With so much of our national conversation taking place online, there’s an almost reflexive tendency to search for online causes — and online solutions — when tragedy strikes in the physical world.
I think many efforts like this legislation assume that people receiving information on social media don’t have agency. I believe that citizens who value liberty should be responsible for the information and speech they ingest. I have a right to speak and to hear, therefore I also have the right to choose when not to speak and not to hear. However it comes down to my agency and choice. People need to curate the information they take in.
Your last sentence is the main crux of the debate. I agree. At this point we should all know how the algorithm works and either know that if I “like” or share or comment on a post I will very likely get similar content in my feed in the future. So we either interact with the platform responsibly (not viewing or sharing or commenting on literally everything that comes across your feed) or we don’t interact with it at all. Its difficult to do, no doubt but its likely the only way to sustain the First Amendment protection while also guarding ourselves and society as a whole against the dangers social media can present.
I agree with the main premise of the article, against the bill being presented by Sens. Kelly and Curtis. But I think the writer misses a crucial point. Publishing, as in the days of the printed and/or broadcast televised word was/is intended for a mass audience. The First Amendment wins in the cases presented in the article are all valid when it comes to video game and movie creators, music artists, and newspaper publishers.
However, a main difference here is that the algorithms used by social media companies and online platforms, I would say primarily Meta and Youtube, are designed to hyper-focus on an individual. A newspaper or news broadcast is typically designed for a mass audience. A video game or movie or song is as well. Those mediums tend to have less of a violently radicalizing effect by readers/watchers/listeners/players because the people consuming said content aren’t usually inundated with it.
As opposed to social media, where a user easily opens an app and has content flooded on their newsfeed. One click on a post can result in barrage of similar content. So if I click on or watch a controversial post, comment on it, like it, and/or share it, then the algorithm zeroes in on that interaction and begins to flood my individual feed with such content and potentially, if not likely, more controversial or radical content. It can, and I think arguably has shown to, lead people into a more radicalized and potentially violent state. More so than the traditional means of consuming information.
It’s been proven that social media consumption, and general overuse of one’s cellphone or tablet, have very poor effects on mental health for a general and outsize portion of the population. Part of that reason is the extreme targeting of the algorithms to individualize content based on what people interact with or even just happen to come across. It has also been proven to be tied to engagement, i.e. commenting and sharing, which happens far more with things that outrage us than the things that would be considered “good news.” The effects of such algorithms being the primary function of social media propagation and profit have had detrimental effects on society, not to mention the arguably inadvertent self-propagandizing effect it has had on people in both directions of the social and political debate.
I think if there is any merit to the bill being presented, and I don’t think there currently is as far as Section 230 is concerned, targeting the inherent function of the algorithm isn’t an unworthy aim. It may be misguided in how these senators are trying to accomplish that, but the algorithms are actively working against a cohesive society. The free spread of information and healthy debate are vital to a free society, but the algorithms are clearly not fostering such vitality. We are more divided and more anxious than at almost any other time in our country’s history and we are beginning, if not already, approaching conversations and debates with shockingly opposed versions of basic reality. I would argue that allowing tech companies to continue benefitting from such algorithms and software under the guise of the First Amendment would be to allow for the continued and overall disintegration of our society. There IS a conversation to be had on regulating such technology, and one that I think avoids encroaching on the First Amendment.
I think many efforts like this legislation assume that people receiving information on social media don’t have agency. I believe that citizens who value liberty should be responsible for the information and speech they ingest. I have a right to speak and to hear, therefore I also have the right to choose when not to speak and not to hear. However it comes down to my agency and choice. People need to curate the information they take in.
Your last sentence is the main crux of the debate. I agree. At this point we should all know how the algorithm works and either know that if I “like” or share or comment on a post I will very likely get similar content in my feed in the future. So we either interact with the platform responsibly (not viewing or sharing or commenting on literally everything that comes across your feed) or we don’t interact with it at all. Its difficult to do, no doubt but its likely the only way to sustain the First Amendment protection while also guarding ourselves and society as a whole against the dangers social media can present.
I agree with the main premise of the article, against the bill being presented by Sens. Kelly and Curtis. But I think the writer misses a crucial point. Publishing, as in the days of the printed and/or broadcast televised word was/is intended for a mass audience. The First Amendment wins in the cases presented in the article are all valid when it comes to video game and movie creators, music artists, and newspaper publishers.
However, a main difference here is that the algorithms used by social media companies and online platforms, I would say primarily Meta and Youtube, are designed to hyper-focus on an individual. A newspaper or news broadcast is typically designed for a mass audience. A video game or movie or song is as well. Those mediums tend to have less of a violently radicalizing effect by readers/watchers/listeners/players because the people consuming said content aren’t usually inundated with it.
As opposed to social media, where a user easily opens an app and has content flooded on their newsfeed. One click on a post can result in barrage of similar content. So if I click on or watch a controversial post, comment on it, like it, and/or share it, then the algorithm zeroes in on that interaction and begins to flood my individual feed with such content and potentially, if not likely, more controversial or radical content. It can, and I think arguably has shown to, lead people into a more radicalized and potentially violent state. More so than the traditional means of consuming information.
It’s been proven that social media consumption, and general overuse of one’s cellphone or tablet, have very poor effects on mental health for a general and outsize portion of the population. Part of that reason is the extreme targeting of the algorithms to individualize content based on what people interact with or even just happen to come across. It has also been proven to be tied to engagement, i.e. commenting and sharing, which happens far more with things that outrage us than the things that would be considered “good news.” The effects of such algorithms being the primary function of social media propagation and profit have had detrimental effects on society, not to mention the arguably inadvertent self-propagandizing effect it has had on people in both directions of the social and political debate.
I think if there is any merit to the bill being presented, and I don’t think there currently is as far as Section 230 is concerned, targeting the inherent function of the algorithm isn’t an unworthy aim. It may be misguided in how these senators are trying to accomplish that, but the algorithms are actively working against a cohesive society. The free spread of information and healthy debate are vital to a free society, but the algorithms are clearly not fostering such vitality. We are more divided and more anxious than at almost any other time in our country’s history and we are beginning, if not already, approaching conversations and debates with shockingly opposed versions of basic reality. I would argue that allowing tech companies to continue benefitting from such algorithms and software under the guise of the First Amendment would be to allow for the continued and overall disintegration of our society. There IS a conversation to be had on regulating such technology, and one that I think avoids encroaching on the First Amendment.