What If a Social Network Earned Its Money From Trust Instead of Outrage? | George P., Civic Works

What we talked about.

Sunny Ray talks with George Polisner of Civic Works about building a social network designed to strengthen democracy rather than profit from outrage. Polisner draws on three decades of building large systems at Oracle, HP, Dell, and state government, and explains why institutions change slowly and why fear blocks innovation. He points to Facebook and Cambridge Analytica as the moment that showed how platforms built for connection could be turned to sinister ends. The conversation covers the Civic Sky platform, including small facilitated kitchen table discussions that aim to build consensus and lead to coordinated civic action, news source ratings supplied by independent experts, and onboarding independent authors who can earn a living from their work. Polisner also describes a planned public benefit corporation paired with a nonprofit, and possibly a perpetual purpose trust, to protect the mission from acquisition. He discusses early investor reactions, a closed beta targeted for April 2027, and a push toward the 2028 election cycle, closing with his hopes for a better informed electorate by 2029.

George Polisner explains how Civic Works wants a social network to earn its money from trust and civic action instead of outrage.

The questions, and the answers.

What is Civic Works, and what problem are you trying to solve?

I'm building a social network aimed at strengthening democracy through effective civic action and engagement. It rests on the idea that any meaningful democracy needs an informed, educated, and engaged society. A platform shouldn't be monetized on outrage. I want the human connection of social networking, plus real value in helping people understand the issues they face and the power they hold as citizens.

Was there a moment when you saw that trust, not reach, was the scarce thing on social platforms?

The most significant example was the activity between Facebook and Cambridge Analytica that preceded the 2016 US elections and the Brexit vote. It was an eye-opening moment. Platforms originally built to connect people and foster cooperation and understanding around the world could effectively be used for fairly sinister purposes.

How do you design a feed that doesn't reward outrage?

It's a huge challenge, because conflict and shouting are what get viewed. We don't want to build the next cream of wheat, though. We bring a small group from a community together for a facilitated discussion of a societal issue, like kitchen table democracy at scale, build understanding and consensus, and then move toward coordinated civic action and eventually policy.

Why do your source badges come from independent raters and never from Civic Sky itself?

Subject matter experts should do the research and assess criteria like trust and bias in news. I'm not sure people would trust a guy named George in his home office making those calls. I want transparency and accountability, with decisions made where funding and expertise exist, to push back on the propaganda and disinformation corroding democracy.

What does a reader's first week on Civic Sky look like?

I want it to feel like traditional social media, intuitive and guided, not like the old video game Myst where nothing makes sense. We want to onboard authors writing about democracy and current events, like Heather Cox Richardson and Dan Rather, and let creators monetize their work, as on Substack and Ghost. Great content matters as much as great technology.

Why pair a public benefit company with a nonprofit, and what does the golden share do?

We want to make sure the platform can't be acquired and have its mission subverted, as we've seen with Twitter. We're a 501c3 now, and we plan to create a public benefit corporation as the monetization driver. A golden share is one model, and a perpetual purpose trust, like Patagonia's founder used, is another.

What have your investor conversations taught you about who fits a mission-locked company?

Years ago, a Kleiner Perkins partner told me what I was doing should be a nonprofit, because they weren't interested in sharing with other stakeholders. Some traditional venture capital may still fit, but I think our niche is social venture capital and impact investors, and possibly donors frustrated by volatile political swings who want durable civic infrastructure.

If Civic Sky works, what changes for readers, writers, and officials by 2029?

If we've done our homework, we've scaled significantly. Writers and journalists have the funding to be viable without driving Ubers at night. Subscribers care about more than the election cycle. With partners like Elizabeth Ashley at Civic Thread, who is building tools to show who funds which officials, people can decide on more than a yard sign.