<\/p>\n
The Coca-Cola Company had a branding disaster in the late 1980s with \u201cNew Coke.\u201d Initially introduced in the marketplace in 1985 as a substitute for Coca-Cola, it was not gaining the traction the firm hoped for. It could be argued that it was a disastrous rollout followed by a significant rejection from the marketplace. So much so that, in short order, Coca-Cola brought back the old recipe, established a recovery campaign around the original or \u201cclassic\u201d version, and in doing so birthed Coca-Cola Classic<\/em>. During this recovery campaign in 1991, New Kids on the Block was on tour. While I did not follow the group and cannot list one of their songs, their catchy rendition of the brand recovery jingle kept popping into my head as I read The Atlantic articles. The specific phrase in the jingle goes, \u201c\u2026 There is magic in the real thing. You can\u2019t beat it. Can’t beat the real thing.\u201d<\/em> [1]<\/a> \u00a0Coca-Cola learned a lesson that has been repeated over and over throughout time: Imitations and substitutes are rarely if ever, a true substitute for the real thing.<\/p>\n Understandably, substitutes come with easier access and cheaper costs than the real thing. Live Music vs Recorded. The Grand Canyon in person vs a postcard. Handwritten letters vs e-mails. These substitutes attempt to capture the real thing, yet the experience is never the same. Social media is not immune to this reality. Social media (the substitute) cannot capture the positive benefits of spending meaningful face-to-face time with others (the real thing). Lacking the positive benefits is bad enough on its own, but the exaggeration of the negative aspects of human interaction moves social media into a toxic environment. As I read this week\u2019s reading list, I was struck by three main thoughts.<\/p>\n Individuals want to be heard, valued and validated<\/strong><\/p>\n The desire to be heard, valued, and validated is inherently universal. However, the level to which people experience it is not equal. Social media changed that by \u201cgiving voice to some people who had little previously\u2026\u201d[2]<\/a> This voice, which is evaluated by algorithms, is valued by \u201cLikes\u201d and validated by \u201cShares\u201d and \u201cForwards\u201d. On the surface, it seems it could be equal to a real voice. Until that is, we evaluate the role that algorithms play. In evaluating that role, we must wrestle with the question, \u201cIs this really a voice at all?\u201d How can it be a real voice when the opportunity to be heard has been manipulated by algorithms? \u00a0Social Media companies have become masters at convincing their users of the equality between a face-to-face conversation and an online post. In doing so, the user is misled into believing they are being heard, valued, and validated. \u00a0When sometimes there is not even a person listening, valuing, or validating them\u2014only a bot.[3]<\/a> A bot that offers a cheap substitute that lacks the magic of the real thing.<\/p>\n Individuals want to belong<\/strong><\/p>\n How can loneliness and friendlessness surge in a world of interconnectivity and unprecedented avenues for community?[4]<\/a> It seems counterintuitive that this could be happening. However, this self-perpetuating phenomenon is created through a cycle of attention-seeking actions resulting in unfulfilling results. The online community cares for a moment and then is swept away in the tsunami of content. This cycle reminds me of the parable of the Prodigal Son found in Luke 15:11-32. The \u201cfriends\u201d stay if something is in it for them. But there is no commitment, and because of that \u2013 there is no true community. Again, it is only a cheap substitute for the real thing.<\/p>\n PLAY<\/strong><\/p>\n Social media is not enriching the lives of young people. One recent article asserts, \u201cNearly half of Gen Zers wish TikTok was never invented.\u201d [5]<\/a> While social media can’t take all the blame for the acceleration in adolescent depression, anxiety, and suicide, it can’t be ruled out as a contributing factor. [6]<\/a> But what can be done for today’s youth to combat the negatives? \u00a0Article after article pointed out one thing that is so simple that even toddlers can do it. PLAY. Preferably with someone, but go outside and play. Not the safe kind of supervised playing that helicopter parents prefer. The real type of playing. Exploring places that can potentially cause physical harm are the best! Places requiring stain remover for your clothes when finished and, when done correctly, could require bandages (and sometimes stitches) for your knees and elbows.<\/p>\n Ultimately, we must become unwilling to accept cheap substitutes for meaningful relationships, realizing there is no suitable substitute for the real thing.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> https:\/\/www.tiktok.com\/@wedontwannagrowup\/video\/7245768640392383786<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Haidt, Jonathan. \u201cWhy the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,\u201d The Atlantic<\/em>, April 11, 2022, https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/magazine\/archive\/2022\/05\/social-media-democracy-trust-babel\/629369\/.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Haidt, Jonathan\u00a0 and Eric Schmidt. \u201cAI Is About to Make Social Media (Much) More Toxic,\u201d The Atlantic<\/em> (blog), May 5, 2023, https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/technology\/archive\/2023\/05\/generative-ai-social-media-integration-dangers-disinformation-addiction\/673940\/.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> \u201cThe Terrible Costs of a Phone-Based Childhood – The Atlantic,\u201d accessed February 11, 2025, https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/technology\/archive\/2024\/03\/teen-childhood-smartphone-use-mental-health-effects\/677722\/.<\/p>\n