Yesterday the Internet Archive lost its appeal in the digital lending case it’s been fighting for the last few years.

In March 2020, the Internet Archive, a San Francisco-based nonprofit, launched a program called the National Emergency Library, or NEL. Library closures caused by the pandemic had left students, researchers, and readers unable to access millions of books, and the Internet Archive has said it was responding to calls from regular people and other librarians to help those at home get access to the books they needed.

It was a useful program, and the archival has merit, but publishers argued that the Archive overstepped, and the courts eventually agreed.

Regardless of the merits of the case, I believe the Internet Archive is an obvious public good, and an outcome like this has the potential to do it real harm. This opinion led me to post an offhand comment on Threads:

People who follow me tend to also be at the intersection of tech and media, so I figured extra context wasn’t needed. They were on it. And I figured that anyone who wasn’t clued in probably didn’t care and could just keep scrolling.

Which, uh, is not how it went down.

The Threads algorithm apparently surfaced my post in the feeds of a bunch of other people with a wholly different set of interests, who were — inexplicably to me — incredibly angry that I hadn’t provided any further context.

A whole bunch of people apparently forgot they can, you know, just Google something:

But the comments that really surprised me were the ones that accused me of engagement farming. I’ve never received these before, and it made me wonder about the underlying assumptions. Why would this be engagement farming? Why would someone do this? Why would they assume that about me?

It might have something to do with Meta’s creators program, which pays people to post on the platform. The idea is that popular influencers will lure more users to the platform and it can therefore grow more quickly.

The amounts are not small: a single popular post can earn as much as $5,000. It’s an invite-only program that I am not a part of; it looks like you need to be an existing Instagram influencer to be asked. While I’m a lot of things, that is very far from being one of them.

Because the program is not available to all, and because it’s unlabeled, it’s not clear who is a part of it and who isn’t. So anyone could be trying to farm engagement in order to make some extra money. And because anyone could be, it becomes the default assumption for a lot of people. If you had the opportunity to make an extra $5,000 for a social media post, why wouldn’t you? And as a result, trust in peoples’ underlying motivations has disintegrated. Everyone must be just trying to get as many views on their posts as possible.

Over time, this has the potential to become pernicious, eroding trust in everything. If X has fake news, Threads is assumed to have fake views: engagement by any means necessary.

To be clear, if I was a part of the program — which, again, I’m not — I wouldn’t do anything differently, except to clearly announce that I was part of the program. I’m not an entertainer, an influencer, or a public figure. Like most of us, I’m just some person posting offhand thoughts into a social media app; anything else feels, honestly, disingenuous and like far too much work. But now I understand how fast trust has eroded, I wonder if the ability to build authentic communities on the platform is hanging on by a thread.