Relevance: GS-2: Issues relating to the development and management of Social Sector/Services relating to Health, Education, Human Resources.

Key Phrases: Social media, Facebook,Polarized communities, metaverse, fact-checking and de-platforming

Context:

• Today, social media platforms have effectively supplanted traditional information networks in India. The relationship between online content, traditional media and political networks means that the messages propagated online effectively touch even those who are not yet online.
• Social media platforms ubiquity could have been a golden moment for India:
  1. Democratizing access to information
  2. Fostering community, increasing citizen participation
  3. Reducing the distance between ordinary people and decision-makers
• However, social media platforms have adopted design choices that have led to a proliferation and mainstreaming of misinformation while allowing themselves to be weaponized by powerful vested interests for political and commercial benefit.
• The consequent free flow of disinformation, hate and targeted intimidation has led to real-world harm and degradation of democracy in India:
  1. Mainstreamed anti-minority hate
  2. Polarized communities
  3. Sowed confusion made it difficult to establish a shared foundation of truth.

  

What are the various concerns raised by the Editorial in Social Media driven misinformation?

• Firstly, consider that organized misinformation (disinformation) has both political and commercial agenda.
• Secondly, despite there is growing recognition of the political motivations and impact of disinformation, the discourse in India has remained apolitical and episodic:
  1. Too much focused on individual pieces of content and events.
  2. A generalised outrage against big tech only.
  3. No outrage in the larger political context or structural design issues.
• Thirdly, the evolution of the global discourse on misinformation too has overwhelmingly focussed on details of content standards, enforcement, fact checking, takedowns, deplatforming, etc while allowing platforms to manipulate opinions the public opinion, has less regards for freedom of expression.
• Fourthly, the current system of content manipulation is less public concern for platforms than being geared to stop the spread of disinformation.

What are the various solutions suggested by the Editorial to curb disinformation?

• A meaningful framework to combat disinformation at scale must be built on the understanding that it is a political problem:
  1. The issue is as much about bad actors as individual pieces of content.
  2. Need for a comprehensive transparency law to enforce relevant disclosures by social media platforms.
  3. Content moderation and allied functions such as standard setting, fact-checking and de-platforming must be embedded in the sovereign political system through any regulatory body that must be grounded in democratic principles.
• Given the political polarisation in our country (and most others), the constitution of such a regulator and its operational legitimacy is difficult.
  1. Accountable platforms which are responsible for the speed and spread of distribution of disinformation and the design choices, which have made disinformation ubiquitous and indistinguishable from vetted information.
  2. Platforms need to tamp down on the distribution of disinformation and their weaponization.
  3. Platforms are responsible for the users and content they are hosting and bear responsibility for their distribution choices.
• Three approaches to content distribution that can be adopted by platforms:
  1. Constrain distribution to high geographic reach in very short period
  2. Take editorial responsibility for disputed content
  3. Amplify only credible sources (irrespective of ideological affiliation).
• The current approach to misinformation that relies on fact-checking a small subset of content in a vast ocean of unreviewed content is inadequate for the task and needs to be supplemented by a review of content creators itself.
• There are three notable effects of social media on our politics, which require deliberation:
  1. First, social media has led to a dislocation of politics with people weighing in on abstractions online while being disengaged from their immediate surroundings.
  2. Second, social media has led to a degradation of our political discourse where serious engagement has been supplanted by “hot takes” and memes.
  3. Third, it has obscured the providence of constructive interventions in our political system by trolling, abusing or boycotting.

Conclusion:

• Meaningful politics in any democracy, is rooted in local organisation, discussion and negotiation.
• The structure of social media has facilitated a perception of engagement without organisation, action without consequence.
• The need is to restructure the platform, which would help connect and root people in their own communities instead of isolating them locally while “connecting” them virtually.
• Currently, there is an acceleration towards greater virtuality through “metaverse”.But its structure and manner of use are choices must be made as a polity after deliberation instead of accepting as them fait accompli or simply being overtaken by developments along the way.

Source: Indian Express

Mains Question:

Q. Is social media hampering the democratic functioning across the globe? What are the concerns about political parties using social networking sites? What should be the measures taken to ensure constructive use of social media in strengthening democracy? (250 words).