Blog Entry #5

Blog Entry #5: Who Owns Our Conversations?

I was asked to consider the recent controversies involving X and Reddit. Due to drastic changes made by the people who control the platforms, large numbers of people complained and/or left. Per my instructor, the changes made by corporations or rich individuals who have "ultimate power" over online platforms "raise vital questions," such as the ones below: 

• What are the benefits of highly centralized sites that are being called "public squares" -- and what are the drawbacks?

• Should we be depending on the good will of their owners?

• Should we look instead for more decentralized environments?

• Should government intervene in some way? (One suggestion has been to require centralized sites to offer "portability" of conversations so that you and the people you talk with online can move your communities elsewhere easily.)

• Ultimately, who owns what we say to each other?

For the sake of my argument on what we (society) should do about these issues and situations (including changes I would make and why), I'll be placing a specific focus on: 

• Should we be depending on the good will of their owners?

• Should government intervene in some way? (One suggestion has been to require centralized sites to offer "portability" of conversations so that you and the people you talk with online can move your communities elsewhere easily.)

Should we be depending on the good will of their owners?

Unfortunately, I think it would be irresponsible as a society to depend on the "good will of their owners." While I think the goal should always be to put "good" people into positions of power (as doing good is arguably the greatest responsibility of holding power), it's our responsibility to hold them accountable; which means that we cannot simply depend on their "good will." It's especially interesting that in 2019, Pew Research found that Americans think leaders of technology companies act unethically 77% (net) all/most of the time. Comparatively, members of Congress are seen as acting unethically 81% (net) all/most of the time; journalists 66%; religious leaders 69%; and local elected officials 66%. All of these numbers are the reason that checks and balances were created, so why wouldn't we hold media conglomerates and owners to the same standards and skepticism (especially considering the fact that they hold informational power)? Informational power, identified by psychologists John French and Bertram Raven, can be used to help people or to harm them, and is particularly potent. We should not depend on the "good will of their owners," because we cannot guarantee that their good will extends to us (society). 

Should government intervene in some way? (One suggestion has been to require centralized sites to offer "portability" of conversations so that you and the people you talk with online can move your communities elsewhere easily.)

I really like the idea of centralized sites offering "portability" of conversations. I remember when TikTok was being threatened (it is still under threat but there is a pause on the ban, currently), and lots of creators were sharing other platforms they create on, so their followers could continue to be part of their community after the ban. When TikTok went dark, it was possibly one of the strangest things I've ever experienced or witnessed on or about social media. Personally, I was really sad (although I'd already prepared by following my favorite creators on YouTube), as I think the TikTok algorithm really suits what I look for in social media. I also constantly share videos from TikTok with my friends (and vice versa), so losing that form of communication, even if it was just for a day, was sad. I attached screenshots below of what my phone displayed during the "darkness."

While I understand that the algorithm and every video and community cannot be moved over to another space with ease, it would've been nice if creators didn't have to panic and make sure they had accounts set up on other platforms to share with their followers. I was also kind of annoyed by the fact that I had to download another app to continue to support the people I wanted to support. Although, full disclosure, I have found that I like having the YouTube app a lot, as it's nice to watch some of the podcasts I'd typically listen to. It also gives me easy access to videos/podcasts that aren't available on Spotify. 

All this being said, I'm not entirely decided on how I feel about the government being heavily involved in regulating social media. While there are important regulations to have (like worker's rights are important in business regulations), including protecting First and Fourth Amendment rights, I think it could leave space for abuse by the government, too. Navigating social media is as new for the government as it is for society, so it makes sense that it's a struggle to find a good balance. However, I don't think that requiring platforms to offer the ease of moving conversations violates any Constitutional Rights (though I'll be doing more research to be sure). I wish that I could have a more decisive stance on the issue, but there's more I need to research and more to unfold before I can really be sure of my opinion. 

On a semi-related note, I think it's really important to remember that Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Sundar Pichai were all front row at Trump's inauguration. Why would some of the biggest names, all billionaires, in media (including social media), need to be in the front row of the inauguration of the (supposedly) most powerful man in America? Additionally, why would one of them, Musk, want to remove free Application Processing Interfaces (APIs) from X, which allows users to connect different software parts without needing to know the technical bits? This includes inhibiting the ability of scientists to run studies on statistics of social media. Zuckerberg owns Facebook, which has had its own shares of scandals (like ending its fact-checking program); Bezos owns the Washington Post, one of the largest newspapers in America and has been more active as of recently; and Pichai owns Google, which includes YouTube and has faced criticism, too. 

What changes would I make and why?

With the amount of uncertainty I (and society) have surrounding the digital landscape (especially social media), the biggest change I would make is offering other social media platforms that aren't part of the monopolies I mentioned above. A new movement and $30 million campaign, Free Our Feeds, is looking to take Bluesky's AT Protocol to a bigger level. Simply put, AT Protocol (Authenticated Transfer Protocol) is decentralized (no one company owns the network); allows portable identities (users can use the same username across platforms and change platforms without starting over); allows users to create their own algorithms; and allows developers to build their own apps/services into the protocol (like the early web). While I can't be sure, I think programs like this might even bring people together better than other forms of media. Everyone would be able to have a voice, and by being in control of their algorithms, people can avoid falling victim to algorithms that are built on (extreme) emotional responses (this often leads to polarized information and propaganda techniques like "plain folks" to be pushed).