EPISODE DESCRIPTION
Welcome to It's Gonna Be Fine, the podcast where we highlight current topics and trends you may have missed, cut through the noise, and dig deeper to understand what's really going on.
In this episode, Matti explores how social media evolved into content creation, and what that shift has done to the way we compete for attention. Going viral used to be the exception; now, it can feel like the expectation. As feeds get more crowded and attention gets harder to capture, content is getting bigger, bolder, and much more extreme.
Over the course of the episode, we dive into the growing “content arms race,” why Arizona State University now offers a degree in content creation, and what the lawsuits against Meta tell us about the business of keeping people on these platforms — particularly kids and teenagers. Plus, we’ll take a closer look at Meta’s recent settlement and the absolutely infuriating way the company chose to talk about it afterward.
And finally, to mark the 25th anniversary of 9/11, the conversation turns to grief, trauma, and remembrance; how important it is to let people process trauma in their own way without judgment; and whether we've lost some of the compassion we once had for the people directly affected by that day. Never Forget 💙
Referenced in this Episode
CBS News - Influencer College Major (via Instagram Reels)
The Journal - "Will Meta's $18 Billion Settlement Change Social Media?"
Meta - "An Open Letter to to TikTok and YouTube to Join Us in Supporting Teens"
The Free Press - "Should Mamdani Attend the 9/11 Ceremony?" (via Instagram Reels)
TRANSCRIPT
If it doesn’t shock you, did it even happen? Social media used to be about showing people what you were doing and staying connected with friends and family. Now, it feels like everyone is competing to create something worth watching. So what happens when the competition for our attention has no real limit?
From Social Media to Content Creation
Hello and welcome to the It’s Gonna Be Fine podcast! Thanks so much for being here. Today, we’re going to talk about a topic we’ve discussed a lot over the course of this show, but we’re going to dive deeper because there’s so much going on in the world of social media right now. There are lawsuits against Meta, which we’ll talk about, and content creation is becoming really, really extreme.
What we’ll explore today is the shift we’ve seen over the last few years from what we historically called social media to what is now often referred to as content creation. I was recently talking to someone with almost 200,000 Instagram followers and asked if they considered themselves a social media influencer. Their answer was pretty interesting: “No, I’m not a social media influencer. I think of myself as a content creator.”
So I’m thinking about what that shift from social media to content creation has led to. If we think about the early days of social media, back in the 2010s, and what it was then, we can see how much it has changed. It’s become this sort of uncontrolled machine that none of us fully understands and that is constantly changing. And all of it seems so connected.
Today, we’re going to dive into this world and try to figure out what’s shifted and where it’s taking us. There are a number of topics and stories I want to bring you that shine a light on these developments and how they’re all connected.
Let’s start with a story I saw in Vulture, which explored what we might call the content arms race. The story was all about how the bar for getting attention on social media keeps rising. What might have worked a few years ago simply doesn’t work anymore when it comes to capturing people’s attention.
The article discussed different influencers who, a few years ago, might have been showing off their baking or food content. But what’s happened is that this kind of content isn’t as interesting to people anymore because it’s just too ordinary. These days, the way to capture attention is to be really, really extreme. There’s so much content out there and so many opportunities to catch someone’s attention, while attention spans are so short. As a result, influencers and content creators are finding extreme ways to stand out.
The new way to stand out is to be big, bold, and extreme. Everyone is competing for attention, so simply posting consistently, which was advice people used to give all the time, isn’t necessarily enough anymore. You have to be really out there and in your face, taking crazy risks in the hope that something will go viral or catch someone’s attention.
Even going viral isn’t as remarkable as it used to be. Back in the day, when something went viral, it was a big deal. It was a once-in-a-blue-moon moment for someone or an influencer. Now, it’s almost as if, if it doesn’t go viral, did it even happen?
I’ve been noticing this in the metrics and view counts, too. As someone dipping his toe into this world with the show and trying to figure out how to get more eyeballs on it through social media, particularly Instagram, I’ve noticed how much expectations have changed. Even two, three, or four years ago, getting 10,000 views or more on something felt pretty impressive.
I remember a few years ago, when TikTok was still relatively new, watching TikTok videos. I’m glad I don’t do that anymore, but I did. I commented on one video, and I guess I was one of the first people to comment. My comment took off, and I think more than 12,000 people liked it. I showed it to someone, and they were floored. “My God, 12,000 people liking your comment! That’s viral!” This was around 2022.
Now, 10,000 likes, comments, or views honestly doesn’t seem all that impressive. If you’re on social media and seeing the numbers people are getting, along with the numbers Instagram features on something like its For You page, you’ll see posts with hundreds of thousands of engagements, views, likes, and comments. The threshold for something really taking off has completely changed. There’s been a total recalibration of what success looks like.
It speaks to what the Vulture article was getting at: if you’re not extreme, if you’re not generating these massive numbers by doing something crazy, you’re just not as relevant anymore.
We’re now in a world where everyone can, and maybe wants to, be a content creator. So how do you stand out? Our feeds become completely saturated, and attention is scarce. The incentives to monetize and grow become stronger, which means you have to do increasingly outrageous things to get those views.
And I will say, I’ve noticed this myself. I’ve seen pieces of content that make me think, “This is really pushing the envelope.” Whether it’s the topic someone is discussing, the opinion they’re expressing, a comment they’re making, or a video they’re stitching and reacting to, things have become so intense and out there. People are bashing others and saying things that feel increasingly extreme.
You’ve also got young kids putting themselves out there in all sorts of ways. Sometimes you wonder whether they’re even old enough to be talking about these things, and why they’re comfortable putting themselves out there like this. People are going to greater and greater extremes to get views and engagement. To me, it feels like we’re getting close to a world where anything goes.
And that’s probably not great. We’re going to talk about some of the impacts and consequences of all this, too.
The Vulture article was eye-opening. Obviously, there are still people with loyal audiences who aren’t doing extreme things to get attention. But when I saw that article and started noticing just how intense social media content was becoming, I realized there was something worth exploring here.
Can You Get a Degree in Content Creation?
Perhaps because of this growing need to understand algorithms, stand out, and monetize content in an increasingly competitive environment, we now have another interesting development: content creation is becoming something you can study. According to a story I saw from CBS News, Arizona State University is offering it as an actual bachelor’s degree major.
Of course, marketing and communications have always been fields you could study. I would imagine that social media and platforms like TikTok and Facebook have become part of those curricula over the years, too. But now, at ASU, content creation is an actual major.
My initial reaction was, “Okay, why are we doing this, ASU? Is this needed? Are we just trying to make everyone a TikTok star? Is this even academic?” I thought it had to be a stretch.
But then I thought about it more, and it actually makes perfect sense, especially from a business and marketing perspective. Imagine a small business trying to increase its customer base but not knowing what to do on social media or how to create effective content. Hiring someone who studied content creation and understands audience analytics, copyright, video production, editing, and monetization could be incredibly valuable.
Someone who understands how to build an audience across different platforms, each with its own unique features and benefits, could help a business reach its goals much more effectively.
So I think the benefit of studying content creation is less about making yourself TikTok-famous and more about helping businesses develop the skills they need to navigate this environment. Of course, I’m sure there will be people who study it specifically because they want to promote themselves and become influencers. Ultimately, I think it’s all about how you use the knowledge.
The need for people who fully understand and know how to manage this increasingly complicated ecosystem is real. If content is becoming more extreme and people are trying to capture attention by any means necessary, perhaps an academic or educational track could help people focus on proven methods instead of simply going wild and crazy. We’ll see what happens, and I wonder whether other schools will follow suit.
The Consequences of the Content Arms Race
With all of this going on, we know there are consequences. Even if you’re using content creation to promote a business, others are using it to promote themselves and make money. As we’ve seen, that can push things toward increasingly extreme content.
That leads platforms to compete for more of our attention and more of our money. In turn, they build algorithms that can contribute to addictive behavior, whether or not that was the original intention. Vulnerable populations, especially children, can be particularly affected, leading to serious harm.
We’ve talked about how social media affects not just kids but older generations, too. Retirees, for example, may have more free time, and these platforms can capture their attention as well.
All of this leads us to the next part of the discussion: the lawsuits being brought against social media platforms.
The lawsuits against Meta have received a lot of attention, and I think that’s partly because there have been so many of them. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, seems particularly reluctant to settle, at least from what I’ve seen. It appears to be sticking to its guns, insisting it has done nothing wrong and challenging or appealing decisions rather than conceding.
TikTok and YouTube have also faced lawsuits and have settled some cases, while Meta has continued to fight many of the accusations against it.
I want to talk about two key legal developments that are particularly eye-opening. They illustrate how the push to become more extreme, capture attention, and stand out can create a snowball effect: How do we get more viewers? How do we get more users? How do we keep them on the platform? How do we make more money?
The New Mexico Case
The first case was brought in New Mexico and made headlines a few months ago. We may have discussed it in previous episodes, too.
Essentially, Meta was found liable for negatively affecting children’s mental health and was ordered to pay a $567 million penalty, according to NBC News. The civil case was brought by the New Mexico attorney general. A jury initially awarded the plaintiff $375 million, and a judge later increased the amount, bringing the penalty to $567 million.
That’s a substantial financial penalty, and Meta has indicated that it plans to appeal. It may be a while before the case is fully resolved.
The judge also ordered Meta to limit usage to 90 hours a month for users under 18.
One of the most frustrating things about this case was Meta’s response. The company blamed what it called “bad actors.” It planned to appeal, but its position was essentially that the problems were caused by bad actors on the platform.
First of all, who are these so-called bad actors? Are we talking about people posting the extreme content we discussed earlier? If so, why are they posting that content, Meta? They’re trying to stand out. And whether or not they have bad intentions, your platform has helped create an environment that rewards this behavior.
You’ve created something that has become incredibly difficult to control, and it was distasteful, in my opinion, to see the company deflect responsibility and blame others.
This is what I was talking about earlier. Meta seems to be digging in its heels and blaming everyone except itself. It’s frustrating to see a company respond this way when the lawsuit itself found that the platform was addictive and negatively affected children’s mental health.
From where I’m sitting, the case raises serious questions about the company’s responsibility for the environment it has created.
The Multistate Settlement
The second case is more recent, and I want to spend a little more time on it because it’s particularly revealing.
Much of the reporting I saw came from The Journal, the Wall Street Journal‘s podcast. It’s a phenomenal podcast, and I highly recommend it.
The show reported on a multistate settlement that Meta agreed to following lawsuits brought by attorneys general across the United States. The lawsuits alleged that Meta had harmed underage users, similar to the New Mexico case.
This time, Meta agreed to settle rather than wait for a verdict. There has been discussion about why the company chose to settle, and we’ll get to some of that in a moment.
The settlement involved an $18 billion payout to 48 states, along with changes to the platforms and the way young people can use them. And, as part of the settlement, Meta did not admit to any wrongdoing.
I still have this image in my mind of Mark Zuckerberg walking in to testify at one of these proceedings, with what struck me as a smug expression on his face. Don’t get me started, because I could go on about this for a while.
But the company is, of course, not admitting wrongdoing. And it gets even more interesting.
One reason The Journal reported that Meta may have wanted to settle was that former employees had testified and referenced internal documents suggesting that the company knew its products could be harmful to underage users. According to that reporting, the company continued operating in the face of those concerns.
Meta is also facing thousands of other lawsuits involving similar allegations about its platforms being addictive and deliberately designed to encourage that behavior.
But the really interesting part of this settlement isn’t just the $18 billion. It’s the changes Meta has agreed to make to its platforms.
According to The Journal, some of the key changes include a two-hour daily usage limit across Facebook and Instagram for users under 18. Once they reach that limit, the apps will stop working for the rest of the day, with messaging apparently remaining available.
The apps will also go dark overnight, between midnight and 6 a.m. Push notifications will be disabled during the school day, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.
In addition, Meta has agreed to hide the number of likes and reactions that teens can see on their posts. That’s interesting because those interactions can provide a dopamine hit. I feel it myself: every time you get a like or a comment and people engage with something you’ve posted, it’s tempting to think, “Ooh, let’s do more. How much more can we get?”
The settlement also includes an option to turn off algorithmic recommendations, which attorneys general have argued contribute to addictive behavior.
So those are some of the changes Meta has agreed to make: a daily usage limit, overnight restrictions, disabled push notifications during school hours, hidden engagement counts, and the option to turn off algorithmic recommendations.
The Journal also interviewed Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who struck me as a genuinely thoughtful and down-to-earth guy. He made a point that really resonated with me: the states can make Meta pay a substantial amount of money, but it’s an enormous company with enormous resources. The real impact isn’t necessarily the money. It’s what Meta has agreed to change.
He also made an excellent point about why settling could be more effective than pursuing a larger verdict. If the states won at trial and secured an even larger penalty, the decision could go through years of appeals. The New Mexico case, for example, is still subject to that process.
By settling, Meta agreed to changes that can take effect much sooner. Rather than waiting years for the legal process to play out, the states can begin seeing the results of the agreement.
And I thought, “Dude, you’re right, Phil.” I’m a fan.
Meta’s Response: An Open Letter to TikTok and YouTube
But here’s the part I’m going to try my best not to lose my mind over.
Meta agreed to the settlement, but the agreement reportedly includes a condition tied to the full $18 billion payout. Meta’s competitors, TikTok and YouTube, must also agree to certain measures, including daily usage limits. The terms also involve those competitors paying $5.3 billion to the states.
These are companies that weren’t part of the lawsuit Meta was settling. Yet Meta has tied the full amount of its payout to whether those competitors agree to similar restrictions. If they don’t, Meta would pay only around $12 billion rather than the full $18 billion.
Just think about that for a second. Meta agrees to settle, and after being found liable in the New Mexico case, it agrees to settle another case involving multiple states. But it will only pay the full amount if its competitors are also subject to similar measures.
This floored me. I guess it shouldn’t, given everything we’ve discussed about Meta digging in its heels and refusing to admit wrongdoing. But I was trying to think of what this reminded me of, and it felt like a child who gets punished and immediately tattles on other people, whether or not those people had anything to do with what happened.
The Journal covered this aspect of the agreement, too, and it was something I hadn’t known about before. It really doesn’t sit well with me.
But it gets even better. After the settlement, Meta ran an ad on Instagram that I want to read to you.
It was a four-slide post, essentially a statement from the company. The first slide read: “An open letter to TikTok and YouTube to join us in supporting teens.”
First of all, you’re not simply supporting teens. You were sued and agreed to a settlement. You’re being required to make changes. Yet the wording frames this as an opportunity to join Meta in doing something good.
Slide two stated that Meta had reached an agreement with a bipartisan group of 52 attorneys general across U.S. states, territories, and the District of Columbia, “building on our long-standing efforts to empower parents and support teens.”
I wanted to vomit. The statement didn’t mention the settlement or the lawsuit. It didn’t acknowledge the allegations or the legal consequences. Instead, it presented the agreement as though Meta had approached the states on its own initiative, saying, “Hey, we recognize that teens are being harmed, and we’re going to do the right thing.”
Who are you kidding?
That’s slide two. Slide three said that, through the agreement, Meta had established a path toward industry-wide commitments to further empower parents, followed by a list of the changes it had agreed to make.
And then came the fourth slide: Meta said it wanted teens to benefit from a new industry standard but couldn’t do it alone. The company urged TikTok and YouTube to implement the same measures, arguing that restrictions on one app might simply push teens to another.
The post concluded by saying that all platforms should empower parents and support teens in these ways and urged its competitors to join in.
Now, on its own, that’s a wonderful sentiment. What a great objective. The problem is how Meta is trying to disguise what’s actually happening.
Instead of focusing on doing what’s right, the company is making this about the industry as a whole. It’s essentially saying that meaningful change requires everyone to change, while presenting the agreement as an extension of its own longstanding efforts.
Imagine someone who doesn’t know about the lawsuit seeing this ad. They might think, “Wow, look at Meta doing the right thing!”
But that’s not what’s happening here. Meta isn’t even admitting wrongdoing as part of the settlement. Yet it’s putting out an ad positioning itself as the good guy, encouraging its competitors to join its efforts to support teens.
Don’t focus on the fact that the company agreed to a settlement after being found liable in a case involving hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties. Don’t focus on the fact that it’s facing thousands of other lawsuits. Instead, let’s pretend none of that happened and present this as an initiative Meta has been championing all along.
It’s sickening. To me, it’s an example of gaslighting and a complete lack of accountability.
I took screenshots of the Instagram post, so I’ll try to include them on the show’s website at itsgonnabefine.fm. I think people should read the statement for themselves.
Where Do We Go From Here?
As I mentioned, there are many other lawsuits underway. The Journal reported that Meta is facing thousands of cases involving similar allegations.
And what do I say? Good. Bring them all. Keep bringing them. This company needs some sort of reality check.
From where I’m sitting, Meta is a major obstacle to progress on this front. Of course, I’m asking myself, and maybe you are, too: Is there a chance any of this is going to be fine?
I think the answer is yes. There is a chance things can improve, and here’s how: keep bringing those lawsuits and keep calling the company out. Please don’t fall for its claims that it’s on the right side of this issue and is making changes out of the goodness of its heart.
I try not to use the word evil very often. It’s a loaded, intense, and serious word. However, at this point, Meta is getting dangerously close to falling into that category, at least in my view. You could argue that it has already crossed that line.
If we want to have a chance of making things better, we need to keep calling the company out, refuse to fall for its gaslighting, and recognize the hypocrisy.
I should also acknowledge that Meta undoubtedly does things that aren’t harmful. There are programs and types of content made possible by platforms like Facebook and Instagram that can be beneficial. And I’m not saying TikTok and YouTube are the righteous parties in this situation, either. We know there are serious concerns about those platforms, too.
But what we keep seeing from Meta is a company that digs in its heels and tries to position itself as holier than thou. I find that really, really gross.
I hope you do, too. I’d love to hear what you think, and let’s hope we can see some improvement.
Remembering September 11, 2001
All right, I think I’m a bit calmer now. Smiles all around!
But I did want to cover one other thing before we wrap up. This past Friday marked the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and I wanted to take a moment to commemorate and remember that awful day in our history.
Many of us remember where we were, what we felt, and what we saw. There’s been a lot of discussion about why the 25th anniversary is particularly significant: there are now adults with full-fledged careers who either weren’t alive on September 11 or were too young to remember it. There’s concern that the history, impact, and emotions of that day are slipping away.
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to visit the 9/11 Memorial Museum in New York. It was probably the most impactful museum I’ve ever visited. I was there with a friend, and we spent almost four hours there, which is the longest I’ve ever spent in a museum. We didn’t even finish everything; there was still more to see.
If you have an opportunity to go, I highly recommend it.
I think what made the experience so impactful was that, unlike most history museums, where the events took place hundreds of years ago, this was something I could remember and relate to. There’s something about experiencing history that you personally lived through that strikes you in a different way.
There’s a lot of history and a lot of emotion surrounding this day. But I also wanted to take a moment to comment on some of the rhetoric surrounding the memorial ceremonies for the 25th anniversary.
As we move farther away from September 11, we’re increasingly surrounded by people in positions of influence, whether in government, business, or elsewhere, who don’t have the same context as those of us who remember the day. It feels as though we’re gradually losing sight of just how important and impactful that day was.
One particularly contentious issue was whether New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani should attend the anniversary ceremony. As you may have seen, some 9/11 family members publicly opposed his attendance. There were videos and even petitions expressing that opposition.
There are probably many different reasons behind those objections, and we can only speculate about people’s motivations. Some have pointed to his reported past connections to people associated with Al Qaeda, directly or indirectly. Others have cited his past rhetoric and statements about September 11, arguing that he hasn’t sufficiently focused on the direct victims and has instead emphasized other, indirect victims. And some have argued that the opposition is rooted in racism or anti-Muslim prejudice.
Before getting to my own thoughts, I want to highlight a video I saw from a fitness influencer. He isn’t known primarily for political commentary, although he occasionally speaks about social and political issues.
He clipped a news report about some 9/11 families opposing Mamdani’s attendance and then criticized their position. He argued that Mamdani is the mayor of New York and, naturally, would attend the ceremony. He also questioned why these families were more concerned about Mamdani than about Donald Trump.
I couldn’t even watch the whole video. I had to stop because none of that was the point.
In what world do we think it’s our right to berate, talk down to, or judge someone’s reaction to a painful and traumatic event like September 11? Why would anyone think they’re entitled to do that?
Whether the influencer was right or wrong about Mamdani, that wasn’t what mattered to me. None of us has the right to tell a family member of a 9/11 victim how to feel, what to feel, what their political views should be, or how they should act politically. We don’t get to decide whether their concerns are valid.
I’m deeply concerned that we’re moving farther and farther away from the significance of September 11 and what it meant to the people affected by it. In the years after the attacks, there was a profound awareness of how important it was to be sensitive, compassionate, and understanding toward those who had lost loved ones.
Now, 25 years later, it feels as though we’re not only losing some of that sensitivity but are actually attacking the families of victims because we disagree with them.
The influencer’s ultimate point seemed to be that the opposition to Mamdani was racist, and many people in the comments agreed. But we don’t necessarily know the intentions behind every objection. What we do know is that none of us should presume to dictate how someone else processes trauma.
When someone experiences trauma we can’t fully understand, we need to approach them with compassion. Even if someone else has also been personally affected by September 11, that doesn’t give them the right to tell another person how to feel. Everyone processes trauma differently, especially after an event as devastating as this one.
I also saw another video that summarized the issue in a way that really resonated with me. Former New York Governor George Pataki was speaking with a reporter from The Free Press, who asked him about the controversy. He discussed why he felt Mamdani’s attendance might be inappropriate, but he ended with what I thought was an excellent point:
Ultimately, it’s about the families. That’s it. It’s about the families, and it’s about nobody else.
They should be allowed to say what they need to say, whenever they need to say it. As long as no one is breaking the law, they deserve the space to grieve and process what happened in the way that’s right for them.
All right, I don’t know about you, but I felt pretty riled up for most of this episode!
Thanks so much for being here, and of course, I’ll see you next time.
This transcript has been lightly edited for readability.
