Digital Ethics Are More Important Than Ever
Social media has been shown to be more powerful of a tool than I had ever thought possible. For the last five years I've been neck-deep in algorithms, best practices, advertising campaigns, SEO blog posts; the whole nine yards. Call it naivety, call it burnout, but I simply thought of social media as nothing more than a marketing tool for your business (and yourself.)
It is very clear, however, that social media is as powerful of a tool as the user allows it to be. For better or for worse, the users control the information that is put on social media, and despite the algorithm, we are in control of the information we see as well. The algorithm is designed to affirm our beliefs and our interests, therefore, showing an interest in Lionel Messi on Facebook will likely bring more suggested posts about Lionel Messi. These algorithms can be hyperactive, too. I once liked a photo of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce on Instagram and couldn't escape Taylor Swift fan pages in my suggested feed for months. Regardless, the algorithm is tailored to your interests and your beliefs.
Being the primary mode of consuming information for most Americans, that also means that social media has tremendous power in forming those beliefs in the first place. If our beliefs are formed off of the information we consume, and the information comes from social media, we are constantly consuming information that confirms what we already (or, what the algorithm believes we do) believe. For news, social media has become an echo chamber for all sides of the political spectrum for this very reason. X will be hard-right. Reddit will be hard-left. If you spend time reading a post from either of these websites, you are likely driven further and further down the political rabbit hole due to recommendations being tailored to your previously expressed interest in this political ideology.
The way we consume information is now a fragile process controlled by what a machine thinks we want. It is affirmed by us continuing to click on what it thinks we will read. Dissenting opinions are thrown aside simply by the nature of algorithmic feeds - you won't see what you won't agree with. That raises the question, can we engage in critical debate and thought with this new form of polarization driven by online content algorithms? The further we get into this decade, I find myself saying "no."
Due to the fragile nature of this algorithm, there are no shortage of bad actors taking advantage of the algorithmic echo chamber. Just last year, the Department of Justice indicted two Russian nationals for creating mock American news websites modeled off of websites like Fox News, CNN, and other major news outlets. These websites were spoofed with similar looking URLs, near-identical website design, however, they included incendiary and divisive language to further drive culture conflict in America. Here is an article to the DOJ's website for more information if you are interested. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/two-rt-employees-indicted-covertly-funding-and-directing-us-company-published-thousands
Though we control the algorithm to some extent with what we show we're interested in to Meta or Bytedance or Google, we are in less control of what appears after that. We are in even less control considering these articles are socially engineered for an angry or passionate reaction. Therefore, our echo chambers become angrier, and we get more divided.
It may be optimistic, but I believe we should adhere to higher ethical standards as content creators. We are not in control of who sees our content for the most part, but we are in control of the message we send out to willing ears. I believe authenticity, integrity, honesty, and transparency will carry us through the societal and cultural divide we find ourselves further entrenched in day by day. If we are to combat this trend at all, we ought to be the ones carrying the flag, not feeding the problem.
