Should Facebook be licensed?
I’ve been saying this for years – but you probably won’t yawn in recognition, as I’m under the radar, and don’t put every thought or wish on an internet platform.
But isn’t this the solution? What is needed is a government with the cojones to read the riot act to Mark Zuckerberg, and an appetite for shutting down a multi-billion dollar monster with literally billions of friends. Does such a government exist? Is it the US? China would no doubt be delighted, given its track record in suppressing internet sites. But licensing is a different matter.
Licensing is a way of making sure that industries which have most intense effect on people’s lives are acting at least partly in the interests of the customers. An example in architecture would be that fire safety is part of the considerations of the building design. In the US, home of Facebook, licensed industries include architecture, financial services, healthcare and pharmaceuticals. A quick look at that short list indicates the severe risks to an individual if any of these services goes badly wrong. It’s only a short leap to the damage that unrestricted harvesting of social media profiles can do. And a separate issue is the reckless creation of algorithms that exploit human weakness for extreme statements and finding a scapegoat. This was the meat of whistle-blower Frances Haugen’s testimony to the US Congress on October 5 where the clear message was that regulation of the vast social networks is way overdue. A body, perhaps separate from the Federal Communications Commission, must start putting manners on Zuckerberg et al (maybe with F. Haugen in a senior position).
The press, ye olde legacy media, was licensed in 1662 in England, when as mass media it was in its infancy. Quoting Karen Nipps, “Seditious, irreligious, pernicious, and scandalous” written material flooded the streets of London. What does that remind you of? Facebook has been around since 2004, Twitter since 2006, Instagram since 2010. You don’t need me to tell you (nor is there space) for the horrific things that have been done over such networks, bullying, shaming, driving people to their deaths. An industry which features such disastrous outcomes – especially to children and young teenagers – is a prime candidate for a system in which it operates under government licence. And if the terms of the licence are broken, the network is suspended from operations. Obviously, this would have to be for a very serious event. But if the system continues to rely on an “honour system”, and what is laughably called “self-governance”, then more misery and damage will be done. Because, as they knew in 1662, untrammelled human activity is going to have its vicious downside.
Comments
Post a Comment