0
Why We’re Building Microfone
Social media as it exists today is a wildly-profitable human slot machine business. Everywhere - your bed, your dinner table, your sofa; while out with friends or alone on the toilet; at your cousin’s wedding or your grandmother’s funeral - as your hand pulls inevitably toward your cellphone, you might imagine it as a massive black hole, sucking in all your, and the universe’s, attention. For what?
The techno-utopians of 1990s Silicon Valley believed that the internet would stitch the world together. Digital connectivity would dissolve barriers of geography, class, and culture. Online communities would foster understanding, collaboration, and a more interconnected global society. They believed that social networks, then in their infancy, would empower individuals to share their “voices” and build meaningful relationships beyond physical constraints.
Many of these goals have been achieved. Today, the world is more connected. But by the Valley’s own standards - where technological improvements are measured in orders of magnitude - it’s not clear if the digital world we inhabit now is better than what came before. In 1990, only 3% of people reported having no close friends, but by 2021, that number had quadrupled to 12%. At the same time, the share of people with more than ten friends fell sharply from 33% to 13%.
Social media was supposed to be a medium for authentic self-expression. In reality, it became a performative space where users present a highly-curated version of their “brand”. Rather than being a tool to share your truth, it became a platform to misrepresent yourself, to sell something to the world. It’s no wonder that the most influential social media users are adept at trading in vanities. In our drive to sell, we also self-censor, either by not expressing our full truth or by parroting ideas we don’t fully believe in order to a) conform with the prevailing opinion of our network or b) manufacture outrage to drive engagement. The result? We hear a massively distorted signal. Or, put simply, we have no idea what people actually think.
In addition to authenticity, social media promised connection - to more people in novel ways. However, the networks we inhabit online are, at best, a simple reflection of our real-world friend groups, or, at worst, a dangerous reinforcement of in-group/out-group tendencies. There has been no great increase in cross-network connection; no increase in empathy, understanding, or tolerance. The polarization (political and otherwise) of cultural communities by social media artificially divides people who might otherwise connect in the real world. This hardening of battle lines further perverts IRL relationships and the public discourse.
Lastly, social media use has been linked to marked declines in mental health. The trend lines for the wide adoption of social media and mental health self-satisfaction scores (particularly among teens) diverge like a river delta. The only proposed remedy is to limit social media use, not fix the thing that’s making us sick. “Drink less poison” instead of “drink something else”.
●
Social media is broken. But not for the reasons you often hear.
Signal loss, inauthenticity, the failure of cross-network connection, hate speech, declines in mental health, and political polarization are all symptoms of a fundamental design flaw: they place written and visual information above the human voice.
Numerous academic studies have shown that voice communication:
Significantly decreases (-5x) dehumanization among those who hold opposing viewpoints.
Reduces cortisol and increases oxytocin (whereas text-based communication creates no such positive hormonal change).
Increases respect and warmth for the speaker.
Removes visual information that can trigger biases.
It’s worth underscoring the above points. When people who disagree use their voice to communicate, the conversation is five times less likely to result in bitter conflict. Imagine if the vitriol on social media was reduced by a factor of five. Moreover, imagine if the app experience made you feel good (increased oxytocin) rather than bad (heightened cortisol), as current text- and image-based social media does. If you doubt this premise, compare the feeling of doomscrolling on Instagram to enjoying a podcast on Spotify. One leaves you bewildered, the other energized. In short, voice is deeper than product; it’s biology.
Vocal signaling is hundreds of millions of years older than the written word. Despite the power of the written word, auditory signals are better potentiators of the release of hormones necessary for the formation of bonds, suppression of stress, mating, and other behaviors critical to fitness in many species.
Instant Messages vs. Speech: Hormones and Why We Still Need to Hear Each Other
Humans evolved to interpret the non-verbal cues in the human voice. The tone, rhythm, and intonation of speech create a rich layer of emotional, social, and contextual cues that convey far more than the content of the words spoken. Our relationships, social hierarchies, and power structures are built upon this paralinguistic information. It’s also how we bond with each other. Real connection between humans is only possible when we exchange vocal vibrations. You cannot be “social” without speaking.
●
In all communities, there are public and private conversations happening simultaneously. In a company, you speak differently when addressing the staff at an all-hands than when confiding in a coworker. Social media is currently amplifying our public-facing parole - to an unparalleled degree in human history - and disregarding more private, intimate conversations. It would be as if the only sanctioned way to connect with your coworkers were to address everyone at the company. Without a doubt, this would greatly affect both your speech and the health of the enterprise. Private conversations are where we a) test and improve ideas before they reach a larger audience and b) express thoughts that may never be shared widely but serve important social functions. In both cases, private conversations alter the public discourse. While Microfone differs from the above example, anonymity shares many qualities with private conversations. It allows us to express intimate thoughts, without the pressure to appeal to a broad audience.
We believe anonymous voice blogging represents a “goldilocks zone” where users are protected from any perceived awkwardness and social blowback, but are biologically predisposed to humanize those with whom they disagree. It may create a unique balance of disinhibition and decorum - users voluntarily self-disclose but don’t dissociate with their offline personalities. While it may be possible to identify a user if you recognize their voice, the inherent anonymity of the platform provides a veil of plausible deniability, allowing individuals to express themselves freely.
People crave authentic conversations away from the “perform and conform” platforms. Podcasts offer an intimate connection with other humans. But podcasts are typically long and miss some of the other, positive features of social media. With podcasts, you can only search and sort by creator - not within each podcast by subject, interest, or topic the way hashtags allow on text-based social media. Podcast platforms don’t aggregate. There is also the persistent problem of it being performative. You’re putting on a show, not giving your honest take. Podcasts are highly-polished pieces of content which require careful planning and execution. This makes them less able to react in real-time to cultural events than shorter, more immediate audio blogging. Content has been getting shorter for decades; the same will be true for voice media.
The common refrain that “everybody has a podcast now” (even those who probably shouldn’t) suggests there is an underserved cohort here: not the slick experts who can produce a podcast, but normies whose voices may not be interesting in isolation, but might be interesting as part of a wider discussion.
< Check out our next blog post
