Ahmad Ali
A frequently asked subject in today’s academic and political discourse is whether social media platforms should be regulated to combat disinformation. Yes, they should be. The more difficult question is how to accomplish this while distinguishing between the various forms. Concerns about public regulation of social media platforms arose following the 2016 presidential elections in the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as the Brexit referendum, and have been echoed by public critics including Roger MacNamee, U.S. presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, and even comedian Sacha Baron Cohen.
Social media platforms connect users to digital content creators and often monetize interactions through revenue from advertisements. Because platforms do not generally create their own material, they argue that they are not liable for what users create and hence are exempt from the libel, defamation, and other laws and regulations that control traditional media such as newspapers and television. In other words, they are free speech platforms that take no responsibility for what their members say. The claim is valid to the extent that they produce little original stuff (this varies). It is inaccurate to say that they do not have editorial control over the content.
Traditional television and newspapers are examples of broadcast journalism, which means they both deliver the same content to a large, public audience. In comparison, social media sites are ‘narrowcasters.’ Given their ability to determine who you are, their algorithms select content based solely on what they believe you want to hear and see, making frequent, personalized editorial decisions based on users’ browsing behavior on their platforms, other websites (e.g., Facebook or Google to login), and geo-location data obtained from users’ cell phones.
One complicating element is that platforms select this content to maximize user time (i.e.’stickiness’) on their site. In the media business, there is an adage: ‘If it bleeds, it leads.’ This refers to the fact that sensationalist, violent, or other scandalous content elicits stronger emotions and thus sells more advertisements. As a result, there is an accepted tendency for social media to display emotionally charged information that relates to beliefs about politics, religion, or other contentious issues.
As a result of the information disorder on social media platforms, governments all over the world are enforcing transparency rules in the hopes of improving content control practices. In the United States, for example, a new California law would mandate a variety of disclosure and transparency obligations. In Europe, the newly passed Digital Services Act is nearly completely composed of transparency rules.
In Pakistan social media regulations are portrayed as censorship and a curb on freedom of speech by few sections of media to confuse masses. These sections include individuals who themselves financially benefit from disinformation and sensation on social media through their You Tube channels and twitter accounts. Due to this unregulated freedom in Pakistan cases of online harassment, false accusations and misinformation have risen to alarming levels. Various social and political groups have setup social media cells which are often used create trends against political opponents. But at the times of national crises these social media cells pose national security threats because of the widespread outreach. For instance, in judicial cases families of judges get trolled and bullied online to pressurize judges into their desired verdicts.
In general elections 2024, civil servants with their personal information were posted online by a political party claiming them to be involved in election rigging. Without any proper investigation an unregulated social media allowed them to be judge, jury and executioner themselves, destroying victims’ private lives. The situation led to a general realization among policy makers in Pakistan that social media regulation and mainstreaming is a dire need of time. Therefore, now when a new government is formed with a fresh mandate it is high time to bring social media reforms and stop this asset from turning into a liability. But explicit rules about what is or is not allowed on these social media platforms should be implemented only when necessary, as they can constrain its expansion and are expensive to implement.
—Ahmad Ali is a research fellow at Epis Think-tank Germany and an intern at Kashmir institute of International relations. His field of studies includes Foreign Policy and Conflict Resolution. He can be reached at [email protected]
