Governments around the world are discussing whether and how to bring social media platforms under new legislation. As social media\u2019s impact is discussed in connection with world events such as the 2016 US Presidential Election, or in the unfolding horror of a mass shooting, the question of regulation hovers closer. <\/span> Legislation might hit the headlines, but support for legislating social media platforms is still relatively weak. The issue is not black and white, and debating it properly requires a deep understanding of the legalities surrounding privacy, advertising, data and freedom of speech. And, of course, many people who are in favor of legislating social media are really in favor of legislating <\/span>other people<\/span><\/i>\u2019s behavior. <\/span> In the absence of legislation, platforms effectively police themselves. This leaves them free to use (potentially) their own biases and values to moderate content and user behavior, creating a system where each platform could lean a different way. Silicon Valley faces accusations of liberal bias, based on values that are not representative of all Americans. (This theory isn’t that far-fetched if you look at the geography of election results.) Self-policing leaves it to consumers to seek out that bias, and decide whether to trust what they find. <\/span> Perhaps the most compelling argument in favor of legislation is health. Responsible and moderate use of social media is great. But there are reports that extreme over-use of social media can create addiction, just like alcohol or gambling. The techniques used by some of the largest tech companies to keep people on social media are similar to those used in casino gambling, such as constant notifications and variable rewards. They keep people coming back – or, as doctors would say, they foster psychological addiction. Constant use of social media means regular influxes of dopamine, and some argue that easy access to dopamine should be regulated like alcohol. But like alcohol, legislation is only effective with education. Don’t just tell people they shouldn\u2019t drink too much. Explain to them why, what the safe limits are, and how to recognize signs of addiction.<\/span> Legislation might seem sensible, but it carries its own stack of problems. <\/span> Sen. Hatch: “If [a version of Facebook will always be free], how do you sustain a business model in which users don’t pay for your service?” \u2014 CBS News (@CBSNews) April 10, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nShould governments set rules for what is allowed on social media platforms? And should platforms be held accountable for the behavior of their users?<\/span>
\nThere is a global trend towards legislating consumer use of social media. US lawmakers are lobbying for social media regulation, especially after the Facebook hearings earlier this year. In the UK, the Conservative government is considering <\/span>new regulation for online spaces<\/span><\/a>, focusing most recently on child protection. And everyone is keeping a close eye on Germany, one of the first countries to <\/span>legislate social media content<\/span><\/a> earlier this year, making platforms accountable for illegal content published on their sites. <\/span>
\n <\/p>\nIt\u2019s complicated<\/b><\/h2>\n
\n <\/p>\nLegislation versus self-policing <\/b><\/h2>\n
\nUnder self-policing, networks are free to open up the flow of information to the highest bidder, as shown by Facebook\u2019s ongoing battle with so-called fake news. Should social media spend be regulated in the same way regular media spend is regulated? Or should consumers learn to vet information sources more effectively, as they do with ads? <\/span>
\n <\/p>\nIs our health at stake?<\/b><\/h2>\n
\n <\/p>\nLegislation creates its own problems<\/b><\/h2>\n
\nFirstly, freedom of speech. Most would agree that illegal, abusive content or hate speech should be removed from a platform. But who\u2019s responsible for it, the platform or the user who posted it? If it\u2019s the platforms, legislation might lead to them being over-cautious about what they publish and what they don\u2019t. Whose values do they adhere to? Different cultures will have different ideas about the line between values and free speech. It can also be useful to examine someone\u2019s social media history in the aftermath of a crime – it can shed light on their motives, and help to prevent it from happening again. <\/span>
\nSecond, can laws really keep pace with new technology and its uses? History shows that the law is always playing catch-up. It\u2019s all too easy for users (and platforms) to get around the law. It\u2019s one thing to regulate who can physically walk into a casino, it\u2019s quite another to police the virtual world. And, importantly, do our governing bodies have the knowledge and ability to legislate on such a fast-evolving space? If there is one thing the US Congress Facebook hearings made clear, it\u2019s that most of the people currently in law-making positions know shockingly little about the topic.<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\nMark Zuckerberg: “Senator, we run ads.” https:\/\/t.co\/CbFO899XlU<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/bGKWks7zIk<\/a><\/p>\n