Matt Yglesias reminded me of an awkward truth about today’s “social” media: most of it isn’t social. Early feeds were friends sharing to a small circle. Now every app is a short‑form video firehose tuned for entertainment. That’s closer to TV than to the original idea of social networks.
One take is the revealed‑preferences argument: if people keep watching reels, that must be what we truly want. Platforms are just serving demand; don’t blame them for our scrolling. There’s some truth there.
But it’s incomplete. Humans routinely fail to live up to stated preferences. I want to lose a few pounds, get stronger, and study more. My daily behavior doesn’t always match those goals. That gap isn’t “real preferences revealed.” It’s immediate gratification beating long‑term aims. Call it willpower, self‑control, or just being human, but it’s not a truer desire.
Endless feeds exploit that gap. They are the potato chips on the counter: engineered, omnipresent, easy to grab, hard to stop. Snack foods reveal very little about our values and a lot about our impulses. Same with autoplaying video.
So when we debate revealed preferences, we should separate choice from choice architecture. Platforms optimize for engagement, not our well‑being. If the bowl is always full and always in reach, chips will “win” more than we want them to. That doesn’t mean chips are what we most desire. It means the environment was designed so our short‑term selves win the vote.
Revealed preferences are useful. They’re just not sacred—especially when the system is built to reveal our weakest ones.