October 1, 2025 · Hugo Latapie
Social platforms once promised a “digital town square” — a level field where ideas could rise on merit. At scale, the promise bent. Algorithms optimized for proxies like likes and follower counts, amplifying spectacle over substance. An overlooked analysis from an unknown voice can vanish, while a familiar name repeating the point dominates. It becomes a burn multiple for discourse: high attention spent, low meaning returned.
Fame is not merit; it is a blunt signal. Feeds that prioritize attention metrics tend to reward velocity and familiarity over depth. The result is predictable: reactive loops outcompete reflective ones, and the next useful idea struggles to surface.
One feature points toward a different architecture: Lists. On X, Lists let you assemble streams of voices without relying on follows or the default algorithmic feed. They can be private or shared, pinned for quick access, and tuned for topics — more like a playlist for discourse than a stage for performance. In practical terms, Lists enable personalized “meaning streams”: narrow, high-signal feeds for domains like AI reliability, governance, or early-stage building, composed by users rather than inferred by a black box.
This suggests a simple lens for judging platforms: who empowers user curation, and who hoards control?
LinkedIn takes a different approach. Its feed elevates early engagement and “expertise” cues, which can support professional trust but reduces user control over curation. There is no native analog to Lists — no portable, shareable personal streams layered atop the feed.
Groups offer structured, collective depth: moderated discussion, slower tempo, clearer norms. They can work well for niche topics and professional communities. But they remain siloed and administratively rigid, with limited portability into a daily reading stream. Participation is possible; personal curation is constrained.
None of this is malicious. It reflects incentives. Advertising-driven models reward sustained attention on platform; portable, user-defined streams enable people to step outside that loop. The very tools that return agency can appear to threaten the business logic that sustains the product.
A meaning economy values ideas compounded over minutes captured. Lists (and analogous features like custom feeds) lower attention burn by elevating curation and context. Groups provide a complementary path: slower, structured spaces where collective knowledge can accrete. Together, they point to a healthier pattern — fluid, individual streams balanced with communal depth.
The question for every platform is simple: do you return more than you burn?