4 Ways to Fix Social Media That Don’t Involve Elon Musk

Elon Musk’s bid to purchase Twitter in a deal value $44 billion has sparked debate and concern about what the platform will appear to be as soon as he takes over. The world’s richest man will steer the way forward for a small however influential platform of greater than 200 million customers, inheriting a heated debate over tackling problems with hate speech, misinformation and polarization.

Musk has alarmed Twitter staff and digital safeguarding consultants by describing himself as a “free speech absolutist,” sparking fears Twitter’s content material moderation regime—whereas imperfect—may very well be jettisoned.

The necessity to enhance on-line areas is an ongoing dialog, usually taking part in out on Twitter itself. Ladies, folks of shade and marginalized teams navigate a treacherous web setting on-line. For instance, analysis by Amnesty discovered 29% of U.S. ladies customers confronted threats of bodily or sexual violence on-line.

Learn extra: Twitter Has Helped Construct Social Actions Throughout the World. Now Organizers Concern For Its Future

Listed below are 4 solutions from consultants to reform social media that don’t value $44 billion.

Radically enhance transparency

The best issues afflicting platforms like Twitter and Fb are harassment, abuse and the unfold of misinformation.

Internally, Twitter has taken strides to get a grip. However at present, “it’s a black field,” in line with Michael Kleinman, director of Amnesty’s Silicon Valley Initiative. “It’s nonetheless unclear in spite of everything these years how they determine what’s allowable and what’s not,” he tells TIME. Additionally it is in some circumstances unclear which actions are working and which aren’t.

One thought is to be radically clear. Meaning sharing curation algorithms, content material moderation choices, reporting outcomes, effectiveness of motion taken, the variety of appeals and their upshot, and so forth. (Musk has expressed a willingness to “open supply” Twitter algorithms, however some digital safety consultants cautioned this can’t be an alternative to good content material moderation.)

This is able to assist accrue “a type of widespread regulation,” says Lucas Graves, assistant professor on the College of Wisconsin-Madison. Now, we have now the equal of secret courts; their choices are unseen and judgements forgotten. Transparency “pushes again towards the arbitrariness” of executives, Graves says.

Standardize and professionalize content material moderation

“I’d instantly scale up the variety of human moderators,” says Matthias Kettemann, professor of innovation regulation on the College of Innsbruck. Reliance on algorithmic moderation has clear limits. “People are higher than machines at recognizing nuances in speech, distinguishing between humor and hate,” assessing posts in context, says Kettemann.

Ideally, moderators carry out roles much less like firefighters and extra like planners, recognizing dangers forward of time.

Moderation wants an injection of native experience. “We see a necessity for firms to handle a power underinvestment in consumer security outdoors of North America and Western Europe,” Deborah Brown, senior researcher and advocate on digital rights at Human Rights Watch, tells TIME.

These measures will take vital money. Particularly for smaller platforms, like Snapchat and Reddit, which depends solely on voluntary moderators and has had its points with hate speech. However for Kettemann, it’s value it. “The sheer sum of money that Elon is spending, if a fraction of that was spent on content material moderation, it will go extraordinarily far in direction of creating a greater on-line expertise.”

Learn extra: Why Elon Musk’s Plans to ‘Repair’ Twitter Will Be More durable to Implement Than He Thinks

Moderation of current pointers additionally wants implementing equally, particularly when public figures break the foundations. It took former President Donald Trump a number of infringements to be banned from Twitter, permitting him to unfold baseless misinformation over vote counts.

One mannequin of professionalizing moderation, says Graves, is for tech firms to cede management to impartial consultants. As an example, Fb’s partnership with the Worldwide Reality-Checking Community.

However, as Musk is more likely to uncover, social media moderation is advanced. Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, director of the College of Oxford’s Reuters Institute, says that political polarization means there is no such thing as a settlement on what good and unhealthy moderation, and even “dangerous” content material, seems to be like.

The wellbeing of content material moderators should even be taken under consideration. Content material moderators for Meta-owned Fb and Whatsapp have raised considerations about their therapy and dealing situations. “It may be fairly traumatic work,” Human Rights Watch’s Brown says.

Learn extra: Inside Fb’s African Sweatshop

Empower customers and heart human rights

Platforms have been designed to maximise consumer consideration to promote commercials, Samuel Woolley, assistant professor at Moody Faculty of Communication on the College of Texas at Austin, tells TIME. That signifies that “consumer wellbeing, belief, security” are secondary and not using a reorientation, he says.

Consumer affect over content material and privateness are essential. It will require “reducing off a income stream primarily based on pervasive surveillance,” Brown says.

Platforms have sometimes “rushed to seize new markets,” Brown provides, with out “finishing up human rights due diligence.” That has led to some catastrophic penalties—like Fb’s promotion of posts supporting Myanmar’s army, regardless of extensively being accused of committing genocide within the nation.

Regulate robustly on a world scale

Finally, there’s a restrict to what platforms will do voluntarily. The European Union is making strikes to compel social media firms to scrub up their act.

The E.U. has agreed two items of landmark laws this spring: the Digital Providers Act, which might power platforms to deal with misinformation and disclose how they amplify divisive content material, and the Digital Markets Act, which might forestall massive tech corporations dominating digital markets. And there’s a stick connected: skirt the laws, and platforms may very well be fined billions of {dollars}.

Related measures within the U.S. policing on-line speech may run into First Modification bother, and antitrust progress is hampered by Congressional polarization. However the E.U. laws forcing firms to adapt their practices in a single area may lead to these modifications being utilized in different jurisdictions. “A rising tide lifts all boats,” Kleinman says, because it’s simpler for them to standardize procedures.

Some have advocated in favor of extra radical antitrust motion: breaking apart massive tech corporations. The argument is that platforms corresponding to Meta or Alphabet, by proudly owning digital marketplaces but additionally using consumer information to generate advert income, are “each participant and referee,” says Gennie Gebhart, director of activism on the Digital Frontier Basis.

However Nielsen notes that lawmakers in some international locations are charting paths in the wrong way. Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro, as an example, has banned social media firms from eradicating sure content material. In the meantime, India’s authorities has imposed guidelines on social media firms which were branded a step towards “digital authoritarianism” by worldwide NGOs. The rules power social media firms to take away posts that the federal government says are unlawful, together with content material that threatens “the pursuits of the sovereignty and integrity of India,” public order, decency, morality, or incitement to an offense.

A worldwide customary for regulation appears elusive for now.

Contact us at letters@time.com.