Trust once was the result of real-world interactions and shared experiences. It was forged through shared experiences - working late on projects together, showing up when someone needed help moving, or being there during tough times.
Now, trust seems to exist precariously on social media timelines where metrics like likes, retweets, and follower counts rule. The illusion of trust seems to be fabricated online via algorithms and numbers that reduce relationships to a game of metrics.
The question isn't just how much trust is worth, but whether it holds the same meaning in a world established by virtual connections.
Influence Over Substance
Numbers often outshine substance on most social media platforms.
Time and time again it seems someone with tens of thousands of followers commands more immediate respect than a quiet expert with years of hands-on experience.
Algorithms fuel this disparity, ranking popularity over credibility. As a result, trust has become a byproduct of influence rather than knowledge or shared experience.
Many may argue that metrics provide a quick and effective gauge of trustworthiness, these numbers are deceiving. What we often see are not genuine indicators of credibility but reflections of how well someone has mastered the art of gaming the system. Purchased followers, engagement pods, incentive-based growth, and algorithm manipulation often inflate the perceived trust, creating an environment where numbers rule, but earned trust is sparse.
If trust is a commodity then who can we really trust online?
The Illusion of Trust
The more ingrained social media becomes in daily life, the more trust turns into a tradable asset. Each like, share, and comment acts as social proof in an attention-driven economy, where digital platforms commodify even the most intimate connections. This phenomenon has given rise to what some researchers call "commodified intimacy."
In other words, trust—once built through personal interactions—now comes with a price tag.
It seems in the digital age of community, trust isn't something earned through actions or experiences but something cultivated through savvy marketing and visibility. While trust should, in theory, forms the backbone of relationships, it has been reduced to a product bought, sold, and traded in the marketplace of attention.
So, does trust really exist online?
The Reach of Digital Trust
While trust metrics can serve as useful indicators, they may not always be reliable.
The rise of bots, fake followers, and algorithm gaming has contributed to an environment where some influencers inflate their numbers. Basically, appearances sometimes triumph over reality.
However, not all influencers rely on such tactics, and many build their followings through genuine engagement and valuable content. IMO, the existence of manipulation tactics and commodification makes it harder to recognize real connection in spaces designed to quantify it.
For brands and audiences alike, this manipulation affects trust at both micro and macro levels.
The sheer volume of influencers employing questionable tactics can dilute the perceived value of trust across the board. Users may find themselves more skeptical, even of creators who have built authentic, engaged communities. Consequently, platforms may see a shift in user behavior, as individuals grow increasingly wary of surface-level metrics and seek alternative ways to verify credibility.
The entire digital environment, where manipulation often surpasses substance, presents a larger cultural challenge—how to restore the integrity of trust within digital spaces where numbers too often replace authenticity.
Again I ask, can trust really exist online?
Beyond the Screen
This new form of "trust" extends beyond social media, influencing traditional institutions as well.
Businesses, non-profits, and even political movements increasingly rely on digital presence to gain credibility.
Online metrics shape professional reputations.
Success is often measured by engagement rather than impact.
This shift to metrics has its consequences. When trust becomes more about visibility than credibility, traditional institutions risk losing the integrity that once defined them. Activism, for example, may prioritize the act of being seen over creating actual change.
Do you tend to trust the folks who show up more on your timeline and have more likes and followers? Do you ever question your belief of how that trust was established?
The Search for Genuine Connection
I do believe there are folks who remain focused on building authentic trust. These users are looking for others who value substance over spectacle. Trust, in its most authentic form, is still possible in the digital age—it just requires a shift in priorities and takes time.
It will require meaningful digital relationships, but they seem to exist in pockets deep within the timelines. As we become more aware of the pitfalls of trust metrics, do we only then begin to seek deeper, more valuable connections that aren't gauged by the number of likes?
Rebuilding Trust
In the end, it seems the basis of digital trust will need to evolve. Sure, metrics may capture attention, but they cannot measure the most important aspects of trust—genuine human interaction and shared knowledge.
Can authentic connections really stand out in a world saturated with vanity metrics?
Perhaps the question isn't whether trust can exist online, but how we choose to define and value it in digital spaces.
Regardless of the illusions, trust isn't about numbers—it's about connection.
Subscribe to aaron to receive new posts directly to your inbox.
have we not been documenting it? https://blog.aaronvick.com/manipulation_of_trust-1
Good read by @aaronv.eth: "While trust should, in theory, form the backbone of relationships, it has been reduced to a product bought, sold, and traded in the marketplace of attention." https://blog.aaronvick.com/manipulation_of_trust-1
oh nice! thnx for reading 👊🏼
"the market dynamics of social media have affected absolutely every corner of the internet and, therefore, “real life” [...] Now all the damned Internet works as a social media platform, and this will shape people’s perception of the world. Just like Marshall McLuhan said: "We shape our tools and then our tools shape us." this piece reminded me of a convo i had last week with someone thru my homepage. they said they wanted to leave the main web and only be on the small internet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ my response was that i didn't think that was possible bc the world is so entangled with the big internet these days. turning away and leaving the tools to bad ppl won't prevent the effects they will have on everyone irl. good ppl need to show good alternative uses for the tools https://www.animanoir.xyz/blog/2024/the-death-state-of-the-internet/
I get increasingly fed up with social media in all forms, even here, and find myself wanting to withdraw as well. I wonder if webrings with open public group chats + a massive index for them and their members could be a solution for discovery + meaningful connections
yeah, idk what the answer is. it's very hard to coordinate an index. i've been diving into neocities webrings a lot lately and almost all of them have stopped taking new sites due to admin burnout etc. (╥_╥) that's why the indie webring is interesting to me bc it's permissionless. but it also requires slightly more technical ability to set up than maybe most ppl have ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Might be a good filtering mechanism as the technology matures! And I think this is one of those technologies that spreads by word of mouth out of excitement, not financial gain, which can attract the right kind of people to participate and maybe even contribute to the ecosystem. That's my naive optimistic view anyway!
wdyt of the dual-track vision below, is it possible or hopelessly naive? https://warpcast.com/artlu/0x47e306b4
wouldn't the second track just be an e2ee closed group chat tho? why do u see the two needing to share a format on a platform? social graph convenience?
I like to think anything is technically possible, feasible and sustainable is the harder thing to answer for. But the line of thinking I agree with a lot. Human + computer socialization will only get blurrier over time and economic repressions (for both) will get muddy too as robots do inevitably replace more humans for work. Any work towards those problems I think is worth pursuing!
had to think of an article I read yesterday about trust and how numbers often outshine substance on most social media platforms. https://blog.aaronvick.com/manipulation_of_trust-1
i think substance over spectacle is definitely a good starting point to develop trust! the problem is that substance is slower than spectacle and everything online is has been building towards convenience and speed (╥_╥) so how do we overcome that?
lol just noticed you already commented on this article
i don't think i did? your post was the first time i was seeing it (⌒_⌒;)
> turning away and leaving the tools to bad ppl won't prevent the effects they will have on everyone irl. good ppl need to show good alternative uses for the tools The last bit is what drives me. New systems and networks are created on a regular basis and initially attract my attention (Handshake, Farcaster, &c) before I realize that folks with perverse incentives were present the entire time. Social media is tricky because humans are hardwired for connection. No way around it. Even recluses venture into town periodically, just to feel the presence of others before retreating. The problem is other people adding casinos and greed into the mix; fucks everything up.
yeah, it's tricky. i try to be openminded about the potential that various technology hold rather than reject immediately bc there are unsavory aspects and ppl that are associated with it. it may be an uphill battle but if u never venture into town to make a bit of noise and appeal to likeminded ppl, the town would just be terraformed for nothing but casinos and greed and all the worst things and the ppl living there without means to get out have to accept it
the question here for me becomes: if ppl are (only) capable of being driven my 'incentives' how do we do that well... what is a nice carrot? do we need sticks? but it seems so hard to have this conversation b/c so much of this space is created and driven by systems & people that feel barely interested in much beyond profit // $$. how do we create good beyond value? and what value does it have...?
i think we need more of a culture of self-reliance and diy. the appeal of the internet and open source and blockchain to me was that you could walk in and make anything yourself if u just took some time to learn. it shouldn't be led by incentives. the incentives should come as a result doing what u believe in and others may believe in. somehow it got turned around (╥_╥)
i'm so tired. the current cycle of things isn't helping. i am thinking about mourning more and more lately. how to build memory of the past so that one might visit it to create a future. this is informed by you & others, but also ideas about impermanence & various concepts of memory & a feeling that it is lost in the current flood(s) of 'social' // big internet. it feels like a version of the land of lotus-eaters.
yes at this point, it feels like a big wave that we're all just getting swept away by, being tossed around with no control of where we're going. if you're lucky, u can grab a piece of driftwood to hold onto to keep u afloat (╥_╥)
Allegory of the Cave. Build shadows caves responsibly.
i feel like ppl bring up the cave often. but the greek myth of the lotus eaters feels more relevant to me in this current space...
i think it's a combination of both. maybe the inner cave ppl are also being fed lotuses
do you believe our realness is truly found in our digital lives or is it changing who we are? https://blog.aaronvick.com/manipulation_of_trust-1
In a new blog post, @aaronv.eth explores how trust has transformed in the digital age. Once forged through real experiences, trust now often gets quantified by social media metrics, casting doubt on authenticity. It's a thought-provoking look at whether genuine trust can thrive amidst the sea of numbers.