The 2023 Social Media Summit@MIT Event Report

REWIRING
SOCIAL
MEDIA
How to make platforms
BETTER FOR EVERYONE
2023 SOCIAL MEDIA SUMMIT@MIT

Panelists Offer Solutions
to Social Media’s Ills
In order to save platforms, we may need to fundamentally
blow up the model and start over
It’s been more than a decade since social
media platforms have transformed our lives in
unimagined ways. During that time, social media
has become intertwined and synonymous with
all media—a dominant force for information flow
and a major channel for social interaction, political
communication, and commercial marketing.
This rise has fundamentally changed the world’s
information landscape from a comparatively small
number of producers (such as news networks) to a
world where everyone is accessible, everyone is a
content receiver, and everyone is a producer. It’s also
an environment where content can be influential,
regardless of its source.
But along with the massive volume of information
and access comes growing concern about how to
tame it. While the “democratization” of content can be
celebrated for its reach and global resources, social
media has advanced far faster than most people
realized or wanted. Misinformation has become so
commonplace, gatekeepers and content moderators
are required. But now—with the gradual removal of
these gatekeepers—the misinformation and malicious
actors that were starting to decline may be on the rise
again and hard to stop.
Social media’s core circuits need rewiring.
Global citizens seem to be collectively waking up and
asking questions: How did we get here? How do we
dial back the speed and strength of this proliferation
of misinformation, hate speech, addictive behavior,
and privacy invasions? Whom do we trust, if there are
no guardrails and gatekeepers? In short, can social
media be saved? And if so, what will the new social
media environment look like?
In response to these and other questions, the 2023
MIT IDE Social Media Summit (SMS@MIT) was held
virtually on May 23, attracting an audience of more
than 17,000 live viewers. Session topics included the
role of AI, combating misinformation, and achieving
the promise of social media.
WHAT’S INSIDE
4 Platforms at a Crossroads
6 Social Media Drills Deep
8
Is the Tide Turning for
Misinformation?
10 Ethical AI: A Work in Progress
12 Tomorrow’s Platforms Today
CLICK ON VIDEO ICONS THROUGHOUT
THE REPORT TO VIEW SESSIONS
FROM THE EVENT
2
3

Platforms at
a Crossroads
Social media still
rules, but players
are shape-shifting daily
WATCH VIDEO
Sinan Aral
Director, MIT IDE; David Austin Professor of
Management and Professor of Information
Technology and Marketing, MIT Sloan School
of Management
“From public health to teen entertainment, from
finance to education, social media platforms
are shaping opinions and our understanding of
everything,” Sinan Aral, director of the MIT Initiative
on the Digital Economy (IDE) and professor at MIT
Sloan School of Management, told attendees of
the Social Media Summit. We may have heard that
before, but now, Aral noted, the rules, dominant
players, and business models are a moving target.
Twitter of a year ago isn’t the Twitter of today. Meta,
Google, TikTok, and Spotify, among others, are
shape-shifting to accommodate more sophisticated
algorithms, AI, ChatGPT, and decentralized
communities. New ecosystems are forming to
counter established networks.
The stakes have never been higher. They include
fair elections, free speech, global currencies, and
personal privacy. There’s new urgency and public
awareness, but so far, neither the tech industry nor
the U.S. government have taken strong leadership
roles, despite recent testimony from OpenAI and a
statement from AI experts that something needs
to be done.
Aral noted that in many ways, social media is at a
crossroads. “Large platforms have gone private,
policy changes are underway at Twitter...and new
Generative AI, and deep learning—in development
for many decades—have burst onto the scene for
public use last year,” Aral said.
“These changes,” Aral added, “have an immense
impact on text, images, video, and synthetic
generation of information that influences how we
think about our world.”
Aral said that the IDE is conducting scientific research
into social media, AI, decentralization and Web3 to
assess political, social, governmental and business
fallout, and how to stay ahead of the curve.
We can’t put the genie back in the bottle, as Renée
Richardson Gosline of MIT said during her AI Ethics
panel. But speakers throughout the day pointed to
three key remedies to revive the ailing social media
environment: responsible AI, interventions against
misinformation, and new platform ecosystems.
Panelists disagreed about centralized versus
decentralized platform design, about content
moderation techniques, and about the role of
laws and regulation. They said the race by platforms
to implement ChatGPT, prediction algorithms, and
advanced AI ahead of competitors could cause
further harm. Yet in many ways, the day’s speakers—
coming from legal, behavioral science, technology,
and economic perspectives—were each essentially
saying, “We can and must do better.” In this report of
the day’s discussions, we offer concrete action items
and recommendations.
Users also have to be rewired to relinquish the
comforts and crowds of their social platforms in favor
of more discerning, open platforms, such as Mozilla,
T2, and Mastodon. And if they do, tomorrow’s social
media may offer decentralized, shared, and safer
spaces for public discourse.
We know what to do. It’s time to act.
3 METHODS TO REVIVE
SOCIAL MEDIA
RESPONSIBLE AI
Educate programmers and the
public about AI bias; regulate
platforms, and penalize offenders.
MISINFORMATION
INTERVENTIONS
Disincentivize click-bait, keep content
monitors on platforms, and add
friction or nudges to encourage truth
NEW PLATFORM
ECOSYSTEMS
Revamp the business model
to include decentralized, open
platforms that protect users.
4
5

Christopher Graves, the keynote speaker at the 2023 Social
Media Summit@MIT, offered a revealing look under the hood
of social media marketing tools. He described the growing
danger of what he calls “personality-based marketing,” a
rising—and somewhat disturbing—approach that matches
individual personality traits to social media habits.
How Behavioral Science
Can Decode Us
Graves knows more about digital marketing than most. The
founder and president of the Ogilvy Center for Behavioral
Science, part of Ogilvy Consulting, he pointed out that
companies are now correlating users’ online behavior—
even photographs of their faces—with specific personality
characteristics. Organizations then use these sophisticated
results to build a data “genome” and deliver content aimed at
encouraging specific actions.
Personality Traits
COGNITIVE STYLE
People have a series of filters that either sharpen or distort
their beliefs, preferences, and decisions, Graves told
SMS@MIT attendees. “I can now test individuals at large
scale to better ‘decode’ them,” he added.
“When you use this for good, it could possibly lead to
rapprochement or resonance,” Graves said. “But if you use
it for ill will, it could be very malicious manipulation.”
WORLDVIEW & AFFINITIES
While marketing has long used personality-driven
techniques to find, segment, and sell to customers,
today’s AI-based approaches are far more sophisticated
and accurate. Also, where earlier approaches attempted
to change or convert ideas, today’s behavioral approaches
focus on changing behavior.
Graves said that personality inference can be done in six
distinct ways, all of which can be accelerated with AI for
pattern recognition: eye tracking, text parsing, images
(especially photos of faces), music and sound, behavior
on a mobile phone, and social engagement.
SOCIAL MEDIA
DRILLS DEEP
Olgivy’s cognitive scientist
Christopher Graves describes
sophisticated new marketing
tools to ‘decode’ online behavior
WATCH VIDEO
Christopher Graves
President & Founder, Ogilvy Center
for Behavioral Science
“Companies have
great interest in
figuring out who you
are based on your
digital footprint.”
Christopher Graves
President & Founder, Ogilvy Center for Behavioral Science
Graves described three lenses that marketers use to
gain insights into individuals: personality traits, cognitive
style, and worldview/identity. These factors come into
play when a social media platform—or a user or advertiser
on a platform—wants to persuade others to take a specific
action. People with different personalities, cognitive styles,
and worldviews will respond better or worse to different
kinds of messages.
‘Decoding’ Personality Traits
In the past, personality profiling was typically done with
surveys and tests. But today’s social media platforms can
remotely “decode” people by observing their preferences
and behavior online.
One approach claims to correlate personality types with eye
movement; another purports to do the same through your
use of language. Yet another technology claims to use a
photograph of faces to determine personality types or even,
according to one researcher, a person’s sexual orientation.
It’s not clear whether this kind of tracking is being used
now by the leading social media platforms, Graves said.
But patent applications around personal inference have
been filed by companies that include Facebook, Google,
Microsoft, and Spotify. These companies, Graves added,
“have great interest in looking at your digital footprint and
digital breadcrumbs to figure out who you really are—not
who you say you are.”
Getting to Know You
These analytics could also be used to empower AI chatbots
for good purposes. For example, in the case of vaccine
resistance, an empathetic approach might hear out the
person’s reasons for concern and then match a pro-vaccine
storyline to that person’s personality type.
Another example: People could also opt-in to use personalityinferring
chatbots to help them quit smoking. “If you know
how somebody’s wired and respectfully approach them on
their terms in ways that make sense to them, you probably
have a slightly better chance at helping them,” Graves said.
Despite the promise, personality-aware AI could make the
spread of misinformation even more pernicious. “Imagine
I’m trying to whip you up into anger, into further polarization,”
Graves said. “I will have better tools and a much more finely
nuanced understanding of your hot buttons.”
6
7

WATCH VIDEO
IS THE TIDE
TURNING FOR
MISINFORMATION?
Truth is making progress on social media.
But with platforms regrouping and facing
tough times, can the gains continue?
Tom Cunningham
Economist
Kate Klonick
Associate Professor of Law, St. John’s University
David Rand (Moderator)
Professor, MIT Sloan, and Research Lead,
Misinformation and Fake News, MIT IDE
While the threat of online misinformation remains serious,
some experiments with intervention seem to be working
and turning the tide. The proliferation of fake news peaked
in 2016, and since then, growing concern has kept online
misinformation in check. This panel, led by IDE leader David
Rand, considered what should—and should not—be done to
keep it there.
Greater awareness and vigilance are helping to keep social
media truthful. Still, it seems unlikely that misinformation and
fake news can be eliminated entirely, especially as platform
companies face earnings pressure, panelists said. Debates
now center on how social media platforms and others should
combat the spread of misinformation and prevent backsliding.
Since the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, social media
platforms have experimented with interventions to flag or
remove false information. This type of content moderation
has been effective and represents the best way forward,
said Tom Cunningham.
Cunningham, who previously worked as an economist and
data scientist for Facebook and Twitter, believes that content
moderation can reduce misinformation. But there are tradeoffs,
he added, such as inadvertently taking down accurate
information and infringing on free speech. Identifying
misinformation isn’t as straightforward as it might seem.
Rand agreed, noting that when fake news first began to
spread on Facebook, he believed it would be easy to tackle.
“There are things that are true and things that are false,” he
recalled. “If the platform wanted to do something about it, it
could just get rid of the false stuff.” However, Rand said that
once he started working in the field, “I changed my mind.
This is way more complicated than I’d appreciated.”
Rand now sees online information as a “continuum” of truth
and falsity, with most content somewhere in the middle.
“That doesn’t mean we’re in a post-truth world,” he said.
“It’s just that accuracy is hard to measure with certainty.”
Research shows that most social media users don’t actually
want to share misinformation, Rand explained. Instead, many
are either confused or not paying enough attention.
Gold Standard
Professional fact-checking by dedicated employees is “still the
gold standard,” Rand said. But even fact-checkers don’t always
agree on what’s true or false.
Cunningham suggested that decentralized social media
platforms accelerate the spread of misinformation because
they’re “bad at assessing the quality of content...people
tend to click whatever is shiny, whatever looks good, but not
what is good.” This can amplify sensational and superficial
ideas. By contrast, centralized media—newspapers, radio,
and television—have traditionally been more cautious, fearing
they’ll lose readership and ad revenue, or risk litigation.
[Read more about decentralization on page 12.]
Kate Klonick noted that Facebook and Twitter are mostly
centralized, which may be good for creating what she
called “one place for intervention.” But over the next couple
of years, she expects to see more decentralization, where
“misinformation is breeding, and it’s going to be very difficult
to track.”
Cunningham noted that while misinformation is still too
prevalent, it has declined by a factor of five or 10 since
peaking in 2016. The reason? Platforms, he said, have
“added friction on politics, on sharing, on viral content, on
certain types of reactions, on content from new producers,
on content from fringe producers, and on content that looks
like clickbait.” While this has significantly decreased the rate
of misinformation, Cunningham added, “Anything that looks
a little bit like misinformation is going to get suppressed
as well.”
Platforms Under Pressure
Cunningham also maintained that social-media companies
should strive to be platforms that distribute high-quality
“In a free society, the law does not necessarily have a
role to play in trying to determine truth.”
Kate Klonick
Associate Professor of Law, St. John’s University
content, not just platforms that maximize retention, likes, and
time spent. And yet, in the current cost-cutting environment,
many social media companies have been laying off their
ethicists and fact-checkers.
Klonick said that while “lots of work has been done to raise
awareness about malicious actors and misinformation,” the
tradeoff may be increased public skepticism about what is
or is not fake news.
She doubts that legal interventions will help to clarify online
truth. “One of the very unpopular things that I have said over
the last five years, but I think is ultimately true, is that in a
free society, the law does not necessarily have a role to play
in trying to determine truth,” Klonick explained.
Sometimes, she added, it’s best to let the private sector be
the gatekeepers. Platforms know how to create friction and
slow things down. “Markets,” Klonick said, “respond faster
than the law to changing norms.”
For these reasons and more, Klonick doesn’t see legislative
remedies coming to the rescue anytime soon. Policy
proposals, she said, are “a disincentive, a stick...but they’re
not that helpful.” What’s more, she said, substantial bans on
certain types of content, based on subjective judgments, are
“not going to be in line with First Amendment principles at all.”
The Cost of Regulation
In many countries, social media platforms already comply
with content regulations, Cunningham noted. Much of that
content would be removed anyway, he said: “They’re going
to take down terrorist stuff, child porn; they’re going to take
down hate speech.”
Before the current layoffs, platforms were aggressively
addressing the problem. They were spending 5% of their
overall costs on data scientists, content raters, and different
structures for moderating content, Cunningham said, even
when they were not legally required to do so. The reason
wasn’t altruism or free speech, but pressure from advertisers.
Cunningham isn’t confident that most platform companies
“have a super-clear North Star; they’re responsive to half a
dozen different constituencies.” Those include the media,
governments, advertisers, users, employees, and investors.
“All of those,” Cunningham added, “have very strong opinions
about what content should be on the platform.”
Ideally, social media platforms will discover new ways to keep
the good content while eliminating the bad. But, Cunningham
warned, “I don’t think that we should be crossing our fingers
for that business model in the very short term.”
8
9

WATCH VIDEO
ETHICAL AI:
A WORK IN
PROGRESS
Panelists explored tough challenges
raised by new content-generating tools
and urged awareness and regulation
Anthony Habayeb
Co-founder and CEO, Monitaur Inc.
Paris Marx
Newsletter and book author, and host of the Tech Won’t
Save Us podcast
Kalinda Ukanwa
Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Southern
California Marshall School of Business
Renée Richardson Gosline (Moderator)
Senior Lecturer, MIT Sloan School of Management and
Human/AI Interface Research Group Lead, MIT IDE
Like most tools, generative AI can be put to use for many
purposes. It can create impressive new text and images from
existing content. But it also lacks oversight, and is guilty of
bias and hasty corporate rollouts.
The opportunities as well as the risks of new AI tools were
discussed by the Responsible, Human-First AI panel at the
Social Media Summit@MIT. The discussion, moderated
by MIT’s Renée Richardson Gosline, offered perspectives
from a business leader charged with implementing ethical
AI, an academic who is developing systems and future
programmers, and an outsider critiquing it all.
“Generative AI models have gained widespread adoption,”
Gosline said, citing reports that ChatGPT gained 100 million
users in just two months after its November 2022 launch. “But
what does this mean?”
AI in the Spotlight
AI isn’t actually new, noted Kalinda Ukanwa. “Whether we’re
selecting a movie from Netflix or using a GPS app to find our
way around a city, we’ve been interacting with AI all along,”
she said. “Yet people did not perceive that as AI. It was always
this thing that was running in the background.”
That’s changed with the advent of generative AI tools.
ChatGPT is now part of the “kitchen-table conversation,”
said Anthony Habayeb.
Concerns over the potential harms of generative AI have
extended to governments. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI,
the company that created ChatGPT, recently told the U.S.
Congress that AI needs more regulation. U.S. President
Biden, speaking to recent graduates of the country’s Air Force
Academy, worried aloud about AI’s ability to “overtake human
thinking.” And the European Union is considering a new
legal framework, known as the AI Act, that would regulate AI
development and use.
While Ukanwa doesn’t expect “to get to a place where [AI] is
not going to harm anybody,” she asked, “How do we minimize
that harm in an intelligent way?” Ukanwa’s recent research
paper, Algorithmic Fairness and Service Failures:
Why firms Should Want Algorithmic Accountability, makes
the case for third-party monitors of AI development, who
don’t have skin in the game.
Paris Marx sees a darker motive behind both the spread of
generative AI tools and the explosion of interest they’ve
generated. “These technologies are inherently political, less
in the sense of party politics and more in the term’s broader
meaning,” he said. “When these technologies are developed
and deployed, there are certain goals and desires.”
Marx views the hype over ChatGPT “getting the venture
capitalists excited again,” spurring investment, and getting
Microsoft to challenge Google so that responsible AI isn’t a
priority. But while platforms are publicly saying they’re going to
implement ChatCPT responsibly, “they’re laying off and firing
all of the AI ethicists,” Marx said.
AI bias is baked in by its human programmers, panelists noted,
whether consciously or not. In addition, generative AI tools rely
on already existing content, and they have no way of filtering
that content for bias or inaccuracies.
Responsible Solutions
Yet Habayeb sees solutions. “AI is built by people and it can
be managed,” he said. For instance, insurance company data
may be biased against a certain cohort causing higher rates.
“There might be other data that we can bring into an AI system
to make the pricing outcome more equitable,” Habayeb added.
Gosline said that while we can’t put the AI genie back in the
bottle, we can use AI more critically and deliberately. Ukanwa
sees the need for greater awareness, too. She recently
participated in a town hall meeting on AI, sponsored by a
Los Angeles radio station, that addressed generative AI
and its potential impact on society. “Afterwards,” Ukanwa
recounted, “people said, ‘I didn’t know these were the
implications of AI.’”
Marx clearly favors government oversight. He’s skeptical of
corporate motives for self-regulation that put profits over
social good. “There are many ways these technologies can be
rolled out in a negative way,” he said. “Unless there’s pressure
from the government,” consumer rights are not considered.
Could the profit versus ethics argument be false? Ukanwa
thinks so. “There’s this narrative that if I do something ethical,
I’m going to lose profits, and I can’t have both,” she said. “But a
lot of research is building a case that you can have both.”
There are good business reasons to develop fair algorithms,
Ukanwa said, adding, “This is what shareholders need
to understand.” Habayeb agreed: “Proactive governance
messaging is good for business.”
“A lot of research is building the
case that you don’t have to sacrifice
profits for business ethics.”
Kalinda Ukanwa
Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Southern California Marshall School of Business
10
11

WATCH VIDEO
TOMORROW’S
PLATFORMS
TODAY
Social media pioneers share
their visions for principled,
decentralized platforms
ACTION ITEMS FOR
ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS
DECENTRALIZE
THE ECOSYTEM
STAND FIRM ON
CORE PRINCIPLES
USE OPEN
PROTOCOLS
BE PREPARED
TO COMPROMISE
Mitchell Baker
CEO, Mozilla Corporation, Chairwoman, Mozilla Foundation
Michael Masnick
Editor, Techdirt, and CEO, Copia Institute
Sarah Oh
Co-founder, T2
Renée DiResta (Moderator)
Technical Research Manager, Stanford Internet Observatory
“To build any kind
of user-generated
content platform
today, trust and
safety have to be
fundamental pillars.”
Sarah Oh
Co-founder, T2
Some experts believe that if social media is going to survive,
it needs a major overhaul. Panelists looking at future models
said that by learning from yesterday’s mistakes, we can fix
today’s broken systems. In fact, promising alternatives are
already emerging.
Renée DiResta moderated a provocative panel which
focused on decentralized web networks—also known as
Web3–and the rise of social media platform alternatives.
These emerging ecosystems include Mastodon, Mozilla,
and Bluesky Social, all of which DiResta said are part of a
federated universe, or “fediverse.” (The SMS@MIT event was
held prior to Meta’s release of Threads, an app to rival Twitter,
which has attracted millions of users.)
Most of the new platforms are decentralized by design.
This means that instead of accessing the internet through
services mediated by companies like Google, Twitter, and
Facebook, users own and govern sections of the internet
themselves. The new communities, DiResta said, can teach
us about alternatives to the more centralized ecosystems
that are now dominant.
For example, Mastodon describes itself as free and opensource
software developed by a non-profit organization. It
supports microblogging features similar to those of Twitter.
Bluesky, a similar platform, is now being beta tested.
But decentralization isn’t a prerequisite for alternative
platforms. T2, a nascent online community represented on
the panel, will be centralized. But T2 still promises it will
provide the high levels of user privacy, security, and social
dynamics that today’s platforms lack.
Decentralized or not, these models promise changes for
both users and developers disillusioned by social media’s
misinformation, vitriol, and marketing focus. However, these
new online sites will also find that reaching the scale
of current global communities will be a long, tough climb.
Mozilla Leads the Way
DiResta noted that Mozilla pioneered many of these concepts
years ago. Mitchell Baker, who became Mozilla’s CEO in 2020
and has been with the company since its origins, said that
“decentralization has been a part of Mozilla’s ethos from
the very beginning.” Founded in 1998, Mozilla was the opensource
developer of the Firefox browser, and it has long used
protocols that support open, one-to-many social engagement.
Mozilla’s new effort, Mozilla.social, will be a social site that is
not neutral to all content. “We don’t want to be neutral to hate,
we don’t want to be neutral to racism, we don’t want to be
neutral to misogyny,” Baker said. “Mozilla is about inclusion;
it’s in our identity and manifesto.”
The big challenge for Mozilla and others is how to maintain
their ideals while scaling up. “Operating at scale has its own
set of problems,” Baker said. “We’re trying to be very, very
intentional about [reaching] scale, while operating under a
different set of principles.”
In 2019, when conversations around content moderation were
heating up, Mike Masnick wrote an essay, “Protocols, Not
Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech,” for the
Knight First Amendment Institute. At the time, people were
asking how platform companies could achieve both content
moderation and privacy. Concerns were also raised about trust
in a market dominated by four large companies. Government
regulation was a flashpoint then, as it is now.
Decentralized, Open Protocols
Masnick’s premise was that building open protocols for email,
news, chats or searches—as in the early days of the Internet—
would ensure integrity. “Indeed,” he wrote, “some platforms
are leveraging existing open protocols but have built up walls
around them, locking users in, rather than merely providing an
interface.” Masnick hoped that decentralization “would push
the power and decision making out to the ends of the network,
rather than keeping it centralized among a small group of very
powerful companies.”
Masnick also anticipated that decentralization would lead to
“more innovative features, as well as better end-user control
over their own data,” adding, “it could help usher in a series
of new business models that don’t focus exclusively on
monetizing user data.”
His earlier words seem prescient to many new ventures. The
pendulum seems to be swinging back to decentralized models
that better protect both user privacy and free speech.
Sarah Oh told attendees that she believes “the domination
period” of the four large platforms “ended sometime last
fall.” Oh is part of what she called a “small and mighty team”
building a Twitter alternative with the familiar look and feel of
a centralized platform.
People want “to feel safer, less exhausted, have a higher
quality product experience, really great UI, and have something
that works fast,” Oh said. That’s why T2 won’t “diverge too
much from the experience [users] had the last few years,” she
explained. T2 is developing a short-text format that not only
works well, but also upholds principles and values that mirror
how users live and engage with information offline. “To build
any kind of user-generated content platform today,” Oh said,
“trust and safety have to be fundamental pillars.”
Ethics vs. Profits?
Moderator DiResta asked the panel about feasibility and
tradeoffs: Can a social platform that upholds highly ethical
values also be commercially successful?
Oh replied that there’s “no playbook” for newcomers. In fact,
she said, “there is pressure to build a business in a certain
way, reach certain metrics, and raise the funding necessary to
continue to grow your platform.”
Masnick, while admitting “there is no silver bullet,” remains
optimistic. Yet he acknowledged the difficulty of building trust
and safety online, especially as a platform grows. “You always
think there are easy solutions,” he said, echoing a comment
made in another panel earlier in the day. “Just ban the bad
people and help the good people. It turns out that it’s not
easy...there is no perfect answer, no right way to do this.”
Baker knows first-hand how difficult content moderation can
be, especially at scale. It involves deciding what your audience
wants, while also maintaining firm guidelines. For Mozilla, she
said, “inclusion is not negotiable. And hate crimes, misogyny,
stalking, and death threats...that is not inclusive.”
Building a product that responds to both the market and
philosophical implications can be a tough balancing act.
As a pioneer, Baker said, “you have to be willing to take the
arrows from all sides.”
12
13

THANK YOU
A special thanks to our 2023 Social Media
Summit@MIT channel partners:
CONNECT WITH THE IDE
FIND US ON MEDIUM
Read articles on the impact of
digital technology on business,
the economy and society. Read >
BROWSE OUR WORK
Check out cutting-edge books,
research briefs, special reports
and more. Browse >
LISTEN
Listen to the IDE podcast: The
Digital Insider with Sinan Aral.
Listen >
Content by Paula Klein and Peter Krass