An idea how to regulate social media in part

[Craig234]

I've posted before how the issue of social media is a very complicated one in terms of figuring how to set policies for it that are in the public good. Do one thing and there's good and bad, do another and there's good and bad. But it's a powerful technology.

Before I get to my suggestion, a side comment on technology and politics with an example. People tend to not recognize too much threat from the idea of the platforms' power, because the platforms have had some limits on using that power for politics.

But a critical company in the 2016 election was Cambridge Analytica (see links below; as well as other elections oversees, such as the dictator Dutarte in the Philippines); one of the two billionaire families that are the biggest trump backers and strongest far-right activists in the US are the Mercers; they are the founders of Cambridge Analytica.

What Did Cambridge Analytica Really Do for Trump's Campaign? | WIRED

Cambridge Analytica and the end of elections | Privacy News | Al Jazeera

The by far dominant social media platform for the far right that emerged recently was Parler, allowing whatever sort of dangerous, white supremacist/domestic terrorist type communicating about plotting and disinformation sharing like Qanon; the Mercers also were the funders for Parler. That that one family was being probably the two most powerful far-right technology companies ever should give an idea of the danger.

My suggestion:

Why should individual companies have so much power? Why shouldn't the power be distributed?

We see the problem in so many other areas of concentrated ownership. Four media companies owning 90% of media. Newspaper ownership hugely consolidated. Radio station ownership hugely consolidated. Amazon dominating online shopping. On and on.

In the 90's, we saw a lack of competition in operating systems, because Windows had such a monopolistic advantage because everyone ported to it. People didn't buy it for being the best on features or price; they bought it because that's where software was available. A competitor couldn't compete, with the high barrier of software porting. Only Apple and Linux, with far smaller share, even did a little, with Apple finally benefiting from Windows compatibility.

At the time, I suggested an idea that open standards be required - that software be ported for an open platform standard that any OS could use, so that any OS could compete on features and price. I suspect had that been done, that operating systems would have developed a lot more competitively, with better features and lower cost.

Now, I'm suggesting similar for social media. Require an open standard, publicly available platform for people to post to, and then any social media who wants to can access and use the content. Of course, the content would have to match a platform to get used on it; a long Facebook type post might not be usable on Twitter.

But then, many competing social media companies could show the content and people could use whichever ones they like. And it would remove concentrated power from any platform, and could reduce the need for platforms to police content, making them into 'pure service providers', with any content regulation done on the main posting platform in one place.

Think about the power and wealth that has come from monopolies - Bill Gates from my Windows example, Jeff Bezos from my Amazon example, Mark Zuckerberg. Is that healthy for the markets, or, in the case of social media, for our democracy?

It's just one idea; there are questions about its practicality, but I think it's one worth looking at. We could look for other ways to have more competition; I'm not sure why there aren't more in some areas, for example, ebay seems to dominate online auctions more than I'd expect. Why not more sites?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

This is a very very complicated question.

1. Should we allow ISIS members to radicalize people on social media?

2. What if someone posts that the COVID vaccines are engineered by the government to kill Black people?

So, I think we all agree that #1 and #2 should be banned but then what's the standard?

#1 is inciting violence
#2 is dangerous misinformation

Even this forum doesn't allow you to say anything you want.

I'm not sure but I think maybe banning political discussions may be the solution. I think social media has only made politics worse.

 

[Craig234]

This is a very very complicated question.

1. Should we allow ISIS members to radicalize people on social media?

2. What if someone posts that the COVID vaccines are engineered by the government to kill Black people?

So, I think we all agree that #1 and #2 should be banned but then what's the standard?

#1 is inciting violence
#2 is dangerous misinformation

Even this forum doesn't allow you to say anything you want.

I'm not sure but I think maybe banning political discussions may be the solution. I think social media has only made politics worse.

It is a complicated question. My suggestion isn't really about the 'content moderation' issue, but rather the 'overly powerful, monopolistic platforms' issue. Even if you did want to ban political discussions, where do you draw the line? It's like when movies added heavy censorship and double entendres exploded, as they kiss it then shows a train driving in a tunnel...

 

[noonereal]

Why should individual companies have so much power? Why shouldn't the power be distributed?

It's not "power" but to answer your question, people want access to everyone so everyone flood to one platform.
Roll out a new platform, if it catches on it becomes the new "power."
It's like shopping for a TV.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

It is a complicated question. My suggestion isn't really about the 'content moderation' issue, but rather the 'overly powerful, monopolistic platforms' issue. Even if you did want to ban political discussions, where do you draw the line? It's like when movies added heavy censorship and double entendres exploded, as they kiss it then shows a train driving in a tunnel...

But once the government starts regulating speech on social platforms it starts looking like China. Because China does that.

What do you do when citizens start making insane conspiracy theory claims against the government? I know plenty who believe the government created AIDS to kill Africans. Can people post about that?
What if they claim the COVID vaccines are part of a conspiracy to control people?

It's a real quagmire.

But back to your point, how do you break them up? People want to be on a platform where they can reach the most people. If you break up Facebook such that only a fraction of the people are on it, it becomes far less useful.

That's why I say just get rid of political discussion. Let's return to Kardashian tweets. It seems clear that social media and politics just don't mix well.

 

[Craig234]

But back to your point, how do you break them up? People want to be on a platform where they can reach the most people. If you break up Facebook such that only a fraction of the people are on it, it becomes far less useful.

I can only repeat the suggestion. By having an open platform for content submissions, any platform can post it, creating more competition so no one platform has monopolistic power.

 

[BlueTex]

But once the government starts regulating speech on social platforms it starts looking like China. Because China does that.

What do you do when citizens start making insane conspiracy theory claims against the government? I know plenty who believe the government created AIDS to kill Africans. Can people post about that?
What if they claim the COVID vaccines are part of a conspiracy to control people?

It's a real quagmire.

But back to your point, how do you break them up? People want to be on a platform where they can reach the most people. If you break up Facebook such that only a fraction of the people are on it, it becomes far less useful.

That's why I say just get rid of political discussion. Let's return to Kardashian tweets. It seems clear that social media and politics just don't mix well.

It's almost like you should leave it up the "social media" whatever that is... For instance, you could make only those responsible for content to be subject to litigation and not the application on which they posted that content. While we are here, what exactly is "social media" and how would you define it in a law?