The Social Contract in the Internet Age
The internet has granted us the power to transcend our physical location and connect with each other all over the globe. We have the ability to learn, teach, share, play, form communities, and so much more, without ever having to leave the comfort of our home. The potential for this kind of technology to improve our lives and enrich our communities is enormous, and yet as a global society we are more fragmented than ever before. Social media algorithms feeds us what they have learned will keep us online the longest — regardless of the validity of the information we are presented. A community of like-minded individuals and thus insulation from alternate perspectives is always just a click away. This continual entrenchment into our respective echo-chambers is an existential danger to a society which requires some level of social unity to function.
The Social Contract is an enlightenment-era idea. It describes how humans in the state of nature band together and relinquish some freedoms in order to gain others which are more valuable — for example: giving up the ‘right’ to just take whatever you want in return for the possibility to live in a community without fear of having your land or possessions stolen. The internet can be seen as in a state of nature of sorts. It has been around for a relatively short amount of time, and is far less regulated than the real world. Given that, perhaps it’s time for us to come together online and form a social contract, to make some order out of the chaos, and truly revolutionise the way our societies operate locally, nationally, and globally.
Identifying and addressing the pitfalls of today’s major social media platforms can allow us to imagine the sort of platform we require in order to form this contract. The three most prominent flaws in need of addressing are: corporate interference, echo-chamber formation, and unjust moderation. Solving these three issues will give us a good foundation upon which to construct this new platform, though each issue is more difficult to solve than the last.
Countering corporate interference
This issue is the most straightforward to solve. The primary force behind corporate interference is that of profit. The platform must be a non-profit — it must direct funds towards keeping the platform operational, and donate the rest. The corporate structure of the enterprise which would take on this project would also need to be a worker-owned co-op, so as to avoid the common pitfalls of traditional capitalist enterprises.
The means by which the platform will generate revenue is also of concern, as if the platform relies upon advertisers then censorship of ideas which conflict with the interests of advertisers will certainly follow — just take a look at YouTube. This platform will need to be entirely user-funded. Those of you who have a Medium membership already know what this looks like. Hypothetically, those users wishing to participate would need to pay a small fee, either monthly or yearly, in order to keep the platform operational. Any other method of revenue generation would leave the platform open to corruption.
Preventing the formation of echo-chambers
This is a tricky task to tackle, though not an impossible one. It would seem that the formation of echo-chambers results from the unlimited ability of social media users to form communities and create consensus within those communities, either via moderation (censorship of opposing perspectives) or vote-bombing (a la Reddit users down-voting new posts into oblivion). Site-wide echo-chambers may also form due to corporate interference (as a result of censorship), you can see this by taking a look at how the content and method of the discussions that take place on Facebook are different to those that take place on Twitter. Once echo-chambers have been formed, it is easier for individuals to find these spaces which are tailored to their worldview and insulate themselves from critical perspectives.
If the goal of this platform is social cohesion, then communities must be tied to geographic location (imagine submitting proof of address, the same way you do when signing up for a bank account, or phone contract). User-created communities cannot be allowed on the platform, firstly, because they are likely to lead to the formation of echo-chambers; and secondly, because they are unnecessary: you can already go anywhere on the internet to find like-minded people who share similar interests, and while that isn’t a bad thing, it doesn’t promote healthy debate and a clash of differing perspectives. Having your account tied to your place of residence would give you no choice but to engage with those in your local area. It would force the clashing of opinions and lead to real discussion. It would also prevent external groups from attempting to influence discussion or tamper with votes on how the excess revenue will be spent.
The simplest and most productive way to create groupings would be to define them by electoral boundaries. This would effectively allow an entire electorate to discuss issues relevant to them, and if a large percentage of the electorate participates in this ‘virtual town hall’ then the consensus created in this community would inevitably impact government decision-making. What’s more, the way the excess revenue generated by the membership fee is spent would be subject to the will of the respective community, creating a fund for local projects directed entirely by the people that the projects would go on to benefit.
As is the nature of online discussion, however, moderation of information will definitely be required. Not all contributions may be beneficial to the discussion, some might be totally inappropriate — however, we must not allow those who moderate the platform to arbitrarily silence users or to only promote ideas that they agree with.
Ensuring proper moderation
This one is definitely the toughest problem to solve, as the definition of ‘proper moderation’ varies between individuals. There are those who would argue that total freedom of speech is the best way to arrive at the truth (though it’s not obvious that 4chan is a bastion of reasoned debate), others who would censor opinions which don’t line up with well-established scientific data (and seeing the backlash of anti-vaxxers to various online platforms censoring their ‘alternate perspectives’, it’s not clear that blanket censorship will foster a sense of community).
Given that this platform is intended to be a forum of clashing perspectives, it seems that moderation should be in place to ensure the correct expression of these perspectives. As has been stated, there are already places for individuals to go to interact with others who believe in the same things that they do — this new platform must be about bringing to light the reasoning behind their beliefs so that others can come to understand them too. This platform is not intended to replace the platforms that already exist, it would simply be an additional platform where individuals could come together and discuss what they’ve found in their real lives or online in a reasonable way.
I believe the best way to achieve the task before us would be for user submissions to be moderated on the basis of logical argument. If a user wishes to make a post or a comment expressing support or disagreement of a topic or comment, their opinion must be expressed in a clear, logical way. For example, “I disagree with this post because of [x] and [y]” where [x] and [y] are independently verifiable claims. Other users would then be able to debate the topics and comments using the same logical structure. Whether [x] and [y] are true or not would not be for the moderator to decide — it is only important that if the claims are true then the conclusion would likely follow. It would then be up to each individual to determine the soundness of the argument based on how valid the claims backing them up actually are. Comments would be removed by a moderator if they commit logical fallacies.
Importantly, moderators would need to be subject to evaluation by the community as a whole, potentially via election. Transparency would also be vital to the success of the platform, so deleted posts and comments must be explained by the moderator to the user who submitted it. The deleted posts and comments must also be able to be viewed and disputed by any member of the community so as to ensure fair and balanced moderation.
With arguments being expressed in a clear and logical way, and moderators subject to the community’s approval, legitimate discussion about the issues relevant to a particular community can take place, and users can develop their understanding of others’ perspectives. What’s more, this kind of logical expression would teach users critical thinking, and allow them to not only find the problems in the arguments of others, but also the flaws in their own arguments, allowing the user to develop a more reasonable set of beliefs.
The consequences of widespread adoption
The platform described here is incomplete. Its form would likely be more complex than as described here, though I think that if the platform were to follow this roadmap, and if it were to be adopted by a large percentage of the population, there are some societal outcomes we could expect to take place. A social media platform where users are exposed to the viewpoints of those in their real-world community, expressed in a clear and logical way, funded entirely by the users, and free from corporate interference and arbitrary moderator censorship would, I believe, radically change how society operates:
Government proposals would be able to be scrutinised by the relevant community, bad arguments for or against would be defeated by better arguments, and this would be visible for all to see, as the claims used in support of the arguments would be clear and verifiable by each individual. If a government proposal meets serious and near-unanimous backlash by the relevant online community, governments would need to recognise the undesirability of their proposal and either alter it to fit the wishes of the community, or abandon it completely.
Communities could start their own movements for change, widespread support of which would, again, require the relevant government body to respond, as, in a democracy, it is the will of the people which legitimises government action. If the will of the people is clear for everyone, both in the community and government, to see, then the government must act accordingly, or else their legitimacy would be brought into question.
This new platform would bring about the beginning of a non-violent, direct-democratic revolution. Communities would be brought together, and their voice would be heard. Debates would be open for all, and only the best arguments would gain traction. Individuals would be exposed to new perspectives, and re-evaluate their own. Governments would need to act accordingly, or the people would find them illegitimate, and new parties would form for the sole purpose of exacting the general will. It’s time for change, it’s time to evolve as a society, and as individuals, and an online space where true, reasonable discussion can take place is the first step on that journey.
