Photo Credit: Shutterstock
It has become increasingly clear that expecting the Big Tech social media giants to regulate themselves is simply not going to happen. While companies such as Meta, X (formerly known as Twitter) and TikTok may be willing to make a few cosmetic changes around the edges, they simply are not willing to make the types of radical changes needed to keep everyone safe on social media.
Simply put, the Big Tech social media giants are not going to do anything that impacts their core business model. And that business model can be summarized in just a few words: acquire as much user data as possible, and then use all of that data to sell ads. Thus, they are simply not willing to do basic things, such as making wholesale changes to their algorithms in order to make their social media platforms less addictive. So with that in mind, what will it take to see real change in social media?
Tighter regulation
The obvious answer is tighter regulation. And, to some degree, that is already happening in certain states and certain local jurisdictions. For now, the focus has been on protecting the very youngest users of social media, and it looks like bipartisan support for a bill protecting minors is going to lead to brand new legislation that can be enforced nationally, rather than on a state-by-state basis.
Heavier fines and penalties
Another possible solution is to make the financial cost of “business as usual” as onerous as possible. And that, quite simply, means heavier fines and penalties. Right now, a company like Meta Platforms (the parent company of Facebook) generates $40 billion in revenue per quarter. So do you really think a fine of a few million dollars here, and a few million dollars there, is going to have any type of serious impact? It’s only when these companies are facing billions in dollars in fines that they might be persuaded to act decisively.
Revoking Section 230
One of the reasons why social media platforms have been able to get off relatively scot-free is a nice little piece of legislation known as Section 230. It refers to a particular clause within the 1996 Communications Decency Act that has been interpreted to give social media companies a free pass for content appearing on their platforms.
Section 230 says that companies are protected, even if harmful speech is hosted on their platform, as long as they take basic steps to ensure that the very worst of the worst doesn’t get published. By revoking Section 230, Congress would be sending a very clear message that the social media platforms are going to be held to a much higher standard going forward.
Breaking up Big Tech?
And, finally, the most drastic step that could be taken is simply breaking up the Big Tech companies, forcing them to split up their social media holdings into different companies. That would pose a potentially existential risk to a company like Meta Platforms. Presumably, the government would order that Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram (all part of Meta) would have to be split into different companies.
Conclusion
The big takeaway lesson here is that more needs to be done to force the hand of Big Tech. The spokespersons for these companies have become very adroit at promising new “tools” and new “parental controls.” The CEOs of these companies have become very good at theatrical apologies and moral grandstanding. And the lobbyists for these companies have become very accomplished at scuttling any new legislation before it can go into effect. All of this has to be taken into account, if we are going to see any real change in social media.
