The Privatization of Social Media

As our society shifts away from exclusivity, I can't help but wonder—has austerity found its way into social media?

As of late I’ve been noticing somewhat of an “enclosure” of the digital commons. While this may seem confusing it quite simple. Social media is something everybody wants to use, but it only has value because people use it - if no one were on Instagram, it would not have value- this is why MySpace no longer exists. Social media is “free” as long as users view ads, thus we are the product and we create the value. This is the structure social media typically follows, I think I’m noticing a trend that suggests something different.

Let’s Digest!

As of 2024, over 50 million Americans identify as content creators, with approximately 2.3 million considering themselves professional "influencers"—individuals who have monetized their online presence to generate primary or significant supplementary income. This creator economy has ballooned to an estimated $21 billion industry, reshaping how we think about media production and consumption.

Social media today is a constant flood of noise—reactionary content, fear-mongering, blind items, celebrity gossip. Negativity seems to drive the algorithm more than anything else. And if it’s not that, it’s an endless stream of new products to buy or fake stunts designed to go viral.

What we consume online affects us just like the food we eat. Our diets are more than just what’s on our plates—they include the content we take in daily. Public social media platforms expose us to everything, without considering how it impacts our well-being—whether that’s our mental, physical, or financial health.

The need for mental health breaks, the exhaustion of rapid trend cycles, the toll of cyberbullying—the list goes on. In a space where engagement thrives on controversy and excess, it’s no wonder more people are seeking out smaller, more intentional online communities.

I think social media creators and consumers are overwhelmed and overconsumed.

Social media is undergoing a fundamental transformation. What was once a digital commons—open, accessible, and largely free—is now increasingly becoming a members-only club. The rise of subscription-based platforms like Substack, Patreon, and OnlyFans is redefining how content is consumed and who gets to participate in the conversation.

A Shift in User Behavior

Is it becoming more Forma Pilates less Solidcore?

The move toward privatized social media is an extension of a broader cultural trend: exclusivity. The "IYKYK" (If You Know, You Know) vibe has taken hold, and it’s no longer just about gaining the most followers—it’s about cultivating a dedicated, engaged community. Subscription-based models allow creators to build spaces where only those who truly value the content are present, eliminating the noise of passive or even hostile audiences.

This shift marks a departure from traditional influencer marketing, where brands leverage broad reach to promote products. As audiences become more selective about who they follow and pay for content, mass influencer culture could wane in favor of more intimate, trust-based recommendations.

I’m seeing a shift: Influencer —> Curator

The Venn Diagram is giving

Katie Stone

.

The “Enclosure of the Digital Commons”

Let’s Chat Consumer Sentiment - at the moment social media consumers have a generally low perception of the products and user experience on “Mass Market Media” apps. The experience is diluted by ads, product pushing, bots and more—cluttered and impersonal. The grey area is synonymous with mass production and over consumption, some of which is fueled by influencer culture.

Now, let’s go to the beige or “Members Only Spaces” - exclusive, invite-only spaces like the dating app Raya or the referral-only Forma Pilates. Unlike the grey they are invite only. These spaces are exclusive and elusive, an antidote to mass access we have digitally.

As digital natives, we’re starting to crave a blend of both worlds—a space that feels digital yet exclusive - this is where the yellow comes. Here you have curators that build something more unique than just a following.

This where the “Chic, Conscious Consumers” that read Consumer Digest come in or the “Elusive International Hot Girls” from

tariro makoni

’s Substack trademarked.

The Benefits of Paywalls

The “Enclosure of the Digital Commons” shifts power dynamics of the internet, creators have the ability to build a platform on their own “digital land”. They can own their community and content without the same restrictions of other social platforms. Relying on ad-driven platforms means creators are at the mercy of algorithms, demonetization, and shifting policies. Paywalls allow them to generate consistent income directly from their audience, reducing dependency on third-party advertisers or exploitative revenue-sharing models. A subscription-based model incentivizes creators to produce premium, well-researched content rather than chasing clicks and engagement for ad revenue. This can lead to deeper, more thoughtful work rather than content designed for mass appeal- this is also healthier content to consume. Paywalls do more than generate revenue—they serve as a filter. People are less likely to pay for something they are indifferent to. This means that the audience behind the paywall is not only supportive but genuinely invested in the content being produced. Additionally, a paywall acts as a barrier against online negativity. Hate and trolling thrive in free-to-access spaces, where engagement is frictionless.

I’d venture to say OnlyFans models don’t get much hate on an app that actually costs money. I think the ghost accounts and faceless profiles are reserved for IG.

A Personal Perspective on Subscription-Based Content

When I first launched my Substack, I struggled with the idea of charging $50 a year—the platform’s minimum. I had originally wanted to charge half that, which led me to question whether I should make Consumer Digest subscription-based at all. I’m incredibly lucky, and to be honest, charging a fee felt strange because of this. But after looking around, I realized that most writers, regardless of their circumstances, charged for their Substacks. Still, that wasn’t enough to settle my decision.

Then, one night over soup dumplings, I was listening to my comfort creator, Oh Steph Co!—and something she said clicked. Steph runs a YouTube channel and a Patreon, where she shares deeply personal yet widely relatable content. On YouTube, she often deals with people engaging with her content in bad faith, leaving negative comments just to be contrarian. She started a Patreon partly to filter out that noise—because if someone is willing to financially support her platform, they’re likely there for the right reasons: to build community and genuinely engage.

While Consumer Digest isn’t a personal YouTube channel, her perspective stuck with me. Creating thoughtful, research-driven content takes time, and paywalls aren’t just about monetization—they help cultivate a space where people actually want to be. That’s why I moved forward with subscriptions, though I’ve structured them to balance accessibility. I keep many posts free, offer the first month at no cost, and set paywalls basically at the end of pieces. I plan to continue experimenting with this model, including gifting subscriptions, since I’m still only a few months in. Based on where this piece led me, I am definitely leaning towards lifting the paywall even more.

You’ll see why…

The Future of Social Media

As platforms become increasingly privatized, the nature of online communities will shift. Social media will become less of a free-for-all and more of a curated experience. The days of mass commenting and public accessibility are giving way to exclusive spaces where creators and audiences engage more meaningfully.

At the same time, consumer behavior is evolving. People are beginning to push back against traditional influencer culture, favoring organic recommendations and word-of-mouth over mass marketing. In this new digital landscape, trust, authenticity, and community will matter more than ever.

The paywall is no longer just a financial decision—it’s a statement about the kind of space a creator wants to cultivate. And in a world where social media is becoming increasingly chaotic, there’s something refreshing about knowing that the people behind the paywall are there because they truly want to

be there.

Digital Austerity

So, what does all of this really mean?

In extreme terms it means the internet is no longer just an open playground where information flows freely—it’s being carved up, paywalled, and packaged for those who can afford entry. As I consider what makes TikTok so powerful in the digital space—and why it might be facing a ban—I keep coming back to its algorithm. Its ability to randomly connect people while keeping them informed about real-time events has played a huge role in its success.TikTok has become a mobilization tool, spreading breaking news, protest footage, and grassroots movements faster than traditional media. From the BLM protests to the Indian farmer protests and even U.S. election campaigns, TikTok has given underrepresented voices a platform to be heard. Unlike traditional media, which relies on gatekeepers, TikTok allows for decentralized influence, where activists, educators, and everyday users can drive narratives without institutional backing. I think the switch to platforms like Substack is about supporting creators but culturally there’s a larger shift in the way we access knowledge itself.

NYC’s Most Exclusive Club - Gramercy Park

This mirrors broader austerity trends: as free, high-quality journalism and discourse shrink, only those with the means to pay get access to the best content. The digital commons, once a space for collective learning, is turning into a series of exclusive clubs. Whether that’s good or bad depends on where you stand, but one thing’s for sure—social media as we knew it is changing, and the days of free and open access to everything could be fading.

Austerity, in a broad sense, refers to policies or economic conditions that lead to reduced public funding and support for communal resources. In the context of digital media, austerity has manifested as the decline of ad-supported journalism, cuts to public funding for media institutions, and the financial struggles of traditional news outlets. — This isn’t a positive thing, it’s a complicated thing.

As a result, many creators and journalists have turned to subscription-based platforms like Substack to sustain their work. This shift mirrors broader austerity trends where essential services (like news and information) are no longer freely accessible and instead become pay-to-access commodities. In effect, Digital Austerity reduces the availability of free, high-quality information, making it harder for those who cannot afford subscriptions to stay informed.

We’re moving away from the concept of shared public spaces—whether online or in real life—and into a world where everything has a price tag, and only those who can afford it get to participate fully. Our governments current administration has evolved into a symbol of this new, market-driven reality where value is more about exclusivity than accessibility.

With widespread book bans and political agendas challenging the education system, access to information as a public good is more critical than ever. Just as austerity in public services exacerbates inequality, the privatization of digital content deepens the information divide—where those who can pay receive premium insights, while those who cannot are left with lower-quality, ad-driven content. Social media, generally a public square, is following the zeitgeist of the time: less public, more private.

This shift threatens democratized platforms like “HillmanTok,” which provide vital access to Black history and education amid rising censorship. As more content moves behind paywalls, these initiatives may struggle to survive, restricting access to those who can pay rather than those who need it most. Monetization over accessibility doesn’t just limit content—it reshapes who gets to learn and engage.

This reflects a broader societal shift away from public goods toward privatized, market-driven access. Just as governments embrace austerity, social media follows suit, turning once-open platforms into exclusive spaces. If information becomes a luxury, we risk a future where history, education, and community-building are only for those who can afford them.

As the internet moves from being a more public space to something increasingly behind paywalls—like Substack, Patreon, and OnlyFans—it reflects a broader trend of privatizing access to content and community. This shift mirrors the way governments are leaning toward less investment in public goods and services, embracing austerity measures instead. Ultimately, the privatization of digital spaces is more than just a trend—it’s a restructuring of who gets to participate in knowledge-sharing and who gets left behind. If access to information becomes a luxury, we risk creating a future where history, education, and even community-building are only available to those who can afford them.

To end on a positive note we also get to create communities of people who support the initiatives we support, maybe this allows a level of private political organizing that is strategically needed to combat the “zeitgeist” of the times. Who know maybe this will prevent “Klu Klux Klan Members” from joining our lives.

Thanks For Consuming!

Phia

“Each Day Gets Better”

I’d LOVE to gift some subscriptions — if you are interested please lmk! <3