The internet is overflowing with countless messages regarding the relationship between a man and a woman in romantic relationships. Yet never once did I feel satisfied with what I heard.

Here are just a few examples of many:

• A woman is a man’s helpmeet because it says so in the bible
• A man is the captain of the ship and the woman is like a deck hand
• A man leads, a woman should follow
• A man should provide and protect, and a woman should take care of the household
• The relationship should be voluntary every single day. Anyone can leave at any time.
• The organization (family) should be set up such that the COO can resign but cannot take any part of the company’s assets with her. Ever. That would be stealing. She should, however, get a reasonable severance package. We don’t treat executives like animals. The more she contributed, the more she deserves on exit – this is only fair play.
• If the COO were to resign, it should have little to no impact on the operation of the company in the short run. The main burden would be on either a VP or the CEO to fill in the gaps in the short run. In the long run, the organization needs someone who can execute the CEO’s vision under his leadership.
• The COO is a member of the C-suite. She too is an executive and deserves to be treated with respect and deference as appropriate. It is a position of very powerful influence. She is, after all, the right hand of the top dog.
• As such, the COO must be qualified to do things most others cannot. They must possess good judgement, clarity of purpose, leadership abilities to command others beneath her in the organization, and many other intellectual, analytical, conceptual, and people skills. It is a formidable role. Hire carefully.
• When in doubt, the COO should always check in and touch base with the CEO. They must be on the same page at all times on major decisions. But she must defer to the CEO always.

I could go on, but you get the idea. There are many opinions on this matter to be sure.

So why am I wasting my time writing this? Because these and the myriad other messages are just not right in today’s modern world. So I would like to propose a new way of looking at the relationship between a man and a woman in a committed relationship (not marriage because once you sign that contract, the woman has all the effective power and the man has little to none).

In a corporation (usually) the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) serves as the highest-ranking executive. They have the final say on most company decisions and are responsible for overall vision, strategy, and leadership.

The COO (Chief Operating Officer) on the other hand, is the CEO’s right-hand person, in charge of day-to-day operations. The COO ensures the company's business operations run smoothly and efficiently.

The COO typically reports directly to the CEO. The CEO can delegate authority to the COO, but the CEO is still the ultimate decision-maker (unless overridden by the board of directors). In the case of a relationship, there is no board. There is just the founder and CEO – in the ideal scenario it is the man.

It is also important to note that the CEO can fire the COO, but not the other way around. Read that as many times as it takes to sink in. Under no circumstance should a COO be given the power to harm, refute, ignore, or otherwise disrespect the CEO. The only power she has is to leave. And that is fair.

Here are a few important things to consider:

• The relationship should be voluntary every single day. Either person can leave at any time, so plan accordingly. Few executives stay in the role forever.
• Instead of leading a woman, she should be seeking guidance and mentorship. She must do what the CEO expects of her, and the CEO should treat her with the respect and importance her role deserves. Especially to the outside world.
• The organization (family) should be set up such that the COO can resign at any time, but cannot take any part of the company’s assets with her. Ever. That would be stealing. She should, however, get a reasonable severance package. We don’t treat executives like criminals unless they are, in fact, criminals. The more she contributed, the more she deserves on exit – this is only fair play.
• If the COO were to resign, it should have little to no impact on the operation of the company in the short run. The main burden would be on either a VP or the CEO to fill in the gaps in the short run. In the long run, the organization needs someone who can execute the CEO’s vision under his leadership.
• The COO is a member of the C-suite. She too is an executive and deserves to be treated with respect and deference as appropriate. It is a position of very powerful influence. She is, after all, the right hand of the top dog.
• As such, the COO must be qualified to do things most others cannot. They must possess good judgement, clarity of purpose, leadership abilities to command others beneath her in the organization, and many other intellectual, analytical, conceptual, and people skills. It is a formidable role, so vet and hire very carefully.

When in doubt, the COO should always check in and touch base with the CEO. They must be on the same page at all times on major decisions. But she must defer to the CEO always.

This concept can easily be fleshed out more to be sure. But this should paint a very different picture of what a modern couple should look like. The “corporation” can be just about anything – either of them can have any job, career, or hobbies. They can have many or no children at all. But it is not the size or complexity of the organization that matters to this relationship. It is not the industry or the particular products, services, or technologies involved.

The main consideration is, and always should be, on the authority and power dynamic between these two very vital roles. Unless this is clearly delineated prior to the hiring process, the relationship it doomed to fail. File this away and act accordingly.

To the casual observer, people just like what they like, and such preferences should not be given much meaning as it relates to one’s favorite social media platform.

To the astute observer however, a new tech paradigm appears to be emerging.

One can search for a root causes or watershed event as the inflection point (Tipping Point?), but root-cause analysis is foolhardy when trying to analyze complex sociological phenomena. There were many shifts and changes, including the drastic and chilling transformation of Reddit under Ellen Pao, and Zuckerberg's purchase of Instagram just to name two. There is no single event or smoking gun; it has been a slow inexorable shift that appears to be crystallizing now in 2025 into a permanent divide that may never be undone.

For lack of a better name, let’s call this the Platform Chasm.

In years past, platforms like Facebook and Reddit attracted a wide spectrum of people. Folks either argued or kept to themselves, but they all consumed relatively similar content. Moving from one platform to the next, one still encounter the same popular memes and pop culture references – age and generation differences notwithstanding. There was an array or spectrum of beliefs and views on each of the major social media, and everyone sorted themselves out.

Now, entire platforms have been created to attract one side of the political aisle or the other. The current divide between X.com and Bluesky is one such example of people choosing their own echo chambers. In this case, the center-to-left crowed enjoyed nearly a decade of a highly curated and censored platform with little dissent allowed. Twitter, like Reddit became far left, arguably extremist platforms for all things race-baity and Trump-hatey. With the changes wrought by Elon Musk, the platform called back some of those who had been shut out.

Most Americans who were right of center had no refuge and no platform upon which to commiserate.

As X now, the platform still throttles some content – although it appears to be inconsistent and anecdotal. Nonetheless it has become somewhat of a last bastion for free speech. And that’s where things get weird. Bluesky was created to serve as a counter to the tumult of an open free speech platform. In other words, it attracted left-leaning voices who do not wish to have their ideas challenged in public forums.Few would acknowledge or admit this, but that has been the ultimate effect.

People are self-selecting into their own echo chambers. Whereas there were once a dozen major platforms where people mixed it up, the middle ground as given way and left a chasm between left and right.

One might reasonably counter with “Sure, but that has always been true – subreddits were essentially the same thing”, and that is a fair rebuttal, but now it has become systemic. Entire platforms are being created to not only attract like-minded perspectives, but to exclude “forbidden” ones. Bluesky and Truth social are two such examples. Call them silos, echo chambers, or far left/right platforms – all apropos.

X.com is somewhat unique in that there does still seem to be legitimate debate and discussion. To a Democrat, however, such pushback to their ideas is routinely labeled “alt Right” and dismissed. This is hardly a recipe for finding common ground. Now for the crucial component – AI. I asked ChatGPT which was the best ai platform. It did a good job, but completely ignored Grok; which was what I was expecting to happen. When prompted “why did you not mention Grok” it backpedaled, offering “Ah, good catch! Let's talk about Grok, Elon Musk’s AI, which lives inside X (formerly Twitter).”

Good catch indeed.

The bias is already baked in; bias of some sort can be expected on all these tools whether Copilot, Gemini, ChatGPT, or Grok. There is a lot to say about this – how these tools are trained, who trains them, what is disallowed, and how they are embedded are a few of many facts of the conversation worthy of consideration.

As these things evolve, it is conceivable that a combination of algorithms, explicit personal preferences, and guidance driven by corporate policy and political perspectives may result in permanent bubbles. These bubbles, once formed, can easily lead to humans living next door to each other in real life, yet their “realities” are truly their own.Highly focused and curated content coupled with deeply embedded propaganda and censorship appears to be leading us to a possible future in which the physical brains of people may develop differently based on such content. Somatic markers and myriad cognitive biases could metastasize and crystallize to a point where there may be no cure.

As I write this, it is clear that this piece is less of a prediction of the future, as it is an observation of the present state of online life. What remains to be seen is the long term impact of the tech and this Chasm on the physical human brain.