Reflection Three: Social Media

Watching The Social Dilemma forced me to more deeply consider the adverse effects of social media. In a sense, social media has made the dissemination of information more democratic by essentially allowing anyone with an internet connection the ability to transmit information. At face value, this is a good thing, However, the staggering amount of misinformation — much of it crafted specifically to create social and political divisiveness — has real and frightening impacts on democracy within our society. This was apparent in the last U.S. election, with supporters of both presidential candidates declaring the other a threat to U.S. democracy, and the resulting attack on the Capitol, supposedly intending to protect democracy, actually striking blow to it with the intent to overturn a legitimate election result. Social media platforms such as Facebook were integral to the spread of false information and to the planning of the event, but little has been done to hold these platforms, or the people who run them, responsible.

In light of this, Facebook changing its name to Meta seems like an attempt to dodge accountability by erasure of the company name connected to an attempted coup. But much like an individual changing their name (looking at you, Karla Homolka aka Leanne Teale) there is no erasure of actions — or inactions — taken or the damage they’ve done.

Social networking sites also engender discrimination through targeted advertising, and a lack of oversight regarding issues like hate speech and hate group recruiting. There is another layer to the related discrimination — those who are unable to access social media or to share their accounts may be restricted from accessing such things as employment opportunities that are advertised via these platforms, or referrals on sites such as LinkedIn that could bolster their chances of being noticed.

It’s not just a matter of being at a disadvantage — people without social media, or those with private account, may be viewed by some with suspicion. It's become common for employers to creep the social media of applicants — even to demand their passwords. Those without social media, or those unwilling to disclose their accounts, can be seen as having something to hide. They may in fact consider their social media accounts personal and therefor irrelevant, or not engage with social media for reasons that can include personal safety or ethics. In this way, the expectation that people engage with social media and social networking sites can contribute to discrimination.

  
Users of social media give a huge volume if valuable information to the platforms — information which drives the algorithms that keep us clicking and purchasing — with very little enforceable expectation of privacy or of these platforms holding their users accountable to the truth. When political leaders are found to enable dissemination of damaging, discriminatory falsehoods they can be held accountable by being voted out of office. The only way individual users can hold social media platforms accountable is to take away their power by cancelling with their account. Loss of access to friends, family that have come to rely on social media to stay in touch, or to employment opportunities and career connections is a very real consequence that must be considered in taking this action. This is indicative of the immense amount of power these companies have, and the monster we have collectively created by relying so heavily on their platforms.