• following people instead of joining communities based on interests has negative emotional and social implications
• social media sites benefit from knocking down privacy walls. Maximizing content spread and minimizing blocking/blacklisting capabilities benefits advertisers - the true clients of websites.
• social media sites benefit from eroding online anonymity. they track user site interaction, searches, and more to precisely target their ads at your interests (unless you deliberately turn it off). tracking data can endanger anonymity and make doxxing easier.
• social media sites benefit from conflict. Conflict generates user response much more effectively than harmony/peace. More user interaction means more eyes on ads, increasing ad space value.
• social media sites are therefore deincentivized to address abuse reports, increase moderation, improve blacklisting tools, or offer privacy options. and there’s nothing you can do about it because
• there’s nowhere different to go. it’s difficult to compete with existing social media sites as a startup. to draw social media users, a newcomer must offer something bigger, better, and equally free*, and offering any of this on startup capital is … unlikely, at best.

• moderated communities were replaced by following unmoderated tags, directly leading to and encouraging the creation of hate spaces - ‘don’t tag your hate’ leads to negativity-specific tags that could themselves be followed, forming a foundation for anti- communities to develop from
• no privacy, minimal blacklisting options, poor blocking tools, lack of oversight, lack of meaningful consequences for TOS violations = 'fandom police’/vigilanteism (attempts to assert authority over others without actually having that authority) - some people react to the inability to get away from content that they hate by trying to force that content to stop existing entirely. without actual moderating authority, they accomplish this by social pressure, intimidation, and shame tactics.
• the people-following structure of web 2.0 is fundamentally incompatible with web 2.0 reshare functions and search engines. content posted on a personal blog is rarely intended to stand alone because people who follow the blog presumably see all the blog’s content in an ongoing stream. but reshare functions and search results separate the content from the context in which is was presented, causing misunderstandings and strife. (for site owners, the strife is a feature, not a bug.)
• following people instead of joining communities based on a shared interest creates social stress - following/unfollowing an individual has more social & emotional implications than joining/leaving interest communities
• Unmoderated conflict is polarizing. Web 2.0 specializes in causing unmoderated conflict. - exacerbated by the depersonalizing effect of not being able to see or hear other users, conflict in the unmoderated spaces on web 2.0 social media quickly devolves into extremism and nastiness. web 2.0 socmed structure even eggs the conflict on: people are more likely to interact with content that makes them angry (’someone is wrong on the internet!’ effect), which shares the content with more users, which makes them angry, so they interact (and on, and on).
• The extreme antagonism generated by web 2.0 socmed creates echo chambers - the aggregate effect of unmoderated conflict is that the most extreme and polarizing content gets spread around the most. polarizing content doesn’t tend to convince people to change their minds, but rather entrenches them further in their ideas and undermines the credit of opposing points of view. it also increases sensitivity to dissent and drives people closer to those who share their opinions, creating echo chambers of agreement.
• reacting to content that enrages you increases the chances of encountering it again because algorithms - social media site algorithms are generally designed to bring users more of the content they interact with the most because they want more site interaction to happen. if you interact with posts that make you mad, you’ll get more recs related to content that makes you mad.
• everyone has an opinion to share and everyone’s opinion has to be reshared: reactionary blogging as a group solidarity exercise. when something notable happens and everybody has to share their reaction on social media, the reaction itself becomes an emotional and social experience, sometimes overwhelming and damaging.
• when the reaction is righteous anger that everyone can reaffirm in one another, it creates an addictive emotional high. one way to reproduce it? find more enraging content to be mad about (and web 2.0 is happy to bring it to you).
• It’s easy to spread misinformation (and hard to correct it) - no modern social media site offers ways to edit content and have that edit affect all reshares. Corrections can only reach fractions of the original audience of a misleading viral post.
• web 2.0 social media discourages leaving the site with new content notifications and by lacking tools that keep your ‘place’ on your dash, deincentivizing verification checks before resharing content.
• web 2.0’s viral qualities + misinformation machine + rage as a social bonding experience = shame culture and fear of being 'next’ (tumblr bonus: no time stamps and everything you post is eternal) - when offending content is spread virally, each individual reaction may have proportion to the original offense, but the combined response is overwhelming and punishing. many people feel the right to have their anger heard and felt by the offender, resulting in a dogpile effect. fear of inciting this kind of widespread negative reaction depresses creativity and the willingness to take risks with shared content or fanworks.
• absolute democracy of information & misinformation plus too much available information leads to uncertainty of who/what is trustworthy and encourages equating feelings to facts - social media doesn’t give content increased spread and weight based on its truthfulness or the credibility of the OP. misinformation is as likely to spread as truth, and the sheer amount of available information - conflicting or not - on the web is overwhelming. when fact-checking, it’s hard to know who to trust, who is twisting the facts, or who is simply looking at the same fact from a different viewpoint. information moves so fast it’s hard to know what ‘fact’ will be debunked by new information tomorrow. People give up; they decide the truth is unknowable, or they go with what ‘feels’ right, out of sheer exhaustion.
• information fatigue caused by web 2.0 makes black & white thinking look attractive - conflict and polarization and partisanship erodes communication to the point that opposing points of view no longer even use language the same way, much less can reach a compromise. the wildly different reference points for looking at the same issue makes it difficult to even know what the middle ground is. from an outside point of view this makes everyone on both sides seem untrustworthy and distances the objective truth from everyone even more.
• it’s easy to radicalize people who are looking for someone or something to trust/are tired of being uncertain - information fatigue leads to people just wanting to be told what to think. who’s good and who’s bad? whose fault is this? and don’t worry - lots of people are ready to jump in and tell you what to think and who to blame.
• everyone is only 2 seconds away from being doxxed: our anonymity on the net is paper-thin thanks to web 2.0 - before facebook encouraged using our real names and the gradual aggregation of most people to a few major socmed sites, anonymity was easier to maintain. now we have long internet histories with consistent usernames and sites that track everything we do to improve ad targeting. anyone with minimal hacking knowledge could doxx the large majority of socmed users. 
• and all it takes is one poorly-worded, virally spread tweet to send the whole of twitter after you with pitchforks.

A bar has opened that doesn’t serve alcohol, and it’s surprisingly successful.

Brillig Dry Bar in Ann Arbor, Michigan doesn’t serve alcohol, but owner Nic Sims is counting on customers not caring.

She hasn’t had a drink in 20 years, and she wanted to create a space where people—including, but not limited to, recovering alcoholics—could gather to have fun and socialize without worrying about drinking. In other words, she wants Brillig Dry Bar to have “a bar-like convivial atmosphere, with snacks and drinks and conversation, without it being a bar,” she told MLive.com.

Sims runs the bar as a pop-up out of her husband’s coffee shop, Mighty Good Coffee. She serves interesting non-alcoholic drinks, like Brooklyn Egg Creams, Pomegranate-Rosemary Sodas, and Vegan Pumpkin Chillers, as well as snack plates with meats, cheeses, and cookies.

Though some detractors have accused Sims of being anti-alcohol, the bar’s opening night last Friday was packed. According to BuzzFeed, “Brillig’s first customers included former drinkers, pregnant women, Muslims, teenagers, and college kids.”

The next pop-up will be December 26.