8. Platform Policing
Trying to think through social media regulations
Last week, I read Sarah Wynn-Williams’ memoir- Careless People. It’s her account of working at Facebook (Meta) for 7 years as their head of global policy. She mentions how she saw in Facebook a tool to revolutionise the way the world communicates, a force of good. She wanted to be part of it and she saw it imperative for Facebook to build relationships with governments and heads of states to expand operations and make digital connectivity a reality. This was back in 2009. She says she pitched her job to Facebook; back then they were just a social media network wanting to expand their user base and increase advertising revenue; she wanted to be their personal diplomat.
She was hired in 2011 and fired in 2017, and has now written this page turner on her experience of being enamored by the promise of Facebook to finally being disillusioned by it. It’s an interesting read, the memoir equivalent of a spy novel- you know what you’re getting yourself into, you know how it will end but you’re happy to be on the ride.
She is the highest level whistleblower to come forward from Facebook and the book relays many instances of the Facebook leadership’s carelessness, particularly the company’s lax attitude dealing with hate speech in Myanmar that contributed to the genocide of Rohingya Muslims, its aggressive ad targeting especially detrimental for teen girls, the role Facebook played in the 2016 US elections. It also goes into the details of Facebook’s strategy for entering China, the concessions they were willing to make- agreeing to hand over user data to the Chinese government, building moderation tools that would allow the Chinese government to review public posts and private messages of Chinese users, and access to messages they might receive from users outside China. In the US, any demand for user data by the government had been aggressively pushed back by the company. In the case of China, their argument for compliance was that they were acting in accordance with Chinese law. So far, Facebook has not managed to enter China.
Online platforms that have managed to reach economies of scale possess massive leverage. There are interesting questions to think about here. From a regulatory standpoint, how should governments go about regulation and privacy protection on social media? What policies should the platforms have in place to protect user data? Let’s say it’s the individual and their right to privacy that we want to protect, how would that look like in a tussle between the state and the platform? The platform uses your data to provide targeted advertisements and optimised content, trying to increase user engagement and in turn their revenue. That’s what your data is worth to them. The state would be happy to get your data too; it can use it to feed you personalised misinformation, further the sitting government’s agenda, spy on you. So either of the two having complete control over your data doesn’t bode well for you, worse would be the two colluding with each other as Facebook was attempting to with the Chinese government.
So it is important for the individual to be wary of all regulations of platforms. Strict regulation requiring tons of governmental approval tends to give the state control over your data, you’re fed state sponsored content and free speech is curbed. Too little control and you have platforms processing all your data, using it however they like, and you are fed highly optimised and personalised content. With their spread across continents and their user base in billions, platforms have come to possess a ton of leverage. The ones that have scaled massively exhibit monopolistic tendencies, making it difficult for new entrants.
What would good regulation look like in the face of this challenge? First, it requires strong antitrust litigation and competition enforcement to prevent abuse of monopoly power by platforms. Second, there needs to be moderate content moderation and regulations on user data processing. Different countries have different ways to approach this. In the US, social media platforms are protected from being held liable for user generated content and moderation of content is expected in ‘good faith’. US efforts have focused on privacy and competition enforcement, imposing a $5Bn fine on Facebook in 2019 for privacy violations. A few states in the US (California, Utah, Virginia etc.) have enacted legislation that allows residents to opt out of their personal data being used for targeted advertising. However, no single comprehensive social media regulation exists in the US.
The EU goes a step further with its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which mandates platforms to seek user consent for data processing. The EU has also introduced the Digital Services Act (DSA) that requires platforms to swiftly remove illegal content and provide users with easier ways to appeal for content removal. The regulations have forced Facebook to adopt stricter privacy measures for EU residents.
India enacted the IT rules of 2021 to regulate social media platforms. The provisions under this law demand social media companies to appoint local compliance officers, respond to content removal requests within 24 hours and include a clause mandating traceability for messaging services like WhatsApp. This clause would effectively break end-to-end encryption giving authorities the power to seize personal data of individuals. WhatsApp alleged this as a violation of the right to privacy and has sued the Indian government, the legal battle is underway and the rules haven’t been enforced yet.
It appears that the problem of regulating social media is one that hasn’t been solved by any country yet. Now with AI generated content populating news feeds, policymakers are facing a new regulatory challenge. The state and the platform, both shall leverage AI, where would that leave the individual?