This document discusses issues with social media platforms and their business models. It argues that platforms prioritize visibility and growth over authenticity, creating misaligned incentives. This can lead to exploitation, like employees using company servers for cryptocurrency mining instead of intended purposes. The document proposes evaluating technology use cases based on agreed definitions of sustainability. It also analyzes models of production and consumption surplus on social media to understand how different audiences receive value from posts. The goal is to decrease complexity for those exploiting platforms or spreading biases, while increasing it for legitimate digital marketers.

1. A retrospect: grey shades to empower?
The wheel was supposed to be one of the first tool’s humans have invented for
movement. Nokia did start as wheel as one of the first product categories in their
diverse offerings to the society, in 1895 though. Today, if popular prerogative or
one liner interjections on social media as evidence, no one can know about this
fact. Nor have the nomenclature to empower diverse thinking.
Today’s post is a lot of evidence that is the base for big tech rivalry, and the case
for a tech bot to assist you in policy enforcement. - which is already happening
through PPP models in public policy as you read this! To help you
advocate/enforce/ activate your belief I leave you with a mathematical base that
can be easily understood as to why everyone got it wrong!
Proof:
Most of the social media functions an autocracy that “more the merrier”, where
visibility outweighs the authenticity. Despite this inaccuracy in an ideology, we
look at the below supply demand variations as can be nominally estimated: Say if
visibility for a social media company decreases, that means many users reduce
using the product i.e., ‘visibility is lessened’:
Price
Quantity
Consumer
surplus

2. The below portrayal of dead weight loss which could be defined as due to price
or consumption ceiling as per the visibility across medium. The movement of
producer and consumer surplus is another interesting phenomenon if considered
rationally- this is a misnomer essentially when free tech products are playing with
‘sentiment analyses of an irrational consumer!’
Price
Quantity
Misbehaviour and mining:
The deadweight loss usually functions with a price ceiling where the producer and
consumer surplus are together counted in normative economics; The price ceiling
(the price at which a digital marketeer gets paid better) remains normative for a
firm with technology as its primary processes and values. However, the problem
begins when there is a deviation in the methodology when technology is the
centre for misbehaviour with respect to ease of usage and applicability.
Misbehaviour in technology can be summed up as ‘enforcement of autocracy’:
∆𝑚
∆𝑝
+ 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑡 ≥
∆𝑚
∆𝑐
The marginal propensity to produce and consume is essentially equal when the
digital marketeer is paid; however, the effort to realize is unassumed usually. And
this effort could go elsewhere in illegitimate value realized in mining activities in
Deadweight loss

3. illegal dark internet, say if one disgruntled employee injects the software
infrastructure with a script to run cryptocurrency code and make the servers as
remote mining hubs instead of the company usage. Hence it is imperative that this
value must be channelled and directed in a firm perspective model.
A way out:
Selective discrimination of technology as a resource aims to under pin this
problem.
To give a snapshot:
There can be definitive use cases in technology agreed from sustainability as a
goal.
The illegal mining activity exploiting computational power of an organization (any
firm which uses modern day technology), can have a reason that anyone in the
society against their ideologies of base use cases;(maybe someone does not like
uber for indefinite reasons) can exploit organizational assets which are servers,
remote clients, hosting machines, etc, are under less-than-ideal conditions when
the misbehaviour is directly affecting everyone through digital marketing.

4. Lookalike audience in social media:
Definition is essentially, a similar audience in social media based on preferences,
settings etc,
Below is the attempt to understand the movement of payoffs in lookalike
audience:
Without loss of generality, if this is used as a base for defining efficacy of pay off a
digital use-case. A hierarchical model for production surplus and consumption
surplus can be further defined based on different usability, parameters, and
constraints, more definitively. One such illustration is here. Measuring reach:
**Each circle is a user.
The green circle represents the
influence around a user and the
angle represents the payoff from a
social media post, in Newtonian,
angular representation. Base being
defined over the use case.
Production plus
Consumption plus

5. The payoff matrix approaches to pareto optimality or Nash equilibrium
depending on use case.
Further research: How to align use cases based on use case. -> More product
managers, more headache for the equity advocate!
Expected outcome in pareto optimality: Complexity of effort for the bigot who is
exploiting autocracy or a good digital marketer, either case, the user loses!
Decrease for most of the use cases though! Making the end free product
instigating geopolitical irrational biases!