Social networks – no man’s land?

Anna Boghiguian, A Play to Play, 2018.
Whatsapp
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Telegram

By BARBARA COELHO SNOWS*

Zuckerberg's intention is for the American government to interfere in the sovereignty of other countries, claiming that opposition to these new guidelines is contrary to freedom of expression.

The recent statements by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg about ending fact-checking on his platforms have sparked a crucial debate about the future of social media and its influence on society. This article briefly analyzes the impacts of this decision, exploring the implications for disinformation, hate speech, and democracy. His bombshell statement on January 7th is the ultimate expression of digital colonialism through Big Tech allied with American imperialism.

The end of content checking

The statement made by Meta's CEO brought to the center of the debate an ongoing problem on major digital social media platforms. The lifting of restrictions and the loosening of the already fragile rope in moderating content by the platform's own algorithm is what is causing a commotion regarding the regression of relationships mediated by this market model. Issues involving immigration, gender and politics are no longer restricted, and are at odds with public debate. In this context, Meta's CEO appropriated the concept of censorship to say that the fight against hate speech online, for example, represents a setback and that its damages are potential (surprise!).

The exclusion of fact-checking companies represents a major setback in the fight against disinformation. The absence of these tools makes it easier for fake news to spread and makes it harder to identify reliable sources. In an increasingly digital world, the ability to discern between truth and falsehood is crucial for an informed and democratic society.

I agree with Eugênio Bucci. In an article posted on the website the earth is round on January 9th, he says that “it was clear that the big tech want to replace the information age with the disinformation age, because they thrive on tyranny.”

Biased algorithms and the impact of Meta on the world

Meta’s decision to remove its content fact-checking feature raises concerns about the influence of the company’s algorithms. A lack of control over content can lead to the proliferation of misinformation and hate speech, especially if the algorithms are programmed to benefit specific groups. This manipulation can have a direct impact on public debate, distorting perceptions of reality and amplifying political, racial, gender, and other biases.

Meta’s decision to relax its content rules has global repercussions. If a giant like it takes sides, smaller platforms and governments may follow suit, weakening public debate and widening digital inequalities. Digital impact knows no borders, and the debate needs to be global.

Mark Zuckerberg has decided to implement the same approach implemented by the CEO of the social network “X”, who has declared himself to be far-right, on the Meta platform, and is counting on the support of Trump, the US President, to put pressure on the European Union, China and Latin America. The aim of this move is for the US government to interfere in the sovereignty of other countries, claiming that opposition to these new guidelines is considered a violation of freedom of expression.

It is worth noting that while Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk are trying to push forward the debate that Europe and Latin American governments want to control freedom of expression, the United States of America has been moving its courts to ban the Chinese platform TikTok. This makes clear the political interests at play in the game where the main digital social media platforms operate today.

His statement put countries like Brazil on alert, especially considering the CEO's provocation to the Supreme Court, when he called them “secret courts”. The National Congress and the Brazilian Judiciary have instruments available that need to be put into practice immediately. I believe that left-wing parliamentarians committed to the debate on digital sovereignty and protection have an interesting window, at this moment with society's active attention, to pressure Congress for stronger regulation of these social media platforms.

As Congressman Zeca Dirceu said: “The changes to Meta’s procedures and rules will open up all sorts of possibilities for lies, hate, fake news, and misinformation to be spread even further. But there’s no point in just criticizing, lamenting, and turning this into a debate. We need to pressure the National Congress and the Judiciary.”

Immediately on January 8, STF Minister Alexandre de Moraes rejected Mark Zuckerberg's decision and said that digital platforms will have to follow Brazilian legislation and claimed: “the STF will not allow social networks to be used for hate”.

On 13/05/2020, Bill No. 2.630/2020 was presented to the Federal Senate, initiated by Senator Alessandro Vieira (CIDADANIA-SE), which aims to establish the Brazilian Law of Freedom, Responsibility and Transparency on the Internet, establishing rules to combat misinformation, in addition to sanctions for non-compliance with the measures provided for, which was also entitled “Law of Fake News”. The original version of the text of PL 2630/2020 has received numerous amendments since the beginning of its processing. From the confrontation between the aforementioned version and the substitute text that would be voted on in the Chamber of Deputies on the agenda of the session of 02/05/2023.

User responsibility and hacker ethics

In practice, Meta is failing to protect its users, even minimally, against the harm caused by social networks, such as hate speech, claiming a new era of freedom of expression. Its networks have never been safe and have already caused serious and diverse problems for individuals, institutions and even countries. Its explosive statement only tells us that it could be even worse for democracies and definitively undermine the sovereignty of other countries, proposing to place American law above that of other states.

Meta’s decision presents us with a challenge: how can we navigate an increasingly complex and challenging online environment? As consumers, we have power! We can hold platforms accountable, spread reliable information, and support more ethical alternatives.

It is necessary to understand once and for all that the debate on technology is a political debate and not just a market debate. To maintain sovereignty and preserve rights, it will be urgent to have a place at the institutional debate table: researchers, hacker collectives, digital culture activists to address these issues and discuss ways of acting in light of the situation that is being imposed and to think about ways of freeing ourselves from these monopolies.

Based on the studies we have been following at LTI Digital, which involve Artificial Intelligence algorithms from platforms such as Meta, we can say that Meta's declaration would happen sooner or later and, at its core, it does not present anything new, since the power and monopoly situation of social media platforms has been sung for a long time. Countries such as Brazil, unfortunately, have abandoned any type of digital sovereignty since the second half of the 2000s. The permission to control given to these platforms currently allows them to influence, modulate and make important political, economic and social decisions, whether in the explicit context or in the implicit field (behind the scenes of the algorithmic information regime).

Have you ever stopped to think about the amount of control that a platform like Meta is capable of exercising from an economic point of view through its WhatsApp network, for example, in the countries where it operates? Just think about how much our Brazilian economy, for example, depends on WhatsApp's digital infrastructure, from individual microentrepreneurs to large business owners. According to the group Speakers (2023), Meta concentrates the main social networks, whether they are for content circulation like Facebook and Instagram, or for message exchanges like WhatsApp.

In view of this, it is urgent to think about an institutionalized, modern and collective alternative. It is expected that the debate on the unrestricted power that digital social media platforms seek will begin to become clearer, that without regulation and automated by algorithms that only aim to combine a gigantic audience segmented by bubbles and profit, this system has become a race for the lowest common denominator, as added Speakers (2023)

And now?

We need to think about a call to action based on the power of information. Meta’s decision puts us at a crossroads. Disinformation and hate speech are real threats, and combating them requires joint action. It is time to come together to defend the truth, promote critical debate, and build a more responsible digital future that upholds ethics and human rights.

We need to think about the future of social networks. We urgently need a new path with robust national alternatives or alternatives that are in line with local responsibilities and regulations.

Social media plays a vital role in modern life, but a lack of regulation and the rise of misinformation are putting the health of democracy and the quality of public debate at risk. A new path forward is needed, focusing on ethics, accountability and promoting a safer and fairer online environment.

It is urgent to think about how to break the monopoly of apps and networks of a company that openly declares itself in favor of disinformation and the relaxation of guidelines that are notoriously harmful to human rights and life. We believe that it is high time for us to have alternative platforms. Imperialist platforms cannot be the only way to communicate. With the power they have today, they can even say that if their terms and conditions are not met, they can shut down their networks in Brazil.

Below are some points for social media safety that we believe are important to mention in order to capture the attention of those who have read this short article: (i) Check the source of the information: Be wary of sensationalist news and try to confirm the information with reliable sources. (ii) Identify fake profiles: Pay attention to profiles with suspicious photos, few friends or manipulative content. (iii) Avoid sharing information without checking: Make sure the information is true before sharing it with your contacts. (iv) Use filters and blocking tools: Block profiles that promote hate speech and use filters to avoid offensive content.

*Barbara Coelho Neves é teacherthe Institute of Information Science at UFBA. Author of, among other books, Technology and mediation (CRV Publisher).

References

BRAZIL. Federal Senate. Bill PL No.: 2630/20. Institutes the Brazilian Law of

Freedom, Responsibility and Transparency on the Internet. Text Approved by the Senate.

Available in herei.

BRAZIL(a). Congress. Senate. Constitution (2023). Bill No. 2338, of 2024. Provides for the use of Artificial Intelligence. Bill 2338-2024. Brasília, DF, Available at: https://legis.senado.leg.br/sdleg-getter/documento?dm=9347622&ts=1718749259776&disposition=inline.

BUCCI, E. Big tech and fascism. The earth is round. Available here.

INTERVOICES, Who controls the media: from old oligopolies to digital monopolies. Sao Paulo: Veneta, 2023.

NEVES, Barbara Coelho; DAMASCENO, Handherson Leyltton Costa. The spectacularization of the self in social media: the reader-spectacle and the pedagogies of visibility. Conjecture: Philos. and Educ. [online]. 2022, vol.27, e022019.


the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE