Anteri Pastila

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

The best thing about social media is that it gives everyone a way to voice out their opinions and thoughts. The worst thing about social media is that it gives everyone a way to voice out their opinions and thoughts.

I have often quoted the observation by philosopher David Hume: “[A]s FORCE [sic] is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion.” That is to say that especially in today’s society, the population is controlled by controlling their opinion, and, when it comes to social media, it is easy to see that social media is just one more corner of society that can be controlled. I must note that there are many ways social media can be controlled, ranging from taxation of the tech giants to controlling the material allowed on these platforms. I will focus on the latter.

Jeff Jarvis draws a parallel between aims to control harmful speech today and aims to control porn in the past, claiming that “[b]oth are wars over speech.” Jarvis’ article raises a central issue: how to define harmful speech? And who is to define it? Personally, I do not think harmful speech can be clearly defined; there are simply too many factors at play in each (potential) case. Jarvis posits yet another question: “[w]ho is being protected?” I have observed that argumentation in support of legislation that would affect speech is often accompanied by concern for different groups of people. This has been the case with political correctness, where the primary concern used to be the violation of Christian morals within the general population, and nowadays it is mostly about the position of ethnic and racial minorities. There are many sentiments, including one in Jarvis’ article, which describe these concerns as elitist. The idea is that a group cannot fend for itself, and that they need “me” to fight for them. In another words, that group is weak, and “I” am strong. Furthermore, this line of thinking aims to preserve the power dynamic between these entities. As benevolent as these concerns may be, they do not necessarily seek to equalize the society. The similarities between political correctness and calls to control harmful speech online are uncanny.

One aspect of the call for censorship is the underlying assumption that deplatforming actually removes the problem. It does not. The users of the banned medium or website can simply start using another website. “Out of sight, out of mind” goes the proverb. Perhaps so, but the (perceived) problem still remains. Let me quote Stephen Fry: “I believe one of the greatest human failings is to prefer to be right than to be effective.” Fry said these words in a debate on political correctness, but they fit in this context as well. It is fine for policies to have a goal of making things right. However, that should not be their first priority. The policies should, first and foremost, aim to be effective.  Fry adds further: “Progress is not achieved by preachers and guardians of morality, but […] by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels, and sceptics.”

In the end, most of this comes down to personal freedoms. Regarding these freedoms, my favourite stand-up comedian George Carlin once mentioned that American citizens having rights is an illusion. He used the example of Japanese-Americans in 1942 to argue that these rights can always be taken away, in which case they are not rights, but privileges. “And”, Carlin said, “if you read the news even badly, you know that every year, the list [Bill of Rights] gets shorter and shorter and shorter.” Unfortunately, it would seem that the “governors,” to employ Hume’s expression, have been prevailing for a long time.

Sources:

Carlin, George. 2008. It’s Bad For Ya; You Have No Rights. Atlantic Records. Accessed online: https://open.spotify.com/album/7ylXUHXIapLAsGfjPo3JCB (Listening requires an account.)

Jaakko Dickman

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

Is Facebook simply a platform that neutrally mediates decentralized information created by its users or is it something closer to a publishing company? This issue has been central to the debate on the need to regulate Facebook and other social networking sites.

The debate has further intensified after the reported Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election and after the live streaming of the Christchurch mosque shootings. Actor-comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is the latest to criticize Facebook and offer his thoughts on the issue.

In his award speech for the ADL International Leadership Award, Cohen strongly criticized social networking sites (SNSs) for compromising democratic ideals and promoting hate and violence. He stated that “on the internet, everything can appear equally legitimate” and that this is dismantling our understanding of shared objective facts that are fundamental to a functioning democracy. Cohen concluded his speech by declaring that “it is time to finally call these companies what they really are: largest publishers in history.”[i]

At the heart of Cohen’s speech is the idea that SNSs “should abide by basic standards and practices,”[ii] as do traditional media outlets such as newspapers and TV news. Thus, they should be considered as publishers. To this day, SNSs have evaded responsibility over their content by stating that they are simply platforms that mediate content and thus not liable for the content they host. This indemnity is solidified by the US Communications Act of 1996, which gave an almost complete autonomy for SNSs to regulate themselves (Flew & al 2019, 38).

However, one could argue that the nature of networked communication has changed so drastically that the new SNSs have outgrown the legislation. Furthermore, the growing interference and curatorial work done by the SNSs has made their ‘neutral platform’ nature questionable.

It is obvious that Facebook, among other SNSs, is not a neutral mediator of networked communication. One of the clearest examples of this came in 2016 when Facebook’s “Trending Review Guidelines” were leaked to the press. The guidelines revealed how Facebook’s news operation is perpetrated by human intervention similar to traditional media organizations.[iii] Still, we have seen that the self-regulative practices of SNSs have not been effective enough to tackle the spreading of violence, hate speech, and political interference.

 Without acknowledging the new pressures to regulate these sites in a new cultural, political, societal, and technological environment, these companies will not be held accountable for their shortcomings. So, what is holding us back from insisting that these sites are, in fact, publishers of content and from enforcing governmental regulation on them?

Nowadays, when social media companies are operating globally, nation-specific regulation might cause SNSs such as Facebook to become scattered, with different content available in different parts of the world. Flew, Martin, and Suzor state that this type of a “global Splinternet” might have a negative impact on the free flow of information that has epitomized the period after mid-1990s (Flew & al., 46). As asserted by the CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg in his speech at Georgetown University, social media has become “the Fifth Estate” that allows people all over the world to express themselves.[iv] The power to give voice to people living under brutal political regimes is a feature that we do not want to take away from SNSs.

Presently, the biggest internet companies are regulating the flow of information unelected and without accountability. According to Cohen, this constitutes ideological imperialism.[v] The more SNSs take part in “monitoring, regulating and deleting content” the more dire is the need for public accountability (Flew & al., 45). However, instead of traditional nation-specific legislature, the ability to regulate this new digital environment seems to call for active involvement of global regulative bodies. Nevertheless, the new role of SNSs and their power to dictate the flow of information requires new regulative approaches and ideas as their counterforce.

Bibliography:

Anti-Defamation League YouTube, ADL International Leadership Award Presented to Sacha Baron Cohen at Never Is Now 2019, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM&t=24s> (Accessed Dec 8^th 2019)

Flew, Terry, Martin, Fiona, & Suzor, Nicolas (2019) “Internet Regulation As Media Policy: Rethinking the Question of Digital Communication Platform Governance.” Journal of Digital Media & Policy 10, no. 1: 33, 33–50.

Thielman, Sam (2016) ”Facebook news selection is in hands of editors not algorithms, documents show.” The Guardian. <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-trending-news-leaked-documents-editor-guidelines> (Accessed Dec 8^th 2019)

Washington Post YouTube, Watch live: Facebook CEO Zuckerberg speaks at Georgetown University, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MTpd7YOnyU&t=2777s> (Accessed Dec 8^th 2019)

---

[i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM&t=20s

[ii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM&t=20s

[iii] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-trending-news-leaked-documents-editor-guidelines

[iv] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MTpd7YOnyU&t=2777s

[v] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM&t=20s

Prunelle Dauty

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

Social Media are everywhere nowadays, and whether we like it or not, we need to use them in our everyday life. They are slowly becoming indispensable, and not using them means being isolated from the rest of the world. The question is: is that something bad? Not necessarily. Social media are making our life so much easier, allowing us to communicate across the globe in real time. They are also giving a voice to people who have been oppressed for a long time, and who are finally able to speak up! But – because there is always a but – there is a flip side to those amazing possiblities that social media are offering us. That flip side is that in exchange for all of those advantages, we are giving them our personal information. They have access to our whole life through our phones, and they are using it to make money. I know, it sounds like a lame remake of George Orwell’s 1984, but wake up guys, this is the sad reality.

Social Media are everywhere nowadays, and whether we like it or not, we need to use them in our everyday life. They are slowly becoming indispensable, and not using them means being isolated from the rest of the world. The question is: is that something bad? Not necessarily. Social media are making our life so much easier, allowing us to communicate across the globe in real time. They are also giving a voice to people who have been oppressed for a long time, and who are finally able to speak up! But – because there is always a but – there is a flip side to those amazing possiblities that social media are offering us. That flip side is that in exchange for all of those advantages, we are giving them our personal information. They have access to our whole life through our phones, and they are using it to make money. I know, it sounds like a lame remake of George Orwell’s 1984, but wake up guys, this is the sad reality.

The Cambrige Analytica scandal is generally the first affair that comes to our minds when the misuse of data is mentioned. Indeed, a couple of years ago, it became known that during the U.S. 2016 presidential election campaign Cambridge Analytica, a company that worked with Donald Trump’s election team, harvested millions of Facebook profiles in order to be able to influence them and make them vote for Trump. Following the scandal, Facebook defended itself explaining that it had nothing to do with it. This brings up the question of data protection. How can we protect ourselves from those companies? It seems impossible without quitting social media. As it was demonstrated by CBC News in their very instructive video “Privacy and smartphone apps: What data your phone may be giving away” (you should definitely check it out if you haven’t watched it yet), protecting our personal data is complicated and except if we are ready to read the thousands of pages of users conditions, we are giving away all of our data without even benefiting from it.

Here is the interesting part: if we can’t stop using social media, and we can’t really stop them from using our data either, maybe we could try to benefit from it? 

Andrew Yang, a potential candidate for the presidential election and former tech executive, mentioned this idea during the Democratic presidential debate at Otterbein University in Ohio on October 15, 2019. He explained that “right now, our data is worth more than oil” and that it would be only fair if the users “get a slice” of the money that their data is making. In addition, it would be a good way to gain back power against the large-scale companies. This idea is not new, and several federal lawmakers have already tried to implement it in different states, but as of yet without success.

In my opinion, this would be a solution to all of those data protection problems. It would be a way for the users to gain back the power that they have lost during these last years, and while failing to fully protect our data, it would at least offer us compensation and perhaps also the possibility to choose the information that we share. Indeed, being paid in exchange for sharing data would imply that the users’ permission and maybe even a signed contract is required, because as soon as money is involved, regulations are made.

Sources:

• « Facebook launches app that will pay users for their data | Technology | The Guardian ». Retrieved on December 5, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/11/facebook-user-data-app-privacy-study.
• « Social Media Companies Collect So Much Data Even They Can’t Remember All The Ways They Surveil Us ». Retrieved on December 5, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/10/25/social-media-companies-collect-so-much-data-even-they-cant-remember-all-the-ways-they-surveil-us/#5bf058a57d0b.
• « The Cambridge Analytica scandal changed the world – but it didn’t change Facebook | Technology | The Guardian ». Retrieved on December 5, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/17/the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-changed-the-world-but-it-didnt-change-facebook.
• « Andrew Yang: Facebook, Amazon, Google should pay for users’ data ». Retrieved on December 5, 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/17/andrew-yang-facebook-amazon-google-should-pay-for-users-data.html.

Xueying Ma

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.

—Rousseau

Humans have fought for freedom for centuries, and they have made much progress, especially nowadays when social media is playing a more and more important role in daily life.

There is no doubt that social media has given us a platform to express ourselves more freely. Under the UGC (user-generated content) model of social media, everyone has the chance to voice their opinions and debate. It has been a powerful tool for many to fight for their rights, and it provides more opportunities for people to organize activist movements. People are relying more and more on social media platforms to express themselves and participate in social or political debates. Many campaigns have been organized through social media across the world, such as #Metoo, #NeverAgain, #BlackLivesMatter, and many other online activist movements. In social media, more people are encouraged to fight for their rights and speak up to help others. This is a huge advantage of social media.

But how much freedom do we have on social media? In fact, freedom is also limited by many things.

For one thing, as frequent users of social media, we must obey the ethical principles of online communities. Anonymity on social media brings about more and more ethical challenges. Limitless freedom will do harm to the environment of the internet.

Due to the UGC feature of social media, cyberbullying has always been a severe issue and it has led to a lot of tragedies. People are able to bully others online because of the lack of scrutiny and regulation. They may say rude things to innocent people just for fun or to vent their dissatisfaction in life, utilizing the anonymity of social media. Online bullying disturbs the victims’ daily life and can do mental harm. There are many forms of cyberbullying, one of the worst I know of is to publish or post other people’s private information online or threaten to do so. Sounds scary but it is not uncommon. It is a huge ethical challenge that this kind of freedom makes everyone on social media concerned about their privacy and safety.

In addition to cyber-bullying, people post other immoral things online and refer to their freedom of speech. The “freedom of speech” argument can be a dangerous weapon if it is used to disseminate racial or religious hatred or to incite discrimination. This can cause a lot of harm to the safety of the internet. Although we support the right to free speech, it doesn’t mean you are not responsible for what you say or post online. Daryl Morey, the general manager of the NBA basketball team Houston Rockets, recently tweeted about the protests in Hong Kong. The tweet caused a large-scale backlash and lead to much antipathy towards the NBA in China.

On the other hand, media companies and governments also have control over social media. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, the majority of Americans say that they think social media companies have too much control over the news on their sites. Almost all Americans – about nine in ten – recognize that social media companies have some control over the news. Many social media users are concerned about the “filter bubble” – that they will be trapped in echo chambers and able to see only what the media companies want them to see. This leads to many people distrusting social media and feeling limited online.

Since June 2019, under a State Department policy, visa applicants to the United States are required to submit any information about social media accounts they have used in the past five years. Aside from social media platforms based in the U.S. – such as Facebook, Flicker, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, and YouTube – applicants are also asked about their activity on international platforms, such as China’s Douban, QQ, and Sina Weibo. Many people feel pressured under this policy because they think their privacy will be violated. The American Civil Liberties Union has voiced opposition, saying that “there is also no evidence that such social media monitoring is effective or fair, especially in the absence of criteria to guide the use of social media information in the visa adjudication process.” Although it is said that this policy is about the country’s safety and anti-terrorism, more and more people feel there is less freedom and democracy even on social media.

All in all, even on social media there are not only ethical codes but also companies or governments with control over the users. Everyone should be aware of the fact that they can never gain absolute freedom on social media, and they should stay alert and critical to all the information online.

Sources:

1. Americans Are Wary of the Role Social Media Sites Play in Delivering the News(https://www.journalism.org/2019/10/02/americans-are-wary-of-the-role-social-media-sites-play-in-delivering-the-news/)
2. US Now Requiring Social Media Details From Most Visa Applicants (https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-now-requiring-social-media-details-most-visa-applicants)

Héloïse Cao

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

You probably know that terrible feeling you get after seeing an ad on your phone concerning the holiday destination you talked about with your colleague during your coffee break. In these situations, we feel tracked by our phones. The most frustrating and frightening thing about this is that we don’t really know how and why it happens. Even if you try to limit the cookies and trackers when using applications and surfing on the web, you feel like this is something beyond your control.

Then again, you might think that it is not so important because you have nothing to hide. But what if your social media data could be exploited in an effort to influence your voting decisions? This is what Facebook and Cambridge Analytica were accused of doing during the American presidential election of 2016. The scandal also demonstrated that users’ data can be collected even if they don’t directly take part in an activity that can be exploited. If your Facebook friends answer a survey, that may lead to your data being collected as well.

If using the incognito mode in the browser is not sufficient, how would it be possible to make social media more responsible towards users? To answer this question, let’s first have a look at how social media work. Social media are platforms on which people can communicate, but they are also what economists call double-sided markets. That is to say, they connect two different customers: the users and the companies that want their ads to be seen. Consequently, the more users and companies, the more efficient the media is. This is the so-called network effect. A social media platform is useful and efficient only if a lot of people use it. And here is the reason why social media appears to be free for users. As the platform leads the double-sided market, it has the power to determine the price for customers. Social media chose to make the services free for us, the users, to attract us but also because we are the product from which social media can extract data and sell it.

The problem with the exploitation of our data remains, but trying to understand the complex economic model teaches us a lot. Several suggestions have been made to reshape the social media model towards a more ethical one. One option would be to stop making the platform free for users. It wouldn’t be easy for us to start paying to use social media, but we are used to paying for our newspaper, so why not others services? Social media could offer several options to users: one could be free from advertisements, another could have more features, and so on. Others have suggested that users could have a “data account” and choose which information to share with platforms in exchange for money. Yet another possible way to make social media more ethical would be to rely on public authorities and to put pressure on social media companies through legislation. Why not draw inspiration from the European General Data Protection Regulation? Among others things, it bolsters the requirement for explicit and informed consent before data is processed, and ensures that it can be withdrawn at any time. Users are thus more aware of what they share on social media.

So, would you be willing to pay to use social media? Do you trust governments to regulate them?