The Shift in Social Media Control
During a recent rebranding tour, Mark Zuckerberg, the chief of Meta, showcased a look that resonated with Gen Z—complete with tousled hair, streetwear, and a flashy gold chain. In a candid moment, he revealed a significant truth: consumers no longer possess control over their social media feeds. Zuckerberg proudly announced that Meta’s algorithm has advanced to such a degree that it is now displaying “a lot of stuff” that users didn’t actively seek out, including content not posted by those they’ve connected with. He envisions a future where feeds are populated with “content generated by an A.I. system.”
However, I must express my reluctance; the last thing I wish to encounter is an influx of bizarre memes, such as Jesus depicted as a shrimp or cartoon cats indulging in pies, alongside the already overwhelming clickbait that clutters my feed. Yet, amid this chaotic landscape, there is a silver lining: our legal system is beginning to recognize this paradigm shift and is starting to hold tech giants accountable for the impact of their algorithms. This emerging trend could lead to a significant and potentially transformative development, compelling social media platforms to take responsibility for the societal ramifications of their decisions in the years to come.
The Legal Landscape
To understand this evolution, we need to revisit the origins of the issue. Section 230, a brief yet powerful provision embedded in the 1996 Communications Decency Act, was originally designed to protect tech companies from defamation claims stemming from user-generated posts. This legal shield was logical in the early days of social media when users primarily curated their own content based on personal connections, like the friends we selected on platforms such as Facebook. Since users chose those connections, it was relatively straightforward for companies to argue that they should not bear responsibility if, for instance, your Uncle Bob made a disparaging remark about your strawberry pie on Instagram.
As time passed, however, the landscape grew murkier. Not all of Uncle Bob’s contributions were factually accurate, and the algorithms employed by these platforms began to prioritize sensational, provocative content over more balanced, fact-based reporting. Despite the evident consequences, the legal teams of these tech companies continued to argue, often successfully, that they were not accountable for the content disseminated on their platforms—regardless of how misleading or harmful it might be.
Section 230 has since been wielded as a shield for tech companies against accountability for facilitating a range of harmful activities, including deadly drug sales, sexual harassment, illegal arms transactions, and even human trafficking. Meanwhile, these platforms have ballooned into some of the most valuable enterprises globally, enjoying vast profits while evading scrutiny.
The TikTok Effect
The arrival of TikTok marked a pivotal moment in this narrative. With its wildly popular “For You” algorithm, TikTok curates bite-sized videos tailored for passive viewers, effectively reshaping the social media landscape. As a result, traditional social networks are increasingly prioritizing algorithmically selected content, often sidelining posts from accounts that users have consciously chosen to follow. This shift raises crucial questions about agency, responsibility, and the future of social media engagement.
