Social Media's Double Standard.

2026 is a digital world. We see it every day. As much as many of us may not like the evolution we are experiencing, it is undeniable that this is the way. Technology makes work simpler, faster, and more fun. Or rather, it should make it so... if it doesn’t, that is a human problem, not a computer’s. In everyday life, that same technology makes our existence truly accessible. Just think of payment with a click, a smartphone that can do everything, and a home that can be controlled with a touch on a screen.

Even human relationships have undergone an evolution. Whether it's dating or social media, the way we approach others has evolved. But how has it evolved? Has it evolved for better or for worse? My point of view is that it has made us more fragile and insecure. But let's take it one step at a time.

Before expressing my humble opinion on the matter, I would like to use this post to talk a bit about social media, just to create the foundation for my reasoning.

What is Social Media?

By definition, social media are digital technologies based on the web and mobile applications that allow users to create, share, and exchange content—text, images, video, or audio—within virtual communities and networks. Put simply, the purpose of these platforms is to bring people together in a "common place," allowing anyone to express themselves in the form they desire.

From this premise derive two precise dynamics: freedom of expression and bidirectionality.

Freedom of expression (and the consequent creativity) is a simple concept. Each of us is free to convey a thought or an image as we see fit: some rely on logic, some on facts, some on humor or satire. There are painters, sculptors, singers, and entertainers, and each of them has—or should have—their own unique style. Freedom of expression should also protect these people from eventual censorship by the platform, because, in my opinion, creativity and freedom of expression should never be limited from above, but judged and blocked by the community, which must be free to decide in turn what is right or wrong.

Then we have bidirectionality. The concept is extremely simple: just as I can post something, others can too. And just as I can observe and judge what is published, others have the same power over me.

This is not an "astral" or entirely new concept. Just think of a group of people at a party or an event: different individuals gathered in the same place at the same time. Those people will look at each other, observe each other, and judge each other (positively or negatively), both openly and behind each other's backs, in the secret of their trusted groups or within the four walls of their own home.

Social media simply gave us both the opportunity to expose "our gossiping" in all its forms, and the power to offer the world who we are, offering us a golden opportunity to improve and evolve. An opportunity that, unfortunately, is often not exploited... but we will talk about that later.

If you think social media invented something new, you are mistaken. All these dynamics have existed since the dawn of time. The difference is that today we see them every day, in real-time, because we all have a ticket to this show. What previously happened "backstage" or in the privacy of domestic walls is today under the spotlight.

Ultimately, social media is nothing more than a microphone and a camera turned on the entire world. Paradoxically, it is the greatest The Truman Show humanity could ever imagine.

A Small Historical Parenthesis.

We all think this modern Truman Show is an invention that came about thanks to the smartphone and app technology. This is because we have short memories.

The concept of "social" was born long before the advent of the iPhone: the first true social media was actually created in 1997 and was called SixDegrees.com. Unfortunately, I never used it, but it was a milestone; for the first time, users could create a profile and add other users to a list of "friends." I can't say for sure if you could already post images, but the concept was exactly that of a current social network, complete with a "follow" function.

The site closed in 2001, and that first empty attempt was the beginning of something immensely larger. A beginning that was, however, postponed, as the new millennium was marked by the explosion of the "Dot-com" financial bubble, in which many lost everything. Even though much capital was lost, what fortunately remained was the idea that the internet was a place with extraordinary potential.

In 2002, that desire to rediscover the web slowly returned: it was Friendster that kicked things off, achieving immediate success but suffering from serious technical problems related to traffic.

2003 was the moment for two milestones: the first was LinkedIn, a social network for managers and professionals (a mystical place, still incomprehensible to me), and the second was Myspace, an incredible portal that became the most visited site in the world for several years. In those two years, there was enormous progress, but everything was still linked to a generation of young millennials who loved computers. Everything, however, was about to change very quickly.

In 2004, a university student named Mark Zuckerberg launched "TheFacebook," a communication platform initially limited to Harvard students. The success was so overwhelming that what was supposed to be a university sharing tool crossed every border, aggressively entering the lives of us all. By 2010, Facebook was the most visited site in the world, competing with giants like Google. That platform was the first that even "older people" approached in terms of social media. If today it has become the place for "boomers," where the most false and incomprehensible things are read, in 2010 it was the place where every boy or girl wanted to be.

That year was the definitive turning point: humanity was ready for total connection. We wanted it, we requested it, and we got it. From here on, the landscape fragmented.

In 2005, YouTube was born, revolutionizing video sharing; before then, platforms this complete and easy to use did not exist. That red button gave life to YouTubers and the concept of "content creator" as a profession. Today, huge entrepreneurial realities and large companies operate on the platform, using it to promote their content.

In 2006, Twitter (now X) was launched, introducing the concept of constant fighting, controversy, and unfortunately, the first fake news. The initial 150-character limit gave rise to messages that were sometimes hard to understand or slogans on the edge of legality. It was often used as a "bridge" (a bit like Linktree today) to link to full posts on Facebook. Much has changed with Musk's arrival, but at its debut, it didn't leave much room for creativity: it was almost a social network for "service communications."

2010 was the year of photography. If we had Facebook for long texts, Twitter for catchphrases, and YouTube for videos, something related to images was still missing: enter Instagram. At the beginning, it was a niche for models and photographers, but with the evolution of smartphone cameras, everything changed. Instagram pushed enormously on the concept of the hashtag and transformed the self-portrait into something revolutionary: the selfie. By 2016, taking selfies everywhere had become such a trend that it even inspired famous songs, like "Let Me Take a Selfie."

Finally, when we thought we didn't need anything else, China sensed that the possibility of posting short vertical videos was missing. In 2016, TikTok was launched (initially Douyin), marking the rise of short videos and the recommendation algorithm. That "For You" feed created many little zombies with their phones now fused to their hands. TikTok is perhaps the most useless platform I know: not for the technical concept, but for the type of content it proposes, where the worst human degradation often emerges.

I forgot to mention Vine or Snapchat, but honestly, they didn't bring anything so relevant that they couldn't be skipped over entirely.

Comparison

Social media is an unprecedented success, both medially and financially. Today there are people capable of generating millions of dollars every year through these platforms, which offer companies the unprecedented opportunity to reach millions of users at the same instant. The figure of the influencer was born precisely to intercept this immense mass of audience.

However, the primary concept of a social network was something else: the possibility of discovering new realities, ideas, and perspectives. This potential still exists, even if money has moved to the forefront. With Instagram, for example, we can meet people who live on the other side of the world, something unthinkable only twenty years ago.

This digital proximity brings with it different visions of the world: what I consider positive might be seen negatively elsewhere. In theory, comparison with the "other" should push us to think outside the box and question our way of life. Although some pillars of our identity remain firm, other aspects could be smoothed out, changed, or integrated to improve our daily lives. A clear example is meditation. Before social media, it was a niche practice; today it has become a "must" for many people who use it to regulate their biological and vital rhythms.

Comparison: Inspiration or Condemnation?

Comparison, however, brings with it a subtle "problem." On social media, we don't just compare ideas, but also content. Every photo, every word, every single frame is analyzed, leading to two opposite consequences: inspiration and competition.

If we draw inspiration to grow and try something new, the social network fulfills its educational task. But there is a second, less pleasant path: competition. With millions of active people, it is inevitable that many post similar content. The problem arises when you look at someone else's content, compare it to yours, and judge: "That is the top." From there, your content stops seeming acceptable to you, and the desire to reach that level is triggered.

The point is not ambition itself, but the sacrifice necessary to reach that "top." As long as one takes the top, analyzes those best aspects, and applies them to our own idea, it is a winning strategy. What is not okay is copying what others do. We know well that certain standards, especially physical ones, require enormous efforts that often lead to health problems. Furthermore, that goal is a moving target: the bar keeps rising or, worse, changes direction. Imagine a woman who undergoes drastic diets to be "at the top," only to discover that the trend of the moment has radically changed.

The Ocean of Identical Drops

This race for perfection has a highly damaging side effect: to win the race, we end up proposing exactly what others do, convinced that it is the only winning formula. The result? We have all become the same.

We see it every day: Instagram profiles with the same poses, the same physiques, the same filters. We have reached the point where, once you've seen one piece of content, you've seen them all. The pursuit of perfection has made us copies of someone else, just to beg for a small slice of the audience. But how can we expect to emerge in the ocean of social media when we have all become drops of the exact same color?

Criticism (Inclusion vs. Ego)

If what you publish is of value, even if it's a copy of other content, people will notice: whether it's thanks to your following or an algorithm that rewards quality content, someone will see your work. With the increase in traffic, reactions inevitably arrive. It could be a simple click—the infamous like—or a comment.

Comments are, without a doubt, the most problematic part of social media. As long as it's a matter of pressing a button, no one really cares. Sure, the content creator sees the numbers go up and their ego inflate, but no one starts a war over a single like. As long as the numbers are high, everything runs smoothly.

With the comment, however, things get interesting. A comment is an opinion. It's like being at a bar and saying to the barista: "Wow, what great coffee!" or "This coffee is undrinkable." Both are legitimate judgments. What changes is the approach to the response: in the face of a compliment, one feels gratified; in the face of criticism, often, a verbal brawl breaks out and the bar is razed to the ground.

The Illusion of Constructive Criticism

On social media, a monumental double standard prevails. As long as a profile receives only praise, if asked "How do you approach criticism?", the protagonist of the moment will answer without blinking: "I find it fundamental for my personal growth." A sacrosanct statement: constructive criticism is the ideal tool to smooth out edges and improve oneself.

However, as soon as the audience moves a real objection, even if polite and constructive, that same person screams "hate machine." Suddenly, anyone expressing dissent is labeled as ignorant, a keyboard warrior, or insensitive. It is bizarre to observe how inclusivity is preached as long as the ego is well-fed, only to invoke censorship as soon as that bubble deflates.

The Formula 1 Case: When the Champion Censors

The most striking example is recent. For years, Formula 1 has promoted inclusivity campaigns, inviting the community to dialogue and shared passion. And yet, in March 2026, after the Australian Grand Prix, the federation published a post celebrating how "fun" the event had been. That post was flooded with respectful and reasoned criticism. The reason? The community had been very clear: this year's cars are considered disappointing and the show suffers for it.

That post was perceived as a passive-aggressive provocation, a way of saying: "You complain, but the numbers say we are right." And what did Formula 1, the champion of diversity, do? It preemptively censored comments, eliminating even the most civil criticisms.

The Victim as a Marketing Strategy

This attitude does not only concern big brands. Many content creators use criticism to gain pity, creating content in which they "pillory" those who dissent to come across as poor, defenseless victims of a rotten system. They are convinced that what they do is always right and that every criticism is, by definition, wrong.

Although in words everyone declares they love a debate, the truth is different: many limit themselves to riding the wave of inclusivity as long as it's an image advantage. But when things go wrong, that mental openness becomes a personal attack to be repressed. It's not exactly a mature and consistent attitude, don't you think?

Small Reflections.

We are moving in a system that rewards standardization and punishes dissent, where "comparison" is no longer a tool for growth but a race to see who appears most perfect or who knows how to play the victim better than others. We have transformed what was supposed to be a meeting place into a gigantic permanent courtroom, where the sentence depends on how inflated the ego of the person behind the screen is.

I remain convinced that social media is an immense opportunity for growth and exploration of oneself. If today we see "human degradation" or "drops all of the same color," it is not the fault of binary code or a despotic algorithm. It is the reflection of what we have become in real life, amplified by a signal that never sleeps.

Perhaps the opportunity to "improve and evolve" that social media offers us is still there, buried under tons of filtered selfies and censored comments. To seize it, however, we would need the courage to stop chasing a "top" that doesn't exist and start using that microphone again to say something authentic, accepting also the risk of not pleasing everyone and embracing the comparison with other realities.

After all, in an ocean of identical drops, the only way not to drown is to have the courage to change color and to live together.

M.