Post No. 33: Social Media and Big Tech

In the early days of the Internet it was widely assumed that this new Internet would allow a new kind of freedom for ordinary citizens to make their voices heard.  Another hoped for advance was that it would allow for democratic voices to more easily organize and make their collective voices heard.  A dramatic example of this is the Arab Spring in 2010 when citizens within several Arab countries, beginning in Tunisia and spreading to other Middle Eastern countries, such as Egypt, united to force democratic changes and eliminate rampant corruption in their countries.  The Internet did help achieve major reforms in some Arab countries, but these reforms were short lived and the net impact of the Arab Spring is very mixed.  Another good example of how social media was used to organize citizenry around a shared objective is the Euro-Maiden revolution in Ukraine in 2013-2014.  A post on Facebook, for citizens to meet at the Maiden statue in central Kiev to protest the pro-Russian stance of the Yanukovych administration, started a massive protest. Abut three months later these protests ended in a violent takeover of their capitol and other government buildings and the overthrow of the existing government (oops, it was an internationally recognized democratically elected government).  An interesting question to ponder is whether social media activity such as this could ever go viral in today’s era of tech giants, who have unprecedented power and influence, and government surveillance of social media.  One wonders whether any citizen activity that goes against the government could ever go viral on today’s Internet.

Currently, the Supreme Court is considering two cases regarding the behavior of tech giants such as Google, Facebook and X.  Both Texas and Florida passed laws that prohibit large tech companies from blocking or removing content based on user views, or banning political candidates.  These two Red leaning states are concerned about bias against conservative views, but the larger issue is the power of tech companies and their ability to bias the public sphere, no matter the direction of that bias.  The Supreme Court case was brought by large tech companies opposed to the laws enacted by Florida and Texas.  A major issue is the First Amendment right to free speech by tech companies.

If the government were censoring content posted by citizens on social media, this would be an obvious violation of a citizen’s free speech rights.  But large social media companies also have free speech rights and, as private companies, they would normally enjoy the same free speech privileges.  The Texas and Florida laws appear to violate these rights of the tech companies, hence the tech companies appeal to the Supreme Court.  The overriding issue is whether these tech companies should be treated as private companies with free speech rights, or are they a new breed of company that has overarching influence on the public sphere and therefore should be treated differently than a private citizen/company.  

There is some precedence in the digital era for changing the rules for tech companies.  For example, Internet Service Providers (e.g. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast), that were once regulated as common carriers subject to the strict rules of Title II of the Communications Act, had their designation changed so that they did not have the same requirements concerning rates and access. Should there be some change as to how big tech social media companies are classified.  Here are my thoughts.

Imagine a situation where you have a technology company that has overwhelming influence on the information you see every day.  This is exactly the effect that the combination of companies like Meta, X, Youtube, Google, Apple, Microsoft, TikTok, etc. currently have on the public sphere.  One can argue that any citizen has the freedom to get their information by going directly to a trusted site.  One could use a search engine to find information but these search engines are all owned by tech conglomerates, and have their own built-in bias.  As a result few of us take the time or have the skills to go directly to the sites we’re interested in to get our information.  What makes the power of tech companies much greater are the AI algorithms used to present information that will get more “clicks”.  The result is that people see one-sided information that conforms to their biases.  Because big tech companies have this new kind of power over the public sphere, I suggest they should be regulated differently.  But how?

I suggest we start with two principles for Big Tech and Social Media: 

1. No News

2. No Politics. 

First: NO NEWS: Big tech and social media are not in the news business, such as New York Times, Fox News, CNN, Washington Post, , etc.  Because of their overwhelming influence on the public sphere, they  should not be presenting their version of the news in any form. This means no curating of news.  If you go to the start page for Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Apple News, etc. you will be presented with headlines handpicked by these companies.  One might notice a clear bias simply by perusing the headlines and the copy under the headline.  On the other hand, Social Media companies have the right to allow who they want on their sites and to censor content  of their users as long as it does not directly involve censoring News or Political figures (See Principle Two).  If a private user posts a news feed or political information that is up to the user.  

Companies are currently shielded under the “Good Samaritan Law”, Section 230 of the Communications Act, from liability resulting from user’s posts.  This should continue with one exception.  Users would have the right to sue if they can show their posts were blocked purely for political reasons and hence their First Amendment rights were violated.  For this to happen, the Supreme Court would have to agree that Big Tech companies are a new hybrid category when it comes to the first amendment.  The idea that private companies do not have absolute first amendment rights has been affirmed in past Supreme Court reviews regarding the use of profanity on the airwaves.  I suspect they may have a similar ruling in the current case before them.

There is sufficient diversity and competition among Social Media companies.  One can go to X, Meta, Truth Social, Youtube, etc. and use these sites for whatever floats one’s boat.  So with this one exception, these companies have the right to manage their companies and the content of their sites as they see fit.

Second: NO POLITICS: Because of their overriding potential influence on the public sphere and hence also the political sphere, Big Tech should not be involved in politics as follows.  Big tech and social media should not censor any politician or political figure running for office.  They should devise a method that posts from official politicians are not skewed by the social media platform in any way. There is precedence for this.  Currently the FCC requires radio and TV broadcasters to treat all candidates running for political office equally and are not permitted to censor their content.  The FCC also imposes restraints on these companies related to obscenity and indecency.

As part of this principle, companies should devise methods to identify and block bots, and posts from foreign sources specially designed to influence U.S. elections.

There is the additional issue of how these Tech companies should identify and handle content on their sites that is not legal, such as child porn, human trafficking, terroristic threats, etc.  Using AI, companies can more easily identify content that may be illegal.  Once discovered, this content should be temporarily blocked.  I suggest that the government, not the social media company, should have the final say as to whether the content discovered by the tech companies is illegal and should be removed permanently.

Here is my opinion as to how all this might happen:  First, the Supreme Court should make a decision as to the hybrid nature of Big Tech and the compromise that the first amendment rights of these companies can be regulated.  Second, this would leave an open door for Congress to pass legislation, or perhaps for the FCC to develop appropriate regulations assuming their scope was extended to Social Media companies. 

Let’s all stay tuned to how the Supreme Court rules on this issue.  It will have a far ranging impact on our society.

I haven’t posted for over a month.  Perhaps this is because I have too many ideas and not enough focus.  I promise to put out in cyberspace some more interesting posts.  Of course “interesting” is in the eye of the beholder.  Until then let’s enjoy whatever thoughts pop up in our interesting minds, and not forget to pay attention to the little things now and then.