Posted on Monday, August 13, 2018
Many think that social media platforms can regulate themselves effectively. Since political disinformation campaigns carry such a high cost, the idea goes, platforms will begin to respond with tighter controls over content and advertising. If private platform interests are adequately aligned with broader public interests, self-regulation makes sense. It is cheaper, more agile, and less politically messy. Problems arise when platform and government interests are misaligned, even partly so. Where interests diverge, classical economic theory plainly teaches that self-regulation will not be forthcoming. If the divergent government interests are good for society as a whole, then there is a case for government regulation—so long as its benefits exceed its costs.
Regulation is justified by market failure. In the world of social media, there are three relevant players: producers, consumers, and platforms. The producers of content overwhelmingly consist of regular people and advertisers. When they engage in private interactions, they either fully internalise the costs and benefits of those interactions, or generate information that can be shared for the public good. If the advertisers were a collection of chemical factories, for instance, it would be as if they created cleaning products without emitting any pollutants into the atmosphere.
Sometimes, however, private interactions generate negative effects experienced by third parties. People who purchase advertising in order to spread false information drive up the costs of truth-seeking. An entity that purchases advertising both for and against a political issue, often seeks to pollute discourse and generate institutional decay. These types of interactions among producers, consumers, and platforms can generate public ‘bads’ (as opposed to public ‘goods’). When amplified, they can lead to discursive crisis.
It is tempting to sound the alarm, blame fake news, and get tough on platforms. On the other hand, we might begin by asking why people seemingly want to consume fake news and gravitate toward sensational media outlets. Why does politics seem increasingly like entertainment and spectacle? Recent advances in social psychology show that people increasingly view politics as a team sport.
If the social psychologists are correct, then regulation should be less about targeting specific content, and more about configuring the platform to isolate and quarantine the bad actors — and in the process—drive regular people toward platform areas where discursive excellence thrives. For example, Reddit has learned that banning trolls does not solve the troll problem. Trolls simply change their usernames and continue trolling. But when "shadowbanned," trolls are blocked from posting without being informed that they have been blocked. Trolls continue to troll, thinking that everyone is listening, but they are trolling to an empty forum, where no attention is being paid. This is just one example of configuring platform architecture to promote discursive excellence.
A systemic approach to social media regulation recognises that people desire fake news and succumb easily to polarisation. Media literacy will not meaningfully reduce the demand, nor will heavy policing of ambiguously lawful content. A better way is to reinforce existing platform areas where discursive excellence thrives, and to funnel people to those areas with creative platform nudging.
If you have a creative bug in you, Mass Media courses have many jobs to offer
If the creative bug in you stops you from sleeping peacefully, it’s time to pick the right course, a
Sushant Desai, filmmaker, producer and entrepreneur was inspired by the movies to study at Edinburgh
Animation, is no longer on the sidelines of Indian entertainment industry, but is a full-fledged ind