Amid mounting evidence on the falsehood and hatred spread by many of their users, social media platforms are under immense pressure to act. Last week, most digital platforms blocked American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who has created an online media empire by peddling outright lies that inflame racial animosity and religious bigotry. Apple removed all his podcasts, Facebook removed his pages and YouTube ended his account. However, InfoWars, Mr. Jones’s flagship digital platform, remains online and can also be accessed through apps.
While the sweeping action has been applauded by many, it has hardly resolved the underlying questions related to the governance of digital platforms. Twitter has refused to block Mr. Jones’s account. While other digital platforms have rescinded on their long-held view that they would not want to regulate content, Twitter has stood its ground. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey reiterated that content posted on the platform could be contested or verified by professional journalists.
Twitter itself has been under attack by American conservatives who accuse it of censorship. President Donald Trump, an avid Twitter user, decried the platform last month for alleged censorship of Republican leaders. While Mr. Dorsey denied censorship, he said there are certain limits that kick in to prevent bad behaviour. “These signals evolve minute by minute... These signals look at behaviours of bad faith actors who intend to divide, manipulate...,” he said in a TV interview.
Who is authorised to regulate?
Whether or not an algorithm could enforce appropriate online behaviour is marginal to the fundamental question on the power that could be acceded to these technology companies. Roger McNamee, an early Facebook investor, has become a strong critic of the undue influence of social media in recent times. “The problem here is that these companies, Google, Facebook or Twitter, act like government, and enforce a set of rules... The problem is that their business interests are driven by promoting conspiracy theories... It is not because they are bad people, but simply because that is what gets maximum attention, most economic value. They are in a difficult position. They would like to have all conspiracy theorists remain on their platform, and yet they do need to respond to public pressure. The problem is that these guys should not be the ones making the decision on what speech is useful, what speech is appropriate or not,” he said on CNBC this week. “We need to have a national conversation on where those limits are and we need to make some choices about that...” he added.
There is no legal bar that prevents these companies from blocking anyone. They are private entities that are in no way legally obligated to carry or not to carry particular viewpoints. But many experts are wary of handing out the power to control all information to a handful of companies. “Are we comfortable with 30-somethings... decid[ing] on what content gets resonance...” Scott Galloway, NYU Stern professor, wondered on a TV discussion.
If the question is about regulation, who indeed is equipped to regulate them? Some commentators have pointed out the inadequately informed probing of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg by U.S. lawmakers in April. One possible way out, according to Mr. McNamee, is that all social media platforms be held up to the same standards as conventional media platforms. That sounds simple in theory, but may not be in practice.
Varghese K. George works for The Hindu and is based in Washington.