The Regulation Paradox
Nicola Biggerstaff
Last week I wrote about the scourge of modern social media and the impact it is having on our individual health and local community health. I’m glad that the message has resonated with some, that we should reconsider our relationship with social media in particular and advocate for awareness of the harmful marketing tactics used to increase our engagement. However it has been noted that I was perhaps a little too quick to jump to judgement in terms of dismissing the positive health benefits of increased connectivity offered by the internet, and perhaps not placing enough emphasis on how we as individuals can remain vigilant to the impact overuse can have on our mental health.
Some feedback suggested that I was advocating for increased government regulation, and this will simply never be the case. Open and equal access to the internet is a cornerstone of modern day equality, and as for social media, we all know this is simply not possible without infringing on free speech. That being said, there are measures some companies can and do take, but there is a reason this is not popular.
Once again, we only need to look across the pond to see the risks this could pose. X, formerly known as Twitter, has frequently come under fire, long before Musk’s purchase of the site last year, for its lax hate speech policy allowing far-right, extremist communities to flourish and even recruit on there. Reports by users who have been targeted often result in little action unless attention is drawn to it, and this has only gotten worse, with hateful views, even peddled by Musk himself on the site, making many previous fans of the site feel unsafe using it. The risk of targeting and doxing, the search for and publication of personal, identifying information such as addresses and workplaces of third parties without their consent, is simply far too great for users to remain comfortable, all in the name of free speech.
On the flipside, we have social media sites like Tumblr, where regulation has been taken to the extreme. In the face of financial difficulties, the site’s fairly liberal policies on nudity, created in order to preserve the free expression of artists using the site to promote their work were scrapped in order to appeal to more advertisers. The so-called ‘porn ban’ was implemented in 2018, and this led to an exodus of users who could no longer profit from promotion of their works, in favour of advertisers and marketers who could. Tumblr would then be purchased by Yahoo just a year later for just $3 million, down from its previous estimated value of almost one billion dollars in 2010.
Even despite all this, these websites still have as much of a right to exist on the web as we do. That is what free speech looks like. Being able to pick, choose, and generate your own online experience using resources freely available, or even creating your own. We all have the power to do this, to engage with what we like and disengage with what we don’t.
However, as with the right to free speech, there comes a responsibility to use it wisely. But how are we supposed to feel empowered to ignore such hateful content when it is wilfully platformed by social media companies who put profit over the enjoyment of the site by its userbase?
The paradox of regulation, in which no regulation whatsoever allows hate and misinformation to generate, fester and spread, but any regulation at all risks transforming sites into an echo chamber of narrow parameters and restricted speech, means that trying to strike this balance in an increasingly polarised world is next to impossible, especially when attempted by companies that simply don’t care.
Decrying the negatives of social media is not equal to calling for government regulation. There are practices on these sites, namely aggressive marketing and hateful content, which are causing harm to those who overuse it. This has been proven. What we need is more responsible usage, which is hard to address from a left-wing perspective. Therefore, we need more education on these tactics and awareness of the impact of internet addiction, a ‘Drink Responsibly’ for the internet age.
In fact, it would be almost hypocritical of me to advocate for less use of social media, since it is a crucial form of communication for us here at Common Weal. Our website keeps our supporters and donors updated on what we’re doing, and our social media presence allows us to react to current events in real time. We meet, work and collaborate over Zoom, and a lot of our success would not have been possible without the power of the internet.
For me, while I don’t spend a lot of time on mainstream social media anymore and have felt the benefits from reducing my own usage, I have still made a lot of professional and personal connections online. Some of my closest friends ‘live’ in my phone, and I wouldn’t even be working here if I wasn’t on LinkedIn.
Our comments are approved on a case by case, ‘common sense’ basis, the closest we can get to the best of both worlds. Our supporters and newsletter readers will always have a right to their opinion here, and are more than welcome to share these with us when they think we’re doing well, but especially if they think we’ve perhaps missed the mark. I love getting comments like these which force me to think deeper, go beyond the issues covered for the week, allowing me to create follow ups such as this very piece.
My intention was not to advocate for burning it all down and starting again, because not all is lost here. If less usage simply isn’t possible, then we need smarter usage at least. And not in the AI, advanced tech way, but in the common sense way.