Social media is old fashioned
The New York Times has reported that the Justice Department is about to bring an antitrust suit against Google specifically targeting Google’s power in online advertising. There are two things to note before the courts issue their ruling.
The first is that though Google, Facebook and Twitter all pride themselves on overturning the past – and from a technological point of view they do – their core business model is quite old. Like newspapers and television, they provide readers with free access to content, and in return they are able to advertise to them.
By giving readers free content, they can analyse our habits and interests and sell the data to advertisers. Newspapers, radio and television did the same thing.
Second and more important, Google, Facebook and Twitter don’t really create their own content. Newspaper articles, radio programs and TV shows were produced for the readers. Publishers and networks were responsible for what they provided the public, and they had a substantial cost structure that had to generate revenue in a complex, symbiotic relationship. Google, Facebook and Twitter deferred the cost but claimed the responsibility for their content.
Google created a search engine that mapped out the internet, allowing readers to find content they were interested in. Facebook and Twitter simply allowed readers to use their platforms to state their views and read the views of others, and in doing so became the subject of advertising. The key for all three was that at the outset they claimed they were not responsible for their content.
The problem of monopoly in advertising is less critical than the means by which these companies attracted members. The cost for access to their service was zero. Twitter and Facebook were the most radical in this regard. Anyone could create an account without verification of identity.
They argued that this was the technological revolution that perfected the first amendment’s right to free speech. Their motive had less to do with the Bill of Rights and more to do with encouraging as many people as possible to express their views, track what they said, and sell access to advertisers based on what they said.
The Bill of Rights does guarantee free speech, but it did not anticipate the notion of total anonymity. Free speech assumes that the speaker is known, that what is said depends on who the speaker is and what the speaker has said in the past – that is, the character of the speaker.
All that is impossible through these new media. One person can pretend to be 20 people by opening multiple accounts, and each can have their real identities hidden or claim someone else’s identity. The founders did not expect speech to be divorced from responsibility. Social media specialises in it.
Social media, like TV or newspapers, flourishes on readership. Social media allows its readers to provide the content that attracts readers for free. There is no cost for stating your views, no means to compel the speaker to identify himself and no consequence for slander, lying or mounting campaigns with malicious intent. The key moment in all this was when social media decided to follow a business model from the 1960s. TV was no cost to the viewer, and money was made by the ads that were sold. But with TV, the viewer did not control the content, and we were aware of who produced it. In the social media model, the reader is also the writer, and the cost of entry is zero.
Had a more modern approach been taken, everyone wanting an account would have to pay a fee, however modest, and provide a credit card. To some extent, it could be known who said what, and potential consequences would follow for slander or lies, if not legal then social. But social media’s strategy was so deeply rooted in old media that charging users was verboten. It would cut down on the audience being sold to advertisers.
To me, the fundamental problem of social media is anonymity. It is a place where anyone can say anything and walk away. It was an efficient plan that now meets antitrust laws. But that is not the core issue. The fact that there is both total anonymity and no cost encourages bad-faith actors to use that media and leaves the reader with no way to measure the credibility of the statement or the speaker. It creates equality between dissent and insanity. And there is no one we can shame for what is said unless a speaker volunteers his or her identity. And that segment who wishes to believe what is said can drive the discourse of others in uncontrolled rage.
An antitrust suit is based on the success of a business. The question here is liability, of creating a business that deliberately facilitates the right to speak without being responsible for what you said. Google uses its search engine, and the others use the platform for anonymous claims.
The problem is not that they were successful but how they were successful: by selling access to others without being in any way responsible for what they say. That may be changing now, but the real answer is to charge users via a credit card. But that would hurt business.