The social networking giants, of which Facebook and X (ex-Twitter) are the epitome, were placed in the middle of the sensitive discussion on filtering out lies and unsubstantiated information on their platforms. This debate was blown out of proportion with the incidences such as the actions taken against the accounts of former President Donald Trump after the 2020 U.S. presidential election. This essay sheds light on the intricate controversial discussion by considering multiple views and finally constructing a solid argument.
Social media giants have increasingly been faced with the challenge of combating the spread of misinformation. The consequences of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election included the unprecedented activities of social media platforms, in this case, primarily targeting former President Donald Trump, among other figures who were found to be influential. Particularly, Twitter and Facebook announced concrete steps to stop the propagation of fake news and unfounded accusations of election fraud. Twitter started a historic action when it permanently suspended Trump’s account because of ” the potential of further incitement of violence” (Graham, paragraph 1). Facebook and Instagram also temporarily locked his accounts. The reason for those actions is based on the realization of the possible destruction that misinformation could bring about, especially during real events such as the Capitol riots. The platforms are confronted with the task of alleviating the damaging effects of misinformation but, at the same time, strike a balance between free speech and censorship.
At the heart of the controversy is a complex dilemma of being either a champion for free speech or shouldering the responsibility of content moderation on social media platforms. In becoming proponents of the free flow of information, the platforms encounter the grave reality that the uncontrolled propagation of falsehoods and conspiracy theories might eventually result in tangible or real-life consequences. The Capitol riot has proved that the violent impact of misinformation matches the possible harm of uncontrolled content distribution. “In the video, Trump told the agitators at the Capitol to go home, but at the same time called them “very special” and said he loved them for disrupting the Congressional certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s win” (Graham, paragraph 5). Critics point that the delicate balance is significantly important, which they underline with the fact that proximity to reality may create the need for tighter regulation. Still, it can also have the opposite effect in that it can also fan conspiracy theories. The doubt evocates to the risk that arm-twisting moderating may sound as pacifying dissenting voices that can be portrayed as a “plot of the deep state” for removing politicians. As a result, the platforms that try to stem the tide must do so in a way that does not require them to be censored while respecting the universal principles of free expression. While social media platforms are getting updated more and more, harmony between such platforms and the individuals using them is something that should be searched for conscientiously. A striking balance includes having powerful content moderation in place as well as proactive steps towards the generation of responsible user behaviour within the given platform. It involves being able to grasp the severe effects of misinformation and joining efforts to protect the diversity and openness of the Internet space where opinions can be freely expressed without risking someone.
In addition to ethical and moral considerations, social media platforms present themselves as commercial enterprises powered by the twin engines of user engagement and advertising profits. According to “In their official prospectus for the computerized U.S. stock market NASDAQ, Facebook claimed their vision was “to make the world more open and connected”. Nevertheless, their business model is commercial.” (Reisach, p. 907)The conflict around the disallowance of influential people like U.S. President Donald Trump points to the risk of neutralizing part of the user base. Platforms face the unpleasant task of striking a balance between short-term engagement effects and possible harmful consequences of content spreading uncontrolled and uncontested. The commercial dilemma is just one example of how social media platforms deal with numerous complex issues.
On the other hand, they need to consider their obligation to prevent their users from being harmed, offering them a safe online community. Therefore, on the one hand, they are bound to financial realities when user engagement and advertising revenue are vital to their existence and development (Reisach, p. 908). To find a proper balance, a delicate approach is needed that ensures both ethical concerns and business realities are considered. Social media companies must deal with a very difficult question: What role do they have in our society? Are they just an outlet for making people communicate, or are they taking part in joining our societal discourse? It is not only about making hard choices connected to content moderation but also about open communication with users through transparency regarding the company’s policies. By acknowledging the business implications of content moderation decisions, these platforms will be able to earn the trust of their consumers and other stakeholders.
Current legal battles create an additional complicating factor for social media entities. The recent cases that involve the Supreme Court, particularly the ones that challenge the laws in Florida and Texas which restrict content moderation, raise a fundamental issue about the platforms’ First Amendment rights, whether they are private entities, and to what extent they could regulate the content without breaching the free speech (Hubbard, paragraph 8). The legal complications incorporate issues of constitutional rights, private entity responsibility, and possibilities for government interference in content moderation. The result of such cases will greatly affect the way that social media websites deal with their duties and how to properly keep the balance between freedom of speech and legal requirements. With the changing legal landscape, the platforms will continue to face the challenge of defining their boundaries, rights, and responsibilities, as well as making the digital space that facilitates the dissemination of ideas without hurting people.
The case of social media giants such as Facebook and X illustrates the complex interplay of the concepts of freedom of expression, the responsibility of the entities to protect users, commercial consideration, and legal scrutiny. Managing this complicated ground involves a prudent and wise way of understanding, which admits the multiple-dimensional facet of the issue. With time, the capacity of these platforms to find a balance between the free expression of views and the safety of users will determine the future of digital communication. Within these constraints, a sustainable and transparent framework that considers ethical standards, business needs, and regulatory laws provides a basis for the development of social media platforms in the digital era.
Work Cited
Graham, Timothy. “Social Media Giants Have Finally Confronted Trump’s Lies. But Why Wait until There Was a Riot in the Capitol?” The Conversation, 7 Jan. 2021, https://theconversation.com/social-media-giants-have-finally-confronted-trumps-lies-but-why-wait-until-there-was-a-riot-in-the-capitol-152820
Reisach, Ulrike. “The responsibility of social media in times of societal and political manipulation.” European journal of operational research 291.3 (2021): 906-917.
Hubbard, Kaia. “Supreme Court Hears Social Media Cases That Could Reshape How Americans Interact Online.” Cbsnews.com, CBS News, 26 Feb. 2024, www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-cases-Facebook-Twitter-x-first-amendment/
write