The ownership of platforms like X (formerly Twitter) can shape political discourse, as owners can influence content, censor information, and prioritize their views.
Concerns arise when owners, like Elon Musk, use platforms for personal or political agendas, undermining objective journalism.
Social media, while vital for spreading news, can be controlled by monopolies, allowing governments to influence or censor information easily, which is dangerous for democracy.
Lack of alternative, free platforms makes it harder for citizens to access uncensored information.
Misinformation spreads across platforms, but some, like WhatsApp in India, see higher volumes due to platform-specific factors.
Platforms often fail to moderate hate speech adequately due to lack of local language moderators and insufficient investment in content moderation.
Platforms must invest in human moderators and AI systems to filter harmful content and prevent misuse, like organizing violence or spreading harmful narratives.
A lack of moderation can lead to social harm, as seen in incidents like the Sri Lanka riots or the Rohingya crisis.
Decentralized platforms, like Mastodon and Bluesky, offer alternatives to centralized platforms, reducing the influence of monopolies, but they may not be as user-friendly.
These alternatives might help avoid the harmful centralization of information, providing a fairer communication system for democracy.
When used ethically, social media can be a powerful tool for democracy, helping people organize, express opinions, and hold authorities accountable.
However, when monopolized or controlled by harmful actors, social media can also perpetuate injustice and restrict free expression.
There is a call for media literacy education, teaching citizens, especially youth, to critically evaluate and process information from diverse sources to protect democratic values.
COMMENTS