Breakup or Makeup? Facebook’s Biggest Controversy.
Let’s take it back to the early 2000s for a second. The days when traveling for vacation meant fully soaking in the present, only pausing to capture some candid (more like plandid) moments on our Canon EOS Rebel S II. The days when it was still impossible to update where, who, and what we were doing via our SNS profiles. Those were the days when social media was still in its early developmental stages. Fast forward to today, that impossibility has become a mundane reality for the lives of approximately 56.8% of the world’s population.
It’s crazy to think about how much social media has advanced in such a ‘short’ amount of time and how dependent we’ve become on it. Heck, we have even made entire careers made out of it. Social media is undeniably one of the most powerful forces around us. Sometimes in positive ways, others the opposite. But to find a place of moderation in between the two is often hard to do, especially for companies with relentless ambitions of expanding, like Facebook. Some can even argue that they are a little too ambitious, even for such a giant.
Weighing the odds
What started out to be a company that merely held the purpose of connecting college students is now also a marketplace, news source, e-commerce, social platform and so much more. But their growth isn't even the most mind-boggling part, the ways that their reputation has changed is. Facebook went from being highly praised to highly criticized. Most recently, it has been the latter, regarding privacy concerns. But, are their questionable actions reversible? And if so, what needs to be done?
Among the options that they have as a company, two of which are highly debated: 1) break up Facebook’s dominance or 2) repeal section 230; each weighing their own pros and cons. So, let’s break it down.
Splitting up Facebook
As one of the mega-companies, holding such power in society comes with a price. Thriving on its consumers is the epitome of Facebook’s existence. But, when the safety and privacy of consumers become concerning, taking it back to basics may help in the long run. Some even argue that breaking up Facebook’s acquisition capabilities may be beneficial on a wider scale.
Pros of breaking up Facebook’s dominance:
- Opens market opportunities for smaller companies
- Reduces data privacy concerns
- Reduces national security concerns
Cons of breaking up Facebook’s dominance:
- Loss of research and development (R&D)
- Higher service costs for users
- Higher market concentration
To put things into perspective, splitting up a big tech like Facebook will give more room for smaller companies and startups to enter the market. While this may seem fair, there is also a con to this pro. This is denser and more competitive market fragmentation, not necessarily the best thing when you’re trying to beat 100 other people. Yet, the separation naturally leads to less data privacy and national security concerns. This is because usually, the larger an entity, the harder it is to control what goes around. Being that Facebook is currently facing huge issues with the safety and privacy of its users, many are convinced that simply breaking up the company’s dominance might solve the problem. What they don’t realize though, is users will actually have to pay higher service costs for smaller platforms. The larger a company, the more resources are available to provide free or lower-cost services since their revenue comes from a multitude of channels. In Facebook’s case, they make money through advertising, gaming, and even creating augmented reality products and services. Not to mention, everything allocated towards R&D would be such a costly loss.
Repeal Section 230
On the other hand, some say that getting rid of section 230 entirely may be a better idea for everyone, lawmakers especially. The reasoning is that big tech social platforms are able to filter through content that users have posted. However, this also comes with a price.
Pros of repealing section 230:
- Increased accountability for social platforms
- All content will be pre-approved
Cons of repealing section 230:
- Limited freedom of speech and privacy of users
- Harder for smaller companies to enter the market
- More legal litigations
The purpose of getting rid of section 230 is so that Facebook can be more accountable for things that are circulated via their platform. For instance, fake news, slander, harmful content, or any other inappropriate subjects. While getting rid of section 230 entirely can limit and filter out these things, it can also pose a threat for both parties when taken to an extreme. Think of micro-managing in a leadership position, when this is done too much, it can become a nuisance. Likewise, having all content pre-approved and accounts micro-managed will limit users’ freedom of speech and their privacy, since they will be under surveillance 24/7. Moreover, there would naturally be an increase in legal litigations because of this because the defining “appropriateness” is subjective. This also makes it harder for smaller companies to enter the same market because it would cost them more if they constantly have to fight lawsuits.
My Thoughts
Our perceived value of the social platforms we use is an interesting and intriguing human behavior phenomenon. Breaking up such a tech giant might not be the best idea. But, getting rid of section 230 entirely isn’t practical either.
While there really is no definite answer to solving Facebook’s biggest dilemma, we know that both ends have to find a middle ground to amend the current quandary. On the lawmaker’s end, they should look to revise section 230 so that content is better managed and more defined to deem appropriate, without compromising the user’s freedom of speech. Meanwhile, Facebook should update its privacy policies to be more specific and concise. After all, no one really has time to read through a 3-page privacy agreement.
Holistically speaking though, if it came down to choosing between the two, I’d say revising section 230 would be our best bet — for users and corporate. Repealing the entire law would put both parties at a risk, but tweaking it so that Facebook is more liable for inappropriate content will force them to take even more action towards censorship.
