Typical tech leaders talking out of both sides of their mouths, trying to have their cake and eat it too. Facebook used to call itself a media company, until it decimated print journalism and started genocides. Then it's "we're just a tech company." They're willing to take AI dollars now, but when social media collapses from slop, they'll blame creators.
I agree that AI is flattening aesthetics, but I’m less convinced that “rawness” (aka forced authenticity) is the antidote. As AI gets better at mimicking imperfection, the iPhone look, the GRWM style, even awkward framing quickly become part of the prompt. A blurry photo doesn’t prove humanity any more than a color grade disproves it.
What still feels scarce isn’t rawness, but intention, message, content, point of view, judgment, and the thinking that happens before the camera turns on. If platforms want authenticity, the real work isn’t aesthetic, it’s structural: trust, transparency, and meaningful protections for original creators. Otherwise skepticism fills the gap, and even genuinely human content gets questioned.
This was exactly my feeling too. He’s missing the point in such an enormous way that he’s literally contradicting himself with the information he’s providing. I agree with your take here and think you’re spot on.
YES! I can't believe how many people accept this with such blind faith. The "authenticity" preached by leaders like Mosseri is just dogma. It’s the equivalent of a gambler blowing on dice at the craps table. Superstition disguised as strategy.
It really seems designed to protect the 90-9-1 ad-stack ratio against the disruption of AI. The goal is to keep the lurkers (90%) and casual engagers (9%) pacified, while making the top 1% of clout-chasing megaposters believe in the illusion of agency. It makes them feel important enough to keep feeding the beast, giving the ad system the inventory it needs.
IMO, the emphasis on the "WHO" in Mosseri's epistle in the battle against AI is the most alarming signal. It shifts the model back to traditional gatekeeping, which betrays the promise of the open creator economy. At a certain point, prioritizing the "who" over the "what" makes Meta a publisher, not a platform, which should prompt some rethinking of its Section 230 protections.
Many thanks for pointing out the Emperor's New Clothes aspect of Mosseri's essay. Your conclusion deserves to be printed in all caps! "IF MOSSERI WERE BEING HONEST WITH HIMSELF ON HOW TO KEEP INSTAGRAM “AUTHENTIC”, HE WOULD HAVE USED HIS ESSAY TO ADVOCATE FOR AI REGULATION, CREATOR PROTECTIONS, AND INDUSTRY STANDARDS."
Loved this! I’ve developed a deeper hatred for meta as of late. Mainly because of the glasses they are pushing so hard (like how big was that check they wrote to Tinx?!) Also how does two party consent not apply to those?!? But also because of how willing they are to spend $$$ on things no one wants. I don’t understand how they are maintaining revenue since we know conversion is worse and brands are pulling spend from them. It feels like a shell game with engagement coming from bots on AI accounts. At some point the ecosystem breaks because there are no real people to spend $$? Ok rant over. Sorry!!!!
They projected they made 10% of their annual revenue from scam ads and banned products in 2024. $16 billion worth, and they learned this from their own internal report.
They profit off you getting scammed all while increasing the chances that you do get scammed. They're literally incentivized by you getting scammed.
And they manually hid the scam ads from regulators in Japan so they couldn't find them.
The US government literally appoints these guys (tech executives) to high level government positions to further manipulate the laws they never abide by.
These big tech companies are all the exact same, they maliciously make money at the expense of the users at all costs. And it's the billions of people that continue to use them that are the problem. People never learn anything until they're forced to make a change. They know how bad these apps and companies are, yet they still happily continue to use them because they never care until it's too late.
Love this zag and big respect for speaking truth to power. I almost fell for his "blame the camera companies" until I read your essay. But you're right -- we should embrace AI, but with limits, and that includes platforms taking accountability.
Also had a good laugh when you highlighted how some of the top Instagram creators all use professional cameras including Adam himself!!!
Excellent read as always Rachel. Thanks for pointing out the elephant in the room. It's frustrating and for those willing to the see the reality (game) of it all, as you said it makes you feel less like being on IG long term.
I've been doing this for over 15 years at this point (e.g. turned Oreo instagram from 60K to over million follower community), and I can't agree with this enough. Creative-wise, we're in equally interesting and scary times.
FAN-fricken-TASTIC Substack, Rachel! Your stuff is always informative, but especially insightful today, and brings up all the right questions and conundrums.
Very curious to see how the year unfolds in the world of influencers, what kind of posts + strategy drive engagement, and if we'll fall victim to our own hypocrisy (*saying* we want more analog this and that, while still being *chronically online* -- ahhh, the paradox of posting on social about how "offline" you are). 😉 Cheers ~
Typical tech leaders talking out of both sides of their mouths, trying to have their cake and eat it too. Facebook used to call itself a media company, until it decimated print journalism and started genocides. Then it's "we're just a tech company." They're willing to take AI dollars now, but when social media collapses from slop, they'll blame creators.
God, I miss when the internet was fun.
I agree that AI is flattening aesthetics, but I’m less convinced that “rawness” (aka forced authenticity) is the antidote. As AI gets better at mimicking imperfection, the iPhone look, the GRWM style, even awkward framing quickly become part of the prompt. A blurry photo doesn’t prove humanity any more than a color grade disproves it.
What still feels scarce isn’t rawness, but intention, message, content, point of view, judgment, and the thinking that happens before the camera turns on. If platforms want authenticity, the real work isn’t aesthetic, it’s structural: trust, transparency, and meaningful protections for original creators. Otherwise skepticism fills the gap, and even genuinely human content gets questioned.
Yes yes yes and more yes!!!
This was exactly my feeling too. He’s missing the point in such an enormous way that he’s literally contradicting himself with the information he’s providing. I agree with your take here and think you’re spot on.
appreciate you reading it!!
YES! I can't believe how many people accept this with such blind faith. The "authenticity" preached by leaders like Mosseri is just dogma. It’s the equivalent of a gambler blowing on dice at the craps table. Superstition disguised as strategy.
It really seems designed to protect the 90-9-1 ad-stack ratio against the disruption of AI. The goal is to keep the lurkers (90%) and casual engagers (9%) pacified, while making the top 1% of clout-chasing megaposters believe in the illusion of agency. It makes them feel important enough to keep feeding the beast, giving the ad system the inventory it needs.
IMO, the emphasis on the "WHO" in Mosseri's epistle in the battle against AI is the most alarming signal. It shifts the model back to traditional gatekeeping, which betrays the promise of the open creator economy. At a certain point, prioritizing the "who" over the "what" makes Meta a publisher, not a platform, which should prompt some rethinking of its Section 230 protections.
Many thanks for pointing out the Emperor's New Clothes aspect of Mosseri's essay. Your conclusion deserves to be printed in all caps! "IF MOSSERI WERE BEING HONEST WITH HIMSELF ON HOW TO KEEP INSTAGRAM “AUTHENTIC”, HE WOULD HAVE USED HIS ESSAY TO ADVOCATE FOR AI REGULATION, CREATOR PROTECTIONS, AND INDUSTRY STANDARDS."
Loved this! I’ve developed a deeper hatred for meta as of late. Mainly because of the glasses they are pushing so hard (like how big was that check they wrote to Tinx?!) Also how does two party consent not apply to those?!? But also because of how willing they are to spend $$$ on things no one wants. I don’t understand how they are maintaining revenue since we know conversion is worse and brands are pulling spend from them. It feels like a shell game with engagement coming from bots on AI accounts. At some point the ecosystem breaks because there are no real people to spend $$? Ok rant over. Sorry!!!!
They projected they made 10% of their annual revenue from scam ads and banned products in 2024. $16 billion worth, and they learned this from their own internal report.
They profit off you getting scammed all while increasing the chances that you do get scammed. They're literally incentivized by you getting scammed.
And they manually hid the scam ads from regulators in Japan so they couldn't find them.
The US government literally appoints these guys (tech executives) to high level government positions to further manipulate the laws they never abide by.
These big tech companies are all the exact same, they maliciously make money at the expense of the users at all costs. And it's the billions of people that continue to use them that are the problem. People never learn anything until they're forced to make a change. They know how bad these apps and companies are, yet they still happily continue to use them because they never care until it's too late.
Love this zag and big respect for speaking truth to power. I almost fell for his "blame the camera companies" until I read your essay. But you're right -- we should embrace AI, but with limits, and that includes platforms taking accountability.
Also had a good laugh when you highlighted how some of the top Instagram creators all use professional cameras including Adam himself!!!
Great work.
thank you!
Excellent read as always Rachel. Thanks for pointing out the elephant in the room. It's frustrating and for those willing to the see the reality (game) of it all, as you said it makes you feel less like being on IG long term.
Helpful, thank you!!
I've been doing this for over 15 years at this point (e.g. turned Oreo instagram from 60K to over million follower community), and I can't agree with this enough. Creative-wise, we're in equally interesting and scary times.
agree!
FAN-fricken-TASTIC Substack, Rachel! Your stuff is always informative, but especially insightful today, and brings up all the right questions and conundrums.
Very curious to see how the year unfolds in the world of influencers, what kind of posts + strategy drive engagement, and if we'll fall victim to our own hypocrisy (*saying* we want more analog this and that, while still being *chronically online* -- ahhh, the paradox of posting on social about how "offline" you are). 😉 Cheers ~
appreciate the kind words!!
Great article.
Excited to cool it on the "people want content that feels real/more authenticity" refrain 🙏
yes
You hit the nail on the head here with this response, Rachel 👏
thank you sandy!
a regulation would be nice 🙄🙄
it would
Bravo!!! Loved this analysis and critique. I hope Adam reads this.
thank you mitzi!