It has become quite evident over the past decade or so that so-called social media (which consists of websites like Facebook, Twitter and so on) has way too much unruly power over society, and way too little in way of responsibility and accountability. These social media sites have been explicitly and deliberately designed to be as addicting as possible, especially to young people, and have become great influencer in terms of opinions and social movements. Study after study has come out warning of the negative side-effects that social media has on people, especially young people, as it's detrimental to the healthy development of normal real-life social skills and social interaction between people.
At the same time, these technologies have advanced so rapidly that law is dragging behind, and not catching up. As social media websites have become a more and more ubiquitous form of communication between people, the need for some sort of Bill of Rights for people on social media has become increasingly urgent, because currently social media websites, which are owned by private corporations, are almost completely free to limit people's ability to communicate with each other, restrict who their potential audience is, and surreptitiously censor what they are saying or restrict who sees it. The type of censorship that governments aren't generally allowed to engage in (due to constitutional and/or universal basic human rights), these social media websites are currently free to engage in, with complete impunity and without repercussions, even though in many cases these social media websites have a greater impact on society than government censorship would have.
Lately some people have pointed out yet another aspect of this, yet another thing where social media has way too much influence in society: Being banned from a social media website is often used, especially by traditional media, in a similar manner as a criminal conviction or accusation.
Whenever a public person, or a celebrity, or a politician, or whoever, has committed a serious crime, if news articles are written as a hit piece against that person, or sometimes even more neutral articles if the crime seems relevant to the discussion at hand, will always remember to mention said crime. The crime (sometimes even just the accusation of crime) will be held as a badge of dishonor, forever attached to that person, and always mentioned when attacking said person in the mainstream media.
Nowadays the same is being more and more often used with social media bans. Whenever a public "undesirable" person has been banned from one or more of those social media websites, more and more news organizations (and of course Wikipedia) will remember to mention that fact, as if it were some kind of proof of a crime.
Essentially, for all intents and purposes, the media is bestowing these social media private corporations the same kind of credibility and legitimacy as the official governmental judiciary system: If such a private corporation judges and bans a person, the media considers that proof enough that the person has committed some kind of crime (usually a "hate crime") or other kind of reproachable taboo act. No actual official proof is required. Just the ban itself is enough. Even though these social media websites are nowhere even near the same standards of legitimacy as the government's judiciary system.
Giving these private corporations so much power to influence society seriously needs to stop.
At the same time, these technologies have advanced so rapidly that law is dragging behind, and not catching up. As social media websites have become a more and more ubiquitous form of communication between people, the need for some sort of Bill of Rights for people on social media has become increasingly urgent, because currently social media websites, which are owned by private corporations, are almost completely free to limit people's ability to communicate with each other, restrict who their potential audience is, and surreptitiously censor what they are saying or restrict who sees it. The type of censorship that governments aren't generally allowed to engage in (due to constitutional and/or universal basic human rights), these social media websites are currently free to engage in, with complete impunity and without repercussions, even though in many cases these social media websites have a greater impact on society than government censorship would have.
Lately some people have pointed out yet another aspect of this, yet another thing where social media has way too much influence in society: Being banned from a social media website is often used, especially by traditional media, in a similar manner as a criminal conviction or accusation.
Whenever a public person, or a celebrity, or a politician, or whoever, has committed a serious crime, if news articles are written as a hit piece against that person, or sometimes even more neutral articles if the crime seems relevant to the discussion at hand, will always remember to mention said crime. The crime (sometimes even just the accusation of crime) will be held as a badge of dishonor, forever attached to that person, and always mentioned when attacking said person in the mainstream media.
Nowadays the same is being more and more often used with social media bans. Whenever a public "undesirable" person has been banned from one or more of those social media websites, more and more news organizations (and of course Wikipedia) will remember to mention that fact, as if it were some kind of proof of a crime.
Essentially, for all intents and purposes, the media is bestowing these social media private corporations the same kind of credibility and legitimacy as the official governmental judiciary system: If such a private corporation judges and bans a person, the media considers that proof enough that the person has committed some kind of crime (usually a "hate crime") or other kind of reproachable taboo act. No actual official proof is required. Just the ban itself is enough. Even though these social media websites are nowhere even near the same standards of legitimacy as the government's judiciary system.
Giving these private corporations so much power to influence society seriously needs to stop.
Comments
Post a Comment