Should social media companies be regulated?
Should social media companies be regulated?

Social media companies are in the news right now, in particular Twitter / X, and its owner, Elon Musk. A court has ordered the suspension of Twitter / X throughout Brazil for failing to cooperate with an investigation into the spreading of disinformation. During the far-right riots across the UK in August 2024, Elon Musk, the CEO of Twitter / X, provocatively tweeted 'Civil war is inevitable.' Mr Musk is a prominent supporter of the newly elected President Trump.

To their supporters, the likes of Elon Musk are brave standard bearers for free speech, standing up to overmighty governments and giving everyone a voice. To their critics, they are arrogant megalomaniacs who think they are above the law, happy to make vast sums of money from people spreading dangerous lies to stir up hatred and violence.

Is it time to regulate social media companies?

For regulation

Social media is enormously powerful. That power can be used for good, but it can also be used for great harm. Look at how the racist riots of August 2024 in the UK were provoked by disinformation (i.e. lies) about the identity of the killer of three young girls in Southport, and were then organised and promoted on social media; at how lies about the Covid vaccine were spread, putting millions of people's lives in danger; at how social media can be used to distort the outcomes of elections, or to intimidate people with death threats. Not to mention its use by criminals, terrorists and purveyors of child pornography. With power comes responsibility. If companies won't take the lead in taking down disinformation, hate speech and incitement to violence, then governments need to step in. If a newspaper published an article encouraging its readers to burn down their local mosque or synagogue, and provided the address, its editor would be criminally liable for incitement to violence. Why should the CEO of a social media company be any different?

It is disingenuous of social media companies to pretend they are just a neutral platform, and sole responsibility lies with the posters. If the landlord of a pub knew that large numbers of his customers came to the pub to buy and sell illegal drugs, in full public view, and he did nothing about it, it would be no defence to say that he was not the one dealing drugs - especially if he turned a blind eye because the fame of his pub as a marketplace for drugs meant a big uptick to his profits.

Owners of social media companies have enormous, unaccountable power. Elon Musk can criticise the UK government to his 196 million followers. Of course, it is a vital part of democracy that people should be allowed to criticise the government. The difference is that if the British people get fed up with Keir Starmer, they can eject him and his government at the next election, just as they did to Rishi Sunak and his government in July 2024; but no one can remove Elon Musk from his position of unaccountable power.

It is in the commercial interest of social media companies to spread hatred and lies. The more extreme content is, the more clicks it will get, and the more they can charge for advertising. Social media companies therefore set up their algorithms to direct their followers to the most extreme content. Facebook / Meta blocked extreme content for a short period during the US presidential election in 2020. They found they were losing money, so they removed the block. The renewed dissemination of extreme content played a major part in the assault on the Capitol on January 6th, 2021, in which five people died.

Against regulation

Regulating social media companies takes responsibility away from the people who post on their sites. Many people were prosecuted for posting inflammatory content around the August 2024 riots in the UK; there have also been many prosecutions for people spreading hate speech or issuing threats of violence on social media. This shows that the law works as it is.

Free speech is a vital and precious principle and must be protected. Once you allow regulation, you allow the possibility of regulation being abused. You might start out meaning only to ban hate speech and child pornography, but then an unscrupulous regime can extend the regulation to any content that is critical of them. The totalitarian government in China already exercises significant control over social media; this shows how easily well-meaning attempts at regulation can be abused. If Elon Musk spreads lies about what is happening in the UK, don't ban him; answer him with the truth. Let good speech drive out bad speech.

It is simply impractical to regulate social media. Millions of posts are made every day, at the speed of light, and there are simply not enough people in the world to monitor them all. No sooner will one post be taken down than another ten can be uploaded.

Motions that go with this topic

1. This house would make social media companies legally responsible for the content of their sites.
2. This house would ban political advertising from social media.
3. This house would not allow children under 16 / 14 / 11 access to social media.
4. This house would ban anonymous social media accounts.
5. This house believes that the internet is good for democracy.
6. This house believes in free speech on the internet.
7. This house would delete social media.