I don’t have children, nor do I blindly endorse social media or web-based businesses. But I’ve spent enough time reflecting on how profoundly these platforms affect and impact our children to know that the questions folks around me raise deserve a more thoughtful approach than either resignation or outrage. A recent conversation with a colleague – someone I respect deeply for his technical acumen, his commitment to societal good, and his ability to see the world through a values based pragmatic lens – gave me a chance to explore this in more depth.
We were talking about Meta, which, as we know, has decided to step away from fact-checking on its platforms, arguing that no one has the moral, technical, or historical authority to define what is true. Instead, they propose that fact checking – and any enforcement of it – should come from the community. The “fact checking”, or lack of it, unfolded into a deep and thought-provoking debate on its broader implications.
“How can anyone accept that?” my colleague asked. “This creates the perfect environment for misinformation to spread. Vulnerable people, especially children and elderly, are left completely unprotected.”
His concern was valid. But I couldn’t help but ask, “Why do you think this is entirely the responsibility of the businesses? Why is the discussion only about Meta’s decision? Isn’t the user community itself, the society we are a part of, also accountable?”
His response was sharp. “These companies profit from this. They have the resources and power to do something about it. They should take responsibility for the harm they cause.”
I countered with a parallel. “With that logic, what about drug cartels? They have immense monetary power, too, and their actions destroy lives. Should we expect them to moderate their behavior or put in place checks and balances to curb the spread of their products?”
“That’s an extreme example,” he replied.
“Fair enough,” I said. “Let’s bring it closer to home. Consider fast food. We know the long-term consequences of consuming it excessively – as an example, let’s just look at aerated drinks. They’re marketed as fun and refreshing, but what’s their real benefit? Fast food industry suppress information and exploit human vulnerabilities. Isn’t that equally dangerous?”
He nodded but added, “Fast food isn’t as pervasive. Social media has no barriers. Anyone, anywhere, can access it anytime.”
“True,” I acknowledged. “So let’s talk about something, maybe not as pervasive, just as accessible, available through the same channels, using the same technologies: pornography. It’s morally fraught, often exploitative, and just as easy to access as social media. Are we comfortable with its unchecked consumption? No. Society has put in place checks and balances – measures taken by families, schools, and governments – to regulate its exposure.”
He agreed. “Yes, we don’t leave it unchecked. But social media feels different – it’s everywhere, and it’s inescapable.”
“Okay,” I said, “then let me bring in the example of “cigarettes”. Decades ago, people smoked openly – at home, in meetings, at social gatherings. When society realized the dangers, the response was collective. Legislation followed. Warning labels became mandatory. Schools began educating children about the risks. Parents stopped smoking openly. These changes didn’t come from the tobacco industry – they came from society, which demanded accountability and shared responsibility.”
He was still not convinced. “I still feel that this is different” he contended.
“Think about it” I said. “Why do we find ourselves here? We’ve willingly and enthusiastically allowed social media into every corner of our lives – our homes, our relationships, even the minds of our children. We know the harm it causes, but we’re complicit in its rise. We enjoy the dopamine rush of likes, the validation of sharing our lives online, and the convenience of algorithm-driven deals. We’ve handed these companies the keys to our most private spaces. And yet, we expect them to police themselves? Why? How?”
He asked, “So what are you suggesting?”
“Your concern is fair, and the arguments genuine. But I do not believe that it’s just about the businesses, that they should be the only one’s to be held accountable”, I replied. “The solution, in my humble opinion, lies in shared commitment and collective action. Parents, educators, legislators, and society as a whole need to take responsibility. We didn’t wait for tobacco companies to warn us about lung cancer. And we can’t rely on social media companies to protect our children or combat misinformation. We need to demand accountability, create boundaries, and enforce the kind of societal checks and balances that have worked in other areas.”
To those making a case for social media scrutiny, I couldn’t agree more. Social media absolutely needs a serious rethink, and some thoughtful checks. The way it operates, the power it wields, and the consequences it has on society – especially on our children and the elderly – demand urgent attention. We can no longer afford to sit back and let it shape our world without accountability. It’s time to take action, collectively and decisively, to ensure it serves us rather than controls us.
I also agree that the analogy to cigarettes isn’t perfect, maybe it is a bit dramatic, but I believe that it’s instructive. Just as we recognized the dangers of smoking and acted collectively to mitigate its harm, we need to approach social media with the same level of urgency. Fact-checking, while important, isn’t the sole solution. The challenge of misinformation and disinformation is a systemic issue, a pandemic in its own right. Addressing it requires maturity, intent, and a shared commitment to safeguarding the vulnerable.
The point I’m making is simple yet crucial: let’s not limit the conversation to just the business decisions and policy shifts at platforms like X and Meta. We need to broaden the discussion to encompass the full scope of the issue – the societal, ethical, and personal implications that social media, as a whole, is having on our lives. The impact it has on our now, and tomorrow. This deserves our focused attention, and it’s time we take a more comprehensive, collective approach to address it.
We cannot outsource this responsibility. The truth isn’t something to be left to others to shape or delegated to the companies profiting from its ambiguity. It’s something we must define and defend collectively, not just for ourselves, but for the generations to come.