces—leveraging technology to enhance community rather than replace it—will have a competitive edge in an increasingly synthetic digital landscape.