Putting manners on social media oligarchs should be a priority

Whether or not Elon Musk ends up acquiring Twitter, his plans have caused consternation because of a simple truth: the owners of social media sites have too much power. Much of the nation’s public discourse is conducted in forums owned by Mark Zuckerberg and a handful of rival billionaires, and is regulated by algorithms concealed from public scrutiny.

The oligarchs of the internet not only command larger audiences than the media barons of earlier eras; they operate under fewer constraints. That is because government has abandoned the principle that mass media companies have special obligations to society, and it has allowed a few big social networks to suffocate competition, leaving users and advertisers without practical choices or leverage.

Better laws could help to revive competition, restrain harmful behaviour and even realise the potential of social media to strengthen democracy, rather than undermine it. In short, policymakers can ensure the question of who owns Twitter, or Instagram, or TikTok doesn’t matter quite so much.

The best way to limit the power of any individual social media network is to make room for new networks and, perhaps even more important, for third-party sites that allow users to customise their online experience: combining content from multiple sites, controlling what kids can see and other features someone has imagined and needs a chance to make real.

The Irish Times view on Irish banking: some welcome new competition

---

Gerard Howlin: We now know which hospitals are overspending and which are delivering. Let’s fund them accordingly

---

Ulster hold on for crucial bonus point win over Benetton

---

Quiet quitting: You always had workers who did 9-5 but it’s a creeping malaise, employers say

---

Two changes, in particular, would make a big difference: mandating communication among sites, and allowing third-party companies to obtain user data with the users’ permission.

The technical term for these changes is interoperability, and it is not exactly a radical idea. A person with a Gmail account can send messages to a person with a Yahoo account because email systems are interoperable. Forcing companies to work together makes it easier for people to manage their personal information, and it holds companies accountable for the quality of their services. Because anyone can send a message to a Gmail account, Gmail needs to fight for market share.

A 2016 US law imposed interoperability requirements on digital health records, and the Biden administration is pushing the financial industry to move in that direction, too. There’s no special reason the same principle couldn’t be applied to social media. Indeed, the European Union did exactly that this year.

Facebook is popular because Facebook is popular, and that advantage would not disappear. But breaking down the walls that Facebook has built around its empire would make it a little easier for smaller companies to compete, and it would compel Facebook to pay a little more attention to the needs of its users.

Depending on the results of the midterm elections, the Democrats may have only a few more months to do something substantive to check Bit Tech’s power

There’s a bill before the US congress that would impose interoperability requirements on social media companies, but Democratic leaders have shown no real interest in tackling the issue. Several other bills aimed at checking the power of the Big Tech companies also have stalled. One would inhibit tech companies from buying emerging rivals. Another would constrain companies from giving preference to their own products and services, as when a Google search recommends a Google site.

Democrats have aimed a lot of rhetorical fire at the Big Tech companies. Depending on the results of the midterm elections, they may have only a few more months to do something substantive to check the companies’ power.

To realise the full value of increased competition, the government also needs to mandate that the users of a social media site can leave with their data. A 1996 law requiring mobile phone companies to let people keep the same number when switching providers made it easier for people to move to new carriers. On social media, the equivalent might be a law allowing people to export their contact lists.

Requiring social media sites to disclose more information about the algorithms they employ to determine what content is shown could also help people to decide which sites to use.

Government regulation, however, should not focus solely on checking the dangers posed by social media networks. Policymakers also should consider the role that social media might play in strengthening democracy.

The US government has a long history of imposing special obligations on mass media. The Postal Service, the original social network, carries mail from members of Congress at no charge and periodicals at reduced rates. Until the 1980s, radio and television stations were legally required to serve the public interest, including by providing evenhanded treatment of political candidates.

In a 2020 report, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences argued that congress should impose a similar public interest standard on social media sites. A simple example would be a requirement to provide geographically specific election information from verified sources.

America’s permissive speech laws are a source of national strength

Many social media critics, including some in congress, also favour direct restrictions on content. But America’s permissive speech laws are a source of national strength. Rather than censorship, the focus should be on the accountability of social media sites to their users.

Even if all these changes came to pass, the owners of social media sites still would exercise significant power. Media barons of earlier eras – men such as William Randolph Hearst, Henry Luce and Rupert Murdoch – sought to propagate their own views, and they were open about using their empires to do so. The members of the current generation, by contrast, like to portray themselves as neutral conduits.

Zuckerberg, one of the nation’s largest publishers, insists that he is not in the media business. Musk says that he’d like to be in the business of publishing pretty much anything that’s legal.

Both approaches amount to an abdication of responsibility. The government cannot legislate good behaviour, but the health of civil society requires it. – This article originally appeared in the New York Times