This past week, presidential candidate RFK, Jr had an interview with Josh Peterson pulled from YouTube. This has thrust the power of social media platforms once again into the limelight. According to YouTube, it pulled the video because the content violated its policy about anti-vaccine misinformation. Before we start, let me be clear.
This is not a post about vaccines.
This is not a post supporting a candidate.
This is not a post proposing any conspiracy theories.
For the sake of this discussion, let’s put the content of the interview aside. Let’s put the people involved aside. Let’s put the idea of organizing secret schemes aside. All of those things are merely distractions to the real risk to the world.
So, instead of allowing those things to steal our attention, let’s focus on the main issue. This issue will be the biggest technologically driven sociopolitical problem of the next ten years outside the AI ethics/rights space.
The importance of society discussing ideas, especially ideas they disagree on, is immense. Preserving this right is fundamental to democracy and fundamental to the protection of civil rights. When people do not have a voice, the selfishness of an individual or small group will always rise to the top. Any review of world history will expose this.
Enter the new world of public debate and discussion.
Town halls have been replaced with a much larger venue, social media platforms. While many arguments are floating around about the rights of the companies that run these platforms, there are just as many debates about their responsibilities to safeguard these platforms from misbehaved users. It’s a difficult and fine line to straddle. This is especially true when members of these online communities are becoming younger and younger.
Amidst the debate between rights and responsibilities lies the fact these online spaces have become the modern-day town square. They are the places friends meet, business is done, and discussions are had. They replace brick-and-mortar coffee shops, barber shops, tennis clubs, nightclubs, and workplace water coolers. Although you cannot get a physical cup of coffee, the social aspect is essentially the same.
With this shift in societal behavior, what should be done to safeguard and enable these places of public discussion? This is a good question, but first, we need to outline a few additional issues arising from the presence and popularity of social media. Nearly all social media platforms use algorithms to decide what their users see. It’s a complex mix of follows, likes, time spent reading posts, links clicked, and even data gathered from tracking mechanisms embedded in browsers by the companies running these platforms.
The upside of this invasive practice is targeted ads and targeted information sharing, especially from others on the platform a user may not currently follow. So, this technique offers exposure to new content. However, the downside is an echo chamber. The affirming consequence of people being constantly bombarded by everything they like and agree with creates a more stark polarization within communities around the globe. This sort of polarization reduces the capacity of people to calmly and respectfully debate their point with those who disagree and, instead, fosters more hateful and even volatile responses.
As bad as the results of strengthened polarization are, the power of these platforms to alter their algorithms in order to influence their users is even worse. Allegations of this behavior have already surfaced during U.S. elections and other attempts to shift public opinion on large-scale matters. Prior cases aside, the abuse of this power isn’t a question of if it will be used, but a question of when. Science Fiction has always addressed this kind of misuse of power. Think of 1984’s Ministry of Truth altering older copies of the news to match actual events, so its reporting would always be correct. Consider the coup undertaken by Peter and Valentine in Ender’s Game. Ender’s siblings covertly create accounts on the Net and engage in political espionage, eventually becoming powerful government leaders.
Even though these examples are fictional, there’s a reason sci-fi frequently repeats this trope. It is a legitimate risk to civilization as we know it. The outcome would be disastrous. The ideas associated with the terms Newspeak, Doublespeak, and Group Think from the novel 1984 are taken from examples throughout history. But, there doesn’t have to be a malevolent plot for these types of issues to arise.
The growth of social media has created an issue. In an attempt to solve the issue, the companies have started governing their users instead of someone governing the companies. The intent is harmless. As a matter of fact, the attempt is benevolent. But these companies will not risk losing profit to find a solution, nor do they wish to submit to oversight. So, they attempt to govern their users’ content. While motivation may be well intended, the outcome is still control by a very small group of people.
Unfortunately, the slippery slope of the power currently wielded by social media giants and the lack of checks-and-balances on these companies is just as bad for society as an autocratic or dictatorial government. The risk is perhaps even worse because their power could go unnoticed and unchallenged for much longer than an openly practicing dictator.
However, the most serious problem is not potential misinformation, but rather the potential abuse of nearly unlimited power by the companies who own the social media platforms. Instead of championing their actions of censorship, we should instead be fighting against it. Yes, there are existing laws, loose as they may be, governing forms of hate speech and attempts of libel. Libel is a civil court issue, and hate speech is distinctively separate from disagreements or disinformation.
Some will argue these companies are looking to recognized authorities to be their judge on fact versus fiction. But that’s an issue too. Nearly everything currently believed to be a fact is subject to being overturned as new information surfaces. But without public discourse, these changes can take much longer and perhaps will never become public knowledge. Remember Rese Syndrome? It’s triggered by giving aspirin to children with high fevers. The symptoms were first described in 1929. But strict warnings linking aspirin to Reye’s disease were not issued until the 1970s. Again, this is not about vaccines. The example merely illustrates the risks of not having a venue for people to speak up and be heard.
An honest look at the situation demands a more open-use policy, less frequent post removal, and less monitoring by social media companies. Replace these practices and remove monitoring from those running the social media company with a third-party organization tasked with hearing the complaints filed by individuals on these platforms that also keeps a sharp eye on the practice of the companies themselves. Open disclosure of algorithms. At some point intellectual property become a public right to know when it is directly determining what people are being fed in this new world of global online townhalls.
The United States government is divided into three branches with distinct responsibilities. The Constitution outlines these checks-and-balances as a safeguard against the extreme power the government holds. If you live in the U.S., you know how challenging it can be to maintain a watchful eye even with these safety measures in place. Now imagine a government without such precautions. Doubtful it would have lasted this long. Turning to the social media problem, the same kinds of checks-and-balances need to be created. Will it slow down innovation? Likey. Could it curtail the companies’ profits? Yes. Would it be difficult to put in place and maintain? Probably. Would it be worth it even if the results just mentioned occurred? Absolutely.
Of course, oversight of these companies doesn’t require digging into any of their products or service offering outside of the social media aspect and any tangent technologies that help drive those platforms. If a company is going to profit from the people, by use of the people’s information, but keep the people in the dark - they need to answer to the people. The laughable solution many social media defenders put forth follows the arguement, if you don’t want to share your information, stay off the platform. Maybe that was true a decade or more ago when social media wasn’t necessary for interaction in life. Anymore, a person is placed at a significant disadvantage if they do not have access to some form of social media. This isn’t about keeping up with friends. It’s about being aware of what’s happening. Neighborhood watch information, sales ads, politcal candidate information, and general news: All of these and more are first and sometimes exclusively available via social media outlets. Social media has achieved the same status as the mobile phone. It’s become a necessity.
The best paper I’ve ever read on censorship was blank. It was a quick read, but made a powerful statement. Any form of censorship eliminates someone’s voice. While this is sometimes an unfortunate requirement, its use should be limited to only extreme cases. The power to censor should never be given to someone recklessly. When in doubt, erroring on the side of free speech is the best policy. We should defend one another’s right to be wrong.
In summary, the ability of social media platforms to block or ban both users and posts needs to be reevaluated. The real problems facing this modern age of public discord are the social media companies themselves. Their algorithms, practices, and unchecked power need to be kept in check. Ignoring this point will create a future of distrust and perhaps mass corruption unlike anything we’ve seen before outside oppressive dictitorial rule.
*Reference the associated CNN article about the dispute between RFK Jr. and YouTube.