Political Economy of Social Media

Week 6: Political Economy of the Media Video 4: Political Economy of Social Media Focus on how several debates surrounding social media (including some discussed last week) can be connected to its political economy.

Relative ease and thriftiness of producing online media (compared to TV for example) has provided space for a diverse range of viewpoints that may struggle for representation in mainstream news media, seen last week in the role of social media facilitating the #MeToo movement and this is joined by other movements facilitated by social media e.g. Occupy, who protest the neoliberal economic policies of generated inequalities that concentrate wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people and the use of Facebook in the Arab Spring revolutions in the Middle East in 2010 – 2011.

However, the Christchurch shootings, violence in Myanmar and evidence of interference in a range of elections and referendums around the world have drawn acute attention in which sites e.g. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have provided a platform for extremists viewpoints, and stories of dubious factuality with the aim of attracting users and thus advertisers.

Facebook’s primary source of revenue is advertising, charging companies or organizations like political parties for targeted advertising based on treasure trove of user data.

Controversies highlight potential disregard the directors or shareholders of companies i.e. Facebook have for the political ramifications of what their platforms are being used for as they chase users and profits.

This is something different from a powerful media owner like Rupert Murdoch using his news channels to promote certain political figures.

Ultimately, companies like Facebook and Alphabet Inc. have established powerful monopolies, making their founders affluent based upon their hands-on attitude to content, whatever the risks to society.

Controversies have also surfaced due to Facebook sharing of this data with 3rd parties, despite repeatedly claiming they don’t sell users data to them and the New York Times presenting findings of data-sharing agreements between companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Netflix and Amazon.

A scandal arose surrounding Facebook in 2018 involving sharing of data with shadowy political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica.

Cambridge Analytica used apps on Facebook to harvest data from 87 million users, using this data to covert digital campaigns in elections across the world i.e. Donald Trump.

Subsequently, there have been calls for greater regulation of tech companies i.e.

Facebook and Google for their management in content and data as well as ownership.

▪

The latter including a request to see Facebook broken up due to its near monopoly over social media.

▪

Such calls detect problems of a free media market and the need for intervention of government regulation.

•

Resulting in Zuckerberg acknowledging the need for greater regulation over the management of content and data e.g. elections, harmful content, privacy and data portability.

➢ Zuckerberg doesn’t ask for the regulation of ownership, seemingly for the fearing this more major regulation that’s shaped his attitude towards minor regulation.

Furthermore, whilst Facebook has already achieved success because of the absence of tight regulation. Such regulation of content and data makes it more difficult for new competitors to obtain wealth quickly in a similar fashion.

Either way, these debates raise questions about what kind of role the government should play in the media.