Should social media companies be responsible for user content?

Mark (No)

It is simply not the duty of social media platforms to “parent” users and what content they share/post. Social media companies are responsible for providing a platform for users to express themselves or for promotion. It would be impossible for these platforms to regulate and monitor the hordes of content shared daily. Therefore, it is the user's responsibility to exercise prudence and social etiquette when expressing themselves. The idea of blaming a private company for the actions of an individual is an insult to the foundation of democracy: individual responsibility and freedom. 

Holding social media companies responsible for user content is like allowing the poor to be controlled and silenced by the rich and powerful. The Hulk Hogan/Gawker case is a good example. Gawker was forced to pay millions to an already millionaire, Hogan, because sensitive content was uploaded to their site. Most social media users even echo this view; when polled, the better part of the participants voted against holding social media companies liable for the content. 

It's also important to point out that if social media companies were to regulate user content, they would become the chief arbiters of such content. Social media companies would then have the autonomy to determine what is and isn't posted, potentially opposing a free and fair press or the First Amendment freedoms belonging to Americans.

Allowing social media platforms to appropriate user content would likely result in a wave of controversy in its own right. Finally, the debate is already won. On April 18, 2023, The Supreme Court ruled that social media companies are not responsible for user content. As citizens and free laborers, it's time that we take accountability for our actions and make a concerted effort to foster a harmonious and flourishing society. 

Andrew (Yes)

Social media companies know and actively promote the most extreme content on their platforms because it is known to drive engagement. This means that these companies aren’t just neutrally publishing whatever users create passively but actively seeking the most controversial content and pushing it up in our feeds through complicated algorithms. This drives extreme behavior, radicalization, and hate speech. These companies are already actively curating the content we see; instead of doing so responsibly, they are doing it for extremism and profit. 

Currently, social media companies are generally shielded from the repercussions that should come from the harm produced by the content they publish by section 230. This is a well-intentioned but outdated law from 1996, eight years before Facebook was created. Laws like this need to be updated when new technologies that can massively change society are created. As it stands, section 230 gives no incentive for these platforms to police themselves, and even social media titan Mark Zuckerberg has admitted that updating this law would help social media companies clean up their sites.   

The content that is published on these platforms has real-life consequences for society. Rumors, conspiracy theories, and other hateful content spread like wildfire online and have led to violent attacks, vaccine hesitancy, and even a failed insurrection in recent years. Surely, companies of this size and influence must protect the public. Even if they don’t feel they should be responsible, at the end of the day, they are the only ones with the actual ability to control what is published on their platforms.