Trump vs Twitter: The Content Moderation Game
Social media platforms have been on a radar for quite a few years for the influx of fake news that is sometimes perpetrated by their users. In 2017, “Fake news” was the word of the year, popularized by President Donald Trump. Fast forward to 2020, a lot of these social media giants have now started to moderate their content. Facebook gives you a warning that the post you’re about to see may be fake. You can see a similar example of Twitter content moderation in the pictures posted below.
But sometimes this content moderation can possibly mean doom for these social media giants. Especially when the content of person being moderated is a President of the most powerful nation of the world.
On May 29th, 2020, President Donald Trump tweeted a series of tweets about the ongoing protests on #BlackLivesMatter. Twitter hid the tweets behind a warning label [1], highlighting that the tweets violated twitter policies and glorified violence. This is not the first instance of Twitter acting against POTUS. Just so you know, POTUS here means the President of the United States. On May 26th, President Trump had made a series of tweets highlighting the possibility of voter fraud in the impending November presidential elections. In response and the growing pressure from the community to act against false claims on its platform, Twitter added a series of links below Trump’s tweet [2] highlighting the inaccuracies in the claims.
These activities happened at a backdrop of President Trump signing an executive order that could allow investigative agencies to go after firms like Twitter, Facebook, & Google for the content they have on their websites. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protected companies from being legally responsible for the content users post on the platforms.
Related: Take a look at the Facebook's Social commerce
The Streisand Effect
Twitter’s actions against President Trump have fallen victim to the Streisand Effect. It is a social internet phenomenon to curb and censor information that leads to an unintended consequence of further publicizing the information. The actions again brought in the critical point- countering fake news on social media platforms to the centre stage.
Same problem Two different approaches
Social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook have long been criticized for their actions against fake news. While Twitter has finally started taking action, Facebook has decided to take a different route. In an interview with Fox News, Mark Zuckerberg said, “I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.” He added, “Private companies probably shouldn’t be, especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that.”.
In a nutshell, as against Twitter’s way of acting as content moderator, especially for information passed on by influential people, Facebook has decided to leave the moderation part to the viewer’s discretion. This again highlights an integral part of the debate of “content moderation”. Contentious issues like who moderates, how they moderate, what sources they refer to, still need to be addressed.
What Next?
Though currently, Twitter is fighting its battle with the US government, industry observers hope that its policy decisions, especially in terms of fighting fake news, will apply to users across the globe. It will be particularly interesting to see how they play out in a country like India. Where, elected members have often been accused of spreading fake news and spreading propaganda.
The content moderation part should not be left at the mercy of platforms, because irrespective of the objectivity inherent biases will creep in a system designed by humans. An open-source, decentralized fact-checking technology that is verifiable by all should work, but talking of such things is like shooting in the dark.
The truth is leaders need social media platforms as much as the platforms need them, if not more. Influential leaders will always have a tool like legislation at their disposal to target companies. At the same time, the platforms can still selectively curb the reach of these leaders and flag their content. An interesting time ahead for all of us.
Finally..
We hope you liked the piece. Feel free to drop a thank you to the author, Prasad Antapurkar, for this piece. Share it with your best friend perhaps? Subscribe here to hear more of these pieces. To read more such cases, click here.
Pingback: What Led To Negative Crude Oil Prices?