Social media is frequently referred to as the “modern public square” where people congregate to exchange ideas, argue and keep up to date. In fact, the US Supreme Court made this point in Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), when it acknowledged the importance of social media as a platform for public speech. But recent developments on sites such as Facebook and Instagram prompt a response: if these spaces are so critical to public discourse, who gets to manage them and who gets to have the final say?
Centralized platforms have many advantages. Huge groups of people can come together, and information can be distributed efficiently. But there’s a downside to this centralization. When these platforms are owned by a few companies or even a single individual, they make the decisions about what content is visible, boosted or deleted. For instance, the decision to shut down factchecking on Facebook and Instagram (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology) can have implications on the spread of misinformation.
This is even more problematic when algorithms are involved. Stories are not presented in a neutral way; they are selected based on how engaging they are, which can promote sensational and controversial material. This means the “public square” is not free and equal it is shaped by commercial and design interests.
They examine the ongoing efforts by courts and governments to determine their role. A central issue is whether we want private companies to play such a role in the public sphere. They are not “the government”, but they have a big influence on speech.
This raises the question of whether we should rely on the goodwill of platform owners. Given the recent platform changes, I don’t think so. Business decisions can be profit- or CEO-driven, and subject to change. So, their stability and equity are uncertain.
One way to address this is to create more decentralized platforms, giving users more control over their data and social networks. Also, there are regulations, such as requiring platforms to support “portability”, so users can carry their content and networks with them to different platforms. This would eliminate the reliance on any one platform and increase competition.
For me, this course has helped me become more conscious of the power platforms wield over my information and sharing. I’m more conscious of my information sources and online behavior. I’m also more open to exploring alternative platforms that prioritize transparency and user control.
Ultimately, we don’t fully “own” our conversations online, platforms do. To be a useful public sphere, social media platforms need to be accessible, accountable, and allow us to exercise agency. Otherwise, the spaces we use to communicate and to find information will remain in the hands of a few powerful players rather than the people who own them.
Site Title 