🎧 Listen | 7:54 mins

Last month, I sat down to prepare a proposal for a presentation I’d like to make at next year’s SXSW conference. It required both a written outline and a short video of me speaking. The written part went pretty quickly – my proposal covered topics I’ve been working on for years, and it was pretty straightforward to adapt it to the conference’s format.

But filming a two-minute video of myself? That took me four fraught days.

You’d have never known that I’d built a career as a communicator in high-pressure situations. I’ve faced countless incredulous audiences while representing Uber and Meta at their deepest points of unpopularity. Negotiated with government regulators around the world. Given keynote speeches at national conferences. Needless to say, I’m very comfortable in a skeptical room.

But hand me a tiny microphone in my home office and point my phone at me, and I freeze up.

Two years since I made my first TikTok, I’ve finally gotten comfortable seeing myself pop up on my own feed. But I still struggle with hearing my voice.

Specifically, The Voice. The one that comes out when I want to sound serious and credible. It’s louder, more monotone, and more forceful than my natural way of speaking.

At this point, it comes out automatically whenever I go into presenter mode. It’s just what happens when I turn “on.”

But in the world we live in today, where “authenticity” is the key to building trust, The Voice has become my tell.

So I’m trying to unlearn it.

◾

Of course, The Voice didn’t come from nowhere. For a long time, it was a necessity.

In my mid-twenties, I started my first “real” job, working for an NGO housed within the UN offices in Vienna. It was a diplomatic environment, which I truly enjoyed as a young person, with its formalities and paperwork. Later, I became Employee ~100 at Uber, and entered the “fake it till you make it” world of glitzy Silicon Valley. The two work environments could not have been more different, and yet, the rules of building credibility were surprisingly similar.

Being intelligent was basic – everyone was smart. The key to being taken seriously was how you presented yourself.

I’ve always looked younger than I am, and having started my career in Europe (where university can last longer), I actually was younger than my peers. So I tried to use makeup to age myself – until a colleague took me aside at an event and asked with genuine concern if I was getting an eye infection (the discoloration he noticed was my eyeshadow). After that, I switched to false eyelashes, which were more expensive and harder to maintain. They were also, according to my eye doctor, more likely to give me an actual eye infection. But I kept them anyway.

This was the Lean In era, and there was plenty of advice being handed out to ambitious young women on how to convey credibility at work — actual abilities aside. Wear color. Don’t use upspeak. Lower your pitch. Don’t say “just.” Stand akimbo. Take up space.

Of course, it was a kind of performance. But over time, it stopped feeling like one. I didn’t consciously take on a new persona on stage or in meetings; it just happened. And the thing is: it served a purpose as much for my audience as it did for me.

The Voice assured me of my own credibility. The Voice deserved to be heard.

◾

It never occurred to me that one day, The Voice might become a red flag.

But increasingly, that’s the world we live in now, with all of its AI and decline in institutional trust. People trust people, as they say. “Authenticity” is king. But what does that mean? And if I think too hard about being “authentic,” does that defeat the purpose?

By the time I worked up the gumption to start posting online, I was excited to finally speak for myself. I had spent so many years banging my head within imperfect systems trying to help make the world a little better. It felt liberating to finally talk about things I’ve been thinking about for so long, and to say them my way.

But at the same time, without the constraints of representing an organization, it felt overwhelming. I didn’t really know what my voice was without The Voice. The world where I learned to communicate rewarded polish, certainty, and control. To the general public today, those same qualities read differently. Polish sounds scripted. Absolutism feels scammy. And good luck with trying to control any narrative online.

But as I’ve dived deeper into the world of content creation, I realized something. “Authenticity” is a performance too, just a different kind.

◾

People think they know everything about my life, but what they don’t realize is I’m only showing them what I want them to see. They don’t really know me.

These were words from a creator I met, who makes content about her marriage, kids, and daily life for almost 2 million followers on Instagram. She was responding to a question about oversharing online. Indeed her content looks super personal; she speaks to the camera as if she’s sharing a secret with you or asking for your advice. It’s charming.

Her words stuck with me because they made me realize that “authenticity” doesn’t mean you’re not deliberate. It’s simply another version of The Voice.

Where “authenticity” gets a bad rap is that people understand it to mean showing your whole self online. That’s why “just be yourself” is bad advice to anyone just starting out. Because look at any successful creator’s account, and you’ll start to realize how much strategy they put into it. Content pillars. Catchphrases. Repeated formats. From that perspective, it’s not that different from the way I learned to communicate at work. It’s just a different way of presenting yourself. Yes, you’re seeing someone’s pimples, but it’s because they want you to see them.

◾

Funnily, my online world has become the one place in my life where I feel the most in control. I’m the one setting the boundaries.

The fake eyelashes are gone. Upspeak is just how I talk. But I’m still careful about my words. I still want to be inclusive. I still want to be accurate.

But now, I decide what gets my attention and my energy. I choose what feedback is helpful, and what’s not worth my energy. I can speak with more nuance and less absolutism than I did when following corporate talking points. I can evolve and change my mind without needing anyone’s sign-off to do so.

◾

To be honest, I don’t think I’ll ever lose The Voice. There are still spaces and stages where she fits. And honestly, she’s as much part of me as the one holding the tiny mic on camera.

They’re both types of performance. They’re also both me.

Maybe what I’m actually unlearning is the idea that there’s only one way to present credibility. ◾

🗳️ If you would support my SXSW proposals, I’d be so grateful.

Voting is now live until Sunday, 23 August 2026. To vote, create a free SXSW ID, and click on the Heart on each proposal:

1. The Post-Gatekeeper Institution: A Playbook for Public Trust

   A presentation on how to design institutional workplaces that support staff experts to participate effectively and safely online, while also protecting the organization. This one has the video that stressed me out :-)

2. Who’s Actually Anxious? A Dialogue with Gen Z

   A live recording of the Did You See? podcast, which will feature two youth advocates for an honest discussion about social media and youth well-being.

3. Media Literacy: A New Standard for Every Subject

   An interactive workshop by National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE) for educators about integrating media literacy into K-12 classrooms. Note: I’m a proud NAMLE Board member.

If accepted, this would be my first time at SXSW representing myself (not a company). Thank you so much for your support!

The first time I spoke with Amanda Yarnell, it took all the willpower in my bones not to interrupt her with excitement every five seconds. Yes! Good point! Tell me more!

Amanda is the Senior Director of the Center for Health Communication and Lecturer at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. In 2023, she started the Center’s Creator Program, which equips social media creators to counter misinformation and spread evidence-based science to their communities.

When I started Meta’s global information ecosystem program, public health was the driving issue behind our efforts to help institutions share expert information online. Hearing Amanda’s perspective from the institutional side was eye-opening and affirming: it’s about building bridges, whichever side you’re on.

We sat down to talk about digital comms, public health, and science as a public service. Answers are edited for length and clarity.

◾

Jena Wuu: Hi Amanda! Let’s start broad. Why is communication so important in public health?

Amanda Yarnell: There is no public health without communication. It’s as essential as epidemiology or biostatistics. You can have terrific evidence-based policies, but if you’re not also investing in bringing people along with those innovations, you’re not going to see the success you want and the public health outcomes we deserve. The last few years have made that more clear than ever.

JW: What do digital comms skills look like for public health?

AY: Traditionally, comms training for scientists focused on how they communicate with each other. Like how you give a talk or how you write a scientific paper.

Increasingly, we live in a world where information is traveling more quickly than ever. It’s more cacophonous, and people expect to be able to do their own research. But digital comms are often treated as something that’s easy to do, or you just do the same things you always did. And that’s just not true.

Digital platforms are much more participatory than any previous form of communication. They blend information and entertainment in a way that somebody coming out of a traditional scientific or public health training is not necessarily going to get. But engaging in those spaces is a skill that any scientist or public health leader needs to have if they want to make the impact on the world that they hope to.

In some ways, digital comms are perfectly matched to scientists. There’s a huge amount of strategy, data, and analytics. It’s way more measurable.

It’s a huge opportunity, and so important. Especially in public health, where it’s in the name. “Public” is part of our discipline.

JW: How is the relationship evolving between public health experts and institutional comms teams, which have traditionally led public engagement?

AY: In the current world, speaking as an institution is only going to get you so far – that’s a broader issue than public health. As we see a decay of trust in institutions, trust is increasingly being transferred over to individuals. That’s why you see brands investing in user-generated content, for example, because they know that consumers are making decisions based on recommendations from individuals.

Public health has naturally – and appropriately – been a little slower to adopt some of that. But comms teams are looking to involve their experts, and to help scientists and experts build their own voice and platform. The problem is how to do that in a sustainable way, which is a huge challenge. But increasingly, they’re collaborative, which is a great thing.

There’s no reason that you have to abandon your own institutional platform. It’s just recognizing that your institutional platform is only going to be part of your communications ecosystem.

JW: Many experts I speak with really don't like tech companies and wish people wouldn’t use digital platforms to find information. What is your advice to a public health expert (or any expert) who is wrestling with their personal feelings about tech and the reality of digital comms becoming necessary for their work?

AY: I mean, it’s not an ideal situation. We don’t live in the environment that we would design, but it is the environment in which we live. So in my view, you can either sit out and critique that from the sidelines, or you can wade in and make strategic investments that reflect your values.

It’s also about helping the people who are using the platforms. That’s really who we’re all doing the work for. It’s not for the platforms. It’s for the people you serve.

Of course, it’s smart to think about which platforms you want to be on. That’s a choice that you have to think through. It should be where your audience is, but also whether the platform reflects your values. Or if you can carve out a place on the platform that reflects your values.

JW: What advice would you give to credentialed people who are clearly experts in their fields, but don’t feel confident presenting themselves that way?

AY: The longer you work in a scientific field, the more you realize how much knowledge is shared. It’s actually an evidence-based conclusion that you know a lot about the specific area that you’re working in, but you also know a lot about what you don’t know. That’s part of the scientific process. So I think what you’re describing is the reaction to that reality. I welcome it when folks recognize what they know and what they don’t know.

As scientists, the most important value that we have is that science is conducted as a public benefit, and public dollars are invested in what we do. At its best, that requires that the public shares in it, which is why that cycle continues.

Online narratives can allow for or hinder different public health investments, and it’s not a given that the public will invest in scientific research. I think it’s incredibly important to society that we continue to do so. Therefore, I am interested in equipping scientists to talk about why what they’re doing is worthy of continued study.

JW: Well said. So why is there such a gap in digital comms education for public health students? For example, in Germany (where I live), only 3.5% of public health programs offer any modules for digital public health.

AY: In public health, there’s a long history of engagement at the in-person community level. Now, we live in a world where the community that is most important to somebody may not be physical at all. It may be digital.

Public health has been pretty underfunded in general, and public health organizations haven’t had that investment in digital comms. But I do think that is changing. In the United States, leaders of top public health schools are recognizing that communications is critical and that they need to do more. We [at the Harvard Chan School] are a good example of that.

JW: Tell me about the Creator Program you started at Chan. You started with mental health, right?

AY: Correct. The program started in 2023. At the time, mental health was a public health topic that people were not running away from. It was the most searched health topic on TikTok.

Mental health was also a perfect example of where audiences were seeking out more than just traditional health expertise. There are many mental health clinicians and providers doing education on these platforms, which is amazing. But there are also so many people sharing their own mental health journeys. So we wanted to think very carefully about how we were supporting both kinds of folks.

We had a theory that people were looking for both traditional, credentialed expertise, and the lived experience side of expertise. So we rolled out the Creator Program as a randomized, controlled trial on TikTok to test what kinds of supports they might each need. We found that the content-making supports we offered were equally valued and equally impactful.

JW: What are those supports?

AY: We make toolkits, which are short, creator-facing summaries with high-quality evidence on a specific topic. They are aimed at making it easier for a creator to make evidence-based content, and we make that available to any interested creators.

We also offer a select group of creators the opportunity to come to Harvard. It’s a way to think about how they can collaborate better with academic researchers, experts, and clinicians, as well as with each other. As part of that, the creators turn around and also teach our students about engaging people.

The summits are a non-financial incentive for creators to engage with our evidence-based materials. They give us the opportunity to empower creators further to become public health leaders on their platforms.

JW: There’s a quote I love from a creator who was reflecting on her experience in the program. She said, “I’m leaving here realizing that I’m a public health leader.”

AY: Unless you happen to be in public health, who comes in thinking that? But you know, they’re some of the most trusted voices.

Part of the long tradition of community engagement in public health is helping community leaders be sources of public health leadership. We’re just thinking about how we can extend that into digital spaces. If a church pastor or a barber can help their communities understand how they want to protect themselves and each other, then so too can someone who’s leading a digital community.

It’s opening up people’s eyes to the power that they have individually and the collective power that they have. And then letting them go. Our role is to convene and provide resources. But it’s their work to carry forward.

JW: Have the summits challenged any assumptions your faculty colleagues may have had about content creators?

AY: I have a lot of colleagues who don’t spend time on TikTok or Instagram, or any short-form, video-driven platform. They’ve never met a creator. So it’s easy to imagine caricatures, like a celebrity who’s hawking something, or somebody who is trying to sell you an illegal supplement.

But there are all kinds of creators on these platforms. They differ in audience size, motivations, the kinds of communities that they have accrued. There’s everything in between, and we’ve just pulled back the curtain a little bit on that. There are people who are true partners and share your values, and might even be open to collaborating.

JW: Is there anyone that you would like to highlight – either an individual creator or an institution – who is making great public health content online?

AY: There are many, many examples. One institution that is doing this really well, is Yale School of Public Health.1 Their Dean, Meg Ranney, has really invested in this and practices it herself. So as a consequence, the institution is making clever investments in how they’re elevating their faculty.

@yalesphcw: This video discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is considering suicide, help is available. Call, text, or chat 9-8-8 anywhere within the U.S. to reach the National Suicide Prevention Hotline. The majority of gun deaths in the United States are suicides. These deaths are utterly preventable with a public health approach, says Dean Megan Ranney. She lays out steps you can take if you or someone you know is suicidal and has access to a gun. #SuicidePreventionMonth #SuicidePrevention #GunViolencePrevention

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

For creators, too, I could name hundreds. Sasha Hamdani2 is a psychiatrist specializing in ADHD. And she also has ADHD herself. So she talks about both her clinical experience and how she has experienced a diagnosis like that herself. She’s not afraid to talk about the messiness that comes along with that, so it’s allowed her to have a lot bigger impact than if it were just a dry, clinical thing. She’s also increasingly thoughtful about her role beyond that, and is speaking to policy issues about how we could better serve communities.

@thepsychdoctormdIf you’re asking me what the hidden cost of missing ADHD in women is…here you go. #adhd #adhdinwomen

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Another example is Liz Marnik,3 who is an epidemiologist by training and doing some of the most interesting vaccine education. Again, she speaks from expertise as an epidemiologist and her own lived experience, growing up in a vaccine-hesitant family and growing up unvaccinated.

@sciencewhizlizMeasles hasn’t gone away….

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

JW: Is there anything else that you would like to share about digital communication and public health?

AY: Maybe two of my dreams.

JW: Yes please!

AY: One is that we invest in infrastructure that helps creators do this work. We don’t just expect them to do it themselves, which is insane, honestly.

The infrastructure would look like convening creators and giving them evidence-based resources. Creators are excellent at a lot of things, but they’re always looking for more evidence-based ways of having the kind of impact that they want to have.

The second is helping creators make that work. It has to be financially and personally sustainable. You have to feel like platforms care about you the tiniest bit, that they’re not letting other people deepfake you or something like that. And you have to be able to find ways to support it financially. So you don’t have to resort to a brand deal that doesn’t fit your values, and maybe find ways to work with institutions.

We have the opportunity to pilot and research the value of doing that. But for it to be successful, it would have to make it into the world.

◾

Thank you, Amanda Yarnell, for our conversation! You can follow Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. ◾

Note: This episode discusses terrorism, familial loss, and grief.

What responsibility do storytellers have when turning real tragedy into entertainment? In this episode, Jena and Michelle discuss The Bombing of Pan Am 103, the BBC series now streaming on Netflix.

For Michelle, the story is deeply personal. Her father, Frank Ciulla, was one of the 270 people killed when the plane exploded in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland. In the decades since, there have been many media projects about the tragedy – including news reports, books, documentaries, plays, podcasts, movies, and TV series. Michelle shares how her family decides which projects to participate in, what influence they have over how their story is portrayed, and why remembering accurately matters as much as remembering at all.

Together, Jena and Michelle unpack what audiences should understand about “based on a true story” narratives: when creative license becomes sensationalism and how that impacts the real people whose lives are considered public domain. They also reflect on the unexpected connection they discovered when they first met, and how their lived experiences change the way they consume content.

◾

Please help us bring Did You See? to SXSW EDU in 2027!

Vote for our live recording on the SXSW EDU Panel Picker in 3 easy steps:

1. Create a free SXSW ID

2. Click on the proposal link: Who’s Actually Anxious? A Dialogue with Gen Z

3. Click the Heart icon at the top right. You can vote once for as many proposals as you’d like

Two other proposals for your consideration:

• The Post-Gatekeeper Institution: A Playbook for Public Trust by Jena Wuu

• Media Literacy: The New Standard for Every Subject by the National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE)

Please vote by August 23rd, 2026. Thank you for your support!

◾

Find us online!

• Michelle Ciulla Lipkin

• Jena Wuu

Read our writing about Pan Am 103

• When your life shows up on Netflix, Michelle Ciulla Lipkin, 2026.

• Remembering 12.21.88, Michelle Ciulla Lipkin, 2025.

• Michelle Ciulla Lipkin’s letter to the NAMLE community, 2024.

Check out our recs

• My Brother’s Bomber, Frontline, 2015.

• Targeted: Pan Am 103. Lockerbie, Libya, and the Attack that Brought Terror Home by Jack Carr and James M. Scott. Expected publication in April 2027.

• Remembering Pan Am 103: 30 Years Later, FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation (YouTube), 2018.

• Mogwai Official Site

• Sex Education on Netflix

Learn more about Nara Smith’s comments

• Is Nara Smith gaslighting us on Call Her Daddy?, Tia Levings, Writer, 2026.

• Nara Smith: Stop calling me a trad wife, Call Her Daddy (YouTube), 2026.

• The tradwife illusion meets the anti-Trump reality, The New York Times Opinion, 2026.

Read David Ellison’s op-ed

• David Ellison: In Defense of the Paramount-Warner Deal, The New York Times Opinion, 2026.

Learn more about Pan Am 103

• Pan Am 103 / Lockerbie Air Disaster Archives, Special Collections Research Center, Syracuse University.

• Victims of Pan Am Flight 103

Learn more about “The Bombing of Pan Am 103”

• “The Bombing of Pan Am 103” Review: Netflix’s sensitive Lockerbie drama is restrained to a fault, The Hollywood Reporter, 2026.

• Director Michael Keillor breaks down depicting the Lockerbie disaster in “The Bombing of Pan Am 103,” What’s on Netflix, 2026.

• The horrific true story behind “The Bombing of Pan Am 103,” People, 2026.

• Stream it or skip it: “The Bombing of Pan Am 103” on Netflix, a drama about the aftermath and investigation of the terror attack over Lockerbie, Scotland, Decider, 2026.

The episode cover image shows Michelle with her siblings in Lockerbie, Scotland. Photo courtesy of Michelle Ciulla Lipkin.

◾

About Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

Did you see that? Whether it’s in the news or pop culture, in print or online, we are living in a media overload. It’s a lot to process!

Did You See? is for anyone looking for space to pause and work through the media moments shaping how we see and understand the world. ◾

When Facebook launched over twenty years ago, social media was new and simple. That was the platform we used because it felt like the only option.

Today, we communicate through a web of digital platforms. Information flows across messaging apps, social networks, newsletters, podcasts, discussion forums, and private communities. We no longer share one Internet; we’re each navigating our own version of it.

When I speak with experts about how they spend time online, many assume that all platforms work the same way. Most stick with what they know or whose brand they like.

But here’s the truth: each platform works differently, and most aren’t inherently good or bad.

Like choosing a family car or a pair of winter boots, you have a lot of choice in which platforms are right for you. Each is designed to work differently, and has its own tradeoffs. The best choice depends on what your goals are, who you want to connect with, and what kind of experience you want to have.

◾

That’s the idea behind this series, Lurker’s Guide to the Internet. It’s a framework for evaluating your options to help you lurk with intention.

Throughout the series, we’ll look at platforms through four lenses:

• How is information communicated? (Format)

• How do people find each other? (Discovery)

• Who sets the rules? (Governance)

• Who pays for the platform? (Monetization)

Before we dive in, check out this field guide to the platforms we’ll be referencing throughout the series. Think of it as a map of the terrain. It introduces the major platforms, explains why I included them, and highlights a few caveats to keep in mind as we go.

Okay, let’s start. First up: format.

◾

If you've ever found yourself bouncing between Instagram Reels, Facebook posts, podcasts, and endless open tabs of articles, congratulations. You’re a human online.

But are you spending your time intentionally, based on your goals, preferences, and boundaries?

Different platforms are built for different types of content and ways to interact with people. Understanding what each does well is the first step to figuring out where you want to spend your time.

Written text

Benefits:

• Free and easy to produce, so it’s accessible to any creator.

• The easiest format for search engines to index and for AI systems to retrieve and analyze. That makes text-based content particularly influential in how information is discovered and reused.

Tradeoffs:

• Requires literacy skills, which can vary widely.

• Limited to whatever content is produced in your language. AI translation is reducing this barrier, but it remains a challenge for less common languages and dialects.

Images and graphics

Benefits:

• Can simplify complexity in ways text can’t.

• Can reduce language barriers.

Tradeoffs:

• Requires design skills, which makes it less accessible to creators.

• Risk of over-simplifying complexity.

Video

Benefits:

• One of the dominant formats on today’s Internet.

• Low technical barrier to entry for anyone with a phone or computer to film themselves.

• Easiest format for showing personality and building familiarity with an audience.

Tradeoffs:

• Making good videos takes time, skill, and practice.

• Many people feel cautious about speaking on camera online.

Audio (podcasts)

Benefits:

• Less demanding to consume than visual media and can be incorporated in your everyday routines.

• Can build deeper intimacy with a creator without competing visual distractions.

Tradeoffs:

• Limited to what’s available in your language.

• New podcasts require marketing and can be hard to discover.

Once you’ve worked through format, there’s the question of short-form versus long-form.

Short-form content

For the purposes of this guide, I consider short-form content anything that can typically be consumed in under three minutes.

Benefits:

• Useful for discovering new topics or creators, getting precise information that you need quickly, or simply for moments when your brain is just too tired to consume complex content.

• A common entry point to more in-depth content on the topic or from the creator.

Tradeoffs:

• Sacrifices either breadth or depth. So you often have to go back or find other formats for more information.

Long-form content

Benefits:

• Offers more nuance and depth to a topic.

• Often has a longer shelf life than short-form content, particularly when it answers evergreen questions.

Tradeoffs:

• Requires more time and energy to consume, and may not be consumed to the end

• Reaches a smaller audience of people who want to dive deep into the topic being discussed

◾

How the major platforms compare

Let’s start with text-first platforms. Remember that these maps focus on the primary way each platform is designed and used, and to check out the field guide to see which platforms I’m highlighting and why.

As we go short to long:

• X and Threads are on the shortest end because they’re designed to restrict how many characters are allowed in any individual post. On X, you’re limited to 280 characters on the free version. And on Threads, the limit is 500 characters for regular posts.

• Telegram, WhatsApp, Messages, and Slack are private messaging apps. They’re designed for shorter messages, but can be used for longer discussions. Messaging is a key part of the information ecosystem because communities often migrate from public platforms into private conversations. Creators also use these tools to offer exclusive content and build audience loyalty.

• Reddit, Discord, and Mastodon are interest-based platforms, which are more open than private chat groups. Posts can vary in length, and long discussions may form among users.

• Facebook was built on text posts. Length of posts can vary.

• LinkedIn remains organized around written posts and articles, although video is increasingly prominent. It also offers a newsletter feature for longer writing.

• Substack is designed for newsletters and longer writing, and your personal website is yours to make with as short or long text as you like.

Now let’s look at visual/audio-first platforms:

As we go short to long:

• Snapchat is primarily a messaging app built around photos and short videos that disappear after they're viewed or after a set period of time.

• Instagram is designed around images and short videos, while TikTok centers on short-form video. Multiple shorts can form a series to go more in-depth on topics.

• Facebook started as a text-first platform, but is increasingly dominated by video. Videos can range from short-form to full press conferences and interviews.

• YouTube is built around long-form video and can even host full-length films. It also distributes podcasts, as well as short videos through its feature YouTube Shorts.

• Spotify is primarily a music streaming platform, but it has become the world's largest podcast distribution platform. Podcasts increasingly incorporate both video and audio-only formats. While there are short podcasts — like a headlines round-up, for example — it’s most commonly used for interviews and other long-form programming.

◾

When I was in school, we talked a lot about being audio or visual learners. It was common practice to acknowledge the different ways that people learn and absorb information.

That’s how I think about digital platforms. Once you understand their differences, choosing where to spend your time becomes less about what’s the “best” platform and much more about finding the right tool for you.

◾

Up next in the Lurker’s Guide: Discovery. How different platforms connect you with other people and the types of content they think you’ll like. ◾

It highlights the top platforms in each category with the largest global user bases. I’ve also included smaller platforms that are relevant for experts.

Use this post to quickly understand how the main platforms work and differ. You can refer back to it throughout the series.

Scroll below or search for specific platforms:

• Private community platforms: WhatsApp, Telegram, Discord, Slack, Messages

• Open community platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, X, Threads, LinkedIn

• Discovery and search platforms: YouTube, TikTok, Spotify, Reddit, Substack

• Other platforms you should know: Personal website, Mastodon

At the end of this post, I’ve listed caveats and considerations for this series.

Private community platforms

Private community platforms allow controlled user access. You chat with people you know or have invited. The content is often encrypted to keep it private, and it doesn't appear in public feeds or search results.

Users tend to trust and engage more in these spaces. As public platforms face challenges, more people are moving to private communities for safer-feeling interactions. Creators also use these platforms to monetize their communities through exclusive content.

Note: This list focuses on platforms where private communities are the main product. Some open platforms also offer private products, e.g. Facebook Groups, Instagram Messenger, and Substack chat.

WhatsApp
Meta | Menlo Park, USA | Public company (NASDAQ: META)

WhatsApp is a messaging app used for one-on-one and group chats via text, voice, and video. It’s the leading private messaging platform outside the United States, used by families, professional networks, and businesses.

Users: 3 billion monthly active users globally. Broadest geographic reach of any messaging app. Dominant in Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia.

Business model: Paid WhatsApp Business API, with Meta’s advertising ecosystem supporting the free consumer app.

Ownership: Owned by Meta, which also owns Facebook, Instagram, and Threads.

Distribution logic: Direct and group messaging only. No algorithmic feed or public content.

Privacy: End-to-end encrypted by default.

Notable for experts: A common venue for professional networks, especially outside the US.

Telegram
Telegram FZ-LLC | Dubai, UAE | Private company

Telegram is a messaging app for one-on-one chats, supergroups of up to 200,000 members, and large channels for one-way communication. It blends private messaging and broadcasting.

Users: 1 billion monthly active users globally. Strong presence in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Skews toward users seeking alternatives to mainstream platforms.

Business model: Premium subscriptions and ads in public channels.

Ownership: Founded by Pavel Durov, who also founded VKontakte (Russia’s largest social network).

Distribution logic: Hybrid. Private chats and groups function like WhatsApp. Public channels function more like a broadcast feed — anyone can subscribe and content is publicly searchable.

Privacy: End-to-end encryption is available but not on by default for group chats.

Notable for experts: Significant for news, underground culture, and political organizing. It faces scrutiny for misinformation and extremist content.

Discord
Discord Inc. | San Francisco, USA | Private company

Discord is a platform built around servers — communities organized into topic-based channels for text, voice, and video. Initially for gamers, it’s now popular among professional communities, researchers, and creators.

Users: 200–260 million monthly active users globally. Skews younger but expanding in professional use.

Business model: Premium subscriptions (Nitro) and server boosts.

Ownership: Independent private company. Turned down a $12 billion acquisition offer from Microsoft in 2021.

Distribution logic: Community-based. Content stays within servers. There is no cross-platform algorithmic feed. Discovery happens through server directories or direct invitation.

Privacy: Not end-to-end encrypted. Discord moderates content at the platform level. Server owners moderate at the community level.

Notable for experts: Easy to create moderated communities around specific topics.

Slack
Slack Technologies | San Francisco, USA | Subsidiary of Salesforce (NYSE: CRM)

Slack is a workplace messaging platform organized around channels. Often used for internal team communication and increasingly for distributed communities, like professional associations and peer groups.

Users: ~52 million registered users globally. Predominantly professional — businesses, academic institutions, newsrooms, and nonprofits — with a growing segment of community-based users outside traditional workplace contexts.

Business model: Freemium subscriptions. Free tier limits message history; paid tiers unlock full functionality.

Ownership: Acquired by Salesforce in 2021.

Distribution logic: Channel-based within organizations or invite-only workspaces. No public feed or algorithmic distribution.

Privacy: Not end-to-end encrypted. Slack moderates content at the platform level. On paid plans, workspace administrators can export and read all message history, including direct messages.

Notable for experts: Many academic and research organizations use Slack for internal operations and external professional communities.

Messages
Apple Inc. | Cupertino, USA | Public company (NASDAQ: AAPL)

Messages is Apple’s built-in messaging app, available exclusively on Apple devices, used for one-on-one and group conversations via text, voice, and video.

Users: Apple does not publish Messages user numbers, but the app is widely used because it's built into every iPhone. Apple has approximately 1.2–1.4 billion active devices globally. Messages is particularly prevalent in North America.

Business model: No direct monetization. It retains users within the Apple ecosystem.

Ownership: Owned by Apple.

Distribution logic: Direct and group messaging only. Fully private, no public feed or algorithmic distribution.

Privacy: End-to-end encrypted by default.

Notable for experts: Included here not because of scale, but for its prevalence in North America, where it serves as a default communication tool for many people.

◾

Open community platforms

Open community platforms focus on social connections. Users follow people, build networks, and join public conversations. Content is mostly public, accessible to anyone, and can appear in search results.

These platforms are often linked to social media. Currently, they face significant policy and legal scrutiny about their design. Features like content recommendations and infinite scroll may change.

Facebook
Meta | Menlo Park, USA | Public company (NASDAQ: META)

Facebook is a social networking platform where people connect with friends, family, and public figures. Users share updates, photos, and videos, and join interest-based groups. It's also popular for local organizing and small business pages.

Users: 3.07 billion monthly active users globally. Broadest demographic reach of any platform. The 30–49 age group is the most active. Older users are a growing share of its base.

Business model: Advertising.

Ownership: Owned by Meta, which also owns Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads.

Distribution logic: Reach depends on both audience relationships and engagement signals, with algorithmic recommendations playing an increasingly important role. That means that having a Facebook page is not enough to reach people — even your own followers. Consistent posting and audience interaction are required to maintain visibility.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. Private groups are mostly moderated by admins. Messenger has end-to-end encryption.

Notable for experts: Facebook Groups host diverse online communities, from neighborhood networks to professional associations. Groups are often private, and vary in quality and norms based on admin control.

Instagram
Meta | Menlo Park, USA | Public company (NASDAQ: META)

Instagram focuses on photos and short videos. It started with lifestyle content but now supports creators, brands, and educational material.

Users: 3 billion monthly active users globally. Particularly strong among 18–34 year olds.

Business model: Advertising.

Ownership: Owned by Meta, which also owns Facebook, WhatsApp, and Threads.

Distribution logic: Hybrid. Feed posts and Stories are primarily shown to followers but ranked algorithmically. Reels work differently: they're distributed algorithmically to non-followers based on interest and engagement signals, similar to TikTok. This makes Reels a stronger discovery tool than Instagram's original follower-first model.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. Meta moderates content under its community standards.

Notable for experts: Because the feed focuses on visual formats and plays videos with the sound off by default, it prioritizes visual clarity. Also, Instagram has the highest concentration of wellness and lifestyle influencers of any platform — an important consideration for health experts and communicators.

Snapchat
Snap Inc. | Santa Monica, USA | Public company (NYSE: SNAP)

Snapchat is a messaging platform with disappearing photos and videos. It introduced the Stories format used by many platforms today.

Users: 900 million monthly active users globally. Skews younger — mostly popular among 13–24 year olds. Less relevant as a professional platform but significant as a window into how younger audiences consume information.

Business model: Advertising and Snapchat+ premium subscription.

Ownership: Independent public company.

Distribution logic: Hybrid. Direct snaps are person-to-person. Stories are visible to followers. Spotlight (its TikTok-equivalent) is algorithmically distributed to non-followers.

Privacy: By default, messages disappear after viewing but they’re not end-to-end encrypted. Snap moderates content under its community guidelines.

Notable for experts: This may not be a platform that many experts use, but it’s important to include due to its size and prevalence among young people. It’s also a way to understand how younger generations expect content to feel: casual, immediate, and unpolished.

X (formerly Twitter)
X Corp. | San Francisco, USA | Private company

X is a real-time public conversation platform built around short text-based posts, replies, and threads. As Twitter, it was a primary venue for breaking news, academic discourse, and public intellectual debate. Since Elon Musk’s acquisition in 2022, its character and reputation have shifted significantly.

Users: Approximately 600 million monthly active users globally. Historically attracted journalists, academics, and politicians.

Business model: Advertising and X Premium subscriptions.

Ownership: Acquired by Elon Musk in 2022 and taken private.

Distribution logic: Hybrid of follower-based and algorithmic feeds. X Premium subscribers receive preferential algorithmic distribution. Reach is now increasingly tied to paid features.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. Content moderation has decreased significantly since Musk’s acquisition.

Notable for experts: Historically the most important platform for academic and policy discourse. Since Musk’s acquisition, many experts and journalists have shifted to Bluesky, Threads, and LinkedIn. But X remains significant.

Threads
Meta | Menlo Park, USA | Public company (NASDAQ: META)

Threads is Meta’s text-based social platform, launched in 2023 as a direct competitor to X. It is built on Instagram’s social graph, so you automatically connect with those that you already follow on Instagram.

Users: 400 million monthly active users globally and growing rapidly. User base skews toward existing Instagram users and those who left X after 2022.

Business model: Advertising.

Ownership: Owned by Meta, which also owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

Distribution logic: Algorithmic feed with a following feed option. Benefits from Meta’s recommendation infrastructure and cross-promotion across Instagram and Facebook.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. Meta moderates content under its community standards.

Notable for experts: The fastest-growing platform in this category. Still establishing its identity and community norms. Lower friction to join for anyone already on Instagram.

LinkedIn
LinkedIn Corporation | Sunnyvale, USA | Subsidiary of Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT)

LinkedIn is a professional networking platform used for connecting with colleagues, recruiting and job searching, sales prospecting, and industry networking. A growing number of professionals also use it to build public presence through text posts, long-form articles, and LinkedIn Newsletters.

Users: 1.2 billion members globally, with estimated 350 million monthly active users. Predominantly used for professional networking.

Business model: Premium subscriptions, recruiting tools, and advertising.

Ownership: Acquired by Microsoft in 2016.

Distribution logic: Algorithmic feed weighted toward engagement. Content from outside your network can reach you if it performs well. Organic reach remains relatively strong compared to Facebook and Instagram.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. LinkedIn moderates content under its community standards.

AI indexing: LinkedIn content is widely indexed by search engines and increasingly surfaced in AI-powered search and answer engines. Professional profiles and public posts are becoming more visible in AI-generated results.

Notable for experts: The largest industries represented on LinkedIn are professional services, technology, finance, and manufacturing. Institutional fields like medicine, academia, and government are underrepresented relative to their professional weight in society.

◾

Discovery and search platforms

These platforms are built around topics and interests rather than your existing social network. You don't need to know anyone to find relevant content. The platform shows you content based on your searches, interactions, and what others with similar interests value.

For creators, reaching an audience relies less on follower count than on user signals about the relevance and quality of your content. So they often design their content to be easily indexed for the questions and topics people are searching for. These platforms can help creators reach people who are actively looking for the information they offer — often strangers who would rarely connect through a community-based network.

YouTube
Google LLC | San Bruno, USA | Subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOGL)

YouTube is a video platform for watching, sharing, and commenting on everything from short clips to documentaries. It’s the largest video platform and the second largest digital platform by monthly users. It acts as both a search engine and a social network.

Users: 2.5 billion monthly active users globally. Broadest demographic reach of any video platform — it’s used across all age groups, geographies, and interests.

Business model: Advertising, with a premium subscription tier (YouTube Premium) that removes ads and enables background playback.

Ownership: Owned by Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.

Distribution logic: Hybrid of search and algorithmic recommendations. Viewers can subscribe to channels, but YouTube prioritizes watch history and engagement signals over follower relationships. Because of YouTube’s search features, older videos can still generate views long after they're published, giving content a shelf life that most social platforms don't offer.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. YouTube moderates content under its Community Guidelines.

Notable for experts: The combination of searchability and long content shelf life makes YouTube uniquely suited for evergreen expert content like explainers and lectures.

TikTok
ByteDance (global) | Beijing, China | Private company
TikTok Inc. (US) | Los Angeles, USA | Private company

TikTok is a short-form video platform that serves content based on users’ searches, interests, and engagement. It has become a significant venue for education and expert commentary, alongside entertainment.

Users: About 1.6–2 billion monthly active users globally. Skews younger but older demographics are growing. Strong presence in Southeast Asia, North America, and Europe.

Business model: Advertising, in-app purchases, and commerce (TikTok Shop).

Ownership: Owned by ByteDance, a Chinese company. In the US, it operates as a separate entity under TikTok Inc., following regulatory pressure over data privacy and national security concerns.

Distribution logic: Interest- and search-based algorithm, not follower-based. Creators without followers can reach millions if their content is considered helpful and engaging.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. TikTok moderates content under its community guidelines. Has faced scrutiny in the US over data privacy and access by its Chinese parent company.

Notable for experts: TikTok offers excellent organic reach to audiences beyond your existing network. Authenticity is rewarded over polished production, a shift from earlier platforms like YouTube and Instagram. Regulatory uncertainty in the US is a concern for experts in sensitive fields.

Spotify
Spotify Technology S.A. | Stockholm, Sweden | Public company (NYSE: SPOT)

Spotify is primarily an audio streaming platform known for music but is now a leading distribution platform for podcasts. It serves as both a hosting and discovery platform for audio content.

Users: Approximately 750 million monthly active users globally. Broad demographic reach across age groups and geographies. Podcast listeners tend to be educated, higher-income audiences.

Business model: Freemium subscriptions. Free tier is ad-supported; Premium removes ads and enables offline listening.

Ownership: Independent public company headquartered in Stockholm.

Distribution logic: Hybrid of search and algorithmic recommendation. Podcasts are surfaced through search, editorial playlists, and Spotify’s recommendation engine. Discovery is harder than on video platforms — podcast growth tends to rely heavily on cross-promotion from other platforms.

Privacy: Standard data collection for personalization. Content moderation applies to podcasts hosted on Spotify under its platform rules.

Notable for experts: Podcasting suits experts well with its long and conversational format. The barrier to entry is lower than video. However, discoverability remains a challenge for new creators.

Reddit
Reddit Inc. | San Francisco, USA | Public company (NYSE: RDDT)

Reddit is a network of topic-based communities called subreddits where people share links, ask questions, and have discussions. Content is ranked by community upvotes rather than follower count or algorithmic recommendation, making it one of the most distinctly community-governed platforms at scale.

Users: Approximately 765 million monthly active users globally. Skews younger and male, though women users have been steadily growing, driven in part by active communities around women's health, relationships, and lifestyle topics.

Business model: Advertising and Reddit Premium subscriptions.

Ownership: Independent public company; went public in 2024.

Distribution logic: Community and vote-based. Content rises or falls based on upvotes within each subreddit. There is no follower feed — discovery happens within communities you join or through Reddit’s front page aggregation. Moderators are volunteer community members, not Reddit staff or vendors.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. Reddit moderates at the platform level. Individual subreddits are moderated by volunteer community members with significant autonomy.

AI indexing: Reddit has become an important source of training and retrieval data for AI systems, supported by formal licensing agreements with companies including Google and OpenAI.

Notable for experts: Reddit has become a significant venue for peer knowledge-sharing in communities that feel underserved by mainstream institutions and legacy media — women's health, chronic illness, and mental health are among the most active.

Substack
Substack Inc. | San Francisco, USA | Private company

Substack is a platform for newsletters, podcasts, and long-form writing. Writers publish directly to subscriber inboxes, and often give readers the option to pay for premium content.

Users: 20 million monthly active subscribers globally. While small compared to other platforms, subscribers are highly engaged and have opted in to receive content.

Business model: Free to publish, and writers can monetize directly through reader subscriptions. Substack takes a 10% commission on paid subscriptions.

Ownership: Independent private company, backed by venture capital.

Distribution logic: Primarily direct — content goes to subscriber inboxes. Substack has an algorithm-based feed called Notes, but email remains the main method. Writers own their subscriber lists and can export them.

Privacy: Standard data collection. Content moderation is notably light compared to other platforms. Substack has faced criticism for hosting controversial content with limited intervention.

AI indexing: Public Substack posts are increasingly discoverable through AI-powered search systems. The text-heavy format is well-suited for indexing.

Notable for experts: You own your audience here; your subscriber list is yours. The direct-to-inbox model ensures your content reaches subscribers without competing in an algorithmic feed. It has a small but engaged readership, gaining credibility for serious writing by experts. However, internal discovery is limited; most writers promote their newsletters on other platforms.

◾

Other platforms you should know

The platforms below don't fit neatly into the categories above, but are important for understanding the full range of options in the digital information ecosystem.

Personal website (direct publishing)
Various hosts

A personal website is your online space. You control its content and design. It’s hosted on your domain and built on your chosen platform. You aren't bound by third-party rules or algorithms.

Users: Not applicable. A personal website is your piece of real estate online.

Business model: Costs vary. Domain registration and hosting typically run $50–200 per year. Costs may increase if you hire designers or other technical support.

Ownership: You own everything: your content, domain, data, and audience relationships.

Distribution logic: None. A personal website lacks an algorithm, feed, or audience. Traffic comes from search engines, links, or direct visits. This option offers high control but low built-in reach.

Privacy: Fully under your control. You decide site accessibility and data collection from visitors.

Notable for experts: A personal website offers complete control over content, design, distribution, and data. The tradeoff is that you must build your audience. Many experts use it as a home base to showcase their work across platforms, rather than as a primary content channel.

Mastodon (open source network)
Mastodon gGmbH | Berlin, Germany | Nonprofit

Mastodon is a decentralized, open-source social network made of independent servers, or instances, that communicate with each other. Imagine viewing Instagram content through your TikTok account — that’s how instances interact. It’s part of the fediverse, a network of interconnected platforms.

Users: Under 1 million active users globally — a small fraction compared to other platforms.

Business model: No central business model or advertising. Mastodon gGmbH is funded mainly by user donations. Individual instances support themselves through donations or volunteers.

Ownership: No central owner. Mastodon gGmbH is a nonprofit that maintains open-source software and runs one of the largest instances, mastodon.social. It doesn’t control the thousands of other independent instances worldwide. No one governs the fediverse as a whole.

Distribution logic: Follower-based within and across instances. No central algorithm — content appears chronologically. No advertising, and no engagement-optimized recommendation engine.

Privacy: Varies by instance. Content moderation is managed by individual instance administrators, not a central company.

Notable for experts: I included Mastodon because of what it represents — a working example of a platform governed entirely by its community rather than a corporation. It embodies what a lot of people say they wish for in platforms: no ads, no algorithm, no central authority. However, its small size and technical barrier to entry make it an unlikely starting point for most.

Caveats and considerations

Here are some important points to keep in mind when using the Lurker’s Guide to the Internet series:

• The user figures come from public sources, including company announcements, earnings calls, and third-party aggregators like Backlinko, Statista, and DemandSage. These numbers change often and may use different definitions. Treat them as directional, not exact.

• The map focuses on the largest global platforms by active user base. Region-specific platforms like WeChat, Douyin, or LINE are not included, despite their large user bases.

• I am also excluding sector-specific platforms, such as Academia.edu for academics or Doximity for physicians. Still, I hope this series helps you think about the qualities you want in the platforms you use.

• Some platforms with smaller user bases are included, like LinkedIn, Messages, personal websites, and Mastodon (an open-source network), as they are relevant for experts.

• This series covers only organic (unpaid) distribution. Paid advertising and content boosting are not included.

• Specific reasons for choosing one platform over another are not considered. This includes accessibility features or user demographics like age, language, political views, or location.

• The series is based on publicly available information and my direct experience. For transparency, I worked at Meta from 2018-2024. ◾

Over thirty years after Woody and Buzz Lightyear first came to life on screen, Jessie is the new sheriff in charge, a tablet is the newest plaything, and Toy Story is asking the question of our time: what do our devices do to our imaginations?

In this episode, Jena and Michelle unpack how Toy Story 5 explores tech, play, and friendship with nuance and humor. They also revisit why the franchise has endured for three decades – from its themes of loyalty and change to the way Pixar revolutionized animation and storytelling itself.

◾

Check out our recs:

• Creativity Inc. by Ed Catmull, 2023.

• The Pixar Theory

• Pixar’s 22 rules of storytelling, Jeannie Ruesch, 2026.

• Inside Pixar, Disney+, 2020.

Audio clip sources:

• Toy Story 1995 | 10 Best Quotes, 10 Best Quotes (YouTube), 2024.

• CNN (TikTok), 2026.

• Why everyone hates the new hydration breaks, The Wall Street Journal (YouTube), 2026.

• Sander Jennings (YouTube), 2026.

• Bellingham: “My mum told me to watch my language!”, Beanyman Sports (YouTube), 2026.

• BBC Radio 4 (TikTok), 2026.

• You’re mocking me, aren’t you?, Bosh (YouTube), 2020.

• Toy Story! There’s a snake in my boots. OR There’s a snake in my boot., Divine Child_Creative Rebellion (YouTube), 2026.

• Entertainment Stories (TikTok), 2025.

Learn more about the World Cup

• Everyone’s mad at the World Cup’s new “hydration breaks” – except Mr. Moneybags over here, Wired, 2026.

• A heavily jeered $250m goldmine - are hydration break ads here to stay?, BBC, 2026.

• How long was the 2026 World Cup final halftime break?, USA Today, 2026.

• Revealed: How much David Beckham earned from 2026 World Cup – with Man Utd & England legend enhancing billion-pound net worth, Goal.com, 2026.

• Shakira, Madonna, BTS, Justin Bieber, & more take over FIFA’s first-ever World Cup final halftime show, Billboard, 2026.

• Why ITV aren’t showing adverts during World Cup hydration breaks, Four Four Two, 2026.

• The World Cup half-time show was slick, surreal and entirely unnecessary, The Athletic, 2026.

Learn more about Toy Story 5 and Pixar

• Disney lays off hundreds of staffers, Pixar hit hard, The Wrap, 2026.

• Disney & Pixar merger: The inside story of a $7.4 billion deal, M&A Community, 2025.

• How Toy Story changed Pixar – and animation, The Walt Disney Company, 2026.

• Jobs stake in Disney valued at $3.9 billion, NBC News, 2006.

• Our Story, Pixar.

• Review: Why “Toy Story” is the best franchise ever, The New York Times (YouTube), 2026.

• The timeless allure of Toy Story: A deep dive into its enduring popularity, Story Lamp Reviews, 2024.

• Toy Story (review), RogerEbert.com, 1995.

◾

About Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

Did you see that? Whether it’s in the news or pop culture, in print or online, we are living in a media overload. It’s a lot to process!

Did You See? is for anyone looking for space to pause and work through the media moments shaping how we see and understand the world. ◾

🎙️ Listen to the latest episode of Did You See? as we examine the media moments shaping culture. This week: Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce's wedding, the transatlantic culture wars over air conditioning, and America's 250th birthday.

Friends,

“The more often you hear something, the more likely you are to believe that it’s true.” That’s a line that Professor Candice Odgers repeats — twice, for good measure — in her recent TED talk, What we’re getting wrong about teens and tech.

Odgers is doing something many experts aspire to do: she’s changing public discourse. Correcting misconceptions. Adding nuance to a topic that has become oversimplified in the media and misunderstood by the public.

Watching her, I was reminded of my work at Meta partnering with public health experts, climate scientists, and elections officials. We spent enormous effort making content to debunk misinformation; or when we felt ahead of the game, we called it “pre-bunking.” But even pre-bunking meant reacting to and reinforcing someone else’s framing, rather than consistently advancing our own.

Odgers does something different. Rather than focusing on what she disagrees with, she centers her own message. And her talk doesn’t feel like a lecture, even though it’s rooted in years of research. She combines evidence with personal stories and a clear, memorable narrative. When she jokes about becoming the adult who judges teenagers for everything — from what they wear to why they aren’t partying enough — the audience laughs because they recognize themselves in her.

But changing public understanding takes more than evidence or good storytelling. As Odgers reminds us, it also takes repetition.

Many experts believe they need an original insight before they can contribute publicly. That may be true in some circles, but not in the digital ecosystem. There, change rarely happens because one person has a brilliant idea. Change happens because many people consistently reinforce the same messages until they become familiar.

That’s how public understanding shifts. And it’s something all of us can do — whether it’s by creating our own work online, or by choosing what we amplify through what we follow, comment on, and share.

After all, the more often we hear something, the more likely we are to believe that it’s true. So let's make sure the messages being repeated are ones grounded in evidence and informed by expert judgment.

◾

Below are other things I’ve been reading and thinking about this month.

And if you have a content piece to share or a favorite expert creator, send them my way by commenting or hitting reply. I’d love to include them in the next issue.

See you out there,

Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

🎙️ Did you see that Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce got married?

If you haven’t heard, Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce got married last weekend in NYC. Whether you’re interested in their wedding or not, the spectacle around it reveals a lot about celebrity performance, fandom, and what public figures owe the people who put them there. and I dig into it in our latest episode of Did You See?

Available on Substack or wherever you listen to podcasts.

News & Commentary

📝 Alan Alda’s solution to eroding trust in science: more improv

Wall Street Journal | ~ 5 mins read

Stony Brook University is teaming up with actor Alan Alda to offer improv workshops to help scientists loosen up the way they communicate and build empathy with different kinds of audiences. With participants ranging from chronic pain researchers to atmospheric scientists, there’s clearly demand for out-of-the-box approaches to rebuilding public trust. And there’s a lot to appreciate about the yes, and attitude experts are bringing to the challenge.

📝 The future of science communication is not an article like this

Nature | ~ 3 mins read

Nature is officially on TikTok, and doing a great job with their content. This editorial discusses the need to reach the public where they are and provide credible information to counter falsehoods online. But there's another, deeper significance to the move: it signals that short-form digital media deserves a place alongside more traditional forms of science communication.

📝 8 AI bots write 50% of X’s community notes

Indicator | ~ 7 mins read

When platforms like X and Meta shifted away from centralized content moderation, they argued that community-based models would help to reduce bias. How does that work if AI now writes half of Community Notes on X? AI can help with scale problems, but it can’t fill information gaps or eliminate bias where adequate source material doesn’t exist.

📝 The Filipino virtual assistants behind LinkedIn’s ‘thought leadership’ content mill

Rest of World | ~ 8 mins read

Executives are outsourcing their LinkedIn engagement to virtual assistants who draft posts, write comments, and help maintain the appearance of thought leadership.

This shouldn’t be surprising. On one hand, having a digital presence has become valuable enough to create an entire support industry around it. On the other hand, it raises questions about authenticity, even when AI isn’t involved.

📝 Decline of Ph.D. Admissions Could Imperil a “Generation of New Talent”

The New York Times | ~ 7 mins read

Some of the US' leading research universities are reducing Ph.D. admissions, in response to uncertainty around federal funding, which is increasingly becoming politicized. The immediate concern is on scientific research, but there will also be downward effects on undergraduate education and what the next generation of expertise might look like.

It’s another example of how external narratives have profound impacts on experts’ abilities to do their jobs. Turning that around will require more than a change in political leadership. It will require academic institutions to engage more intentionally with the public and rebuild trust from the inside out.

Subscribe now

Expert of the month

📚 Dr. Shawna | TikTok

The algorithm has recently started serving me Dr. Shawna’s content, and I’m so grateful for it. In her profile, she describes her content as “hot takes with citations,” and I’ve been watching a lot of her recent posts about credibility, credentials, and education access. For anyone who thinks that people don’t want to see complex content online, please note that Dr. Shawna has nearly 180k followers on TikTok. Let that sink in.

@dr.shawnaWhy do we trust the people and creators that we do? In this video, I explore the concept of borrowed authority and how we decide who has earned our trust online. There are so many visual and verbal cues people use to gain our trust and establish credibility, which ultimately is a performance of authority. We can look to work in the social sciences and social media studies to understand how this works, what it looks like, and what we can do. For more on that, let’s go to the research! #LearnOnTikTokContest #didyouknow #psychology #socialscience

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Happy place

I’ve been following Sarah Ahn’s TikTok for a while, where she shares recipes and stories of Korean home cooking with her mother, whom she calls Umma. They recently won a James Beard award for their new cookbook, Umma. If you’re looking for a calming and heartwarming space online, check out their account. It’s about more than Korean cuisine — it’s a true celebration of home life, moms, and daughters.

@ahnestkitchenWe did it, thanks to you all! Our cookbook, UMMA, is officially out for pre-order. 🥹🇰🇷 Pre-order link is in bio. UMMA | Uhm-Mah | /ʌm.ma/ means “mom” in Korean. This cookbook is my tribute to the heart of every Korean kitchen—the umma. It’s packed with 100+ recipes that my Umma has perfected to bring you the very best of Korean cooking, each one authentic and unique to us. But it’s more than just a recipe book. Woven throughout are stories and conversations of love, intention, and the unspoken language passed down through food. Like the storytelling content I share here, it’s filled with thought-provoking, funny, and universally relatable moments that capture a life rich with wisdom, memories, and heart. Whether you’ll enjoy this book for a good read, or for the best recipes Umma developed to her fullest capacity, I hope this book fills your kitchen with warmth and leaves you with moments to reflect on, laugh with, and savor. UMMA is now available for pre-order. Your support in pre-ordering plays the BIGGEST role in the success of this cookbook and opens up opportunities for exciting in-person events, like book tours and cooking classes. We’d love to meet you, share stories, and make Korean food together in real life. Your support means the world to me—it fuels my passion for sharing Korean food and storytelling, and it supports my family. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for being a part of this journey with me. A special thank you to everyone at @testkitchen for believing in us and giving us this opportunity. I can’t express my gratitude enough. We hope this book brings you as much joy and warmth as we poured into every page. - Sarah and Umma Ahn #koreanmom #umma #koreanfood #kimchi #saltbread #koreancafe #giftideas #booktok

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

It’s the most-hyped wedding of the year: Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce got married at Madison Square Garden on July 3rd. There’s a lot that we know – a thousand guests, 20-minute vows, a jumbotron announcement. And there’s a lot that we don’t know – what did Taylor’s dress look like, and more importantly, what did Adam Sandler wear?

But what does the spectacle reveal about celebrity performance, fandom, and what public figures owe the people who put them there? In this episode, Jena and Michelle unpack how two of the biggest personal brands in music and sports came together, and why fans are more conflicted about Taylor’s happy ending than you might expect.

◾

Read our writing about Taylor Swift:

• MEdia Notes (Taylor’s Version)

Check out our recs:

• The End of an Era, Disney+, 2025.

• There are plenty of power publicists. But only one works for Taylor Swift., The Wall Street Journal, 2024.

• The people who brought you Travis Kelce, The New York Times, 2024.

Learn more about the photo we discuss:

• Patriot Front members and a solitary woman travel on a DC train: a picture and its story, Reuters, 2026.

Audio clip sources:

• Wedding March by Felix Mendelssohn

• CBS Mornings (TikTok), 2026.

• CBS Mornings (TikTok), 2026.

• CNN (TikTok), 2026.

• Ricki-Lee & Tim (Instagram), 2026.

• Morgan St. Jean (Instagram), 2026.

• Meredith Lynch (Instagram), 2026.

• Page Six (TikTok), 2026.

• Jojo (in KC) (TikTok), 2026.

• ABC7LA (TikTok), 2026.

Learn more about the heatwave in Europe:

• Air conditioning creates political divide after France records hottest day, BBC, 2026.

• Geopolitical Europe needs air-conditioning, Carnegie Europe, 2026.

• The overlooked reason Europe doesn’t have AC, The Atlantic, 2026.

• Why Germans don’t have air conditioning, Deutsche Welle, 2026.

Learn more about America’s 250th anniversary celebrations:

• One birthday, two party planners: Freedom 250 vs. America 250, explained, NBC News, 2026.

• What is Freedom 250? And why are musical artists distancing themselves from its concerts?, The Hill, 2026.

• White nationalists march in Washington amid 250th anniversary celebrations, The New York Times, 2026.

Learn more about Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce:

• All of Taylor Swift’s lyrics about getting married, from “Love Story” to “Honey”, Today, 2026.

• The defiant conventionality of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce, The Atlantic, 2025.

• How Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s hand-picked charities learned about $26M donation: “Boy, have I got news for you”, People, 2026.

• Inside Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s wedding: 20-minute vows, Paul McCartney singing, and “bars everywhere”, People, 2026.

• Jason and Travis Kelce sign reported $100 million podcast deal with Amazon’s Wondery, Forbes, 2024.

• Kylie Kelce unseats Joe Rogan as top podcast with debut episode, The Hill, 2024.

• Taylor Swift and the philosophy of Easter eggs, London School of Economics, 2024.

• Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce unite in marriage, The New York Times, 2026.

• Taylor Swift, what are you doing?, The New York Times, 2026.

• What does it cost to take over Madison Square Garden?, The New York Times, 2026.

◾

About Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

Did you see that? Whether it’s in the news or pop culture, in print or online, we are living in a media overload. It’s a lot to process!

Did You See? is for anyone looking for space to pause and work through the media moments shaping how we see and understand the world. ◾

In this episode, Jena and Michelle unpack the growing concentration of power in media. Using recent developments involving Musk, the Murdoch family, and Larry and David Ellison, they explore how media empires are evolving and what happens when a small number of people controls most of what everyone else sees and hears.

They also discuss the turmoil at 60 Minutes, the future of news, and why it’s essential for the public to understand who owns what.

Listen here on Substack, or at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Podcast Addict.

◾

Read our writing about power in media:

• On Charlie, Jimmy, and Larry, Feed for Thought, 2025.

Listen to our episode about Australia’s social media ban:

• Apple Podcasts

• Spotify

• Substack

Check out our recs:

• The UK’s violent riots were stoked by Elon Musk and a global far-right network, On the Media, 2026.

• Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Corporate Consolidation (S4 E24)

• Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Tech Monopolies (S9 E14)

• Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Bari Weiss (S12 E26)

Audio clip sources:

• Knicks Win Championship, ESPN footage, 2026

• Keir Starmer endorses Netflix drama Adolescence as a wake-up call on online violence, The Indian Express, 2025.

• Justice Department Approves Merger, CBS News, 2026

• Meet the billionaires who control your media, It’s Been a Minute, 2026.

Want to learn more?

New York Knicks:

• Why the Knicks really won, The New York Times, 2026.

• The Haves and Have-Nots: How the Knicks’ Celebrity Row works, Front Office Sports, 2024.

UK social media ban:

• Fact sheet: New rules to protect children online, UK Department for Science, Innovation, & Technology, 2026.

• Five big questions about the UK’s under-16s social media ban, BBC, 2026.

• It makes no sense: 16- and 17-year-olds on UK social media ban, The Guardian, 2026.

• Panic first, evidence later, Kids Play Tech Lab, McGill University, 2026.

• Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s resignation speech in full, BBC, 2026.

• Use, views and worries on age bans on social media: responses form 29,169 children in 19 European countries, EU Kids Online, University of Oslo, London School of Economics, 2026.

Power in media:

• How a $45 million donation brought Larry Ellison deeper into Trump’s circle, Wall Street Journal, 2026.

• How Elon Musk is boosting far right politics across the globe, NBC News, 2025.

• Justice Department approves Paramount Skydance’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, NBC News, 2026.

• A Murdoch builds his own media empire. Is this Succession or secession?, The New York Times Magazine, 2026.

• The Murdoch family fight is over. So what does Lachlan control?, The New York Times, 2025.

• Paramount agrees to pay $16M to settle Trump lawsuit, Pew Research Center, 2025.

• Paramount CEO promises editorial independence for 60 Minutes, says Lesley Stahl, The New York Times, 2026.

• Rivalries and rumors: how the new order of the Murdoch dynasty is playing out, BBC, 2025.

• Scott Pelley on the Bari Weiss era and his last days at 60 Minutes, The New York Times, 2026.

• SpaceX IPO makes Elon Musk the world’s first trillionaire, Reuters, 2026.

• Student who called out CBS at News Emmys says Scott Pelley did the “right thing” amid network upheaval, NBC News, 2026.

• What Fox’s Roku acquisition says about Lachlan Murdoch’s vision, The Poynter Report (Poynter Institute), 2026.

◾

About Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

Did you see that? Whether it’s in the news or pop culture, in print or online, we are living in a media overload. It’s a lot to process!

Did You See? is for anyone looking for space to pause and work through the media moments shaping how we see and understand the world.

Michelle Ciulla Lipkin spent 25+ years in media and education — as a media literacy educator, advocate, and CUNY lecturer.

Jena Wuu spent 15+ years in tech and policy — building Uber in Europe and founding Meta’s global information ecosystem program.

Two friends, two different perspectives on the same media landscape, and a shared belief that there’s always something more to the story. ◾

Share

🎧 Listen | 4:56 mins

So… people really don’t like AI.

This spring, university graduates across the United States booed commencement speakers extolling AI’s promise. Only 18% of young Americans feel hopeful about it. Indeed, AI is now less popular than ICE.

One question people keep coming back to is whether AI – a manmade thing – is indeed inevitable, or just forced onto us by corporate greed.

@goodnoticingspod @goodnoticingspod ♬ original sound - Good Noticings

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

There is truth to that. It takes a lot of money to build AI, and investors expect a return. More than $300 billion has been invested in OpenAI and Anthropic alone. That may explain why both companies are moving towards massive IPOs this year, despite profitability remaining elusive.

But there’s nothing new about commercial interests shaping social norms.

Bacon became a breakfast staple because of marketing. Diamonds came to symbolize marriage because of a De Beers campaign. Companies like Hallmark transformed holidays into obligatory gift-giving occasions.

So, yes. AI is here to stay because of commercial pressure. And because of geopolitical competition.

But also because it appeals to human nature.

◾

You can see this in the debate around AI and creative work. It’s already a big business – Ben Affleck recently sold his AI production startup to Netflix for $600 million. Meanwhile, writers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, and editors have become some of AI’s loudest critics. As one recent campaign, co-signed by big names like Scarlett Johansson and Cate Blanchett, said: stealing is not innovation.

And yet, according to a 2026 Stanford report, generative AI is being adopted at historic speed worldwide — faster than either the personal computer or the Internet.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think that AI companies are setting out to destroy the creative class. I think they’re building products that solve a problem for a certain customer: people who want to create without having to spend years mastering a craft.

◾

Of course, that’s an oxymoron because creativity — like all forms of expertise — is inherently laborious. It requires being bad at something for a while, and doing it anyway. It demands vulnerability, rejection, frustration, and repetition. Getting good at being creative is incredibly hard.

But AI offers a solution. It enables you to fast-track parts of the labor and the process. It helps you to write faster, to make more designs, and to automate editing. To create something that looks finished without the same investment of time, effort, blood, sweat, and tears.

That’s appealing to a lot of people. But what does it mean for the information ecosystem?

I’ve long argued that AI will raise the floor of content quality, and the ceiling will also rise. As a result, we’ll get more content than ever before, but much of it will look and feel the same. Mediocrity will become the new baseline.

Those who put in the effort to develop original perspective and truly master their craft will still stand out. In a world of AI sameness, they may stand out even more.

@jesstathemWhat happened to branding and creativity?! Claude and AI are HELPERS not SOLVES for your content. #claude #instagramcarousel #ai

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

This will result in different content tiers. Like in food or fashion, fast content will become its own category: abundant, inexpensive, and quickly discarded. On the other hand, slow content – like any artisan craft – will continue to have its place and audience.

◾

But different content classes shouldn’t lead to different information classes. For those of us who care about information quality and equity, our focus needs to be on preventing that from happening.

Both fast and slow content serve a purpose and an audience. Both audiences deserve access to credible information from experts and institutions that exist to serve the public.

All of the public. ◾

In this episode, Jena and Michelle dive into the world of trad wife content: where it comes from, how it evolved from family vlogging into a warmly-lit homesteading aesthetic, and why so many people find it hard to look away.

That conversation serves as the backdrop for Yesteryear, the buzzy debut novel by . Its heroine, Natalie, is a modern-day trad wife influencer who wakes up in 1855 and has to survive the reality she’d been romanticizing online. Jena and Michelle discuss what the book gets right about performance in life and online, where it falls short, and why its premise was compelling enough for Anne Hathaway to purchase the film rights while the manuscript was still a first draft.

IF YOU WANT TO STAY SPOILER-FREE WHILE LISTENING, SKIP AHEAD FROM 26:20-34:30.

They also explore the growing scrutiny of momfluencers and family vlogging, and what impact it can have on the children who appear in their parents’ content.

Plus: Pope Leo has spoken on AI and humanity, and Stephen Colbert says goodbye to The Late Show.

Follow Did You See? with Jena and Michelle on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Podcast Addict.

◾

Read our writing about trad wife influencers:

• From #childlesscatladies to #childfreebychoice (Part I), Feed for Thought, 2025.

Check out our recs:

• Like, Follow, Subscribe by Fortesa Latifi, 2026.

• The House of My Mother: A Daughter’s Quest for Freedom by Shari Franke, 2025.

• Bad Influence: The Dark Side of Kidfluencing, 2025.

• The Devil in the Family: The Fall of Ruby Franke, 2025.

• Educated by Tara Westover, 2018.

• An Update on our Family, 2025.

Want to learn more?

• The Caro episode, Diabolical Lies, 2026.

• Child Influencer Project - UK and Ireland, University of Essex.

• I was raised in conservative evangelicialism. Yesteryear missed its mark., The Pomegranate, 2026.

• Meet the queen of the ‘trad wives’ (and her eight children), The Times, 2024.

• MomTok is the apotheosis of 21st-century womanhood, The Atlantic, 2024.

• The rise and fall of the trad wife, The New Yorker, 2024.

• Shari Franke tells all, Under the Influence with Jo Piazza, 2025.

• She gave birth two weeks ago. Now she’s in a beauty pageant., New York Times, 2024.

• The trad wife paradox, What Now? with Trevor Noah (guest: Anne Helen Petersen), 2024.

• TN bill regarding children in social media content heads to gov’s desk, The Tennessean, 2026.

• Utah passed a law to protect child influencers, Teen Vogue, 2025.

• Yesteryear by Caro Claire Burke review – the downfall of an all-American trad wife, The Guardian, 2026.

• Yesteryear with Caro Claire Burke: trad wives, secret lives, and twist ending, Be There in Five, 2026.

Links from the open:

• Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah’s remarks on Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical “Magnifica humanitas,” Anthropic, 2026.

• Magnifica Humanitas, The Holy See, 2026.

• Main takeaways from Pope Leo’s encyclical on AI, New York Times, 2026.

• Only in Monroe, Monroe Community Media, 2026.

• Wanton destruction of CBS property – Letterman & Colbert toss stuff off the roof of the Ed Sullivan, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, 2026.

◾

About Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

Did you see that? Whether it’s in the news or pop culture, in print or online, we are living in a media overload. It’s a lot to process!

Did You See? is for anyone looking for space to pause and work through the media moments shaping how we see and understand the world.

Michelle Ciulla Lipkin spent 25+ years in media and education — as a media literacy educator, advocate, and CUNY lecturer.

Jena Wuu spent 15+ years in tech and policy — building Uber in Europe and founding Meta’s global information ecosystem program.

Two friends, two different perspectives on the same media landscape, and a shared belief that there’s always something more to the story. ◾

🎧 Listen | 8:44 mins

It’s commencement season, and I’ve been thinking a lot lately about college. My own 20-year reunion is this year, a milestone that can make you look backward and forward at the same time.

I went to Carleton College, a liberal arts school in Minnesota. Having grown up in Alabama, where we had snow days if near-freezing temperatures were forecast, I was sold on Carleton the moment I saw its footage of a student cross-country skiing to class.

Besides the snow, going to Carleton was my first small rebellion. My childhood was sandwiched between two types of conservatism: the political conservatism of my social circles and the traditionalism of my Taiwanese family. Needless to say, I was surrounded by many strong opinions about the right way to live, the right thing to study, and the right kind of work.

So when I tell you that my college experience gave me the most idealized version of higher education, it’s not an exaggeration. Going to college opened my mind and my world — figuratively and literally. It gave me space to experiment with who I might become.

I admit it: when I was at Carleton, most of my classmates leaned left. But of course, conservative students were on campus too. While I can’t speak for them, I personally never felt that our political disagreements would preclude friendship. Despite spirited debates in class, we could still hang out afterwards. We all wanted to help people, even if we disagreed on the details. We all loved Stir-frydays and baking cookies. We all loved Professor Mary Easter.

That said, I had the pleasure of going to college pre-social media, which arrived on our campus in my junior year. Facebook is very different now than it was then.

And so is college.

◾

Today, viewpoint diversity – particularly at elite universities – has become one of the central discussion points about higher education. On one side, critics argue that universities have traded open inquiry for ideological conformity. On another, they say that academic freedom is being conflated with freedom of expression.

At the same time, public trust in colleges and universities – like trust in nearly all institutions – has steadily declined. And in recent years, these debates have advanced from philosophical to political, with concrete consequences. Federal funding for universities has been cut or made conditional. Tenure protections are changing, as are curricula. And with its high cost mixed with an uncertain future of work, more young people are questioning the value of higher education itself.

@avayuergensShould you go to college? 🏫

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

And college students are more digitally connected than any previous generation. Whereas I relished the classroom as a gateway to new perspectives and worldviews, today it is just one access point of many. Students – or anyone – can discover new subjects and hold intellectual debates continuously and on repeat, as digital and physical life collapse into each other.

Despite these tensions, there is one thing that university administrators, professors, and students can agree on. A university’s central role is to serve as a place for open inquiry – defined as the ability to ask questions, share ideas, and challenge popular views and assumptions.

So why are universities generally absent from the spaces where open inquiry now happens for most people?

Yes, I’m talking about digital platforms.

You only need to see the footage of the recent altercation between Cornell’s President and students to understand why the omnipresence of phone cameras may feel personal to faculty and staff. Not to mention the relationship between phones and focus in the classroom; AI’s impact on teaching, learning, and intellectual property rights; and the way social media has reshaped who gets seen and treated as experts.

In short: it’s complicated.

◾

Of course, universities are working hard to adapt. Last month, Yale released the findings of a year-long faculty committee on trust in higher education. The report is comprehensive, with recommendations spanning affordability, admissions, and community engagement.

It repeatedly calls for strengthening Yale’s relationships with both internal and external stakeholders – to open the gates and communicate effectively. But when you dig deeper, you see that it mostly refers to traditional tactics like hosting town halls and advisory councils, doing more Yale-centered comms about its mission and decisions, and offering more online learning opportunities.

The report contains almost no meaningful discussion of actual digital participation. It’s a surprising omission, considering the high demand for academic content online, as we saw with the #Hillmantok movement last year. People want content with depth, but in a way that connects with how they live. There needs to be a step between hearing a university’s mission statement and signing up for their course on a learning platform.

@afamstudiesWelcome to Intro to African-American Studies Spring 2025!

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

It’s hard to reconcile universities’ commitment to debate and open inquiry with their disengagement from the spaces where these now take place. Doing so not only distances institutions from the public; it also disregards the world that students are stepping into, one that is increasingly shaped online.

Of course, personal agency matters here; not every professor wants a public profile. But universities have every reason – for trust-building as much as for risk management – to support those who want to engage online, and to recognize that work as legitimate.

◾

How can university leaders balance the importance of participating in the digital world with the responsibility to protect the institution as well as faculty, staff, and students?

Every institution will carry different priorities, guardrails, and resourcing. That’s fine; there is no blanket right way to do this.

Here are five ways to start:

1. Develop clear policies on individuals’ digital engagement.

If you’ve been reading Feed for Thought for a while, you know how much I love an internal policy to address issues like online conduct, branding, messaging alignment, and post-employment considerations. I’ve designed plenty of principles-first guidelines for organizations, and while it forces hard conversations, a good policy makes every other decision easier because it gives you a north star and defensible position.

2. Integrate digital literacy into faculty development and student curriculum.

Learning how information flows, how creators build trust, and how to be a responsible consumer online is an essential skill for everyone, whether they make content or not. For those who do, it makes all the difference to have support with deciding which platforms to use, getting started, protecting their safety and privacy, and engaging with others.

3. Make room for both device-free and creator spaces.

You don’t have to have one or the other – they’re complements. I think phone-free classrooms and study areas are a great idea. And recording studios and editing tools belong on campus too.

4. Have a crisis response plan.

Any kind of public engagement comes with risks. The good news is: it’s mostly predictable. When I did crisis response at Uber, having a playbook and knowing everyone’s role in it helped to make intense moments more manageable. And it made sure that we were consistent in protecting our organization, employees, and customers, even in a worst case situation.

5. Offer a carrot.

Beyond making space and time, universities can reduce the stigma around academics’ engaging online. Could public engagement count toward service requirements? Could online writing become part of the academic publishing process? Even small institutional signals can go a long way in framing digital participation as legitimate scholarly work.

◾

Universities once stood at the center of intellectual life because campuses were where open inquiry happened. Today, much of public debate has moved elsewhere.

Will universities join in? ◾

🎧 Listen | 5:54 mins

Friends,

Since emerging from my lurker identity, I’ve been dreaming of starting a podcast. I adore the medium of audio. At the risk of sounding much older than I actually am, I grew up listening to George Burns and Gracie Allen.1 In high school, I volunteered at Alabama Public Radio. As a young adult, I crushed on Ira Glass.

There’s a certain intimacy to audio. Having someone’s voice in your ears while going about your day integrates them into your routine in a way that’s not possible when you have to stop to watch something. And sometimes, visuals can distract you from listening to a speaker’s actual words. From hearing the hesitation or energy in their voice.

But audio isn’t just about nostalgia and romance. It’s a critical part of the information landscape — one that doesn't get nearly enough attention.

◾

Audio endures because it fits into the rhythms of everyday life. If you’re commuting, cleaning, getting ready in the morning, going for a run, cooking, or doing a night-time feeding, audio can accompany you in all of that. And even as digital technologies continue to expand, radio in particular remains critical to the ecosystem because a quarter of the world is still not online – a gap that exists in the United States and Europe as well.

For those with digital access, podcasts’ role in shaping public opinion and politics has become impossible to ignore. In the United States, The Joe Rogan Experience – widely credited with influencing the 2024 Presidential election – has dominated Spotify’s podcast rankings for the last six years, and now tops Apple and YouTube charts as well.

Though audio is broadly seen as effective for engaging disaffected and vulnerable audiences, it faces relatively little scrutiny. And it remains underused as a public information tool.

I’ve seen this play out in my own work. In the push to go digital, institutions running public service campaigns tend to focus on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, or even the dreaded chatbot. And when individual experts begin to experiment with making content, many gravitate naturally toward writing on platforms like Substack or Medium. Despite its endurance and influence around the world, audio often falls through the cracks in conversations about the digital ecosystem.

◾

That’s why I’ve been so eager to experiment with it myself – and why I knew I could only do it with the brilliant .

Michelle and I have been friends and colleagues for over seven years. Like many adult friendships, we met through work. I had just secured the information ecosystem pilot at Meta, when I connected with the National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE), where Michelle was serving as Executive Director.

What started as a partnership around user education evolved into years of collaboration that included producing new research and doing international advocacy. In Australia and New Zealand, Michelle and I met with researchers and government officials about their upcoming elections, media literacy, and public trust.

What I love about spending time with Michelle is that we bring very different experiences to the table. She has spent 25 years in media and education; I’ve spent 15 years in tech and policy. But we share the same curiosity about how media and technology shape people and societies. And though we’re both in different roles now, our commitment to helping people develop more intentional relationships with media, technology, and information has only grown.

We don’t always agree, but every conversation with Michelle teaches me something new. That’s what Did You See? is about.

◾

In each episode, Michelle and I use specific media moments – from news to entertainment – as starting points to dig deeper into their connections to culture, technology, politics, and the way we understand the world.

My work with Feed for Thought is dedicated to exploring the future of expertise, institutions, and trust. But media shapes far more than professional life or public discourse. It affects daily life: what we pay attention to, what feels true, and how we relate to one another.

That’s the humanity that institutions and the experts within them are meant to serve. We’re all just people living in this world together.

With so many forces colliding at once, our media landscape can feel overwhelming. Michelle and I wanted to create a space to slow down and process it together. I hope you’ll join us.

◾

Listen to our first episode: Did you see that Australia banned social media for kids?

We talk about how a lot of Australian teens are still able to access platforms, whether the policy is working, and whether bans are the right response to the teen mental health crisis. We also discuss the new novel, Yesteryear, and the Met Gala.

You can follow Did You See? with Jena and Michelle on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. I’ll also post episodes here on Feed for Thought.

And as always, I’d love to hear your thoughts, questions, and suggestions for the media moments you’re processing right now. Hit reply to this email; I read every note.

See you out there,

◾

Read our writing about social media and teen mental health

• Michelle Ciulla Lipkin’s response to The Anxious Generation, NAMLE newsletter, 2024.

• Is the online child safety debate for young people, or for adults?, Feed for Thought, 2026.

Check out our recs:

• Is social media bad for kids’ mental health?, Aspen Ideas Festival, 2023.

• Growing Up in Public: Coming of Age in a Digital World by Devorah Heitner, 2023.

Want to learn more?

• Anxious Generation Movement

• Health advisory on social media use in adolescence, American Psychological Advisory, 2023.

• Social Media Minimum Age: Compliance Update, Australia eSafety Commissioner, March 2026.

• Social Media and Youth Mental Health, Office of the Surgeon General (US Department of Health and Human Services), 2023.

• The great rewiring: Is social media really behind an epidemic of teenage mental illness?, Nature, 2024.

• We’re not the anxious generation by Maximilian Milovidov, 2025.

◾

About Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

Did you see that? Whether it’s in the news or pop culture, in print or online, we are living in a media overload. It’s a lot to process!

Did You See? is for anyone looking for space to pause and work through the media moments shaping how we see and understand the world.

Michelle Ciulla Lipkin spent 25+ years in media and education — as a media literacy educator, advocate, and CUNY lecturer.

Jena Wuu spent 15+ years in tech and policy — building Uber in Europe and founding Meta’s global information ecosystem program.

Two friends, two different perspectives on the same media landscape, and a shared belief that there’s always something more to the story. ◾

This essay first appeared in the April 2026 newsletter of the National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE) (full transparency: I’m a proud Board member). NAMLE is the largest membership organization dedicated to media literacy education in the United States, and reaches thousands of K-12 educators across the country. If you want to support the teachers helping young people navigate an uncertain world, consider giving a donation.

🎧 Listen | 5:18 mins

Just look it up.

It feels like this is now the default answer for every question these days. Even small moments of curiosity get truncated by the ability to just look it up.

Unfamiliar with something on the menu at dinner? Let’s not ask our server who’s trained to talk about food. Quick, google it before they come back!

Noticed an interesting flower on this morning’s walk? Let’s send a pic to ChatGPT. We must know what it is right now!

I jest – mostly. There is, of course, a certain power and something magical about having the world’s knowledge at our fingertips. But how will our ability to learn on demand change the way we think? The way we ask questions? Our willingness to sit in our own wonder?

Anyone who has taught knows the feeling of looking out at a silent classroom. And anyone who has been a student knows the fear of raising your hand. Asking questions has always been a fraught experience; it exposes yourself as someone who doesn’t know something that others already do.

Now that I’m at an age where younger people come to me for advice, I’m realizing how much of my own life has been enriched by my comfort with not knowing things. Not willful ignorance, of course. But there is a certain resilience that can only come with going through the process of learning, and being okay with looking a little lost along the way.

For example, I was never the best math student. But I didn’t have to fear math tests because my teachers credited showing your work as much as getting the right answer. The act of trying – of communicating your thinking in your long division or geometry proof – was what mattered most.

I’ve taken that philosophy to places far beyond the classroom. After college, I moved abroad and spent time in places where I don’t speak the local language. Could I whip out my phone to translate simple orders at the bakery? Sure. But it’s much more rewarding (and often faster) to find commonalities with people – like the universal language of pointing and miming – rather than focusing on how to overcome my limitations.

It’s a mindset that does more than open you up to unexpected moments of laughter over a baguette. It also builds your confidence and resilience in moments of uncertainty.

Here’s the tension though. Young people are entering a work culture that rewards algorithmic thinking above almost everything else. Employers’ fervor to incorporate AI in as many workflows as possible is creating a standard that doing more is the same as doing better. And in this job market – especially for young people competing with machines for entry-level work – digital fluency is no longer a special skill on your resume but a basic necessity.

So the pressure is on. To know things faster. To communicate with certainty. Because that’s how the LLMs do it.

But being comfortable in curiosity and rushing to know things don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Because in our new world, asking questions is a core technical skill. There may be no bad questions, but when using AI there are definitely better and worse ways to formulate one.

And there are bad answers, presented as complete. AI makes answers cheap and instant, so our role as humans is to interrogate what it gives us. We need to know where there’s context that the AI can’t be aware of. Understand where there are outliers and exceptions. And make decisions on where and how to apply the outputs AI offers us.

Technology can only replace human judgment if we allow it to. Those who will thrive are the ones who use it as a tool – not a crutch.

As is so often the case, teachers are on the front lines of helping young people navigate all of this. Nobody knows what the future will look like. And it’s no small task to prepare students for a world that rewards certainty while offering none.

That’s why it’s such an honor to serve on the NAMLE Board. This community has always understood that teaching students to think is different from just teaching them to know. And that distinction has never mattered more.

Because even if the world runs on 1s and 0s, life doesn’t. And that’s one of its best features. ◾

🎧 Listen | 7:34 mins

Last week, Reese Witherspoon called on women to learn about AI. The thing I’ve learned about technology, she said, is that if you don’t get a little bit of understanding at the beginning, it just speeds past you.

The reaction has been strong and mixed – especially from the entertainment industry, which is going through its own tech-driven upheaval. There are many legitimate questions about how AI impacts actors, writers, production crews, and creative originality as a whole. And there’s skepticism about whether Reese, a savvy businesswoman and longtime champion of women authors, has some financial interest involved. As many point out, she’s jumped on tech trends before, like NFTs and cryptocurrency. (Reese has since said that she isn’t being paid to talk about this).

Those in the No AI camp have good reasons to be there: AI (and its extra-controversial cousin, GenAI) raise legitimate concerns about ethics, environmental impact, critical thinking, and the concentration of power among the (mostly) men building it.

All of this is true.

But the point Reese and others (hi, Sandra Bullock) are raising isn’t about whether AI is good or bad. Their point is: it’s here.

But is it really here to stay? Some argue that AI doesn’t have to be inevitable. And plenty of previous tech hype hasn’t stuck around.

@goodnoticingspod @goodnoticingspod ♬ original sound - Good Noticings

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

I agree that inevitability was a talking point before AI was even real, and that there are significant financial incentives at play.

But even constructed momentum can take a life of its own. AI is now embedded in hiring systems, health platforms, government services, and the information environments shaping public knowledge. At some point, the question becomes less about whether it should exist. It's about how you navigate a world that already has it — whether or not you choose to use it yourself.

AI isn’t just technical. It reflects and magnifies the structural gaps that already exist in the real world.

That’s why AI is a women’s issue.

◾

According to the UN, women’s jobs are three times more likely than men’s to be replaced by AI. This largely stems from how AI is being deployed to automate operational and administrative roles often held by women.

But AI’s impact goes beyond just task replacement.

It’s also changing how work itself is structured: how organizations allocate labor, evaluate performance, and decide which human skills to invest in. Across sectors, employers are already surveilling workers in the name of AI — and using it to justify mass layoffs.

These shifts don’t happen in a vacuum. They’re being absorbed within structures that already disadvantage women through lower representation in leadership, unequal advancement opportunities, and disproportionate responsibility for work that is essential but undervalued. For non-White women, the existing work environment can be especially precarious.

In medicine, for example, women make up roughly half of medical students, yet around 40% leave full-time practice within six years of residency. That’s due to systemic failures like limited caregiving support, workplace harassment, and unfair pay.

In academia, women dominate non-tenure-track roles, but represent just 36% of full professors. Even within tenure-track positions, they carry a disproportionate share of service work – committees, mentorship, and community-building – on top of teaching and research.

And in government, women are better represented than in the private sector, but still face lower promotion rates than men. At senior levels, they also experience higher burnout and attrition.

While we can’t fully predict how AI will reshape work, we do know that women have less structural buffer to absorb these shifts. They are overrepresented in roles that are vulnerable to automation and underrepresented in the leadership positions that decide how to use AI.

◾

But AI isn’t just changing how women work. It’s also showing up in how they live — often filling gaps that institutions have long failed to address.

One of the clearest examples is women’s health – historically one of the most underfunded and underserved areas of medicine. AI is now driving a wave of new products focused on issues like fertility, endometriosis, breast and cervical cancer detection, and menopause.

And it’s not just tech bros building these products. AI coding is making it easier for those closer to these problems — such as former care providers — to create tools themselves. In doing so, experts aren’t just adopting technology; they’re changing what the tech sector looks like.

◾

If we want to learn from the past, we need to recognize that technology has long filled gaps left by institutions.

Social media grew in part because it helped women and other marginalized groups connect and find information in ways that mainstream channels didn’t.

Digital platforms are undeniably women’s spaces. 84% of all social media creators are women. And it might surprise you that Reddit – an erstwhile nerd haven – is now one of the fastest growing platforms for women.

Like much of the media made by and for women, online content is often dismissed as trivial or unserious. As I’ve written about before, that’s a mistake we can’t afford to make again. Digital platforms are central to how people share knowledge, find information, and decide whom to trust.

That matters more than ever because AI systems are being built on top of them. Reddit is increasingly cited in AI systems, and has formal content partnerships with both OpenAI and Google. LinkedIn and YouTube are also frequent sources for AI.

@feed_for_thought#ChatGPT is already using #socialmedia as a source of truth. #Reddit is the leader. 🔗 https://www.tryprofound.com/blog/chatgpt-reddit-youtube-citations

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

And in many cases, AI prioritizes information based solely on its perceived usefulness – not on the creator’s credentials. That changes the calculus for any expert wanting to shape how their field is presented and understood by the public.

The information gaps created by the absence of experts online won’t resolve themselves in the AI age. They’ll compound.

◾

Let me be clear: being skeptical about AI does not mean that you don’t understand it. Many people who are closest to these systems are also its strongest critics.

But understanding something and choosing not to use it are different from being unaffected by it. In health, research, and public service, AI is already shaping workflows, decision-making, and how the people you serve find information.

And when things move this fast, it’s an ongoing process to keep pace with technology, and how it affects the people and issues you care about. So yes, learn with Reese. Or explore with me. Or with whomever talks about this in ways that resonate with you.

That you have so many options for exploring and debating AI – and so many voices to choose from – is itself a product of this transformation. ◾

Share

🎧 Listen | 4:01 mins

Friends,

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about technology and kids. You might have too, after the recent court rulings that held Meta and Google responsible for harming youth.

I have some experience with how the tech industry approaches child safety. I helped launch Uber’s first product for teens. At Meta, I developed digital literacy curricula for teachers. Recently, I worked with parenting creators to help with family discussions about tech.

Child safety is one of the hardest issues I’ve worked on. It’s emotional, and the stakes are high. While we know logically that no one can prevent every bad thing from happening, there’s also never enough you can do to keep kids safe.

Tech companies know this — and they also know that they’re not child safety experts. That’s why it’s common practice to work with organizations like the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, ConnectSafely, and Family Online Safety Institute, among others. These kinds of partnerships can include informing product design, developing learning resources, and hosting community events. I also worked regularly with law enforcement, privacy advocates, educators, and parents’ groups to try to get as many perspectives at the table as possible.

As I reflect on that time though, I’m realizing how often youth themselves are sidelined in these discussions. It’s because — at least in my experience — parents are the customers of kids’ products. They’re the ones paying for it and deciding whether to use it. It’s the same dynamic for policymakers: parents are the voting stakeholders, not their children.

That explains why so much focus on online child safety has centered on building features for parents. We call them parental controls — tools that let parents monitor their children’s online activities and set limits.

But if the goal is to actually improve things for youth, is that the right approach?

I recently revisited an excellent essay, We’re Not the Anxious Generation, by Columbia student Maximilian Milovidov. He argues that discussions about technology often overlook young people’s lived experiences. His generation is growing up through a pandemic, school shootings, climate anxiety, and eroding institutional trust. So the phone may be a mirror of a broken world, not the sole cause of it.

Milovidov asserts that young people aren’t passive victims, either. They’re artists, organizers, and coders. They use technology to build movements and find communities that their towns and schools can’t provide. During the pandemic, digital platforms were a lifeline for many of them — especially for queer and neurodivergent youth.

He challenges adults’ instinct to control teens’ behavior. Authoritarian approaches like bans may actually increase risk, he says, by pushing youth into underground spaces. Or silencing them if they go around rules to access something online, and then need help.

We’re not the anxious generation, he writes. We’re the ignored generation.

Milovidov suggests that adults engage with youth about these issues, instead of talking about them. Control doesn’t teach resilience — conversation does.

I’m certainly up for one. Are you?

◾

Below are other things I’ve been reading and thinking about this month.

Do you have a content piece to share or a favorite expert creator to highlight? Send them my way by commenting or hitting reply. I’d love to include them in the next issue!

See you out there,

News & Commentary

📝 The stark divide in the UAE and India war info systems

Rest of World | ~ 3 mins read

Indranil Ghosh, an Indian journalist in Abu Dhabi, describes the different information ecosystems in the United Arab Emirates and India upon the start of the war in Iran. Both countries use WhatsApp for messaging; both governments took measures to restrict misinformation. But Ghosh’s experiences vary widely between the two countries.

It’s a reminder that technology is just a tool, whose usefulness often relies on how humans use it.

📝 ChatGPT Health under-triaged half of medical emergencies in a new study

NBC News | ~ 4 mins read

A new study in Nature Medicine found that OpenAI’s health-focused chatbot under-triaged over half of medical emergencies. It often recommended a doctor’s appointment when patients needed the emergency room.

There’s no doubt that AI holds great promise for easing provider workloads and expanding access to care. But being able to pass medical exams is not the same thing as practicing medicine. Expertise is more than knowledge; it’s judgment shaped by context.

📝 AI exposes where learning was thin to begin with

Inside Higher Ed | ~ 5 mins read

Xinyao Yi, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, describes how AI is revealing longstanding weaknesses in teaching. She asks whether educators have focused too much on accuracy while underweighting students’ actual understanding.

Yi hasn't banned AI from her classroom, and shares how she now assesses reasoning along with correct answers.

📝 Cursive is back. But should students be learning the skill?

NPR | ~ 5 mins read

Sherisse Kenerson, a middle school teacher in Virginia, started an after-school cursive club when she realized her students couldn’t read her handwriting on the board. Cursive was omitted from the Common Core standards in 2010, and some call it a waste of time and effort since print and tech are easily available.

But the kids don’t care about that (and neither do I). They just like it. One student feels proud to be the only person in her class who can read the Declaration of Independence, which I find lovely.

Even in a digital age, kids still appreciate pencils. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

📝 A UC professor won criminology’s highest honor. Americans still don’t believe her research.

San Francisco Chronicle | ~ 7 mins read

UC Irvine Professor Charis Kubrin is receiving her field’s equivalent of a Nobel Prize for two decades of research showing that immigration does not increase crime. Yet, 57% of Americans believe the opposite, which has made it easier politically for the US government to enforce anti-immigration policies.

Kubrin aims to get her research to policymakers, and hopes it won’t languish in journals. I hope not too. But research alone doesn’t translate into public belief, and policymaking is based as much on politics as it is on evidence.

If you don’t have a San Francisco Chronicle subscription, you can read more about Kubrin’s honor and work here.

🎥 Louis Theroux: Inside the Manosphere

Netflix (trailer) | 1:31:20 watch

British documentarian Louis Theroux has built his filmography around exploring subversive cultures. So it’s not surprising for him to dig into the world of manosphere creators, who promote extreme views of masculinity and gender roles — mostly to vulnerable young men.

The film reinforces that these creators are more businessmen than ideologues. It’s a world where everything is a transaction, and everyone leverages each other to their own benefit. Even the ethics of Theroux’s documentary itself comes into question in this regard.

Subscribe now

Experts of the month

✍️ Cutaway Notes | Public Health Matters

In What If We Treated Femicide the Way We Treat Heart Disease?, Cutaway Notes argues that femicide is a preventable public health crisis. Viewing it as a crime often leads to late intervention. However, seeing it as a health issue allows for screening, education, and early warning tools.

What stayed with me is how straightforward implementation could actually be. A standardized screening question at annual checkups. A high school health unit. The Danger Assessment Tool in a pharmacy. The infrastructure exists, but we often choose not to use it.

Also, check out my interview with Cutaway Notes about her experience writing Public Health Matters.

✍️ Joanne Schneider Demeireles | A little woo

Joanne Schneider Demeireles is a healthcare executive and former women’s health founder who writes about why smart patients are questioning medicine, and the tension between institutional authority and lived experience. She’s lived both sides — building health systems and being failed by it as a patient.

In The Problem with ‘Trust the Science,’ she argues that the phrase has become shorthand for trust in institutions and policies, even as science inherently evolves. And when evidence gets presented as absolute, patients who ask questions or push back get viewed as difficult — rather than curious or engaged.

The better frame is trust the process: being honest about what’s settled versus recommended, and understanding patients’ individual thresholds for uncertainty.

📣 Eugene Healey | @eugbrandstrat (IG, TikTok) | Considered Chaos

Eugene Healey is a brand strategy consultant and educator who’s built a big following for his sharp analyses of society through a brand lens. Though his work focuses on the private sector, many of his insights apply to public service fields as well. After all, we all aim to build trust and inspire behavior — whether it’s making a purchase or considering a vaccine.

This video essay stands out to me in particular. It’s nothing new that media shapes people’s understanding of the world. What’s new is how the growing dissonance between people’s lived and presented realities is driving them to tap out completely.

@eugbrandstratThe mythologies that hold our reality together are collapsing. Today - a special collab with Jasmine Bina. Together, we go into the collapse of the mythologies that hold the West together, and the consequences for brands building upon ontological beliefs that have ceased to exist. #brandstrategy #marketing #marketingstrategy #communicationsstrategy

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Happy place

In honor of March Madness, the American college basketball tournament that just concluded, I’d like to highlight Coach Jackie J. Jackie tells stories about women’s sports, and is known for the tongue-in-cheek series, Is she gay or does she just coach women’s basketball? Amid all the politicized talk about women's sports right now, Jackie is a true advocate and fan.

You can find Jackie on Instagram or TikTok.

@jcubedhaxI need her to motivate me like she did yesterday but just to go to the grocery store #womenssports #marchmadness #wbb

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

🎧 Listen | 6:39 mins

Last week, the social media debate came back to the top of newsfeeds. Two US courts held Google and Meta responsible for harming youth. After Australia banned social media for people under 16, it was expected that more countries would follow suit with rulings and policy changes against tech companies.

I’ve been in this field long enough to stay calm through the tides and turns of tech discussions. These are important and hard questions, and it’s a good thing that people care.

What concerns me is how much expert commentary about social media uses the same kind of emotionally charged language that media literacy teaches us to be wary of. Scolding platforms and shaming users may sell books, but it oversimplifies the very complex issues at play.

Take the recent New York Times op-ed, There’s a Good Reason You Can’t Concentrate by Georgetown professor, Cal Newport. His argument is valid — digitization affects attention spans. We should be more intentional with our phone use.

But when Newport labels TikTok videos digital Doritos and writes bluntly, don’t use TikTok. Don’t use Instagram. Don’t use X, he’s missing the point. He focuses on individual behavior while glossing over the structural issues behind it.

If we’re comparing social media to ultraprocessed food, let’s follow it through. Because the reason people eat Twinkies and Pop-Tarts isn’t due to lack of willpower or knowledge, as Newport suggests. It’s that the world we live in gives them limited options. The same is true for how we consume information.

◾

First, there’s time. Convenience foods and packaged breakfasts didn’t arise because people were lazy or ignorant. In fact, it’s the opposite. They developed because of how the workday was restructured during the Industrial Revolution.

Short-form content serves a similar purpose. Many people work multiple jobs and pick up extra shifts to make ends meet. Outside of work, personal responsibilities and schedules keep getting busier. That leaves people with limited time and mental energy to process in-depth information. So in many ways, the rise of short-form content simply reflects modern realities.

Next, there’s availability. Just as food deserts deny communities healthy food options, information deserts leave people without relevant information. That’s how platforms got popular in the first place — they filled gaps that the mainstream left open.

LGBTQ+ youth find online communities that don’t exist in their physical environments. Women find validation and advice with health questions that traditional sources lack. Minority language speakers find any content at all in their own language. Until those needs are met in the real world, digital spaces will remain crucial.

Now, let’s talk about skills. We urge people to eat fresh food, but don’t teach them how to cook. The same goes for content consumption.

Like Newport, I’d love for people to read more long-form. A good starting point would be improving their ability to read. With over half of American adults reading below a sixth-grade level, it’s unproductive to frame their engagement with simpler content as a personal failure.

And as a communicator, I’d argue that short-form is its own discipline and intellectual exercise. In my previous life, I was trained to write research papers and policy briefs; flowy sentences were my jam. Now, I’m writing for broader audiences online, and it’s given me a whole new appreciation for brevity as a skill.

Finally, environmental factors matter. Our culture simply doesn’t support analog life anymore. We shouldn’t be made to feel guilty about using our phones when daily life revolves around them – they’re how we pay bills, call our families, and yes, read books.

You can see this both at work and at school. TL;DR became standard email etiquette because coworkers stopped reading long memos. Presentations replaced documents because visualizing your points works better in meetings. And while schools move to ban phones, nearly all of them give students devices like Chromebooks and iPads to do coursework on – without making digital or media literacy a standard part of teaching.

This is where much of the expert discourse on technology falls short. We focus on the behavior — what people are consuming, how often, and for how long — without fully accounting for the conditions that shape those behaviors in the first place.

When expert discourse ignores people’s realities, it reinforces a growing disconnect from the people it’s meant to serve.

◾

I understand why people are celebrating the court rulings against Meta and Google. Accountability matters, and platforms should be held to higher standards.

But we’re kidding ourselves if we think that’s enough to address the real issues young people face with body dysmorphia, loneliness, bullying, and anxiety. These aren’t just tech problems — they’re human ones. And I really don’t want to delegate the responsibility of solving some of humanity’s most complex issues to tech companies.

If courts and policymakers want to negotiate delaying access and changing product features, they have real momentum now.

In the meantime, let’s focus on our roles as experts, public servants, and educators to address the underlying dynamics. Here are some suggestions to start:

• Standardize digital and media literacy education for K-12 students. We can fund it by taxing the platforms.

• Include digital literacy in medical and graduate programs, so the next generation of experts can navigate how changing information flows impact their work and how they can use technology as a tool.

• Prioritize public engagement from institutions and experts. We can’t improve public knowledge by wishing people sought traditional sources. We need to meet them where they are.

• Elevate high-quality content online. Platforms are designed to reflect users’ engagement – but when only 10% of people like, comment, or share, they skew the signals for everyone else. Intentional lurking is how we change what these spaces reflect.

If you’re an expert, this is the work in front of you: not just sharing knowledge, but participating in how people build understanding about your field. And making intentional choices about how (and whether) you show up.

Holding tech accountable is essential, but it’s just part of the solution. It doesn’t absolve the rest of us. Because if we keep centering technology in solutions to human problems, we’re entrapping ourselves in it even more. ◾

🎧 Listen | 5:54 mins

The online misinformation problem is often framed as a failure of content moderation: if platforms just removed the bad stuff from people’s feeds, the information ecosystem could stabilize.

Here’s the problem with that: content moderation is a constant game of whack-a-mole. It’s important, but not enough by itself.

Even if it could be done perfectly, it relies on a big assumption: that enough credible information exists online, waiting to show up in people’s feeds. It doesn’t.

I spent years at Meta working to fill this gap with trustworthy content from primary sources. The goal was to lighten the load on overworked moderators and fact-checkers. From 2018 to 2024, I helped hundreds of public service organizations run information campaigns — including governments, UN agencies, universities, and NGOs. Most organizations were learning to use social media for the first time. We focused on critical moments when misinformation could spread: the COVID-19 pandemic, national elections, natural disasters, and the war in Ukraine.

The program worked. Together, we reached over two billion people worldwide. We helped users better identify potential falsehoods and increased their trust in expert information.

Unfortunately, the program ended when I left Meta in 2024.

◾

At first, I tried to recreate the program independently. But without major funding, it could not be replicated. So that path closed.

But the problem isn't going anywhere. If anything, it's getting worse. Trust in institutions continues to erode. At the same time, media overload is driving people toward smaller, more private communities — which can feel safer, but makes it harder for centralized sources to reach them. And of course, AI is about to change how people find and assess information in ways we don't fully understand yet.

So I decided to dig deeper.

I started talking to experts across fields that rarely intersect — like medicine, academia, government, and NGOs. I wanted to understand the human impact of today’s changing information landscape. Not just for the public at large, but for the experts themselves.

Through these conversations, I realized that the problem goes beyond content.

Expertise itself is in crisis.

A physician providing care that’s suddenly deemed illegal. A researcher watching her work lose funding and get misrepresented in the same news cycle. A public servant starting over after the agency where he built his dream career disappeared. A humanitarian trying to guide people digging through conflicting advice in chat groups.

These aren’t isolated events. They’re downstream effects of the same underlying shift: in an open and algorithmic environment, authority is no longer owned centrally by institutions, but earned continuously in dispersed spaces across the web.

This changes how people decide what to believe, value, and act on. And those choices have real world consequences: what gets funded, what policies get passed, and whose expertise gets taken seriously.

That’s a major cultural reset. Most experts are navigating it alone.

◾

The deeper challenge is that many experts don’t see public engagement as part of their role at all. That makes sense within institutions, where credibility stems from credentials, hierarchy, and peer review. In these settings, public engagement is often either reserved for those at the top of the food chain, or delegated to marketing and comms teams.

The problem is: for everyone else, that model is breaking down. Of course, platforms are marketing tools. But they have also become much more than that: they’re core information infrastructure.

Platforms have fundamentally changed the way people decide what — and who — is relevant to their lives. Personal familiarity and shared values matter as much for trust-building as institutional ties. And as AI flattens both knowledge and nuance, people are turning to messengers who offer lived experience and perspective.

None of that diminishes the value of earned expertise. It simply changes how it needs to show up. You can participate online without being an influencer — in fact, if you’re scrolling at all, you already are.

That’s what Feed for Thought is about.

◾

This project has been years in the making, but it’s also still very new. I don’t know where exactly it will go, but here’s what I hope to do:

I hope to name the dynamics you sense, but may not have words for.

Pull back the curtain on how tech products get built and regulated, and what’s coming next.

Have honest conversations about the line between traditional credibility and modern-day trust, and how professional identity is evolving.

And help you find clarity on what intentional participation looks like for you.

◾

The funny thing is: I find myself on a similar journey as you. Though I built a career helping others share knowledge online, I never did it myself under my own name. I always thought my expertise applied only within the institutions I worked in.

So here I am. An ex-lurker. Speaking without the filter of my employer, sharing what I know, and joining the conversation.

That feels like a good place to start. ◾

I discovered the public health newsletter Public Health Matters shortly after I started writing on Substack. I had been looking for writers with institutional experience who are finding new ways to make knowledge more accessible online.

Public Health Matters is written by a recent college graduate who goes by the handle Cutaway Notes. It’s a relatively new newsletter (like Feed for Thought), but I was immediately struck by its clarity of perspective and tone. Through storytelling, Cutaway Notes explores issues like perimenopause and intimate partner violence, framing them as critical public health issues. It’s the kind of work that’s needed, as public trust shifts from institutional authority to personal voices online.

We connected last week over video to talk about her experience writing publicly for the first time. Our conversation touched on imposter syndrome, institutional blind spots, and why public health research needs better storytellers.

◾

Jena: Hi! It’s so nice to meet you after reading your writing. I’m curious to hear more about your background. How did you get into public health?

Cutaway Notes: I graduated last April from University of Michigan with my Bachelor’s, and I majored in public health. I knew I wanted to have a health-adjacent major, but I also knew I didn’t want to go to medical school.

And then I was fortunate enough to do a two-year research project on reproductive health. We were looking at the reproductive landscape post-Roe, the political campaigning of the 2024 election, and how abortion existed in the post-Roe landscape according to differing state laws. And then we got published in a law review, which was a mixture of both worlds, law and public health.

So my focus became women’s health, specifically reproductive health. That is where I felt like, Oh my God, this is my passion. I really, really love this.

And now I am pivoting into law school. Because I had moved so much between both worlds, public health and law, I was really beginning to understand how my future career and role would land. And although I had done a ton of advocacy, research, and community work in public health, I felt that the next stop, getting a JD, would be the answer to the advocacy I wanted to be a part of.

At the core of my work was people, my interactions with them. And I felt like the way I could make a difference that was most aligned with me, and reaching my future clients, was a JD.

J: Congratulations on graduating! And on finding something you love. What made you want to start Public Health Matters?

CN: It really comes back to that reproductive health project I mentioned. That’s how I discovered Substack.

I was doing a lot of research around reproductive health policies. I started reading Abortion, Every Day by Jessica Valenti. That’s how I got introduced to Substack and where I got a lot of my research.

After we got published, we were supposed to pursue a spin-off project post-graduation. We were excited to explore projects around a possible short book or feature story.

However, we were stopped dead in our tracks when the political landscape flipped on its head. We were struggling to find funding, and there were just a lot of issues. We tried to find grant money in other ways, but it was just a bunch of waiting.

And then I was like, You know what? I’m not gonna wait anymore. I’m just gonna pick up and start writing.

J: Good for you! I empathize with the funding issues. It’s such a hard time right now, unfortunately. Did you have an idea of what you wanted the Substack to be when you started?

CN: At first it was supposed to be comedic, about personal stuff. I loved reading people’s personal Substacks and thought it was so much fun. Like Twitter but not toxic.

But when I started working, I saw a lot of institutional failure-esque topics that really angered me. I wrote a piece about perimenopause, and I’m writing now about femicide. I feel like all of my work and research have been focused on institutional failure. And that’s kind of my niche, which I discovered during my reproductive work, sitting at the intersection of law and public health.

J: Did you feel nervous about starting to write publicly?

CN: I literally debated the decision of writing for three months. I feel like I was waiting for something to happen, this perfect day to come for me to begin writing.

I wanted to do writing in my jobs, but it just wasn’t working. A lot of places don’t do writing like this. Their communications are more like, let’s do a poster, or let’s write about this holiday. They don’t write about actual public health issues.

Then when I tried to write for health magazines, they weren’t hiring. I reached out to professors for help, but I felt like so many things weren’t working. And that’s why I started ruminating again.

J: What were you ruminating about?

CN: A lot of imposter syndrome. Because I only have a Bachelor’s in Public Health. I noticed that a lot of writers were doctors or dietitians or nurse practitioners. And I thought, Wow. These people must know a lot more than me. What if I post something and they’re like, “What do you know?”

I had also spent so much time on Reddit, and I saw how defensive and hostile people could be there.

It was honestly just a lot of fear and a lot of talking myself out of it so that I could stay in my comfort zone instead of trying something new.

But then, after I tried to get writing jobs and the research funding went out the window, I was just like, I’m gonna try.

I can’t tell you how I actually plucked up the courage to start writing. But one day, I just did.

J: I think a lot of people – myself included – can relate to feeling imposter syndrome. Are there any specific goals you have for Public Health Matters?

CN: I have two goals, two dreams.

First, I always wanted to start a podcast. I feel so much more free when I talk. When I write, I edit and re-edit. I’m thinking so much about these issues anyway so when I write, it’s like I start overthinking.

But strangely, when I talk, it’s not like that. Like the conversation you and I are having now… I find this so much more fun than us typing.

J: I agree – this is fun! So there’s the podcast. Was there a second dream you wanted to share?

CN: Yes, the other one was, honestly, just to have a community to talk to other people. I like connecting with people. Especially now in a world where we’re shifting so much into AI, you don’t really know who wrote what.

It’s so fun to talk, like we are now, or in the comments. Because that’s when I know that people are reading my posts.

But I’m really struggling with Notes. I am having a hard time landing a reaction with them, haha.

J: Ugh, I can’t figure out Notes either. Some people are really good at it. So what is your writing process like?

CN: My first ever post that I wrote was the most raw one. It was my why post and I forced myself to write it because I like reading other people’s why.

With public health, I feel like there’s so many great people. So many great doctors, nurses, professors, so many great people in academia, and all the people who are actually engaging with the literature and working with it.

But there’s not enough people disseminating it. And I wanted a tangible way for people to engage with public health that wasn’t too gatekeepy or with too much medical jargon.

I want to be the middleman. Like: here’s this complicated thing. Let me talk to you about it in a very easy, conversational way. Let me tell you a story about it, and let’s have a discussion.

When it comes to how I choose topics, I focus on things that a lot of people don’t talk about.

For example, my piece about perimenopause was more personal, because I was close with someone who had an MPH and was a pharmacist, and even she had such an awful time getting her perimenopause diagnosed and properly addressed. And the more research I did, the more I realized that this was such an overlooked issue and rarely talked about.

Public Health Matters

If You’re Googling Perimenopause Symptoms, You’re Not Alone

In our lives as women, we seem to always be given ‘general’ guidelines around when things are supposed to happen…

Read more

6 months ago · Cutaway Notes

There’s a lot of information about perimenopause, but it’s so academic. The articles talk about things like the exact neurotransmitters that run through your body at a certain age, or hormonal gymnastics that are hard to understand without a background. And that’s all valuable. But being that middleman, by disseminating that information, I just want to say: Here’s why you feel like this. You’re not alone. You’re not crazy.

And I feel like it’s because I have a huge problem with people, especially women, apologizing for how they feel. It makes me so mad. Don’t apologize! This is normal.

As for what I write, I write about institutional failures. I write about things that make me angry, because I feel like that emotion shows in my writing.

I try to write about things that we don’t always perceive to be public health, but they should be. And I want to write thought provoking things, but in a way that makes sense to a regular person.

J: That passion does come through in your writing. How do you decide what to write about? How long does it take you to write?

CN: I have a list of ideas, and I organize everything in Notion. And then I go with what my gut is feeling at the time.

Let’s say this week, I could write about a number of different angles on femicide. I sit down and do more research. If I find myself in a rabbit hole of research for more than 30 minutes, I know I’ve hit the jackpot.

I like to start broad, and then narrow down. I’ll outline the angle, my hook. Then I’ll just do research and sit down for a chunk at a time to write. Two to three hours, maybe longer.

When I have a draft, I always skip a day. Come back, edit. And then shorten it down.

I never do my closing the first time I draft. So when I do my edit, that’s when I write my closing. And then I try to find a catchy title. That’s always the most difficult part – picking a title, picking a picture.

And then I transfer everything that lives on Notion onto Substack.

J: How do you carve out the time for research and writing?

CN: You know, it’s been hard. I work a job now and I juggle different things on the side. So sometimes it’s hard for me to justify sitting down and carving time to write. Because for me, the Substack is my passion project.

I’m writing for myself. No one’s looking over my shoulder for this. That’s also the difficulty of it, because I have to keep myself accountable and not talk myself out of writing.

I don’t know about you, but everyone around me is just obsessed with work. I know people who work two jobs, and sometimes they work a different job on the weekend. It’s just crazy. And then, when I tell people, Oh, I write for fun, they’re like, Oh, you don’t get paid for that? It’s wild for them to hear.

J: I get that. What do you think would make it easier for more young people to start writing and sharing their ideas publicly?

CN: I hope there can be a bridge for younger people to start writing. For me personally, I wish there was some kind of manual or guide to walk me through how to write and post on Substack. I instead found myself getting stuck in the loop of people who wanted to sell me their courses online by promising the fastest way possible of getting subscribers. I had a lot to figure out on my own, which really prolonged my posting process.

I think we need to cultivate more talent and brain power from young people and graduates from institutions. They are the people interacting with the work, disseminating it, engaging with it.

They are, in their own way, the experts in their own fields. ◾

Thank you to Cutaway Notes for sharing your experience with us! Subscribe to Public Health Matters for more storytelling about public health.