The Silicon Valley bubble has burst and illusive technology giants are wavering as the infamous whistleblower, Frances Haugen, revealed the lack of ethics at Facebook (FB) surrounding misinformation, hateful content and the mental health of their users.
It was only a matter of time before a whistleblower came out against a technology conglomerate. Whether it is FB, Twitter, Google, Instagram (IG) or others, we have reached a point where these private companies control the platforms that the majority of society consumes content on and uses their First Amendment rights.
Since corporations are private entities and are entitled to their own user regulations, the business has an incredible amount of power in shaping public perception. The First Amendment does not prohibit corporations from restricting speech. We need government interference to set policies for digital platforms that protect the people and create new online precedents.
Haugen worked at FB for two years as a product manager on their civic misinformation team to track misinformation and ensure content was safe to publish—until it was disbanded in December of 2020. The executives at FB were aware of the impact of falsified and harmful information on its users, but they cared more about its engagement metrics and raising the bottom line and admittedly did little to filter information.
When social media platforms have an impact on user postings, there becomes a conflict of interest. Haugen noted how FB set up its algorithms to prioritize the number of shares, comments and likes. The better the metrics, the better the return on investment is.
Not only is the spread of derogatory and falsified information concerning, but teenagers are especially susceptible to FBs algorithm. Haugen stated that most teenagers feel worse about themselves after using FB and IG, which is owned by FB. For example, IGs algorithm promoted extreme dieting accounts to teenage girls who showed interest in losing weight. These recommended profiles displayed content stating “I need to be thin,” “Eternally starved” and so on. This type of information can be detrimental to anyone’s health, particularly teenagers.
Although research is still developing about social media’s impact on the youth, it is seen to correlate with imposter syndrome, anxiety and depression as they can compare themselves to others and get distorted perceptions of reality. Ironically enough, much of this research was uncovered by FB and IG, but no changes were made. Rather, Zuckerberg spun it to show how there can be positive mental health benefits to connecting with other people online.
At the detriment of digitalization, we face new questions: Should social media platforms have filtered account options for minors? How will the First Amendment be interpreted on digital platforms? Should technology conglomerates have the ability to set their own privacy and protection policies—even if it favors profit over people?
This marks what will hopefully be a monumental shift in technology regulation. We oftentimes only feel the ramifications of progress until it is too late. Although Silicon Valley companies have revolutionized society through this era of digitization, we must reign it in and seriously consider its implications. We are living in a time of information surplus and it makes consumers vulnerable. Cloaked as “free” services, we are paying for digital platforms with our data. We must hold companies accountable to, at the very least, avoid weaponizing our personal information for fiscal gains.
The path to accountability lies in creating online regulations. There should be the option for people to filter their content. Such as, giving the user the ability to choose specific topics/accounts that they do not want to be recommended to and/or see on their feed. Additionally, with such adept artificial technology algorithms, social media platforms should use that to promote mental wellbeing rather than perpetuate it. One way of doing so is if the algorithm picks up that a teenager is interested in losing weight, instead of suggesting extreme dieting, promote body positivity content.
Regarding online policies, the government needs to set uniform regulations for what can and cannot be allowed on social media platforms. It is a tricky line when discussing the First Amendment regarding technology companies. However, these platforms have reached such a level of influence that we must readdress how much power we give these corporations to dictate public viewpoints.
We cannot sacrifice mental health, truth and transparency for increased engagement. Clearly, there is a need for a change of mindset in Silicon Valley but also across the world. Let’s remind ourselves that the exploitation of customers for monetary benefits is a means to an end. FB’s enigma is diminishing and it is up to the U.S. government to set new precedents from this case.
