Taking the internet seriously, with Adina Glickstein
A reality check on digital culture
For our latest In conversation with, MØRNING Creative Director Rhianna Cohen sits down with the inimitable writer, editor and academic Adina Glickstein to discuss our brand new report, The State of Social - Rewild the Web (drop us a line at people@morning.fyi to download a copy). They delve into the most potent booms and busts of our time, and their roots in digital culture. From the crypto bubble (RIP), healing and wellness culture, to political memes and BRAT, untangling our digital expressions from their IRL consequences has never been so difficult. From Adina’s renowned Spike Magazine column USER ERROR, to her leading work in the emerging field of governance transitions, who better to give us an honest read on these complex realities of our digital futures.
Rhianna Cohen: How have some of your perceptions around internet culture changed in this current era?
Adina Glickstein: I like how porous a phrase “internet culture” is; how broad a range of interests it actually encapsulates. Like, what does it actually mean? I think the state of the internet today is really scattershot, with trends cycling in and out very quickly, and so much to stay on top of. Working in the digital editorial world, I felt a kind of pressure to perpetually keep up with internet trends – and like I was always falling behind, like there was always more to take in than I had the attention to process. Over time, I’ve grown to recognize that there will always be more happening than I (or any one human) can keep pace with. It can actually be a lot more generative to shut the laptop, zoom out, and reserve time and mental resources for reverie. That’s where, for me, artistic and philosophical insights are to be found – not at the “log level” (as Carly Busta from New Models calls it) of the feed. It sounds trite to say that I’m getting tired and slowing down with age (I’m 26!), but it’s true – I’m less able to conjure the enthusiasm for novelty that I once was, and more interested in honing and refining what’s already there.
RC: Commentary on digital culture at large has never been more prominent - what do you think has driven this shift to such intense digital analysis?
AG: I think that world events of the past few years – like the crypto bubble – have forced digital life into the field of vision by proving that “online” and “IRL” are not at all separate realms. With the advent of things like digital advertising, we started to see that online life has cash value offline. Crypto speculation reinforced that in a crazy way, materialising what should have been fake internet money into the real world. I bought a Prada bag with the profit I made flipping NFTs. That’s a pretty undeniable, material piece of evidence that the digital has consequences for the real. Even though a lot of crypto projects turned out to be scams or duds, I think the whole circus of boom-and-bust cycles these past few years has encouraged people to take the internet seriously – because even the flimsiest of social fictions have proven to be potential moneymakers.
“I’ve grown to recognize that there will always be more happening than I (or any one human) can keep pace with. It can actually be a lot more generative to shut the laptop, zoom out, and reserve time and mental resources for reverie.”
RC: The distinction between “digital culture” and “culture” has collapsed, the latter absorbing the former. It’s often now said that digital culture is the primary driver of culture, with offline responding to online. Do you believe this to be true?
AG: In a certain sense, yes. Look at how Charli XCX’s album brat came to dominate the cultural conversation this summer thanks to an extremely memetically-successful marketing campaign. It’s remarkable to see that a Charli album was one of the the biggest cultural moments of Kamala's campaign.
Throughout most of media history, there was a belief – whether correct or not – that the general political environment had some control over cultural production. I’m thinking, for example, of the way that government bodies have historically regulated what was “appropriate” content for film and television, determining what could be shown to which age groups. The underlying assumption there was that certain values could be imposed through centralised regulation of visual culture, entertainment media, etc. It feels almost impossible to conceive of something like that now, in a moment where pop music marketing is shaping citizens’ views of a presidential election and questions like whether memes can facilitate regime change are (rightly) being taken seriously by researchers like Metahaven.
“I bought a Prada bag with the profit I made flipping NFTs. That’s a pretty undeniable, material piece of evidence that the digital has consequences for the real.”
RC: Big question, how do you think digital and social will evolve in the next 3 years?
AG: In the next 3-5 years, there could be a movement towards social media platforms that put governance and ownership power back in users’ hands. We saw a little bit of motion in this direction when Elon took over Twitter (now X) and a sizable chunk of people left the platform, migrating to alternatives like Bluesky and even Mastodon (which is part of the so-called “Fediverse”).
I’m a big fan of are.na, a self-described “garden of ideas.” I use it for everything from organising research for writing projects to making seasonal outfit moodboards. It’s a great example of the kind of platform that centres user sovereignty: they have a public roadmap detailing their plans to eventually become a public benefit corporation held by users, with the ability to share upside with those users. Their business model is all about making revenue from user subscriptions – not selling ads – which makes it, by their own description, “the only social media company whose only customers are the people who use it.” The way they balance accountability to multiple stakeholders and aspire to user ownership is awesome – and offers a model that could be adopted by more tech platforms today.
RC: Where do you think public perception of AI is at today and how might this evolve in future?
AG: I think the public discourse around AI lacks precision, and is mostly driven by alarmist news headlines at the moment. Most people don’t actually know what they’re referring to when they talk about “artificial intelligence,” and frankly, they probably don’t need to. I think these conversations would be much more productively focused on algorithmic literacy and the ways that automation already impacts our lives. I really respect thinkers like Kate Crawford and Safiya Noble who are doing this kind of work. I really hope that the kinds of concerns they raise, like racial biases and exploitative labour in AI training, continue to garner attention in the mainstream.
RC: What do you think some of the biggest rising trends are in the digi sphere at the moment? And what do you predict is on the horizon?
AG:I think we are approaching peak healing. Wellness culture is getting really saturated – maybe overly so. My prediction is that we’re going to begin to see a lot of paradoxically anti-wellness wellness culture: messages to the effect that “the way to truly heal is to stop focusing so much on healing.” Certain memes already point in this direction, like the idea of “red 40-maxxing” making fun of health influencers who avoid processed food. I think the popularity of these memes signals a broader cultural fatigue with the performative virtuosity (think Nara Smith) that characterised previous waves of influence. No one wants to be seen trying to embody That Girl anymore.
RC: We know that gaining cut through online is harder than ever, and metrics are down across the board. Any advice on how we could reimagine metrics or success in the online sphere?
AG: Numbers matter, but they are far from the only thing that matters. Pursuing them at the expense of other (sometimes non-quantifiable) benchmarks will strip a brand of everything that makes it interesting. One of the most basic flaws I see people making in their perception of social media is believing that it lets you speak to the whole world. It doesn’t. But these algorithms are pretty good at serving people content that it believes they will engage with, and that presents an opportunity to lean into cultivating niche interest and appeal, which to me is more valuable than scale. Play into the advantages afforded by the algorithmic feed: know your customer, maybe even better than they know themselves.
“One of the most basic flaws I see people making in their perception of social media is believing that it lets you speak to the whole world. It doesn’t.”
RC: If you had one piece of advice for brands trying to be relevant on social media today what would it be?
AG: Don’t try to speak to everyone, but know who it is that you’re speaking to, and trust that you’ll reach them. Be impeccable with every aspect of your brand, aiming for precision, not breadth. If you can cannily leverage algorithmic targeting to reach a smaller but more loyal audience that will stick with you, that’s infinitely more rewarding than diluting your image in an attempt to be everything to everyone.
Until next time readers!
This conversation has been condensed and edited.
Words by Adina Glickstein and Rhianna Cohen. Cover image via Adina Glickstein. Brought to you by @morning.fyi.