Social Media

Are Social Media Platforms Like Facebook a Threat to Democracy? Yes.

Should the Capacity to Acquire Huge Capital and Earn Profits Thereof Be Enough to Exercise a Determining Influence Over the Political Psyche of An Individual? No. Nevertheless, That’s Exactly What Facebook Has Been Allowed to Do So Far.

Influencing the political predilections of ordinary citizens can make, break, or shape the very foundations of democracy and good government. These preferences cannot be permitted to result from exposure to unchecked content floating around as advertisements on social media, precariously designed to influence those using the platform. A rationale citizen exercising his political right must instead be enlightened by relevant education and prudent deliberation. That’s how you make populist democracy, founded on people’s preferences, work.

When these preferences are interfered with and manipulated by monopolistic entities with an unclear division of business and political goals, they reflect themselves in the form of political decisions as totally misplaced dispositions continuously fed to them over a period, through specially configured information only to influence. It impacts society as it suffers as a whole. At the same time, governments’ attention is diverted to think of them as economically beneficial entities.

Meanwhile, they are operating a latent, concealed, and thoroughly thought out data heist. It leaves one to wonder how these platforms, contrary to serving as a catalyst of information which is supposedly their primary objective, serve instead as barriers in driving society closer to being incapable of taking substantiated decisions for themselves. For democracy to deepen further and become more demagogic and egalitarian, these platforms must be compelled to minimize their role in promoting divisiveness. It is a trap for the human species whose brains are inherently geared to divide themselves into groups and then maltreat each other to prove their superiority, which has led to violence in numerous instances. There’s no common good we can arrive at through these maneuvers, and in consequence, we are being taken back on the continuum of democracy.

These platforms intrinsically are not evil. It’s how they are disposed and used as tools to encourage or discourage the already existing partisan tendencies amongst the given population, which are not just in a position to give rise to the domination of a few over the rest but could also altercate the results of significant events. These platforms are primarily sought to do just the opposite: to disseminate information that’s inspirationally honest and where rules of the game apply to all, equally.

In one of the instances recently, Mark Zuckerberg was quoted saying to CNBC: “I don’t think that Facebook or internet platforms in general, should be arbiters of truth. I think that’s a dangerous line to get down to in terms of deciding what is true and what isn’t.” What needs to be comprehended here by these tech giants is that being in such a position is a gift as well as a task. Their actions need to be ethically defensible and adding value back to society and not just to the company. We have seen examples of two very similar platforms taking quite dissimilar stands. Twitter, as opposed to Facebook, is being applauded for being intrepid and honest in its approach to handling politically provocative gulp. That does make a difference even though it’s just symbolic and not systemic.

Their ability to shape the political discourse and assign a particular direction to it has been severely overlooked and undermined so far. There has not been a more substantial time in recent history to understand what appears to be just social networking is not just social anymore; it’s turning political. It’s imperative to take a tight grasp of the magnitude of their ability to take this further if they are not confronted and asked to change the rules of the game. In this game, no one person shall be more vulnerable than the other, and no one person’s protection shall be more important than the other.

It’s intelligible that not everything can be authenticated. However, we have to draw a line somewhere to disallow what’s not appropriate. Provocative political speeches and advertisements certainly fall far, far away from that line. Money being most central to these entities is all right. Still, having notions as quoted above signifies our society moving away from the truth, which can easily uproot our political system.

The majority of users at these platforms are not politically mature to face an algorithmically resolute and politically motivated platform. Their ideas and ideologies, yes even in adulthood, can be conditioned to derive a particular outcome. Nor are their convictions and beliefs so established to understand the intricacies of politics. Therefore, it’s easy to influence them by the information choices presented to them by monopolistically limited sources, which lead to erratic judgments at elections.

It’s time we place character-building at the very core of businesses. It needs to be taught to human central processing units (HCPUs) that profits are as substantial as the purpose and vice versa. I see it as the best bet for capitalism to survive for as long as they want. They have to redo their strategy to harness their power, the power to influence with information, much beyond its role to generate profits and sum it up with giving reliability that people seek from those in authority.

They need to take ownership of the fact that these internet platforms can change and reformulate how people think and reason as they are sitting over a large mine of data being manipulated, in ways beyond comprehension, as to how people choose and live their lives daily, so much so that it’s inconceivable for a common man to perceive its impact.

Technology has to go hand in hand with an ethical business climate, and that calls for some immediate regulatory guidelines from the lawmakers to resolve these issues. We need to take this massive amount of swaying power over our lives off their hands and rebalance it in a way that it remains ours unless we want it to be shared, or else it will have more profound and consequential effects when stakes are higher. And stakes can’t get higher than what they are right now.