How do we reconcile a world where everyone can get a platform with our desire to keep out foreign propaganda, child pornography, and hate speech? Are platforms like Spotify, Apple podcasts, and Youtube really the ones we want setting the rules about acceptable speech on the internet?
With the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine going on there has been a lot of misinformation on the web. Misinformation as a concept really became well known during Donald Trump’s candidacy as president seven years ago but it has remained relevant ever since. Misinformation and disinformation is obviously not a new concept, but the internet has enabled it to be deployed on a much larger scale than before. Thus content moderation is needed on a much larger scale, which has given privately owned platforms like Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter a lot of power. Content undoubtedly needs to be moderated, otherwise the platforms we use every day could end up being filled with hate speech, misinformation, and much worse; I’m absolutely not arguing for less moderation, but we as a society need to have a real discussion about who moderates whom, and on what mandate. Abuse of our digital commons is inevitable if no one polices them, but the nature of the digital commons as private platforms means that tech giants have the power to set the criteria for what is and isn't acceptable. Are we as a society comfortable with this arrangement?
The internet has enabled more people to have more discussions about more topics than was previously imaginable, and it has made some platforms very important to political and cultural conversations. For example, Twitter is very important to contemporary political discussions as practically every western politician and practically every western journalist is on there, making a Twitter account a must have for many politically active people. And while Twitter is generally a poor choice of platform to reach out to the median voter, it’s a great place to discuss with and keep up with the politically engaged. Similarly, there’s a vigorous and healthy corner of Youtube where politics is discussed, though perhaps the more important facet of Youtube is the cultural conversation. There’s a review of practically any book, film, video game, and album you can think of on Youtube. In short then, these platforms have greatly expanded the conversation in terms of both what is talked about, and who gets to weigh in.
Tech giants aren’t known for their altruism though, and as much as their founders often are or at least sound techno-utopian the reality is that most of the big tech platforms have been guilty of one misdeed or another, ranging from Amazon allegedly “abusing its dominant position in online retail to gain an unfair advantage over competitors” to Meta allegedly using “the power and reach of its platform to stifle user growth for competing services”. Anti-competitive corporate behaviour might on the surface not seem to be very relevant to our discussion about content moderation but I believe it’s important for two reasons: firstly, it unequivocally shows that the tech giants have a history of misbehaving, and more importantly it shows that they have not passively become the political and cultural institutions that they are but that they deliberately attempt to centralise users which by extension centralises power in their hands. This need not be a bad thing, both Twitter and Instagram have used their platforms to spread awareness about misinformation about the 2020 American election and the Covid-19 pandemic respectively. Commendable behaviour for sure, but it’s nonetheless troubling to have privately owned tech firms become de facto arbiters of truth. These considerable powers could be used to stoke hate against organisations and people these platforms deem bad or immoral. Youtube routinely ‘demonitises’ or removes the ability to make money off a video if the subject is deemed controversial or risqué by Youtube, and more troublingly recently Meta has made some temporary changes in its policy on hate speech. According to Reuters: Meta “will allow Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion [...] The social media company is also temporarily allowing some posts that call for death to Russian President Vladimir Putin or Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko”. I have no love for Putin or Lukashenko, but I’m not comfortable with Mark Zuckerberg having the power to make it acceptable to call for the death of politicians he doesn’t like. This could be a one time arrangement that I’m blowing way out of proportion, or it could be the start of a slippery slope. Time will tell.
It’s easy to diagnose problems though, the real question is what to do about it. My suggestion would be to establish a governmental body which handles digital content moderation across all the major platforms. This would enable the government to make the decision about what content is moderated and how it’s moderated and would move the content moderation process from the unaccountable private firms to the democratically elected government which would improve accountability and hopefully transparency. It would presumably make content moderation more efficient when there’s one large central team rather than each platform having its own, and unlike laws specifying how content moderation should be performed it wouldn’t necessarily make it more difficult for new firms to challenge the hegemons by requiring unwieldy content moderation departments for any prospective social media platform.
If you liked this post you can read a previous post about the war in Ukraine here, or why I don't think the Metaverse will catch on here or the rest of my writings here. It'd mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Sources:
Comments