I'd say that the best thing that the gov't could do is force Facebook (the social media network) to divest itself of Instagram, WhatsApp, and most importantly Messenger.
At this point in time, the social media network (the part with the feeds) is largely immune from competition from another social media network not because their social media network is so valuable, but either because they acquired the competition (Instagram) or they control complementary products that DO produce a great deal of value (Messenger, WhatsApp), but keep people locked into the social media platform. And the incentives of the compliments are to lift the social media network, as that's where the advertising revenue comes from. If the messaging components were split from the social media network, there would be much less incentive to engage with the toxic part of the platform, which would allow competitors to do to Facebook what it did to MySpace. Snapchat and Ticktok are "kind of" attacking that angle, but are more akin to a different kind of social media network (one that's primarily video-driven) then trying to better serve the other (read: OLD) constituencies that Facebook's captured.
And if you're an entrepreneur seeking to build a better Facebook, the FIRST thing that you need to build after you get your basic interface up and running is a mechanism for people to move their content from Facebook (that users can download themselves) to your network with a minimum loss of fidelity. Because while social connections are a strong force that Facebook uses to engender lock-in, a person's chat histories, posts, and contact lists also lock users into a platform. Finally, if you are doing this, get in touch via GitHub, because I've been writing a TON of open-source commercial-friendly code[1] to extract and process Facebook data on behalf of some of my research clients who are ALSO looking into behavior on Facebook and a variety of social networks.
Great article. On your point about adding more human moderators, you should watch this harrowing interview with a former Facebook moderator to see how inadequate and abusive that side of the business can be for those involved. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cHGbWn6iwHw
As of now, I'm a firm no on regulating social media for health reasons, as mental health is an issue with a lot of ambiguity and nebulousness. I'm not sure that governments should simply use the guise of public health as a reason to dictate to social media firms. There is also the issue of personal agency when it comes to an individual's use of social media, which cannot be ignored. There are people who through their own free will and choice, make irresponsible choices regarding how they use social media. And yet there are others who make better elective decisions in how they incorporate social media in their personal lives. I'm wary of the Feds butting in simply because of the poor choices of some. I can see national security being a justifiable reason for regulation, however, if carefully done. I tend to lean towards punishing the wrongdoer who uses a social media platform like Facebook for nefarious reasons, but am wary of issuing broad based rules because of a few wrongdoers that ought to be punished for their own deeds. Nevertheless, I see national security as a more justifiable reason for the Feds to intervene. The bar must be set very high, because the simple fact is that once a government regulation is enacted, it becomes near impossible to claw back or repeal it.
The problem right now is that we have illiberal populists in both parties in Congress(Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Elizabeth Warren, MTG, Cawthorn, Omar, etc.). And these grievance fueled populists would like nothing more than to exercise inordinate control over private platforms, for petty partisan reasons. Maybe if this was the 1990s or 2000s, I would feel more comfortable with Congress passing reasonable regulations that do not unduly interfere with social media firms. Given the political environment we are in, I would suggest proceeding slowly on this and to make sure any regulatory proposal is made by rational, level headed voices. I just don't trust left or right wing populists to take part in crafting any regulatory statutes. I am also concerned that many non-populist members of Congress are timid, and tend to kowtow to the populists because they fear the Sanders and MAGA bases in both parties. The worst case scenario is Trump getting elected in 2024(Heaven forbid!) and using any potential populist influenced social media regulation to his pleasure.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Facebook agrees to such regulations. Many big corporations end up supporting increased regulations as a means of preserving their market share, by staving off the competition, especially from would be nascent competitors. The costs associated with regulatory compliance gives bigger, established entities in the marketplace a leg up, while hurting smaller, newer firms competing in the same marketplace.
I do think that the DOJ's antitrust division dropped the ball in not carefully scrutinizing the acquisitions made my major social media firms. Examples include Whatsapp in 2014, Beluga in 2011(used to create Messenger as a stand alone app), and Instagram. If the government must step in, I would prefer a forced divestiture of at least some of Facebook's acquisitions like what Chris mentioned here. That kind of government action would create accountability and competition, while avoiding unintended consequences caused by unduly increased regulations on the private sector.
Good column David, and I always enjoy reading your takes on the issues. We agree about 90-95 percent of the time. This is one of the few instances where I happen to take a different position, which is whether regulating Facebook(for now, as things can change)is prudent. But as always, I appreciate, understand, and respect your views on this issue.
I can’t agree at all with “reining in,” (a nicer word for “regulate,” which is a nicer word for “control/dictate”) or any other manipulation of what socials do. Never.
What needs to happen is folks need to find existing legal means to hold them accountable, for instance if these documents prove they knew what was happening. They could be held liable within the confines of section 230. Lawsuits have a remarkable way of reining in companies, as does bad PR. And FB is getting hit hard right now by both sides of the political spectrum. But this goes beyond politics.
When cigarette companies advertised I supported their right to. But when it was discovered they were targeting minors, with unseemly intentions (exposed by whistleblowers and lawsuit discovery), I supported reining that in. Because they had broken existing law.
Socials need the same natural evolution of their industry. But it’s also synonymous with personal liberty of expression. While it infuriates me that FB’s algorithm keeps tagging me for bullying or harmful content when I’m not going that, I am more infuriated by the idea that government will become its own algorithm to regulate what I saw and how I say it.
I'd say that the best thing that the gov't could do is force Facebook (the social media network) to divest itself of Instagram, WhatsApp, and most importantly Messenger.
At this point in time, the social media network (the part with the feeds) is largely immune from competition from another social media network not because their social media network is so valuable, but either because they acquired the competition (Instagram) or they control complementary products that DO produce a great deal of value (Messenger, WhatsApp), but keep people locked into the social media platform. And the incentives of the compliments are to lift the social media network, as that's where the advertising revenue comes from. If the messaging components were split from the social media network, there would be much less incentive to engage with the toxic part of the platform, which would allow competitors to do to Facebook what it did to MySpace. Snapchat and Ticktok are "kind of" attacking that angle, but are more akin to a different kind of social media network (one that's primarily video-driven) then trying to better serve the other (read: OLD) constituencies that Facebook's captured.
And if you're an entrepreneur seeking to build a better Facebook, the FIRST thing that you need to build after you get your basic interface up and running is a mechanism for people to move their content from Facebook (that users can download themselves) to your network with a minimum loss of fidelity. Because while social connections are a strong force that Facebook uses to engender lock-in, a person's chat histories, posts, and contact lists also lock users into a platform. Finally, if you are doing this, get in touch via GitHub, because I've been writing a TON of open-source commercial-friendly code[1] to extract and process Facebook data on behalf of some of my research clients who are ALSO looking into behavior on Facebook and a variety of social networks.
[1] https://github.com/audacious-software/Passive-Data-Kit-External-Data/blob/master/importers/facebook.py
Great article. On your point about adding more human moderators, you should watch this harrowing interview with a former Facebook moderator to see how inadequate and abusive that side of the business can be for those involved. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cHGbWn6iwHw
As of now, I'm a firm no on regulating social media for health reasons, as mental health is an issue with a lot of ambiguity and nebulousness. I'm not sure that governments should simply use the guise of public health as a reason to dictate to social media firms. There is also the issue of personal agency when it comes to an individual's use of social media, which cannot be ignored. There are people who through their own free will and choice, make irresponsible choices regarding how they use social media. And yet there are others who make better elective decisions in how they incorporate social media in their personal lives. I'm wary of the Feds butting in simply because of the poor choices of some. I can see national security being a justifiable reason for regulation, however, if carefully done. I tend to lean towards punishing the wrongdoer who uses a social media platform like Facebook for nefarious reasons, but am wary of issuing broad based rules because of a few wrongdoers that ought to be punished for their own deeds. Nevertheless, I see national security as a more justifiable reason for the Feds to intervene. The bar must be set very high, because the simple fact is that once a government regulation is enacted, it becomes near impossible to claw back or repeal it.
The problem right now is that we have illiberal populists in both parties in Congress(Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Elizabeth Warren, MTG, Cawthorn, Omar, etc.). And these grievance fueled populists would like nothing more than to exercise inordinate control over private platforms, for petty partisan reasons. Maybe if this was the 1990s or 2000s, I would feel more comfortable with Congress passing reasonable regulations that do not unduly interfere with social media firms. Given the political environment we are in, I would suggest proceeding slowly on this and to make sure any regulatory proposal is made by rational, level headed voices. I just don't trust left or right wing populists to take part in crafting any regulatory statutes. I am also concerned that many non-populist members of Congress are timid, and tend to kowtow to the populists because they fear the Sanders and MAGA bases in both parties. The worst case scenario is Trump getting elected in 2024(Heaven forbid!) and using any potential populist influenced social media regulation to his pleasure.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Facebook agrees to such regulations. Many big corporations end up supporting increased regulations as a means of preserving their market share, by staving off the competition, especially from would be nascent competitors. The costs associated with regulatory compliance gives bigger, established entities in the marketplace a leg up, while hurting smaller, newer firms competing in the same marketplace.
I do think that the DOJ's antitrust division dropped the ball in not carefully scrutinizing the acquisitions made my major social media firms. Examples include Whatsapp in 2014, Beluga in 2011(used to create Messenger as a stand alone app), and Instagram. If the government must step in, I would prefer a forced divestiture of at least some of Facebook's acquisitions like what Chris mentioned here. That kind of government action would create accountability and competition, while avoiding unintended consequences caused by unduly increased regulations on the private sector.
Good column David, and I always enjoy reading your takes on the issues. We agree about 90-95 percent of the time. This is one of the few instances where I happen to take a different position, which is whether regulating Facebook(for now, as things can change)is prudent. But as always, I appreciate, understand, and respect your views on this issue.
I can’t agree at all with “reining in,” (a nicer word for “regulate,” which is a nicer word for “control/dictate”) or any other manipulation of what socials do. Never.
What needs to happen is folks need to find existing legal means to hold them accountable, for instance if these documents prove they knew what was happening. They could be held liable within the confines of section 230. Lawsuits have a remarkable way of reining in companies, as does bad PR. And FB is getting hit hard right now by both sides of the political spectrum. But this goes beyond politics.
When cigarette companies advertised I supported their right to. But when it was discovered they were targeting minors, with unseemly intentions (exposed by whistleblowers and lawsuit discovery), I supported reining that in. Because they had broken existing law.
Socials need the same natural evolution of their industry. But it’s also synonymous with personal liberty of expression. While it infuriates me that FB’s algorithm keeps tagging me for bullying or harmful content when I’m not going that, I am more infuriated by the idea that government will become its own algorithm to regulate what I saw and how I say it.
That’s a bigger mess, sold under a nicer banner.