Federal Regulation on The Use of Media
INTRODUCTION
In the past two decades, America has seen a big change in how Politics are perceived. Looking back on the past, it was seen that politics consisted of how the next president would bring change to the country and what policies would be put in place to move America forward in a better direction. Yet as the United States looked past the previous election, there was not much debate on what the next president would do for our country. After watching the primary debate, it was seen that few ideas for America’s future were brought up, instead there was an ample amount of dog fight bickering between the two political leaders former President Trump and now President Biden. Rather than discuss in depth the changes the two leaders would make to the country, they dug into their past trying to one up the other, disregarding what the primary debate should have been used for, discussing their future presidency. After the debate was over, former president Trump went to twitter and commented “Nobody wants sleepy Joe as a leader, including the Radical Left (which he lost last night!)” (Trump). This sparked a response from President Joe Biden who then made a GIF out of Trump and his comments within the debate commenting: “Had enough?” (Biden) with a crying emoji placed on top of Trump’s head. While this is humorous and quite entertaining to an extent it defeats the seriousness and accountability of the actions of the political leaders. Throughout the day after the night of the debate, media sources took it upon themselves to get in on the conflict as both CNN and Fox news tried to poke holes at the other affiliate party. The use of social media and news media and its polarizing effects should be regulated by the federal government through the passing of new legislation.
CONCERNS OF REGULATION
Many people believe that if the media was regulated that it would be inhibiting American’s right to free speech. A particular situation in which this has arised was a few months ago when The New York post released the story of Joe Biden’s family. In response, Twitter prevented its users from reposting the articles on their social media platform and Facebook made restrictions on how users could access the information. The response by the American people was harsh. In this case people were outraged that these social media powerhouses had regulated their free speech, limiting their power to spread and share knowledge. Out of this conflict many people believed that the social media companies were trying to affect the outcome of the next presidential election.
Another problem that the American people have brought up is bias stemming from media regulation. An American concern that if the media is regulated even more that it will become biased to the point that social media companies are limiting what they can and cannot see. While this might be a concerning issue, the American people should understand that the media right now still contains bias wherever they look.
THE AMERICAN PROBLEM: SOCIAL MEDIA
While social media might be fast and easy to access information it also leaves gaps in what news is seen by different people. Algorithms used within social media are the main cause of this. Social Media sites use algorithms to appeal to what you find most interesting and attention grasping. This, while problematic for the content consumers, allows these big media companies to make the most profit. In doing so however, Social Media companies, whether they know it or not are dramatically affecting our opinions on daily matters, most specifically politics. From the Netflix documentary: The Social Dilemma, Guillaume Chaslot, a software engineer, speaks out about how these certain algorithms are shaping our ideology;
It worries me that an algorithm that I worked on is actually increasing polarization in society. But from the point of view of watch time, this polarization is extremely efficient at keeping people online.
From this algorithm trying to repeatedly try and show us what we want to see, if we spend a certain amount of time on a certain post or article it reads this and starts to provide us with more and more of that similar information. Over a few days people are provided with only information the algorithm thinks we want to see which then starts to polarize how we will view our information. Within our own social media feed we will start to have a bias of what information is consumed leaving out other important viewpoints. While people might think they are being shown what they want, this is how people get stuck in a loophole and start to perceive things that can be wrong. A particular situation that can have a very negative impact is when people start reading conspiracy theories about politics and start believing in them. Bias then is able to take full control as most of the time conflict arises from the bias viewpoints leading to hate and anger between varying ideologies.
Why this speaks so strongly to exigence is because of the use of social media in the past few decades. Social Media use and how we receive our news has exponentially grown in the past two decades. With more and more people joining everyday it is crucial that the information being shown is that of which hasn’t been diluted by bias or particular ideas that can negatively impact a certain side of politics.
Even more concerning is that our youth are the ones most dramatically affected by social media. In a recent study done by the pew research center, the statistics show that 48% of people age eighteen to twenty nine get their political news from social media.
While the information access has greatly increased in availability, is it ok that what we could possibly be showing our youth poisoning their ideology? By this idea, we talk about the effects of polarization specifically. How can America keep going about social media and its drastic and dangerous effects on politics and bias? America is at such a crossroad that it could possibly implode leading to anarchy.
If we go down the current status quo for, let’s say, another 20 years… we probably destroy our civilization through willful ignorance. We probably fail to meet the challenge of climate change. We probably degrade the world’s democracies so that they fall into some sort of bizarre autocratic dysfunction. We probably ruin the global economy. Uh, we probably, um, don’t survive. You know, I… I really do view it as existential.
Jaron Lanier, a computer analyst, predicts that the course of which social media is affecting politics suggests that the United States will have another civil war… So what does America have to do to mediate the damage?
CONCLUSION
The truth of it is that this algorithm and or access to information needs to change. While the government will be inhibiting free speech to an extent, by no means is it negatively affecting how we access our news and information. Eliminating ideas from the far left and right, by no means eliminating facts and or beneficial knowledge, will cut down on the harmful ideas that could insinuate polarization and or conflict. Bias will be of acceptance as it is good to have different viewpoints; but none shall however invigorate violence or hatred to a particular idea or group of individuals. While some conflict will appear almost inevitably it should be of top priority to mediate further spark of conflict. Free speech will be tolerated till it appears to isolate and alienate a certain idea and or group of people.
- Missing a part in the middle about the use of news media*
https://universe.byu.edu/2020/08/06/social-media-use-impacts-political-views/
https://pelicaninstitute.org/blog/should-government-regulate-social-media/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/internet-censorship-fairness-doctrine-not-needed/
https://ourworldindata.org/rise-of-social-media
https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2020/10/03/the-social-dilemma-movie-transcript/
1). Answer any questions the writer may have posed about the draft
There were no questions posted.
2). Comment on scope of the thesis and whether or not it was convincingly argued. What improvements are needed to make it more convincing?
I think the thesis was improved from the intro paragraph post as it now specifically included the proposed solution. This solution was then adequately discussed in the body of the paper. I do think including a general reasoning or logic as to why that solution should work in the thesis would be helpful as well.
3). Comment on the evidence for the policy or its implementation. Does the draft need stronger sources to support the arguments? What kinds?
The arguments for why social media is so important are well-demonstrated and the use of quotes and infographics support this. Improvement could be made to how this need for change then links to government regulations and more specifically, if data has been found that supports the regulations you are proposing.
4). Did the piece handle questions of feasibility or objections to the policy?
Some objections begin to be mentioned in the conclusion however these should likely be expanded upon and discuss what others may propose as a solution, rather than simply what will happen if no change is made at all.
5). Comment on any improvements to arrangement that could be considered.
Overall the organization of this piece is good. Possibly the solutions and counterarguments could be expanded into a new paragraph before the conclusion to allow for the conclusion itself to summarize the entirety of the paper.
6). Comment on the structure of the issue brief, including subtitles.
The evidence is well dispersed and the subtitles each seem to handle a distinct important aspect of the issue. The “American Problem: Social Media” segment is a bit lengthy and covers a large amount of content so this could probably be split into smaller sections.
7). Make one recommendation for something that could be moved, changed, added, or deleted.
I would suggest that the specific government regulations you are proposing be specified to a greater extent in a separate paragraph rather than the conclusion.
1). Answer any questions the writer may have posed about the draft.
None
2). Comment on scope of the thesis and whether or not it was convincingly argued. What improvements are needed to make it more convincing?
The thesis is clear in what you want to argue throughout the paper. I believe that you do a good job of arguing points that align with this thesis.
3). Comment on the evidence for the policy or its implementation. Does the draft need stronger sources to support the arguments? What kinds?
I think that some more evidence from studies could be beneficial. The more quantifiable numbers to support the argument the better.
4). Did the piece handle questions of feasibility or objections to the policy?
There is a section dedicated to objections to the policy. I think that a discussion based in its feasibility could be beneficial. This could include some potential policy ideas and diving into regulations.
5). Comment on any improvements to arrangement that could be considered.
The arrangement largely seems good. I would check and make sure that we are allowed to write heavily from the first person perspective.
6). Comment on the structure of the issue brief, including subtitles.
I think that the concerns section would be better addressed later on. A more natural progression could be structured by moving from the issue to the policy to the objections and counterarguments. There are no subtitles, but I think that the graphics used are a good start.
7). Make one recommendation for something that could be moved, changed, added, or deleted.
I would add some more concrete information about what such regulations on social media would look like. I think that this could make the solution more tangible. I would also add more reasoning as to why social media where it is now is not acceptable. This would come from data and anecdotes.