Entry 2102, on 2021-01-15 at 11:57:25 (Rating 2, Computers)
Many people have become increasingly concerned with the behaviour of social media companies. In the past these companies might not have been taken too seriously, but since prominent people, especially Donald Trump, began using Twitter to make important announcements, as well as present their personal thoughts, it has become apparent that they do have an important role.
As well as being an important outlet for politicians and celebrities, these services have also become a primary outlet for general news, especially as the mainstream media continue their apparently unstoppable decline into irrelevance. Many, especially older, people might have trouble with this, but it is a fact. Whether social media is a better or worse source of news than mainstream media is debatable, of course.
I believe they are both: social media sites can be a brilliant resource for discovering useful information and for getting a range of perspectives, but at the same time they can be the source of the most ridiculous nonsense. It's more a matter of how they are used than what they inherently are. People can be as informed or as misinformed as they want to be by using social media as a source.
In recent weeks the critical role of these companies, especially Twitter, has been given new prominence after Donald Trump, and a number of his supporters, have had their accounts terminated. Many people celebrate his termination on Twitter, but many others - including some who would not be seen as traditional Trump allies - are deeply worried about what this really means. I am in that group.
As a person who tends towards libertarianism this is a difficult subject, because I believe people and companies should have the option to choose who they do and don't deal with. Here's a related point many anti-Trump people have made: people on the right defended the right for an Oregon cake shop to refuse to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple (a famous case a year or two back), but want to stop Twitter from having that same right.
That is a good point, because the primary criticism made against the left by many is their lack of consistency. It would be ironic if the critics of the left were also inconsistent. Initially I could see that this was a good argument, but I just felt that there was a flaw somewhere. Since then I think I have discovered this flaw.
It's to do with monopolies. In the case of the cake shop, there were many others the couple could have dealt with. In fact, there is reason to believe they deliberately chose one they knew would object, just to make a political point. But in the case of social media there is no real choice. Twitter is the only place where short messages can be exchanged with a significant number of other internet users (which is almost like saying everyone), and that applies even more to Facebook (which has a lot more users).
So in the situation of not having the ability to buy a cake from a particular shop nothing is really lost, but by not having access to the most important discussion forums in the world (Twitter and Facebook) and having no real alternative, there is significant disadvantage, especially to a major public figure.
You could say that, because of the fact of their monopoly - or at least extremely dominant - position those companies have an extra responsibility to provide a service in the most fair and open way possible, and this requirement doesn't apply to smaller companies with no market dominance.
But surely it should be possible to terminate a user who is incredibly irresponsible or even dangerous, like Trump was. Well, the question here is, how irresponsible was he really? I actually looked at the tweets he was terminated for, and it would really require a huge amount of extrapolation to see those as an incitement to violence. Even if they were, there are far worse tweets - often posted by prominent leftist figures - which were not suppressed in any way.
So, ideally it would be best if Twitter only terminated accounts with genuinely dangerous content, but if they are going to have a lower threshold for taking action, then at least it should be applied evenly. But they fail miserably on both counts.
I have described one potential solution to this before: open standards. If all internet discussion worked through standard APIs (that is, standard ways for one program to access information from another program, or from a data source) then any program published by a company which restricted free speech could be swapped for one that didn't.
Think about it like transport. All road vehicles can share the same road. If I currently have a car, but need to transport larger items, I can buy a truck instead. If I have a Ford, but get bad service from them, I can buy a Toyota instead and still have the same ability to drive from place to place. That is how real functioning markets are supposed to work.
Compare that with social media now. It is more like if I buy a Facebook "car" I can go almost anywhere, but if I get one from a competitor I can only get to 1% as many destinations. The Facebook "car" is the only one which is practical, and if I don't want to use theirs I have no choice. Where is the pressure for Facebook to make a better product or provide more fairness to its customers?
And I really would like to leave Facebook, because of its political interference, its poor record on privacy, and the fact that its app and web site are slow, buggy, and poorly designed. But I really can't, because that's where my friends "live". And it's where I can engage in debate with the most people.
Something needs to change. I don't know whether it should be an open social media infrastructure, like my suggestion, or a better attitude from the social media companies themsleves, or regulation forcing them to act responsibly. But it needs to be something. Discussion and debate are a critical part of a properly functioning democracy. Currently we don't have the option of fair and informed debate. No wonder democracy is suffering.
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2021-01-19 at 12:13:40:
So if I went to a cake shop for a delicious birthday cake and I was told I’m sorry. I don’t make cakes for black people, is that OK by your argument.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2021-01-19 at 12:13:55:
Yes, I've heard this argument before. According to my system above, yes it is OK. Well, it's not OK, but is a bad effect of rules which ensure our freedom. Hopefully a business with such poor attitudes would not succeed for long.
Comment 3 by pauladkin on 2021-01-19 at 12:14:24:
I think the problem with social media platforms are that they are too general, or that they are used too generally. Cutting Twitter and Facebook style platforms up into forum-type groups would help filter the junk out, like your car idea (e.g., Twitter for Artists, or Twitter for Engineers, or Facebook for Friends, Facebook for Family). Likewise, setting these kinds of platforms up via a non-profit world-wide organisation would help enormously by making them advert free. I think the basic problem of the platforms we have now is that they are made for making profits, so ethics and aesthetics, or privacy issues, do not play much of a role in their design needs.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2021-01-19 at 12:14:41:
Yes, I think those are both fair points. There are certainly commercial pressures which reduce the effectiveness of the platforms.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE