Comp102

12/4/2019
Revised Research Paper

Trusting Big Media Companies With Society’s Biggest Issues

The year is 2020: you are scrolling through Facebook and after gawking over your

second cousin’s best friend’s new Australian Sheppard and you come across a video of your

favorite NBA player smoking a joint (you do not support marijuana but you do support the

Boston Celtics) so you scroll past it in horror trying to pretend you did not see it. With that in the

back of your mind, eating away at your brain trying to grasp how on Earth he is going to get

contracted to the Celtics after that has 3.5 million views, you find yourself reading an article

from some account claiming to have the “inside scoop” on Donald Trump’s most visited

websites. There is no proof, but the article seems pretty informative and your mother and aunt

have already shared the post so it must be real.

Billions of people use social media everyday all around the world. Platforms like

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat have skyrocketed in society over the last two

decades as a means of communication and entertainment to the public. In more recent years,

social media has become a form of news and information that is widely and constantly

accessible. This leads us to ask, how is this information regulated? When billions of people now

have a way of communicating whatever is on their mind at any point of time, who is there to

make sure these things are appropriate, true, and warranted? Social media platforms hold a lot of
power in regards to having access and control over everything every person reads, engages in,

and says​;​. So,​ why not make sure information being spread is true? Does this violate free speech?

These questions will all be answered as I dig into conflicts on social media and why social media

companies need to be held more accountable for these conflicts. ​Social media companies are

responsible and need to be held accountable for the conflicts that arise on their platforms.

Social media is defined as an application or website where people can interact with other

users and find people with similar interests as themselves. Social media is everywhere across the

world with internet access, 24/7. People share photos of their families, pictures from recent

vacations, their favorite recipes, what is bothering them in that moment- everything ​under the

ozone layer​ that happens in the world ​it​ ​so it ​seems ​like​. People can now use their first

amendment rights to the fullest extent and be able to express what appears to be absolutely

anything that is on their mind, no matter what it ​would ​be. Although world peace and a

conflictless society would be amazing, people being able to freely express all of their thoughts

and opinions can sometimes lead to conflict. A few of these conflicts include the spreading of

fake news and posting of offensive content. These toxic actions are so effective because of the

instantaneous delivery and the potential mass of people it could reach at any given moment. The

danger with social media in this regard is once the information is put online, it can spread like a

wildfire. Wildfires spread wider and stronger when there is a lack of moisture in the air and more

trees to feed off of. Similar to wildfires, social media issues move through platforms in a

destructive and exponentially growing path. It can start with one user, and spread to millions if
the conditions are right. It is time social media companies start taking preventive measures to

stop these problems.

Many platforms including Twitter, Instagram, and Tumblr have now implemented a

tactic in preventing users from viewing what is labelled as “sensitive content” by making viewers

press “continue viewing” under a warning that the post may contain sensitive or violent content.

Users can flag their own content as this in order to prevent these platforms from just taking it

down or users can wait for someone to report or where the platform will then choose to flag it or

just delete the post. A big media example of this was the murder of American journalist James

Foley by the Islamic State. Videos of Foley were displayed all over social media platforms,

including Twitter. Twitter took a stand against this and deleted all clips of and links to the video,

even suspending accounts that published the tragedy (Fung). This leads to a discrepancy between

free speech including distributing relevant or true news information and promoting or sharing

violence among the public. Yes​-​,​ the video was violent and disturbing, but what rights does

Twitter (and other social platforms) have to prevent the spreading of knowledge and how does

this affect free speech?

This question calls to define what social media is and how it relates to free speech. The

first amendment, “...restricts government from censoring ideas and criticisms it dislikes by

banning publications or punishing speakers. Facebook and other social media platforms are

private companies, so what they distribute is not bound, or even covered, by the First

Amendment, unless that distribution is used in a way that turns it into an extension of
government” (Caplan). In plain terms, social media platforms are considered private forums, and

since that, the platforms themselves are responsible for regulating what is said and shared on

them. In summary, whatever any user posts is allowed as long as it follows the guidelines of the

platform’s user agreements. ​User agreements are terms which someone must acknowledge and

accept in order to create an account. ​Under these terms, promoting prostitution, child

pornography, and “obscene material” are all protected and violate the terms of use (Caplan).

According to these terms, the Foley video was considered obscene content and should have been

removed​; as it was​. However, this leads ​one ​to inquire about other issues like violent content and

the spread of fake news.

There are laws about social media and internet usage in regards to free speech and what

content is allowed. ​In regards to​ Regarding​ this, “Lawmakers had concern that, without

immunity, content providers would face pressure to remove controversial material, which would

result in suppression of free speech. One of the law’s stated purposes is to promote the natural

development of the web” (Walters). Congress wants the internet to be a place where people can

inform one another and have a public place to discuss real issues. These laws, ​besides if the

except when​ content breaks ​other​ laws (child porn, threats, etc), give private platforms the

freedom to control what is put out into the world. This leaves relatively no legal limitation on

what is publicized through these platforms. This then leads to ​all​ ​most​ of the power being put on

such platforms to guard and protect their name and business, as well as the consumers’

well​-​being, from what is posted. ​As humans, we place a lot of weight on the value and power

that words can have. This creates a social pressure to be cautious, thoughtful, and fair when
sharing things on a forum that has a wide base and large impact on society. However, although

from a user standpoint the platform is public and accessible, these forums are privately owned.

Users place public information in control of private companies, which can lead to a problem

between who carries the true power of the words once they enter the platform.

Social media companies​ have the desire​ ​want​ to keep themselves an inclusive

environment. Without an inclusive environment, they lose users; posts that are seen as violent,

harmful, or generally offensive could hurt their revenue. They are a private forum, although the

information is of public access. Once a user clicks “I Agree” to user terms, they now put ​their

free speech​ control of their words​ in the hands of the social media platforms. These platforms

have, “...more power today to determine what individuals can say than any Supreme Court

justice, king, or president. On social media, speech is subject to moderation or suppression via

guidelines and regulations established not by courts, Congress, or administrative agency, but by

corporate employee” (Walters). In summary, when someone posts a hateful message, false

information about a person or politics, or biased news; ​it is out of legal control and​ the blame is

completely on the platform themselves. ​Although there are social pressures that accompany what

people post, people still retain the ability to post and share whatever they want. The biggest issue

does not lie within demanding legal action, but pushes us as a society to discourage harmful

posts ourselves and to hold social media companies accountable for regulating this content.

This is one aspect about social media that becomes another source of conflict. Because

there is no legal regulation on the validity of what is posted on social media, people can express
whatever is on their minds and connect with people on things they never had before. You love

seeing travelling pictures of a place they have been dying to go? You have them. You have been

looking for a group of people that love and rave about your sports team the same way you do?

You have them. You want to see how your new baby nephew is doing without pestering the new

parents constantly? You have them. It is a very unique experience we have in the modern era of

technology where we can find a place where we fit in and can express ourselves so freely.

However, free speech is not free. What this means is that although a certain freedom comes with

having 24/7 access to a large portion of the public, there are both legal and social limitations to

what can and should be posted. User can say whatever they want, but that does not make it

morally correct or socially acceptable. Is trusting society and these media companies with such

access such a good thing?

Great, we can all speak our minds ​relatively ​freely and interact constantly on these

platforms. But is that such a good thing? ​In reference to the spreading of fake news, one of the

hottest topics in our political climate right now, social media is one of the biggest culprits. Fake

news is the spreading of false information claimed to be news. Even Oxford Dictionary says in

it​’​s definition of the term, “​fake news, exploding on social media, is seeping into the

mainstream” (​Steinmetz). ​After taking an analytical view towards Twitter, it was found “​...​ that

false news was re-tweeted more often than true news was, and carried further” (Fox). One of the

reasons this is true is because people will believe what they see, and when information is

presented in front of them on what they see as a well-followed social media platform, they have

no reason to disregard or disbelieve what they are reading. Sure, some of this blame goes on
consumers for not doing enough reading themselves to be able to decipher what is legitimate and

what is false. However, the social media companies have the upper hand and have the analytical

program ability to weed through the lies themselves, so why would they not? (Fox). Not enough

people are holding social media to the high standard that they should be held at and the platforms

are not doing an even remotely adequate job of protecting their users. ​Society is speaking

unfiltered on these platforms, as social pressures to be accurate and true when posting are not

always enough. Beyond what we can do as users and members of society, the companies

themselves hold true power when it comes to filtering through the validity and impact of posts.

But, are these corporations acknowledging publicly their responsibility in controlling

information spread on their platforms?

In response to people questioning the negative effects of media consumption in regards to

fake news, Facebook responded. On Facebook’s N​ewsroom website, they posted, “We demote

things like ​clickbait headlines​ and ​false news​,” which is closely followed by, “... even though

people often click on those links at a high rate” (Burke). Facebook is aware there is a spreading

of fake news problem, acknowledges it publicly, and basically says that people choose to click

on it and it is their fault if they get “clickbaited” into reading and believing it. Acceptance and

awareness of a problem is the first step in solving it, but outwardly proclaiming a major lack of

effort in solving the problem is a step in the wrong direction. This also connects back to the

sensitive content measure these platforms took. There is a warning that content is sensitive and

may upset people, but there is no description of what the post contains. The natural curious

minds clicks “View post” and watches regardless of the warning. Social media companies
realized people were getting upset and offended by certain posts, and instead of removing them,

the platforms engaged in avoidance behavior and left the content up for viewing.

All in all, w​W​e have learned that social media companies hold the power in regards to

controlling what is said and what is spread on their platforms (as long as no laws are being

broken). Of course, it is individual users that go out of their way to create this information in the

first place. So, you may be asking, what do I do? What can we do, as consumers and users, to

fight back against these platforms and ask for more protection? Obviously we cannot sit and

wait, especially with the fake news that will be clouding our feeds as the United States

Presidential Election creeps up on us. I have a few ideas as what we can do as average users to

combat these problems.

First, we all need to hold ourselves accountable. Sure, it is so easy to scroll through a

timeline on Twitter or Instagram and let that content marinate in our minds for a few moments.

However, knowing that social media companies do not verify facts, we need to take the

information presented to us and question whether it is true or not. Whether something seems

suspect or not, it is important to make sure it is true before instantly believing it. Take the time

you were going to spend thinking about it, sharing it, and talking about it and save a little time to

research it. Research shows that up to half a million posts across various platforms are shared

every minute (Brown). It is important for all users to recognize that not every single thing posted

is going to be courteous, reliable information. I could hop on Instagram in this very moment,

sitting at my desk in Columbia, and post a picture from my family vacation to Puerto Rico three
years ago and claim I am there. Yes, a lot of people will know I am not with my family in Puerto

Rico right now. But if some random person sees the post, they have no reason not to believe I am

sipping smoothies by the blue water with my brother. This is a very small and irrelevant

example, but I am pointing out that with a little research and background knowledge, it is a more

informed way to go about social media browsing and learning in general.

Second, hold the media companies accountable. If something offensive, violent, or in any

way upsetting is presented, report it. Every big social media company from Facebook to Twitter

to Snapchat has a setting to be able to report abuse or misuse of the platform. As I previously

stated, the companies have no burning desire to upset their users and potentially use these users.

In many cases, it covers themselves from getting into legal battles and trouble when something is

reported and they take it down. The Foley execution video is a perfect example, as millions of

people combatted and questioned Twitter for allowing that to be posted and go as viral as it did

in the first place. Twitter was under so much heat from it’s users that it felt enough pressure to

delete the videos posted. Enough pestering from any user can get these social platforms to take

down violent, offensive content and false news with fraudulent information.

Finally, and perhaps most extravagantly, feel free to stop using the platforms. I personally

always delete Twitter before big political movements arise because I know I am just going to end

up reading a bunch of uninformed opinions and fake news (along with I am sure some real news

and informed opinions). I also curate who I follow and who follows me on all platforms so I can

avoid adding stress to my life with violent or slandering posts or comments. I remain aware that
social media is a society within its own, where anyone can reach billions of tidbits of information

and people in a matter of seconds, and that I am not going to like or agree with everything I see. I

do not use Facebook anymore because I noticed people felt too comfortable for my liking

expressing whatever they had to say in that moment. People retain different values and morals

and they do not always line up, and having close access to these people’s every word and thought

is not of particular interest to me.

In conclusion, social media platforms have all of the power in their hands to control what

is posted. It is on them, but also us, as consumers, to hold them accountable for the spreading of

explicit content, fake news, and cyberbullying. As consumers, the call to action is to hold each

other responsible for what we post but also hold media companies accountable. If there is

something crude, offensive, hateful, or false on the internet; it is now in our hands to hold the

companies reliable for allowing such to happen. We need to come together and hold these

companies accountable for their lack of stepping-in when conflicts arise right in front of their

eyes. It is also important to keep in the back of our minds that as a society, we need to read

carefully and thoughtfully when browsing on social media because I have well established that

nobody is fact checking the information spread on there.

Works Cited Works Cited

Brown, Jessica. “Future - Is Social Media Bad for You? The Evidence and the Unknowns.” ​BBC​,

BBC, 5 Jan. 2018,

www.bbc.com/future/story/20180104-is-social-media-bad-for-you-the-evidence-and-the-

unknowns​.

Burke, Moira and David Ginsberg. “Hard Questions: Is Spending Time on Social Media Bad for

Us?” ​Facebook Newsroom​, Facebook, 15 Dec. 2017,

newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/12/hard-questions-is-spending-time-on-social-media-bad-f

or-us/.

Caplan, Lincoln. “Stress Test for Free Speech: SOCIAL MEDIA ARE DESTROYING THE

DEMOCRATIC CULTURE THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS MEANT TO

PROTECT.” ​The American Scholar​, no. 4, 2018, p. 20. ​EBSCOhost​,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.553904574&site=

eds-live.

Everett, Colby M. “Free Speech on Privately-Owned Fora: A Discussion on Speech

Freedoms and Policy for Social Media.” ​Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy​, no.

Issue 1, 2018, p. 113. ​EBSCOhost​,

 search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.kjpp

28.9&site=eds-live.

Fox, Maggie. “Fake News: Lies Spread Faster on Social Media than Truth Does.”

NBCNews.com​, NBCUniversal News Group, 9 Mar. 2018,

www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fake-news-lies-spread-faster-social-media-truth-d

oes-n854896.

Fung, Brian. “The Case for a Social Media Standard on Sensitive Content.” ​The Washington

Post​, WP Company, 24 Apr. 2019,

www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/08/21/the-case-for-a-social-media-s

tandard-on-sensitive-content/​.

Steinmetz, Katy. “'Fake News' Is Being Added to the Dictionary.” ​Time,​ Time, 27 Sept. 2017,

time.com/4959488/donald-trump-fake-news-meaning/.

Walters, Ryan M.. “How to Tell a Fake: Fighting Back against Fake News on the Front

Lines of Social Media.” ​Texas Review of Law & Politics​, vol. 23, no. 1, Fall 2018, pp.

111–179. ​EBSCOhost​,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=i3h&AN=134763624&site=eds-live.