The universal right to free speech is one that I support fully, so it follows that I should look favourably on any tool that facilitates the exercising of this right.  Indeed, you could argue that it would be hypocritical of me not to; given that I am prone to publishing my thoughts online.  When it comes to ‘Social Media’ however, I have to think twice; and generally believe them to be harmful more than anything.  Many societies seem to be questioning the harm of these platforms too – with studies investigating self-esteem issues, and with governments linking platforms with a responsibility for the incitement of anti-social behaviour: as seen during the 2023 riots in France and those this year in the UK.

It seems to me that part of the problem at least, is that we (erroneously) accept what is seen or read on ‘Social Media’ as being a realistic representation of an opinion/ event/ person when in fact all it shows us is a result, and we can never see the context, or the steps taken to arrive at such a result.  The User cannot see the efforts needed to generate (and edit?) a photograph.  Nor can they see the research and consideration undertaken by someone to arrive at an opinion.  Is it possible that this lack of context and/ or direct knowledge can lead the User to misinterpret or respond in a reactionary manner to what they see?

I believe also that the format plays a role in the generation and presentation of context.  The process I use for this (opinions in less than 1,000 words) here was adopted because it encourages me to process and communicate my thoughts in a structured, dispassionate way.  (Truth be told, it serves mostly to save my parents from having to listen to my frustrated ramblings on the telephone – but I digress.)  It usually takes me a number of hours to write one piece, and the number of words allows more background to be provided.  Different formats: difference experiences.   ‘Social Media’ messages are typically short format: 280 characters, single photograph etc. The amount of context that can be supplied is more limited in this regard than the longer formats.

Consider the difference in communication or impact then between reading this and reading a single message that says “Social Media is harmful”.  The experiences are different and thus it follows that the format chosen deliberately.  This being the case, shouldn’t we ask ourselves why the short-format used in favour of others?

The model used by ‘Social Media’ platforms seems to be predominantly based upon speed and volume of consumption.  The short-format lends itself to this from both the perspective of production and consumption… being both written and read quickly allows the Users to participate in the process easily.  The lack of research needed, the lack of context – all of this is conducive to encouraging people to provide immediate opinions – rapidly and often.  And because little context is given/ requested, Users are not excluded by not having read any pertinent background material and therefore can feel very able to participate.  This inclusivity is one of the strengths of the ‘Social Media’ environment.

It was suggested to me by a friend recently that this inclusivity is also one of the problems with social media: society can find itself giving as much weight to the opinion of the untrained, as it does to experts…  there is little discrimination in the short-format.  This raised the question of whether or not those Users should present their qualifications before being admitted to a forum.  (Not that qualifications should be necessary, simply that they should be verified and visible where they exist.)  Such an approach would require that Users’ identities be authenticated and visible.  This could potentially allow Users to bring their own context to the opinion.

Why then, given the weakness of the short-format to provide contextualised opinion, do the ‘Social Media’ companies maintain this model?  I said at the beginning that tools supporting freedom of speech should be considered a value – yet I do not believe that these tools were designed (or at least are not being maintained) with that goal in mind.  These platforms are being run as commercial enterprises, and therefore they have the same underlying objective of all companies: to make money.

‘Social Media’ platforms derive revenue from advertising, and the advertising fees increase as does the number of participants: more participation = more money.  In order for a platform to gain/ keep participants, it needs to provided content that the Users want.  Today algorythms monitor usage trends, and then promote content to each and every User based on their historic participation.  In this way a layperson like me with no training in anything, could see my messages broadcast more widely than those of a qualified surgeon – simply because I posted with a picture of a cat and the algorythm knows that people like cats!

So although the platforms do theoretically provide a forum for free speech, this freedom is never realised because the control over how that speech is disseminated does not lie within the purview of the ‘speaker’.  The platform itself (in the main) determines what it is that the Users see, whilst encouraging the context-free short-format.  Yes, you can upload a 60 minute video to TikTok if you want to, but no-one will watch it and the platform will likely actively hide it because it wants more clicks and faster.

My conclusion therefore is that ‘Social Media’ platforms are indeed a deleterious influence on our societies.  They encourage us to react without thinking and they feed us images of the world without context… and I don’t think societies fully recognise that!

I had a maths teacher who always wanted to see my working out for my homework – to check to see if I had understood the steps necessary to find the answer (and not simply copied from someone else).  Well with ‘Social Media’ today – we can’t see the working out…

…and that is the problem.