Technological advancement has made our lives significantly more manageable, from transport, healthcare, and telecommunications to money transfer, among others. Nonetheless, there have been issues that have emerged because of digital inventions. On that point, this article discusses the effects of social media on our lives and whether it needs regulation. The perspectives illustrated below either support or refute arguments presented by talented debaters from Gen Z, a generation most affected by social media platforms.
I selected the fourth option as illustrated above and so the context of this article is a response to each of the debaters. The debaters in context are Deona Julary, Frank Anstett, Grace Kapsimalis, and Stephen Githaka. The core argument presented by Deona Julary is that social media platforms should be regulated in terms of their design and data protection protocols. She argues that social media has allowed people to infringe on others’ right to privacy (The Social Dilemma, 2021). I do not agree with this point, as it would be challenging to determine what privacy to protect because most people on social media post things they want people to see. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution does not include the right to privacy unless it is unreasonable search and seizure by the government, as highlighted in the Fourth Amendment (Tokson, 2020). It is imperative to note that social media companies are not part of the government. Hence, they do not break any laws by infiltrating people’s privacy.
The core argument by Frank Anstett is that social media platforms should face similar treatment as mainstream broadcast media, such as television networks. He argues that social media regulation should use three approaches. The first one is that there should be an age restriction to protect minors under eighteen. Secondly, it regulates the spread of misinformation and the final argument is the use of a free market approach to social media regulation (The Social Dilemma, 2021). I agree with the first two suggestions to have an age limit over the use of social media and to warn users about spreading false information via social media.
However, Frank should recognize the distinction between social media and mainstream media, where communication in the former is one way while in the latter is two ways. Therefore, social media allows people to comment, like, or dislike a post, meaning that people have power over the content posted. However, mainstream media has absolute control over what they publish. Thus, the two types of media companies cannot be subjected to similar restrictions. Furthermore, Frank’s argument about free market regulation needs to be revised because the free market forces are dictated by demand and supply.
Therefore, it has an underlying implication that something is acceptable just because a considerable number of people support it or vice versa, and this does resolve the current problem. Free market regulation indicates that the majority is always suitable, which is not the case. Grace Kapsimalis argues that it is necessary to reform Section 230, which protects social media companies from being liable for content posted on their sites (The Social Dilemma, 2021). However, this suggestion is similar to Frank Ansett’s proposal to treat social media sites the same way as mainstream media. I disagree with both arguments as they overlook that social media is meant for equal participation by all members, so people have the liberty to post their opinions.
Steven Githaka suggests the need to tax social media platforms to regulate the amount of information these social media sites collect from users. Moreover, he postulates the need for social media sites to be transparent about how user data is used by social media companies (The Social Dilemma, 2021. I disagree with his opinion because it is quite difficult to determine whether these companies will give accurate information as some refuse to cooperate. Besides, legislating laws that target social media companies is intricate. Based on the perspectives in the debate, Frank’s suggestions to impose an age restriction on social media membership and control the spread of false information are the possible starting points.
References
The Social Dilemma. (2021). The social dilemma debate project. The Social Dilemma. Web.
Tokson, M. (2020). The Emerging Principles of Fourth Amendment Privacy. Geo. Wash. L. Rev., 88, 1.