When it comes to the aspect of social media regulation we entrust parts of our lives to corporations, companies, and billionaires frankly carry no incentive to consistently self-regulate in a manner that protects the people using those platforms. The government, on the other hand, carries a major incentive to protect the people of their country, it quite literally is the duty of the government to serve the public interest.
Social media companies have not effectively regulated their platforms. One prime example of this is the FaceCambridge Analytica Scandal. According to Business Insider, in 2018 Facebook admitted to mishandling the user data of 87 million people and allowing it to be improperly obtained by the political data analytics firm, Cambridge Analytica. Though this was admitted in 2018, Cambridge Analytica had harvested the information from a personality quiz in 2015, prior to the 2016 election. About 270,000 people were paid to take this quiz which, in turn, harvested that individual's data and data from their friends’ profiles. This information included where users lived and what they liked which was later used to deploy political campaigns. Wylie, a former Cambridge-Analytica employee, stated “We exploited Facebook to harvest millions of people's profiles.” This whistleblower also contests that Facebook simply asked him one time to delete all the data and never checked in again to see if it was done. When this information was revealed to the public in 2018, copies of data harvested by the firm were still available online. In Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony to Congress, he states that he knew what Cambridge Analytica was doing prior to the whistleblower exposure, but chose to keep it under wraps. He also went on to say that Facebook does not fact-check its political advertising ads and says “lies are bad” but the company will not take down false advertising. This directly shows how companies like Meta are not incentivized to regulate on their own because of their consumer, profit-driven companies. Their ad-driven business models rely on keeping users engaged, whether those ads are true or not. If false advertising is taken down, less user interaction and less business is provided to the social media company through those ads.
Because the government represents all people, regulation can create accessibility on social media platforms. Despite common belief, we do have this kind of regulation to some extent. According to Cornell Law, regulation is when agencies have narrow authority to control conduct within their respective areas after being delegated legislative power to create and apply the rules. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ensures that if a business offers products and services on its website or mobile apps, it must still ensure that people with disabilities have equal access. For example, social media platforms that feature marketplaces such as Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest are all required to have accommodations available for people with disabilities. This amazing form of inclusivity and equality comes as a direct result of government regulation of social media. In addition, the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act required programs on television shown with captioning to also include captions when re-shown on Internet, for example, on YouTube, a social media platform.
When it comes to governmental regulation, something we need to get straight is that government regulation of social media rarely equates to restricting access to social media, which is something our opponents may try to misconstrue in their favor. Governmental regulation of social media has been consistently successful in past years. The Library of Congress provides multiple examples of global governmental regulation that has succeeded. Australia passed the Online Safety Act on June 23, 2021, in order to address cyber abuse and cyberbullying against Australian adults and children. It provides the eSafety Commissioner to hold platforms accountable for not taking down content that classifies as extremely violent or terrorist material, and online abuse or harassment. According to Facebook, now Meta’s, own submission to this Act, the platform expressed its support for this bill. The company directly stated the following: “Industry, government, and the community all have a role to play in working towards online safety. Germany’s Network Enforcement Act was first passed in 2017 and recently was amended in 2021. This Act obligates major social media networks to remove clearly illegal content
Social media companies have failed in effectively regulating their platforms. On the other hand, Government regulation can create accessibility and equality on social media platforms and has proved itself successful in the past. Others may attempt to argue that social media platforms know their platforms the best, so they are better equipped than the government. However, companies themselves have agreed with the prognosis that government regulation is necessary to some extent. Britain’s Online Safety Bill, if passed, would protect children from harmful material, and prevent the spreading of illegal content. According to BBC News, Monica Birckert, the Vice President of content policy at Meta, formerly Facebook, stated that the company wants governments to establish these regulations. She, and I quote, states “businesses like ours should not be making these decisions on our own.” In a piece from the Telegraph, she directly states “We’re pleased the Online Safety Bill is moving forward.” Mark Zuckerberg himself wrote an article in the Washington Post that directly states “People around the world have called for comprehensive privacy regulation in line with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, and I agree.” This regulation sets rules on how social media platforms store and use people’s data. He goes on to state, “New privacy regulation in the United States and around the world should build on the protections GDPR provides.” If they know their platforms the best, then then we need to listen to what they are calling for: governmental regulation.