4. Social Media Accountability: Hate, Misinformation and Falsities
By Kayla Krueger and Gaya Chandrasekaran, published June 2020
Editor's note & Preface: Misinformation, whether in regards to elections or coronavirus or something else entirely, has run rampant. Some figures have clearly set aside the truth altogether, in favor of what is politically expedient though morally dubious. This article explores social media accountability as it relates to current events in 2020.
Facebook: A Case Study in Hands-off Accountability
While Twitter has held itself accountable for its users and has been enforcing strict regulations with what politicians and others may be allowed to post, CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg has taken a complete hands off approach. His decision to let President Donald Trump post misleading information about the upcoming election and current Black Lives Matter movement, has been received positively by Republicans and Trump supporters, but runs the risk of losing users who don’t agree with this policy. Zuckerberg’s actions stem from his long standing vision of Facebook as an international social media platform promoting free speech, affirming that he believed that the company should not fact-check politicians, stating that he trusts users to “do the right thing”.
Facebook markets itself as being a safe and enjoyable platform to connect with friends and family all over the world. Zuckerberg’s recent decision to stand by and allow for Trump’s threatening posts have sparked anger within the general public, but gained support for Facebook by Trump supporters and fellow Republicans. The allowance of misinformed posting has threatened the safety of Facebook users, particularly through harmful tweets that Trump has posted affirming when ‘the looting starts, the shooting starts’ in relation to recent protests in Minneapolis. The regulations of Facebook in this instance is crucial in protecting its customer base, and although users are entitled to freedom of speech, that right should not be abused in a way which negatively affects others. Zuckerberg’s hands off stance is controversial in its nature, as Facebook is the largest social media platform in the world. Despite having over 2.23 billion users every month, the monitoring of imprudent posting is not taking place as expected.
Despite pressure that Zuckerberg and Facebook executives have been receiving to block Trump’s posts, or add labels that warn viewers about the nature of posts, Zuckerberg continues to resist and remain still. Even after hundreds of Facebook employees staged a “virtual walkout” in early June, circulated petitions, and even threatened to resign to protest Zuckerberg’s decision, he remained firm. Defending his decision, he stated that he did not believe that Trump’s post incite violence and go against Facebook’s regulations. However, it can be argued that the ultimate reason for this decision was to protect Facebook from a lawsuit, or the altering of legislation by Trump in a way that will affect Facebook’s economic prospects. A key concern involving this theory is the fact rule of law is not being enforced equally across America, regardless of who the offender is. The President holds ultimate power, and as Zuckerberg continues to justify his decisions, the reality is that many Facebook users feel threatened and unsafe. Not only does this directly go against Facebook’s policies on regulating social media as seen fit, but it also emphasises the fact that they are not holding themselves as accountable, which is the key to preventing incidents like these before they occur. It should be noted however, that Facebook did block several of Trump’s campaign ads that featured a Nazi symbol.
Zuckerberg’s decision to remain inactive and allow for such posting that projects hate and violence, contrary to his beliefs, has proved the absence of accountability. Social media companies recognizing and acting on serious issues, and thus holding themselves accountable is imperative to ensuring that these platforms are a safe place for the community to enjoy.
While Twitter has held itself accountable for its users and has been enforcing strict regulations with what politicians and others may be allowed to post, CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg has taken a complete hands off approach. His decision to let President Donald Trump post misleading information about the upcoming election and current Black Lives Matter movement, has been received positively by Republicans and Trump supporters, but runs the risk of losing users who don’t agree with this policy. Zuckerberg’s actions stem from his long standing vision of Facebook as an international social media platform promoting free speech, affirming that he believed that the company should not fact-check politicians, stating that he trusts users to “do the right thing”.
Facebook markets itself as being a safe and enjoyable platform to connect with friends and family all over the world. Zuckerberg’s recent decision to stand by and allow for Trump’s threatening posts have sparked anger within the general public, but gained support for Facebook by Trump supporters and fellow Republicans. The allowance of misinformed posting has threatened the safety of Facebook users, particularly through harmful tweets that Trump has posted affirming when ‘the looting starts, the shooting starts’ in relation to recent protests in Minneapolis. The regulations of Facebook in this instance is crucial in protecting its customer base, and although users are entitled to freedom of speech, that right should not be abused in a way which negatively affects others. Zuckerberg’s hands off stance is controversial in its nature, as Facebook is the largest social media platform in the world. Despite having over 2.23 billion users every month, the monitoring of imprudent posting is not taking place as expected.
Despite pressure that Zuckerberg and Facebook executives have been receiving to block Trump’s posts, or add labels that warn viewers about the nature of posts, Zuckerberg continues to resist and remain still. Even after hundreds of Facebook employees staged a “virtual walkout” in early June, circulated petitions, and even threatened to resign to protest Zuckerberg’s decision, he remained firm. Defending his decision, he stated that he did not believe that Trump’s post incite violence and go against Facebook’s regulations. However, it can be argued that the ultimate reason for this decision was to protect Facebook from a lawsuit, or the altering of legislation by Trump in a way that will affect Facebook’s economic prospects. A key concern involving this theory is the fact rule of law is not being enforced equally across America, regardless of who the offender is. The President holds ultimate power, and as Zuckerberg continues to justify his decisions, the reality is that many Facebook users feel threatened and unsafe. Not only does this directly go against Facebook’s policies on regulating social media as seen fit, but it also emphasises the fact that they are not holding themselves as accountable, which is the key to preventing incidents like these before they occur. It should be noted however, that Facebook did block several of Trump’s campaign ads that featured a Nazi symbol.
Zuckerberg’s decision to remain inactive and allow for such posting that projects hate and violence, contrary to his beliefs, has proved the absence of accountability. Social media companies recognizing and acting on serious issues, and thus holding themselves accountable is imperative to ensuring that these platforms are a safe place for the community to enjoy.
Trump & Headly: Case Studies in Misinformation
Technology and social media have the tendency to add an extra degree of everything from urgency to excitement, especially when it comes to current events. Most people have easy access to news through social media platforms at their fingertips. With this flowing stream of consciousness and posts, monitoring social media channels is a strong point of contention. Social media companies are offering the average person a platform to express their thoughts, beliefs, photos, videos, and other forms of multimedia. Yet, with this comes an added risk of viewer exposure, and regulating the content displayed on social media. For this reason, the regulation of social media and the accountability of each company is crucial to preserving the safety of the internet.
Many social media platforms have general regulations placed on monitoring explicit and inappropriate content, however it is not seamlessly perfect. For example, while Instagram maintains regulation of the content being shared on its site, if users see an inappropriate post they have the availability to report the post or the account. Although this allows the users to self-regulate their feed, many items can slip through the cracks of social media.
Inappropriate and explicit content is only one side of the spectrum when it comes to social media regulation. Social media also offers a platform for users to project hate, discrimination, and threatening posts. One one hand, social media is an area where individuals have the freedom of speech, yet they still need to be held responsible for the content that is being shared, regardless of the freedom of speech. One instance of this was the recent influx of social media posts for the Black Lives Matter movement. Millions of people were showing their support for the movement and the ending of systemic racism and police brutality, while others were taking advantage of the opportunity to further their own personal biases. While many posts were constructive to the movement, many users on platforms such as Instagram and Twitter were using tags to destroy the positivity of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Much of the drama centered around social media regulation is localized in American leadership, specifically the abrasive social media presence of President Donald Trump. Twitter has been Trump’s predominant mode of communication to the American people, and he is notorious for his shocking and forward posts. CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, recently made the decision to “flag” or remove one of President Trump’s tweets stating: “when the shooting starts, the looting starts” while talking about the protests surrounding the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. This phrase originated from former Chicago Chief of Police, Walter Headly in 1967. Headly was notorious for committing heinous acts of racism and police brutality during the Civil Rights movement, although he declared it was “declaring war” on “criminals”. Dorsey and other Twitter executives ruled that the tweet could be utilized as a way to emphasize, and push people to using violence during such a tumultuous time. In response, President Trump issued an executive order that disbanded the legal protections of social media posting. This was a blatant act of pettiness and the order was one of Trump’s personal biases making its way into proper legislation.
This debate over social media regulation is a matter of accountability, and because social media companies are offering a free platform for communication with the rest of the world, the regulation of content is crucial to preserving unity. Reverting back to Trump’s case, social media platforms should perpetuate freedom of justified speech, allowing only harmless, non-violent messages to be shared.
Technology and social media have the tendency to add an extra degree of everything from urgency to excitement, especially when it comes to current events. Most people have easy access to news through social media platforms at their fingertips. With this flowing stream of consciousness and posts, monitoring social media channels is a strong point of contention. Social media companies are offering the average person a platform to express their thoughts, beliefs, photos, videos, and other forms of multimedia. Yet, with this comes an added risk of viewer exposure, and regulating the content displayed on social media. For this reason, the regulation of social media and the accountability of each company is crucial to preserving the safety of the internet.
Many social media platforms have general regulations placed on monitoring explicit and inappropriate content, however it is not seamlessly perfect. For example, while Instagram maintains regulation of the content being shared on its site, if users see an inappropriate post they have the availability to report the post or the account. Although this allows the users to self-regulate their feed, many items can slip through the cracks of social media.
Inappropriate and explicit content is only one side of the spectrum when it comes to social media regulation. Social media also offers a platform for users to project hate, discrimination, and threatening posts. One one hand, social media is an area where individuals have the freedom of speech, yet they still need to be held responsible for the content that is being shared, regardless of the freedom of speech. One instance of this was the recent influx of social media posts for the Black Lives Matter movement. Millions of people were showing their support for the movement and the ending of systemic racism and police brutality, while others were taking advantage of the opportunity to further their own personal biases. While many posts were constructive to the movement, many users on platforms such as Instagram and Twitter were using tags to destroy the positivity of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Much of the drama centered around social media regulation is localized in American leadership, specifically the abrasive social media presence of President Donald Trump. Twitter has been Trump’s predominant mode of communication to the American people, and he is notorious for his shocking and forward posts. CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, recently made the decision to “flag” or remove one of President Trump’s tweets stating: “when the shooting starts, the looting starts” while talking about the protests surrounding the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. This phrase originated from former Chicago Chief of Police, Walter Headly in 1967. Headly was notorious for committing heinous acts of racism and police brutality during the Civil Rights movement, although he declared it was “declaring war” on “criminals”. Dorsey and other Twitter executives ruled that the tweet could be utilized as a way to emphasize, and push people to using violence during such a tumultuous time. In response, President Trump issued an executive order that disbanded the legal protections of social media posting. This was a blatant act of pettiness and the order was one of Trump’s personal biases making its way into proper legislation.
This debate over social media regulation is a matter of accountability, and because social media companies are offering a free platform for communication with the rest of the world, the regulation of content is crucial to preserving unity. Reverting back to Trump’s case, social media platforms should perpetuate freedom of justified speech, allowing only harmless, non-violent messages to be shared.
