
PICK up a pack of cigarettes and you will probably see a terrifying picture of cancer lesions with a stern warning about how smoking can kill. For decades in the US, this was called the surgeon generalâs warning, and it was a reminder that cigarettes are so bad that the governmentâs top doctor was against them. Now, the current surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, has recommended that we
Speaking in mid-July to , Murthy said that social media networks played a âmajor roleâ in circulating misinformation about covid-19. He said that this âharms peopleâs healthâ and âcosts them their livesâ. It sounds like Murthyâs opinions go all the way to the top: US President Joe Biden said that social media is âkilling peopleâ who are getting conspiracy-tinged news about the pandemic from their feeds. In response, Facebook has said that it was being made a scapegoat for the White House missing some of its goals.
Advertisement
Despite widespread availability of vaccines, of people in the US are fully vaccinated. Of the remaining unvaccinated people, to get the shot. A recent study by the due to misinformation on social platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The group identified a handful of Facebook influencers called the âdisinformation dozenâ who peddled tales about the evils of vaccines to millions of people. The result has been a massive pandemic aftershock as the delta variant rips through unvaccinated populations. When you look at the data that way, warning labels on social media start to make sense.
Itâs an idea that Safiya Umoja Noble, at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of Algorithms of Oppression, has been researching for many years. She has argued that social media platforms should be regulated like the tobacco industry. I asked Noble what she thought about her work finally being floated as policy.
âThere are many Black women, women of color and LGBTQ+ scholars and activists who have been issuing warnings and trying to get the attention of policy makers, but unfortunately, until men in power speak, it isnât heard,â she told me via direct message. âHaving said that, a warning is important but it will be meaningless without the repair and restoration that needs to be made to many global communities that have been undermined and harmed already.â
For Noble and her colleagues, a warning isnât enough. We need to hold companies accountable for the damage they inflict, and that means an end to the notion that social platforms are just allowing the circulation of âfree speechâ. In the US, free speech laws are rife with exemptions: people cannot simply say anything, especially if it involves endangering others. Thatâs the logic behind laws that make it unlawful for people to share sexualised images of children, even if they didnât personally create the images.
I think one of the big fears about regulation is that it will stifle all speech, preventing people from engaging with each other on social media in an honest, open way. But that assumes a very narrow definition of engagement. Currently, most social media platforms encourage people to participate by surfacing content that gets your dander up, making you so emotional that you just have to post a response. But what if we started encouraging another kind of engagement â one that feels less like mashing the anger button and more like⊠voting?
âInfluencers called the âdisinformation dozenâ peddle tales about the evils of vaccines to millions of followersâ
Long-time science journalist talk that she always tries to get her readers engaged without resorting to hot takes. Instead, she said she âtreats readers like voters, participants in a democratic processâ. She points them to hearings they can attend, and explains how to comment on regulations under consideration. The point, she said, is to show how to engage in solutions rather than false debates.
What if our social media helped us become more engaged in government processes? Iâm not talking about putting an ignorable box in the corner of your feed that says, âWarning: This content may not be good for you.â Iâm imagining a world where a button asks: âShare with your local representative?â Maybe youâre given one-click access to a public comment area on political issues in your community. Instead of showcasing âopinionsâ about the pandemic, what if social media showed you a list of places to volunteer to help neighbours who are too sick to work?
If social media has taught us nothing else, itâs that we are all desperate to engage. We want our opinions known, and we want to contribute to debates about our futures. But without good regulations, our urge to help is hindered by a web of lies. It doesnât have to be that way. We can change. All we have to do is engage.
Annaleeâs week
What Iâm reading
How to Lose the Information War by Nina Jankowicz, which was highly recommended by an instructor who teaches psyops to the US Army.
What Iâm watching
Just finished Derry Girls, whose ending with the ceasefire is much more poignant now.
What Iâm working on
Researching the history of the early 19th century âPermanent Indian Frontierâ in the US (no, it wasnât permanent).
- This column appears monthly. Up next week: James Wong