The proprietary business model erodes democratic institutions. It's time to change it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by Justin Rosenstein *

 

In 2008, I helped create Facebook's "Like" button. We wanted to include a tool that would offer people a more human connection. More than 10 years later, we have overwhelming evidence that social media, by prioritizing likeability over truth, has had unintended and catastrophic consequences. In the United States, an unprecedented election is just days away, becoming a referendum not only on political leadership but also on the legitimacy of democracy. How did we get here? In large part, because social media has degraded real relationships, diminished people's ability to vote in fair and free elections, and weakened faith in democracy and its future prospects.

 

This isn't fake news. For millions of people who have already suffered the consequences, it isn't news. We've seen how social media has destabilized elections around the world. We've witnessed how our conversations are becoming polarized. We've witnessed the rise in depression and cyberbullying and how they're changing our children's lives. We've heard the most veteran social media employees speak out, myself included.

What haven't we seen? A structural change. Social media and their content recommendation algorithms are designed to get us to pay maximum attention. The more they absorb our attention, the more advertising they can buy and the more money they make. Unfortunately, scandal, accusations, and blatant lies sell more than truth and nuance. As I've said before, prioritizing profit at the expense of the public good is nothing new. People cut down trees because they're worth more money dead than alive. People kill whales because they're worth more money dead than alive. And social media traps us because people are worth more money when they stare at screens than when they go out and enjoy a full life.

As long as tech companies have incentives to pursue maximum profit, they will produce technologies that reward shareholders at the expense of society. It may seem absurd, but they have a legally binding fiduciary obligation to do so. Without a drastic transformation of business incentives, tech companies will continue to degrade and endanger the future of democracy.

When it comes to elections, companies consistently blame bad content and bad users. Misinformation and manipulation existed long before social media emerged, but the structure of social media and its algorithms favor them, benefit from them, and allow them to go viral. On Twitter, lies spread six times faster than the truth. In 2016, Facebook acknowledged that 64% of the growth of extremist groups was due to its own recommendation algorithm. A 2020 study found that misinformation on Facebook is three times more popular than in the last US presidential election. Both candidates have dedicated some of their money to social media ads. Biden flooded Facebook during the summer. Trump booked spots on YouTube's homepage for early November. Since June, the two have spent $100 million on ads on Instagram and Facebook combined.

However, social media algorithms and incentives mean that what goes viral isn't legitimate election content. It's lies, fear, fabricated conspiracy theories, and threats of violence. The result is fear of social unrest on Election Day and the days following. Attempts by Twitter and Facebook to label the most outrageously false and dangerous messages lag behind the relentless disinformation campaigns that are eroding faith in democracy.

I know social media never intended to become vehicles for dangerous political propaganda. But they haven't made the necessary deep structural changes, and we, the people, are paying the price. Despite what these companies would have us believe, the solution isn't hiring more moderators or better at ferreting out misinformation. Those things are nothing more than Band-Aids. The system is broken. For things to change, we need to transform the corporate governance structure of companies. The solution to saving our democracy is to apply democratic principles to them.

Imagine, for example, if Facebook were accountable to a People's Council instead of a board of directors. That People's Council, made up of shareholders from multiple sectors, would decide the company's overall goals, which criteria are important, and when to hire a new CEO. Instead of defining success based on economic criteria, the board could demand greater consideration of parameters that strengthen democratic institutions and individual lives. In recent decades, many countries have used such advanced democratic processes to empower citizens to change things. In 2015 and 2018, Ireland passed amendments to its Constitution under the guidance of a Citizens' Assembly, a representative sample of the population working through structured collaboration and guided processes. In 2020, Taiwan managed its COVID-19 outbreak using digital democracy tools that built trust and participation.

Does it seem utopian? It is, compared to what we have now. But it is possible. Perhaps companies will decide to change, but we can't wait for them to do so. It is vital that social media users, politicians and governments, as well as the employees of the companies themselves, exert public pressure. And that pressure begins with everyone being aware of the damage that social media is doing to our families and our institutions. It intensifies when people refuse to accept the status quo and demand change for the good of all. And it triumphs when we take collective action: when we, the people, change how we use social media and demand that policymakers change theirs as well.

This work has already begun. Governments and politicians have increased their pressure on social media platforms, including with new antitrust and public transparency measures. Within companies, employees have begun to go on strike and oppose policies, actions, and tools that are inconsistent with the common good or collective ethics. The Social Dilemma was the most-watched film on Netflix in September, unprecedented for a documentary. Millions have watched it and shared the negative effects social media has had on their lives.

We've seen the power of public pressure in recent social movements like the #EndSARS call in Nigeria and police reform in the United States, as well as in the changes brought about by the #MeToo movement. The more pressure companies receive from users, regulators, and employees, the more power we have to enforce real change. In the United States, we've begun voting in elections where the stakes are higher than ever before and where faith in democracy is exceptionally low. If social media dominates our public sphere, we must ensure that democratic principles trump profits. We, the people, have the right to govern the institutions that shape our lives. That's what living in a democracy is all about.

* Justin Rosenstein is the founder of One Project, an initiative to promote democracy in the face of the challenges of the internet age, and one of the subjects of the documentary "The Network Dilemma." Previously, he helped develop tools like Google Drive and the Facebook Like button.

El País Spain

Translation by María Luisa Rodríguez Tapia