I have had multiple blogs over the years, but I have decided to resuscitate this one and try to write at least one post every week.
I am going to attempt to address one of the prompts for the timed writing that I assigned Writing 7 this past Friday. I asked whether social media companies are responsible for the truthfulness of what is posted on their platforms. Here is my attempt, which I will spend 20 minutes or less writing:
The ethical complexities of social media are nuanced, and they overlap with legal obligations. I do think social media companies have a duty to monitor the content on their platforms, and I think they need to outline clear policies regarding what is permissible and what is not. As private companies they do not have the same standard of Freedom of Speech that many governments ensure, and even the freedom of speech has limits (threat of violence, libel, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater). In spite of the difficulties of policing information on social media, social media should vet the posts on their sites due to their own business interests and public welfare of the larger community.
First of all, social media sites will find that to keep their users happy, they need to prevent certain types of abuses. All of the social media companies that I know of have methods of preventing images and videos of violence and cruelty from being broadcast on their platforms. In the same way, they should keep some standard of truthfulness and accuracy for their users to trust the platform. If their site becomes associated with conspiracy theories and trolls, they will lose users and thus lose revenue.
The benefit to the public is an even stronger argument for the sites to maintain a standard of accuracy on the posts on their site. As social media have become more ubiquitous, more and more people have started using them as their main source of news and information. Social media companies must take that responsibility seriously and do their best to support an educated, informed public. While opinions should be allowed to be shared freely, the sites should have a way for users to flag posts that contain demonstrable falsehoods. The greater the damage that will result from the falsehood, the greater the importance of a response of the social media company. Twitter's approach to put a warning tag on posts that glorify violence or endanger public health are a great example. They recognize that removing the tweets may amplify those falsehoods when the user reacts to being censored; however, by putting a warning, they communicate the problem with the tweet, and allow users to see the original message. Thus, Twitter is encouraging critical thinking and education instead of ignoring or removing the tweet completely.
I do not claim that vetting millions of posts is an easy task. However, with the incredible wealth and power that these companies have amassed, they also have a responsibility to the communities that use them. By benefiting those communities, they will promote their own self-interest as well.
I am going to attempt to address one of the prompts for the timed writing that I assigned Writing 7 this past Friday. I asked whether social media companies are responsible for the truthfulness of what is posted on their platforms. Here is my attempt, which I will spend 20 minutes or less writing:
The ethical complexities of social media are nuanced, and they overlap with legal obligations. I do think social media companies have a duty to monitor the content on their platforms, and I think they need to outline clear policies regarding what is permissible and what is not. As private companies they do not have the same standard of Freedom of Speech that many governments ensure, and even the freedom of speech has limits (threat of violence, libel, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater). In spite of the difficulties of policing information on social media, social media should vet the posts on their sites due to their own business interests and public welfare of the larger community.
First of all, social media sites will find that to keep their users happy, they need to prevent certain types of abuses. All of the social media companies that I know of have methods of preventing images and videos of violence and cruelty from being broadcast on their platforms. In the same way, they should keep some standard of truthfulness and accuracy for their users to trust the platform. If their site becomes associated with conspiracy theories and trolls, they will lose users and thus lose revenue.
The benefit to the public is an even stronger argument for the sites to maintain a standard of accuracy on the posts on their site. As social media have become more ubiquitous, more and more people have started using them as their main source of news and information. Social media companies must take that responsibility seriously and do their best to support an educated, informed public. While opinions should be allowed to be shared freely, the sites should have a way for users to flag posts that contain demonstrable falsehoods. The greater the damage that will result from the falsehood, the greater the importance of a response of the social media company. Twitter's approach to put a warning tag on posts that glorify violence or endanger public health are a great example. They recognize that removing the tweets may amplify those falsehoods when the user reacts to being censored; however, by putting a warning, they communicate the problem with the tweet, and allow users to see the original message. Thus, Twitter is encouraging critical thinking and education instead of ignoring or removing the tweet completely.
I do not claim that vetting millions of posts is an easy task. However, with the incredible wealth and power that these companies have amassed, they also have a responsibility to the communities that use them. By benefiting those communities, they will promote their own self-interest as well.
