Should Social Media Be Regulated
Introduction
The rise in social media platforms around the world has continued to have an effect on how opinions and information are shared globally. Common social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have decentralized tremendous benefits worldwide. Benefits such as access to information around the world and freedom of speech are some of the benefits of social media. Despite these benefits, there has also been a rise in the cons due to social media such as fake content, hate speech, and passing of information that is extremist, which has adverse effects on society as a whole. So in should social media be regulated essay it's important to analyse and try to find the answer. Some countries are considering regulating social media due to the nature of information is received. Such countries include Australia, Canada, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
The Nature of Social Media
About twenty years ago, social media was inexistent. YouTube and Twitter did not enter the social network until 2005. Since then, social media platforms have continued to rise to other platforms such as Facebook and other apps as result of the evolution. Social media transformed the world, allowing individuals to connect with each other as it offered a platform of communication and exchange of ideas and opinions. At a macro level, social media has led to a perpetual form of communication. It is now possible to keep track of family and friends, thus a micro-level transformation. Social media has come a long way spreading beyond borders and being part of everyday life. There have been past government concerns regarding the spread of the internet and the possibility of an international approach to governing this spread by various governments. The central assumption with the rise in social media was later assumed that social media control would remain a viable option for many governments.
Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have been recognised by the Supreme court as avenues that are important in exercising freedom of speech rights. These are under the First Amendment. However, concerns have risen by commentators and lawmakers concerning the nature of these platforms other than the benefits they provide. More reports have suggested that these sites are doing more harm than good. The supreme court has already recognised that social media platforms serve as essential platforms to speak and listen. These platforms offer a wide range of activities, most of which involve hosting and creating. They allow users to post, view and comment, and share content. They also offer connection benefits to users. A significant role of social media has provided a space where freedom of speech is exercised.
In September 2018, in hearing on Intelligence, the CEO of Twitter made remarks about how Twitter was a digital public square that allowed for free and open exchange of opinions and ideas. The majority of these social media platforms contain policies on the content displayed and content-moderation policies where they can remove particular contents. Facebook has proposed plans to prioritize quality news to the public which would be credible and trustworthy. In addition, these social media platforms have policies that determine who can view content and how content is presented. However, these policies have not been able to curb certain content from reaching the public eye, leading to adverse impacts of this shared information. The fact is, to some extent, the policies by these sites can create rules and systems that regulate speech. Social media companies face a lot of scrutiny for allowing user content to be posted on these sites to promote specific content. Concerns arise that these sites do not do much in countering content that is false, harmful, or serving hate messages. Others argues that these sites take down legitimate content and need to be heard by the public. There continues to be an increase in concern by legislators and commentators on whether social media platforms are serious about their policies as well as the free speech ideals that have been proposed on regulating social media content to the public.
Regulation of Social Media
There exists a current legal framework that governs social media sites and user content. This legal framework focuses on the First Amendment by the Supreme Court as well as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA). The legal framework based on the First Amendment and section 230 of the CDA has been relatively unsuccessful in regulating social media due to several reasons. One is based on the First Amendment doctrines that do not apply to private social media companies. The section 230 of the CDA protects most social media companies from being accountable to federal and state laws. Arguments are on the rise on whether the federal government is capable of regulating social media sites. The debate has also revolved around how the federal government can regulate social media sites. Some of the suggested ways have been taking down these sites, restricting access to these sites, and qualifying certain content types to the public.
Most of these ways to regulate social media by the federal government would go against the First Amendment. The First Amendment provides protection for the majority of social media companies, arguing that social media platforms make content that is useful to the public eye. The debate of the role of the government to regulate social media platforms intensified in the 2016 U.S presidential election after the Russians used social media accounts such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to interfere in the election. Section 230 of the CDA has also emerged as a vehicle for changing the government’s role in affecting content moderation by social media platforms. Section 230 also creates a framework for the social media industry that relies on content that is being produced.
Section 230 has two central provisions. The first provision distinguishes those that create content from those that provides access to the content. The second provision entails respect to the particular actions that can create liability of the underlying content. However, the immunity by section 230 may not apply if the service provider augments the content. Section 230 of the CDA has continued to receive sharp attacks from political parties, including President Joe Biden. The law protects platforms and websites from lawsuits that are related to content posted by third parties. Through this protection, the majority of social media companies continue to innovate and grow to raise questions about social media sites and how active they are in regulating content that is harmful or distorted. Section 230 offers a broad immunity to service providers. The first Amendment limits government regulation of social media content because it protects the freedom of speech.
Additionally, section 230 may attempt to bar laws that hold social media platforms and companies liable due to decisions to publish certain content. Due to the section 230, federal or state laws cannot be able to govern or regulate social media sites or make decisions on whether or how to present content. Section 230 creates immunity where the First Amendment may not. One other common argument against the regulation of social media is that regulation would undermine the rights and freedom of expression, which is fundamental in democratic government. There have also been debates on letting private social media companies regulate themselves. Most of these laws by private companies are rigid. Private companies may also adjust and agree to incentives to remove restrictions on the content displayed to the public. Legislation may also cripple companies that have created jobs for most individuals. On the positive side, private companies can balance the freedom of speech by social media companies. However, private social media companies are not effective in regulating content due to the companies’ nature to make profits. In 2016, Facebook was accused of leaking more than 80 million users’ accounts data to Cambridge Analytica because of rumour’s to have ties with the 2016 election. Many social media companies are involved in the deliberate manipulation of information as well as leaking of information if it makes the company more profits. Due to its widespread use and the consequences of social media, various countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing laws that can regulate social media.
A law that was passed in June 2017 in Germany imposed heavy fines on platforms that posted content that was illegal. There are countries that in the process of regulating content on YouTube and Facebook. A recent example in Australia that passed the Criminal Code Amendment Act of 2019 that expects providers of online content to take responsibility for using their social media platforms. The law creates offenses and liability, including imprisonment and fines for online Platforms displaying content that goes against the government. The law has, however, received criticism from many tech companies in Australia and abroad. Similarly, social media platforms such as Twitter and Google are blocked in China. These services are provided by the Chinese providers such as Baidu and WeChat. The Chinese government has also been successful in curbing access to Private networks that try to bypass the blocked sites. In Russia, a law was passed giving regulators the power to switch off to the World web in the case of a major emergency.
A significant problem of the law regulating social media is that social media platforms are transnational. They go beyond countries, communities making it quite difficult to enforce laws on social media. It is impractical to have a global standard of regulating social media as every country has its own rules and views concerning social media. In 2012, Twitter worked with Saudi Arabia to implement a Twitter regulation in the country. A co-regulation program between the government and a social media company may effectively regulate social media without imposing any legislations either globally or in a country. Instead of imposing heavy legislation upon social media companies, governments can work with companies to propose regulations that are suitable for both parties. There have been concerns that the government may not understand social media’s working globally: thus, may be hard to legislate it. Legislation through fines and sanctions may not be an effective way to regulate social media is continually evolving. Therefore, many propose that self-regulation may be the best way to regulate social media companies with minimal amount of legislation from the government. Regulation of social media by the government may create a hostile environment between social media companies and the government. Co-regulation allows the government and social companies to work together collaboratively and have a joint responsibility and accountability for regulating social media platforms. The majority of these social media platforms, such as YouTube and Facebook, are in the profit-making business and corporate image, which is in contrast to interests such as the promotion of speech and development of ecommerce in the business in the business sector.
There have been claims of the role of non-government organisations in the regulation of social media platforms. Social media transcends borders, and thus commentators have questioned the role of the united nations in regulating social media and social media abuse. The United Nations has, over the years, been involved in various attempts to govern the internet in various ways, mainly through the passing of resolutions. The United Nations have suggested methods of combatting terrorist content as a way of regulating social media content. The majority of terrorist groups, such as ISIS, use social media to spread hate messages. The majority of planned terrorist attacks are planned and carried out with the aid of social media.
Al-Qaeda and the majority of terrorist organisations have moved their operations to involve the use of social media outlets such as Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms . This has raised various concerns by the United Nations on social media’s impact and the need for regulation. The United Nations recognizes that individuals are free to express their thoughts. In countries such as the United States, freedom of speech is protected, and its regulation would raise complicated issues over censorship. The United Nations continues to advocate social media due to the rise in terrorism. There are, however, various fundamental issues with governing social media that make the United Nations unlikely to pass regulations on social media platforms. The Association for Progressive Communication (APC) is another non-profit organisation that is committed to ensure that there is free and open social media access to improve lives. APC is among the non-profit organisations that are concerned with curbing disinformation, fake news, and propaganda.
Social media platforms have also taken severe measures to curb fake news and propaganda. There is, however, a great need to regulate social media platforms. Still, the major challenges rests upon the techniques and ways to regulate social media content regulation more effectively. There is a great need for social media platforms to be regulated to minimise social costs. Content that spread violence, terrorism, child abuse, and Cyber-bullying are significant threats that push the need for social media regulation. Self-governance is considered the most effective way of regulating social media effective way of regulating social media than the legislature, government regulating, and companies such as private companies and non-governmental organisations.
Social media platforms such as YouTube, every year, release a transparency report that displays data on the number of removals involving harmful content. A report submitted by YouTube between July and September in 2019 reported a total number of 8 million videos removed due to issues regarding the content. Similarly, Facebook, which also owns Instagram, is reported to have transparency reports that ensure regulation of content that is displayed to the public. In addition, Twitter is also involved in banning accounts associated with conspiracy theory groups, content that spreads hate and violence, and illegal content. These voluntary actions by Facebook and Twitter show the role of self-regulation and self -governance within these industries.
Conclusion
In conclusion, social media platforms have significant impact on the type of shared information globally. Due to these impacts, there continue to be various concerns on social media’s adverse effects, particularly with the freedom of speech and the type of information shared via social media. Most of the pros of social media include the sharing of false information, propaganda, hate speech, malformed information, violent information, and a platform used in terrorist activities. These adverse impacts of social media continue to accelerate the need to regulate social media. However, the main question revolves around the authority given for regulation and the means to regulate social media platforms. The First Amendment by the Supreme Court and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) govern social media sites and content. However, these frameworks protect social media companies from being accountable to federal or state laws. There have been concerns on the government involvement in social media regulation as legislation or laws against social media would deny citizens the right to freedom of speech which is a fundamental right. There are various countries, such as Saudi Arabia, involved in the co-regulation of social media where the government and the social media company agree on regulation. This has been argued to be effective as it does not involve imposing laws on social media companies creating a hostile environment. Non- government organisations such as the UN and APC have also suggested ways to regulate social media, but these would go against the First Amendment. Self-regulation by social media companies has been argued to be appropriate for regulating social media platforms. However, most of these companies are in it to make profits and develop their corporate images.
