Global communication has evolved dramatically in the new millennium. The omnipotence of social media as a platform is not only responsible, but accountable, for the distribution of information in a technocratic society.
Social media is a quasi-virtual dimension that exists independently from the physical world of communication. Communication throughout the modernised world has been mainly dominated by hardware. Letters, postcards, radio, television, fax. These channels of communication are easily regulated and monitored by figures of authority. As potentially valuable content is missed by the public; but inflammatory rhetoric is by the same measure unlikely to see the light of day.
However, the rise of social media has completely transformed this idea of regulated communication. Anyone at any time can publish their thoughts, with the only limit being their imagination. The innate desire to impose one’s ideals, beliefs and values on others is finally actionable by the population without strict regulation of authority. This is power that no one in human history has exercised before. It is this insatiable lust to be recognised and appreciated by the masses that has led to the monopolisation of social communication.
The ability to instantaneously inform, promote and educate is unprecedented power. Unfortunately, there are only a few providers in this oligopoly. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and SnapChat epitomise the dominance of social media in the daily lives of ordinary citizens. They represent the collective power of users and act as accelerants for equally good and bad ideas.
These profitable organisations employ their own self-regulated ‘code of conducts’ and ‘community guidelines’. These rules are the ‘laws’ of speech in the dimension of social media. Unlike the federal and state judicial systems that govern the realms of free speech in the physical realm. The makers of social media laws are an unseen group of corporate individuals. Their goal, as for any commercial organization, is to protect their profitable interests and advertiser-friendly platforms.
Many will argue that the mere existence of such laws on social media restrict the basic right of freedom to speak one’s mind without consequence. Whereas, others will argue that these laws are the cornerstone of a safe and inclusive community, which represents the statutory laws implemented by western society. In either case, the moral authority of verbiage posted on social media is determined by institutions created to make a profit in a capitalistic economy.
This leads to a far large systematic question: are we best governed by the laws of national governments or profitable institutions? The fracture between these two moral authorities can be seen all around the world today. Celebrities and citizens alike have lost their livelihoods and careers due to immature, racist, misogynistic and discriminatory remarks on social media. On the other hand, the judicial system operated by national governments condemn those to the same fate that exercise discrimination in the workplace, public and privately.
What is the difference between these two authors of moral authority? Governments in westernised culture employ ‘balance and checks’ in the form of a jury or impartial judge to determine the innocence of any one person in a civil case. As well as implementing a long and formal process that takes weeks to months to complete. Contrastingly, social media corporations use software algorithms to catch any misguided behavior online. In some cases, they will immediately warn or ban the user without an internal review by its team.
It is this very conflict between the authority of government and the privatised world that will continue to dominate morality for years to come. Facebook and its companions will remove the voices of those they deem guilty of hate speech and detestable behavior. Whilst the democratic judicial system will punish those guilty in the perceived just eyes of the written and common law.
As a human race, we need to ask ourselves an existential question that will define our existence for centuries to come. Are we better under the eyes of the common law or the code of a computer?
Daniel Dell’Armi
Live Your Story 