Reexamining Social Media Ownership
Recent events, particularly Musk’s and other platform owners’ cosy relationship with Trump and their involvement in the US state, have reignited debates about social media ownership’s immense power over information dissemination and public discourse. This issue is not confined to the Republican Party. Jack Dorsey and other senior figures’ roles in the Twitter Files saga raised similar questions about the neutrality of influential platform owners. Zuckerberg’s recent shift in content moderation strategy, seemingly aimed at appeasing Trump, along with his claims that the Biden administration exerted undue pressure for censorship, only reinforces the idea that too few individuals hold far too much power over how we share and consume information.
Such concerns lead some to look at the alternative state ownership of social media as a means to steer the information ecosystem towards the public interest, believing that government oversight could counterbalance corporate greed. However, nations like Russia and China, where this model is utilised, clearly demonstrate its dangers. These regimes weaponise social media platforms, turning them into tools of surveillance, propaganda, and censorship. Entrusting governments with the power to dictate the flow of information is a dangerous proposition, especially for those with authoritarian tendencies.
This raises a critical question: how can we build social media platforms that are democratic, resistant to manipulation and in the public interest, whether owned by powerful individuals, corporations, or governments?
The Precarious Power of Private Social Media Ownership
Today, social media sites are owned by single entities or small groups, often accountable only to shareholders seeking to maximise profit. Private ownership promises rapid innovation, with streamlined decision-making, access to capital, and the ability to attract top talent. This fosters a dynamic environment for development. For a long time, there was a notion that private social media companies would be self regulated by user demand. However, self regulation and human centric innovation promises have quickly unravelled. When the desire for growth overshadows responsibilities to stakeholders and participants, the potential for misuse and societal harm becomes evident.
It is extremely concerning how private ownership exerts unilateral control over the algorithms that determine which information populates our information ecosystems. A single owner, driven by personal biases and agendas, can manipulate algorithms, prioritise certain viewpoints, censor others, and amplify misinformation. Content moderation policies can become subject to their whims, leading to inconsistent enforcement, selective censorship, and the silencing of dissenting voices. Musk’s changes to X’s verification system, content moderation policies, and algorithms, for example, amplified certain voices and enabled the spread of misinformation, creating a partisan echo chamber. This environment allows harmful misinformation and politically motivated propaganda to spread unchecked.
Another major drawback is a lack of transparency and accountability. A single owner has little incentive to be transparent about their decision-making processes, making it difficult to hold them accountable for their actions. Furthermore, the potential for political influence and manipulation is an ever-present danger. A wealthy owner can leverage their control to promote their political leanings, support favoured candidates, and attack political opponents. This can turn into a powerful instrument for swaying elections and shaping public policy, a particularly worrying prospect given the increasingly cosy relationship between tech CEOs and government. The line between private enterprise and political influence blurs, threatening the integrity of the democratic process. The limited transparency surrounding X’s algorithm and content prioritisation makes it difficult to discern whether the platform is being manipulated to influence public opinion, potentially affecting election results. Ultimately, this lack of transparency erodes public trust and fuels division and suspicion.
Ironically, private ownership often suppresses dissent and free speech. Despite claims of championing free speech, an owner can selectively censor or deplatform users who express views that are critical of them or their interests. The mere threat of censorship has a chilling effect on public discourse, discouraging users from openly expressing their opinions. Reports suggest that accounts critical of Musk or his business practices have faced restrictions or suspensions on X. This risks stifling intellectual debate and limits the diversity of perspectives.
Economic Motives Trump Democratic Values
Ultimately, economic motives often trump democratic values. The attention economy driving these platforms means the owner’s primary motivation often boils down to profit maximisation. As a result, entertaining but false, extreme, sensationalistic, and biased content spreads at the expense of accurate, important, and nuanced information that may simply not be as entertaining. Neil Postman, who originally wrote about television, called this phenomenon “entertaining ourselves to death.” The spread of entertaining but not necessarily productive content helps explain the growing polarisation in the West as people move away from the political centre towards left- and right-wing extremism. This is compounded by decisions regarding content moderation and algorithm design, which are often driven by financial considerations rather than ethical or democratic principles. Meta’s recent change in its content moderation policy highlights this tension.
The dangers of centralised power and influence cannot be overstated. Concentrating immense power and influence in the hands of a single individual allows them to shape public discourse and influence political outcomes on a colossal scale, undermining the very principles of decentralisation and pluralism that are vital for a healthy democracy. The lack of public consultation exacerbates the problem. Major platform changes can be implemented with limited public consultation or input.
There is also the continuous risk of vulnerability to external influence. Despite their claims to autonomy, single owners can fall under pressure from foreign governments or powerful interest groups, like advertisers, who at times can have a larger say than end users. These pressures could lead to censorship and manipulation of content to serve the interests of external actors, creating an ironic susceptibility to government influence and further eroding public trust in the platform.
Public Social Media Ownership
An alternative model sees social media platforms operating under government control, similar to other public utilities. Proponents argue this allows for a level of control that promotes the public good, ostensibly enabling a more ethical and responsible online environment. In theory, it can bring many benefits. However, in most cases observed, government control degrades into authoritarianism very quickly.
Influence over algorithm design and content moderation would allow the state to implement algorithms that prioritise national values, promote accurate information, and combat harmful content, freeing platforms from the influence of profit-driven algorithms. Unprofitable policies, such as ending doomscrolling, would be taken more seriously, and less attention would be paid to maximising the attention economy. A state-run platform could promote responsible online behaviour. Policies and regulations encouraging ethical online conduct and discouraging harmful behaviour could be readily implemented alongside the enforcement of rules surrounding data privacy and responsible use of personal information.
Rather than being the product, as is the case in capitalist social media companies, users would become the consumers once again. In the current paradigm, our data, attention, and engagement are the valuable commodities sold to advertisers and other third parties. State ownership, in theory, could shift this dynamic, with the platform providing a service to the public, funded by taxes, and accountable to citizens’ needs rather than the demands of the market. This would mean the platform’s success would be measured by its contribution to the public good—informed citizenry, civic engagement, and social cohesion—rather than advertising revenue or stock price.
A state-run platform, such as those in China, can prioritise content in the national language(s), promote local artists and creators, and celebrate national traditions and heritage. This is especially valuable in an age where many of these national cultural totems are being lost to globalisation driven by technology, such as social media.
Is This Cure Worse Than the Disease?
Despite these benefits, state control runs the risk of censorship and the suppression of free speech. The benefits of state social media control often serve as a Trojan horse. States, like capitalists, also have their own independent incentives that differ from the public good. The mere plausibility of accusing the state of acting in self-interest undermines trust in media and society. The result is the creation of a sterile and uninspired platform, essentially useless for genuine communication.
The state-owned social media that exists often leads to political manipulation and propaganda. The state could wield its control to disseminate propaganda, manipulate public opinion, and suppress alternative viewpoints. Furthermore, state-run social media is often used to target political opponents, spread disinformation about them, and undermine their credibility.
The same actions could erode privacy and enable surveillance. State control would empower mass surveillance of citizens’ online activities, creating a chilling effect on free expression and association. Personal data could be harvested and analysed to identify and monitor individuals critical of the government or holding dissenting views. This needn’t be a blatant process; public opinion can be swayed, as Cambridge Analytica did, discreetly by segmenting, targeting, and marketing ideas subversively over time. Dissenting views could also be shadowbanned, quietly censoring opposition.
Private vs State: Can We Do Better?
Both private and state-owned models share a troubling susceptibility to manipulation and disinformation. Both forms of governance have an incentive to produce biased narratives, suppress dissent, and influence public opinion. The fundamental difference lies in who benefits from the manipulation. In the private model, it is typically the owner or shareholders; in the state model, it is the ruling government.
State-controlled media is perhaps out of the scope of the current social media debate in the West. There are, however, other models that can be looked at to limit the impact of powerful individuals on our information ecosystem. Robert Mc Chesney highlights that the state needs to do more to curb the influence of commercial interests in social media. He advocates for public subsidies to fund independent media, stronger public broadcasting with safeguards against government interference, and antitrust measures to break up media monopolies. He also proposes publicly funded election coverage to curb corporate influence, investment in digital public infrastructure, and policies promoting net neutrality. Additionally, he emphasises media literacy education and the expansion of cooperative, citizen-owned media models to ensure accountability and diverse perspectives in the information ecosystem.
Is There a Third Way? The Promise of Decentralisation and Cooperation
Two promising models are emerging: platform cooperatives and decentralised social media. Both seek to empower users and communities, fostering a more democratic and equitable digital landscape. However, neither model has the centralised leadership necessary to address large-scale threats effectively.
Social Media Platform Cooperatives: A Democratic Alternative
Platform cooperatives (platform co-ops) shift power dynamics by making users, workers, or both, the owners of the platform. This model ensures democratic ownership, profit-sharing, transparency, and accountability. By prioritising fairness, equality, and social responsibility, these platforms promote user control, reduce power concentration, and foster economic empowerment.
Decentralised Social Media: Challenging Centralised Control
Decentralised social media platforms operate without a single controlling entity. Instead, governance is distributed across a network, often using blockchain or peer-to-peer technologies. This structure enhances privacy and resists censorship, making it difficult for any organisation or government to impose restrictions on content. Many decentralised platforms are open-source, allowing developers to improve the system and enabling diverse communities to set their own moderation rules. Examples include Mastodon, a federated microblogging platform, and Bluesky, which is developing a decentralised protocol for social networking.
The Challenges of Decentralisation
Despite their advantages, both platform cooperatives and decentralised social media face serious challenges. Without centralised leadership, they struggle with scalability, usability, and addressing issues such as misinformation and harmful content. Their lack of unified governance also makes responding to emerging threats more difficult, raising concerns about long-term viability.
Balanced Centralisation
The EU’s path through the Digital Services Act (DSA) aims to strike a balance between preserving the benefits of free private social media while curbing its most harmful excesses. By enforcing stricter regulations on major platforms, the DSA seeks to create a safer, more transparent online environment where fundamental rights are protected, misinformation is addressed, and illegal content is effectively removed. The legislation imposes minimum standards on content moderation, algorithmic transparency, and user rights, ensuring that social media platforms operate in a way that prioritises public interest over unchecked corporate influence. Through these measures, the EU aspires to foster a digital ecosystem that enhances democratic discourse, upholds privacy, and mitigates the societal risks posed by unregulated social media landscapes.
Addressing Ownership
One element outside the scope of the DSA that requires urgent attention is the issue of corporate ownership and control over social media platforms—a concern prominently highlighted by Robert McChesney. An idea could be to restrict how much of the public information ecosystem individuals can own to limit the influence of so-called broligarchs on public discourse. By at least having a diverse group of shareholders, the chance for political partisanship and the incentive of excessive profit-seeking behaviour decreases. This is especially the case if citizens become the main shareholders of the media ecosystems they utilise. This is not a new idea; in fact, old media had caps on how much market share a single entity could control. The United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enforces rules that limit how many television and radio stations one company can own in a given market, to prevent the monopolisation of public information channels.
Regulatory efforts such as the DSA will have a limited impact as long as a few private corporations retain unchecked control over the platforms that serve as the backbone of modern communication. Companies will ultimately prioritise profit over the public interest when making content moderation decisions, handling data privacy, and ensuring algorithmic transparency.
By addressing ownership concentration and implementing structural reforms, policymakers could take a crucial step towards ensuring that social media functions as a true public good, fostering open debate, safeguarding user rights, and preventing the undue influence of a small elite over global digital communication. In conjunction with media literacy policies and greater support for public good journalism, this could reduce the impact of corporate interests drastically while still maintaining the advantages and innovation of private companies.
