The question is there an ethical use of media? A lot of traditional media has followed the ideas of social media. There are a lot of pushing of agendas and viewpoints instead of unbiased news. Here is an interesting take, (takes a couple of minutes to get into it) about how people are not generally left or right, but a combination, despite what some people want us to believe. And how media companies push people in one direction or another.
All of this has led to more click-baity types of headlines, and a lean in political pandering. https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/cable-news-shows-and-networks-ranked-for-bias-and-accuracy/ar-AA1fSQ1t?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=d6d7e59af305475dfb0f290e8551c286&ei=16#image=1
The concept of social media keeping you hearing about the same things you think or believe if often called an echo chamber. Basically, social media companies look to keep you interested. The idea is if you’ve liked/loved/thumbed up and/or commented on something, then you are engaging with that content. They want to show you content that you like to interact with.
However, social media companies are bad at telling intent of a comment. Whether they do this intentionally or not, is a whole other question, which we don’t have an answer for right now. This mean interacting with something you dislike, is treated the same as interacting with something you like. The more interactions you have with a user, or type of content, the more you will see it. Additionally, the more people interact with something, the more likely it will be shown to you, either because you follow/like/etc them, or as a suggested post for you to see.
In some cases, companies and/or people will use this “hate” to fuel their popularity. Knowing that even if you have bad things to say, they are using it as a publicity boosting tool for them. And if people respond to others, then they don’t have to do anything to get those views.
In a political realm, this is, in my belief as some literature is now showing, causing society to split. This is causing a rise in extremism.
I often try reading things from different sources, much like was listed above. I figure where is the similarities? With that can you find the difference between fact and fiction vs those who focus on only parts of the overall information. Not only that, how do we check on facts. i.e. can we find other sources instead of something that is a great soundbite/meme/quote.
Our “Perfect” Life
People only show what they want to show you. This is a process of “Keeping up with the Jones”. People show their new cars, vacations online, etc. They don’t show boring, important things, such as having an emergency fund, paying off a credit card, etc – yet those are often all important financial milestones.
I was recently talking to someone about how social media is more like a “highlight reel”, than a view into their “real life”. We talked about how highlight reels can even make Baseball look exciting. In reality, there are lots of (long) pauses in the game, and watching it (especially in person) is completely different than watching a 1 minute highlight reel.
This can lead to everything feelings of inadequacy, depression, feelings of “not being enough” be it from their job, title, partner, car, etc.
If you are looking at a broader spectrum of things, here are some issues with social media specifically:
- Privacy concerns: Social media platforms have access to a vast amount of personal data, and there are concerns about how this data is being stored, collected, and used. This was one of the first things we discussed. And data ownership and what they do with it is fairly open in their terms and conditions, and they still don’t always adhere to those.
- Cyberbullying: Social media has made it easier for individuals to share information and interact with one another. However, it has also led to an increase in cyberbullying, which can have serious consequences. Beyond even typical schoolyard harassment, these issues can be amplified as people “pile on” and have led from everything from stress and suicide.
- Data security: Social media platforms are vulnerable to hacking and data breaches, which can lead to the exposure of sensitive information.
Because, once we put something out there, it can’t be taken back, this can cause people to lose jobs, friends, and more – even if it was something done a decade or more ago. We even have a situation where we might not post something, but someone else post something about us, and potentially out of context.
Accuracy Online
Another serious issue is those who intentionally work to inflame those online by intentionally posting inaccurate information. We see this especially with decisive positions on everything from social justice to the environment. From criminal activities to war footage.
Sometimes it to prove a point, sometimes its to make you look smarter. And there’s always the question is it misinformation or disinformation?
Here is an example of how you can track and try to determine if a disinformation campaign is local or foreign in nature:
Sometimes it is designed to help a current position that deals with the disinformer.
Sometimes you have issues sides trying to justify there side:
Sometimes it is designed to negatively effect others. There is a case in the 20teens where it was found that competing protests, that were across the street, were set up on Facebook, but the same group. This was simply to stir up civil unrest.
Think about what you think of our society. Do you feel safe? Do you feel you have rights? Are you afraid of violence against you and your property?
How to reign this in?
Legislation
Of course, in some cases, at least some people, will say the government is taking away the voice of the people, and the freedom to express yourself.
Canada’s response as to what the law is and is for: https://thedeepdive.ca/trudeau-wants-to-regulate-podcasts-via-crtc/#:~:text=The%20CRTC%E2%80%99s%20plan%20includes%20two%20key%20components%3A%201,services%20operating%20in%20Canada%20have%20been%20established.%20
So should the government through their various resources (in the US it would most likely be the FCC) regulate, and if so, to what extent? We’ve already seen situations where laws have been passed to limit the use of TikTok, but that’s for potential ties to China, and not moral/legal/or ethical considerations.
Social Media Lawsuits
Alternatively, lawsuits is another way to regulate social media companies, but harder for those actors, especially if they are anonymous or from another country.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/24/tech/states-sue-instagram-parent-meta/index.html
While this particular lawsuit focuses on Meta (Facebook, Instagram, What’s App, etc), but similar lawsuits could be brought to other companies such as YouTube, TikTok, and more.
Here becomes a question. If it is addictive, and on purpose, should it be regulated? We regulate other forms of additive behaviors (gambling, smoking, drinking alcohol, drugs, etc).
Internal Controls
While company self regulation is important, it doesn’t always work, go far enough, or be in the best interest of their stock price.
https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/our-approach-to-responsible-ai-innovation/ This is Google’s specific document. And while I appreciate the start, the question is going to be is it enough? With modern 3D imaging I can create videos in Blender which aren’t real, and don’t meet this requirement. And if I have a 3D dino, you will all know it’s fake, but what if I create a bombed out village? Or a protester being run over by a car?
How do we stop the misinformation and disinformation? Fact checkers are often biased and take their own perspective, to the point is there any reality to what we read and see?
Is (Social) Media Not Ethical was originally found on Access 2 Learn
