Who Decides on Social Media Content

Who Decides on Social Media Content

Social media popularity has increased in recent years. Most of the people in the world can access various social media platforms through different electronic gadgets. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube are some of the popular social media platforms. Social media can be useful if properly utilized. However, improper use of social media platforms can have detrimental consequences on the users and the public at large.  The increase of social media users has resulted in unethical use of the media. Some social media users post content that violates the laws by inciting the public or bullying other users. Social media content that violates social media laws should be actionable and subject to removal to promote ethical use of social media networking sites.

Removal of illegal content from social media platforms creates integrity in society (Jhaver, Bruckman & Gilbert, 2019). Defamation is a civil wrong that is punishable by the law. Cases of defamation have increased currently due to the increased use of social media platforms. Defamation can cause depression among victims. Therefore, any social media content indicating elements of defamation should be removed from the platforms as soon as possible. Content that threatens, harasses, or discriminates against other individuals should also be removed from social media platforms with an immediate effect. Social media platforms have a history of being used to discriminate marginalized races in society. Any social media content that is aimed to discriminate against some races should be removed to promote racial equality in social media networking sites. Besides, social media content depicting nudity, child abuse, and pornography should be deleted from social media networking sites.

Marjorie’s argument on the article written by Harvard Law Review illustrated how internet restrictions had breached the freedom of expression. In the article, the author talks about the mysteries affecting privacy on social media based on how the content is censored. Marjorie argues that the site has the right to develop a policy of its discretion (Heins, 2014). Marjorie further stated that the points established by organizations such as Face book and Google are not bringing out consistency or effectiveness. Summarizing on the points made by Professor Marvin, she explains that most companies utilize long terms or services censoring protected free speech. She stated that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act had encouraged the services to eliminate the content from breaching legal responsibility. In order to avoid lawsuits, platforms like You Tube and Face book has incorporated a system to censor the information and inquire later. Marjorie states that censorship systems are responsible for deciding the content available on social media.

The right process should be followed when removing inappropriate content from social media sites. Some unauthorized individuals have taken the role of removing the content posted by others without abiding to the right procedures (Gerrard & Ysabel, 2020). The process of removing inappropriate content from social media starts with the identification of the wrong content. The second step involves the removal of the content. If the person responsible for the wrong content is unknown, the identifier is allowed to check terms and conditions for removing wrong content from social media platforms. If both the person responsible for the wrong content and the administrator fails to delete the content, step three allows individuals to report the issue to the central office, where the content will be automatically removed. Some individuals can thus initiate the removal of content from social media platforms for their personal interests. I believe that deciding whether the content is right or wrong is the right of the social media user. Allowing other people to decide on the kind of information that should be posted on social media contemplates the rights of some innocent social media users.

The article titled “Who Decides-Civility v Hate Speech on the Internet” explains about a video posted on YouTube on anti-Mohammad, which caused violence in the Middle Eastern countries. The US ambassador instructed the video to be pulled out, but Google did not follow his commands (Rosen &Jeffery, 2013). In this case, Google had total control over whether the content should be retained on social media. After the incident, rules and guidelines were incorporated to control the content posted on social media. User flags are now present on social media, which are evaluated by the lawyers to determine whether the content will remain in the platform or not. The decision to retain the content or not in social media is still determined by the platform, even with the users having total involvement in compiling the content.

In conclusion, the use of social media networking sites has both advantages and disadvantages. Posting inappropriate content on social media sites is the major disadvantage of using social media. Content that is aimed at discriminating against some races, defaming individuals, or encouraging nudity is considered as inappropriate content. Measures have been put in place to control the kind of information circulating on social media platforms. However, I think that to some extent, controlling the content posted on social media curtails the freedom of speech and discourages some discussions that can be essential in solving some world problems.

References

Gerrard, Ysabel. “Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media.”

New Media & Society, vol. 22, no. 3, Mar. 2020, pp. 579–582. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/1461444819878844.

Heins, Marjorie. “The Brave New World of Social Media Censorship.” Harvard LawReview,        20June 2014,            https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/06/the-brave-new-world-of-social-          media-censorship/.

Jhaver, S., Bruckman, A., & Gilbert, E. (2019). Does transparency in moderation really matter? User behavior after content removal explanations on reddit. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1-27.

Rosen, Jeffery. “Who Decides – Civility v. Hate Speech on the Internet.” HeinOnline, 2013, heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals%2Finsilaso13&div=23&id=&page=.